Pros and Cons of Switching From Windows To Mac 629
It's been a couple of years since Apple ran their Switcher ads — but folks are still making the switch. Rockgod writes to point us to his list of pros and cons after he switched from Windows to Mac recently. From the article: "It took me a long time to be convinced that Windows 3.1 was a better program launcher than X-Tree Gold, but it happened eventually. Since then, I have been a sucker for every upgrade — 95, 98, NT 4.0, 2000, XP... I bought the cheapest Mac available, a Mac Mini with a single-core Intel chip and the minimum of RAM — 512 MB. It cost me AU$949. Since plugging it in, I have barely used my $3000 Windows desktop... All this time later, I have almost exclusively switched to the Mac."
stay tuned, I'm waiting for my new mini (Score:5, Interesting)
First, it isn't 10 Pros, and 10 Cons, it's 10 Pros and Cons (which I guess is technically what the article "says").
I recently ordered and am expecting a Nov 29 ship date (why?) for a new Mac Mini, the very first Mac I'll have ever owned. I'd never hesitated in the past to recommend to friends and family an Apple over a Windows box, and those who chose Mac virtually never came back with support issues.
As the blogger states, he's never looked back - my reasons for getting a Mac are more for being able to test my software on all platforms. I will review my experiences in my journal when the box gets here and I've burned it in for a few laps. I'm looking forward to it.
For the record, though the author loves his machine, I'd guess anyone considering today a Mac should look at a heftier configuration. (I'm getting the dual-core, super drive, 2G memory, 160G drive configuration.) I guessing I'll be happy with this box.
Mac OS X vs. Ubuntu (Score:5, Interesting)
http://digg.com/apple/Mac_OS_X_vs_Ubuntu [digg.com]
Let me say that if I could go into a store right now and buy a reasonably priced copy of OX X that would run on a plain PC, I would be running OS X at the moment (Yes, I understand that running on *any* hardware would make OS X less stable, but I would be willing to take the risk...and huge amounts of people would rather pay more for Apple's hardware and stability, and I wish Apple could see that and make us both happy).
But since that isn't going to happen, I'm really considering going to Ubuntu because I think MS is just going insane with Vista.
As the above mention, he doesn't think Ubuntu is too far behind OS X.
I would be interested in hearing others thoughts on this?
Transporter_ii
Huge Mac con: mouse acceleration sucks (Score:5, Interesting)
Don't get me wrong here, I love my Mac, but the mouse thing drives me nuts.
For looks (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Got money? Not anymore (Score:2, Interesting)
While this is indisputably true, it isn't really the point.
Do most of the households in the world have a telephone? That is a far more relevant question.
And the sad fact is, yes, most of the households in the world most likely do. Despite Kofi Annan's 2000 statement to the contrary, it is very probable that more than 50% of households in 2000 did, and with the explosive growth of cell phones in Asia and Africa, an almost certainty that >50% do today.
Disappointed (Score:1, Interesting)
It is just as slow, crashy, inconvinient and annoying as the rest (With a few less annoying "update me" popups than Windows, perhaps).
Expose is cool, and the smooth movements of some appearing windows (rather than a one-frame screen-update) is also nice. But these are the only 2 serious improvements I've seen. Things are still very slow to launch, programs crash, and things fail for configuration reasons.
It doesn't have any easy and useful way of exposing available keyboard shortcuts (as in KDE's readily available shortcut settings dialogs, Emacs's show-keybindings command, etc).
For people with a background of both Windows and KDE, who had no troubles with either or with Gnome/etc, it is still very difficult to figure out how to make shortcuts to applications, copy files (rather than make shortcuts), etc.
All in all, the Mac is yet-another-lousy-GUI, in my opinion.
Disclaimer: I'm a KDE fan [though I believe all of today's GUIs, including KDE are very lousy], and not too fond of closed-source applications in general.
Unpopular on slashdot (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Mac OS X vs. Ubuntu (Score:1, Interesting)
When it ran, it ran
Since it wasn't supported hardware, it didn't run smoothly. Oddly enough I've seen VMWare do better with OSX on the same computer. Go figure.
That being said, since I could run most of the stuff I want to run in Windows on OS X as well (native versions of course), I'm definately hooked on the idea of getting a Mac myself. I'll probably start with a Mini, once they get upgraded to Core2-versions.
But I'm not running it on unsupported hardware again.
Home User vs. Business User vs. Gamer (Score:2, Interesting)
Gamer: Lots of cons, no real pros. Are there any games for a Mac that do not suck?
Business User: Many of the industry specific vertical apps are written for a baseline of Win2K. Some of these vertical apps *MAY* run on Win98 but many of them use very specific features that are tied very closely to the WinNT/2K kernels. Almost none of them, unless they are browser based and standards compliant, work with a Mac. Then again, the server side of many of these vertical apps require that you run them on a Win2k/XP/2k3 system running IIS.
Re:Not a good comparison (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:Mac OS X vs. Ubuntu (Score:4, Interesting)
Actually, you can get OS X to run natively on a PC [uneasysilence.com]. You just need to ask yourself if its worth the trouble. I'd think you're better off just getting a Mac mini.
There's no doubt that Mac is more polished and more user-friendly. But Ubuntu is a complete, polished, intuitive, full-featured environment. Provided you're not using non-standard hardware, pretty much everything works straight out of the box with very little tweaking.
In fact, Ubuntu on my laptop handles the various power-saving modes (sleep, hibernation) flawlessly and with no special configuration, whereas Windows XP would sometimes sleep, sometimes not, and refuse to come out of hibernation if and when it hibernated (which often had little bearing on how, or even if, it was configured to hibernate).
Much in contrast to a Windows install, the Ubuntu install is fast, easy, intuitive, contains all the software you'll need, doesn't require multiple reboots and separate installation (with more reboots) for installing software and device drivers, and doesn't require yet further instalalation and reboots for OS and software updates.
Last time I had to reinstall Windows after a drive failure it took over three hours and no fewer than 10 reboots to get the system installed (reboot), upgraded (reboot), upgraded to SP2 (reboot), updated again (reboot), install/update drivers (reboot), install Office XP (reboot), update to Office 2003 (reboot), security and other Office updates (reboot), more Windows updates since I now had Office installed (reboot), etc. Installing other necessary software required more reboots.
My last Ubuntu install (incidentally, my first) took all of 45 minutes start-to finish with OS and all software installed and upgraded. Much simpler than any other Linux I've installed (FC3, FC4, RHEL, Mandriva, SuSE) and in a completely different league than Microsoft.
But don't take my word. Try it out for yourself [ubuntu.com]. Installation is even easier with Automatix [getautomatix.com] for adding bits that aren't in the core Ubuntu distribution like all the multimedia codecs and various packages that don't meet Ubuntu's strict libre-only policy.
Not every switcher falls in love (Score:2, Interesting)
Despite what the fanboys say, there are just too many things that are irritating or poorly implemented (can you say "Finder?"), and too many places where you're forced into doing things the "Mac way", even if there are better alternatives.
I've given this machine a go for a year as my primary machine, and find it slow, crash prone, and often inefficient in the hoops through which one has to jump to do otherwise simple tasks.
Added to that is the relative lack of quality freeware and open source apps and utilities (compared to Windows or Linux platforms). There are at least a dozen such programs that I relied on on a daily basis on Windows. In almost every case I was boxed into paying what I considered an overly high price for a commercial app on the Mac.
Overall though it's the cumulation of a hundred little things that has convinced me that the Mac is not the machine for me. I just find the whole affair annoying, and I always seem be stopping work to change something that shouldn't have happened. A good example is the Dock, which invariably covers up a scroll bar or other part of what I'm working on, and which honestly is much less efficient than a good old Windows Task bar.
Maybe on a 30" monitor this doesn't happen, but on a 12" Powerbook it's an endless source of irriation. It's just bad design.
Re:Unpopular on slashdot (Score:4, Interesting)
I had the same experience - Mac's are slick, better looking and all, but to me it just seems like their GUI is designed for idiots that like eyecandy. Stuff that would take me two clicks to accomplish in windows takes me four clicks to accomplish on a Mac. It just isn't as great as it is made out to be, at least not if you use it as a professional tool, and are more interested in getting things done than in awing at the amazing graphics...
Just my opinion
Re:a step above any Linux distro ? (Score:5, Interesting)
Apple Overlooked The Shared Menu Bar (Score:3, Interesting)
"On a 19" [monitor], the available screen space is used more efficiently - the shared menu bar and the dock being the main reasons."
Yeah, but on a Apple's 30" monitor it sucks. When you have a window open and positioned, say, in the lower RH corner and you need to access the menu bar, it is a long drag to move the mouse to the upper LH corner. And often you can accidentally click on the desktop or other window along the way and lose focus of the application's menu bar causing you to go back and repeat the procedure.
I like OSX but this design feature should be a user's choice.
Re:a step above any Linux distro ? (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Disappointed (Score:5, Interesting)
One thing that annoyed me to no end was the apparent lack of a way to communicate with dialog boxes using only the keyboard. Most of the time command-first letter works, but often it doesn't. I found that if I turn on some of the accessibility options in system preferences, suddenly I can tab between buttons and use the space bar to activate buttons (enter always activates the default button, not the one you're highlighting).
Knowing about how to set shortcuts, the default shortcuts, and the accessibility options has really made OS X more efficient on the keyboard for me than any other OS (well almost -- I still like activating menus on linux and windows with alt-letter). Certainly it's not as bad you illustrate.
I agree that all GUIs are lousy to a degree. Case in point is CAD software. The old autocad shortcuts (still available on autocad to this day) are the way to fly. Puck in one hand, 2 and 3 letter shortcuts in the other. Modern GUIs just don't lend themselves well to CAD.
Re:a step above any Linux distro ? (Score:2, Interesting)
MacOSX is a great windows replacement but have you tried upgrading macosx before? SHudder. First off things do not magically compile and Apple provides proprietary hooks for open source software like OpenSSL and LPAD. WIth Linux you can upgrade easily by compiling or using apt-get if you use a debian based distro like ubuntu. I personally think Apple wants you to become dependent on them whenever there is a security hole or a new feature in package X so you pluck down $$$ for the next versioa of MacOSX.
Linux is a much nicer for a workstation in this regard. I am sticking with Linux regardless how pretty macosx works. I like to upgrade and play around with the latest unix software.
I couldn't agree with you more... (Score:3, Interesting)
There is simply no good reason to get a PC. If you want to run Windows, fine, get a Mac and dual boot. At the least you double your chances of getting things done. It also makes you more versatile and more marketable. Apple was genius to first change to a BSD based OS and then to move to intel. The BSD based Mac OS X has the best of both worlds. Simply the best most powerful command line interface, and the most impressive and user friendly GUI.
I recently wrote and article for the Ins and Outs Magazine.
Viva La Revolution!
http://www.insandoutsmagazine.com/content_tek.htm
I advise all my clients and students that, if you are going to get a computer, get a mac. Once you go Mac, you will never go back!
Re:Mac OS X vs. Ubuntu (Score:5, Interesting)
Macbook Pro:
* Nice eye candy, some people like the way windows do that slurpy thing when you minimize them, etc. Personally I don't like the dock, find it a bit big, clunky, and lacking real information about what programs I have open.
* Most everything 'just works' the way it's supposed to. If you can get into the "Mac way" of doing things, eg, iphoto, itunes, etc. then you'll be right at home. The drawbacks are that OSX is not very customizable the way Gnome (the default Ubuntu desktop environment) is.
* Terminal application is somewhat lacking. It has basic features but cannot be customized very much. If you do a lot of work on the command line you'll probably want a third-party terminal application to get your real work done.
* The wireless setup is not straightforward, and if you're not used to it can be a bit confusing.
* If you want an office suite, you have to pay quite a bit extra to get it. MS Office for Mac is something like $379 or so. If you're a student you might get it for less.
Ubuntu:
* Easy installer, even on newer hardware seems to work well. I had out-of-the-box wifi connection with the Atheros chipset adapter in my laptop, even with WPA and WEP. I've never had a Linux laptop working wifi before I tried Ubuntu.
* If you install EasyUbuntu, you'll have most of the proprietary codecs and other stuff that most people want to be able to watch DVDs, see Flash movies, play mp3s, etc.
* Takes a bit more hands-on tweaking to get it working exactly the way you want, but is much more flexible and customizable than OS X.
* The office type applications are finally getting to the point where a business user or student can be productive with them. For example, Evolution (the Outlook clone) has come a long way as far as usability goes, and it syncs just fine with my Palm Pilot.
* Free (as in beer).
* There are a few downsides. You won't be able to run some Windows-only applications without an emulator, but I guess that could be said for Macs as well. Also, with any Linux distribution you pretty much have to learn some command line to really be able to use your system to it's full potential.
Cons of Switching to Mac (Score:4, Interesting)
Amen! Switching is NOT easy. (Score:2, Interesting)
I've owned my Mac Pro for a little over a month now. It's my first Mac. I'd label myself as a casual gamer: I like playing just about every type of game out there, i.e. WoW, Half-Life 2, Planescape, etc.. but I don't need to be running at 1600x1200 with 60fps. Hence, I was fine ordering the Mac Pro even though I knew I'd get better gaming performance from a Core 2 Duo system. I plan on running either MS Virtual PC or VMWare to run multiple VMs so that I can experiment with network environments, linux, etc.. so this is a good middle ground for me.
The reason I bought it was mostly because Dell and HP's dual Core 2 Xeon systems were significantly more expensive than the Mac Pro. This is also mostly due to the fact that Dell wouldn't let me order one without an LCD screen, and HP had very limited configuration options. So I'd get a Dual CPU PC, with quad cores for a relatively good price (3 Ghz, low end Nvidia 7300 card), and be able to give OS X a fair chance.
Yet try as I might, using my OS X on my Mac Pro and throwing everything I could at it to get familiar with the OS and the applications available to it.. it's a long way from winning my heart.
1. Interface
I honestly don't like the interface. It is more inconsistent between applications than I have seen in XP. Trying to click on round minimize/quit buttons is a pain compared to square buttons because they have less surface area for me to click on. The bubbly scrollbar also does not seem very responsive.
For the non-visual aspects of the interface, I absolutely love Expose. I've had Vista RC2 on a seperate system and it's Windows Flip pales in comparison to Expose. It's just easier to see the previews of your windows in Expose instead of Vista's cascaded view.
3. Resizing windows.
I'm used to being able to resize windows from any of the four sides. I've tried to adapt and live with only being able to do it on the lower-right. Yes, I can live with it. I don't want to, because I know this could be easier.
4. App closing.
Quitting applications doesn't always quit them. They "hide" in the dock. Why? I know I can hit Command+Q to close the window, but when I click on the "Quit" button, I expect the program to quit.
5. Performance.
OS X has been perhaps SLIGHTLY more stable than XP. Applications still crash and hang. The OS still kernel panics without giving a reason. The console logs don't always have the explanation either. This one irks me enough to point out because there seems to be some kind of mantra that is always implied by my Mac fanboi friends that such events are practically non-existant on OS X. Far from it.
6. Customization.
With XP, I at least had the option to change the themes to my UI. Not only do I prefer the visual style of XP, and now especially Vista's.. I liked being able to change the window colors. I even liked being able to change my cursors (I think that OS X's cursors are terrible.).. and change the system sounds. The Brain telling me it's time to take over the world every bootup is a small tiny perk. I know it might be possible to do this to OS X with 3rd party apps, but it's easy as pie in XP.
7. Responsiveness.
I've installed Boot Camp and XP just FEELS more responsive when I ALT+TAB, open programs, and use them. (Word, Excel, Outlook.) I've tried having OS X not do the genie animation when minimizing apps, but moving around in the UI doesn't feel as fast. Scrolling up/down documents is slower, navigating through Finder is also slower because of my personal issue with rounded scrollbars and "aquafied" ui elements. iTunes esp
Even with cons, I'm very happy! (Score:4, Interesting)
The pros are definitely that I have to worry less about the computer. Security is an issue, no matter what anyone else says, but things like installing software and upgrading versions of software are much more predictable. I have a very busy day-job, and the fact that I can come home to a working computer for my personal tasks is nice.
The cons stem from lack of industry support. If you're a gamer, your choices of ported games are limited. Certain specialized software either doesn't exist for the Mac, or the Mac version is inferior to the Windows version. To combat this, I keep a Windows machine to run the occasional Windows-only program. Also, virtual machine technology can be a help here.
The software support issue may be going away soon anyway, given vendors' rapid move towards hosted applications. Take Windows Live mail for example (the hotmail replacement.) The UI is almost as good as MS Outlook, even in browsers other than IE.
We'll see what happens in the next few years. Personally, I'm happy paying the premium for what I feel is a better designed machine.
Re:stay tuned, I'm waiting for my new mini (Score:2, Interesting)
I can do the same. I can compare my new 3.6 GHz Pentium D machine to my old Quadra 650, or to my SE/30 (which runs useful programs very nicely).
Or I can compare my PowerBook 520c to my IBM PC Convertable.
There are countless anecdotal comparisions that can be made.
I go back and forth (Score:5, Interesting)
There is something about Windows XP that just makes me feel efficient. I can get things done really quickly. If I need to do any sort of tedious computing task, I'd like to do it on windows.
However, sometimes I get in a "mac" mood and want to use my laptop. But as flashy and cool as it is, everything usually feels clumsy and cumbersome. Simple tasks seem to have many steps and seem to take longer. I feel like I am swimming in molassas, as opposed to water with windows. But it's a warm and comfortable molassas.
Ubuntu is bringing a very polished product to the table. If open source ever catches up with applications and drivers, Ubuntu could be a very real choice for many people. Linux was my primary OS on and off through college. Mark Shuttleworth is doing a great service to the public with Ubuntu. If I ever made it big time like he did, bringing high quality open source applications to Linux (video editing, etc.) would be high on my list. As they stand, Linux applications are simply too limited/unstable for my daily needs which include music and video production.
I still think that a mac is an excellent choice for the "casual computer user," due in no small part to the fact that you can bring it back to that Apple store and they are going to fix it. Computers are complicated machines and they have problems. The Apple Store is not going to tell you it's a hardware problem and so it's not their fault. They're not going to tell you that it's a software problem so it's not their fault. They're going to fix it, and that's what casual computer users need - service and support.
The windows desktop/mac laptop/linux server setup has been working very well for me and satisfies all of my OS moods, so I will probably continue with this for a long while.
Re:a step above any Linux distro ? (Score:2, Interesting)
I wouldn't think of running anything BUT twm on the Mac SE/30. Unneeded widgets eat up a lot of that tiny one-bit display.
Re:well... (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Mac OS X vs. Ubuntu (Score:5, Interesting)
"* Terminal application is somewhat lacking. It has basic features but cannot be customized very much. If you do a lot of work on the command line you'll probably want a third-party terminal application to get your real work done."
The defaults are stupid, but once you get it setup with white text on a black background and a reasonable font, it's pretty equivalent to Konsole for me. Konsole has the terminals in a nice tabbed bar that are nameable, while the Mac version just has different floaty windows, but the two operations I do (new terminal window and next/prev terminal window) are identical in behaviour.
"* The wireless setup is not straightforward, and if you're not used to it can be a bit confusing."
You just be joking. MacOS wireless is the easiest wireless I've ever setup. Even doing complex LEAP/PEAP stuff is yonks easier than on Windows. And don't talk to me about Linux wireless -- that's just a fucking joke.
"* If you want an office suite, you have to pay quite a bit extra to get it. MS Office for Mac is something like $379 or so. If you're a student you might get it for less."
Or you could get iWork for 49$ [wikipedia.org]. It's got what you're most likely needing (advanced page layout and presentation software) unless you're sitting down to do serious spreadsheet work, which would require Excel. Apple's supposed to be adding a spreadsheet application at some point. I expect it to be as well thought out and designed as Keynote and Pages, and will happily upgrade.
"* Takes a bit more hands-on tweaking to get it working exactly the way you want, but is much more flexible and customizable than OS X."
You know, a large number of people don't change the defaults. I'm unconvinced it's that much of a big deal for people to make some small adjustments in how they work, especially when it allows you to be a lot more productive overall.
"* The office type applications are finally getting to the point where a business user or student can be productive with them. "
I'm going to talk about Keynote v3 here. I arrived at a presentation I was giving with my notes ready, but found I'd be standing on a platform far away from my laptop. Solution? I quickly customized the presenter display so that my laptop would show my presenter notes in 48pt font, and then pulled out my Apple remote which I could use to control slide next/previous while giving my talk. How awesome is that? It just works -- that's Apple.
I've yet to see anything that approaches their iWork suite in terms of being useful for me. Pages is a lot like LaTeX, except that it's easy to make your pages not be printed in Times New Roman (I've written 4 papers in TeX, and still don't know how to make it sans serif). In Pages, I just change the styles in the styles drawer, which are applied to the paragraphs/etc/tagged with that style. You can easily import/export from things like MS Word or PDF, and generally have full control of your document easily -- despite it being a GUI! Plus, I've yet to fight with it like I remember fighting with MSWord autoformatting when I learned to use word processors a decade ago.
iWork is not old -- the first iteration was released in 2005. Why is Linux office software stuck copying MS ideas when Apple so quickly put out a different suite and had it work so well?
Re:Migrate to GNU/Linux and have more pros than co (Score:3, Interesting)
- I spent over $3,000 for it in 2002 (PowerMac system with LCD)
- In order to keep current and keep all your software running, you have to buy a new MacOS X distribution once a year ($80-$129)
- Even an iMac replacement would have cost me $1,700 (20" with extra SDRAM and upgraded graphics) vs. $1,000 (HP AMD64 X2 4600+ with 20" high res LCD and upgraded graphics)
I have struggled a bit with configuration but the new system is humming along pretty well now.
Re:Apple Should Dump Their Hardware (Score:4, Interesting)
Apple has been running an Intel version of Mac OS X since the very beginning. They began developing it in a dual process from the git go. How do you think they were able to switch from PPC to Intel in less than a year? You don't think they actually DEVELOPED the OS Intel version from scratch in a year? D'oh! So, actually, Intel really was their first choice!
And given the fact that their US share went from 4.8% to 6.1 % in just one quarter, then I'd have to say that, yeah, there is an increasing number of people in the computing world that ARE willing to pay for Apple computers, and they aren't all higher priced anymore, either. (and along with the US market, their standing worldwide went up too, just not quite as dramatically.)
Why I dropped MacOS in favor of Linux (Score:5, Interesting)
I needed a workstation, but I have no use for a quad-core machine, so a Core 2 Duo or Athlon64 could easily meet my needs. I also needed a large RAID array and a scratch disk, as well as other things like multiple ethernet ports, PCI/PCI-E slots, and so forth. With Apple hardware, the only way to get what I want is to spend large amounts of money on stuff that won't benefit me (like that extra Xeon). When I tried to price out a Mac Pro to meet the same requirements it couldn't be done without more than doubling the price. Even if I were willing to go around upgrading the thing with cheaper 3rd party hard drives, RAM, etc, that stuff wouldn't be covered by Apple's warranty, and that's a big downside for me. Even then, it would still cost thousands more, and it wouldn't even be that much easier than a homebuild when all was said and done.
A secondary reason was that I've had an iBook up until recently, and getting the various *nix software I need was significantly more annoying there. A good distro's package manager will have many times the selection of the Mac alternatives such as Fink and Darwin Ports, and the time I spent compiling the missing stuff by hand on MacOS was significant. This easily overwhelms any savings of effort that I might have gotten from MacOS initially, and that's not even that much with easy distros like Ubuntu. I'm not a rabid freedom fighter, I just know empirically it's a lot more trouble for me to use MacOS.
Another way this advantage applies is that the software I need comes almost entirely from one place. With MacOS, it was a mix of Fink, Darwin Ports, stuff I've compiled myself, various
I've seen what Macs have to offer, and I don't think I'd be interested even if it didn't cost so much more to meet my needs.
Re:Apple Overlooked The Shared Menu Bar (Score:1, Interesting)
Re:a step above any Linux distro ? (Score:3, Interesting)
Comment removed (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:It wasn't that unbalanced. (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:$3,000[!] (Score:4, Interesting)
How about: Visual Studio is an ass-end app that requires a high-end machine to run.
Actually, if you change your editor settings to no longer track changes (the almost invisible green and yellow bars in the left-hand gutter that you don't pay attention to anyway) and if you disable the [mostly useless] navigation bar, VS performance almost improves. Of course, there is no fix for the mysteriously obstinate Properties dockbar that stays pinned no matter how many times you click the damned button. Don't even get me started on "Pending Checkins".
This post has made me so depressed, I think I'm going to go install Eclipse, Mono, and be done with it.
Vista is helping me migrate (Score:4, Interesting)
I'll likely be making the switch before Vista is released.
It's the hardware. (Score:3, Interesting)
Partially offtopic: Replies to half-baked comments (Score:2, Interesting)
Oh, and BTW, some of my friends are Christian. They especially like the community they get with their church group. They get good, polite people (in accordance with "Love thy neighbour"). You might say they are ignorant (assuming you can actually disprove the existence of God), or you might say they are harmlessly ignorant. How exactly does their ignorance adversely affect their lives? And who are you to judge?
Re:My Top Ten Pros and Cons (Score:3, Interesting)
Mac OSX did not run well on it, and it was considerably better than a 400MhZ G3. Applications took a fairly long time to load, and if the machine was on for a few days it got so unresponsive/slow, that I had to upgrade. I was never happy to work on it, and always glad to get back to my nice GNU/Linux computer (though never to Windows).
Re:Oh spare us... (Score:4, Interesting)
Yes, but since I mentioned that I've been working with UNIX systems of various flavors since 1976, a reasonable person might give my perception some consideration. I stand open to correction, but you haven't provided any further information.
Let me try to make my question more clear: Is there some feature set, some API, that OS X doesn't implement that makes it 'NOT UNIX'. Or perhaps you are refering to the fact that it is not 'UNIX(TM)'? If so, do you also correct people when they refer to "Kleenex(TM)" or "Xerox(TM)"? If Leopard Server [apple.com] is certified by the Open Group will it become UNIX with the stroke of a pen?
Re:stay tuned, I'm waiting for my new mini (Score:2, Interesting)
I have to agree with you on that. It may be wrong to burn at 1x, but it's certainly not "utterly retarded." I've never seen an error message like the one you got, but if you did I would say if anything is utterly retarded it's that message. My guess would have been that your drive could not burn +R disks. My previous Mac could not.
Re:Home User vs. Business User vs. Gamer (Score:3, Interesting)
Not much on this issue. Windows boxes are available everywhere, and many users don't understand the difference enough to make it an issue. I recommended to my mum to get a mac when she decided to buy a laptop. It would have suited her quite well, and the affordability is not really an issue for her at that price level. She was going to, but didn't find a shop with macs in her local area. Closest shop was about 1 hours drive away. The difference between a mac and pc was not enough for her to drive the miles or wait until she was at that city (probably goes every couple of months). She just didn't care, she got what was available where she does most of her shopping. If there had been mac and pc there, she would probably have got a mac on my recommendation. If there had been mac and no pc, she definitely would not have gone out of her way to get a pc. She's used RHEL at my place and doesn't see the difference (click here for email, here for the internet, here to get pictures off your camera).
She's computer illiterate enough that it doesn't matter what OS, she gets someone else to set it up anyway. She just gets what the shop has. I think you might be surprised just how many people are like that.
Re:well... (Score:4, Interesting)
So let me get this straight. What you are basically saying is "Don't judge them by what they do, judge them by what they say!".
It seems to me that you need a good beating with a clue-stick if this is your position in everyday life. Now, it might just happen to be true in this specific case, with this specific company, in this specific time-period. And you may have other data to back this assumption up with. But from the data presented so far, I would consider the closed DRM-enabled platform with more skepticism then a competing open platform.
Re:a step above any Linux distro ? (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:stay tuned, I'm waiting for my new mini (Score:4, Interesting)
And so, everyone attempts to justify and defend the helpless mac - it's my fault. It's the IT guy's fault. It's common sense to burn archival research data at a very high speed since that should work better than a lower speed (disregarding the prevalence of errors created in the data-set). OK, so I'm wrong and Mac is right. I still won't buy one after this experience or the dozens of others I had during my three month forced stint with a Mac which I did not elaborate on.
Keyboard control. (Score:3, Interesting)
But, yes, Microsoft's user interface is more keyboardable, and more consistently keyboardable. Though I will never forgive them for deciding that the standard keyboard navigation would bypass the task bar, requiring a separate set of keystrokes to access it, and that toolbars wouldn't be keyboard accessible at all. Windows 95 has much to answer for.
Something like Controllermate, but operating at a higher level (generating events like 'paste' or 'beginning of line') and that applications would register hotkeys with ('expose - show desktop', 'spotlight - search selected word') is something that Apple should have had long ago. Automator, Applescript, Spotlight, all these tools are frustratingly close to the tool that's needed...