Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

The Ultimate MacDate

michael posted more than 9 years ago | from the going-dutch dept.

OS X 706

Hack Jandy writes "Anandtech - the PC hardware site - took the Apple challenge and tried a Mac out for a month. The result was the most indepth Macdate I have even seen. As quoted by Anand, 'In the end, Apple has developed a very strong platform.'"

cancel ×

706 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Macdate? (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10473662)

Sounds kinda ghey. Makes sense, considering the orientation of most Mac users I've met.

Re:Macdate? (0, Flamebait)

Ironix (165274) | more than 9 years ago | (#10473736)

And your comment sounds rather redneck. Makes sense, considering the narrowmindedness of most PC users I've met.

Re:Macdate? (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10473774)

What about gay rednecks?

Do they use Linux?

Re:Macdate? (0, Troll)

0racle (667029) | more than 9 years ago | (#10473808)

You both sound like your hung up on labels. Makes sense considering the elitism of most Linux users I've met.

Re:Macdate? (2, Funny)

RangerRick98 (817838) | more than 9 years ago | (#10473860)

I'd think up a better reply to your post than this, but my head is still swimming from the irony.

Re:Macdate? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10473929)

Huh? What suggests they are linux users? .. And then you hypocritically label linux users as elitists.

I should let this form a stereotype in my mind that anti-linux posters are illogical trolls.

Re:Macdate? (0, Offtopic)

0racle (667029) | more than 9 years ago | (#10474017)

Did it hurt to have your sense of humour removed? There was a Mac users are gay, PC users are rednecks, I just kept it going.

I am not surprised (5, Insightful)

mirko (198274) | more than 9 years ago | (#10473671)

Once you're under Windows,you want the Linux hackability, once you are on Linux, you miss the bells and whistles, since I switched, I got both and I am happy :)

But can I get the mac (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10473683)

without having to put another man's balls in my mouth?

Re:I am not surprised (1)

RangerRick98 (817838) | more than 9 years ago | (#10473815)

Personally, under Windows I wanted Linux stability, and the apps I use on my Linux box are featureful enough for me, so I have no reason to switch to a Mac for "bells and whistles."

Re:I am not surprised (5, Interesting)

malchus842 (741252) | more than 9 years ago | (#10473825)

I'm not surprised either. I used a Mac back in 1985, but then ended up on DOS/Windows boxes until about 18 months ago. Having switched and used a Mac for this period of time, I would NEVER switch back to Windows. Heck, I made it a requirement of accepting my last job offer that I have a Mac, not a PC.

Why? Because the Mac gives me the best of both worlds - a Unix box (BSD no less), and a fantastic UI. I've been a Unix guy for a LONG time (1980). Linux is great, but when it comes to Unix-like boxes, I'll take the Mac any day as a user environment.

I've switched my whole family - we now have 4 macs in the house. I got my pastor to switch to the Mac, and when I was a consultant, several comapnies I supported took my advice and switched. EVERYONE is happier than they ever were on the Windows box.

Re:I am not surprised (4, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10473876)

Bells and whistles? The main thing that keeps me on Windows are the games. :|

MacDate (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10473684)

Is she hot?

She better have some nice ones, I'm not going out with another one of your flat chested skanks.

20 IE Windows?!!! (5, Informative)

jaaron (551839) | more than 9 years ago | (#10473702)

From the article:

When writing an article (especially big NDA launches), I'd have around 20 IE windows open, Outlook with another 5 - 15 emails, Power Point with NDA presentations, ...

20 IE Windows??? Man, this guy has got to get a copy of Firefox [mozilla.org] and learn the joy of tabbed browsing.

Re:20 IE Windows?!!! (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10473748)

I agree, he also lost a lot "street cred" with me just by stating that.

Re:20 IE Windows?!!! (0, Redundant)

falcon5768 (629591) | more than 9 years ago | (#10473775)

He doesnt even have THAT excuse... Safari does tabbed browsing and is already on the system. Obviously a windows user

Re:20 IE Windows?!!! (2, Funny)

sgant (178166) | more than 9 years ago | (#10473821)

Um...RTFA...he was talking about his Windows experience...and yeah, he is a Windows user that used MacOSX for a month...hence the name of this article and the whole fricken point...

RTFA

Re:20 IE Windows?!!! (1)

bburton (778244) | more than 9 years ago | (#10473859)

Safari does tabbed browsing and is already on the system.

Did I miss something here? I thought he was talking about using WINDOWS when he was complaining about window management problems, not OSX.

Re:20 IE Windows?!!! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10473777)

What about those Non Disclosure Agreements put in presentations? Hope he changes the font to wingdings in order to obfuscate some of the verbiage!

Re:20 IE Windows?!!! (3, Informative)

Tyler Durden (136036) | more than 9 years ago | (#10473792)

That or any of the many other alternate browsers that allow tabbed browsing. And that includes Opera, which did it in the first place.

Re:20 IE Windows?!!! (2, Insightful)

Ianoo (711633) | more than 9 years ago | (#10473829)

Why on earth would I want a closed source browser that contains Adware when I can have an open source browser that has more features (with easily installed extensions) for free? Opera works great on my Nokia, but I don't think I'll be installing their desktop software any time soon.

Re:20 IE Windows?!!! (1)

Tyler Durden (136036) | more than 9 years ago | (#10473915)

The reason I prefer Opera is that it handles tabs the way I want. In Firefox, if I click on a link that wants to open up a new window, it opens up a whole new window instead of just a tab. If I knew beforehand that the link was going to go to a new window I could just ctrl-click on it and get it in a new tab, but that's not something I know I have to do before I click. In Opera, nothing gets put into a new window unless you ask it to. Why Firefox can't be changed to implement something so simple is beyond me.

$30 won't kill you if you don't like Adware. But even with the Adware, you can barely notice it anyways. *shrug*

Re:20 IE Windows?!!! (2, Informative)

Narchie Troll (581273) | more than 9 years ago | (#10473944)

It's called the Single Browser Extension. It's existed for Firefox and Mozilla for a very long time.

Re:20 IE Windows?!!! (0)

Tyler Durden (136036) | more than 9 years ago | (#10473953)

Whoops, $39. My bad.

Re:20 IE Windows?!!! (1)

Oliver Wendell Jones (158103) | more than 9 years ago | (#10473956)

You could always get the Single Window extension from here [mozthemes.tk] .

Re:20 IE Windows?!!! (1)

pricedl (47059) | more than 9 years ago | (#10474008)

In Firefox, if I click on a link that wants to open up a new window, it opens up a whole new window instead of just a tab.

They've got a fix for that. See Bug 172962 [mozilla.org] (and don't forget that bugzilla won't let you click through that)

Re:20 IE Windows?!!! (4, Insightful)

AvitarX (172628) | more than 9 years ago | (#10473928)

Firefox/Mozilla gestures do not even close to compare to Opera's (well not last time I tried.

The only reason I dropped Opera is it didn't feel right on Linux (being QT, but not feeling as nice as Konquerer in the environment).

Maybe they fixed this in Mozilla, but opera has these gestures/shortcuts that I find great, and miss:

1) right mouse+mouse wheel (cycle tabs)
2)hold right mouse+tap left mouse (back)
3)revers of 2 for forward
4)CTRL+mousewheel for a supurb zooming, way better then any other zoom.

Also the ram ached forward and back buttons are blazing fast. Just amazing, even on older systems.

Fast foward and rewind was nice, but pretty much jusdt a gimmick.

Re:20 IE Windows?!!! (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10474043)

Wow, another Smug Opera Weenie. It's like the Smug Lisp Weenies, whose only reaction to any programming language is "lisp did it first, they're all trying to be lisp, why not just use lisp". Smug ___ Weenies are wholly incapable of listening to criticism of ___, redirecting them into snippy point-for-point replies that usually don't really address the shortcomings that were brought up.

So you use opera, you like opera, bully for you. Now shut the hell up about it already. There really just isn't a single person left who actually cares what browser you use or recommend.

Re:20 IE Windows?!!! (0, Troll)

ageoffri (723674) | more than 9 years ago | (#10473810)

Joy of tabbed browsing? I've tried and found it very annonying. I like alt-tab between multiple windows at work, many times it is several IE windows. I tried friefox's tabbed browsing and it just didn't work for me.

Re:20 IE Windows?!!! (5, Informative)

Croaker-bg (784660) | more than 9 years ago | (#10473851)

You can CTl+tab in firefox between tabs and ctl+shift+tab to go backwards through the tabs. Same functionality. There is also an extension that will allow you to ctl+tab to the last tab you used in a historical order. These are very handy features and save you the overhead of having multiple IE windows open with the same at the keyboard functionality to jump around.

Re:20 IE Windows?!!! (1)

angle_slam (623817) | more than 9 years ago | (#10474021)

It's not quite the SAME functionality. With multiple IE windows, cutting and pasting is a lot easier. But once you get used to it, you can't go back. Especially if there are multiple sites you like to have open at once (e.g., Slashdot and gmail and a news site)

Re:20 IE Windows?!!! (4, Funny)

Tenebrious1 (530949) | more than 9 years ago | (#10473894)

20 IE Windows??? Man, this guy has got to get a copy of Firefox and learn the joy of tabbed browsing.

Or just stop going to the porn site that spawned them.

Re:20 IE Windows?!!! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10473909)

Oddly enough, I don't like tabbed browsing myself - and I've had that many windows open at the same time on a fairly regular basis. It has more to do with the desire to be able to ALT-TAB around. Now, if I knew the shortcut to switch tabs easily, and the shortcut to close tabs easily, and clicking on links on blogs didn't open up a new window, I'd probably use tabs.

Re:20 IE Windows?!!! (1)

peragrin (659227) | more than 9 years ago | (#10474007)

CTRL-TAB

simple things are already their, you just have to look.

Apple = Proprietary (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10473716)

Why lock yourself into a single vendor platform?

Re:Apple = Proprietary (3, Insightful)

wileycat (690131) | more than 9 years ago | (#10473744)

Because it works, very very well

Re:Apple = Proprietary (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10473853)

sorta like _Microsoft_ Windows?

I read this article... (2, Insightful)

JoeNiner (758431) | more than 9 years ago | (#10473720)

and wondered "How many of these features have been incorporated into Linux / BSD?" I just recently installed MEPIS on a spare box to start learning about linux, so I am quite a bit in the dark on some features he mentions. Are a lot of these available in KDE/Gnome/???

Office 2004 for PC? (2, Funny)

Rosyna (80334) | more than 9 years ago | (#10473722)

He keeps mentioning things like iCalendar, Office 2004 for the PC and Outlook 2004 for the PC. But I can't seem to find these anywhere? Am i going insane?

Re:Office 2004 for PC? (3, Informative)

Rude Turnip (49495) | more than 9 years ago | (#10473839)

The Mac versions of Office always have the "year" label 1 year higher than the current Windows version. Office 97 (Windows) = Office 98 (Mac). Same for Office 2000/2001 and Office 2003/2004. Oh...and Office XP/v.X.

Re:Office 2004 for PC? (5, Informative)

boaworm (180781) | more than 9 years ago | (#10473955)

iCalendar is shorted iCal, more info here [apple.com] .

Office 2004 is the Applized version of Office XP. More info here [microsoft.com] . Outlook is renamed Entourage btw...

And... it's probably more correct to say that Office XP is a Windowized version of Office 2004, since much development/innovation at Microsoft is implemented first at their Apple department in California (not in Redmomd like the rest of the stuff). As an example, they tried out a sidebar in IE for Mac. Dont think it ever made it to Windows...


I wouldnt say you are insane, just that you misread the PC/Mac stuff. Some apple software ends up on win32 though, like iTunes.

Cost (-1, Troll)

Ironsides (739422) | more than 9 years ago | (#10473760)

Needless to say, at almost $3000, the G5 was one expensive system considering its specs

Used to be every new system cost $3000. Only relatively recently have decent new systems droped below that price mark.

Cheaper than Dell (4, Informative)

jocknerd (29758) | more than 9 years ago | (#10473832)

And a comparably equipped Dell will run you about $1000 more. Spec out a PC that has all the features of the G5 and you'll see that the PowerMac is very reasonably priced. When comparing it to the crap Dell and Gateway advertise, yeah it sounds expensive. But those machines are crap.

Re:Cheaper than Dell (2, Informative)

Em Adespoton (792954) | more than 9 years ago | (#10473974)

Actually, to be the MSDevil's advocate, although the OS X OS is superior in ease-of-use, Apple hardware still falls behind in many of the areas Anand depends upon -- most noticeably in the GPU department. Since the entire OS depends on the GPU, this becomes an issue on macs. You can't buy a comparably equipped Dell, because there are some things that come standard with a Dell that don't ship for the Mac, and some things that come standard on a Mac that don't ship with a Dell. Anand was having problems with the first issue.

Re:Cheaper than Dell (1)

Jason Earl (1894) | more than 9 years ago | (#10474025)

Then perhaps Apple should consider selling a "cut down" with less features. For $3000 I could purchase a system that would blow Apple's kit clear out of the water for the features that *I* am interested in.

Re:Cost (4, Informative)

sgant (178166) | more than 9 years ago | (#10473902)

You mean for Macs, right?

Cause I"m sitting here on a AMD 2500+ Barton with 1 gig of RAM, 120 Gig HD, Geforce Video, DVD/CDROM burner all for around $600.

Built it myself. Sure, it's not a dual processor with DVD burner...but it's fast and stable.

But I will say that Apple has been consistant with their prices...their top of the line machines have always been around the 3000 mark. But at the moment they only have one machine that's below 1000, and that's with very little RAM.

Do NOT get me wrong, I LOVE Macs...but you do have to pay a premium to use them and yeah, I think it's worth it. I just can't afford it...yes, I'm poor.

Re:Cost (1)

Ironsides (739422) | more than 9 years ago | (#10474027)

I mean for PCs. Up until a couple years ago 3K was the price for a good personal computer. Starting in the 80s and up through the mid to late 90's. Hell, my computer I custom built in 2000 cost about that much too. Course it was top o the line but so is this one.

Installing apps (4, Informative)

AKAImBatman (238306) | more than 9 years ago | (#10473765)

Well, to install an application, you simply drag the application's installer to any folder on your hard drive and it's "installed". Doing so actually triggers a number of files to be copied to various places on your drive, but the fact that you are separated from that process, it really made me feel like I wasn't in control of my system. On the flip side, installing and uninstalling applications couldn't be easier. There are no full screen installers to deal with; just drag and drop, and get back to work while the application installs. The fact that I don't know where everything is being copied contributes to my feelings of file system disconnect. Then again, maybe I'm being a bit too philosophical about my OSes.

He doesn't need to feel so disconnected. All the files are exactly where he put them, nowhere else. Mac applications are actually directories packaged up to look like individual files. All the files he saw copying were just part of the application directory. Nothing to worry about. :-)

Re:Installing apps (4, Informative)

Nick of NSTime (597712) | more than 9 years ago | (#10473835)

Further, some Mac OS X applications do have installers. Office 2004 has both an installer and a drag/drop folder. The Office 2004 installer lets you choose to not install certain features. Or you can just drag and drop the folder onto your hard drive.

Re:Installing apps (5, Insightful)

Manuscript Replica (307437) | more than 9 years ago | (#10473863)

Yeah, I would say that the Windows way of installing apps leaves the user with less control. You don't necessarily have any idea where an installer is putting files, what it's overwriting, what it's messing up. OS X app bundles stay in one place.

Re:Installing apps (5, Informative)

nine-times (778537) | more than 9 years ago | (#10473927)

Yeah, I'm not entirely sure what he means when he says "Doing so actually triggers a number of files to be copied to various places on your drive..." It just copies the .app folder, right?

Maybe what he was noticing was the result of some settings/preferences/whatever being copied to his library, which many applications will do on the first run, but not when you install them.

On the other hand, more and more OSX apps have actually gone to using an install program, including Apple's apps, which I find unfortunate. I like the whole drag-and-drop method of installation.

Re:Installing apps (4, Insightful)

AKAImBatman (238306) | more than 9 years ago | (#10473948)

Maybe what he was noticing was the result of some settings/preferences/whatever being copied to his library, which many applications will do on the first run, but not when you install them.

I think he's talking about the progress bar for long copies. That actually shows you the name of the files being copied. If one doesn't know any better, it might look like the files are being installed.

Re:Installing apps (1)

arekusu (159916) | more than 9 years ago | (#10473930)

It's worth pointing out that you normally do not need to install AT ALL. Not even copy. If an application comes on CD, or is downloaded in a disk image, you can run it right from there, as is.

The only exception to this is poorly-written games which assume they have write access to their own directory (which may not be the case even if they are copied to writable media-- depending on user access privileges.)

Re:Installing apps (1)

AKAImBatman (238306) | more than 9 years ago | (#10473973)

If an application comes on CD, or is downloaded in a disk image, you can run it right from there, as is.

What are these 'CDs' you are referring to? I have shiny disks for movies, could that be what you're thinking of? ;-)

Joking aside, I'll often test programs by running them directly out of the DMG file. If I don't like it, I'll unmount the DMG and trash the whole shebang. Never even touches my applications folder. :-)

Re:Installing apps (2, Informative)

cft_128 (650084) | more than 9 years ago | (#10473995)

It's worth pointing out that you normally do not need to install AT ALL. Not even copy. If an application comes on CD, or is downloaded in a disk image, you can run it right from there, as is.

The only exception to this is poorly-written games which assume they have write access to their own directory (which may not be the case even if they are copied to writable media-- depending on user access privileges.)

Firefox also freaks out if you try to run it from its disk image. Not pretty.

Re:Installing apps (4, Interesting)

Gryffin (86893) | more than 9 years ago | (#10473987)

Even Mac apps that don't use installers need to put various pereference files, support files and the like in certain directories, such as the user's Library folder. THis is actually done at first launch. The Anandtech guy apparently thought that they were installed when he dragged the app file over; that would creep me out, too, if dragging one one file actually dragged a bunch into seemingly random locations. But the file system isn't that magical; the application just created those files/folders as needed. No mystery here, no need to feel disconnected.

Re:Installing apps (1)

AKAImBatman (238306) | more than 9 years ago | (#10474037)

Even Mac apps that don't use installers need to put various pereference files, support files and the like in certain directories, such as the user's Library folder. THis is actually done at first launch

Windows programs do the same, except they either screw up your registry or leave .ini droppings all over the place. :-)

Re:Installing apps (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10474012)

He clearly expects that applications MUST scatter files all over the place just to run.

After years of dealing with \, \WINDOWS, \WINNT, %windir%\system, %windir%\system32, \progra~1, the Start Menu directories (in which "shortcuts"/aliases to directories/folders don't result in navigable file-system menus), the registry, etc., etc., he's obviously got some fear of what HAS TO BE going on without his knowledge. That's the Microsoft Windows legacy, where even supposedly "power" users are afraid of what's going on, either because it's actively hidden from them but apparent in frightening ways, or because he is asked to participate so actively in the process.

On Mac OS, the majority of users generally know what's going where, because everything goes where it makes sense in the first place, because (get this) things aren't so much hidden as made plain to see, but harmless to modify. No pop-up warnings if you decide to unhide mysterious "system files."

Re:Installing apps (1)

ILikeRed (141848) | more than 9 years ago | (#10474015)

Is he under the delusion he knows where every dll and other file is put when he installs something in Windows?!? Not that it is not nice to be able do something like
rpm -ql program
with Linux, but I have not seen anything similiar with windows.....

McDate (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10473769)

Have McDonalds started selling girlfirends?

Re:McDate (1)

Treeluvinhippy (545814) | more than 9 years ago | (#10473856)

Have McDonalds started selling girlfirends?

We can only wish my friend, we can only wish

Re:McDate (2)

focitrixilous P (690813) | more than 9 years ago | (#10473939)

Have McDonalds started selling girlfirends?

We can only wish my friend, we can only wish

Yeah, I dream about greasy girls covered in cheap pickles and ketchup too.

Re:McDate (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10473964)

Thank god it's not just me!

Welcome to the club... (5, Interesting)

trance29 (614645) | more than 9 years ago | (#10473795)

i rid myself of all WinTel PC's in my home (still need them for my job)... but since going to the Apple side i have to say i have had pretty painless computing. My Apple iMac just works and the apps that go with it. People argue that it is a single vendor platform but there is something to be said for that. The tight integration between the hardware and software makes things work smoothly. No mucking around with silly patches or resource settings. Personally i feel that Apple will be gaining a lot of ground in the 'market share' department in the next 3 years.

I would like to wank (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10473797)

Plz 2 advise

Finally (3, Insightful)

Nick of NSTime (597712) | more than 9 years ago | (#10473798)

It's nice to see a respected hardcore site like Anandtech confirm what we Mac users have known all along.

Re:Finally (1)

stinkyfingers (588428) | more than 9 years ago | (#10473892)

That was a long-ass article, wasn't it? I don't blame you for not reading it all before posting. Let me include a snippet, in which he says that this article doesn't mean he's "switched" or even endorses it.

More than anything, I'm glad to be aware and somewhat proficient in dealing with yet another hardware/OS platform, even though it's a very small percentage of the total computing population out there. It's nice to know that I'm not to totally lost if I find myself stuck with nothing else to use but a Mac. But this experiment has clearly gone far beyond just a "trying it out" stage. The G5 is a computer that I use on a daily basis and it's something that I do enjoy using. I find the multi-tasking capabilities, some of the little gems that I talked about throughout this article, and the overall stability of the platform to be great for most of the computer usage that I do on a day-to-day basis. Despite my appeasement with Apple's platform, this is far from a "switch" story.

Re:Finally (1)

Nick of NSTime (597712) | more than 9 years ago | (#10473988)

I never said anything about him switching (that's just part of my sig). Let me quote from your quote to exemplify my statement:

I find the multi-tasking capabilities, some of the little gems that I talked about throughout this article, and the overall stability of the platform to be great for most of the computer usage that I do on a day-to-day basis

There's never a need for patronizing comments.

It's good to hear (4, Insightful)

Iter Impius (820313) | more than 9 years ago | (#10473811)

Apple created a very good operating system, which would actually probably be more to the liking of the average PC user - who just checks their email and surfs the web. They really should start advertising the usability and stability of Mac products, I see that as the quickest, and most effective way. The only downside to Macs really at this time is the lack of support for gaming, and I just don't see why more people don't switch, or at least give Macs a try.

Nice little blurb about Windows... (5, Insightful)

bburton (778244) | more than 9 years ago | (#10473812)

From TFA:
For starters, heavy multi-tasking management under Windows had caused me a lot of grief... After a certain point, the cramped taskbar became difficult to use as a locator tool, and while I could ALT+TAB forever, I just felt like I was idle for too long. I knew what it was that I needed to get to, and I knew I had it open, but the process of getting to it was a pain.

This, my friends, is where Windows is seriously lacking as far as usability goes. He makes a good point. I for one can't stand more than about 4 Windows open at a time when I'm using windows, where as when I'm using Linux (I'm not a OSX guy) I usually have 20+ windows open on 6 virtual desktops.

Unix based window managers (along with others) have had virtual desktops for years, where did Microsoft drop the ball?

Re:Nice little blurb about Windows... (2, Informative)

mdbales (611785) | more than 9 years ago | (#10473919)

Even though it's not built in, you can add virtual desktops to Windows XP. You can download the add-on here [microsoft.com]

Go Screen virtual desktop manager (1)

mekkab (133181) | more than 9 years ago | (#10474001)

Someone sent me a copy of Go screen [goscreen.info] and I've been using it for the past 5 years on two different work PCs (NT and 2k).... and it does what you'd expect; it acts like a virtual desk top!

I'm sure there are a thousand others out there.

Re:Nice little blurb about Windows... (1)

DogDude (805747) | more than 9 years ago | (#10474046)

This, my friends, is where Windows is seriously lacking as far as usability goes. He makes a good point. I for one can't stand more than about 4 Windows open at a time when I'm using windows, where as when I'm using Linux (I'm not a OSX guy) I usually have 20+ windows open on 6 virtual desktops.

See, that makes no sense to me. I just make my taskbar larger (did you know you could do that?), and I can easily get to my 20+ windows I have open. I can't imagine having to remember what virtual desktop each app is running in and play hide and seek every time I switch. That's a real nightmare for me.

But I like my apps.... (-1, Troll)

Kenja (541830) | more than 9 years ago | (#10473816)

Unless Apple works out a deal with most major software vendors to allow free cross platform upgrades (would also have to be cross app in many cases) the cost of switching to a Mac would run me close to 100k. So in other words, its not gona happen. That having been said I have owned Macs off and on, last was a 500mhz iMac G3 I built. The end result has allways been that while I like the OS, I end up not using the things because all my software I own and most of the software I want wont run on it without emulation.

Re:But I like my apps.... (1, Insightful)

the pickle (261584) | more than 9 years ago | (#10473983)

Fine. Don't switch. Stick with Windows and suffer the nightmares of spyware, viruses, trojans, and security holes big enough to fly a 747 through.

Apple isn't losing any sleep over the incredibly tiny minority of users who are in your shoes and who can't afford to switch. Not that I believe your $100,000 figure in the first place. How many one-man freelance operations out there need Maya/[insert other über-expensive software here]? (Then again, why should I believe a guy who thinks assembling an iMac from Apple-branded parts constitutes "building" a Macintosh?)

For the rest of us, our employers will provide the software necessary to get Real Work(tm) done, and the software besides that *isn't* that expensive. Even if you had to re-purchase every single game you own for the Mac platform (and you typically don't, since a lot of games can be had in cross-platform CD versions now, with both Mac and PC versions in the same box), that would still be well under $10K, and if you're *that* into PC gaming, why the hell are you buying a Mac in the first place?

p

Cheaper Macs (5, Interesting)

Puchku (615680) | more than 9 years ago | (#10473823)

While Anand has done an excellant job of descrbing the Mac platform to people like me who have never used a Mac but always wanted to, he does not tell us how a cheaper Mac, say a $1500 Powerbook would compare to a $1500 Windows machine. I am considering buying a Powerbook, but am hesitant because I don't want a $1500 system that feels slower than a $1200 system. So all you Mac users, please help. Is there a significant/noticible difference between a Powerbook which costs $1599 or $1799 and a similarily priced Windows laptop?

Re:Cheaper Macs (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10473917)

What are you going to be using it for?

Re:Cheaper Macs (5, Interesting)

brasten (699342) | more than 9 years ago | (#10473947)

Puchku,
I was in the same position you are not too long ago(http://apple.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=04/02 /05/024208&tid=/ [slashdot.org] )

I ended up purchasing a PowerBook 1.25GHz 15" machine for around $2,600... My experience is basically that the PowerBook FEELS as fast as most notebooks you'd buy in doing every day things (word processing, browsing, email, etc)... the interface is extremely snappy that way, and I rare ever need to run around closing apps to speed your system back up.

That said, if you plan on doing any extremely intensive processing... program compiling, etc... (that's about it), the raw power behind the cheap is disappointingly slow.

That said, I haven't touched a Windows machine for a significant length of time since I picked up my PowerBook 9 months ago, and after experiencing the awesomeness that is Apple, I'd rather complain that my Apple is a little slow than be proud that my Windows/Linux laptop is a little fast.

Re:Cheaper Macs (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10473958)

You're talking about raw hardware.. Macs are about the experience.

I'm still using an old 800MHz iBook with OS X panther and, honestly, I wouldn't trade it for the latest and greatest PC laptop. I've got a 2.4 GHz Dell at work. At home, I have my Mac.

Re:Cheaper Macs (1)

willy_me (212994) | more than 9 years ago | (#10473992)

Yup, the PC laptops are faster. But it's not just about speed. I have a 1.25GHz Powerbook and it's plenty fast. The difference is in usability. Partly, it's OSX that makes the Powerbook better. However, the hardware is also very nice. You can use it without the fan turning on, it's nice and small, the sleep function is just excellent, and when you're using it, it just feels like you're using a quality piece of equipment. Most (not all) of the PCs out there are huge, have a fan that turns on if you open a singe IE window, and are made of plastic that feels cheap.

I have a friend that bought a Dell ~6months ago. Over the summer he hung out with a guy that had a Powerbook. Now he says he wants to sell his Dell and get a Powerbook - they're that much better.

If you need speed, get a desktop. The Powerbooks are plenty fast for 99% of people in the market, just don't expect them to be faster. Expect them to be more productive.

Re:Cheaper Macs (1)

x.Draino.x (693782) | more than 9 years ago | (#10473996)

I have a 12" G4 1.33ghz Powerbook.. I got rid of my 2.3ghz ( celeron ) Dell laptop and couldn't be happier. The speed thing scared me too, but I took the plunge anyways. I will admit at some things it's a tad slower, but not too bad. One place where it really shines is I can burn a DVD, surf the web, and listen to my music in iTunes all at once on my powerbook with no hiccups. Windows would have choked.

Re:Cheaper Macs (1)

Jord (547813) | more than 9 years ago | (#10474014)

Is there a significant/noticible difference between a Powerbook which costs $1599 or $1799 and a similarily priced Windows laptop?

Yes there is a difference. I find my 1.33Ghz Powerbook to be a more efficient machine than any windows laptop I owned in the past. The multitasking of OS X blows the doors off of windows.

As a coder I have been far more productive since I "made the switch."

Re:Cheaper Macs (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10474022)

When it comes to laptops, apple(specifically powerbooks) are the only way to go. Bottom line, they just work. One of the most important things is the way apple has done wireless networking. You turn it on and your on the network. If the network is secure it asks you for a password instead you you having to hunt through menus like in XP. I have a 15" powerbook and I will never go back to an XP machine. I have had my girlfriends thinkpad and my powerbook side by side in her apartment and she won't connect to the unsecured network but mine will. If you want email, web browsing(Safari is incredible), and office that works with no hiccups then go with a mac. The best way to describe a mac for an average user is that it works the way you would expect a computer work.

Re:Cheaper Macs (1)

mrgreen4242 (759594) | more than 9 years ago | (#10474028)

Well, I can't say anything about the Powerbook line, but I have a iBook G4 933mhz, with 640MB of ram. Running OSX 10.3(? - whatever it came with), it feels fine. Programs launch very quickly, save/loads fell the same as my P4 2.4ghz desktop. Using things where raw power comes into play, such as some of the more complex GIMP filters, you can see the difference. It's just lacks the raw computing power to do them almost instantly like my desktop can. That said, all of the interface tasks run very smoothly.

I atribute that to the QuartzExtreme deal they have where the menu/human interface effects are handled in the GPU. You get nice transparancy effects, very slick minimize/maximize animations, etc. For things like word proccessing, editing spreadsheets, browsing the web, checking email, listening to music, reviewing digital photos, etc, you won't know that there isn't a P4 2+ghz CPU in there. (I am even able to play Warcraft3 and Unreal 2003 without much issue on it).

You'll thank yourself for getting a Mac later, though, as the years go by and it is still a stable machine, with plenty of usable life left in it.

Re:Cheaper Macs (1)

jdwest (760759) | more than 9 years ago | (#10474029)

I used to worry about this, because the overall responsiveness under Jag was slightly slower in feel. Panther removed much of my concerns here.

But, funny, I began to not worry about this nearly as much after just a short time.

After a couple of weeks on the PowerBook, I realized that my overall savings of time -- with the whole "It Just Works(TM)" concept of computing -- more than overshadowed differences in speed - perceived or real.

I don't have to worry about wasted processes allocated to AV, ad/spyware detection, firewalls.

I don't have daily alerts telling me there's a new security patch available for installation (reboot required).

I don't have Norton AV updating its defs file up to twice a day.

I DO NOT live in fear about clicking on an attachment. I DO NOT keep my fingers crossed when surfing the Net.

To be certain, MacOS X is not quite perfect. But I will be damned if it is not the most incredible OS I have ever used, and that includes everything from DOS to XP, from AUX to IRIX to Solaris, a good number of Linux distros, and, even, OS/2 and Be.

Re:Cheaper Macs (4, Informative)

gunnk (463227) | more than 9 years ago | (#10474052)

If there is one in your area, go to an Apple Store and lay your hands on one. They're really good about letting you try it out there. You can play with it enough to get a feel for whether or not it meets your speed needs. Take a CD with some big docs on them and open them up. Do a little surfing. Check your email. Play with iPhoto and iTunes.

I have a two year old PowerBook. It's beginning to feel a little sluggish to me here and there. Apps take a couple more seconds to open than I like, but I'm spoiled by having a dual 2Ghz G5 at work. EVERYTHING feels slow by comparison.

That said, the feature mix on my PowerBook is awesome in a very portable package. A few years ago I bought a dining room table for my computer at the time (a Wintel box) and it's peripherals. Now we have the PowerBook in "office nook" in the kitchen. The size and portability are huge plusses to me.

Now, if you really need a little more power, consider one of the new G5 iMacs. The housing is VESA-compliant, so you can wallmount it. Add an Airport card, wireless keyboard, and a wireless mouse if you want nothing but a power cord.

Given the trade-offs, I'd definitely make the same decision to purchase a PowerBook.

Now, as for comparing Wintel laptops to Powerbooks. I find that much of what makes a computer seem fast or slow is the smoothness with which the OS runs. The G4 chip is not going to perform as well as the newer P4 laptops. However, the OS runs VERY smoothly, so it FEELS more powerful than many Wintel laptops. Animations are silky. Expose provides incredibly slick window management when you have 20 things open in 12 different windows. Multimedia is smooth even when you are busy doing other things.

Like I said -- go try it! The Apple web site will point you to the store nearest you.

There is a lot of open source software for MacOSX (5, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10473838)

For those Mac OS X people with Linux envy, there is a lot of open source programs available on http://fink.sourceforge.net/.
To install fink, you need to give a root account on Mac OS X even though there is an administrator account. Mac OS X does not have a root account as default for security.

I take it... (3, Funny)

Beek Dog (610072) | more than 9 years ago | (#10473866)

They're not using an Xserve.

Too many windows! (2, Insightful)

conebrid (324421) | more than 9 years ago | (#10473888)

From the article:

Maybe it's just because of the nature of my work, but I tend to have a lot of windows open at any given time. ...
When writing an article (especially big NDA launches), I'd have around 20 IE windows open...

Two words: Use Firefox!

Re:Too many windows! (1)

emtboy9 (99534) | more than 9 years ago | (#10473981)

No kidding... Oh the joys of tabbed browsing! To be honest, I dont know how I survived without it~

Supersize me! (1, Funny)

October_30th (531777) | more than 9 years ago | (#10473890)

tried a Mac out for a month

You mean like this [imdb.com] ?

Political commentary... (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10473893)

Article could have been written without bashing the Americal election system.

Maybe he should try Mac OS X Server (4, Funny)

Gogo Dodo (129808) | more than 9 years ago | (#10473918)

We've /.'ed his Windows servers. I've always found the Anandtech site to be rather sluggish. Must be a Windows thing.

Coral Cache Link (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10473926)

Unfortunately, it looks like it may have been slashdotted before anyone loaded the whole cache.. [nyud.net]

but, you're free to try it

The problem with Apple Users (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10473937)

If their Apple isn't working, they end up buying a new one. And Apple users call themselves geeks. HA!

Re:The problem with Apple Users (0, Flamebait)

Beek Dog (610072) | more than 9 years ago | (#10474031)

No, we can fix our own machines. We just don't need to. We buy new ones with the money we save on support/repairs/time. "Oh, but you can't upgrade a iMac!!!" They're call EXTERNAL peripherals, dumbass. Just bought my aging G3 a new 120gb HD.

By the way, how's that spyware treating you? Looked at any JPGs lately? Good luck with SP3!!!

thorough and fair (5, Interesting)

BobWeiner (83404) | more than 9 years ago | (#10473938)

I applaud Anand for taking the time to thoroughly put the G5 through its paces. If Apple were still running the 'classic' OS, I seriously doubt Anand would have even bothered to look at the platform, let alone review it. OS X is the main reason why I prefer Macs. It doesn't get in the way of what I want to do. At work, I have a G5 on one side, and a HP XW8000 on the other. Both have their advantage, but as far as OS intuitiveness goes -- the Mac wins hands down.
The PC Weenies: [pcweenies.org] Tech toons with a byte!

Quote... (1)

CatGrep (707480) | more than 9 years ago | (#10473998)

...from the article.
If you want any sort of software compatibility, driver support and don't want to be made fun of, Windows is the way to go.

Huh?

Actually, if you want to be made fun of (by those who count) you would be running Windows.

Well now (5, Insightful)

Dolphy (569457) | more than 9 years ago | (#10474048)

After doing the necessary research to make sure that I could actually get work done on a Mac, I whipped out the trusty credit card and decided to give the experiment a try.

That single sentence gives quite a bit of insight into a very major reason that Windows is so popular. The very fact that one has to research into applications is a drawbridge for many would-be switchers. With Windows, you have no doubts that there is going to be an application out there, already written, somewhere in cyberland...all you need to do is download (or buy). Gamers and "specialists", who require either very today-trendy or very specific function software, are turned off by the belief (or disbelief, possibly) that Linux and Mac simply can't support their needs.

Then, of course, there is the whole hardware debate. Once again, for Windows...it's out there somewhere; go find it. For Linux, well, it's out there, but have fun finding drivers and getting Linux to be a happy landlord. For Mac, it's out there if Apple or an approved sales associate has decided you need to have it.

In short, very few users are debating the worthiness, usability, or power of an operating system these days. It's the flexibility that they want. That may sound like quite a trite argument to have in favor of Microsoft...but in the context of the applications and hardware discussed above, I think it's pretty appropriate.
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>