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.'"

149 of 706 comments (clear)

  1. I am not surprised by mirko · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.
    1. Re:I am not surprised by malchus842 · · Score: 5, Interesting

      I'm not surprised either. I used a Mac back in 1985, but then ended up on DOS/Windows boxes until about 18 months ago. Having switched and used a Mac for this period of time, I would NEVER switch back to Windows. Heck, I made it a requirement of accepting my last job offer that I have a Mac, not a PC.

      Why? Because the Mac gives me the best of both worlds - a Unix box (BSD no less), and a fantastic UI. I've been a Unix guy for a LONG time (1980). Linux is great, but when it comes to Unix-like boxes, I'll take the Mac any day as a user environment.

      I've switched my whole family - we now have 4 macs in the house. I got my pastor to switch to the Mac, and when I was a consultant, several comapnies I supported took my advice and switched. EVERYONE is happier than they ever were on the Windows box.

    2. Re:I am not surprised by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Bells and whistles? The main thing that keeps me on Windows are the games. :|

    3. Re:I am not surprised by Impotent_Emperor · · Score: 3, Interesting

      My father seems to have recently (sort-of*) switched. He recieved a PowerBook because a company he is doing work for wants the development on the Mac. The stability and the interface seem to really impress him. Now, he even has an iPod and an AirPort Express. (Okay, so both of those are good even without a Mac.) He said that he (and the family) has a Mac before, but he switched to a PC because Macs were lagging in some areas at the time.

      *I say "sort-of" because he still has Windows desktop and laptop, but he hates the spyware and other junk that gets on those. He seems to prefer the Mac.

    4. Re:I am not surprised by Erik+Hollensbe · · Score: 5, Insightful

      It's not really "bells and whistles", that's a common mistake that many people (including me in the past) make when thinking about what the mac can do.

      AppleScript may look like a dumb language, but I've never seen VB do what it can do to a desktop, and there's certainly no comparison on linux. Need to add a feature to your favorite app? You can normally do it with little pain and the Script Editor. If there's not API support for it, you can always just write a script that controls the GUI directly.

      I also have always been a big fan of the dock concept, but WindowMaker really doesn't do it justice - it's not really WM's fault, either. The fact that when you have 10 copies of FireFox open they are joined at the hip by the OS makes the dock concept that much more powerful. Alt-tab to the firefox app, alt-` to cycle firefox windows only.

      I could go on, because there are tons of "little things" that make it so nice. After all, when was the last time you installed your OS and everything worked as expected on first boot?

    5. Re:I am not surprised by cayenne8 · · Score: 2, Informative
      I'm a recent convert of a sort. I just recently got a used iBook 800Mhz, G3. Good price on eBay..with software, carry case, 14" screen...all hardware.

      I got it to experiment with putting Gentoo Linux on it...heard good things. I decided to dual boot it. I've been using OSX a lot at the beginning...while I was installing and figuring out how to get Linux on it. More and more...I find I really like a lot about the OSX side. Its really a learning experience...I think I'll be even more comfortable once I get a replacement mouse that had 2 buttons and a clickable wheel....I really miss the Linux/Unix way of clicking with left button to drag to highlight...and just click middle button (wheel) to paste. I understand with will work on OSX too with a new mouse.

      Overall..I do like it. I think I'll really like it more when I can figure how to get the Gentoo for OSX portage kit put on...and start to run more native X applications on it.

      I'm still having to finish the Linux install...got to troubleshoot some problems with it not waking up from sleep...and occasionally locking up hard for no reason on the Linux side...so, till I get that rectified...I'll keep using OSX more. The more I use it, the more I like it. Even when the Linux side gets fully functional...I'll still jump back and forth. And I'm looking forward to trying to run MOL (Mac on Linux) while in the Linux partition...and have the best of both worlds.

      --
      Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
    6. Re:I am not surprised by ThousandStars · · Score: 2, Interesting
      I'm not old enough to have used computers in the 80s, but I've been using DOS and then Windows for as long as I remember.

      And Windows has been frustrating for as long as I can remember. Linux, although more stable, brings its own nightmares with it. During summer upgrade time came along, and I bought a Powerbook. I get portability, power (relative to other laptops) and ease-of-use. If I must use Windows I have VPC.

      In addition, I'm no longer tethered to the phone-home crippling of Windows and Office XP. The last two times I had to format and install those two (an experience I hope to avoid from here out), I also had to call MS central. I don't like being treated as a criminal when I'm trying to legally use products I bought.

      In short, I don't want to sound like an Apple ad, but I'm quite happy with the Powerbook. That doesn't mean you should get one, or that there aren't reasons to stay with Windows, but I'm pleased. And so is the parent poster.

    7. Re:I am not surprised by Bastian · · Score: 4, Informative

      AppleScript does have a comparison from the UNIX world - shell scripting. AppleScript is the natural extension of shell scripting into a GUI environment.

      Yes, the language itself is a travesty, but thena gain, so is bash. And just like with shell scripting, there are all sorts of convenient replacements, like the AppleScript-JavaScript bridge.

      w00t.

    8. Re:I am not surprised by KH · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Not that I disagree with you, but I saw AppleScript as extension of HyperTalk. Apple indeed did not have an equivalent of shell scripts and users had to rely on third party solutions to automate repeated tasks. It was a welcome addition to the system when it came around. But just like everything else from Apple, when something shows up first, it's dog slow. I mean slooooow (remember Opendoc/CyberDog anyone?), and didn't have the cleanliness of HyperTalk. I don't think great many people used AppleScript. I personally realized that general users don't write scripts. Those who write shell scripts are not exactly your grandmas. I highly doubt that there will be a day when people actually start writing scripts however it may become simple. It's not their thing.

      Oh, nice thing about AppleScripts in these OS X days is that we have do shellscript (or sometihng).

    9. Re:I am not surprised by sploo22 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      More and more I'm finding out that Mac OS is, and indeed has been for a long time, very elegant and well-designed.

      A number of features that modern Linux distros and desktop environments are priding themselves on have been part of Mac OS for a long time. Graphical boot? Check. Graphical disk partitioner? Check. LiveCD installer? Check. Loads of nifty little features like an application-accessible encrypted keychain manager, desktop sticky notes, multi-user logins with profiles stored on a server... you name it. Mas OS 9 even has VOICEPRINT IDENTIFICATION for crying out loud.

      I'm now pretty determined that my next computer is going to be a PowerBook.

      --
      Karma: Segmentation fault (tried to dereference a null post)
    10. Re:I am not surprised by network23 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      "AppleScript may look like a dumb language, but I've never seen VB do what it can do to a desktop, and there's certainly no comparison on linux. Need to add a feature to your favorite app? You can normally do it with little pain and the Script Editor. If there's not API support for it, you can always just write a script that controls the GUI directly."

      And you can control your shell from AppleScript, or control your AppleScript from shell. And control PHP, Perl, Python, Ruby, Webservices and everything else included in MacOS X, using extremely powerful solutions like Folder Actions where you connect a script to run when the content of a folder changes.

      Whoa. This is pure gold.

    11. Re:I am not surprised by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

      After all, when was the last time you installed your OS and everything worked as expected on first boot?

      Every time. Maybe you just need to lower your expectations for Windows.

    12. Re:I am not surprised by Midnight+Thunder · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Bells and whistles? The main thing that keeps me on Windows are the games. :|

      And even then. Since consoles are really starting to come into their own, and Microsoft is encouraging the usual Windows games developers to develop for their console, you really have to ask yourself whether you still need a PC for your games?

      With the games argument assigned to the consoles, you no longer have to include that as a major requirement when buying your computer. Because of that the Mac becomes more appealing, as does any other non-MS-Windows solution.

      --
      Jumpstart the tartan drive.
    13. Re:I am not surprised by Magic5Ball · · Score: 2, Informative

      setting a KVM

      The lack of legacy PS/2 ports on the Mac would pose a problem, but KVM/IP or KVM/USB work fine.

      iPhoto ... is not useful for storing a digital photo album

      Indeed. Real photographers use a 3rd party CMS/workflow solution anyway, while there are cuter solutions from Adobe and anyone else for consumers.

      still picture capture

      Built in to the operating system...

      printing to a networked printer

      Autometic network printer discovery makes things easy. It begs you do do it the first time you print.

      As far as the hardware itself, as I said it looks nice, but it's cheaply made

      They come off the same production lines as many commodity PC laptops, so yes, they are cheaply made. But, unless you are using a PowerBook where you should be using a hardened unit, this isn't normally a problem for end users.

      you have to snap off 4 of the function keys to get at screws just to start

      The keyboard peels back as a unit by pressing two tabs. The structural screws are under the detachable keyboard itself, and on the lower chasis (you would know this if you're as good at servicing things as you later claim).

      or $30 each if you try on your own

      Not a user-servicable part unless you want to void warranty. Not a part that needs servicing unless you are attempting repairs in the field that should be done at the factory.

      except for 2 design flaws

      Please, fail to elaborate on this point when you criticise everything else in such detail...

      --
      There are 1.1... kinds of people.
    14. Re:I am not surprised by WiseWeasel · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Automator is an interesting new feature of Tiger (10.4), due in the first half of 2005. It's basically a graphical way of writing scripts. I'm sure app developers will also be adding Automator plugins to ensure that their apps are easy to script visually. I think that's really going to broaden the appeal of AppleScript, to the point that your grandma just might be writing scripts, even though she might not think of it that way, since it looks to be so intuitive (for some things). I'm keeping a close eye on that one, and hope that it pushes more app developers to add native AS support.

      --
      "I like systems, their application excepted", George Sand (French)
    15. Re:I am not surprised by torpor · · Score: 2, Informative

      I switched, and I have to say that the one Mac I own has been the best computer investment I've made in a computer for years. I've gotten so much work done with this aging tiBook, it just keeps on ticking, and it always works.

      Sure, I'm mostly a Unix hacker anyway, so I'm not a typical 'gotta have all the software written for me' kind of computer user, and I don't play video games, or have any 'office' needs which can't be met with vi.. so OSX is really mostly icing in the already well-made cake.

      Still, I have to admit, I am sorta surprised that its 2004 now, and the #1 vendor of Unix is Apple. I don't know why its a surprise, but its a surprise.

      I'd had a lot of hope for SGI, back in the day.. if only they'd made it, and done a laptop worthy of the SGI legend! I wish someone would get into the 'making a better laptop Unix than Apple' competition now, anyway..

      --
      ; -- the corruption of government starts with its secrets. a truly free people keep no secrets. --
    16. Re:I am not surprised by steeviant · · Score: 3, Informative

      "I think I'll be even more comfortable once I get a replacement mouse that had 2 buttons and a clickable wheel..."

      You will be more comfortable, although the machines don't ship with two button mice, the OS supports them seamlessly.

      In the meantime, you can turn your trackpad into a 3 button trackpad with a scrollwheel by getting sidetrack here.

      "I really miss the Linux/Unix way of clicking with left button to drag to highlight...and just click middle button (wheel) to paste. I understand with will work on OSX too with a new mouse."

      Sadly no, the Linux method of copy/paste won't work except in X11 applications, but OS X supports text drag and drop which can still be done entirely without moving your hand from the mouse, and is independant of the clipboard.

      "Overall..I do like it. I think I'll really like it more when I can figure how to get the Gentoo for OSX portage kit put on...and start to run more native X applications on it."

      It wasn't until I started using OS X as just another Unix with a fancy GUI that I really started to feel comfortable.

      As a person coming from the linux world, you might want to install the GNU fileutils, which is the same ls/rm/mv/cp/ln/chmod/chown etc that Linux uses, then just alias to the GNU versions instead of the FreeBSD tools it comes with.

    17. Re:I am not surprised by ZackSchil · · Score: 2, Informative

      I have a setup where I let people stream and browse (not download) my iTunes library via Apache and PHP, upload their own music via a CGI script, which places the file in a folder watched by Applescript, which then passes the song off to iTunes, which adds it to my library and sorts it. Then the original in the folder is deleted.

      I should probably release my system but it's so hard to set up that very few people would use it. I was writing an installer a while back but stopped due to a lack of time.

    18. Re:I am not surprised by Senjaz · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Automator.app isn't really a graphical way of writing scripts. The best way of looking at it is a graphical equivalent to pipes on the command line.

      Although these sort of automation tasks can be done using AppleScript, AppleScript itself is much more versatile as you might expect.

      http://www.apple.com/macosx/tiger/automator.html

      Saying much more than that would probably be breaking my NDA. But there is probably more information to be found on the usual rumour sites.

      --
      Don't blame me - this .sig had steal me written all over it.
  2. 20 IE Windows?!!! by jaaron · · Score: 5, Informative

    From the article:

    When writing an article (especially big NDA launches), I'd have around 20 IE windows open, Outlook with another 5 - 15 emails, Power Point with NDA presentations, ...

    20 IE Windows??? Man, this guy has got to get a copy of Firefox and learn the joy of tabbed browsing.

    --
    Who said Freedom was Fair?
    1. Re:20 IE Windows?!!! by Tyler+Durden · · Score: 3, Informative

      That or any of the many other alternate browsers that allow tabbed browsing. And that includes Opera, which did it in the first place.

      --
      Happy people make bad consumers.
    2. Re:20 IE Windows?!!! by sgant · · Score: 2, Funny

      Um...RTFA...he was talking about his Windows experience...and yeah, he is a Windows user that used MacOSX for a month...hence the name of this article and the whole fricken point...

      RTFA

      --

      "Leo Fender was in a 'state of grace' when he designed the Stratocaster." -- Paul Reed Smith
    3. Re:20 IE Windows?!!! by Ianoo · · Score: 2, Insightful

      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.

    4. Re:20 IE Windows?!!! by Croaker-bg · · Score: 5, Informative

      You can CTl+tab in firefox between tabs and ctl+shift+tab to go backwards through the tabs. Same functionality. There is also an extension that will allow you to ctl+tab to the last tab you used in a historical order. These are very handy features and save you the overhead of having multiple IE windows open with the same at the keyboard functionality to jump around.

    5. Re:20 IE Windows?!!! by Tenebrious1 · · Score: 4, Funny

      20 IE Windows??? Man, this guy has got to get a copy of Firefox and learn the joy of tabbed browsing.

      Or just stop going to the porn site that spawned them.

      --
      -- If god wanted me to have a sig, he'd have given me a sense of humor.
    6. Re:20 IE Windows?!!! by AvitarX · · Score: 4, Insightful

      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
    7. Re:20 IE Windows?!!! by Narchie+Troll · · Score: 2, Informative

      It's called the Single Browser Extension. It's existed for Firefox and Mozilla for a very long time.

    8. Re:20 IE Windows?!!! by Narchie+Troll · · Score: 2, Informative

      Ctrl+Tab, Ctrl+Shift+Tab.
      Ctrl+W.
      Single Window Extension or Tabbrowser Preferences.

    9. Re:20 IE Windows?!!! by Tyler+Durden · · Score: 2, Funny

      Bad day?

      --
      Happy people make bad consumers.
    10. Re:20 IE Windows?!!! by shawb · · Score: 2, Informative

      In Firefox 1.0 Pre with some mouse gesture extensions installed (Don't remember offhand which ones) I can:
      1) cycle through tabs by rolling the scroll wheel when the cursor is over the tabs.
      2) back page by right click, move mouse left.
      3) Forward page by right click, move mouse right.
      4) And CTRL+Mousewheel does zoom in Firefox for me, although it does not zoom as well as Opera, in my opinion. Basically just changes text size, no images zooming, formatting within frames or CSS gets kinda wierd. So I guess You still do have the zooming thing. Which isn't much of a deal for me in particular, but for people who's vision is going and would normally need glasses for reading, this is actually a very useful feature. More usable than most ADA hacks I've seen

      But in my experience, Mozilla just has a more polished feel. This is something that very pieces of OSS really seem to get right, and I congratulate the Mozilla team on working this through. No cryptic configuration files (I may be able to properly configure one of these, but our Aunt Tillie may have some more problems with it.) I enjoy the light footprint that the browser takes up on my screen space, The ad-blocking and pop-up/pop-under general annoyance control are VERY effective, and best of all, just about every website (with the exception of SlashDot... I've heard a fair number of people complain about this) that I visit regularly seems to render properly, and if it doesn't I usually think twice about trying to load it up in a different browser, because often times that means some IE hook for delivering unwanted (in my mind) advertising content to me.

      Oh, and one thing that FireFox shares with Opera is how fast pages seem to load. Sure, I'm theoretically limited by the file throughput, and don't have anything to back up my observations, but FireFox and Opera (Along with Mozilla to a lesser extent) just FEEL fast when rendering pages. I remember this effect MORESO back when I was on dialup. I don't know if Mozillas/Opera try to start rendering before the whole html file is downloaded, or if they do this with displaying partially loaded images, but the feel was just somehow much much faster.

      --
      I'll never make that mistake again, reading the experts' opinions. - Feynman
    11. Re:20 IE Windows?!!! by Noksagt · · Score: 2, Informative
      and don't forget that bugzilla won't let you click through that
      Actually, he uses Opera. There is a decent chance that he's discovered the joys of "Disable Referral Logging." Which would allow him to click-through.
  3. I read this article... by JoeNiner · · Score: 2, Insightful

    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!!!
  4. Office 2004 for PC? by Rosyna · · Score: 2, Funny

    He keeps mentioning things like iCalendar, Office 2004 for the PC and Outlook 2004 for the PC. But I can't seem to find these anywhere? Am i going insane?

    1. Re:Office 2004 for PC? by Rude+Turnip · · Score: 3, Informative

      The Mac versions of Office always have the "year" label 1 year higher than the current Windows version. Office 97 (Windows) = Office 98 (Mac). Same for Office 2000/2001 and Office 2003/2004. Oh...and Office XP/v.X.

    2. Re:Office 2004 for PC? by boaworm · · Score: 5, Informative
      iCalendar is shorted iCal, more info here.

      Office 2004 is the Applized version of Office XP. More info here. Outlook is renamed Entourage btw...

      And... it's probably more correct to say that Office XP is a Windowized version of Office 2004, since much development/innovation at Microsoft is implemented first at their Apple department in California (not in Redmomd like the rest of the stuff). As an example, they tried out a sidebar in IE for Mac. Dont think it ever made it to Windows...


      I wouldnt say you are insane, just that you misread the PC/Mac stuff. Some apple software ends up on win32 though, like iTunes.

      --
      Probable impossibilities are to be preferred to improbable possibilities.
      Aristotele
    3. Re:Office 2004 for PC? by el-spectre · · Score: 4, Informative

      ICalendar is a standard that is cross platform. A whole buncha programs (including Mozilla Calendar/Sunbird) for linux/winders support it.

      --
      "Faith: Belief without evidence in what is told by one who speaks without knowledge, of things without parallel." - A.B.
    4. Re:Office 2004 for PC? by Mattintosh · · Score: 2, Informative

      Microsoft doesn't develop a full Exchange client for the Mac, and it's very unlikely that they ever will.

      Yeah... except for Outlook. Sure, it's the OS9 Office 2001 version, but you didn't specify MacOS X. And you can run it in Classic.

    5. Re:Office 2004 for PC? by batzo · · Score: 2, Informative
      Ummm, actually Entourage does support public folders and shared calendars... (even those e-mailed meeting requests are supported), although you do need Exchange 2000 or above.


      Unfortunately it's not too stable...


      Even mail.app supports public folders as well


      http://www.microsoft.com/mac/products/entourage200 4/entourage2004.aspx?pid=exup2004

  5. Re:Apple = Proprietary by wileycat · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Because it works, very very well

  6. Installing apps by AKAImBatman · · Score: 4, Informative

    Well, to install an application, you simply drag the application's installer to any folder on your hard drive and it's "installed". Doing so actually triggers a number of files to be copied to various places on your drive, but the fact that you are separated from that process, it really made me feel like I wasn't in control of my system. On the flip side, installing and uninstalling applications couldn't be easier. There are no full screen installers to deal with; just drag and drop, and get back to work while the application installs. The fact that I don't know where everything is being copied contributes to my feelings of file system disconnect. Then again, maybe I'm being a bit too philosophical about my OSes.

    He doesn't need to feel so disconnected. All the files are exactly where he put them, nowhere else. Mac applications are actually directories packaged up to look like individual files. All the files he saw copying were just part of the application directory. Nothing to worry about. :-)

    1. Re:Installing apps by Nick+of+NSTime · · Score: 4, Informative

      Further, some Mac OS X applications do have installers. Office 2004 has both an installer and a drag/drop folder. The Office 2004 installer lets you choose to not install certain features. Or you can just drag and drop the folder onto your hard drive.

    2. Re:Installing apps by Manuscript+Replica · · Score: 5, Insightful

      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.

    3. Re:Installing apps by nine-times · · Score: 5, Informative
      Yeah, I'm not entirely sure what he means when he says "Doing so actually triggers a number of files to be copied to various places on your drive..." It just copies the .app folder, right?

      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.

      On the other hand, more and more OSX apps have actually gone to using an install program, including Apple's apps, which I find unfortunate. I like the whole drag-and-drop method of installation.

    4. Re:Installing apps by AKAImBatman · · Score: 4, Insightful

      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.

    5. Re:Installing apps by Gryffin · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Even Mac apps that don't use installers need to put various pereference files, support files and the like in certain directories, such as the user's Library folder. THis is actually done at first launch. The Anandtech guy apparently thought that they were installed when he dragged the app file over; that would creep me out, too, if dragging one one file actually dragged a bunch into seemingly random locations. But the file system isn't that magical; the application just created those files/folders as needed. No mystery here, no need to feel disconnected.

      --
      Learn from the mistakes of others. You won't live long enough to make them all yourself.
    6. Re:Installing apps by cft_128 · · Score: 2, Informative
      It's worth pointing out that you normally do not need to install AT ALL. Not even copy. If an application comes on CD, or is downloaded in a disk image, you can run it right from there, as is.

      The only exception to this is poorly-written games which assume they have write access to their own directory (which may not be the case even if they are copied to writable media-- depending on user access privileges.)

      Firefox also freaks out if you try to run it from its disk image. Not pretty.

      --

      Underloved Movies and Pub Quiz: donotquestionme.org

    7. Re:Installing apps by AKAImBatman · · Score: 5, Informative

      the Start Menu directories (in which "shortcuts"/aliases to directories/folders don't result in navigable file-system menus)

      A fun Mac experiment:

      - Drag an application onto the taskbar. This will create a shortcut. Now move the location of the application. The shortcut will still work!!!

      - Open a text file in TextEdit. Move the file. Make a change to it in TextEdit. Notice that TextEdit doesn't care you moved (or renamed) the file, it writes to the correct place! No more accidentally duplicated files!

      Gotta love the Mac file system! :-D

    8. Re:Installing apps by AKAImBatman · · Score: 3, Informative

      In MacOS, many system folders are totally invisible to the Finder. The "top level" in the Finder isn't the / directory. I don't even know what that is.

      It's all the media mounts. You'll notice that all your drives are listed there, along with any DMG, SMB, FTP, or otherwise mounts.

      Opening your drive will show you the top level, but it hides the Unix directories like /usr, /var, /bin, and /etc.

    9. Re:Installing apps by AKAImBatman · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Aren't DLL supposed to be registered somewhere with pointers to all the apps that use them

      Yep. It's very simple. You're supposed to dump all your DLLs in c:\Windows\System32, then all apps can access them. Amazingly simple and beautiful (*gufaw*) isn't it?

      That's actually where the term "DLL hell" comes from. And now you know, the rest of the story.

    10. Re:Installing apps by drinkypoo · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Aren't DLL supposed to be registered somewhere with pointers to all the apps that use them

      Yep. It's very simple. You're supposed to dump all your DLLs in c:\Windows\System32

      This is not true. You're supposed to put any DLLs that are actually supposed to be shared by applications other than your own into %WINDIR%\System32. DLLs required only by your program are supposed to go into the program's directory, usually "C:\Program Files\Developer\Application". Any DLLs needed by only your programs, but an assortment of them, belong in "C:\Program Files\Common Files".

      The fact that lazy and/or stupid programmers put the files into C:\Windows\System32 is not, repeat not Microsoft's fault. SOME of it might be their fault but I seem to remember the same directory structures were around in Windows 95. Also, in Windows 95+ and NT4+ you can register a DLL anywhere on the system and if the program looks at the registry to find the functionality instead of expecting a DLL to be in the %PATH% then it doesn't matter where it is. In other words there is no reason for any DLL not related to a driver to be in System32, and even drivers don't really need to be there.

      Blaming Microsoft for DLL hell is pretty lame. It's honestly not their fault. Should they have designed the system such that you couldn't put anything in that directory unless it was part of a driver install?

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    11. Re:Installing apps by MeauxToo · · Score: 3, Informative

      Actually, the term DLL hell does not come from where the DLLs are placed on the hard disk, but wacky versioning scheme used by COM to identify which DLL to use. For example, you define an interface, IFoo with a method public int getFoo(), in the bar.dll. When you build the DLL, it will be assigned version 1. You then go about writing your application that uses bar.dll and IFoo. It gets built and deployed to use bar.dll version 1. As you continue to develop, you determine that IFoo needs a doFoodles method so you update the interface and rebuild bar.dll and it gets assigned version 2. Now, you application is looking for version 1, but you want version 2. Furthermore, both versions of bar.dll are in the registery. You have now arrived in DLL hell. Imagine the fun when you aren't developing but instead trying to distribute a version your applications. Your users have bar.dll registered on their system, but your application doesn't work. Oh, now you have to determine if they have the right version of bar.dll. Of course, we move into double prize money when they inadvertantly install the new bar.dll, but not the new version of your application. This versioning scheme is so braindead that even Microsoft gave up on it. These days, when they need to change an interface such as IFoo, they change the name to IFoo2, IFoo3, etc. In summary, DLL hell has nothing to do with where DLLs are placed on the file system, but instead, the braindead versioning notion used by COM and the registry.

    12. Re:Installing apps by NMerriam · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I switched around 6 months ago, and have to agree that this is one of the things that absolutely has impressed me consistently. You can even move a file to the trash while you have it open (deleting a screwed-up MP3 file while it is playing in iTunes, for example).

      I got sick of "that file is open" errors in Windows, especially the notorious AVI "file is in use by an application" bug that's been around for several years.

      --
      Recursive: Adj. See Recursive.
    13. Re:Installing apps by larkost · · Score: 2, Informative

      Well... there is a bit of complexity behind all of this:

      For Aliases (equivalent of shortcuts) both a path and a HFS file id are stored (also a disk id that can include network information... even passwords if you choose). The file id is tried first, and if it fails, then the path it tried. Only after both are tried does the operation fail. All of this is done in low level code, so programmers don't get a chance to screw things up.

      For programs that have open files... then things work this way if you use the Cocoa file handling system. It does all of that work for you, and you never have to notice. It even handles things like atomic-writes, so you never have to deal with that (although as a programmer I wish that it handled re-setting permissions better).

      If you use other API's (Carbon, pure Java, or POSIX) then you get the more "normal" behaviors expected from those systems.

  7. McDate by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    Have McDonalds started selling girlfirends?

    1. Re:McDate by focitrixilous+P · · Score: 2
      Have McDonalds started selling girlfirends?

      We can only wish my friend, we can only wish

      Yeah, I dream about greasy girls covered in cheap pickles and ketchup too.

      --
      SAILING MISHAP
    2. Re:McDate by ajrs · · Score: 4, Funny

      do you realy want to pay money for a McBride?

    3. Re:McDate by Dolly_Llama · · Score: 4, Funny

      Yes, but they come "Super-sized" by default.

      --

      Somewhere, something incredible is waiting to be known. -- Carl Sagan

    4. Re:McDate by the_weasel · · Score: 2, Funny

      There is bound to be a website for you somewhere......

      --
      - sarcasm is just one more service we offer -
  8. Welcome to the club... by trance29 · · Score: 5, Interesting

    i rid myself of all WinTel PC's in my home (still need them for my job)... but since going to the Apple side i have to say i have had pretty painless computing. My Apple iMac just works and the apps that go with it. People argue that it is a single vendor platform but there is something to be said for that. The tight integration between the hardware and software makes things work smoothly. No mucking around with silly patches or resource settings. Personally i feel that Apple will be gaining a lot of ground in the 'market share' department in the next 3 years.

  9. Finally by Nick+of+NSTime · · Score: 3, Insightful

    It's nice to see a respected hardcore site like Anandtech confirm what we Mac users have known all along.

  10. It's good to hear by Iter+Impius · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.

  11. Nice little blurb about Windows... by bburton · · Score: 5, Insightful
    From TFA:
    For starters, heavy multi-tasking management under Windows had caused me a lot of grief... After a certain point, the cramped taskbar became difficult to use as a locator tool, and while I could ALT+TAB forever, I just felt like I was idle for too long. I knew what it was that I needed to get to, and I knew I had it open, but the process of getting to it was a pain.

    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
    1. Re:Nice little blurb about Windows... by mdbales · · Score: 2, Informative

      Even though it's not built in, you can add virtual desktops to Windows XP. You can download the add-on here

    2. Re:Nice little blurb about Windows... by Castaa · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Solution for this problem for Windows users:

      Move your Windows task bar to the left or right side of your screen. (I prefer the left side.) In a vertical task bar configuration you can have 40-50 applications open before the bar 'fills up'. I also turn off 'always on top' so I can get the full use of my screen. This also allows you to set the task bar's horizontal width so you can read the applications' names displayed in the task bar. Clicking on the visible edge of the task bar brings it to the foreground if I need to access any thing on the task bar itself.

      --
      Chew: You Nexus, huh? I design your eyes.
      Roy: Chew, if only you could see what I've seen with your eyes.
  12. Cheaper Macs by Puchku · · Score: 5, Interesting

    While Anand has done an excellant job of descrbing the Mac platform to people like me who have never used a Mac but always wanted to, he does not tell us how a cheaper Mac, say a $1500 Powerbook would compare to a $1500 Windows machine. I am considering buying a Powerbook, but am hesitant because I don't want a $1500 system that feels slower than a $1200 system. So all you Mac users, please help. Is there a significant/noticible difference between a Powerbook which costs $1599 or $1799 and a similarily priced Windows laptop?

    1. Re:Cheaper Macs by brasten · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Puchku,
      I was in the same position you are not too long ago(http://apple.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=04/02 /05/024208&tid=/)

      I ended up purchasing a PowerBook 1.25GHz 15" machine for around $2,600... My experience is basically that the PowerBook FEELS as fast as most notebooks you'd buy in doing every day things (word processing, browsing, email, etc)... the interface is extremely snappy that way, and I rare ever need to run around closing apps to speed your system back up.

      That said, if you plan on doing any extremely intensive processing... program compiling, etc... (that's about it), the raw power behind the cheap is disappointingly slow.

      That said, I haven't touched a Windows machine for a significant length of time since I picked up my PowerBook 9 months ago, and after experiencing the awesomeness that is Apple, I'd rather complain that my Apple is a little slow than be proud that my Windows/Linux laptop is a little fast.

    2. Re:Cheaper Macs by gunnk · · Score: 4, Informative

      If there is one in your area, go to an Apple Store and lay your hands on one. They're really good about letting you try it out there. You can play with it enough to get a feel for whether or not it meets your speed needs. Take a CD with some big docs on them and open them up. Do a little surfing. Check your email. Play with iPhoto and iTunes.

      I have a two year old PowerBook. It's beginning to feel a little sluggish to me here and there. Apps take a couple more seconds to open than I like, but I'm spoiled by having a dual 2Ghz G5 at work. EVERYTHING feels slow by comparison.

      That said, the feature mix on my PowerBook is awesome in a very portable package. A few years ago I bought a dining room table for my computer at the time (a Wintel box) and it's peripherals. Now we have the PowerBook in "office nook" in the kitchen. The size and portability are huge plusses to me.

      Now, if you really need a little more power, consider one of the new G5 iMacs. The housing is VESA-compliant, so you can wallmount it. Add an Airport card, wireless keyboard, and a wireless mouse if you want nothing but a power cord.

      Given the trade-offs, I'd definitely make the same decision to purchase a PowerBook.

      Now, as for comparing Wintel laptops to Powerbooks. I find that much of what makes a computer seem fast or slow is the smoothness with which the OS runs. The G4 chip is not going to perform as well as the newer P4 laptops. However, the OS runs VERY smoothly, so it FEELS more powerful than many Wintel laptops. Animations are silky. Expose provides incredibly slick window management when you have 20 things open in 12 different windows. Multimedia is smooth even when you are busy doing other things.

      Like I said -- go try it! The Apple web site will point you to the store nearest you.

      --
      Life is short: void the warranty.
    3. Re:Cheaper Macs by MalleusEBHC · · Score: 4, Informative

      I'm typing this on a 1.33 GHz 12" PowerBook ($1599 retail, I got it for $1399 on a student discount).

      This Powerbook flies. The 1.33 GHz G4 is damn fast for a mobile chip, i.e. something that won't suck down batteries like an Irishman sucking down Guinness. Maybe more importantly, the FX Go5200 in here allows OS X to take advantage of Quartz Extreme. Let's face it, with a laptop people are generally going to be more concerned with responsiveness than absolute number crunching power. By offloading system graphics to the GPU via Quartz Extreme, OS X is incredibly responsive.

      Through work, I've used some nice (for Dell at least) mid-range laptops. My Mac feels faster in comparison. although I've been a Mac user my whole life so part of it may just be that I'm more comfortable with the system. Either way, I could say for sure that the Mac will not be noticeably slower.

      Also, speed aside, you would be hard pressed to find a Windows laptop that will compare with a Mac on the features to price ratio. I've yet to see a $1600 Windows laptop that comes with a comparable CPU, comparable battery life, dedicated GPU, built-in 802.11g, and built-in Bluetooth while still weighing in at 5 lbs.

    4. Re:Cheaper Macs by Ford+Prefect · · Score: 2, Informative

      Powerbooks can stretch the desktop over an external monitor; iBooks can only mirror.

      Actually, iBooks can do dual-head too... :-)

      The rest of the Powerbook extras do sound as if they'd be potentially very useful for many people, but (apart from the faster processor) I think I'll stick with what I've got. It makes my iBook seem like even better value, but if anyone wants to give me a Powerbook, it'd be more than welcome!

      --
      Tedious Bloggy Stuff - hooray?
  13. Cheaper than Dell by jocknerd · · Score: 4, Informative

    And a comparably equipped Dell will run you about $1000 more. Spec out a PC that has all the features of the G5 and you'll see that the PowerMac is very reasonably priced. When comparing it to the crap Dell and Gateway advertise, yeah it sounds expensive. But those machines are crap.

    1. Re:Cheaper than Dell by Em+Adespoton · · Score: 2, Informative

      Actually, to be the MSDevil's advocate, although the OS X OS is superior in ease-of-use, Apple hardware still falls behind in many of the areas Anand depends upon -- most noticeably in the GPU department. Since the entire OS depends on the GPU, this becomes an issue on macs. You can't buy a comparably equipped Dell, because there are some things that come standard with a Dell that don't ship for the Mac, and some things that come standard on a Mac that don't ship with a Dell. Anand was having problems with the first issue.

    2. Re:Cheaper than Dell by PitaBred · · Score: 2, Informative

      That's assuming you buy apple's line that a G5 and a Xeon/Opteron workstation are equivalent. I have both of them here. I'm pretty impressed with the system on the Mac, but it is by no means fast enough to compete with a dual Xeon/Opteron.

    3. Re:Cheaper than Dell by Llywelyn · · Score: 2, Informative

      * You are comparing a single processor machine with a duel processor machine (compare an Opteron).

      * Your case is not comparable, the G5 case (and internal design) is much nicer.

      * Your RAM type doesn't match what the motherboard supports.

      * DIY vs. Pre-built.

      --
      Integrate Keynote and LaTeX
    4. Re:Cheaper than Dell by HoneyBunchesOfGoats · · Score: 4, Insightful

      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?

    5. Re:Cheaper than Dell by 2nd+Post! · · Score: 2, Informative

      Uh, the cheapest PowerPC G5 I could find on http://store.apple.com is only $1,299.

      And it comes with a 17" LCD

  14. There is a lot of open source software for MacOSX by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

    For those Mac OS X people with Linux envy, there is a lot of open source programs available on http://fink.sourceforge.net/.
    To install fink, you need to give a root account on Mac OS X even though there is an administrator account. Mac OS X does not have a root account as default for security.

  15. Re:Macdate? by RangerRick98 · · Score: 2, Funny

    I'd think up a better reply to your post than this, but my head is still swimming from the irony.

    --
    "You're older than you've ever been, and now you're even older."
  16. I take it... by Beek+Dog · · Score: 3, Funny

    They're not using an Xserve.

  17. Too many windows! by conebrid · · Score: 2, Insightful

    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!

  18. Re:Cost by sgant · · Score: 4, Informative

    You mean for Macs, right?

    Cause I"m sitting here on a AMD 2500+ Barton with 1 gig of RAM, 120 Gig HD, Geforce Video, DVD/CDROM burner all for around $600.

    Built it myself. Sure, it's not a dual processor with DVD burner...but it's fast and stable.

    But I will say that Apple has been consistant with their prices...their top of the line machines have always been around the 3000 mark. But at the moment they only have one machine that's below 1000, and that's with very little RAM.

    Do NOT get me wrong, I LOVE Macs...but you do have to pay a premium to use them and yeah, I think it's worth it. I just can't afford it...yes, I'm poor.

    --

    "Leo Fender was in a 'state of grace' when he designed the Stratocaster." -- Paul Reed Smith
  19. Maybe he should try Mac OS X Server by Gogo+Dodo · · Score: 4, Funny

    We've /.'ed his Windows servers. I've always found the Anandtech site to be rather sluggish. Must be a Windows thing.

  20. thorough and fair by BobWeiner · · Score: 5, Interesting

    I applaud Anand for taking the time to thoroughly put the G5 through its paces. If Apple were still running the 'classic' OS, I seriously doubt Anand would have even bothered to look at the platform, let alone review it. OS X is the main reason why I prefer Macs. It doesn't get in the way of what I want to do. At work, I have a G5 on one side, and a HP XW8000 on the other. Both have their advantage, but as far as OS intuitiveness goes -- the Mac wins hands down.
    The PC Weenies:Tech toons with a byte!

    --
    The PC Weenies: 11 Years of Online Tech 'Too
  21. Well now by Dolphy · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

    1. Re:Well now by AgentFred76 · · Score: 2

      "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."

      Now wait a minute.
      The only thing that sentence proves it that there is WAY too much ignorance as too the change in program availability brought out from the change to OS X.
      That said: I agree wit hthe end statement. I beleieve that it's not evidence of lack of applications, it's proof that old FUD dies hard.

      --
      There is more simplicity in the man who eats caviar on impulse than in the man who eats Grape-Nuts on principle.
    2. Re:Well now by technomancerX · · Score: 5, Informative
      "In short, very few users are debating the worthiness, usability, or power of an operating system these days.

      You're right on this point. However most people could give a damn about flexibility. They want a machine that isn't going to get eaten alive by viruses every other week. Windows does not provide this. Period.

      As for the other points you raise, aside from gaming I have never had a problem finding either hardware or software for my Mac.

      I am also not a Mac zealot, as I use Linux, Windows, and OS X on a regular basis. I have to say for servers Linux wins every time. For games Windows wins every time. For actually getting work done, OS X wins hands down every time.

      --
      .technomancer
    3. Re:Well now by YouHaveSnail · · Score: 5, Interesting

      With Windows, you have no doubts that there is going to be an application out there, already written, somewhere in cyberland...

      Perhaps, but there's no guarantee that it will work very well.

      I'm not talking just about dinky little shareware apps, mind you. I fired up Microsoft Word the other day after not using it very often for quite a while. Word must be the most intrusive program I've ever used! It kept moving text around on me, reformatting it, and telling me that I'd misspelled things. A long look at the preferences failed to reveal a way to turn off many of the features which were getting in my way.

      Unfortunately, Word does the same sh*t on the Mac. But fortunately, most other programs don't. Using both platforms, my feeling is that Mac programs present a much more consistant interface. And there's more than enough Mac software out there that outside a few very narrow, very specialized fields, anyone will be able to do their work on a Mac.

    4. Re:Well now by testcase · · Score: 3, Informative

      It is actually quite simple to find hardware Macs -
      http://guide.apple.com/

    5. Re:Well now by burns210 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      "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."

      I would argue that is the perception, not requirement of needing research that hurts. I have yet to find a single thing I can't do with my mac that I can do with my Windows box. Period. And I knew coming in, the names might be different(Winzip vs. Stuffit Expander) but the functionality is all their.

      The perception of difference and change is what hurts the mac, in my opinion.

  22. 12 pages by bware · · Score: 3, Insightful

    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.

  23. Re:There is a lot of open source software for MacO by Em+Adespoton · · Score: 4, Informative
    Actually, the root account exists; it just has the password disabled. Also, you don't need to install it for fink; sudo works just fine.

    As for linux envy... OS X is a BSD derivative! http://darwinports.opendarwin.org/ and http://gentoo-wiki.com/Gentoo_MacOS are some more ports friendly systems, as opposed to Fink's apt-style system. Maybe "Linux curious" would be a better term ;)

  24. cost versus price by Onan · · Score: 3, Insightful

    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.

  25. Games games games games by vhold · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.

    1. Re:Games games games games by the+pickle · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Will someone explain to me the point of building a $3500 Windows-based gaming system when you can buy a console for 10% of the price and have better graphics, a far bigger screen, a better selection of games, and none of the problems associated with, well, Windows? I mean, when's the last time a PlayStation 2 caught a virus, or needed to have its OS reinstalled?"

      I've never understood this mentality *at all*. I really wish someone could explain it to me, because if someone can explain it to me, maybe they can explain it to Apple.

      p

    2. Re:Games games games games by vhold · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Bigger screen : True

      Better graphics : ... err.. no. PC is still king of graphics. Every time the gap appears to close, it widens radically again. Consoles have the advantage of consistency, they can be sure that it will look the same for every person playing. This is being annoyingly offset by cross platform games that either take a lowest common denominator approach or just release somewhat stripped down inferior versions on the weaker platforms.

      $3500 : Huh? Try less then a 1/3rd of that for a very high-end machine. You can go 1/5th of that for a capable machine. More expensive sure, but it's going to be more powerful then any console, and it's going to be .. well.. a computer too. Web, office apps, email, IM, you know. If -all- you do is play games, then yea, your cost-benefit analysis throws you right into the lap of a console.. unless..

      Better selection of games : Pure opinion. Entire genres aren't even represented on console systems (and visa versa). Consoles don't have anything even remotely resembling the (legal) gaming mod community. I don't argue that consoles are way more carefree, and I also don't argue that Apples are more carefree then PCs. That's my whole point, the PC has a lot of extremely good games you simply won't ever get represented properly on any current console system or the Mac. If it weren't for the PC exclusive games, I most definitely would -not- be running windows.

      There's the possibility that say, 5 years from now, everybody will have these awesome HDTVs, and all consoles will have hard drives ( unlikely, it seems that every console manufacturer is backing off the HD idea ) and with all games running at 720p or higher, the main advantages of PC gaming could potentially evaporate. I honestly don't think it's going to happen. As far as I can tell, the PC's upgradability and modability are going to leave it perpetually on the cutting edge and there's always going to be development houses that are going to knock on that door and consistantly unleash the most technologically advanced games on PC first. More likely then anything, we'll have our awesome high end PCs attached to those awesome HDTVs and PC gaming may hit a new stride must-have-it-ness.

    3. Re:Games games games games by Bud · · Score: 3, Insightful

      The fact that the Mac is not a competitive gaming platform is not a bad thing. On the contrary; only the very best games are ported to the Mac, and when they arrive, 6-18 months after the PC version, they are largely bug-free too. Bottom line: the PC crowd are very good beta testers, weeding out the bad games and the bad bugs.

      A good game is just as good tomorrow as it was yesterday. Write down your personal top-ten list of the all-time best games, and chances are seven of those games have been released for the Mac. Mine is: Tetris, Pirates, StarFlight, Civilization, Descent, Quake, Carmageddon, WarCraft, Halflife and Halo. (Of these, only Halflife is not available on the Mac.)

      I play computer games to relax and get my thoughts off the daily grind, much like others watch TV and still others go to the gym. I spend around 2-6 hours a week on computer gaming. I have no reason at all to complain about the games available to me. The only people who complain about the state of gaming on the Mac are the 0-day dudes, and I think it's mostly because they want to induce envy in their (online) friends. You know who you are, and you're not even close to the middle of the Gauss curve.

      --Bud

  26. A recent switcher by Twid · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Last week, I got my 20" iMac G5 and decided to shut down my Windows box and my debian server and see how it went.

    Moving the Linux stuff to the iMac was a breeze. I was mainly using the linux box for running Squid, for acting as a shell server for IRC, and for a general purpose file server. The iMac does all that and now does easy print sharing for me as well. With BSD under the hood and the power of (a href="http://fink.sourceforge.net">Fink, anyone used to Linux can probably easily move their stuff over to OSX painlessly.

    Moving the Windows files was painless using the built-in SAMBA on OSX. I installed OpenOffice (under X11) for times when I need compatibility, but I'm intentionally staying away from MS Office on OSX for now, just to see if OpenOffice is good enough. I'm giving up gaming on the PC, which I'll miss a little, but I've got a GameCube and PS2 which can get more use now.

    The real strength of OSX is in iLife. My wife really had a lot of trouble with Windows and the complexity of all the different apps we had to use to manage media (ThumbsPlus, Premiere, etc.) With iLife, she can publish or email or get prints of photos out of iPhoto very easily. iChat and iTunes are nice too. I've had quite a few MP3 players, but the iPod plus iTunes is the first one I didn't have to manage for my wife.

    As an aside, the iMac G5 is a beautiful machine too and it's totally silent. Spookily silent. When I walked into the home office after shutting down the windows and linux box, I thought we had a power outage. :)

    I think Anand's review is accurate and very fair. The only thing I would add is just a comment that for anyone non-technical or anyone with a lot of digital media, I think an apple machine makes a lot of sense, especially with the low cost of the new iMacs.

    (disclaimer: apple employee :) )

    --
    - "When you want something with all your heart, the entire universe conspires to give it to you" -Paulo Coelho
    1. Re:A recent switcher by ravenspear · · Score: 3, Funny

      A recent switcher...
      disclaimer: apple employee :)

      You are an Apple employee and you "just switched"?????

      That's it. Upon order of the field of distorting forces of reality, you are hereby commanded to turn yourself in to ye Supreme Ruler of the Universe and Master of All to receive your severance package.

    2. Re:A recent switcher by Mr.+Cancelled · · Score: 4, Insightful

      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.

    3. Re:A recent switcher by Mr.+Cancelled · · Score: 4, Interesting

      The reason for that is the silly mpeg2 royalties. If Windows supports mpeg2 out of the box, that just means the licensing cost is hidden in the cost of Windows itself.

      BUZZ! Wrong Answer. That answer doesn't make any sense to me!

      Whether Windows does or not is irrelevent(sp?) to the arguement! You're saying that this platform, which is known to be on the pricier side of the computer experience, is unwilling to pay for mpeg licensing? Doubtful, and if it's true, then it raises the issue of the Macs price/value even further. Pay more, and get less? I don't like the idea of that (although I'm sure the "Macs are overpriced crowd would love to add it to their collection").

      Then, let us also consider that many of the included applications can output mpeg video. How could they avoid licensing fees for editing the but not be forced to pay for creating and outputting the format?

      It also raises the question of why no 3rd party's stepped forward to offer the codec as an addon for OS X. If the issue were simply licensing, it's a given that someone would be filling this gap and selling an addon to allow this.

      Finally, all of OS X's competition offers mpeg2 output for nothing. Windows, Linux, BeOS even did, if I recall. To me this could be considered "low hanging fruit" to Apple, yet there's no way to do this currently.

      So, not to disagree, but I'm disagreeing with your take on the issue

  27. Re:But I like my apps.... by njfuzzy · · Score: 2, Insightful

    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
  28. True, but FF supports both by xant · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Tabs are nice for a number of usability reasons.
    * The browser window size is predictable; that is, it won't change from one tab to the next, unless you change it for all of them.
    * The browser window location is predictable; same reason.
    * The number of things floating around on your desktop/taskbar is controllable. Having all those browser windows open slows you down in the most common use scenarios.

    OTOH, your point about being able to switch back and forth between web pages is well taken. For that reason, it's still easy to open a new window: right click, new window (same as IE). Middle click is tab by default; I'll bet there's a FF extension somewhere that lets you do double-middle-click as new window.

    --
    It's rare that you're presented with a knob whose only two positions are Make History and Flee Your Glorious Destiny.
  29. Re:Cost by dgatwood · · Score: 4, Informative
    You built it yourself. That's completely different from buying a pre-built machine from a reputable vendor because you don't have the benefits of somebody having spent the time to qualify each of those parts for compatibility. Your cost savings brings with it a significant risk, which might be fine for a geek's home system, but isn't acceptable in most environments unless you are mass-producing your own custom hardware and have the time to do qualification yourself.

    More significantly, that AMD box (albeit lacking in details) seems to have specs roughly equivalent to a G5 iMac, maybe a little faster, but not much. Add a name-brand 17" DVI flat panel to it (you don't mention a monitor for that price), and you're awfully close to the price of the new iMac, without the sleek design, the small form factor, the hardware qualification, or the pre-installed OS. So much for your big savings.

    --

    Check out my sci-fi/humor trilogy at PatriotsBooks.

  30. Oh, way to go, guys! by d_jedi · · Score: 3, Funny

    You've /.ed my favourite hardware review site.
    What else am I supposed to read when I'm supposed to be working??!

    --
    I am the maverick of Slashdot
  31. Oh God... by tacokill · · Score: 3, Insightful

    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?)

  32. A bit underwhelmed by the review... by FortranDragon · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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."
    1. Re:A bit underwhelmed by the review... by jayhawk88 · · Score: 2, Funny

      No, Macs aren't overpriced against other name-brand manufacturers. (I'll grant you that if you build your own and zealously look for bargains you can build a slightly cheaper PC.)

      You really need to stop buying your PC's and PC equipment at Tiffany's.

    2. Re:A bit underwhelmed by the review... by yamla · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Thank you, that is exactly my point. Apple hardware is competitive if and only if you really want all of the hardware they bundle together. Lots of people don't need a DVD-ROM/CD-RW (or want a DVD+-RW) drive. Lots of people don't want a firewire connector. Lots of people already own a monitor and so don't need a built-in LCD monitor.

      Yes, if you want all of that, the Apple bundles are very competitive. Great. But lots of people (and lots of businesses, especially) don't want them. If they decide to go the Apple route, they have to pay for these things anyway.

      Now, had I been arguing feature-richness, your point would be valid. But as I was only talking about price competition, it isn't.

      And by the way, the bottom-end Dell system I priced out came with a CPU much more powerful for our needs (and yes, I'm not just comparing clock speeds) and twice the hard drive space. So while the PC was missing some features from the Mac, the Mac was a lot further down the features scale if CPU power and hard drive space are important considerations. They are for me, they aren't for the average office employee.

      I'm not saying the bottom-end Dell kicks the Apple's butt. But you (third-person) also can't say the bottom-end Apple is superior in every way to a bottom-end Dell as this is clearly false.

      --

      Oceania has always been at war with Eastasia.
    3. Re:A bit underwhelmed by the review... by Gogo+Dodo · · Score: 2, Insightful

      One of the things that was driving me nuts about the article was his apparent obsession with caching and how the excuse for everything being fast was caching ("Mail.app searches fast because of great caching"). It annoyed me that he didn't realize that perhaps the code Apple wrote is just plain fast instead of Microsoft slow?

    4. Re:A bit underwhelmed by the review... by John+Newman · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Speaking of obvious, he complained that Safari doesn't auto-complete URLs. Huh? How can you not notice this feature? Maybe he expected it to auto-complete a URL that he had never visited before? Steve Jobs is still polishing that mind-reading software - look for it in 10.4. But now, Safari even auto-completes terms you type into the Google search box. Every text box on any website you visit auto-completes, too.

    5. Re:A bit underwhelmed by the review... by aristotle-dude · · Score: 2, Insightful
      Fine, stick with the the integrated gfx but the price is still over over 1150USD.

      As for your other comments... do you really expect to be taken seriously? Come on. We are talking about corporate workstations here. I configured the 2.8Ghz base model for that series of "workstation" which is the low end for a small to medium sized business workstations these days.

      Gigabit is cheap these days and not out of line for business users requiring a lot of network bandwidth for multiple data sources with low latency.

      That is the ram IBM provides for this workstation. Are you suggesting cheaping out and taking the risk of buying third party ram to save a few cents and risk spending money on IT troubleshooting and lost productivity?

      Even if I removed the gigabit, it will still be over 1100 USD. I'm not removing the RAM since 512MB is reasonable and "business" users would not nickel and dime things like you are doing.

      You are grasping at straws and trying to compare hobbyist's computers with "corporate" level machines.

      PS. If you suggest XP Home is satifactory for "business" use, I will laugh my ass off.

      --
      Jesus was a compassionate social conservative who called individuals to sin no more.
  33. No shit by Lord+Kano · · Score: 3, Insightful

    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
    1. Re:No shit by Lord+Kano · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Are we talking about the same 15 years? Where Mac OS had cooperative multitasking?!

      Yes, and Apple also had on-board SCSI, built in networking, 3.5" Floppy drives when everyone else still had 5.25" drives, they were never constrained to 640k of memory. No need for XMS, EMS, or "conventional memory", it was all just memory to the Mac OS.

      Remember, until WinNT, Microsoft was using cooperative multitasking as well. ME's task scheduler was a lot better than the one in 95 but it was still cooperative as well.

      LK

      --
      "Hi. This is my friend, Jack Shit, and you don't know him." - Lord Kano
  34. Linux user considering buying an iBook by FleaPlus · · Score: 2, Interesting

    I'm primarily used to running Linux on my desktop, but lately I've been considering buying a laptop. I've heard many good things about OS X, so I'm thinking of buying an iBook.

    I have a question for people who've used both sorts of systems: Are there any features/characteristics of x86 Linux machines that are lacking on OS X machines?

    1. Re:Linux user considering buying an iBook by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Funny

      The "Desktop Sucks Ass" feature is definitely missing from OS X. You'll have to stick with Linux if that is a deal-breaker.

    2. Re:Linux user considering buying an iBook by mdlbear · · Score: 2, Interesting
      Features that Linux has that MacOS X doesn't include:
      • choice of window manager
      • everything runs under X (allowing all programs to be run remotely)
      • support for auto-raise and focus-follows-mouse (the single menubar on top makes click-to-type a necessity and auto-raise a nightmare)
      • multiple virtual desktops by default (there's apparently some third-party extension that gets you this)
      • virtual terminals
    3. Re:Linux user considering buying an iBook by qa'lth · · Score: 3, Informative
      Benefits of MacOSX over Linux/*BSD:

      Everything always looks and acts the same, unless it's a ported OSS app. You have no idea how nice this is, until you've tried it for a month or two.

      It doesn't use X11, so you actually get a consistent, clean UI that actually works.

      Photoshop. No, the GIMP is just a toy, no matter what you think.

      Driver support! They don't offer much, but what they do, works flawlessly. Contrast with spending a week trying to get a Wacom tablet to both a) insert the module correctly into the kernel, and b) get Xf86 to acknowledge it correctly.

    4. Re:Linux user considering buying an iBook by _|()|\| · · Score: 2, Interesting
      Are there any features/characteristics of x86 Linux machines that are lacking on OS X machines?

      If you're the sort of person who lives in Emacs, be aware that the iBook's Ctrl key sucks. I wonder if it's possible to swap Ctrl and Caps Lock.

  35. Web rendering speed by Imazalil · · Score: 3, Informative

    The article actually brings something up that I have always noticed on a Mac (os 9 & X), surfing the web is painfully slow compared to a windows box. I've used IE, Netscape, Opera, everything I could get my hands on, but it is still slower than on a pc. Is this a rendering thing, but it happens in os 9 even more than X? Just curious if anyone out there knows why this is.

    Im.

  36. Re:mac = suckage by Tsiangkun · · Score: 4, Funny

    I just wish the mac had a start menu so I could find the shutdown option.

  37. I (guiltily) like macs for scientific computing by Pausanias · · Score: 5, Interesting

    I'm an astronomer, and my work involves a lot of coding (and running) CPU-intensive C programs, as well as intensive image processing. In the 1980s, a lot of people in our field were using VAX systems, but in the 90's they began switching to Sun/Solaris platforms because of their speed and stability; that's what I used throughout graduate school. In the late 90's, Linux-Intel became a player, because it could offer such a dramatic cost reduction compared to Suns, which were exorbitantly priced (at its most disparate, I believe a Linux-Intel system with comparable performance to a given Sun cost 25% less).

    Now we are at a point where many people at my institute are switching to macs. The top reasons are: 1) Hate to/don't have time to RTFM. Need a situation where hardware you buy just works. 2) High-end mac prices are now comparable to high-end intel prices 3) Any document can quickly be made into a PDF (a standard in our community)

    As a fan of free software, I feel guilty about this. However, I do think many of Apple's products are aesthetically pleasing, and things like iChat works with amazing simplicity. Clearly they put a lot of thought into design, and I agree with a lot of choices they've made, so I feel OK about supporting them.

    I wish Linux would eliminate the RTFM. Some of us just don't have time for that. But I still have an Intel laptop, and I intend to see how far things have come since RedHat 9 by installing sarge when it is out.

    1. Re:I (guiltily) like macs for scientific computing by haberb · · Score: 2, Informative
      3) Any document can quickly be made into a PDF (a standard in our community)
      Creating a PDF shouldn't really be considered the holy grail of an office environment, since there so many Open source programs that can do that already. OpenOffice and PDFcreator come to mind.
    2. Re:I (guiltily) like macs for scientific computing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      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.

    3. Re:I (guiltily) like macs for scientific computing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      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.

    4. Re:I (guiltily) like macs for scientific computing by Queer+Boy · · Score: 2, Informative
      Creating a PDF shouldn't really be considered the holy grail of an office environment, since there so many Open source programs that can do that already. OpenOffice and PDFcreator come to mind.

      You can print to PDF from ANY application in OS X. No need to "convert" or use a specific program.

      --
      Not since Marie-Antoinette played milkmaid has looking simple and honest been so fake and complicated.
    5. Re:I (guiltily) like macs for scientific computing by bware · · Score: 2, Insightful

      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.)

  38. And missing the obvious... by arekusu · · Score: 3, Informative

    Re: "In order to launch the file or open the folder via keyboard, you have to hit Command-Down Arrow (Command-Up Arrow will traverse up a folder tree). This takes a bit of getting used to and if approached with an open mind, you can get used to it in a couple of days, but it can be frustrating at first - especially if you are a keyboard addict used to Windows."

    Very frustrating. Until you figure out how to use Cmd-O.

  39. The biggest problem with OSX... by el-spectre · · Score: 3, Funny

    Is that Mac finally put out a good OS. How am I supposed to sneer at crapintoshes now?

    Oh well... I can still badmouth windows.

    --
    "Faith: Belief without evidence in what is told by one who speaks without knowledge, of things without parallel." - A.B.
  40. Re:Hello, mods... by Twid · · Score: 2, Informative


    Well, I really did just switch. And I really did disclose that I work for Apple. What's the problem? When a big interview with Miguel goes about about what Novell is doing, do you immediately ignore the article because of the inherent bias? "OMG Miguel WORKS for Novell!" :)

    --
    - "When you want something with all your heart, the entire universe conspires to give it to you" -Paulo Coelho
  41. Yet another recent switcher by halosfan · · Score: 5, Funny

    Until about half a year ago, I had never even thought about buying a Mac. Then I broke a bezel on my laptop. Ultimately, that forced me to evaluate every laptop I could get my hands on for durability. A couple months and about $3K later I was a happy 17'' Powerbook owner. The only downside to that was that another couple months later my lady decided she can't live without a Powerbook either...

    And then it occurred to me:

    • 12-inch Powerbook -- $1.6K
    • Memory upgrade -- $100
    • Brenthaven shoulder bag -- $140
    • Not having to support Windows -- priceless
    --
    My only problem with Microsoft is the severity of bugs in their software.
  42. Seconded... by Savage-Rabbit · · Score: 4, Interesting

    I can relate to all of what you said. I used to be a PC/Windows use because of the broad Software selection and ease of use (Point n click has some advantages), I was a also a PC/Linux user because of the stability security powerful server apps etc... OS.X is an acceptable compromise, even on my G4 PowerBook (which incidentally makes any PC laptop I have yet seen look like a brick when you see them side by side). Plus OS.X beats both Linux and Windows hands down when it comes to ergonomics (I am relly hooked on Exposé for example). Another boon is immunity to Worms/Viruses and best of all it integrates 95% into the windows network at work. My only gripe is that I wish Apple would increase the stability of its OS and the Window manager instead of adding so many 'eyecandy' features. In eight months of using OS.X have had one Kernel panic and five window manager crashes which is only marginally better than my experience with Windows XP, considering what I paid for the Mac I expected the stability of OS.X to be greater.

    --
    Only to idiots, are orders laws.
    -- Henning von Tresckow
  43. eMachines vs iMac by copponex · · Score: 2, Insightful

    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.

  44. Ballsy (and wordy) by YouHaveSnail · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

    1. Re:Ballsy (and wordy) by iluvcapra · · Score: 2, Interesting

      the directory structure seems very foreign because it's different from Windows

      This totally awesome Binary Watch on my wrist seems very foreign because it's different from a bullet going through my head.

      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.

      Unfortunately, it probably never occurred to him that if he'd bought a nice $1300 iMac G5, with much lower specs, his user experience would have been just about thew same. Those cycles only come in handy when you're doing compute-intensive stuff. I run a 1GHz G4, even slower still, and get the same kind of Safari/Mail/Word performance he does. I really wish I had a G5 every time I've got 20 audio plugin instances running in my Pro Tools session, along with the obligatory 32 tracks and a DV movie.

      --
      Don't blame me, I voted for Baltar.
  45. True but ... by Savage-Rabbit · · Score: 2, Insightful

    ... 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
  46. If you don't want it opened in a new tab.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

    And want the link opened in the current window instead, do the following:

    In the url bar enter without quote marks "about:config" and hit enter.
    In the filter bar enter without quote marks "new".
    Then double click browser.block.target_new_window so that it is set to "true".

  47. This was for a desktop machine. Try the PowerBook by BAM0027 · · Score: 2, Informative

    Slightly off topic, but I feel compelled to urge Anand on this point.

    I've been using a 12" PowerBook and it's the finest piece of hardware I've ever used. Obviously I haven't tried everything, but between many desktops and laptops, this is the easiest, most usable machine for light-to-medium office work and database development.

    Portable, snappy, painless wireless and bluetooth (out-of-the-box), and OSX. It's just beautiful.

  48. Pedantic Retort by Valthonis · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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"
    1. Re:Pedantic Retort by daviddennis · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Of course the MacOS also comes free with the initial hardware sale.

      You are right that the MacOS is pricey. On the other hand, every release of the MacOS to date has included slick, glitzy features like Expose. And every release of the MacOS has worked better with existing hardware than before.

      For example, I have a PowerBook G4 400mhz. It was the first of the G4 PowerBooks, introduced in January 2001. This system flies under MacOS X Panther. I remember feeling it was sluggish at times when I first bought it but now it feels reborn. That's an OS upgrade that delivers real value!

      In contrast, consider the upgrade from Windows 2000 to Windows XP, which confused the heck out of users by changing the options completely around, and managed to slow down even machines that were lightning fast under 2000.

      Microsoft hasn't introduced an upgrade since XP, not because they're not greedy enough to want our money, but because they have been slow in improving on the now ancient system. I'm not so sure that's a good thing.

      By buying MacOS upgrades, you're financing an innovative development team that continuously produces wonderful surprises. Sure, we have to pay for them, but at least they come, and they delight us.

      That's not so bad.

      D

    2. Re:Pedantic Retort by jjwahl · · Score: 2, Insightful

      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.

      WTF? These are not limitations of XP Home. Anyone can turn off default services and UPnP, uninstall Messenger, etc...
      Stop with the FUD. You're wrong.

      --

      You need people like me so you can point your fucking fingers, and say "that's the bad guy."
  49. BUY RAM by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Informative

    As a Mac user (desktop and laptop), I can tell you that the most important thing you can do is buy ram. You will be surprised at how much faster that 800MHz G3 feels after you put more ram in it. This is especially true if you use Office or Flash (or just like keeping a lot of apps running at once).

  50. Re:mac = suckage by idsofmarch · · Score: 2, Informative

    Then you need to find a different job. I have 2 Powerbooks and an iMac running OSX.3, and I am responsible for several more. They all work, and I have seen 2 kernal panics and only a few application crashes--most of which have been MS Office. If you're system is constantly crashing, you've busted something. As for the trashcan, WTF cares? My machines are extremely stable, fast and allow me and the people around me to get their work done. The iLife suite is unbeatable and the Pro Apps are incredibly easy to use. So, no marketing BS, I like my machines. BTW, how do you train software?

    --
    Anyone who whines about being modded down should be.
  51. Re:Macdate? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny
  52. I Relate 100% to this article by kevn · · Score: 2, Interesting

    I've used many many platforms over the years, but I never owned a Macintosh until a few months ago. I still won't give up my x86 system, but I do like the mac and find myself using it more and more for "simple" tasks like writing a letter for example. It's hard to put your finger on, but the Mac OS is comfortable and friendly in a way Windows XP is not. That said, like the writer I would never give up my REAL computer. kevin

  53. biased and doomed from the start... by ethanms · · Score: 2, Insightful

    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...

  54. Re:Things that make it nice. by WiseWeasel · · Score: 2, Informative

    You can do that in OS X by right-clicking on a file, choosing Get Info (selecting and hitting command-I also works), going to the 'Open with' section, setting an application for it, and if you want it to be a default for that filename extension, hit the 'Change All' button.

    --
    "I like systems, their application excepted", George Sand (French)
  55. Price. Apple's archnemesis. by Amiasian · · Score: 2, Interesting

    This is not a troll, although it may at first seem like that is my intention.

    The biggest barrier to entry for Apple's products has been cost. It's clearly stated in the article as well. There is no way to get around this fact. If you buy a Mac, you pay a premium. And you can argue all you want about how that premium buys you a more reliable and integrated system, but the fact is when 3,500 dollars buys you less than what the competition is hocking, many people are going to be turned off.

    And I find three ways this could go. One, Apple tanks. With the company gone under, I can only hope that they'd fully release OS X to the open source community. Eventually, I'd hypothesize that an Intel clone would be made. With this hypothetical clone, the hardware barrier to entry would be nil. Assuming, of course, emulating Classic could be done at a decent speed. If I recall, OS X itself is highly portable - as were its NeXT predecessors.

    Next solution. Apple designs a tight, Intel box. Or AMD. They use a custom design, but it is an Apple branded machine with Intel inside. This is believed to be a route Apple would never go. But, I'm all for it - if it could be done. There needs to be a vendor who can sell chips to Apple at a low enough price that Apple can reduce their own margins. Heck, sell at a loss even - and play the Microsoft.

    Also, the Mac does need to be pumped as a gaming platform. This isn't as hard as it seems. Hardware wise, currently, no. But for the casual gamer to mid-performance gamer, Apple could easily sway the mindset. It just needs to put some high profile ads out like has been done for the iPod. I'm sure the iMac could fulfill the mid-range gamer's needs and it's a sleek design to boot.

    Now, the third solution - games. With the release of the PS III, X-Box II, and Gamecube all on the PowerPC chipset - the market for these will become so huge that Apple's prices, by scale of economics, will drop. In which case, the barrier is removed.

    In all cases, though, price is the key factor.

  56. Or if he's stuck on IE by Laebshade · · Score: 2, Interesting

    He can use one of the 'browsers' that wraps itself around the IE browser to add functionality. MyIE2, SlimBrowser, etc. come to mind.

  57. These are a few of my favourite Mac UI things... by lamz · · Score: 2, Interesting

    I have been using Macs at home since 1994, but also put in at least 40 hours per week on Windows 2000 at work, and before that, NT.

    Here are the things I notice most when making the daily switch back and forth from Windows to Macs.

    1. On a Mac, when you start typing, the arrow cursor disappears, and doesn't reappear until you move the mouse. I was so used to this feature, that I really noticed its absence in Windows. I was constantly highlighting a word, typing, then having to reach over and move the arrow cursor away from what I had just typed, so that I could see if I typed it right. I watched Windows users in action, and found that they would use the mouse to place the text cursor, then instinctively move the arrow cursor out of their way.

    2. With Macs, background windows are not live until after the first click. Mac people do this all the time: Highlight some text in Document A, then switch to Document B, highlight and copy some text, then switch back to Document A and paste the copied text, replacing the highlighted text. You can't do this in Windows, unless you are very very careful about clicking a non-clickable part of the window. Even then, some Windows apps lose their highlight no matter where you click. Interestingly, MS Excel works like Mac apps in this regard.

    3. Navigating sub-menus. This demos best if you have your Recent Items set to a really high number. From the Apple Menu, you can pull down to Recent Items, then across and down to the item you want. Or you can go directly to the item you want, diagonally across 'open space.' The freaky part is this -- move the mouse straight up and down quickly, and the various sub-menus come and go -- or move the mouse diagonally, and quite slowly, to go directly to an item in Recent Items. Try it, and see how weirdly brilliant the Mac UI can be.

    4. Single-click to get a text cursor. Double-click to highlight a word. Triple-click to highlight a line. Quadruple-click to highlight a paragraph. These shortcuts are almost universal in Mac applications. Unfortunately, recent versions of IE for Windows are so broken that you can't even highlight the text from part of one word to part of another. (This was the final straw that made me switch permanently to Firefox for Windows.)

    --

    Mike van Lammeren
    It will challenge your head, your brain, and your mind.

  58. Why all the noise about gaming? by joebisk · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Every article on the Mac and OS X makes a big deal about the lack of games for the platform. While I agree, what I don't understand is why use your computer for games when there is PS2, XBox and GameCube. These platforms are cheap and there are tons of games for them and the controllers are great. If I want to play a game, I fire up my Xbox or GameCube. Would never even consider using the computer.