Thinking of leaving PC for Mac. Questions...

[QwertyJuan]

Simply drag the file you use frequently to the Dock and it'll "pin" it there. One can also make Folders or Stacks to contain multiple files and then change the way each container looks when it opens (as a fan, a grid, or a list).


Dropbox and SugarSync aren't built into OS X yet but the person you were responding to seems to have found it easier and more enjoyable to do what he needs to do on a Mac, which is what is going to dictate how much work he does or doesn't get done in a day.

That said, I was happy to move away from half a dozen replicated services and simply use iCloud to sync everything. Now I no longer use Drive, DropBox, or SugarSync, or any of the other myriad other services I have forgotten more of than remember.

For first reply - Can these files be pulled from different locations? As in from different HDD's or network locations?? (honest question).

Second - It "might" be nice to move away from third party apps, but when you work with a bunch of different people, each using another "app" to sync, unfortunately third-party apps are sometimes a necessity.

P.S. I don't see how installing Dropbox on a Mac is any easier/better than installing it on Windows. I've done it many times and it's really tit for tat.

 

[mope54]

In Windows, a UI window is bound to a running application, which makes total sense. A visible app has nothing to do with a background process/service, which is what you're talking about.

If OSX actually closed the visible app while letting the actual process run, I'd have no problem. But it doesn't. It chooses the most unhelpful and unintuitive model, i.e. the process keeps running AND you see the active app in the menu bar, but nowhere else. Its terribly confusing and serves no purpose. What you end up with is apps that run forever unless users do Cmd+Q which no one does.

Windows has a simple and elegant model - when you are done using an app, you X out of it (or Alt-F4). The app will close, and it its a process designed to run in the background or a service, it will keep running.

On OSX its the exact opposite. Every single app will keep running till you quit it. Quit and close are separate actions. Why??? Not everything is meant to run forever, in fact very few things are.

You have your history backwards.

Here is a good explanation of the history of Macintosh GUI vs. Windows. I'm quoting a shorter post from the link describing how to think about the issue, which may be less confusing for you:

"When an application always has only a single (main) window (e.g. System Preferences), closing it (either File > Close, Command+W, or the per-window red X in the upper-left) quits the application (being “done with” the window means you are “done with” the application since there is only one window). Applications that can have more than one main window do not quit when the last window is closed. The application stays open so you can use (e.g.) File > New… (or File > Open…) to open a new window without having to quit and restart the application. – Chris Johnsen"

http://unix.stackexchange.com/questions/4618/why-mac-applications-never-get-closed

 

[QwertyJuan]

On OSX its the exact opposite. Every single app will keep running till you quit it. Quit and close are separate actions. Why??? Not everything is meant to run forever, in fact very few things are.

Yes... definitely an annoyance I've seen with OSX as well.

Another question... why do some apps minimize over to the trash can side and some just go straight down into the dock and leave a little "dot" under the program icon? I find this very annoying and inconsistent. I can't imagine with Steve Jobs being as anal as he was for perfection that this didn't annoy him as well.

 

[QwertyJuan]

You have your history backwards.

Here is a good explanation of the history of Macintosh GUI vs. Windows. I'm quoting a shorter post from the link describing how to think about the issue, which may be less confusing for you:

"When an application always has only a single (main) window (e.g. System Preferences), closing it (either File > Close, Command+W, or the per-window red X in the upper-left) quits the application (being “done with” the window means you are “done with” the application since there is only one window). Applications that can have more than one main window do not quit when the last window is closed. The application stays open so you can use (e.g.) File > New… (or File > Open…) to open a new window without having to quit and restart the application. – Chris Johnsen"

http://unix.stackexchange.com/questions/4618/why-mac-applications-never-get-closed

So what you are saying is that I can't have "two instances" of a program open at the same time on a Mac?

 

[mope54]

For first reply - Can these files be pulled from different locations? As in from different HDD's or network locations?? (honest question).

Second - It "might" be nice to move away from third party apps, but when you work with a bunch of different people, each using another "app" to sync, unfortunately third-party apps are sometimes a necessity.

P.S. I don't see how installing Dropbox on a Mac is any easier/better than installing it on Windows. I've done it many times and it's really tit for tat.

Yes, the files can be pulled in from various locations.

You can still use all of the third party apps if you desire. You can use the integration services if you desire. I personally moved to iCloud because it made it easier for me. If I need to share my work with others I can collaborate via iCloud (it allows non-iCloud users access as well as a Windows native app) or Drive.

I never said that installing DropBox on a Mac is easier or better than installing it on a PC. I said that the person you were responding to apparently finds it easier to integrate all of the services he wants/needs on a Mac. He didn't list SugarSync so he probably doesn't need it. The only service he listed that isn't currently built into OS X is DropBox. That's one 3rd party app vs. a myriad of others to get the same level of integration he needs.

 

[QwertyJuan]

Yes, the files can be pulled in from various locations.

You can still use all of the third party apps if you desire. You can use the integration services if you desire. I personally moved to iCloud because it made it easier for me. If I need to share my work with others I can collaborate via iCloud (it allows non-iCloud users access as well as a Windows native app) or Drive.

I never said that installing DropBox on a Mac is easier or better than installing it on a PC. I said that the person you were responding to apparently finds it easier to integrate all of the services he wants/needs on a Mac. He didn't list SugarSync so he probably doesn't need it. The only service he listed that isn't currently built into OS X is DropBox. That's one 3rd party app vs. a myriad of others to get the same level of integration he needs.

Google Drive is built into OSX?

 

[mope54]

Yes... definitely an annoyance I've seen with OSX as well.

Another question... why do some apps minimize over to the trash can side and some just go straight down into the dock and leave a little "dot" under the program icon? I find this very annoying and inconsistent. I can't imagine with Steve Jobs being as anal as he was for perfection that this didn't annoy him as well.

It might help to think of the main Dock as the Taskbar and the little area by the Trash can as the Notification Area. If you use an App frequently simply right click on it and pin it to the Dock and it'll open on the Dock side. Otherwise things like personal folders and stacks are over on the Trash can side of the Dock to help differentiate them from system Apps...but one can drag each from either side to the other; these are simply system defaults.

Google Drive is built into OSX?

All of the Google sync services are built into OS X. I'm not sure which features you feel the standalone app would provide in addition to the sync services. I haven't used it in a long time on my PC because I only game on my PC now. To get the same level of sync services I had to install the app on my PC. To actually use the files I had stored on Drive I navigated to them from a browser--just like I do on both PC's and Macs. I think both allowed me to access files via "Last used" or "Frequently used," or at least my Macbook does. Again I can't remember what does or doesn't happen on a PC. I only use a PC for work when I'm standing in front of a classroom and I have to use the computer at the podium.

 

[mope54]

So what you are saying is that I can't have "two instances" of a program open at the same time on a Mac?

Your question is a non-sequitur to the portion I quoted (and I didn't say it regardless), but I'll go ahead and answer your question:

One can open and run discrete processes of the same App if they have different names. For example, someone could conceivable copy Mail to Mail2 and run both at the same time. I'm unclear of a functional purpose to do so, but it's an option. It's also extremely easy to do this because there is no registry or "install" procedure like would be necessary for most Windows applications.

If you simply want to start a new instance of something all apps that I've experienced have a New Window option, which would be the functional equivalent of different processes for each "window."

That said, this entire trajectory of users constantly closing windows and re-opening them begs the question why you think this is a productive use of your time and computer resources when we're dealing with gigs of RAM, most of which is unused and an OS that compresses unused Apps and memory when the situation calls for it.

 

[QwertyJuan]

....That said, this entire trajectory of users constantly closing windows and re-opening them begs the question why you think this is a productive use of your time and computer resources when we're dealing with gigs of RAM, most of which is unused and an OS that compresses unused Apps and memory when the situation calls for it.

A second instance of Word opens as fast (which is to say instantly) as I can open another file in the same Word program. So not sure what you mean by this.

 

[mope54]

A second instance of Word opens as fast (which is to say instantly) as I can open another file in the same Word program. So not sure what you mean by this.

A second instance of Word opens as fast as opening a second file in the same window because the process is running.

That's not what MrCrispy is complaining about, though. He is talking about closing Word down completely (killing the process entirely) and then re-opening it later. If you do that it won't open at the same speed and there isn't any reason to do it on a modern system.

In fact, given that I haven't used Word on a PC in a few years, would you please explain to me how you can close all of your currently open documents in Word yet keep Word's process running in the background (without opening a blank page placeholder)?

 

[Spazturtle]

On OSX its the exact opposite. Every single app will keep running till you quit it. Quit and close are separate actions. Why??? Not everything is meant to run forever, in fact very few things are.

Good, that's how it should be.

Applications should only close when you tell them to.

 

[Andyk5]

Not really sure where you're getting this. Libraries take care of what you're talking about here, pretty much all modern programs that save end user files default the Library locations. Stuff gets on the desktop because people just put stuff there when there's really no need to or if a program installs a shortcut. I turn off my desktop icons so nothing on the desktop matters. As far as the scenario you described with email, contact lists and so forth, Outlook handles this stuff great and there are good Windows clients and tools for Dropbox and Google Drive.

Simple,
I have not changed how I was using a computer at all. All I did was to move from Windows to Mac and everything is more neat and organized, I can find whatever I want much faster with less frustration. I like the Unix based/like directory structure better as well. Maybe the way Mac does things matched my natural tendencies as a user and I love it. I don't really care what anyone else says about it, I truly believe it is a superior way of doing things.

 

[QwertyJuan]

In fact, given that I haven't used Word on a PC in a few years, would you please explain to me how you can close all of your currently open documents in Word yet keep Word's process running in the background (without opening a blank page placeholder)?

That's something I never do I guess. I don't really see any reason to do that personally. Word opens up in 1 second anyhow (I can't even get the word Mississippi out of my mouth after I say 1 and it's already open.)

And I'm not even running an SSD. I imagine with an SSD it would be instant and completely negligible if it was already open or if I opened it "from scratch".

 

[QwertyJuan]

Simple,
I have not changed how I was using a computer at all. All I did was to move from Windows to Mac and everything is more neat and organized, I can find whatever I want much faster with less frustration. I like the Unix based/like directory structure better as well. Maybe the way Mac does things matched my natural tendencies as a user and I love it. I don't really care what anyone else says about it, I truly believe it is a superior way of doing things.

Hey, that is great!

Perhaps the OP will benefit as much as you did and be very happy with their "switch".

 

[wonderfield]

In Windows, a UI window is bound to a running application, which makes total sense. A visible app has nothing to do with a background process/service, which is what you're talking about.

I never said anything about background processes. A background process is, by simple definition, window-less.

If OSX actually closed the visible app while letting the actual process run, I'd have no problem. But it doesn't.

You're looking for a decoupling that doesn't make sense. The term "app" and "process" are interchangeable, as they are the same thing.

It chooses the most unhelpful and unintuitive model, i.e. the process keeps running AND you see the active app in the menu bar, but nowhere else.

You also see the app's icon in the Dock and the in task switcher, and can still make it active with those mechanisms. What you don't see, of course, is its window. As I already explained, application windows are not bound to application processes. Was my earlier explanation unclear?

Its terribly confusing and serves no purpose. What you end up with is apps that run forever unless users do Cmd+Q which no one does.

Which is a problem...why? If a user runs out of memory, unused apps are paged to disk, just as in Windows. It's in the vast majority of scenarios faster to resume their state from the page file than it is to re-launch the application. Generally speaking, you should not terminate every process you aren't currently in the midst of using on any OS. This is not 1996.

Windows has a simple and elegant model - when you are done using an app, you X out of it (or Alt-F4). The app will close, and it its a process designed to run in the background or a service, it will keep running.

OS X has a more elegant model: when you're done using an app, you need do nothing at all. Is doing nothing not simpler than doing something?

On OSX its the exact opposite. Every single app will keep running till you quit it.

This is different from Windows...how? The mechanism for terminating the app is simply different between the two OSes, but you've simultaneously described the way every operating system works. Oops!

 

[MrCrispy]

You have your history backwards.

Here is a good explanation of the history of Macintosh GUI vs. Windows. I'm quoting a shorter post from the link describing how to think about the issue, which may be less confusing for you:

"When an application always has only a single (main) window (e.g. System Preferences), closing it (either File > Close, Command+W, or the per-window red X in the upper-left) quits the application (being “done with” the window means you are “done with” the application since there is only one window). Applications that can have more than one main window do not quit when the last window is closed. The application stays open so you can use (e.g.) File > New… (or File > Open&#8230 to open a new window without having to quit and restart the application. – Chris Johnsen"

http://unix.stackexchange.com/questions/4618/why-mac-applications-never-get-closed

Except this isn't true on any newer version of OSX. You can open pretty much any app, and even if it has a single window, closing it won't quit the app. try it with a browser, TextMate, Calendar etc. Open the app, its a single window, close it, app is still running in the dock and active in menu bar, there's no UI and no main window.

 

[mope54]

Except this isn't true on any newer version of OSX. You can open pretty much any app, and even if it has a single window, closing it won't quit the app. try it with a browser, TextMate, Calendar etc. Open the app, its a single window, close it, app is still running in the dock and active in menu bar, there's no UI and no main window.

None of those examples are of apps with single windows

he's not referring apps with single windows open, even though tabs or new windows can be created

single windowed apps, like disk utility and system preferences, do not have an option to create another window or tab

safari, textmate, calendar, etc. that can all create new windows and tabs are *not* single window applications. try it out.

I'm currently on yosemite 10.10, which is the *newest* version of OS X. It was the same for Mavericks all the way down to Snow Leopard, which is the earliest version of OS X I've used. As far as I know, consistency between versions of OS X is one of the staples of the OS design and something that should have probably been mentioned earlier.

While it's true that users migrating from Windows to OS X (and vice versa) need to learn new paradigms, it's not true that users migrating between different versions of OS X have to. That's not always true with Windows.

 

[mi7chy]

It would help if the OP states exactly what his PC is doing wrong for him to want to want to do a drastic switch. It could be a build issue specific to his PC since it's running fine for the majority of the industry. I know people with more stringent requirements run workstation quality components like Supermicro motherboard, ECC memory, don't overclock, etc. since they expect a higher level of reliability and availability than what's offered with desktop level components.

Also, it helps to understand what the OP needs to run in terms of software since the OS X market is a small subset of what's available on Windows especially for professional level software like OrCAD for chip design, SolidWorks for product modeling, etc.

If the OP doesn't run games, doesn't have any software requirements and only require the basics then it doesn't hurt to try a Mac or any pre-built PC for that fact.

Btw, a software's ability to close or stay in memory is dependent on the software itself and not necessarily OS specific. For example, Chrome has the option to stay in memory for notifications on Windows.

 

[mope54]

Btw, a software's ability to close or stay in memory is dependent on the software itself and not necessarily OS specific. For example, Chrome has the option to stay in memory for notifications on Windows.

Another great reason to avoid Windows applications if they can override how the OS handles memory and system resources.

 

[mi7chy]

Another great reason to avoid Windows applications if they can override how the OS handles memory and system resources.

Even Tim Cook can't avoid windows applications such as for running his production facility.

http://www.pcworld.com/article/2360671/oops-tim-cook-tweets-photo-of-mac-production-line-running-windows.html

 

[peppergomez]

Been away from [H] b/c I'm moving and packing, and will read these replies.

 

[Aurelius]

Software is frequently a matter of preference, but the practical reality is that Apple makes laptops with above-average reliability, extra-long battery life, good trackpads and good keyboards. Better phone support and a retail network that might save you from mailing things in for repair, too. Unless you're completely opposed to OS X or have a one-of-a-kind app that won't run, you'll be fine -- it could be an upgrade.

 

[Tyler-Durden]

I use a Windows desktop and Mac laptop (retina MBP running Parallels). I think it's the best of both worlds. Were I to go all in with Mac, I'd get a MacBook Pro or iMac with the biggest SSD I could afford. That would give me the best option to keep the Windows programs/games I like. Of course, then I really wouldn't be going all Mac, would I?

It's a big decision. Don't assume that going all Mac automatically insures a trouble-free hardware experience. If you have a hardware problem, however, the service at an Apple store truly is amazing. Buy the extended 3-year warranty. It's worth every penny.

 

[QwertyJuan]

I use a Windows desktop and Mac laptop (retina MBP running Parallels). I think it's the best of both worlds. Were I to go all in with Mac, I'd get a MacBook Pro or iMac with the biggest SSD I could afford. That would give me the best option to keep the Windows programs/games I like. Of course, then I really wouldn't be going all Mac, would I?

It's a big decision. Don't assume that going all Mac automatically insures a trouble-free hardware experience. If you have a hardware problem, however, the service at an Apple store truly is amazing. Buy the extended 3-year warranty. It's worth every penny.

Exactly... amazing warranty, BUT as you say, they have hardware issues as well. We have half a dozen here at work and we've had mice, trackpads, keyboards and HDDs go bad.(now that I'm thinking about it... mostly peripherals... hmmm..... maybe buy a Mac and tell them to keep their keyboard & mouse/trackpad combo and buy logitech?? ) We've also had to reload nearly all of them for getting sluggish over time.... one just recently. I have another one I need to reload right now for same issue. It's terribly sluggish.... creaks, grinds and groans through the day....

 

[Deinos]

Exactly... amazing warranty, BUT as you say, they have hardware issues as well. We have half a dozen here at work and we've had mice, trackpads, keyboards and HDDs go bad.(now that I'm thinking about it... mostly peripherals... hmmm..... maybe buy a Mac and tell them to keep their keyboard & mouse/trackpad combo and buy logitech?? ) We've also had to reload nearly all of them for getting sluggish over time.... one just recently. I have another one I need to reload right now for same issue. It's terribly sluggish.... creaks, grinds and groans through the day....

Out of curiosity, what yr/model are the machines that you are having problems with?

 

[Aurelius]

Exactly... amazing warranty, BUT as you say, they have hardware issues as well. We have half a dozen here at work and we've had mice, trackpads, keyboards and HDDs go bad.(now that I'm thinking about it... mostly peripherals... hmmm..... maybe buy a Mac and tell them to keep their keyboard & mouse/trackpad combo and buy logitech?? ) We've also had to reload nearly all of them for getting sluggish over time.... one just recently. I have another one I need to reload right now for same issue. It's terribly sluggish.... creaks, grinds and groans through the day....

I do think people need a realistic attitude toward the Mac before going into it. They're computers; computers break. Apple can use more reliable components and offer higher build quality, but that doesn't mean you will never, ever see a failed or defective part. The difference is that you shouldn't get flaws that are obviously the result of cutting corners, like flimsy laptop shells or batteries that tend to lose most of their capacity in a year (I've seen both happen).

 

[MrCrispy]

I'm not quite sold on the hardware bit either. MBP is a great product, but take away the aluminum and trackpad, and it really is no different in construction or reliability from any decent Ultrabook. It doesn't run any faster or boot/resume any faster than Win 8 + SSD either. I'll concede the battery life is above average, but again I see my MBP doesn't really last as long if I have a typical workload open (Chrome with lots of tabs, 3 instances of IntelliJ, VMware, Outlook etc), its really no different from a Windows laptop. The keyboard layout on a MBP is definitely worse, and it has less ports.

IMO the Mac hardware superiority is just reputation and no longer clear cut reality today. And the fact of the matter is that if Apple supported OSX on other hardware, which they can easily, Mac sales would plummet like a rock. They know this too.

 

[QwertyJuan]

Out of curiosity, what yr/model are the machines that you are having problems with?

The ones that needed reloading were varied... I don't know the exact "build date" (suppose I could look at them but can't be bothered)....

Two laptops needed reloading(MBP's)... one maybe 2010 and the other 2011 maybe(reloaded them when they were maybe 2 years old? no older for sure... they were sold not much longer afterward and replaced with newer units.... bosses machines.)

A MacBook Air(bosses wife's machine), which got so slow that it was hardly usable... AND wireless card went bad in it.

The others were a 2013 21.5" iMac.... and a 27" iMac... maybe 2012 as well??

The HDD we had go bad was also on that same 27" iMac... also had DVD drive go bad in it as well as trackpad.(can you say lemon??)

The 21.5" had mouse and keyboard go bad.

How many Windows machines have I had issues with? Just as many.... (wireless cards and a few reloads... same kinda thing) but the bosses buy $600 Windows laptops for the employees and run $2000 MBPs(and iMacs)....

I expect more. WAY more... and I don't see it.

 

[QwertyJuan]

I do think people need a realistic attitude toward the Mac before going into it. They're computers; computers break. Apple can use more reliable components and offer higher build quality, but that doesn't mean you will never, ever see a failed or defective part. The difference is that you shouldn't get flaws that are obviously the result of cutting corners, like flimsy laptop shells or batteries that tend to lose most of their capacity in a year (I've seen both happen).

The Macs DO have superior build quality... without a doubt. They just don't last any longer.

 

[Deinos]

The ones that needed reloading were varied... I don't know the exact "build date" (suppose I could look at them but can't be bothered)....

Two laptops needed reloading(MBP's)... one maybe 2010 and the other 2011 maybe(reloaded them when they were maybe 2 years old? no older for sure... they were sold not much longer afterward and replaced with newer units.... bosses machines.)

A MacBook Air(bosses wife's machine), which got so slow that it was hardly usable... AND wireless card went bad in it.

The others were a 2013 21.5" iMac.... and a 27" iMac... maybe 2012 as well??

The HDD we had go bad was also on that same 27" iMac... also had DVD drive go bad in it as well as trackpad.(can you say lemon??)

The 21.5" had mouse and keyboard go bad.

How many Windows machines have I had issues with? Just as many.... (wireless cards and a few reloads... same kinda thing) but the bosses buy $600 Windows laptops for the employees and run $2000 MBPs(and iMacs)....

I expect more. WAY more... and I don't see it.

Thanks for the update! Was curious about the range of models and relative age of the units.

 

[MrGuvernment]

what I want is a computer that doesn't fuck up all the time. or a lot of the time.

Then stop dicking around with your windows machines.??

The systems i see always screwing up are ones that:

1. People dick around with via overclocking / mods
2. install things with out reading and hit next next next
3. do not run antivirus
4. download and run anything a web site pops up

So basically all user error.

FYI the only "superior" build quality is the casing, everything else is the same old Foxconn / WD / Segate [insert hardware maker name here] parts every other computer uses in the world.

Mac's are sexy and sleek, no denying that, but they don't have some magical hardware in them different than any other. On that note their iMac's run too hot, at least their late 2011 models do, we have 4 at work with the design flaw of Apple and half the screen going dull because of a cheap connector used and poor cooling. Great "Superior" build quality on that one....

 

[UnknownSouljer]

Then stop dicking around with your windows machines.??

The systems i see always screwing up are ones that:

1. People dick around with via overclocking / mods
2. install things with out reading and hit next next next
3. do not run antivirus
4. download and run anything a web site pops up

So basically all user error.

True, but Mac's basically bypass all these problems by not requiring a registry or an installation process.

FYI the only "superior" build quality is the casing, everything else is the same old Foxconn / WD / Segate [insert hardware maker name here] parts every other computer uses in the world.

Not entirely true. All of Apple's PCBs are 100% custom. Their component selection I would also say is above average. I wouldn't argue "best of the best" per se, as I think every company does some level of compromise, but there is no question in my mind that the component selection in a MBP is far superior to that of a $500 Dell Inspiron. Dell and HP both of course have tiers, and their higher level machines (like the Envy or Alienware) have better component selection then their lesser machines.

All of that to say that no, Apple's components aren't magical, but they will never use cheap or junk parts that end up in a lot of machines. This is why when the [H] reviews a motherboard they talk about how many phases of power it has, the origination of the parts, and of course the robustness of them. It's because Kyle (and other reviewers) recognize that no, not all components are created equal.

Mac's are sexy and sleek, no denying that, but they don't have some magical hardware in them different than any other. On that note their iMac's run too hot, at least their late 2011 models do, we have 4 at work with the design flaw of Apple and half the screen going dull because of a cheap connector used and poor cooling. Great "Superior" build quality on that one....

Mac's just like every other company is built by humans. Humans make mistakes. Talking about one isolated incident is unfair. I have a friend who has the same sort of reactionary behavior. If he ever has an issue with anything ever, he essentially throws up his arms and says never again (or, I'll never buy from that company ever again). If you really have that attitude over a long enough period of time, you'll find that literally no organization can meet the zero defect standard just via simple statistics.

The problem (if you want to call it that) here is that Apple is up on a pedestal, so if any issue occurs people are quick to drop the judgement hammer. However Dell machines that burn out after 2 years of use is just business as usual. If everyone could be 100% objective (which they can't) I think the overall assessment would be that the averages favor Apple.

This is why Apple is still rated generally the best in areas of customer satisfaction as well as in other areas like customer service. If you can't get over that, that's fine, but most people will never experience what you have. I as an example have been computing with Apple for 6 years without issue. I had a logic board fail once on an MBP, but then it was fully covered/replaced under Apple care, followed by no problems (they shipped my computer back, and I was only without it for a little over a week, 8-9 days or so). Or you could visit around the forums for a few years and see how many people will have a terrible Asus, Gigabyte, Corsair, Crucial, nVidia, ATi, or some other major manufacturer problem and state they will never buy another one of them again. Because believe me, I've seen all of those statements at one time or another after being on this forum. I'm reasoned enough to see that every one of those manufacturers is fine, especially looking at the long term and that the glitches some people experience is not what happens most often. Just another case of the 'wronged' minority being the most vocal... which is actually what is happening in this thread.

If I believe everything that is said in here, I should expect that Mac's are all terrible, have terrible components, don't do anything correctly, and have a 100% failure rate inside of 1 year. Even the most hardened critic looking at the most reasonable data would have to agree that that isn't possibly true. Because if it was, Apple would have zero repeat customers (just remember GM/Ford/American auto manufacturers with planned obsolescence...), and I suppose the large amount of Apple hate would be justified.

 

[Andyk5]

The user experience with apple hardware is much better than any PC maker can offer as well.
It is more expensive but well worth it.

People love lists, so these are the reasons why I like Mac better than windows

1) I am typing this on a Dell monitor and Apple Thunderbolt monitor is much better

2) I am typing this on the most expensive wireless Dell Keyboard I could find and Apple's wireless keyboard is better

3) I am using the mouse that came with that crappy wireless keyboad and apple mouse is better

4) I am using the extra small not so slippery touchpad on the Dell laptop and Apple trackpad is better

5) I am using the mushy built in keyboard on this $4500 Dell workstation and apple built in keyboards are better

6) I am taking my Dell workstation to a meeting and it runs out of battery in 3-4 hours, my mac lasts 9

7) My Dell does not have any real life performance benefit over my mac no matter what the spec sheet says

8) My mac runs OSX, RedHAt enterprise and Windows, my Windows machine runs Windows and RedHAt only

9) My mac weighs half as much and is less than half as thick

10) My mac has a better screen which his glossy and has amazing deep blacks, My dell has anti glare coating so thick that whites appear almost greyish.

11) My mac's power brick is half the size and weight of the Dell's and charges the laptop within the same time period.

12) My mac has all matching accesories such as headphones, thunderbolt adapters, vga adapters, external USB drive which gives my workspace a clean sleek look and cable free to mostly hidden cabled desktop, almost like fresh breathe of air.

13) I am an Iphone and an Ipad user and my mac works seemlesly with them

14) I really like the app store now and there are a massive amount of free productivity software that can be had

15) OSx has bunch of built in, or natively supported tools such as native ssh agents, a proper terminal, file merger and excellent text editor etc...

16) It is literally a breeze to install things like python, git, coverage pip on a Mac ( It took me days to get them all worked out on a PC)

17) OSX native Finder, mail, calendar and Safari is easier to use and better in terms of productivity than Internet explorer, outlook and windows explorer.

18) If I put my Dell to sleep or hibernate with 90% battery left and come back to it in 24 hours, it will be either out of battery or 5-10% left. ( Massive leak of current to unused system components, discharging over cheaply made and not properly designed boards) I had my Macbook air at home on sleep mode, next to my bed and did not tocu hit for a week and it still has 50%+ battery. ( Very tight hardware, when you put it to sleep, it literally knows every avenue that may consume power and shuts them all down.) It is like the difference between the isolation properties of a Ford Pinto where you get wet in the car if it rains versus a Mercedes where you can't hear the person talking outside your car unless you lower the windows.

19) My Dell M4800 said it has Display port 1.2 and will support 4K monitor, it took the IT guys a week and 2 firmware updates to get it to work intermittently, My Dell M4800 spec sheet said it had 2 512 SSD's in Raid 0, which never worked IT ended up separating them, my Dell M4800 sleep mode never worked right where randomly it would not wake up from sleep, forcing me to hard reset the computer and lose all open windows and unsaved progress...on the contrary I opened the box of the Mac and it has been working ever since, with 0 problems. 0, zilch, nada. No headache's, no wasted productivity time, no barely knowledgable IT guys sitting on my desk asking me to enter my password and if I have tried restarting computer.... Just me, my office, my work and a sense of calmness.

I am sure I can find more but I have to get back to work.

If you don't like Mac's, I hope you don't like them because you owned them or used them in the past and had bad experiences with them, not just because it is cool to hate Mac's in the nerdy computing community where the best operating system is an unknown command based Linux operating system with a 4 year old fully stable kernel and GUI styling from 1990's.

 

[timmay]

Why does this thread need to be a pissing contest?

Both Macs and (Win-)PCs work fine.

Apple sells high end hardware only, PC vendors can and do produce similar products, which then cost just as much.

Both OSX and Windows 7 are very capable operating systems, both do some things different from each other - which is good: if everyone would do things the same way there'd be no innovation or progress.
Both have quirks and weaknesses, alas, 2014 is not the year OS evolution ends in perfection.

If the original poster is tired of Windows, why shouldn't he try OSX for a change? It's good to experience different software cultures. If he doesn't like OSX after a year or so, he can just install Linux or Windows.

 

[MrCrispy]

There's a general perception that Windows = evil, bad MS, and Mac = magical land where everything is better and just works.

This is simply not true. They both have pros/cons and there's a big learning curve on OSX, esp for someone coming from Windows. I was just trying to point this out. You're just trading to a different set of compromises.

 

[wonderfield]

In which of your posts did you detail the pros of OS X and the cons of Windows?

Your initial reply was "don't do it", then proceeded to describe OS X as a "toy" and a "joke". That you were merely attempting to paint a balanced picture of the various positives and negatives of each platform is slightly difficult to believe.

 

[LeninGHOLA]

There isn't a huge learning curve with OS X in my experience. It's different, but still fairly intuitive and functional.

 

[UnknownSouljer]

Why does this thread need to be a pissing contest?

Both Macs and (Win-)PCs work fine.

Apple sells high end hardware only, PC vendors can and do produce similar products, which then cost just as much.

Both OSX and Windows 7 are very capable operating systems, both do some things different from each other - which is good: if everyone would do things the same way there'd be no innovation or progress.
Both have quirks and weaknesses, alas, 2014 is not the year OS evolution ends in perfection.

If the original poster is tired of Windows, why shouldn't he try OSX for a change? It's good to experience different software cultures. If he doesn't like OSX after a year or so, he can just install Linux or Windows.

Everyone has an agenda. I generally try to go with reason and balance, but a lot of other people don't subscribe to that. I don't make it a secret that I prefer OSX, but I still feel that everyone should purchase a machine that will meet their needs. Quite frankly, OSX isn't for everyone or for every user. But neither is Windows. That's why multiple OS's exist, why multiple hardware manufacturers exist, etc. Because any single organization can't meet the needs everyone is going to have (needs as described in a marketing sense, as in tastes, preferences, as well as knowledge of things like segmentation).

Most people don't think this way though. There is a lot of zealotry on both sides that is armed with the mentality that their methods are correct, and no one else's idelogies could possibly have any merit. That things like preference or individuality are things to be ignored. Instead those things are seen as defects, ignorance, or just stupidity.

In which of your posts did you detail the pros of OS X and the cons of Windows?

Your initial reply was "don't do it", then proceeded to describe OS X as a "toy" and a "joke". That you were merely attempting to paint a balanced picture of the various positives and negatives of each platform is slightly difficult to believe.

+1

 

[mope54]

There's a general perception that Windows = evil, bad MS, and Mac = magical land where everything is better and just works.

no one actually talks like that except for android people about iPhone users and PC users about Mac users so this boogyman is all in your head.

 

[QwertyJuan]

no one actually talks like that except for android people about iPhone users and PC users about Mac users so this boogyman is all in your head.

Sorry... ALL my Mac and iPhone using friends blather ad nauseum about how terrible "PCs" and "Android" devices are. Makes them sound like little kids talking about how their daddy can beat up someone else's daddy.