Why Developers Are Switching To Macs

snydeq writes "Programmers are finding themselves increasingly drawn to the Mac as a development platform, in large part due to Apple's decision to move to Intel chips and to embrace virtualization of other OSes, which has turned Mac OS X into a flexible tool for development, InfoWorld reports. The explosion of interest in smartphone development is helping the trend, with iPhone development lock-in to the Mac environment the chief motivating factor for Apple as a platform of choice for mobile development. Yet for many, the Mac remains sluggish and poorly tuned for development, with developers citing its virtual memory system's poor performance in paging data in and out of memory and likening use of the default-network file system, AFS, to engaging oneself with 'some kind of passive-aggressive torture.' What remains unclear is whether Apple will lend an ear to this new wave of Mac-based development or continue to develop products that lock out uses programmers expect."

Comments

Strange Complaints

[AKAImBatman]

Yet for many, the Mac remains sluggish and poorly tuned for development, with developers citing its virtual memory system's poor performance in paging data in and out of memory

As opposed to the Windows paging system? Has the author used a Windows OS lately? Swapping is a *bleeping* killer! Especially when you have more than enough memory not to swap. :-/

likening use of the default-network file system, AFS, to engaging oneself with 'some kind of passive-aggressive torture.

So don't use it. Macs support CIFS/SMB pretty darn well these days. I keep hoping that someone will come up with a better replacement, but CIFS/SMB will continue to work until that day comes.

Re:Strange Complaints

[RocketRabbit]

It's Infoworld. What do you expect? They are a Windows-centric publication.

Re:Strange Complaints

[jo_ham]

I was going to weigh in on this, but maybe I'm the anti-first-post guy, there were no comments when I came back from the article and I was trying to compose my thoughts.

I don't think there's anywhere to go with this other than a biased writer grudgingly writing a story about a platform he hates because he needs to pay the bills this month.

The article makes me want to go through it with the "wikipedia editing brush" like a schoolmaster grading the entries that appear on the site:

"Yet for many [who?], the Mac remains sluggish and poorly tuned for development [citation?].."

Move along, nothing to see here folks.

Re:Strange Complaints

[LWATCDR]

Hey it was one programmer. And frankly if you are having issues with swap put more ram in.

I have to live this line.
"The sting of ka-ching
While the price of Macintosh hardware continues to be competitive with the best commodity laptops and desktops, Apple offers nothing in the rapidly expanding lower tiers. It's possible to build a quad-core PC running Eclipse and Gimp for less than $400 with refurbished hardware. At the time of this writing, the Mac Pro with one quad-core CPU begins at $2,300. Adding Photoshop and other tools can push the bill closer to $4,000."
Okay guess what folks? You can run GIMP and Eclipse on a Mac!
Not only that but it seems a bit unfair to compare a Mac Pro with a refurbished box!
Heck I a not an Apple fan but this seems very slanted to me.

Why do developers like the MAC?
1. It is Unix so if are doing Unix server work this is a piece of cake.
2. It will run Windows, Linux, BSD, and Mac OS/x so if you are going multi-platform on the PC it is the way to go.
3. It will run the Google Phone development stack and the Iphone/IPod stack.
It is just more flexible. Makes me want to get one now.

Re:Strange Complaints

[element-o.p.]

It's Unix-ish. Try compiling X11 (or any of hundreds of other POSIX compliant software packages) from source on a Mac. I'll wait.

Installing X11 from source on any *nix is painful.

Re:Strange Complaints

[vux984]

"Yet for many [who?], the Mac remains sluggish and poorly tuned for development [citation?].."

who? Me, for one.

citation? I agree with that assessment. Mac's are sluggish. There are plenty of theories as to why, from the threading model it uses, to the woeful inadequacies of 'Finder'. Frankly, my gut is that its just the desktop environment and finder itself that suck. Because when you look at benchmarks of optimized applications and servers or big tasks like video encoding etc, OSX tends to hold up just fine... but yet I find every mac I've ever used has always been 'sluggish' to actually use. Its the little things like opening a program, resizing a window, navigating the file system, always feel a bit sluggish... or I'll see the dreaded pinwheel come up and prevent me from doing anything at all time and again for seconds on end.

There are non-'performance' related mac-ism idiocies too... like having a global menu bar instead of a per 'application menu'. (seriously, with large dual monitors, its pretty retarded when you have a 2x2" window down in the bottom right of the 2nd monitor, and you have to go to the TOP of the OTHER monitor, to access its disembodied file menu. It was fine on a sinle 15" or 17" screen... but its just demented on dual 24" displays. Basic HCI defect at this point, imo.

There are a lot of things OSX does REALLY well. But at the same time the rigidity of the platform REALLY can get under the skin of a Linux or even Windows guy who wants to be able to do things a certain (non-Apple) way.

Re:Strange Complaints

[leamanc]

As others have mentioned, it's AFP, not AFS, but the point remains the same. It's slow because it sacrifices speed for goodies like hi-res icons, and remembering icon positions.

NFS is slower yet on OS X, both as a server and a client,

The funny thing is, though, that Mac OS X Server can serve out the same sharepoint over AFP, SMB/CIFS, and NFS. All at the same time. There's no conversion necessary. Just click the checkbox for the protocols you want to turn on. (This includes FTP also.) So why they complain about AFP, when there are other options available with a click of a mouse, is a little puzzling.

Re:Strange Complaints

[Anonymous Coward]

First, if you're really using a mac, you wouldn't say "alt-tab." It's Cmd-Tab.

Second, this has nothing to do with maximizing at all (you rarely ever need to maximize on a mac anyway... it's pretty multi-window friendly). If you minimize a window on OS X, it goes down to the Dock, period. If you want it back, just click on the window in the Dock.

If you didn't want to really minimize it, you could have hidden the application (Cmd-H), and then Cmd-Tabbing to that application or clicking on its icon in the Dock would bring everything back exactly as it was. Or you could put stuff in different spaces. Or you could use Expose to switch between windows.

Same with whether or not closing a window closes the application as well. It's pretty simple... if the application only ever uses 1 window and there's nothing to do when the window is closed, closing the window quits the application. Otherwise it stays open. If you don't like it, you can always Cmd-Q quit everything, which would be the same regardless. And seriously... what are you possibly "fighting" with here? It sounds like you're just compiling a list of old rants, rather than saying anything relevant.

And btw, who seriously installs the update for iTunes on their server? You could just ignore the update (or better yet, delete iTunes from your server... what's it even doing there?)

If you don't like FileMaker, complain to them, or use something else... they're not Apple (yes, I know it's a subsidiary, but it's independently operated).

You're simply used to a Windows paradigm, nothing more. Just because you're used to something one way doesn't make a different paradigm wrong.

Rule of Thumb: 9 times out of 10, if somebody spends their first sentence trying to convince you they're using a specific system they want to criticize, they're probably not using it.

Re:Strange Complaints

[LaskoVortex]

I couldn't reproduce this. Which app?

Because I couldn't do it you must be lying. Glad you're not my tech support guy. Seriously, if I came back at my boss (or client) and said this, I'd be out on my arse, so top marks in customer service.

"Which app?" means "which application?" What I mean to say is which program does this? I'm curious to know. Macs have a lot of quirks. I don't use Spaces because it sucks hard with quirks, so I'm not going to argue with you about the possibility of quirks. In fact, if I could reproduce what you are saying, I'd have fun demonstrating the behavior to my friend who thinks that macs are "just toys". Never mind that my mac mini (aka "The Doorstop") can run circles around his AMD fedora box.

But now that you have copped a defensive attitude, I'm wondering if you aren't just making this stuff up. I actually believed you for a while there. Then I realized that you don't alt-tab through apps in OS X, you command-tab through them--bullshit flag #1. Also, the behavior you mention is reminiscent of something I've observed in windows, where you can minimize a window and not get it back easily. The application just sits in the task bar but has no windows--you can't even "maximize" them into existence. Bullshit flag #2. Also a google for Traffic Office manager os x yields no identifiable results. Bigtime bullshit flag #3. Yup, only *now* that I've had time to contemplate it, I know you are bullshitting. Good try.

The question is whether you think your trollish bullshit is actually amusing, because if there were a plonk file for slashdot, I'd put you right in it.

Re:Strange Complaints

[Malekin]

"On some Apple made apps closing the main windows does not close the app, on others (still made by apple) it does."

Right, and there is a good reason for which one is which. Your point is?

Could you please explain to me the good reasons? Mail, iTunes and iCal don't quit when you close their main window even though these are basically single-window applications. iPhoto, Disk Utility and Calculator do.

Seriously, I'd like to know. I've been using Apple computers since before there was the Macintosh and the logic of it remains utterly opaque to me.

Maybe you can then explain to me why when you click on the controls of an application in the background, three different things can happen: with iTunes the controls work but the application stays in the background; with Quicktime Player the controls work and the application pops to the front and with iCal the application pops to the front but doesn't register the action.

The poor performance may get you down

[Anonymous Coward]

But all that Mac gaming makes up for it.

It is a good middle ground.

[jellomizer]

OS X is really a good middle ground between Windows and Linux. OS X supports many of the Windows Protocols (a lot better then linux in some ways) as well there is a better selection of high quality closed source applications, then linux has. However being Unix based it it is more stable then Windows and less prone to viruses and other malware. Then combined with virtualization you can run Linux OS X and Windows all at the same time for cross testing your code.

It has a clean interface and performs well. You are not fussing with simple stuff. all in all it is good for development. (And the Apple keyboards have extended function keys that makes compatibility with old Vax systems much nicer too)

AFP not AFS

[Anonymous Coward]

AFS is something else altogether.

Apple needs a mini tower not a over priced mini la

[Joe The Dragon]

Apple needs a mini tower not a over priced mini laptop with out a screen in a small box.

The mac pro is nice but $2300 and only a $30-$50 video card?

AIO also are not that good.

Where is the mini tower that can do dual display?

Hard to take someone seriously...

[SuperBanana]

...when they refer to Apple Filing Protocol as "AFS", and it shows that Infoworld has idiot editors. There's nothing except an anonymous programmer's opinion to back up the claims made.

AFP is not strange, twisted, or any sort of barrier for programmers. Over the years, I have found AFP performance (to netatalk) out of the box trounces Samba by almost a 1:2 margin on raw file transfer speed, and 10:1 on directory-intensive operations. It supports international character sets without fuss, and folder/file name restrictions are downright amazing compared to the shit that is SMB/CIFS.

Don't like AFP? Fine. Use SMB (and yes, you can turn off the "annoying dot files".) Or NFSv4. Or SSHFS with MacFusion, making any Unix box you've got a file server with the installation of one package. There are installers for AFS and (I may have this wrong) Coda.

Nice platform, but...

[Daimaou]

I really like developing on my Apple machine for the most part, but it has a few issues that make it less appealing to me than Linux.

Currently, most of the development I'm doing is using Django and PostgreSQL. Installing PostgreSQL and the required Python libraries on OS X is tremendously painful. It was painful on Tiger and Leopard has made it more so. Macports tries to make it easier, but it could use a lot of work/testing/more work.

Installing the same tools on Linux is so easy, a Windows user could do it.

Re:Andrew File System???

[joe_bruin]

The author is a moron. He meant AFP, Apple File Protocol. Macs do not support AFS out of the box.

Re:Apple needs a mini tower not a over priced mini

[sa666_666]

You may 'sigh' yet again, but the reason this keeps popping up is because it's a valid criticism that hasn't yet been addressed. Perhaps it's true that Apple wouldn't make as much money in that particular market; most people don't care! They just want a certain product at a certain price point, and Apple isn't delivering it. Sigh'ing that someone else is complaining about this oversight won't make the problem go away. Apple systems in general are either too underpowered or too expensive. There's no middle ground, and they're losing a lot of business because of it.