Prove the PEECEEers, OSX IS KING

[RacerX]

And since Mac isn't all that fond of backwards compatibility, much of the software you're running requires an upgrade to the new OS.

Funny, I'm running 10.2 as my primary OS on my Macs, that was released in August of 2002 and has served me quite well. To date, there is nothing that is so compelling that I've felt any need to upgrade to 10.3. In fact a lot of my clients are doing just fine with 10.2. Most of them don't follow every little thing Apple does, they just want a system that works. And 10.2 works great, so most (read as more than half of my Mac OS X clients) haven't asked to move to 10.3.

I think that your statement is an over generalization. Even back in the pre-Mac OS X days, I knew a lot of people who were happy with 8.1 or 8.6 and felt no burning need to move to Mac OS 9.

On The NeXT side, I was fine with NEXTSTEP 3.3 until 1999 when I did move to OPENSTEP (first to 4.1 and then 4.2) because of a handful of apps, but all my (important) NEXTSTEP apps seemed to work just fine in OPENSTEP. I can only think of a couple apps that stopped working (OmniWeb 1.0 and 2.0 come to mind, but I was moving to OPENSTEP so I could run OmniWeb 3.0/3.1 so that didn't matter).

There are people who are going to chase the newest of the new and will buy anything new Apple puts out. Most Mac users don't care that much about using a Mac (it is just the type of computer they like using) or new things from Apple, they like things that work and have little interest in upgrading until things stop working.

 

[mac-er]

The company next door to my office is owned by a great guy who knows what a Mac head I am. He comes over last week and says "How do I make a PDF out of a Word document?" I said "Buy a Mac" and he just shakes his head and tells me to get out of his hair with "my Mac evangilism." He needs to buy an add-on program to do what he needs it to do.

I saw first hand what comments like "Buy a Mac" do to people. When I worked in an office at the university, the network guy was a huge Mac-head. Whenever someone asked a question, he would respond with that smart-aleck "Buy a Mac". (granted, I'm sure he meant it as a joke).

Everyone thought he was an ###hole because of comments like that. And, it made them hate Macs even more because they associated Macs with users like him.

Telling someone to "Buy a Mac" in response to their problems is rude and not a viable soultion.

Believe it or not, for a lot of people, Windows is what they like using, they know how to use it without getting viruses/spyware, and Windows is what they are happy with. This whole Mac-is-holier-than-Windows debate almost makes most Mac-heads seem like nerdy-rednecks (referring to Ford/GM/Dodge sucks debate that rednecks have). I almost think comparing Mac to Windows is like comparing apples to oranges (no pun intended). There are advantages and disadvantages that come to using both platforms.

I would like Macs to have a bigger marketshare, but the more people that are using the Mac the more likely more viruses, trojans, and other crap comes over to the Mac.

 

[Logik]

wow this sure has gotten out of control.

I again stand by my statement of PC's have their uses, and Mac's have their uses. Simple as that really guys. If you like hardware at cheap prices you have all kinds of hardware in all ranges of prices for the PC depending on what you're looking for. You get a few choices with the Mac hardware but not near the range and price you get from PC hardware.

However I feel that OS X does rock, it could use a few features, like the ability to use everything without a mouse or trackpad. Ya you have those little short cuts but i want to be able to hit something similar to "Alt+F to get the file menu, Alt+E for the edit menu, etc. You can do something close to this on the mac but it isn't nearly as intuitive. That's my biggest gripe thus far, the rest i love.

For me the big switch was to use OS X, which works great FOR ME. It might not be for everyone, but it does work for me. If someone is having a problem with their PC I carefully point out that i can do the same in OS X without any fuss, etc, but i don't tell them well you should just get a mac.

Almost every comment on here seems ridiculous now that i read them all. It's sad, you just bicker and fight and defend the Mac platform, use what makes you happy, why argue about it, people will switch when they want to. Most won't, few will. Make a conscious effort if the person is capable of learning something new and honestly the platform can make their lives easier, but if there's no reason to switch dont push it on them. If you constantly shove things down their throat they will call you a zealout or a complete jackass. One or the other, i'd probably call you a jackass.

 

[Beeblebrox]

I think that your statement is an over generalization. Even back in the pre-Mac OS X days, I knew a lot of people who were happy with 8.1 or 8.6 and felt no burning need to move to Mac OS 9.

Indeed, I know a guy who still uses OS 7.5 But I don't think there's any question that new software for him (he uses Quark) will require an OS upgrade. I'm facing that with the new version of FCP. If I want to utilize the new features in that program, I have no choice but to upgrade to 10.4. And you have to admit that's not exactly an unusal occurance on the Mac.

PCs obviously outmode as well, just not as fast.

 

[Beeblebrox]

Believe it or not, for a lot of people, Windows is what they like using, they know how to use it without getting viruses/spyware, and Windows is what they are happy with.

I totally agree. This assumption among the Apple sycophants that Windows users are either ignorant or stupid or stubborn or somehow haven't seen the light is ludicrous. After my OS 9 fiasco, I gave up on the Mac (until recently). I prefered Windows. It was a conscious choice after weighing the pros and cons of each system.

Almost every person I know knows what a Mac is. It's not like they've never seen them or heard of them before. They just don't care. I know that's hard for the sycophants to believe, but these people don't live in their computers, they don't salivate over a slick looking OS, they don't battle with viruses or malware all day long, they just use a computer as tool and they prefer Windows, usually because the Mac won't run their software and because of price.

 

[RacerX]

Indeed, I know a guy who still uses OS 7.5 But I don't think there's any question that new software for him (he uses Quark) will require an OS upgrade. I'm facing that with the new version of FCP. If I want to utilize the new features in that program, I have no choice but to upgrade to 10.4. And you have to admit that's not exactly an unusal occurance on the Mac.

Yes, but QuarkXPress 3.3x and 4.xx both could run on very old hardware (as I recall they only needed a 68020 processor running at 16 MHz). It was Quark's choice to not make a transitional version of QuarkXPress that could run from Mac OS 8.6 to Mac OS X v10.3.x.

Lets look at another developer, Adobe. They made versions of Acrobat, Photoshop, Illustrator, GoLive, LiveMotion and InDesign that could run on systems using Mac OS 9.1 to Mac OS X v10.3.x.

By contrast Quark (like Microsoft) took an all or nothing approach to porting their apps to Mac OS X even after Apple bent over backward to give them the ability to make apps for both Mac OS X and Mac OS 8.6-9.2.2.

Mac OS X could have been out years earlier had it not been for developers demanding Carbon. And when Apple delivered, few developers (like Adobe) took full advantage of Apple's work with fully functional transition versions of their apps.

As for Apple and their applications, it is no secret that Apple is a hardware company. They want people to buy hardware. The best way to do that is to make compelling software that only runs on their hardware (and needs the newest hardware).

Which is fine. I tend not to use Apple software too much. I use OmniWeb rather than Safari (I would have had to upgrade to 10.3 to get the same rendering engine in Safari that I get in OmniWeb 5.1). I use Curator rather than iPhoto. I use Acrobat rather than Preview. I use Watson rather than Sherlock. And I use Create rather than Pages (or Illustrator, or QuarkXPress, or InDesign).

And Apple apps I do use, like Mail and TextEdit, receive major help from third party services.

Further, there are plenty of reasons not to upgrade at all.

For example, I needed a laptop for school. Something light (around 5 lb) that I could use in the library. I'm studying mathematics, so some math apps would be nice also. And I'm going to school and working at the same time, so I don't have a ton of disposable cash on hand.

My solution... a PowerBook Duo 2300c (about $60 on ebay).

I maxed out the RAM (56 MB) and put Mac OS 8.6 on it (so I could run some Carbon apps). And then I went looking for my math apps, like Theorist and Mathematica. I found Theorist 2.0 for $35 (the current version, called LiveMath Maker, is $299) and Mathematica 2.2 for $50 (the current version is running $1800) on ebay. And I have older versions of Photoshop (4.0), ImageReady (1.0), Illustrator (6.0), PageMill (3.0), PageMaker (5.0), Acrobat (4.0) and BBEdit (6) that all work great on that system. And even the current version of AppleWorks runs nicely.

Plus, not having Mac OS X (and my Mac OS X apps) means I'm less likely to get distracted while working in the library (I have versions of most of my Mac OS X apps on my ThinkPad running Rhapsody, which is why I ruled out that system).

All and all I don't think I spent more than $200 on the system and it is perfect for what I need. Actually, it would be a fine system for most math students, but most students are under the impression that if they don't buy new, they are missing something. Having paid for all my education out of pocket, I know that if something was fine 10 years ago, it is just as fine today.

And I rarely (if ever) push any of my clients to upgrade before they are ready.

Yes, keeping up with what is new requires upgrades. But not everyone needs to chase after the newest stuff. And not everyone has had to pay out for every Mac OS X update.

I had to as part of my job, but I still use 10.2 on my main system. And I know of very few systems that can match the performance record of this system. I have no overwhelming need to upgrade when everything is running... perfectly.

 

[iMacZealot]

At $120 per upgrade, that's $480 unless you buy all new hardware and get the OS included. So while there have been OS updates, they've come at a cost. And since Mac isn't all that fond of backwards compatibility, much of the software you're running requires an upgrade to the new OS.

I'd call that a draw. I've been using XP without any problems for three years and I haven't had to shell out $120 a year to do it.



Windows users in this thread alone have been referred to as ignorant, stubborn, zombies, and told that they just "dont get it." Do you really have a problem with insulting, invalid responses or do you just have a problem with someone daring to criticize the Mac?



Not quite. It really depends on the user and the use. I run a PC 2.4 ghz with 1 GB of RAM, a RAID array, Geforce 4 w/ 128 MB of RAM, and a DVD+-RW drive. The base system cost $400, $100 less than the Mac mini, and the rest I upgraded. I also run a Mac mini to run FCP. Upgrading the RAM was $150 that I installed myself. The KVM cost $30.

Obviously I can't upgrade the Mac mini like I can the PC, so there is less cost associated, but that's hardly a plus in Apple's favor. To get upgradability beyond RAM, I'd have to spend $1500 for a G5 Power Mac.

Side by side, the cost of operation between the Mac and PC is virtually identical. Both systems are extremely stable and reliable. I've lost no down time on the PC that would be associated with the OS or the base system, although I have had a couple of HDD failures. The PC is more powerful but it cost a little more money (although the base system was roughly comparable and cost a little less).

The idea that Macs somehow magically come out cheaper or even comparable to PCs is simply a fantasy in most cases, particularly in higher end systems and laptops.

My final verdict is that both OS's are great and the choice really depends on what you want to do.

So, basically, are updates bad in your opinion? All I'm saying is that Apple keeps updating their operating systems and gives users the best experience they can get. When Apple updates OS X, they add features for people to make it easier. For example, they add little tidbits such as Expose, iChat, Safari, etc. They aren't necessary, but they are useful. Would you rather go back to 10.0?


Now, I must confess. Windows XP is.......okay, although I found something better that I like using and Macs are something I need to use, as I am studying to become a film editor.

 

[Muzukun]

Why exactly do you want to prove that one OS is better than another? Is it really that important? Just use whatever you like, but don't go spreading crap about Windows and acting like a Mac zealot. It just pisses people off and makes Apple (and Mac users) look worse.

thank you...

I just made the switch and I personally find it really irritating to have to listen to a mac user that refuses to admit that omg, apple could have a flaw of some sort. I love my mac, and I kind of honestly hate my PC right now. However, if I'm in a discussion with a mac user, whenever it comes to something I clearly consider a flaw on a mac's part (framerates in games...) they promptly switch the topic and do everything in their capacity to steer clear of that issue, acting as if it's not an issue when it's clearly one to me. Either system is good, one works better for some then others. Going around trying to force someone one way will just polarize them and piss them off... sounds like a recent election doesn't it?

 

[Timelessblur]

So, basically, are updates bad in your opinion? All I'm saying is that Apple keeps updating their operating systems and gives users the best experience they can get. When Apple updates OS X, they add features for people to make it easier. For example, they add little tidbits such as Expose, iChat, Safari, etc. They aren't necessary, but they are useful. Would you rather go back to 10.0?


Now, I must confess. Windows XP is.......okay, although I found something better that I like using and Macs are something I need to use, as I am studying to become a film editor.

I think he saying they update to offen and then more or less force the updates down people thoughts by not making new software that can run on the older OS.

 

[Beeblebrox]

So, basically, are updates bad in your opinion? All I'm saying is that Apple keeps updating their operating systems and gives users the best experience they can get.

Yes, at a cost of $120 per upgrade. So to get the "best experience" you can get, it has cost $480 since OSX was first released (including Tiger). And if you haven't paid that, then you haven't enjoyed anything. You're more or less in the same boat as XP.

If Apple had given away those updates or charged something less than full price each for them, then you might have a bragging right. But otherwise, they're like any other company that upgrades a product and charges full price to get it. Whooptee doo.

 

[Nermal]

If Apple had given away those updates or charged something less than full price each for them, then you might have a bragging right. But otherwise, they're like any other company that upgrades a product and charges full price to get it. Whooptee doo.

I'm not sure what you mean here by 'full price'. If Apple had sold them at, say, $50 each, then wouldn't the $50 be 'full price'?

 

[Beeblebrox]

I'm not sure what you mean here by 'full price'. If Apple had sold them at, say, $50 each, then wouldn't the $50 be 'full price'?

What I mean is that it's the same price to upgrade as it is to buy the software outright.

 

[Nermal]

Apple doesn't sell 'full' versions of Mac OS at retail, you can only get it bundled with a Mac. The boxed versions you buy are upgrades - you can't use them unless you already have a previous version. We don't know what the price of the 'full' version is because it's always included in the system price.

 

[Beeblebrox]

We don't know what the price of the 'full' version is because it's always included in the system price.

Fair enough, but it's still a considerable price to pay every year for an OS upgrade.

 

[Nermal]

I don't disagree with that.

On the other hand, I started using Macs when 10.2 was the current version, and I bought a new system when 10.3 came out, so I think I'm doing pretty well

 

[trtam]

...

They're lost souls...why bother?

 

[trtam]

Apple doesn't sell 'full' versions of Mac OS at retail, you can only get it bundled with a Mac. The boxed versions you buy are upgrades - you can't use them unless you already have a previous version. We don't know what the price of the 'full' version is because it's always included in the system price.

What?

I thought that the boxed versions have the full OS on them. You only need a new Mac or a new box version for major updates, like 10.2, 10.3, 10.4.

 

[Nermal]

Try installing a boxed version on a computer that's never had Mac OS on it, and see how far you get

 

[jiggie2g]

There is a file Apple uses in make OSX to make the retail disc's upgrade only, however there is a Hack to make them full versions but u have to copy the disc to your hard drive and remove the file , then create a bootable disc ISO image with toast.

I forgot the file's name but u can google search for it and you'll find it in a few forums. I've done this a while back with Panther and Jaguar , but they change the file with every new OS so u can't keep doing the same trick. Like i've always said anything written can be over written / altered / hacked. This is why things like DRM and serial keycodes are useless.

 

[Timelessblur]

Try installing a boxed version on a computer that's never had Mac OS on it, and see how far you get

A basic test to show that it is a full install. Take a mac pull out the hard drive and put a new one in thier that has never been formated and then do it. I pretty sure it will install.

 

[Nermal]

Indeed it will. But that system (I'm talking about the whole computer, not just the drive) has still had Mac OS on it in the past.

If you take a computer which has *never* had Mac OS on it, then you won't be able to install it. Why not? Because it won't be compatible with the OS. Why not? Because all compatible systems come with the OS preinstalled. I've made a logic loop there

 

[Beeblebrox]

On the other hand, I started using Macs when 10.2 was the current version, and I bought a new system when 10.3 came out, so I think I'm doing pretty well

Apple is doing pretty well too. $$$

 

[Nermal]

The first one was an import from the US, so Apple didn't get their ridiculous 'international fee' (about $800). The second one was with an ADC discount, so that's a further $420 they missed out on.

So, Apple's not doing as well from me as you may think

 

[Beeblebrox]

The first one was an import from the US, so Apple didn't get their ridiculous 'international fee' (about $800).

Wow. Is that something Apple charges or your govt?

So, Apple's not doing as well from me as you may think

I'll have you know that because of you, Jobs did not make his last mortage payment.

 

[john1123]

prouble the only problem i see with what apple did is they done way to many new OS in to small of a time frame and made a killing off of it.

OS life span is normally about 3 years and that is about what they should be. XP is was orginal slated to have been replaces in 2004 (3 years from it release date) XP more or less was replaceing 98 (ME was crap and was per greed and a joke OS) since windows NT and 2000 both where target at bunisses and not the normal user.
XP yeah is starting to show it age and in a year when it is replaced my longhorn it will really be showing it age. But that is beside the point in 4 years apple made 4 OS you had to pay money for to get. (10.0, 10.2,10.3 and 10.4) And that is a lot and it starting to add up. All of apple OS are really young when they are replaced. 10.3 to 10.4 is just semi acceptble but still it young. Apple needs to go back to the 3 year cycle. Year 1 to get everything in good working order with software develpers and bugs in the OS, Year 2 and 3 you had 2 years where everything is in working order Develpers are using the power of the OS and what the new OS added. Then it time to replace it and move to the next one. Right now apple just not giving them enough time for software to come out that can really use the power of the OS.

while i tend to agree with apple going overkill with so many payable OS upgrades, it should be pointed out that XP cost around AU$800 when it first came out in Australia whilst a Mac OS upgrade "only" costs AU$229