don't "switch"
- Thread starter habilis
- Start date
Hey, I'm using quite a decent little subnotebook this very moment, and it's a PC alright. A Sony VAIO PCG-CX1N. It's running Windows smoothly after some tweaking, and I might try and install Linux on it tomorrow, though I doubt I'll find all necessary drivers for it. Still, I wouldn't want to work on it, because the OS would get in my way too much. It's fine for browsing, chatting and for writing my stories (almost any OS I know of is fine for text input...), but for more I want a Mac.
I do admit OS X has flaws that have to be fixed, certainly. But you'll have to accept that for the jobs I'm doing, Mac OS X is the best operating system around, and I'm glad I'm getting some decent hardware to run it on. Nothing really beats Apple's notebooks for me.
I do admit OS X has flaws that have to be fixed, certainly. But you'll have to accept that for the jobs I'm doing, Mac OS X is the best operating system around, and I'm glad I'm getting some decent hardware to run it on. Nothing really beats Apple's notebooks for me.
RacerX
Old Rhapsody User
Koim,
I don't think you quite have a grasp of the why to many of your statements. Why does Windows have a web browser that is so much better than the rest of the computing world? Because Microsoft has been going out of their way for years to kill standards and get people to use proprietary code. Why does Windows have the ability to run on so many PCs? For years Microsoft forced PC maker to include a license for Windows with every PC they made or loss the ability to sell PCs with Windows. Why does Windows work with so many third party parts? Because the makers of those parts write drivers for them for free (Apple has had to write their own drivers or had to pay third party venders to write them).
The problem is that you seem to be a little brainwashed by Microsoft here. This is the way it is with every non-Windows platform, not just the Mac. Solaris on SPARC, Irix on MIPS, they have the same problem we do. Even Linux, BSD and the BeOS have had an up hill battle on x86.
If you thing that moving to x86 is going to solve the problem(as you seem to in your Apple's future thread), your completely wrong. It didn't help SGI when they moved to PCs. It didn't help NeXT when they moved to PCs. It didn't help Sun when they moved to PCs. And it surely didn't help Be when they moved to PCs.
Microsoft has not gotten to this point by making quality products. They got here by making people believe that using Windows is the path of least resistance. They didn't force people to use their products nor have their products ever been the best on the market, they work to remove alternatives.
If you want to use a PC, please, by all means use one. No one here is stopping you. Just let other people use what they feel happiest with. You don't have to agree, but berating people for their choice because it is not the same conclusion that you seem to have arrived at is not needed either.
Enjoy your PC.
I don't think you quite have a grasp of the why to many of your statements. Why does Windows have a web browser that is so much better than the rest of the computing world? Because Microsoft has been going out of their way for years to kill standards and get people to use proprietary code. Why does Windows have the ability to run on so many PCs? For years Microsoft forced PC maker to include a license for Windows with every PC they made or loss the ability to sell PCs with Windows. Why does Windows work with so many third party parts? Because the makers of those parts write drivers for them for free (Apple has had to write their own drivers or had to pay third party venders to write them).
The problem is that you seem to be a little brainwashed by Microsoft here. This is the way it is with every non-Windows platform, not just the Mac. Solaris on SPARC, Irix on MIPS, they have the same problem we do. Even Linux, BSD and the BeOS have had an up hill battle on x86.
If you thing that moving to x86 is going to solve the problem(as you seem to in your Apple's future thread), your completely wrong. It didn't help SGI when they moved to PCs. It didn't help NeXT when they moved to PCs. It didn't help Sun when they moved to PCs. And it surely didn't help Be when they moved to PCs.
Microsoft has not gotten to this point by making quality products. They got here by making people believe that using Windows is the path of least resistance. They didn't force people to use their products nor have their products ever been the best on the market, they work to remove alternatives.
If you want to use a PC, please, by all means use one. No one here is stopping you. Just let other people use what they feel happiest with. You don't have to agree, but berating people for their choice because it is not the same conclusion that you seem to have arrived at is not needed either.
Enjoy your PC.
tamma
Registered
I run the same apps as you do and i have never been happyer with them. I normaly have 2 or 3 apps open when i work with photoshop and it still runs beautifully. i did run illustrator in classic mode and it worked fine for me. I do not think OSX is to blame for your problems
I am am a tech at my job and i support macs in 11 buildings and i have seen your problem before. i actulay saw it on a new imac. and the solution was simple i sent it to an authorized apple service provider and they replaced the motherbord. the repair took 9 days. and when it came back it worked like a dream. Just send it in. You will be glad you did.
OH and i forget to mention XP Sucks!!!!!!! I know you like it but..... DAM XP SUCKS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
RacerX
Old Rhapsody User
They aren't called diseases, they're called viruses and worms! And yes, I would be afraid of my system catching one if I used a Wintel system, as every Wintel person I know has had numerous infections of their systems and/or they have to sit and watch for the weekly (sometimes daily and hourly) hole patches that Microsoft issues.
As much as I like the Mac, I have to say that I feel the hatred toward Microsoft is somewhat unwarranted. While I think Chimera is a much cooler browser than IE, I still think that there's nothing better than Microsoft Office X, I think MSN Messenger is quite good and I even enjoy Windows Media Player on the Mac. Microsoft, while responsible for a few technological atrocities left and right, have really cleaned up in the past few years.
XP, while it was my last hope for remaining on the PC, is actually not that bad despite its faults. Most of the stuff you would need from an operating system is already there, the speed is pretty good, the stability is pretty good and the compatibility with programs is damn nice (compared to Mac OS X). The PC's problem is not so much Microsoft as it is the PC makers. Microsoft isn't the one making HSP Winmodems that pollute the earth, MS isn't causing the processors to overheat and require humongous fans not to burn your house down, MS isn't responsible for how bad USB 2.0 is. Sure Windows absolutely sucked once, but the reason it sucked is not because of MS, but rather because of the hardware it runs on. I'm pretty sure Windows wasn't meant to run on a 30$ motherboard with an on-board everything with fail-sure 0.20$ ram.
Apple only releases hardware that has been thoroughly tested. Microsoft doesn't, MS doesn't have control over that. As a result, you get crap operation and blame that is directed toward the wrong party.
XP, while it was my last hope for remaining on the PC, is actually not that bad despite its faults. Most of the stuff you would need from an operating system is already there, the speed is pretty good, the stability is pretty good and the compatibility with programs is damn nice (compared to Mac OS X). The PC's problem is not so much Microsoft as it is the PC makers. Microsoft isn't the one making HSP Winmodems that pollute the earth, MS isn't causing the processors to overheat and require humongous fans not to burn your house down, MS isn't responsible for how bad USB 2.0 is. Sure Windows absolutely sucked once, but the reason it sucked is not because of MS, but rather because of the hardware it runs on. I'm pretty sure Windows wasn't meant to run on a 30$ motherboard with an on-board everything with fail-sure 0.20$ ram.
Apple only releases hardware that has been thoroughly tested. Microsoft doesn't, MS doesn't have control over that. As a result, you get crap operation and blame that is directed toward the wrong party.
Actually, MS made quite an impact on hardware development. While they haven't succeeded everywhere, they DID push hardware developers to create cheaper hardware. However, you're right, it's a jungle out there and you can get better and worse hardware. That's a plus for Apple, too, as they don't usually choose that badly.
edX
mac shaman
could it be you are also blaming the wrong party? last i checked it is the responsibility of the developer to make the software compatible with the system and not the other way around. people blaming apple for a particular app's failure to perform has always made me laugh. well writen programs work great with os x, poorly written ones don't. tell me where this is any different on any other platform.
Originally posted by Ed Spruiell
could it be you are also blaming the wrong party? last i checked it is the responsibility of the developer to make the software compatible with the system and not the other way around. people blaming apple for a particular app's failure to perform has always made me laugh. well writen programs work great with os x, poorly written ones don't. tell me where this is any different on any other platform.
I've made it mission never to claim that I know something with 100% certainty, but it's my belief that hardware makers, especially in the case of Windows, should make their hardware compatibled with IT and not Windows with the hardware. Unlike Linux distrois and Apple, Microsoft does not lose out in not supporting hardware. The fact of the matter is, if a hardware manufacturer makes a device that doesn't work in the world's most used (I refuse to say most popular because of my definition of popular) operating system, that manufacturer is automatically not going to sell as well as he would want. Therefore, a hardware manufacturer should try to make any device to work in Windows and not the other way around in the PC world. However, the case becomes that Microsoft tries as hard as it can to support the hardware even though the responsibility should rest on the manufacturer and that is where possible conflicts emerge.
The responsibility Microsoft took upon itself is comparable, in my opinion, to someone visiting the Tower of Babel and deciding to standardize every one of the foreign languages into one common dialect. However successful that attempt might be, every speaker will have an accent in trying to speak the new standardized language. The same way they would have an accent, Microsoft has various issues emerging from millions of different configurations. The result is a freeze, a crash and a load of complaints. As bad as that is, it's the best Microsoft can offer for the time being and I commend them on that.
What I escaped from, in moving to the Mac, is the Microsoft issues that are common to all users. I rarely had XP crash, so that was not my concern, but when I say that Windows refused to wake from sleep, had USB devices fail after waking from sleep, Outlook not working properly after installing, SP1 causing my computer not to shut down properly, I can say with certainty that I was not the only one suffering from those problems. I was running away from the problems that I CAN blame Microsoft for, not the ones that I know they aren't responsible for.
So in the end, MS and Apple are the same kind of company. MS has a lot more to deal with and as a result opens itself to a lot of additional scrutiny. Both have their highpoints and their drawbacks. Apple deals with less and thus the product looks and frankly IS better. I will not say that a Mac is better than a PC or that Apple is better than Microsoft, but I will say that the current standard Mac configuration is way better than the current standard PC configuration.
edX
mac shaman
cellfish, i think you make many valid points in this last post. i'm not sure why you quoted me as i was talking about your claim that "programs" are more compatible in windows than in os x and then the ironic observation that people are blaming the wrong party when it comes to pc hardware compatiblity. and i agree with you on the latter but think you were making the same mistake when it comes to software. m$ is not resposible for programs being any more or less compatible than apple is. in both case, it is the developers who write a compatible program or not.
if by chance you were referring to backwards compatibility for programs written for previous system versions, then m$ would have a slight edge as they have not completely rewritten their os to produce XP. however i, think apple has, up to this point, done a great job of addressing this thru the classic layer and the ability to have multiple versions of the os on the same boot disk so that one can easily use a workable system for those few problem programs.
if by chance you were referring to backwards compatibility for programs written for previous system versions, then m$ would have a slight edge as they have not completely rewritten their os to produce XP. however i, think apple has, up to this point, done a great job of addressing this thru the classic layer and the ability to have multiple versions of the os on the same boot disk so that one can easily use a workable system for those few problem programs.
The thing about rewriting the OS completely, I completely agree with you and think it is a valid reason why the programs would not function directly in the OS as they used to (obviously). I can't really say anything that opposes what you just said but simply bring up a question of sorts:
Was it wise, looking back, to write a Mac OS that had no direct compatibility with the previous installment? Would it have been better to rewrite the classic Mac OS code entirely and render it more efficient and if necessary, more aesthetic?
RacerX
Old Rhapsody User
It needs to be pointed out that Microsoft doesn't make drivers for hardware, they don't have to. Microsoft forces hardware makers to make the drivers for Microsoft. Need an example? How about nVIDIA? Where do you go for drivers for nVIDIA hardware for Windows? Where do you go for nVIDIA hardware drivers for Macintosh? Who wrote the drivers for Windows? Who wrote the drivers for Macintosh?
Apple, IBM, Sun, SGI and the open source community are all left to make drivers that work for their systems for third party hardware while third party hardware venders go out of their way to write drivers for Microsoft. This is as far from a level playing field as you can get. And given the amount of work that Microsoft doesn't have to do, their is no excuse for the high cost of Windows. On the other hand, Mac OS X is not that expensive considering that Apple was left to provide the hardware support that we have at their own expense.
Makes me wonder what Windows users are paying for. Upgrading from Windows 2000 Professional (Windows NT 5.0) to Windows XP Professional (Windows NT 5.1) is currently about $200.00, while upgrading from Mac OS X v10.1 to Mac OS X v10.2 is about $130.00. I know what Apple needed to do to keep supporting hardware, but Microsoft didn't need to do anything like that, why the massive upgrade price?
Also it should be noted that it has taken years to switch people to Windows NT. Windows NT 3.1 was almost useless, NT 3.51 was a good step in the right direction but NT wasnt really usable until NT 4.0 sp3. And even then, people still didnt really use it in any real numbers. All these years later and only now are people starting to use NT in any great amount.
If we are going to compare Apple and Microsoft, lets look at a very smooth transition that Apple has made with Mac OS X compared to all the missteps that Microsoft had made with Windows NT.
Anyone care to guess at how much time past between the release of Windows NT 3.1 (in July of 1993) and the release of Windows NT 4.0 (it should really be NT 4.0 sp3 though)?
(Answer: 3 years)
Apple, IBM, Sun, SGI and the open source community are all left to make drivers that work for their systems for third party hardware while third party hardware venders go out of their way to write drivers for Microsoft. This is as far from a level playing field as you can get. And given the amount of work that Microsoft doesn't have to do, their is no excuse for the high cost of Windows. On the other hand, Mac OS X is not that expensive considering that Apple was left to provide the hardware support that we have at their own expense.
Makes me wonder what Windows users are paying for. Upgrading from Windows 2000 Professional (Windows NT 5.0) to Windows XP Professional (Windows NT 5.1) is currently about $200.00, while upgrading from Mac OS X v10.1 to Mac OS X v10.2 is about $130.00. I know what Apple needed to do to keep supporting hardware, but Microsoft didn't need to do anything like that, why the massive upgrade price?
Also it should be noted that it has taken years to switch people to Windows NT. Windows NT 3.1 was almost useless, NT 3.51 was a good step in the right direction but NT wasnt really usable until NT 4.0 sp3. And even then, people still didnt really use it in any real numbers. All these years later and only now are people starting to use NT in any great amount.
If we are going to compare Apple and Microsoft, lets look at a very smooth transition that Apple has made with Mac OS X compared to all the missteps that Microsoft had made with Windows NT.
Anyone care to guess at how much time past between the release of Windows NT 3.1 (in July of 1993) and the release of Windows NT 4.0 (it should really be NT 4.0 sp3 though)?
(Answer: 3 years)
Sirtovin
Senior Switcher Tech Guru
Racer,
I totally agree... and I am a "Switcher." i worked on Wintel machines for 12 years... lets see that was way back when Windows was still in 3.11 mode... hehe...
but since MS decided to into networking now... All of sudden when Linksys, Netgear, 3com, to name a few have been dominate in that field... MS writes the drivers for it's networking cards, hubs... This I know as a fact because they had to release a serious update because their nic cards were not working on some of the machines they were on...
The debate here is Why no to switch... I can think of many reasons to...
1. Stability is the numero Uno here.
2. Sleekness and elegance.
3. It gets the job done faster and more effiecently than Wintel machines...
4. It took me 15 mins to set my G4 up from out of the box... Wintel machines can take 45 min or longer plus if there is a driver problem and your new to windows i feel for you...
5. The inside of the G4 is not a dangle wires of mess unlike wintel machines.
6. OS X is a baby and bent on new code and Unix... MS is still playing with DOS even though they have said repteadely DOS is dead.
7. OS-9 is on it's way out... and OS-X is becoming more and more prominent slowly but surely.
that's why i have switched...
I totally agree... and I am a "Switcher." i worked on Wintel machines for 12 years... lets see that was way back when Windows was still in 3.11 mode... hehe...
but since MS decided to into networking now... All of sudden when Linksys, Netgear, 3com, to name a few have been dominate in that field... MS writes the drivers for it's networking cards, hubs... This I know as a fact because they had to release a serious update because their nic cards were not working on some of the machines they were on...
The debate here is Why no to switch... I can think of many reasons to...
1. Stability is the numero Uno here.
2. Sleekness and elegance.
3. It gets the job done faster and more effiecently than Wintel machines...
4. It took me 15 mins to set my G4 up from out of the box... Wintel machines can take 45 min or longer plus if there is a driver problem and your new to windows i feel for you...
5. The inside of the G4 is not a dangle wires of mess unlike wintel machines.
6. OS X is a baby and bent on new code and Unix... MS is still playing with DOS even though they have said repteadely DOS is dead.
7. OS-9 is on it's way out... and OS-X is becoming more and more prominent slowly but surely.
that's why i have switched...
RacerX
Old Rhapsody User
No, your right. I can totally see Microsoft wanting to write it's own code for mission critical parts. And with the NT line (which has always been their pride and joy) I wouldn't really expect anything less.
Actually I always felt that Gates was a little hurt that more people didn't move to NT just because it was a better product than 3.x/95/98/ME. They finally had to do the same thing that Apple was doing, drop the older OS in favor of the newer one, to get people to switch.
Tigger
Bring mich zum Licht!
They don't make drivers for Windows because Microsoft makes them, they make drivers because there is money to make.
It isn't so that Apple writes these drivers for the Mac, nVidia is also highly involved here.
If some hardware vendors don't make drivers for the Mac it is just because it is not viable for them. I think on the Mac hardware market you can hardly survive if your product isn't OEMed by Apple.
RacerX
Old Rhapsody User
Funny, about a year ago there was a problem with the nVIDIA drivers for Mac OS 9 that was causing some serious problems with the cards being shipped with the (then) new Power Mac G4s. As it was a problem with the nVIDIA hardware and nothing else (I had one client running off an ATI Rage 128 out of an old B&W without any problems during that time) I called nVIDIA for support. They told me that they do not write the drivers for the Mac OS and that I should talk with Apple.
Apple did finally release an updated version (1.5 as I recall), but nVIDIA washed their hands of the problem.
As very few hardware venders make anything that is Mac-only, survival is not even a question (there are more Mac users now than at any other point in time, and more than the total number of computer users at points in time in the past), what it does come down to is profit margin and what companies feel they can get away with.
Besides, isn't nVIDIA an OEM vender for Apple? All I'm saying is that Apple is forced to eat the cost of supporting hardware (as are many makers of operating systems) while venders are tripping over themselves trying to make drivers for Windows and in some cases paying Microsoft to include them with Windows so their products can be plug-n-play.
So are you saying this isn't the case? Or are you saying you don't see this as an advantage for Microsoft (or at the least a major disadvantage for Apple and the others)?