[JKT]

Because every time you went to access the menus in the menubar, you would activate the Dock.

[analogika]

You can't have the Dock at the top bewcause it's as ergonomically idiotic as the menu-bar-within-a-window system of Windows. Do a search on these forums for "Fitts' law".

[rdf8585]

Yeah, it would be odd but so are some people

I've gotten used to the menu bar at the top... that was a big adjustment coming from Windows where it's on the bottom, and I'd never unlock it and move it to the top either.

I don't know what things would look like if I could move it to the bottom in OSX - too bad we can't - but I don't think it's a big deal. I've gotten used to it at the top.

[dsteinman]

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

With a statement such as this, I suspect rdf8585 is in reality Bill Gates trolling MACNN..

[Simon]

Originally Posted by rdf8585

An iMac makes no sense for me, personally. I just bought a digital LCD two months ago and I still have a 3 ghz P4 lying around here. I can't see myself buying an iMac as long as my LCD works.

Sell off the LCD on Ebay and get the iMac. Chances are its screen will be better than whatever you got anyway and since the iMac is not only a Mac but also a PC (and certainly faster than your 3 GHz P4 too) you can sell of the PC as well.

I don't know about you, but I'd much rather have one 24" C2D iMac than an old mini, an old 3GHz P4 and some screen.

[Simon]

Originally Posted by rdf8585

This isn't a complaint, but just curious - you can have the dock on the bottom, right or left but why not at the top? I keep mine on the bottom, doesn't bother me there, but curious why there isn't an option for the top.

Well, actually you can have it at the top. Although it is moronic for the reasons the others above posted.



The (free) tool that lets you activate that hidden setting is called TinkerTool.

[Simon]

Originally Posted by badsey

The Mac Pro is good, but not great.

You make it sound like the Mac Pro is some halfway decent middle class system. I can't imagine that was you intention.

Nowadays it's difficult to define what a true 'workstation' is since the desktop market has expanded towards the high end and the servers have also found their ways down. So, let's just say there are servers and non-servers where the latter are usually referred to as 'PCs'. And here's the thing, the Mac Pro is pretty much the fastest PC you can get today. I'm sure there are systems out there that are competitive, but the Mac Pro is by no means just some middle class machine.

Apple Mac Pro is crowned the fastest "PC" in the UK

[EFFENDI]

Originally Posted by badsey

Intel has had Quad-Core out for quite a while.
http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets...oc.aspx?i=2846



The Mac Pro is good, but not great. Depends what needs you have for a computer. OSX is the important part here. It can take advantage of all these cores well. You simply are misinformed about Intel and their chips = nothing more nothing less.

The Mac Pro is a cheap 4 core (2x2) workstation. Accessible for most and OSX is cheap ~$100.

Even the iPod will be multicore eventually. = This is the direction CPUs are going.

Fair enough, they released the quad core a few days before I posted. They are still expensive.

As I said before - I use a 2.66 Mac Pro on a daily basis, the machine exceeds my needs, and continues to impress me with the responsiveness and real-life performance. It is STILL currently the fastest Apple desktop available, and is nothing to turn your nose up at.

[dmetzcher]

Originally Posted by ghporter

Not quite, dmetzcher. BSODs are much less common under XP, but they can still happen. It frequently takes some serious gooberage on the user's part (experience talking here), but it's still possible. And the information in a BSOD dump is still VERY useful in figuring out what went wrong.

That wasn't my point. My point was that they are turned off, by default. I wasn't saying that it's a good thing, or that they are more or less common than in previous versions of XP, however.

[dmetzcher]

Originally Posted by rdf8585

Then what is Apple's "target market" ?

OSX isn't bad, like I said, but it's just not good enough to make me pay so much more for a laptop that runs it. Let it also be said, XP isn't great enough that I would pay a lot more to buy a machine with that on it, if OSX laptops were cheaper.

This weekend, for $599, Best Buy had a Gateway laptop with a Turion 64 MK-36, 1 GB PC4200 RAM, 100 GB HD and a Vista Premium-caliber graphics card.

Apple's target market includes consumers who are willing to pay more for a nice-looking box with (typically) quality parts (referred to as a boutique computer by many). That's not to say that other manufacturers have substandard parts (many do, however). If Apple wanted more of the PC market, they would lower prices and go after bargain PC buyers. They would see a huge increase in sales, but much smaller profit margins. Smaller profit margins are always dangerous, and are specifically prone to market fluctuations, more so than companies getting higher margins on sales. In addition, Apple would increase its user base, thereby increasing the number of users it has to support, thereby decreasing its profit margins further.

Make no mistake about it. Apple knows exactly what they are doing. One does not have to agree with the way that a company is run, but Apple makes these decisions consciously.

Apple goes after a certain market, the want that a higher-end retail clothing store might. As long as consumers are willing to pay more for something, there will be a company willing to fill that space.

[dmetzcher]

Originally Posted by goMac

I had XP crash every so often, but it would automatically restart.

Vista, on the other hand, blue screens and then automatically restarts.

I'll be this will change, with Vista, once they are out of beta. Personally, I think blue screens are important, but Microsoft hides them in XP.

[badsey]

Originally Posted by EFFENDI

Fair enough, they released the quad core a few days before I posted. They are still expensive.

It's not about expense, it's about getting work done more efficiently.

If a dual-quad core Mac Pro can get the job done 80% faster for my company that is cheap and allows me to be even more competitive. OSX allows you to do that where Windows Vista will not.

=Expect dual quad core Mac Pros soon = the pressure to switch to Mac/Intel will be huge and the switch to OSX will be huge. Apple/Mac/OSX have a huge advantage here.

The Mac Pro is a good computer, but with more universal applications it will be much/much/mucho better. A solid foundation has been set, it's just a matter of being patient. Next year all the media pros will have Mac Pros -they cannot afford not to. Windows media professionals will switch also for the same reason. The amount of computer that is needed for digital HD media is heinous (yes people actually use all 4 HD bays and 2TB = look at 444 video production).

Yes, people will buy $10k-20K -$40K+ computers because it is saving them 2-5-10-100x that much in the process.

[dmetzcher]

Originally Posted by rdf8585

This isn't a complaint, but just curious - you can have the dock on the bottom, right or left but why not at the top? I keep mine on the bottom, doesn't bother me there, but curious why there isn't an option for the top.

Menu bar is at the top. My guess is that Apple decided that it would look too cluttered. Also, it makes sense, from a UI standpoint, to be at the bottom, or maybe on the right, since most people look at things from top-to-bottom and left-to-right. The Dock should be out of the way, not the first thing that you look at, and the bottom of the screen is a good place for it.

[dmetzcher]

Originally Posted by analogika

You can't have the Dock at the top bewcause it's as ergonomically idiotic as the menu-bar-within-a-window system of Windows. Do a search on these forums for "Fitts' law".

Well, you didn't need to call the idea idiotic. He was just asking a question.
However, you are correct about the Windows menus. I always thought that the Apple menus were weird when I was primarily a Windows user, but, the truth is that they are a lot easier to use. No matter where your windows are, you always know that the menus are at the top of the screen, and that helps usability. It also helps new users find things easily.

[dmetzcher]

Originally Posted by dsteinman

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

With a statement such as this, I suspect rdf8585 is in reality Bill Gates trolling MACNN..

Others have made similar statements that are the exact opposite, praising the Mac OS, and trashing Windows. I'm one of them. I'm OK with statements like this. It's his opinion, and there is always room for opinion in here. I don't expect people to force me to be nice about Windows, so I can't very well expect them to be nice when they have a less-than-flattering opinion about the Mac. You might say, "but the Mac is better", and that would be your opinion. And mine.

[dmetzcher]

Originally Posted by badsey

It's not about expense, it's about getting work done more efficiently.

If a dual-quad core Mac Pro can get the job done 80% faster for my company that is cheap and allows me to be even more competitive. OSX allows you to do that where Windows Vista will not.

Try telling that to your CFO. He/she doesn't think that spending a great deal of money to upgrade everyone is cost-effective. I'd tend to agree. In the corporate world, we can't jump on every new technology just to get a performance increase. There are other costs to consider, as well, such as the cost of upgrading (physically installing a new computer at a desk). There is also the fact that the next chip will arrive six months later. Will we upgrade again? At that point, we are in the hole for twice the cost. Look around most companies (if not all, frankly), and you'll find that users are not running the fastest machines available. It's too expensive, and takes up too many man hours to constantly upgrade.

Also, I think that the 80% increase in productivity is a bit misleading. Some things (a small number, for a small number of users) will be that much faster. Most tasks, however, will not see tangible performance increases. Email, word processing, software engineering, etc. will perform slightly faster, which is not worth the cost of the high-end processor. Video and sound editing...yes, they get a higher performance increase, but (1) how many companies do that (compared to those that have nothing to do with that field), and (2) how much time do the people who work for those companies actually spend doing that (as opposed to other tasks that don't get a real performance increase)?

If you edit video, maybe your company will spring for the extra performance, but it's doubtful. They would most-likely weigh the costs versus the savings, and come to the same conclusion that I outlined above. It's just not always worth it, even if you can work faster. Bottom line is all that matters. Everything else means nothing.

[analogika]

Well, since you speak of video: I'd assume that any machine that will cut rendering/encoding time - still measured in HOURS per day - in half will make a good return on investment in a very short time?

[analogika]

Originally Posted by dmetzcher

Well, you didn't need to call the idea idiotic. He was just asking a question.
However, you are correct about the Windows menus. I always thought that the Apple menus were weird when I was primarily a Windows user, but, the truth is that they are a lot easier to use. No matter where your windows are, you always know that the menus are at the top of the screen, and that helps usability. It also helps new users find things easily.

Fitts' Law actually states that the edges of the screen are infinite in one dimension, and the corners in two. Meaning that having an object directly at the edge of the screen (as opposed to twelve pixels away from it) makes it MUCH easier to hit, since you only have to aim and go there. Does Microsoft Windows still have that stupid two-pixel non-clickable border around items on the taskbar or did they finally do away with it in XP? I can't remember.

[gheff]

Originally Posted by analogika

Fitts' Law actually states that the edges of the screen are infinite in one dimension, and the corners in two. Meaning that having an object directly at the edge of the screen (as opposed to twelve pixels away from it) makes it MUCH easier to hit, since you only have to aim and go there. Does Microsoft Windows still have that stupid two-pixel non-clickable border around items on the taskbar or did they finally do away with it in XP? I can't remember.

The border is still there--at least in the legacy Win2K/95 mode. (I never use the Fisher-Price mode.) But if you jam the mouse to the bottom of the screen and click, the applications activate. Actually, what it does is make the mouse pointer jump a few pixels so it goes into the task's button. It does the same thing for the Start menu, too.

[dmetzcher]

Originally Posted by analogika

Fitts' Law actually states that the edges of the screen are infinite in one dimension, and the corners in two. Meaning that having an object directly at the edge of the screen (as opposed to twelve pixels away from it) makes it MUCH easier to hit, since you only have to aim and go there. Does Microsoft Windows still have that stupid two-pixel non-clickable border around items on the taskbar or did they finally do away with it in XP? I can't remember.

Just tested. I don't remember the 2px border ever being there. I always just drag the mouse to the bottom of the screen to hit the Taskbar. It's not there now, if it ever was.

[dmetzcher]

Originally Posted by gheff

The border is still there--at least in the legacy Win2K/95 mode. (I never use the Fisher-Price mode.) But if you jam the mouse to the bottom of the screen and click, the applications activate. Actually, what it does is make the mouse pointer jump a few pixels so it goes into the task's button. It does the same thing for the Start menu, too.

Ah, that explains it. I use the kiddie mode. I figure, if it's Windows XP, it might as well look like Windows XP, in all its terrible glory.

[dmetzcher]

(Hey, I just hit 50 posts again. Now, if the system doesn't lose my account, again, maybe I can get my posts back to where they were before.)

[goMac]

Originally Posted by badsey

Intel has had Quad-Core out for quite a while.
http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets...oc.aspx?i=2846

The Mac Pro is good, but not great. Depends what needs you have for a computer. OSX is the important part here. It can take advantage of all these cores well. You simply are misinformed about Intel and their chips = nothing more nothing less.

The Mac Pro is a cheap 4 core (2x2) workstation. Accessible for most and OSX is cheap ~$100.

Even the iPod will be multicore eventually. = This is the direction CPUs are going.

Quad Core is not out until December. The article you linked to is a preview.

The Mac Pro is as fast as Intel makes them. The only reason it doesn't have Crossfire/SLI is because Intel's chipset doesn't offer enough PCI lanes.

[Curiosity]

Originally Posted by alphasubzero949

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.

And speaking of reinstalls, if you ever need to, you better hope that your PC came with recovery and driver CDs in the first place. Oh that's right. They don't anymore. And if you do have a WinXP CD, you'll need to slipstream SP2 otherwise you're just asking for it if you need to go online and use Windows Update. After all, that network standalone updater isn't 'recommended' by the mothership, right?

As far as XP being single user goes, XP Home is single user, but XP Pro was designed to be multi-user.
You are certainly right about having to use a firewall, anti-virus, anti-spyware (preferably more than one), anti-rootkit, script protection, etc.
Running Internet Explorer without locking it down first is certainly inviting someone to dump something nasty on you. Browsing through a web filter is also advisable.
I have not reinstalled XP on my PC since I installed it in April of last year. It has been pretty stable. By the time that I began using XP, SP2 was already incorporated into it. I do regular maintenance tasks on it, also keep backup copies of important files, as well as copies of the registry, desktop layout, start menu, application data. I also do regular OS patches, but not through Microsoft automatic update; I get my patches manually, and install them manually. My PC came with a branded OS disk, as well as drivers, and some other bundled applications.
I must say that it is nice to be able to download things like screensavers for the Mac without worrying that spyware has been added to them. I appreciate that system cleanup is done automatically by the system as well, though I have an app that will reschedule those tasks to when the computer is actually on, so they do not get missed.

[analogika]

Originally Posted by dmetzcher

Just tested. I don't remember the 2px border ever being there. I always just drag the mouse to the bottom of the screen to hit the Taskbar. It's not there now, if it ever was.

Oh, it was there alright.

http://www.softlookup.com/tutorial/WINNT/05fig03.gif

[dmetzcher]

Originally Posted by analogika

Oh, it was there alright.

http://www.softlookup.com/tutorial/WINNT/05fig03.gif

You asked if it was there with XP. I thought you meant that it was, at one point, there on XP. You are referencing a screenshot of NT, not XP. It was there in earlier versions of the Windows OS, including 95, 98, and NT, but it's not there with XP, unless you switch modes to the Classic look, which I don't really care for anyway. Even then, as someone has pointed out, while it is still there, it is not a problem because the OS knows what you are doing and corrects the mouse position for you. So, it's gone now. After several versions of their OS, someone at Microsoft got a clue.

[analogika]

Yes, apparently. It just seemed like you were questioning that the border ever existed in any version of Windows, and I felt compelled to point out that it definitely did, for a very very long time - up until XP.

[TETENAL]

Originally Posted by rdf8585

I've gotten used to the menu bar at the top... that was a big adjustment coming from Windows where it's on the bottom, and I'd never unlock it and move it to the top either.

The menubar in Windows is on the bottom? That's news to me.

[ghporter]

The Windows "TASK BAR" is is at the bottom of the screen. The "MENU BAR" is at the top of every Windows window. I think rdf8585 is talking about the Dock... And if so, why CAN'T he move it to the bottom-doesn't it start there by default? My head hurts...

[sushiism]

Originally Posted by mac128k-1984

As much as I like OSX and Macs, you cannot say BSOD's any more. MS has a really stable OS in XP.

I've been using XP for some time on my work laptop and it crashes as frequently (or infrequently) as OSX does. It does force you to reboot for the sillest things, like uninstalling a text editor - absolutely ludicrous. Regardless it is a very stable OS.

Besides, if XP truly sucked why does it seem so many Mac users have been froathing at the mouth with boot camp and parallels. I use boot camp because I have to (some software is windows only) but I'm not all worked up about it like so many people are (visit the boot camp forum over at apple discussions).

It is true that if a pc is of decent quality and set up right then windows is pretty stable.

Thats not why its crap, the terrible interface and usability design is why its crap.
I can't stand the click through, when I edit coding I always have to scan the document to find where I was editing when I click to bring it to front because the caret goes to where I clicked. In osx the caret remains where I left it which speeds up productivity a hell of a lot.
I suppose this goes back to the task bar because it doesn't do this if you switch down there but maximised apps and the task bar are even more counter productive.

Thank god for osx and its superior windowing model, the zoom button which is a god send in photoshop (no need to resize every window individually when you zoom in like you do in XP, its amazing colour picker, incredibly well designed network preference panels and lack of annoying driver installation rubbish.

oh and most of all, NO WINDOW REDRAW FLICKERING, it gives me a headache watching XP redraw stuff when I resize or move things.

[Strupat]

Superior windowing model? Maximizing doesn't work, it is frustrating to resize a window (especially if it is taller that the screen!), and the inability to use window-contained menubars is no better than Windows' inability to use one, unified, menubar.

A superior model would be completely customizable, like KDE for Linux.

I find the taskbar in Windows to be much easier to use. The dock doesn't even tell you the title of the window until you hover over it. trying to restore one of many minimized Word documents is a nuisance, in my opinion.

I understand this is personal preference, but don't go saying one is superior to the other. They are just different.

[analogika]

Originally Posted by Strupat

Superior windowing model? Maximizing doesn't work, it is frustrating to resize a window (especially if it is taller that the screen!), and the inability to use window-contained menubars is no better than Windows' inability to use one, unified, menubar.

A superior model would be completely customizable, like KDE for Linux.

No.

Clutter is NOT better, no matter what you say.

"Maximizing" works EXACTLY the way it is supposed to - it just ISN'T MAXIMIZING. It's actually "size this window appropriately to fit its content." Without wasting huge amounts of screen space on empty white or gray background. This is personal preference, but it does highlight a fundamental difference between the Mac and Windows. The Mac interface is inherently multi-layered. It's designed to give you a sense of depth, analog to the way having real tasks on a real desk have depth. It goes hand-in-hand with the drag-and-drop (NOT cut-and-paste) approach to EVERYTHING from graphics into text documents, over web links to desktop .loc files, to dragging an item from a Finder window into a save dialog or a Terminal window to paste its file path.

The menubar-within-the-window is ergonomically horribly inefficient and thus BAD INTERFACE DESIGN. PERIOD. There are many conclusive usability studies that prove this beyond the shadow of a doubt. It's just a really, really stupid idea, and the only reason Linux window managers use the idiotic windows-and-menubars-within-a-single-window paradigm is because almost all of them are originally based around Windows knock-offs, and Windows was a Mac knock-off that broke what actually made (and makes) the Mac interface great in just about every significant way possible.

There's a whole bunch of examples.

I realize that you're a geek, and all you're asking for is the option and the means to **** it up, but it's not really TOO hard to grasp why Apple will never give it to you.

It's the simple fact that 95% of computer users are NOT geeks, and given the chance to **** things up, they probably will.

I find the taskbar in Windows to be much easier to use. The dock doesn't even tell you the title of the window until you hover over it. trying to restore one of many minimized Word documents is a nuisance, in my opinion.

Ah, the joys of having five windows minimized to the task bar, each one so helpfully labeled with the document title: "Netsca...", "Netsca...", "Netsca...", "Netsca...", and "Netsca...", with another five next to that: "Micro...", "Micro...", "Micro...", "Micro...", and "Micro...".

I do miss that from my last job. It was so much more efficient.

[Strupat]

I can see you are lost in a world where Windows still crashes all day and has a maximum resolution of 640x480. The title of the window is not the application's name anymore.

It is a good thing I'm not stuck in a world where Mac OS can only run one program at a time and runs out of memory after 45 minutes.

You sound upset that I prefer a different interface than you. I know I'm not alone.

[pheonixash]

Originally Posted by Strupat

I can see you are lost in a world where Windows still crashes all day and has a maximum resolution of 640x480. The title of the window is not the application's name anymore.

Right, open 5 Microsoft Word windows and 5 Internet Explorer Windows with Taskbar Grouping turned on, and see the name of the group in the taskbar.

[analogika]

Originally Posted by Strupat

I can see you are lost in a world where Windows still crashes all day and has a maximum resolution of 640x480. The title of the window is not the application's name anymore.

It is a good thing I'm not stuck in a world where Mac OS can only run one program at a time and runs out of memory after 45 minutes.

That certainly wasn't the case in NT, nor in the XP installation we got after that.

[Strupat]

Originally Posted by pheonixash

Right, open 5 Microsoft Word windows and 5 Internet Explorer Windows with Taskbar Grouping turned on, and see the name of the group in the taskbar.

How else would grouping work? I was talking about titles without grouping...

Originally Posted by analogika

That certainly wasn't the case in NT, nor in the XP installation we got after that.

Again, how many years ago was this true for you? XP SP0?

[goMac]

Windows Vista isn't much better interface wise. Microsoft's idea of making your computer easier to use is hiding all the options. Because obviously... if you burry each control panel 4 layers deep, they won't be there to bother the user. This is just one example.

Genius Microsoft. Just genius.

[analogika]

Originally Posted by Strupat

Again, how many years ago was this true for you? XP SP0?

2004.

[Hi I'm Ben]

I see a lot of ignorant and pointless rants about XP in here. It's kind of sad because it doesn't make Mac OS look any better only goes to show there's a lot of Mac Zealots out there without a clue about what they're talking about.


If you want to compare XP vs. Mac and vice versa do it fairly. If you don't even know enough about one or the other subjects don't make random false assumptions that make you and everyone else on this board look dumb.

[- - e r i k - -]

Originally Posted by Strupat

You sound upset that I prefer a different interface than you. I know I'm not alone.

You are the shining example of the computing equivalent of the Stockholm Syndrome.

[Strupat]

Originally Posted by Hi I'm Ben

I see a lot of ignorant and pointless rants about XP in here. It's kind of sad because it doesn't make Mac OS look any better only goes to show there's a lot of Mac Zealots out there without a clue about what they're talking about.


If you want to compare XP vs. Mac and vice versa do it fairly. If you don't even know enough about one or the other subjects don't make random false assumptions that make you and everyone else on this board look dumb.

Thank you for that. That is the point I was trying to get across.

[Strupat]

Originally Posted by analogika

Ah, the joys of having five windows minimized to the task bar, each one so helpfully labeled with the document title: "Netsca...", "Netsca...", "Netsca...", "Netsca...", and "Netsca...", with another five next to that: "Micro...", "Micro...", "Micro...", "Micro...", and "Micro...".

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

[lookmark]

Both the Taskbar and the Dock have their pros and cons, honestly.

The Dock is easy to grasp, excellent for launching, lovely for drag-and-drop, looks great, and is terrific for notification (primary example being Mail's "new mail" badge), but it can get very unwieldy on a smallish screen, is so-so at minimizing windows (works all right for visually distinct windows, but poorly for text-heavy or similar-looking windows) and it can get sometimes annoyingly get in the way.

The Taskbar (XP) is easy to grasp, OK for launching, packs in an impressive amount of functionality in a small space, and is excellent at handling a handful of minimized windows... but it scales poorly (grouping is simply not a good or ssolution, IMO), and inevitably ends up having far too many squintingly tiny icons.

[Strupat]

I have a widescreen, high resolution laptop, and I have turned off grouping (I prefer to just hover over the buttons when I can't tell from the truncated title). I don't have a problem seeing the icons.

I don't see how someone could have trouble seeing an icon that is actually bigger than the letters of the default font. But to each, their own.

[analogika]

Originally Posted by Strupat 

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

Three ways:

1) The Dock icon is actually a minimized preview, which is very helpful for web pages, if not for Word documents

2) The Dock icon will *immediately* show its full title once you mouse over it,

3) Individual windows don't actually show up and clutter up the Dock unless you explicitly put them there.

As it is, neither are really ideal, since even the Dock requires mousing-over in many cases, but OTOH, since Exposé, I hardly ever minimize *any* window.

[chirpy22]

you could probably sell the mini on ebay and get most of your money back

[Strupat]

Originally Posted by chirpy22 

you could probably sell the mini on ebay and get most of your money back

That's what I did. I sold it for close to what I paid six months after I bought it.

[bleee]

I'm not gonna argue with him, he has some good points. I even applaud him for atleast keeping an open mind and blowing $650 to try out OS X. I just blew like $3500 on a Mac Pro... this is truely what Apple should have done years ago. When I switch I started out with a 600Mhz G3 iBook (white) I used it for about 3 years and passed it on to my folks and they used it nighly to surf the net. Than I bought a G4, power book. Which I still use today at work because they won't buy me a mac. Apple is about he user experience if you could blow the cash and buy an updated mac I think you'll see a big difference. Even the new mini's are kinda slow because of the dinky harddrive they put in them.

[Simon]

Originally Posted by Strupat 

That's what I did. I sold it for close to what I paid six months after I bought it.

And what Mac did you replace it with?

[stray8]

I actually switched from Mac to XP back when XP initially came out... my old PM 6100 was gone and quite honestly the price/performance was just crap on the Apple front until just recently with the intel switch. Plus the fact Vista is utter garbage but... I'll skip that fact. I really liked Windows for a time but it's the little things that got to me... like the fact that uninstallng a program still left the directory, registry entries, as well as a bunch of dll's and god knows what everywhere. The only really good way to keep a Windows system clean is to reformat or reimage it every few months. Which isn't to say Windows is bad per se, but for me MacOS as well as the Apple/intel platform finally matured to a point where I just had no real interest in running a Windows PC anymore.

As far as browsers though I'm all Opera. I can't even bring myself to bother with Safari on my new Mac, and even Firefox on any platform is pretty meh. Now if only someone would implement mouse gestures in an OS...