[Strupat]

Originally Posted by Simon 

And what Mac did you replace it with?

I have an Asus notebook for school.

[analogika]

So a MacBook?

Cool.

[Simon]

Originally Posted by analogika 

So a MacBook?

Cool.

Of course! Didn't think of that at first.

I was afraid he switched form a mini to a PC and his posts here were basically the symptoms of deep remorse. I'm glad he's still enjoying life on a Mac.

[Strupat]

... Wow, you two are dense.

[ryaxnb]

Originally Posted by alphasubzero949 

Some comments from what I have been reading in this thread:

1. I thought the PowerPC was superior. And now that Steve goes Intel, everyone is suddenly praising it while harping on people complaining about PPC performance? Gotta love the RDF.

We were always basing it on special times.
1994= Advantage: Mac. 601/PPC introduced. 1995-1996: Advantage: Generally PC. Pentium II introduced. 1997-1998: Advantage: Generally Mac - especially G3 notebooks and the iMac. 1999-2002: Advantage: PC, insanely during 2000-2002. 2003-2004: Advantage: PC, Mac from September to around late 2004 (G5 only) then PC again. 2005: Advantage: PC then even with Quad 2.5 G5, then PC again. 2006: Totally PC, then apple switches to Intel, so even. As you can see, In certain periods, when the 601, 604, G3, G5, Quad G5 were introduced the Mac took the lead, but most of the time most programs went to Windows.

2. I don't give a rats arse how much you claim you are secure with XP. It's still a single user OS where permissions don't mean a thing. As long as you keep about 5 different anti-virus, anti-adware, anti-spyware, and firewall programs running you're sort of OK. And then you'll still need Firefox and Thunderbird. If you run as a limited user, good luck. Oh, and don't forget the need to clean up your registry, your extra temp files, and whatever other extra crud has ended up in your FS. Almost forgot about the defragging part there. Damn. Wait...did I forget anything else? Oh yeah. The recommended sixth month reinstall.

All right, misinformed user here. Windows XP is not hell... I use it regularly, although I don't like it. Windows XP is a 32-bit, multiuser OS, and IE 7 RCs mean you don't NEED Firefox, though it's still best. You need basically: Avant (Free Virus) MS Defender free anti-spyware; and ZoneAlarm free firewall, or just get MS's $20 or so OneCare thing. You don't need to Registry edit unless you do happen to get spyware or a nasty program, fairly rare if you take the necessary precautions. And reinstalling is 6 months at Minimum. Longest time is about 16 months. I agree, though that reinstalling = huge pain, and 3 nagging programs = another huge pain

[ryaxnb]

Originally Posted by Strupat 

I don't see how that is any worse than just an icon in the dock...

Right click on any dock icon to see list of windows from the app, similar to taskbar grouping. Plus, F10 shows you that apps windows and F9 shows you all apps windows. To Bring focus to all of the apps windows so you can pick one or Command+Shift+` (that is, Command+~) through them, click the dock icon.

[analogika]

Originally Posted by Strupat 

... Wow, you two are dense.

NO YUO!

[slffl]

Originally Posted by rdf8585 

I'm 21 and was a lifetime Windows user, but wanted to delve into the world of OSX. I bought a 1.33 PPC Mini last December and maxed out the RAM to 1 GB. Now less than a year later, the Mini is probably going to back into its box and sit on some shelf.

Reasons I'm switching back -


5) Windows explorer beats anything on OSX, i.e finder/spotlight.

.

HAHAHA, I would love to hear your reason for this. I thought the same thing when I first started using a Mac. But you know why? It was because I didn't know how to use OSX. It took about 6 months before I knew OSX inside and out and now I think everything about it is better than Windows, including Finder vs Windows Explorer. You have to realize that OSX is NOT Windows. They are completely different beasts and if you try to do things in OSX the same way you did in Windows you'll get frustrated. Use OSX for at least 6 months and then see what you think.

BTW I don't know why people post these threads about switching back, etc. Are you looking for someone to convince you to not switch back? Or just looking for an argument? Just go back to windows and go on with your life.

[Classicn]

I think discussions like this are valid and interesting, as long as it doesn't devolve into comments (which I've seen) like 'X is more secure', 'Y is more stable'. My job requires me to be very platform independent, so I use everything and see positives and negatives on every platform.

I think the argument can be made on both sides of the issue that a lot of the complaints regarding the 'alternate' OS stem from not being as comfortable with it as the 'preferred' OS.

I did smile when I saw the comment '21 and a lifetime Windows user'. Makes me feel old. How many years can ''lifetime" be!

I guess I'm not a 'switcher', I'm just a user.

Kevin S. Peterson
Backup To The Web
Online Backup Made Easy! - Backup To The Web
Free 30 Day Trial Accounts - Try it!

[dmetzcher]

Originally Posted by Classicn 

I think discussions like this are valid and interesting, as long as it doesn't devolve into comments (which I've seen) like 'X is more secure', 'Y is more stable'.

I don't see a problem with these statements at all. Here are two reasons.

1. The statements might be correct (although, they may not). I see quite a few users on forums, during a heated debate about which OS is, for most users, "the best". At some point, in nearly every debate, someone wades into the fray and says something like "Can't we all just agree that the 'best' OS is simply a matter of personal preference? Can't we all just get along?" (The truth is, this statement, as far as I can remember, seems to always come from a Windows user.) This sort of fence-sitting reminds of me of the presidential elections in the United States, where, every four years, the media trots out focus group after focus group of "undecided" voters and asks them questions, like we are supposed to give a damn what a bunch of people who can't make up their minds, or pick a side, think about the candidates. The world changes because people with ideas speak out. If those ideas happen to be "correct", whatever that means in the given situation, all the better. I happen to believe that OS X is a more secure and stable OS. I believe this because of the way it is designed, as opposed to the way in which Windows is designed, and because my personal experiences have shown this to be true. Up until less than two years ago, I would have been making fun of the "cute" Mac OS, but that was simply my own ignorance and lack of new information (having only used version 7 in years past, and only in school, which left me, a Windows PC owner, at a disadvantage when it came to comparing the two operating systems.) To each his own, I say, but I'm happy with the Mac OS, and I've brushed up on my facts regarding both platforms, so I'm now able to make informed statements and, even more important, informed choices. I'm dual-platform (really, triple-platform), and use both Windows and OS X, and will continue to be for at least the next few years into the future, but I know which OS I prefer, and I have good reasons (aside from one looking nicer than the other) for my preference. Two of those reasons happen to be the two statements that you referenced.

2. Opinions are important, especially in a public forum, like this one. Personal opinions, especially strong opinions, backed up by valid reasoning, are, in fact, good for those who are looking to find suggestions and/or answers. If I ask a question, and someone else says, "Hey, I'm in the same sort of situation that you are in, and here is what I use/do", that can be very helpful, and I look for advice from people in the same situation that I'm in. I tend to listen to all sides of the argument, and I have no ties to a solution when another one presents itself, if it happens to be better for me.

The conversation is always going to converge on statements like those that you reference in your post. That is simply the nature of the beast. What one should be asking is this: Are the statements being made true? If so, the decision is much easier to make.

[wake266]

first mistake, you got a mac mini. I am a recent Switcher on the edge of turning arond, mainly due to the lack of gameing support, but you should give it one more shoot and install boot camp, that way you can do all the pc stuff and all teh awesoe mac stuff at the same time.

[dmetzcher]

Originally Posted by wake266 

first mistake, you got a mac mini. I am a recent Switcher on the edge of turning arond, mainly due to the lack of gameing support, but you should give it one more shoot and install boot camp, that way you can do all the pc stuff and all teh awesoe mac stuff at the same time.

Given your suggestion that he try again and use Boot Camp, I have to ask why you are "on the edge of turning around" yourself. If you want gaming support, you have a Mac, and can run Boot Camp (unless you switched from Windows to an older PowerPC model Mac). Why don't you just install Windows and run your games from there?

[MacPC]

OSX GUI = 5-star restaurant.
Windows GUI = MacDonalds.

Mac reboot = forget the last it needs it.
Windows reboot = lost count.

OSX = BMW.
Windows = Yugo.

OSX software crash = few.
Windows software crash = lost count again.

Summary:
OSX = Yum.
Windows = Yak.

The reason you really need a faster Windows PC is you can reboot faster.

[ghporter]

Originally Posted by MacPC 

OSX GUI = 5-star restaurant.
Windows GUI = MacDonalds.

Mac reboot = forget the last it needs it.
Windows reboot = lost count.

OSX = BMW.
Windows = Yugo.

OSX software crash = few.
Windows software crash = lost count again.

Summary:
OSX = Yum.
Windows = Yak.

The reason you really need a faster Windows PC is you can reboot faster.

I have to say that you either didn't install Windows (or probably the PC maker didn't do it properly), or you've played with (stupidly) user accessible settings that shouldn't be played with, or you just want to say bad things. XP is robust, smooth and reliable. Not as pretty, well-integrated, or robust as OS X, but it's certainly not the "BMW vs. Yugo" comparison you portray. I haven't had a Windows OS crash in...well I can't remember the last time the OS crashed on me. I have had an app or two freeze on me now and then, but that's the app writers' fault, not the OS, and I have had a few OS X apps goober up on my rather recently, so that's not a really big comparison in my eyes.

And what is this thing about Mac users hating to reboot their computers? The enormously big advantage of Macs is how blindingly fast they boot, especially compared to Windows, so what' the horror that keeps so many people from rebooting, no matter what?

[mini.boss]

Originally Posted by ghporter 

I have to say that you either didn't install Windows (or probably the PC maker didn't do it properly), or you've played with (stupidly) user accessible settings that shouldn't be played with, or you just want to say bad things.

Its annoying how problems on a mac are always blamed on user error, yet problems on PC are always blamed on the OS. Sure, I PREFER mac, but windows has improved beyond the outdated BSOD stereotypes that only Mac users can't forget. In the hands of an intelligent end user then both mac and pc run well.

So for the most part, if you're crashing your computer (regardless of OS) then most of the time its because its something YOU did.

[Gee4orce]

Uh - here's an experiment. Unbox a new PC and a new Mac. Set them up and boot them. Connect them both to the internet. Leave. Count how long it takes before one of them is infected with something nasty (virus, trojan, spyware, etc).

PC's have been taken over - taken over - in as little as 15 minutes from being connected to the internet (in recent honeypot experiments).

[hookem2oo7]

my parents had a motherboard failure in a PC i built them. They took it to a local shop and had them replace the motherboard, and the case i built it in had a Win2000 COA sticker even though it had a legal copy of XP installed prior to the mobo failure, so the shop installed windows 2000 without any of the updates or service packs. Two days later I drove to visit them and it was so full of spyware it would become unresponsive about 30 seconds after a restart. I'd say it was taken over

[dmetzcher]

Originally Posted by ghporter 

I have had an app or two freeze on me now and then, but that's the app writers' fault, not the OS, and I have had a few OS X apps goober up on my rather recently, so that's not a really big comparison in my eyes.

That is half-true. It is probably the developer's fault, however, apps that crash on the Mac do not typically take the OS down with them. In addition, and this is something that Windows users can relate to, apps that hog the processor do not freeze the machine. When an app hits 99% processor usage on my iBook, I can still switch to other apps and use them. Sure, there may be slowdowns, but getting basic tasks done is not difficult at all. On Windows, when your processor hits 99%, you would easily see the whole OS locking up while you wait for the offending application.

OS X, in fact, is written better to keep apps from trashing your workflow, and allows you to easily recover from a bad software engineer's design. Windows, on the other hand, is not as good at this, and bad developer's can cause real issues on a Windows box.

This is a similar argument, as I see it, to the "well, if you had not gone to xyz Web site, your computer would not be infected with abc malware." That's an easy argument to make, however, most users require protection from this sort of malware attack, and Windows provides none. A proactive company is one that anticipates that users will come under attack, and adjusts its product to combat the attacker. The same is true when it comes to misbehaving applications. The OS should anticipate that application will misbehave, and have safeguards in place to stop these applications from causing problems for the user outside of the app crashing or slowing down. I'd be very happy with Microsoft if they re-wrote Windows from the ground up, taking all the current issues into account and working to exclude them from the next build. Sometimes that's necessary, and you have to bite the bullet and do the work required.

[dmetzcher]

Originally Posted by ghporter 

And what is this thing about Mac users hating to reboot their computers? The enormously big advantage of Macs is how blindingly fast they boot, especially compared to Windows, so what' the horror that keeps so many people from rebooting, no matter what?

Rebooting any computer is a pain. It doesn't matter how fast the process of doing so is. I should not have to reboot after software installs (except rare system updates, and I understand that). It's not even the time to reboot that annoys me. It's the fact that I have ten things open, and am actively working on all of them throughout the day. Closing them all (after being sure to save my work), and then re-opening them after the reboot is annoying. If I don't have to do it (and I don't, on my iBook), why should I bother (as I do on my Windows box)? It's easy to make the argument that it's no big deal. Sure, it's not Earth-shattering to reboot, but it does waste time and break a rhythm, and I don't typically need to do so on my Mac. Microsoft should take a lesson here, and make Windows play nicely with its users. There are plenty of annoying things to deal with on a daily basis. One less thing, or two, or three, saves time and frustration.

As far as my own last reboot, it's no record, but it's currently been 11 days, 9 hours, and 38 minutes. I put it to sleep when i move it around, or when I go to bed, and that's all I need to do.

[dmetzcher]

Originally Posted by mini.boss 

Its annoying how problems on a mac are always blamed on user error, yet problems on PC are always blamed on the OS. Sure, I PREFER mac, but windows has improved beyond the outdated BSOD stereotypes that only Mac users can't forget. In the hands of an intelligent end user then both mac and pc run well.

So for the most part, if you're crashing your computer (regardless of OS) then most of the time its because its something YOU did.

Correct. The key words, however, are "intelligent end-user", which, I assume, means a semi-power user...someone who knows how to fiddle with Control Panel applets and such. My mother, and 98% of the people I work with, have no idea what the Control Panel is. You don't design an OS for intelligent users. You don't design much of anything for intelligent users, and that includes cars, ATM machines, and telephones. The fact is, good design means taking the user into account. What will the typical user do on a daily basis? What pitfalls do we need to watch out for when designing for this user, etc.?

I blame the software engineer when applications crash, unless I can find fault with (1) another application or (2) the operating system, but my previous comments about the Mac OS handling rogue applications a lot better than Windows still stand. Applications are going to crash. Users are going to install things that are still in beta. That means nothing. It's not the user's fault. Any engineer who blames the user for their own lack of anticipating end-user scenarios is simply lazy. Applications should RARELY take the OS down with them, or even so much as slow it down while they are crapping out. I have found this to be the case more times than not on my Mac. I have NOT found it to be the case on my Windows box.

Perception, unfortunately, IS reality, and, when an app crashes and takes the whole OS with it, the user is going to perceive this as an issue on the OS. They are at least half-right about that. It's the application's fault, AND it's the OS's fault, for not protecting itself from applications that are causing issues.

And, while I'm ranting about this...

Microsoft: When I tell your OS to kill an application, do it. Don't ask me questions. Don't bother me with the details. Don't hesitate. Don't wait for the application to say it's OK. I'm the human being, and it's a piece of software. I win the argument. Just kill the application, and do it in two seconds or less. I can do this on Linux, and I can do it on Mac OS X. Figure out what they are doing, and steal the parts that work. I won't complain about the theft.

[dmetzcher]

Originally Posted by hookem2oo7 

my parents had a motherboard failure in a PC i built them. They took it to a local shop and had them replace the motherboard, and the case i built it in had a Win2000 COA sticker even though it had a legal copy of XP installed prior to the mobo failure, so the shop installed windows 2000 without any of the updates or service packs. Two days later I drove to visit them and it was so full of spyware it would become unresponsive about 30 seconds after a restart. I'd say it was taken over

Well, that was an old version of the OS, unpatched. Macs have security vulnerabilities when you are running older, unpatched versions of the OS, as well. Not as many, one would argue, but they are there, and it only takes one. The problem is that Microsoft updates its OS once per month ("patch Tuesday"), regardless of what vulnerabilities are discovered on "you're screwed Wednesday" (the day after "patch Tuesday"). Further, Microsoft has not done it's job to protect users. It has shirked its responsibility here, and should be held to account. Vista isn't going to improve everything, according to most accounts I've read. The responsibility of an OS manufacturer is to protect its users. Microsoft can continue to screw them, and that's fine. The recent surge in Mac ownership (50% of all new Macs sold in Apple Stores are being purchased by new users, and I'm willing to bet that at least 80% of them had a Windows computer first), however, is proof-positive that end users are going to start looking elsewhere.

Microsoft has a lot to offer. They have resources that could be put to the task of protecting users. Spending those resources wisely will keep them in the lead. Failing to do something is going to cost them in the long run.