Linked by Adam S on Mon 9th Dec 2002 19:10 UTC
Apple There are certain perennial debates amongst the technical community, constantly revisited with differing outcomes for each person. Linux vs. Windows, KDE vs. Gnome, Mac vs. PC - they are unwinnable arguments, and although the outcome varies overtime with each successive release or new piece of hardware, they consistently gain our attention. When presented with the opportunity to borrow a Macintosh for a little over a month, I jumped at the chance to resolve one of these debates for myself. The question was: Can the Mac replace my PC?
Order by: Score:
Price
by Ernesto on Mon 9th Dec 2002 19:32 UTC

If you consider Macs overpriced in the states lets take a look in European countries.

USA Ibook 700MHz $999
Europe (Spain) Ibook 700MHz same specs as above $1564 !!!!($1349+taxes)

Apple is dropping from 1% market share to 0%. Everybody is leaving the Mac, theres not longer a community and support is also terrible in Europe. Why should I be switching?. If I like Unix I can try dozens of linux distros and BSD.
Apple already disappeared in Europe

same old same old...
by Evan on Mon 9th Dec 2002 19:41 UTC

Sounds as if you didnt really compare it to your PC. Application:Application my mac really outshines my pc in everything but browsers. Every common application I use is just as good or better then a windows counterpart.

I cant let my mother use my pc just because I would have to babysit her for an hour or two, but I bring her my ibook and dialup to earthlink and she can do whatever she wants without my help. Hell, even AOL isnt that bad on OS X, doesnt takeover the system, doesnt use ie, etc. I installed it so my mom would have an easier time checking her email, and its worked out well so far.

That is what I like about OS X, on windows there are tons of crappy applications out there. Many of which carry viruses/spyware/etc that people get tricked into downloading for their new PCs. With a mac, people have almost everything they need out of the box.

I would not spend a dime on the desktop systems personally, the laptops are so far ahead of PCs in power, battery life, and design and are cheaper or similiarly priced.

Europe
by Juan on Mon 9th Dec 2002 19:44 UTC

Europe is not the whole world. I'm not saying that the U.S. is either, but in the U.S. apple is still holding on. The reason you would switch is because of the way that the ui works with the system. Linux/Unix ui's still feel like they are just an extra layer on top of the system and aren't quite to the level of macOS or windows. That being said, I'm writing this on KDE 3.1rc5. KDE is really shaping up.

ernesto:
by Evan on Mon 9th Dec 2002 19:45 UTC

isnt that VAT or something? When I was in spain 2 years ago everything was alot more expensive, I could buy retail clothing in Boston and sell it in spain cheaper then stores and make a tidy profit if I wanted to. The friend I stayed with came back to america to buy his family PCs, 2 laptops and 2 desktops last year.

I think the obscene prices of computers in general there, plus macs being more expensive by default is what your noticing. But im out of touch with spain now so I could be wrong.

Bogus Peeves
by SJS on Mon 9th Dec 2002 19:47 UTC

C'mon, some of those peeves are bogus...

A cable disconnecting in shipping? That's not a reason to be annoyed at the Mac -- there's not much Apple can do about it. What that should have been was a plus, as to how easy it was to open up the case compared to the typical PC.

The lack of a multi-button mouse is another bogus peeve. Although I share the author's dislike of the single-button mouse, the reasoning is quite sensible: new users get mouse buttons confused, and if all you need to do most things is just one button, then provide just one button.

For $20, you can pick up a three-button (well, two button and scrollwheel) Logitech mouse and plug it in and it will work. The power-user would presumably already have one of these already to try out.

The performance issues discussed had me wondering -- I've never had any sort of performance problem with any of my systems. Then again, I'm not enamoured of all things GUI,
and have been known to use TWM under X (no Gnome or KDE) while still Getting Work Done. [A mouse is useful as it lets you select which xterm/Terminal to type in.]

I admit that with all the raves about things Done Right, and the relatively inconsequential peeves, I was quite suprised at the conclusion reached by the author.

RE: Bogus Peeves
by Eugenia on Mon 9th Dec 2002 19:50 UTC

>A cable disconnecting in shipping? That's not a reason to be annoyed at the Mac

On the contrary. We don't know that it was disconnected in the shipping, we just assume so. And Macs supposedly just work! Receiving something that does NOT work, in the first glance, IS a serious peeve.

The real truth
by matt on Mon 9th Dec 2002 19:52 UTC

I love how people pretend they're not "slaves" of one company. Face it, if you MUST have windows installed you are a slave to microsoft. It makes Microsoft work that much harder to win you back by delivering better products, but if you wallow content in what they feed you how will you ever know what you like and dont like? Apple did in about 3 years what the desktop linux camps are still trying to do but havent quite yet in 10 years. We've been so conditioned to think the microsoft way is right that anything different feels wrong, the greater tragedy is not even recognizing it.

re: same old, same old
by lycoris user on Mon 9th Dec 2002 19:53 UTC

"I would not spend a dime on the desktop systems personally, the laptops are so far ahead of PCs in power, battery life, and design and are cheaper or similiarly priced."

where the heck do you live? where i am a laptop of equivalent power will cost you at least 25% more than the desktop. personally, my pc plugs into the wall, so i don't worry about battery life...and ahead in power? i think not.

Yeah...
by matt on Mon 9th Dec 2002 19:57 UTC

> On the contrary. We don't know that it was disconnected in the shipping, we just assume so. And Macs supposedly just work! Receiving something that does NOT work, in the first glance, IS a serious peeve.

But wait you're a badass pc user who builds your own machines, a disconnected cable should not be a peeve. It's not about having your hand held, it's about being efficient and logical in layout and choices. A self proclaimed usability nut should recognize this.

re: doh
by Evan on Mon 9th Dec 2002 20:00 UTC

meant comparable to PC laptops.

RE: Yeah...
by Eugenia on Mon 9th Dec 2002 20:00 UTC

> But wait you're a badass pc user who builds your own machines, a disconnected cable should not be a peeve.

It was easy for Adam to fix it of course (Adam had the machine and the problem, no I). But it is STILL a peeve. Macs are supposed to JUST WORK. No matter how much a power user you are, or not. Online, the only thing you are hearing is how Macs just work. Well, for Adam, it didn't. He had to open the case and fix it! And sending it back was not an option exactly, as we had a deadline for the article.

re: yeah
by Evan on Mon 9th Dec 2002 20:02 UTC

cable not being plugged in is a horrible thing for apple, it goes against the whole just work thing, and NO pc maker calls that an acceptable annoyance.

If it was knocked off in shipping, that still means it wasnt plugged in well.

My "Peeve"
by Fisher on Mon 9th Dec 2002 20:05 UTC

I _HATE_ it when a reviewer slams the freakin one button mouse.. If it is an issue for you, BUY ONE for $10. For me, it takes away so much of the reviews creditability.

However, good points are brought up in the rest of the review. Although the quote, "Built entire domains from scratch" shows a very heavy Microsoft Windows leaning. Also, on my 17inch iMac I notice no slow down in the GUI. Granted I do on my 500mhz iBook. But I would day, KDE is _MUCH_ slower on my Dual 1ghz PC then OSX is on my iBook.

Re: matt
by Darius on Mon 9th Dec 2002 20:12 UTC

if you MUST have windows installed you are a slave to microsoft.

Yes, this may be true, but only because nobody has yet offered up a workable alternative that runs on hardware that I already own.

There's probably at least a dozen applications I use in Windows for which no (functional) equivalents exist for Linux. But on the Mac, things aren't nearly as bad .. there are only about 2-3. Since the Mac has a lot of the audio apps I use on the PC, assuming there was suitable replacement for Streets & Trips 2003 (one of my most often used apps) on the Mac, I could probably make the jump, but I'm not going to pay $900+ in order to 'try it out', so unless I can rent one for a week or two for about $50, the Mac loses by default.

Whee, I'm a switcher.
by Anonymous on Mon 9th Dec 2002 20:12 UTC

I got a 1 GHz TiBook. I'm a UNIX power-user (and programmer), and I find it very hard not to love this machine. Mail.app and especially iTunes are great, mounting NFS filesystems a no-brainer, Chimera is as unbloated as a browser can be and... well it just works. Everything.

Disconnected Cable,
by spider on Mon 9th Dec 2002 20:12 UTC

Come'on, having a cable disconnected could have happened to ANY computer by ANY manufacturer.

The fact that it happened to this Apple is the (un)luck of the draw, while having forty Gateway servers ship to my work, we had the exact same thing happen, I didn't hold it again them.

Eugenia is correct, we can't assertain if the cable was ever connect, poorly connected, or wriggled out during shipping, whatever the cause, there is no need to get all sarcastic and play the 'JUST WORKS' card, there is a real possibility that it wriggled out in shipping which should immediately nullify your 'just works'. How fair would it be if I did a review of a Dell computer and after pouring diet-lemon-coke in it bitched that it didn't work and blamed Dell. It would be unreasonable right? The same applies here: clearly this action is out of Dell's hands as is a [potentially] loosened cable in Apple's shipment.

RE: Yeah..
by ryan on Mon 9th Dec 2002 20:15 UTC

The cable thing is not a big deal. it sounds like an unfortunate abnormality. STuff happens in shipping. I have received PCs with Pci cards that were unseated during shipping. the relevance of the cable is a function of its frequency. If its rare then accept it as such and move on. You can't blame that one on apple.

apple doesnt want that happening
by Evan on Mon 9th Dec 2002 20:22 UTC

no pc company does, simple as that. It will happen, and tends to happen, but You dont want any issues with your product, even as trivial as those.

Great article!
by Anonymous on Mon 9th Dec 2002 20:25 UTC

A year ago, I was think about buy a Mac. But, I didn't buy it after I heard from few articles about MacOS X is slow. That's it, I ain't going to buy it until Apple improve their hardware and MacOS X. The hardwares are kind of behind from PC. People said that they don't care about speed. Sorry, 99% of people do care about the speed, they don't want to wait at each of click or action.

Dribble...
by spider on Mon 9th Dec 2002 20:27 UTC

Sorry, 99% of people do care about the speed

Can you back that claim up with real number please? If you can't then please stop thinking for everyone!

yawn
by ryan on Mon 9th Dec 2002 20:33 UTC

"Sorry, 99% of people do care about the speed"

To an extent but we seem to be beyond that. for instance, PC upgrade cycles keep getting longer. That is solid evidence that speed is less relevant. The apple is fast enough for joe/jane word/web user. Most people these days just yawn everytime intel announces a faster chip.

OS X being Slow
by Kelson on Mon 9th Dec 2002 20:36 UTC

It's kinda funny. Ya'll talk about OS X being so slow, or Macs being so slow. Granted they are a bit slower than a 3ghz P4 running Linux. That doesn't mean they are SLOW, just that they are not the fastest.

None of us say that speed doesn't matter, we say that speed beyond a certain point is not relevant. Sure, it's great to have a box that absolutely flies and has really awesome benchmarks. However, if the box runs smoothly without intrusive delays, that is 'fast enough'.

Oh, and Eugenia, quit being petty on the "Just Works" over a single instance of a disconnected cable. You know that is a ridiculous stance. It in no way refutes the "Just Works" mantra that Mac users tout, it only illustrates that Apple isn't perfect, which we all knew to begin with.

- Kelson

One button mouse
by Spudnuts on Mon 9th Dec 2002 20:39 UTC

One button mouse.

One button mouse.

One button mouse.

Will. You. Get. Off. The. One. Button. Mouse?!

I stopped reading this review once the newbie-lame OBM comment came up. What IS it with Windows users that they ALWAYS mention the OBM? A mouse is a $25 peripheral. Possibly less since most of us have a couple extra mice lying around.

How many of us have ever purchased a different mouse when we bought a Windows system? Yet we don't complain that Windows doesn't support better input peripherals. The issue is not whether the Mac comes with a good mouse or a bad mouse. The issue is whether the OS supports scroll wheel, multiple buttons and of course it does. It has for YEARS.

Complaining about the OBM is like complaining that the license plate holder on your new Porsche carries the name of the dealership.

JUST TAKE THE HOLDER OFF AND DRIVE YOUR FREAKING CAR ALREADY!

$5000 for this Mac set-up and this guy mentions the $25 OBM.

How very typical.

Floppy
by Spudnuts on Mon 9th Dec 2002 20:43 UTC

And it doesn't come with a floppy drive either.

Re: Floppy
by Kelson on Mon 9th Dec 2002 20:46 UTC

People still use those?

- Kelson

Lame review
by Kendall Bennett on Mon 9th Dec 2002 20:46 UTC

I was going to complain about the one button mouse also, but it seems that one has been done to death already. I'm a PC user and even I know that I can plug any old USB 3-button mouse into a Mac and have it work!

But one thing about the review I thought was really lame was the notion that the Mac OSX interface was slow. This was harped upon many times, but when it came to a quantative analysis, he said that it felt 'as fast as' either Windors, KDE or Gnome! So why is that slow? What was he expecting, for the UI to be 3 times faster than Windows?

RE: Lame review
by Eugenia on Mon 9th Dec 2002 20:50 UTC

The problem Adam was describing was the one of the UI responsiveness, not exactly "speed". In the UI responsiveness department, the OSX is much slower thant its PC counterparts.

Re: Floppy
by Anonymous on Mon 9th Dec 2002 20:51 UTC

People still use those?

I do, it's no need to put 30k on the blank CD nor DVD. I do use floppy and zip a lot in the school.

Brand X
by Traal on Mon 9th Dec 2002 20:56 UTC

How do I buy that Workstation 530? There's no "buy now" button.

Out of the Box
by G. Olson on Mon 9th Dec 2002 21:05 UTC

As a dual user (Mac since '85 - PC's reluctantly) I was stunned to hear about the loose cable inside the box. I have never had a hardware problem with Macs - EVER. They work first time, every time. Maybe quality control is slipping. In any case, it shouldn't have happened and Steve would be furious!

I read an article a while back (probably a little over a year ago) about gaming on the Mac. I remember one of the first qualms the author had was the one button mouse... of course he just plainly said, "The first thing I did was rip the hockey puck mouse off the system and hook up a Logitech."

My point would be, yeah, maybe it is only $25, but it's still extra money you have to spend. I mean I COULD live with it, but it's annoying. I suppose if you've grown up using Macs with a one button mouse, then you're used to it, but most people are not. So:

* GOOD for new users
* BAD for PC users (especially long time Unix/X11 users)

Now on the other hand, I have a TiBook and I find the single button trackpad quite nice because I only have one thumb per hand and it make it easier to just leave it on one button. After I learned the keyboard modifiers (Alt/Option + Click = Right click, that sort of thing... though it may be control instead of Alt), it was more than usable.

Didn't Address The Question
by Michael Smith on Mon 9th Dec 2002 21:16 UTC

After reading the article, I concluded that the article was pretty narrow-- even though the author noted towards the end that he babbled liked a brook.

The author never listed the criteria that one should use to decide if the MAC can replace a PC.

Additionally, I don't even know how much time the author spent optimizing his system to suit his preferences.

For example, my A30P notebook handles TrueColor graphics SLOWLY, but 16 bit graphics quickly. It took a driver update and some playing around with the graphics settings to figure this out.

The reason why I still use windows more often than I use Linux is not because one sysem is more useable than the other, but because I have had a historical preference of using one over the other.

I think that it is unfair to expect a MAC to provide an instantly more productive experience than a windows machine.

A similar line of logic would be: You can become an instant artist after buying Adobe's software-- even though you can't sketch squat on paper!

The PC is no miracle cure! When I ?upgraded? to XP, I lost a lot of functionality because the printer driver that was provided by Microsoft was a dumbed down version of the one that was provided by the printer maker who went out of business.

Given the mach underpinnings of the MAC, it will be interesting to see how the MAC evolves! There are interesting possibilities.

If you can keep that MAC for a year, I would be interested to see how your article would be updated once you have some inertia behind you! ;-)

OSX is slow
by Wayne Young on Mon 9th Dec 2002 21:18 UTC

I have a 333MHz iMac and a 400MHz Powerbook. Both have plenty of RAM, around 200 and 400 MB respectively. OS9 runs GREAT, but load up OSX Jaguar, and it is slower. The window resize problem is the main culprit, but startup and shutdown are slower, too. I hate to use the term, but applications "feel" slower. Launch times, file requester dialog boxes, file loading, everything. And some programs just run better in OS9, even the Carbon apps meant to run natively in OSX. So, as someone is bound to spout off, yes I've gone back to OS9 for my primary use, and keep Jaguar loaded for the occasional use.

Is very snappy on my G4 867 SP
by Joshua305 on Mon 9th Dec 2002 21:19 UTC

I expect that the DP doesn't do alot for OS speed as it seems to work adequately on all machines released in the last several years. It seems odd to ignore how it performs on Apps with the DP if you are going to compare it to other machines and platforms. I don't know about most of your "Power Users", bust most people spend alot of time in various Apps. Is it faster, slower, easier to use for the power user overall, isn't that the platform test. Anything else smacks of setting up a straw man...

Responses ...
by Darius on Mon 9th Dec 2002 21:21 UTC

Sorry, 99% of people do care about the speed
Can you back that claim up with real number please? If you can't then please stop thinking for everyone!


Well, there is one thing I know for a fact: If Macs were faster than Windows, the Mac zealots would be all over it. Admit it, you know it's true. The only time speed doesn't matter is when your platform of choice is slower than the others.

PC upgrade cycles keep getting longer. That is solid evidence that speed is less relevant.

PC upgrade cycles are getting longer because the hardware is way ahead of the software at this point. Even XP (when tweaked correctly) runs fine on a low-end P3.

What IS it with Windows users that they ALWAYS mention the OBM?

Coming from the Windows world, we know that having only one mouse button is an abomination. Therefore, since Apple includes a piece of hardware that sucks so much ass as part of the package, we reject the rest of it on principle ;)
Well, not really .. but the OMB thing is pretty bad. I mean, the LEAST they can do is add a f**king right mouse button, unless they don't think Mac users can handle it? And they say Windows users are unintelligent ;)

How many of us have ever purchased a different mouse when we bought a Windows system?

Ummmm, quite a few of actually. I have personally bought 3 MS Intellimousees ... 2 for my computers at home and one for work. I have also owned a Logitech trackball (which I no longer use in favor of the optical mouse)

Complaining about the OBM is like complaining that the license plate holder on your new Porsche carries the name of the dealership.

You're comparing Macs to Porches? LMAO!! At the speed which Macs run, they're more like Segways ;-)

Not a bad review
by Tony on Mon 9th Dec 2002 21:22 UTC

This really isn't a bad review. He is correct that the interface should feel like its on fire it goes so fast (this is the absolute top of the line Mac). He is guessing that it might feel sluggish on a lower end machine, and he would be right. OS X does have some stiff hardware requirements, and for some users (after all, interface sluggishness is somewhat subjective - I have yet to use a computer I didn't wish was faster) it will feel slow. I don't think anyone can argue that Apple needs to have the fastest desktops on the market again - it must really be hurting sales (OS X should be causing a lot more people to buy).

My only real complaint here besides the petty one button mouse thing is the fact that it really doesn't seem like he got that into playing with different things on the machine. It seems like this review could have been written in an hour.

Re: Responses ...
by Chris on Mon 9th Dec 2002 21:32 UTC

The fastest Mac processor is NOT faster than the fastest PC processor, but most of the other parts are EXACTLY THE SAME except for the one thing that sets them apart... Apple uses the higher quality versions of those parts than most PC manufacturers on ALL their systems instead of just their highest end systems.

I have a PC with an Athlon 1.33GHz... it's not even an Athlon XP and it is more than fast enough. I feel absolutely no need to upgrade to a P4 3GHz. As has been said before, speed does matter, but only as long as the tasks that are requested finish in a satisfactory amount of time. From what I've seen, any of the Macs with a 500-600MHz processor or higher, given enough memory (at least 256MB, preferably more) run MOST tasks in OS X fast enough to be satisfactory for most users.

Obviously you have never seen the inside of a Porsche or ridden in one. It's the elegance and high quality parts that make up a Porsche that make it a PORSCHE... they are by no means the fastest cars out there, though they are rather quick. I think comparing a Mac, especially higher end Macs running OS X to a Porsche is a pretty good analogy.

Re: Responses ...
by Eugenia on Mon 9th Dec 2002 21:34 UTC

>Apple uses the higher quality versions of those parts

Hard to believe. The iMac screen for example is terrible.

Re: Darius
by bkakes on Mon 9th Dec 2002 21:36 UTC

Well, there is one thing I know for a fact: If Macs were faster than Windows, the Mac zealots would be all over it. Admit it, you know it's true. The only time speed doesn't matter is when your platform of choice is slower than the others.

This is one of the better comments posted here in a while. You didn't exactly hear "speed doesn't matter" claims back with Apple's shark ads for the G3 PowerBook, the P2-on-a-snail ads, or the G4 "supercomputer" tank ads.

(not that I'm claiming speed is really that important right now; just noticing a humorous trend among the apologists)

Re: Responses ...
by Chris on Mon 9th Dec 2002 21:41 UTC

Hard to believe. The iMac screen for example is terrible.

I suppose there are a few exceptions ;)

Hah
by Rayiner Hashem on Mon 9th Dec 2002 21:43 UTC

I have to say, this is a pretty good, in depth review over all. Much better than the "well, here is how the installation went" reviews you often see. But there are two corrections:

1) The X/Linux mouse issue is history, and has been since the preemption patches were introduced. Now, the situation is reversed. Pound your Linux as hard as you can, and the mouse won't flinch. These days, only way I know compiles are going on in the background is that I can hear the hard drive churning. Windows will work fine under no load, but abuse it and it chokes.

2) Pleaze don't perpetuate the Quartz Extreme hype. QE, in its current form, doesn't accelerate graphics rendering. It just accelerates window compositing. It's not comparable to technologies like EVAS or the Longhorn D3D GUI.

As for the cable and one button mouse thing. As Eugenia likes to say, defaults matter, defaults matter, defaults matter!

im a switcher pc's are garbage
by Ahron on Mon 9th Dec 2002 21:43 UTC

im a network admin and i agree pc's are trash, i used them forever and dissed mac's before i actually got to use one for more than school work . i have a powermac 350mhz overclocked to 400 and i have a gig of ram, that 400 blows my 1.8 ghz athlon xp machine away so i sold it. i can do way more on my ppc with alot less hassle. i tryed not to use windows on my pc but its not a easy thing to do in the pc world, ive now been without windows for almost a year and life is grand i run all the latest apps at much higher speed and get alot more done without filling mr gates pockets. i am impressed with mac os X wich is my secoundary OS only because i am addicted to linux and i love playing with gentoo, but i still can do more in my mac OS than my main os i can ever compile free BSD ports and have them running side by side with my mac apps, i could also install a windows OS if i was retarded but i am not, id like to see someone get os X 10.2 linux gentoo debian yellow dog mandrake and windows all running on a PC its just not a option

Just thought of something
by Rayiner Hashem on Mon 9th Dec 2002 21:44 UTC

How can anybody who knows how to drive, which requires differentiating pedals, confuse the two mouse buttons? Seriously, I doubt people are that stupid...

Re: Mac feels slow!!
by anonymous on Mon 9th Dec 2002 21:45 UTC

Seems like a fair review. I use Macs and I don't worry or fret about my Mac's speed (733 Mhz)running Os X 10.1.5. However, go ahead read this hilarious piece on Crazy Apple Rumors Site (many other really funny pieces as well) (www.crazyapplerumors.com):

"Apple Ad Campaign To Highlight Slow Processor Speeds.

As Apple has come to terms with the fact that it will not catch up to processor speeds from Intel and AMD, it has decided to market the slower speeds of the PowerPC as a feature.

A new advertising campaign will employ such catch-phrases as "Slow down!", "What's your hurry?" and "Where's the fire?"

In one planned commercial, a child comes to his father complaining "Daddy this PC is too fast. It's making my head hurt!"

The pair are then seen shopping at the Apple Store where they select a bottom-of-the-line iMac running at 700 MHz. The happy child is shown at home watching the color wheel spin while attempting to rename a file in the Finder.

"We feel there's a significant untapped portion of the senior citizen community who have been put off by these fast computers," Apple Public Relations representative Cynthia McLaren said. "If we can tap into that market, we believe we can grow our market share.

"Hell, it's worth a shot. It's not like there's anything we can do about it for the time being anyway.

"Until we get that AMD deal. But you didn't hear that from me."

Apple has also created a series of Switch ads targeted at seniors, including one by retiring Senator Strom Thurmond.

According to sources within Apple, in the ad Thurmond says "I like things slow. So slow that I opposed the civil rights movement for years! That's why I switched to a 700 MHz G3 iBook. It's the slowest consumer computer you can get these days."

Thurmond also indicates that while using a PC he lost some key legislation.

"It was really good legislation," Thurmond says.

Apple is expected to kick off the new ad campaign at January's Macworld.""

-----------
Cheers

Re: Responses .
by ryan on Mon 9th Dec 2002 21:48 UTC

"PC upgrade cycles are getting longer because the hardware is way ahead of the software at this point. Even XP (when tweaked correctly) runs fine on a low-end P3. "

What are you saying that we need more bloated software? Or are you saying that we need more software/applications to take advantage of the processor speed or both.

Regardless, upgrade cycles are getting longer because the value of upgrading it does not justify doing so. Another way to say that is that PCs are already fast enough for the current set of applications. Winblows might change that with an ever more bloated OS but even the new OS's are recieving a yawn. And Enterprise users are (god forbid) actually considering using linux instead of windblows to avoid the mandatory upgrades. face it, the speed wars are over not because intel won (and they did) but because the additional speed is not relevant to 89% of users.

closing a window does not close the application
by anonymous on Mon 9th Dec 2002 21:52 UTC

I must admit I was very surprised by the author's comment of how he was impressed by this behavior, where closing the window does not close the application. I have always considered this to be the number one problem with the mac UI, and was shocked to find that it had not been altered in OSX. I base this statement not on personal experience (I realize that I have been trained by Windows and X to think "close window, close app") but based on years of watching complete newbies (the kind that need to be taught how to use a mouse in the first place) unwittingly leave applications running.

Admittedly, this has actually become less important in OSX than it was in OS<=9, where the lack of a good memory model meant that if you left MS Word running unnecessarily, you might be unable to run a web browsesr or something. Imagine what happens to that kind of user when the system tells them they need to close some applications to free up memory when they think they have closed all the applications.

One Button Mouse
by Gray Mouser on Mon 9th Dec 2002 21:56 UTC

You know who should get off the One Button Mouse? APPLE. It's stupid. It's like buying a $75,000 VW and finding out when you get it that you need to spend an extra $25 to get the Club off the steering wheel.

Really.
by matt on Mon 9th Dec 2002 21:59 UTC

>Yes, this may be true, but only because nobody has yet offered up a workable alternative that runs on hardware that I already own.

But you bought the hardware knowing you only had one true option.

One more thing...
by Rayiner Hashem on Mon 9th Dec 2002 21:59 UTC

For the guy who said Macs are "slightly" slower than a 3 Ghz PC, take a look at these: http://www.geocities.com/sw_perf/
Look, especially at the Lightwave benchmarks (lightwave is well optimized for OS X). The dual 1.25 Ghz Mac gets spanked by the dual Athlon MP, a much cheaper combination. We're talking I do a little 3D modeling, and let me tell you, it's slow enough already. Also, check out the Mathematica numbers (which I have to use in school). We're talking more than twice as slow as a much more reasonably priced P4.

I'm not saying Macs are unusably slow. They're probably just fine for a large number of users out there. Just don't try to sugercoat it, okay?

2 button mouse confusion
by deb-man on Mon 9th Dec 2002 21:59 UTC

Reyiner...you find it hard to belive but it is true.

it took me a year to get my son to figure out the 2 button system when he learned the computer....I broke down and bought a 1 button mouse (he has a mac) and he took off right away no problems.

I also worked as a desktop support pro for a state agency...those buricrats could not tell the right mouse button from the left...and when I was giving over the phone support I would tell them "right click on " and they wouldl left click and tell me nothing happened.

Good Review!
by Jay on Mon 9th Dec 2002 22:16 UTC

Adam, you always write good stuff!

I am a life long Apple user and I would be peeved if a cable was disconnected. An average user would be dead in the water. It does happen with all manufacturers, but it still could have been a big pain. It is unfortunate though - I've never had that happen with an Apple product. Of course, I never bought an Apple III, which was a disastor in that regard.

The mouse - Apple has, for so many years, left that to 3rd party developers. You can get all kinds of mice and trackbalss for the Mac. Currently, the Kensington Studio Mouse is the ultimate.

In some ways, it might have been good to do a review with, for example, a 17" iMac and do the stuff that it's made for - using iTunes, iPhoto, iMovie, iCal, .Mac, etc. Of course, that would be more of a consumer Mac review, but the Mac really shines in those areas. The thing is too though, with a single 800 MHz processor, you could see some real unresponsiveness ;-). But, despite not being very responsive, it does work. If they could speed things up, it would be fabulous.

Thanks, Adam!!

My experience with OS X
by Anonymous on Mon 9th Dec 2002 22:19 UTC

I too was surprised with the sluggish behaviour of OS X on the top of the range systems. I say this because I'm running Jaguar on an original iMac and I can't notice any unresponsiveness in the GUI. I also have to agree that Mac laptops are probably better value than PC laptops, and am thinking of buying an iBook next year. Also, all the programs I run on OS X are generally better than their PC counter-parts, particularly in browsers (Chimera is brilliant, even better than Phoenix). I'm also a programmer, and one of the reasons I came back to MacOS is because it's so much easier to program for. The one button mouse I didn't have a problem with, what I couldn't understand is the two/three button mice that PC people use... I only need one! TBH though, most people who care about mice buy their own. In MacOS everything is in the menus, and so the extra button is superfluous. The one thing that would be annoying is not having a scroll wheel, so I've got a mouse with a scroll wheel (and the unnecessary second button ;) Finally, the thing that really made me switch back was that I could run my Linux apps in MacOS just by compiling them, even X apps (with XDarwin).

Why I like da mac
by al pettit on Mon 9th Dec 2002 22:26 UTC

Tell why I like da mac.
Ever loose access to your HD? Need to get up and running quick on a PC. HA!
I have an external drive that if I need to I just plug it on my mac and boot off that. Hell I can plug it on my friends mac as well and boot his machine using my OS. No jumpers, no kidding.

The mac allows you do boot pretty much anything thats mountable.
I love that more than anything

the close window behavior...
by Evan on Mon 9th Dec 2002 22:31 UTC

I think he liked that because os x has awesome task switching, in a win2k world I cant burn a cd and do ANYTHING else decently with a well built athlon 1900+ system.

My ibook however can burn a cd while playing mp3s and writing a paper in appleworks, without a slowdown. Doesnt even sound realistic to me typing that, but it is true.

speed matters...
by a on Mon 9th Dec 2002 22:39 UTC

...but not *that* much. There are other things a long-term review usually highlights, that are somehow missing from this strange review:

When plugging my digital camera to my Windows XP box, it freezes.
When plugging it to my Win98 box, it crashes (hard ;)
When plugging it to my Mac, it appears on the desktop, iPhoto opens up, and I can manage my pictures, take a look at them with my girlfriend, and have a nice time.

Getting my film scanner to work on the windows box took nearly two hours of head-banging, and nearly two minutes on the Mac.

Setting up windows for TV output takes some time, driver updating, some tweaking... on the Mac, I just plug the S-Video cable to my TV...

Getting a Mac connected to my home network took so little time & effort my girlfriend laughs at me when I'm trying to get my other computers to see each other...

I am responsible for troubleshooting the design department computers at work. They used PC's, and it was a nightmare. From the day I changed their computers to Macs, I receive 1 or 2 phone calls a week (compared to 10 to 12 each day before) and they spend more time working and less time crying because their PC's crashed and they lost work.

Rendezvous & Printer Sharing is something you *have* to see. Setting up the HP Printer and sharing it with the network took probably 5 seconds.

CD-Burning doesn't get much simpler. We send a lot of stuff out on CD's, and I am amazed at how easy it is to burn CD's on a Mac (pop CD in, set name, copy stuff, eject)

Backup is taken care of by an assortment of unix command-line scripts. But we are thinking about making weekly (or even monthly) backups due to the lack of data lost. When using PC's, we had to recover lost data almost daily.

Yes, speed matters. But these department generates more money now, even working on a (theoretical) slower computer. And overall, using a Mac usually means you'll spend more time "doing stuff" and less time "trying to do stuff".

IMHO, YMMV, etc, etc... but all-in-all, a really narrow and alienating review...

RE: speed matters...
by Eugenia on Mon 9th Dec 2002 22:41 UTC

>When plugging my digital camera to my Windows XP box, it freezes.

It doesn't happen on my XP.

Review Problems
by Jasenko on Mon 9th Dec 2002 22:45 UTC

The problem with any review of this or similar type is preconceived knowledge. People who used Windows OS' for years expect that all other OS' should/must behave similarly, and if they don't, then there is something wrong with their usability. I had the same problem and I know it's true but if you are open minded you can accept different thinking and maybe even like it.
Friend of mine who only believes in MS products tried RH8 the other day and he pissed me so much trying to do the things Windows way, and when the things were not behaving the way he used to, he complained and said Linux is crap. I can't even imagine his face in front of the Mac.
Like I said I also had the baggage of preconceived knowledge when I got the iBook 10 months ago. I really missed the taskbar and the start menu. But now, I got used to different approach and found myself doing things even faster without them, I also started using keybaord shortcuts (never used them in Windows) and increased my productivity even more. I think if Adam used Macs for a little longer he would appreciate some aspects of the OS even more, and if he stopped comparing it with Windows/Linux, his experience would be a hell of a lot better.
What I would like to see next on the OSNews is the objective review of the PC experience written by a long time Mac user. That would be a cracker.

@Evan
by Kasper on Mon 9th Dec 2002 22:45 UTC

That is probably because you have your burner on a different IDE-chain than the harddrive that you are reading data from. I have a 600MHz P3 and a LiteOn burner and I can burn with 32X without a problem (I can watch video at the same time) from one harddrive, but when I try to burn from another, it freezes unless I set the speed to 12X or lower. The reason for this is that when using IDE instead of SCSI, you can't access data from the primary drives at the same time as you access data from the secondary drives and vice versa.

It might also be because you haven't enabled DMA for your drives. Control Panel -> System -> Hardware -> Device Manager -> IDE Controllers -> Go and enable DMA for as many drives as possible.

The only other explanation I can see is sh**** drivers, in which case there really isn't much you can do. And I certainly wouldn't blame the quality of drivers on MS (unless they are certified, of course).

eugenia
by a on Mon 9th Dec 2002 22:47 UTC

>>When plugging my digital camera to my Windows XP box, it freezes.
>It doesn't happen on my XP.

congratulations

RE: Review Problems
by Eugenia on Mon 9th Dec 2002 22:49 UTC

> Friend of mine who only believes in MS products tried RH8 the other day and he pissed me so much trying to do the things Windows way, and when the things were not behaving the way he used to, he complained and said Linux is crap.

Excuse me, but you got it wrong. Windows has 94% of the market. Windows *IS* the standard, we like it or not. Anything that tries to compete with it, will have to do ALL what Windows does, in the way it does it, plus more. Anything less, won't satisfy most of the users out there.

Yes, it might be terrible the fact that Windows is the standard and these users are weight everything in parallel to how Windows does things, but the blunt cold truth is that this is how things are.

You mention this problem with this friend of yours. I have the same problem with my husband (while he used to be an old Slackware user and a Be, Inc. employee, he now likes WindowsXP most of all). But I understand his point of view. To gain some trust from Windows users, this OS should do most of the things the way Windows does it, and then add the "more". Sad, but true.

standars
by a on Mon 9th Dec 2002 22:55 UTC

>To gain some trust from Windows users,

...(if this is, in fact, what they are trying)...

>this OS should do most of the things the way Windows does it

...while making sure M$ won't sue their ass off...

>and then add the "more".

[i]...if they are still alive after that.

Eugenia... are you having a bad day, by any chance?

re multitasking on 2k
by None on Mon 9th Dec 2002 22:58 UTC

" I think he liked that because os x has awesome task switching, in a win2k world I cant burn a cd and do ANYTHING else decently with a well built athlon 1900+ system.

My ibook however can burn a cd while playing mp3s and writing a paper in appleworks, without a slowdown. Doesnt even sound realistic to me typing that, but it is true."

No it isn't true. You either have a crappy 5 year old cd burner, don't know how to buld a computer, or are lying.

Any modern burner has burn-proof, smartlink etc and allows you do WHATEVER you want besides play FPS games while it burns. If your running say seti at high priority it may take a while to burn but it WILL burn. I too have a Athlon 1900 and when burning a cd I can surf the web, listen to music, and type documents all WITHOUT Slowdown or problems. I in fact burn discs several times a week and never have to stop what I'm doing in order to burn a cd.

RE: standars
by Eugenia on Mon 9th Dec 2002 23:00 UTC

>Eugenia... are you having a bad day, by any chance?

I am having a great day, thank you very much. I am just posting my opinion on how an OS company to proceed if they want to gain some trust from Windows users (MS won't sue anyone on it, we are not talking about copying the Windows UI, we are talking on duplicating the user experience on what a user EXPECTS a program or a widget to do).

If you do not agree, you can say so, but you don't have to become an jerk, or you will see your a$$ moded down. Simple as that.

Eugenia...
by Jasenko on Mon 9th Dec 2002 23:03 UTC

>Excuse me, but you got it wrong. Windows has 94% of the market. Windows *IS* the standard, we like it or not. Anything that tries to compete with it, will have to do ALL what Windows does, in the way it does it, plus more. Anything less, won't satisfy most of the users out there.

So your point is, Mac or whatever needs to be a copy of windows first and only then it can show some creativity and different thinking. Do you remember your beloved BeOS? Was that a copy of Windows? I never loved it because I didn't want to spend time doing things differently than in Windows, but not anymore, I learned to love different things and give them time to grow on me. What I'm saying is: "Lose the excess baggage and see do you like it". Nothing else. If there is no companies like Apple we wouldn't see such progress in usability of our computers. I was excited to see that Phoenix browser is using sheets for customising toolbars, exactly the same way OSX does it. That is just one example how good ideas become accepted. Mimicking Windows (which mimicks everything else by itself) won't help move us forward. You as a respectable editor of the respectable website should know that already. I'm bit dissapointed by your comment.

RE: Review Problems
by Who Cares on Mon 9th Dec 2002 23:04 UTC

Eugenia,

Screw the Windows standard.
Don't compare Mac to Windows.
Don't compare Linux to Windows.
Learn them and use them, but don't criticize them for not being Windows.

They are better. Windows is standardized trash. Windows is McDonalds. Windows is Wonder Bread. Windows is a Pinto, or a Metro, or a Neon. Windows is everything that sucks and is common as hell, because common people use it. Being uncommon is alot nicer.

Eugenia rocks...
by trooth-teller on Mon 9th Dec 2002 23:07 UTC


Sorry, I just had to say it.

Its just so nice to see some kick some ass around here.

RE: Eugenia...
by Eugenia on Mon 9th Dec 2002 23:07 UTC

You got my whole comment WRONG. And cut the sarcasm ("remember your beloved BeOS") or you will also get moded. I am very short on patience today.

I am not saying that in order to have a great OS you need to mimick Windows. What I am saying is that if you want to GAIN *Windows* USERS and create a marketshare, you HAVE to. Some open minded users might not need that, but the rest 99% of these users, will need that.

And when talking about mimicking Windows, I am only talking about what a user *expects* from the behaviour of a UI, NOT copying the UI as per se. Get your facts straight and re-read my comment.

RE: Review Problems
by Eugenia on Mon 9th Dec 2002 23:08 UTC

>Windows is McDonalds

And you are an idiot.

v @Who Cares
by a on Mon 9th Dec 2002 23:09 UTC
RE: RE: Review Problems
by uhoh on Mon 9th Dec 2002 23:12 UTC

Someone mod Eugenia down!

re: review problems
by deb-man on Mon 9th Dec 2002 23:13 UTC

Eugenia that is a very...unimpressive... POV.

people need to look at things with an open mind. Apple works better for brand new computer users period.

Apple as sighted above, increased the productivity of its user.

if I use a microwave, and love that microwave, then I buy a new one, the new one does not work the same, it has a funny "popcorn button" and stufff cooks faster becasue it is a higher wattage so I over cook stuff. does that mean the microwave sucks? no not at all, it is just new and diffrent. in the long run, after a few weeks of me getting use to it, I can cook stuff as well as I had in the other one and my productivity actualy increases from cool little short cuts like preset cook times for popcorn and quick cook buttons.

The mouse and cable
by genaldar on Mon 9th Dec 2002 23:14 UTC

The mouse is an issue. If you spend over $4000 on a system (which is what this one retails for) you shouldn't have to go out and buy a $25 mouse just to do things. You wouldn't tell someone who bought an ibm to go and buy a multibutton scroll mouse. You'd say ibm should listen to their customers and bundle mice they actually want to use. Especially if its a $4000 desktop. Sure if you spend $400 and get a crappy mouse thems the breaks (but hey even emachines and those $200 lindows walmart.com pcs have two button mice, some with wheels). For that kind of money you should be able to get the type of mouse you want. Just like any premium pc manufacturer would give you (Falcon Northwest, Voodoo, Alienware, etc.). Hell some of them come with custom paint jobs using high quality auto show car paints.

The cable is also a knock against apple because they screwed it up. The user, if he was a newbie, would have to send it in (most likely paying to do so) and then wait to get his "fixed" computer back. Of course the cases do open easier than run of the mill pc cases, but newbies don't usually open the cases to check for disconnected ide cables do they?

Re: Eugenia
by Anonymous on Mon 9th Dec 2002 23:15 UTC

Faulty logic. I wouldn't jump off a bridge,if everyone else was doing it! If you need more features, wait for the next upgrade to Windows. If you want to do things in a refreshing different way, try a Mac!! It takes a while to get used to a Mac, but it ain't rocket science. I am a Mac user and I have no problem using Windows, because I know that most features that are present on a Mac are also present in Windows-only changed a little to avoid litigation!! OsX is more Window's like than Classic Mac Os-this was obviously done to make it easier for Windows' users to switch-in fact many Mac users have trouble switching to Os X (e.g. see Os X odyssey columns by Mr. Charles Moore at www.Applelinks.com.)

cheers & happy computing on the platform of your choice!!

RE: Eugenia...
by Chris on Mon 9th Dec 2002 23:16 UTC

And when talking about mimicking Windows, I am only talking about what a user *expects* from the behaviour of a UI, NOT copying the UI as per se. Get your facts straight and re-read my comment.

That is quite true, but the problem with that is that a lot of the behavior of Windows is drastically different than the behavior of MacOS. You have to weigh losing current customers because you made your OS more like Windows against possibly gaining new customers. I think Apple's best bet is to keep innovating. As long as they are different than Windows, they are a viable alternative. As soon as they try to mimic Windows in anyway, they are playing Microsoft's game which they cannot win. Their market is just not the same as Windows' market, and I don't expect it ever will be.

So if they start picking up some of the nuances and subtelties of the Windows UI in order to make Windows users more comfortable using their UI, they may pick up more of the consumer market, but I think it's too great a sacrifice to be worth it.

v Being an idiot...
by a on Mon 9th Dec 2002 23:17 UTC
Re: Eugenia
by Eugenia on Mon 9th Dec 2002 23:18 UTC

> If you want to do things in a refreshing different way, try a Mac!!

I have a Mac. I haven't turned it on for 2 months now. I don't like it. OSX is unresponsive, I hate its stupid menu bar, it lacks some things I need in the interface and the Dock doesn't do what I want (I want a list for the open windows too).

re:re: review problems
by deb-man on Mon 9th Dec 2002 23:19 UTC

woah...Eugenia smacked him hard.....

I think his point is that just like these other very common consumer goods, windows makes use of current industry tech and does not tend to break new ground.

Kill me now...
by spider on Mon 9th Dec 2002 23:19 UTC

To gain some trust from Windows users, this OS should do most of the things the way Windows does it, and then add the "more".

Perhaps I am missing something, is this statement not already true? What widgets are we talking about here? The closeWindow==closeApp widget? Is that the only one from the standard widgets that act differently across the platforms? if so, this certainly qualifies as "most". Can someone provide another example? Two?

RE: Eugenia...
by Jasenko on Mon 9th Dec 2002 23:21 UTC

> I am not saying that in order to have a great OS you need to mimick Windows. What I am saying is that if you want to GAIN *Windows* USERS and create a marketshare, you HAVE to. Some open minded users might not need that, but the rest 99% of these users, will need that.

I see your point but what you're suggesting would never work. You have excellent example of that in KDE/GNOME. They try so hard to use similar features but they are still no Windows and they will never be and no Windows user likes them. They are always few years behind as well. You can't ask for creativity because they are so busy to make WIndows user at home, and they are still failing. What other companies are doing (Apple, Be - RIP), is to try to make the success on their own. If they didn't do that they would be even marginal than they are now. As for Apple, they have similar features for the last 15 years, shy would they change now, to gain couple of market points? belive me, they would lose more than they have now if they do that.

Being an idiot...
by Chris on Mon 9th Dec 2002 23:21 UTC

...for thinking "Windows is McDonalds" and publicly saying so?

Personally I just think it's a poor analogy... would make more sense to say, "Microsoft is the McDonalds of the OS world and Windows is a super-sized big Mac with a chocolate shake"... of course you'll have to make up your own interpretation of what that means (windows is full of nutritionless calories perhaps?). ;)

RE: Being an idiot...
by Eugenia on Mon 9th Dec 2002 23:22 UTC

>Stop being a nazi motherfucker and show some respect for your readers.

When you get your own web site, you do whatever you want. While you are on my web site, you won't.

The guy's POV is just plainly stupid. His opinion is that windows is trash, and I find him a complete idiot for that. Windows is not trash at all. At least XP and 2k is NOT. And 94% of the world's computing world, agree with me.

v another whiner
by nigel photon-jones on Mon 9th Dec 2002 23:22 UTC
v Great
by spider on Mon 9th Dec 2002 23:25 UTC
More responses
by Darius on Mon 9th Dec 2002 23:27 UTC

ryan
What are you saying that we need more bloated software? Or are you saying that we need more software/applications to take advantage of the processor speed or both.

I was countering a point somebody made when they said people aren't upgrading as much because speed doesn't matter. I'm saying that people aren't upgrading as much because their current PC is not slow to begin with.

matt
Re: matt
>Yes, this may be true, but only because nobody has yet offered up a workable alternative that runs on hardware that I already own.
But you bought the hardware knowing you only had one true option.


My hardware is upgraded in increments - probably a few hundred dollars every year and a half. When I first started with PCs, OSX didn't exist and Macs were a joke.

deb-man
it took me a year to get my son to figure out the 2 button system when he learned the computer....I broke down and bought a 1 button mouse (he has a mac) and he took off right away no problems.

Let me guess ... is he also in special ed?


Evan
I think he liked that because os x has awesome task switching, in a win2k world I cant burn a cd and do ANYTHING else decently with a well built athlon 1900+ system.

Eh, even assuming you're right, what friggin' difference does it make? How long to CDs take to burn now days ... 3-4 minutes? I usually just go take a dump and it's done when I get back. Sheesh.

Jasenko
I had the same problem and I know it's true but if you are open minded you can accept different thinking and maybe even like it.

Oh man, they're worse than Jesus freaks aren't they ? ;)
Anyway, I don't expect Macs to be like PCs .. the only thing I ask is for more mouse buttons and for apps to close when I click on the close window button. Honestly, I really don't think that's too much to ask of a modern OS.

Eugenia
Anything that tries to compete with it, will have to do ALL what Windows does.

Not really. The only thing an alternate OS has to do is do whatever Windows does that the user actually cares about. This is percisely the reason why Linux works for some, but not for others.

Geez ...
by Darius on Mon 9th Dec 2002 23:28 UTC

In the time it took me to write the last post (just a few minutes), over 20 more posts were added ;)

94% do not agree
by Kelson on Mon 9th Dec 2002 23:28 UTC

Just because a huge portion of the market (94%) run Windows of some sort does not mean it is not trash, nor does it mean they do not think it is trash.

It is trash, but for various reasons we use it anyway.

- Kelson

RE: Being an idiot...
by Chris on Mon 9th Dec 2002 23:28 UTC

Windows is not trash at all. At least XP and 2k is NOT. And 94% of the world's computing world, agree with me.

I wouldn't go so far as to say it's trash, but just because 94% of the computing world is stuck using it doesn't mean they're all happy about it. Microsoft's rise to power with Windows was mostly about good timing for them and bad timing and marketing by Apple.

Open Office is NOT a Java app!!!!!!!!!
by Derek Gaston on Mon 9th Dec 2002 23:28 UTC

For the love of god I thought everyone had finally figured out that Open/Star Office IS NOT A JAVA APP!

It is not even slightly - not even a little bit a java app. I know it seems like it because it sometimes responds like a java app - and has its own toolkit that doesnt _quite_ match - BUT IT IS NOT WRITTEN IN JAVA AT ALL.

It can use java (so you can write scripts and stuff in java - kind of like VB is for MS Office - but you wouldn't say MS Office is _written_ in VB).

PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE PEOPLE, get it through your head that it is NOT a java app.

Ok, rant off. Sorry, I guess my fuse is a little short today (might be because its monday)

Derek

is to teach the universal skills needed...I can pick up any system and in a few minutes, I can be up and running and being productive. many many people think in terms of a list of directions and do not think in terms of intuition and trial and error...if they try to do the same thing on a mac or in Linux that they do in windows tehy will become frustrated becasue the list of direction sodes not match the interface...if they were trained to think in terms of

"this is a setting so it should be in somthing like control panels..ah prefrences...lets look in there"

a category type thinking, then they would have much more success because the though process is much more flexable and adaptive. when I was training folks on how to use computers that is the exact way I thought them, and you know what....they began to figure other stuff out because all of a sudden, they realised that certain stuff is normaly found under the file menu , the edit menu, etc. it got the point that people were not signing up for classes becasue they already figured the stuff out.

Re:the close window behavior...
by genaldar on Mon 9th Dec 2002 23:30 UTC

"I think he liked that because os x has awesome task switching, in a win2k world I cant burn a cd and do ANYTHING else decently with a well built athlon 1900+ system.

My ibook however can burn a cd while playing mp3s and writing a paper in appleworks, without a slowdown. Doesnt even sound realistic to me typing that, but it is true."

On my celeron 400, oced to 450 with a paltry 256 pc100 ram when I burn cds I run set@home in my system tray and usually have either a couple of browser windows open or some speadsheets or word documents. No slow downs. I still burn cds at the 8x my drive is rated. I'm not saying your lying, I'm saying your well built system isn't that well built. btw I'm actually burning a cd now and have this window, seti and 3 different acrobat windows open. No slowdown. Elvis #1 if you're curious. Making a copy for a friend since his was stolen from his car (along with 50 other cds, poor bastard).

Darius, that was a realy assholy thing to say.
by deb-man on Mon 9th Dec 2002 23:32 UTC

make fun of me all you want but do not even think about maing fun of my child.

no he is not special ed, he was 2 years old.

genaldar
by deb-man on Mon 9th Dec 2002 23:36 UTC

try playing an MP3

That is a VALID analogy!
by spider on Mon 9th Dec 2002 23:39 UTC

Eugenia,

Why was my comment mod'ed down?
94% of the Germans agreed with Hitler too, that doesn't make it right...

Perhaps I'll explain, you made a point that 94% of the world agree with you and that 95% can't be wrong. I made a point that a great many Germans (perhaps 94%) agreed with their dictator of the day, Hitler. Still, that doesn't make their [supported] actions correct. Can you see the point?

RE: 2 button mouse confusion ->deb-man
by Andrew on Mon 9th Dec 2002 23:41 UTC

I am sorry, but I find that a bit hard to believe. How old is your Son. My mother is probably the least technical person alive. When she started working again recently and had to learn how to use a computer, something she feared, at age 48 she had no problems with a 2 button mouse.

Most people don't use the second mouse button, but all I had to do was explain to her that she could save time by right-clicking on things. She uses it now.

Now if a 48 year old with a fear for technology can use two mouse buttons surely your son can. Please don't put him into a car until he can manage it.

Also if you are going to charge $4,000 plus for the system that was being reviewed you would think the system was for someone who had a clue.

Lastly millions of windows users who can barely use email use a two button mouse just fine. All it takes is ignoring the other button. At least its there for when the pass infancy.

Re: Even more responses :)
by Darius on Mon 9th Dec 2002 23:41 UTC

deb-man
Eugenia that is a very...unimpressive... POV.
people need to look at things with an open mind. Apple works better for brand new computer users period.


Yes, you're right, people need to be more open-minded, but they're not. If they were, smoking weed and same-sex marriages would probably be legal. But people aren't open-minded, and that ain't going to change in the forseeable future.

no he is not special ed, he was 2 years old.

LOL ... so the only people who can't figure out the difference between 2 mouse buttons is a 2 year olds ?

Kelson
Just because a huge portion of the market (94%) run Windows of some sort does not mean it is not trash,

No, but it DOES mean it is the standard. That's why I use it. A Betamax was much better than a VCR, but I still used VCRs. Do you really have to ask why ? ;)

94%
by Von on Mon 9th Dec 2002 23:42 UTC

XP and 2k is NOT. And 94% of the world's computing world, agree with me.

Most of the world's computing world still runs Windows98/95, and are not likely to change soon. (maybe when their hardware dies, and they buy a new pc) MS may have 94% market share in the OS market, WinXP certainly has not.

Btw, I still think it is pretty hypocritical to bitch about a loose cable on a mac, but don't dare to bitch about a non-working digital camera on WindowsXP!

AMD support... i think that could mean AMD hardware and Apple operating system. Sound cool.

OSX for x86 ? Why ? AMD hw needs a diversification from Intel ones. Actually there's a bit of diversification but, for example, Asus is manufacturing AMD hw... so now is not a problem, as was in the past due to the Apple "monopoly" on *their* hardware.
On contrary, Apple os seemed always good and OSX promises well.
So i'm a bit doubtful about the AMD delay in the Hammer's release... they could be conditioned also from the stability and the reliability that Apple's code demands to run well.
BTW, the next step ?
Could be this ? > http://www.opencores.org/ then http://www.openh.org/ ?

Re: andrew
by deb-man on Mon 9th Dec 2002 23:44 UTC

he was 2 at the time.

The only problem with Microsoft.....
by Ralf on Mon 9th Dec 2002 23:44 UTC

"The only problem with Microsoft is,
they just have no taste, they have absolutely no taste,
and I don't mean that in a small way, I mean that in a big way - in a sence that - they don't think of original ideas and they don't bring much culture into their product."

Hey wait - before I get moderated down, this is a citation. Steve Jobs said this in an interview some years ago. And this is the truth nowadays - more than ever before.
No matter OS X is dos slow or lightning fast and no matter Mac's are slow and PC's are sooo much faster.

All that does mno change to the above quotation.

Ralf.

Man
by genaldar on Mon 9th Dec 2002 23:45 UTC

This is getting funny. The anti ms people are bashing it, like calling it winblows hurts gates and balmer as they sleep on stacks of money 6 feet high. Some pointless, untrue, name calling of windows makes Eugenia invoke the mod down button. And all of a sudden she's being painted as a nazi by some idiot who probably doesn't even know how Hitler gained power. The truth is mac, windows and linux all work for different people. I will most likely never switch to mac and never completely to linux, but I don't spend my time calling them icraps and shitux (had to reach on that one).

About the kid, well of course he had problems with right click and left click, he's 2. For the love of god, a lot of 2 year olds shit themselves on a semi-regular basis. Using them as gui test subject is as stupid as saying one os is universally better then another.

Re: darius
by deb-man on Mon 9th Dec 2002 23:48 UTC

no, I worked as a desktop support person in an office...80% of the people did not know ho wthe hell to use the damn mouse correctly. it is not so much coordination (as it is with a 2 year old) but confusion. you say click...they know to hit the right button, you tell them double click, they know, but you tell them right click, they havge no clue. Apple's point is that if most folks do not use the right mouse button out of confusion, why have it.

differences
by Von on Mon 9th Dec 2002 23:52 UTC

Yes, you're right, people need to be more open-minded, but they're not. If they were, smoking weed and same-sex marriages would probably be legal. But people aren't open-minded, and that ain't going to change in the forseeable future.


Do you want your operating system to be used by 94% of the computer users? Or do you want something that just works great?
Does it matter than an OS doens't have a monopoly? Most products in a certain category don't have monopolies, and most of them differentiate themselves from others. A BMW looks and feels different than a Toyota. This is a plus! This is a bloody advantage, not some extremely confusing disadvantage.

If you want Linux/MacosX to be a clone of Windows, why don't you just don't stick with Windows?

Don't like the company? Fine, throw a cake in Bill Gates face when he comes to your country, but stop bitching about how all osses should be like windows.

Re: genaldar
by deb-man on Mon 9th Dec 2002 23:52 UTC

1) I think it says a lot about the apple design that a 2 year old can pick up there default set up and use it perfectly well

2) older folks have a diffrent issue (as I said in the same post as the one with my son I believe) they get confused over the right button. they don't get the fact that it is a context menu. since they don't use it, why have it?

Re: Culture? and deb-man
by Darius on Mon 9th Dec 2002 23:57 UTC

they don't think of original ideas and they don't bring much culture into their product."

they know to hit the right button, you tell them double click, they know, but you tell them right click, they havge no clue.

Who gives a shit about culture? I just want to get work done ;)

Apple's point is that if most folks do not use the right mouse button out of confusion, why have it.

In that case, why not have it as an option? I mean, it probably isn't any more expensive to have a 2 button mouse than a 1 button, so why not let the user decide which one they want?
"Ma'am/sir ... would you like a one button mouse with your new Mac or a two buttons mouse?" Makes sense to me *shrug*

re: darius
by deb-man on Mon 9th Dec 2002 23:59 UTC

good idea...oh that culture commnet was not me.

Mac Speed and Converting Windows Users
by Andrew on Tue 10th Dec 2002 00:00 UTC

Some people have said that because replacement time is increasing and speed is no longer that much of an issue for most tasks Mac's are better because they basically just work.

The problem is that it has nothing to do with replacement period or what speed is needed. When Joe decides he is going to replace his machine or just get one, he is going to look for value and he determines the value based on easily comparable characteristics such as Mhz, Ram, Hard Drive Size, Screen Size, Type of Memory, etc. At least the sales guy or his friends are going to tell him that.

If he is a bargain hunter he goes for the lowest priced and gets the most of the characteristics mentioned above. If middle of the range guy like myself he does the same in that segment. Name brand may play a role but computers for the individual user are largely commodities.

Fuzzy concepts which are difficuly to compare and quantify, like ease of use are not really considered by most.

Macs have another problem. PC's are the status quo. They will really have to provide a some real reason for people to switch. The Digital Hub may be that but MS seems to be headed there as well.

For all those CRAZY people out there that somehow think Mac's are good value. YOu are smoking something. The baseline Mac's are just about useless (128 megs of Ram on OSX is not really useable). You need to add Ram. Give me any base spec mac and I will find you are better equiped PC alternative that won't use archaic SDRAM for less.

I tried a Mac, wanted to love it, sold it because it was just soo slow. Lost $600, but at least I got something back.

When Mac at least catches up to FreeBSD hopefully by MAC OS10.3 or 10.4 and come out with the G5 or IBM Power Desktop processor I'll look again (I'd love a TIBook).

I must admit thought that Linux, KDE and SuSE have gotten so good this year, I doubt I'll try Mac again.

Re: Von
by Darius on Tue 10th Dec 2002 00:03 UTC

Do you want your operating system to be used by 94% of the computer users? Or do you want somethin
g that just works great?


Actually, betamaxes worked great too. But guess where all the movies/support was? There is an advantage to having 94% of the market using our OS, and that is that companies pay more attention to it. Of course, this leads to other things such as security holes and spyware, but this is not a trait of Windows, but more a product of corporate scum, who would trash any OS. Of course, just like living in a large city, there's a lot of good that comes with the territory - you just have to decide whether you want to take the good with the bad. For example, people in some rural towns don't mind having to drive 300 miles for a roll of toilet paper, if it means they don't have to put up with the city. Different strokes for different folks .. know what I'm saying?

Don't like the company? Fine, throw a cake in Bill Gates face when he comes to your country, but stop bitching about how all osses should be like windows.

I try, I really do. But unfortunately, I always seem to have a bunch of hardcore OS zealots breathing down my neck like a bunch of rabid Bible thumpers .. this is simply a defense mechanism ;)

so you claim to not like apple becasue no one is doing it?
by deb-man on Tue 10th Dec 2002 00:05 UTC

oh, can we all grow up now and move beyond highschool?

Single Button Mouse
by Anonymous on Tue 10th Dec 2002 00:07 UTC

If you really want to be able to right click on a Mac, just press the control key on the keyboard, and then click the mouse. It does the exact same thing as right clicking.

hahahahah thats pretty funny....
by trooth-teller on Tue 10th Dec 2002 00:11 UTC

"Btw, I still think it is pretty hypocritical to bitch about a loose cable on a mac, but don't dare to bitch about a non-working digital camera on WindowsXP! "


Hehehehe. Wanna know a good digital camera story? One I always think of when I see that switch ad.

Truth be told, I was doing some volunteer work at a film fest, and the "Computer Store" had donated a bunch of iMacs and a Nikon CoolPIX 775 (you know, the one Apple sells?).

So the doods need to take pictures for the festival passes, and the plan was to use the digi camera and the crapin(WOOPS) MACintosh, with i(whatever the hell).

These guys putzed around for hours trying to get the Nikon working in OS X, you know what? They couldnt, so they had to switch to OS 9 so they could use the camera.

So, tell me, first of all, I thought it "Just Worked", and secondly, aside from that marketing drivel inspired LIAR on the switch ads, I highly doubt anyone with XP and a high speed internet connection would spend more that 5-10 minutes getting their camera installed and working in XP.

Now whether they have cool photo software like iPhoto is another story, but as far as I can tell, explorer does a damn good job of helping me look at my photos in my little windows.

more of the same old stuff
by appleforever on Tue 10th Dec 2002 00:14 UTC

I could have answered the author's question without his going through the motions of trying a Mac. Here's the obvious and simple answer to his question: "No, if you want to build your own a PC with gonzo gigahertz for pennies on the dollar, you can't replace your PC with a Mac."

The author sets out grudgingly acknowledging some of the many nice things about OS X. So far so good. But then he has to start laboring hard to find things to complain about - a loose IDE cable (big whoop); the one-button mouse; and, wait a minute, that was about it as far as specific problems about the OS or hardware. Again, the real complaint is "I can't build a cheap very fast Mac myself." (Not that the Mac can't be as fast as Windows - he flat out says it is. But this is an expensive dual 1.25 gig machine.)

In a nice maneuver, the author totally slides by most of the Apple applications. Yes, this is "OS" News. But this guy asked the question whether there's a compelling reason to shift to the Mac. How can you answer that question by skipping over what is currently setting the Mac apart -- more than the OS -- for most consumers, namely the Apple apps?

The author seems to start out well intentioned. However, he throws in a sprinkle of "mac users can't possibly be rationally choosing the mac, they are a cult," and "macs just look pretty," and in the end you have your typical PC user drivel just dressed up a little bit.

This is not complicated folks. The mac is superior, in a whole lot of ways. So if you want to build your cheap PC, or run the latest 3D shoot em up or nonmainstream business or specialized app, you have to have the inferior system (at least part of the time). That's just the way it goes. Get over it.

One thing that Apple does well is to keep "journalists" like these in business. They get to write reviews - which really do not matter. They rile some people and please others. Eventually, it does not matter what the reviewer said or did - everyone sticks to their own position.

Humans are pack animals by nature - 94% of human computer users run in the "MS" pack - the others run in smaller packs.

Most UNIX lovers I speak to bash MS for the "lousy" Windows - yet ALL (yes ALL 100%) of them use Windows at home.

These "reviews" dont matter to me and it should not to you.
AM

RE: Single Button Mouse
by Andrew on Tue 10th Dec 2002 00:17 UTC

If you really want to be able to right click on a Mac, just press the control key on the keyboard, and then click the mouse. It does the exact same thing as right clicking.

Please tell me you aren't serious. Why would I want to hold ctrl while I click when I could just right click. Let me try that one handed, sorry can't do. Now there is a really elegant Mac solution, "Hold down the ctrl key and click".

The Mac mouse does not even have a wheel, which is useful for many things.

Let me say I love the Mac designs. But doing things the same old same old is like walking around with a bag over your head. Just because the first mouse only had one button doesn't mean they should never evolve.

Apples and Oranges
by andreas_dr on Tue 10th Dec 2002 00:18 UTC

Sorry but

you guys just are like children..

When I plug my mouse into my XP Box it freezes...
My Mac is faster than your PC AND its more usable ...
OMB costs about $25, if you spent $5000 ... how can he talk about $25 ...

This is a summary of the comments of the Apple Lovers. This is a kind of are eye catching...

Relax people...

It's not about Platform War it's about what you get done with your equipment...

And yes I have a g3 @ 400 Mhz with OBM...
I don't like it that much because my Mouse on X86PC has 6 Buttons and Scrollwheel which I regulary use... BECAUSE IT WORKS GREAT FOR ME!

But I use the OBM too, I have not bought a new one...
I don't need it on my Mac...

Who cares...

Good night!

PS:
I found this review good(no point to diz it)

-A

Seems fair enough to me
by kate on Tue 10th Dec 2002 00:18 UTC

I thought it was a fair review. I've gone from a System 6-system 7 to windows 95 (because I worked in technical support and suffered the most awful ribbing) to NT and now to linux. Of all of these I like linux the least, and I'm now thinking about a mac again, just so I can buy good software. (I'm sorry. There's a lot of people done a really great job, but I do lots of graphics work and I just want a decent DRAW package and a nicely integrated clipboard.I'm quite happy to pay for it, but it's not there) However, OsX does look slow, the effects are irrelevent, if cool and the question remains about apple's market position.

>One thing that Apple does well is to keep "journalists" like these in business.

No one is getting paid over here sweetheart for his/her articles.

Re: This Thread
by Anonymous on Tue 10th Dec 2002 00:21 UTC

Wow, this string of comments is FUD central. Most of you Microsoft bashers have no idea what you're talking about and neither do most of you Apple bashers.

Eugenia, You're Wrong
by Erik J. Barzeski on Tue 10th Dec 2002 00:23 UTC

Eugenia, you said:
I am not saying that in order to have a great OS you need to mimick Windows. What I am saying is that if you want to GAIN *Windows* USERS and create a marketshare, you HAVE to. Some open minded users might not need that, but the rest 99% of these users, will need that.


Quite simply put, you're wrong. I've sold a few hundred Macs over my years to various PC people, Mac people, Unix people, "first time computer" people, etc. Though some have expressed dismay at the close widget looking a bit differently, NOONE has ever walked away from the obvious advantages the Mac provides because "it doesn't talk like a duck" (the lame duck that is Windows).

Your comment is unsubstantiated, and in my experience, WRONG. Mod away. It's sad that you're a troll on your own site.

List of Apps
by Thresher on Tue 10th Dec 2002 00:32 UTC

Eugenia,

Putting a list of your programs (ala the Start Menu) is as easy as dragging your Applications folder to your Dock. As for the single button mouse issue, the Mac simply doesn't need it as much as WinXP does. This is not a good thing or a bad thing, it's just true. I OS X, there just isn't as much call for it. It's just a usability difference. If I need it, I can plug in one of

Same functionality with the added bonus of being able to go into nested folders (versus just shortcuts).

I'm not sure why your Mac is unresponisive. I have a Powerbook 667 and it runs just fine.

I build my own PCs. I have a Windows2k Server box, a WinXP box, and a Mandrake box. I had a Dell Inspiron laptop, but got rid of it once I saw OS X in action on a Powerbook.

My problem with the Dimension was purely subjective. In my opinion, the construction of the Dimension was just horrible. They used the cheapest plastic they could find, heck, the back of the LCD would warp if you pushed on it gently to close the lid. Furthermore, if you didn't pick it up levelly, the the whole chassis would warp. The screen was awesome and the speed was great, but the build quality was just horrible.

I've said repeatedly to friends (most of whom barely know how to use Windows, yet feel competent enough to abuse me for my Mac) that the reason I bought a Powerbook was ease of use. It's stupid simple. I don't play games on laptops, so the overall speed wasn't an issue. All I need it to do is network and run productivity apps which this thing does in spades. Is it slower than my PCs? Yes. The interface is not quite as "snappy", but it's never really been an issue for me on day to day usage.

I won't say I'm a convert to the Mac, but I'm finding my rationale for not having a Mac desktop is getting thinner and thinner as I find myself playing fewer games. I'll still have a PC for playing Quake 3, but I may move to an iMac for just general use. The iApps are much more compelling than their Windows counterparts and they seem to work in a much more integrated manner.

One thing I want to say about this whole argument (not directed towards anyone specifically):

If your experience with a Mac is limited to the 10 minutes you futzed around with an iMac once at CompUSA, your opinion on OS X is irrelevant. Likewise, Mac users, the hardware is slower, there can be no doubt.

A lot of so called Windows experts spend more time bashing an OS they don't use, likewise for Linux or Mac users. Why? What does it matter to you? Use what you want and shut up about it. Mind your own business.

The defensiveness regarding this issue is just amazing. To those people who seem to take OS selection as a personal affront if someone chooses something other than what you use: get over it. No one, but you, cares about your opinion. People are different, why shouldn't OSes be?

Variety improves the breed. Be glad that we still HAVE choices.

to "appleforever," and anyone else who has to belabor these points:

Mac users seem to always say the same thing: Mac is better. But WHY? Is it so unfair to say that I can build a PC with twice the hardware that runs twice as quickly and accomplish everything I need faster?

It's simple: whether or not Mac has better/nicer/etc hardware, I'm more productive with a PC, and I still have a lot of money leftover. If I were a digital movie guru, maybe I'd think differently, but there is no truely compelling reason to switch to a Mac for the "standard" user who just wants a change from Windows.

I'm using two boxes at home - Windows and Linux. I'm much more impressed by Linux and the strides it's made than by Mac. Mac is nice, but it just doesn't offer me anything I can't get with a PC.

And to put this issue to bed: one button mouse - GET - OVER - IT. What's the substance of the resistance to providing a mouse that "94%" of the world has accepted?

The people who have written me with flames or left them here - no one has truly refuted any of my points - they've just told me I'm wrong or a typical whiny PC user. You certainly haven't been a demonstration of the open-armed Mac community I discussed.

get a clue
by hobz on Tue 10th Dec 2002 00:33 UTC

the argument over speed, is just a lame excuse, having been in both worlds and always gravitating back to the mac. why , why you ask, because it just works, nad just works is a lot better than being the fastest, the fastest does not usually mean the best it just means the fastest. when you take ease of use and that's what people want (outside of the gaming world) but we all know that gamers will always want the fastest machines. you ask your average office worker, they just want it to work and mac's just work.

RE: Eugenia, You're Wrong
by Eugenia on Tue 10th Dec 2002 00:33 UTC

>Mod away. It's sad that you're a troll on your own site.

I expressed my opinions. And if I would mod you down would ONLY be of your LAST sentense! The rest of your comment was nicely written, it expressed your opinion and I liked that. But your last sentense, was REALLY not needed, because it is not true.

..done by Scot Hacker. I hold nothing against this one, at all. I just thought it would be interesting to see another ex-BeOS user's opinion on the same subject.

Too bad it will never happen. Scot has been using MacOS X for way too long.

Differences
by Anonymous on Tue 10th Dec 2002 00:45 UTC

"In that case, why not have it as an option? I mean, it probably isn't any more expensive to have a 2 button mouse than a 1 button, so why not let the user decide which one they want?"

It is an option, isn't it? The question however goes straight to the heart of UI -- UI is not icons and graphics, it's user interaction.

Someone mentioned how they don't use shortcuts much in Windows... I find this to frequently be the case.

Someone mentioned how a lot of PC users do not use right-click. I find when someone comes to me with a question--I'm not in IT--the first thing I can do is say: "Right-click." Some say: "What? Oh, okay, I didn't know that feature was hidden there." Others say: "How come I always forget that, it seems everything is right click."

The whi(n)ners who are always crying for a 2-button mouse are the opposite, they are right-clicking to access every function, all the time. Maybe this is productive for them, but it doesn't really inspire "Context," does it? You expect a grab gab of features always like the task panes for dummies.

How does this get to Apple preserving the OBM? Well, Windows may have the advantage of accessing menu functions through Alt-combos and Ctrl-combos, but providing these constantly shifting shortcuts destroys the ability to promote universality of keyboard shortcuts...

(Why is it, that people cry for the right button, but they gave up crying for the delete key or Alt-combos? Huh, I wonder, what is the fanaticism with the right-click? I can easily add a "right-click", I can't add a "delete" key.)

Apple's metaphor seeks to enable the user by providing universally available keyboard shortcuts. These shortcuts are further nuanced by generally having Shift, Control, Option modifiers. These same modifiers also work with clicks--try option, control, or command clicking various elements of the Mac UI: if you option click on the desktop from an app, you hide the app; if you command click a menubar widget you can move it, etc, etc...

The question is: if you provide this so-called "option", who provides the one button, universal shortcuts, and modifier keys metaphor? The fact is: Apple supports it's own original and innovative metaphor that even many power Mac users haven't gotten their hands around yet, but some users truly love this fucntionality... AND at the same time they can support the traditional Windows/Nix behavior. We've already got the best of both worlds.

Someone was asking about differences? Jeez, there are so many--one of the most basic is to look at how Windows handles cursor and end-of-line behavior... an arcane, hard to describe topic, but the Mac method is superior. How 'bout keyboard mappings to special characters? Even though the Mac is Unicode now, people know that shift-8 is asterisk, option-8 is bullet, shift-option-8 is degree, etc... As for keeping apps open, when files close--I've always considered this an advantage... And it's not as if this works on Wintel--it's the most broken metaphor in the world... some apps are docs, some apps have multiple windows with the app menues available in all windows, some have file windows only, some apps you "exit", some you "close"? That just sucks... With XP it's gotten worse, the task bar is a joke now. Access can easily have 6 or more taskbar entries including one for the base app and one for a dialog box, but still all the windows are tied to each other and bring the underlying windows forward? That's another big difference. But anyway: the advantage: don't you have apps like Access, or Photoshop, or any number of other apps that take a few moments to load? Why would you want to go through that every time you close a document?

Just raising a few differences, and want to point out that: yes, at work I alt-combo through menues all the time, and I sometimes miss this behavior on the Mac, but at the same time, even though the shortcuts refer to a smaller set of functions, I find them more useful, memorable, usable, and intuitive. And I wouldn't want Apple to abandon it's own metaphor.

Even if Eugenia thinks that's what they should do... or are trying to do... or would be good for them? I don't know, I'm not sure what Eugenia is getting at... Apple should stick with it's strategy--do it's own thing, and allow "switch" users to behave the way they are used to, as much as possible, without compromising their own vision or their ability to attract defectors.

to mario
by Adam Scheinberg on Tue 10th Dec 2002 00:47 UTC

Scot Hacker?

done and done: http://www.osnews.com/story.php?news_id=421

RE: Bogus Peeves
by John on Tue 10th Dec 2002 00:48 UTC

>A cable disconnecting in shipping? That's not a reason to be annoyed at the Mac

Same thing happened to my Dell... except it was the floppy disk cable.

Analogy/Parable
by Soda Boy on Tue 10th Dec 2002 00:50 UTC

I think a little humour and perspective is called for here...

Parable:

A long-time coca-cola drinker takes one sip of a pepsi-cola which he had been hearing so much fuss about, and then indicates that he doesn't care for the pepsi all that much, and won't replace all his cans of coke in the fridge with a case of pepsi anytime soon.

The coke drinker says, "Well, right off the bat, I was peeved because when I opened the can of pepsi, it sprayed pepsi-cola all over me. (Apparently, the case of pepsi cans had gotten shaken up during the drive from the supermarket to the coke drinkers house). Anyways, I find that the pepsi-cola is maybe as fizzy as my coke, but it has a taste that's just not as tart as what I would like or am used to. Sure, the pepsi can is more colorful and prettier to look at, but the carbonation takes longer to subside when I pour it into a glass."

Having also drank jolt cola in the past, he also notes that neither the coke nor the pepsi is as caffeine-strong as the jolt, and that in some situations he likes jolt over coke, but maybe he might be willing to give the pepsi another try again sometime in the future.

Some pepsi drinkers hear about the coke drinker's little taste test, and say "Hey, we don't think you really gave the pepsi a fair taste test. Pepsi is really a cool drink and we think it tastes better than coke!! If you were to try it for a while longer than you did, and perhaps with different foods, you might find that you like it better. Besides, you can't really blame the pepsi-cola plant for the can being shaken up during shipping. It's not their fault.".

Now, it so happened that some die-hard coca-cola drinkers heard the pepsi drinkers talking to this coke drinker, and they didn't like what the pepsi drinkers had to say. One of the die-hard coke drinkers says "Pepsi-cola stinks. It's for kids who can't handle grown-up sodas like Coke!!". Another coke drinker says "Oh, but it _is_ Pepsi's fault for the can being shaken up during shipment. they are responsible for the drinker's beverage experience out of the can!".

One of the pepsi drinkers says "Not so!! Soda-container shaking, though an unpleasant and unfortunate experience could happen to any cola-manufacturer during transportation. Besides, coke is more gassy than pepsi!"

Some pepsi-cola drinkers who used to be coca-cola drinkers but switched, happened to wander into the heated discussion between the two soda-drinking groups, and decided to offer their own views. "It's true!" one of the switchers said, "when i was a coke-drinker, i used to get a lot of gas and indigestion all of the time. I couldn't get alot of work done because I would have to frequently stop and take antacids for the all the BSOD's (Bloating, Stomaches Or Diarrhea) I used to get. Now I drink pepsi and it's sooo much better!"

The coca-cola die-hards then retorted to the pepsi-switchers and the original pepsi-cola die-hards and soon, they were calling each other names and insulting each other. This went on for a while and eventually, everyone just walked away. The coca-cola drinkers went to the cafeteria and drank cokes while they ate and played games, and the pepsi-cola drinkers went to movies and drank pepsi while they ate their refreshments and snacks watching the movie. A couple of jolt-cola drinkers met up with some RC-cola drinking friends and they went over to the cafe and surfed the web. while they chatted. One smart guy went to the pub and had a beer with a pretzel and met a nice lady there and had nice time chatting with her.

The morale of the story?
It's all matter of taste and personal preference. We tend to get used to having things a certain way, and when presented with change, oftentimes we get all upset. Some accept the change and continue on. Others resist the change and continue on.

Unfortunaltely, _all_ mac vs. pc discussions are like this. It never ends and neither side is willing to capitulate completely to the other. Let's learn top accept each others opinions and viewpoints with polite courtesy and dignity and move on with our lives. :-)

RE: Differences
by Andrew on Tue 10th Dec 2002 00:51 UTC

Good Post.

Why not make those options you had for control click and option click available on the mouse?

uh-oh, I actually saw that one, read parts of it
by mario on Tue 10th Dec 2002 00:56 UTC

how could I have forgotten? But probably the information was peeking from within my subconscious, and made me think that it would be a good idea if he wrote such an article
:->

Very good article, Adam. You did an excellent job, in presenting your experience with the dual G4 and MacOS X.

Disclosure: I'm not a MacOS X user, neither am a fan of Microsoft Windoze. Neither am a fan of Linux, actually :o)))

soda boy, you're good!
by mario on Tue 10th Dec 2002 01:03 UTC

thank you for making me laff out loud! I felt mostly impersonated by the beer-drinking smart guy, even though I don't drink any alcohol.

re: Kasper
by Evan on Tue 10th Dec 2002 01:06 UTC

burner was on second channel without DMA enabled, Ill have to reboot, but either way thanks for the tip.

Either way though, out of the box my ibook worked properly ;)

my .02
by Greg on Tue 10th Dec 2002 01:16 UTC

I use both Windows XP and Mac OS X. I think they both do a very adequate job. Each system has good, bad and ugly points. Power users will likely argue the merits of each along with the merits of linux and a few other more obscure systems for as long as there is a forum to discuss the differences.

I have found, however, that I prefer the OS X because I seem to much less time trouble shooting the system. I have never quite figured out how mysterious problems just seem to pop into my Windows machines even when my virus detection software claims that my system is virus free.

Even if my Mac ran twice as slow as it does now, I would always get more work actually done on it than on my Windows machines. I spend much more time trouble shooting problems on the Windows machine than on the Mac.

Prior to the advent of OS X, I had given up on the Mac platform. I only used Windows for the last few years. I actually loaded OS X on an older Powerbook that I wasn't really using anymore to try this new system out. Within days, the multitasking and stability convinced me to reincorporate Macs into the machine mix. As OS X advances, I may be convinced to start replacing older Windows machines with new Macs.

You see, I am more impressed with OS X than the reviewer seems to be. I did take note that he invited the readers to see what his favorite desktop might be in 2005. I suspect he thinks that OS X has great potential.

personal preferences = copout
by appleforever on Tue 10th Dec 2002 01:20 UTC

Sure, you can prefer a PC for a given application. Businesses or large schools with a staff of PC caretakers; playing games; absolutely cheapest available machine for email and web browsing; etc.

But if you make those choices, you ought to acknowlege reality and stop the denial game. There is simply fewer problems on the Mac because with one company making it all, there are fewer chances for errors. And if there is a problem, you go to one company.

Several of the core Apple apps rock and blow away the junk on the PC - there is no iPhoto or iDVD for the PC. There is nothing like the overall package of included, built-in, updated continuously for free, work similarly set of Apple apps. Instead, there's a confusing melee of inferior product with crappy tech support and confusing UI. And I haven't even started talking about windows for OS X yet.

PC users, many of them, are just in a massive denial process. I have no problem with admitting the facts - you can buy a cheaper desktop PC and faster. There are a lot more games for the PC. There will be some software titles unavailable for the Mac, and some of these are not that esoteric (Delorme street navigation software is an example).

But then certain PC diehards just seem unable to admit what's better on the Mac. You can say all day long that Apple's production of the whole widget - although having a downside in that you can't upgrade and you pay more -- also has an upside in fewer problems and more rapid implementation of new stuff (because most of this takes hardware, OS changes and an App working together).

I just come on these boards and see the PC guys and gals squirming around playing the denial game. Why? Christ, if you acknowledge Apple is ahead, maybe MS will do something more faster that would otherwise be the case. Sticking your head in the sand and pretending the Mac advantage has been dreamed up by a bunch of cultists is sad, and that seems to be the prevailing PC diehard response.

sounded like a fair review
by Freebird on Tue 10th Dec 2002 01:21 UTC

I'm a die-hard Mac user but even I felt that this review was fair. It sounds to me like the two issues were speed and the ability to adapt to the way the Mac OS (OSX) interfaces with the user.

OSX in it's current incarnation (10.2.2) is slow, even at times relative to OS9. But each major upgrade brings speed improvements so after some point in time the speed issue won't be such an issue. This OS is only 1.5 years old! It's amazing to me that it works as well as it does.The current Motorola processors are another part of the speed issue and have been a thorn in Mac users sides for quite some time now (and I greatly suspect Apple's as well). That should turn around in 2004 when the rumored IBM processor takes over and Motorola is shown the door.

With that said, speed is also relative and user dependent. I don't find myself waiting around for screen redraws and the like but while others will agree some will disagree. When is fast fast enough? For some, never.

As for missing the Window's interface, that doesn't surprise me. If a person is accustomed to a particular OS, especially after years of usage, change will be tough. I doubt a feeling of comfort can be accomplished in a month's time. But again this is also tough to pin down as it's very dependent upon the person using the computer. Some would find the switch easy, some not, and a bunch of people will fall in between.

It's far more important to me as a Mac user that the platform simply garner the respect it deserves. When people are out computer shopping most of them should consider a Mac as naturally as they would consider a Dell, Gateway, or HP.

I find my new 1ghz superdrive equipped powerbook more that ample for all my needs and don't have a need at this time for more speed. Even the MPEG-4 encoding time for a 40 minute movie went surprisingly fast. It took about 80 minutes which is the 2X movie length that Apple had advertised in the past when using iDVD. And no other hardware was required.

As I've said a few times now, it's a personal decision. Just give the Mac platform respect when deciding and I'll be happy with whatever is chosen.

Actually, the review made me want to switch :o)
by mario on Tue 10th Dec 2002 01:23 UTC

No kidding, after reading the article I had a certain appetite for MacOS X that I didn't think I'd ever have. Now I'm really fired up to try it out and started considering it a viable platform.

I really don't understand why are the Mac users so mad at the writer, really. The article was balanced enough to allow me to make my own conclusions, which are favorable to the Mac!

All the key combos are the same on Mac OS
by al pettit on Tue 10th Dec 2002 01:24 UTC

Something I forgot. I pretty much use all the same key combos on the Mac OS since for every application they stay the same. Not true on Windows.

An example. I am on a win2k box right now
In MS word find is CTRL+F
In Eudora it is CTRL+SHIFT+F
In the Windows Explorer it's not even in the menus, you have to pick a drive and right click and it's called search

Don't give me the search/find argument

Thats really annoying.
For Windows people thats not annoying

PC diehard != Windows diehard
by Adam Scheinberg on Tue 10th Dec 2002 01:25 UTC

I hope people here are reading the article and understanding that the comparison here is between PC and Mac, not Windows and OS X.

I use Linux and Windows 2000 at home on my workstations and NetWare on my servers. I am not a Windows diehard, although I certainly don't blindy hate Windows as many do. Problems with OS X do NOT indicate a love of Windows. Too many Mac fans seem quick to slight Windows rather than look internally. I'm certainly not anti-Mac, I'm just saying it wasn't right for me now.

Maybe now people will understand the "unresolveable perennial debates" comment.

To Adam Scheinberg
by appleforever on Tue 10th Dec 2002 01:28 UTC

You asked: "Mac is nice, but it just doesn't offer me anything I can't get with a PC.

Wrong, you can't have one company making the hardware, OS, apps and online service integrated together. Try again.

Slow Apple Hardware + Slow OS = No Go
by hansnyc on Tue 10th Dec 2002 01:28 UTC

HERE! HERE!
I've had exactly the same experiences... just too slow and unresponsive... I ended up tweaking everything all the damn time. That's why there are more than half a dozen replacements for the Dock!!! Isn't that a clue to anyone that the UI was just thought out and it not mature enough? (The Dock is just but one example!)

The same goes for the OS, it is slow and unresponsive. I have used the same dual processor machine but with ~750 MB of RAM! Again, the OS and hardware are not mature enough or new/fast enough - respectively.

Time will tell and I may get one... but not now!

RE: To Adam Scheinberg
by Eugenia on Tue 10th Dec 2002 01:31 UTC

> Wrong, you can't have one company making the hardware, OS, apps and online service integrated together. Try again.

No, but he can have another company making the office suite, web browser, online service, OS and qualifications for hardware, integrated together. Try again.

Diversity
by Jay on Tue 10th Dec 2002 01:36 UTC

We really, really should celebrate diversity in computing. I think that is much more fun that hair splitting and looking for things to complain about, real or imagined.

This is the situation with us Mac users: for years we screamed for an OS that gave us true multitasking and protected memory. Well, we got it with OS X. And, its front end is as resource hungry as can almost be imagined. Because it is Unix, it does work - with that front end and those not-so-fast processors, it does not work with lightning fast speed. And, it appears that is what the situation will be for the time being.

The Mac (and really, I'm pretty much referring to consumer Macs) has developed a very nice package that comes out of the box: iTunes, iPhoto, iMovie, iDVD, iCal, AppleWorks and .Mac if you want it. The iApps are really outstanding, especially considering they are part of the package. With Jaguar, we have Rendeveus, Mail and the Address Book are tightly integrated now. I may be wrong, but I don't know of another platform that offers something that tightly integrated out of the box. That is worth paying a little extra for, whether Macs are overpriced or not. Unresponsive performance is not worth paying extra for, so Apple has a problem in this area.

The one button mouse: it is the Great Macintosh Mystery. Nobody seems to know why Macs *still* come with just a one button mouse. With OS 9, there is a freeware program called Finderpop that brings up the contextual menu if you press the mouse button down and hold it. I don't know if there is something like that for OS X or not. I have a Kensington Studio Mouse and it's fabulous.

About the Mac community: it is a wonderful thing to be a part of. It really helps make computing fun. There have always been little things with the Mac that have made it more fun, but also have made it seem like a toy to some. One is Clarus the Dogcow, who appeared (for no reason at all) in every print dialogue box (of Apple print drivers). Nobody could decide if Clarus was a dog or a cow, so Clarus became a dogcow. Not very business-like, but fun. That is just one example. But, the user groups, the feeling of being the underdog, the untold number of death knells for Apple have all served to galvinize the Mac community over the years. Here is a secret - Mac zealots, no matter how much they defend Apple, are, in private, Apple' harshest critics.

Here is an astonishing thing: go over to eBay at any given time and you'll see that there are an almost equal number of Desktop PC's and Desktop Macs up for auction (right now about 8-9,000 each). How can this be? It doesn't make any sense. Well, many things don't make any sense. But, what you'll see is people selling and buying Apple IIe's and Apple IIgs's, original 128k Macs, all types of iMacs, Power Macs - and the big one that you can always count on for getting a profit - the Mac Color Classic. It only has a 020 processor! And I read that someone, somehow, managed to put a G3 in one. People make aquariums out of old Macs. It goes on and on.

Computing is so much fun - why castigate each other over what is so wonderful. Me, I'm hot for one of those new RISC OS computers!

Dumb Blonde of Operating Systems?
by Jeff Mincey on Tue 10th Dec 2002 01:43 UTC

In reference to OS X, Adam says, "If it were a high school student, it would be good at art and might be voted homecoming queen for it's looks, but it probably couldn't serve on the debate team, be captain of the football team, or pass that damned Trigonometry class."

This is a common observation that OS X offers a "pretty" interface but "under the hood" simply doesn't have what it takes (presumably in comparison with Windows XP and Linux). But it's highly doubtful that Adam would find fault with the "under the hood" internals of other Unix-based distributions which don't offer as much in the way of graphics.

This is the paradox Apple faces--if it shipped only Darwin (its BSD-Unix implementation) with X-Windows and Motif (as well as KDE or Gnome, which do run under OS X), I'm sure Adam would not find fault with its "intellgience" or ability on the "debate team." And yet by offering this additional UI option of Quartz/Aqua, suddenly Apple seems to lose out. Let me repeat--by adding a UI option users like Adam seem to think it SUBTRACTS from the system.

OS X allows power users to operate strictly in the command-line interface of Unix shells or within X-Windows if they wish. So how is it that by ADDING Aqua suddenly OS X doesn't have the power under the hood any longer? If you take the debate team captain and dress him in a tuxedo (or her in a dress), does he (she) suddenly become stupid?

It's as if Adam sees OS X as the "dumb blonde" of operating systems--pretty, but lacking in other areas. Hey, Adam--it's UNIX. It's as much a Unix implementation as any other. The major difference is that it ADDS a new UI option.

Dollar for Dollar
by Jason on Tue 10th Dec 2002 01:50 UTC

Personally I find aspects about the Mac appealing but it immediately becomes evident that the price/performance ratio is clearly an advantage the PC has over the Mac. And Eugenia is right it is going to take something that is better than MS Windows to get people to change. Microsoft has done a really good job with Windows 2k/XP in terms of stability and performance. Personally I'm very open to an alternative to Microsoft . But not one where I have to pay twice as much for the same or even a decreased level of performance.

Re: Appleforever (personal preference = copout)
by Darius on Tue 10th Dec 2002 01:55 UTC

Even with your handle, you seem to be a level-headed guy ... about some things ;)

But if you make those choices, you ought to acknowlege reality and stop the denial game. There is simply fewer problems on the Mac because with one company making it all, there are fewer chances for errors. And if there is a problem, you go to one company.

Even assuming you're right (and for the sake of argument, let's assume you are), there's still a slight flaw in your logic. If something on your Mac breaks, you call Apple. But what if your Internet connection breaks and you have to call your ISP? Is there going to be someone there who is familair enough with Macs to help you out? Or are you going to get some Windows guy on the phone who once played with a Mac for about 10 minutes back in the days of OS 8.5?

Several of the core Apple apps rock and blow away the junk on the PC

I hope you're not talking about iTunes, because I personally can't stand it. I'd much rather use Winamp for playing MP3s and Nero for burning CDs. Why? Dunno, just a PERSONAL PREFERENCE I guess ;)

there is no iPhoto or iDVD for the PC

Couldn't comment on these two .. have never used them. But we'll assume for the sake of discussion that they kick ass ...

PC users, many of them, are just in a massive denial process. I have no problem with admitting the facts - you can buy a cheaper desktop PC and faster. There are a lot more games for the PC. There will be some software titles unavailable for the Mac, and some of these are not that esoteric (Delorme street navigation software is an example).

So, if I use my computer soley for playing games (a lot of people do) and you have acknowldged that the PC has more games, then what am I in denail of? That iDVD in OSX kicks ass? Why do I care? I play games!

Christ, if you acknowledge Apple is ahead, maybe MS will do something more faster that would otherwise be the case.

Ahead? Ahead in what way? Certainly not in gaming, as you youself even admitted this. The fact that there are fewer problems on the Mac (as you say and as I am agreeing with you) becomes completely irrevalent to the diehard gamer. If I want to play the latest bleeding-edge games, I don't care if Macs don't force me to reformat every 6 months because by owning a Mac and being without these games, THE COMPUTER HAS JUST BECOME COMPLETELY USELESS TO ME!!!

I don't think anybody is denying the Mac advantage, but what you must understand is that the 'Mac advantage' is far less important to some people than it is to you, and I happen to be one of these people. I have been a Windows user for about 8 years and problem rarely do pop up, so it is a non-issue for me. On the (very rare) occassion that a problem comes up that I can't instantly fix, I have a Ghost image of my entire C drive partition and i can wipe it out and restore clean with all my apps and NO DATA LOSS (because I have a seperate partition where all my data files are), and be back up and running just as i was in less than an hour.

Lastly, I have to say that I definitely would be willing to spend more time with the Mac and really give it a run for its money, but the f**king hardware doesn't grow on trees ;)

OS X and Networking
by Jeff Mincey on Tue 10th Dec 2002 01:57 UTC

I'm really struck with how Adam (the author of the original article in this thread) makes a point in his opening paragraphs about how he is less OS-centric than he is networking-centric. He describes himself as a power users with networking and DNS expertise. And yet in his lengthy commentary on OS X he didn't say a single thing about its networking capability, and in my mind this casts doubt on his credibility.

Presumably he has Windows and Linux machines at his command--and one would think that a networking guy would be eager to connect OS X to the LAN in order to witness the results. But Adam says nothing of this. He says nothing of OS X's seamless support of SMB/CIFS, NFS, and Rendezvous, (the ZeroConf technology).

This supposed networking person speaks more of the iApps than he does of OS X's networking components.

RE: OS X and Networking
by Eugenia on Tue 10th Dec 2002 01:59 UTC

>and in my mind this casts doubt on his credibility.

Adam works for the US Navy as a network engineer using Novell Netware.

Unresponsiveness/speed issue
by Steven on Tue 10th Dec 2002 02:08 UTC

I would like to chime in on this point with two comments.
* Mac OS X is still a unix like any other... sharing the resources as it is set up to do. I know I have found Solaris to be very slow (on some quad processor Sun boxes, ie. big $$). Perhaps there is a setting in the keyboard or mouse control panels (on your Mac) where you can increase the responsiveness of the computer to your input, in the same vein I think Redhat is soon to release an edition geared for developers with these sorts of "prioritizing" for the desktop.
*Second, I have two macs, both are 400mhz G3s with ~500Meg/1G ram respectively. I have not found the os to be noticeable slower on my older hardware. However, if you would like to pass along your test box, I'd gladly adopt it.

Lame
by Jace on Tue 10th Dec 2002 02:10 UTC

I can't believe I actually read so many of these lame comments from zealots on both sides and people who just don't see the problems they are conditioned not to see.

What I'd like to see isn't a comparison of Apple vs. Wintel. Or Windows vs. Linux. I'd like to see someone make an objective comparison of COMPUTERS against OTHER APPLIANCES. You know. VCR, TV, TiVO, Fridge, Car, Washing machine, Stove, CD player, DVD player....

Right now, computers are trash. All of them. They take too long to be ready to use. They take to long to turn off. They have no warranty (don't tell me you can use the thing without software, and software has ZERO accountability). They have a stigma attached to them that tells people "I can't use this because I'm stupid" when it is the computer that is stupid and badly designed. They are not designed to solve needs; they create needs that can never be fulfilled. They are inconsistent, big, loud, hot, wasteful of energy, error prone, and require managment and caretaking beyond any other consumer appliance. Problems that users have are often inconsistent, hard to reproduce, hard to track down and almost always unfixable (no, workarounds do not count).

The tech world is mostly conditioned to not see what is wrong. The tech world takes great pains to bash users for lack of know-how, when the users are the people that feed the tech world. There is an entire industry focused on work-arounds to unfixable problems, instead of a system to once and for all rid the industry of those problems. The tech world seems to be quite content maintaining lousey systems just to make sure there is always a need to fix things. Job security in the tech field is directly related to the quality of the technology. If it stays junk, the need to "fix" problems will remain.

Computers have problems far beyond the lame nonsense arguments being spit back and forth here.

When will there be an article and 200 posts about that?

One Button Mouse
by Waldo on Tue 10th Dec 2002 02:12 UTC

Folks, this isn't hard. Apple provides a one-button mouse because that's all that's required in order for the average user to complete tasks. They have a better designed OS that doesn't need a multi-button mouse. But they do have the good sense to design an OS that supports multi-button mice.

I have a multi-button mouse on my PowerBook. I love it. I don't mind one button, but I prefer a multi-button mouse. I put a multi-button mouse on my mother's iMac when I set it up for her a few years ago. She was baffled. She never knew when to click which mouse button. I gave her the one button mouse and she stopped calling me.

The idea that more buttons is better is based solely on complete ignorance of user interface design. Would your pants be better if they had two flies? Would your face look better if you required two noses? Would your front door be any better if it had two knobs -- one for opening the door and one for closing it?

Use your heads, folks.

Typical Mac users response. . .
by jpmist on Tue 10th Dec 2002 02:15 UTC

I love it when PC users discount the enormous amount of time spend dicking with OS glitches as well as discounting the steeper learning curve the PC OS's require just to keep them running. Is your time really worth nothing?

Run twice as much software,

I also love it when it comes down to how much software you can run. I always have 6 different text editing programs, doesn't everybody?

and not be slave to the will of any one company.

WHAT?? You're not a slave to Bill Gates and Linus Torvold?

In summary, if that's possible, the Mac is clearly loved by many. It presents the cleanest, sleekest, most modern interface I've seen to date. It provides UNIX-proven stability, ultra-modern flexibility, intuition, and friendly animation unlike any other computer system available.

And that's not enough?

However, doing the job best has to be proportionate to the value, and Mac's hefty price tag along with some of the (admittedly trivial) pet peevish annoyances along with an untraditional layout left me PC hungry. While the Mac and Jaguar are compelling, for my buck, I'm content with the PC alternatives. Can the Mac replace my PC? Nope. But check my desktop in 2005, we'll see who wins this challenge yet.

Again with the money?

Sorry, I'll stop with the ridicule and sarcasm, let me cut to the
chase.

There's a context to consider and that is the fact that OS X is in it's 2nd year of existance. The reality is that Apple had to put X out sooner than they should have because as you fairly state, OS X is, frankly, sluggish. Hell, I have Windows 95 running inside Virtual PC on my 500mhz iBook and it's more responsive than OS X on the same machine. The sad fact is that the OS X is more than what the current processors can handle. How many generations of Intel chips and Windows versions did it take for the PC's to finally get it right?

Faster chips are on the horizon for the Mac and I'm predicting that the responsiveness we both want will be there sooner than 2005

RE: Waldo
by Andrew on Tue 10th Dec 2002 02:15 UTC

So while I'm highlighting parts of a document, right clicking, copying/cutting, and then pasting with my mouse... What are you doing?

Nice review
by Ben on Tue 10th Dec 2002 02:20 UTC

I am currently a Mac OSX user, Linux user, and former Windows fan. I found your review to be fairly dead on.

Good:
I love the fact that I have an extremely nice and polished interface with the power of unix underneath. I like the fact that the entire experience is geared toward the desktop user (whereas my Linux box is still very rough around the edges). I love love love the extremely simple administration of the machine (while still allowing me to muck about in the command line). I have yet to feel that I am missing anything in terms of available software.

Bad:
I hate the fact that all those damn drop shadows and transparency is dragging my computer to a standstill at times (NT on a 180MHz machine seems snappier). I also miss the quickness of keyboard equivalents for every little thing ala Windows or KDE. I also hate having to click twice to activate a button on a window that is not the topmost window (one to raise the window, and one to click the button) - it makes the os seem even more unresponsive.

Ugly:
But, when push comes to shove, I turn to my Mac. I just feel better using it. It gets in my way less than the other two. It seems (to me) to be a better foundation for a really solid interface. It is my first choice (although I am not a zealot and I understand those who prefer Windows or Linux or IRIX or whatever is out there).

RE: Waldo
by Waldo on Tue 10th Dec 2002 02:22 UTC

So while I'm highlighting parts of a document, right clicking, copying/cutting, and then pasting with my mouse... What are you doing?

I'm doing the same with my multi-button mouse. Do you not read very well?

I think what you meant to ask was this: What are one-button mouse users doing? The answer is easy: they're going up to the "Edit" menu or hitting Cmd-X, Cmd-C, and Cmd-V. Very, very few users understand contextual menus. The vast majority of computer users navigate their system by way of the menus (as one ought to expect), and a certain percentage of power users learn the various shortcuts provided by the operating system.

RE: One Button Mouse ->Waldo
by Andrew on Tue 10th Dec 2002 02:22 UTC

Would your pants be better if they had two flies?

Umm, if I had two ..... it might.

Re: Waldo and jpmist
by Darius on Tue 10th Dec 2002 02:28 UTC

Would your pants be better if they had two flies? Would your face look better if you required two noses? Would your front door be any better if it had two knobs -- one for opening the door and one for closing it?

Um, what kind of fucking logic is this? Would you be able to hear better if you only had one ear?
Also, I don't understand why you go through so much trouble to diss multi-button mice, when you yourself prefer them. You say OSX is designed well enough so that it doesn't need a multi-button mouse, but how is using the Edit menu more efficient than using the right mouse button? And how does this differ from a PC, where it works the same way? How is the Mac method of clicking on the Edit menu any different than the PCs?

In summary, if that's possible, the Mac is clearly loved by many. It presents the cleanest, sleekest, most modern interface I've seen to date. It provides UNIX-proven stability, ultra-modern flexibility, intuition, and friendly animation unlike any other computer system available.

And that's not enough?


Um, if I want to play Madden 2003 on my computer, the answer is no.

Meh.
by jbett on Tue 10th Dec 2002 02:28 UTC

Yeah that's all I have to say to that. I have two very nice PC's and my Mac, and the Mac is already my computer of choice, I spend 5 times as much time on it as my PC's.

If you don't like Mac's it's your opinion, I don't hold a grudge against you for having that opinion. But please keep it to yourself.

It's not like I come out every other week and tell people that PC's suck and that Intel and AMD should die.

RE: Waldo
by Andrew on Tue 10th Dec 2002 02:30 UTC

I meant "YOU" as in "You mac users"

Yes I can read, thank you very much for asking. Can you do me a favor and say what I just typed outloud before replying? Thanks buddy!

Here we go again: Apple suckers Adam
by Red Pill on Tue 10th Dec 2002 02:35 UTC

How would the review gone if Apple had sent Adam an iBook?

OS X doesn't run worth a darn on an iBook.

How about if Adam had spent his own hard-earned money to buy an EXTREMELY EXPENSIVE, SLOW and INFLEXIBLE computer?

The review was far too kind. Adam didn't even mention how damn loud the new dual 1.25 PowerMac is. While Dell has made of their computers whisper silent, Apple is ramping up the noise.

Anything to "punish me harder" as it is what the submissive Apple faithful want.

- Red Pill

Jobs' UI Minimalism
by Jeff Mincey on Tue 10th Dec 2002 02:41 UTC

The one-button mouse stems from Jobs' minimalist UI philosophy. The Aqua desktop, the Mac hardware, and even the Apple stores interior design all reflect this philosophy. If Apple errs, it does so in favor of a clean, feature-controlled design than a cluttered, feature-laden approach.

For my part, I think Apple could design a two-button mouse which could still meet its UI "elegance aesthetic." But I do think that in the scheme of things it's a very minor point. It would be different if OS X failed to support context menus altogether--but it doesn't. Instead the user accesses these menus only in a different way. Now you might contend it cumbersome to hold down the control key while clicking the mouse--especially in contrast with a right-mouse click, and indeed I might be inclined to agree with you. But it's a very small matter, (not to mention that OS X DOES support multi-button mice; it simply doesn't SHIP with one).

I take no pleasure in finding Adam's OS X commentary quite unbalanced. A true power user with no axe to grind would not highlight irrelevancies like a loose cable (isn't it fortunate that this never happens to Windows/Linux boxes in shipment), while saying NOTHING about the ease of access to PCI slots and to user-installable expansion options. A true power user would not focus on the burning issue of a one-button mouse while saying NOTHING about networking--all the while advertising himself as a network guy.

RE: OSX GUI Slowness
by _Venom on Tue 10th Dec 2002 02:56 UTC

From what I've read the main reason for the slowness of OSX's GUI is that everything is being rendering in software as pdf files. Not sure of all the details but I would imagine that _eventually_ apple will try to get hardware accelerated video programmed. Microsoft took a better route and put the window management subsystem into the kernel and went all out hardware acceleration for the GUI via DirectX. This is what people wanted - trade a bit of stability for speed. I believe that I read somewhere that OpenGL acceleration is planned for OSX for the GUI, but apple just moves slow on stuff like that since most mac users are willing to wait for eternety if neccesary to get that feature. Look how long they all waited for protected memory. Eventully apple will get it right.

If there is any real reason to dislike apple, it's because they move too damn slow with important technology. They were slow to get AGP, slow to get DDR Ram, and even now they don't use DDR Ram's bandwidth fully, slow to get OpenGL, slow to get OSX up and running, slow to get their CPU situation resolved, slow to get developer friendly, etc. Now they are trying to make up for their mistake with motorola CPUs by stuffing more of them into machines instead of getting a chip with faster clock speeds and better system memory bandwidth. I mean come on, yes they put in firewire, zip disks, but why is intel kickin their ass so bad at 533 Mhz memory bus and now onto hyperthreading in the CPU? Why are they lagging behind - because in order to have the next best thing, you have to buy a whole new machine. So in order to milk their customer base they have to wait a few years so they'll be ready to buy technology that is still behind the state of the art. PC users can just drop in a new motherboard, CPU and RAM and be good to go. One of the main problems with the dual G4 is the shared system memory bus. You have a potential of 2.7GB/sec transfer rate with DDR 2700, but the CPU bus can only handle 1.3GB/s between two processors. AMD can use a separate memory bus for each processor where Intel uses a quad pumped 533Mhz memory bus (133 x 4). All the fault of motorola's chips. IMO that's the real reason why apple should be hated. Slow changes and mostly stupid decisions.

The apple consumer doesn't realize that they are not really getting the best hardware technology for their money. For those people who just like the GUI above all else then they don't mind overspending on hardware to get the GUI they enjoy since the overpayment on the hardware finances the "pretty" GUI. For those who want maximum performance, they use x86 with windows or linux or whatever. The fact is that the x86 and apple hardware are not equal, no "G4 at N mhz is equivalent to N*2 x86 CPU" propaganda. x86 can run at 533mhz system bus, 3Ghz, SCSI subsystem if desired, 14000 rpm drives, and dual CPU's. If you get a Xeon, forget about it, apple is just too far behind in state of the art. In all honesty, if apple sold state of the art hardware, I wouldn't have any reason not to try a mac. Until they do, I won't overspend on hardware just to get a alpha blended GUI, blah and a "cool" minimize animation. Yay!

Video in Kernel = Instability
by Jeff Mincey on Tue 10th Dec 2002 02:59 UTC

The person who goes by the name, Venom, says "Microsoft took a better route and put the window management subsystem into the kernel..."

My comment: This is better only if you want to trade a little performance for system instability.

Re: Jeff
by Darius on Tue 10th Dec 2002 03:00 UTC

The one mouse button thing might be a 'small matter' to you, but huge to other people. And as far as it supporting multi-button mice, that's not the point ...
The point is that it gets old having Mac users tell me what is and is not a 'small matter' to me, what is and is not important to me, etc.
They just go ON and ON about the 'clean and elegant' interface, and 'it just works', as if they think other people are just like them and hold these two benefits to be the end-all of computers, all the while not seeming to give a shit about the kinds of apps people use or what kind of interface (single menu vs multi menu, etc) that each individual prefers.
Hell, the Linux zealots are the same way when it comes to security, as if I haven't heard it 1,000 times before.

This is indeed fishy...
by Gern on Tue 10th Dec 2002 03:03 UTC

I thought of this when reading the review, but I'll repost part of a comment from macslash.com that pretty much sums it up:

No, I don't think he was just an inexperienced Mac user. I don't think he made a mistake. I believe he's lying. He said this:
Booting the PC proved the first challenge - it gave me a classy white screen picturing the Apple logo, but it wouldn't boot. I decided that this loaner was likely unused and therefore unformatted, so I set about installing Jaguar from disc. When I couldn't get Jaguar to install, I decided to install OS X and upgrade to Jaguar. That didn't work either, neither install could find a volume to install to. Point 1. BZZZT. Wrong. If the drive were disconnected, you wouldn't get a "classy white screen picturing the Apple logo." You'd get a question mark as the computer looked for a boot drive.

Point 2: He thought the computer shipped without an OS installed? Huh? This guy claims to be a power user, but thought Apple shipped their stuff with bare drives? Anyone remember the first iMac ad? There is no Step 3, and Steps 1 and 2 sure as hell don't involve installing the operating system! He's making up a story here, folks, and not a very good one at that.

Point 3: He then "set about installing Jaguar from disc" but couldn't get it to install. Yeah, buddy. No more details provided here by the author, but if the drive were disconnected the installer would have indicated that no available drives were found for the installation. For a guy who has performed such amazing feats as having "set up complete domains from scratch," shouldn't such a message have been a clue to check drive connections? Guess not for this self-proclaimed "power user."

Point 4: When he couldn't get Jaguar to install, he "decided to install OS X and upgrade to Jaguar." Huh? Whatchu talkin' 'bout, Willis? Jaguar IS OS X and is the ONLY operating system that would have shipped with the dual-1.25GHz machine Apple provided him. They wouldn't have given him a 10.1 install CD with a Jaguar upgrade disc because this machine doesn't support 10.1. The alternative is for us to believe that he happened to have an older version of OS X just lying around that he thought Apple would have expected him to install. This guy wouldn't have had that software on hand, and no "power user" would have thought for a second that ANY computer company, particularly detail-oriented Apple, would ship a computer specifically for critical evaluation without an OS installed and with nothing more than an upgrade CD included in the box. What? Bullsh*t!

You must be f^&%&^ crazy to pay 4900 dollars for a so so PC!!!

That's almost 7000 can dollars@!!!!!!!!!!!
I built my own 2 gig intel hyperthreading ready machine,
super optimized with xp, IT FLYES!!!!!!!!!, for less than 1000.

Or even better if your budget worried, buy a walmart lindows PC for about 400 can $, install a pirated copy of xp and your done. I think it's kind of inmoral to give your money away just for the look of aqua, when for much less you can have MUCH MORE.

Image over substance.
by dirkdude on Tue 10th Dec 2002 03:08 UTC

Contrary to Mac owners imagination Apple hardware is not premium quality. It is mostly standard OEM stuff found on many PC clones. Same with Dell, IBM etc. A quality clone usually has better componentry than more expensive brands. You won't Kingston RAM or Antec power supplies in many 'quality' brands.

Mac hardware is old - at least 18 months behind the cutting edge. PC2100 RAM is fitted on base level PC clones now. GF2 video is obsolete.

You can build a faster and higher quality clone for less than 1/2 the price of comparable a Mac. Antec case, Logitech KB and mouse, Kingston RAM, GeForce4 video, Maxtor ATA133 HD etc.

The Apple machine in the test is about AU$12 000 in Australia (or the price of the cheapest new car). I can have a much faster, better quality clone built to order in one day with AMD XP2600+, 1 gig PC2700 RAM, 128 meg ATI Radeon 9700 video, DVD burner, 120 gig Maxtor HD etc and a 21" Sony Trinitron CRT for about AU$4000 (US$ 2200) with Win 2000 Pro. A reliable XP2100+ clone with similar specs and performance to the test machine can be bought for less than AU$2000 (about US$1100)(with DVD burner) with Win 2000 Pro and no monitor.

I've owned 5 macs, the LC 630 was the biggest piece of junk in history.

Anything less than a midrange G4 tower is too slow to be worthwhile.

Within a 18 months you will be able to buy a decent PC clone with the same overall performance as the test machine for less than US$1000 with an 18" flat panel monitor.

Linux is improving so rapidly that it will be a viable mainstream desktop OS within 2 years.

Sorry folks the party is over for the desktop Mac.

eugenia give me a break
by appleforever on Tue 10th Dec 2002 03:13 UTC

> Wrong, you can't have one company making the hardware, OS, apps and online service integrated together. Try again.

No, but he can have another company making the office suite, web browser, online service, OS and qualifications for hardware, integrated together. Try again.

Bottom line, what you describe is different than what I described. So I am right -- you can't have what I described on the PC. So I don't need to try again.

Also, Apple's almost certainly making a web browser, and it does make an office suite. "Qualifications for hardware" - ain't the same as making the hardware. Especially when the hardware doesn't exist and you have to make it (e.g., firewire in the beginning of video editing on personal computers).

You're in denial too, Eugenia.

Small Matters
by Jeff Mincey on Tue 10th Dec 2002 03:14 UTC

To Darius:

My only point is that the lack of a one-button mouse is a small matter COMPARED to the lack of functionality which it represents. If OS X lack support for contextual menus, this would be more important than HOW one accesses them. Moreover, the failure of Apple to include a one-button mouse with its computers is a small matter COMPARED to the question whether OS X supports multi-button mice (which is does).

Remember, Adam advertised himself as a power user, one with a networking orientation. And yet he takes cheap shots with loose internal cables (which we all know was just a fluke and which happens with Wintel/Linux boxes as well). Adam nitpicks on the one-button mouse and places more importance on that than he does on the functionality it represents--not to mention that he said nothing of networking or Apple's early adoption of 802.11 wireless standard, Firewire, bluetooth, etc--things that a true objective power user would find more compelling.

Now, Darius, if you think a one-button mouse is more important than these other things, then we simply disagree.

mouse...
by Kevin on Tue 10th Dec 2002 03:17 UTC

if you need to 'right click' on something... just control click.. is it that big of a deal to WHINE about??? 'the mac didnt come with a 2 button mouse' Boo Hoo..

Gern's Post
by Jeff Mincey on Tue 10th Dec 2002 03:17 UTC

Gern, you make excellent points and a great contribution to this thread.

RE: This is indeed fishy...
by Eugenia on Tue 10th Dec 2002 03:26 UTC

> Booting the PC proved the first challenge - it gave me a classy white screen picturing the Apple logo, but it wouldn't boot.
>I believe he's lying.

Adam DOES NOT lie. Don't foget these facts:
1. Adam has never used a Mac before in such a scale. He is not accustomed in the various boot screens.
2. The loosened cable happened MORE than a month ago. I remember clear as day the VERY FIRST day that Adam got the machine and he IM'ed me in PANIC that the Mac does NOT BOOT!! I told him to try a few things and then he took the decision to actually open the machine himself and fix it.
3. This review was written only LAST week. Adam probably does not remember the exact error message or boot screen, because for the whole month after that, he was getting the correct apple logo bootscreen.

re: Adam DOES NOT lie.
by Gern on Tue 10th Dec 2002 03:33 UTC

Adam DOES NOT lie. Don't foget these facts:
1. Adam has never used a Mac before in such a scale. He is not accustomed in the various boot screens.
2. The loosened cable happened MORE than a month ago. I remember clear as day the VERY FIRST day that Adam got the machine and he IM'ed me in PANIC that the Mac does NOT BOOT!! I told him to try a few things and then he took the decision to actually open the machine himself and fix it.
3. This review was written only LAST week. Adam probably does not remember the exact error message or boot screen, because for the whole month after that, he was getting the correct apple logo bootscreen.


Fair enough, but more the reason to edit and fact check before publishing a review of this nature, which you *know* will get nitpicked.

re: Adam DOES NOT lie.
by Eugenia on Tue 10th Dec 2002 03:40 UTC

*I* don't know that, so I can't edit it! I never had a Mac with a losen cable, so I have never seen such a bootscreen. *I* could not have known! Neither anyone else who is part of OSNews could.
It is funny that you think that each sentence would need to undergo such "proofing" before going live. That would have been crazy! Adam made a mistake on his way of describing the error, as it had happened more than a month ago so he could nore remember the details! End of story.

Amazing ... No copouts here...
by Johnathan Bailes on Tue 10th Dec 2002 03:45 UTC

To Darius and Appleforever:

OS preference is a personal thing and it all depends a hell of a lot on what you do.

It is not a copout.

I want a Unix box on cheap x86 hardware the same way old Linus did back in the day. Fortunately, I got linux or FreeBSD if so inclined. I am a Unix admin/Software Configuration Manager and I like the *nix way but I don't make enough money to buy a decked out Mac. I use Linux.

XP is fine and actually with XP/2000 it is not terrible. You work with Windows. You have always used Windows. You know Windows. All the software you like is on Windows. You are a heavy gamer. You want inexpensive hardware that is fast as hell. Use Windows. Even if you hate Microsoft please continue to use Windows. Linux is not Windows and will never be Windows and really should not be if it wants to stand out from the crowd and eventually survive on its own merits. I don't agree with you Eugenia but please have mercy on me. :->

Macs are great for some. If you do not know a lot about computers. Macs are easier and I have seen it. If you want the simplicity and grace and lovely interface of the mac and are not worried about speed or price. Buy a mac. If you want a Unix that "just works", buy a mac. If you grew up on macs and prefer macs, stick with the mac. If you dislike Windows and want an alternative that "just works" and don't mind spending a little extra, PLEASE buy the mac, linux is not ready for you I promise. If you actually want to do all that multi-media stuff you see in all the computer ads with you digital cameras and video editing and all that stuff without a lot of work use a mac. You can do it in Windows but the windows user that tells you it is as easy as a mac is fooling himself hard it just takes longer on the mac for it to actually happen due to slow factor.


what's the problem??????
by Bob on Tue 10th Dec 2002 03:46 UTC

heh....I use all the OS's and computers that I can get,,curently have 7 networked 486's, 586's, 686's, macs, etc....2 duelies 1 w/2_2ghz mp's,,1 w/2 intel p111's,,the pc's are by far the cheapest to build,, am learning the mac's that I have and would like to try one w/OS 10,,I use several different OS's usually an assortment of windoze,linux,and beos,anywhere from 4 to 7 os's per machine, I have to accesse a lot of different data for various customers and do data recovery...the point is *ALL* the OS's need to come a long way from what they are now and they all have their pluses and minus's ,, personally I think the BeOS was the best *EVER*, but that is my personal opinion from everyday use ,, oh, by the way I also use CAD...good luck to everyone in their endevers.........

but...
by Gern on Tue 10th Dec 2002 03:46 UTC

If his intention in this month-long experiment was to write an article about it, why did he not take detailed notes along the way? That's sort of expected from a technical article, no?


Did you guys (OSNews) read this story before posting it to the web site? This is the least informative review I've ever read anywhere. Pick up a Consumer Reports some time for a good example. Even as an Op-Ed piece, the writing is severely lacking.

A good review consists of these things: Product Description, Features, Usability and questions like "Does the item do the job to the satisfaction of the user?", "Was it easy?", "Were there problems?", "How do its features compare to those of the competition?"...

This 'review' did none of those things. The writing style was at high school level, at the very best. The text is meandering. It doesn't set any objective goals - .e. "When I unpack a new computer, I should be about to do this, that, and the other, blah blah... Here's how my experience went." Even as an Op-Ed piece with the idea of "Can the Mac replace the PC?", the objectives should have been spelled out. I.E. - "I do this, that and the other with my PC. How was my experience at using a Mac to accomplish those same tasks?"

All Adam Scheinberg seemed to say is "Well, it does this different than KDE, or that different from Windows... therefore I don't like it". Even in the parts he highlighted as positive, such as the ease of downloading updates to the OS, the writing is bland and uninformative.

He says it 'feels slow' (sic), yet discusses no actual real-world evaluation of accomplishing tasks on one operating system vs. the other. He complains that the price is too high, but makes very little comment about the quality of the bundled applications that are paid for with R&D money included in that price tag.

A good review should have included things like:
* How quickly and easily one can get online
* How easily is a software upgrade accomplished (touched upon lightly, but with too few details).
* What can I do with the computer out of the box? (included apps and user experience)
* What can't I do with the computer out of the box - what extra software is available for me to do that? Is that kind of software available/not available for either the Mac or PC?
* How fast can I
1) Set up a home web server
2) Edit some video
3) Put together my collection of MP3's
4) Etc...

And I don't mean, "It took Photoshop x seconds to run this filter", but real world tasks from a user standpoint. He claims to be a 'power user' but doesn't include a single task that a 'power user' might do while sitting at a computer. How about a piece talking about setting up file sharing between the different computers? (as an example)

If I were a 9th grade English composition teacher, the article *might* get a C. As an editor, I would have passed it up for publication. It looks to me like OSNews published the article simply to generate page views of users saying "Yeah, I think the PC is better too", "Oh yeah, well the PC sucks", "No, the Mac sucks" in the comments section. The article does nothing to educate users to the positives or negatives of any platform (be it OS X, Linux or Windows); it seems to just try to cash in on the pages views of a flame ware that's been going on since 1984.


Marty Walser
Web Applications Developer

> In regards to "Month with a Mac: Can the Mac replace my PC?"
>
> Did you guys read this story before posting it to the web site? This is the
> least informative review I've ever read anywhere. Pick up a Consumer Reports
> some time for a good example. Even as an Op-Ed piece, the writing is
> severely lacking.

Who said that this was a review?
Did you actually read the article first?
It has this title: "Can the Mac replace **my** PC?"
This is an editorial my friend, not your traditional review. And it has been marked as an editorial here:
http://www.osnews.com/article.php?kind=Editorial&offset=0&rows=50

> A good review consists of these things: Product Description, Features,
> Usability and questions like "Does the item do the job to the satisfaction
> of the user?", "Was it easy?", "Were there problems?", "How do its features
> compare to those of the competition?"...

Sure, but this wasn't one of these articles.

> This 'review' did none of those things. The writing style was at high school
> level, at the very best. The text is meandering. It doesn't set any
> objective goals - .e. "When I unpack a new computer, I should be about to do
> this, that, and the other, blah blah... Here's how my experience went." Even
> as an Op-Ed piece with the idea of "Can the Mac replace the PC?", the
> objectives should have been spelled out. I.E. - "I do this, that and the
> other with my PC. How was my experience at using a Mac to accomplish those
> same tasks?"
>
> All Adam Scheinberg seemed to say is "Well, it does this different than KDE,
> or that different from Windows... therefore I don't like it". Even in the
> parts he highlighted as positive, such as the ease of downloading updates to
> the OS, the writing is bland and uninformative.
>
> He says it 'feels slow' (sic), yet discusses no actual real-world evaluation
> of accomplishing tasks on one operating system vs. the other. He complains
> that the price is too high, but makes very little comment about the quality
> of the bundled applications that are paid for with R&D money included in
> that price tag.

Adam is talking about UI responsiveness. Being an old BeOS user, UI responsiveness means A LOT. And MacOSX doesn't have that. It is not that iChat is slow, or that iPhoto is slow. It is the whole UI and how it responds to the user, how much you see that stupid wait cursor or how much IE is freezing the menu bar when it is loading something. Things like that.

> A good review should have included things like:
> * How quickly and easily one can get online
> * How easily is a software upgrade accomplished (touched upon lightly,
> but with too few details).
> * What can I do with the computer out of the box? (included apps and
> user experience)
> * What can't I do with the computer out of the box - what extra
> software is available for me to do that? Is that kind of software
> available/not available for either the Mac or PC?
> * How fast can I
> 1) Set up a home web server
> 2) Edit some video
> 3) Put together my collection of MP3's
> 4) Etc...

I am not saying that the article was complete at all its levels. But for Adam, these things (e.g. web server or video) might not matter a lot! The whole question was, after using that Mac for a month, if he was inclined to switch over or not. And his answer for HIMSELF was NO.

> And I don't mean, "It took Photoshop x seconds to run this filter", but real
> world tasks from a user standpoint. He claims to be a 'power user' but
> doesn't include a single task that a 'power user' might do while sitting at
> a computer. How about a piece talking about setting up file sharing between
> the different computers? (as an example)

That would have been nice indeed to see the machine in its full potential. But you can expect a 10-page article from someone who does it for free and he is not getting paid for any of this.

> If I were a 9th grade English composition teacher, the article *might* get a
> C.

Thanks God you are not.

> As an editor, I would have passed it up for publication. It looks to me
> like you published the article simply to generate page views of users saying
> "Yeah, I think the PC is better too", "Oh yeah, well the PC sucks", "No, the
> Mac sucks" in the comments section. The article does nothing to educate
> users to the positives or negatives of any platform (be it OS X, Linux or
> Windows); it seems to just try to cash in on the pages views of a flame ware
> that's been going on since 1984.

Yes, web page hits are always good, aren't they? ;)
But I do think that this article do brings perspective for a lot of people. Not for existing Mac users of course, but for Windows users. These articles are IMPORTANT even for Apple, to see what a Windows or Linux user is thinking and what are his stoppages on using a Mac.
This article, no matter how poorly you think it was written, it has value: It shows you the OPINION of a person and why he will NOT switch. This alone DOES has value.

If you do not understand all that, well, what can I say, more power to you. Goodnight.

Get a life people
by Thresher on Tue 10th Dec 2002 04:07 UTC

It is impossible for anyone to have an informed debate on this matter since so very few people have actually used both systems for any length of time.

I have, and I can tell you that both have their strengths and weaknesses.

I go back to my comment earlier, if your experience with a Mac consists of playing with one at CompUSA for 15 minutes, your opinion means nothing. This goes the same for Mac users.

Jonathan Bailes has the absolute best summation of the argument I've seen here. OS X, Windows, and Linux are all just different. None of them is any better at everything than another. If you like full control over your OS, get Linux, but be prepared for a steep learning curve. If you like the interface, style, and iApps of OS X, get one, but be prepared to have great difficulty playing graphically intensive games. Want a solid OS with tons of apps? Go Windows, but be prepared for more and more onerous restrictions coming from Redmond.

I do not know why this causes such a heated debate or why it's taken so personally. Who cares what OS you use? Why should you care what OS I use?

Many of the debates here (using the term loosely) boil down to "I know what's best, anyone who disagrees with me is a moron". Very few people seem to be openminded enough to dissassociate a difference in opinion on an OS choice from a personal attack.

It's just a thing, a construct. If it is such a part of your psyche that you are willing to assassinate the character of someone who chooses differently, it's time to push yourself away from the keyboard and go outside for some fresh air.

What Adam's Article is About
by Jeff Mincey on Tue 10th Dec 2002 04:09 UTC

To Eugenia, you say this in a post above: "Adam is talking about UI responsiveness."

In part, yes. But the basic thesis and topic of his article is supposed to be this: "Can the Mac Replace My PC?" This is taken from his own title.

In posing this question, he first needs to apprise the reader as to how he uses his PC and for what purposes and applications. Absent this information, his answer will be meaningless to us. He says he does a lot of networking--fine. And yet he says NOTHING about the extensive networking capability of OS X.

The answer to this question (as to whether the Mac can replace a PC) depends on how the computer is used. Is it used for software development? For desktop publishing and graphics? For database management? For office productivity (such as with word processing, spreadsheet, etc)? For video editing? For scientific applications? For gaming?

If the reader doesn't know against what baseline these platforms are evaluated, then the article fails its OWN stated mission.

As I noted in a previous post, Adam likened OS X to a prom queen (or something similar) who looked good but who couldn't make it on the debate team. This is his way of saying that OS X is the "dumb blonde" of operating systems. This reveals his bias and his blindspot. OS X is Unix--every bit as much as any other Unix implementation. And to suggest that Unix doesn't have what it takes under the hood is ludicrous and unworthy of refutation. I don't find this person credible for this and other reasons.

Flawed premise...
by Gern on Tue 10th Dec 2002 04:21 UTC

The whole question was, after using that Mac for a month, if he was inclined to switch over or not. And his answer for HIMSELF was NO.

The problem is it's a faulty premise. Despite the positive remarks about the Mac, his reasons for sticking with PC are ones that he could have surmised fom the beginiing without opening the Mac box at all.

To make an unbiased judgement you *have* to eliminate variables such as cost/performance, because those are known quantities stacked against the Mac from the get-go.

re: What Adam's Article is About
by Jason on Tue 10th Dec 2002 04:22 UTC

>I don't find this person credible for this and other reasons.

But you took time to read the article and spend time whining about it in a post. The title of the article was Can the Mac Replace MY PC?" Using the word "MY" in the title would seem to indicate that he is going to make his judgements based on what he finds important. At least he gave OSX a try. Just because he may have reached a different conclusion than you doesn't make him wrong or not credible.

Even as opinion, the article is lacking
by Marty Walser on Tue 10th Dec 2002 04:24 UTC

>> Even as an Op-Ed piece with the idea of "Can the
>> Mac replace the PC?", the objectives should have
>> been spelled out. I.E. - "I do this, that and the other
>> with my PC. How was my experience at using a Mac
>> to accomplish those same tasks?"

I will make a couple more comments, then shut up.

Notice that I did comment on the fact that even as an editorial piece, it was lacking. You seemed to overlook that comment completely. Adam never specified how he uses his current PC and if he was able to accomplish those tasks effectively or with fewer crashes (etc) on the Mac. The article had none of that info. Therefore, the byline is completely mis-leading. It should have been titled "Flamebait: A Mac can't replace my PC".

> It shows you the OPINION of a person and why he
> will NOT switch. This alone DOES has value.

Not so much. He nitpicks about some very minor details and then decides he doesn't like it. I understand about UI responsiveness and its importance, but he doesn't say "the machine's slowness caused me to take much longer in performing this or that task." Some more concrete usability examples would have been nice.

All he said is that the performance "seemed" sluggish. But perception is not always truth. Did it actually take longer to get online and read his email daily? Browse web pages? Write a quick Perl script and upload it? I doubt it. I would have been nice to see an example or two of what he actually used the computer to do for a whole month.

Marty

What OSNews is about
by Adam Scheinberg on Tue 10th Dec 2002 04:26 UTC

Many people here have some pretty strong opinions about what OSNews is and what it isn't. I'm going to clarify to make it crystal clear.

OSNews is owned by David Adams. Everyone else is a volunteer. We get no money or compensation. Every article you read here is shared with you, not provided for you. If any article isn't what you want it to be, you have a few options.

1) Don't read it.
2) Post intelligent rebuttals in the comments sections or forums.
3) Write your own article and submit it.

People throughout this comments section have gone to great lengths to pick apart this particular editorial, all the while ignoring the fact that it is simply one person's experience (they've also invented author claims which simply aren't there). Furthermore, it upsets me to see this community post unconstructive comments without even leaving an e-mail address. Aside from being perceived by many as cowardly, it lends to the trollish nature of "zealots." If you don't like what you see, don't read it.

This isn't Slashdot or Newsforge and doesn't aim to be - this is a community web page. If you're unhappy, be proactive - write something yourself.

Well, I'm fan
by Anonymous on Tue 10th Dec 2002 04:39 UTC

No doubt, OS X can feel a bit slow. Most of this blame can be placed upon OS X graphic layer. Quartz is, more or less, a vector based graphic system, not a bitmap based graphic system like those found in Windows XP and MacOS 9.

Apple is, as always, a bit ahead of their time with this technology. Although nVidia and ATi are now reseaching accelerated postscript graphics, all current video cards have not really been geared toward this. Most of the compositing for quartz is done on the CPU, or the on GPU via an OpenGL wrapper for quartz.

All in all, I can't say that I find speed to be a big problem with Jaguar on my Dual 450MHz g4 with a Radeon 8500 or on my 800mhz iMac with a gForce 2. OS X feels very responsive to me. Moreover, OS X feels a lot more intuitive then any of my XP boxes.

OS X is feels more "logical" to me. I typically reach the end of my tasks faster in X, and, unlike my XP boxes, I am a lot less likely to yell "arrrhhh, you should work, everything is configured perfectly, arrrr why aren't you working.....don't you want to work!?" and "damn, another security update?!"

Ohh and did I mention a lack of DRM software for consumer media apps? Ohh sweat bliss.

Apple is worse
by Sergio on Tue 10th Dec 2002 04:44 UTC

All those people who complain about the article shows how dangerous can Apple be if Apple wins any significant support. Apple and its followers have no respect to any people who oppose their ideas.

Apple is a company which used DMCA to threaten its partners to prevent iDVD to work with other drivers. Apple sued and threatened sites which distribute OsX GUI stuff which people use to customize their OS X. Apple threatened and sued companies not to use the word "Apple" as their product names. Apple phunishes people who gossip about its products. Ethically Apple is worse than Microsoft, even Microsoft is not that aggressive.

Apple doesn't give any better value for your money. Worse you end up wasting money, since you get less of many things. Less applications, less games, less hardware support, less quality CPU, a doomed CPU architecture... etc. There is not much technological innovation. The whole new thing in OS X is the interface. Its interface is pretty, nice icons, beautiful windows. But when compared to Windows Xp it has not much chance.

My suggestion to people is that if you want to support something as an alternative to Microsoft, support Linux, not Apple. Apple is a greedy company who wants to sell more hardware and make money as much as possible. Their latest OS 10.2 upgrade is a proof. They demand a full price for an upgrade which fixes lots of problems in OS 10.1. Just check out how much money you would have to spend if you bought Apple when they first shipped OS X with their computers. You would have to upgrade to OS 10.1 which was free. But then you would have to spend more than 100$ for the new Jaguar.

What OS News is About
by Jeff Mincey on Tue 10th Dec 2002 04:45 UTC

Adam, I can't speak for others here of course, but I have never taken your editorial or commentary as anything else. I simply find it lacking even by your own measure.

You ask whether the Mac can replace your PC--and your answer is no. But you don't englighten us as to WHY you feel this way. Is it the loose cable? Please. You and I both know this was a fluke--unworthy of mention. (It would be different if shoddy construction gave rise to frequent reports of this problem.) Did you decision stand or fall on the one-button mouse?

You describe yourself as a network-centric power user. Well, does a power user ignore expansion options and ease of access to a computer's hardware internals? By focusing instead on the freak loose cable, you remind me of the Oscar Wilde quotation of one who knows the price of everything and the value of nothing.

If you had explained to the readers how you use your computer and WHY OS X cannot meet those needs, then your article would have met its own mission. But instead you call your detractors cowards for failing to include their e-mail addresses.

Well, I get quite enough unsolicited mail as it is--thank you very much, and merely because I don't want to add to it is not to say that I'm unwilling to be accountable for my posts here. (You will notice I'm one of the few who uses his real name.) This is a forum for the purpose of an exchange of views--and that's what I'm doing here. You are welcome to take issue with my posts, as I am with yours--that's certainly fair game.

what about the door
by Anonymous on Tue 10th Dec 2002 04:45 UTC

man, that sucks about the IDE cable.... but hey give Apple some credit on the case's "door" you had to open to get to that cable ;) . Those things are rad ;)

Sometimes computers don't always come out of the box perfectly. That's the way the world is. However it's probably a bit easier to get your hands inside of a Mac to fix a problem if one should occur

appleforever
by genaldar on Tue 10th Dec 2002 04:51 UTC

"Several of the core Apple apps rock and blow away the junk on the PC - there is no iPhoto or iDVD for the PC. There is nothing like the overall package of included, built-in, updated continuously for free, work similarly set of Apple apps. Instead, there's a confusing melee of inferior product with crappy tech support and confusing UI. And I haven't even started talking about windows for OS X yet."

In your opinion they blow away windows stuff. Do they beat the bundled apps, sure. Are they better then any apps for windows? Thats a big statement. There are tons of photo programs (irfanview, acdsee, windows own viewer, etc.) and tons of dvd burning software (easy cd creator has it now, haven't used it but the program is simple enough for cds, don't know why it would be hard for dvds). As for inferior product, crappy tech support and confusing UI those are your opinions. And tech support is usually crappy.

"Wrong, you can't have one company making the hardware, OS, apps and online service integrated together. Try again."

Of course if MS did that you would be the first in line calling for a lawsuit. Its the same with bundled apps, everytime ms includes something now they get to look forward to lawsuits. Can't include a dvd burning program, its middleware. Can't include a better photo program, its middleware. They'll just have to settle for making the os, office suite, browser, email, im client and in many cases the isp.

tired argument
by Ben on Tue 10th Dec 2002 04:54 UTC

It's so tiring to hear this argument still going on. No one OS is really better with out the other. There would be no drive to out do anyone would there be?

MAC vs PC
by RESTORM_91 on Tue 10th Dec 2002 05:03 UTC

It's about time to finally hear those words--MACs are no better or worse than any other platform, PC, OS, etc.!!

I'm sick of hearing how great MACs are when PCs can do EVERYTHING a MAC can do. And, as the writer pointed out you can do it for a lot less money too.

I agree that MACs have a place in the Publishing world and other similar environments and that some people are more comfortable with these machines. One thing you MAC die-hards MUST agree on is that if it weren't for Gates and Microsoft APPLE would have bitten the dust a long time ago. It's not his fault that Apple can't market its products...

Marketing
by Jeff Mincey on Tue 10th Dec 2002 05:06 UTC

In regard to the idea that it's not Gates' fault that Apple cannot market its products, gee, what a coincidence that no other non-Wintel platform in the desktop arena could effectively market its products either. What a coincidence that it was only Microsoft which could do so.

yeehaw...another my OS vs. your OS pissing contest
by bytes256 on Tue 10th Dec 2002 05:07 UTC

Guess what guys...why not just use whatever works for you and be happy with it...there is no one true godly OS...despite what many wanna say

i actually use three OSes...Windows XP Pro (gasp!)...Red Hat 8.0...and FreeBSD 4.7-STABLE

and they all have their pluses and minuses...use whatever works best for the job...Red Hat is great for most purposes...but it doesn't play games or DVDs for shit on my computer...WinXP does mulitmedia like games and DVDs wonderfully...is compatible with any program i'd ever want to run on it...etc, etc...but it lacks the power and customizability of UNIX

FreeBSD is really powerful...but it doesn't run well on my laptop...so i've relegated it to my MP3/print server, which it does very well and very securely

so anyway...enough with the pissing contests...and yes some people are going to say that OS X would be great for my needs...but it really lacks the flexibility and customizability i want...in hardware and software

-bytes256

It's all about the title...
by Jasenko on Tue 10th Dec 2002 05:08 UTC

Like Jeff said, the question here was "Can Mac replace PC". To find that out, one should use Mac exclusively for that month and try to do everyday tasks on Mac and Mac only. If you failed to perform any of your tasks in that period, you should report about that.
David Coursey of ZDNet had done just that and his views are far more professional. If you want to read his stories, you can easily find them on ZDNet, and if Adam followed the subject of this review, we'd have much better story and less trolling around.

RE: It's all about the title...
by Eugenia on Tue 10th Dec 2002 05:24 UTC

>David Coursey of ZDNet had done just that and his views are far more professional

Why? Because he actually did the switch?

Re: it's all about the title
by Soda Boy on Tue 10th Dec 2002 05:29 UTC


>>David Coursey of ZDNet had done just that and his views are far more professional

>Why? Because he actually did the switch?

His article was better written - especially in terms of stated objective and how he measured his results to reach his conclusion

General letter.
by AQS on Tue 10th Dec 2002 05:43 UTC



To all Macintosh users,

Please don't be concerned. First, I should say that everything has it's positive and negative points, even Macintosh, to make it clear I am at least trying not to be biased. Second, bear in mind that Apple is competing with the _entire_ computing world (on both hardware and software fronts).

Ok, enough niceties.

OS X makes people scared. These kinds of articles prove this conclusively, to my mind. Few people can walk the "unbiased" line - if people own a Mac they love them, if they can't "afford" one then they hate them, simple. Why? Because the combination of OS X and Apple hardware is unrivaled by any other software/hardware combination (on an individual user level, not talking about servers where the GUI doesn't count).

Apple hardware is beautiful, elegant, well-thought out. OS X is similar. Anybody who owns a Mac that can run OS X knows how most people react on sight - shame? (this is the Mac that I've been putting this down for so long?), fright (Oh my Gosh, it's going to cause riots in the user-base), envy (those Mac users always talking about how good they are! I need to find a "dock" for Windows - where can I get big icons?), etc...

No my friends, be quite and confident that you have a computing system that is satisfying and _useable_ and _logical_. Drag and drop app install (I can install Office in under 3 mins, can you? Or just for fun how about a network install in under 3 mins?), all the major apps (Linux people dream of having Dreamweaver MX installed on their LAMP boxes - that is my life, but XAMP), many "special" apps (DragThing, Chimera, OmniOutliner, Searchling, Ben Haller, Chris Stone, Jordan Hubbard [not an apps as such but a great guys]), a choice in browsers, a KeyChain (not just a password manager, but system integration), system-wide AddressBook, iSync, Open-source apps (GIMP, film-GIMP, OpenOffice, etc. you know the deal), Big ICONS!!(and a dock, but that is a debatable point and a low blow, likewise fun window minizations - although for the average person these things make a really big "fun" factor difference - they will be dismissed by the PC zealots).

Now the hardware. No legacy ports. RISC (low power in laptops - Apple laptops rock the _house_ - only slot-loading _DVD-burning, widescreen, 5 hour battery, Gigabit ethernet, titanium cased, dual monitor support laptop I know of), looks to die for (case mods but mass production), OS integration (less OS install problems).

If you add all these together you have a powerful combination. So, back to my second disclaimer - that Apple is competing with the massed computing of the world - where does Apple lose out? Speed. If anybody is biased and wants to pick on Macs what can they pick on? Speed. (Price I hear you say? Well price is a very difficult one to compare... for all the things I listed _I_ feel that it is well worth it - couldn't imagine the horror of purchasing a PC... A cheaper Dell is fully twice the size of an eMac - I had to set a Dell up for a friend, I felt like shouting "The box, look at the box!" it is a good version of a box, but nothing compared to the set up of an eMac. You _get_ what you pay for. Less money more hassel. No thanks, your mileage may vary)

I try not to be biased. I use PCs at work. But I can't be as productive. The PC "maximise" (fill the screen) is _really_ limiting (Longhorn sideshow, verdict out). I have tried don't tell me I haven't tried. I wish some of the PC users would try so hard with Mac before they make a decision (but they don't decide out of genuine interest, but, as pointed out above, out of fear). The registry - no more need by said (And I hear .NET is moving away from the registry idea - HA! back to INI files! How 3.1!).

No. In the final analysis I am satisfied with my purchase. I have to reassure myself with a dose of Windows now and again, but I am _happy_ (how many ways can I say it - My iBook makes me feel happy when I use it - How much is that worth? One _huge_ Dell box or two?)

Peace to my friends,
AQS
Ps These comments represent my current state of mind - If Apple should ever move to DRM and general lock-down/meglomania I might have to move to Linux, until then I'm having fun.

Re: it's all about the title
by Eugenia on Tue 10th Dec 2002 05:43 UTC

>His article was better written

1. David Coursey is a professional journalist doing so for living. No one at OSNews is.
2. I remember people dissing off his articles and being unhappy with him. I guess you can't please everyone.

David Coursey and Tim O'Reilly
by Jeff Mincey on Tue 10th Dec 2002 05:45 UTC

David Coursey devoted a number of months to using strictly a Macintosh with OS X and he wrote a series of articles on his experience of going "cold turkey." He kept his eye on the prize and focused on the bigger usability issues and on his getting his work done--and he spoke of pros and cons as he saw them. He did not get distracted with trivial issues.

Also, I should note that Tim O'Reilly, publisher of the famous and highly respected O'Reilly computer books, is a big proponent of OS X--and has high hopes for its future. Let's remember that OS X is not even two full years old yet--while Windows and Linux have been around MUCH longer. Considering the quick and promising start of OS X, I think O'Reilly is correct to hold outt high hopes for the platform.

Up to now, I have not even weighed in on which OS I find superior. I will say I can find pros and cons to all of them. I have used Windows 200 Advanced Server and OS X (both client and server) as well as Linux, AIX, SCO, and other Unix variants. I think the most exciting development in operating systems is taking place right now in Darwin and OS X, and apparently one of the two founders of BSD Unix agrees and has joined Apple, (unfortunately I don't recall his name). In two years Apple has done what Linux still has not done yet in 10--which is to bring Unix to the desktop and to the consumer. And it has done this without sacrificing the power and customizability which Unix offers. You can use the bash shell or X-Windows with Motif to your heart's content--even under OS X. Indeed, you can even install one of several Linux variants on the Mac/PCC platform.

OS X is unique in the Unix world insofar as it offers consumer apps, enterprise networking capability, system admin tools, (both GUI and CLI), vertical market apps, robust support for third-party peripherals, etc--all in a single platform. It has much growing yet to do--no question about it; but it holds much promise and I'm eager to see what the future will bring.

v Who else will be...
by mpconnick on Tue 10th Dec 2002 06:00 UTC
RE: Who else will be...
by Andrew on Tue 10th Dec 2002 06:05 UTC

I certainly will be.

Mouse thing
by Masterlode on Tue 10th Dec 2002 06:06 UTC

Just wanted to note that almost all windows keyboards include a key that does what a right click does. looks like a pointer on a menu. and i know a damn lot of people who can't use a two button mouse properly (not even after 4 years with one).

How low can you go?
by Jay on Tue 10th Dec 2002 06:22 UTC

So now, when all is said and done, it's all Eugenia's fault - again. You 13 year old's, better get to bed - tomorrow's a school day!

I am happy Eugenia will not have to put up with this crap any longer.

A Switcher's Tale: 12 months later...
by Graeme Bennett on Tue 10th Dec 2002 06:33 UTC

I invite OSNews readers to read (and comment on) a much more in-depth examination of issues encountered by PC-to-Mac switchers.

http://macbuyersguide.com/editorials/Switch2Mac_report.htm

My Quick Rant
by Mark Ritchie on Tue 10th Dec 2002 06:34 UTC

OMB Shite... yeah why need to press CTRL (needs scroll)
MACOSX Dock, Great Awesome
Start Menu, Great Awesome, allows you to use the variety of apps that dont exist on the mac, hence the dock being so simple, ;)

i have a i8200, and a tibook 800, the i8200, (1.8ghz) is soo much speedier, than the tibook, i like the tibook, as its a bit smaller and lighter, but has less battery life (the i8200 has 2 batteries, hence heavier, but lasts 6 - 7 hours, the tibook lasts max 4 hours...

i like macosx cause its flashy but the hype dies, i use my i8200 more cause more apps, and i usually shift the tibook to my girlfriend, (hello kitty) type girl, she loves it...
me, i like more flexibility, i use linux quite often for fun, but windows for work...
i find with windows... and osx it justs works....
but i find with linux, making it work, the challenge, is so much more fun, ;)
hope i get a few comments,

P.S. Eugenia, your a champ, i always respect what you say, (an on occasion i dont agree with everything you say) you rock, but get some sleep, this website must be hurting you... oh yeah, and goodluck in the future, i wish you an your hubby the best of luck.... ;)
cheers

Mark

Eugenia violates...
by mpconnick on Tue 10th Dec 2002 06:41 UTC

News at 11: Eugenia violates OS News Terms (I just read them, you have) and mods other readers down for calling her on it. When will the madness stop?

200 Posts
by John Blink on Tue 10th Dec 2002 06:41 UTC

Wow 200 posts.

This story
by Anonymous on Tue 10th Dec 2002 06:42 UTC

This story was SUPPOSED to be written from a typical PC users perspective. All PC users are used to a 2-3 button mouse, hell I have 5 buttons on mine, and I use every one hundreds of times a day. If I switch to a mac, I get a 1 button mouse, yes, I can upgrade and buy a new one; but I just spent $3000-$4000 for a computer, why should I be upgrading something when its right out of the box?

He did mention how "pretty" the hardware was, and that access was second to none. Personally, I own a $4000 PC (WAS 1.5 years ago). I didn't go MAC because I wouldn't get as good release dates as the PC would. Furthermore, upgrading wise, my athlon motherboard supports processors from all the way back to thunderbird days to thoroughbred. Can't say that about any other system.

You are attacking him as if he writes this professionally, its his opinion, THAT'S ALL IT IS!!! He gives reasons for everything, you may just not like his reasoning, and that's fine; but its an opinion people. He even gives you mac zealots a complement by calling you a "nice community", but what you exhibit here makes me want the mac so much less.

He says the operating system is great, he has no complaints; but when his 1-2 year old hardware feels better to him than a brand new mac, somethings wrong.

I personally found the article informative, he was very descriptive in how the OS looked, how it performed, and everything else. I know about UI responsiveness because I've seen windows 95 on a non-586. And I've played around on linux, where at times UI response is annoying, especially if you're in a hurry. Please respect these hard working volunteers and don't trash them. Don't attack their ideas. And for Christ sakes don't argue with his opinions that's stupid.

Regards to my previous post
by Mark Ritchie on Tue 10th Dec 2002 06:44 UTC

i love them both, and i reckon teh tibook is soo much nicer to look at...
but the software for it, is just, well, lacking...
also, i can still burn cd's on either machine, no problem whilst doing anything else at the proper speeds, even though the i8200 has the CDROM (cdrw+dvd)UNIT (AKA Combo drive) on the same channel as the HDD,
also it is ata100, i believe the tibook is ata66.. as stated on apple website, fast ata66... oh boy..

still glad i bought it, some days i want a fun machine to use.

cheers
Mark

Jasenko: "we'd have... less trolling around"
by Watts on Tue 10th Dec 2002 06:52 UTC

No, we wouldn't, because every Mac story on OSNews generates trolling and flames. I'm not going to argue that they're "designed to"; I think it's known that they're going to, but that's not a reason not to post them.

I've suggested there's a bias here in the past and I've gotten a fair amount of debate for it, some of it deserved; I've liked the revived OSNews and certainly give Eugenia 100% of the credit. Nonetheless, I think it's accurate to say that all news organizations--including volunteer news sites--develop points of views, and that part of OSNews' point of view is that Apple overpromises and underdelivers. Generally, their Macintosh stories keep reflecting that. And, while Eugenia may get wrathful when I suggest that her feelings about the Mac color the editorial policy here: the reality is that she's pretty much defined the editorial policy here, and despite past protests (I think directly addressed to me months ago, in one case!) about her actually liking the Mac, you can't get much more precise than her statement "I don't like it" above.

As for trying to argue a distinction between "94% of the computing world can't be wrong" and "you have to be compatible with that 94% of the computing world to win them over": I'm sorry, but accepting the second requires accepting the first--and it essentially requires accepting Windows as the One True Operating System, relegating all others to, at best, curiosities. There's a case to be made for that viewpoint, sure... but a site whose focus is alternative operating systems isn't, honestly, where I'd expect that case to be made.

Windows uses only one button
by Iggy Drougge on Tue 10th Dec 2002 06:53 UTC

If you're coming from a Windows perspective, the lack of mouse buttons is a no-point. PCs have shipped with two-button, even three-button mice since before there was an even remotely useful GUI for those machines.
The first Windows version which gained any adaption worth mentioning, version 3, and which BTW continued to dominate the PC market until late 1995, only used one button. The only use for the second mouse button I could find in Windows was selecting the background colour in M$ Paintbrush. That's a very good use for a second mouse button, but it doesn't really prove the usefulness of having two mouse buttons in the system in question.
Windows 95, which BTW is about the same system as the ones currently in retail, started to employ the second mouse button in some context menus. Apple solved the context menu problem by letting the user press the button a bit longer. Not an optimal solution, but the right button remains rather limited in its usability in Windows, some new uses due to UI redesign notwithstanding.
Apple have after all invested more in UI research than anyone else, and during Lisa/Mac design, everything between one and three buttons were debated, finally settling on the single one so as to alleviate user confusion. And it works fine for 90% of computer users. The rest might consider using another platform, but Apple has been the way for non-technical users since 1985. A pity those users don't realise that. =)
As for X, there is, just like with everything else in X, no coherency about anything in particular, so of course you must have three buttons.

Useless article, useless thread
by Jim in Holland on Tue 10th Dec 2002 06:57 UTC

it's clear from the article, and especially from the posts that follow, that readers and reviewer alike didn't care to judge the Macs on criteria that they would apply to any other system. Were it a Dell and the damn cable came off, it would have been a bit of tinkering and a comment on how astute the new power-owner is and how lame the shipper was. And the mouse issue - the mouse is a clear indicator on the fairness of the review. If the reviewer blows this, then he's obviously not going to give the Mac a chance. It's an old joke by now - and if you're such a power-user, please...unplug the damn thing and plug in a Logitech as I have (on both my Dell and Mac).

These Pseudo-reviews aren't really good, in any sense of the word. They just demonstrate how brain-washed people are on both sides of the OS fence. The reviewer clearly had an axe to grind, and the masses have their own. Mac users are generally incensed and PC users are arrogant - can YOU talk to these people?

This wasn't a fair review. And the responses are generally trash, each trying to keep their meager edge. Why bother?

hardware
by Mark Ritchie on Tue 10th Dec 2002 07:00 UTC

as far as costs go...
when it comes to computing, alot is based on the QUALITY of the hardware, not the speed,
thats how intel made it big, offering microprocessors very cheap,
thats where microsoft made it, offering OS's very cheaply
now days we say its expensive but it is NOT it is dead cheap to buy macosx or XP whichever, i mean if it wasnt for either of these companies we would not be at the rock bottom prices of today,
i never saw a problem with mac charging the prices they did a few years ago, all there hardware was custom, and worked quite well, on the x86 side of things, there was alot of cheap poor quality stuff around (and still is) as it is not strictly controlled under a Quality testing of the OS making company, hence windows is sometimes unstable,

however i do have a problem these days with mac pricing, till recently they offered most machines with SDRAM, and ATA66 drives, poor quality (as per price) sound, and now, very poor quality screens.

spend the same ammount in the x86 world, and you get very good soundcards, audigy anyone? very good drives ata133?
very good video cards GF4 ti4600? better than the ti4200 etc, which is given with most top line macs by far eh,

i think there flatscreens on the tibook are pathetic, i spent a few hundred more and got the 1600x1200 uxga ultrasharp monitor on my dell i8200 laptop and it is SOOO much better,

apple made there fans by providing consistant fast good quality computers with a very well integrated OS,
nowadays i cant see the value in the hardware side,
they used to have scsi as standard, then they went to IDE, as it is cheaper, and just as fast... (nowadays)
i am glad to see the tibook 1ghz, as it has decent specs, even a ati 9000 video card, (i commend apple on that choice) its the only mobile video card that knocks my GF4 go 64mb off its pirch, (ati9000 also available from dell now)

but anyways,
i think people understand where i went with this,
macosx is a fun OS,
but the underside i think deck out a pc with the DECENT hardware, (as in spent the same amount on a PC as on a mac)
and mac zealots have nothing over a pc, except there preference over the OS, which is better is your choice, choose it well, because your stuck with it on that architecture, (dont give me lame excuses, emulators to do not recreate the experience, so dont even start)

best regards
Mark Ritchie

PS i know i didnt go anywhere with this, but something to think about

You missed the point...
by Simon on Tue 10th Dec 2002 07:17 UTC

It takes effort to remove those borg implants that redmond has pushed into you. Stick with it, you'll "get it" before too long.

Usually about the time the bloke in the cube next to you hoses his hard disk with some damn VB virus.

Stick with the Mac, it's not easy sometimes, but it pays off. Within a few months you'll be looking down through your nose at Windows plebs too.

MacOSX is just all around better, better standards compliance (yup, Windows is NOT standard and never will be - they bastardize everything just enough so that it won't work well with the rest of the world) Apple does not spin out products that deliberately break compatibility just to lock you in, they build products that are designed to just work.

Hook up your Mac to a Windows or Unix network and see how much of a good citizen it is. NFS mounts, BootP, Apache and a whole slew of other stuff.

Start button ? WTF ? that was never a good idea to start with. That WAS the biggest complaint to Sun about star office. Too "Microsofty".

Beholden...
by Anonymous on Tue 10th Dec 2002 07:22 UTC

"Yes, this may be true, but only because nobody has yet offered up a workable alternative [to MS-Windows] that runs on hardware that I already own. "

So long as Microsoft is a power, there isn't going to be. MS has more than sufficient influence to keep major software vendors from supporting a new platform competitive with MS-Windows.

An issue not touched on here is that many of the most important Mac apps are graphic arts tools, which still (!) work better on Macs. My impression, generally, is that Apple has lost much of its commitment to usability. Which leaves graphic artists like me in a very bad situation.

Oh, well. My pens still work.

RE:Simon
by Mark Ritchie on Tue 10th Dec 2002 07:24 UTC

you talk about standards, and then diss a company (sun)because they where making it follow a standard type of interface (start menu)so that people can understand what they're doing (microsofty) sounds like a complaint from a mac user... like, why come up with this drivvle, cause x86 platform have better hardware? whilst apple PPC have the better OS, there, i have said it, everyone happy????
geez,

<insert real response here>
by Mark Ritchie on Tue 10th Dec 2002 07:30 UTC

i would like to see...

macosx GUI ported to linux, straight away it gains SOOO much hardware support, and it keeps to a similar kernel,

darwin x86 is okay, but lacks hardware support, release that on the world and apple would make ALOT of money, the geek population out there, although small% still consists of a huge number of people, but i would hate to see what happens to apple with the microsoft backlash....

so therefore i doubt its going to happen, i'll keep my tibook, but not buying another mac till they use decent parts in there computers (as in my previous post) they use cheap parts with huge markup,
used to be okay back in the day, as they used good quality parts that not normally found in a desktop pc, decent sound, and scsi hdd, very good video, but i dont see apple hardware (any part of it other than the case)nearly as good as any PC hardware..
because, you can buy what you want in a pc, cheaper and faster, but thats the price you pay for not having such a nice OS,
:)

Fair review
by slant on Tue 10th Dec 2002 07:32 UTC

I thought the review is interesting. And given that it was provided in the perspective of the writer, the opinions are valid. Why? Because they are his opinions. Reviews are subjective, and to believe otherwise is folly.

But rule number 1 when dealing with Apple products is that Apple users must be dealt with kid gloves. A lot of the Apple mystique is tied to identification with the brand. People with Macs identify themselves with their computer, much like many people identify with their cars. Most people don't take it too well when you make fun of their cars. A "heated backlash" was inevitable.

Having said that...

1 - The IDE cable is a valid complaint. One of my friends is a die-hard Mac user. I constantly hear about how the "fit and finish" of Macs kills the x86 world. It's like comparing a BMW Z3 to a Ford Escort is a typical analogy I hear. So the cable impacts negatively on two commonly held perceptions of the Mac - "It Just Works" and "Unrivaled Fit and Finish".
2 - The one button mouse. It's a valid complaint, because the reviewer is role-playing on the "switcher", not a computer newbie. If I remember correctly, Option-click was a "hack" that appeared after Windows 95 became popular. I switched to Windows after System 8, so it's been a while. But Option-click wasn't always there. Yeah, you can buy a better mouse, but after paying thousands of dollars for a computer that _COMES_ with a mouse, why should you have to buy another one?
3 - The software. Yes, Apple includes excellent bundled software. On their own, the iApps probably are superior to their competitors on many levels. On the other hand, I've survived nicely with MusicMatch, ACDSee and Pinnacle Studio (which I think is much better than iMovie in every respect other than price). Yes, Final Cut is awesome and only available on Mac. But guess what? Final Cut was available on Windows until Apple bought the company. Hmm, this reeks of Microsoft-like behaviour. Don't tell that to a Mac fan though.

Macs in Estonia
by Elver Loho on Tue 10th Dec 2002 07:34 UTC

Macs seem to be getting more ground in Estonia here, which is in eastern europe. Macs are used in TV shows, we use Macs mostly in the studio running Final Cut and Photoshop, I've got a 800mhz Powerbook (not my own, studio's) at home where I do most of my work. Too bad that it doesnt integrate with the Estonian language too well - are still pretty awkward. If you use a PC keyboard, you wont get the special mac keys, if you use a mac keyboard, you wont get the special estonian keys. Sucks. But it's true what they say - MS Office is actually pretty nice on Mac OS X.

But yeah, Macs are a good therapy once Linux pisses me off again ;)

hipocracy
by Mark Ritchie on Tue 10th Dec 2002 07:43 UTC

>Yes, Final Cut is awesome and only available on Mac. But >guess what? Final Cut was available on Windows until >Apple bought the company. Hmm, this reeks of Microsoft->like behaviour. Don't tell that to a Mac fan though.

i agree,
what has a OS's usability got to do with the underhanded tactics of either company, i mean linux moving to linux i can understand from such a point as it is mostly OSS, and therefore much LESS of these tactics happen

both apple and microsoft are corporations bent on increasing marketshare and profit, they do what they can, microsoft is under a lot more scrutiny because even its users have a brain in there head and look at more than 1 side of every story... also the world is focused more on MS than APPLE,
apple users are so die hard... so dedicated, that they fail to see the bigger picture,
they're happy with what they have congratulations sit in your own world,

i am a mac user, and i like the experience, but i have other tools at my disposal, and i have to say, i like to have a choice of software to use, and not be so limited,
port MACOS to linux, (or freebsd or whatever)
get WINE/WINEX etc, working and lets have the best of both worlds..
mac wouldnt fail they'd still have the diehard fans after there computers, as MAC users LOVE apple, they are very loyal, i'll give them that... but they wont because they wont have a MONOPOLY on there own system (read: yes they also do underhanded business tactics to keep macintosh on there own propriety systems.... at least microsoft lets there OS be run on any hardware config...
also today i discovered that apple disabled use of external DVD writers with there own video editing stuff, as it was MEANT to be used with the internal dvd writers they sell, and they stopped the release of the unblocker drivers.. (i'll even get the artical i read if requested..)

is that underhanded i think so....

NAMES
by Mark Ritchie on Tue 10th Dec 2002 07:51 UTC

hehe, my surname Ritchie is of scottish decent, its a sept of the "Macintosh" clan...

though i am not a mac zealot, ;)
hehe,
NOT RELEVANT, OFFTOPIC, I DONT CARE,!

My Experience and Critique of the Review.
by Chris Campbell on Tue 10th Dec 2002 07:54 UTC

I've been a PC user since the early 90s. My first PC was 486 DX/33. I've been through MS-DOS 5.0 to 6.22 and Windows 3.1 to Windows 98SE. I've tinkered with Linux, QNX, BeOS, and other OSes in this time. I've built my own systems since the time after my first purchase, and learned a lot about PCs. I transitioned to AMD before the bandwagon.

Two years ago I was moving into the dorms at school and was looking to get a new computer. To be honest, there were four things that drew me to a Mac. It looked cool. It had no floppy drive. It was pretty simple to carry to school. And it was a Mac. My reasoning was that no one would want to use.

I purchased an iMac DV model. I hated OS 9 from the get-go. I didn't know how to work it and it wasn't "my Windows." Overtime, I adapted to getting around in it. I still used my PC at home on the weekends. I never thought it would replace the PC as my primary system.

It was earlier this year that I made the transition to OS X (10.1, now 10.1.5). Again, it took some adapting to the new interface. My roommate even made comments about OS X being lame. However, we both grew to prefer it over OS 9.

Well, this summer I moved back home and I didn't have room for both computers. Thus, I opted out of the PC and gave it to my roommate. It's kind of funny, but he whines about how he wants a Mac all the time. Now, my platform of choice is the Mac. Are the some shortcomings? Sure, but none that I could see convincing me to switch back.

Of course, by now, I am a Mac advocate so I read stories about switchers all the time. I also read articles about the "tryer-outers." This time, after reading some of the posts, I felt it necessary to respond.

From the get-go, the author ruined some of his credibility with me by assuming Apple would ship a system without an OS installed. Sure, the system wouldn't boot, but assuming that and then trying to install Jaguar? I felt this is a little far-fetched for a "power user."

Next, the mouse issue. I complained about this one myself, but I have come to enjoy the ease of one button. I find that Apple and many developers learn to develop the UI around this. Plus, hands on keyboard most of the time, I like shortcuts over jumping to the mouse and right-clicking. The old Apple slogan comes to mind. Think different. I think those who use a Mac, do think differently. Not better or worse, just differently.

Next, I run on an older iMac now. It contains a G3 450 in it. I have 384mb of RAM, and don't see the sluggishness most people talk about under OS X. Sure, the beach ball comes up occasionally (90% of the time in IE). Overall, I don't "feel" the OS being slow. Especially not any slower than Windows ever felt to me.

Now, I browsed over here from macslash.org. I tend to give Adam the benefit of the doubt on his review, and don't really think he was lying. However, his claim to be a "power user" is questionable in my opinion. I don't claim to be a "power user," but see some of his processes from problem to solution to be a bit out there. This, of course, is my humble opinion though.

I would like to make another comment here though, in regards to Eugenia. I see your posts as largely biased. Even, hypocritical. It seems as if you are saying people can say bad things about Macs and OS X, but they dare not say it about Windows. How about a balance here?

After all, if there are 94% of the users out that agree Windows is the better platform then the Mac/OS X users should be significantly out numbered.

The remaining 6% of us will persist in thinking differently, and never being tied down by the status quo. We will push the envelop and make the world a better place for the other 94%.

Just my humble thoughts.

My recent PC experiances
by Dave on Tue 10th Dec 2002 08:08 UTC

6 months ago I had to sell my PC for financial reasons with the intention of buying it back when I had money. In the meantime I used my gf tangerine ibook 300Mhz 128MB RAM with OSX.1.

A couple of weeks ago I bought a new Windows XP laptop. A Sony Vaio with twice the memory and 3 times the processor speed. I never thought 'wow, this is so much faster' and I found having to bend my thumb back to click the right mouse button far more annoying that having to cold down ctrl.

I then tried to plug in my old USB scanner. Windows XP showed me the BSOD and rebooted... no kidding! It works now though with downloaded drivers.

Whenever I cancel my dial-up if the line is engaged or something and try to redial XP says that the device is already in use and won't change until I reboot.

These things would NOT happen under a mac.

All this coming from a PC user for 13 years.

Why I never switched
by Michael Wassil on Tue 10th Dec 2002 08:23 UTC

I always wanted a Mac, but even in 1987 when I bought my first computer they were overpriced and instead I bought an Atari ST, the "poor boy's Mac". Ever since Atari imploded I wanted to switch to Mac, but the price always deterred me. It took me a while to realize that Apple likes its elitist, cult image. Despite the current switch campaign, Jobs is pretty content with his 2-3% market share. Otherwise he wouldn't have killed the Mac clones and would port OSX to x86 where he could really grow market share from all of us many M$ serfs who would just love to switch if we didn't have to buy a truck load of overpriced Apple hardware. It's my opinion that Mac OS's and software have always been superior to anything available on M$ Wintel, and probably always will be. And I constantly beat myself bloody fighting with audio on wintel and promise to reward myself with a Mac that can actually do it without all the headaches. Until I look at the price tag, and all of the hardware I would have sitting around collecting dust. I wish Jobs really wanted to increase Apple market share. And put Mac prices where they would convince me to switch. Finally.

@Ernesto:
by PH on Tue 10th Dec 2002 08:31 UTC

You are wrong:

If you go to http://store.apple.com/Apple/WebObjects/spainstore?family=iBook

You will see tha an ibook@700Mhz is 1274 and if you look down in the page you can see:
"Precios incluyen los 16% de IVA y excluyen los gastos de envo"
Price includes VAT, but not shipping. But you get free shipping if you buy more than 50

adam :-)
by rajan r on Tue 10th Dec 2002 10:51 UTC

Apple has designed the system from the ground up, so there is very little chance that anything unplanned occurs.

Yeah, like modems mysterially not working, or mouses and keyboards suddenly stop responding till you unplug and replug the keyboard.... or your Cube casing starts going all mouldy....

One advantage of building the hardware and the software together is that you target a small audience of hardware, unlike PCs where Windows XP itself can't run on a lot of hardware. But the machine is assembled by the same people who assemble PCs. Taiwanese.

This community is not like the Linux community, which in my experience, is tiered, judgmental, and, I'll even say i: elitist. The Mac community welcomes "newbies," not shuns them and makes them feel stupid, unvalued, and generally unloved.

You must understand that most of the Mac community are the same kind of people as the newbies. So it is way easier to be nice to newbies coming from Windows to the Mac than to Linux. If I was a long time FreeBSD or Solaris or <insert whatever non-Linux *nix here> migrating to Linux for the very first time, I can be said as a Linux newbie. And the community is way more supportive of this group of people.

Apple has gone to great lengths to research user behavior and and user interface.

And threw it all away with Aqua :-). Had Apple used Platinum, add a little eye candy (not to the extend of Aqua), things would be way way better, trust me.

This is a neat idea. Let me explain. For Mozilla users, or better yet, for anyone who uses Java applications or apps like Openoffice.org or StarOffice, you'll notice a delay in starting these applications.[...]

I think it is a stupid idea. When I close all of the windows, I expect the app to be closed. If I don't want to go through the initial startup time, Windows has something called Quicklaunch, where OpenOffice and Mozilla takes advantage of.

Over and Over...
by col_kurtz on Tue 10th Dec 2002 11:16 UTC

This review was OK but there is a slight bias against Apple. The reviewer made some valid complaints (speed, mouse, etc.) but then followed his "stream of consciousness" too far and obviously isnt familiar ENOUGH with Apple's history, and maybe not Windows history either. Not super-heavily, but it's definitely there. It's the same tone I noticed with Eugenia's earlier article about OSX Jaguar if memory serves.

Basically, it's a bitterness, and it has ALOT to do with pricing. The reviewer comes off to me like that guy who bought a Toyota Camry and then constantly convinces himself why it was practical to skip on the Mercedes, as if to keep his mind off it. Obviously this is not a apples to apples analogy and cars are much different from computers, but its the same TONE based off of what people can and cannot AFFORD. I am lucky because I can buy a Mac without worrying about the price so this makes it painfully obvious to me when pricing skews a review...this happens with Apple critiques all the time.

I have a Linux, Windows 2000 and Mac OSX on three SEPARATE and MODERN machines at home. I have used all three systems for years, and am as close to "objective" about this topic as nearly anyone could be. Each system balances the other out.

If the author is really a power user, which its clear he is not, then this article would be longer and more thought out, and his conclusions of why windows is preferably would be more developed. A whole MONTH of apple, and only three pages? I used to write hardware reviews we would write at least 3-5 pages per DAY, or at least finish the article within a day or two. This smells of volunteer journalism or shitty pay and bitterness.

Anyway, done with my rant.

...
by rajan r on Tue 10th Dec 2002 11:37 UTC

Evan: Every common application I use is just as good or better then a windows counterpart.

For me, no. I much prefer Office XP to Office v. X, for example. Why? Although the latter looks way more gorgeuos, it is completely annoying. Dialogs popping up everywhere, *eek*. Then, there's smart tags, which is IIRC not available on Office:mac (if it was, they sure hid it well).

Evan: That is what I like about OS X, on windows there are tons of crappy applications out there.

But there's a lot of good apps out there too. For example, Jasc Quick View Plus, not available for Mac. Or *grin* Opera 7 Beta?

Evan: Many of which carry viruses/spyware/etc that people get tricked into downloading for their new PCs.

Stupid people are people that download stuff from unreputable places. If you download anything from Download.com or ZDnet or Tucows, you can be assured there's no viruses. Plus, apps that contain spyware, like KaZaa also have spyware on their Mac version. Bummer.

Evan: I would not spend a dime on the desktop systems personally, the laptops are so far ahead of PCs in power, battery life, and design and are cheaper or similiarly priced.

Power? Kidding? The top end PC can beat the top end laptop PC anyday. Design? Kidding again? You prefer a laptop keyboard and trackpad to a fullblown keyboard and mouse? Cheaper? Senile? Maybe for Macs they are cheaper, but for PCs, they are way for expensive.

SJS: What that should have been was a plus, as to how easy it was to open up the case compared to the typical PC.

Those $10-15 beige dollars ATX cases, maybe, but those from Dell, Alienware, etc. are far more easier to open than the PowerMac.

new users get mouse buttons confused, and if all you need to do most things is just one button, then provide just one button.

Somebody at Apple is underestimating the consumer market. Even my mother knows the difference between a right and left mouse, albeit now she gets confused between the right and the middle button.

But for so many cases one have to Command-Click just to get the context menus, newbies is better off with a two button mouse. And what's wrong with scroll wheels?

matt: Face it, if you MUST have windows installed you are a slave to microsoft.

If I must have water, I'm a slave to my water provider? Man, modern-day slavery. If you don't want Windows, you can just dump it, something a slave can't do. The caveat for most users is they can't do their work as good as before.

matt: But wait you're a badass pc user who builds your own machines, a disconnected cable should not be a peeve.

Yeah, because I built it myself, so I'm practically the manufacturer. But if I order from any store or company, and it had a disconnected cable, it is a peeve.

Evan: meant comparable to PC laptops.

Ahhh, I still disagree with the power, battery life, style. If you want the same power as a mobile G3 or G4, a Pentium III-m Low Voltage would do it. Great battery life. All notebooks using it looks gorgeous. (metalic finish, a way to get to my heart :-). iBook is the only Mac I would consider...

Darius: so unless I can rent one for a week or two for about $50, the Mac loses by default.

There is leasing. I'm not sure about American prices, go to store.apple.com to find out. There is no charges by weeks, by months only, IIRC.

spider: Can you back that claim up with real number please? If you can't then please stop thinking for everyone!

He wasn't talking about hardware speed but responsiveness. BeOS was a very responsive OS, everyone I showed it to was impress. (Had Be marketed it better, it is bound to succeed). Now, not too many people are impress by OS X's responsiveness. It makes KDE 2 on a 120mhz Pentium MMX with 32mb look fast.

ryan: The apple is fast enough for joe/jane word/web user.

Yeah it is. But the market Apple is ultimately targeting is the higher end. New markets like audio, and trying to secure their niches in print and video. Speed matters there. And plus, while it is fast enough, OS X is still not responsive. All the Mac users I know personally use OS 9 for that very reason.

Spudnuts: Complaining about the OBM is like complaining that the license plate holder on your new Porsche carries the name of the dealership.

Wha's wrong with that? Completely bad analogy. Having your dealership logo on the license plate holder won't hinder your driving experience, and probably not your style too. OBM does hinder your productivity.

How do I buy that Workstation 530? There's no "buy now" button.

Go to Dell.

Michael Smith: I think that it is unfair to expect a MAC to provide an instantly more productive experience than a windows machine.

But after a month, I would expect that, shouldn't I?

Chris: The fastest Mac processor is NOT faster than the fastest PC processor, but most of the other parts are EXACTLY THE SAME except for the one thing that sets them apart...

I beg to differ. For the same price, you normally get a faster and/or bigger hard disk, faster RAM, better GPU, and/or better sound card.

Chris: Apple uses the higher quality versions of those parts than most PC manufacturers on ALL their systems instead of just their highest end systems.

I beg to differ. Yeah, if you buy a $200 machine from a unknown maker, expect terrible quality. But for Dells, for example, uses good parts and is assembled well.

Chris: I feel absolutely no need to upgrade to a P4 3GHz.

Well, I have a Duron 1GHz, and I want to get a dual Athlon MP 1800+. Because I need the speed because my apps need it. The reason why you don't see the need to upgrade is that the software haven't catched up.

Chris: Obviously you have never seen the inside of a Porsche or ridden in one. It's the elegance and high quality parts that make up a Porsche that make it a PORSCHE...

I have been in a Porche once, but been into plenty of BMWs, Mercs, etc. to know what you mean. But in some many cases I find PCs are more elegant that a Mac. (elegant as in look goods as well as feels good). Don't expect anything from a cheap ATX beige box and a cheap monitor.

Rayiner: It's not comparable to technologies like EVAS or the Longhorn D3D GUI.

I don't think you should compare with Longhorn, after all you never tried it, no technical info is available and QE may have improved by time Longhorn is out.

ryan: What are you saying that we need more bloated software? Or are you saying that we need more software/applications to take advantage of the processor speed or both.

No, more features to take advantage of the power. Notice professional apps have no trouble taking advantage of more power. Features. Not bloat.

My Mac literally just works..
by Jimbo on Tue 10th Dec 2002 12:52 UTC

I love Linux and have been developing in it for the past 5 years, but my Mac can do it all, plus more. Sure it's not as snappy as Windowmaker, but I don't feel that anything on my PC is - not Gnome x.x, not Kde, not, well, yah, I guess TWM is, but..
I have a funny story about the OBM thing. The author didn't like his and fine, but he also didn't mention that it's literally a non-issue to replace it - even with the one on his Intel box. On my other old work mandated windoze dev box, replacing this even most basic piece was an issue. When I plugged in my new usb mouse and kbd, win2k provided me with all the annoying 'new hardware found' boxes. and with that, the stupid wizards to install the new hardware. However, being that I unplugged my ps2 stuff, windoze was not smart enough to just install it and use the new stuff - my new kbd and mouse wouldn't even work! so i had to plug in the old ps2 kbd so i could tab to the 'Next' button and complete the useless hardware detection wizards. On my tibook, I plugged in the exact same kbd and mouse and they just worked. No annoying messages, no nothing. Just ready to go. That's what I'm takin about and that's what windoze will prob never do - just work.

v Seems like "Power User"="Moron"
by Sgt. Baxter on Tue 10th Dec 2002 13:18 UTC
Question Mac
by Stupid Person on Tue 10th Dec 2002 13:30 UTC

I have a completely biased perspective as I have never owned a Mac, and have been running Windows for a few years. My question is, what exactly makes Macs so much better then Windows?

I could understand and completely agree with the stability issues back with Windows 9X/NT, but Windows 2000 and Windows XP have never crashed on me, and any program hang ups are easily fixed.

I've read that having too much software to choose from in a bad thing? This makes no sense to me. How can having too much of a choice be bad thing? Sure, there is lots of bug-ridden spyware/adware/whatever available, but there's also a lot of really good software out there. Using the wealth of software as a complaint also seems to contradict the issue of Microsoft having a monopoly. Microsoft can't include middleware because it's stifling competition; yet when other companies do make the software, it's also a bad thing... Who is suppose to make and distribute the software then?

Regarding the hardware issue: on the one hand we have people criticizing Windows because it's takes longer to install a digital camera. It's wonderful that Apple users can do this, and, if it's true that Windows can't do it, it's obviously a valid point. I myself don't own a digital camera (although I am shopping for one if you have any suggestions), but when seeing my relatives or friends load pictures onto their windows computers, it doesn't look difficult. From what I've heard about Apple, transfering from a digital camera is a breeze, but what about the wealth of other hardware available for Windows? New videocard, soundcard, ethernet, burner, tv tuner, etc... If we're trashing Windows for not supporting digital cameras perfectly, I think Apple computers can be criticized for not supporting a plethora of other hardware. Some have made the arguement that this is actually better for Apple because it ensures the system is stable. This point falls along the lines of the software arguement. I don't see how having the option to install so much hardware is a bad thing anymore then having the option to install so much software is a bad thing. Sure, some hardware sucks, but I'd expect a little research to be done before making a purchase; in that regard buying a computer or a computer part is the same as buying anything else. There are good products and bad.

My last couple comments refer to the Apple GUI that receives so much praise, and the mouse. The Apple Aqua GUI is a beautiful thing. I don't know how responsive it is on an Apple, but using StyleXp, AquaDock and a couple other programs to have it on my Windows machine, it's a pleasure to behold, and responsive as well. I suppose that's also a indication towards of how having a lot of software available for a platform can be beneficial. Regarding the mouse, is it at least an option to have apple not include the mouse? I can understand the arguement that Apple is pushing the one button simplicity, but knowing you're going to have to buy another mouse even before you buy the Apple in the first place is something of a downer if you do want a scroll mouse, 3 buttons, whatever.

Lastly (I hope), is regarding what kind of computer users we're talking about here. I've read a lot of criticism of windows because it's too difficult to operate, setup, etc... the digital camera is one such example. That indicates to me that we're discussing about new users. These are assumptions of mine, but if someone was looking to purchase a new computer and didn't know much, a big part of the process would be trying to keep options open in case this person doesn't like the computer. Which will run more hardware? Which will run more operating systems? If I do like it, can I upgrade? Can I focus on one aspect such as programming or games, or media? What platform has more options available? Also, both Windows and Linux are aggressively gaining new users by donating their operating system to schools. I don't think Apple is doing this, or if they are, it's not getting nearly the amount of publicity.

That's all. Please, bash is feces out of my post.

Oh, and cost IS an issue. Money is always an issue. If you mock someone for buying a PC instead of a mac because of the price, be willing to foot the difference for them.

Jimbo: RE: PS2
by Mark Ritchie on Tue 10th Dec 2002 13:39 UTC

yeah well, ps2 is old legacy, geez,
what can you expect, apple has control over the ports the mac has, and have long since forced a ditch of most legacy parts, disk drive, etc....

but in the PC world there is still a transition period,
we ditched ISA, and are slowly ditching the rest... but many people still have older pheriphials they wish to use... many motherboards come without these ports now in favour of USB varients...

i know first hand how pissed off people get with Apple with ditching legacy stuff, changing standards.. its good for newbies, but what about those people without printer drivers, etc...
similar happened with XP/2000, but the companies catch up fast.. we're yet to see many epson drivers ported, and any older pheriphial never will be....
legacy... goodnight and good riddence.... but some need it..
i'm going to bed..
i've had my rant..
thanks everyone for participating, ;)
cheers
Mark Ritchie

Haven't looked back
by Herbert Gone on Tue 10th Dec 2002 13:40 UTC

Kicked my Tbird 1.4ghz to the floor and used it as a nice table for my dual 867mhz G4. Do I notice the slower response time? Sure. Do I notice that I spend more time USING the computer instead of patching it up? Oh yeah! It's not about first impressions with a Mac.

a Mac? no thanks
by thies on Tue 10th Dec 2002 14:11 UTC

buy a 3 button mouse? I did. What did I find out? a lot of the functions I then hoped to find in the right-button context menu wasn't there and still had to be accessed in the menubar. Conclusion: buying a 3 button mouse is a halfassed conclusion.
speed? 1GHz is enough for everything I'd usually do. But they have to be used right. I don't run Photoshop filters 24/7 at home. I want a fast and responsive UI and while it did get speed up over time it's still sluggish.
A shiny interface? Sure, I like it. I would like it even more if it wouldn't waste horrendous amounts os screen realestate just to look good. And what about multiple workspaces? The add on applications to achieve this either don't come with a good feature set or are rather expensive shareware which I did not try. "buy it if you want it" no, deliver me a computer with the basic features I need. Apple doesn't. Their OS feels sluggish. They are far more expensive than PCs in europe. I switched to FreeBSD/Gnome2 not long ago. The PC I built for it cost me half as much as a comparable Mac while having a wider variety of ports (Firewire, USB2, serial ports, PS2, ...) and also being small and nice (Shuttle SS51g case). The OS looks nice, is responsive and won't have me getting annoyed at me being unable to do what I want as I can tweak it to behave exactly the way I want.
Yes, it takes more time and is more difficult to set up. Something I gladly did to circumvent the price of a new Mac and the annoyances in using OS X.

Re: Stupid Person
by Jay on Tue 10th Dec 2002 14:27 UTC

LOL, you are one of the few wise ones here - asking a question rather than shooting your mouth off!

There are no significant differences in hardware quality or GUI ease of use between Macs and Windows/PC's now. There used to be, i.e. Mac System 7 and MS Dos/Windows 3.11, etc. But now, we are reduced to hairsplitting arguments about mice. Each platform has some cool features the other doesn't, so we can take those into consideration - but they are not earthshaking.

What happened with Apple was that it was in the tank. Steve Jobs came back and saved it by cutting away all fat and then going on an industrial design rampage, beginning with the original iMac and iBook. And squeezing everything he could out of OS 9 while preparing OS X. He really did save Apple. And, of course, he tried to use this new look and all-USB Mac to poke fun at PC's for being dull. So, there was this shift - you could no longer berate PC's for having an inferior OS, so he shifted the attention to the industrial look and by adopting non-legacy attributes. Now, many PC makers have pretty nice industrial design and XP, so that's pretty much been caught up with. So where can Apple go from there? Jobs has relentlessly concentrated on the digital lifestyle and Apple does offer a great bunch of apps out of the box for this. I'm and Apple user and watcher. And, aside from the iPod and "new" iMac, Apple has been pretty quiet on bringing out new products while, at the same time, running the Switch campaign. If Apple doesn't bring out some new, higher powered stuff (and a Steve Jobs type bombshell) at MacWorld next month, then Apple, I fear wil begin to fade. I don't want that to happen, as I steadfastly believe that a healthy Apple is good for the computing world at large - along with a healthy Linux. But, it is hard to keep coming out with jaw dropping products as Job did in saving Apple. Time will tell.

The vast majority of posts in this thread responding (or reacting) to Adam's editorial and each other's posts has been a disgrace. On both sides too. It is my fear that, when Eugenia is gone (which she almost is), this will be the rule rather than the exception. I hoee I'm wrong.

use 'em both
by Bob on Tue 10th Dec 2002 14:53 UTC

I do a lot of graphics and I need both the mac and the nt4_pc to share a graphics program..I think it's called EDIT....the 2 are networked together.....I can honestly say that I can't use just one or the other...be thankful for the diversity..........believe it or not the person with *the best* home computer in the world that I know of, is non other than,, Dick Van Dyke,, that he uses it to do 3D animations.....

Is a month enough time?
by Larry Crockett on Tue 10th Dec 2002 15:10 UTC

People are creatures of habit and habits are difficult to remake. As a result, it would be better to test a new OS for a longer time than a month. It simply isn't enough time to learn a new system when one is accustomed to another.

Macs are too slow and too expensive; Apple needs a different CPU. A good test would be Mac OS X on a 3-Ghz CPU. That would be a fair test of what OS X is supposed to be about. The rumor mills suggest that a much faster CPU is on the way, perhaps from IBM. Once OSX has had more time time to mature and is riding on a fast CPU, then Apple will be offering arguably the best power-user's box on the planet. That could be as early as late summer 2003.

The pricing
by Dave on Tue 10th Dec 2002 15:47 UTC

Apple always charges far too much for it's machines. Check e-bay for diconinued macs and see what you think then. I saw a Powermac G4 867Mhz with 15In studio display for 1250 just last month. I think that is pretty reasonable. I love macs but I would never dream of buying one new!

Mac OS X is NOT Slow
by Susan W. on Tue 10th Dec 2002 15:47 UTC

[quote]I have a 333MHz iMac and a 400MHz PowerBook. Both have plenty of RAM, around 200 and 400 MB respectively. OS9 runs GREAT, but load up OSX Jaguar, and it is slower. The window resize problem is the main culprit, but startup and shutdown are slower, too. I hate to use the term, but applications "feel" slower. Launch times, file requester dialog boxes, file loading, everything. And some programs just run better in OS9, even the Carbon apps meant to run natively in OSX. So, as someone is bound to spout off, yes I've gone back to OS9 for my primary use, and keep Jaguar loaded for the occasional use.[/quote]

Well, duh! How many people except super-speed when running XP on a four year PC? I've installed OS X (10.2) on a 333MHz Mac and, yes, it is PAINFULLY slow. But let's see how XP works on a 333MHz machine, or even a 600MHz one. Trust me, you'll have that same molasses feeling.

What is never mentioned once is that OS X is multi-threaded, something only the latest greatest PC chips (the new Intel 3 3 GHz) can do and most Windows apps can't even take advantage of. That means that you can render a Photoshop file, while copying files, while, all at the same time, listening to iTunes and downloading from the Internet. You can even launch 30 programs simultaneously if you want, or install four programs at the EXACT SAME TIME. Or start saving a document and, when the dialog box pops up, switch to another app, working in that for 20 minutes and THEN come back and save your doc. You can also have 30 open applications with no memory drain, hook up ANY peripheral and have it instantly recognized and function--no driver install, no restart, no problems.

Yes, it feels slower, at first, than OS 9. It's a newer, larger application. It's part of the curse/blessing effect of upgrading and, trust me, Macs are not only in feeling it. (Can you honestly tell me you can switch from Windows 98 to XP and NOT feel like XP is terribly slow by comparison?)

Study after study shows that, because of Mac's (PowerPC) shorter chip cycles (7 commands to finished product, unlike a PC's 17-22) they are totally comparable to PC speeds, even if the numbers on the box are lower. It's so much a state of mind. A recent PC-run test comparing the Mac dual 1.25GHz to the new 3GHz PC--top of the line models each--show a less than 10% overall speed increase for the PC vs the Mac, despite the massive (comparatively) number gap.

I, personally, do graphic and video design very, very happily on my 800MHz TiBook. I usually have between 10-15 open applications at any given time and play MP3s in the background using iTunes almost constantly. I rarely ever have a glitch in the music, even when working with 100MB+ PhotoShop files or several gigabytes of video. Try that on even your best Windows machine (I have, the WinAmp/PhotoShop combo brings the whole system down every time).

Oh and, about the mouse. As a longtime Mac user (graphic designer, it goes with the biz) I never missed a two button mouse. (You can always option-click to get right button effects.) But, now that I have a three button with a scroll wheel, I wouldn't go back. Still, it's an easy add-on and keeping the Mac simple and easy to use is why Apple has kept the one-button mouse, it's not a cost issue. (They're no cheaper than the two button variety and, actually, because they're used only on Macs, they're usually pricier to buy separately.)

You can also buy a floppy drive for $19.95, though the only time I ever use it is for reading PC files. With USB and firewire, universal standards, Mac peripihals have never been easier to use and with OS X's built-in CUPS printing technology you can hook up almost any printer--even totally "unsupported" ones, I've found--and be printing in five minutes. Scanning is still a serious issue with OS X but new scanners are OS X compatible and work well, and there are work arounds for older models. (Epson and Nikon are currently the only manufactuers I know of with full OS X compatiblity.) And, Macs clearly aren't designed for gamers, so if that's what you're into, Apple likely isn't for you.

And, as for lack of applications, yeah, the sheer number is lower but I have yet to find a PC application (other than QuarkXPress and an online postage solution) that I can't find an equivalent for on my Mac, frequently one I find a lot better. Saying there are tens of thousands more apps for PCs than Mac may be true, but it's pretty irrelevant, as most people only use a handful of applications day-to-day and, to be honest, most of those "tens of thousands" of PC apps are just duplicates of each other (different apps that do the same thing). There is plenty of shareware and freeware for the Mac, just like the PC. In fact, whenever I'm looking for something I think is pretty obscure a search of VersionTracker almost allows shows me that someone else has already created it for OS X.

In summary, I use my computer to work, not because it looks good or has a pretty interface. And I wouldn't use anything other than a Mac, despite fairly extensive PC experience (both before, and after, I became a Mac user). Mac OS X was a big adjustment for the Mac community and it's only really come into its own this past year, but once you get past the learning curve (damn those permissions) it really is the best, most productive operating system I've ever used. Not to even point out that almost of all of Windows advances are taken directly from the Mac platform. Heck, all of you Apple critics would be shocked to see how closely OS 9 (and even, to an extent, OS X) resembles XP. Any experienced Mac user can sit down at a PC and get quite a lot done, without once asking a question. It's sort of like Democrats and Republicans in Washington: the fighting and bickering goes on but, deep down, they're an awful lot alike.

Nope, a Mc can't replace my pc.
by Lanjoe9 on Tue 10th Dec 2002 15:53 UTC

No.
Enough said.

re: closing a window does not close the application
by DJ Jedi Jeff on Tue 10th Dec 2002 16:13 UTC

I base this statement not on personal experience (I realize that I have been trained by Windows and X to think "close window, close app") but based on years of watching complete newbies (the kind that need to be taught how to use a mouse in the first place) unwittingly leave applications running.

Admittedly, this has actually become less important in OSX than it was in OS<=9, where the lack of a good memory model meant that if you left MS Word running unnecessarily, you might be unable to run a web browsesr or something. Imagine what happens to that kind of user when the system tells them they need to close some applications to free up memory when they think they have closed all the applications.


But how many newbies exactly are thinking "I need to free up resources by closing this application?" A good OS with a good memory model should make it transparent to users. The UI is fine. If there's a problem it's with the OS resource handling.

Great Article!!!
by W on Tue 10th Dec 2002 16:27 UTC

I have read many reviews of the Mac OS over the years and I find it fun to read the complaints just disappear with OSX. The ones that they complain about are getting smaller. This one button mouse, some operator interfaces from time to time. However over all even the die hard wintel users are finding the Mac world better and better.

Apple has one very important thing to work on and that is speed. Even most wintel users (the sheep) will find that the G4 will work just fine for them. However they will continue to read computer wintel geeks like Adam Scheinberg talk about how Apple is slower. And as long as people like Adam continues to write about this fault, Apple will have problems they need to deal with.

One last comment, all you wintel lovers better pray that Apple does well what would this computer world be like if we had no Apple. Like for example the digital hub idea would still be a dream on a shelf in the wintel world if Apple had not rethink the computer concept. We all need competition!

yes a mac can replace anypones pc
by ahron on Tue 10th Dec 2002 16:33 UTC

Yes a mac can replace anyones pc and alot more
and for you video game players , get a life or get a xbox the 1 and only thing MS did right
a PC that runs only games , the only thing pc's are good for
enoughf said

moron's ethics
by rockwell on Tue 10th Dec 2002 16:34 UTC

//...and install a pirated copy of xp and your done. I think it's kind of inmoral to give your money away just for the look of aqua...//

So ..it's immoral to pay for Mac with OSX, but it's perfectly OK to steal a copy of Windows XP from Microsoft.

What a moron.

My take! For me only?
by NTK on Tue 10th Dec 2002 16:46 UTC

I develop on Mac(G4 and Jaguar) at work and use Win2K to read emails. I use WinXP/2K/Debian, and TiBook with Jaguar on it at home. As more time I spend on Mac, it feels more and more like home and I find myself doing one of th following:
+Browsing with Mozilla on multiple taps
+ssh into my Debian box to apt-get update or do some work.
+connect to WinXX and do work/fun whateve


Win??, Most widely-spread and can't nobody argue with that whether it's because people like it or not as money talks.(94% of the world? isn't the big chunk of it corporate portions??) it works if you know what you are doing like the arthur of the review or power users.
And it's CHEAP.

Linux, I like it because well the geek inside me yearns for it. I feel very comfortable inside a terminal as I'd at work. But you gotta really know what you are doing to do all the little things you took for granded under WinXX. But, under Debian, the system(package) management is way beyond that of WinXX or other Distro using RPMs.
CHEAPER if you got little spare time.

Mac(OS X), generally speaking on behalf of 'normal user', Mac has both. Right out of box, you can do all the stuff that you'd do in WinXX without having to install drivers for camera and so on and having to PURCHASE or download the (legal ;-)softwares and go through install process. And, its system(apps/package) management can't be any simpler. A s mentioned before, double-click on it and drag it to wherever you want. That's it! however you can't keep track of installed/not installed apps unlike Debian. But then again normal users do not need thousands of apps, just few that just works out of box. For the geek inside you, you can open up Terminal.app, do whatever you were doing under linux. You can install Fink and apt-get/dselect to put X, gnome, compile from source, make install, make, or whatever.
But, one glaring thing normal user CAN NOT ignore is its PRICE TAG. It's not CHEAP. However, if she/he spend few more units of your favorite currency, she/he can just plug it in and enjoy! Or if you are a power user and short on cash, stick to PC with WinXX, Linux, whatever. But if you can afford to spend extra cach, go get a Mac and try it.

Too long, sorry. Not a good writer.

PS: about this OBM, who do you think had the mouse first?

scrollweel mouse a UI hack
by Kalles kaviar on Tue 10th Dec 2002 17:01 UTC

On Windoes scrollweel is realy needed. But on the Mac it's not such a big deal.

On windows when scrolling a document you really have to stay on the scrol bar the whole time. if you glide of,, whoopla, your not scrolling anymore..

On mac once you started scrolling, holding down the button you know, you can glide of the scrollbar and still be in control of the scrolling.

So scrollweel is a cute toy, but mostly just a hack to cover weaknesses in windows UI.

Actually it was a very lame review
by anonymous-bert on Tue 10th Dec 2002 17:10 UTC

Speed discusions were unsupported and contradictory. There were no use case discussions. The author claims to be a power user and with the exception of php coding uses the machine to a more limited extent then most newbie end-users. The value added apps were not discussed. The Unix base was not addressed, with the exception of it's benefit to system stability.

This is an incredibly lame review... in what way does it enable someone to make an informed purchasing decision?


Re: scrollweel mouse a UI hack
by Harky on Tue 10th Dec 2002 17:18 UTC

The wheelmouse is a break-through UI utilization since it reduces hand/wrist movement and enable faster access to information, while diminishing the excessive stress of having to move the mouse around just to scroll up/down a document.

...you must be wearing pants to cover your weaknesses...

Why I won't own a Mac
by David Bruce on Tue 10th Dec 2002 17:27 UTC

They may be cool but they are *way* too friggin' expensive, and I know enough to be able to put together a PC from components. The prices on everything on the PC side (processors, RAM, storage) have continued to fall through the floor. If you get out of the "latest and greatest" trap, you can put together a very inexpensive machine that a couple of years ago would have cost $4000. Combine that with a cable modem and www.debian.org, and it seems bizarre for people to spend thousands of dollars on computers and software. Sure, "not everyone can do that", but there are plenty of common hobby activities (sports, cooking, woodworking, music, etc) that involve at least as much specialized knowledge and experience as that needed to assemble and set up a PC.

Re: Betamax
by antiphon on Tue 10th Dec 2002 17:57 UTC

Betamax is still in use today. It is superior to VHS and has been used by the television industry since the 1980s. VHS _is_ crap and I am so glad it is going to die out in favor of DVD-R and digital.

I picked up a factory refurbished DP 867 about 2 months ago. Total cost including shipping was less than 1600. I had been using an iBook 600 for about a year with 10.1.2 and loved it.

Best OS I've ever used. Setting up the cable modem was a snap.

I'm a wierdo because I just don't seem to be noticing the sluggishness that everybody else bitches about, although I agree about the 1 button mouse. $25 later and I had a 2 button scroll wheel Logitec optical mouse that installed w/out a hitch. (Getting the same mouse installed in W98 was a PITA.)

I daresay my G4 tower has the most HD space of any computer I've ever used. I can get 4 hard drives in there! (Every PC I've ever owned has come with 2 hard drive bays and to get more involves some nice bailing wire and spit modding.)

If you're like me and don't want to give any more money to Mordorsoft and can't stand the half baked cludge that's desktop Linux, OS X is a dream come true. I no longer have to worry about my computer illterate husband wreaking settings or downloading spyware that royally wanks everything up. He logs in and his choices have a minimal impact on what my desktop does.

My biggest complaint was the $900 cost of my 17 inch monitor (a very crisp Formac with fast pixel response). If I hadn't come into a small inheritence I wouldn't have been able to afford it. I can get an equally crisp 17 inch monitor for a PC for about $600.

(My 2nd biggest complaint is that ATI needs to take its thumb out of its butt and release an AIW for the mac. But that's a whole 'nuther kettle of fish)




What about multitasking?
by DB on Tue 10th Dec 2002 18:18 UTC

I wonder if the writer tried running several applications at once? This is where the current generation of Macs combined with the current 10.2 operating system really shines. You keep opening one application after another, and it simply doesn't slow down. And my G4/466 with OS 10.2 offloads print jobs in Adobe Acrobat faster than 1GHz Pentiums. The best case scenario is the new MDD PowerMac (867 dual/1GHz dual/1.25GHz dual) such as the one the writer reviewed -- the current 1GHz model, for example, is substantially better with multitasking than the previous generation 1GHz, and obviously the 1.25 is better still. Most single applications aren't multi-processor aware, but OS X will opt to run two applications on separate processors, given the chance, and even though the G4 support for DDR RAM is at best indirect, other features of the new motherboard design make for impressive disk and I/O performance.

Re: Betamax
by quack! on Tue 10th Dec 2002 18:32 UTC

<quote>VHS _is_ crap and I am so glad it is going to die out in favor of DVD-R and digital.</quote>

:-)

Don't you mean in favour of DVD+R or was it DVD+RW... ahhhhhh...... the new SONY burners are looking awfully nice.

quack, quack, quack (apologies... its a slow day).

Sprecken ze Mac
by Phil Boiarski on Tue 10th Dec 2002 18:34 UTC

This is a little like having a native German speaker "test" English to see if he would like it. Whatever you learn on, you tend to favor, even if you pass yourself off as a linguist. There is anti-Mac prejudice dripping from every line of the "objective" review. I work with both and both have their strengths and weaknesses. Given a choice, with absoute creative freedom, I opt for the Mac. Working in a windows world, I just default to windows, a courtesy for non-Mac speakers, if you would. It's not about the language, it's what you have to say.

CAT FIGHT! CAT FIGHT!
by Doug Ly on Tue 10th Dec 2002 19:06 UTC

Is it not amazing how an article about a Mac can turn a discussion thread into a major cat fight?

Or in this case a KITTEN FIGHT! and with the same people doing the arguing OVER AND OVER AGAIN!

SHEESH!

most shallow review.... ever
by jub on Tue 10th Dec 2002 19:25 UTC

I second the complaint about reviewers griping over 1-button mice. Buy another mouse.

And can PC reviewers PLEASE take 2 seconds to name things correctly? There is no such thing as "MacMail". It's Mail. Or Mail.app. Is it so hard to use the same label that's right in front of your face?

Finally, the "feature" that you so "brag proudly" about is a core difference between the Mac and almost all other OSs. When you launch an app, that app stays open until you close it. When you open a second document or other window with the app, it opens a second document or window. It does not open yet another copy of the app. How efficient can Windows be, if it launches another copy of an app every time you want to open a file? It's ridiculous. Wouldn't an unbiased reviewer analyze that?

Finally (and i mean it this time) you get your panties in a bunch because window refreshes aren't as snappy as Windows (and they aren't) without noticing the many other productivity enhancing features such as dynamically updating folder views. How many times in their life will a Mac user hit f5 (or any key) to refresh their directory window? A: never. It's unnecessary.

The only really good, thorough review i've read on OS X is on Ars Technica - search for it, you won't be disappointed (but your eyes will be swimming, it's very long).

bottom line
by appleforever on Tue 10th Dec 2002 19:32 UTC

Mass of PC users + Macs are better designed = Mass PC user denial.

It's sad really.

10.2 is simply the most finished, polished, if you care about user experience OS currently in production. I used to joke about Mac OS, When I tried 10.2, Well I simply bought a mac. I have lived on linux boxen for the last four years and for what is is it's awesome. Best server OS on commodity hardware in the world. But it cannot even begin to approach OS X in UI integration/experience. I have not met one OS geek that after using OS X did not lust after this sweet sweet OS. If you understand that an OS has a "feel" beyond specifications happiness awaits you in OS X.

Why OS X
by DJ Jedi Jeff on Tue 10th Dec 2002 19:43 UTC

to "appleforever," and anyone else who has to belabor these points:

Mac users seem to always say the same thing: Mac is better. But WHY? Is it so unfair to say that I can build a PC with twice the hardware that runs twice as quickly and accomplish everything I need faster?


I guess I would sum it up in two main points.

1) I just seem to work more efficiently on the Mac. Alot of people hate these things but I love the dock (and the bouncing icons). The dock is incredibly powerful. It's more than just a list of running applications and links. Want to email a file? Drag it to the email program on the dock. Little things like that are built into the whole system. The UI is IMO very efficient and accessible.

2) The internals of the system are also very accessible. The system's guts are alot more intelligently laid out than on XP and a very powerful command line is only a click away. Most programs can be dragged around as a file (or folder) and will work anywhere. Uninstall is just as easy. There is just plain less mess to deal with.

People who think speed is limited solely by hardware have never studied ergonomics and human-machine interfaces.


Re: Slow Apple Hardware + Slow OS = No Go
by DJ Jedi Jeff on Tue 10th Dec 2002 20:01 UTC


I've had exactly the same experiences... just too slow and unresponsive... I ended up tweaking everything all the damn time. That's why there are more than half a dozen replacements for the Dock!!! Isn't that a clue to anyone that the UI was just thought out and it not mature enough? (The Dock is just but one example!)


Perhaps you have not done enough research and are not aware of the large amount of software available to re-skin Windows XP and completely retool the UI. Using your logic XP is not well thought out and not mature??

Mac Games
by DJ Jedi Jeff on Tue 10th Dec 2002 20:04 UTC


So, if I use my computer soley for playing games (a lot of people do) and you have acknowldged that the PC has more games, then what am I in denail of? That iDVD in OSX kicks ass? Why do I care? I play games!


Actually I was just thinking over the weekend that one of the nice things about my Mac is that I cannot play MMORPG!!

Re: Typical Mac users response. . .
by DJ Jedi Jeff on Tue 10th Dec 2002 20:07 UTC

I also love it when it comes down to how much software you can run. I always have 6 different text editing programs, doesn't everybody?

I was surprised at the amount of Mac software available on the web. Not free, of course. But, honestly, does it really matter if I am looking for a specific type of software and I can only find FIVE good alternatives on Mac OS X instead of the TEN good alternatives that might exist on Windows?

I have yet to go hunting for a particular kind of software and not find several good alternatives, all of which met my needs, to choose from.

Move along, please. Nothing to see here.
by Keith Veleba on Tue 10th Dec 2002 20:10 UTC

This article does nothing that illustrate the ramblings of someone who was curious about the Mac but missed the point by comparing it to other computers, and didn't look at how it helps/hurts the work this guy does.

Every platform has its strengths and weaknesses, but people, why do we even give these flamebait trolls the time of day?

I bought a PowerBook G4 because it lets me get my work done without interrruption. (software architect for a financial services company) The computer simply does not FAIL. I simply tire of dealing with other operating systems' quirks, vagaries, instabilities and insecurities.

Mac just works. Period. And that's worth more to me than anything.

RE: OSX GUI Slowness
by DJ Jedi Jeff on Tue 10th Dec 2002 20:11 UTC

From what I've read the main reason for the slowness of OSX's GUI is that everything is being rendering in software as pdf files. Not sure of all the details but I would imagine that _eventually_ apple will try to get hardware accelerated video programmed. Microsoft took a better route and put the window management subsystem into the kernel and went all out hardware acceleration for the GUI via DirectX. This is what people wanted - trade a bit of stability for speed.

A bit of stability? Try going from a system that's very stable (first release of NT) to one where IE can crash the entire computer (NT 4 through XP). By moving the GDI into the kernel MS essentially said stability was no longer a goal.

For the records, Jaguar added Quartz Extreme which enables hardware acceleration for many graphics tasks in the GUI. Unfortunately I don't believe iBooks can take advantage of this yet (maybe the latest rev. of iBooks this month changed that though).

'nother article
by steve unemployments on Tue 10th Dec 2002 20:25 UTC

<http://www.aceshardware.com/read.jsp?id=50000333>

After the author shows geek cred (mocking apples marketing) in the linked article above, he does some benchmarks that show
mac as not the crippled POS that some would have U believe.

(And the main point, isn't the existence of a viable alternative in computing platforms a GOOD thing?)

correct link..(sorry)
by steve unemployments on Tue 10th Dec 2002 20:27 UTC
RE: closing a window does not close the application
by Anonymous on Tue 10th Dec 2002 20:39 UTC

Can you imagine a designer who works on hundreds of different Quark, Photoshop, Illustrator, and Fireworks documents EVERY DAY having those applications quit EVERY TIME they close one document and then having the software relaunch EVERY TIME you open another document from the finder? Pre OSX this would result in severe memory fragmentation and sooner or later bring the system down not to mention a complete WASTE OF TIME waiting for the application to start up again OVER and OVER and OVER and.....

always burning about speed, i say .. . .
by grant on Tue 10th Dec 2002 21:07 UTC

shoot man, i have an old machine, and it has gotten faster with every release. however, i am also a big tweaker and make the most out of my nearly dinosauric hardware (imac 400 se graphite). <p>turning the eye candy off is part of the equasion, and simple to accomplish. then for a "power user" you go to your favorite mac appz dl zone and get something like MOX optimizer and Diablotin software to name a couple. they let you toggle parts of the system that are always running, alternate fonts, de-internationalize your machine to the only langs. you need. etc. once tweaked, the mac really shines, and this is how it has always been. once i sit down on a OS 9 system for fifteen minutes and jiggle the extensions around, same thing. Apple leaves everything on by default as part of their way of making ABSOULETLY everything available out of the box. <p>if you want faster, it is well within grasp, just a couple of easy to use applications, and you're done. <p>as einstein might say "When you are using a mac an hour seems like a second. When you sit and wait for windows to finish crashing once it's done spying on you, a second seems like an hour. That's relativity."<p>bottom line, PC wins (no pun intended) the games and divx viewing and file sharing stuff, hands down. if you want a computer to do some fun stuff, and work like a champ, go mac.

What about web dev?
by Paul Nishikawa on Tue 10th Dec 2002 21:56 UTC

Now that I've wasted half a day reading this dumb thread top to bottom... a question: I noticed that Adam mentioned that he does a fair bit of work in PHP. How come he didn't talk at all about the built-in LAMP capabilities of the OS X box? The turning point for me back to macs was when OS X came out of the box with the abiility to code and preview using PHP/MySQL... Makes a huge difference for me. What was he missing or didn't like about the apache implementation or being able to use more or less standard PHP installs, without the MS instability?

RE: OSX GUI Slowness
by Chris on Tue 10th Dec 2002 22:00 UTC

The previous rev of iBooks with Radeon mobility graphics chips had full hardware acceleration. The current rev has the Radeon 7500 which is even better.

Silly but valid anyhow.
by Warlock7 on Tue 10th Dec 2002 22:16 UTC

Well, it sure sounds like you tried out the Mac. It seems that the machine that was provided didn't really have enough RAM. The increase in speed is substantial when you double your RAM in these machines. So, try a GB of RAM next time.

As for the rest, well, I am truly surprised that someone that is a "power-user" that knows BeOS wouldn't appreciate all of the BeOS underpinnings to Jaguar.


Apple is the only company that makes the mouse completely responsive. This is due to the fact that they priority for the mouse under any Mac OS is of the highest priority.



It really sounded, by the end of the article, like you were really just "missing" your familiarity with your other OSs. The simplicity of use is what Apple is selling in their switch campaign and you've verified that the setup of the system was easier than any other, even the ones that you are 100% familiar with. So, you've actually proven them right. Thanks.

Misleading title
by Bryan on Tue 10th Dec 2002 22:16 UTC

Calling the article "Can the Mac replace my PC?" is completely misleading, since the article does not even attempt to answer that question. "Can" the Mac replace your PC, implies IS the Mac capable of replacing your PC. Since Macs can do everything you said you like to do on your PC (web browsing, e-mail, word processing, etc), then the answer to the question is clearly yes.

However, the question that you addressed and answered in your review is WILL the Mac replace your PC, not CAN it. This is an extremely objective question, and is based less on fact than personal preference; which is a signature mark of shoddy journalism. I suggest you change the title of the peice.

Response to GRANT
by Warlock7 on Tue 10th Dec 2002 22:22 UTC

Grant, that is something a "power user" would have known though. You see, the problem is that the PC based "power user", as described by the author doesn't know the first thing about tweaking a Macintosh. They assume that it's all the same and that since they know the Windows world that the Mac must be easy for them to understand. This isn't really the case, unfortunately. The real problem is that these "PC power users" are given too much credit. They're opinions really matter to the other sheep that they agree with. That's OK. More for the rest of us that actually KNOW.

v Lack of credibility for this ENTIRE site
by Anonymous on Tue 10th Dec 2002 22:41 UTC
Mouse/App loading
by Simon Wilson on Tue 10th Dec 2002 22:53 UTC

I hate it too when a reviewer makes a bad comment about the mouse. It's not as if 2 buttons is a standard. You can always change the mouse.

As for the app loading, this is not a new feature, but it's a good 'un. RISC OS has always had the feature where a program remains in memory even when all its document windows have been closed. MS Windows used to have this feature (multiple document interface with Word, etc), but now the last document closed will remove the Word program from memory.

This is a review?
by Ezra on Tue 10th Dec 2002 23:15 UTC

One button mouse complaint? Give me a break. Get the pointing device of your desire and plug it in. If you spent upwards of $4200 on a computer, a $15 two-button wheel mouse is trivial.

Speed problems? Turn off the animations and windows effects. In all honesty, I've used a dual 1Ghz processor Mac and it felt speedy to me. Not a problem with no tweaking whatsoever.

Disconnected IDE cable on delivery? Not a major problem for a power user, but this is definitely something that Apple execs hate to hear. It should not happen.

How did you come to your conclusion from your observations? The Mac had a gorgeous interface, performed just as well, the bundled apps are fantastic and without equal within the WinXP world (I'd like to see any PC reseller bundle an equivalent software package with the ease of use and functionality of the Mac apps), the hardware is top-notch, the update service is effortless, software installation is a model for everyone to follow, etc. Besides your perception of less than adequate responsiveness, there is nothing rational about your conclusion. I hold that your perception of sluggishness is just the last remnant of anti-Mac sentiment left. Hopefully you will see the error of your conclusion and go for the truly more advanced system.

Poor Adam and hostile Mac world
by MP on Wed 11th Dec 2002 01:11 UTC

First of all, Adam congratulations! You were brave enough to face ferocious beast - a Mac user. I must tell you I am "switcher" too: I switched from DOS to Unix. That was long time ago. I read your article with interest and I see a few weak points.
1. In the title you should add word "my impressions" so it would be clear after reading article that this is not a review (how newbie can review anything? Really) but your impressions as a potential switcher. However this is partially your own fault: you did use word "review" four times.
2. Being serious, one button mouse is something so well know and I thing that this is a part of Mac image. If I would but Mac I would expect it to come with OBM. Now not liking it I would buy three button mouse.
3. disconnected HDD is something that simple might happen to any computer.
4. I would not write about something I am not sure of: StarOffice as Java app? Same goes to OO.org
5. Now if app stays in the memory after exiting, it is rather bad memory handling that anything else. However it it possible to pre-load some libraries at lets say boot time. And that makes specific application to open faster.
6. I agree that "cool" features become annoying after while. But I must admit honestly that I am using blackbox very feature-poor WM. However I do not have time to contemplate my computer's desktop.
In all this thread I have not seen even one constructive advice:
how to turn off annoying FOR YOU elements of Mac desktop. How to make this whole switching thing less painful. How to make MacOS X win your heart.

However after reading this and few other threads I learned a little about Macs:
- there are two programs for Mac: Adobe (including DTP) and Final Cut Pro
- all benchmarks with code optimized for Altivec are o.k. if something is optimized for SSE it is outrageous that someone even tried to use it. Imagine: benchmarks optimized for SSE and not for Altivec!
- when you do comparison of AMD/Intel with Mac remember: choose systems that makes Mac at least as good as PC.
- Mac is not a slow computer why? Because it is fast enough for me ( if you read it it sound kind of stupid )
- Mac users seem to be unable to grasp the idea that if is on one machine tested rendering time is 1s and on another 2s in real world it is comparison of one week to two weeks and that is the difference
- multitasking. From definition presented in this thread multitasking is an operation where you have 16 windows open. I thing that this is Mac user multitasking. How many operations you can efficiently control? If I do "buildworld" so this is one window (on my old box it takes 50 min) in the meantime opened PostgreSQL and xmms. Or is multitasking an operation where you have 16 idle opened?
- iStuff - you should be sorry not using it - personally I thought that these are gadgets, nice but still gadgets, not the productivity apps.
- if you are not using Mac, you are fascist (there is something about it in this thread - that was simply stupid)
- Mac is UNIX. It is like saying that Windows NT is VMS. Mac is hybrid with old userland implementations from FreeBSD, packaging system from NetBSD and Deb.
- Mac users proudly announce how many times they crashed NT or XP ar W2k. For me this is indicator that someone does not know what he is doing. If my system crashes, the first thing I check is what I did wrong. If someone is admitting that after 10 years of experience his/her NT is still unstable he/she is simply stupid. Crashes are happening and they will unless you are working on mainframe, but the sheer number of crashes reported by poor Mac users forced to work with PC is ridiculous. If I would crash so many times MacOS X, first I would ask what I am doing wrong with supposely stable system
- and then networking stuff including rendezvous. I know that this is one of the reasons to be proud of. However it is good at home and dangerous in corporate world. Any sysadmin will tell you that he wants to determine who is advertising what and what you can or cannot see. Besides from what I learned (I am not using Win) for the first time zeroconf was widely introduced in WinME (bad idea!), not found in Win2K (good) and again it is present in WinXP (really stupid, although I admit that it is ok for Home version, but not for Prof)
- There is also another killer of the rest of the world - Xserve. I would even not mention this but it seems to me that for Mac users MacOS X was going to knock down Digital UNIX, Solaris, and even Linux in the server world as well as everything else in the desktop world.
Xserve is o.k. for small Mac only shops or home users (read interview with J. Hubbard, apple engineers also are admitting that 50 connections/server that is max). So running SAMBA or Apache does not make it viable alternative forTo be more specific there is a problem with slow I/O subsystem, slow filesystem, slow SDRAM. I would like to see hot-swap NICs, hot-swap SCSI host adapters, and multipath I/O. I have seen boot off the server, and that one box pulled 30% of the server's CPU resources for some time.

If someone is trying to learn UNIX and does not understand it at first I do not consider it as an attack on my world.
I do not think that Adam (I am trying to guess what you think) wanted to bash Mac. Each time when there is anything about Apple, Mac users are trying to defend it, even if there is no reason to be angry. It makes you guys only ridiculous. Obvoiusly he is not familiar with Mac, instead of criticize him explain how things work.

I find my ibook so much more productive then my w2k box, but they both have incredibly annoying quirks.

Finder has some sort of duplication bug in column/page views but not in icon view.
Explorer has to refresh often, opening my computer checks the cd roms too often (same sort of problem I guess)

Can do other things while burning/ripping mp3s/cds on my ibook.
CD burner fix I was given (thanks anyways kasper) crashes my system, so I still cant do anything but burn a cd on my pc.

I have trillian on my pc, which doesnt match my desktop properly (little peeved about how some windowsish skins overlap badly).
I like how ichat is so integrated (mostly the online buddy list is easily and quickly accessible), but want the other services I use msm/icq/y! in the same sort of integration, so I run both ichat and fire, depends on who I want to talk to.

Opera 6b3 is very fast, but unstable, has many bugs which annoy me.
Opera 7 is awesome on win2k, but has some annoying UI issues with the transfer window, etc.

itunes is very nice, unlike winnamp3 doesnt take forever to process a search query on my mp3 collection.
winamp3 is too slow, and winamp 2 cant handle randomization well.

Apps like system prefs and whatnot stay open when I "close" them, which is annoying as you rarely use that app. But its nice for chimera, or mail, which with mozilla on pc take either a while to load, or dont check email when mail window isnt open (did they fix this?)

VCD playing ability sucks on mac.

fink needs more support in general.

System profiler is very stupid, I dont need it checking my hardware config every time its asked for some script.

Other apps, like network utilities are nice.

When working on papers or whatever, I can save them to disk and just back them up to idisk, one of the FEW ways one can access their homework from our school's network. You cannot goto ftp sites, etc. That finally lets me not need a floppy disk ever again.

Ive had my Ibook only 3 months, this is what I have noticed. When I use my pc it feels clunky now, the window appearences arent smooth, icons everywhere, etc. OS X is such a cleaner interface, I turned off the genie affect, and switched from colored buttons to grey, and the few icons I have on the desktop are access to storage only, not shortcuts.

When Syllable gets networking, im buying a new harddisk and installing that alone, just put my old hard disk on a share on another pc we have here and never bother with windows again.

PC vs MAc
by Glenn Sweeney on Wed 11th Dec 2002 03:24 UTC

I bought a pc cause its so stable.. since ive had it its been awesome i cant crash it even when ive tried. On the other hand ive had to repair many of my friends macs.

Anyone claiming their mac is stable probably cant use it for anything much anyway.

Seems when u use it for audio or u actually change any settings in it.. it starts to freak.

Macs crash more than pcs now days .. thats why buisnesses use PCS not macs.

It just works!
by Ken on Wed 11th Dec 2002 03:31 UTC

I've been a long time user of both Mac and Windows systems. I currently own one PC that resides on a network with five Macs. The Macs simply work. The PC is idle 90% of the time, and when I do actually NEED it, there is almost always a problem. The article did point out one truth though, OSX is slow and unresponsive compared to the PC. However, we all must remember that this OS is still in its infancy. Give Apple some time to do some system optimization. Good things are yet to come. This OS is truly the most intuitive, beautiful, and advanced on the market. Every PC user that I show it to immediately falls in love with it.

Mac vs PC
by Glenn Sweeney on Wed 11th Dec 2002 03:58 UTC

Its funny how UI reviews bagged osx. Even Mac Users admit its slow. What exactly is good about it? The fact its really just unix? so why not use unix? because u dunno how?

Now its nice to think theres much point having unix there if u need it.. but the fact is if u could use it u would be. Contrary to much mac masturbation i dont see many linux ppl buying macs.. why would they linux is free and fully open source as opposed to apples much criticised upgrade fees and lack of complete source.(Free, open source and stability are the keys 2 unix right so apple has 1 out of 3 (except for the lack of mem protection in kernal mode drivers)) Apple means little to linux users.. perhaps it means something to ppl who pretend they like unix though.

Some might find it beautiful.. but beauty is in the eye of the beholder.. ill take the F1 mclaren pc thanks over a colourful combi MAC thanks. Actually i thought pcs were to be used... to be honest the fact my pc is grey dosent bother me cause i dont stare it it.. i use it i look at the screen, i dont bring friends over to point at the shinny box and go look how cool my computer is (without even needing to turn it on). I dont find endless animations to demonstrate how much cpu power and electricity i can waste.. oh wait i do run a screensaver but that nicely gets out of my way when im actually useing the computer.

After Apples dream run in marketing and the media this year.. it hasnt reached its targets and there are no droves of converts (sales prove that). Apple survives on hype alone.

PPl want a computer that works, has support for lots of devices, gives users the choice of how to use it and who to purchase software from, gets out of their way so they can get on with the job and is a resonable price.

PPl want a pc, thats not going to change. Even a million apple users claiming the mac just works wont change that.. because these days many ppl have tried a mac and seen it fail.. lies get u nowhere. Get over it and get to the truth.

1 button mouse.. sure u could buy a 3 button.. but if u just bought the most expensive mountain bike.. wouldnt u be kinda peaved it came with training wheels and u have to pay to have them removed. Even my computer disadvantaged parents went out and got a scroll mouse for their pc( from just a 3 button mouse).. so just WHO is going to buy a 4k computer and not replace the mouse? Nice work steve.. even the most powerful apple users are still considerd more novice than my parents.


As for price performance.. nobody cares what speed a computer is.. unless u use it.


Lack of Innovation
by Jeff Mincey on Wed 11th Dec 2002 04:07 UTC

A previous post said that Windows NT derives from VMS. This is not so. It derives instead from a DEC OS project called Mica--which was to be a new OS altogether. But a myopic DEC VP cancelled the project and David Cutler took 16 DEC consulting engineers with him--and Gates lured him to Microsoft.

Microsoft hardly innovates a thing.

- FoxPro? No--acquired from another company.
- Internet Explorer? No, acquired from Spyglass with roots in Mosaic.
- SQL Server? No, acquired from another company.
- C# language? No--it's Java with C and C++ adulterations thrown in.
- Truetype fonts? No--they come from Apple.
- Firewire? No, it comes from Apple.
- Windows NT kernel? No, appropriated from DEC.
- Powerpoint? No, acquired from another company.
- Hotmail? No, acquired from another company.

And it's only the Justice Dept which kept Microsoft from acquiring Intuit and its products of Quicken and Quickbooks Pro.

Microsoft employs an army of software engineers and yet is more of a software marketer and distributor than innovator.

Other companies are following suit. Compaq and now HP is allowing DEC's Alpha chip to be co-opted by Intel--such as with the DEC innovation of hyper-threading. The brilliant OS of Tru64 (formerly OS/F1) languishes in maintenance mode. HP is de-emphasizing its own chips and HP/UX in favor of Intel's Itanium and Linux. And HP is embracing Microsoft's .Net in lieu of Sun's superior Java family of technology.

Sun is doing the same thing--embracing Intel now over its own Sparc chip and Linux over Solaris for low-end servers.

My God--where are the true technology companies anymore? HP is becoming another Dell--a mere PC assembler. At least Apple is a TRUE computer maker--one of the last ones standing.

Supporting PC's vs. Mac's
by TechGuy on Wed 11th Dec 2002 04:36 UTC

Whoa!

PCs aren't used in business because they're more stable--LOL. They're used because of availability (of the PC, aux. hardware and software), price/financing and marketing. Intel will be spending ~ $1B on marketing this year.

PCs definitely take more resources to support--study after study has shown this. PCs definitely crash way more than Macs. For our planning purposes, we budget one support person for every 20-30 PCs and one support person for every 50-60 Macs (depending on the type of user and their applications).

In my observations, people without computers at home tend to want and enjoy Macs. People with PCs at home tend to like PCs at work. This also leads to a lot of effort on our part to keep in license compliance--people don't understand why they can't just borrow a corporate copy to install on their personal/home computer.

I've got two Macs, four PCs and 2 SPARCs at home. I've used Apple computers from the Apple II to the DP G4s. I've used PCs since IBMs first one (x86) to top-end Dells w/ P4s and AMD MPs. And I've used Windows since v0.9 (former VMS-er ;-)

Just wanted add a little to correct the comment on why PCs are used in business :-)

Ol' Tech Guy

NT and VMS
by MP on Wed 11th Dec 2002 05:14 UTC

Naah,
never said that NT derives from VMS. Sed Mac is as much Unix as NT is VMS. So neither Mac is Unix nor NT is VMS. I know that Cutler joined MS after in 88' Digital cencelled his project Prism (hardware)/Mica OS. I do not know exact story, but never was interested in NT.
I think that in general MS is a "wrapping" company. They buy something and next sell as MS product. But is "simply works" for their business.

TechGuy, I am not sure about this PC crashing thing. I do have some linux/BSD systems on PCs and they do not crash. I do not know why?

great comments
by shen on Wed 11th Dec 2002 05:16 UTC

but if OSNews wants to "gain readers trust" Eugenia needs to grow up. this isn't high school, act like an adult. yeah most of the world runs windows (though the % is debatable) but there are more cockroaches than humans too. don't make 'em better. you have a reason windows is great? fine. saying an OS is no good because it isn't windows is a fine example of circular reasoning. get over it.

> The guy's POV is just plainly stupid. His opinion is that windows is trash, and I find him a complete idiot for that.

yours is the reverse. i find you a complete idiot for that.

....i, however, should not be maintaining an image for a web site. if the image you want to show us is "childish bitch who can only support the 100% microsoft view" you are doing great. personally i find i have 4 OS's and see good and bad points all around.

It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it. - Aristotle


will it do it?????
by Bob on Wed 11th Dec 2002 05:18 UTC

anyone know if the mac will run 3D Studio MAX or Autocad???

Catching up with 1984 - untrained
by worldboy on Wed 11th Dec 2002 11:46 UTC

Is this comparison fair?

The Challenge: Can the Macintosh, with no training, technical books, or prior knowledge, replace my PC running Windows 2000 and Red Hat's Psyche?
The Background: I am not a standard PC user. I'm a network engineer, proficient in Windows, NetWare, BeOS, and Linux.

Although the mac is a personal computer it is not a PC. There is no Intel inside, nor any Windows, just windows, and folders, not directories. If all your computer knowlege and training is on PC's you are not qualified to review the Mac as a power user, just as another Newbie. Welcome.

Back in the days (about 1991), when Apple introduced an operating system called System 7, we learned that we could keep more than one application open at a time and that closing its window did not quit the application. Switching between applications was easy in the Finder. The Mac has no Alt key, it has an Option key. The usual modifier key for keyboard commands is called the Command key and looks like a cloverleaf. The mouse has one button (or none) but the Control key is used to bring up contextual menus and alternative behaviours for the mouse in all Mac programs and the Finder. The inspiration for the Windows "Start" menu was the Apple menu which has existed in all Mac systems prior to OS X as a user configurable favourites menu and launcher.

All of the above is learned by Apple newbies in their first few days with the Mac. Power users know heaps more, unless they have switched from PCs and have learned that all computers are PCs and all have Alt keys and closing a window means "killing" (how un-Mac-like that sounds) a program, and if a mouse has only one button then there are no other ways to use it and no other multi-button mice would work.

My point is that your comparison is not fair because you assume Power User status when you're a Newbie to the platform. Review the Mac as a Newbie and that's fine. Your user habits on PCs will not help you in Mac land, except in the Unix world under the hood of OS X's Aqua. I have only ever used PCs for short periods at work to do page layout, word processing and web surfing. Would I be qualified with no training to review one as a Power User? No way. I know about the Start Menu, Alt-Tab and how to navigate in Windows Explorer and that's about ALL! I have a fear of using the right mouse button 'cause I don't know what it will do. Do I condemn PCs for having too many buttons? No. Do I need training? Yes.

Apple was subjected to the great wrath of Mac users when it removed the user functionality from the Apple Menu in OS X, replacing it with the multi-purpose dock. Shareware fixes are available to restore this user configurable behaviour to the Apple Menu in OS X, so I agree with this gripe about not having a "Start" Menu, but it is easily fixed.

Yes, the OS X interface, Aqua, is slow, but it is still very immature, so I would expect that you will find a dramatic speed improvement in the interface and window display by 2005 on the same hardware. I don't agree that on a dual G4 with Altivec (Velocity Engine) enabled software that this means the operating system itself is slow - it looks that way because your test was for instant responsiveness to user input, a limited measure of a computer's speed but a crucial one nevertheless.

Who invented the mouse?
by D@vidi@n on Wed 11th Dec 2002 13:10 UTC

Apple, that's right, who invented the GUI? Again Apple!
I think everybody should respect this company. Now that said, I like to tell some observations I made in my 20-year computing hobby/profession.

Speed was an issue in the days that it took 20 seconds to draw an image on your screen or do other basic things. Now I feel that on all platforms you can do all these multimedia things fast and be productive.

The computer users/pro's around me don't like to pay for software. The users like/know only the things they can *steal*. They only care for the cheapest hardware and *steal* from the industry, not returning any money than to some Taiwanese hardware producers. The pro's tend more to linux/bsd/ms so they don't *steal* so much. So a lot of their arguments are just "being cheap".
I have friends over-clocking and modding their pc's that they don't have time to use/enjoy it.

I fell in love with OSX for a lot of reasons. I worked with all ms versions, solaris, linux distro's but nothing could really thrill me anymore. Since I saw OSX wanted to have it. Macs are more expensive but if you see the whole package (hard/soft)it's okee. Paying $1500 plus just to play some games on a pc while you have a playstation2 with GTA vice city for a tenth and even more fun, but that is my personal view.

At least I feel I have an OS that represents the progression made in IT.

Are the linux/ms users not just a bit jealous because they don't have a superb GUI like OSX?
The MS-ers need a pentium 4 just to keep their anti-virus software not degrading their pc to a stand still ;)

The mac replaced my pc with a big smile on my face.
No offend to anybody, happy computing!

Who Invented the GUI?
by stupid user on Wed 11th Dec 2002 13:23 UTC

Doug Engelbart with ARPA and later Xerox PARC. Apple contributed later, most of had to do with menus (pull down menus, menu bar, etc...

Who invented the gui?
by D@vidi@n on Wed 11th Dec 2002 13:25 UTC

But Apple was the first to introduce it in the homecomputer market, not?

Who cares about the past
by DJ Jedi Jeff on Wed 11th Dec 2002 14:23 UTC

Why make decisions on an OS in 2002 based on what companies did in 1984? That's just lame.

A few corrections to the article
by truthintruth on Wed 11th Dec 2002 16:00 UTC

Overall, I thought the review was pretty good/fair. However, there are a few blatant inaccuracies in this article.

1. If the HD cable wasn't attached to the drive, then the author wouldn't have seen the initial startup screen with the Apple logo. Instead, he would have seen the blank screen with a HD icon and a "?".

2. I'm curious how he tried to install X and then upgrade to Jaguar? The unit shipped with Jaguar. Apple doesn't send X and Jaguar, you get one or the other. And the current systems ship with Jaguar. So, if this unit shipped with Jaguar, then how did he get a copy of X?

3. Clicking on the X in the window of an application doesn't quit the application, it merely closes the window. To quit an application, you have to a) select "quit" from the menu, or use Apple/CMD+Q.

4. The author claims he has more OS and application choices on a PC than a Mac. Completely and utterly untrue. Macs can run Classic MacOS, MacOS X, BeOS, Linux, and Windows. PCs cannot run Classic MacOS, or MacOS X. So, it seems Macs allow you to run two additional operating systems beyond PCs. Therefore, if you can run two additional OSs on a Mac, then you can run more applications as well.

Other than that, I found the article to be relatively accurate. And yes, I think the UI is a bit slower in response time than I'd like to see.

Two additional questions:

1. What did he find annoying about the minimzed windows dropping down to the dock?

2. Why didn't he review the system against his normal everyday tasks? He claims he uses his current system "primarily for web surfing, e-mail, office documents, and web development." They why didn't he review the system's ability to perform these tasks if he was truly interested in seeing if the Mac could replace his Windows system?

*Note: I'm an avid Mac user since '90 and regular PC user as well. My personal preference is for Macs -- I have a TiG4 Powerbook and three G4 workstations. In addition, I have a Dell PC and run Virtual PC with Win2K on all of my Macs.

Bashers
by JJayJayJay on Wed 11th Dec 2002 16:31 UTC

This is for you bashers, not for those who posted level headed responses, agreeing, disagreeing or making insightful points. You bashers, who took over this thread and even moved it over to MacSlash, have given not only OS News a black eye, but also, in your blind zealotry, have given each of the platforms you defend so ardently a black eye by your behavior. Why is it impossible for many of you to just post your opinion, just lay it out without venom and malice? Many of you indicated that the author should not be taken seriously. Why do you think anyone would take you seriously with your infantile comments? If I was considering buying a computer and wasn't sure what to get, do you think i would consider your remarks as a guide to my decision making? Ha! In all future reviews and editorials, i will defend the author, even if I disagree with him or her, against this mob behavior and crucifixion.

Missing some key considerations.
by mick e on Wed 11th Dec 2002 16:47 UTC

Basically he complains about cost and a perceived speed lag, while praising just about every other aspect of the OS, and the machine. One thing that he *doesn't* address it the concept that when one buys a mac, they are looking to buy a quality, trouble-free computer. There is value to that, and mac users are willing to pay a little extra for it.

Another thing he neglected to mention is that while macs may cost a few hundred bones more than PCs, mac users are buying computers that are *not* disposable. For example, a user can hang onto a mac for YEARS and *still* sell it for hundreds of dollars. So two years later, a mac user can sell their box for $500, while a PCer might get $100 (if they are lucky).

That blather about the mouse and the disconnected cable just indicates how little negative ammunition there is against the mac.

mick e is out

To participate or not...
by Adam Scheinberg on Wed 11th Dec 2002 16:55 UTC

I've kept my mouth shut for a while now, watching people carry on all over the place, half wanting to respond, but half laughing and at how upset people have gotten. I've let their reactions speak louder than their responses.

But although I couldn't care less what the extremists over at macslash have to say (and not all of them are extremists), there are two points I don't want OSNews readers to be confused about.

1. Despite what you hear, there is no "?" screen. The conspiracy theorists who've said I've simply lied about this surely know more about Mac than I, but they are wrong about this - I know because I experienced it. I don't dislike Macs, nor do I have any axe to grind, I'm telling you it happened, and I don't care much whether anyone believes it. I lived it. I know I'm right.

2. As truthintruth above says, "Apple doesn't send X and Jaguar, you get one or the other. And the current systems ship with Jaguar." Well, again, another knowledgable Mac user, I'm sure, who's simply wrong. I received two sets of disks with my Mac. A vanilla restore disc baring no mention of 10.2 or Jaguar, which appeared to be plain old OS X, and a boxed version of Jaguar. Don't believe me? I don't care. I'm telling you what happened, if you choose to not believe it, fine.

As for the other points brought up, I think it's clear what's occured here - people feel personally slighted and they're lashing out at everything and anything - my accuracy, my writing style, my honesty, my character -- my sexuality, for crying out loud! Sure, it's probably only a very small percentage of Mac users that are so relentless and inflexible Mac, that find it so incredulous that anyone could prefer anything else, and they remind me of "that crowd" you find with any OS - the Linux elitists, the BSD purists...in the end, my life isn't so much about computers that I have time to get upset about it. So, I'm putting this baby to bed. Say what you will, anyone who has gotten upset or fanatic about this - you've missed the point and I suspect you're not rational enough to read anything fairly anyway.

Peace,

--
Adam Scheinberg
osnews.com

Participate
by mick e on Wed 11th Dec 2002 17:45 UTC

mick e is not charring your article, which was well written and thoughtful in many ways. He just wanted to point out some additional aspects to mac ownership that are not wholly understood by PC users.

Buying a mac, in many ways, is like buying a quality automobile. There is an intuitiveness that comes with it, a form factor that is desired, and a resale value that makes your purchase worthwhile. You get what you pay for, and with a mac, you get more.

Sorry about the "blather" comment, but it really did seem like you were reaching a bit on those two points.

Jaguar and OS X
by Jeff Mincey on Wed 11th Dec 2002 19:11 UTC

Adam: Others have tried to enlighten you on this--apparently to no avail. There is no choice between Jaguar and OS X. Jaguar IS OS X.

Jaguar is simply a marketing moniker that Apple gave to a particular version of OS X--namely version 10.2. Previous versions of OS X are just that--previous versions of OS X.

Also, Apple does not ship multiple versions of the OS as part of a packet or software bundle with each new machine--no more so than Microsoft ships Windows NT 4.x and Windows 2000 in the same bundle.

If Apple shipped you multiple versions of its OS, it did so only because you are in a position to review or benchmark the software--but this is not its general practice.

Now I'm TELLING you this as a Mac-platform power user with a fair degree of Unix fluency.

By the way, not everyone in this thread is a zealot who cannot speak with a civil tongue; a number of people here have raised thoughtful points. Why do you not then respond to them in good faith?

For example, when you promote yourself as a network-centric power user and yet you say nothing about OS X's networking (preferring instead to focus on the crucial one-button mouse issue), why do you not answer those who call you to account for this? Or when one person points out that while you may be a power user under Windows, it doesn't instantly make you one under the Mac platform, why do you not address this point as well? Are these not reasonable points for debate among people of good will?

You don't have to answer, of course. But you are not infallible; and if one purpose of this forum is an exchange of views in which we can each learn from the other, why do you not respond to these points specifically? Instead, from where I sit, you take a defensive posture and call others cowards because they dare not include their e-mail address. That's not my idea of a productive comment or thoughtful response. Is it yours?

Amendment
by Jeff Mincey on Wed 11th Dec 2002 19:18 UTC

Let me amend my previous post. I don't have the quotation right in front of me, but if Adam did not call others cowards explicitly, he certainly did so by implication. So there is letter of the law and spirit of the law, and by the latter measure I do think he engaged in some name-calling himself, even as now he seems to fancy himself as standing above the fray, looking down on we poor cult-like souls blinded by our zeal in favor of the Mac.

One additional point: Power users under the Mac, Unix, and Linux platforms would not write so many words about OS X and scarcely even mention the Unix CLI and shells and the great power and customizability they offer. And yet Adam's review, while devoting ample verbiage to the freak accident of an internal loose cable, is notably silent on this matter. Quite curious, hey?

To Mr. Mincey
by Adam Scheinberg on Wed 11th Dec 2002 20:20 UTC

Mr. Mincey

I write to you specifically because you're unique. Certainly, I've not read every article or every comment on this site, but this is the first I've seen of you. You have suddenly appeared and with quite a bit to say about my article. You've left no e-mail address and had virtually nothing positive to say to me. Given on this, I'd tell you it's typically the mark of a troll. That is no accusation, it's just the feeling I'm left with since I'm now skeptical about all animated Mac users thanks to the communal reaction, which I place somewhere between disturbing and comical, to this piece.

That said, I've made no claims about myself as a Mac power user nor would I ever! I'm not! I went to great lengths to tell you I use Windows, Linux, and NetWare. Why anyone would presume that I am arrogant enough to pretend I am a Mac expert is beyond me. This article is NOT about me and what I personally can do outside the scope of this article. I will, therefore, not defend my skillset on this forums or any other. If you don't respect me or my opinion, I'm none too happy to agree to disagree. In the meantime, I'm upset overall at how this article was received, as it generated what I believe is more negative that positive.

Moving on, the "ample verbage" I devoted to the disconnected cable you refer to was...ONE SENTENCE. Ample verbage indeed. I even said I didn't hold that against Apple and then it was never mentioned again. Apple's "it just works" fell flat for me. Should I simply not mention it? C'mon. I'd do the same if Dell sent me a messed up unit.

I received two sets of discs. One labeled OS X. Another, in a box, labeled OS X 10.2 Jaguar. The system didn't boot. How should ANYONE who isn't a previous Mac user know what to do? That's all I'll say.

Now, I've called no one a coward, I just don't care to partake in this battling in the forums. It's not only a discredit to the readers who want to contribute, it's a display, a pissing contest, an intellectual stalemate everytime. I harbor no belief that I will even slightly change your mind about me or this piece.

No piece can cover everything about a Mac. That's why people write complete books about them. I wrote about some things that I wanted to talk about. I apologize if it didn't cover eveything you wanted to see. I guess you can always write something yourself.

I'd ask you, Mr. Mincey, to write something and send it to me at the above address if you'd like to reach more people. I'll run it by the other writers of this website and so long as it meets our criteria for a piece, we'll post it.

If you'd like to continue this, please feel free to use my e-mail address.

--
Adam Scheinberg
osnews.com

Comments
by Pell on Wed 11th Dec 2002 22:24 UTC

I haven't read all the comments so I apologize if a few a my comments get repetative.

First off I thought the article was a fair represention of the writer's experience with and opinion of Jaguar. Was I disapointed that Mr. Scheinberg was won over by Apple's Macintosh and OS X Jaguar? Of course, because I am a huge Mac fan. But, hey the guy is entittled to his likes and dislikes. I don't recall him saying that Windows or Linux was better than Mac OSX, just better for him as a user. That said I would like to share a couple of comments. These are more feedback comments to other posters.

The idea that closing a window does not kill an app is a bad thing is ludacris. Case in point, when surfing the internet and getting bombarded by 10 or fifteen pop-up adds, I have yet to find a simple way to close all the browser windows at once in Windows. On the Mac you simply hit Command-Q which quits the applicatoin and all the open browser windows close simultaneously. How is that a bad thing? I have asked my PC using friends if there is a similar way to do that in Windows and the answer I have been given is "no". If someone can enlighten me on how this might be accomplished I would be truly grateful.

On the comments that since 95% of the world uses Windows 95% of the world wants to use Windows, is such a poor assumtion. MS has force Windows into users hands more than people were given the choice of what to use. Now Apple is not without fault here, poor leadership and bad choices caused them to loes out on the opportunity to trump Microsoft in the mid 90's. But MS's idea of fair competition is to stomp out anyone who has a better product than they do. I find it interesting that Apple has been the preverbial thorn in MS side for so many years. I take great pleasure in that.

The only reason that Windows is considers the "standard" UI (which I whole-heartedly disagree with) is becasue they stole most of their ideas from Apple. Heck when you move the Taskbar to the top of the screen, ta da, it looks like a Mac. Any OS that wants to compete with Windows does not have to have a "Windows-Like interface". The Windows interface is unituative and counter-productive, in my opinion. I find the Start menu very limiting. Navigating through the computer itself seems to be discouraged by design.

Windows is not the end all of computers OS. Far from it. I predict that in 10-15 years Windows will not be the dominate OS. I am not saying that Mac will be, but in all reality, Windows is not all that great, it has too many bugs and short-cummings to be a truly great OS. Once consumers realize this, and demand something better (which they should alreaday be doing) someone will fill that need.

Rant, rant, rant...
by slomac636 on Wed 11th Dec 2002 23:43 UTC

It is amusing the length some people will go to just make sure they have the last word on this issue. Mac VS PC is one of those things that will be a debate for as long as computers are around.
I've used everything from MS-Dos 2.00 all the way up to Win XP, Linux and Mac OS's. I'll put my 2 cents in here, use what you like and shut up!
No one Ford or Chevy is any better than the other, its just getting from "point A to point B" that all of this hardware and software is desgined to do. Each has their own particular way of getting there.
I have Macs and PC's in my house, I use Mac's the most and PC's the least. Each has its own particular foibles that makes it unique. I prefer Mac's for the ease of use and stability, I have several Macs that are up to 6 years old and I am able to everything on them that I can on a PC that is only a 18 months old. Does that make them better? No, just more useful to me.
Just grow up and shut up and use what you like, hate of a brand for a trivial thing like a loose cable or an OBM or instability or whatever is just stupid...

Preferences
by Anonymous on Thu 12th Dec 2002 01:12 UTC

The ONLY things PCs have over macs are: cost, gonzo speed for cheap, games and every less common app is available.

But the first two of these have a huge and undeniable downside. The lower cost and higher speed come from the existence of multiple competing hardware venders (as opposed to one) -- which inevitably means more problems and conflicts and no one company is accountable to fix them.

Also, you get much slower pickup of innovations on the PC. On the PC, you're frequently stuck behind the times on new applications (like video editing - still Windows in behind after years). Apple's making the whole shebang allows them to move forward faster and much, much better on things that take hardware and software.

The only 100 % advantage on the PC - i.e., no downsides -- is the better software variety and games. But this has nothing to do with the relative design merits of the two platforms, it's just because one is dominant.

In the end, there's no reason to "prefer" a PC that has anything to do with the relative technical or design merits of the two platforms (hardware/OS/apps). There is no debate even possible -- the Mac platform is far, far superior in technical design. In the end, Windows is just cheaper and the "standard," albeit an inferior one.

One button mouse
by Peng Rui on Thu 12th Dec 2002 01:43 UTC

I think the one-button mouse is a point in Apple's favour. You can do just about everything you want with one button -- why complicate matters with two? I use a laptop (PowerPook) where I can track-and-click with one finger and one thumb.

M. Scheinberg's article
by Peng Rui on Thu 12th Dec 2002 01:58 UTC

I thought Adam's was a fair article, all-in-all. The loose cable is fair game for criticism because it's a quality control problem. It shouldn't happen.

The problem of speed is, I believe, essential. From all reports OSX is pretty good (I haven't used it). But slow response is a killer. It's not good enough for Apple to be as good as Windows; they need to be ahead of Windows. If Apple's speed left Windows choking in its dust, people would be deserting Windows in their droves.

High School?
by Carlos on Thu 12th Dec 2002 02:07 UTC

"If it were a high school student, it would be good at art and might be voted homecoming queen for it's looks, but it probably couldn't serve on the debate team, be captain of the football team, or pass that damned Trigonometry class."

So what would be a PC if it were a high school student? Debate team captain and math wiz? That's a scary thought.

Bullshit.

'Los

Technically Superior
by stupid user on Thu 12th Dec 2002 02:53 UTC

"the Mac platform is far, far superior in technical design"

I think what we have to do is separate the PC Hardware from the OS, because a person could be running Linux, Windows, BeOS, etc...

Regarding the actual hardware, I have to take issue with the statement of Macs being superior. It's true that because there is only the one distributor that it can progress faster, leaving behind legacy hardware. However, Apple, same as PC depends on other vendors sych as Motorola, ATI, etc for it's hardware, and almost any hardware available for the Mac can also be found for a PC, as well as all the other hardware that PCs can run that Macs can not.

Now, looking at the actual OS comparing Windows to OS X, In that regard Macs are superior to Windows in ease of use and efficiency. Arguements can be made whether this is because of the strict hardware lists Mac requires, nonetheless, it's true. The issue is whether the user is willing to not have the option of installing hardware/software that is avaible for the PC platform in favour of a Mac.

Mac plays catchup yet again
by Glenn Sweeney on Thu 12th Dec 2002 04:06 UTC

"the Mac platform is far, far superior in technical design"

Mac spunges of the PC market.. thats why most of the internal of a mac is really a pc technology. IDE AGP graphics cards etc...

Macs are slow .. this shows a "far far superior techinical design" .. yer right.


Mac ppl are snobs who cant see the truth.. your in denial .. all of u .. just give it up.

PC ppl dont like osx cause its a slow waste of time set of animations ontop of unix.

If PC ppl liked it wed change.. u really rekon we are stuck on pcs? i mean REALLY? macs have been around for years so have other computers. Get over yourselfs and accept u are second class PC citizens instead of crowing on about nothing to make out your ahead of the crowd.

You computers are slow, your operating system is new untested, full of bugs and has little hardware support, your spirtual leader (PC ppl dont have one person who makes everything for them.. they like choice) cares more about the outside colour of your computer than features, and u pretend all these things arent true.

Get a pc and be a real computer user, not a sucker to Steve Jobs whims.

RE: Mac plays catchup yet again
by PC Zealot on Thu 12th Dec 2002 04:30 UTC

The comments by Glenn Sweeney are typical of a closeminded PC zealot who is ignorant and ill-informed. You are the PC equivalent of the Mac snob. You are one of those people who use a hammer for everything even though it is not the right tool for the job. One size does not fit all. Choice is good. But your brain is too small to comprehend simple concepts like this.

PS - you need to work on your trolling skills much more because they are extremely lacking.

Ill-informed
by Glenn Sweeney on Thu 12th Dec 2002 05:08 UTC

If i was illinformed, youd have said what was wrong. Your whole comment had no specific points whatsoever. Choice is good.. the reason i make such blanket comments at times is because to show how STUPID the mac snobs are. PPL seem to believe Macs are more stable when 5 ppl say they are,when the truth is ive crashed my friends macs more than my pc .. so what the hell LET ME COME HERE AND TELL MY TRUTH.
Oftern its all jsut a war of words with very little specific information.

I use a hammer for everything? uhuh .. that stereotype for me is so completely wrong i dont know how u think u know me at all.

I dont buy a 4k shinny mac to do my work, i specifically purchase each individual part for MY audio recording requirements. Works great thanks...

I never said MAcs shouldnt be around. But to pretend macs have and allways have had some massive technological advantage is just plain wrong. PCs make up 90%+ of the market.. all the cool graphics cards, IDE drives and bus technologies are made by AMD INTEL and companies making parts for their PCS.

MAC has almost no involvement in any of these issues.

Macs are slow, have a new untested OS that really is just unix with some animations on top (Apple tried for years to make a real operating system and failed.. and failed again .. osx .. for 10 years in development and its still not finished lol) and are expensive.

I know the truth.. so do u .. dont give me this "illinformed" crap u knows wrong.

The truth? U cant handle the truth.

Untested OS?
by Jeff Mincey on Thu 12th Dec 2002 08:14 UTC

It's preposterous to suggest that OS X is an untested or unproven OS--and then in the same breath to acknowledge that it's based on (and in fact IS) Unix. The Mach kernel and FreeBSD Unix is VERY time-tested and indeed is a more mature operating system than Windows (in terms of its history).

It's true that the Quartz/Aqua layer on TOP of OS X is newer and has much development yet to do--and it's true also that OS X is a relatively young implementation of Unix--but its underpinnings are very thoroughly tested indeed--and evidence shows (from independent third parties) that it's a much more secure OS and less vulnerable to hacks than Windows (either 2000 or XP).

Anyway, my main issue with Adam's article is that he doesn't even explain the reasons for his answer to his own question--about whether a Mac could replace his PC. His answer is that it could not, but he doesn't really say why.

Unless one is a heavy-duty gamer, or is performing 3D-rendering, or is mapping the human genome, etc., speed is essential only to a certain point. One does not need blazing cutting-edge speed for word processing (MS-Word), personal finance (Quicken), E-mail, web browsing (there the issue is more about broadband vs. dial-up), etc.

Anyway, it's not clear to me what Adam does on his PC that he feels he cannot do on the Mac (either not well enough or at all). And this is at the very core of his article.

Apple was years ahead of Microsoft in making the transition to a full 32-bit clean OS. I have every confidence it will likewise be first to 64-bit (though HP, Sun, and other companies offer that now). But for the time being, it's true that the Mac is slower than a Windows PC--especially in regard to integer apps. For floating point-based apps, the difference is negligible. Still, Apple has work to do in this regard--and it is hamstrung by Motorola's internal problems. (In other words, it's through no fault of Apple's that its processors have begun to lag behind.)

The word is that Apple may well switch to a PPC chip developed by IBM and announced on a month or two ago.

Re: Untested OS
by crussia on Thu 12th Dec 2002 09:51 UTC

"Apple was years ahead of Microsoft in making the transition to a full 32-bit clean OS. I have every confidence it will likewise be first to 64-bit (though HP, Sun, and other companies offer that now)."

I'd like to lay down any amount of money that it won't. You can already download a 64bit beta RC2 version of .Net Server, or didn't you know that?

If I paid
by stupid person on Thu 12th Dec 2002 10:44 UTC

If I paid twice as much for a castrated piece of magenta flavoured hardware and a crippled pointing device, simply because it's UI was prettier, I'd get really defensive too. Otherwise, how stupid would I feel???

This is a troll
Merry Xmas :o)

you're not a snob to just say the truth
by Anonymous on Thu 12th Dec 2002 15:36 UTC

Sometimes the truth hurts, and it can seem kinda offensive and impolite. I am sorry, but it needs to be said. The Apple product -- hardware, OS X, Apple apps and Apple online service -- is simply better designed, on an overall basis. This is so obvious that there is no debate necessary.

Sure, PC hardware might be "better" this minute. But this is almost wholly due to the Motorola fiasco, which is going to be rectified in no more than 6 - 8 months. The things that are wrong with the PC platform -- or rather the things that make the Mac better (OS X, apple Apps, one company making it all) are not going to change, or be adopted on the PC platform, anytime soon or ever (in the case of one company making it all).

Second, the computer really is the software. The hardware is less important for all but a few applications for which a PC (right now) would be better suited, i.e, video rendering (even then you would use Linux and I am talking about the technical superiority of the Mac over a Windows PC).

If enough people say, you know what, what in the hell are we talking about. MS has been selling us swampland for years. The mac is simply better, give us a better product!! MS might actually do something.

Also, why not just admit it -- the hardware, OS, application integration on the PC is so inferior to the Mac, MS and Intel and ISVs and the Taiwan parts makers need to get their shit together and improve the situation. Instead, the PC diehards put their head in the sand and refuse to acknowledge the problem. Since when did that lead to anything good?

Mac Freak says, Good Article
by Jeff on Thu 12th Dec 2002 17:03 UTC

I haven't read all these posts but as Mac fan I wanted to say I thought the article was well done. You dismissed the Mac for valid (mostly) reasons and that's fine. To each his own.
BTW there are many things that can be done to speed up Jag, I'm told you can turn off effects (like shadows and such) which improves performance a bit, I guess, I'm no techie. You have to do it through the terminal and I think Apple should build these options into the OS for those who are hardware challenged or simply desire performance over eye candy.
I use both Windows and Macs quite a bit, never even saw Linux or any flavor there of so I don't know squat but between Windows and Mac I believe the vast majority of people would be better off on a Mac. It is easier to say who wouldn't be then who would, those who probably wouldn't like a Mac: those who are really heavy into gaming, those who like to tinker with their machines (build and rebuild, update and reconfigure), those who need to work with a PC only app that can't be reasonably run on a Mac via emulation.
My 2 cents.
BTW I willingly give up a bit of OS speed for eye candy, it makes using the computer more enjoyable to me. I also use the "hide app" keystroke (Apple H) to hide apps rather then minimize, quick and no performance bite, bring back from dock.

Re: Just thought of something...
by Zaphire on Fri 13th Dec 2002 00:10 UTC

How can anybody who knows how to drive, which requires differentiating pedals, confuse the two mouse buttons? Seriously, I doubt people are that stupid...

I do tech support for an ISP all day. Trust me, people ARE that stupid.

RE: RE: Review Problems
by Zaphire on Fri 13th Dec 2002 00:44 UTC

Windows *IS* the standard, we like it or not. Anything that tries to compete with it, will have to do ALL what Windows does, in the way it does it, plus more. Anything less, won't satisfy most of the users out there.

Actually, one of the primary reasons (in my opinion) Apple does so well, even with its low market share, is that its NOT windows. It DOESN'T work the way windows does. People LIKE that. And when a person gets home at the end of a long work day, its nice to use a computer that doesnt bitc* and moa* at you because your trying to do something that should be fundamentally simple, such as playing with a camera, printing your homework, or just reading email. You may not have those problems, but a vast majority of users do and just tend to live with it or get their computer literate college kids (or someone like me doing tech support) to do it.

http://firsttube.com/osnews/hellofapc.html

you can indeed build a hell of a pc for the price of a mac. it apparently will have half the ram and no DVD burner, but it is nice. it does come with a monitor(worth about 120.00) and Office, which IS nice. but if i have to buy a DVD burner and double my ram, the price difference shrinks.

add the price of a DVD burner and the ram to the pc, then add the price of Office and a monitor to the mac. i think you'll find the money you're saving is not that significant. not enough to have to endure endless hardware conflicts and software install issues. and add to that you have to administer Windows, no picnic that.

Go to Apple.com and see for yourself. Macs are not that much more. It only seems that way because of faulty comparisons like this one, and the fact that unlike pc makers, Apple doesn't make 300.00 pieces of crap.

OSX new, untested?
by CyberdogX on Fri 13th Dec 2002 15:56 UTC

OSX is based on NeXTSTEP which is over ten years old. it also contains tried and tested code from FreeBSD. it is actually a very mature and stable OS.

i have found XP to be a much better solution than 98 or ME, but i have still installed an XP driver for a peripheral only to find it impossible to get it to work. and i had the XP driver!

this will never, never, happen on a Mac. and there you have it.

and this "no software" BS. what can't i get on the Mac? i guess if i want to run Mavis Beacon teaches typing, i'll get a PC. other than that, all the Adobe, Macromedia, Microsoft, ID, etc software that runs on my G4 keeps me plenty busy. i just get done quicker that if i used a pc.

Dude...
by Dorian on Sat 14th Dec 2002 02:16 UTC

How many Macs do you think are shipped with the damn cable unpluged??? If you think $4K is to much, which it is, then buy the $1.5k dual 867! That's an awesome machine for about the same a cheap as PC cost.

If you need a start button, drag the hard drive icon to the DOC!

Everthing problem you mentioned with the Mac has a solution. And I don't think even a 700mhz G4 feels slow. I have a dual gig at work and it is extremely fast, It moves faster than any PC I have seen. I have gone to store after store trying out PCs and all of them no matter what P4 it has, 2.5 or above, leave a blank space as you move windows around. Specially when doing something else like playing a song on their horrible Mp3 player.

Forget it, if you feel like using Windows after using OSX, I feel very sorry for you.

But their is still hope, wait til 10.5 comes out. Remember OSX is a baby, unlike XP which is based on Win2k. Which has been around for almost 4 years.

But to each it's own.

Eye candy can be killed
by hasegawa on Mon 16th Dec 2002 01:07 UTC

I agree that the eye candy is aggravating. However much of it can be eliminated, also improving performance. X on an iBook 800 feels a lot better than 98 on a 450MHz PII (obviously) and also thank Win2k on an 1.2GHz athlon, although the last is close.

Overall very good article, but a little misleading about the eye candy.

Maybe this was covered in the 300+ existing comments already, but I'm too lazy to read them all and they're probably just about one-button mice, but what I wanted to know from the reviewer was:
Did you get all your old slides and new digital photos finally organised? What about the home movies you made of the hours of boring tape you have, that were so much fun you got somebody to watch them (the dog doesn't count)? Wasn't it fun to have iTunes handling a favorite Live365 stream in the background? Or do you just use the iPod? How many DVD's did you hand out to families, friends and prospective clients?
Oh. You typed a bit and surfed some. I see. Maybe time to stop walloping a carpet tack with a sledge. Cut back to a Celeron, or try creating something new and big.
I can't believe I wasted time reading about a geek dry-humping a Mac.