[milf]

Someone on an automotive thread posted in the "Off Topic" section about getting a new laptop. He wanted advice on which to purchase, and I, of course, took it as my responsibility to recommend looking at Apple laptops. His response is below. I was going to respond with a "na-uh, Macs are better" type response, but I want some validty to my argument first. The problem is, I don't know for sure. How would you guys suggest I respond to this...I will probably learn something from your respone(s) as well.

My main problem with OSX on the Powerbook is the lack of efficiency. OSX is a screen-space-hogging operating system, and it uses far more pixels to display equivalent amounts of information than Windows does. With Windows notebooks having screens that reach 1600x1200 and even 1920x1200 pixels, they can display quite a bit more information all at once, which is handy for the power user, and even for the novice who is just getting into multitasking. Apple is still sticking with the lower-res displays for its Powerbooks, meaning that OSX just continues to look bloated and space-inefficient on those machines. If Apple would just fess up and start spec'ing a sharper screen for the Powerbook, it'd be perfect, aside from the fact that OSX's standard features and configurability are too simple for someone like me who is used to tinkering with Windows.

[Chips G]

This guy seems fairly intelligent, and not one of those 'MACS Suck' kind of guys. He obviously has his heart set on a PC laptop, so I say let him get one and enjoy it.

[Jordan]

There is more than one way to be "screen efficient". Off course one way is to keep going to higher resolutions with smaller windows, smaller fonts and smaller icons.

Another way is to make more efficient use of the space you have. Since I enabled Expose in the corners I am making much better use of screen space.

[cpac]

his screen criticism may well be valid (at least there's no overwhelming argument against it).

However, you should point out that "standard features and configurability" are far from simplistic. He hasn't been very specific about what sort of "tinkering" he likes to do, but it's a whole UNIX box with all that implies, even without using any hacks, he can completely configure shortcut keys, etc. He can "renice" programs and threads to make them work the way he wants - if it's "themes" he's after tell him to take a peak at the GUI Modification forum....

ultimately though he'll probably stick with the screen res/cost as a reason not to switch.

[Earth Mk. II]

He does have a point as far as the 'screen real-estate' argument goes. Still, with expose even 1024x768 is enough for me when running things like Xcode, MATLAB, X11 apps, Terminal, whatever. All of the powerbooks allow video spanning, extending your desktop onto an external monitor, but that doesn't always help.

As for configurability, there's defiantly a lot of tweaking you can do with OS X. There are 3rd party tools that do it, or you could play with the BSD subsystem (through Terminal.app), though that means learning your way around a unix type system and Bash.

Usually, for Windows Power-Users, I recommend they get a Windows PC, unless they want to do something that the Mac specializes in (Video, Audio, etc...), or express an interest in Apple products on their own accord. My reasoning is simple: power users have adapted their habits and workflow to work well in their environments. To change part of that environment will usually cause more frustration and inefficiency than it's worth.

He's always welcome to the Macintosh world, of course, but this guy sounds like a hardcore PC guy. Cede the point about screen resolutions, and mention that OS X is tweakable. After that, respect his decision, and let him use what tools he deems best.

[mitchell_pgh]

"which is handy for the power user, and even for the novice who is just getting into multitasking" - Ummm, just getting in to multitasking? It's not a new thing. I would also say that the dock is an amazing graphical element that helps considerably. You should also mention that Exposé is a nice piece of software.

"aside from the fact that OSX's standard features and configurability are too simple for someone like me who is used to tinkering with Windows" - So he likes tinkering with the registry? Although the eye candy of OS X has a thick crust, it's simple to break through.



I know people that have switched just for the Unix underpinnings.

Power users also tend NOT to use a laptop screen for "serious work" because of various issues. They connect to a real screen.

[mitchell_pgh]

that being said, if the guy said I want a 1200 x 1600 screen... there isn't a portable mac that flips that bill...

[CharlesS]

My main problem with OSX on the Powerbook is the lack of efficiency. OSX is a screen-space-hogging operating system, and it uses far more pixels to display equivalent amounts of information than Windows does. With Windows notebooks having screens that reach 1600x1200 and even 1920x1200 pixels, they can display quite a bit more information all at once, which is handy for the power user, and even for the novice who is just getting into multitasking. Apple is still sticking with the lower-res displays for its Powerbooks, meaning that OSX just continues to look bloated and space-inefficient on those machines.

Doesn't anyone else see the irony in this?

On Windows, the menu bar is attached to each window. This requires each window to be really wide in order to avoid chopping off some of the menus. Word windows and IE windows need to be much wider than they need to be in order to write a letter or surf the web. As a result, Windows users tend to maximize all windows so they fill the entire screen, in many cases causing a whole bunch of space to be filled by nothing but useless, unused margins and whitespace.

If that's not inefficient, I don't know what is.

[wataru]

Clue this guy in to Desktop Manager. Now with version 0.5, I can't imagine why anyone would complain about screen real estate.

[3.1416]

Originally posted by CharlesS:
On Windows, the menu bar is attached to each window. This requires each window to be really wide in order to avoid chopping off some of the menus. Word windows and IE windows need to be much wider than they need to be in order to write a letter or surf the web. As a result, Windows users tend to maximize all windows so they fill the entire screen, in many cases causing a whole bunch of space to be filled by nothing but useless, unused margins and whitespace.

Ditto. And it's even sillier because Fitt's Law shows that a single menu bar pinned to the top is *faster* to access than menus embedded in each window (because you can't overshoot the top of the screen). So Windows manages to take up more space and still be less usable.

Regarding the resolution, if the guy has his heart set on 1920x1200 on a 15" screen, you're probably not going to change his mind. I don't understand that at all; I have very good near vision and I still wouldn't want a much higher pixel density than my 1280x854 Powerbook. (Until we have fully scalable vector-based interfaces, of course).

[Dale Sorel]

Originally posted by wataru:
Clue this guy in to Desktop Manager. Now with version 0.5, I can't imagine why anyone would complain about screen real estate.

No doubt

[Turias]

If he really wanted to he could buy another monitor or two and hook them all up to his machine.

[Keda]

Out of curiosity, which board is was that from?

Im in the DC area too and go to several auto forums.

[Mr Scruff]

If he wants a really high pixel density lcd then he'll have to buy an x86 laptop. However most of the people I know who own these ultra high res laptops then have to scale the UI up in windows to make it useable which looks horrible. Each to his own I guess.

I personally think that the window management is good enough on the Mac that you can get away without the really high res screens, but that's subjective.

As for tinkering/power user, well there's no contest nowadays. OS X has proper unix underneath and that makes it far more suitable for any sort of power user than Windows, unless Windows is all you know and you're not prepared to learn something new.

[milf]

Originally posted by Keda:
Out of curiosity, which board is was that from?

Im in the DC area too and go to several auto forums.

http://forum.e46fanatic.com

Thanks for the replies guys. I posted most everything that was said here, so I'll give you his response shortly. Other Mac users on the automotive forum have tuned into this thread and given similar feedback. I don't think he's going to bend though.

[mrmister]

And that is FINE. Let people buy what they want to buy.

[typoon]

Originally posted by mrmister:
And that is FINE. Let people buy what they want to buy.

I totally agree with that. It never hurts to show people something else though. It is always good to have civil discussions about stuff like this. Who knows you might change someone's mind. Name calling and stuff like that never works to persuade someone to your point.

[Keda]

E46Fanatics...LOL


Do you ever go to any local meets? What do you drive?

I used to go to E46fanatics before I canceled my e46M3 order. I had a grand down before ever I drove it. After I did, I canceled. The car just wasn't me. Now the E46 guys are saying the same thing about the upcoming M4s. I guess we all have our true loves. LOL!

I go out w. ECB sometimes...mainly in warmer weather. Just a few weeks ago, I was at PTG. Did you go.. Here are my pics

And here's my baby...

[mitchell_pgh]

Originally posted by typoon:
I totally agree with that. It never hurts to show people something else though. It is always good to have civil discussions about stuff like this. Who knows you might change someone's mind. Name calling and stuff like that never works to persuade someone to your point.

Bingo...

I usually wait until someone asks regarding my OS of choice. It usually comes up after I have designed something or they don't understand how I did something as quickly ad I did.

This comes up constantly with iPhoto and PDFs.

[macintologist]

http://forum.e46fanatics.com/showthread.php?t=138691

[mitchell_pgh]

Thank GOD we have sig rules

[theolein]

Originally posted by milf:
Someone on an automotive thread posted in the "Off Topic" section about getting a new laptop. ...

My main problem with OSX on the Powerbook is the lack of efficiency. OSX is a screen-space-hogging operating system, and it uses far more pixels to display equivalent amounts of information than Windows does. With Windows notebooks having screens that reach 1600x1200 and even 1920x1200 pixels, they can display quite a bit more information all at once, which is handy for the power user, and even for the novice who is just getting into multitasking. Apple is still sticking with the lower-res displays for its Powerbooks, meaning that OSX just continues to look bloated and space-inefficient on those machines. If Apple would just fess up and start spec'ing a sharper screen for the Powerbook, it'd be perfect, aside from the fact that OSX's standard features and configurability are too simple for someone like me who is used to tinkering with Windows.

I know you already replied to the person about his laptop decision, but I'd like to add a few points.

1. I used to have a Dell Inspiron with 1600x1200 resolution on a 15" screen. While you still can buy PC latops with such incredibly high resolution, if your friend takes a trip to the Dell store he'll notice that the majority of dell laptops no longer have such high resolutions. The reason is because it's almost impossible to read, the text is so tiny. Even when one ups the dpi setting in Windows (Use large text option in monitor control panel) it remains tiny, and many programmes such as photoshop with hard coded text sizes are not affected by increasing the text size/dpi setting.

2. Waste of screen space. He's right in that OSX allows far more space between UI elements than Windows does by default. It's his choice if he doesn't like it, but I for one am thankful because it makes hitting the UI elements with the mouse easier in OSX, IMO.

3. Configurability. He's also right that there are some serious desktop hacks such as Star Object desktop and Windows Blinds, which can completely customise the UI, and those peopel who buy computers to fiddle around with UI settings enjoy such things, but there is one serious point and that is that the UI configurability of even default Windows XP, between the task oriented approach and the standard Windows GUI doesn NOT make it easier to use. You can NOT tell me that Windows can be configured to be more usable than OSX.

4. Poweruser. WARNING! When some Windows moron, and I use that word explicitly here, starts talking about power-users, be afraid, or just start laughing. It is really my experience that people who use that term in the Windows world have no idea of what they are talking about. It's BS, plain and simple that too many use to cover their own inadequacy.

5. Multitasking. Hallo, it's 2004! I know that some things take a long time to get around, but even good old Mac System 7 in 1992 was a multitasking OS, as was Windows 3.11 to a certain extent and Windows 95. It's not exactly cutting edge, and you would have difficulty finding an OS today that doesn't do multitasking (DOS anyone?) This reconfirms my opinion that your friend is one of the blessed people who has been using Windows for years and has no real idea what alternatives there are, or even what you can do with Windows (I seriously doubt that he is up to hacking the registry for example if he uses words like the above).

All that said, let him get his 1337 p0R\/\/3r1u53r PC and have fun with it. It's his life and pain and suffering.

[Brass]

WARNING: Off-topic.

Originally posted by theolein:
5. Multitasking. Hallo, it's 2004! I know that some things take a long time to get around, but even good old Mac System 7 in 1992 was a multitasking OS, as was Windows 3.11 to a certain extent and Windows 95.

System 6 (Macintosh) had multitasking, using the "Multi Finder" instead of the "Finder". That was in about 1989, I think.

Windows didn't get that kind of multi-tasking until about 1995/6 (Windows 95). Although admitedly, it's multi-tasking then became better then the Mac in some ways (although not as much better as a lot of people like to think).

In what way was Windows 3.11 multitasking? I wasn't aware of that.

[hudson1]

Originally posted by Brass:
System 6 (Macintosh) had multitasking, using the "Multi Finder" instead of the "Finder". That was in about 1989, I think.

It was earlier than 1989. My first Mac was a Mac II in 1988 which had System 6 so it's at least that old. IIRC, you had to actually turn on the MultiFinder in a control panel.

[CharlesS]

Originally posted by hudson1:
It was earlier than 1989. My first Mac was a Mac II in 1988 which had System 6 so it's at least that old. IIRC, you had to actually turn on the MultiFinder in a control panel.

Actually, you had to go to Set Startup... in the Finder's Special menu, choose MultiFinder, and restart.

[theolein]

Originally posted by Brass:
WARNING: Off-topic.



System 6 (Macintosh) had multitasking, using the "Multi Finder" instead of the "Finder". That was in about 1989, I think.

Windows didn't get that kind of multi-tasking until about 1995/6 (Windows 95). Although admitedly, it's multi-tasking then became better then the Mac in some ways (although not as much better as a lot of people like to think).

In what way was Windows 3.11 multitasking? I wasn't aware of that.

I knew about multifinder. I used it in System 6.5 or 6.7 (my intro to the Mac), but IIRC, it needed a system extension.

Win 3.11 could run more than one programme at once, and even had that monster called OLE, which allowed one to embed instances of one programme in another, but which was mostly useless, and publish and subscribe on the Mac were a lot better.

[CharlesS]

Originally posted by theolein:
I knew about multifinder. I used it in System 6.5 or 6.7 (my intro to the Mac), but IIRC, it needed a system extension.

Win 3.11 could run more than one programme at once, and even had that monster called OLE, which allowed one to embed instances of one programme in another, but which was mostly useless, and publish and subscribe on the Mac were a lot better.

Yeah, I wonder why they eventually discontinued publish and subscribe? It was handy sometimes.