look up any word, like thot:
 
134.
A great computer hardware/software company. Period. People who tout the benefits of Windows-based machines are inflexible, incorrigible, and inept. Take a look at the votes given to other definitions of apple. Notice that Carlos Net's spectacular entry has more than twice the number of thumbs-ups than thumbs-downs. Notice also that all of the entries bashing on Apple Computers received overwhelming amounts of thumbs-downs. Just take a look, you sorry little Windows-users, trapped in your cages of XP, ME, NT, and 2K. I pity you.
Mmmm...Apple's G5 tower...*drools*
by Coolguy! May 23, 2005
 
135.
1. Fruit; grown mostly in Washington.
2. Dying computer company that boasts the best hardware around, but cannot compete with the versatility and cost-effectiveness of PCs
1. Are those Apples ripe?
2. God, I wish Apple would just lay down and die already.
by Anonymous August 21, 2003
 
136.
a shitty computer used only by losers who need to stop sucking bill gates penis
f
fgsfs
hjsfg
hj
fghj
fgj
sfg

fgj
f
f
f
f
by 69 November 10, 2004
 
137.
A company that makes superior computers to that of any other PC maker out there due to their incredible design and choice of premium parts. The boring, poor consumer is often too cheap to even considering buying a computer that actually works, and will end up with a $499 emachines bundle that includes a free printer because they are obsessed with saving that extra few hundred bucks on a machine they will be using for the next three years and beyond.

After their OS technology was stolen from Microsoft in the 80s because apple failed to license it, everything went down hill. Mainstream consumers and businesses alike choose PCs due to their cheap price, and boring software so as to hinder creativity.

"Well apples still suck and they are slow and way overpriced," you may say. Well, then why is that the most discriminating computer audiences in the world, mainly video, graphics, and music production professionals, are on Macs, refusing to move to PCs?

Because Macs are better.

Take a look at Mercedes. They both have less than 3% of the automobile market, yet again, are purchased by those who can afford them and prefer the ultimate driving experience. Simply put, Macs are the Mercedes of computers, and the rest of you are the ones stuck in your shitty geo prisms and kea spectras and 1992 toyota corollas, who try to make them look nicer by putting on a set of pimped out rims.

And for the record, MS has been making its Office software for the Mac almost as long for the Mac as it has been for the PC. In fact, PowerPoint came out for the Mac nearly 2 years before it did for the PC.
PC USER: "I'm 32, live at home, constantly game with other teens, spend my days surfing the web for boring needless nerdy pieces of information, make weekly trips to the local computer store, have a star wars obsession, collect pokemon cards, obsess over finding the cheapest parts and rebates, endlessly try to fight spyware and viruses, and get into arguements over which new case light has better fiberobtic technology."

MAC USER: "I wish PC users would just shut the fuck up and leave us alone. If you think Macs suck, fine. Go on ahead and believe what you want. But I know the truth"
by r.w.w. August 03, 2005
 
138.
An organisation who design computers and operating systems (Mac OS and Mac OS X). Despite the fact that their operating systems, computers and other software are far easier to use, more stable, more attractive and generally better than Windows equivalents, an unfortunate combination of Microsoft's monopolisation of the market, ineffective promotion and slight overpricing have resulted in Apple's partial obscurity in the computer market. Only professionals, who tend to appreciate Apple Macintoshes' superior capabilities more than the general public, now tend to use them, particularly in graphical industries, as Apple has always excelled in such areas.

Much debate (or, more accurately, flame warring) has arisen over whether Apples or PCs are better. Ignoring the unfortunate fact that Windows currently dominate the market to a ridiculous extent and thus Apple has slight compatibility problems with some products and a slight disadvantage on the third-party software development front, there are few arguments against Apple. One is that Apple computers are less customisable than PCs, which is true to the extent that the vast majority of upgrades that must be bought for Windows machines are integrated as standard in Apple Macintosh computers. Apple's iMac range are therefore fairly limited in terms of upgrade capacity, but mainly because upgrades are rarely necessary. The tower computer range, however, are arguably notably easier to upgrade than most PCs, although the range of upgrades is smaller for the same reasons.

Other arguments against Apple are rather worse-founded, such as comments that Macintosh computers are 'made for idiots who don't know how to use computers' and other similar comments. The fact that the majority of Apple computers are used by professionals - and indeed, a large proportion of professionals use Apple computers - is obviously not taken into account. Personally, I would say that ease of use and not having to fight constantly against the possibility of crashes is an upside, not a downside. Claims that Macintosh OSes are far less customisable than Windows are vastly overstated - almost every customisation that any person would normally wish to use is easily accessible, and many more are fairly easily accessible to those with the technical know-how to want to use them. Complaints regarding compatibility are partially unavoidable because of Windows' market dominance, and largely overstated. Microsoft Office, contrary to many people's main argument against Apple, is available for all Mac operating systems, and the Mac OS X version's interface is arguably better than the Windows version in numerous ways, simply because it is designed to OS X conventions rather than Windows conventions. It is certainly true that Apple is infinitely more flexible and compatible with other systems than Windows has ever been.

Apple also provide a suite of applications with the operating system that is superior to anything Windows provide as standard (or, in many cases, that are available for Windows at all). Compare Windows' general range - the poor Office substitute Microsoft Works (an oxymoron in many people's minds), simple text editor Notepad, Windows Media Player, every web designer's nightmare Internet Explorer, and the like - with Apple's standard range, including the slick DVD Player, simple yet incredibly effective browser Safari, and of course the brilliant iLife suite, which includes incredibly powerful image-managing tool iPhoto, the wonderfully intuitive yet effective duo of iMovie and iDVD, utterly-superior-to-Cubase digital music mixing tool GarageBand, AIM and local network-integrated messenger and videoconferencing tool iChat AV, and of course iTunes, the music player that Apple have now also marketed incredibly successfully on Windows as well, that is, incredibly, unmatched by anything available on Windows. The Windows alternative of choice is the bizarrely clumsy and limited Windows Media Player.

Apple's pristine hardware range is also remarkable, including Airport Extreme for easy wireless networking that was available years before Centrino for Windows, iSight for simple and elegant webcam and videoconferencing functionality, and of course the iPod, widely acknowledged despite its heavy price tag as the best MP3 player money can buy. Coupled with simple facts such as that while Windows bizarrely still needs a driver installing for almost any hardware component, the same devices almost always function on Mac the moment they are connected, it is easy to see why Mac users are so adamant that Apple are superior to Microsoft.

That, and their software actually works.
Apple have released a new operating system again. It's tons better than the last one, and that was much better than Windows XP. When was the last time Windows released a new OS again?
by Carlos Net June 08, 2004