Os x

Gah give me so many choices there... making it tough...

I'll go with biege.. WAIT! no... I'll go with biege instead! Grrr suprise me instead. =

jw12345 said:

I know this is a Windows 7 forum, and so the vast majority of people here have a PC preference. But I'm wondering, who has used OS X for a significant amount of time (as their main OS, not just at some library kiosk) and why they decided that PCs were superior? I know this is the eternal debate, but eh, in the spirit of WWDC today, what the heck?

I'll start with a few things I think PCs could learn from Macs, and feel free to contribute to whatever side:
1. Nobody but techies cares about specs. For the vast majority of people, a 2.4Ghz c2d isn't going to feel any faster than a 2.0Ghz. Comparing mac specs to pcs is irrelevant. Hardware advances so quickly that even if Macs are behind the curve by a year, most people would prefer a nicer screen and smaller footprint of an iMac, because even 2 years from the purchase, the mac and pc are both going to feel about the same, compared to newer models. And few people upgrade, and laptops are where it's at right now, so macs and pcs are on equal footing practically with upgrades of hdd and memory.

Not sure I buy this premise. My parents are in their 60's and 70's and they absolutely look at specs when buying a new PC. They call me to ask advice, etc. In addition, Apple usually only updates the hardware evry year, sometimes every 2 years, that sucks. As you said, hardware advances quickly and Apple is often behind a current PC.

jw12345 said:

2. Closing apps just because you close a window is ridiculous, especially when working with large programs. It take a bit to get used to the mac way of window vs apps, but it pays off. There are lots of instances where you want an app running but no open window, and Windows method to minimizing to the tray is inconsistent and not as logical.

Absolutely disagree. When i close an app, I want it closed. It is otherwise using resources. If I want that app to remain open, I will minimize. This is far more logical than closing, but not closing, as OSX does it.

jw12345 said:

3. Apps. Windows 7 is stripping out most of the mail/calendar/photo type apps. Apple have an amazing integration that's brought only by making these standard. Little things like in Mail, where there's an icon by each email that indicates if the other person in online for IM, and you can right there start a conversation with them using ichat. And safari's web clips that allow you to make any part of a webpage into a dashboard widget. Literally hundreds of little touches in apple's software suite like these exist. iTunes, iChat, Mail, iCal, Safari, Quicktime, and PDF manipulation are tied together amazingly.

And you can thank the EU for that. Granted, MS abused their monopoly standing (thankfully, or we'd have no standards), so they are now reaping the wrath of the EU. MS also has to be careful how much they allow their apps to integrate with one another, or else they will get slapped once more for abusing their position.

jw12345 said:

4. Automator rocks. Seriously. Right now I have a script set up with applescript helping out that in the morning, os x boots up, opens all my apps to load into memory so everything launches immediately throughout the day, closes the windows, checks for any mail and select rss feeds, starts an itunes playlist at a slowly increasing volume until a tone wakes me up for the morning at which time a pdf pops up on the screen and the built in voice capabilities begin to read off the time, any new messages, important rss feeds, the days events from ical, any reminders, todos, and will load in the background my morning browsing routine all while I get dressed. All using built-in apps. Sure, this can be done with third party tools in windows, but it's such a pain to get it working so effortlessly. I'm a total mac newbie, and figure out how to do this in maybe an hour. Microsoft stripping apps out means many will never see them, or that kind of integration. It's conceivable that many people could happily use os x without installing a single program outside of what's preloaded. Having a single vendor has its perks, though you could easily use other software you prefer on a mac.

Almost all the scripting you noted can be done in Windows. As I noted above, the number of built-in apps is limited not by MS but outside forces.

jw12345 said:

5. Beauty. I've mentioned in another thread how much I hate windows transparency, but beauty permeates os x. Everything is tastefully animated in a way that help you visualize what's occuring, little things like ical's icon showing the correct date without even running. Jump lists are very similar to what os x already has had for a while and IMO os x does them cleaner. Widgets even look more appealing than windows counterparts

On the windows side: Aero Peek and Snap rock.

I have noted many times before that OSX has a polish that MS lacks. Unfortunately, for Apple, that is typical. The packaging is pretty, but the underlying components are nothing special. OSX is far less secure than Windows. Noted hackers have made it clear that OSX is a far easier target. It is only the fact that OSX has a measly 3% worldwide share that malware hasn't decimated the community. The hardware is similiar, the outside packaging is beautiful, the basic components are nothing special. But that doesn't stop them from charging an arm or a leg. Also, what does Apple offer in the desktop range? You have the mini, the iMac (both built with laptop components) and the Mac Pro. Where's my quad-core desktop, that isn't a $2200 server-type system?

If I want OSX (which I don't), I have to buy Apple's system. With Windows, I get to build MY system and install an OS.

PhreePhly

jw12345 said:

I should reword what I said about specs: most people do not experience much benefit from a higher spec machine than a better designed one. I would gladly trade a few hundred Mhz for a backlight keyboard, and I'll give a gig of memory for an aluminum chassis, because in a year's time, there won't be a hugely noticeable difference to me (or most users) between the specs, but I'll appreciate a nice screen and thin laptop. Computers really aren't about cramming the fastest hardware into the cheapest box anymore. They're becoming more like cars, where a salesman might mention HP and torque, but only enthusiasts care as long as it's workable, because only enthusiasts will notice a difference.

What makes you think Macs are the only laptops with backlit keyboards? Why not have both the Mhz and the backlit and still cheaper? Aluminium chassis, great, but I've got a 5 year-old Dell Inspiron, that's been beat to hell by my wife that is still ticking just fine. That laptop cost less than half what a competing Macbook was running at the time. The bottom line line is most users want bang for the buck. Apple is not bang for the buck. If you want to use a car analogy, Apple is like the Mercury division of Ford, leather and chrome, less plastic, but the same old motor and transmission. You pay more for the look, but the underlying drive train is the same as the Ford.

jw12345 said:

The windows vs app handling I don't believe requires that much more resources, because the CPU usage is only a few percentage, and a modern OS should page in and out memory is such a way that a user doesn't need to worry about memory resource management. Tying together apps and windows gives you weird UIs such as Excel's MDI vs Word's separate window systems, and a duplication of app controls, that is inefficient once you open of several documents that new to be visible on screen at once. So resource wise, OS X handles it in a way that once a large program is launched, I can open a new window instantly (and if the app is using too much memory that I need for work, the OS will page out. Memory management shouldn't be the job of the user)

And yet, we had nothing but complaints about Vista being a resource hog, because it made efficient use of the available memory. Sorry, but the general public's reaction to Vista is that it is a resource hog, even though it isn't. As far as the difference between SDI and MDI, that is the programmer's choice. I see nothing wrong with how Word handles separate documents, works fine and the memory usage is minimal. I think the way Excel handles it worked for old Windows GUI, but especially with Win 7's super Taskbar, Excel needs to move into the SDI world. I still hate it when ever I work on OSX that when I close the app, it isn't closed. Do what I ask and close. If I want the app back open, I will open it. Opening an app takes less than a second, quite frankly, the diffence between minimized and restart is negligible due to SuperFetch.

jw12345 said:

Users don't care why Microsoft doesn't offer a usable package. They just know they can buy a Mac and have almost all the software they need sitting there waiting for them in the dock, and it all works well enough for the vast majority of them.

Go to Best Buy and choose a PC, 9 times out 10 it includes almost all of the software you need to do what ever you want. And it's cheaper.

jw12345 said:

And desktops, for consumers at least, are on the decline. My primary computer is a tower desktop, but many of the advantages of towers are disappearing. SSDs are going to level the playing field between notebook and desktop disks, and we simply aren't bound by drive capacity or memory as much as we used to be. A 2tb drive hooked up to a router is all the mass storage most will need in years. My brother uses 15gb on his laptop right now, and I use maybe 50gb plus a large 1.5TB storage drive. The only other components towers have the advantage in are CPUs and GPUs, neither of which a consumer who doesn't play video games runs up against often. So these colossal towers make since mostly for people who use them professionally, and probably aren't as price sensitive. This isn't really a statement about macs, but a general trend on computers. It's pretty difficult to even find a good prebuilt mid-tower. In stores, you'll see mostly minitowers, and they run pretty well honestly. I do regret that PCs are losing the ability to rip them apart and play with them like in towers, but minis and all in ones are becoming the standard.

I'm not talking about towers, I'm talking about a quad-core processor. What Apple product offers me a quad-core processor? The only one is the $2200 Mac Pro. I can get an HP, Dell, Sony, etc. with a Quad-core processor and 8 GB RAM for well under $1000. There are plenty of folks who work with RAW images and video editing that would love and could use a quad-core processor. They don't care how it's packaged, just that it is fast. I've got tons of co-workers, who are computer ignorant, but use their computers for video and image manipulation. None of them are professional, but they want to get the job done in a decent amount of time. and the $650 HP that has a quad-core fits the bill just fine.

jw12345 said:

As for malware, I agree that Windows has picked up its game as of late and Macs aren't inherently secure (except that it's unacceptable that Windows users typically run as admin for the longest time). Theoretically, a 100% secure system won't protect a program from wiping out your files if you give it the go-ahead. It amazes me how many ivy-league educated people I know that still get malware from trying to download a video codec.

You do know that with Vista and Win 7, that even as a user in the Admin group, you do not run as admin, right? That's the point of UAC, that if you need to perform a task that requires admin privileges, even if you are a member of the admin group, you will require elevation. However, you are absolutely correct, there is no 100% secure OS. If a user can interact with it, it is unsecure.

jw12345 said:

I'm playing up the apple side a little harder than I normally would since I'm obviously the minority view here, but it seems to me that for consumers, apple offers a significantly smoother and better experience, Microsoft is claiming the business and low budget market.

I hear this claim all the time, but rarely see it in practice. My buddy just got his new Dell, The box arrived, he plugged it in and it ran. He was up and running in about 15 minutes and once connected to the internet, Vista updated within 35 minutes. The PC had all the software he needed to get his work done already installed. Sorry, but the "It just works" campaign is just as valid wor Windows.

PhreePhly