[Spliff]

Putting the Mac Aside

Unswitch?

Of unswitching

Obviously, some people will switch to Macs and find that they're just not their thing. The comments of unswitchers or potential unswitchers do point out the weaknesses on the Mac platform that are frustrating to people used to the plethora of options on the PC.

One complaint that I can't confirm is mentioned in the first link above. Is it true?

Open Source on Windows

Here's the funny thing. I've found that nearly every one of the Open Source applications I've installed seems to work better and significanly faster on this machine than on my nearly new Powerbook.

In other words, open source applications feel better on Windows than on the Mac. This was quite a surprise at first.

This corresponds to the frequent complaints I hear from former PC-using friends and clients that Flash and Java are so much slower on the Mac. If OS X has UNIX under the hood, why would Open Source apps perform slower and poorer than Open Source apps on Windows?

I hope that Tiger fixes these performance issues because, by now, Apple has been hearing the complaints for years and has had enough time to fix them.

Not having to deal with viruses and spyware is a great, but people quickly forget about it when it's no longer a problem. But slow performance�whether it's iCal, iPhoto, the UI�is going to stick in their craw because they're constantly being reminded of it.

[iCol]

I think one of the major performance affecting factors has to be the amount of ram these switchers stick in their new Macs. Apple still refuse to ship their products with enough, Mac OS X simply shines when it has more than 512MB of DDR RAM at its disposal, any less than that and even the newest systems can feel sluggish. JAVA, I find, really needs the extra RAM boost...

[Krypton]

It's not about RAM, realistically Macs are slower at most tasks.

[Millennium]

Open-Source applications do, in fact, often feel better on Windows. This is for the most part because they don't have to deal with the look and feel of Mac apps by comparison.

I'm only half-joking. Take the guy who doesn't like running GIMP on OSX because he has to install X11 (never mind that this was the interface which the GIMP was written for). Aside from the pointless whining ("But mommy, I don't wanna run two apps! I WANNA RUN ONE!"), consider the fact that although the GIMP's interface has improved to the point where it's now almost tolerable, it still clashes horribly with the Mac. This is hardly Apple's fault; it's nothing more than real usability clashing with... well... the GIMP. Windows' interface is poor enough that the difference is not too jarring, but when you bring it to a platform where careful UI design is the norm, you start to see just how far behind the interface of most Open-Source apps really is. He complains that Open-Source apps feel like second-class citizens on the Mac, but first-class citizens on Linux. There's a reason for this: they are second-class citizens on the Mac -as are any apps which don't put thought into their UI design- and they're the only citizens on Linux.

The idea of "Mac-ness" is real, and it is powerful. It's easy to get sucked into zealotry, and this is a real problem; witness the folks who prefer Aqua widgets on the Web, even though they weren't designed for the Web and aren't suited to the task. But that doesn't mean there is nothing to it. What this poster felt when he saw that Open-Source apps seemed "second-class" was his first glimpse of it.

[pooka]

Originally posted by Krypton:
It's not about RAM, realistically Macs are slower at most tasks.

And it's very noticable at times..

[Spliff]

Originally posted by Millennium:
Take the guy who doesn't like running GIMP on OSX because he has to install X11 (never mind that this was the interface which the GIMP was written for). Aside from the pointless whining ("But mommy, I don't wanna run two apps! I WANNA RUN ONE!"), consider the fact that although the GIMP's interface has improved to the point where it's now almost tolerable, it still clashes horribly with the Mac. This is hardly Apple's fault; it's nothing more than real usability clashing with... well... the GIMP. Windows' interface is poor enough that the difference is not too jarring, but when you bring it to a platform where careful UI design is the norm, you start to see just how far behind the interface of most Open-Source apps really is.

You're exactly right. It's like furnishing a Frank Lloyd Wright house with plastic lawn furniture from Wal-Mart.

[OreoCookie]

Well, there is a lot more effort put into having decent windows Open Source apps. On Windows, you don't need to run X11 to get OpenOffice working. Ditto for many other pieces of software.

ATI and Nvidia spend a lot of resources in optimizing their drivers for windows to squeeze out some more fps in games, sometimes they even include game-specific optimizations. It's true that often software runs faster on PCs.

Also, the CPU horse power is higher on PCs. Plain and simple.

[Amorya]

Originally posted by Millennium:
witness the folks who prefer Aqua widgets on the Web, even though they .... aren't suited to the task.

Amorya

[Big Mac]

Originally posted by Krypton:
It's not about RAM, realistically Macs are slower at most tasks.

Gee, that's a really incisive, informative observation.

[milhous]

who cares, let them switch back. neither windows or os x is perfect, but the latter for me is a heluva lot more enjoyable, safer, and nicer to use.

it's good to know that we have choices in what type of comptuers we want to use and not have it dominated by a single company. i wish we had more choices so there could be competition. perhaps we'll see this someday.

[ReggieX]

A lot of the "slowness" has to do with Aqua, it's simply slower than Windows' GDI(?) display method. Of course, with Aqua I can switch applications without the contents of one showing through the other like a stupid picture frame.

And Mr. "Unswitch?" linked above should grow up: no one is forcing him to use Safari and Mail.app, just like MS doesn't force anyone to use Outlook Express. They're there for convenience of not having to go try out other pieces of software. I've used Eudora since I got my Quadra 630, and I don't see switching away from it permanantly any time soon. Same way I use both Firefox and Safari, usually at the same time, and Firefox and IE at the same time at work. Use the tool that works the best for what you want to do.

[wataru]

Originally posted by OreoCookie:
On Windows, you don't need to run X11 to get OpenOffice working.

You don't need to on OS X either.

[Apple Pro Underwear]

the sad truth is:

OSX is not snappy.

It has a certain... "feel to it". If you use the GUI on os9 and then osX, you can tell the difference.

it took me a long time to migrate and when i did... i still relapsed into os9... TWICE!



so i completely understand. i am using a PC at home now but i will be "unswitching" when tiger comes out. i will send apple this comment...

[theolein]

Originally posted by Millennium:
Open-Source applications do, in fact, often feel better on Windows. ....

Surprise, Open Source apps feel even on Linux for ehich they were almsot all designed. If people really want to mainly use OSS stuff, they would probably be better of using one of the Linux distros.

The fact that a lot of OSS apps that have been ported to OSX don't have the Mac feel has one reason and one reason only: A lack of developers who have the time and the will to customise the apps to look and behave like Aqua apps.

The same is also true for commercial apps. Flash is only worse on OSX because Macromedia allocates far fewer resources to OSX than it does to Windows.

The comment about Java being slow on OSX is way off base however. Java, MHz for MHz runs fast on OSX. Java graphics are faster on OSX than they are on Windows. What is much slower on OSX in Java is Swing GUI apps using the native Aqua look and feel. Switch those same apps over the standard Metal look and feel and they immediately perform better.

I think the whole thing is a huge trade off in any case. In a general aspect OSX is light years better than Windows in terms of stability, general ease of use and security and features. However, Windows huge market share simply will mean that there will always be more and better adapted software there.

[Millennium]

Originally posted by Apple Pro Underwear:
the sad truth is:

OSX is not snappy.

It has a certain... "feel to it". If you use the GUI on os9 and then osX, you can tell the difference.

it took me a long time to migrate and when i did... i still relapsed into os9... TWICE!

so i completely understand. i am using a PC at home now but i will be "unswitching" when tiger comes out. i will send apple this comment...

That's the real problem. The GUI is slow, and because almost everything touches the GUI it feels like everything's slow. Exactly how Apple gets around this problem will be interesting.

[Big Mac]

Originally posted by Apple Pro Underwear:
the sad truth is:

OSX is not snappy.

It has a certain... "feel to it". If you use the GUI on os9 and then osX, you can tell the difference.

it took me a long time to migrate and when i did... i still relapsed into os9... TWICE!



so i completely understand. i am using a PC at home now but i will be "unswitching" when tiger comes out. i will send apple this comment...

That may be your sad truth, but don't assume that your view applies to everyone. OS X is "snappy" for me. Perhaps I say that because I am on a DP 2.0, but that is my subjective view. All things being equal, the Windows UI feels marginally faster at best, and that notwithstanding I feel much less productive when I am compelled to use Windows.

Originally posted by Big Mac:
That may be your sad truth, but don't assume that your view applies to everyone. OS X is "snappy" for me. Perhaps I say that because I am on a DP 2.0, but that is my subjective view. All things being equal, the Windows UI feels marginally faster at best, and that notwithstanding I feel much less productive when I am compelled to use Windows.

OS X is snappy for me on my 1GHz PowerBook.

The problem is these people are running open source apps. Why? Use Linux on their old PCs for that.

They should switch to run Mac apps. They run better and are a lot better designed.

[olePigeon]

Apps run very fast on the Macintosh when programmers actually follow the guidelines. I haven't a clue why Flash is so ungodly slow.

If Macromedia really wanted to make Flash fly, isn't there some way to make it AltiVec enhanced? I mean... it IS vector.

[Apple Pro Underwear]

IMO

OSX is not "snappy" even on a G5.

it has a "feel to it"


i have used OSX on a dual 2.0 extensively. it feels very responsive, very fast... but the "feel to it" is that it's not snappy. not like os9.

[- - e r i k - -]

Originally posted by Apple Pro Underwear:
IMO

OSX is not "snappy" even on a G5.

it has a "feel to it"


i have used OSX on a dual 2.0 extensively. it feels very responsive, very fast... but the "feel to it" is that it's not snappy. not like os9.

Well, this will change once Windows gets a modern display system as well.

I attribute the apparent lack of snappiness� to the fact that we now spend most of our time working / surfing on the web, where things are definitely not snappy at all. The UI is fast and responsive everywhere else.

[tooki]

Vector graphics and vector processing are entirely different things.

tooki

[Big Mac]

Originally posted by Apple Pro Underwear:
IMO

OSX is not "snappy" even on a G5.

it has a "feel to it"


i have used OSX on a dual 2.0 extensively. it feels very responsive, very fast... but the "feel to it" is that it's not snappy. not like os9.

That's a really vague comment - what type of feel? I really do not understand the distinction you're making between "very responsive" and snappy. The only thing that drags noticeably on even fast Macs is scrolling and resizing in Safari.

[PurpleGiant]

A friend's mother bought an iBook about a year ago, and just isn't coping. The problem is, she likes to 'learn things on her own' and as a result, doesn't like being helped, despite her daughter's frustration at being willing to help.

I don't think her mother can be helped though, she is one of those people who saves a document wherever the app suggests, with it's default 'untitled' name, and then blames the computer when she can't find it 4 months later, but doesn't even know where to look.

[Millennium]

Originally posted by tooki:
Vector graphics and vector processing are entirely different things.

Tooki is right. In fact, even the word vector means two different things in these contexts.

When talking about 'vector graphics', a vector is a line or other shape stored as a description of its properties rather than an actual picture of itself. The computer examines these descriptions and then re-creates the picture accordingly. This is why vector graphics are slower than bitmaps; the computer has to do much more work, because it has to actually re-create images instead of just recalling them from disk or memory. However, vector graphics are usually (though not always) much smaller than bitmaps, they can be magnified and transformed arbitrarily without losing any data or resolution, and they are very easy to edit. Flash and Quartz both work this way, as does OpenGL.

When talking about 'vector processing', a vector is an indexed list of a large amount of data of the same type (also sometimes called an array. Vector units such as AltiVec are specialized at performing operations on large chunks of this data simultaneously. For this reason they are sometimes also called SIMD units (Single Instruction, Multiple Data). There are many applications where this can come in handy; bitmapped images, video, and audio are usually processed as vectors. Encryption is another classic example of vector processing, and even network programs can get a bit of a speed boost (though the network itself doesn't get any faster, so this difference can be hard to notice).

Ironically, vector graphics don't generally get much of a speed boost from vector processing, because graphics-vectors (unlike bitmaps) often can't be stored or processed as list-vectors (you could set them up as lists of data, but the data would be of many different types, and therefore not a list-vector). It makes sense when you take these two definitions into account, but the fact that the same word is used to mean two different things confuses a lot of people.

[meelk]

As a windows user I repeatedly read here and other places about how slow in general OSX is, and it is one of the things keeping me away. I must say that I have interest in OSX, *not* in Macs. I build and maintain my own perfectly fine windows machines, and paying for a computer just to get OSX is rather irritating in concept.

On open source: I use a variety of open source software on my windows machine and love it all, and it responds quickly and well on my little AMD 2500xp with a gig of ram. I regularly run the gimp, videolan, firefox, thunderbird, and sunbird among others. Windows for me is just a base, upon which I build my software 'foundation' which consists almost entirely of open source and adobe apps.

I think if more OSX users could or would build their own windows boxes, trim out the excess 'crap' microsoft installs by default, and install the kinds of things I use, there wouldnt be the absurd amount of hostility towards windows I often sense on this forum.

btw, I'm spyware and virus free..these problems are more user, than computer oriented.

[tikki]

Originally posted by meelk:
I think if more OSX users could or would build their own windows boxes, trim out the excess 'crap' microsoft installs by default, and install the kinds of things I use, there wouldnt be the absurd amount of hostility towards windows I often sense on this forum.

Does excess 'crap' include the Windows interface and UI paradigms?

[starman]

Originally posted by Krypton:
It's not about RAM, realistically Macs are slower at most tasks.

Completely untrue.

I had to port one of our apps to the Mac. Using the right compiler settings and other optimizations, I was able to get the thing to work several TIMES faster on a dual 1.8 GHz G5 than a single 2.53 GHz P4, and dual processing wasn't enabled in the project (On Windows, it took 17 minutes to complete the job, on the Mac, 4 minutes. Same RAM size and settings for the app).

As people have said, Aqua slows the puppy down, but when it comes to straight computing power, the Macs win.

Mike

[theolein]

Originally posted by meelk:
...

btw, I'm spyware and virus free..these problems are more user, than computer oriented.

Tell that to the people whose PC I spent 6 hours fixing last week. Ridden with viruses, trojans and spyware, it was so bad that it wouldn't even boot any more. And they were running XP SP2 with up to date AV and Spybot and had a running firewall, and they never used IE or Outlook but only used Firefox and Thunderbird. Booting from the XP CD and doing a Chkdsk /r fixed that boot problem and from there on I managed to fix everything, but what else was I supposed to do? Set up an exaustive list of sites that they shouldn't visit? Buy them a router with my own money?

These are normal people who don't want to mess around with PC hardware or software. They just want it to work. They're now considering getting a Mac.

[Apple Pro Underwear]

Originally posted by Big Mac:
That's a really vague comment - what type of feel? I really do not understand the distinction you're making between "very responsive" and snappy. The only thing that drags noticeably on even fast Macs is scrolling and resizing in Safari.

i use a dual g4 1ghz to work. i have gotten used to it, i love OSX blah blah blah

it's just NOT SNAPPY!

i just waled over to a PC workstation as well as my co-worker's G5. i opened a folder on each to see it pop open. the osx had a nice responsive, smooth, animated fast pop. the pc has a sort of glitchy type click and then a instantaneous, unsmooth, un-elegant, and snarky pop.

the instantaneous snarky pop up feels "snappy"

the osx feels deliberate.

[meelk]

Originally posted by theolein:
Tell that to the people whose PC I spent 6 hours fixing last week. Ridden with viruses, trojans and spyware, it was so bad that it wouldn't even boot any more. And they were running XP SP2 with up to date AV and Spybot and had a running firewall, and they never used IE or Outlook but only used Firefox and Thunderbird. Booting from the XP CD and doing a Chkdsk /r fixed that boot problem and from there on I managed to fix everything, but what else was I supposed to do? Set up an exaustive list of sites that they shouldn't visit? Buy them a router with my own money?

These are normal people who don't want to mess around with PC hardware or software. They just want it to work. They're now considering getting a Mac.

Viruses, trojans and spyware just dont "magically" appear no matter how much people in the Mac community want it to be so. I'd say if these people were running firefox and thunderbird then they are apparently making stupid mistakes and running exe's/pif's etc they receive via email, clicking "yes" to every popup they happen to get in firefox (a firefox popup is a *very* rare occurance however), or are otherwise doing stupid things. If they have children or teens in the house I would look to them for answers, teens in particular will infest a computer with a variety of malware by visting sites they shouldnt, particularly porn sites. COMMON SENSE will keep any computer clean. I dont have a computer science degree of any kind, or any formal training. I simply taught myself, and use common sense and security mindedness and have no problems. It is very possible, and actually very easy to do.

[meelk]

Originally posted by Apple Pro Underwear:
i use a dual g4 1ghz to work. i have gotten used to it, i love OSX blah blah blah

it's just NOT SNAPPY!

i just waled over to a PC workstation as well as my co-worker's G5. i opened a folder on each to see it pop open. the osx had a nice responsive, smooth, animated fast pop. the pc has a sort of glitchy type click and then a instantaneous, unsmooth, un-elegant, and snarky pop.

the instantaneous snarky pop up feels "snappy"

the osx feels deliberate.

You do realize the windows machine could simply have the animation turned off...which is what it sounds like.

[bluejfk]

Originally posted by Spliff:
You're exactly right. It's like furnishing a Frank Lloyd Wright house with plastic lawn furniture from Wal-Mart.

Actually you would wan tplactiv lawn furniture from Wal-Mart. Most of Frank Lloyd Wrights creating had one thing in commmon. Their roofs leaked..

[cambro]

Comparing graphics performance and UI responsiveness in OS X to that in Windows is like comparing framerates in a 2-D chess game to framerates in Doom 3.

Once Microsoft offers the level of sophistication in on-screen rendering that EVERYTHING displayed on a mac has, I can promise you that you'll notice a slow-down on windoze.

Compositing the visual display in OS X must be an order of magnitude more computationally intensive than rendering the same display on a windows machine. Maybe I'm wrong about the magnitude, but there is definitely a big difference in how it is done.

That said, it is clear that Apple needs to seriously improve its OpenGL and Java implementations and there is definitely room for improvement in the day-to-day performance arena.

[Spliff]

Originally posted by bluejfk:
Actually you would wan tplactiv lawn furniture from Wal-Mart. Most of Frank Lloyd Wrights creating had one thing in commmon. Their roofs leaked..

Good one.

[Peter Bonte]

Originally posted by theolein:
Tell that to the people whose PC I spent 6 hours fixing last week. Ridden with viruses, trojans and spyware, it was so bad that it wouldn't even boot any more. And they were running XP SP2 with up to date AV and Spybot and had a running firewall, and they never used IE or Outlook but only used Firefox and Thunderbird. Booting from the XP CD and doing a Chkdsk /r fixed that boot problem and from there on I managed to fix everything, but what else was I supposed to do? Set up an exaustive list of sites that they shouldn't visit? Buy them a router with my own money?
These are normal people who don't want to mess around with PC hardware or software. They just want it to work. They're now considering getting a Mac
----------

if u'r doing this for free, as i think u are, they will keep the PC.
Stop helping PC users that deserve the **** they get in to, i did this years back with the excuse "sorry i use a Mac", my nerves are holding on better now and i have more family/friends switchers than ever before. Do this without pushing them to hard so they don't have to high expectations and are willing to learn a new OS.

[discotronic]

Originally posted by meelk:


I think if more OSX users could or would build their own windows boxes, trim out the excess 'crap' microsoft installs by default, and install the kinds of things I use, there wouldnt be the absurd amount of hostility towards windows I often sense on this forum.

I am willing to bet that the majority of people who post here can build their own Windows box with no trouble at all. Most probably use both platforms on a daily basis. Some of us actually use or have used our Mac plus Windows and Linux. Most of the people here have most likely made an informed decision about there system of choice. I'm not some Apple fan-boy that will sit here and say the Mac is the best without having a clue why. How many Windows users have actually made the attempt at really using OSX before saying it is total crap? In my experience it is the vast minority.

What do you expect from a Mac forum? Do you think we are going to brag about how good everything is on Windows? Go to a Linux forum and see what they usually say about Windows. Chances are it will be worse than this place could ever be. Go to a Windows forum and see what the majority of people there say about the Mac. This place isn't anywhere near as bad.

OSX has been around for about 4 years now. It is totally different from anything Apple has done in the past. It still has bugs to be worked out so it is far from perfect. There are things on the Windows side that work better. There are things on the Apple side that work better. Everyone I have showed my Mac running OSX has been impressed. That included diehard Linux users and diehard Windows users.

My Windows box remains clean for the most part. I have never had a virus of any kind. Spyware happens no matter what I do. I have the system locked down so tight that if you put a piece of coal in it you would get a diamond in 2 days. I have to run virus updates, Windows update, spyware updates virus scans, hard drive defrag and other maintenance constantly. While I am doing these things I could actually be using the computer. Wow, what a concept

I hardly ever have to do anything to my Mac. I don't have to strip anything out or worry if all my updates are in place. That is probably the reason why people who use a Mac say they are better.

Myself, I am glad that Microsoft Windows is around. I make a killing doing maintenance on the Windows side of the house. If I had to rely on doing maintenance on the Mac side I would go broke.

[Apple_John]

I am switching back to WinXp after 3 years on Mac. I first got myself a brand-new $300cdn Dell just for a project. After upgrade the ram to 512, the machine run smoothly. Not a single crash after 1 year or so. It is just as quiet as my Cube. I am now using it everyday.

My next major desktop purchase will be a Dell. I never like Dell. But it is dirt cheap compare to Mac, and give me zero problem.

I hope to stay with Mac, but I see no reason. 99% of the time I run PS, OO, Firefox and iTunes. OS structure is not important to me, as long as it stables. PC can do the same job 50% cheaper than a Mac.

[Glasspusher]

One thing I noticed immediately between OS X and OS 9 is that the "snappiness" of OS 9 was due to the fact that when you clicked on something on OS 9, the OS dropped everything else to handle it and froze everything in the background. OSX is preemptive multitasking to the extreme, and although front tasks probably are given higher priority, it is not a "drop everything else" system like OS 9. The snappiness of OS 9 and windows (and linux!) could be better likened to fits and starts at the right time, half the time. Likewise, OS X doesn't drop your frontmost app to a crawl if other processes are CPU hogs nearly as much as the other OSes mentioned.

OSX is a very steady performer across the board, not a sprinter and stopper like the other guys. Can't wait to see the speed improvements in Tiger, though

Dave

[elvis2000]

Originally posted by iCol:
I think one of the major performance affecting factors has to be the amount of ram these switchers stick in their new Macs. Apple still refuse to ship their products with enough, Mac OS X simply shines when it has more than 512MB of DDR RAM at its disposal, any less than that and even the newest systems can feel sluggish. JAVA, I find, really needs the extra RAM boost...

Not a chance. JavaFIBS (a cross-platform client for the ever-popular FIBS backgammon server) runs much slower in OS X than Windows, and I've experienced this on a 1GHZ G4 Powerbook with 1GB installed.

[elvis2000]

Originally posted by hayesk:
OS X is snappy for me on my 1GHz PowerBook.

The problem is these people are running open source apps. Why? Use Linux on their old PCs for that.

They should switch to run Mac apps. They run better and are a lot better designed.

Snappy like a 4 cylinder Corolla, or Snappy like a VR6 GTI?

[mbryda]

Originally posted by meelk:
Viruses, trojans and spyware just dont "magically" appear no matter how much people in the Mac community want it to be so.

Uh, yes they do. Security experts have long since concluded that if you put an unprotected Windows machine on the Internet it will be infected within 15-30 minutes. WITHOUT THE USER DOING ANYTHING.

In fact a coworker did just that with a virgin machine, didn't touch it, and it was tost in a day or so.

[elvis2000]

I switched back after having an experience on a "cheap" Dell... everything felt so much smoother and faster (and familiar). Things were working a little better out on the web, and I found I missed looking a crisp fonts.

So I went back to the PC and haven't looked back yet. Will be interesting to see if Tiger is a little more usable for my tastes.

[Jonathan-Tanya]

I use ASPLInux on my pc. It had windows xp sp2, but before I switched to firefox, I had ie on it. My wife surfs around and who knows what, but it had virus's out the wazoo, and all the spyware stuff couldn't get it all. I was looking at an OS re-install so I took the opportunity to put linux on it.

Of course, linux is no stranger to me...so getting ASPLinux, which is the russian distro, was really neat, because it supports Russian really well, and windows only marginally supported Russian (oh you can get the actual localized Russian version....if you live in Russia, but its $300 to buy it here).

So then apple...geez they have a russian localized version, but you have to install it at exactly 10.3.3, not before, and not later. If you try to install it later, it won't.

Anyway, we can all use english just fine, I like to put the russian on there for fun.

So....wow I get off track. Usability. The Intel box is an overcloced amd thoroughbred running at 2.4ghz real clock speed, which is a PR3600 via the PR score. And, my current mac is an ibook g3/900.

Tell you what, they both run just fine, and my work pc is a p iv 1.6ghz, and I do a lot of compiling, programming, running of servers on that, I manage to bog it down from time to time.

I guess my two cents is, you all are nuts, all modern pc's are pretty fast. Of course, if you are rendering a complex 3d scene, and it takes 1 hour, and you can upgrade knowing it will take only 30 minutes....go for it.

But web browsing, writing a book, even programming tasks like running pl/sql, compiling oracle.

I mean even what was 'heavy duty' tasks a few years ago are running fine....I think some people are just whiners.

[mbryda]

Originally posted by Apple_John:
My next major desktop purchase will be a Dell. I never like Dell. But it is dirt cheap compare to Mac, and give me zero problem.

My condolences. Dell is the shitebox of PC's (I deal with PC's day in and out). Let's talk in year 2 and 3 when tha POS Dell is in pieces.

[Apple Pro Underwear]

Originally posted by Apple_John:
[B]

My next major desktop purchase will be a Dell. I never like Dell. But it is dirt cheap compare to Mac, and give me zero problem.

switch to PC is you must but don't go dell. it's cheap because the quality is not there. trust me, my ghetto dell is a piece od shite.

pay a few hundred more and get something nice from one of the other manufacturers. i think my Sony is doing OK.

[alex627]

Originally posted by Apple_John:
I am switching back to WinXp after 3 years on Mac. I first got myself a brand-new $300cdn Dell just for a project. After upgrade the ram to 512, the machine run smoothly. Not a single crash after 1 year or so. It is just as quiet as my Cube. I am now using it everyday.

My next major desktop purchase will be a Dell. I never like Dell. But it is dirt cheap compare to Mac, and give me zero problem.

I hope to stay with Mac, but I see no reason. 99% of the time I run PS, OO, Firefox and iTunes. OS structure is not important to me, as long as it stables. PC can do the same job 50% cheaper than a Mac.

Good luck with the next Service Pack.

Dell's are simply crap boxes built and supported by third-world labor. It sure as hell doesn't employ any Canadians. That's why they are cheap. Wal-Mart computers.

BTW how much is that 5-year-old Cube worth right now on eBay? How much is that 1-year-old Dell worth right now on eBay?

[dootbran]

Originally posted by meelk:
I think if more OSX users could or would build their own windows boxes, trim out the excess 'crap' microsoft installs by default, and install the kinds of things I use, there wouldnt be the absurd amount of hostility towards windows I often sense on this forum.

btw, I'm spyware and virus free..these problems are more user, than computer oriented.

From the rest of your post you sound like a tinkerer. I get that way sometimes too but I like to not have to worry about that kind of stuff on my computer. Its there to do work, not as a hobby in and of itself. I'm obviously enthusiastic about it or I wouldn't be here but what you're describing is exactly why I don't use PCs. I don't want to take the time to build any more computers and I don't feel like fighting with software so I doesn't get in the way of me accomplishing a task.

I've built PC's and I've tried running Linux/OSS software, it isn't for me. I'm not going to get into it but trust me windows doesn't get half the rathe from me that most Linux desktop software does ( excluding Firefox, Moz, etc.. ). Maybe its better now, but what I've on my Mac works pretty darn well. So Linux stays on the server for me.

And I guess that is something to keep in mind when deciding to switch, if you're completely happy with what you have and it works don't bother. When I switched it was because I wanted to through my computer out the window on a daily basis, and it wasn't the spyware or the viruses. My ibook was a breath of fresh air and I haven't turned back since.

I mean come on? Start->Shutdown->Log Out?? WTF is that?

[DudeMac]

Originally posted by Krypton:
It's not about RAM, realistically Macs are slower at most tasks.

Realistically Macs are not slow. I have Macs as well as a PC and I find that my PC is the under-performer of the mix. Mac OS X does like to have lots of RAM though, but since it does fancy stuff with it's graphical display (unlike Windows XP and its behind the times graphical display), of course the window displays get drawn in the background before they're displayed, which make Mac OS X seem slow. XP on the other hand, builds the window displays right in front of you, almost like watching somebody eat a bowl of slop before your very eyes.

[me_94501]

Originally posted by Apple_John:
I am switching back to WinXp after 3 years on Mac. I first got myself a brand-new $300cdn Dell just for a project. After upgrade the ram to 512, the machine run smoothly. Not a single crash after 1 year or so. It is just as quiet as my Cube. I am now using it everyday.

My next major desktop purchase will be a Dell. I never like Dell. But it is dirt cheap compare to Mac, and give me zero problem.

I hope to stay with Mac, but I see no reason. 99% of the time I run PS, OO, Firefox and iTunes. OS structure is not important to me, as long as it stables. PC can do the same job 50% cheaper than a Mac.

If none of the underlying structure matters to you, why did you switch to the Mac in the first place? If none of the technologies, features, and other niceties of the Mac matter to you, why did you get it in the first place? And do you seriously think Mac hardware is somehow less reliable than PCs? I mean, what kind of problems are we talking about here?

Does the Mac somehow get in the way of your ability to work productively? Do you not like Expos�? Switching users without going to a login screen first? The low risk of malware?

Do you take full advantage of the usability capabilities of OS X?

If you must switch, however, avoid Dell like the plague!!!

[wadesworld]

Originally posted by meelk:
Viruses, trojans and spyware just dont "magically" appear no matter how much people in the Mac community want it to be so.

I recently saw a thread by very respected security people in a very respected company that has firewalls out the wazzo, virus scanning on the email gateways, virus scanning and secrity agents deployed on the PC (mandatory and automatically updated), etc. They have many, many thousands of PCs.

The thread was about how to deploy new PC's on the network since before they could download the updates, the system was hit with something. And this is on the internal network. The summary was, it was impossible to install a new PC with confidence that it hadn't been compromised. The only way was to format the drive and install from a known-clean completely updated image, before connecting to the network.

Wade