I lost TONS of files on the Mac when I stupidly assumed my G3 could have more than 2 HDD's. Hard drive corruption. And lucky me- it picked the drive with all my work on it.
My brother has a Canon. and a Sony. Work great under XP. I didn't even help them, and these are the people who can't remember where they put their files, or identify where the desktop is.:p
I only get insane/angry when someone says "It's a sports car! It's a pickup truck! It flies! It does my laundry! It is pretty colored and gooshy! It is this, it is that, it is better, it is wonderfulitisfabulousitdoeseverythingandmorethanyo urcomputercouldeverdoandtentimesquicker---IT'S OS X!" (*GR*)
I have a Mac, and will always have a Mac. But if I had a Porsche, which Apple users claim to have, I wouldn't start claiming that it did *GREAT* on off-road mountain climbing trips.:p
And UberGeekChick can't get anything to work on OS X.;)
I think that it depends largely on the type of hardware being used. Some hardware is easier to use with Windows, and some is easier to use with OS X. My camera (Logitech Quickcam) works without installing drivers. My brother's DV camera works without installing drivers.
My Quickcam likes OS X for about 10 minutes, then quits with an unexpected error.:p
I'm not saying it doesn't "run great". I'm saying that it is impossible to shut off enough of the GUI effects to make it useable in the same way that Windows is usable.
Windows 95 runs *GREAT* on my 75Mhz laptop. Does that mean it's useable? No way. I find OS X to be the same way. Un-useable. The graphic effects, while most can be turned off, a lot of them can't be. And those that remain slow the GUI down significantly.
I'm not talking about actual speed, I'm talking about workflow speed. It can take two computers the exact same amount of time to do something, but if one allows you to start 5 or 6 other tasks in the time that it takes to complete the first task, it is effectively faster. Windows is BOTH effectively and "actually" faster than OS X and Apple computers.
Ah. I like the Terminal part of OS X. That's the only part I like about it. =] And I have disabled as much of OS X as I can--and even tried really hard to disable parts that I can't.
Luna's easy to disable, and I've even had a bunch of "end user types" ask me how. They've been able to disable most parts of Luna in under 5 minutes (this includes learning what the desktop is, learning how to right-click, etc.)
I dislike Win2k--It runs sluggishly on the same machine that's quite Zippy with XP. It also crashes more.
Honestly, OS X is the first Mac OS I've disliked, and XP is the first Windows OS I've liked.
Hm. Interesting. We experience the same problems, only on different OSes.
My mom's 900mhz Celeron with 128MB RAM runs WinXP fine, and my friend's 500mhz laptop runs it quite well with something less than 300mb of memory.
On the other hand, my 450Mhz G4 with a gig-o-RAM running OS X feels sluggish. Render out a 3D file on each of these machines, and the G4 out-performs the others (PowerPC chips are cool.) But the OS is un-useable.
Why? Because the GUI is bloated.
I'm not saying WinXP isn't bloated in comparision to say... Linux without a GUI.:p It's just quite slim compared to OS X. (Note that I'm refering to WinXP without that dreaded-thing-called-Luna. Anyone who uses Luna is mentally ill.)
I loved System 7, System 8, and System 9. OS X sent me running back to Windows. Anything that slows my computer down that much a.) makes me want to gnaw on the power cord and b.) makes me want to gnaw on the shiny plastic case.
A "Real" windows computer is anything over 500mhz, running Windows 2000 Pro, or Windows XP Pro (preferably XP Pro). Stable, fast, and all around endearing. Of course, for the amount of money it takes to buy a 500Mhz computer these days, you can throw in another $200 and get a low-end Athlon, a great motherboard, and various other stuff.::shrugs::
Funny. To me it sounds like the slipping-in of a USB 2.0 plug, and the 5 seconds it takes for Photoshop to start up.
But, maybe that's because I'm using a REAL windows computer, and not one of those silly Windows-95 computers that were the last computers those Switchers used.;)
Windows is easy to calibrate these days. I say this from experience, while you just repeat Macintosh-hype. My experience with this is more valuable than your opinion. Is a Mac EASIER to calibrate than Windows? Absolutely. Significantly so? Not anymore.
The "Major Advantages" you talk of apply to the PC as well. I can be rendering a 3D scene, surfing the web, burning a CD at 32x (my burner speed), playing a DVD, and futzing around in Photoshop while Norton Antivirus is scanning my HDD in the background. Without noticeable performance decrease. Now, this is on my 900 Duron with 640MB of PC100 memory. Hardly a workhorse of a computer.
The statement that Macintosh Viruses don't exist is true, however with OS X making the market more appealing to geeks, and with the BSD back-end, the system is now more vulnurable to a wide variety of security attacks. Just because it's based on BSD doesn't mean it's got BSD's security. Mac users who believe otherwise are doing themselves a great disservice.
As for the GUI taking up no resources... It definitely takes up resources. There is a minimum amount of RAM needed for computer operation, and if you have less than 400MB of RAM, the GUI often will not function properly. 128 is okay for consumer use, but anything beyond that and you need a lot more. It takes up HDD resources with a basic install of OS X filling up half of a 6GB HDD. It takes up video card resources, pulling them away from the purpose they should be serving--for example, 3D artists will see degraded performance, particularly since there is no professional 3D graphics card for the Mac in the first place. (Granted, Windows takes up a couple of GB of space, as well... Will not be very friendly without at least 256MB of RAM, and if you leave Luna on--as well as being a masochist, you'll lose some of your video card performance. However, Windows uses up less resources across the board.) The Mac, no matter how many or how little resources it uses up, it wastes time on the "polish" and the animation. Windows- you click something and it happens before you're done clicking. The Mac, you click something--it pauses a beat, then it happens in an animated manner. The result? You're more likely to know what you just did, but you're also going to have a slower workflow.
As for functionality... Perhaps you're perfectly happy in OS X, in which case--great for you. As for me, I demand more out of a GUI than OS X can offer me, and Windows satisfies nearly every need.
I'm not telling you to switch. I'm just saying that Apple's claims, to a large degree, are a load of bullshit, I'm not going to switch to them, and I'd happily do an advertisement for Microsoft saying why my G3 and G4 are gathering dust while my PC is in constant use.
I'm never going to get rid of my Mac, it's mine until it's ready for the garbage heap. I love it, and it's wonderful, and it does do some things better than the PC. I just can't use it for too long at a time without being frustrated. Just simple things like surfing the web... Much faster on an old PII running Win95.
Now that I've gotten so far off topic, if you wish to continue the debate, feel free to email me. Although I don't really see the point. Neither of us is going to switch.
They want to make a point, but they don't want to actually harm the users that reside in the U.S. Apparently they hate U.S. citizens much less than the United States Government hates U.S. Citizens.
I'm familiar with Photoshop, both on Mac OS X (and Mac OS 8/9), and on Windows. Photoshop "Feels" nicer on Mac OS9 (Hate it on X), but there is very little functional difference once you get past the 'feel'. Macs are historically better for print work because they had more accurate color, but PCs can easily be calibrated nowdays. Photoshop can easily be handled by either processor, so there is little performance gain on either platform, leaving it largely to preference. Most of the performance gain you see using an x86 computer is in processor-intensive apps, or apps that require a higher-end video card than Apple supports. (ie: 3D.) Windows is also generally faster for day-to-day things because the GUI is snappier, and apps launch faster.
I've never gotten a virus. I update my software regularly, and I use an "intelligent" antivirus software that is able to prevent boot sector modification, and a number of other things that viruses like to do. It also scans incoming email, outgoing email, etc. I have disabled automatic scripting, and a few other preventive measures. Generally, I find it to be very reliable-there is no software of this caliber on the Macintosh. I've found that NAV on the Mac is quite horrid, and often does not launch.
I never said 98 was good, or that the install was easy (although I didn't have any of the problems you describe.) Just that it will install, and be relatively problem-free on a computer I purchase today. Some would say this is a bad thing, but personally I like the choice.
The Windows GUI has some kludgyness, but generally it is functional and gets things done. This is opposed to the OS X GUI, which is "beautiful" (I happen not to like it.) but doesn't get things done in an appropriate or time-considerate manner. OS X also has more kludgies than Windows does at this point. (By "Windows", I mean XP. I'd rather use OS X than WinME.) I didn't say Windows was "beautiful"- I said it was functionally beatiful--meaning it doesn't interfere with my work, it fades into the background and lets me do what I need to do, and doesn't use up large amounts of resources that could be better dedicated to other tasks.
1- Photoshop isn't faster. Certain photoshop filters that have been optomized for the Altivec are faster. There's a difference. Photoshop filters non-optimized for the Altivec are not faster on the G4 than on the Athlon. Most things are not optimized for the Altivec.
2- I've never gotten a virus, neither have my parents (who are total morons when it comes to computers) It's called Norton Antivirus, and it's dirt cheap. There will be viruses for the Mac now that it's on BSD and Apple will be pissing people off left and right by touting its security. Trust me on this.
3- Windows is NOT finished. No OS *IS* finished. Windows is CLOSER to finished, and it behaves like a finished product from the user's standpoint. Besides, every time I boot up my G3 I have a new bug fix, security update, or SOMETHING that needs to be updaed in OS X. Not that fixes and patches are a bad thing. In fact, I like them. It means the OS is getting better.
3- I can't install any of the Windows 3.x series on my computer, but 95, 98, 2k, and ME would happily install if I needed them to. In fact, my computer is a quad boot, with one of the OSes being Windows 98. (I use it for testing)
4- Heh. How can you say Luna is a copy of Aqua? Luna is an atrocious ugly SOB. And it's hardly a copy of Aqua--there were skins that looked like Aqua and Luna far before either Luna or Aqua existed. I don't deny that MS tried to copy, though. I just deny that it was a good idea. I like the Win98 skin in XP. It's functionally beautiful.
5- I think MS was stupid to have a false Ad. Like I said, I could provide them with a LONG list of real people in real occupations including education and graphics who used to be Mac-based but that have moved over.
1- Take a 1.25 Dual G4, put it next to a single processor Athlon 1900+ (which costs a fraction of the price) put Maya, or ElectricImage, or anything that is not a Photoshop filter next to it, and let'er'rip. Sorry, but time-to-render does count as a slightly accurate test of hardware. Yes, Mhz is a myth, particularly when it comes to Pentiums. (heh) But look at the bus speeds, look at the DDR memory that is able to be fully utilized, and look at the video cards. Sure, this is all changing in the near future with Apple getting better, but what they have for sale now is insufficient.
2- As for "finished", ok. Maybe OS X is finished, in which case it's one hell of a shoddy piece of work. OS 9 was finished, but pretty soon no computer sold by Apple will be able to boot into it. I can still install the older versions of Windows on my machines and boot up without issue if I so please. But WinXP IS a finished product, so why would I bother?
It's all about the manner in which things are introduced. I dislike being forced to something that is only partially finished, told that it's finished, and then have it rubbed in my face constantly that it's so perfect, so sleek, so powerful, so next-generation. It's simply not.
OSX is really cool, and if it's simply left at that, I'll smile- joke around, talk about the pros and cons, speculate about where it's going... Just can the hype- hype cries out to be debunked. Apple is moving in the right direction, I'm happy Apple is moving in the right direction. I'm thrilled, excited... And in the meantime (until they get a bit closer) I'm building my own Athlon-based machines, saving my money, and happily anticipating it all from a more stable, more complete platform with my G3 sitting on the desk next to me for me to play with when I feel so inclined.
Heh. One guy pointed out that iPhoto (Or whatever the name of the software was) wasn't released until after Christmas, so that lady who saved Christmas couldn't possibly have used THAT to save Christmas, but then admitted that there were some other options around at the time, so he wasn't necessarily calling her a fake.
It was the same guy that said the Switch ads were doing network admins a *great* disservice by saying that hooking up several Macs was "networking" and it was "easy", because it devalues the profession, and he'd like to see that person plan out a larger LAN, or a WAN with multiple OSes, email, dns servers, etc. etc.
I think the fact that the Apple ads are fluff, and that no one who knows anything about each individual topic will take them as more than "consumer" is enough.
I'd switch my mom to Linux, but after the whole "I deleted my modem" fiasco with her and my sister a year or two ago, I've sworn off tech support for family members. =]That, and the whole concept of "Downloading it to my computer" "Oh, you downloaded it off the internet?" "No, I typed it in from the article I saw in the newspaper" "Err. Mom, that's not downloading."
It's not so much that I'm pro-microsoft (I'll laugh until I cry if someone suggests using it as a server--which should be interesting, seeing as I'm scheduled for more MCSE training sometime this fall.:p) It's more that I'm not Pro-Apple anymore.::shrugs::
Put me on a Linux box with a non-Redhat-modified-KDE, and I'm a happy girl. Otherwise gimme WinXP on a fast Athlon.
Never gotten an arcane error with Windows XP. Got them all the time in 95, 98, ME (horrors, please never subject me to that again) and 2K, but WinXP seems to have evolved out of them. The closest it comes is if there's a Javascript error in a page, it will harass me sometimes to the point of ctrl-alt-del'ing the particular instance of MSIE. But you can kill each instance(window) of MSIE seperately, so you only lose the offending window. I still prefer it over the antialiasing fiasco. Who the hell thought that putting DROP SHADOWS on text on the desktop was a good idea? Bloody hell.
As for shareware apps. Fsck it. I'm not going to pay $130 two or three times for the OS, then pay $7 here and $12 there for shareware apps just to get it to work. The only thing that's missing in Windows that I want (need) is file/folder labling (colors), which I'm actually programming for myself in my spare time. THAT would be worth dropping $30 for. It's one missing functionality--OS X is missing too many. I'd go broke.
No points given back to you for commenting on my cuteness. =] All that matters to me is that you recongize my devastating brilliance. (And overlook my spelling and grammatical errors.)
And hey... Aren't we supposed to be having this argument in email? You're SUCH a guy- always arguing in public. =]
*laughs* Why did MS do something this dumb? I know TONS of people who would do the ad, put their name and face on the damned thing, and have it be real.
"I always wanted to build my own computer." "I wanted a professional quality video card, something Apple just hasn't offered us." "My eyes are very important to me, so the blue-white schema of OS X just had to go."
I'd do it, but I'm originally a PC user who switched to a Mac for a couple of years loved it, upgraded to OS X, then switched back. =]
*A* Mac? I own a couple! =] Only own one PC, though.
Windows has bugs that don't interfere with the work you're trying to get done. OS X has bugs that do interfere. Personally, I want to get my damned work done.
NeXT was nice, Rhapsody was sweet, even if its GUI was a piecemeal. Stick a "Classic GUI" option into OS X, and I'll switch right back over, and not even complain when things don't work right. Hah- I worked on OS 9 and loved it. =]
I won't yell at you, 'cuz I like you.:p But *AGH* people who like Office X are masochists. Loved Entourage on OS 9, moved over to Windows--HATED Outlook. Moved back to OS X temporarily, upgraded to Office X, and promptly uninstalled it and got a refund. Atrocious. IMAP did not work correctly--it did not allow folders to be dragged from the mailbox into the IMAP folder, etc. Office XP is MUCH more functional than Office v.X.
As for Explorer on the Mac, yeah--it's visually pretty. It's also a crippled version of MSIE. It lacks the depth, bredth, and easy workflow of Win-MSIE. It also does not render things in the same way, so sites don't always appear the way they should (Which, granted, is the fault of the site admin for using barfungled HTML in the first place...)
I'll take a Dell laptop over a Powerbook. More processor, less OS X. Although, granted--give me Linux on a Powerbook, and I'll fall over drooling. I like the extra kick of the Dell, but Titanium has sex appeal.
Who knows, maybe the Ad was a fake. Maybe MS pulled it because it was getting slashdotted--haven't you noticed that seems to happen to MS pages that are slashdotted?
As for the X in XP, it's the only thing about XP that copies OS X. XP's the most functional, crash-free OS I've ever met, and the Apps work/run the way they should. Sure, it doesn't have a pretty Aqua interface, but if that was all that mattered, I'd be on a Mac.;)
1- My point was simply what I stated. Anti-aliasing, when turned off, renders the fonts unreadable and unusable on the desktop and in other areas of the GUI where Apple has placed a drop-shadow under the text. Windows gives you the choice of Antialiased "cleartype" text, or non-anti aliased text, and it's readable either way. (Although cleartype is too fuzzy for my tastes, but no fuzzier than OS X's anti-aliased settings.) My complaint isn't about the antialiasing, it's that if you turn it off, the OS looks like shit. On Windows you have the genuine option.
2- Let's see.. The Apple apps look/work fine. The non-apple apps fall into three basic camps (some overlapping). Camp one: They look/work fine, the Aqua theme has been integrated seamlessly, and they are wonderful. (Think BBedit) Camp two: The aqua theme could not be integrated for a number of reasons, and the applications look/feel is altered in a damaging way, and the apps either have not yet compensated, or cannot compensate. (Think any 3D software that has elevational views--the drop shadows OS X adds to every window obstructs the view of other windows. Try turning off the drop shadow? The windows become 2D and you lose all sense of a "window". ) And 3- the "Just flat out DOES NOT WORK with the Aqua GUI" apps such as Office. Yep- Microsoft's product. Which is fine if you don't use Office apps, but if you do you'll run screaming with your sensibilities offended to the max. Then, in all the applications there are sets of bugs that didn't exist in previous versions.
Yes, I use OS X apps. Cocoa, and Carbon alike. I misstated when I said "all apps"- I meant "All apps that I have used on the Mac for years, and have come to depend on".
If I didn't have legitimate complaints, I wouldn't make them up. I can live with a shitty looking GUI-I wouldn't even mind using Luna all that much if it was my only option. I don't complain simply out of asthetic distaste, but out of genuine usability concerns, and out of my distaste for a lack of options. Apple claims OS X is configuration free--and it is. If you try to configure, you run into a lot of issues that can only be solved using third-party hacks (think haxies--how many people do you know that use OS X without?) or that cannot be solved-period.
How is this relevant? You're not voting for a party, no matter what the parties tell you. You're voting for a canidate, and the ideals that the individual canidate promotes, and your faith (or lack thereof) in their abilities to hold their opinions, ideals, and beliefs after they are elected.
Now, if you say "What if I think that everyone thinks the same, and no one thinks like me?" then I'd say don't vote for any of them. Vote on local issues, and vote on laws that effect your life. If a major canidate promotes or defames a particular issue that's close to your heart, then maybe you'll feel justified in voting. Otherwise.. Why bother?
Party lines are figments of the imagination, and have nothing to do with who you should vote for.
*laughs* I wasn't talking about ALL advertising done by MS and Apple, just the switch stories. Apples switch stories irritate the hell out of me, MS's switch stories don't.
I loved "Think Different", and hated "People who flutter around in the sky looking terrified and out of control".
1- Nothing wrong with being consumer-oriented, everything wrong with being deceptive. Apple touts their new OS as being easy to use (the old OS was), a finished polished wonderful product. It simply is not. Folders display improperly, files sort improperly, Anti-aliasing cannot be turned off--decreasing the readability of the text (Okay, it can be turned off, but have you done that and looked at your desktop? There is not an uglier site to see than a drop shadow around non-antialiased text.) Beyond the problems with the GUI, there are also a number of issues with all the apps that now run under OS X. Suffice to say, it's NOT a finished product, and very few apps that run under it ARE a finished product.
2- "Proved wrong"? I was not proven wrong, someone merely disagreed with me on the idea of what constitutes a "real" person vs what constitutes a "fluff". "Proven wrong" would have been giving me the woman's resume as a professional model-for-hire, and proving that the entire story was fabricated bullshit. I was merely disagreed with.
3- It is my real name, legally. On my birth certificate, SS-ID, and various other forms of ID. But thank you for calling my identity into question. Just because someone doesn't agree with your Rose-colored views of Apple doesn't make me a fake, a shill, or a boy-who-calls-himself-girl. And what are you, Mononoke?
*laughs* Yeek. Please call me a guy before you call me a MS Shill. =]
I don't think that my "higher ups" at Microsoft would look too kindly on the fact that I bash MS's security regularly, spend a significant amount of time in Linux, and generally think of MCSE as meaning Micky-mouse Certified Suckers, Etc. (Note I'm saying "generally", as in the majority, not as in all.)
My "kind views" of MS are only when I compare them to Apple.
Apple's selling the Mac-buying public a bridge, and virtual one at that. MS's claims, while quite often faulty and fabricated, at least have a bit more truth than the company that is trying to sell OS X as a finished product. I love the concept of OS X, but it is NOT a finished product. Apple is selling slower hardware at higher prices, running a version 1 operating system. Microsoft is selling an established OS that has more options than you can shake a stick at. Do I love them? No. But their sales literature doesn't smell quite as much like a red herring.
Macintosh "Switch" ads are simplistic, and easy to brush off as being superfluous and consumer-oriented. So what, someone saved Christmas. So what, some chick thinks that OS X is so much more wonderful than Windows 95 (Yes, it is. But has she tried XP?) because it doesn't make her feel like everything's her fault.
This gives a real person, a real story, and real reasons--not just 20-30 seconds of fluff.
I'm not saying that MS products are better than Apple products--just that the advertising is MUCH more intelligent.
Slashdot Mirror
I lost TONS of files on the Mac when I stupidly assumed my G3 could have more than 2 HDD's. Hard drive corruption. And lucky me- it picked the drive with all my work on it.
:p
My brother has a Canon. and a Sony. Work great under XP. I didn't even help them, and these are the people who can't remember where they put their files, or identify where the desktop is.
-Sara
I only get insane/angry when someone says "It's a sports car! It's a pickup truck! It flies! It does my laundry! It is pretty colored and gooshy! It is this, it is that, it is better, it is wonderfulitisfabulousitdoeseverythingandmorethanyo urcomputercouldeverdoandtentimesquicker---IT'S OS X!" (*GR*)
:p
I have a Mac, and will always have a Mac. But if I had a Porsche, which Apple users claim to have, I wouldn't start claiming that it did *GREAT* on off-road mountain climbing trips.
-Sara
And UberGeekChick can't get anything to work on OS X. ;)
:p
I think that it depends largely on the type of hardware being used. Some hardware is easier to use with Windows, and some is easier to use with OS X. My camera (Logitech Quickcam) works without installing drivers. My brother's DV camera works without installing drivers.
My Quickcam likes OS X for about 10 minutes, then quits with an unexpected error.
-Sara
I'm not saying it doesn't "run great". I'm saying that it is impossible to shut off enough of the GUI effects to make it useable in the same way that Windows is usable.
Windows 95 runs *GREAT* on my 75Mhz laptop. Does that mean it's useable? No way. I find OS X to be the same way. Un-useable. The graphic effects, while most can be turned off, a lot of them can't be. And those that remain slow the GUI down significantly.
I'm not talking about actual speed, I'm talking about workflow speed. It can take two computers the exact same amount of time to do something, but if one allows you to start 5 or 6 other tasks in the time that it takes to complete the first task, it is effectively faster. Windows is BOTH effectively and "actually" faster than OS X and Apple computers.
-Sara
Ah. I like the Terminal part of OS X. That's the only part I like about it. =] And I have disabled as much of OS X as I can--and even tried really hard to disable parts that I can't.
Luna's easy to disable, and I've even had a bunch of "end user types" ask me how. They've been able to disable most parts of Luna in under 5 minutes (this includes learning what the desktop is, learning how to right-click, etc.)
I dislike Win2k--It runs sluggishly on the same machine that's quite Zippy with XP. It also crashes more.
Honestly, OS X is the first Mac OS I've disliked, and XP is the first Windows OS I've liked.
-Sara
Hm. Interesting. We experience the same problems, only on different OSes.
:p It's just quite slim compared to OS X. (Note that I'm refering to WinXP without that dreaded-thing-called-Luna. Anyone who uses Luna is mentally ill.)
My mom's 900mhz Celeron with 128MB RAM runs WinXP fine, and my friend's 500mhz laptop runs it quite well with something less than 300mb of memory.
On the other hand, my 450Mhz G4 with a gig-o-RAM running OS X feels sluggish. Render out a 3D file on each of these machines, and the G4 out-performs the others (PowerPC chips are cool.) But the OS is un-useable.
Why? Because the GUI is bloated.
I'm not saying WinXP isn't bloated in comparision to say... Linux without a GUI.
-Sara
I loved System 7, System 8, and System 9. OS X sent me running back to Windows. Anything that slows my computer down that much a.) makes me want to gnaw on the power cord and b.) makes me want to gnaw on the shiny plastic case.
::shrugs::
A "Real" windows computer is anything over 500mhz, running Windows 2000 Pro, or Windows XP Pro (preferably XP Pro). Stable, fast, and all around endearing. Of course, for the amount of money it takes to buy a 500Mhz computer these days, you can throw in another $200 and get a low-end Athlon, a great motherboard, and various other stuff.
-Sara
Funny. To me it sounds like the slipping-in of a USB 2.0 plug, and the 5 seconds it takes for Photoshop to start up.
;)
But, maybe that's because I'm using a REAL windows computer, and not one of those silly Windows-95 computers that were the last computers those Switchers used.
-Sara
Windows is easy to calibrate these days. I say this from experience, while you just repeat Macintosh-hype. My experience with this is more valuable than your opinion. Is a Mac EASIER to calibrate than Windows? Absolutely. Significantly so? Not anymore.
The "Major Advantages" you talk of apply to the PC as well. I can be rendering a 3D scene, surfing the web, burning a CD at 32x (my burner speed), playing a DVD, and futzing around in Photoshop while Norton Antivirus is scanning my HDD in the background. Without noticeable performance decrease. Now, this is on my 900 Duron with 640MB of PC100 memory. Hardly a workhorse of a computer.
The statement that Macintosh Viruses don't exist is true, however with OS X making the market more appealing to geeks, and with the BSD back-end, the system is now more vulnurable to a wide variety of security attacks. Just because it's based on BSD doesn't mean it's got BSD's security. Mac users who believe otherwise are doing themselves a great disservice.
As for the GUI taking up no resources... It definitely takes up resources. There is a minimum amount of RAM needed for computer operation, and if you have less than 400MB of RAM, the GUI often will not function properly. 128 is okay for consumer use, but anything beyond that and you need a lot more. It takes up HDD resources with a basic install of OS X filling up half of a 6GB HDD. It takes up video card resources, pulling them away from the purpose they should be serving--for example, 3D artists will see degraded performance, particularly since there is no professional 3D graphics card for the Mac in the first place. (Granted, Windows takes up a couple of GB of space, as well... Will not be very friendly without at least 256MB of RAM, and if you leave Luna on--as well as being a masochist, you'll lose some of your video card performance. However, Windows uses up less resources across the board.) The Mac, no matter how many or how little resources it uses up, it wastes time on the "polish" and the animation. Windows- you click something and it happens before you're done clicking. The Mac, you click something--it pauses a beat, then it happens in an animated manner. The result? You're more likely to know what you just did, but you're also going to have a slower workflow.
As for functionality... Perhaps you're perfectly happy in OS X, in which case--great for you. As for me, I demand more out of a GUI than OS X can offer me, and Windows satisfies nearly every need.
I'm not telling you to switch. I'm just saying that Apple's claims, to a large degree, are a load of bullshit, I'm not going to switch to them, and I'd happily do an advertisement for Microsoft saying why my G3 and G4 are gathering dust while my PC is in constant use.
I'm never going to get rid of my Mac, it's mine until it's ready for the garbage heap. I love it, and it's wonderful, and it does do some things better than the PC. I just can't use it for too long at a time without being frustrated. Just simple things like surfing the web... Much faster on an old PII running Win95.
Now that I've gotten so far off topic, if you wish to continue the debate, feel free to email me. Although I don't really see the point. Neither of us is going to switch.
-Sara
They want to make a point, but they don't want to actually harm the users that reside in the U.S. Apparently they hate U.S. citizens much less than the United States Government hates U.S. Citizens.
;)
Go figure.
-Sara
I'm familiar with Photoshop, both on Mac OS X (and Mac OS 8/9), and on Windows. Photoshop "Feels" nicer on Mac OS9 (Hate it on X), but there is very little functional difference once you get past the 'feel'. Macs are historically better for print work because they had more accurate color, but PCs can easily be calibrated nowdays. Photoshop can easily be handled by either processor, so there is little performance gain on either platform, leaving it largely to preference. Most of the performance gain you see using an x86 computer is in processor-intensive apps, or apps that require a higher-end video card than Apple supports. (ie: 3D.) Windows is also generally faster for day-to-day things because the GUI is snappier, and apps launch faster.
I've never gotten a virus. I update my software regularly, and I use an "intelligent" antivirus software that is able to prevent boot sector modification, and a number of other things that viruses like to do. It also scans incoming email, outgoing email, etc. I have disabled automatic scripting, and a few other preventive measures. Generally, I find it to be very reliable-there is no software of this caliber on the Macintosh. I've found that NAV on the Mac is quite horrid, and often does not launch.
I never said 98 was good, or that the install was easy (although I didn't have any of the problems you describe.) Just that it will install, and be relatively problem-free on a computer I purchase today. Some would say this is a bad thing, but personally I like the choice.
The Windows GUI has some kludgyness, but generally it is functional and gets things done. This is opposed to the OS X GUI, which is "beautiful" (I happen not to like it.) but doesn't get things done in an appropriate or time-considerate manner. OS X also has more kludgies than Windows does at this point. (By "Windows", I mean XP. I'd rather use OS X than WinME.) I didn't say Windows was "beautiful"- I said it was functionally beatiful--meaning it doesn't interfere with my work, it fades into the background and lets me do what I need to do, and doesn't use up large amounts of resources that could be better dedicated to other tasks.
-Sara
1- Photoshop isn't faster. Certain photoshop filters that have been optomized for the Altivec are faster. There's a difference. Photoshop filters non-optimized for the Altivec are not faster on the G4 than on the Athlon. Most things are not optimized for the Altivec.
2- I've never gotten a virus, neither have my parents (who are total morons when it comes to computers) It's called Norton Antivirus, and it's dirt cheap. There will be viruses for the Mac now that it's on BSD and Apple will be pissing people off left and right by touting its security. Trust me on this.
3- Windows is NOT finished. No OS *IS* finished. Windows is CLOSER to finished, and it behaves like a finished product from the user's standpoint. Besides, every time I boot up my G3 I have a new bug fix, security update, or SOMETHING that needs to be updaed in OS X. Not that fixes and patches are a bad thing. In fact, I like them. It means the OS is getting better.
3- I can't install any of the Windows 3.x series on my computer, but 95, 98, 2k, and ME would happily install if I needed them to. In fact, my computer is a quad boot, with one of the OSes being Windows 98. (I use it for testing)
4- Heh. How can you say Luna is a copy of Aqua? Luna is an atrocious ugly SOB. And it's hardly a copy of Aqua--there were skins that looked like Aqua and Luna far before either Luna or Aqua existed. I don't deny that MS tried to copy, though. I just deny that it was a good idea. I like the Win98 skin in XP. It's functionally beautiful.
5- I think MS was stupid to have a false Ad. Like I said, I could provide them with a LONG list of real people in real occupations including education and graphics who used to be Mac-based but that have moved over.
-Sara
1- Take a 1.25 Dual G4, put it next to a single processor Athlon 1900+ (which costs a fraction of the price) put Maya, or ElectricImage, or anything that is not a Photoshop filter next to it, and let'er'rip. Sorry, but time-to-render does count as a slightly accurate test of hardware. Yes, Mhz is a myth, particularly when it comes to Pentiums. (heh) But look at the bus speeds, look at the DDR memory that is able to be fully utilized, and look at the video cards. Sure, this is all changing in the near future with Apple getting better, but what they have for sale now is insufficient.
2- As for "finished", ok. Maybe OS X is finished, in which case it's one hell of a shoddy piece of work. OS 9 was finished, but pretty soon no computer sold by Apple will be able to boot into it. I can still install the older versions of Windows on my machines and boot up without issue if I so please. But WinXP IS a finished product, so why would I bother?
It's all about the manner in which things are introduced. I dislike being forced to something that is only partially finished, told that it's finished, and then have it rubbed in my face constantly that it's so perfect, so sleek, so powerful, so next-generation. It's simply not.
OSX is really cool, and if it's simply left at that, I'll smile- joke around, talk about the pros and cons, speculate about where it's going... Just can the hype- hype cries out to be debunked. Apple is moving in the right direction, I'm happy Apple is moving in the right direction. I'm thrilled, excited... And in the meantime (until they get a bit closer) I'm building my own Athlon-based machines, saving my money, and happily anticipating it all from a more stable, more complete platform with my G3 sitting on the desk next to me for me to play with when I feel so inclined.
-Sara
Heh. One guy pointed out that iPhoto (Or whatever the name of the software was) wasn't released until after Christmas, so that lady who saved Christmas couldn't possibly have used THAT to save Christmas, but then admitted that there were some other options around at the time, so he wasn't necessarily calling her a fake.
It was the same guy that said the Switch ads were doing network admins a *great* disservice by saying that hooking up several Macs was "networking" and it was "easy", because it devalues the profession, and he'd like to see that person plan out a larger LAN, or a WAN with multiple OSes, email, dns servers, etc. etc.
I think the fact that the Apple ads are fluff, and that no one who knows anything about each individual topic will take them as more than "consumer" is enough.
-Sara
I'd switch my mom to Linux, but after the whole "I deleted my modem" fiasco with her and my sister a year or two ago, I've sworn off tech support for family members. =]That, and the whole concept of "Downloading it to my computer" "Oh, you downloaded it off the internet?" "No, I typed it in from the article I saw in the newspaper" "Err. Mom, that's not downloading."
:p) It's more that I'm not Pro-Apple anymore. ::shrugs::
It's not so much that I'm pro-microsoft (I'll laugh until I cry if someone suggests using it as a server--which should be interesting, seeing as I'm scheduled for more MCSE training sometime this fall.
Put me on a Linux box with a non-Redhat-modified-KDE, and I'm a happy girl. Otherwise gimme WinXP on a fast Athlon.
-Sara
Never gotten an arcane error with Windows XP. Got them all the time in 95, 98, ME (horrors, please never subject me to that again) and 2K, but WinXP seems to have evolved out of them. The closest it comes is if there's a Javascript error in a page, it will harass me sometimes to the point of ctrl-alt-del'ing the particular instance of MSIE. But you can kill each instance(window) of MSIE seperately, so you only lose the offending window. I still prefer it over the antialiasing fiasco. Who the hell thought that putting DROP SHADOWS on text on the desktop was a good idea? Bloody hell.
As for shareware apps. Fsck it. I'm not going to pay $130 two or three times for the OS, then pay $7 here and $12 there for shareware apps just to get it to work. The only thing that's missing in Windows that I want (need) is file/folder labling (colors), which I'm actually programming for myself in my spare time. THAT would be worth dropping $30 for. It's one missing functionality--OS X is missing too many. I'd go broke.
No points given back to you for commenting on my cuteness. =] All that matters to me is that you recongize my devastating brilliance. (And overlook my spelling and grammatical errors.)
And hey... Aren't we supposed to be having this argument in email? You're SUCH a guy- always arguing in public. =]
-Sara
*laughs* Why did MS do something this dumb? I know TONS of people who would do the ad, put their name and face on the damned thing, and have it be real.
"I always wanted to build my own computer." "I wanted a professional quality video card, something Apple just hasn't offered us." "My eyes are very important to me, so the blue-white schema of OS X just had to go."
I'd do it, but I'm originally a PC user who switched to a Mac for a couple of years loved it, upgraded to OS X, then switched back. =]
-Sara
*A* Mac? I own a couple! =] Only own one PC, though.
Windows has bugs that don't interfere with the work you're trying to get done. OS X has bugs that do interfere. Personally, I want to get my damned work done.
NeXT was nice, Rhapsody was sweet, even if its GUI was a piecemeal. Stick a "Classic GUI" option into OS X, and I'll switch right back over, and not even complain when things don't work right. Hah- I worked on OS 9 and loved it. =]
-Sara
I won't yell at you, 'cuz I like you. :p But *AGH* people who like Office X are masochists. Loved Entourage on OS 9, moved over to Windows--HATED Outlook. Moved back to OS X temporarily, upgraded to Office X, and promptly uninstalled it and got a refund. Atrocious. IMAP did not work correctly--it did not allow folders to be dragged from the mailbox into the IMAP folder, etc. Office XP is MUCH more functional than Office v.X.
;)
As for Explorer on the Mac, yeah--it's visually pretty. It's also a crippled version of MSIE. It lacks the depth, bredth, and easy workflow of Win-MSIE. It also does not render things in the same way, so sites don't always appear the way they should (Which, granted, is the fault of the site admin for using barfungled HTML in the first place...)
I'll take a Dell laptop over a Powerbook. More processor, less OS X. Although, granted--give me Linux on a Powerbook, and I'll fall over drooling. I like the extra kick of the Dell, but Titanium has sex appeal.
Who knows, maybe the Ad was a fake. Maybe MS pulled it because it was getting slashdotted--haven't you noticed that seems to happen to MS pages that are slashdotted?
As for the X in XP, it's the only thing about XP that copies OS X. XP's the most functional, crash-free OS I've ever met, and the Apps work/run the way they should. Sure, it doesn't have a pretty Aqua interface, but if that was all that mattered, I'd be on a Mac.
-Sara
1- My point was simply what I stated. Anti-aliasing, when turned off, renders the fonts unreadable and unusable on the desktop and in other areas of the GUI where Apple has placed a drop-shadow under the text. Windows gives you the choice of Antialiased "cleartype" text, or non-anti aliased text, and it's readable either way. (Although cleartype is too fuzzy for my tastes, but no fuzzier than OS X's anti-aliased settings.) My complaint isn't about the antialiasing, it's that if you turn it off, the OS looks like shit. On Windows you have the genuine option.
2- Let's see.. The Apple apps look/work fine. The non-apple apps fall into three basic camps (some overlapping). Camp one: They look/work fine, the Aqua theme has been integrated seamlessly, and they are wonderful. (Think BBedit) Camp two: The aqua theme could not be integrated for a number of reasons, and the applications look/feel is altered in a damaging way, and the apps either have not yet compensated, or cannot compensate. (Think any 3D software that has elevational views--the drop shadows OS X adds to every window obstructs the view of other windows. Try turning off the drop shadow? The windows become 2D and you lose all sense of a "window". ) And 3- the "Just flat out DOES NOT WORK with the Aqua GUI" apps such as Office. Yep- Microsoft's product. Which is fine if you don't use Office apps, but if you do you'll run screaming with your sensibilities offended to the max. Then, in all the applications there are sets of bugs that didn't exist in previous versions.
Yes, I use OS X apps. Cocoa, and Carbon alike. I misstated when I said "all apps"- I meant "All apps that I have used on the Mac for years, and have come to depend on".
If I didn't have legitimate complaints, I wouldn't make them up. I can live with a shitty looking GUI-I wouldn't even mind using Luna all that much if it was my only option. I don't complain simply out of asthetic distaste, but out of genuine usability concerns, and out of my distaste for a lack of options. Apple claims OS X is configuration free--and it is. If you try to configure, you run into a lot of issues that can only be solved using third-party hacks (think haxies--how many people do you know that use OS X without?) or that cannot be solved-period.
-Sara
How is this relevant? You're not voting for a party, no matter what the parties tell you. You're voting for a canidate, and the ideals that the individual canidate promotes, and your faith (or lack thereof) in their abilities to hold their opinions, ideals, and beliefs after they are elected.
Now, if you say "What if I think that everyone thinks the same, and no one thinks like me?" then I'd say don't vote for any of them. Vote on local issues, and vote on laws that effect your life. If a major canidate promotes or defames a particular issue that's close to your heart, then maybe you'll feel justified in voting. Otherwise.. Why bother?
Party lines are figments of the imagination, and have nothing to do with who you should vote for.
-Sara
*laughs* I wasn't talking about ALL advertising done by MS and Apple, just the switch stories. Apples switch stories irritate the hell out of me, MS's switch stories don't.
I loved "Think Different", and hated "People who flutter around in the sky looking terrified and out of control".
-Sara
1- Nothing wrong with being consumer-oriented, everything wrong with being deceptive. Apple touts their new OS as being easy to use (the old OS was), a finished polished wonderful product. It simply is not. Folders display improperly, files sort improperly, Anti-aliasing cannot be turned off--decreasing the readability of the text (Okay, it can be turned off, but have you done that and looked at your desktop? There is not an uglier site to see than a drop shadow around non-antialiased text.) Beyond the problems with the GUI, there are also a number of issues with all the apps that now run under OS X. Suffice to say, it's NOT a finished product, and very few apps that run under it ARE a finished product.
2- "Proved wrong"? I was not proven wrong, someone merely disagreed with me on the idea of what constitutes a "real" person vs what constitutes a "fluff". "Proven wrong" would have been giving me the woman's resume as a professional model-for-hire, and proving that the entire story was fabricated bullshit. I was merely disagreed with.
3- It is my real name, legally. On my birth certificate, SS-ID, and various other forms of ID. But thank you for calling my identity into question. Just because someone doesn't agree with your Rose-colored views of Apple doesn't make me a fake, a shill, or a boy-who-calls-himself-girl. And what are you, Mononoke?
-Sara
*laughs* Yeek. Please call me a guy before you call me a MS Shill. =]
I don't think that my "higher ups" at Microsoft would look too kindly on the fact that I bash MS's security regularly, spend a significant amount of time in Linux, and generally think of MCSE as meaning Micky-mouse Certified Suckers, Etc. (Note I'm saying "generally", as in the majority, not as in all.)
My "kind views" of MS are only when I compare them to Apple.
Apple's selling the Mac-buying public a bridge, and virtual one at that. MS's claims, while quite often faulty and fabricated, at least have a bit more truth than the company that is trying to sell OS X as a finished product. I love the concept of OS X, but it is NOT a finished product. Apple is selling slower hardware at higher prices, running a version 1 operating system. Microsoft is selling an established OS that has more options than you can shake a stick at. Do I love them? No. But their sales literature doesn't smell quite as much like a red herring.
-Sara
It's not copying if they do it better.
Macintosh "Switch" ads are simplistic, and easy to brush off as being superfluous and consumer-oriented. So what, someone saved Christmas. So what, some chick thinks that OS X is so much more wonderful than Windows 95 (Yes, it is. But has she tried XP?) because it doesn't make her feel like everything's her fault.
This gives a real person, a real story, and real reasons--not just 20-30 seconds of fluff.
I'm not saying that MS products are better than Apple products--just that the advertising is MUCH more intelligent.
-Sara