Windows Expert Jumps Ship 939
An anonymous reader writes to let us know that Scott Finnie, Computerworld's Windows expert, has given the final verdict to Windows after 3 months of using a Mac. And the verdict is: "Sayonara." Finnie is known to readers here for his many reviews of Vista as it progressed to release. Quoting: "If you give the Mac three months, as I did, you won't go back either. The hardest part is paying for it — everything after that gets easier and easier. Perhaps fittingly, it took me the full three-month trial period to pay off my expensive MacBook Pro. But the darn thing is worth every penny."
Lots of folks making the switch (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Lots of folks making the switch (Score:5, Insightful)
Exactly, and this is why a lot less people should be using Windows. As long as Windows is shipped with computers and people have to pay the Microsoft tax, there isn't a free market to speak of.
Most Windows users didn't choose a Microsoft operating system, so their preferences weren't a factor.
Re:Lots of folks making the switch (Score:4, Insightful)
Are you implying that you can buy a Mac that is not bundled with an OS? Seriously, I don't know. Is that true?
Regardless, the parent topic demonstrates there is a free market. You can buy a personal computer w/o Windows on it. Mac owners do it all the time.
Re:Lots of folks making the switch (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Lots of folks making the switch (Score:5, Interesting)
I expect to go to any computer retailer and be able to buy a computer without Windows pre-installed. That's all I want -- I don't dispute anything you wrote.
It's apples own fault that more people don't pick it up. If Dell were able to sell a PC and offer the users the choice of OSX or Windows...I bet with Apple's marketing you'd get LOADS of people adopting it for the first time.
Yeah, but that's just the thing. Microsoft isn't pleased when vendors start selling machines without Windows (or worse, with Linux). Dell and IBM get away with this on a limited basis, but even then it's tricky.
Re: (Score:3)
I expect to go to any computer retailer and be able to buy a computer without Windows pre-installed. That's all I want -- I don't dispute anything you wrote.
What about vendors who don't want the overheads of having to deal with multiple operating systems ?
You can pretend these overheads are zero, if you want, but reality dicates otherwise.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
He didn't say "multiple operating systems," he just said "not Windows." I imagine the overhead of having an extra build-to-order option would be offset by the savings caused by not having to install anything at all on the machine's hard drive.
Re:Doubtful. (Score:4, Funny)
What you seek is installing Gentoo from the Live CD! Plenty of disk, network, and CPU activity there.
Re:Lots of folks making the switch (Score:5, Insightful)
Just did it. (Score:3, Interesting)
Ironically the six computer I bought were Mac Minis. They were nearly exactly what we were looking for. Dual Core, Slow Clock (runs cool), really small form factor, gigabit ethernet, USB+DVI. We use them as reservation terminals for our Northern California Campground [collinslake.com].
I'm kind of curi
Re:Lots of folks making the switch (Score:5, Insightful)
I expect to go to any computer retailer and be able to buy a computer without Windows pre-installed. That's all I want -- I don't dispute anything you wrote.
I just don't understand this argument. I've been buying whitebox PCs for years. I even bought a whitebox laptop. No one forces anyone to buy an OS with a PC, except for Apple. (BTW, I own an iMac.) Sure, the large vendors may make it tricky to buy a system without Windows, but there is a simple answer: Buy from a whitebox vendor, usually a local PC store.
If you don't like burgers, go to a sushi joint. There may be more burger places than sushi restaurants, but don't claim everyone is forced to eat burgers.
Re:Lots of folks making the switch (Score:5, Insightful)
If I want to buy a name-brand box (so I can get the benefit of support for hardware issues, or so I can keep a consistent hardware platform across my company), it's very, very hard to do this. There are channels, but Microsoft has made sure that they are not well publicized, and has slapped the hands of vendors who have not played according to the rules (by bumping up the license fees, or put clauses in the license agreements to the same effect).
When you say "No one forces anyone to buy an OS with a PC...," the answer is what about the major PC manufacturers? For all intents and purposes, they do exactly that.
Tim
Re:Lots of folks making the switch (Score:5, Informative)
That's exactly correct. I'm surprised you would act incredulous, because the fact of Microsoft's abuse of its monopoly position has been clearly documented in a court of law. One of the things it did in the normal course of its business was to tell manufacturers that they could sell Windows only, or not at all.
Re:Lots of folks making the switch (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:Lots of folks making the switch (Score:4, Informative)
Not to sound like a smart-ass, but... yes. One of the things that has come to light (in court, actually) is that Microsoft will actively raise the price of Windows for OEM's who sell computers without an OS, and will threaten to refuse to sell Windows to OEM's that wish to ship other OS's in anything more than trivial quantities. This is one of the things that BeOS ran up against -- they almost worked out a deal with Toshiba (IIRC), to include BeOS alongside Windows. Microsoft told Toshiba that if they did that, they would be unable to purchase Windows licenses. Toshiba (or whoever it was, I can't remember for certain) then had to drop BeOS.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
This isn't a gunman on the grassy kn
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
It's tricky to sell machines without an OS because MS have some kind of conspiracy going, not because consumers generally just want the machine to come with the current Windows OS?
kinda. Think about it — the #1 (and probably nos 2-5, too) reason people don't buy a Mac is the price. Now imagine you popped over to the Dell site and saw that you could get a bottom-end machine for $299 with XP Media Edition on it OR: the exact same machine with no OS for $199. How many people would elect to just re-use the same OS they've been using for the last 4-5 years to save $100? At that price point, I'd guess about 99.44%. But Dell doesn't do that, do they? Nope, because MS would eith
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Yes, but it's also what's keeping them profitable. If they didn't limit the hardware base they'd have to jack up the OS price to something people wouldn't pay, to cover the support costs and loss of hardware revenue--and then go out of business.
Re:Lots of folks making the switch (Score:5, Insightful)
I see the $1300-$1500 figure quoted a lot, but it's just plain wrong -- the actual cost is about half of what people think it is. I can get a Mac Mini for $579 (since I work at a university) and the general-public cost is around $600 or a little more. That's actually less than what I've been quoting people lately who ask me to put a decent gaming PC together for them on newegg (I build wishlists and email them to the "clients" who ask for my recommendations).
While it is true that a Mac Mini is not a good choice for running games as it's not upgradable and doesn't have a great video card, it is also true that it's great for what most people use a computer for -- web, email, and sometimes organizing photos, music, and videos.
$600-700ish for a brand new shiny Mac that won't have all the security problems of Windows is not a bad deal. Not at all.
Besides, didn't Slashdot complain once that Apple didn't have a $500-$700 system available? Now that they do, people STILL complain. You just can't make anyone happy around here.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Lots of folks making the switch (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Lots of folks making the switch (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
If you're knowledgeable, the amount of time spent configuring Linux/*BSD is comparable with the one securing a new Windows machine. Hence free in this case is apt. Otherwise you have to climb the learning curve which requires a time investment, or contract someone to do it for you. In which case 'free' becomes one of various levels of 'cheap'. After which, the time and money saved by not having to periodically contract someone to clean up the Windows machine (we
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
If you're knowledgeable, the amount of time spent configuring Linux/*BSD is comparable with the one securing a new Windows machine. Hence free in this case is apt.
Think "free" as in speech. Whenever a comparison between FOSS and commercial software is based on price, Total Cost to Operate, or something similar, the results are inconclusive. The significant difference is in the way *you* get control of your software and data. FOSS programs and file formats are not controlled exclusivley by someone else.
BTW, I use FreeBSD all the time. But that's not to imply that Linux falls short in any way. And at home, we use Macs. Lots of 'em.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
You must have meant Celerons. Centrino is the [any Pentium M up to and including Core2Duo Merom]CPU+Intel chipset+Intel wireless mobile combo. So the MacBooks are, horror of horrors[*], Centrino machines!
[*] welcome to the wonderful world of Intel marketing, Apple. Enjoy your stay.
Re:Lots of folks making the switch (Score:5, Informative)
You can't even configure that machine to be comparable to the iMac. To get in the same ballpark, you've got to jump up to an XPS 410, up the CPU to 2.13 GHz, add the 2007WFP and the Radeon 1300 Pro. Now you're at $1487, and you still have half the cache, a slower graphics card, no firewire, no wi-fi, no bluetooth, no webcam, and no remote. And it'll still take up much more space in your office!
So yes, even with the Intel Macs, you can get machines cheaper than what Apple well sell them for. However, it's no surprise you can get a cheaper machine with lesser hardware! However, if you try to match the basic specs, and a couple of the accessories (ie: no consumer machine today should ship without wifi!) you're not going to save a lot of money over the Mac.
Re:Lots of folks making the switch (Score:5, Interesting)
I think the problem most Slashdotters have is that they can't conceive of building the type of machines Apple sells.
No, the problem is that most Slashdotters - indeed, most "enthusiasts" - want a machine Apple refuses to sell: a single processor box without an integrated LCD, a replacable video card (plus another vacant x16 slot, even with only x8 signalling) and room for two 3.5" hard disks. In fact, I suspect most would be happy with just having a replacable video card and no integrated LCD (I certainly would). So - depending on your perspective - either a headless iMac (which people have been clamouring for since the original iMac was released) or a "Mini Mac Pro".
There are 2 - 4 gaping holes in Apple's product lineup. This is one (or two, depending) of them.
You can't even configure that machine to be comparable to the iMac. To get in the same ballpark, you've got to jump up to an XPS 410, up the CPU to 2.13 GHz, add the 2007WFP and the Radeon 1300 Pro. Now you're at $1487, and you still have half the cache, a slower graphics card, no firewire, no wi-fi, no bluetooth, no webcam, and no remote. And it'll still take up much more space in your office!
An E520 upgraded to these specs is $1229. While it _does_ lack some features the iMac has, on the flipside you have a machine with infinitely more expandability. This may or may not be important to you - but if it is, the iMac simply cannot deliver, nor can any Apple machine until you hit the $2000+ Mac Pro.
This is the problem Apple has. In the tiny niche that their hardware targets, it's a fairly good deal - but if you have needs that are even slightly outside that niche, Apple has nothing for you.
However, if you try to match the basic specs, and a couple of the accessories (ie: no consumer machine today should ship without wifi!) you're not going to save a lot of money over the Mac.
Again, you may or may not "save a lot of money". If you want a machine that's good for gaming, for example, nothing Apple has really delivers until you hit the Mac Pro - a $2200ish minimum buy-in (and that's without a screen). So, yes, while you might get roughly the same PC as an iMac for roughly the same cost, when you want to upgrade the video card 12 months down the track to play new games, on a PC it's a few hundreds dollars worth of upgrade, on the iMac it's impossible (without buying whatever the latest iMac is).
(I would also argue that there's no reason whatsoever for compulsory wifi on non-laptop computers.)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
(I would also argue that there's no reason whatsoever for compulsory wifi on non-laptop computers.)
I use wireless in my Mac Pro. I help manage the wireless network at my institution, and it's cheaper to put a wireless card in my desktop than it is to get another laptop.
Maybe someone doesn't want to run an Ethernet cable across the room and around the corner to the only telephone jack in the apartment. Instead they might get a wireless solution. But they use a desktop.
I haven't checked for a while, but I used to be able to see my neigbor's HP printer-scanner-fax on their wireless network. My neig
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
So why not disable it? There's an option to turn it off, and then it won't be used. I'd rather have the option there and not use it than not have it when I do need it. It's like how I'll be moving to Florida this summer, but I'm still buying a car that has heated seats. Yes, it's a package deal thing (just like the Mac, have to buy it at order time and can't add it in later) but I'd rather have that switch t
Re:Lots of folks making the switch (Score:4, Interesting)
What they have is a hierarchical lineup. When you get down to it, there are quite a few different computers to choose from: 2 Minis, 4 iMacs, 3 MacBooks, 3 MacBook Pros, and then the built-to-order Mac Pros. That's a lot of options, but from an ease of naming standpoint, there are only 5 discreate lines. Getting rid of the criptic numbered-names was the best thing that happened to Apple.
There are a couple things they could do to gain a few % more market share, although it might lose them money: take the minis down a notch to $400, $500, and $600, and create a headless line in the $1000-$1500 range (this would directly compete with the iMac line, but it might entice a few people onboard who are looking for lower-priced, expandable systems). It really bothered me when they desolved their $500 line, but I'm sure their marketting anylists found that it was more profitable to do so.
Putting in a lower-end "built-to-order" jeapordizes their model recognition. Undoubtedly, MANY people would go on and hand-pick their specs. And then you have a bunch of computers that look the same, but function differently, and create no differentiating model recognition. Model recognition is one of the most important aspects of marketting, and Apple are doing everything they can to hold on to that.
The bottom line is that Apple aren't low in market share due to their product line, or even their pricing (seriously, the $300-$500 PC market isn't really that substantial), it's due to tradition, stigma, and fear of change. People are used to Windows and some even equate user-friendliness to being "hippy-dippy" or "wussy". Another big one is that many corporations strike up deals with Microsoft. I work for clear channel. It's gotten so bad that if there's a microsoft version of a type of application, we are FORCED to use it. Litterally, it is AGAINST POLICY to use Firefox (I got chewed out for downloading it), because they've struck a deal with Microsoft, and in return, they get software that allows them to track employee's internet habits. It's really creepy out there, and some of the reasoning is extremely fucked up, but Microsoft has made it VERY difficult for people involved in corporations to switch away from them.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
You would be referring to the tiny niche that doesn't build custom boxes?
Re:Lots of folks making the switch (Score:5, Funny)
People who like to be able to watch multiple TV shows captured in 2GB/hour MPEG2 on different frontends simultaneously ( let alone people with HD ) while still having plenty of bandwidth left over for traffic to the firewall for internet traffic as well as various other LAN traffic with zero stuttering.
And you call yourself a geek
the opposite is also true (Score:3, Insightful)
The opposite is also true. The various accessories might cost a lot to add, but you save a lot if you don't add them because don't need them. Ha
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
When I buy a Mac (and I decided I'm going to) I'm going to get a dual-processor dual (or quad by then) core Xeon, then I can actually install PCI cards. It will probably run Linux 90% of the time,
Why would I buy a Mac for that?
Because their towers are QUIET. For me to bu
Re:Lots of folks making the switch (Score:5, Insightful)
The "cool" one.
Re:Lots of folks making the switch (Score:5, Insightful)
You can pay $1300 for a mac...or you can spend $700 for a PC. Which do you THINK parents are going to buy? Parents aside, what do you think MOST people are going to go with.
No, I think this is way over-simplified. You can't just reduce everything down to the price of computer A and the price of computer B. There are a lot of different kinds of people out there, shopping in different markets:
IMO, the Apples are priced VERY competitively - they're clearly high-quality machines, and they compete in the Sony Vaio and Lenovo Thinkpad market. THAT'S how the computers need to be evaluated.
The people who are out shopping for the $450 laptops on sale at Fry's aren't going to even consider the Vaio's either.
Re:Lots of folks making the switch (Score:4, Insightful)
Sure you can buy a laptop for way cheaper than the $1100 Apple is charging for its low-end MacBook. But how many of those have Core 2 CPUs? And if its so over-priced, why is Dell charging $1000 for machines with almost exactly the same specs*?
*) Not to mention an inferior LCD panel!
Re:Price (Score:3, Informative)
Ummm No! Most parrents look at the course requirements. After meeting the requirements, second is price. Some schools require XP & IE for their applications, Web applications, and/or secure wireless connectivity client. Not all schools or classes in a school have Microsoft requirements so Linux and Mac are OK. As Linux and Apple become more common alternatives to the MS monoculture, pressure is on the s
I'm a parent... (Score:5, Funny)
You see, I love my kids.
--
Franklin
Your quote:
You can pay $1300 for a mac...or you can spend $700 for a PC. Which do you THINK parents are going to buy?
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Are you suggesting that all Windows' problems are due to third parties? Does the mac not have third parties, then?
To Windows, EVERYTHING is a 3rd party. The motherboard, the video card, even the mouse and keyboard. Microsoft makes very little hardware, so everything is 3rd party. On a Mac, only certain peripherals are 3rd party, and it is very simple for Mac vendors to test those peripherals with every Mac currently worth supporting. Personally, I have noted that my PC (Windows) problems have shrunk to almost zero since I started spending a little extra money on the components. Nice case, motherboard, video card, etc.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
The free market requires perfect knowledge. Many people aren't even aware there are choices. Ergo, it's not a free market.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Yay for annecdotal evidence.
About drivers for specialized hardware? (Score:4, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Lots of folks making the switch (Score:4, Insightful)
Amen brother (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Lots of folks making the switch (Score:4, Insightful)
Trying to help out here... Your server performance would be much better if:
1)
2)
3)
Hope this helps.. please be more careful in the future.
Re:Lots of folks making the switch (Score:5, Interesting)
Yeah, I'm not too worried about this as I've been moving mission critical functions off of this server and it is now principally hosting the low traffic lab site and my (much higher traffic) blog. The performance is also actually pretty good and I've had a bit of fun watching loads in the past when an article has been linked on BoingBoing or one of the other higher volume sites. It also turns out that available bandwidth is the biggest factor in performance as the graphics intensive Webvision site used to be hosted on an old 233 Mhz G3 iMac and it could sustain loads of up to 200k visits from unique visitors per day. At least that was the highest load I ever saw on that machine. It is now being hosted on a Mac Mini and the content is being made freely available to any and all interested parties, so traffic on that can only do Webvision and our lab site good in terms of ranking and such, especially given our move into certain scientific areas like metabolomics.
What I got irritated about was the DOS attack that appeared to start quickly on a couple of the servers, only to terminate soon after my posting about the attack. It was not terribly well coordinated and appeared to be coming from two IPs only, but it still gets under ones skin a bit. No real damage was done and the machines were able to continue serving up their goodness, so it will likely not be escalated.
Thanks for the feedback though and best regards,
Bryan aka BWJones
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Seriously though, it is in the implementation mostly and the ethos secondarily. These things are harder to quantify and you essentially just have to experience it first person rather than trying to academically pick apart the differences, because then you would simply be arguing about interface design, code design, and aesthetics. Basically, the OS simply does not get in your way to perform actions, like supporting USB drives or external peripherals. On OS X, they simply work
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
I still miss Windows (Score:3, Interesting)
For me I have one goal: Productivity. I'm am a network administrator for a enterprise company. I'm dripping in Windows but at home, I use a Mac. Why? Final Cut Pro and Aperture. That's it! I'm building my photography business and it's growing.
That said I still miss Windows for a few applications and MOSTLY for the keyboard commands (in the OS GUI). Window Key + R + cmd = CLI. On the Mac it's click or Apple + Space + Term + Click.
Lame.
I see Mac and Mac-like products taking over the home desktop. Not the OS but the "utility" aspect of it. iTV and the iPod are nice because they just sit there.
Microsoft can (and should) have the Enterprise desktops (for now).
Re:I still miss Windows (Score:5, Informative)
Command (Apple) + Enter tells Spotlight to open the Top Hit.
Re:I still miss Windows (Score:5, Informative)
Re:I still miss Windows (Score:4, Informative)
There's also an app that adds a small terminal to every window on the system (can't think of the name of it at the moment, pretty sure it's on sourceforge).
I do wish there was an easier way to universally access all menus on OSX from the keyboard, the way that Alt does on Windows (there is keyboard access, but it's nowhere near as straightforward), but beyond that I've found the Mac to be ridiculously powerful in terms of keyboard use, even before I found QS.
Re:I still miss Windows (Score:5, Informative)
a payment plan??? (Score:5, Funny)
Jesus. Did he buy it from DeBeers, or something?
Re:a payment plan??? (Score:5, Funny)
Maybe the Mac he got came with a pound of coke and a lifetime porn subscription, which would explain why he had such a good time using it.
"Windows" versus "A Mac"? (Score:5, Insightful)
I suppose what he or the summary meant to say is "PC versus Mac" or, probably, "Windows versus MacOS on a Mac." It's really fallacious to compare an operating system to a computing architecture. You Linux users out there should be angry, since it tacitly implies that the only thing a PC ever runs is Windows.
Personally, I'm a computer gamer. Much of my computer time is spent gaming, with the rest being internet browsing and completion of homework/programming/etc. I use a PC because I want the level of control this architecture provides over my components. I use Windows because, well, for most games I pretty much have to.
(Yes, techincally "PC" means a lot of things. I use the term PC out of convenience, which is probably ironic of me to say given what half of my post is complaining about.)
Re:"Windows" versus "A Mac"? (Score:5, Funny)
Oh, we are. We're fucking enraged . We just don't know why.
Of course (Score:4, Interesting)
The market preference is shifting...
Use what you want ... (Score:5, Insightful)
If I had to choose a new computer tomorrow it would be a Mac, but that's my preference and my choice.
--
If you use the Mac, my choice of apps: Adium, Delicious Library, Disco, TextWrangler, Transmit, Darwin Ports, Handbrake
Re:Use what you want ... (Score:5, Informative)
I agree. I've used all three for large periods, but my current computer is a Mac and when I replace it I intend to get another Mac. In general, I find it better than Windows. There are tons of little annoyances that I run into almost daily using my PC at work that I don't have when using my Mac. But I also like it for it's "best of both worlds" that it provides me. Commercial applications and an extremely polished UI in all places (where parts of Linux can get hairy, although it's gotten better), but the UNIX command line and GCC and all that for when I feel like fiddling low level/programming/etc. A real CLI that I can use (let's face it, the windows shell is ancient and pales compared to Bash. Maybe when Monad comes out).
These facts have provided me with great benefits besides my basic preference for the Mac. When I worked on my senior project (LAMP site) while my friends were testing on the test box the school was letting us use, I was able to run the whole thing on my laptop easily because all the components were already there and easily setup (where with Windows I would have had to download/install/configure each part). When I changed code I could test it instantly, no "copy to server, test, edit, copy" over the slow connection. I could work on it without an internet connection, or worrying about interfering with what my partners were working on (overwriting them).
The only "long-standing" problem I have with my Mac is the lack of big games, but I don't have a ton of time for them anymore anyway so my consoles work fine for that (although I miss a good game of CounterStrike, I'm on PPC so I can't run BootCamp).
Made such a change a long, long time ago (Score:4, Informative)
Ditching Windows was a little hard as I used to play games, but I was reaching the point where gaming held little appeal for me anyway. Switching to a platform that ran for literally years on end without major crashes demonstrated the value of Linux, and obviously, the lack of worth to Windows.
Microsoft only holds its place because people are too timid to try something else. Apple's OS is slick. Linux has had windowmanagers that mimic the windows shell for many years. For people who don't play computer games it shouldn't be a big deal to switch.
Re:Made such a change a long, long time ago (Score:5, Insightful)
If so then my question is what do you do now that the only OS that doesn't come with a web browser built-in is Abacus 1.0?
Seriously, MS has done a lot of crap things over the years, and it was harsh of them to make IE uninstallable, but bundling the browser with the OS? If you can bundle worthless stuff like solitaire with an OS and no one complains, I don't see how anyone can be upset about an OS coming packaged with the single most important piece of software for a modern computer. Seriously. I'm a proud Mac user, but I'll go to the mat for MS on this one: Bundling a web browser was the right thing to do. While strong arming OEMs into not including Netscape was evil, including IE was completely justified.
A BROKE Windows Expert? (Score:3, Funny)
Any city, any country, an acknowledge 'expert' ought to be able to buy stuff without bitching.
Is he married?
Oh, wait.....
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Sorry. In America, we suggest having money before having children, because the day may come when instead of a child, you might just want a kickass video card.
But, good luck with that.....*shiver*
Re:A BROKE Windows Expert? (Score:4, Insightful)
Luck had nothing to do with it. I worked my ass off, and in America, anyone willing to do that can be successful.
ANYONE!
He's too kind to UAC... (Score:5, Interesting)
I disagree. It's a bad idea that's badly implemented... and it's not a new idea. Windows has been popping up "I'm about to do something that might be stupid, is that OK?" or "Which stupid mistake do you want me to make now?" dialogs for years now, and the biggest effect they have is to train people to automatically approve security dialogs. As a system administrator I had the same people come to me multiple times saying "Um, Peter, I just clicked 'open' on that popup again and I think I have a virus".
Here's a helpful suggestion for developers. Anytime you're thinking of popping up a dialog like that, ask yourself "how can I make it so the user can *always* cancel the operation", and if there's a way... do that instead. For example, instead of asking the user "Should I automatically open this file you just downloaded in NEW-APPLICATION", consider the possibilities of not automatically opening files at all... give the user a better tool for managing downloads instead.
Oh, and Mac users shouldn't feel smug about this one [scarydevil.org].
Re:He's too kind to UAC... (Score:4, Informative)
UAC is not 'the little poppup that says do you want to do this yes/no' it's the whole system behind it, and the entire reworking of how windows deals with user accounts.
Vista's been rebuilt to work properly as you would expect with non administrator level accounts. Applications should work without error from lower level accounts. People you do not trust to tinker freely with 100% of the entire system should not have administrator access, period.
the "yes/no" prompt ONLY appears as a warning for possibly hazardous actions, if you are logged in as an administrator.
If your logged in with a lower level account, you are required to authenticate the action with an admin level user & password a-la *nix.
For the first time with reason in Windows, as an admin, you should be wondering 'why on earth is X webtard still on an admin level account, he doesn't need that access, he's a security risk' not 'why is UAC so stupid'
Price is my problem... (Score:3, Interesting)
I do think many people want control over their hardware. The only true desktop Apple offers is the Mac Pro. An entry level Mac Pro comes with two dual core xeon processors. Four cores for a home desktop? Maybe for a professional. But your average Joe isn't going to dump $2500 on a desktop for Mac OS and hardware control combined. They'll buy a cheap PC and configure/upgrade as much as possible. They might even find away to hack OS X onto that machine and save a few bucks. I don't think Apple will go on a legal crusade over the OSX86 market.
If apple gave me a $1500 desktop, I'd jump ship on my next PC purchase. I just built a $1300 Core 2 Duo, 2GB RAM system last month and plan on adding a new monitor for a grand total of $1700.00. I'd never get what I wanted out of a new Mac for that price. I'd get a beefed up iMac. pffft.
A switcher (Score:5, Informative)
I only got the Macbook because it was a fast x86 machine that could run Windows (faster than most laptops, it turns out), and I had Parallels to run a virtualized Windows (Crossover and VMWare still suck on OS X, but won't before long I'm sure). But guess what? I haven't booted Parallels in a week, and probably won't for another month. Almost *everything* works under OS X. VLC Player filled in the "play windows media files" hole, which really was one of the last reasons to boot Windows. Good bye windows, and Sayonara indeed!
Yes, Jobs might be slightly evil ("Evil light, just one Calorie!" as Dr. Evil might say), but as compared to MS, he's freakin' Mother Theresa. (Oh wait, she was a little evil, too. But you know what I mean.) Even though Jobs obviously has Apple's shareholders' bottom line in mind, and embraces DRM, etc., etc., at least Apple shows a slight bit of respect for the consumer, while taking their money. MS is just stabbing in the dark, and nothing short of offensive in their business practices.
In short, I love my Mac. I'll develop on it, likely deploy on Linux (LAMP is LAMP, on OS X or Linux), while having a wonderful desktop to use in the meantime.
I looked into switching, but HW held me back. (Score:3, Interesting)
First I have two monitors, so a built in monitor computer is out. Even if I needed a monitor, I would not be Crazy about tying them together permanently.
That leaves the Mini and the Pro. I wanted decent graphics (~7600GT) so the mini was shot down.
That left the pro. Way too much money. That left: another new windows box.
There is just no reasonably priced Mac with even remotely mainstream graphics power.
It is not so much that Apple takes an excessive profit margin, it is that they choose components that have poor bang/buck. The mini is built out of laptop components that all cost more and have less power. Graphics power seems completely irrelevant to Apple as well. You move to the Pro and you are forced to buy overkill Dual Xeons with ECC memory.
I have no problem with Apple controlling their HW, but with that they need to offer broader HW choices.
Transmissions from the UNIX Alliance... (Score:5, Funny)
Y0d4- to >g4+35
Windows is the path to the dark side. Windows leads to anger. Anger leads to hate. Hate leads to suffering.
-Episode 4
06iw4n- to >1uk3
I have something here for you. Your father wanted you to have this when you were old enough, but your uncle wouldn't allow it. He feared you might follow old 06iw4n on some damn fool idealistic crusade like your father did. It's your father's OSX. This is the weapon of a Computer User. Not as clumsy or as random as a Windows OS, but an elegant weapon for a more civilized age. For over a thousand generations, the Computer Users were the guardians of # and / in the Old Republic. Before the dark times, before the Empire.
Fires (Score:3, Interesting)
The ad that didn't make it (Score:5, Funny)
A: "Hi, I'm a Mac expert."
B: "And I'm a Mac user."
A: "Shouldn't you be the PC expert?"
B: "Yeah, but I just switched."
A: "Well... They couldn't have made this ad any more blatant, could they?"
Steve Jobs (offscreen): "Shut up!"
A and B stand around a few seconds in uncomfortable silence.
A looks at B from the side.
A (mumbling): "There goes the neighbourhood."
B: "What did you say?"
"Apple. It's not just for us painfully hip elitists anymore and boy, are we pissed about it."
The sad part is that this actually fits the tone of the "I'm a Mac" ads rather well...
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
No it wouldn't, Simple economies of scale will tell you that.
BTW, Apples are built to a higher specification then your 750 dollar bosx.
Comparing all the ing equal, then the price is about the same.
Another thing, time is money and not having to deal with the MS issues would more then pay for any difference.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
And that Linux box will run iMovie, GarageBand, iTunes, Microsot Office, require no command-line knowledge, and work out of the box with most major peripherals without having to download or install any drivers, right?
Right?
*crickets*
I love linux. I do. I reccomend it constantly. But the truth is, it isn't there yet for most people.
Re:This is fantastic (Score:4, Insightful)
I'd call myself pro-Apple - I've been a Mac owner since '92 (and a user prior to that), I like and enjoy their products, and I'm happy to give them my hard-earned in exchange for new kit. Similarly, I'm 'pro-Nikon' since picking up my Dad's Nikonos fifteen years ago; even to the extent I'm willing to pay more for one than a comparable Canon. Just because you don't 'get' it doesn't mean loyalty to a company is irrational or misplaced. It's kind of like having a favourite sports team - there doesn't have to be a philosophical reason behind it.
Regarding the Slashdot coverage, I don't think it's necessarily all pro-Apple as much as pro-not-Microsoft. One day we'll reach a point where OS choice in the average school/home/work environment is not predestined. IMO, that's a good outcome for everyone (except MS stockholders & employees).
Re:This is fantastic (Score:5, Insightful)
People are pro ---- because they found a product/company that they are happy with. They found something that makes their life better and are publicly stating this fact so that others may also benefit from the product/company. It doesn't matter what product or service they are talking about, the reasons are generally the same. The same applies when people are anti ----, just for different reasons. They got screwed over by a product/service and they are spreading the word so that others can avoid making the same mistakes that they made. It's basic human nature. Come to think of it, ants do the same thing. ;)
I agree with you completely and don't think anyone wants Apple to dominate the desktop market. But wouldn't it be great if they had a 20% market share? Now developers will think more about cross-platform compatibility. This would benefit everyone (Mac, Linux, Solaris, FreeBSD, - but not Microsoft).
Nobody is trying to make you buy a Mac - well, except maybe Apple. If you're happy then that's great. Personally, I'm hesitant recommending a Mac to most people for fear there is an application they can no longer run. But for certain people a Mac makes a lot of sense.
What people are trying to tell you is that, if you have the opportunity, you should give MacOS a try. And it takes more then a day so give it a couple of months. You will either think it is a waste of money and stick with Windows or you will have found a better way to get your work done. Either way, you would come out knowing more then when you started. People might not agree with your choice, but they will respect it.
WillyAre you playing any of these: (Score:3, Informative)
or how about World of Warcraft?
There are many games for the Mac.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Dell Laptop + Linux (Score:5, Informative)
Is linux usable on the desktop? Certainly.
Can it hold a candle to OS/X in terms of polish and ease of use? Not yet. Is dell's hardware as aesthetically pleasing and stylish as Apple's? No way...
As a Windows/DOS user since the late 80s, and a Linux/BSD user since the mid 90s - my next computer is going to be a Mac.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I do have experience with an Acer laptop and Linux. It sucked! Getting the on-board wireless to work was a huge project, and I couldn't get suspend or the volume control keys to work at all.
Desktops are generally OK, but some laptops just do not play nice with anything but Windows. If you want to run Linux, do some research before you buy. That's what I should have done - unfortunately, that wa
Re:I recently switched (Score:4, Insightful)
Care to elaborate a bit more on that?
Re: (Score:3)
Basically, it's difficult to write a quick-and-dirty GUI on a Mac. With XCode, I need to spend more time wiring and debugging. The real advantage of Visual Studio is that it
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
- Search is broken. It's virtually impossible to find even all instances of a simple function being used in the open project. I use egrep on the command line instead of the useless XCode search. This extends to XCode being completely unable to find the definition of any function you are looking for. It's a huge productivity killer when more often than not when you ask it to find the definition of a symbol, it gives you the
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I understand that Windows is a solid alternative to DOS , but a better interface and graphics is not going to make me switch. I want the same operating system my friends, parents and neighbours have. It may sound ignorant but it's not.
Change is inevetable. Sticking with a familiar brand-name won't mean avoiding change.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Apple tried that during the wasteland years of the nineties (post- and pre- Steve Jobs). They were called clones, and from what I remember, the very first thing Jobs did when returning to Apple was axe that arrangement with third party manufacturers, due to 'quality concerns (not up to par)'.
For starters, I enjoy computer games every now and then.
That's one of the few issues left standing today. Another very specific example is US government stan
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
KDE Excellence. (Score:3, Informative)
What're these "must-have" features in KDE? Any time I've used it, I've found a bunch of stupidly-named applications, and a big, bulky UI filled with toolbars. I'd rather use GNOME. Hell, I'd rather use Windows.
There are a lot of excellent KDE applications, none of which require you to use their window manager:
Windows is harder to use than Linux (Score:3, Insightful)
A user choosing not to put documents on the desktop is not a valid reason for a system to be better.
Of course it is, it's completely unintuitive. Hell, even the My Documents folder in Windows is hidden away in the file browser by default instead of right there on the desktop... You have to manually link it to the desktop. Which means you have to know how to link it... Which makes it harder to use than Linux or OSX. Then there's all the application links cluttering the desktop, what's that all about? And the applications are under Start-> All Programs > then they're organised by vendor (doh!) rather
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Not in my experience. (Score:5, Informative)
Doing things the hard way... (Score:4, Insightful)
Network settings, burning files to CD, and the list goes on. Between that and learning new keyboard shortcuts, most people have to learn new habits--usually a simpler way of doing things--but then they are hooked. The same appears to be true of the guy who wrote this article.