Things you HATE about Macs...

[CalBoy]

i think he means: don't make a normal home [TOWER] desktop computer which brings up the whole mid-ranged mac idea again which i would love but Apple will never do.

I suppose, but I really don't see the appeal behind this product (someone please explain it to me). The current iMac and mbp are roughly the same in terms of power, so if you don't need the power of one, you can go one step down to a mini, and if you need more power, you can step up to the Mac Pro.

Is there some specific feature that users want from a tower that can't be met with the current desktop lineup? And besides pro users, why would one want a desktop? They're clunky and much less "moveable" than a notebook.

Unless one needs the power of a desktop, I don't see the appeal behind one. And, if you do need that power, you'd head for a Mac Pro, not a consumer-level desktop.

 

[exspes]

I suppose, but I really don't see the appeal behind this product (someone please explain it to me). The current iMac and mbp are roughly the same in terms of power, so if you don't need the power of one, you can go one step down to a mini, and if you need more power, you can step up to the Mac Pro.

Is there some specific feature that users want from a tower that can't be met with the current desktop lineup? And besides pro users, why would one want a desktop? They're clunky and much less "moveable" than a notebook.

Unless one needs the power of a desktop, I don't see the appeal behind one. And, if you do need that power, you'd head for a Mac Pro, not a consumer-level desktop.

One situation is where you already have a nice monitor and don't care for a new one.

Another situation is where you want the option of adding hard-drives and RAM to the computer to expand its lifespan.

 

[kumamusic]

I don't like any of Apple's mouse and also Apple's expensive in general.

 

[CalBoy]

One situation is where you already have a nice monitor and don't care for a new one.

So what's wrong with a mini or a macbook/pro? Seeing as how the iMac and macbook/pro use the same CPU, for most functions/apps, you wouldn't lose any power. If you do need some specific requirements (the graphics card for example) you can get a mbp.

Another situation is where you want the option of adding hard-drives and RAM to the computer to expand its lifespan.

AFAIK the iMac has easy to upgrade RAM and HDs.

 

[jonkemerer]

Having tried to convert (this is my second time around), I have a few things I hate about Macs.

No Cut and Paste in Finder.

Zoom (green button) does what it's supposed to do, I just wish it did what I wanted it to do. I never use it, except with Safari.

Can't rename files in save dialogs

Finder has some issues with caching thumbnails on my system for some reason. It can take five minutes to load a folder and if I log out, it has to do it all over again? I have to look into it to be fair, but Windows never had any issues.

If you minimize a window, Expose' ignores it. Why?

Safari crashes often, on random websites; weird system glitches every now and then. Nothing too serious, but still annoying.

Overall, I like OS X (believe it or not) I just don't think it gets things done any better than Windows XP or even faster. It is cleaner, and even more fun to use though, at least that much I know I can agree one with other Mac fans

 

[riker1384]

Calboy:

There is no Apple desktop-type computer except for the Mac Pro.

The Mac Mini is a miniature novelty computer built with laptop parts. (The iMac is much the same, but with a built-in monitor which has other drawbacks.) These laptop parts represent poorer values than standard desktop parts. The Mini costs more than a standard modern desktop computer, with a smaller hard drive because it's a laptop drive, for instance. By using desktop parts in desktop computers, they would either make the computers cheaper or they would be more capable, or a little bit of both.

For basic desktop capabilities you have to buy a Mini for $600, which is much more than what a regular desktop computer costs in this era. All this is obvious to anyone who has been in a computer store in the last 5 years.

 

[TatsuTerror]

I'd like to share my two cents as someone who uses both XP and OSX almost every day...here are some areas where I believe Apple is lacking/things that need improvement/things that need to be added:

1) The green button. It's been talked about a hundred times in this thread already, but it is a point that needs to be illustrated. At some points during the day I'm running half a dozen or more applications and once, and need to view all of them...at this point, I don't find the green button remotely necessary. At other times, such as when I'm just browsing the web and that is allI want to do, it would be beneficial to have a maximize button. Someone stated earlier that a simple preference option to switch this could be applied, and I completely agree.

2) Safari...I haven't had a great experience with it, and I much prefer Firefox and various other browsers. My time with Safari is often one filled with errors and bugs, from loading a page incorrectly to giving me an error when trying to send an attachment in Gmail, to...you get the point, the list goes on. Luckily there are many other options available for the Mac, or I would complain more about this fault.

3) The finder. Apple: welcome to the 21st century! If Microsoft does one thing right it's their explorer, so why can't Apple keep up in that realm of the computer? Is it too much to ask for copy and paste? The addition of cover flow is great, but not something I'll really use as much as a copy and paste function.

4) Inability to turn off the fancy effects that don't do anything but look cool. If there's one thing that draws the average PC user to Apple, it's the look of their products and the design of their OS. However, when I'm running multiple memory-intensive programs, the last thing I want is to give my CPU another thing to do. It's painful when closing a window becomes a difficult operation.

There are a few other minor things, but these are the big ones I've noticed.

 

[HLdan]

I don't like any of Apple's mouse and also Apple's expensive in general.

Well they only make one type of mouse. Secondly, that's sort of an ignorant statement. No, I take that back, it's not sort of ignorant, it's just ignorant.

Firstly, the iMac is the cheapest AIO on the market bar none. Cheaper than Dell's, HP's, Sony's or Gateways.
iMac has better GPU and larger screen and faster than all of them even though Dell has a desktop class processor.

The Mac Pro is not more expensive then the Dell when similarly equipped.

There's no PC equivalent of the Mac mini however for a desktop machine its still the only one that ships with wireless and bluetooth and dual boots the Mac OS and Windows.

That leaves us the Macbooks. I will agree that the MacBooks seriously need an update to justify Apple's pricing but the MBP offers more over most Windows notebooks in it's class.

Check your facts before making ignorant statements about price.

 

[CalBoy]

Calboy:

There is no Apple desktop-type computer except for the Mac Pro.

Actually what there isn't is a traditional tower computer except for the Mac Pro. The mini and the iMac, for all their laptop components and drawbacks, still lack portability and other critical features that are necessary to classify them as "laptops," hence, they are still "desktops" in the conventional sense (you need a table/desk to use them).

The Mac Mini is a miniature novelty computer built with laptop parts. (The iMac is much the same, but with a built-in monitor which has other drawbacks.) These laptop parts represent poorer values than standard desktop parts. The Mini costs more than a standard modern desktop computer, with a smaller hard drive because it's a laptop drive, for instance. By using desktop parts in desktop computers, they would either make the computers cheaper or they would be more capable, or a little bit of both.

For basic desktop capabilities you have to buy a Mini for $600, which is much more than what a regular desktop computer costs in this era. All this is obvious to anyone who has been in a computer store in the last 5 years.

I don't disagree with this analysis, I question what uses one would have for a Mac Tower, and more importantly, what they would do/use it for. If your needs are average (Safari, Mail, iWork/Office, iLife, etc) then a mini, a macbook, or an iMac are all good enough. If you have a screen, you can forget the iMac and get a mini or a macbook (and have a larger display when at home).

I don't see the exact need for a desktop that has tower-like qualities and is less powerful than a Mac Pro.

 

[HLdan]

3) The finder. Apple: welcome to the 21st century! If Microsoft does one thing right it's their explorer, so why can't Apple keep up in that realm of the computer? Is it too much to ask for copy and paste? The addition of cover flow is great, but not something I'll really use as much as a copy and paste function.

4) Inability to turn off the fancy effects that don't do anything but look cool. If there's one thing that draws the average PC user to Apple, it's the look of their products and the design of their OS. However, when I'm running multiple memory-intensive programs, the last thing I want is to give my CPU another thing to do. It's painful when closing a window becomes a difficult operation.

There are a few other minor things, but these are the big ones I've noticed.

Leopard's Finder kicks ass and has been well accepted and has had very few complaints against Tiger's Finder.
Well Macs do Copy and Paste so if you meant Cut and Paste, then yes it's too much to ask because Apple has not done this and most likely never will.

You may not use Cover Flow but that does not mean it's useless. I never bothered with Cover Flow in iTunes but it's the best file browser for me, I never use list view anymore since Cover Flow and Quicklook came to the Finder.

Leopard is not Vista, the new 3D look with transparencies do not present a resource hog. Leopard has much more transparency and eye candy then Tiger yet it runs faster than Tiger on 1GB of ram. I am a power user and the apps I use run much better with Leopard over Tiger so the GUI's new 3D look certainly is not hurting the system.

You basically contradicted yourself. First you said Apple should give the option to turn off the eye candy but then you said what draws switchers to the Mac is Apple's design of the products and the design of the OS.
Well if prettiness sells then Apple is not going to give options to shut it off.
Yes, yes, before you rebuttal and say "the least they could do is give us the option", it ain't gonna happen.

 

[eXan]

For those demanding the mid-range tower, you can already buy one. Its a single-CPU Mac Pro.

 

[DaveTheGrey]

That you can't disable the pulsing sleep light....
So annoying.

Dave

 

[Brianstorm91]

The people who want a small desktop tower should get a Mac Mini, but the problem with that is that because Apple have made it so small, (congrats engineers), that to people it looks like it won't be powerful enough.
In my opinion, anyway.

 

[Slip]

Actually what there isn't is a traditional tower computer except for the Mac Pro. The mini and the iMac, for all their laptop components and drawbacks, still lack portability and other critical features that are necessary to classify them as "laptops," hence, they are still "desktops" in the conventional sense (you need a table/desk to use them).


I don't disagree with this analysis, I question what uses one would have for a Mac Tower, and more importantly, what they would do/use it for. If your needs are average (Safari, Mail, iWork/Office, iLife, etc) then a mini, a macbook, or an iMac are all good enough. If you have a screen, you can forget the iMac and get a mini or a macbook (and have a larger display when at home).

I don't see the exact need for a desktop that has tower-like qualities and is less powerful than a Mac Pro.

Maybe for the cheaper price when using desktop parts rather than laptop ones and the expandability?

For those demanding the mid-range tower, you can already buy one. Its a single-CPU Mac Pro.

Which costs over 1400 quid...

 

[Digital Skunk]

One situation is where you already have a nice monitor and don't care for a new one.

Another situation is where you want the option of adding hard-drives and RAM to the computer to expand its lifespan.

The real issue isn't adding HDDs and RAM since we can already to this with the current machines. The real issue is when you look at the iMac and MacPro, both wonderful machines IMHO you have a gap in performance and features. The iMac's dual 2.8GHz laptop chip on one end and the MacPro's Quad 2.8 Zeon on the other. There are no desktop chips sitting anywhere between.

Also, if a user wants a machine that they can expand the GFX card on, or add PCIe expansion cards they only choice they have is the $2500 Mac Pro. Some don't have a problem with this because Apple is trying to reach the average consumer that is more than satisfied with the iMac (a great machine for most) and MacBook and MacBook Pro or Mac Mini. But the niche markets full of gamers and professionals on a budget are screaming for a PowerPC G5 tower's case stuffed with Intel desktop chips.

In all that's what is needed. A tower with half of whatever the Mac Pro has.

I don't like any of Apple's mouse and also Apple's expensive in general.

The mice are a little of a pain to use. Expensive in general is just false. I would have been okay with that statement but it's been proved on so many non-Apple bribed blogs and newspapers that the cost difference is minor if any.

 

[eXan]

Which costs over 1400 quid...

How would you configure that mystical "Mac Mac" so that its better specced than iMac and worse than a Mac Pro? Seriously. There's nothing to put between these two machines.

If you just want an iMac without a display, then heh, Apple was offering that single CPU G5 and G4 before that. Its cost exactly like the iMac, yet no one bought them. Everybody was whining about that it was "the same power as the iMac, but with no display..." And they got discontinued. Now you have that single-CPU tower available yet again and you dont like it again.

Xeon processors seem to be updated really rarely, compared to laptop/desktop class intel CPUs, so Mac Pros aren't updated in quite some time, while within a couple of generations we will get quad-core iMacs and MBPs.

The current line-up makes sense to me:

Bottom-range - Mac mini 2 Cores
Mid-range - iMac faster 2 cores + a real GPU and desktop HD
Lower-top range - Mac Pro even faster 4 cores + your desired expandability
Top-range - Mac Pro 8 Cores + your desired expandability.

The release of a single-CPU Mac Pro Apple has clearly shown us that there will be no "mid-range tower". This Mac Pro configuration is your mid-range tower.

 

[Slip]

How would you configure that mystical "Mac Mac" so that its better specced than iMac and worse than a Mac Pro? Seriously. There's nothing to put between these two machines.

If you just want an iMac without a display, then heh, Apple was offering that single CPU G5 and G4 before that. Its cost exactly like the iMac, yet no one bought them. Everybody was whining about that it was "the same power as the iMac, but with no display..." And they got discontinued. Now you have that single-CPU tower available yet again and you dont like it again.

Xeon processors seem to be updated really rarely, compared to laptop/desktop class intel CPUs, so Mac Pros aren't updated in quite some time, while within a couple of generations we will get quad-core iMacs and MBPs.

The current line-up makes sense to me:

Bottom-range - Mac mini 2 Cores
Mid-range - iMac faster 2 cores + a real GPU and desktop HD
Lower-top range - Mac Pro even faster 4 cores + your desired expandability
Top-range - Mac Pro 8 Cores + your desired expandability.

The release of a single-CPU Mac Pro Apple has clearly shown us that there will be no "mid-range tower". This Mac Pro configuration is your mid-range tower.

Oh yeah I understand the small niche it occupies, but like Digital Skunk said, it would be nice to have the easy expandability of the midrange Mac compared to the pretty fiddly mini and the rather pricey Pro.

 

[CalBoy]

Maybe for the cheaper price when using desktop parts rather than laptop ones and the expandability?
Which costs over 1400 quid...

Oh yeah I understand the small niche it occupies, but like Digital Skunk said, it would be nice to have the easy expandability of the midrange Mac compared to the pretty fiddly mini and the rather pricey Pro.

So from what I gather from this, you don't necessarily have a real problem with the line up and how it's spread out, you have a problem with how its priced (you'd like a tower to be in the iMac's pricing range).

Technically your complaint is that the base Mac Pro is too expensive, not that a product doesn't exist. Right?

 

[TatsuTerror]

Leopard is not Vista, the new 3D look with transparencies do not present a resource hog. Leopard has much more transparency and eye candy then Tiger yet it runs faster than Tiger on 1GB of ram. I am a power user and the apps I use run much better with Leopard over Tiger so the GUI's new 3D look certainly is not hurting the system.

You basically contradicted yourself. First you said Apple should give the option to turn off the eye candy but then you said what draws switchers to the Mac is Apple's design of the products and the design of the OS.
Well if prettiness sells then Apple is not going to give options to shut it off.
Yes, yes, before you rebuttal and say "the least they could do is give us the option", it ain't gonna happen.

I'm not talking about the transparencies as much as I'm talking about closing and opening windows, etc. If I'm on a computer with 2GB RAM and a decent speed, I want all the power going to the intensive programs I'm using, not to a cool effect when the window minimizes. If I can turn this off, do let me know how.

I didn't contradict myself. The eye candy does draw PC users to Macs, heck, it drew me (with a host of other things). But after a while, I really wish the window would just appear or disappear, or minimize without having to look cool. I was in the Apple store looking at the new iMacs, and the minimization was set to a second or so...when I minimized a program it looked choppy and lagged. Obviously setting could be changed, but I do wish they could be completely turned off.

 

[CalBoy]

^^^I'm assuming you're talking about minimizing with the yellow "-" button right? Go to >>> System Preferences >>> Dock >>> and then at the bottom, you'll see "minimizing effect" and change it from "genie" to "Scale effect."

 

[killerrobot]

I hate only having a DVI out on my MBP for which I have to buy more Apple adapters so that I can get VGA out, etc.
It seems that a 3k laptop should come with a few more video/audio out options without the need of adapters.

 

[viniciusc]

I can't imagine who enjoys the way Finder treats the icon view. I mean, I have to refresh the grid EVERYTIME I resize a window, that REALLY sucks. If I make the window smaller, I get annoying horizontal scrollbars and if I make it bigger, I get unnecessary blank space. WHAT IS THE POINT?
I would really like to see Apple correcting this in 10.6.

 

[DaveF]

I suppose, but I really don't see the appeal behind this product (someone please explain it to me). The current iMac and mbp are roughly the same in terms of power, so if you don't need the power of one, you can go one step down to a mini, and if you need more power, you can step up to the Mac Pro.

Is there some specific feature that users want from a tower that can't be met with the current desktop lineup? And besides pro users, why would one want a desktop? They're clunky and much less "moveable" than a notebook.

Unless one needs the power of a desktop, I don't see the appeal behind one. And, if you do need that power, you'd head for a Mac Pro, not a consumer-level desktop.

For someone who likes customizability and upgradability, the iMac is lacking in various areas:

* Can't upgrade or replace the monitor
* Can't keep the monitor and upgrade the computer
* No decent video cards for gaming
* Can't upgrade video card for gaming
* Can't upgrade internal hard drive
* Can't upgrade CPU

I'm now persuaded that most people don't upgrade, so these are strawman arguments in general. For most home users, the iMac is more practical solution than the regular tower or desktop PC. And it is practical design that actually addresses a key problem for many home offices: it doesn't need much space and has minimal cable clutter.

But if I'm a computer junkie, like upgrading, play some games, have a mid-range budget, but also like Macs, there's no good solution in the current lineup.

 

[DaveF]

I'm not talking about the transparencies as much as I'm talking about closing and opening windows, etc. If I'm on a computer with 2GB RAM and a decent speed, I want all the power going to the intensive programs I'm using, not to a cool effect when the window minimizes. If I can turn this off, do let me know how.

If you need every last bit of CPU going to your "intensive programs", and can't spare a fraction of a CPU for a fraction of second to minimize a window, why are you even interacting with your computer at that point. You should leave the computer and let the intensive computer do what it's trying to do. (And before that, quit all secondary apps, like Mail, Safari, iTunes, etc., so they won't interfere with your serious data analysis)

 

[CalBoy]

* Can't upgrade internal hard drive

I thought the iMac has a user-replaceable HD?

But if I'm a computer junkie, like upgrading, play some games, have a mid-range budget, but also like Macs, there's no good solution in the current lineup.

So in other words, if you happen to be a gamer, computer junkie, and Mac fan at the same time, and don't have the money for a Mac Pro, you're currently unsatisfied. For some reason, I think this is a very, very narrow market.