"Macs Sux Only an Idiot Buys One"
One of the downsides of interacting with fellow SFMers is the fact that the young ones are still in the stage of the technological development that they know a bit, but they lack the maturity and experience that comes with age. So, in a heavily computer-centric community such as this, it is quite common to find the flame warfare expert shitting all over Mac.
I've grown tired of defending myself against people who judge other people for their choices of computers/components simply because they don't like their choice. It's really none of your goddamn business what computer I choose to do SFM on. Be it a craptacular plastic POS or a Mac, but let's not focus on this point. Let's focus on why Macs are not as shitty as you say they are.
Quality vs Perception of Value
The primary argument I hear against Mac is "it's overpriced, my Acer/Dell/Toshiba is better and less expensive." There is always more to a computer than just the specs or even the performance benchmarks. At least to some people.
People have different priorities. I grew up with a family who would bend over backwards and suffer financially just so their children had the tools they needed to succeed (hint: Macs). It was more about how the tool will actually benefit me in the long-term from a wholistic approach rather than squeezing out the last bit of performance or running this or that. As such, I've still got Apples from the 90's in boxes that still work. They can't do much 15-25 years out of date, but goddamn do they still work.
I'm not the only one. Having many years of professional experience in higher-education IT, I have seen professors and other educators who do technical computing (programming, compute cluster control, *NIX, etc) time and time again choose Macs. These are people bringing in $250K-$5million NSF grants to do specific tasks. They can have literally anything they want, but 90% always go Mac and never look back. Some even have used/kept theirs for 6-8 years or more because they keep chugging and doing their job. If people who make more money for themselves or for a university than you will ever see in your lifetime use a Mac, what exactly makes it shit?
Ah yes. Where all of their arguments always lead up to. To be a bit more focused, lets only talk about Apple laptops (specifically the RMBP). Why? because it is kinda silly to buy either a mobile GPU (iMac) or dual workstation card rig (mac Pro) for gaming. While they can certainly do it, it's not their primary design purpose.
I'll tell you that I personally find the idea of buying a gaming laptop for college a bit short-sighted. It's far better to leave the gaming to your desktop rig and save yourself from having to carry around a beheamoth (or in some cases a fire waiting to happen if you go the thin&light path) and being forever tethered to the wall. Even if you plan to attend LAN parties (those still exist?), just build a micro-atx/mini-ITX machine.
Think about how you actually intend to use the laptop over the course of its lifetime. Do you really want to carry around a machine that has shortcomings to compensate for the most extreme hardware you can get (at the time). Be that loud fans, bad thermal design, weight, bulk, or corners cut to certain components?
The justification behind the RMBP was that even in such a thin, light, and small package, I still get a quad-core processor and a respectable 650M GPU while never feeling it in a backpack or having to carry an A/C adapter around with me. Over 6-7 months of continual use, I can confidently say that it performs exceptionally and I have no reservations about carrying it around. If I am not going to carry a laptop around, why have the laptop in the first place?
Consumer-grade Vs. Professional-grade
I find those who have never worked or have not worked enough in the field of desktop support have no understanding of the difference between these two categories of hardware. Why? Again, it's not always the spec sheet. From a business perspective (of the mfg), there's more money to be made (or lost depending on how you look at it) catering your best to business rather than consumers.
Where you may pay a few hundred or a few thousand for a computer, a business buys in lots. Hundreds of thousands or even millions of dollars spent on rolling out the same computer model across their org. To retain the patronage of organizations of this type, a company has to meet their needs. Mostly, dependable performance, less downtime, support that isn't even close to their consumer support, and the ability to prove a tangible value ($$$) for using their products over another company's. The fallout of this approach are standardized models (Dell Lattitude, HP Elitebook, etc) that anyone can purchase on their own.
I could write a book on all of my experiences supporting consumer machines and compare them to pro machines, but I'll spare you. Let's just say that the pro computers hold up longer. If I run into a problem with a pro-machine, it's either easier to successfully repair, or I have a support contract that has the mfg send me a replacement no questions asked or long waits.
Then, aren't most Apple's consumer-grade?
No. While in the past they did have the iBook vs Powerbook and Macbook (plastic) vs Macbook Pro(metal), they no longer market two different laptops to two different types of people. They market products based off certain needs of the individual customer. They have not really had to compete with anyone, so they don't need to cut corners. Even with the adoption of modern non-proprietary architecture (Intel/Nvidia/ATI), they don't really face stiff competition. They ride the reputation they earned, and they try to maintain it. You can't blame stupidity or successful marketing alone for the almost 2 decades (Post SJ return) of successful product lines. They meet the needs of their customers and give them a sense of value despite the Apple Tax.
I digress. What matters is that they meet the needs and win the hearts of professionals and the organizations that deploy them. While they don't tie as heavily into a Microsoft AD network as a Windows computer, they still are able to function at a level suitable for lab/multi-user environments and have the ability to be managed by Enterprise-level IT structures.
Butt you can't replace parts!
Ok. First of all, understand that there is such a thing as expected life-span of a computer. This is usually 3 years for a solid computer, and really, you probably will upgrade either before or slightly after that number for the newest latest greatest. Don't be a cheap-ass when buying a laptop. By its very nature, the form factor not exactly designed to be expandable. The laptops you keep pointing too are the lowest common denominator in the PC market. Everything is moving to smaller, lighter, etc. This means soldering ram, SSDs, batteries are already common practice. It's not just Apple.
You are just comparing cheapo laptops who have been dragging out against the curve. Suffice to say, the trend becoming standard across the board means your entire argument is invalid.
If you really think you need and can use 16GB of Ram, but can only afford the 8GB model, then sit on it for a little bit and save some coin up to get what you want. I'm sure you or someone else has a computer you can use till then.
I have to really try to push my 8GB to the limit :/
So what really makes Apple computers pieces of shit?
Your bias, ignorance, and pettiness. Understandable depending on your age and experience, but that doesn't change what it is.
The heart of the argument is comparing a cheap computer to one that costs more with only specs. I hate to break it to you, but there are non-Apple laptops that compare almost equally to MBs and cost the same (or even more). It's Apples to Oranges still, but a better comparison on hardware/quality.
I would also say that you should take a step back and re-evaluate yourself before you tell a professional and much more experienced person that they are stupid for buying something within the realm of their expertise.
