Slashdot Mirror
The Ultimate MacDate
Hack Jandy writes "Anandtech - the PC hardware site - took the Apple challenge and tried a Mac out for a month. The result was the most indepth Macdate I have even seen. As quoted by Anand, 'In the end, Apple has developed a very strong platform.'"
Once you're under Windows,you want the Linux hackability, once you are on Linux, you miss the bells and whistles, since I switched, I got both and I am happy :)
Trolling using another account since 2005.
and wondered "How many of these features have been incorporated into Linux / BSD?" I just recently installed MEPIS on a spare box to start learning about linux, so I am quite a bit in the dark on some features he mentions. Are a lot of these available in KDE/Gnome/???
Mod Me, Bee-yotch!!!
Because it works, very very well
It's nice to see a respected hardcore site like Anandtech confirm what we Mac users have known all along.
Apple created a very good operating system, which would actually probably be more to the liking of the average PC user - who just checks their email and surfs the web. They really should start advertising the usability and stability of Mac products, I see that as the quickest, and most effective way. The only downside to Macs really at this time is the lack of support for gaming, and I just don't see why more people don't switch, or at least give Macs a try.
This, my friends, is where Windows is seriously lacking as far as usability goes. He makes a good point. I for one can't stand more than about 4 Windows open at a time when I'm using windows, where as when I'm using Linux (I'm not a OSX guy) I usually have 20+ windows open on 6 virtual desktops.
Unix based window managers (along with others) have had virtual desktops for years, where did Microsoft drop the ball?
Slashdot = ((Technology + Politics) / Trolls) % Grammar Nazis
Why on earth would I want a closed source browser that contains Adware when I can have an open source browser that has more features (with easily installed extensions) for free? Opera works great on my Nokia, but I don't think I'll be installing their desktop software any time soon.
Yeah, I would say that the Windows way of installing apps leaves the user with less control. You don't necessarily have any idea where an installer is putting files, what it's overwriting, what it's messing up. OS X app bundles stay in one place.
From the article:
...
Maybe it's just because of the nature of my work, but I tend to have a lot of windows open at any given time.
When writing an article (especially big NDA launches), I'd have around 20 IE windows open...
Two words: Use Firefox!
Firefox/Mozilla gestures do not even close to compare to Opera's (well not last time I tried.
The only reason I dropped Opera is it didn't feel right on Linux (being QT, but not feeling as nice as Konquerer in the environment).
Maybe they fixed this in Mozilla, but opera has these gestures/shortcuts that I find great, and miss:
1) right mouse+mouse wheel (cycle tabs)
2)hold right mouse+tap left mouse (back)
3)revers of 2 for forward
4)CTRL+mousewheel for a supurb zooming, way better then any other zoom.
Also the ram ached forward and back buttons are blazing fast. Just amazing, even on older systems.
Fast foward and rewind was nice, but pretty much jusdt a gimmick.
Wow, sent an e-mail as suggested when clicking on "use classic" banner, and got a fast response that addressed my msg
Maybe what he was noticing was the result of some settings/preferences/whatever being copied to his library, which many applications will do on the first run, but not when you install them.
I think he's talking about the progress bar for long copies. That actually shows you the name of the files being copied. If one doesn't know any better, it might look like the files are being installed.
Javascript + Nintendo DSi = DSiCade
Fine. Don't switch. Stick with Windows and suffer the nightmares of spyware, viruses, trojans, and security holes big enough to fly a 747 through.
Apple isn't losing any sleep over the incredibly tiny minority of users who are in your shoes and who can't afford to switch. Not that I believe your $100,000 figure in the first place. How many one-man freelance operations out there need Maya/[insert other über-expensive software here]? (Then again, why should I believe a guy who thinks assembling an iMac from Apple-branded parts constitutes "building" a Macintosh?)
For the rest of us, our employers will provide the software necessary to get Real Work(tm) done, and the software besides that *isn't* that expensive. Even if you had to re-purchase every single game you own for the Mac platform (and you typically don't, since a lot of games can be had in cross-platform CD versions now, with both Mac and PC versions in the same box), that would still be well under $10K, and if you're *that* into PC gaming, why the hell are you buying a Mac in the first place?
p
In Korea, long hair is for old people!
Wow, another Smug Opera Weenie. It's like the Smug Lisp Weenies, whose only reaction to any programming language is "lisp did it first, they're all trying to be lisp, why not just use lisp". Smug ___ Weenies are wholly incapable of listening to criticism of ___, redirecting them into snippy point-for-point replies that usually don't really address the shortcomings that were brought up.
So you use opera, you like opera, bully for you. Now shut the hell up about it already. There really just isn't a single person left who actually cares what browser you use or recommend.
After doing the necessary research to make sure that I could actually get work done on a Mac, I whipped out the trusty credit card and decided to give the experiment a try.
That single sentence gives quite a bit of insight into a very major reason that Windows is so popular. The very fact that one has to research into applications is a drawbridge for many would-be switchers. With Windows, you have no doubts that there is going to be an application out there, already written, somewhere in cyberland...all you need to do is download (or buy). Gamers and "specialists", who require either very today-trendy or very specific function software, are turned off by the belief (or disbelief, possibly) that Linux and Mac simply can't support their needs.
Then, of course, there is the whole hardware debate. Once again, for Windows...it's out there somewhere; go find it. For Linux, well, it's out there, but have fun finding drivers and getting Linux to be a happy landlord. For Mac, it's out there if Apple or an approved sales associate has decided you need to have it.
In short, very few users are debating the worthiness, usability, or power of an operating system these days. It's the flexibility that they want. That may sound like quite a trite argument to have in favor of Microsoft...but in the context of the applications and hardware discussed above, I think it's pretty appropriate.
12 pages, all of them slashdotted, the print command runs some MS-only WinOpen script that doesn't work in Safari, the email command runs some MS-only WinOpen script that doesn't work in Safari. Bah. Maybe he's got something useful to say, but I'll never get past the first page. At least it's not green on black like ArsTechnica.
Building it yourself is a very different proposition. You've paid less in dollars, but more in the requisite time, knowledge, effort, tools, parts acquisition, and additional responsibility for its functioning.
Which might very well be a worthwhile deal for you, nothing wrong with that. But it's not really meaningful to compare just the price in dollars for these two systems and pretend that the other costs don't exist.
I wonder if Apple ever intends to crack the gaming nut.. I think there is a huge community of gamers that would drop windows in a heartbeat if Apple even came -close- to being a competitive games platform. Gaming also drives hardware sales like nothing else imaginable. If I could play all the same games on a Mac that I do on a PC, I think I'd be willing to pay around $400 more for a similar powered computer without the wintel platform nuissance.
Actually, from my perspective, it's becoming too late. Whereas Windows 98 was pure hell in terms of usability, hardware compatibility, inconsistency, and stability, Windows XP massively shrunk the gap between itself and the overall Mac platform. By the time Apple would catch up, if ever, in the gaming market, the gap might be too small to bother a migration.
There's something very close to this already, and has been for years. Generally speaking, if you have version N of a major piece of Windows software, the price to upgrade to N+1 on Windows, or move to N+1 on a Mac, is the same. Upgrade pricing usually doesn't seem to care about pricing.
My Photography - http://ian-x.com
The Deathlings (comic) - http://thedeathlings.com
OSX is far inferior in ease-of-use. The whole philosopy is make the easy stuff even easier and make the hard stuff practically impossible.
The easy stuff is already easy, so I don't really care which machine it's easier on. It's the hard stuff that counts, and that's where windows is far easier than Mac.
From reading the posts thus far, I have this nagging feeling:
Am I going to be one of those MacIdiots now? It's starting to look that way...
(I am imagining a world where my PC is mostly in my control. Very few viruses. Very little spyware. Things run as I expect them to. Actually, now that I think of it, very few problems at all. There seems to be very little to "fix". Shit, now what am I going to spend my time doing?)
Kissing some Karma goodbye...
;-)
I was a bit underwhelmed by the review. While there were some fair cops (video card underpowered, not enough RAM, game releases lagging behind, etc.), I was bugged by some of his comments.
A few examples:
It's iCal, not iCalendar. He seemed to have gotten it wrong more often than right. (If you use a program you can see its name in the menu bar.)
He didn't bother to check on how the drag-n-drop installs work. (Not good for a supposed hard core tech site.)
No, Macs aren't overpriced against other name-brand manufacturers. They are price competitive. (I'll grant you that if you build your own and zealously look for bargains you can build a slightly cheaper PC.)
Of course Windows is going to be more stable if you buy specific hardware for Windows servers as (is implied) using any old hardware for Linux.
He's used Unix at university and he still doesn't feel comfortable about the concept of home directories? Or the Unix hierarchy? (The names can be cryptic, but the hierarchy is pretty simple compared to Windows splatter approach.)
Unfortunately it is little glitches in reviews that leave you wondering just how technical the reviewer is in their other reviews. This one could have stood a little more fact-checking. I know I would hesitate before recommending this article to a knowledgeable Windows-using friend. I'd probably point them towards Ars Technica instead.
Funny note: I think he meant he's used Windows since 3.0, not 2.0. Using Win 2.0 would have been the act of a masochist.
"All the darkness in the world can not quench the light of one small candle."
In the end, Apple has developed a very strong platform.
Anyone that's USED one in the past 15 years will tell you that. There's no question that Apple has some good technology in their arsenal. The question is "Is Apple right for you?". For me it used to be, but now it's not.
There's no need to make it any more complicated than it needs to be.
LK
"Hi. This is my friend, Jack Shit, and you don't know him." - Lord Kano
Yeah. I sell Macs. Yet, my $1350 laptop can crunch more audio plugins (pure CPU) than a desktop dual 2.0 ghz G5.
That being said, I'm getting my girlfriend a PowerBook. Why? Because she surfs the web, does some e-mail, adores photography, and wants a laptop that will last. My eMachines is starting to crack around the hinge, even though it's only 7 or 8 months old. I use my laptop every day for hours on end, and so do my colleagues, but they've had their 17" Powerbooks for two years, and nothing - nothing - is falling apart on them.
For me, I have to have Linux for sanity, and Windows for work. But if you're a "casual" computer user, Macs will work. No problems, no viruses, no bugs, no esoteric error messages or random crashing. They turn on and compute.
That's why I like selling them - the customers don't call until two years later when they want another one.
I'm glad to see that Anand is open to trying a new OS. I give him lots of credit for plunking down a few grand, buying a nice Mac, and giving it an honest go. And I'm glad that in the end he had a positive experience and continues to enjoy using his Mac.
It's pretty interesting to read the impressions of someone trying out MacOS X for the first time, particularly if that someone hasn't travelled outside the world of Windows. Anand writes:
The uniformity really extends far beyond keyboard shortcuts...a menubar always exists at the top of your screen in MacOS X, regardless of what application you're in.
Talk about getting down to basics, eh? I think that's a very interesting comment. It would never have occurred to me to explain that to a new Mac user, particularly one with extensive computing experience on another platform. Kudos to Anand for capturing the newness of it all.
That said, there are a number of things that bug be about the article. For one, it seems pretty ballsy to switch to an entirely different platform and think that you've learned enough in 30 days to write an article of this length (printed, it comes to 24 pages). He clearly is laboring under a number of misconceptions that probably would have been cleared up if he'd spent some more time with his system.
Another thing is that he seems to want his Mac to work the way Windows does. That's a pretty common thing with switchers, and it's totally understandable. But if you're going to review an OS you should really try to come to it with an open mind. To his credit, he's pretty up front about his bias being due to using Windows for so long, but his "the directory structure seems very foreign because it's different from Windows" comments make me want to choke him.
A good editor (human editor, not text editor) would really help this article. Anand tends to use 50 words where 7 are called for, and he even manages to contradict himself occasionally. Though it clearly was not, it should have been reviewed by a knowledgeable Mac user or two to clear up some of the obvious misconceptions.
Anand criticizes the price of the system he bought several times. He spent about $2700 on a top of the line, dual processor G5 because:
I knew that if I was going to give the platform a good chance, I needed to get the fastest system that Apple had to offer.
It's great that he knew what he wanted and all, but as a newcomer he wasn't really in a position to know whether he really needed that much power or whether he could have gotten along just fine with a G4 iMac. He never considered that something less than the fastest thing available could meet his needs, and he doesn't bother to try to find out. So it's a little unfair to whine about the price when something costing half as much very well might have performed acceptably.
Overall, I'm glad he wrote it and I'm glad he's happy with the Mac. Keep at it.
... the native OS.X installer for *.pkg packages does not seem to have an uninstall feature (at least on one that I am aware of) which obviously starts to really suck as soon as you try to remove some crappy *.pkg packaged program you downloaded on a whim. Fortunately there is OSXPM but it still sucks that Apple did not do a better job at thinking the OS.X package manager system throug.
Only to idiots, are orders laws.
-- Henning von Tresckow
I too am a recent switcher (in fact I just typed up a long-winded, pro-mac thing on Eugenias propaganda machi- Er... OSNews), and love my Mac.
However there is one area that my Mac's a letdown: You cannot watch mpeg2 video in Quicktime without buying an addon. And then you still cannot edit an mpeg in any Quicktimes-based app (idvd, imovie, and so on).
It's just ridiculous that this "Media Machine" cannot perform even simple edits on one of the most common video formats around! Don't think that a Mac doesn't understand the mpeg format at all: Even those aforementioned iapps can output mpeg2. They have the ability to output mpeg2 for burning DVD's. But if you want to re-encode those videos, or simply chop off a commercial or something, you have to re-encode it as an avi or quicktime file. Or use some stopgap shareware solution (A seperate app that keeps numerical track of where I'm editing, and then I paste those numbers into Quicktime. What a pain in the ass!)
Again, I love my Mac, but I think it's so stupid that to chop up an mpeg file that I recorded, I have to switch over to my Pentium box to do so.
Stupid, stupid, stupid....
Since you work at Apple, maybe you can let them know why this particular switcher, and probably countless more amateur video editors, are unable to completely switch over from the PC platform.
First, I can't believe /. rated this comment a 1. I read this note and it could have come from me (I also do lots of scientific computing) or any number of my colleagues. What this person has to say needs to be heard. The Linux community needs to listen when people complain about RTFM being the answer to "how do I do X." Those of us who use computers as tools rather than as our reason-to-live do not have time to find the right FM and then find where in the FM it tells you what to do (typically only to find that it's the wrong FM after killing an hour). I'm dropping Linux (and Solaris and Windoze) as soon as I can find the time and moving to OS X. I could care less if it can't run DOOM 3.
I've found that a lot of people complain about the price they paid for their Apple hardware when confronted with software problems...
Yes, Apple hardware is expensive. However, OS X 10.3 (latest version) is MUCH cheaper per license than Windows XP.
Windows XP Pro (Upgrade): $189.99
Windows XP Pro (Full): $279.99
Mac OS X 10.3 (Full): $129.00
For an admittedly "better" operating system, Apple sure gives you a good deal, eh?
Note: I neglected to mention XP Home on purpose; the lack of configurability with regards to disabling default services with known security vulnerabilities (Messenger, UPnP, etc.) make it unadvisable as a real consumer OS.
"Life in every breath... that is bushido"
Wrong comparison, you're matching a uniprocessor system to a dual processor system. Here's the above comparison, but corrected for accuracy:
First, let's correct the Mac. Giving it an ATi 9600XT, and subtracting the modem (because you forgot), makes the price $1920.
Now for the PC:
MSI K8T Master2-FAR Dual Opteron motherboard $220
2 x AMD Opteron Model 144 - 1.8 GHz $422
Kingston ValueRAM 184 Pin 256MB(128MBx2) DDR PC-3200 $59
80 GB Serial ATA hard disk $64
SAPPHIRE ATI RADEON 9600XT Video Card, 128MB DDR $162
Logitech Deluxe Desktop (Deluxe Keyboard & Mouse) $11
Sony Beige 52X32X52X16 Combo Drive $38
Lian-Li Silver ATX Full Tower Case, Model "PC-V2000A" (much more comparable to the G5 case) $261
Fortron 530W Power Supply $76
Microsoft Windows XP Professional With Service Pack 2 -OEM $145
I'll assume that this will be a Windows machine, but this cost is optional, since there are a number of free operating systems.
In total, the equivalent PC (as equivalent as it can be purchased) comes out to $1,458 (including the cost of Windows).
However, this cost is for a bunch of boxes with parts in them, not a computer that's ready to go once you plug it in. How long will it take to get it ready? Assuming you're fairly speedy, it's at least a couple hours removing stuff from boxes and getting it all into the case in a tidy manner. Then add another hour for installing Windows, then another couple for installing drivers / configuring Windows. How much is your time worth?
Also an astronomer here. All I want to say to the previous 2 posts is YES, YES, YES, and YES.
I used to mess about with linux on a laptop and it gave me so many headaches and caused so much indigestion that I don't think I will ever do it again. It took me several days to _fail_ at getting a wireless card to work on linux, but it took me exactly 30 seconds to get 2 macs to talk to each other over an adhoc network. Never again. Linux is a fine server architecture, great for heavy crunching, wonderful for propellerheads who love computers for their own sake, but not a happy solution for a friendly desktop/laptop. And windoze, of course, is simply out of the question as a science platform.
Time is money. Every hour I waste is worth $30. Macs are very, very economical in this respect. Most of the apps I need (like IRAF, compilers, graphics libraries) are supported very easily through fink or plain old 'configure --prefix'. I don't have to bother the Sun admin people when I have a problem, I don't have to bother trying to translate Hungarian linux howtos, things just work.
Go to any hard science meeting, and you will be immersed in a sea of mac laptops. These people are smart, and they know what they are doing, and their time is precious - much more valuable than an extra few hundred spent on hardware.
If one more reviewer mentions "gaming" as a valid consideration to selecting a PC, I'm going to kill people. The $1,000's a "gamer" spends on their "toy" is fine... but don't assume that the rest of the world prefers to sit in a desk chair on their computer... instead of on the couch with a beer & xbox.
What bugs me even more is the shit I've had to deal with my entire life every time I mentioned that I was a Mac user. I've used Macs for over 15 years and I still get the "Macs suck" comments all the time. I'm not a Mac Missionary preaching to the unwashed masses. I'm currently a *nix sysadmin and believe that computers are tools and people must use the best tool they see fit to use. When people ask me why I use a Mac, I'll explain it and try to dispel the numerous myths out there , but that's about as far as I go.
You want to talk about annoying, try dealing with assholes like you on a daily basis. Assholes who generalize and make assumptions. Assholes who have no knowledge of what they speak of. Assholes who make policy changes and infrastructure changes to make my job more difficult because I use Linux, FreeBSD and OS X instead of Windows. You my friend are an ignorant fool, and it's really time to grow up. It's funny reading your previous postings where you mention life is about the little things, being nice to strangers, etc. I believe it's human nature to be hypocritical and you, sir, just proved my point. One can only hope that your attitude will be the reason why you "fail the test".
--jd
In an attempt to sound unbiased, the guy basically ruins the article...
The line that caught my eye:
$3000 for a top of the line G5 isn't a bargain regardless of what you compare it to.
Umm... it may not be a bargain per say, but it is most certainly on par with pre-built name brand x86 offerings... running quickly through the Dell configurator I was easily able to make a Dimension XPS hit >$3000 with similar RAM, HD, optical drives and software components selected...
Go to any hard science meeting, and you will be immersed in a sea of mac laptops
During those scientific meetings, I take unscientific polls and count Macs vs. other laptops. Two years ago, the percentage was consistently less than 25%. Last meeting in July it was exactly 50% (and the wifi router was overloaded). Given all the people who come up to me and say "I'd like to get a powerbook but it's against policy" or "Dammit, IT is making everyone use Dell products, and they're taking away my powerbook", I suspect it would be even higher if it weren't for institutional policies forcing Windows on people. No one is making any of those folks use a Mac.
(Academics might get to pick and choose, but lots of scientists work at institutions that either make deals or whose IT people won't support Macs.)
Actually, for all intense purposes, the Macs have very little to configure out of the box. The problem is that there exist people who fail to learn how to do even rudimentary things like lock the machine down by changing permissions on certain files and directories... you know things you should probably do in a lab environment but don't usually have to worry too much about at home. Hell, I taught my entire staff what they need to do and in a week they were more than able to pick up most of what they need to do a better job than half the MCSE hacks that admin Mac labs these days.
If you read my entire argument, you may have noticed how I mentioned the Windows box take twice the time to configure and deploy, if not more more time. As for administration, I do have less administrative duties on the Macs... especially after creating a few shell scripts to automate most of the tasks I may have to do.
You also seem to have skipped over the fact that I mentioned I have more hardware maintenance issues with the Windows based machines which means they are out of use more often.
It's funny how people always mention the upfront cost of a machine, and available software when trying to attack the Mac platform. Where you come up with less flexibility is beyond me... I'd love an explanation for that one because there's nothing I can't do on a Mac that I can do on a PC, so where's the lack in flexibility?
As for software, we install the same software products on both or Windows boxes and our Macs. In some cases where it's a departmental lab or a faculty members computer or a server, there may be some additional software, but I have yet to encounter a situation where a user wasn't able to find a piece of software or a viable alternative to use on a Mac.
Finally, the hardware cost. We typically replace the machines in our labs every 2-3 years on a rotating basis so we're always buying new machines and pushing the oldest ones out. The oldest machines go on sale where the general public is able to guy them. Guess which machines hold their value better? You got it, the Macs. In general, we typically pay about $200 more for our Macs than we do for comparable PCs. However, we typically get $200-300 more for the Macs when we sell them then we do for the PCs. In our situation, we break even or come our ahead on our Mac purchases. Hell, we'd do even better if I could convince the MCSEs to migrate to Xserves and save on the windows licensing and additional software expenses they have because Windows 2003 server doesn't have a lot of the capabilities OS X has out of the box or for free.
Try again when you actually have some experience and knowledge about that you which you attack,