Mac OS X Switcher Stories 795
spid writes "Tim O'Reilly posted an interesting article about people switching from other OSes (Mac OS, Windows, Linux) to Mac OS X. The resounding consensus is that most folks appreciate how, compared to these other OSes, Mac OS X 'just works.' O'Reilly also makes an interesting point that UNIX/Linux users, rather than Windows users, would be the best target niche for Apple's 'switch' campaign."
Switched, and then switched back (Score:4, Insightful)
Don't get wrong, I think it's a great system, especially for people who aren't computer gurus, but it's not for me. The main thing was that OS X didn't offer me anything "new." There wasn't a compelling reason for me to learn a whole new set of shortcuts and keyboard commands in order to do what I'm already doing.
Switch? Nope. (Score:5, Insightful)
Port it for crying out loud! (Score:1, Insightful)
Re:Linux... (Score:4, Insightful)
Now there is a 'nix based OS that shows it can be done, the Linux distros should follow suit. It is no wonder that Linux "isn't on the desktop" given the current attitude of RTFM that pervades.
Hardware (Score:2, Insightful)
Mac OS Users Are Inflexible. (Score:4, Insightful)
Mac OS 9 users (Lord bless 'em) are the most stubborn, inflexible, fearful sort of user you can imagine when it comes to how their Macs work. That's a compliment to Apple--it shows the power of the original Mac OS interface over its many years of tenure. When you have a good thing, you are very stubborn to change.
But the loyalty to Mac OS 9 hurts Apple's move to OS X, of course. I anticipate having to take my client's OS 9 users through a Mac OS X orientation, watching them kick and scream in the process.
Re:It just works? (Score:5, Insightful)
Then it wouldn't "just work". Say what you like about Microsoft, they support a vast range of hardware, and that's one of the reasons they software is sometimes unreliable. The only way Apple products can "just work" is if Apple maintains absolute control over the hardware their software runs on.
Linux and Mac OS X (Score:5, Insightful)
Linux a perfect system for those who enjoy working with computers and need to do things which are beyond the scope of your typical office suite of software. Linux is an operating system which is able to bend over backwards to fit an extraordinary range of platforms, and get the job done in an amazing number of ways.
Mac OS X appeals to those who don't need that extraordinary flexibility, but still want the stability and control of a UNIX system along with their "normal" applications. It's a compromise, and my personal opinion is that it strengthens the Linux / Free Software community tremendously, as it puts a command prompt two clicks away from the average user's fingers. Those who want to explore now have the option to do so, without the extraordinarily steep learning curve it takes to "get into" UNIXes.
Regardless -- there's way more money to be had by converting Windows users with hip marketing campaigns. Geeks will float about on their own free will, and I'm sure OS X will be a better OS for it. It's proving itself to be a magnificent platform, and Apple doesn't need to spend any money to spread the word in that regard.
Why I switched - the short version (Score:4, Insightful)
I love Unix - I love the power and the stability. I still use Linux as a server system (though, I admit I wouldn't mind trying out an Apple server just to compare).
But the biggest reason why I switched just deals with making it work. Do I have to worry about whether my clock program, which has the features I want, works under Gnome or KDE or not? Will I be able to cut and paste between Emacs and Mozilla? How do I install the serial port adapter software - oh, wait, I'm using Red Hat, and the designer made it to work with Suse....
Again, it's not that Linux is bad at all, it just takes that much more work to tweak. Want to change resolution in Xwindows? Get out to a prompt and run Xconfigurator.
Then I use OS X, and I get the best of both worlds. I get the power of Unix (I spend more time in Terminal than anything else), but I still get a slick interface and programs that look great. I don't worry about whether the program I'm looking at needs Windows Manager or something else - it fits in. I can still run Gimp (because I'm too damn cheap for Photo Shop) under XDarwin.
I'd love for Linux to make huge desktop roads, but that will take a change of paradigm[sic]. Linux developers will have to give up some things - say "Let's stop the KDE vs Gnome arguments, and say *this* is the standard - let folks experiment with things if they want, but we will heretofore say *this* is the way to do things", then go out and make it. They'll have to have an Interface guideline, and try to hold to it. They'll have to get follow up programmer who don't just focus on cool technology - which we need, and I thank God they make it - but then they need someone to come along after them and say "All right, let's put a good interface on this puppy."
Is OS X better? Probably not - the stability is about the same, the speed is probably less than Linux, but the interface is great. Linux is faster, but isn't as pleasing to work with.
So that's why I switched. I keep up with the Linux stuff for my servers, but my day to day gaming/typing/communicating is done on OS X.
And just to self pimp (or for more on this subject): Penguin2Apple: How a Linux Lover turned to a Macintosh [gamerspress.com]
O'Reilly is wrong (Score:5, Insightful)
Just from the whining posts of "OS X is cool but Apple is a big, mean, evil proprietary hardware manufacturer", you can see that O'Reilly is completely wrong in suggesting Linux users are a perfect niche target. Apple should focus their ads 100% towards Windows users--people that expect to pay for what they use. There is no point going after the Linux folks. The attitude of "if its not free its evil" is not one you are going to change with white backgrounded commercials. Plus why would you focus on 1% of desktop users instead of 95%?
Unless Steve Jobs wants to lay prostrate in front of Linus and RMS and wail, "I am not worthy, I am not worthy!", there isn't an ad that is going to convert a hard core (masochistic) Linux desktop users.
Who is switching (Score:5, Insightful)
Those who say they wont switch here are probably system administrators. Since I do sysadmin as part of my job, I can say that that part of me is a control freak, and loves the power of linux. That is also the reason why Linux has it hard on the desktop: only macosx, lycoris, lindows are even thinking of deprecating root in their OS'es.
The part of me which programs is split. Doing scientific programming today is easier on linux because of the number of high quality numerics/graphics libs available for X11. This will change. However, have you seen the simplicity of macosx? Every app is a directory. No gtk compatability problems(for those who remember). Copy the app anywhere. click, go. For command line people, change defaults using the default command, since all apps use plists. Open any file by saying open bla.pdf. It will use the default app. use open -with if you want a specific app.
The linking model is simple. The loading model is simple. applescript scripts most apps and is way easier to use than COM or bonobo. Still linux is a familiar model to lots of people. So I know people now, grad students and post-docs and engineers, whose desaktop is a macosx box and who program on linux..the professors dont program much so macosx works well for them. This student/scientist/engineer/programmer is the only remaining market.
But at the end of the day its the apps. Excel is available. And itunes and iphoto just rock.
There was a time when i liked struggling with linux to get all this working. At some point, one just wants to code. One dosent want to deal with dependencies, etc. You will say apt-get and I'll say hallelujah, its a great thing, but why cant i just install the freaking app where I want it too, and delete it by trashing it. rpm --erase??? Who would think of that?
The sad part is, most of what macosx has done could and still can be done on linux. Make a restricted distribution. Share earnings with app developers. Choose 10-15 best-of-breed apps, thats all. Thing of the next evolutionary step in these apps, rather than remaining behind the curve. root should only be a single user mode thing. Like gentoo, make init scripts dependent on whats running and whats not. Simplify the runlevels to single-user, and multi-user. Reduce hardware complexity by certifying systems based on linux friendly manufacturers. run daemons not as root. Get rid of the start, or hat, or whatever menu. Get rid of the XP like icons(see redhat8 beta). Give gtk a default look which dosent look like grey shit. Use a tasteful muted color scheme. Make sure pcmcia and usb and firewire just work on plug in. Use hotplug and devfs like mandrake do. Get rid of one million etc config files and use gconf and alchemist like redhat do. Simplify the gnome2.0 desktop. Check out the innovations in oe-one's desktop. Use autofs pervasively. Implement per process namespaces. Implement a simple event layer on top of bonobo, pipes, mimetypes, clipboard, etc to make scripting the desktop trivial. See plan9's plumbing. Unify zsh(bash) and nautilus to use same mime system. Allow apps to be manipulated as directories. When such directories are opened in either, allow hooks to be called which can start or install apps into a dependency database. Create a pasteboard server like in macosx. Implement gnustep over gtk2.0...
You get my point. There is so much thats already there but just missing a bit. It needs people with that extra bit of innovation, and that extra bit of compansation a app-royalty scheme would generate to push it across the edge. It needs that part of me that is a system administrator to let go. But it may be too late.
Switch then Switch then Switched again. (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:osX for PC (Score:5, Insightful)
Except for the damned dock (Score:2, Insightful)
Except for the damned dock.
This is an incredibly misbegotten feature. First of all, let me state my UI bias: the user should be in charge, the UI elements should just sit there until called upon. I favor responsiveness over intrusiveness. The dock is cutesy, and keeps calling attention to itself with the stupid Genie effect (if I tell you to go away, just do it), and having icons bounce up and down. So right off the bat I was ill inclined towards the thing. In its default configuration it robs the user of valuable real estate. Yeah, you can do alpha blending, now go the hell away so I don't have to look through you to see the bottom of my documents.
The only thing that makes the dock tolerable is that you can use the System Preferences to make it tiny, hidden, and to turn off the idiotic genie effect.
The sad thing is that all the functions of the dock are done better by the apple and upper right hand menus of MacOS 7-9. These functions are clearer and separated in space. When applications needed to get the user's attention, they didn't have to jump up and down, they just flashed the upper right hand application menu (if I remember correctly).
The problem with the dock is that it is overloaded with functions. As I keep telling PDA developers I work with, overloaded UI elements are a very poor substitute for good design. The Dock really undermines the Mac experience. I find KDE much more responsive and less intrusive.
Yeah, but - you're a geek. (Score:3, Insightful)
We enjoy learning the ins and outs of our machines, much like my brother the gearhead enjoys rebuilding his 52 Harley.
My mother, on the other hand does not want or need to know how to rebuild her engine, or her PC. She just wants to get her work done.
Re:Port it for crying out loud! (Score:3, Insightful)
It just ain't gonna happen. Apple makes its money off of hardware sales.
Furthermore, do you want a great OS that runs on great hardware? Or do you want a great OS that runs on ad-hoc mismatched hardware.
Part of the reason that Windows sucks so hard and that Linux never seems to offer full support for hardware is because they have to support every little last variation and kludge that the hardware manufacturers can dream up. If Mac OS X were to go to x86, not only would Apple lose money, but they'd lose face -- OS X would start becoming more and more like Windows and Linux on the desktop...painful.
I haven't had any difficulty or undue expense in getting hardware for my Macs, so please...put away the FUD.
Another switcher. (Score:2, Insightful)
I'm another Linux user switching to OS X. Vice Chair of my LUG, Linux user for five years, and believe it or not it was other LUG members that talked me into taking the plunge.
I needed a notebook for two main purposes.
I ended up going way over budget and buying an 800MHz G4 "Titanium" Powerbook. It was a rocky start because OS X is missing some of the features I love most about Linux. But then I started diving into the applications and (here it comes) it Just Works.
Clients love it when I open my backpack, pull this thing out, and show them the progress of their video on this. Better still, it has all kinds of ports on it. I can hook it up to the SVideo jack on your television set, audio outs to your stereo, and show you your movie the way it will look once it it on a DVD. That feat would be much more difficult on a PeeCee portable running Linux (or even Windows) and would almost certainly require a PC Card adapter with a dongle. This is much cleaner as it only requires two cables plugged directly into the back of the TiBook.
My major gripes are pretty easy to name.
Overall, I am very happy with this purchase. I find myself using the Linux box less and less for desktop stuff, and the OS X box more and more for that purpose. It was a lot of money but I feel much better about it now because it is much better integrated than any PeeCee notebook I've seen.
Re:Port it for crying out loud! (Score:1, Insightful)
Look at Be, inc. Did porting BeOS to intel help it? Not one bit. Or how about Solaris X86? It has never been a commercial success, despite the small and rabid following it has.
It's the hardware that gives them the edge. The original BeBox was SWEET. The OS was icing on the cake...without the hardware, BeOS had nothing to offer me. Ditto for OS X...the hardware combined with the unique OS is the kicker for me...OS X on intel? What's the draw? A prettier way to do the same old thing I can do with Windows? No thanks.
Re:Linux... (Score:3, Insightful)
You're bent on Microsoft, and it shows badly. Apple doesn't prevent you from edit config files. They're all there, tucked quietly away from people that don't need to see them. But they are there, and you can edit them if you prefer.
On many levels, Apple has given us something that many others haven't - a choice. You can choose to use the interface, and most people will. For those who want more, use the console, install Xwindows, dig around in the config files.
And it's good that you keep different OSes. You should. If almost everyone used one OS, we'd have all sorts of headaches...
--
UNIX is Powerful, Linux is Free, BSD is Open, MacOS X is Usable.
Re:Linux... (Score:3, Insightful)
Red Hat is better - the GNOME desktop is well laid out, bold and clean but it still suffers badly in comparison to OS X.
If you want to see how badly, just compare how hard it is to change your screen resolution, or share a folder, or change the system time, or burn a CD, or rip a CD into MP3 format, or get help on doing any of these things. All these things are pretty straightforward in OS X. You'd be hard pressed as a novice to figure them out in RH Linux.
OS X has faults (using Sherlock to find a file is a major pain in the ass) but it's clear from the changes in 10.2 that Apple are addressing them. The next question is why aren't Red Hat and the rest doing the same?
The Point is not YOU should switch.... (Score:4, Insightful)
My wife runs Mac OS X. She's a Project Manager for a International Medical Informatics project. She doesn't need the CLI but needs WebDAV, SMB, NFS and whatever else the project throws at her. Need to communicate with a hundred people all in different countries with different machines? You can't just send them Word files. I'm pretty amazed that a single platform can cope with both of our workloads.
My good friend runs FreeBSD. He swears by it. He writes little networked apps. He's recently got himself an iBook for development because he figures he can do 90% of the hard development work on any of his machines and then by just adding a pretty little GUI in InterfaceBuilder, he can sell the little apps to Mac people as well. He's not aMac guy but he tells me how much he's spent on hardware upgrades in the last two years and I'm amazed. Sure, PC hardware is cheaper, but is it necessary to upgrade everything every month???
I don't care what platform you use. Just leave me to use Mac OS X. You on Linux? Want to show me a cool app? Recompile and we're there.
Please Intuit, please... (Score:3, Insightful)
That's it. Whilst I can temporarily live without the video conferencing, I consider the lack of an accounts package on a home machine to be a truly serious ommission. I realise this doesn't affect the US, but in the UK it kills the thing dead as a home machine. Virtual PC won't do by the way - if I'm switching environments I'm switching environments and don't want to run half and half.
Please Intuit. Please. You have an OS X-native Quicken, and you ave a UK Quicken for Windows. Surely it can't be beyond the wit of mankind to combine these products and produce a native UK Quicken?
Cheers,
Ian
Re:Interesting Negative Switchers Story on Salon.c (Score:5, Insightful)
My conclusion was different. She wasn't suckered . . . being suckered implies being deceived. She wasn't deceived at all. Her negative experiences have to do with unreasonable and unrealistic expectations about the switching experience. She can't print, she can't talk to her boyfriend, she misses her floppy disks, she doesn't understand CD-RW, she misses her left-clicking Windows mouse, her favorite font is gone, she can't figure out what keys perform what task.
In other words, she expected her new Apple Macintosh iBook laptop to behave _exactly_ like her old Microsoft Windows desktop PC. And when it didn't, she blames someone else for "seducing" her. Suckered, or typical modern consumer? I think the conclusion is obvious.
Re:Proprietary hardware is a red herring (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Tim O'Reilly goes to Dark Side (Score:1, Insightful)
And now, he's just plain right. Switching from Linux/Unix to OSX would be much less of a transition than from Windows to OSX because of OSX's base.
O'Reilly is respected by me because he doesn't spread ridiculous FUD without thinking about both sides of the argument logically, and then arguing the most logical side of the debate
Re:Switched, and then switched back (Score:5, Insightful)
The tools-obsessed photographer worries and frets about spot meters, chemistry selection and razor sharp lenses while the master quietly makes images that impact the soul with little more than a box and some film
The tools-obsessed cook buys copper-bottomed cookware with non-stick surfaces and an endless stream of gadgets and tools while the master chef makes mouths water with little more than fire and meat.
The tools-obsessed musician spends all their money on optimized amplifiers and acoustically engineered instruments while the master musician wrings emotion from the cheapest pawnshop instruments.
The tools-obsessed artist concentrates all their energy on choosing the right paints and canvas while the master creates great works of art on fast-food napkins.
The tools-obsessed carpenter buys specialized tools for every type of joinery and finish while the master carpenter builds furniture and homes that last for generations with little more than a handsaw and a plane.
The tools-obsessed programmer spends his time arguing about language choice, editors and platforms while the master programmer produces elegant code in any language and any platform that suits the job.
Re:osX for PC (Noooo!) (Score:5, Insightful)
Porting osX to the nightmare of unstable hardware that is the PC universe would be a disaster! The intel chip is horribly dated, and the supporting hardware architecture is one layer of kludge atop another, all the way down to the remenants of the ISA bus that *still* linger and screw things up to this day.
Do you *really* want that to continue? Do you ENJOY fighting with IRQ conflicts, or having to look up and be sure you don't put your ethernet card in PCI slot 1, because that shares an IRQ with the ATA 100 controller, or slot 3 because that shares with the on-board sound chip. No thank you.
I'd rather see windoze ported to the PowerPC platform, but that's just the video gamer in me talking. Beyond games, there is absolutely nothing in the PeeCee world that I can't find in the unix and/or MacOS world. Hence, the reason I will switch.
I love linux, but I look at that hardware and imagine how much MORE it could do if it weren't held back by all the legacy crap we have to endure so that Joe Accountant can run his 1989 copy of DBase II instead of moving his data onto Postgres and keeping up with the times.
At the risk of skirting Holy-War (TM) territory here, I will say that I did as much or MORE with my 7MHz Amiga 500 than I do with my 1400MHz Athalon PC. Why is that? Because 4/5 of the power of that machine today is throttled by paradigms from the 1980's. The hardware has continued to grow, but the methodology has stagnated. Apple took the first step towards letting all that go and moving on. Now if the unix community can do the same with X11, maybe we'll start seeing real innovation again, instead of years re-implementing the shiny button that Microsoft changed from grey to blue this week.