Imo my MBP has just been another computer to me. OSX is nice but I never had any big problems with Windows. My next computer will be a Mac mostly because I've gotten used to OSX and I like some of the features of it, but I've never had any issues with Windows, and I think it's quite overblown. The only time I've seen a blue screen was when I installed a new piece of hardware incorrectly, and rarely did programs crash on me. *shrug*
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
What made "the switch" worth it to you?
- Thread starter kobyh15
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
I went the Mac route because I wanted a notebook with a decent quality 15" screen, long battery life and a graphic card that is good for occasional gaming too.
There was just nothing in the market but the MBP 15" AG HD. I would never get a glossy MBP.
What made it worth it?
The best thing by far is the trackpad in combination with a few useful tools and built in features it does wonders for multitasking on the go.
What I miss?
Microsoft Office 2007/2010. Virtual Machines are annoying and switching for an office program is too but I do it because for collaborative work especially with people that use office for windows it is hugely annoying to work with anything else or Office for Mac.
And i miss the Taskbar or Windows it is just the better solution when used in combine if full mode. The dock is just a shiny fairly slow and uninformative task manager. Alfred, Exposé and Spaces make up for the dock though along with the touch pad.
BTW Windows 7 is IMO slightly more stable and slightly faster than OSX. But for general research and study use OSX with the features&tools I mentioned is more productive.
There was just nothing in the market but the MBP 15" AG HD. I would never get a glossy MBP.
What made it worth it?
The best thing by far is the trackpad in combination with a few useful tools and built in features it does wonders for multitasking on the go.
What I miss?
Microsoft Office 2007/2010. Virtual Machines are annoying and switching for an office program is too but I do it because for collaborative work especially with people that use office for windows it is hugely annoying to work with anything else or Office for Mac.
And i miss the Taskbar or Windows it is just the better solution when used in combine if full mode. The dock is just a shiny fairly slow and uninformative task manager. Alfred, Exposé and Spaces make up for the dock though along with the touch pad.
BTW Windows 7 is IMO slightly more stable and slightly faster than OSX. But for general research and study use OSX with the features&tools I mentioned is more productive.
Regarding the bolded - I think there is definitely a higher percentage profit on mac products (especially their laptops, I am not as familiar with other products) but there is definitely also an increase in quality.
I would probably consider waiting until the next MBP update if I were you too as it sounds like you have a few months prior to needing a new computer. It would be frustrating to buy a computer, then have a new update come out several weeks afterwards.
Also, if you are not convinced on whether you want a mac, as I was, I would recommend going to your university bookstore or local best buy or other mac retailer and just using the computers there a bit. I spent several hours using the display machines just to get a good feel for the mbp and how it compares to other machines.
The two best ways to get the most bang for your buck on a late-model Mac.
- Buy a refurb from the Apple store online. You can usually save the "premium" price when your desired Mac is mid-refresh cycle or the last rev.
- Buy right at the refresh. Since Apple's prices are set for the life of the model you usually get the best deal right when the new models are released.
B
I go way, way back, but while I made the switch to Mac around the time of finishing up uni and then going to graduate school, it was not from a PC to Mac but from a typewriter to Mac. There is usually, in most forms of graduate study, far too much to write to be able to comfortably work with typewriters so while it wasn't comfortable to initially learn how to use a Mac (or any computer), it was so worth the time and money.
But this holds up even today for people from switching from a fast PC which may have a Core 2 Duo to a 13" inch MBP with OS X and the same processor.
What makes Apple products such time savers are:
1) ease of use over anything else out there
2) durability and reliability
3) lack of viruses out there slowing down the machine
When you make the switch to Apple, you will eventually get so used to it that you will wonder how you possibly got by any other way. Maybe I shouldn't be comparing such a limited piece of technology like a typewriter to Microsoft Windows, but in either case when you go Apple, you definitely feel like you made a quantum leap.
Could you please go into more detail about this? What exactly makes the user experience more enjoyable?
Serious question, I really want to know. And the more detailed the better. Thanks!
Three key items for me.
- Quiet. Macs tend to be very quiet compared to their PC counterparts.
- The glass multi-touch trackpad on late-model Macbooks. It's been mentioned before in the thread, but once you get used to it it is had to go back to other notebook pointing devices.
- Battery life. I haven't had a powerful Windows notebook that can run for >2 hours and didn't weigh 7 lbs or more. They may be out there, but I haven't used one.
My first computer was a 1979 ATARI 800. It was superior to the Apple ][ in every way except for bus speed. I remained loyal to the ATARI platform through the 8-bit years, although I did eventually buy additional 8-bit machines including the Apple ][ (as I was loosely a "programmer" as a teen).
My first 16-bit computer was a 1985 ATARI 520ST. Much less expensive than the early Macintosh, and I didn't care for the Mac's little black and white screen. I also liked the ATARI machine more than the Amiga, although Amigas were fine computers too. I did eventually buy an early Mac second hand, but this only reassured me that I had made the right decision by sticking with ATARI. I also owned several early PCs in this era (again, because I fancied myself a "software developer").
I finally made the "switch" in 1987 when I bought a brand new fully loaded Mac II. From then on I always had a decent high-end Mac as my "main computer," and considered myself a MacUser. As time moved on I bought more PCs on the side, and I have owned several UNIX workstations along the way as well (SUN, SGI). I bought a whole crate of various NeXT machines on closeout as that company began to wane. I was also very enthusiastic about BeOS during it's short run, and to a lesser degree BSD and Linux. But through all of the years since buying that original Mac II the Macintosh has been my primary workstation.
Why? While I used many other computers along the way alongside my various Macs, the Mac stayed when the others went. Windows is still around of course, but I have little use for Microsoft and what I essentially think of as a business operating system. There are no more ATARIs or Amigas. BeOS is long gone (Haiku is interesting but has a long way to go). SGI Irix is sadly no more. SUN Solaris is still around but in the hands of Oracle (along with zfs). I guess Linux has it's uses and is still fun to mess around with on rare occasion. BSD feels ancient by today's standard, but of course it makes up the underpinnings of OS X. For that matter, NeXTstep is OS X.
So in the end, I stuck with the Mac because it is still around, it has absorbed much of the UNIX functionality that I sought from other platforms, and it's not Windows.
My first 16-bit computer was a 1985 ATARI 520ST. Much less expensive than the early Macintosh, and I didn't care for the Mac's little black and white screen. I also liked the ATARI machine more than the Amiga, although Amigas were fine computers too. I did eventually buy an early Mac second hand, but this only reassured me that I had made the right decision by sticking with ATARI. I also owned several early PCs in this era (again, because I fancied myself a "software developer").
I finally made the "switch" in 1987 when I bought a brand new fully loaded Mac II. From then on I always had a decent high-end Mac as my "main computer," and considered myself a MacUser. As time moved on I bought more PCs on the side, and I have owned several UNIX workstations along the way as well (SUN, SGI). I bought a whole crate of various NeXT machines on closeout as that company began to wane. I was also very enthusiastic about BeOS during it's short run, and to a lesser degree BSD and Linux. But through all of the years since buying that original Mac II the Macintosh has been my primary workstation.
Why? While I used many other computers along the way alongside my various Macs, the Mac stayed when the others went. Windows is still around of course, but I have little use for Microsoft and what I essentially think of as a business operating system. There are no more ATARIs or Amigas. BeOS is long gone (Haiku is interesting but has a long way to go). SGI Irix is sadly no more. SUN Solaris is still around but in the hands of Oracle (along with zfs). I guess Linux has it's uses and is still fun to mess around with on rare occasion. BSD feels ancient by today's standard, but of course it makes up the underpinnings of OS X. For that matter, NeXTstep is OS X.
So in the end, I stuck with the Mac because it is still around, it has absorbed much of the UNIX functionality that I sought from other platforms, and it's not Windows.
These are most of the reasons why I'm going to "switch". I put it in quotes because I'm still keeping my windows PC and always will because I build them myself. I want a laptop that I can sit on facebook and forums with a long battery. Apple fulfil that criteria and it will be fun to mess around with OS X.
Thanks for that. In my case I mostly use my laptop with a mouse while hooked up to a 24" monitor, so the trackpad and battery life are not quite as important. I'm mostly interested in what makes one operating system better than the other, overall.
My story is that I've been using computers since DOS, even before Windows. But the truth is I don't have any of the problems with Windows that so many on this board complain about. No crashes, no viruses, no problems (and I'm on Windows Vista!
). Yet I'm extremely curious about Macs and why everyone seems to love them so much. I'm trying to figure out what the "little things" are that everyone says are better on a Mac than on Windows to see if it makes sense for me to switch.As a lifer PC guy there will be a steep learning curve (I am completely clueless when I try a Mac in an Apple store). Plus there will be extra expenses for me since I'll still need to run some Windows software, which means I'll need to purchase a copy of Win 7 and Fusion or Parallels.
Like many others around here, I started using computers well before DOS.
I had used Apple ][+, HP-85, CP/M on the DEC "Rainbow", PDP-11, VAX, Commodore 64/128 and the original 68000 Macs before I ever regularly laid hands on a "PC" or DOS.
I spent 15 years in the PC wilderness, generally having positive experiences, but having a few real "WTF" moments in there. My Vista upgrade on the Dell desktop I was using at the time was one of those that firmly cemented my intent to have all my client computers at home be Macs. At that point I had an iBook G4 and an iMac, and was planning to replace the iBook with a MacBook.
Windows is always there and available in a VM or Via Boot Camp since the Intel switch, as is Linux if I need it.
I do have two dedicated Windows boxes now. One is a HP Mediasmart EX490 WHS server that I am considering turning into a Ubuntu server since HP and Microsoft have effectively abandoned everything that made WHS different. And the other is a Windows/Linux desktop I built, because I can't attach PCI cards to any of my other machines and I wanted to migrate info from old media to the WHS. Once that's done I'll probably run Ubuntu on it or Hackintosh it since I got compatible hardware.
The main difference is one of attitude. Many PC users feel alienated and frustrated by the lack of "under the hood" control of many things, like "Why can't I maximize this window darn it" or "why won't iTunes let me name my music files and folders the way I want them", ...
I have found that giving in to Apple's defaults often leads to a simpler overall experience that requires less maintenance and planning. Yet, feel good to know that I can open Terminal and have the full power of Unix at my fingertips.
I do like Aero Peek and Aero Snap as features in W7, and hope something like them will come in Lion.
Consider Virtualbox and a 120 day "trial" of W7 to see how much you actually end up relying on Windows should you ever make the "switch".
B
This. I never "switched" (and never will), because I can find a way to take advantage of all of these platforms. My laptop is a Mac and my homebuilt desktop is set up to multiboot Linux and various versions of Windows.
Why did I choose a Mac laptop? The merits of OSX (IMO the best Unix-based OS available), the trackpad, the screen etc. are well known to anybody here, so I'll pass over those and examine the supposedly underwhelming internal hardware (relative to cost) instead: unlike many critics, I don't miss the forest for the trees by choosing to focus exclusively upon the internal hardware as it relates to the overall cost of the product. I think chasing raw processing power in a mobile platform is a fool's game, because that power requires a lot of electricity and generates a lot of heat, neither of which is conducive to productive mobile computing. You can certainly get a comparatively high powered Windows native laptop for the cost of a 13" MBP, but it's going to have a two hour battery life, an obnoxiously loud always-on exhaust fan, and it'll get hot enough to torch your lap if you actually take advantage of what's under the hood. Besides: if there's a PC laptop that can outperform the Mac for a fraction of the cost, then there's a desktop machine (homebuilt, at least) that can blow them both out of the water for another fraction yet. I accepted this and chose to go with the best of both worlds.
Once I had fully defined what it was I wanted and expected from a laptop (portability/size/weight, battery life, ease of use, but still enough performance to adequately fill in for my desktop when running moderately demanding applications), I discovered that the Windows computers left that fit my criteria were not all that different from the Macbooks in terms of either cost or internet hardware specs. They were still slightly cheaper, yes, but the trackpad, screen and physical enclosure of the Mac were more than enough to offset that.
More than anything I love the trackpad, and how responsive the OS is. Windows always just seemed to take random unannounced breaks all the time, and you would be left wondering what it's up to.
Being able to use Evernote and iTunes was an added bonus.. I didn't really start using these until I got to a Mac.
Being able to use Evernote and iTunes was an added bonus.. I didn't really start using these until I got to a Mac.
Interesting take on this. It's one of my larger quips with OSX. I don't like being "forced" into the Apple box. I understand that "giving in" would make some things simpler, but that would require me to do things Apples way. You used the iTunes example, so let me present another.
I like iPhoto, it's a great way of organizing photos. But as far as I'm aware, there is no way to have photos displayed in iPhoto without having them stuck into a stupid photo archive. I always liked to dump all of my photos into a directory and sort them into folders. Thus when I wanted to copy or edit a picture, I just open up a file browser and snag the file. With iPhoto I have to jump into the program, make a copy of the file, alter it, then re-import it into the library, and erase the original.
Just one example of where Apple's thinking doesn't suit my thinking. I prefer choices to being told what to do and how to do it.
But macs do have other merits, as I suggested, which is why I will be keeping this macbook as my main laptop. But I will never make a total switch from one OS to another, I just don't see a point to exclusivity.
I find the exact opposite. OSX seems less responsive to me, especially the beach balls that bring the system to its knees. I find that if Windows is doing something intensive, at least you know, while on OSX the little icon will just keep on bouncing. The OSX interface is streamlined, but executing certain actions takes a lot more precision and concentration, causing it to seem very clunky to me.
This is exactly what I do too (with Windows).
Hmm. I don't think I'd like this.
Any other examples of differences like this?
Thanks...
I can offer some other examples, but here's a similarity to Windows that OSX has, and it drives me even crazier than it did with windows.
OSX doesn't have a registry as per windows, but it has an extremely convoluted file structure basically anywhere outside of your home folder. As a result, applications will dump their files all over the place, especially deep within the "library" folder(s). Due to this, hard drive space will randomly disappear on me and finding and modifying application settings can be tedious.
What's worse, whereas the registry has at least a semi-centralized spot to find programs running on startup, for OSX, if a program doesn't offer an in-app preferences modifier to change startup options (I'm looking at you Blackberry desktop manager), you will have to dig through plist files trying to figure out how to stop it from starting up. There may be a simpler way to do this, but I haven't found it yet.
Don't get me wrong though, I still enjoy using my Mac, it's just far from infallible as some would have you believe.
Well, I switched from windows to mac 8 days ago because my ASUS laptop died and there's actually nothing that I miss in windows. I wish I would have switched sooner, everything just works so smoothly. So far I've had no problem I love the graphic of mac OS, it's just gorgeous.
iLife has everything.. Just need Office Word then you're good to go, LOVE IT so far.
iLife has everything.. Just need Office Word then you're good to go, LOVE IT so far.
Gee, I'd hate to FINALLY buy a Mac and go through the learning curves(s) and added expense(s)... only to find I'm disappointed with the experience.
I guess that's why I ultimately chicken out every time I get close to making a purchase!
Well, for some of us lucky ones everything works in Windows too. But that doesn't stop us from being curious about a Mac.
Well, for some of us lucky ones everything works in Windows too. But that doesn't stop us from being curious about a Mac.
Or buying one (in my case)
Just because you have a Mac doesn't mean you have to use iPhoto, just like you don't have to use Windows Live Photo Gallery if your OS is Windows 7. Use Aperture, Lightroom, Picasa, ....
For me, the advantages I get by having iTunes or iPhoto manage my libraries with metadata far outweigh having to do everything myself in the file system. It's very hard to get an equivalent of Smart Playslists or Smart Albums when trying to organize things in the file system.
Just a couple of points for your example.
- The photo "archive" is a bundle. i.e. it is simply a directory. "Show File" in iPhoto will take you right to the location of the picture in iPhoto. If you know the name of the album it is easy enough to find it without opening iPhoto. Show package contents to "unbundle" the iPhoto library.
- If you edit or modify within iPhoto (which most users will do at least for most simple operations) creating the copy is done for you.
- Drag and drop. Drag from iPhoto to the file system, edit, drag it back. It's really not that bad.
I think the success of the iPad and other iOS devices shows that an exposed file system is not the only way to go and that not having a filesystem at all can work for many types of task.
Microsoft recognized this and promised us WinFS, but so far hasn't delivered on it, while Apple has given us iTunes for music, video, books and iPhoto for photos and video.
That said, I always hedge my bets. While iPhoto is my main tool, I also keep a separate file system directory tree library with the raw photos as taken from the camera or scanner (and another for edits) on my NAS. This way if I choose a different OS or photo organization tool I can start fresh quite easily.
EDIT: I've said this before, but I think I will repeat it here. Personally, I started using iTunes before I got my first iPod or Mac. (Due to one of those free song campaigns. I think it was Pepsi.) Anyhow, I hated it at first. But then, I got my first iPod and as I started to import my then ~600 album CD collection into it, I slowly started to give in to the default settings and realized I could still influence things "under the hood" through the tags. I fell in love with the iPod, iTunes and this, plus the fact that I was doing much of what I had done on my various PCs online (i.e. local IMAP server -> Gmail) led me to consider the iBook as my next notebook. It's rare that once I "get" the Apple way I feel the need to subvert it. (H.264/MPEG-4 is another example, why rip to MKV/WMV if my devices won't support that out of the box).
I find it a lot easier to adapt my ways to suit existing tools I enjoy than to be constantly tinkering with my tools.
B
Last edited:
It's not that bad, but it's still extra steps. I like iPhoto, don't get me wrong, otherwise I'd just not use it at all. As I said, I just don't enjoy being told by a manufacturer how I HAVE to do things. I would rather be able to choose.
iTunes doesn't force me to consolidate file anymore, which I assume is due to customer complaints. I just wish Apple would continue to carry this paradigm of "choice" throughout the rest of their OS and core Apps.