So... I finally caved

[Socratov]

Yes, I have been an avid supporter of windows for most of my life, always ridiculing those mac users of paying for inferior hardware and subscribing to the near fascist policies of apple giving up freedoms for the privilege to be considered 'cool'. But since I just encountered my laptop's first failings my personal tech support and very good friend recommended me a macbook air. I finally caved and went out and bought the thing. Now I have a laptop I will use as media station (the screen is messed up in the connection to the graphics card, but with an external monitor it still works). I feel a bit dirty and even worse, almost proud for having a machine with sexy design and all that. So, does anyone in this lovely playground have experience with switching from windows to mac? Does anybody think I have made a huge mistake? Is the world going to end? Please tell me.

Btw, I have noticed that installing programs on a mac takes not nearly as much time as on windows. I was installing office, going through the motions, even taking some time wandering around and while I was preparing to go smoking or do something I heard the iconic 'done' sound. I was seriously baffled. Even more, I was astonished and flabbergasted.

[Razanir]

NNNNNOOOOOOOO!!!!!!!

Sorry, I, too, dislike Macs. Or more exactly, they've always seemed to dislike me. Why not switch to Linux instead, and probably keep a Windows partition for gaming-type stuff?

[noparlpf]

So, does anyone in this lovely playground have experience with switching from windows to mac? Does anybody think I have made a huge mistake? Is the world going to end? Please tell me.

A friend of mine switched to Macs when her family "upgraded" from XP to Vista. I told her that was like shooting yourself in the foot to cure a headache. :smalltongue:

[valadil]

Most of my friends have gone Mac at this point. Everyone who switches loves it and I can only think of one acquaintance who went in the other direction. I'm on Linux, but I'd rather have a Mac than Windows any day.



Btw, I have noticed that installing programs on a mac takes not nearly as much time as on windows. I was installing office, going through the motions, even taking some time wandering around and while I was preparing to go smoking or do something I heard the iconic 'done' sound. I was seriously baffled. Even more, I was astonished and flabbergasted.

Does your new machine use a solid state drive? Those are much, much faster than spinning disks. I had the same experience when I put one in my desktop.

[Remmirath]

It really depends on what you want out of your computer. For my desktop, I would not ever switch to a Mac. My desktop is my gaming machine, and it needs to be easily upgradable and tweakable, and those are not things that Macs do well at. I might end up switching to Linux and emulating everything some day, if it gets to a point where I just can't stand either current Mac OS or current Windows, but so far sticking to old versions of Windows has done me well enough.

For my laptop, I have a Mac. I want my laptop to be very reliable, because one can't really easily fix or upgrade one's laptop, and mostly what I do with it is word processing, internet use, and digital painting -- all of which are fine on a Mac, and the program I typically use for the digital art is somewhat more reliable on them. I also want it to be very portable, and Macs tend to be somewhat thinner and lighter than the equivalent Windows laptops. Mostly it's the reliability, though, since my old Windows laptop died in a frustrating manner due to a problem I could've easily fixed had it been a desktop, but couldn't fix on a laptop.

However, I absoloutely refuse to have a computer that does not have a CD drive, so if they persist in that foolishness with new models my next laptop will not be a Mac.

My general outlook on the whole Mac/Windows thing is that if you want something that runs fairly reliably but you don't want to change it much, get a Mac. If you want something that's going to take some tweaking to keep running smoothly, but you want to be able to change things, get a Windows machine. If you want to really be in control of your computer and don't mind extra hassle when it comes to playing games and such, skip 'em both and go for Linux. Mac gaming isn't as sad a prospect as it once was, but one is still generally better off with Windows for gaming (particularly for somewhat older, but not extremely old, games).

[EmeraldRose]

I haven't yet gone Mac in terms of computers, but I've had an iPad for a bit over a year and love it. I also recently switched from an Android phone to an iPhone.

I have to admit I like the iPhone.

[inexorabletruth]

My father was a graduate at Microsoft University. If Windows were a religion, he'd be a high priest.

However, back in 2002, he bought me an eMac. You know the kinds… the one that looks kind of what people from the 60s thought computers from the future would look like.
http://apple-history.com/images/models/emac.jpg

It was pretty and all, but I used it mostly as a $900 jukebox and thought nothing of it until my massive, over-built "FrankenPC" blue screened on me mid-recording (I owned a recording studio at the time) for the third or so time. So, frustrated as hell, I pulled out the Mac, which was supposed to be "soooooo good" at media stuff and gave it a whirl. I've never looked back.

Now, every time I touch a Windows computer, I feel like I'm slumming it, and I can't wait to get off it and back to the loving arms of my mac.

A few things you'll be happy to hear about if you give Mac a fair chance:
It's only pricey on the front end.
Mac apps are cheap… many good ones are even free, legally, right off the Launchpad. I paid $15 for the operating system I'm using on the MacBook Pro I'm using now, and that was an extravagance. Most of the other programs I've gotten off Launchpad range in price from $0.00 to $4.99. Oh… and they're compatible with iPads of all sorts too. So, you know… basically anything a Mac can do, and iPad can do, except use a mouse for some odd reason.

It's more compatible than you think.
As for hardware, you can plug anything into it. In spite of what Windows enthusiasts would have you believe, I've had no problems plugging in external I/O devices of any kind in the last 14 years I've used a Mac. In fact, I wouldn't recommend buying Mac keyboards, mice, or remote controls, as they are overpriced crap. My wife uses all external components, because her Mac has a damaged screen. She's got a Windows keyboard, Windows mouse, Dynex monitor, HP printer, 2 hard drives from I don't remember where, and the rest is all connected by Bluetooth. But it's not just hardware. You can play more games than you think. Mac has a huge selection of games to chose from at all different price levels, and most of your favorite software is also available for mac. But if you still want to use those precious MS programs that aren't available for Mac, that's okay. Windows actually runs faster on a Mac than it does a contemporary equivalent PC. And it's easy enough to install. Switching from Windows to Mac OS on the fly is actually pretty easy too. Or at least it was back when I still thought I needed Windows programs. I don't even use it anymore.

Networking is super easy.
Networking from Mac to Mac can be done in seconds with a Bluetooth connection if you're in a real hurry, but it can also be done via FireWire or traditional network cable. Mac to PC is nearly as quick… most of the trouble I have is getting through that cumbersome task wizard on the PC end.

It's fast, sturdy and hard to crash.
Sometimes I make a game of it to see what I have to do to get the "Beachball of Death" I start opening as many ram-hog apps as I can, and my friends on Windows do the same. Photoshop, NeoOffice, MS Office, all three of my browsers, Mail, iTunes, GarageBand, Gimp, iMovie, MacKeeper, and all my games until it lock up. If it's still working after that, I make all the apps do stuff until it crashes. The last computer standing wins. I remain an undefeated champion against all who have dared to oppose, and I'm running a dinosaur from 2008! Also I've dropped this beast so many times I've lost count. It's all warped and scuffed, but it still works better than the newer model Window computers I've gone up against, and it opens my apps faster than they can open theirs. My previous Mac was an '04 and was in my truck (playing iTunes and not in a computer bag) when I flipped it in Florida. Years later, it still worked except for a busted screen and a wonky keyboard… easily worked around, but that's another long story.

They're usable forever.
My laptop was built in 2008. It's still fast enough to play modern games with no glitches and compatible with everything. My wife's was built in 2006, with no upgrades except two external hard drives for extra storage. It's only slightly less compatible than mine, but still rocks the internet, all games, and all apps. It just can't run Mountain Lion. My friend has a Mac laptop from 2003. After a free OS upgrade, it can surf the internet and run most apps and does everything she needs it to do. Another friend of mine has a windows computer from 2009 and she's constantly complaining about how old it is and how much she needs to buy a new one.

There's more… but I'm starting to sound like I'm bragging. Play around with your Mac. Give her a chance. Yeah, you'll get ridicule from the Windows users who just don't understand. But open minds and open hearts make the world a better place. Rise above the hate and you'll see why Mac fans are loyal fans. :smallsmile:

[Calen]

My father was a graduate at Microsoft University. If Windows were a religion, he'd be a high priest.

*snip

There's more… but I'm starting to sound like I'm bragging. Play around with your Mac. Give her a chance. Yeah, you'll get ridicule from the Windows users who just don't understand. But open minds and open hearts make the world a better place. Rise above the hate and you'll see why Mac fans are loyal fans. :smallsmile:

Windows users brag about what has been said about their computers. Mac users brag about what they have done with their computers.

I use Mac 95% of the time. The only "issues" I have with Mac are that the Apple mice are not very good gaming mice and that not all software developers are forward thinking enough to release for both OS's.

[Socratov]

Most of my friends have gone Mac at this point. Everyone who switches loves it and I can only think of one acquaintance who went in the other direction. I'm on Linux, but I'd rather have a Mac than Windows any day.



Does your new machine use a solid state drive? Those are much, much faster than spinning disks. I had the same experience when I put one in my desktop.
yes it does. I expected a bit of increase in speed, but not this dramatic instant ready shizzle.

It really depends on what you want out of your computer. For my desktop, I would not ever switch to a Mac. My desktop is my gaming machine, and it needs to be easily upgradable and tweakable, and those are not things that Macs do well at. I might end up switching to Linux and emulating everything some day, if it gets to a point where I just can't stand either current Mac OS or current Windows, but so far sticking to old versions of Windows has done me well enough.

For my laptop, I have a Mac. I want my laptop to be very reliable, because one can't really easily fix or upgrade one's laptop, and mostly what I do with it is word processing, internet use, and digital painting -- all of which are fine on a Mac, and the program I typically use for the digital art is somewhat more reliable on them. I also want it to be very portable, and Macs tend to be somewhat thinner and lighter than the equivalent Windows laptops. Mostly it's the reliability, though, since my old Windows laptop died in a frustrating manner due to a problem I could've easily fixed had it been a desktop, but couldn't fix on a laptop.

However, I absoloutely refuse to have a computer that does not have a CD drive, so if they persist in that foolishness with new models my next laptop will not be a Mac.

My general outlook on the whole Mac/Windows thing is that if you want something that runs fairly reliably but you don't want to change it much, get a Mac. If you want something that's going to take some tweaking to keep running smoothly, but you want to be able to change things, get a Windows machine. If you want to really be in control of your computer and don't mind extra hassle when it comes to playing games and such, skip 'em both and go for Linux. Mac gaming isn't as sad a prospect as it once was, but one is still generally better off with Windows for gaming (particularly for somewhat older, but not extremely old, games).

I use my grounded laptop for that now. it's own screen isn't working properly, but apparently the vga port is fine. So now I have a media laptop :smallbiggrin: and a mac to help me on my travels.

I am still getting used to the interface though. I am a bit clueless about what goes where and what does what, but I'm getting there. As for Linux, I want something that is usable out of the box. Oh, and I'm using my windows laptop as not only a media centre, but makeshift wifi point as well... One thing I miss is the ability to maximalise my programs (as in screen filling) without losing access to the dock and I really miss my delete key (have found the workaround now, but still it's another thing I'm getting used to).

[Balain]

I have a macbook pro. I wish I had gone with the air. But I still love my laptop. I use it mostly for school, I am in Computer Science. I also have a windows machine that I use mostly for games. I also have windows on the macbook, just in case I need to use some windows program on the laptop

[Flickerdart]

For 4 years of my B. Des. degree, I had to use top of the line Mac Pros in the design labs. They were the most infuriating machines I've ever had to use, and only succeeded in encouraging me to stay with Windows.

[AtlanteanTroll]

I had to use Macs all throughout high school. I hated every minute of it. My mom saw that most people at my school have Macbooks and was going to surprise me with one as a graduation present. I thank Yeezus she didn't get me one.

[shawnhcorey]

I despise Apple. After 3 years, they stop supporting their products.

I despise Microsoft. Their software is clunky and always breaks. And heaven help you if you try to do something that's not main stream.

My computer is bare bones, that is, it came with no software. I put Linux on it. When it started acting funny, I went online and found all sorts of advice and parts for it.

Basically, it comes down to two choices: do it yourself or don't do it at all.

[inexorabletruth]

Basically, it comes down to two choices: do it yourself or don't do it at all.

Lol… hardly anything in life comes down to two choices… and especially not with computers.

I'll agree that Linux is a fine OS, but it's not everyone's cup of tea. And Linux and Mac OS both share Unix roots, so they're distant cousins, in a since. :smallsmile:

The thing is, he has a Mac, and he already bought it, which is honestly the worst part of getting a Mac.

However, I might add that you can install Linux on a Mac (http://www.maclife.com/article/howtos/install_linux_your_mac), in the event that you, too, don't think you're limited to only two choices.

[KillianHawkeye]

Meh, the differences between the three major Operating Systems are a lot smaller now than they were in the 80s and 90s. You can pretty much get any software app and most games to run on any computer these days.


http://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/mac_pc.png

[Razanir]

I'll agree that Linux is a fine OS, but it's not everyone's cup of tea. And Linux and Mac OS both share Unix roots, so they're distant cousins, in a since. :smallsmile:

Wait, so would that mean that Android and Mac OS are those two cousins who never get along at holidays?

[Socratov]

Lol… hardly anything in life comes down to two choices… and especially not with computers.

I'll agree that Linux is a fine OS, but it's not everyone's cup of tea. And Linux and Mac OS both share Unix roots, so they're distant cousins, in a since. :smallsmile:

The thing is, he has a Mac, and he already bought it, which is honestly the worst part of getting a Mac.

However, I might add that you can install Linux on a Mac (http://www.maclife.com/article/howtos/install_linux_your_mac), in the event that you, too, don't think you're limited to only two choices.
Thanks, I might keep this in mind if I get to the point where I'd learn to actually use Linux. Also, I liked the reference to the worst part of buying a mac :smallcool:

Meh, the differences between the three major Operating Systems are a lot smaller now than they were in the 80s and 90s. You can pretty much get any software app and most games to run on any computer these days.


http://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/mac_pc.png
I was waiting forthis one to come up :smallbiggrin:

Wait, so would that mean that Android and Mac OS are those two cousins who never get along at holidays?
You, sir, made me laugh out loud. I can picture those christmas dinners :smallyuk:

[shawnhcorey]

However, I might add that you can install Linux on a Mac (http://www.maclife.com/article/howtos/install_linux_your_mac), in the event that you, too, don't think you're limited to only two choices.

Yeah, I bought a PowerBook. It's OS lasted until the the first Ubuntu came out. :smallsmile:

[Grinner]

I always thought Mac OS's primary strength was its media software. I used GarageBand once and loved it, but I've never found anything quite like it for Windows.

Windows has better software support, period; most games you see have a Windows version available.

In all other respects, they're really not that different.

<rant>

Linux, on the other hand...Ever read the book "The Cathedral and The Bazaar"? Linux, fittingly, is the Bazaar, and consequently, there's little unity among the fractal variations. It's so damn frustrating, because Linux will never do what you want it to without installing another dozen packages. Moreover, the average user is helpless without those magic spells that automatically download those packages from strange and unseen servers. You have no control. You're useless without the community.

On that topic, Linux users seem to exhort the freedom the OS allegedly allows its users. This is a lie. There is no freedom. Sure, you can install whatever software you want (and pray that you have every dependency accounted for), but in the end, you do things the way Linux wants you to. Don't want to install your software to /usr/bin? Too bad.

</rant>

[Greenish]

Yes, I have been an avid supporter of windows for most of my lifeI was happy that there's someone who doesn't take windows as granted like most people, but then read on and realized you're talking about Windows the operating system.

[Solse]

I have a Mac because it's fast, reliable, and there's free tech support in Apple Stores' "Genius Bars". However, sometimes it's too restricting, so I run Linux in a virtual machine whenever I need to do some hardcore programming. Personally, I've never seen what all the hate for Macs was – it's better than a blue screen of death!

[valadil]

Linux, on the other hand...Ever read the book "The Cathedral and The Bazaar"? Linux, fittingly, is the Bazaar, and consequently, there's little unity among the fractal variations. It's so damn frustrating, because Linux will never do what you want it to without installing another dozen packages. Moreover, the average user is helpless without those magic spells that automatically download those packages from strange and unseen servers.


It's all relative. When I'm on a windows machine I get pissed that I can't install a program and all its dependencies with a single command. It's all over when I'm expected to pay money for basic functions like CD burning or DVD watching.

[Razanir]

<rant>

Linux, on the other hand...Ever read the book "The Cathedral and The Bazaar"? Linux, fittingly, is the Bazaar, and consequently, there's little unity among the fractal variations. It's so damn frustrating, because Linux will never do what you want it to without installing another dozen packages. Moreover, the average user is helpless without those magic spells that automatically download those packages from strange and unseen servers. You have no control. You're useless without the community.

On that topic, Linux users seem to exhort the freedom the OS allegedly allows its users. This is a lie. There is no freedom. Sure, you can install whatever software you want (and pray that you have every dependency accounted for), but in the end, you do things the way Linux wants you to. Don't want to install your software to /usr/bin? Too bad.

</rant>

I'm not entirely sure it's restricting to be forced to install to /usr/bin. Even if you mostly get insane amounts of freedom, it still seems reasonable for the OS to say where it wants program data.

Also, the OS is normally really good at installing dependencies for you. So for the average user, it just looks and feels like installing a single package.

And last but not least, you haven't acknowledged some very real benefits of the community. They are very responsive to user input. Within a day of me installing Linux, I found an error in the way it was calculating a few religious holidays. So I sent in a bug report. 5 days later, I already got an email back saying they'd fixed it. You'll never get that much responsiveness from Windows.

[Grinner]

I'm not entirely sure it's restricting to be forced to install to /usr/bin. Even if you mostly get insane amounts of freedom, it still seems reasonable for the OS to say where it wants program data.

Also, the OS is normally really good at installing dependencies for you. So for the average user, it just looks and feels like installing a single package.

And last but not least, you haven't acknowledged some very real benefits of the community. They are very responsive to user input. Within a day of me installing Linux, I found an error in the way it was calculating a few religious holidays. So I sent in a bug report. 5 days later, I already got an email back saying they'd fixed it. You'll never get that much responsiveness from Windows.

Fundamentally, the problem for me is that Linux does things in ways I dislike and offers little to no recourse. I'm not sure why Linux developers even bother putting GUIs in their distros. I can at least choose where I put my program files in Windows.

And no, customer support is not something I expect from Microsoft. They provide a functional foundation for my computing experience. The rest is up to the FOSS communities.

[Razanir]

I can at least choose where I put my program files in Windows.

But can you? The operating system's still in System32, all the installed files go in Program Files... I don't see how it's that much different from /usr/bin

[Grinner]

But can you? The operating system's still in System32, all the installed files go in Program Files... I don't see how it's that much different from /usr/bin

That's not how I organize my files...Games go into "C:\Documents and Settings\username\My Documents\My Games" and all other programs go into "C:\Documents and Settings\username\Programs".

Yes, I have my reasons.

Again, the problem is that Linux offers its users no control. At least, that was my experience. It might be as pretty as any other OS these days, but it's essentially the same thing it was ten years ago.

[Eldariel]

But can you? The operating system's still in System32, all the installed files go in Program Files... I don't see how it's that much different from /usr/bin

I install nothing in Program Files/x64, except for basic programs (an archive program, VLC Player, Office, Photoshop, Praat, the usual things I need for my studies). I have a "Games"-folder for all my modern games (sans Steam since it wants to be difficult, but I have all Steam-games on a separate directory from the default for ease of access along with few convenient links), few other folders for organization purposes such as emulators and older games (requiring e.g. DosBox or Virtual Machine) in their own separate folders, etc.

It's worth noting that it's quite trivial to also move the default Windows content folders (My Documents/My Videos/etc.) wherever you want too if you feel so inclined. Harddisk control-wise Windows is superior. The location of the OS is of course where you put it; that's only relevant if dealing with certain types of viruses/malware or some more annoying system settings tho.


I'd use Linux but I got tired of dealing with compatibility issues every time I want to play something made before 2000, and sometimes new games were acting up too. For a pure work station I might consider Linux but I want the versatility of being able to play on the move so even laptop-wise I'm locked into Windows or Even More Effort.

It's worth noting that my Windows-computers generally last at least 5 years and run newest games on some settings, and never cost over 1000 euros. Some maintenance of course keeps it running optimally (I reinstall about once per year but with SSD OS drive and flash installation that's like an hour). As such, I cannot completely sign that Windows machines have short lifespans - I find it's really a function of just investing smart and using it carefully. Hell, my old one didn't really need to be replaced (I could use it for another 5 years if I wanted to tho I'd have trouble running top of the line games outside minimum settings in some years) but I did wish to cut the loading times of LotRO down and see how certain games look with maximum graphics settings.

[valadil]

Again, the problem is that Linux offers its users no control. At least, that was my experience. It might be as pretty as any other OS these days, but it's essentially the same thing it was ten years ago.

That's true if you're letting the package manager install your programs. If you're doing it from source `./configure --prefix=/path/to/your/games` has you covered. If you're looking to have all your application launchers grouped by type, symlinks (ln) should let you get away with that.

[Don Julio Anejo]

For 4 years of my B. Des. degree, I had to use top of the line Mac Pros in the design labs. They were the most infuriating machines I've ever had to use, and only succeeded in encouraging me to stay with Windows.
I'm going through this right now, and never have I hated a computer so much in my entire life. I'm done with biochemistry and basically do network security full time, so while most of my stuff runs in Ubuntu VM's (if only because it's frankly easier to set up than a clunky and slower Windows GUI), in a lot of specific cases, I'm forced to use a Mac, to the point where my employer expensed me a Mac Mini.

My thoughts so far:


Macs aren't for people who want to minmax their performance per dollar ratio. That's simply not the point. That's like saying Car X is a great car because you can realign the engine manifold, change the carburetor and put in a new fuel line for 20% more acceleration and 10% fuel economy (I just made that up and have no idea if it's correct): completely not the target audience for someone like me who just needs to drive from A to B with maximum comfort and minimum headache. I'll stick with my Civic, thank you.

They aren't overpriced either. Find me an alternative to an i7 Mac Mini, for example: at best, you'd have an HTPC that's 4x the size, 2x the wires, 3x the power consumption and similar cost. Or a desktop that might be better, but weighs about 15 times as much.

Or, find me an alternative to a Macbook Pro Retina: i7 CPU with a dedicated GPU, 4.5-5 pounds of weight, high-end IPS screen with 2880x1560, or whatever, resolution and an 8 hour battery life. Sure, it's $2200, but the closest Windows alternatives are $1900, weigh a pound more and have 3 hours less battery. I know if I was a pro photographer, it wouldn't even be a question what I'd get.

However, Macs aren't something where you're trying to get as much performance as possible for as little as possible (i.e. you're a small business on a budget, you're a gamer without much disposable income), and they're not computers for hobbyists who like to fiddle. They're something like an Acura RSX or Mitsubishi Lancer: won't beat a Porsche in racing, won't beat a Prius in fuel economy, won't beat a Cadillac in comfort, and won't beat a Corolla in price. However, when taken as a whole, it's a nice package that's at least half-decent at each job, with a premium charged for design and brand name for those that care.



Pros:

- Shiny
- Can't screw things up by accident
- A few things are done very well, like Time Machine. In general, system utilities are superior and seem to work better.
- Lots of free "creative apps" if you're a hipster who considers himself a pro studio musician or something. They're half-decent too compared to what's available for free for Windows.
- Moderately stable - a single crashing program won't bring down your computer, and you can still pull off a 3 finger salute (Ctrl-Shift-Esc, if I remember correctly).
- Extremely easy to set up networking, screen sharing, etc. Yes, most of the time they really do "just work."

Cons:

- OMG WTF WANT TO RIP MY HAIR OUT FRUSTRATING. Yep, it really is, when it asks for your admin password the 50th time in the last 10 minutes when you're renaming files. You can't even set a blanket folder permission using sudo chmod 777, that only applies to read/write. It still wants your permission for absolutely everything. This, kids, is the real reason there aren't that many viruses on OS X and Linux, and not because they're inherently more secure. Oh, you can enable a root account and use it as your main, but it STILL asks for your password and it's about as safe as showing up naked and drunk to a frat party and the word "SLUT" sharpied on your breasts.
- Software compatibility. This has been covered, but even if something is available, it's often worse. MS Office has an even worse designed interface on Mac where it's a lot more difficult to work.
- Font scaling and other accessibility issues. You're gonna need glasses if your vision is less than perfect, you can't just set interface and font scaling to 125 or 150%. Font smoothing for clear type fonts is really bad too, if you do a lot of word processing, though it's better at showing different sizes.
- Multitasking is impossible. Sorry, but if you've got 2 windows of the same program open, you better have them open side by side, or you'll be spending 30 seconds looking for the other one each time you want to switch
- Professional programs (i.e. anything Adobe) cost exactly the same on Windows and Mac and are otherwise exactly the same. Windows ones tend to have a better interface, too, as they aren't constrained by Apple's limitations of what should go where.
- There's virtually no freeware available for it. There isn't even a free program that can RAR archive things using a GUI, that's how said it is. Oh, a better Windows Movie Maker might come with OS X, but you'll be paying $15 for Peazip and whatnot.


tl;dr version: Macs aren't overpriced, but I'll be damned if I'm using my Mini for anything more than a paperweight unless I absolutely have to.

Ironically, I'm still a huge iPhone/iPod fan.


I have a Mac because it's fast, reliable, and there's free tech support in Apple Stores' "Genius Bars". However, sometimes it's too restricting, so I run Linux in a virtual machine whenever I need to do some hardcore programming. Personally, I've never seen what all the hate for Macs was – it's better than a blue screen of death!
The only times I've had a blue screen of death in the last 4 years is when a part physically fails. Except I can replace a part. With a Mac, you have to replace the Mac.

[Winter_Wolf]

*snip*
But since I just encountered my laptop's first failings my personal tech support and very good friend recommended me a macbook air. *snip*

Seriously? I don't know how long you'd been using laptops, but if you've managed more than six months without serious problems, that's like unto the luck one has winning a lottery mega jackpot.

Or maybe I'm just really, really hard on my computers.
...
...
...
My spouse has informed me that I am in fact really, really hard on every computer I've ever owned. :smalltongue:

[factotum]

- Moderately stable - a single crashing program won't bring down your computer

It won't on Windows either, unless you're still running Windows ME or something.

[Don Julio Anejo]

It won't on Windows either, unless you're still running Windows ME or something.
Usually not, but once in a while, with a piece of badly designed code (games more often than not), you get a massive memory leak and everything just.. hangs. Even using Ctrl-Alt-Del takes about 50 seconds to process, and good luck actually using it to close something.

[Socratov]

Seriously? I don't know how long you'd been using laptops, but if you've managed more than six months without serious problems, that's like unto the luck one has winning a lottery mega jackpot.

Or maybe I'm just really, really hard on my computers.
...
...
...
My spouse has informed me that I am in fact really, really hard on every computer I've ever owned. :smalltongue:

well, I use serious failings. Of course I have had bluescreens, but as usual windows rises from it's ashes like a phoenix. Sure my laptop has been slowing down a lot and sometimes freezing completely. But now it seems to be a hardware problem between the graphics card. And as a student I nered something reliable and portable to use in school. (and answering to my expectations). Oh and Yes, I'm hard on my computers as well and I have used the laptop for about 2 years...

[Rawhide]

I got a MacBook Pro w/ Retina Display (rMBP) for software development and used Boot Camp to install Windows. I thought Mac OS X would be my secondary operating system. However, I find myself booting into Mac OS X far more often.

The interface is just a joy to work with, and I've started to hate using Windows (via Boot Camp or virtual machine) for the few tasks I can't do on Mac OS X easily.

I bought the rMBP because, for the first time while I was speccing a new system, the price of the hardware was actually cheaper than I could build in a Windows laptop, it was lighter, far better built, longer battery life, and just an all round better product - it is an incredibly well polished product. The screen is beautiful to look at, the keyboard a joy to use, and the trackpad is the only trackpad on any machine that I actually enjoy using. It's so good that they actually sell trackpad units for desktop PCs.

The new Mac Pro line has be drooling. Super small but easily upgradable, quiet, fast, very environmentally friendly, and much cheaper than you can build an equivalent Windows system for despite it being assembled in America. Overkill for just about everyone, as it uses server/high-end workstation grade parts (Xeon processors, graphics design video cards rather than consumer ones, EEC memory, etc.), but still so desirable. Can output to six high resolution displays or two 4K displays at once!

Don Julio Anejo:
- OMG WTF WANT TO RIP MY HAIR OUT FRUSTRATING. Yep, it really is, when it asks for your admin password the 50th time in the last 10 minutes when you're renaming files. You can't even set a blanket folder permission using sudo chmod 777, that only applies to read/write. It still wants your permission for absolutely everything.

I don't know what you're doing wrong. I've never been asked for my password when renaming files. The only time it wants your password is when you're messing with system stuff.

Also, I've been annoyed by the password request far less than I have been on any post-XP system (i.e. Vista or later's UAC). Plus, if you come from Linux, you should already be ready to enter your password for any system changes.


- Software compatibility. This has been covered, but even if something is available, it's often worse. MS Office has an even worse designed interface on Mac where it's a lot more difficult to work.

There's only been a few things which I couldn't find on Mac with an equal or better interface. I have not installed MS Office, instead I am using Pages, Numbers, and Keynote (all Apple made and free with new Macs), plus LibreOffice. Between them I have been able to do everything I need for free, without MS Office.


- Font scaling and other accessibility issues. You're gonna need glasses if your vision is less than perfect, you can't just set interface and font scaling to 125 or 150%.

Yes you can. For your Finder icons (which I assume is what you're talking about), just press Command-J, choose the font pt size.

Sidebar text size can be changed here: System Preferences > General > Sidebar icon size. You can turn on or off LCD font smoothing here, too. I've had absolutely no issues with it, though.


- Multitasking is impossible. Sorry, but if you've got 2 windows of the same program open, you better have them open side by side, or you'll be spending 30 seconds looking for the other one each time you want to switch


There's at least three easy ways to switch to windows that haven't been minimised. The first two will open any minimised or not minimised window:
- Go to the "Window" drop down menu, choose the window.
- Right click the program in the dock, choose the window.

And the following will cycle through non-minimised windows:
- Press Command - ` (same key as ~)

Minimised windows are placed in the dock.


- Professional programs (i.e. anything Adobe) cost exactly the same on Windows and Mac and are otherwise exactly the same. Windows ones tend to have a better interface, too, as they aren't constrained by Apple's limitations of what should go where.

The first half I don't see the problem with, the second half I disagree with in most instances.


- There's virtually no freeware available for it. There isn't even a free program that can RAR archive things using a GUI, that's how said it is. Oh, a better Windows Movie Maker might come with OS X, but you'll be paying $15 for Peazip and whatnot.

I don't know where you've been looking. There's heaps of freeware (and very-cheap-ware) available for it, in the App Store and elsewhere.

I'll grant you the RAR one, but there are free programs to unrar files by double clicking them. The Unarchiver will do that for free. If you want one which can browse unextracted archives, iZip will do that for free. SimplyRAR can compress RAR files for free, but is no longer supported. Rarify can also do this for free, but it's in a version below 1.0, was last updated in 2008 for Mac OS X 10.5, so, dunno.

Remember, these are freeware, i.e. legally free, not shareware like WinRAR, which you have to pay for to use legally.
Also of note, on all new Macs the following (previously paid) software comes free:
Pages (equivalent to Word, previously $20)
Numbers (equivalent to Excel, previously $20)
Keynote (equivalent to PowerPoint, previously $20)
iPhoto
iMovie
GarageBand

The cost of updates is also much less and, for the most recent version, absolutely free:
The upgrade to Snow Leopard was $30 (currently $20, if you need this version) for one or $50 for five computers.
The upgrade to Lion was $30 for for as many computers as you control.
The upgrade to Mountain Lion was $20 for as many computers as you control.
The upgrade to Mavericks is free, from Snow Leopard or later, as long as your computer can run it.

[Don Julio Anejo]

@Rawhide: spoilered for length.


I don't know what you're doing wrong. I've never been asked for my password when renaming files. The only time it wants your password is when you're messing with system stuff.

Also, I've been annoyed by the password request far less than I have been on any post-XP system (i.e. Vista or later's WPA). Plus, if you come from Linux, you should already be ready to enter your password for any system changes.

I don't know what I'm doing wrong either, which is the frustrating part since I've tried setting everything as permissive as I physically can, asking tech support and prowling forums for what's at least a full work day. Windows at least lets you disable UAC (that's what you're referring to as WPA), or tune it down, and it never asks for your password if you're on an admin account, only on a user one.

There's no point using anything other than an admin account on Windows post-XP anyway unless you've got specific policies set up (something else Macs can't do). An Admin account =/= root and doesn't automatically grant full access to all features without confirmation unless you disable UAC. Mac, I'm out of luck as I can't change anything because the're no setting to change in the first place. Linux I only use for work and it's generally way less restrictive anyway.

There's only been a few things which I couldn't find on Mac with an equal or better interface. I have not installed MS Office, instead I am using Pages, Numbers, and Keynote (all Apple made and free with new Macs), plus LibreOffice. Between them I have been able to do everything I need for free, without MS Office.
Haven't used Keynote or Pages much, but Numbers is in no way equivalent to Excel beyond very basic spreadsheet features. I personally don't need it, but someone like my dad (a financial analyst/daytrader) spent about 15 minutes playing with it and gave up since it doesn't have 70% of the features/functions he needs and apparently can't handle large files, like 100+ MB models he makes/uses. That's the problem with Mac software in general: it's good for basic use, but nowhere near sufficient for anything serious.

Yes you can. For your Finder icons (which I assume is what you're talking about), just press Command-J, choose the font pt size.

It only affects icon fonts. It doesn't change, for example, the fonts of the menubar, button sizes, etc. Everything is just as small as it used to be, which makes it physically painful to use. In Windows you can literally change the scaling of every single interface element without changing screen resolution, which is extremely convenient if your screen is small but high-res or is placed far away.


Sidebar text size can be changed here: System Preferences > General > Sidebar icon size. You can turn on or off LCD font smoothing here, too. I've had absolutely no issues with it, though.
It's not cleartype (i.e. lines that make up characters are exactly 1 pixel in size) and as such is harder on the eyes since the resulting picture is blurrier. Turning off font smoothing makes it even worse, I've tried.

There's at least three easy ways to switch to windows that haven't been minimised. The first two will open any minimised or not minimised window:
- Go to the "Window" drop down menu, choose the window.
- Right click the program in the dock, choose the window.

And the following will cycle through non-minimised windows:
- Press Command - ` (same key as ~)

Minimised windows are placed in the dock.

"Can do it" and "easy and convenient to do" are two completely different things.
Option 1: requires me to already have the right program selected, click a small button, read text, select the window. 4 actions that each take longer than 2 with a taskbar (look down, click). Doesn't help if, for example, a browser window covers several finder windows.

Option 2: pretty much the same thing, but now requires me to look for the program in dock

About the only slightly usable way to change around is the Mission Control, but it's still a much worse solution. I can also minimize windows, but then I have to go through the extra motion of minimizing (hard enough as is with a tiny button that doesn't scale) and try to figure out what's what from a tiny preview rather than something obvious like a Firefox icon with the page title.


The first half I don't see the problem with, the second half I disagree with in most instances.
I guess you like the OS X interface. In cases like Photoshop, it's pretty much identical, and might even be better because there's less stuff wasting space. Office? Don't get me started, though you've already recommended OS X stuff, which I'll give a more serious look if I have to use it on a Mac.


Also of note, on all new Macs the following (previously paid) software comes free:
Pages (equivalent to Word, previously $20)
Numbers (equivalent to Excel, previously $20)
Keynote (equivalent to PowerPoint, previously $20)
iPhoto
iMovie
GarageBand
Numbers is in no way equivalent to Excel. Pages and Keynot I'll check out. iPhoto is useless for any remotely serious photo manipulation, all it basically does is 1-click exposure correction without any user input. It's a good organizer though, I'll give you that, but doesn't do anything at least 5-10 programs can do for free on Windows (that, admittedly, you have to find and download). If I had to guess, iMovie and GarageBand are exactly the same: good for an average user, but completely useless for any serious work, though better than the stuff that comes with Windows.

If anything, you should have mentioned is the $80 Apeture: that's one thing Mac clearly has over PC, as Windows users have to shell out $150 for Adobe Lightroom. Lightroom is better for organizing and batch processing, but in many ways (especially RAW conversion speed/fidelity) it's worse than Aperture, which is one of the main reasons photographers get Macs to begin with (the other was IPS screens before they became commonplace, and even then Mac ones still rate amongst the top tier).


The cost of updates is also much less and, for the most recent version, absolutely free:
The upgrade to Snow Leopard was $30 (currently $20, if you need this version) for one or $50 for five computers.
The upgrade to Lion was $30 for for as many computers as you control.
The upgrade to Mountain Lion was $20 for as many computers as you control.
The upgrade to Mavericks is free, from Snow Leopard or later, as long as your computer can run it.
The thing is, except for Mavericks (which reportedly has a different kernel), most of these upgrades are more like a new service pack than a new OS (yes, I've used all of them and have VM's running from 10.6 to 10.9). Going from one Windows to another is more along the lines of going 3 decimal points, given the whole new kernel and sheer amount of new features that get added. Not all of them good though, as Vista and 8 clearly showed, but new and different nonetheless.

Windows will also work on any PC you want and you get extended support for ~10-12 years after its release. With Mac, even security patches get dropped after 3 years or so and you're forced to upgrade whether you want to or not.

[Eldariel]

The thing is, except for Mavericks (which reportedly has a different kernel), most of these upgrades are more like a new service pack than a new OS (yes, I've used all of them and have VM's running from 10.6 to 10.9). Going from one Windows to another is more along the lines of going 3 decimal points, given the whole new kernel and sheer amount of new features that get added. Not all of them good though, as Vista and 8 clearly showed, but new and different nonetheless.

There's this amusing trend with Windows where, ignoring the NT-line, every second product is usable (though I've always hated Windows; I preferred DOS-style systems so Linux & al.), every second horrible.

Think:
Windows 3(.11) was a fine system.
Windows 95? One security hole, massive memory problems, stability issues, what-have-you. Never properly addressed on large scale.
Windows 98 is similar to Windows 95 except actually fixed most of its problems.
Windows ME was...yeah, the less said the better. I'm sure everyone who ever used it got to enjoy its specialties.
Windows XP was a solid system covering most of its bases, moving off DOS-base into a somewhat more secure, streamlined system.
Then comes Windows Vista and boom, nothing works again. It even managed to throw security to the wind while trying to be more secure!
Windows 7 is, again, a decent system overall. Nothing special about it but it does far less dumb stuff than Vista.
Windows 8 was a predictable bust as they tried to unify mobile and tabletop OSs. Shouldn't take a genius to figure out that's a bad idea. Luckily they're reverting this.
Looking forward to Windows 9. Judging by the pattern, it should be a decent "second generation" OS with most of the problems addressed and as such, usable (though I'll probably wait one service pack before switching). The "first generation" OS of each style always tends to have problems. Then there's Millenium Edition; I just don't know how they managed that.

[factotum]

The only problem with that old saw about every other Windows being rubbish is that it's cobblers. For a start, it requires you to ignore the existence of Windows 2000 and Windows 98SE (which were both good), and also to ignore that every mainstream version of Windows from XP onwards has been part of the "NT line" and thus shouldn't be included in your list anyway. Oh, and Vista is nothing like as terrible as its reputation would have you believe--the main issue is that Microsoft allowed PC manufacturers to slap "Vista ready" stickers on PCs that were not even close to being able to run the OS effectively; give Vista a decent amount of RAM and it's absolutely fine.

[Eldariel]

The only problem with that old saw about every other Windows being rubbish is that it's cobblers. For a start, it requires you to ignore the existence of Windows 2000 and Windows 98SE (which were both good), and also to ignore that every mainstream version of Windows from XP onwards has been part of the "NT line" and thus shouldn't be included in your list anyway. Oh, and Vista is nothing like as terrible as its reputation would have you believe--the main issue is that Microsoft allowed PC manufacturers to slap "Vista ready" stickers on PCs that were not even close to being able to run the OS effectively; give Vista a decent amount of RAM and it's absolutely fine.

That's not entirely accurate: NT-line 'cause it was for corporate use, with Windows 2000 being the last product of that line (ME was side-by-side with 2000) before they were unified at XP. 98SE is just effectively a service packed version of 98, not its own system. The newer Windows versions starting from XP, while based on NT and using NTFS, are built for consumer- and gaming use. The old NTs really had nothing to do with the main line of Windows products.

And yes, Vista really was that bad. Even if you forgive the driver- and product activation issues, it was still a comparatively terrible memory hog (regardless of how much RAM you give it, it uses way more than it should) with massive security and privacy holes on the fronts it was supposed to shore up. I guess it's okay for your computer to be turned into a bot for botnet tho?

[lesser_minion]

Hardware-wise, Macs have gotten a lot better in the last couple of years -- as recently as two years ago, a Mac was a fancy chassis containing what was quite literally a PC worth half as much. But Macs have always had at least one real concrete advantage over PCs in the form of politics: since a lot of Apple's howler monkey contingent are actually on Apple's side, companies making software for Apple machines have a much harder time doing stupid or self-serving things. Apple have never had to deal with things like this (http://blogs.msdn.com/b/oldnewthing/archive/2006/03/30/564809.aspx) (also read the follow-up (http://blogs.msdn.com/b/oldnewthing/archive/2006/03/31/565878.aspx)), and they've never had to consider things like Vista's low-priority box for automatically run programs.


And yes, Vista really was that bad. Even if you forgive the driver- and product activation issues, it was still a comparatively terrible memory hog (regardless of how much RAM you give it, it uses way more than it should) with massive security and privacy holes on the fronts it was supposed to shore up. I guess it's okay for your computer to be turned into a bot for botnet tho?

Citation needed on the "massive security and privacy holes". I'm not aware of any significant zero-day attacks on Vista, and certainly not any that would work on Vista but not on XP. Most of the explicit security features (software ASLR, software DEP) that Windows Vista introduced were eventually defeated one way or another, but that didn't mean that you were less secure for having them. Also, note that a lot of vendors don't write views like this (http://blogs.msdn.com/b/oldnewthing/archive/2012/09/06/10346743.aspx) into their policies -- Microsoft's security bulletins are likely to be scarier-sounding than, say, an Apple bulletin for an equivalent problem would be.

As for "using way more RAM than it should", there are lots of legitimate ways to use surplus RAM and CPU time to boost performance -- for example, you can start loading commonly-used files and programs into memory before the user tries to open them. The amount of RAM a program uses for a task is a completely useless indicator of its quality as a piece of software.

[Rawhide]

Don Julio Anejo, spoilered for length.
Ok, first, an admin account on Windows is the same as a root user on *nix. An administrator on Windows has as much power as a root user on *nix. Furthermore, the first and usually only user account is an administrator by default.

The root user is disabled by default on Mac OS X. Instead, your primary account is given sudo (substitute user do) privileges. Whenever you need to do something that a normal user cannot do, you're asked to authenticate. You can authenticate as a different user, or use the same one if your account has been granted the privileges after authentication. By default, you can use the same password as login to perform system tasks.

UAC is Microsoft's flawed attempt to implement sudo like protection. A step in the right direction, but has a long way to go to be both secure and convenient to users.

There are settings to change, and you can grant accounts full or partial access to the system with or without a password (or partially with, partially without). Just edit the sudoers file with the command "sudo visudo".

I don't know about policies in particular, but the sudoers file lets you do some of the work in setting privileges and a quick Google search shows that it is possible to apply Windows Group Policies to Mac OS X (though you may need to buy additional software).

Numbers is equivalent to Excel for everything I and a lot of other people need. It is consumer grade software that was provided cheaply (and now freely) to consumers. For people who don't need the more complex features of Excel, it works just nicely.

Same likely goes for Pages and Keynote. I haven't run into anything they can't do which I need. And I hold an information technology masters degree. There will likely be some people who need some features they don't have, but that hasn't been me.

If you want to scale the system fonts, you can use a (free) program like TinkerTool (http://www.bresink.com/osx/TinkerTool.html). Alternatively, you can scale the display, which is different to setting a specific resolution. For example, by default, everything on a retina display is scaled to double the size, but every pixel is rendered 1:1.

Actually, that's not what ClearType is. ClearType is an implementation of sub-pixel rendering, which uses the sub-pixels (individual colour channels) to increase the effective resolution for edges, which Mac's Font Smoothing also is.

I'm afraid I can't give any advice here, because fonts look perfectly fine for me on both the retina and external displays. I have no problems with the font smoothing.

I'm confused here, looking down to the dock takes more effort than looking down to the task bar? I can't see the difference. The dock does not require you to have the program selected, it's basically the same as the taskbar in a lot of ways.

Don't forget that Command-Tab will change between programs. Command-M will minimise the active window, while Command-H will hide the entire program and all active windows (even if the program is Finder), Option-Command-H will hide all windows except that of the program you have active.

Oooh, thank you! I forgot about Mission Control. You can open it by the button, three finger slide up on the trackpad, by using the shortcut key (F3 on my keyboard, though I have changed it to the standard Function keys by default and would need to press Fn-F3), or by assigning a hotkey. Shows all open programs and their windows in reduced size and moved around to fit.

Minimised windows show an active preview of the minimised window with the application's icon. Hovering over the icon will show you the name of the window. The icon scale can be set in System Preferences > Dock, and will automatically reduce in size as you get too many icons. Additionally, the dock can be set to enlarge the icon you are hovering over and partially enlarge the icons nearby, in the same control panel.

GarageBand and iMovie have been lauded as fantastic programs. I'm sure that serious professionals will need more than these programs provide, but the average user will get fantastic results from them. I have used iMovie to create a video with excellent results, however I realised that I had Adobe Premiere Pro after the first one, as I bought Adobe CS6 Master Collection when I was a student (full commercial use), so I moved on quickly.

I didn't push iPhoto, because it isn't a main selling card. It's a good organiser and simple correcter, but similar ones are available for both Mac and Win.

I didn't push iMovie or GarageBand, because others have already done that (and they have been free for longer).

I also didn't mention Aperture, Final Cut Pro, or Logic Pro X, as I was only listing the free ones.

I don't know the specifics of the changes or security support. But with upgrades being free now, there's not too much to worry about with being left behind. And as far as changes go, from the end user stand point they have been considerable.

Oh, and for compatibility, which I forgot to mention last time, there is CrossOver (a commercially supported version of WINE for Mac), BootCamp, and Parallels or VMware (both of which can run a BootCamp partition) for when something just doesn't exist for Mac OS X.

Ultimately, what I'm saying/asking is: Don't say "The Mac can't do this", because it probably can, say "I don't know how to do this on the Mac", and someone might find you a solution.


There's this amusing trend with Windows where, ignoring the NT-line, every second product is usable (though I've always hated Windows; I preferred DOS-style systems so Linux & al.), every second horrible.

Think:
Windows 3(.11) was a fine system.
Windows 95? One security hole, massive memory problems, stability issues, what-have-you. Never properly addressed on large scale.
Windows 98 is similar to Windows 95 except actually fixed most of its problems.
Windows ME was...yeah, the less said the better. I'm sure everyone who ever used it got to enjoy its specialties.
Windows XP was a solid system covering most of its bases, moving off DOS-base into a somewhat more secure, streamlined system.
Then comes Windows Vista and boom, nothing works again. It even managed to throw security to the wind while trying to be more secure!
Windows 7 is, again, a decent system overall. Nothing special about it but it does far less dumb stuff than Vista.
Windows 8 was a predictable bust as they tried to unify mobile and tabletop OSs. Shouldn't take a genius to figure out that's a bad idea. Luckily they're reverting this.
Looking forward to Windows 9. Judging by the pattern, it should be a decent "second generation" OS with most of the problems addressed and as such, usable (though I'll probably wait one service pack before switching). The "first generation" OS of each style always tends to have problems. Then there's Millenium Edition; I just don't know how they managed that.

You completely forgot Windows 2000, which actually came out before Windows ME and was sold along side it to different audiences (by NT line, I'm assuming you mean Windows NT 3.1, 3.5/3.51, & 4.0, because Windows 2000, XP, Vista, 7, and 8 are all part of the NT line).

[Eldariel]

Citation needed on the "massive security and privacy holes". I'm not aware of any significant zero-day attacks on Vista, and certainly not any that would work on Vista but not on XP. Most of the explicit security features (software ASLR, software DEP) that Windows Vista introduced were eventually defeated one way or another, but that didn't mean that you were less secure for having them. Also, note that a lot of vendors don't write views like this (http://blogs.msdn.com/b/oldnewthing/archive/2012/09/06/10346743.aspx) into their policies -- Microsoft's security bulletins are likely to be scarier-sounding than, say, an Apple bulletin for an equivalent problem would be.

As for "using way more RAM than it should", there are lots of legitimate ways to use surplus RAM and CPU time to boost performance -- for example, you can start loading commonly-used files and programs into memory before the user tries to open them. The amount of RAM a program uses for a task is a completely useless indicator of its quality as a piece of software.

No zero-day attacks that I remember, but the security measures were bypassed soon enough. For instance, there's this article (http://arstechnica.com/security/2008/08/the-sky-isnt-falling-a-look-at-a-new-vista-security-bypass/). If you're interested in the subject, the Wikipedia article (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_Windows_Vista) lists some good links.


You completely forgot Windows 2000, which actually came out before Windows ME and was sold along side it to different audiences (by NT line, I'm assuming you mean Windows NT 3.1, 3.5/3.51, & 4.0, because Windows 2000, XP, Vista, 7, and 8 are all part of the NT line).

I was counting the NTs with parallels as part of the NT line; so NT 3.1, 3.5, 4.0 and 2000. After that there's only been one line. Extending the joke to cover both lines would be harder, and probably ultimately not worth the effort.

[Rawhide]

I was counting the NTs with parallels as part of the NT line; so NT 3.1, 3.5, 4.0 and 2000. After that there's only been one line. Extending the joke to cover both lines would be harder, and probably ultimately not worth the effort.

Well, 2000 is important. It was the first in the NT line that was good for consumers (in particular, gamers). It was solid, stable, fast, and supported most games.

You also neglected 98SE, which was a far better version of 98...

[Calen]

The only times I've had a blue screen of death in the last 4 years is when a part physically fails. Except I can replace a part. With a Mac, you have to replace the Mac.

Only true(?) on the new laptops I think.

I have replaced a iMac (flatscreen) HD and tinkered around with my G4 tower contents all the time. Was going to change the keyboard on a laptop but there was a wiring difference so I didn't.

[lesser_minion]

No zero-day attacks that I remember, but the security measures were bypassed soon enough. For instance, there's this article (http://arstechnica.com/security/2008/08/the-sky-isnt-falling-a-look-at-a-new-vista-security-bypass/). If you're interested in the subject, the Wikipedia article (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_Windows_Vista) lists some good links.

Yes, that's the security features that didn't exist previously. That's not opening new holes as you claimed and both of your sources explicitly note this.


Only true(?) on the new laptops I think.

I was under the impression that as long as you can source suitable parts yourself, Apple will install them for you free of charge, even if you're upgrading your machine or it's out of warranty. That might have changed since I heard it, though.

[Eldariel]

Well, 2000 is important. It was the first in the NT line that was good for consumers (in particular, gamers). It was solid, stable, fast, and supported most games.

You also neglected 98SE, which was a far better version of 98...

Yes well, I didn't list 3.0, 3.1 separately either. Should 98 and 98SE be separate by that token? SE is, IMHO, like a big service pack. You are correct, of course, 2000 was the first NT-system suitable for gaming and certainly a fine product but frankly? Ignoring it on the account of it being a part of the NT-line with a parallel product for the sake of the joke seems worth it :smalltongue:


Yes, that's the security features that didn't exist previously. That's not opening new holes as you claimed and both of your sources explicitly note this.

Yes. You are correct in everything except on what I claimed part. I said it "threw security to the wind"; how does that make you deduct this specifically means opening new security holes? It was a separate system from XP with a different set of security issues, and some solutions that work better and some that work worse (worst of which is probably honestly how overbearing UAP is by default, which prompts many users to just turn it off entirely or mechanically always click 'Yes').

"Opening new security holes" doesn't even make sense; compared to what? XP? They have entirely different security architecture and basic functionality - for "opening new security holes" to even be possible Vista would have to be built on XP. Vista was marketed with security, and failed to deliver.

[lesser_minion]

"Opening new security holes" doesn't even make sense; compared to what? XP? They have entirely different security architecture and basic functionality - for "opening new security holes" to even be possible Vista would have to be built on XP.

Here is what you said:


...with massive security and privacy holes on the fronts it was supposed to shore up. I guess it's okay for your computer to be turned into a bot for botnet tho

It is also worth pointing out that the features you're complaining about were very much defence-in-depth. The OS as a whole was also more free of actual security holes than XP was.

[Eldariel]

Here is what you said:

I said it had massive security and privacy holes. Which I don't think anyone who's read even just those two links on the subject would argue that point.

[lesser_minion]

I said it had massive security and privacy holes. Which I don't think anyone who's read even just those two links on the subject would argue that point.

Well, I would, because your two links on the subject don't say anything of the sort. Again, your sources both talk about defeating a defence-in-depth security feature, not about exploiting the OS or even any of the applications running on it. And again, none of the security scandals that happened during Vista's time were zero-day exploits.

[shawnhcorey]

Linux, on the other hand...Ever read the book "The Cathedral and The Bazaar"? Linux, fittingly, is the Bazaar, and consequently, there's little unity among the fractal variations. It's so damn frustrating, because Linux will never do what you want it to without installing another dozen packages. Moreover, the average user is helpless without those magic spells that automatically download those packages from strange and unseen servers. You have no control. You're useless without the community.

That was true 20 years ago. It is not true now. Stop spreading FUD.


On that topic, Linux users seem to exhort the freedom the OS allegedly allows its users. This is a lie. There is no freedom. Sure, you can install whatever software you want (and pray that you have every dependency accounted for), but in the end, you do things the way Linux wants you to. Don't want to install your software to /usr/bin? Too bad.

You can install the software where ever you want, and just like Windows, if you stray from the norm, you're on your own.

All dependencies are accounted for. The repositories that contain the software are vetted by the OS producers. That means, they have tested the loading and running of the software.

If you want software that is not in the repositories, then you can get a package that is appropriate for your OS and install it. It will scan for dependencies and load them if they are not present.

If you don't want to install the software in `/usr/bin/` then you can find online instructions on how to do it. If you think it's hard compared to Windows, then you have little experience with Windows. If you stray from the straight and narrow in Windows, you're on you own. There is seldom any help for you.

[Rawhide]

Yes well, I didn't list 3.0, 3.1 separately either. Should 98 and 98SE be separate by that token? SE is, IMHO, like a big service pack. You are correct, of course, 2000 was the first NT-system suitable for gaming and certainly a fine product but frankly? Ignoring it on the account of it being a part of the NT-line with a parallel product for the sake of the joke seems worth it :smalltongue:

Two things. First, there was no Windows NT 3.0. The first version of Windows NT was 3.1. Misread. Second, 98SE was different enough and enough of an improvement that I would list it separately. It was by far the best 9x (including ME) OS for games. It should, at the very least, be listed as 98/98SE.

Additionally, ME was so terrible and 2000 so good that it made people jump ship to 2000, thus paving the way for consumer NT.

I'm sorry for ruining your joke, I realise you're trying to invoke the Star Trek curse, but the omissions are just too misleading.

[Socratov]

So, now I'm actually impressed with the battery. Started this morning at about 10, have lost only 36% of battery power in on and off use... What the hell? Why can't windows laptops get near this? What sorcery is this?

So I have just concluded that Apple doesn't produce technical products, but between the speed of operating and battery use sells magical artifacts, emulating technical products... It would explain why the adapter is so oddly shaped, it's a converter for electrical energy to magical energy (or whatever feeds this piece of sorcery, I wouldn't care if it were vestigal virgin blood).

[shawnhcorey]

So, now I'm actually impressed with the battery. Started this morning at about 10, have lost only 36% of battery power in on and off use... What the hell? Why can't windows laptops get near this?

Because Windows has too much malware and NSA software on it.

[Grinner]

@shawnhcorey: I had a fairly large reply to your post, but I lost it. I really don't feel like retyping it, so I'm just going to give you a short summary.

When I tried Linux, I tried unzipping tcc to the desktop, and it simply did not work. My test program would not compile no matter what I did. I can do the same thing on Windows, and it will give me absolutely no trouble whatsoever.

Moreover, I hated the fact that I had to download so many packages, most of which I neither understood nor wanted. I hated that I had to go beg for obtuse answers to seemingly simple problems. I hated everything about the way Linux did things.

Linux is great. It's a shining beacon of open source software.

As far as I'm concerned, it's also nonfunctional. If I can't use my files the way I want, then my computer isn't really mine. I want to be able to do things my way, not Linus Torvald's way. If it will save me that daily headache, Microsoft can have a couple hundred dollars from me.

[shawnhcorey]

When I tried Linux, I tried unzipping tcc to the desktop, and it simply did not work. My test program would not compile no matter what I did. I can do the same thing on Windows, and it will give me absolutely no trouble whatsoever.

Moreover, I hated the fact that I had to download so many packages, most of which I neither understood nor wanted. I hated that I had to go beg for obtuse answers to seemingly simple problems. I hated everything about the way Linux did things.

Yes, a zipped file is not the best way to load software. Getting a package for your OS is.

And as for Windows, try unzipping software for XP in Windows 8. Again, you have to get the package for your OS.


Linux is great. It's a shining beacon of open source software.

As far as I'm concerned, it's also nonfunctional. If I can't use my files the way I want, then my computer isn't really mine. I want to be able to do things my way, not Linus Torvald's way. If it will save me that daily headache, Microsoft can have a couple hundred dollars from me.

Yes, Linux can be a jungle if you go off the beaten path. On the other hand, going off the beaten path in Windows is a briar patch full of killer-bee's nests.

[Grinner]

And as for Windows, try unzipping software for XP in Windows 8. Again, you have to get the package for your OS.

Perhaps that's one of the reasons it's been getting such bad press?


Yes, Linux can be a jungle if you go off the beaten path. On the other hand, going off the beaten path in Windows is a briar patch full of killer-bee's nests.

Elaborate. My experience thus far has been quite the opposite.

[factotum]

Again, your sources both talk about defeating a defence-in-depth security feature, not about exploiting the OS or even any of the applications running on it. And again, none of the security scandals that happened during Vista's time were zero-day exploits.

Agreed on all points. Vista was more secure than XP when it launched, and it's more secure now, despite exploits having been found to get round some of its security features.


So, now I'm actually impressed with the battery. Started this morning at about 10, have lost only 36% of battery power in on and off use... What the hell? Why can't windows laptops get near this? What sorcery is this?


I'm sure if you spent the same amount of money on a Windows laptop as you did on your Mac you'd probably get decent battery life too. It's mainly the hardware that determines battery life on a laptop--the OS can make a difference to it, sure, but not by orders of magnitude; my rubbish old laptop has about the same battery life now it's running Linux as it did when it ran Windows XP (about 25 minutes, but then, the battery is about six years old so I'm amazed it does that well!).

[valadil]

Elaborate. My experience thus far has been quite the opposite.

On beaten path linux or on off-beaten path Windows? I was about to start talking about libraries and dependencies, distros and packages managers, and then realized that might have missed the point of your question.

[Grinner]

On beaten path linux or on off-beaten path Windows? I was about to start talking about libraries and dependencies, distros and packages managers, and then realized that might have missed the point of your question.

Windows, please.

[KillianHawkeye]

Come to think of it, the only thing about MacOS that really bothers me is all the little, invisible files it litters about. What the heck is .trashes for and why do I need it in every damn folder?? :smallconfused: Every time I use a Mac and then bring my flash drive back home, I gotta delete some useless file or other to stop my OCD from flipping out. :smallannoyed:

Although, I guess if you ONLY use a Mac, then you'll never even know that these files exist and it won't piss you off like it does to me. :smallsigh:

[inexorabletruth]

It would explain why the adapter is so oddly shaped, it's a converter for electrical energy to magical energy (or whatever feeds this piece of sorcery, I wouldn't care if it were vestigal virgin blood).

Be careful with that adapter too. Keep it safe. My toddler got a hold of mine and tore it a new one. It is a $70 power supply! There is no cheap, generic alternative and it's full of tiny, fuzzy little wires that repair guys can't fix.

That said, the adapters, especially the newer models, are pretty hardcore and don't break easily. My toddler is just a one-little-man wrecking crew. :smallsigh:

It's part of why I only use Macs. They're the only machines I've found that can withstand the considerable abuse this family puts them through. Mines been dropped, pushed off desks, hammered at by toy cars and dinosaurs and suffered two juice spills and a milk spill, and an occasional incidental water splash. For the most part, all I've had to do was wipe it down with baby wipes, and it's good as new.

[Socratov]

Be careful with that adapter too. Keep it safe. My toddler got a hold of mine and tore it a new one. It is a $70 power supply! There is no cheap, generic alternative and it's full of tiny, fuzzy little wires that repair guys can't fix.

That said, the adapters, especially the newer models, are pretty hardcore and don't break easily. My toddler is just a one-little-man wrecking crew. :smallsigh:

It's part of why I only use Macs. They're the only machines I've found that can withstand the considerable abuse this family puts them through. Mines been dropped, pushed off desks, hammered at by toy cars and dinosaurs and suffered two juice spills and a milk spill, and an occasional incidental water splash. For the most part, all I've had to do was wipe it down with baby wipes, and it's good as new.

Well, I have no kid. funnily even, I broke up with my girlfriend (now ex) and after a year or so she got a new boyfriend, got preggers and these days if I have a bad day I have a way of cheering myself up. I know, it's not nice, no gentleman-like behavior, but it is what it is. Not mine. So I count myself safe for now...

@factotum: the most I have had out of a windows laptop was 4 hours on a doubled up battery (it's ugly, bulky and heavy, but it extended to 8 hours of standby/sleepy time, Compared to a mac, working and after 5 hours only losing little more then a third for internet and word I am duly impressed.

[Don Julio Anejo]

Well, I have no kid. funnily even, I broke up with my girlfriend (now ex) and after a year or so she got a new boyfriend, got preggers and these days if I have a bad day I have a way of cheering myself up. I know, it's not nice, no gentleman-like behavior, but it is what it is. Not mine. So I count myself safe for now...

@factotum: the most I have had out of a windows laptop was 4 hours on a doubled up battery (it's ugly, bulky and heavy, but it extended to 8 hours of standby/sleepy time, Compared to a mac, working and after 5 hours only losing little more then a third for internet and word I am duly impressed.
There's a Lenovo X230 laughing at you from my bedroom. It may be ugly, but it's an AK-47 of a laptop, and the best feature is a little erm.. pencil eraser mouse that makes all trackpads pale in comparison somewhere.

[Flickerdart]

Ah yes, the Thinkpads. Glorious things, with a keyboard you could pour bottles of water into without any harm to the computer because it all drains out the bottom through little holes.

[Winter_Wolf]

well, I use serious failings. Of course I have had bluescreens, but as usual windows rises from it's ashes like a phoenix. Sure my laptop has been slowing down a lot and sometimes freezing completely. But now it seems to be a hardware problem between the graphics card. And as a student I nered something reliable and portable to use in school. (and answering to my expectations). Oh and Yes, I'm hard on my computers as well and I have used the laptop for about 2 years...

I still have the remains of the behemoth that has black scorch marks all over the inside of the casing and circuit boards. Mostly because I'm not really sure where I'd go to recycle it locally, and maybe just a little bit because there's so much copper in there I'm tempted to tear it out and sell it for scrap. It's not wise to put full desktop graphics cards into laptop housings; two 7900 GTX in SLi sounded a lot better than it ended up being!

I'm just glad it didn't actually combust. On the other hand, the battery was never faulty, so all the heat damage was just me squeezing every last drop out of the hardware...guess I squeezed too hard. And I wasn't overclocking anything. :smalleek:

[lesser_minion]

Yes, a zipped file is not the best way to load software. Getting a package for your OS is.

On both Windows and OS X, an application is nothing more than a folder containing a few modules, some data, and an XML document giving the OS information on what it is and what it needs in order to run. There are advantages to using "a package for your OS", but it's not necessary on Windows.


And as for Windows, try unzipping software for XP in Windows 8. Again, you have to get the package for your OS.

It will work just fine in most cases, and if it doesn't, it probably won't be a packaging issue.


Yes, Linux can be a jungle if you go off the beaten path. On the other hand, going off the beaten path in Windows is a briar patch full of killer-bee's nests.

You've shown no such thing.


Because Windows has too much malware and NSA software on it.

If you want people to stop spreading 'FUD', don't spread it yourself. Show me your sources.

[valadil]

Elaborate. My experience thus far has been quite the opposite.

I use an SSD for my main OS and a slower spinning disk for storage. Since there's not that much space on the SSD (especially after dual booting) I want Steam to install games on one of the other disks. Between Windows and Steam I didn't have an option for choosing where my games installed. It would have been trivial to set up a symlink in linux, but doing so in windows took a whole lot of googling plus trial and error.

But when I got that set up, it still didn't work. Windows would show me the drive, steam would install games on it, and then when I launched one of the games, I'd get a progress bar for 5-30 minutes. Sometimes the game launched. Sometimes G:/ disappeared. I didn't get any useful errors from windows and the drive ran without error in linux. I ended up swapping it with another one, which did work. But by then linux had its own steam client so it was a moot point.

[Tavar]

I use an SSD for my main OS and a slower spinning disk for storage. Since there's not that much space on the SSD (especially after dual booting) I want Steam to install games on one of the other disks. Between Windows and Steam I didn't have an option for choosing where my games installed. It would have been trivial to set up a symlink in linux, but doing so in windows took a whole lot of googling plus trial and error.

But when I got that set up, it still didn't work. Windows would show me the drive, steam would install games on it, and then when I launched one of the games, I'd get a progress bar for 5-30 minutes. Sometimes the game launched. Sometimes G:/ disappeared. I didn't get any useful errors from windows and the drive ran without error in linux. I ended up swapping it with another one, which did work. But by then linux had its own steam client so it was a moot point.
Was steam installed on the SSD? Because I have a SSD and another hardrive, and everything works fine(Steam is installed on the other drive, not the SSD). Could it be that the problem was mainly on Steam's end?

[valadil]

Was steam installed on the SSD? Because I have a SSD and another hardrive, and everything works fine(Steam is installed on the other drive, not the SSD). Could it be that the problem was mainly on Steam's end?

I tried everything to get it working. Started out with it in the default location and the steam apps folder symlinked. When that didn't work I'd reinstall it on the other disk.

TBH I think the problem was probably a small hardware failure that Linux could tolerate and windows couldn't. Some amount of diagnostics or warnins would have been better than silently hiding the disk though.

[factotum]

Definitely sounds weird to me--my Steam folder is G:\Steam and I've never had the slightest issue with it putting games anywhere else or disappearing. Admittedly, I did that by installing the main Steam application in that location rather than having Steam on drive C: and trying to get it to use somewhere else as the game repository...

[Don Julio Anejo]

I had issues with Steam before but it's worked perfectly lately, and I have it installed on 3 separate hard drives (don't ask.. first is the system SSD doesn't have much space so only has Skyrim, second is a platter HD and only has games that don't care about speed like XCOM and the last one is an SSD I only got just recently).

[Grinner]

If you want people to stop spreading 'FUD', don't spread it yourself. Show me your sources.

I heard rumors some years ago that the NSA attempted to pressure Microsoft into installing backdoors into its products.

I will point out that, given the NSA's vast resources (technically-competent personnel, hardware, undisclosed zero-day exploits, legal immunities, access to the logs of most ISPs, money, money, and more money) absolutely no one is safe, including Linux users.


I tried everything to get it working. Started out with it in the default location and the steam apps folder symlinked. When that didn't work I'd reinstall it on the other disk.

TBH I think the problem was probably a small hardware failure that Linux could tolerate and windows couldn't. Some amount of diagnostics or warnins would have been better than silently hiding the disk though.

That's definitely bizarre, and yes, if it worked after swapping out disks, that would imply that it was a hardware error.

[Rawhide]

On Windows, I'd never stuff around with links unless I absolutely had to (and I have had to). I just installed Steam to the external drive and made a shortcut.

On Mac, I used a link. It works flawlessly, unless I forget to plug it in or remove it while Steam is running... :smalltongue: