Pardon the repeat post, but it's posts like this one that just perpetuate some really horrible myths:
When we get to an actual myth, email it to my Blackberry.
{Steak-vs-Hamburger}
This is irrelevant because it makes the assumption that allWindows based PCs are burgers and all Macs are steak. Obviously this is wrong - Macs are going to be better than low end to mid range PCs but they're no better than the higher end PCs they actually compare to and, in some cases, are considerably worse.
Sure, but there's always going to be exceptions. Since analogies need to be simple, we need to speak in generalized terms.
And using said simplified and generalized terms, the facts are that the
average PC is cheaper than the
average Mac. It generally follows that the overall generalized quality of the UI experience is similarly predicated.
There is a not-insignificant segment of computer buyers who pretty much don't buy based on features, but nearly purely on cost. As such, this segment is pretty well "locked up" as being Windows OS based and consequently, only get the "hamburger" level of experience.
Since Apple doesn't proverbially sell ground meat, their customers don't have this level of experience, which raises their average experience quality. From an analogy perspective, this makes them "not hamburger".
Perhaps. I'm 39 years old and don't which is why I like Vista. It runs and it runs well.
I use XP on a daily basis; it does okay but there are many elements where it could have been better...and which weren't really fixed in Vista, which I note as a significant lost opportunity for product improvement.
I have had some time using Vista, although not a lot. For the most part, I saw nothing particularly beneficial or compelling to motivate an upgrade from XP, so I didn't.
Windows XP certainly has advantages over OS X (afterall, both are merely tools), although I generally find most of these are related to business 'Enterprise' system management, which is simply not a factor for a home or small business environment. Sure, there's also some unique software like Pro/Engineer, but that's functionally a speciality niche which will always be bought by a large business...a difference of $5K-$10K is noise.
The main problem with OSX is that its software catalogue is extremely limited. I've read many posts endorsing OSX whilst stating that they can dual boot into Windows to run some applications. Think about it: To run some pretty standard operations you have to jump into an entirely different OS whereas with Vista you don't. Sure, there might be the odd exception, but the world is geared to Windows.
I've been running in a home / small business environment for years, and don't even have the capability to "jump back" into Windows - - for my needs, I find it utterly unnecessary. YMMV, naturally...and FWIW, I'd be curious to hear what these so-called
"pretty standard operations" are that I've apparently been overlooking for a half decade and yet nevertheless surviving.
I'm almost tempted to call these myths.
And that's where OSX falls down. It's great at what it does but as soon as you have to ditch it to actually do what you need to it loses all value as an OS because you simply shouldn't have to switch something whose sole purpose is to keep your computer running and act as a platform for your apps. If you do then any evangelising of OSX's virtues - and it has many - is pointless because it doesn't do what you need it to. For you it's the wrong choice.
Realistically, how significant/frequent of a problem this is depends on your end needs and applications.
I'm not saying that it doesn't ever happen, for I have seen some elements of it on rare occasion. My point is that this desire for the Windows "Safety Net" is quite strong and I've not "Had a Fall" where I needed the Net in years.
So do we want to say that I've been amazingly lucky? If not, then the alternative is that peoples' fear of living without Windows is irrational.
Now if OSX support all the apps you use this isn't a problem and then it does come down to user preference. However if it doesn't then please don't claim that OSX is better than Windows because for you it's not - you're stuck using two operating systems when you really only needed one.
Agreed, but that observation isn't profound, because the argument also works the other direction too, namely that OS X unique Applications that can't run on Windows also 'force' you to keep around two OS's.
The real underlying question here isn't strictly (and narrowly) if Application XYZ is sold under both OSs, but if there's equivalent tools that allow the same level of capability without significant compromises. For the non-Enterprise level applications, Mac OS X has pretty much already been there for awhile.
And to this end, since it has been observed/claimed/etc that Apple is pursuing the consumer market space and not Enterprise, the weakness of OS X in the Enterprise is to a certain degree a non-factor: sure, we're wish to complain about it, but it is essentially because we're trying to put a round peg in a square hole.
To abuse a few more analogies, if the consumer space is the round hole, upon what circumstances should we tolerate the sloppy fit provided by the square peg? To a certain degree this is a 'right tool for the job' argument, with the perspective that they're similar...but not identical...tools.
-hh
