Just bought a Dell Vostro instead of a MacBook -- Here's why

[ashjamben]

just my 2 cents on a couple of things:

macosx... why are you on a mac forum when you continuely go on about how crap OS X is? you're doing it on this thread, and on another thread i started. i have not problem with windows users coming on a mac forum, thats what i did before i had a mac, but do you actually like macs? or does you just want to bash apple and macs, and glorify PC's and windows.

and about the quitting application debate. i've recently switched to mac, and find that closing the window doesn't quit the program is a great time saver. for example, i've finished surfin the web so i close safari. a few minutes later i want to use it again, so i press command>tab and select it from the list. easy as that. if i need to quit everything running i do pretty much the same select one thing from command>tab then command>Q.

but, people who are arguing from a mac side about photoshop, i think you're wrong. in windows, you open up photoshop, then you open a document in photoshop. once you've finished with one document in photoshop, you close that windows and the photoshop windows stays open, allowing another document to be open. its actually the same in a mac.

 

[macgruder]

but, people who are arguing from a mac side about photoshop, i think you're wrong. in windows, you open up photoshop, then you open a document in photoshop. once you've finished with one document in photoshop, you close that windows and the photoshop windows stays open, allowing another document to be open. its actually the same in a mac.

Possibly, but is this just Photoshop? How about IE etc? Perhaps Adobe are having to break the standard Windows behaviour because of its problems. Which makes the situation worse IMO because you can't get consistency across apps.

 

[ashjamben]

Possibly, but is this just Photoshop? How about IE etc? Perhaps Adobe are having to break the standard Windows behaviour because of its problems. Which makes the situation worse IMO because you can't get consistency across apps.

ye it is just photoshop, and probably other programs. like i've used cubase, fireworks and stuff like that are the same. it's just a bad example thats all.

 

[aquajet]

I'm not "confusing" anything here

For example, I have Safari open right now. If I click the red X bubble/button, the window closes but the application remains running. Why? That is stupid. Same with iPhoto, DVD Player, Garage Band, and every other piece of software I can think of. If I close the main application window, the application continues to run just with no window. What's the point?

If I close the main window then the application SHOULD CLOSE.

If I close IE in Windows, the application closes. If I close Safari, iTunes, Firefox, Windows Media Player, Winamp, whatever in Windows then the application closes.

In other words, the only reason why it should close is that you've been using windows for years and you feel that's the way it it's always been and should always be. There are strong arguments which come down on the side of OS X and its (imo) superiority in this regard. For someone who closes a document with the intention of opening or creating another, it makes sense to leave the app open. If you want to close the app down, pressing command-q is just as fast.

If you want to chock that up as stupid in light of a strong argument, well then fine. I find that to be stubbornness and perhaps even trolling on your part. Which is why you were doomed to dislike OS X before even using it.

I am glad to hear you're content with using something though.

 

[macgruder]

ye it is just photoshop, and probably other programs. like i've used cubase, fireworks and stuff like that are the same. it's just a bad example thats all.

Got it. Thanks. Changed my example.

 

[26139]

yep

Another way of looking at this issue:

Imagine you are at your local library('the application') and you have taken a few books off the shelf, and plonked them on the table. As you finish reading them you put them back on the shelf ('close the window').

You put the last book back on the shelf when suddenly out of nowhere a librarian appears, carries you to your car, bundles you in and drives you home. "I'm just being helpful", he says. "You put the last book back so I took you home."

You explain to the librarian that you didn't want to go home, you were just about to take another book off the shelf. The librarian doesn't really get that. He keeps saying, "well you just need to drive back to the library, don't you".

"I have a suggestion", you say. "When I put back all the books, I'll then decide whether I want to drive home. Just leave me alone. But when I do drive home (quit), if I've left any books out put them away for me". The librarian says, "That's a good idea but you're not in an OS X library and us librarians are here to **** up your life, not help you. Beside I think, I've caught a cold, so you might want to leave anyway"

I love this idea. Very well thought out.

 

[-hh]

Fair question. Basically, every "OS X vs. Windows" article I read comes down on the side of OS X, so I figure I must be missing something.

In a sense, you are missing something.

I saw in another one of your posts that on a hardware feature-by-feature comparison, you observed that you didn't need features X, Y or Z, so by deleting these, you were able to buy a less expensive laptop.

The crux of the matter is that Apple doesn't sell (proverbially) 493 different products that nearly continuously cover the feature- and price- spectrums.

As such, it is inevitable that other OEMs will have different products with different feature sets at a different price points, which means:

• you've not proven that you've gotten a unilaterially better product;
• you've not proven that you've gotten a unilaterially better value;
• you've not proven that "less equals more" because the differences in features that make no difference to you personally.
• etc

In essence, all you've really done is shown that your choice falls in one of Apple's product gaps.

To be able to do this is not particularly profound or at all surprising, although many people unfortunately get it confused.

The most common error seems to be to compare non-equals that are claimed to be equals based on their differences not having significance for that specific individual. Invariably, the PC is 'de-contented' compared to the Apple, and the person doing the comparison then attribute the difference in cost as being the "Expensive Apple" as opposed to the differences in hardware.

This is flawed logic, but is unfortunately all too common.
And FYI, I'm not accusing you of this, but simply pointing out this common fallacy.

- - -

Moving on, the overriding 'feature' that's an issue for many of the readers here is the Mac OS -vs- Windows. As you said at the top, you've observed that every "OS X vs. Windows" article you've read comes down on the side of OS X, and the specific details as to why can be found in those reviews.

However, the dilemma that you had is that Mac OS X on a new laptop was beyond your "willing to budget" price range. This was compounded by Apple's limited hardware selections, as their base price is higher due to content bundling of items as the iSight.

You simply chose the alternative of going to another vendor (Dell), where their broader product line allowed you to delete features (such as the iSight) in order to bring down the price. Of course, the trade-off of this is that you can't get OS X, but you didn't personally consider that to be a significant sacrifice.

FWIW, another alternative could have been to seek out a modestly used MacBook in your price range. IMO, I suspect that part of the reason why you didn't go this route is because you place a relatively low relative value of OS X versus Windows (which is your choice) to counterbalance the other trade-offs that this choice would have entailed. In general, its been my observation & experience that 'Switchers' really don't risk taking the MacLeap until they've been utterly fed up with Windows.


-hh

 

[thejadedmonkey]

Re: Close v Quit debate

Has anyone ever used MS Office on Windows? Of course you have, and you all know that when you close your last open document, Office closes.

Did you know that in Word '95, it worked just like photoshop, and closing the last open document didn't necessarily quit Word?

It's obvious, MS chose one way of doing things, while Apple chose the other way. and we all know why, to promote flame wars

 

[chewietobbacca]

The closing thing is pretty trivial because its up to the developer on both OS's - I can hit the x button on RivaTuner for instance and it'll close to taskbar in Windows and operate in the back just fine.

 

[K-Funk]

-hh,

Good thoughts. Essentially, if I could get a computer with OS X for the same cost as the Dell, then I'd probably get the Mac and experiment with OS X. Based on everything I've read, there's a good chance I might come to like it better than Windows, even though at this point, Windows seems more intuitive for me. But with the price difference, I wasn't willing to take the chance.

 

[m_gerbik]

Probably not on a 7 year old powerbook though. That is why comparing experiences between something running on a 7 year old machine to a brand new one is not quite comparing apples to apples. Nor is it a fair comparison. That is like comparing a car made 7 years ago with one made today. many things are going to be different, new technology, etc.

But the original complaint was that he found it silly that MacBooks don't come with a right click button as he was buying a new laptop. He wasn't referring to his old Mac. Just FYI.

 

[mmccaskill]

I don't really see the point of displaying multiple open programs at the same time. It just makes more sense to me to focus on one window at a time; thus, the lack of a "maximize" option in OS X is frustrating.

Then why use Windows in the first place? If you don't require a multitasking operating system go back to DOS.

The OS X dock seems like a waste of space to me. I know what applications I have; I don't need to constantly see colorful icons for Word, Firefox, iTunes, etc. I'd prefer to see which applications I currently have open. But in OS X, you just have a thumbnail of open documents on the right side of the dock, and you have to scroll over it to see which document it is. By contrast, with Windows, you can just read what your open programs are across the taskbar.

So tell the Dock to autohide. BFD. I'd rather see the few apps I use on the Dock then a billion, useless, out of order entries in a clogged menu system that extends so far to the right of my screen I can't see the desktop anymore.

I right-click all the time. The absence of a right-click button on MacBooks strikes me as being silly. I know you can hit "control," but it's annoying to have to use 2 hands. And I know the Mighty Mouse has virtual right-click detection, but why not just have 2 buttons? It seems like Apple is putting aesthetics over functionality here.

I too was a little taken aback by no right click but then I realized the OS is so easy to use that a right click isn't necessary.

I don't have any interest in any of the "iLife" stuff. I just need to do word processing and internet browsing. In the end, I really liked the idea of getting a Mac, but there just didn't seem to be any compelling reason to spend the extra money. I realize that it seems like most computer experts prefer OS X to Windows, so I tried to keep an open mind, but I just don't "get" why Macs are supposed to be better.

Then don't use iLife. In fact, delete it then. At least Apple pre-installs software that one can actually use vs. all that crap Dell/Gateway/HP have that clog the system and your registry (which OS X doesn't have).

Have fun reinstalling Windows whenever you registry gets corrupted or you get some spyware installed when you clicked the button on your browser that said "You need to clean your registry. Click here!".

 

[mosx]

It's not stupid. If you want to Quit the program, then Quit the program with the Quit command, don't just close the Window. Like many beginners you are confusing Quitting with Closing a Window. Why not just Quit when you want to quit? You are trying to force your habits on users who require the ability to close the last window without quitting despite the fact that OS X already gives you what you need : command-Q or File > Quit.

There is not really a concept of main window in many of the programs you mention. Many users need the ability to have more than one window open in an app.

For example, go to iTunes, play some music, close the Window. The music continues playing. I don't want iTunes to Quit on me. There are dozens of occasions where I want to close the last window and not want the program to quit.

Beginner? Please, don't make me laugh. I've owned a Mac for nearly a year now. I'm just trying to point things out LOGICALLY. Theres no reason I should have to go through menus to quit each application.

Let's look at your example of iTunes. If I want the window out of the way, why do I need to close it? I can always just minimize it. It "closes" the window and takes it out of the way. On Windows you can go a step further and have it minimize to the system tray, so you can just right click and still have full controls. You can even use the iTunes toolbar, which puts full iTunes controls on your taskbar.

I seriously have to ask whether you've used the software I mentioned in my post. You say that in many of them there is no "concept of a main window". How so? Firefox, Safari, iTunes, Garageband, iPhoto, iDVD, etc. are all contained within one giant window and the toolbar is at the top, obviously. How is there not a "main application window" when the application itself consists of a giant window and everything is contained within?

With that said, those applications that DO consist of a single window and everything contained within it SHOULD close when the application window is closed. If you need the window out of the way, why not just minimize? It's fast, its easy and it allows you to more easily pickup from where you left off.

Now the few applications that do not have a main window, such as iChat, MSN, YM, Photoshop (in OS X).. sure it makes sense to quit the application with those. But everything else, like iPhoto, iTunes, Safari, etc. should close when the application window is closed. If you need the app open but need the window out of the way, use the minimize button. It works just fine.

I'm running Photoshop. I have one document open. I'm finished working with it. I want to close it and open a new document. How do I do that with your suggestion? Photoshop would go and Quit on me causing me to waste time reopening it.

OS X makes it easy:
This is the habit you need to learn:
Quit: command-Q
Close: command-W

I already took care of this argument. Software that has multiple windows, such as iChat, Photoshop on OS X, etc. should be quit from a menu. But applications like Firefox, Safari, iTunes, etc. should close when the window is closed. It makes sense. If you need the window gone, minimize it.

Just because an application's main window is closed does not mean an application should quit. When I close Mail.app, I expect it to continue running, so that it can notify me of new Mail. When I close BOINC's main window, I want it to continue crunching work units. And when I close Safari's browser windows, I expected it to continue running, so that I may look up another web page a few minutes later, instead of unloading the app from RAM and loading it all back up again a few minutes later.

As I said in my reply to the other poster.. in all of these examples, why not just minimize the application? With many applications, like iTunes and mail software, in Windows, the application is minimized to the system tray and it takes up even less screen real estate than the dock does in OS X. Why close the window when you simply get it out of the way?

Your inability to see the strength of this design however, is probably due to the same ailment I tell K-Funk about above. It's not "stupid". You simply cannot see beyond the design philosophy you are conditioned to.

*sigh* No, it just simply makes sense to close the application when the main window is closed. If you need an application out of the way but still running, minimize it. You can come back to it faster and pick up where you left off.

Dude, why do you even bother posting here? I cannot recall the last time you actually posted something.... i don't know..... that wasn't bashing on Apple/OS X in some way. It doesn't matter what you are talking about, you have found a flaw with it, and your general solution seems to be "Just look at what Windows does".

I'm not "bashing" Apple at all. I'm speaking the truth. Unfortunately, anything negative said about Apple is regarded as a "bash" because certain people don't like hearing the truth.

You see what I did there? I talked about the same thing, in two different ways. The first way was polite, cordial, and constructive. The second option was well.... d0uc|-|e-baggish. Now tell me, which one is you? And don't lie... we all know it's the second one.

Sometimes there is no polite way to describe things. Look at DVD Player in OS X. The only way to describe it is that it sucks. It doesn't even have features that Windows DVD players had back in the 90s.

Apple's prices are also an insult to common sense.

Back on to topic however. Anytime I am sitting in Windows and have to click 28 times on the address bar of the browser in order to highlight the whole line,

It takes one click to highlight the entire address in IE7 right now.

(oh, and by the way, iPhoto 08 quits when you close your last window)

Oh really? Let me start up my MacBook. Now let me load iPhoto '08. Now theres only ONE window open. Let me hit the red bubble/x. Wow thats amazing. A couple of the iLife apps have finally entered the modern era. That just proves MY point of how closing the main application window SHOULD quit the application. Thank you Apple for proving me right.

That does show how little I use my Mac these days. I've had this Mac since the beginning of September and it only has... I think 16 cycles on the battery. Let me check. Yup 16 cycles.

In comparison, my first Mac after 5 months of use had over 60 cycles on the battery. I think it went out with 63 cycles on it.

That should show you just how things have changed.

OS X does not like things maximized, and even after closing all the windows, likes to leave things in RAM so you can get at it more quickly. Here is a test. Open up Mail if you use it (oh, and by the way, iPhoto 08 quits when you close your last window) and simply close the window. Now, click on it in the dock. Came back up pretty quickly huh? Now, quit Mail and once it is totally gone, click on it again. Took some time didn't it? Certainly longer then when the window was simply closed. That is why Apple made the differentiation. In case maybe, just maybe you don't need that window anymore, but I don't know.... want to access the app again quickly. Heck, when I was in school, I had Word open all the time, just for that reason. And the same applied to eclipse, terminal, textedit, emacs, safari, mail, address book, ical, activity monitor, transmission, adium, itunes, omnigraffle, keynote, firefox, vmware and a couple others that I am probably forgetting. Because if you just thought of something, and want to do it right then, having to wait even 4 seconds for an app to open is annoying, and when you have as fleeting a short-term memory as I do, you need to do it right then before you lose it.

In every single one of those examples, why not just minimize the window? It gets the window out of the way and leaves the application running so you can still access it quickly.

Again, even Apple has proven my point of "why not just minimize the window?" It allows you to pick up where you left off a lot easier, especially in the case of browsers and even Apple has moved towards that. So.. why not just minimize the window? It's the logical thing to do.

If you were to ask the average person what they think, they would tell you that closing the window closes the application and that minimizing it is the best way to get it out of the way until you need it again. Then you can alt-tab (or command-tab) back to it, with the exception of some OS X apps that will NOT open a new window when you tab back to them and the main window has been closed.

Another way of looking at this issue:

Imagine you are at your local library('the application') and you have taken a few books off the shelf, and plonked them on the table. As you finish reading them you put them back on the shelf ('close the window').

You put the last book back on the shelf when suddenly out of nowhere a librarian appears, carries you to your car, bundles you in and drives you home. "I'm just being helpful", he says. "You put the last book back so I took you home."

You explain to the librarian that you didn't want to go home, you were just about to take another book off the shelf. The librarian doesn't really get that. He keeps saying, "well you just need to drive back to the library, don't you".

"I have a suggestion", you say. "When I put back all the books, I'll then decide whether I want to drive home. Just leave me alone. But when I do drive home (quit), if I've left any books out put them away for me". The librarian says, "That's a good idea but you're not in an OS X library and us librarians are here to **** up your life, not help you. Beside I think, I've caught a cold, so you might want to leave anyway"

*sigh* Once again, Apple is proving my point with many of their own applications closing when the application window has been closed.

Once again, why not just minimize? Minimizing allows you to pick up where you left off faster and it gets the window out of the way.

It really is more of a hassle to have to manually CLOSE an application with a single window everytime I want to exit it. It's easier to minimize the window and alt-tab back to it so I can pick up exactly where I left off.

Very good analogy. I agree. It is a major annoyance in windows if you shut a window accidentally, close the wrong program, etc. To have to a) go find it in a plethora of menus, b) start the program c) wait for it to load d) Click through a series of error messages e) Finally begin being "productive" before another error message starts up.

And, again, its things like this that keep people from switching to Macs. Why switch to a Mac when the community is full of liars?

That simply isn't true so please stop spewing lies like that, okay?

It's even more annoying because it doesn't even have to be accidental - you may have closed the window on purpose but not realized that it was the last window.

In other words to close a window in Windows you need to go through this thought-process:

I want to close this window, but I need to check that it's the not the last window; if so then I need to open up the other window that I want to open, then go back to the original window and close it.

And some people think this is better than Command-W or clicking a red X

Or just have common sense and realize that if you want the application open and the window out of the way, you click the little LINE and miminize it to the taskbar. So difficult, I know.

I would'nt trade my mac for a pc even if I got paid -lots-. In my critical workflow where I shuffle 500mb pics back and forth through CS3 at the same time I surf the web with 10 tabs and listen to music and monitor my RIP, my mac hangs about once every 3 months.. My pc, doing much less intensive stuff about twice a day..

Then theres something wrong with your PC. I honestly can't remember the last time I had Windows lockup for reasons other than faulty hardware.

As for number of free applications and the likes, sure there are a ton more applications for XP - but as I described it for my brother the other day, if you need an application that does something, if you search for one for XP you get 10'000 hits, 9'800 of applications that costs money, 199 that's free but really ****** and hidden burried under tons of hits and if you're really lucky and you've fought yourself thrugh all the crap you've might be lucky to find one thats good..

While if you search for an app under OSX you get few hits, lets say 50, and 30 of thoose are free, good software..

Actually, I've seen the exact opposite. I've seen thousands of good pieces of freeware on Windows but hardly any on OS X. Just look at TUAW as an example. How many pieces of freeware do they push? Everything they write about costs $5, $10, $15, $30, etc. To get basic functions, such as a firewall with outbound control, you have to pay under OS X yet there are countless pieces of good freeware that do the same on Windows.

bottom line - both OS'es have their strengths/weaknesses, you just have to give OS X time and patience before you realize it truly is the better OS.. and where OS X falls there's always some good freeware app to correct it!

Or a good app that costs $15, $20 or whatever to do basic functions that are free in Windows. There are no good (in general) applications for disc burning or DVD viewing on a Mac.

No freeware app can make up for the hardware either.

Doug, is that really true, or is it the case the Apple simply doesn't offer cheap machines? I don't see Viao's as being too much cheaper than Macs, and although I'm sure Dell's are, do they have the same specs. I haven't really looked into it so I'd be interested to know.

Sony only charges so much because they bank on their name meaning something.

Dell, HP, etc. all charge less and offer way more for the money. A good example is HP's current offer on the dv6700t line. Dedicated GPU, 2GHz C2D, 2GB of memory, HD DVD reader, ExpressCard slot, memory card reader, etc. for all under $1,000.

macosx... why are you on a mac forum when you continuely go on about how crap OS X is? you're doing it on this thread, and on another thread i started. i have not problem with windows users coming on a mac forum, thats what i did before i had a mac, but do you actually like macs? or does you just want to bash apple and macs, and glorify PC's and windows.

I used to love my Mac. But then as time went on and I realized things were not as good as the fanboys and Apple make them out to be, things changed. As I said earlier in my post, my second MacBook (replacement) has been in my hands for about 4 and a half months and it only has 16 cycles on the battery. I rarely use it at all any more.

I keep posting because I want those potential buyers out there to know BOTH sides of the story, the good and bad, before they buy. So they can make an intelligent and informed decision. Not one based off a thousand people telling them that Macs are the best thing since sliced bread.

Possibly, but is this just Photoshop? How about IE etc? Perhaps Adobe are having to break the standard Windows behaviour because of its problems. Which makes the situation worse IMO because you can't get consistency across apps.

Photoshop works just like it does on OS X. The only difference is that it is a self contained application. I mean, it has one giant main application window and everything is contained in that window. So you can open and close as many documents and other windows inside the application as much as you want.

In other words, the only reason why it should close is that you've been using windows for years and you feel that's the way it it's always been and should always be. There are strong arguments which come down on the side of OS X and its (imo) superiority in this regard. For someone who closes a document with the intention of opening or creating another, it makes sense to leave the app open. If you want to close the app down, pressing command-q is just as fast.

Again, even Apple is agreeing with me seeing as how some of their new applications act the way I describe

Then why use Windows in the first place? If you don't require a multitasking operating system go back to DOS.

Considering Mac OS prior to OS X used co-operative multi-tasking, I'd say one who doesn't like multi-tasking could try those OSes out as well

Then don't use iLife. In fact, delete it then. At least Apple pre-installs software that one can actually use vs. all that crap Dell/Gateway/HP have that clog the system and your registry (which OS X doesn't have).

Do you even know what software HP includes? haha. My HP came installed with just as much software that I would "use" as OS X did. Basically, it was all Vista's built-in applications. But since I don't use Vista, I installed XP and software I had purchased before. Much the same way you have to install a bunch of 3rd party applications in OS X.

Oh and btw, software uninstalls can clog up OS X as well. It may not have a registry, but even AppDelete and AppZapper don't clean up EVERYTHING that gets left behind when software is uninstalled.

Have fun reinstalling Windows whenever you registry gets corrupted or you get some spyware installed when you clicked the button on your browser that said "You need to clean your registry. Click here!".

Sorry, never happened. Besides, thats no worse than the Safari 3 beta breaking application that relied on webkit and forcing people to reinstall OS X.

 

[TheStu]

Mosx, your post is way to long for me to quote, so I am going to address what you said in response to me.

Minimizing takes up the dock, something that already has fairly limited space, much like the Windows taskbar, which I never was fond of due to how small all the 'buttons' got when you had lots of programs open. I know that now they group, but that isn't totally helpful IMO. But, that is just an opinion.

Now, on to another thing on the minimizing versus closing thing, specifically in regard to iTunes. You close iTunes (bearing in mind that this is different from quitting), now right click on the icon in the dock. You can control the player from the icon, whether it is open, closed, or minimized. That is actually how I control it most of the time since it is on a different space from my browser, and I don't like having to switch to the application just to change the song.

My long list of things that I would close rather than minimize when I was at school were things that I had already finished (like a research paper) but would want to have the app loaded in RAM so I could start typing again quickly. You suggest minimizing... minimize what? The last window was closed, there is nothing there to minimize. Also, the icon is already in the Dock, why put another one in there for the minimized item? Also, most icons in the Dock give you rudimentary controls over the application, so why bother minimizing mail when I can just close the window, and then right click on the icon to write a new message, get new mail, hide, quit, or other things.

When I was mentioning that I click on the address bar 28 times, it was in fact, an exaggeration, and was illustrating the point that I am more used to how OS X does it. 1 click puts the typing cursor where you clicked. 2 clicks highlights the word, 3 clicks the line. That is what I am used to, so when I go to quickly triple click the address bar, it does things different from what I am used to. The same was with when I first got my Mac, I tried to easily share a folder and found it annoyingly difficult from what I was used to. Windows and OS X have different design philosophies, and as such should be treated that way. To expect things to act exactly like Windows (minimizing everything since Windows has no good way to handle multiple windows, closing meaning the same as quitting, not realizing that the dock replaces the taskbar, quick launch and system tray) is frankly, idiotic.

Also, I think that you need to further clarify between Main Window and Last Window. For example, if I have multiple Safari windows open, which one is the main one? Now, for certain applications, not all, quitting the application when the LAST window is closed makes sense, especially for an app that mainly lives in one window, such as iSync, iPhoto, and others. And to say that Apple is proving YOUR point is arrogant in the extreme, and frankly insulting. As if you are paramount authority on all things Operating System and as such, are to be believed and trusted in all your opinions. I am not saying that I am, but you certainly are not either, and you need to stop acting like you are.

Insisting that minimizing is the only option, without trying to explore the OS is simply ignorance, and pedantic to boot.

Back to the conversation about the DVD Player. What features is it lacking that DVD players from the 90s allegedly had? Also, back to my previous question.... to you actually have any suggestions regarding alternatives, or are you just going to sit there and call it crappy, without bothering to actually offer anything constructive. You say that there are no good/free applications for OS X for DVD Playback, which after an incredibly cursory google search is proven false as there are at least 2 that I can think of off hand, VLC and MPlayer. I am not saying that either one is as good as what you are looking for, but hell, what do I care, you are just going to use Windows anyway. Also, have you checked out Burn for your disk burning needs? Not as full featured as Toast, but is certainly good enough.

 

[mosx]

Minimizing takes up the dock, something that already has fairly limited space, much like the Windows taskbar, which I never was fond of due to how small all the 'buttons' got when you had lots of programs open. I know that now they group, but that isn't totally helpful IMO. But, that is just an opinion.

Whats wrong with taking up space on the dock? Don't you remember the first real OS X demonstration where Steve Jobs made a big point of the dock "growing" as things are added to it?

Now, on to another thing on the minimizing versus closing thing, specifically in regard to iTunes. You close iTunes (bearing in mind that this is different from quitting), now right click on the icon in the dock. You can control the player from the icon, whether it is open, closed, or minimized. That is actually how I control it most of the time since it is on a different space from my browser, and I don't like having to switch to the application just to change the song.

So the Windows version of iTunes is actually better, because it takes up less screen space when the window is closed. Gotcha.

My long list of things that I would close rather than minimize when I was at school were things that I had already finished (like a research paper) but would want to have the app loaded in RAM so I could start typing again quickly. You suggest minimizing... minimize what? The last window was closed, there is nothing there to minimize. Also, the icon is already in the Dock, why put another one in there for the minimized item? Also, most icons in the Dock give you rudimentary controls over the application, so why bother minimizing mail when I can just close the window, and then right click on the icon to write a new message, get new mail, hide, quit, or other things.

Why doesn't Apple have a more intelligent design? Instead of minimizing main application windows to the right of the dock, have it minimize to the icon already on the dock representing the open application?

That way, things could work the way people are used to. Minimizing takes the window down to the icon already representing the application and closing the main window application would quit the program. Wow, what a concept! They could also bring back live previews for the dock, but more in the Vista way *gasp*. Hover your mouse over the icon and it shows a live preview of whats happening in that window.

When I was mentioning that I click on the address bar 28 times, it was in fact, an exaggeration, and was illustrating the point that I am more used to how OS X does it. 1 click puts the typing cursor where you clicked. 2 clicks highlights the word, 3 clicks the line. That is what I am used to, so when I go to quickly triple click the address bar, it does things different from what I am used to.

Funny, another thing where Windows is better. I honestly couldn't even use Safari until Safari 3 because I hated how it would automatically highlight and go to sites you had saved. For example, if you wanted to go to www.cnn.com but had a a story on the site saved in your bookmarks, if you typed in www.cnn.com real fast and hit the enter key, it would select and go to your saved link. Talk about ridiculous. It's also ridiculous that Apple hasn't yet adopted the standared "control-enter" for browsers that automatically types in the full url. For example, type in cnn in IE7 or Firefox or other browsers and hit that combination and it finishes the http://etc

Windows and OS X have different design philosophies, and as such should be treated that way. To expect things to act exactly like Windows (minimizing everything since Windows has no good way to handle multiple windows, closing meaning the same as quitting, not realizing that the dock replaces the taskbar, quick launch and system tray) is frankly, idiotic.

Windows has no good way of handling multiple windows? See, it's statements like those that are truly idiotic. What's also idiotic is how many things are handled in OS X. Look at alt-tab for example. In OS X it's limited to switching through open applications. Then you have to use a different keyboard command to switch through the windows you want to get to the one you want. In Windows you simply alt-tab through ALL open windows (and Vista gives you a live preview, something missing entirely from Leopard). I know OS X has Expose, but its actually much faster to alt-tab through your open windows with ONE keyboard command.

I can give you a whole list of things that Apple does that can be described as "idiotic" if you'd like.

How about Apple's claim to security? If OS X is so secure, then why is it that (even in Leopard) when you use FileVault, and put your system to sleep, the "safe sleep" image is written to the HDD WITH the key to DECRYPT the encrypted volume stored in the headers of the file and easily read by ANYBODY?

If you want to talk about "idiotic" then there you go.

Yes we all know that the dock replaces the taskbar. But why not give it more functionality? Again, minimize the window(s) to the application icon on the dock, then give it a live preview. If theres more than one window for that application... why not apply "stacks" to it and have it pop out a live preview of all of the windows, or configure it in a way so you can get a list of the open windows?

Also, I think that you need to further clarify between Main Window and Last Window. For example, if I have multiple Safari windows open, which one is the main one? Now, for certain applications, not all, quitting the application when the LAST window is closed makes sense, especially for an app that mainly lives in one window, such as iSync, iPhoto, and others. And to say that Apple is proving YOUR point is arrogant in the extreme, and frankly insulting. As if you are paramount authority on all things Operating System and as such, are to be believed and trusted in all your opinions. I am not saying that I am, but you certainly are not either, and you need to stop acting like you are.

Well, Apple is proving my point by moving their applications to more "Windows-style behavior". If the other way of doing things was so much more efficient and, well.. "better", why not stick with it? Plus they want more people to switch so they need to make people feel as comfortable as possible in their new operating system. Imagine how many switchers would be calling them and asking them why their system is so slow only to find out that all the applications they thought they closed were still sitting in RAM. Maybe Apple finally realized that, seeing as how they finally joined Microsoft with pre-emptive multi-tasking a few years ago, it was finally time to ditch the whole "File>Quit" thing too.

Now, obviously, if you have multiple instances of Safari open (tabbed browsing?) then as soon as you close the last window the main application should close. But thats.. well, obvious?

Insisting that minimizing is the only option, without trying to explore the OS is simply ignorance, and pedantic to boot.

What is truly ignorant is not accepting standards. Have you watched how people use computers? To them, closing the window means closing the application. Thats the way it should be. That is basically the standard. Theres no reason it should be otherwise.

Back to the conversation about the DVD Player. What features is it lacking that DVD players from the 90s allegedly had?

Well, for starters, hardware support. Why doesn't DVD Player take advantage of hardware features? Modern GPUs can do everything from decoding the entire video stream to deinterlacing, proper upscaling (not stretching, like Apple), deblocking and other features such as hardware level quality controls. Yet DVD Player (and no other player in OS X) takes advantage of these features. Not that their most popular computer, the MacBook, has these features because Apple intentionally gimps the hardware.

Another key feature would be the ability to decode the LFE channel and send it out with the audio to stereo speakers and headphones. This is very important. Why? Well, there is no other way of saying that the sound quality in DVD Player sucks and this is the sole reason. The LFE channel gets dropped and an artificial EQ gets placed on what few low frequencies are left in the main channels. It generally sounds awful and very artificial. But Windows DVD players decode the LFE channel and will send it out to any source. So if you have a 2 speaker set with a subwoofer, you get nice deep bass that was originally encoded in the DVD. Not artifically EQ'ed bass that was placed there by the software. Or if you have a good set of headphones, you get to hear all the low frequencies that are there.

Also, back to my previous question.... to you actually have any suggestions regarding alternatives, or are you just going to sit there and call it crappy, without bothering to actually offer anything constructive. You say that there are no good/free applications for OS X for DVD Playback, which after an incredibly cursory google search is proven false as there are at least 2 that I can think of off hand, VLC and MPlayer.

There are no good DVD players for OS X. VLC and MPlayer have to rely on their own decoders for video. Unlike Windows, OS X does not have a system wide video decoding standard that allows for full hardware support. Everything is handled in software. In Windows, DXVA, VMR9, etc. are all "system wide". Any application can tap into it and the hardware will take over and do everything it supports. For modern GPUs that means it will decode H.264 (with upscaling, deblocking, etc.), or MPEG-2 from DVDs or whatever. I really don't understand why Apple does not take advantage of this in Quicktime and iTunes. That is *truly* "idiotic". Maybe their intention is for the software to be bad, so people will say "maybe this runs better on a Mac".. because they and every other reasonably intelligent person knows that if Quicktime and iTunes took advantage of Windows and GPU features, the video playback in iTunes and Quicktime in Windows would absolutely blow away whats in OS X and people wouldn't have a reason to look for a way to better play videos they have stored in iTunes. Any person with an iMac or SR MBP can see this for themselves. Get some "iTunes Plus" music videos or save the trailers from Apple.com. Play them in Quicktime in OS X then boot into Windows and play them in software that takes advantage of GPU features, like PowerDVD or WinDVD (PowerDVD seems to be better overall). Its night and day. Just like DVD playback. The standard definition videos generally look awful fullscreen in OS X or Quicktime/iTunes because they're not getting properly upscaled. They're being "stretched". But if you play that video in something that supports DXVA with a modern GPU, then you get full upscaling and belocking.

Also, have you checked out Burn for your disk burning needs? Not as full featured as Toast, but is certainly good enough.

Honestly, there isn't anything as good as Nero for disc burning. It's a shame there is no version for OS X.

 

[macgruder]

Beginner? Please, don't make me laugh. I've owned a Mac for nearly a year now. I'm just trying to point things out LOGICALLY. Theres no reason I should have to go through menus to quit each application. .

Sorry, but clearly you are a beginner by your posts. You are clearly confused by hiding, quitting and closing windows. Here:
hide: command-h
close: command-w
quit: command-Q
minimize: command-m
Not so difficult, is it.

"Theres no reason I should have to go through menus to quit each application."

You don't. Use command-Q. Or command-tab plus Q. If you are not aware of this then you are a total beginner.

Essentially, you are complaining because you want to be able to click a single button on a window to Quit an application rather than a menu. I on the other hand want an application wide setting to obey Fitts Law and not change its location and be within the application menu and not in a single window. Your choice is arbitrary not logical as you are claiming. Logically, buttons on windows affect windows. Get it?

You keep on going on about how some applications quit when you close a window. You see some developers put this feature in for beginners who don't understand that they should Quit the application. It works like this: if it's a particularly simple application that can never have more than one window, say, like calculator, the developer can elect to make the program quit (or hide). If you watch advanced users at work you'll notice that they tend to do command-Q anyway. This action tends to be consistent, and limited to simple apps.

"Once again, why not just minimize? Minimizing allows you to pick up where you left off faster and it gets the window out of the way. "
I don't want to minimize the window!!! I've finished with it. I'm done. I want to close it and work on a new window. Jeez. How difficult can this be to understand.

"It's easier to minimize the window and alt-tab back to it so I can pick up exactly where I left off. "
Command-H.
Command-Tab.
Same thing. But you don't want to learn it. Ergo, beginner.

Since you are so convinced that your way is better explain how to do this:
Open Word > Create a new document > Save the document > Close the Window without Quitting the App> Create a new document


Welcome to OS X. My advice is to get into the habit of using command-Q, command-H, and command-W, and you'll find that things will work better for you.

 

[vm7118]

you guys are getting way to into it.

why do some of you not understand that no matter what "argument" you put forth, some people (such as mosx and i) would prefer that closing a window quits the application?

yes, i grew up in the windows environment but that doesn't mean i am stupid or stubborn or immoral or just a generally bad person as you guys are trying to make out. it just means that 90% of the computing world understands that closing a window quits an app. after quitting, it isn't bogging down your RAM or sitting there in your taskbar or system tray.

suddenly when switching to a mac after listening to everyone on here, something as trivial as that is completely different. and because we are not used to it, we are stubborn. you can't tell someone to switch while citing all the reasons os x is "better" then in the next breath call them stupid or stubborn for not liking the new way of doing some things.

i would like to point out that i am far from an os x beginner. i love it, but there are some quirks (you may call them features...) that i, and many others, don't particularly like.

btw when you say you need to click 28 times in the address bar to select the address, that is flat out lying. not only do you only need to click once, but you can then right click to copy or paste or select all or, in opera, to paste and then immediately navigate to the url without a second action.

and a silly little thing like address bar clicking pales in comparison to the other pluses of windows. why do mac os x users need to wait an extra two years for game ports? why can't we get the latest and greatest graphics cards without paying out the ass for a new computer from apple?

why aren't there plugins for our favorite programs? why do most of our favorite programs only run on windows?

why can't they just put a second button to right click with?

wtf are these stacks, and why do they show my latest porn download as a little icon on my dock?

why is the dock at the bottom by default, when there is much more screen real estate to play with horizontally?

why am i forced to use one of apple's black and white backgrounds to mask the fact that the new menu bar is translucent?

why isn't it easier to change the order of the menubar icons to the right?

sometimes i am willing to give up os x's prettiness for the ultimate control i have over win xp through the registry, msconfig, safe mode, etc. obviously an idiot can get his xp box messed up very quickly, but a properly setup and cared for XP system is so much more satisfying than os x, leopard or not.

don't get me wrong, i love my MBP. but i run xp through bootcamp not all the time, but a lot more than i thought i would be doing it. sometimes i am willing to trade "clicking the address bar 28 times" for the ultimate control i listed above.

 

[macgruder]

I seriously have to ask whether you've used the software I mentioned in my post. You say that in many of them there is no "concept of a main window". How so? Firefox, Safari, iTunes, Garageband, iPhoto, iDVD, etc. are all contained within one giant window and the toolbar is at the top, obviously. How is there not a "main application window" when the application itself consists of a giant window and everything is contained within?

The 'one giant window' is not a Window in the Mac paradigm . You are taking a Windows concept and trying to apply it to the Mac, and if you refer to that space as a Window then people don't know what you are talking about.

 

[WildPalms]

you guys are getting way to into it.

why do some of you not understand that no matter what "argument" you put forth, some people (such as mosx and i) would prefer that closing a window quits the application?

yes, i grew up in the windows environment but that doesn't mean i am stupid or stubborn or immoral or just a generally bad person as you guys are trying to make out. it just means that 90% of the computing world understands that closing a window quits an app. after quitting, it isn't bogging down your RAM or sitting there in your taskbar or system tray.

suddenly when switching to a mac after listening to everyone on here, something as trivial as that is completely different. and because we are not used to it, we are stubborn. you can't tell someone to switch while citing all the reasons os x is "better" then in the next breath call them stupid or stubborn for not liking the new way of doing some things.

i would like to point out that i am far from an os x beginner. i love it, but there are some quirks (you may call them features...) that i, and many others, don't particularly like.

btw when you say you need to click 28 times in the address bar to select the address, that is flat out lying. not only do you only need to click once, but you can then right click to copy or paste or select all or, in opera, to paste and then immediately navigate to the url without a second action.

and a silly little thing like address bar clicking pales in comparison to the other pluses of windows. why do mac os x users need to wait an extra two years for game ports? why can't we get the latest and greatest graphics cards without paying out the ass for a new computer from apple?

why aren't there plugins for our favorite programs? why do most of our favorite programs only run on windows?

why can't they just put a second button to right click with?

wtf are these stacks, and why do they show my latest porn download as a little icon on my dock?

why is the dock at the bottom by default, when there is much more screen real estate to play with horizontally?

why am i forced to use one of apple's black and white backgrounds to mask the fact that the new menu bar is translucent?

why isn't it easier to change the order of the menubar icons to the right?

sometimes i am willing to give up os x's prettiness for the ultimate control i have over win xp through the registry, msconfig, safe mode, etc. obviously an idiot can get his xp box messed up very quickly, but a properly setup and cared for XP system is so much more satisfying than os x, leopard or not.

don't get me wrong, i love my MBP. but i run xp through bootcamp not all the time, but a lot more than i thought i would be doing it. sometimes i am willing to trade "clicking the address bar 28 times" for the ultimate control i listed above.

Reading over your post (twice), its pretty clear you need to grab an OS X for Dummies book. Forget everything you've been told and brainwashed with, and read the book from start to finish. Some of your questions are just plain ridiculous and bear no further thought.

Seriously, grab the book.

 

[macgruder]

why do some of you not understand that no matter what "argument" you put forth, some people (such as mosx and i) would prefer that closing a window quits the application?

This is not the issue here. You are wanting a change to the Mac paradigm that is inconsistent with the way the Mac works and would have negative effect on productivity for people who have taken time to learn this. And despite the fact that the Mac gives you the tools you need to quit. How damn difficult is command-Q?

 

[TheStu]

you guys are getting way to into it.

why do some of you not understand that no matter what "argument" you put forth, some people (such as mosx and i) would prefer that closing a window quits the application?

yes, i grew up in the windows environment but that doesn't mean i am stupid or stubborn or immoral or just a generally bad person as you guys are trying to make out. it just means that 90% of the computing world understands that closing a window quits an app. after quitting, it isn't bogging down your RAM or sitting there in your taskbar or system tray.

suddenly when switching to a mac after listening to everyone on here, something as trivial as that is completely different. and because we are not used to it, we are stubborn. you can't tell someone to switch while citing all the reasons os x is "better" then in the next breath call them stupid or stubborn for not liking the new way of doing some things.

i would like to point out that i am far from an os x beginner. i love it, but there are some quirks (you may call them features...) that i, and many others, don't particularly like.

btw when you say you need to click 28 times in the address bar to select the address, that is flat out lying. not only do you only need to click once, but you can then right click to copy or paste or select all or, in opera, to paste and then immediately navigate to the url without a second action.

and a silly little thing like address bar clicking pales in comparison to the other pluses of windows.

Did you miss the bit where I said it was an exaggeration? That I am used to how things are in OS X, and therefore thrown by how it is in Windows. Not that I necessarily think that OS X is easier, so much as that it is what I am used to and prefer.

why do mac os x users need to wait an extra two years for game ports? why can't we get the latest and greatest graphics cards without paying out the ass for a new computer from apple?

Those are two different things, but it should primarily fall to whoever is making the port of the game, or whoever is making the graphics card.

why aren't there plugins for our favorite programs? why do most of our favorite programs only run on windows?

Talk to the developers of your favorite programs, find out why they are not porting their apps over to OS X or Linux.

why can't they just put a second button to right click with?

I have no idea, but honestly, after having used 2 finger right clicking and scrolling on my MacBook, I have gotten used to it, and really prefer it. That right there is more an adaptation than anything else, but the compromise that they made is a really good one. 1 Large button that is easy to hit instead of 2 smaller buttons.

wtf are these stacks, and why do they show my latest porn download as a little icon on my dock?

Change to having it organized another way?

why is the dock at the bottom by default, when there is much more screen real estate to play with horizontally?

No idea... I always put it on the side.

why am i forced to use one of apple's black and white backgrounds to mask the fact that the new menu bar is translucent?

Because that is how you like it. You are not forced to do anything.

why isn't it easier to change the order of the menubar icons to the right?

Why isn't it easier to re-organize the System Tray? You hold the Command Key and drag the menubar icons... not that hard really.

sometimes i am willing to give up os x's prettiness for the ultimate control i have over win xp through the registry, msconfig, safe mode, etc. obviously an idiot can get his xp box messed up very quickly, but a properly setup and cared for XP system is so much more satisfying than os x, leopard or not.

You do know that OS X is Unix, right? And if you know what you are doing in Terminal, you have ultimate control over the system.

don't get me wrong, i love my MBP. but i run xp through bootcamp not all the time, but a lot more than i thought i would be doing it. sometimes i am willing to trade "clicking the address bar 28 times" for the ultimate control i listed above.

Then buy a Dell, or continue running XP on BootCamp. If you prefer Windows then you prefer Windows. I don't have qualms with that, but rather with people that either say that Windows should do things just like OS X, or OS X should do things just like Windows.

 

[vm7118]

ok, thanks for engaging in discussion with me by telling me i need a book for dummies. and that i have been brainwashed. by who, exactly have i been brainwashed? what have they tricked me into believing?

all i am saying is that some of us are annoyed by things like command-Q. i am not asking for a single thing, much less a paradigm shift. i am simply stating that no amount of effort anyone puts forth will make me hate command-Q any less, because i have learned to close the window and exit the app, as opposed to minimize the app when i dont want to see it, and it is easier for me and many others.

i don't see what the argument is here. people like mosx and i are not trying to fight anyone, or spread the brainwashing we have apparently experienced. i am telling u how i feel, just like the OP of this thread, and you guys reply to the effect of "you are wrong."

but by all means, go ahead... continue flailing your arms and screaming about brainwashing and paradigms and command-Q. it doesn't change the fact that the apple way of doing things isn't for everyone, whether it's because they grew up doing things another way or that they simply don't like it, or both.

 

[zipadidoodah]

I think a valid point is depreciation. I have used PC's since windows DOS. Pre Intel! and the thing that bugged me the most was the necessity to upgrade my 6 month old obsolete machine, should i want to keep up with the times. Don't you find it amazing that you were able to use a 7 year old machine completely and it not be the most painful experience ever. I have a 3 year old Dell Latitude for work and it takes over 8 minutes to boot (no joke!).

By all means go for windows etc, but with a current mac you could have had the best of both worlds instead you have a Dell which if my experience is to go by you will be frustrated with in less than 6 months. As for your desktop choice - this was typed on a 3 1/2 year old iMac (with only 1gb of Ram, not the best specs) running the latest OS which works perfectly.

 

[macgruder]

all i am saying is that some of us are annoyed by things like command-Q. i am not asking for a single thing, much less a paradigm shift. i am simply stating that no amount of effort anyone puts forth will make me hate command-Q any less, because i have learned to close the window and exit the app, as opposed to minimize the app when i dont want to see it, and it is easier for me and many others.

Yes, but if the 'problem' you are suggesting were changed it would have a serious productivity effect on those who use the system correctly. For example, the change you are suggesting would make it impossible for me to close my last Window in Photoshop without Photoshop quitting on me, and wasting time. And as you learn OS X, you'll come to see the benefits of the App not quitting when you click the red button.

Now if you make a suggestion like 'why can't I cut and paste' in the Finder then I'm with you because it doesn't break stuff but adds.

 

[gangzoom]

I've been fascinated with Macs for a while now (and in fact, I'm typing this post on my 7-year old PowerBook that I bought last year), and so I strongly considered getting a new MacBook. But in the end, I decided the Dell was a better use of my money, for the following reasons.

What a great advert for Apple!!! How many 7 year old PC laptops do you see people using on a regular bases