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.
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
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.
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.
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."
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.
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"
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.