PDA

View Full Version : Now I'm a Believer


MacBytes
Aug 15, 2006, 01:05 PM
http://www.macbytes.com/images/bytessig.gif (http://www.macbytes.com)

Category: Apple Hardware
Link: Now I'm a Believer (http://www.macbytes.com/link.php?sid=20060815140501)
Description:: A switcher down under talks about how easy the switch has been and explains why he's so happy with his new MacBook Pro.

Posted on MacBytes.com (http://www.macbytes.com)
Approved by Mudbug

Blue Velvet
Aug 15, 2006, 01:09 PM
There's a thread in here somewhere.

Switchers: those who were persistently and vocally anti-Mac until they got a taste.

jonharris200
Aug 15, 2006, 01:28 PM
The most amazing thing about that article is that he had to reboot twice in two weeks. :confused:

Perhaps it was after Software Update though?! ;)

someguy
Aug 15, 2006, 01:35 PM
The most amazing thing about that article is that he had to reboot twice in two weeks. :confused:

Perhaps it was after Software Update though?! ;)
I'll never understand why so many people agree that Windows requires constant reboots in order to maintain stability. In all 10+ the years I've used Windows (ranging from 3.11 to Vista's Beta version) I've had to reboot no more than 30-40 times at the very most. In the year or so that I've had my PowerBook, I've needed to reboot at least 3 or 4 times, so I'm right on course with my Windows experience.

Note that both of these figures are estimates and do not include reboots necessary after updates of any kind. Most of the Windows reboots were frozen programs that had frozen the entire system as well and/or BSOD, whereas most of the Mac reboots were beachball related, and one KP.

Obviously I prefer the Mac, but if you need to reboot more than once a week on Windows (especially twice a day!) then you are doing something wrong, or something is wrong in general with your system. Not normal, no matter what anyone thinks.

BoyBach
Aug 15, 2006, 01:57 PM
Obviously I prefer the Mac, but if you need to reboot more than once a week on Windows (especially twice a day!) then you are doing something wrong, or something is wrong in general with your system.


Absolutely. If your systems "breaks" that often then either the hardware or the user is doing something seriously wrong!

paleck
Aug 15, 2006, 02:05 PM
Obviously I prefer the Mac, but if you need to reboot more than once a week on Windows (especially twice a day!) then you are doing something wrong, or something is wrong in general with your system.


I've had to reboot my windows laptop multiple times in a day whenever I am at sites where I have to change my network settings a lot. For instance when I am changing between networks and testing my routers and switches, it seems that windows starts to do funny things after my fifth or sixth network settings change.

Gasu E.
Aug 15, 2006, 02:30 PM
I've had to reboot my windows laptop multiple times in a day whenever I am at sites where I have to change my network settings a lot. For instance when I am changing between networks and testing my routers and switches, it seems that windows starts to do funny things after my fifth or sixth network settings change.

I use a Windoze laptop at work, and used to use a docking station with an Ethernet connection. Windoze would get terribly confused if I did an eject without shutting down first. I finally got rid of the docking station, and it's pretty stable.

CANEHDN
Aug 15, 2006, 02:37 PM
I'll never understand why so many people agree that Windows requires constant reboots in order to maintain stability. In all 10+ the years I've used Windows (ranging from 3.11 to Vista's Beta version) I've had to reboot no more than 30-40 times

I find this extremely hard to believe. I use Windows at work all day and I reboot a lot more than that. I'm a computer geek so I know how to use Windows and Mac.
On the other hand. I do have to reboot OS X. Maybe it's because it's on the intel chip and not everything has been worked out. My computer will freeze occasionally and I will need to reboot. It bugs me when people say they never have any problems with OS X. I'm an Apple fan till the end but come on. Windows sucks but OS X still has it's problems.
I'm usually rebooting my Windows machine about twice a week compared to twice a month on my iMac. This is in reference to problems not updates.

thedude110
Aug 15, 2006, 02:45 PM
I'll never understand why so many people agree that Windows requires constant reboots in order to maintain stability. In all 10+ the years I've used Windows (ranging from 3.11 to Vista's Beta version) I've had to reboot no more than 30-40 times at the very most.

Did you ever use ME? I was rebooting 2-3 times a day (not an exaggeration).

We currently run XP on an old (and underrammed) HP laptop, and I'd say I'm still rebooting once to twice a week. I've rebooted my PB 2-3 times in the year that I've had it.

I'm glad you've had good luck, and I know a lot of other folks have, too -- but I certainly haven't.

In fact, the guy in this article reminds me a bit of myself when I left ME -- my iBook didn't crash (or BSOD), devices I plugged in were almost always recognized (and immediately functional) and it was prettier.

aranhamo
Aug 15, 2006, 02:55 PM
I find this extremely hard to believe. I use Windows at work all day and I reboot a lot more than that. I'm a computer geek so I know how to use Windows and Mac.
On the other hand. I do have to reboot OS X. Maybe it's because it's on the intel chip and not everything has been worked out. My computer will freeze occasionally and I will need to reboot. It bugs me when people say they never have any problems with OS X. I'm an Apple fan till the end but come on. Windows sucks but OS X still has it's problems.
I'm usually rebooting my Windows machine about twice a week compared to twice a month on my iMac. This is in reference to problems not updates.

My G3 iMac, once I installed OS X on it, was flawless. Not once, from May 2001 and 10.0.0 through May 2005 and 10.3.9 did it ever freeze, crash, kernel panic or anything. That's an uptime of 4 years (not counting reboots for updates, etc.) Then I replaced it with a G5 ALS, and almost immediately the G3 was sorely missed. The G5 had no end of hardware problems, causing it to spontaneously reboot, or just die. No freezes or kernel panics though. After numerous repairs, Apple finally replaced it with an Intel one. So far, so good. No rebots or anything in over two months (other than updates and such).

I'm a computer geek as well, and most of my knowledge is on Windows. My Win2k desktop freezes up (the whole system) a couple of times a week, randomly, requiring a reset. It's probably hardware though, since a re-image didn't fix it. But my company doesn't want to spend the money for a new one. My XP laptop is pretty solid; I honestly can't remember any crashes or freezes in the year that I've had it.

mdntcallr
Aug 15, 2006, 02:59 PM
Nice article. glad he had a relatively ok time transferring files.

once past that, he is moving fast.
just like mac's ought to be like.

Silencio
Aug 15, 2006, 03:04 PM
The article bemoans the difficulty involved in migrating out of Outlook, and I agree that it's one of the more annoying tasks when moving someone from Windows to Mac OS X. This is typical M$ behavior, though. Almost all of their apps and file formats are like roach motels for your data: it checks in, but it can't check out.

TwitchOSX
Aug 15, 2006, 03:30 PM
Our production G5 here at work needs to be rebooted maybe once every few months because of odd things. No kernal panics but I run so much **** on this machine that it cant handle it sometimes. Hell, when you have the entire creative suite open, with 20+ InDesign documents open, Quark 6, Quark 5 in classic, and tons of other **** running.. the computer tends to get goofy sometimes. Other than that, its a dream.

conradzoo
Aug 15, 2006, 03:52 PM
The article bemoans the difficulty involved in migrating out of Outlook, and I agree that it's one of the more annoying tasks when moving someone from Windows to Mac OS X. This is typical M$ behavior, though. Almost all of their apps and file formats are like roach motels for your data: it checks in, but it can't check out.

And thats just the (only) reason my old mails are still on my old Dell laptop (which my 11 old daughter merely uses/abuses for her Sims2) till someone makes it easy to transfer.

C

someguy
Aug 15, 2006, 05:19 PM
Did you ever use ME? I was rebooting 2-3 times a day (not an exaggeration).
Yes, I actually had a Compaq Presario a while back (266MHz, 64MB RAM, 12GB HD) running ME for weeks at a time with no need to reboot. This machine was used for just about everything ME was capable of, and the machine itself is still used today. Actually, it is now running XP Pro (same specs as before) without many hiccups. Believe what you want, but Windows is just as stable as anything when you treat it like Windows.

Now I will say this. I don't recommend anyone treat Windows like OS X, because then it is crash city for sure. You keep the system clean of malware, and I mean ALL types of malware, not just the stuff Spybot and Ad-Aware pick up. I'm talking HijackThis, silentrunners.vbs, rkfiles.bat, and tons of other logs that need to be manually picked through on a regular basis, but none of this requires the machine to be rebooted.

Yes, it is a royal pain in the ass that should not be necessary, but doing these things on a regular basis keeps the machine running right, and means fewer reboots in a given time..

..about as few as OS X needs when you just sit back and enjoy yourself. Hm, wonder why I switched. :p

shamino
Aug 15, 2006, 05:23 PM
The article bemoans the difficulty involved in migrating out of Outlook, and I agree that it's one of the more annoying tasks when moving someone from Windows to Mac OS X. This is typical M$ behavior, though. Almost all of their apps and file formats are like roach motels for your data: it checks in, but it can't check out.
Yep. A royal pain in the neck, but not impossible.

You can export an Outlook folder to a few text-file formats but none of them are the Berkeley-standard mail format. But with a little bit of code-writing it's not too hard to convert an Outlook-supported plain-text format (like CSV) into the Berkeley mailbox format that other programs can import.

If you have an IMAP server (or an Exchange server that is running IMAP) at your location, then it can be easier. Drag all your messages to folders on the server. If your preferred mail app supports IMAP, use it to connect to the IMAP server and drag all your messages to local folders.

If your preferred app doesn't support IMAP, launch Mozilla Thunderbird and connect it to the IMAP server. Drag all your messages from the IMAP folders to local folders. Then quit Thunderbird and go to the mail repository (~/Library/Thunderbird/Profiles/.../Mail) and copy the mailbox files out. They'll all be in Berkeley-standard format, which most mail programs can import.

shamino
Aug 15, 2006, 05:29 PM
Windows can be stable, but it really depends on what you're doing.

My office computers (running WinXP) never crash. But they are securely behind a corporate firewall, with all web access going through proxy servers and all e-mail being virus scanned on its way in to the corporate server.

When combined with the fact that I rarely install new apps (it runs MS Office, Firefox, Thunderbird, and a few special-purpose apps and little else), and I keep it up to date with all of Microsoft's weekly security updates, I have never encountered a system crash.

A coworker, however, is not that careful. His system is cluttered up with gazillions of useless toolbars and plugins, and spyware apps, which bog down the system until someone gets around to de-lousing it. The box still doesn't crash, but it can become slow enough as to be useless, which is scary when you consider that it is a 3GHz Pentium 4 with 512M of RAM.

wyatt23
Aug 16, 2006, 12:31 AM
Yep. A royal pain in the neck, but not impossible.

You can export an Outlook folder to a few text-file formats but none of them are the Berkeley-standard mail format. But with a little bit of code-writing it's not too hard to convert an Outlook-supported plain-text format (like CSV) into the Berkeley mailbox format that other programs can import.

If you have an IMAP server (or an Exchange server that is running IMAP) at your location, then it can be easier. Drag all your messages to folders on the server. If your preferred mail app supports IMAP, use it to connect to the IMAP server and drag all your messages to local folders.

If your preferred app doesn't support IMAP, launch Mozilla Thunderbird and connect it to the IMAP server. Drag all your messages from the IMAP folders to local folders. Then quit Thunderbird and go to the mail repository (~/Library/Thunderbird/Profiles/.../Mail) and copy the mailbox files out. They'll all be in Berkeley-standard format, which most mail programs can import.

someone is a little zealous about getting those non-switchers...:rolleyes:

bryanc
Aug 16, 2006, 10:17 AM
I'll never understand why so many people agree that Windows requires constant reboots in order to maintain stability.

During the decades that I used windows (from 3.0 to XP SP2), I certainly found that rebooting was frequently necessary. This may not have been entirely the OS's fault, as memory leaks in the apps seem to have been the biggest problem <cough>Adobe<cough>, but Windows never had much capacity to recover memory from crashed apps, or sort itself out when many changes (networking, screen resolution, multiple monitors, etc.) were changed, and this often necessitated a re-boot. My Win2k box would run without rebooting for days, but a couple of hours of heavy photoshopping would invariably require a re-boot.

Most windows users I know now use rebooting as a panacea for all their problems, and it frequently does fix the proximal issue.

As I recall, there was a bug in Windows ME that related to the uptime counter. Once this variable exceeded a specific number (which represented several weeks of uptime), it would overflow causing a crash. But this bug took many years to be discovered, due to the fact that Windows ME needed to be rebooted so often that no one ever exceeded the critical uptime value.

We used to retire crashy old windows machines by putting linux on them, and found the same hardware was usually extremely stable under linux, but ,again, I think the instability of windows is partly due to the badly behaved applications written for it. That being said, a well written OS doesn't crash because of bad applications.

Cheers

Silencio
Aug 16, 2006, 12:40 PM
Yep. A royal pain in the neck, but not impossible.

If you have an IMAP server (or an Exchange server that is running IMAP) at your location, then it can be easier. Drag all your messages to folders on the server. If your preferred mail app supports IMAP, use it to connect to the IMAP server and drag all your messages to local folders.

If you've got a Mac OS X machine, you've got an IMAP server!

You just have to turn it on and configure it via the command line, or use the nifty Postfix Enabler or MailServe programs to help you do it, both from http://cutedgesystems.com/

Paul Berkowitz' AppleScripts for converting data from Outlook to Entourage are a lifesaver, as well. Well worth the shareware fee if you do Outlook to Entourage conversions regularly.

vniow
Aug 16, 2006, 12:42 PM
I hate hate HATE that song.

shamino
Aug 16, 2006, 04:14 PM
someone is a little zealous about getting those non-switchers...:rolleyes:
Not at all. I've used this procedure several times to move Windows users from Outlook to Thunderbird. It's not just for Mac switchers.

shamino
Aug 16, 2006, 04:28 PM
During the decades that I used windows (from 3.0 to XP SP2), I certainly found that rebooting was frequently necessary. This may not have been entirely the OS's fault, as memory leaks in the apps seem to have been the biggest problem <cough>Adobe<cough>, but Windows never had much capacity to recover memory from crashed apps, or sort itself out when many changes (networking, screen resolution, multiple monitors, etc.) were changed, and this often necessitated a re-boot.
The DOS-based versions of Windows (1-3, 95, 98 and Me) have very simple memory protection (if any), so it's easy for an app to trash the system.

Furthermore, until XP, many device drivers were unable to reload their parameters. So many trivial things (including IP address configuration prior to Win2K and screen resolution with many video cards even today) require rebooting, when it shouldn't.

But even Mac OS isn't perfect here. On my Linux PC, I can upgrade everything except for the kernel without a reboot. I've even done things like upgrade SCSI drivers without a reboot (because the boot volume was on an interface controlled by a different driver.)
My Win2k box would run without rebooting for days, but a couple of hours of heavy photoshopping would invariably require a re-boot.
Interesting. I haven't seen this.

I have found that Explorer (the desktop application) and several of the standard background apps are known to have problems, but you don't need to reboot to recover. If you log out and back in, these apps quit and restart themselves.

In general (and this goes for Linux and Mac OS as well) it's a good idea to log off when you're finished using the computer. Lots of things quit, freeing resources, and they don't immediately re-acquire all those resources when you log in again.

I remember working on Solaris in the 90's (version 2.6), when the GUI had a bug that would crash the system if it was left running for two weeks straight. Logging off (which terminates the GUI on those systems) before going home on Friday nights (logging back in Monday morning) worked around the bug so well that the system never crashed, and only had to be rebooted after power failures.
As I recall, there was a bug in Windows ME that related to the uptime counter. Once this variable exceeded a specific number (which represented several weeks of uptime), it would overflow causing a crash. But this bug took many years to be discovered, due to the fact that Windows ME needed to be rebooted so often that no one ever exceeded the critical uptime value.
This is actually an old MS-DOS bug. And yeah, it is scary to think that it wasn't fixed until very recently.
That being said, a well written OS doesn't crash because of bad applications.
No it doesn't. But when you have a hanging application that blocks the GUI, it can seem like a system crash. I've seen a lot of Linux systems that appear to be hung when in fact, it was only a malfunctioning GUI app. I could regain control by telnetting in from another computer and killing the bad app. (I've done similar things on Mac OS X.)

Without a LAN, of course, you wouldn't be able to do this and would be left with no choice but to power off and reboot.

bep207
Aug 16, 2006, 04:30 PM
i switched, its great

dsnort
Aug 16, 2006, 04:34 PM
During the decades that I used windows (from 3.0 to XP SP2), I certainly found that rebooting was frequently necessary. This may not have been entirely the OS's fault, as memory leaks in the apps seem to have been the biggest problem <cough>Adobe<cough>, but Windows never had much capacity to recover memory from crashed apps, or sort itself out when many changes (networking, screen resolution, multiple monitors, etc.) were changed, and this often necessitated a re-boot. My Win2k box would run without rebooting for days, but a couple of hours of heavy photoshopping would invariably require a re-boot.

Most windows users I know now use rebooting as a panacea for all their problems, and it frequently does fix the proximal issue.

As I recall, there was a bug in Windows ME that related to the uptime counter. Once this variable exceeded a specific number (which represented several weeks of uptime), it would overflow causing a crash. But this bug took many years to be discovered, due to the fact that Windows ME needed to be rebooted so often that no one ever exceeded the critical uptime value.

We used to retire crashy old windows machines by putting linux on them, and found the same hardware was usually extremely stable under linux, but ,again, I think the instability of windows is partly due to the badly behaved applications written for it. That being said, a well written OS doesn't crash because of bad applications.

Cheers

I usually found rebooting necessary in Windows, (3.1 to XP SP1), when an app locked up on me. If you hit CTR-ALT-DLT and had some patience, you could get the Task Manager open and kill the offending app or process. But this could take time while waiting for Windows to process the input. Sometimes it was easier and faster to crawl under the desk, and unplug the box.
But then I stumbled into .dll hell, and then I bought a Mac. I cannot express the wonder I felt the first time a app locked up on me, ( M$ Excel, wouldn't ya know), and I clicked on the app icon in the dock, and selected "Force Quit". I still get teary just thinking about it......