5 ms·

I always found it odd that people would buy a computer how it looks over its performance as a tool. Of course, I really like cool looking stuff, but I wouldn’t

I always found it odd that people would buy a computer how it looks over its performance as a tool. Of course, I really like cool looking stuff, but I wouldn’t want a weak computer or or one that ran an OS that was hard for me to use. I guess there is an intersection of fashion nerd and computer nerd. And I am not the arbiter of computer nerd, but I think the 20 or so times I talked with people who said they were computer nerds and had cool looking computers that sucked as computers they didn’t seem authentically computer nerdy (for lack of a better word). I specifically remember someone from the late 90s and early 00s who kept going on and on about how he was into computers and always had to have the best computers, the “absolute best” he would say. Then he had these really trash Sony vaios. I asked him about what he liked most and he just said how they were cool. I asked him what he ran and he didn’t really say anything. People like collecting stuff, and I don’t want to begrudge people their joy. But I’d like to learn about the people who buy these and what they are most interested in. I think my Sony Vaio guy just bought whatever was most expensive in the store.

orthecreedence 3y ago
> I always found it odd that people would buy a computer how it looks over its performance as a tool. I'm also perpetually confused that people buy Macs.
- morbicer 3y ago
  OK, I'll bite. Easy peasy, Macbooks are maybe not perfect in one aspect, but they strike a well-rounded balance. OS: Great ergonomics, unix based (WSL can shove it). The peak of Windows was win2000, with XP and 7 still usable. After that it's adware garbage that's getting worse with each release. Linux on desktop sadly never materialized into something that would work out-of-the-box. Plenty issues with wifi, audio, high dpi displays. And even if you overcome this the UI is still clunky. Hardware: Usually solid. There were some issues with the butterfly keyboards and low amount of ports but besides that it's just nice bodies, good sound, great display. Nowadays: ARM-based chips just blows out Intel out of water. Never heard a fan noise, battery lasts forever. You might pay some extra. But as a professional in software engineering, you should be able to afford it.
  - orthecreedence 3y ago
    As a professional in software engineering, nothing comes close to a linux desktop. I always found OSx to be in the uncanny valley between CLI-driven BSD and a desktop GUI. I'll give you that windows after 7 is a complete adware clusterfuck and not even worth the dvd it's printed on, but I have to say...linux on desktop may not be popular, but only because it didn't take off a decade ago and people are still sour. It's actually pretty great nowadays, and if you want to squeeze every last bit of juice out of your hardware, it's the way to go. I get the appeal of a solid macbook for sure. But for me, the price tag is completely unjustifiable given the alternatives. It is without a doubt almost 80% about looks, acceptance, and feeling over actual specs. People buy them because other people have them and they want to be in the club. And that's fine, no judgement, but it's a waste of money. Also the only reason they have any form of dominance at all is the fact that they lock down their shitty OS to only run on their hardware. Sure they get to control the "expeeeriennnnce" but nobody else does that.
whywhywhywhy 3y ago
I always found it odd that people would buy a computer how it looks over its performance as a tool. i9-13900H, NVIDIA GeForce RTX™ 4070 (Laptop), 1TB SSD, 32 GB RAM It has looks and performance seemingly
CalRobert 3y ago
I imagine for your friend the computer, ultimately, was a commodity, and if you think of computers as a commodity then the looks are one of the only distinguishing factors. Similarly, how much of people's car-buying decisions come down to looks? Sure things like "how many seats" or cargo capacity matter but I imagine looks/perceived status boost are the biggest factor for a lot of people. Hell, I don't like admitting it but I actively dislike my cheapo phone (Nokia G22) in part because I think the colour is dumb. (Also modern Android kinda sucks, but that's a different story).
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
diegof79 3y ago
> I always found it odd that people would buy a computer how it looks over its performance as a tool. If you have the interest, take a look to the book Emotional Design by Donald Norman. There is a cognitive theory on the perception of a product that goes into three levels: visceral, functional, and reflective. Even if you only care about functionality, an unpolished product will give you the impression that it’s unfinished and adds bias to the perception of the functionality. In this case the design is oriented towards a particular audience that likes the cyberpunk aspect, the impact for that people is more reflective: I don’t use the minimalist computers like everybody else, I use something that looks imperfect but works perfectly… well that’s the idea. Personally, I’m more inclined to the minimalism of a Mac.
type0 3y ago
In 00s one of my professors at uni had one of this terribly thin and terribly overpriced vaios, it looked impressive, also it was slow like shit even powerpoints was too much for it.

orthecreedence 3y ago

> I always found it odd that people would buy a computer how it looks over its performance as a tool. I'm also perpetually confused that people buy Macs.

morbicer 3y ago
OK, I'll bite. Easy peasy, Macbooks are maybe not perfect in one aspect, but they strike a well-rounded balance. OS: Great ergonomics, unix based (WSL can shove it). The peak of Windows was win2000, with XP and 7 still usable. After that it's adware garbage that's getting worse with each release. Linux on desktop sadly never materialized into something that would work out-of-the-box. Plenty issues with wifi, audio, high dpi displays. And even if you overcome this the UI is still clunky. Hardware: Usually solid. There were some issues with the butterfly keyboards and low amount of ports but besides that it's just nice bodies, good sound, great display. Nowadays: ARM-based chips just blows out Intel out of water. Never heard a fan noise, battery lasts forever. You might pay some extra. But as a professional in software engineering, you should be able to afford it.
- orthecreedence 3y ago
  As a professional in software engineering, nothing comes close to a linux desktop. I always found OSx to be in the uncanny valley between CLI-driven BSD and a desktop GUI. I'll give you that windows after 7 is a complete adware clusterfuck and not even worth the dvd it's printed on, but I have to say...linux on desktop may not be popular, but only because it didn't take off a decade ago and people are still sour. It's actually pretty great nowadays, and if you want to squeeze every last bit of juice out of your hardware, it's the way to go. I get the appeal of a solid macbook for sure. But for me, the price tag is completely unjustifiable given the alternatives. It is without a doubt almost 80% about looks, acceptance, and feeling over actual specs. People buy them because other people have them and they want to be in the club. And that's fine, no judgement, but it's a waste of money. Also the only reason they have any form of dominance at all is the fact that they lock down their shitty OS to only run on their hardware. Sure they get to control the "expeeeriennnnce" but nobody else does that.

whywhywhywhy 3y ago

I always found it odd that people would buy a computer how it looks over its performance as a tool. i9-13900H, NVIDIA GeForce RTX™ 4070 (Laptop), 1TB SSD, 32 GB RAM It has looks and performance seemingly

CalRobert 3y ago

I imagine for your friend the computer, ultimately, was a commodity, and if you think of computers as a commodity then the looks are one of the only distinguishing factors. Similarly, how much of people's car-buying decisions come down to looks? Sure things like "how many seats" or cargo capacity matter but I imagine looks/perceived status boost are the biggest factor for a lot of people. Hell, I don't like admitting it but I actively dislike my cheapo phone (Nokia G22) in part because I think the colour is dumb. (Also modern Android kinda sucks, but that's a different story).

deleted 3y ago

[deleted]

deleted 3y ago
[deleted]

diegof79 3y ago

> I always found it odd that people would buy a computer how it looks over its performance as a tool. If you have the interest, take a look to the book Emotional Design by Donald Norman. There is a cognitive theory on the perception of a product that goes into three levels: visceral, functional, and reflective. Even if you only care about functionality, an unpolished product will give you the impression that it’s unfinished and adds bias to the perception of the functionality. In this case the design is oriented towards a particular audience that likes the cyberpunk aspect, the impact for that people is more reflective: I don’t use the minimalist computers like everybody else, I use something that looks imperfect but works perfectly… well that’s the idea. Personally, I’m more inclined to the minimalism of a Mac.

type0 3y ago

In 00s one of my professors at uni had one of this terribly thin and terribly overpriced vaios, it looked impressive, also it was slow like shit even powerpoints was too much for it.