-Steve Jobs claimed that Apple's LCDs are a reference in image processing, and that other manufacturers use panels that Apple rejects. I'll start with only two words about image processing: "Sony Artisan". If you really want two more words I'll add "Lacie Electronblue". As for the quality of the panels that Apple uses, I'm officially inviting Steve Jobs to my place so that he can compare himself the quality of the screen on my IBM thinkpad and on Eugenia's Powerbook.
-Steve Jobs claimed that the only OS transition ever to happen in the PC world was that in 1995 when going from DOS with Windows 95. Sorry buddy, but the transition from Windows 3.1/95/98/ME to Windows NT/2000/XP was at least as big. Or maybe I'd actually say that the PC world is unique in that it is able to maintain such a level of compatibility that no sharp transition is needed. The latest Windows is still able to run many 10-year-old applications. Most recent PCs can still run 10-year old DOS 6.22. By comparison compatibility in the Mac world is a total disaster.
-Steve Jobs was quick to mention that there hadn't been any major release of Windows since Windows XP (I really wonder what that "Windows 2003 server" thing was). Ignoring the case of the expensive server OS, he forgot to compare the cost of continuing to run the latest version of Windows and the latest version of MacOS on a PC and on a Mac both bought in 2001.
When I interview a candidate whose resume lists tons of different competencies, I very much like to pick one which I am familiar with and ask a few advanced questions, the kind that can only be answered with some real knowledge and/or experience in the domain. When I get an unsatisfactory answer, all I can assume is that the knowledge of the candidate in the other domains is going to be as shallow. Similarly when I listen to Steve Jobs' glorified sales pitch, I recognize a few areas where I have some level of competency, and my knowledge in those areas makes me realize that MacOS isn't the perfect operating system that Apple would like me to believe.
In summary, I don't think that MacOS 10.4 is worth my $129 (or my $199 since I have multiple Macs, assuming that they maintain their policy about upgrade pricing). In my experience each upgrade on MacOS X comes with a lot of pain, lots of broken compatibility with at least some of the drivers and accessories that I can't live without on MacOS, and I'm getting to the point where my Mac experience is stuck between a rock (continuing to use 10.3 and all its problems) and a hard place (upgrading to 10.4 and deal with all the new bugs and incompatibilities).
As a footnote, here are a few of my gripes with MacOS X:
-I find the hardware support to be very poor. 10.3 doesn't have any kind of decent out-of-the-box support for my good Keytronic USB keyboard (it swaps some of the modifier keys), for my good Logitech USB mouse (it makes it several times slower than it is supposed to be). Finder doesn't burn to my external Sony firewire DVD-R. I can't print a full-page letter picture if I tell the OS that I'm printing on letter paper and I have to pretend that I have legal paper, which then causes quite some headaches when trying to center prints.
-serious glitches in the window management. Exposé get very seriously confused when used while some modal windows are on screen, e.g. while scanning with an Epson 3200 photo scanner from within Photoshop. Maximizing the driver window of the Minolta Dual IV while inside Photoshop renders it almost unusable if you don't know some of the advanced keyboard modifiers that allow to interact with the window manager). I'll add that some apps (like the aforementioned driver for the Epson 3200 scanner) have some serious graphical glitches.
-memory limitations in applications. Even though my dual G4 has 2GB of RAM, which Photoshop can perfectly detect, Photoshop doesn't manage to use more than about 900MB of RAM. The rest of the RAM mostly sits there, unused (several hundred MB are unused, which is especially annoying when Photoshop is struggling with the hard drive to try to apply filters to 500MB images).
-poor multi-user support. Fast user switching is only available when displaying the user name in the menu bar (try to create a user named "Jean-Baptiste Quéru" and to enable fast user switching while using Photoshop CS on a 1280-pixel-wide screen and you'll see what I mean). Also many applications don't work well (or at all) when you're not the primary user of the machine, and many applications can't be installed at all if yo're not the primary user, while other applications cannot be installed to be available to all users at the same time even when installed to the primary user.
-non-intuitive installs, and non-existent uninstalls. I've installed several instances of software that wouldn't install automatically and needed some files to be moved around by hand. I've seen instances of software where an upgrade to a newer version would not replace the older version but would actually live side-by-side, with no visual indication about which version was the newer one. There's no uninstaller worth mentioning that can clean up after your /Library, /System or your personal ~/Library for certain apps.
-non-existent keyboard shortcuts. I really dislike how there doesn't seem to be any way to dismiss certain alerts with the keyboard, or how there doesn't seem to be a standard way to access with the keyboard menu items that don't have a shortcut. I got really annoyed when I found no way to move a window with the keyboard (which would be quite handy when a window ends up in a spot where you can't access its title bar with the mouse, e.g. underneath the Photoshop toolbar).
At the moment, MacOS irritates me so much that I don't even want to use it any more, which means that I'm not really doing any photography. If Apple doesn't solve those issues with Tiger (or if they do but create many new ones on the way) I have the feeling that I'll go back to using my trusted old PC. It might be noisy and slow, but it just works much better for me. Your mileage may vary.
Oh, one last note. Before someone tells me that some of the problems I have come from application writers and not from Apple, let me tell you that I've walked the very same arrogant path when I was at Be, claiming that it was possible to write clean applications for BeOS. As long as the OS makes it easier to write misbehaving code than to write well-working code, something is wrong with the OS itself and the blame cannot be passed on to the application developers. Even worse, it doesn't matter which API is the cleanest, which programming language is the most advanced, or any of those abstract qualities. If a small OS (in terms of market share) like MacOS has API that doesn't look like what most developers are used to, something is wrong (again) with the OS itself.
About the Author
JBQ is a software engineer who used to work on BeOS in a previous life. He uses Windows XP and Mac OS X (no, he doesn't use BeOS), and one of his hobbies is photography, which involves a lot of work in the digital darkroom.
If you would like to see your thoughts or experiences with technology published, please consider writing an article for OSNews.
- "Thoughts on Tiger, Page 1/2"
- "Thoughts on Tiger, Page 2/2"