Slashdot Mirror
Pros and Cons of Switching From Windows To Mac
It's been a couple of years since Apple ran their Switcher ads — but folks are still making the switch. Rockgod writes to point us to his list of pros and cons after he switched from Windows to Mac recently. From the article: "It took me a long time to be convinced that Windows 3.1 was a better program launcher than X-Tree Gold, but it happened eventually. Since then, I have been a sucker for every upgrade — 95, 98, NT 4.0, 2000, XP... I bought the cheapest Mac available, a Mac Mini with a single-core Intel chip and the minimum of RAM — 512 MB. It cost me AU$949. Since plugging it in, I have barely used my $3000 Windows desktop... All this time later, I have almost exclusively switched to the Mac."
Our company did last year, city of Vienna did, it should work out very nicely for you too. Our former XP users love KDE.
No need to put yourself through pains when you can improve security, save money and achieve a good deal of vendor independence all at the same time. Why exchange overpriced software (Microsoft) for overpriced hardware (Apple), when you can run Free software on the industry standard (and thus inexpensive) hardware?
Knowing everything I know now, I only regret that we did not migrate to GNU/Linux sooner.
Back to the insipid article - yep, I'm on XP, nope I'm not going to Vista. And I'm probably not going to Apple - too much of a pain in the ass for another vendor lockin.
When I get around to it (next year or so, perhaps), I will start playing with linux again and getting Photoshop and Vue to behave on crossover. Until then, XP just keeps on kicking (and rebooting and rebooting).
Well, I have to go know, Zone Alarm wants me to reboot and I really should do something more useful than sit in front of this screen.
Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
This are done slightly differently on OSX than on Windows. Getting used to adequately use OSX takes time and experience. This can be frustrating. It *really* helps if you have friends who can help you make the best out of the OS.
:-).
/. ...). Learn, ask questions. After a time, you'll probably like your mac more than your windows machine. Why? It depends. Generally, it's for the details. The little intuitive things that makes you happier using a Mac.
One simple example. I love Spotlight. This feature changes the way we work with computers. If you switch from Windows and no one told you to try if that feature is for you, than you're missing one potential benefit for switching. Same for many other features. Mail is very good too (I'm an open source fanboy, but hey, I'll use the best free/open tools available
Be curious. Try things. Discover your new OS. Maybe the icons view is not for you and you'll prefer the column view? It's worthed to attend to some Mac User Groups in your area. They'll be able to show you some nice tricks, and, important, answer the questions you have. (oh, there's some great mac-oriented mailing lists for that too)
Switching is *not* that easy, especially if you're not a geek (but since this is
Animoog.org
I'm enticed by the new iMacs -- particularly that juicy looking 24" -- but it would appear that it's impossible to add hardware to those machines. Over the years, I've gotten used to extending the life of a PC by upgrading components like memory, vidcard, etc. I get the impression that few MacHeads do things that way. I'm not sure I could get used to that way of life, since I love to tinker, and it's kept my last desktop machine usable since early 2002 and it's still my main workhorse. I'm guessing that the Pro models are more upgradable, but those prices(!) keep me from making that jump. Has anyone managed to open up a new imac and replace a hdd or the like?
.nosig
Off-topic advice: Never trust the opinion of someone who "never looked back". When did the phrase "I never looked back" become a way to endorse a product? To me, it only says something about the objectivity of the reviewer, e.g. "I joined the Heaven's Gate cult and I never looked back!!!!".
XML causes global warming.
So, I have a 3840x1200 desktop (2x23" displays), and I can move from side-to-side with ~4 inches of mouse movement on the desktop if I move it fast. At the same time, when moving slowly, it's perfectly pixel-accurate. I guess I don't see the problem. FWIW, I have my tracking speed set about mid-way.
As far as I can see, it works in exactly the way you describe as how you want it to work. Not so "retarted" after all... Maybe you need a better mouse ?
Simon
Physicists get Hadrons!
Yeah, and one of the listed pros will still be true! Totally worth it!
I disagree. Polish is the art of making less seem more. It's a time-intensive process and isn't really one geeks do very well - it's that indefinable quality that makes good closed-source software feel good. Don't get me wrong, I'm used to gnome and KDE, and they're impressive efforts, but they've not had hundreds of focus groups full of arts students and old ladies.
I am one of many. My idea is not unique, nor do I expect my voice alone to sway you. I speak in a chorus of opinion.
vain: excessively proud of or concerned about one's own appearance, qualities, achievements, etc.; conceited: a vain dandy.
It's not vain to want a nice GUI. First because people don't usually show their GUI off, it's something they use, unlike say a flashy car or clothes (although those don't necessarily reflect vanity).
A nice GUI is useful to some people. It's not just about the shiny buttons, but it works differently/better. The GUI is part of the function of the software, so to say it's "vain" to want a nice GUI is to say that it's "vain" to want nice software.
And some might say wanting "several hundred dollars in your pocket" is a "vain" act, anyway.
Switching computer hardware isn't the major life change that joining a cult where your every movement is monitored is.
"Never looked back" to me says "completely satisfied" or "can't find any reason to look for alternatives" or "haven't missed anything from my previous situation" or even "see no reason to change". If it's that good, it's that good. We shouldn't have to expend the energy and time to critically examine our OS choices as we do religion. It's just a computer for crying out loud.
Basically "never looked back" is a good enough endorsement for me from someone who doesn't take operating systems as seriously as they do a religion.
Computers are useless. They can only give you answers.
-- Pablo Picasso
I used to use Windows exclusively, with Linux at work when I had to. I recently got a Mac and figured that I'd still use Win32 most of the time. Boy was I wrong.
After using OS X for a few months, I'm very happy to use it *all* the time. My 'favorite' apps--Firefox, PowerPoint, Excel, Word, iTunes, PhotoShop--all run there. After I figured out the OS it seemed slick and easy to use compared to Windows. And the things I like about Unix are all there at the command line when I want them. Now my PC is for games only, and with the amount of hassle of PC gaming, it is second string there to consoles.
-m
When I got my Mac, the control panel and features gave me no problem whatsoever. Very neatly organized, common-sense names..... But when I tried Vista last, the control panel was terrible... Different then XP, but by no means more user friendly. Might have changed since when I tried it (Beta 2 or Pre-RC1), but doubtful....
In undeveloped countries, the consumer controls the market. In capitalist America, the market controls you.
True, isn't the whole point of the article that he is now looking back and comparing the Mac to his old Windows PC?
IBM's OS/2 had that. That was one thing that led to its demise. Ability to use MSOffice fles is fairly useful though. And Vista will have a whole new set of APIs and supporting apps that use them will be a huge task.
Yes, I feel the same way.
I've owned several Macs, and have tried hard to like OS X -- but the advantage just isn't there for me. I haven't had any problems with Windows, and I'm not missing any crucial (or non-crucial) apps.
One thing sticking with Windows (and dual booting Linux) has given me is a greater choice of hardware. I'll admit that Apple is not more expensive if you just want "a computer." Mac Minis and MacBooks are pretty competitively priced. However, I'm looking for more choice in my hardware.
The usually price comparisons between Apple and Dell or Gateway hardware don't work for me, because I don't want a built in webcam, I don't need gigabit ethernet right now, I don't need bluetooth, don't need discrete graphics card etc. What I do want is a very high resolution screen. I'm running 1400x1050 on an HP laptop purchased for $1250 CDN. 1 GB of RAM, DL-DVD burner... didn't skimp on options. To get an Apple machine that runs at a similar (but lower) resolution would cost me $2200. Plus, that second button beneath the trackpad is priceless.
Hardware options are part of the advantage of... not so much sticking with Windows as not using OS X. Productivity would suffer if I couldn't have 2 terminal windows, an editor and a web browser running at the same time.
Anyway, I saw no pros to switching, only the loss of hardware options.
In the same way, MS Windows, if you run simple applications and games, was a very good choice, particularly through the 90's when people were migrating from Unix and Apple had trouble refreshing Mac OS. Now, however, with vista being increasingly delayed and features dropping away, Mac OS X is becoming a very viable alternative. It is here now, it works, it has a time tested CL interface, and in many ways there is much less vendor lock in than with MS. For instance, the OS Update does not require IE, although MS has gotten rid of that limitation in exchange for an update process that insures the User is running a version of MS Windows that MS believes is legitimate.
You know, I am on the other side of the fence. I appreciate MS for allowing a liberal development process which allows quick and dirty coding in the languages I know, particularly C and C++. But I never believed they were capable of producing an OS that would allow me to work without the OS getting in my way too much. Certainly MS Windows NT proved that they could, but it was never so good to make me move from my Mac. It does not look like MS Vista will do so either.
"She's a scientist and a lesbian. She's not going to let it slide." Orphan Black
As someone already mentionned, its a matter of what your time is worth to you.
Example: I built my own machine, AND paid 3000$ for the thing. Obviously at the time it was a total monster in that case. #1 I regreted building it myself, because when shit hits the fan, I had to maintain it. However, thats not my point here. #2 The reason I spent so damn fucking much on a computer, is so I wouldn't have to deal with it. This box is like 4 years old (or something, I didn't keep track) and runs very, very respectably just about everything. Aka: I didn't have to upgrade it in 4 years, and its still an upper tier machine (save for the video card, and the only reason the video card has issues is Nvidia's rediculous DX9's implementation in their first batch of cards). And the way things are going (aside the video card), I still won't have to touch it for at least another year, while still running high end apps like Visual Studio and most games.
That buddy, when you have a busy life, is priceless.
Since a computer is just a tool, it all depends what you want to do.
As a game player and game developer (PC, consoles), using a Mac would be a painful exercise in disaster.
But if it runs all of the applications you want, in a more user-friendly and efficient environment, then why not switch?
Hardware is irrelevant - software rules. The OS is irrelevant, whether it runs the software you want is all that matters.
sig fault
And as for "playing around" with the latest Unix software then fine it's certainly not the demographic that Apple or Microsoft are aiming for.
BTW I work as a Solaris/RedHat admin and each has their own pros and consbut I think all this chat about "well it must be wrong because I do it this way" is all too subjective..
You wish. Not only is that comment not true (Applealready uses it for DRM), it's also short-sighted. Anything Apple wants to do with the TPM is just a software update away.
Why? Because the article tries to imply that Macs are cheaper than PCs. I have a ton of respect for Macs, but they are not cheaper than PCs.
$3000 Windows deskop? I guess it's possible, but $300 windows desktops are far more common. About a year ago I bought a complete brand-new windows system for my brother-in-law for $200 after rebates. It's not the greatest system, but it's perfictly acceptable for ordinary home use.
Now tell me where I can buy a brand-new complete Mac system for under $300?
Despite what the fanboys say, there are just too many things that are irritating or poorly implemented (can you say "Finder?"), and too many places where you're forced into doing things the "Mac way", even if there are better alternatives.
Such as?
I've given this machine a go for a year as my primary machine, and find it slow, crash prone, and often inefficient in the hoops through which one has to jump to do otherwise simple tasks.
Such as?
Added to that is the relative lack of quality freeware and open source apps and utilities (compared to Windows or Linux platforms).
Seriously? What open source app or utility doesn't run on OS X?
In almost every case I was boxed into paying what I considered an overly high price for a commercial app on the Mac.
Such as?
I was required to use a brand new Mac Mini (1.66GHz Core Duo with 512MB RAM) as a research scientist with a major government lab last summer during an internship. My background involves working primarily on Windows XP Pro (on my laptop) and Debian on my desktop in my former research laboratory. I found the Mac to be unimpressive compared to both of my other experiences, and personally, would not ever purchase one for myself or a member of my family.
The rationale for this is broad and based solely on my own user experiences with that machine and with my supervisor's Dual G5 Power Macintosh (with 8GB of RAM, which was nice for the 3D modeling we were performing). I'm not going to troll and say Mac is better for everyone or Windows or Debian is better for everyone, I just think that articles like this are useful for seeing what people like and dislike in an OS. There are some things I like a great deal about each OS - Debian has never... ever... crashed on me (My Mac Mini did it regularly, as did my supervisor's Mac, with the "Sorry, an error has occurred" box popping up in 5 or 6 languages on an almost daily basis) - maybe we both just had lemon hardware, though. Windows is nice because of its broad compatibility and user base for support.
Example: I was trying to burn a DVD using the Mac Mini. I was using some new Memorex 16x compatible DVD+R discs that the lab had purchased. Our lab has a policy of burning the data at a low speed - 1x or 2x - since some IT guy decided it ensures the best chance of a successful write. Anyway, I try to burn the CD using Mac OS's built in software - basically by dragging and dropping files on the DVD, then clicking the "record" button once I'm done. I set the record speed to 1x. The system hums along for about 2 minutes... then pops up with an archaic error: "There has been an error recording the disc. Code 0x981fa192." or something like that. We tried 2 other DVD+R discs. Neither worked. Searched google for the error - couldn't find it. Searched Apple's support site for the error - couldn't find it. Finally, using Yahoo and searching through the archives of a forum (forget its name at the moment) we discovered what the error means: The disc is incompatible with a 1x burn speed, you must select a speed of 2x or higher. That's simplicity for you, I guess. I have other examples of why the Mac still hasn't won me over, and I'd be happy to elaborate on them if anyone is interested. But I knew that if I just posted with a single statement on this OS in particular, people would fire back with more childish comments about "but see how bad it is on Windows or OS/2 or whatever else you want to list!?!?!?" type accusations. I'll be less verbose in talking about the problems with the other two OS's... see:
Example of how I dislike Debian: Try updating anything to the latest version. Period.
Example of how I dislike Windows: Do I really need to list all the reasons?
The point of all this is that with each iteration of the operating systems, features are added, refined, removed, and rethought based on experiences like those had by the author of this article. It's not valid for someone to sit back in their chair and say "This OS (put your favorite OS's name here) is the best one for everyone." It's like saying a particular model vehicle is most fitting for every individual. It's great to see that there is such dedication to the various camps, but I think that sometimes people need to just calm down, look at things rationally, and think about what this means as a whole for the future. It's just childish to post so many "plonk, sounds like you're describing Linux!" or "plonk, sounds like you finally saw the light and experienced the semi-religious conversion to Apple-dom," comments. Grow up, Slashdot.
I agree, the lack of games isn't a con. After all, World of Warcraft runs on Macs, and isn't that the only game anyone is playing nowadays anyway? :P
End of Line.
Based on the article, it's not like his PC was really that old. Given the heavily upgraded, top-of-the-line PC he was using, even if it's was a few years old, and the minimalist Mac (512MB? Jeez...), it's a pretty fair comparison. Actually the hardware edge might go to the PC.
"Ladies and gentlemen, my killbot features Lotus Notes and a machine gun. It is the finest available."
You know, I get more and more sick of postings like this.
No need to put yourself through pains when you can improve security, save money and achieve a good deal of vendor independence all at the same time. Why exchange overpriced software (Microsoft) for overpriced hardware (Apple), when you can run Free software on the industry standard (and thus inexpensive) hardware?
Don't get me wrong, I liked the Linux desktop, but I switched back to Win2k before ultimately moving to OS X. Free software is excellent when it's available. Even on Windows, I used loads of free software. If your company does a lot of office work, Linux is great. I've heard it's excellent for scientific work too. However, exactly how do you do things like desktop publishing, video editing and real graphics work (a la Illustrator and Photoshop). You don't.
Software availability has and will continue to cripple Linux on the desktop. People can scream about "choice" all they want and say, "See, I have 30 browsers to choose from (running a whole 2 rendering engines) and a bunch of IM clients, three office suits and a program that makes a pair of shifty eyes sit on my desktop. I even have two whole major desktop environments to choose from!" Of course, you have zero choices for much of the above mentioned software.
Linux works where it works, but just like Windows or Mac, it's not the be all, end all nor is it a universal solution.
Plus, he calls it "reliable old beige box", that he bought for $3000. I have a $2700 "reliable old beige box", a P4 2.0 GHz, that I bought in 2002. My dad had a $2800 "reliable old beige box", a Pentium 75 MHz, that he bought in 1995.
In other words, it really doesn't matter how much he paid for it. He says it's old. And uh...most new PCs aren't "beige."
If I had a new $3000 PC, there's no way I'd regularly use the Mini instead.
Gnome.
Now, if only it put the file where you actually dragged the text to, instead of in a completely different place that you can't see so you think it didn't do anything.
Which kinda reinforces the original point. Even when Gnome does get the functionality right, the implementation is wrong.
GCHQ Quantum Insert installed. If only our tongues were made of glass, how much more careful we would be when we speak
Polish is not "eye candy". Eye candy is merely flashiness. Polish is everything being intentionally designed, fully thought out, finished. Something can have a lot of eye candy but still be very rough & incomplete. Something can be polished yet very visually simple (though certainly designed). "Eye candy" is often a way to compensate for, or distract from, a lack of polish.
A few good examples of what people mean by polish are in TFA under #8 "Lots of other nice little things". Not a single one of them is "eye candy" they are not even related to visual design at all... but they are exactly what people mean when they say that Mac OS X is polished.
I got a mac last January. I like, a lot, and won't be going back anytime soon.
.mac). .mac page too! Very good!
Nitpicks? I miss "cp -r", "top -i" and iptraf.
As for the GUI, can I have Ctrl-tab back, please? And, when I'm on a 12in screen
I NEED A MAXIMIZE BUTTON THAT ACTUALLY MAXIMIZES. What sick cripplewit thought a
"lets-randomly-resize-and-move-your-window" button was a valid replacement???
Apart from that, I love the way PDF "just works". Spotlight's cool. Expose is very
handy. The mail.app is useable, but could do with better threading. Searchable mail
is a great idea, but when I tried to import my mail archive, about 4GB, it thrashed
for about 4hrs and then exploded. iPhoto's perfect for my snaps (but IPTC support
would be cool, and I'd like to be able to publish to somewhere other than
iTunes sulks if the samba server with my mp3 collection on isn't mounted first;
it tries to play a tune while mounting, but times out and puts a (!) mark as unplayable,
so never does that tune again, leading to library rot.
The whole searchable metadata is *very* nice. I was a 4DOS junkie and love being able
to add my own tags to files. RubyCOCOA is finally a GUI environment that doesn't my
my brain hurt. And I love the way I can sync my Treo and the address/calendar/todo
is on my laptop and I can even get it from my
Overall? 8/10, better than anything else I've tried by a good bit.
(But I really mean it about the maximize button!)
Red to red, black to black. Switch it on, but stand well back.
If that's true, wouldn't it make more sense to spend effort on making actual "more"? Then, instead of just seeming "more," it'll be more.
Web 2.0 == Giant Blogspam Circle Jerk
um, you haven't actually used Linux have you... if you select some things in the file manager and then right click, then one of the things in the actions menu is to create a data CD. In KDE the item uses K3b and with Gnome, it uses Gnomebaker... strangely enough, if you install Gnome or KDE, then the distro usually installs all the necessary software. That's if you're using a sane distro... there are those for diehards where they have to individually select things and find the dependencies, but as I say, those distros are for diehards...
Donald 'Duck' Dunn: We had a band powerful enough to turn goat piss into gasoline.
Go have your memory replaced. I had the same problems with early versions of linux on a pentium1 until I replaced the ram.
Also try ubuntu Linux? I believe there is a powerpc version and Openoffice. From there you can try out the excellent KDE and gnome desktops.
http://saveie6.com/
G5's are IBM, not Motorola.
Motorola switched gears and was targeting the embedded market and no need to move towards something like the G5.
1) Just have your DVD writing program test the files for validity. Guarrantees they're written right. ...
2) Save oodles of time.
3)
4) Profit
I was an intern for the government in a research lab - totally new to the world of the Mac. It was not my place to question long-standing policy on DVD media. I guess we all just figured that Macs are so user friendly, they would only allow a user to choose speeds compatible with the media inserted into the drive. Instead, the Mac produced an archaic error message that was less helpful than the average BSOD on a Windows machine. My fault in expecting a Mac to perform as asked or otherwise respond with a message telling me what is wrong if it is unable to comply. I guess that makes me, not the software, "retarded."
Sorry to say, but you're just the type of Mac user that keeps people who are actually interested in switching, but run into problems with their new Mac experience, from ever becoming a Mac user. It's the typical "Macs work great; say otherwise and YOU MUST BE THE PROBLEM" mentality that has always crippled Apple's campaigns to reach out to users of other platforms.
Apple uses it for locking Mac OS X (their OS) to the computer if that's what you mean by DRM (since the iTunes DRM works on any Mac or PC without the chip)
Apple are currently working with the Bluray/HD-DVD consortia to use the TPM and its facilities for a protected media path.
Despite having such a chip, Apple's probably one of the vendors on the market that's the most philosophically distanced from using the chip the way you fear.
This, of course, is complete horseshit. Apple has no qualms about using the facilities for that purpose. You do *not* need a TPM just to prevent non-Apple PCs from running OSX. It's a massively expensive solution to a very simple BIOS locking problem. Anyone who thinks differently simply hasn't a clue how tech companies assemble their machines. Apple designed the machine around a TPM, for a reason... and that reason is DRM, as shown by its links with the various media consortia.
Other vendors have. The logical thing seems to be to attack them instead.
There's plenty to go around. Apple have jumped onto the Trusted Computing bandwagon before anyone else. And, of course, you competely ignored the point about all the TPM abuse being just a software update away.
Put it this way. Say your system has 100 features, and your "polish" level is such that the average user can understand half of them. Effectively it has 50 features. To reach 70 available features you can either improve the polish to 70%, or implement 40 new features.
And I claim that for the vast majoriy of software, doing the actual "polish" work is much more bang for the buck.
Thanks for the English lesson by the way, it was the cat's meow!!!!
XML causes global warming.