|
|
|
Comment |
Sorted by
Date Written |
Re: Specialised Uses (Reply to this comment)
by brad
Hi balaspa and welcome to Epinions. Thank you for your comments on this essay.
Your perspective is an interesting one and unique from most of the other comments/perspectives offered here, particularly by those who advocate Windows ("PC").
With respect to your needs, it would seem that yours are driven by specific applications. To the extent that I am a scientist, most of my work is in the social sciences. About the most advanced work I do is with statistics -- polling data and analyzing it for trends, etc.
Are applications available for your purposes on the Mac platform?
I think that question needs to be answered. The Mac obviously cannot compete if it doesn't have the relevant applications to perform the tasks that you need done.
If the applications are not available or not to the extent that you need, I think the reason for the Mac's disadvantage is the relative youth of Mac OS X. The operating system is eight years old, but really only came into its own by Panther. I might even go up to Tiger to make that case. Until Tiger came out and the combination of moving over to x86 chips, OS X really couldn't compete with Windows for software developers.
So in other words, the Mac platform is still in its relative infancy of legitimately grabbing market share. Responsible business people (i.e. software developers) have not had the incentive to move their applications over to the Mac platform.
That's obviously changing, but not nearly fast enough for a lot of people. This is especially true in the enterprise market, which of course drives a significant amount of demand.
Windows is established. It maintains a heavy competitive advantage in attracting software developers.
However, the fundamental robustness of OS X blows away Windows. From all available evidence, I just find it really hard for people to dispute this. We can argue about the GUI and which is easier to use, but more important over the long-term is the infrastructure of the operating system.
OS X is a truly modern operating system with far more structural integrity than Windows.
So it is this argument I make for the future. It will take time, certainly, for mass adoption of the Mac platform. But I firmly believe that over time, the enterprise market will invest in the benefits of OS X and train its workforce to use it, even if only in certain niches to begin with. The point is, it will spread and more people will gain comfort using it.
And as that happens, the applications that you need and that many others need that are not currently available on the Mac platform will in fact migrate. And when that happens, you'll be able to do what you need to do.
Now with all that said, if it isn't the applications that is the problem, I would be very interested to know why you are ten times more efficient using Windows than OS X.
Thanks again for your contributions here.
Respectfully, Brad.
|
Oct 23 '09
8:56 pm PDT
|
|
Specialised Uses (Reply to this comment)
by balaspa
I have seen all over the internet that people refer to using a Computer to basically these things
1) Surfing, Mail and Social Network
2) Word, excel and PPt
3) Movies, Music and Pictures
4) Games
Other things are classified as Work.. and mostly considered irrelevant in the ease of use or GUI arguments.
But this is a very diverse sector where ease of use matters.. and the diversity is there in each and every person. for me it is,
1) CAD
2) Image processing
3) Statistical Analysis
4) Geographical information systems
5) 3D modelling
6) Project Management
7) Class notes
8) Transport modelling
In these fields there is no way a person can use a mac satisfactorily. I'm not saying these cannot be done in a mac but can be done in a PC way^10 better. (Macintosh running windows is a PC)
|
Oct 17 '09
12:53 pm PDT
|
|
I agree with review (Reply to this comment)
by gnuphie
I tend to agree with this review, however, I tend to be even more biased toward Apple.
My background is rather strange. In the 80's and 90's I was extremely anti-apple and pro-microsoft. I did not like the OS on Apples prior to OS X, and I thought the more developer friendly approach Microsoft took back then put Apple to shame. I found Apple's old OS was fragile and the hardware rather proprietary and unduly expensive.
*nix (Linux, FreeBSD, etc.) changed all that for me. In fact I think the *nix and open source community have played a bigger hand in the Apple success than Steve Jobs (although I have to give him and his vision a lot of credit).
Microsoft has tanked in almost all ways for me since about 1995, and no PC manufacturer has kept up with Apple, in particular with laptops, for 10 years.
My only complaint against Apple has been their spotty support for Java in the last few years.
|
Aug 08 '09
1:59 pm PDT
|
|
Re: Nad (Reply to this comment)
by brad
Nad, Nad, Nad!
When you finally get the hang of using OS X, you'll be wondering why in the heck you wasted so much time on Windows.
If you need to see your windows, use Expose. It's one of the function keys. It differs on some models, but you can check in the system preferences. Also, you can change the key that activates it. If you use Expose, you'll never have a problem finding which window you want to use.
Having tiled windows is great. I love it. When I first moved to OS X in 2002, I didn't like it, just as your reaction suggests. It's all about developing a comfort zone and as you know, with any software, that takes some time.
Here's just a little example where I saved probably five minutes the other day. I had to send a folder of documents to somebody by email. Needed to zip it. Now if I were on Windows, I would need to use a utility for that and it would take some time. On OS X? Right click on folder, select "zip" and a zipped file appears on desktop. Attach, send.
It's little things like that that are all over the place. It takes time to find all of them and I know I'm not done finding or figuring out all the tricks. I haven't even started tinkering with scripts or smart folders, stuff like that. Some people can do amazing things and it doesn't look difficult; I'm just too lazy to figure it out on my own. Things seem easy enough as they are.
So keep playing with it, keep working on the system. In time, like I said, you'll be blown away.
As for the dock, keep it. Move it to the left of the screen and keep it static or if it really bothers you, select the option of hiding it. Then you can move the cursor over there and it'll reappear when you want it. That's if you just don't want it on your screen real estate. I'm sure your resolution provides plenty of space for it, though. Just get used to the dock and when you do, you'll find it very helpful and quite functional. I love it. I'll take it any day over the task bar in Windows.
We'll make a convert out of you yet! Keep at it!
Brad
|
Jun 28 '09
7:56 pm PDT
|
|
Beautifully written. (Reply to this comment)
by aohcapablanca
Dear Brad,
You must be a master teacher as well as computer repairman.
Lucidity lives!
Thanks.
Cordially,
AOHCAPABLANCA/Patrick K
|
Jun 27 '09
3:23 am PDT
|
|
. (Reply to this comment)
by nad_masters
I finally got a MacBook just to see what all the fuss is about. After putting Win7 on BootCamp and VirtualBox, I quickly removed them when I found out I could do everything on the native OS X. The learning curve is steep, but nothing you can't conqour. It only took me two days!
The only thing I don't like is the Dock - I cannot switch windows (sorry, I mean apps!) as quickly and easily as I do in Windows. The Command-Tab helps, but only switches apps. For example - if I have 3 Safari windows opened, it only shows one Safari when Command-Tabbed. You have to go to the Window menu to select the one you want after tabbing to it.
What is all that about!?
|
Jun 24 '09
9:32 pm PDT
|
|
Key Point (Reply to this comment)
by elvisdo
***Apple controls the entire experience. Microsoft develops Windows as software. Microsoft doesn’t manufacture the computers.
This is what I was recently told my wife when she asked why so many PCs breakdown.
Great essay.
~C
|
May 18 '09
10:33 am PDT
|
|
Re: dissatisfied with microsoft (Reply to this comment)
by brad
Hi gooddaughter7!
I appreciate the situation you are in with an old PC. Those are the most difficult to maintain. It's one thing if you have a rather recent PC (1-3 years old), but anything older than that and you might only have a half gig of RAM and a relatively show processor. You clearly fall into the latter and I know from experience that keeping such a computer maintained is a real pain in the rear. I am still maintaining one such machine for my family, but he has promised to replace it with a Mac in the near future. Somehow that keeps getting put off for budget reasons.
If you move to a Mac, you're accomplishing two goals. One, you're going to get the fastest computer money can buy, or at least as close to that as can be reasonably expected for a consumer. Your machine will be well equipped with the latest technology, including plenty of RAM and a fast processor/graphics chipset.
But more importantly, your second accomplished goal is getting rid of the headaches involved in maintaining a PC. Did you see the recent 60 Minutes piece on malware? They conveniently left out that their entire piece was focused on the sort of malware that only affects PCs. A Mac is not susceptible to that malware. Better put, you won't be exposed to that malware as Macs are configured.
You still should apply appropriate updates to your Mac operating system and accompanying software, but those updates are far less critical than anything Microsoft sends out for Windows. If you don't apply Windows updates and/or Anti-malware updates, simply put, your PC is guaranteed to shut down eventually (become unusable). It doesn't even matter how "fast" the computer is (i.e. the technology).
Look, I am pointing everybody in this direction for one reason: peace of mind. From a selfish standpoint, I don't want to go around maintaining all these computers for family and friends. It took me several days (several evenings) to clean up my sister's PC last fall and I'm sure it needs cleaning again by now. You know all the headaches involved. With a Mac, you just don't have to deal with any of that stuff. It just runs.
You will pay more upfront for the Mac, but it's worth it in the long run. No money spent on malware software and no money or hassles spent getting people to help you keep the machine usable.
Macs are also going to last a lot longer than the average PC. I have a five year old Powerbook (laptop) that I'm using and it is still plenty fast enough to do what I want with it and I haven't done a thing to it since I got it. Not a single OS reinstall, no managing of any malware software, no software issues, no hardware issues. It is a champ and has more than paid for itself. If I had bought a PC laptop at the same time, it would be obsolete by now and undoubtedly, I would have reinstalled Windows at least three times since then.
Good luck with your Mac and if you have any questions with your new machine, I am happy to help or point you in the right direction. Shoot me an email.
Brad
|
Apr 17 '09
8:28 am PDT
|
|
dissatisfied with microsoft (Reply to this comment)
by gooddaughter7
i have sat at my computer (a cheap dell that runs windows xp bought in 2002 with a celeron processer) trying to get updates so OTHER programs can run, and so this old thing can get up to speed, seems everytime i find a workaround for an installation error, it just causes more headache, or neck-ache in my case. (i will spare the details) Anyway, what i wanted to know about the mac you have told me. basically it costs more, but not alot it seems,,, and works better, more user friendly and you dont need extra things that cost more $ to protect you from spyware/hackers (did i understand correctly?) At this point, I am afraid I will do more harm than good trying to get these stupid updates done in the 'right order', and fear that I will be sitting here in an acidic cloud of smoke because this old dell dinosaur burns up,, while all my pictures and documents float away in the haze... I am going to go to a mac store and get one, and if my husband divorces me over it, well at least I will get the Mac,, and the cats. Thanks for the objective point of view.
|
Apr 14 '09
2:42 pm PDT
|
|
Re: Re: Re: Great essay as always (Reply to this comment)
by brad
I suspect that we could argue over the semantics of these matters for hours (days!). But I sense that in general, we agree. Some things may be misunderstood, but I think we generally agree. With the exception of the PPC chips.
With respect to the "family" of Windows, I continue to insist that Vista belongs with XP, 2000, and NT. I could cite reputable reviews of XP that label it as "beautified 2000." And of course, 2000 came directly from NT.
The point of this was to illustrate that while Microsoft is releasing these "major" brands, they're really not giving us something fundamentally different. I insist that most of what Microsoft has done has been evolutionary in nature and not fundamentally overhauled the infrastructure of the NT line.
If you look at OS X, you can see what's underneath (here):
http://developer.apple.com/macosx/architecture/index.html
Now that hasn't changed since Cheetah.
What I'm saying is that the architecture for Windows hasn't fundamentally changed since NT. Will you argue that?
And when I was making this argument, I did refer to it under number three below (combining the product lines). Yes, obviously abandoning DOS was a major leap for the consumer line. But that was in the works for a long time and in fact, in practice with NT and 2000 released in 1999.
As far as the GUI, I think you're overlooking a lot of stuff. And a lot of it isn't just shinier icons or the presence of a dock. Menu configurations, the interface for applications, installations, metadata, all kinds of things that affect the user experience in a visual manner have evolved at a much greater pace with OS X than with Windows.
What I am arguing is that Windows has not materially boosted the functionality of the user experience with a lot of significant GUI enhancements. Again, mostly evolutionary stuff like adding support for USB, Firewire, Wi-fi, sometimes plug-n-play, etc. That's just stuff to keep up with technology. I think you'll agree that if we look at OS X during the Cheetah/Puma stage (and more starkly, from the classic era) up to Leopard, the look and feel of the GUI is the same, but subtle changes are abundant and have greatly boosted functionality and usability. To me, Windows just hasn't come close to that. I applaud Linux for evolving as much as it has during this same time period.
As far as the chips go, we fundamentally disagree. It would be interesting to compare the facts. I followed this story about as close as any Apple fan as it happened. It was clear for years that IBM was not delivering on Apple's demands. Jobs outlined a goal of 3 gigahertz and two years later, IBM hadn't come close. They couldn't deliver in quantities. And they could not build a chip that would suit Apple's laptops.
IBM lost a huge customer in Apple. And Apple gave IBM a personal computing platform to showcase their chips. If that wasn't enough of an incentive to keep Apple happy, then I don't know what is. I know that IBM does well selling its chips and as I said, there is an argument for applying their chips to certain applications. That's obvious, with the success of the gaming platform, etc. But Apple is a pretty big deal, one of the most recognizable companies in the world, a huge customer in terms of volume, and IBM lost the account. Jobs is obviously a wise man and this was a strategic, not short-term decision. So that tells me he and Apple took plenty of time to decide to move over to Intel. And I greatly doubt it had to do with one particular issue, whether it was a rumor about overheating laptop chips or supply or price or whatever.
Thanks again for your thoughts. It is a nice debate!
|
Feb 25 '09
1:34 pm PST
|
|
Re: Re: Great essay as always (Reply to this comment)
by lawman67
1) Vista/XP/2000/NT. These are all of the same family. That's my point. They have the same kernel underpinnings. Much of the same fundamental infrastructure. It may be true to say that Vista more closely resembles Windows Server (in either case, 2003 or 2008), the fact remains that the foundation is the same. Kernel "adjustments" perhaps, but not an overhaul by any stretch.
* They are not all of the same family, but rather are different generations that like OS X and various Linux distributions, have advanced at the kernel level. Windows 2000 was NT 5, while XP was 5.1. Vista and Windows Server 2003 are both NT 6, while Vista SP1 and Windows Server 2008 are NT 6.1. Windows 7 will be, you guessed it, NT 7.
* Apple is the same here, with each major release of OS X running an improved kernel, and sometimes even point upgrades, such as 10.5.5 to 10.5.6 (the true equivalent of a service pack) get an upgraded kernel.
On the other hand, OS X is a complete overhaul of the classic OS that came before it. It is based on a completely different infrastructure. OS X has not fundamentally changed with each major point release. OS X has evolved far more than Windows has over the past eight years. But that has more to do with how OS X was designed than man hours invested by Apple or by Microsoft for Windows. It's just a fundamentally better equipped operating system from the bottom up.
* NT is also a complete upgrade and replacement of the OS that came before it, in this case DOS-based Windows 9x. The difference is that Microsoft ditched its DOS code base back in 2001 with XP, or as early as 1994 when the first versions of NT were introduced. I haven't touched DOS-based Windows since Windows 2000, which was and remains an excellent, modern OS.
2) the x86 chips Apple uses today are far superior to anything that would have evolved from the PPC architecture. And although I think we agree on most things, I strongly disagree with your assertion that the PPC chips held up against the x86 chips back when Apple only ran PPC chips. Apple always made those claims, but they were bogus. There isn't an argument that certain types of chips work better for different applications. PPC chips from IBM work better for the applications they apply them to. But IBM's chips would not and do not run in desktop computers because they are competitively disadvantaged. Apple couldn't even get a PPC chip beyond the G4 to put in a laptop. I think that pretty much says it all right there. There was no choice but to move along.
* Not true. G5 processors never went into laptops because of heat, pure and simple. Nothing whatsoever about power or performance, they just ran too hot. The last year of PPC Macs saw an active rumor mill discussing new IBM Power processors that ran much cooler and that could be easily made to work in laptops, only by then Apple had already made its move to Intel. I'm not saying that Intel processors weren't an excellent move for Apple as I love Boot Camp and Parallels as much as the next guy, but my 1.0 GHz PowerBook G4 remains, 6-years-later, a powerful and capable system that runs neck and neck in most processor intensive functions (compiling video, converting audio, etc) with a 1.2 GHz Centrino ThinkPad of the same age.
3) Windows made a major leap when it combined the two product lines to the NT kernel and infrastructure into Windows XP. I should have better emphasized that point (or made it at all). But from a GUI sense, Windows today isn't materially different than Windows 95. In fact, I think the default installation settings for the Windows GUI today are far inferior to the "classic" settings most often attributed to Windows 2000. The Fisher Price look was never well received, nor was the new start menu system. Those were steps backward, in my opinion.
On the other hand, Apple has managed to evolve various elements of its GUI. Refined. Polished. Not fundamentally changed the functionality or appearance, just constantly refined. Buttons and icons, menus and most other GUI elements from Jaguar are noticeably different in Leopard, yet not functionally different. It's just a better overall experience.
* I agree, but the UI is only what you see, not the OS itself. Copy a large batch of files from one drive to another on a PC and you will find that even on identical hardware, the process will be faster and more accurately reported on the newer versions of Windows. Attach a device and the newer versions will handle identification and activation of the device a lot faster and with far less interaction from the user. Vista is almost as good as OS X in this regard, and far better than XP. Windows 7 is even better based on my playing with the public beta.
* I don't like the FIsher Price look either, and on all versions of Windows through Vista it is easy to disable. Windows 7 does not allow the classic start menu, but does allow everything else to be set to classic mode. It is still beta, so with any luck classic mode will work in the final release.
* UI is preference, some people like the new start menu in Vista and used the simpler form in XP. For those of us who moved from Windows 3 to 95 and through the version, the new start menu in XP was annoying, but to young people who started with XP, it is actually a better design that is faster and more efficient.
* I see the classic vs. new start menu much the same as I used to look at the Apple menu vs. dock arguments. When I first moved to OS X, I really wanted the Apple menu to be like it was in OS 9. Apple didn't give it to me, and by the time I moved to Panther from Jaguar, I was a convert. I love the dock today, though many Mac users (mostly old classic Mac guys) hate it. I never gave Microsoft's new start menu a chance and thus never got used to it, but then, Microsoft gave me classic mode, so I really never had to.
Cheers,
Andrew
|
Feb 24 '09
10:32 pm PST
|
|
Re: Great essay as always (Reply to this comment)
by brad
Hi Andrew. Thank you for posting the comments.
1) Vista/XP/2000/NT. These are all of the same family. That's my point. They have the same kernel underpinnings. Much of the same fundamental infrastructure. It may be true to say that Vista more closely resembles Windows Server (in either case, 2003 or 2008), the fact remains that the foundation is the same. Kernel "adjustments" perhaps, but not an overhaul by any stretch.
On the other hand, OS X is a complete overhaul of the classic OS that came before it. It is based on a completely different infrastructure. OS X has not fundamentally changed with each major point release. OS X has evolved far more than Windows has over the past eight years. But that has more to do with how OS X was designed than man hours invested by Apple or by Microsoft for Windows. It's just a fundamentally better equipped operating system from the bottom up.
2) the x86 chips Apple uses today are far superior to anything that would have evolved from the PPC architecture. And although I think we agree on most things, I strongly disagree with your assertion that the PPC chips held up against the x86 chips back when Apple only ran PPC chips. Apple always made those claims, but they were bogus. There isn't an argument that certain types of chips work better for different applications. PPC chips from IBM work better for the applications they apply them to. But IBM's chips would not and do not run in desktop computers because they are competitively disadvantaged. Apple couldn't even get a PPC chip beyond the G4 to put in a laptop. I think that pretty much says it all right there. There was no choice but to move along.
3) Windows made a major leap when it combined the two product lines to the NT kernel and infrastructure into Windows XP. I should have better emphasized that point (or made it at all). But from a GUI sense, Windows today isn't materially different than Windows 95. In fact, I think the default installation settings for the Windows GUI today are far inferior to the "classic" settings most often attributed to Windows 2000. The Fisher Price look was never well received, nor was the new start menu system. Those were steps backward, in my opinion.
On the other hand, Apple has managed to evolve various elements of its GUI. Refined. Polished. Not fundamentally changed the functionality or appearance, just constantly refined. Buttons and icons, menus and most other GUI elements from Jaguar are noticeably different in Leopard, yet not functionally different. It's just a better overall experience.
Thanks again for your comments.
|
Feb 24 '09
2:42 pm PST
|
|
Great essay as always (Reply to this comment)
by lawman67
Two minor things though.
Vista is not based on XP and could not be a "service pack". Yes, it was considerably reigned in from Microsoft's original promises, but it is a much more robust system that was actually based on the excellent Windows Server 2003 platform. With SP1 Vista moved to the same kernel as Windows Server 2008. Vista got off to a very bad start, mostly due to driver issues and some very bad marketing decisions (Vista Capable), but has matured into a very stable OS that runs quite well on modern hardware.
Another issue I have is that x86 is not in any way a superior chip platform, its just more actively developed and more suitable for personal computers. Look at the big expensive IBM servers which still use Power processors and tell IBM they are using second-rate processors. PowerPC Macs remain excellent systems and while gradually being phased out in terms of software support, they are definitely competitive with x86 PCs or their age.
My last point is that you said Windows is essentially evolutionary since 1995. This is only true if you are talking about Windows NT. The only thing today's Windows Vista has in common with Windows 95 is the start button and other interface conventions. Windows 95 (and ME) was based on DOS, while Vista is based on Windows Server which was (like XP and 2000) based on NT. NT is a modern operating system core with protected memory, preemptive multitasking and all of the other goodies that make an OS modern and up to business use. Modern doesn't mean new, as UNIX has been around for decades and remains a modern OS, as do systems based on it like OS X.
I too am a Mac user, I prefer them greatly over Windows, which I only use for games (Vista on Boot Camp with my MacBook Pro). I just wanted to set the record straight and give credit where credit is due.
|
Feb 24 '09
7:45 am PST
|
|
I (Reply to this comment)
by gothicdreams
enjoyed reading this rundown of Mac vs PC.
Take care.
|
Jan 25 '09
10:39 am PST
|
|
Nice job... (Reply to this comment)
by Dr_Steph,  in Computer Hardware
...on a complex issue!
By the way, my first Mac was a Classic...no hard drive. And it cost $1,500! Since then I've owned (or still do own) an Apple LC, Blue and White G3, iMac (original), iMac (with the soccer ball base), eMac, two recent iMacs G4's, and ONE HP laptop (for my daughter). That doesn't count the six or so Macs I've had through my work over the past 20 years. So only one PC out of roughly 15 computers. Hmmm...wonder which one I prefer.
Steph
|
Jan 24 '09
5:55 pm PST
|
|
|
|
