Re: Re: Re: I Hate Macs
melon said:
I'll give a disclaimer: I hate Macs myself, for the most part, but I have used both extensively. For the most part, I can't justify spending tons of more money for a good looking computer whose programs I can all use on my PC.
After reading your post, it doesn't sound like you hate them, or if you do, it's simply due to cost
Sure, there are applications that perform the same basic function on both Windows and Mac. My argument is about quality, usability, and overall experience. I've yet to find a Mac application that wasn't better than a comparable Windows application. I even like MS Office a lot more on OS X. It doesn't have the ridiculous bloat that the newest iterations Office do on Windows, and it's actually quite usable.
Mac architecture is, indeed, more complex, due to its RISC-based core. Back when Intel was creating the original Pentium generation, there was a push to switch from CISC cores to more powerful RISC cores, and Apple took the plunge. But then Intel created a hybrid RISC CPU that was also backwards compatible with CISC, thus meaning that all the old x86 programs would remain compatible with the Pentium series of computers. However, this came at the cost of some performance, and that is more evident today. You can emulate Windows XP in a Mac environment, but you cannot emulate OS X in a PC environment, because PCs are merely not powerful enough.
No arguments there. Although, RISC is actually a much cleaner design, since it doesn't have the legacy support that x86 has to maintain.
At the same time, though, I often think that Mac doesn't utilize this power efficiently. For instance, Alias Maya (a 3D animation program) works at a disadvantage compared to the PC (or SGI, for that matter), so Macs are generally not the computer of choice for 3D animators, even though, with their RISC cores, they should theoretically be able to outdo PCs in this platform.
There are definitely some applications that don't take advantage of the full potential of the processors. Fortunately, Apple's pro-line of media applications, which are highly used (such as Final Cut) are entirely optimized. It's rare to see a power-hungry application that isn't optimized for the platform, but I agree that Maya is an exception to that. Hopefully that'll change.
That dialog box is software generated, not OS generated, as far as I know. In other words, that dialog box has more to do with the software. But maybe not.
In addition, that "Are you sure you want to quit?" is a major oversimplification. I just was in Microsoft Word and, after trying to exit an unsaved document, it asked me if I want to save the document, with "Yes" being default. I don't think that the vast majority of PC users have a problem with saving documents.
Actually, the OS does generate them. Between that and the guidelines set forth for them by the human interface guidelines, you'll never see a non-consistent dialog. I know Microsoft applications have something similar, but _every_ application on OS X has proper dialogs.
Again, I do believe this has more to do with the software than the actual PC/Mac environment. After all, iTunes for PCs are equally user friendly.
Again though, there's really no application that doesn't follow the human interface guideline document. Additionally, thanks to Interface Builder (the development tool used to visually design application interfaces), it's very easy to follow that guideline. In the end, it's simple for any application developer to create software that's consistent and has great usability. Furthermore, OS X developers tend to pride themselves on creating usable and innovative applications that fit in perfectly with OS X. You truly won't see this level of quality from third-party applications on any other OS. I'll gladly provide examples
Yeah, I really do hate that dog, but, thankfully, I did know how to change it to the "classic" Windows 2000 search format, which is built into Windows XP. And I will admit that Microsoft often does not make it easy. I hated the Windows 9x/ME series, because I hated how it ripped out all the DOS functionality, yet was still nothing more than a DOS-core GUI like Windows 3.1.
Exactly.
Second, you don't have to "Alt-Tab" everything, if you don't want to (although you do have the option). There is the menu bar on the bottom that allows you to select your programs. All the Dock is is a graphical representation of that (and a good one at that, mind you).
Oh I know, I had gone over my issues with the taskbar in a previous post as well. I was just comparing Windows' alt+tab to OS X's command+tab.
Well, it is easy to have a hardware accelerated UI when you not only control the software, but also the hardware that it works with. This would be equivalent to Microsoft not only making Windows XP, but also being the sole creator and distributor of all the computers it runs on. Since Microsoft must deal with the open environment of the PC world, it must remain realistic about the computers being made to run it.
Well, Microsoft is trying to make that happen with Longhorn, the upcoming version of Windows. It's fairly easy for them detect video hardware acceleration and use it if it exists, or use software rendering otherwise. It's certainly possible for them and has been for quite a while, and they're now trying to do it. The only thing is, OS X has had it for quite a few years now.
Security is certainly an issue that Mac OS X does better on. Windows 2000/XP runs a core ultimately designed for business use, and was stupid to leave open, by default, a lot of services that most people will really never need or use. At the same time, though, the Mac platform only has about a 2% market share. Who wants to create viruses to affect only 2% of computer users, when you can attack the other 95+% using Windows? If OS X does have vulnerabilities, they may not be exploited, merely because you don't have the number of hackers out there willing to expend the energy to exploit only 2% of users.
The nice part about building on a Unix core is that you're inheriting years and years of security work. Since Unix has been intended for servers since the beginning, there has always been a huge focus on security. From day one, Darwin (OS X's Unix core) has been extremely secure, and it's done nothing but improve since. Apple stays very on top of security issues, to say the least. Whenever an exploit is detected in a Unix package that they've included, they immediately issue a fix. The same is true about any other aspect of the OS. With that said, security updates are not that common, and certainly not overwhelming like in Windows.
Also, OS X was recently certified by NSA, the department of the government that deals with computer security. They do such extensive security testing, it's ridiculous. They've even recommended OS X in fact. That's definitely saying something about the level of security on OS X.
The Mac G3/G4 series were far more revolutionary than the G5 series. The former two forced Intel to be a bit more generous with resources (of course, this was also around the same time that AMD started making its own CPUs, so maybe that competition had more to do with it). I'm not terribly impressed with the G5 series, especially when compared to the AMD 64/FX series, which (despite Apple's ad claims) was the first 64-bit CPU designed for personal use. The G5 runs hot and the aluminum tower, while pretty, is downright useless. At least the G4 allowed for internal drive expansion; you're forced to have all external drives with the G5. But sure...I certainly like that 30-inch flat screen monitor Apple just created, but I also don't have thousands of dollars to blow on a monitor either.
The Optoron was AMD's first 64bit chip, and it was released a few months before the G5. However, it was in no way intended for personal use. The AMD FX series wasn't launched until quite a few months after the G5. When the G5 was released, it was definitely the first 64bit consumer-level CPU, and the fastest (confirmed in test after test).
The G5 is not nearly as hot these days, since they got it down to .09m. A great example of that is the fact it's running in a 2" enclosure for the new iMac. There will most likely be the first G5 Powerbook in January. The G5 also has very, very good power management, which is ideal for a laptop. It's called Powertune, and it dynamically decreases or increases the processor's usage nearly instantly. I'd love to be more specific about it, but I'll have to dig up the articles I had read about that. It is an efficient chip really, it's just taken some time for IBM to get everything worked out.
Finally, I disagree that the G5 is a smaller jump than the G4 was over the G3. The G4 was basically the G3 with Alti-Vec and a faster bus. The G5 has a much, much faster bus, 64 and 32bit native support, and really is an amazing design. If you check out the PDF on Apple's site about it, I think you'll be a little more impressed with it. Not only is the chip great, but the architecture Apple designed around it is equally as impressive.
As time goes on, this will become more and more evident. IBM has a very exciting roadmap for its PPC line of processors, which Apple will make very good use of.
My biggest beef with OS X, however, is all of the expensive versions of it out there, while Windows XP has consistent free updates/service packs to keep the software relevant. Apple, though, thinks that they can attach a new animal pattern to its OS X logo and pass it off as something more than just a service pack to its original OS X--and then charge you $130 for it. No thanks.
Ah, this is another common misconception. You can't look at an update to OS X the same way as, say, SP1 to SP2 on Windows. The difference between 10.2 and 10.3, for instance, was far greater then the difference between 2000 and XP. I say that from experience too. I was a beta tester of both 2000 and XP for MS, and also one for Apple. The difference between 10.3 and 10.4 is shaping up to be even larger. I'll gladly go into detail if you want. Actually, send me a message on AIM (screenname is g0rman - the 0 is a zero), and I'll show you. It's really impressive.
Simply put though, the $130 dollars is very worthwhile. However, Apple realized releasing huge updates so quickly was a lot to ask for (due to the cost), and have moved to a year & a half cycle instead of just a yearly cycle. This will result in even larger updates. Apple's OS team is huge, and it's astounding how quickly they work. They're also very, very good. The underlying technology and structure of OS X is a thing of beauty, and the innovative and truly useful functionality they build makes every release something to look very forward to.
The switch to the Unix core for OS X is an obvious advantage to switching to Macs, if you need to utilize it, that's for sure. The Linux environment, while getting better, is still not accessible enough for the general public. Thus, as a web developer, if Unix accessibility is an asset to your work, I can certainly see why you made the leap to the Mac environment. No arguments here.
Definitely, OS X is really the ideal development platform, in my opinion.
One of the people from the Apple Switch ads went to my college. He was a walking Mac ad...lol.
That's awesome! Who is he? I thought those ads were hilarious