A Month with a Mac: A Die-Hard PC User's Perspective
by Anand Lal Shimpi on October 8, 2004 12:05 AM EST- Posted in
- Mac
Finding my way around Finder (continued)
The folder structure under OS X is probably the one thing that has taken me the longest to get used to - mostly because I've been such a heavy DOS/Windows user that I still feel too foreign with anything other than C:\Windows or Program Files. It's a shame, and even after years of using *nix boxes at school, it's still something with which I'm not totally comfortable. Because of that, I continue to feel that the folder structure under OS X is quite disorganized, but there is also another reason why I don't feel as in touch with the location of all the files under OS X as I'd like to be - and it comes down to how applications are installed.
Installing (and conversely, uninstalling) applications under OS X is quite possibly the most disconnected feeling that the OS gave me, while at the same time, it was pleasantly easy. How could installing an application possibly be made any easier than it already is? Well, to install an application, you simply drag the application's installer to any folder on your hard drive and it's "installed". Doing so actually triggers a number of files to be copied to various places on your drive, but the fact that you are separated from that process, it really made me feel like I wasn't in control of my system. On the flip side, installing and uninstalling applications couldn't be easier. There are no full screen installers to deal with; just drag and drop, and get back to work while the application installs. The fact that I don't know where everything is being copied contributes to my feelings of file system disconnect. Then again, maybe I'm being a bit too philosophical about my OSes. Update: A number of people have written to provide some clarity to this statement. It is not the actual installation that copies files everywhere, in fact the installation is quite contained with all files remaining in a single folder. It's the process of running an application that will copy preferences over to your Preferences folder. The paragraph above as it stands does apply to Microsoft Office 2004 but not the vast majority of OS X applications, this isn't the only way in which Office 2004 differs from the rest of the applications for OS X. I apologize for the confusion.
The information about files and folders is also a bit more customizable under OS X. Highlight the file or folder on which you want details and hit Command-I, or you can just right click and go to "Get Info". From here, you can change everything from file permissions to what program opens the file or files of that type. You can add comments to any file or folder as well. As is the case with most other OS X dialog boxes, everything occurs in real time. Just hit Command-W or click the red button to close the window.
One thing that may take some getting used to is the positioning of the close button on all windows in OS X - it's at the top left corner instead of the top right. The minimize button is next to it, followed by something other than the maximize button. In fact, there's no way to maximize a window quickly in OS X (I'll get to why in a bit); instead, the green button to the right of the minimize button is sort of a fit-to-content button. Clicking the green button will resize the window both horizontally and vertically to fit the contents of the window the best, which is especially useful when browsing web pages or really viewing any content where you're trying to maximize screen real estate. The fundamental difference between OS X and Windows is how applications and windows are handled. What OS X has going for it is uniformity between applications and windows; for example, the keyboard shortcut for the preferences dialog in any OS X application is Command and the "," key. So, regardless of what application you're in, the same keystroke combination will have the same expected effect - pretty useful.
The uniformity really extends far beyond keyboard shortcuts as I was alluding to before - a menubar always exists at the top of your screen in OS X, regardless of what application you're in. Thus, you always have a File, Edit, View, Window and Help menu regardless of what you're doing. It looks like Apple's reasoning behind this is to avoid confusing users, but to a Windows native, it can be very foreign.
The biggest complaint that I both had and levied against was that it always seemed like you had more applications opened than what you wanted. In Windows, once all of the windows of an application were closed, the application itself was usually exited. Under OS X, until you actually quit the application, regardless of how many or how few windows of it that are still open, the application remains running. Thanks to an extremely aggressive caching engine and an extremely robust/stable OS core, I ended up actually preferring it when I had the majority of my frequently used applications open. This approach ends up using quite a bit of memory, but I found that there's no slowdown if you have the memory to handle the open applications. If not, you can always close the applications that you don't want running - Command-Q is the keyboard shortcut; it's the same in any OS X application (Command-W just closes the foreground window).
The benefit of leaving applications running even when you're not using them is that when you do need to use them or open a file with one of them, the response time is instantaneous - as opposed to waiting for an application to load. Of course, you can do the same thing in Windows, but for some reason stability and performance seemed to remain unchanged under OS X, whereas I almost always ran into an issue with Windows - whether it was having too many windows open or too many programs running.
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
215 Comments
View All Comments
victorpanlilio - Monday, October 11, 2004 - link
Chris North wrote in #164: I believe that the real high cost of the Mac is found in the need to buy expensive softwareWell, it depends on what you need to do. AutoCAD (PC-only) is C$4700, which is not exactly what I would call inexpensive. Its Mac counterpart, PowerCADD 6, while not equivalent feature-for-feature, costs much less (C$1300). MacOS X comes bundled with XCode, a complete dev environment. How much does Visual Studio .NET cost? Paint Shop Pro may indeed offer "better bang for the buck" -- but the Gimp is free, even better, yet Photoshop is the most widely used professional image editing app in the world, not counting the pirated copies floating around. Having said that...
One of my concerns with the direction Apple is taking has to do with the upgradability of their high-end machines. PowerMac G5 towers can only hold two SATA drives without resorting to 3rd party solutions to cram more drives in. PC workstations often have room for 3 or 4 internal hard drives. The much-maligned PowerMac G4 towers could hold four drives (although the earlier models required an add-on ATA controller in a PCI slot). I also don't see how G5 processors can be upgraded, since they are so tightly integrated with the cooling system. On G4 towers, CPU upgrades involve just replacing the processor daughtercard. OTOH, MacOS X seems to get faster with every release, unlike a certain other operating system we all know and love... ;-)
This week, Bill Gates will announce Windows XP Reloaded.
I wonder if it will be immune to spyware...
chrisnorth - Monday, October 11, 2004 - link
As a long time Mac user, I thought that this was a reasonably fair and unbiased article. Anyone who thinks that one computer platform is the be-all and end-all is nuts. I tend to prefer Macs, but Anand was right in many of his observations. Macs ARE more expansive without a doubt and his observation that it's the little apps that make the difference is dead on! Yeah, I can get Office and Dreamweaver, Photoshop and GoLive on the Mac, but what I really want is Jasc's Paintshop Pro, and EditPlus because they offer a better bang for the buck. I'm stuck with more expensive options. The one Mac app that really illustrates this better than any other is BBEdit. In my opinion, the $30.00 EditPlus on the PC is better, but it isn't available, so I've got to fork out an obscene $179.00 for the same functionality from BBEdit.Now there are loads of shareware apps being made for OS X. Some are really great, but many are crap. I believe that the real high cost of the Mac is found in the need to buy expensive software. The lack of a practicla upgrade path is another expense. Mac users will tell you that their machines last longer and my long lived Macs support this, but it sure would be nice to buy a new motherboard and processor for $500.00 instead of a new machine for $2500.00.
Ultimately, I love Macs and use mine all the time, while the PC sits unused in the basement. But to dismiss real problems with the platform is like sticking your head in the sand. Great article Anand!
victorpanlilio - Monday, October 11, 2004 - link
Dennis Travis wrote in #161: If you read carefully he really likes it and OSX also and is still using it daily for a lot of his workWell, that's true, but for some reason, this bothers many people who want to find some reason -- any reason, really -- to not evaluate the Mac as a potential part of their learning experience. Gamers, for example. This is curious, to say the least, especially considering that the platform Microsoft is using to develop for the nex-gen XBox is the G5, not an AMD or Intel box. One would think that, if nothing else, curiosity might persuade some folks to check the Mac out on that basis alone.
ceneone - Monday, October 11, 2004 - link
I'm commenting with respect to web browsers and speed. I sincerely must disagree. I've used a number of browsers with my Mac PowerBook G4. Even with only a 400MHz model, but with DSL 6.0Mbps. IE was one of the slowest browser in the speed catergory of AOL. For the most of the time Safari or Firefox clocked over 3.0Mbps, with Safari clocking 3.7Mbps, each rendering the fast webpages. Then Omniweb 4.5/5.0, Camino, Mozilla/Netscape 7.0, IE, Opera 7.54 for Mac and finally AOL around 700+ kbps.Dennis Travis - Monday, October 11, 2004 - link
I can believe people are still trying to say what Anand said. All Anands Mac article is was "A Month with the Mac". It was not a test, benchmark, it was his hands on with the G5 for a month. If you read carefully he really likes it and OSX also and is still using it daily for a lot of his work. The article was nothing else but that. I wish people would read.Going to read the Star Wars article now! Thanks Victor for the URL!!!
victorpanlilio - Monday, October 11, 2004 - link
FinalFantasy also wrote: "for people like myself and 100,000 other people, the Mac is useless"Only 100,000 other people? There are more than 100,000 AutoCAD users in the world, my friend. But just so I can more clearly understand what you're trying to get at, let's suppose that, as you say, most "basic" computer users just "want to play games, surf the net, use M$ Office, and listen to music" -- then for 3 out of 4 of those categories (not games), even the eMac would suffice. For that matter, so would a half-decent whitebox Celeron. The difference is that the Windows PC, while cheaper, would be vulnerable to malware that the eMac would just shrug off. And so your "basic" user finds out that surfing the Net is not exactly a pleasant experience anymore:
http://tinyurl.com/5nge8
"In June, Philippe Ombredanne, a systems administrator and programmer from Menlo Park, Calif., bought a new computer. He said he was feeling lazy so he put off installing security software for a day. When he woke up, the computer was infected with one virus and about 30 spyware or adware programs, forcing him to erase data and programs from his hard drive and reinstall everything from scratch. "A vanilla computer with no protection has no chance on the Internet anymore," he said."
Unless that computer happens to be a Mac running OS X. :-)
victorpanlilio - Monday, October 11, 2004 - link
FinalFantasy wrote: they will want to play games, surf the net, use M$ Office, and listen to music*chuckle*
Let's just tackle two of your points, Office and surfing.
Office:
Highly critical' security flaw found in Office
http://tinyurl.com/4lp2e
A vulnerability has been found in a Microsoft's popular Office Suite - MS Word in particular - that could give a malicious third party control of your machine...
There is currently NO PATCH for the above vulnerability -- on Windows. The Mac version of Office (2004) is not affected by it. You did know there is a version of Office for the Mac, and that in some ways it's better than its counterpart on Windows?
Surfing the net:
Computer Users Face New Scourge
http://tinyurl.com/5nge8
Excerpt:
Experts estimate that tens of thousands of spyware and adware programs circulate on the Internet. For now, the problem of such unauthorized software almost exclusively affects Microsoft Windows users. It's by far the most popular operating system and the same features that make it so versatile also make it easier for intruders to secretly run programs on it.
Microsoft Corp. Chairman Bill Gates in a speech to Silicon Valley technologists this month, said that while he's never had a virus infect his computer, he's been surprised to find many spyware and adware programs that he never authorized on it. He said he has directed the company to launch a new project to create a "cure."
--------------------------
You also wrote: "For every John D. Lowry that uses a Mac platform for "some" project...there are 100,000 people using a PC."
Sure. Your statement is just a variation on "Eat at Joe's Diner -- A Million Flies Can't Be Wrong"
Your unassailable logic is impressive. :-D
FinalFantasy - Monday, October 11, 2004 - link
victorpanlilioHehe...you caught me with my pants down man. I really don't have time to pull up links, quotes, reference etc. As far as you Mac facts go (e.g. for use on restoring the Star Wars triology) you've got me beat.
But my Ace card is that Anand was writing this article to appeal to everyday PC users/gamers. For John D. Lowry, the Mac platform he used is phenominal, but for people like myself and 100,000 other people, the Mac is useless. The PC can perform 100% of the task I want to perform where as the Mac will only perform about 20-30% of the operations I want to perform. Not everyone is going to need a computer that can digitally restore the Star Wars triology or other projects of that magnitude. 80% of "basic" PC buyers (counted for people/corp buying PCs not the quantity of PCs sold) they will want to play games, surf the net, use M$ Office, and listen to music. The PC has the Mac beat on games, M$ Office (compatibility and ease of use) and the PC wins in 2 of the 4 categories, the Mac wins 1 and they tie in 1.
Remember...not everyone is going to need a Mac to digitally restore a Star Wars Triology ...hehe...most people just need it to play games and be compatible with M$ products, as M$ products are basically the standard around the world.
For every John D. Lowry that uses a Mac platform for "some" project...there are 100,000 people using a PC.
victorpanlilio - Monday, October 11, 2004 - link
FinalFantasy also wrote: The only way I see a Mac being useful, is if they were a cheaper alternative to a PC instead of being a more expensive computer that is sold by name/brandPlease share your amazing insight with John D. Lowry, whose firm restored the Star Wars trilogy recently released on DVD:
http://www.apple.com/pro/film/lowry/starwars/lowry...
Quote:
To clean the films Lowry pushed high-definition scans of the original negatives provided by LucasFilm through his proprietary software running on 600 dual-processor Power Mac G5 computers, each with Mac OS X, 4 gigs of RAM and connected via gigabit Ethernet to a 378-terabyte storage array.
“We find that Macs hold up incredibly well, much better than PCs,” he says. “We put them in their own room with their own air-conditioning, as they generate a fair bit of heat.”
-------------------------
Hmm.. I guess he doesn't worry about malware attacks, either.
victorpanlilio - Monday, October 11, 2004 - link
FinalFantasy wrote: Macs are expensive computers that people pay money for cus it's a "Mac", like people buying a "Dell" or an "HP". Mac does a good job at making people waste money.Hmm, as someone who used to work for IBM, DEC, Compaq, and Fujitsu, I take exception to the idea that buying from a Tier 1 PC vendor is a waste of money. When you deploy 1500-2500 PCs in a large corporation, you first test your in-house apps on sample configs from the vendor, to see if there are any gotchas. Vendor commits to keeping the config the same, so that from start to finish of the deploy, your disk images work. This stability is very important to large corporations, because it saves money. People who have never worked on large-scale PC deployments fail to recognize the importance of these considerations. Apple is now beginning to address deployment and asset management issues in large enterprises with utilities such as Apple Remote Desktop 2.0, but it still has a ways to go -- ACLs would be really nice to have in MacOS X Server 10.3.5, as well as OS-level file locking.