Switching to Mac Easier Than You Think

By Ed Oswald, BetaNews

June 25, 2005, 12:00 AM

PERSPECTIVE With Longhorn still at least 18 months -- if not longer -- away from a final release, I decided now was as good a time as ever to try out the Mac OS X operating system.

I have not had a lot of experience with Macs, other than in elementary and middle school with old Apple IIc and IIe's (like most people) and on an old G3 running Mac OS 9 at my job while I was in college. Even though Apple may have sharp looking desktops and a highly regarded operating system, I never had a reason to leave the world of Windows.

Enter Mac OS X Tiger. The fourth revision of the operating system in as many years brings features that are still a long ways off for Windows users. It just works, really.

Right off the bat the operating system impresses. The first time I used the computer, my wireless network was detected, connected without a problem, and I could see the shared folders on my Windows desktop.

Anyone with experience trying to set up a Windows XP home network, especially pre-Service Pack 2, knows how fickle Windows networking is. I cannot tell you how many hours I wasted trying to keep my network working correctly -- and this was on computers all running Windows. Such trouble-free wireless on a Mac was nothing short of impressive.

Immediately upon setup (which works much like Windows XP setup for those wondering), I went to check out Spotlight, probably the most talked about feature of Tiger. Unlike MSN and Google Desktop Search, Spotlight goes farther than just being a nice little search box on your desktop. You can access it from file open dialogs, within programs such as Mail and Address Book, or through a Spotlight dialog box in the menu bar. Search has become an integral part of the UI.

Mac OS X Through a Switcher's EyesOne of the neatest features in Spotlight is the capability to create "smart folders," which are virtual file folders based on a search query. This will make it extremely easy to find what you are looking for, and turns the three-decade old concept of hierarchical file folders on its head. No longer will you have to worry what was put where - smart folders do all the work for you.

Moving all my files over onto the Mac was not difficult at all. With just the operating system alone and no installed third-party applications, I could view my Word documents, PDF files and pictures without a problem.

Apple's built-in Mail client is more than capable. It even sports features found in Microsoft's pricey Outlook 2003, including advanced spam filtering and mail rules - although I didn't delve much into configuring them.

Web browsing and instant messaging on the Mac also required no learning curve. Safari is as fast as IE, with less risk of spyware problems. Tiger comes with iChat, but I loaded up Adium X, Mac's equivalent to Trillian, but more customizable. Adium supports all the major IM networks within a single client interface, and a tabbed message window to avoid clutter.

In fact, I was able to more efficiently browse the Web on the Mac using NetNewsWire, an excellent RSS reader that I highly recommend to anyone looking for features beyond what is available through Safari.

All new Macs ship with iLife, which is available separately for $79 USD. The package includes a number of useful applications for the Windows switcher, including iTunes (available free on the Web), iPhoto, iMovie, iDVD, and GarageBand.

iPhoto works without drivers for just about every available camera on the market. Although, if you like to keep your pictures on your camera it will try to re-import them again on your next connect, which can be slightly annoying. Hopefully this is fixed in a future release. Still, I found iPhoto far superior to Windows XP's measly built-in photo capabilities and even third-party offerings such as Picasa, now free from Google.

iTunes, which Windows users can try before they switch, works just like the Windows version; however, it is noticeably faster on the Mac.

Continued. . .
1 | 2 | Next >>

Add a Comment (174 Comments)

BetaNews reserves the right to remove any comment at any time for any reason. Please keep your responses appropriate and on topic. Foul language and personal attacks will not be tolerated.

Name (required):

E-mail (required):

Enter Your Comment:

By crayolakidd

edited Oct 26, 2006 - 3:47 AM

To be honest, I used to be a Mac fanatic..absolutely swore by it. These days I am solid Windows user, having made the move to Vista 6mths ago.

So why did I change? Two reasons.

Performance - after having my own PC custom built, I really saw what SPEED was. Although similar in stats to my partners iMac (19"), it runs rings around it - and cost around a $1000 less.
The other reason has much to do with the elitist attitude one so often encounters in Mac circles - it grew tiresome after a while

Anyhow, I still use both systems comfortably - I teach IT and digital arts, so I need to use both...but Windows is by far my prefence

Score: 0

By zenaphex

edited Jun 30, 2005 - 3:47 PM

I have used Windows since v3.1 to Windows XP Professional for over 12 years doing everything from graphics to programming. I have used Mac during the 9.x days a little here and there for various multimedia stuff. That was it though.

The day I bought my PowerBook G4 17-inch with Mac OS X Panther I completely fell in love. I barely ever touch my Windows box anymore. Of course there will be days I need to boot up my Windows box for certain things.

Anyways, my point is I think the Mac OS X is much nicer compared to Windows XP Professional speaking in general. Just my personal opinion. But hey, I guess it just fits my personal needs better as everyone has their own preferences.

Score: 0

By dygyboy

edited Aug 16, 2006 - 1:57 PM

If you want more info on "Switching To Mac" it can be found here:

http://www.switchingtomac.com

http://www.switchingtomac.com/smf/

Enjoy

Score: 0

By school1012

posted Jun 30, 2005 - 10:54 PM

True. It all depends what you do & what you are use to. Tiger has some nice features but now enough for me to switch. Enough for me to think though.

Score: 0

By sundoggy

edited Jun 27, 2005 - 6:17 PM

DASHBOARD TIP - Your wish has been fulfilled!
Take a look at the freeware Amnesty. It gives you almost total control over widgets (location--desktop, floating, layered, opacity), and let's you keep the ones you really like always visible instead of calling up the dashboard layer. For example, I keep my most used favorites on the desktop. Check it out... http://www.mesadynamics.com/amnesty.htm

Thought I would get off the usual Mac v. PC battle you've got going.

Score: 1

By cap737

posted Jun 27, 2005 - 4:36 AM

Ok, let's just get some of these things out of the way:

Jeff Mincey says,"...there are no x86 Macs yet. No Mac applications have yet been optimized for the P4 chip, and all indications are that Apple will not use that chip anyway." Wrong dude. If you go to apple.com and look at the WWDC (World Wide Developers Conference) 2005 you will hear from Steve Jobs that Apple's Mac OS X has been running on x86 processors since 10.0! For the past five version (10.0,1,2,3 and 4) OS X has been compiled to run on x86 processors.

"How do they run Mac software on x86 binary?" you ask. A hidden program called Rosetta which runs in the back ground of the OS. Rosetta takes the mac binary source code and coverts it to run on the x86 version of OS X. You will also hear Steve Jobs say that their latest version of xCode (2.1) will allow developers to compile "universal binarys" for both PowerPC and x86 processors.

In the video the demos in the seminar were shown on an x86 PowerMac. He ran all the dashboard widgets, iTunes, Mac Word and Excel and even Adobe Photoshop. All the binaries for those programs were written for the PowerPC and were interpretted with Rosetta to work on x86. It worked and it worked GOOD.

Jeff, you talk so much about viruses on Mac vs windows. All machines are susceptible DoS attacks and what not, and programs, like firefox, have holes in them where it exploits a weakness in the software which can do harm to the system. Besides that, there really isn't a whole lot of "viruses" that infect OS X compared to Windows.

Also, you see a lot of windows PCs selling for dirt cheap compared to Mac. True, but Windows PCs and the OS doesn't have what Macs and OS X have; Style and ease of use. If you want to get the facts so you won't be so arrogant (and ignorant) watch the WWDC video.

WWDC 2005
http://www.apple.com/quicktime/qtv/wwdc05/

Score: 0

By Jeff Mincey

edited Jun 27, 2005 - 8:36 AM

Prior to your post above, I had already pointed out that Apple had been running OS X on Intel in its labs but that no such platform had yet been released to the public. (Perform a search on "labs" and you will see this.) As a result, (and contrary to the claims of an individual below), no one is in a position to know how fast it will be. Moreover, all indications are that when Apple does release Mac on Intel, it won't be using the P4 chip -- though we will have to wait and see on this to be sure.

You go on to impute a question to me which I have never asked in any post. I have not said, "How do they run Mac software on x86 binary?" I know all about Rosetta and universal binaries; you don't have to educate me on this nor invent my position for me in order to make it easier for you to respond.

Finally, you instruct me that all machines are vulnerable to DoS attacks and on this you are quite right. In a post below I have already said the very same thing myself. Do a search for "DoS" and you will find it. As for vulnerabilities in programs like Firefox, that is a free-standing, independently running application and I was confining my comments only to OS X itself.

If I come off as arrogant to you merely for expressing my own views and for correcting what I consider to be errors of fact, I apologize. I have no wish to come across that way.

Score: 0

By cap737

posted Jun 27, 2005 - 5:28 PM

Wow, thank you for your reply AND apology. I sure didn't see that one coming but I accept. I was reading your comments through out the page and for some reason I couldn't finish reading them all because it seemed more like you were on a rant. Some of the questions you were asking made it seem like you didn't know much about apple's products, so that's why I was telling you the information about Rosetta and so on.

Just check out the link if you haven and maybe you'll get a better understanding of what's going on. Oh yeah, I know you didn't ask that question about mac software. I threw that one in there myself :-).

Score: 0

By BIL

posted Jun 26, 2005 - 7:12 PM

I'm so tired of the claims that the Mac does not have viruses and never crashes. That is baloney. I have seen both on Macs that my friends own. They don't have a lot, but that is because there are vastly more PCs out there. And the new X86 Macs are slower than the old Macs. If they were affordable maybe more people would buy them and they could have more software written for them.

Score: 0

By Red Ripe Apple

posted Jun 26, 2005 - 10:04 PM

"And the new X86 Macs are slower than the old Macs"

A little pre-mature ejacu-something there. Where do you get your information from? The Future?

Ignorance must be very blissful indeed!

Score: 0

By school1012

posted Jun 26, 2005 - 9:53 PM

agreed

Score: 0

By Jeff Mincey

posted Jun 26, 2005 - 7:52 PM

Excuse me, but there are no x86 Macs yet. No Mac applications have yet been optimized for the P4 chip, and all indications are that Apple will not use that chip anyway. It's long been considered a blight even in the Wintel community. Only in Apple's labs has OS X run on an Intel chip and no benchmarks have been taken of this.

As for viruses, the fact is that OS X has not yet been hit by any virus. Neither Symantec nor McaFee registers a single OS X native virus. Of course, the Mac is vulnerable to generic network-oriented attacks of routers and the like, (insofar as it impinges on network traffic or results in DoS attacks); but no native virus has yet to infect OS X.

Security through obscurity is a myth. It's simply preposterous to suggest (whether by implication or otherwise) that all platforms are equally secure and it's only a question of those which are more or less prevalent in the market. If anything, a case could be made that with all the talk of the supposed security of OS X, it would be that much MORE of a target. After all, if it's about bragging rights, who wants to be the writer of the 90,037th virus to hit Wintel when you can claim to be the FIRST to hit OS X?

Even allowing for the market share variation, the Mac platform should have at least 3 percent of all viruses -- and it does not. It has none, (except perhaps for Word macro viruses which only carry over from Wintel).

Having said that, OS X is architected by fallible humans and so it's only a matter of time before a native virus does hit the platform.

Score: 0

By gawd21

edited Jun 26, 2005 - 11:06 PM

No viruses have been found for OS X yet? HRMMMM

What is this?

http://securityresponse....nc/data/mp3concept.html
http://wired-vig.wired.com/news/mac/0,2125,63000,00.html?tw=wn_tophead_2

Score: 0

By Jeff Mincey

edited Jun 26, 2005 - 11:21 PM

What is that, you ask? It's exactly what it says it is -- a proof of concept rather than an actual virus. In other words, it's a theoretical or potential vulnerability which at the time had yet to be exploited. And in fact that "hole" was closed a long time ago.

Look, no one is saying that Apple never issues security updates for OS X. Apple is very good about keeping on top of any possible point of exposure and plugging the holes. But this is not the question. The question is not whether OS X has ever in its lifespan had potential security holes. Rather the question is whether any of those holes were successfully exploited by a third party programmer of viruses. And the answer to this last question is a resounding NO.

Now will it always be this way? I'm sure it won't. Sooner or later OS X will have some viruses. No operating system is totally bug-free or secure. But I contend not that OS X is perfect or impenetrable but rather only that it is on balance a more secure OS than Windows.

Score: 0

By gawd21

edited Jun 26, 2005 - 11:27 PM

"As for viruses, the fact is that OS X has not yet been hit by any virus. Neither Symantec nor McaFee registers a single OS X native virus. Of course, the Mac is vulnerable to generic network-oriented attacks of routers and the like, (insofar as it impinges on network traffic or results in DoS attacks); but no native virus has yet to infect OS X." Says Jeff.

Wired said, "On Thursday, Intego issued a press release saying it had found OS X's first Trojan Horse, a piece of malware called MP3Concept or MP3Virus.Gen that appears to be an MP3 file. If double-clicked and launched in the Finder, the Trojan accesses certain system files, the company claimed." and Symantec said, "MP3Concept is a proof-of-concept Trojan horse that is targeted at the Mac OS X platform. As this is written, this threat has not been reported "in the wild."

The proof-of-concept program does not contain any malicious payload, such as viral code, ability to email itself, or perform destructive functions like deleting files. This program only contains code to display a message and play a .mp3 file of a man laughing."

Now I say, "It very much so was a virus. It may not have hurt anything but it was indeed a virus."

It's ok to be wrong once in a while. You just have to take it with stride and learn from it, that is what makes you a man. (or a woman)

Score: 0

By Jeff Mincey

edited Jun 26, 2005 - 11:35 PM

Gawd21 says, "Now I say, 'It very much so was a virus. It may not have hurt anything but it was indeed a virus.'"

I make my share of mistakes and I'm quite happy to acknowledge this, but what you cite above is simply not a virus. Someone just identified a potential security hole in OS X -- and I have never suggested that OS X was airtight. Quite the contrary, I say that all operating systems are imperfect and flawed, and it's only a question of degree.

So where does that leave us. Well, the question of holes is one thing; the question of whether these holes have been successfully exploited is quite another thing -- and it's the latter measure which defines a virus, and OS X has to date had none.

This prototype or proof of concept was not self-replicating and was not in the wild. These are essential measures of a virus and thus again what you cite fails the test.

Score: 0

By gawd21

edited Jun 26, 2005 - 11:46 PM

So then why is it listed as a virus?

http://www.macinblog.com/2004/04/mp3virusgen.html

Come now they even use the word VIRUS in it's name. MP3Concept (MP3Virus.Gen)
I am not going to post every link here, just do a Yahoo search for it and you will find it called a virus on every site. Your opinion vs. the fact are two different things. I am not trying to be mean but the fact is it was a virus. Point of view: From what you are saying is that every virus and ad/spy ware on Windows is due to an exploit and that they aren't viruses.

Score: 0

By Jeff Mincey

edited Jun 26, 2005 - 11:54 PM

Well, since I already acknowledge that OS X has had vulnerabilities in the past -- albeit ones which were never exploited -- I see no point in belaboring this. However, let me just say that the example you cite above is at most a Trojan Horse and not a virus. Here's the definition of virus from Symantec itself:

"A parasitic program written intentionally to enter a computer without the user's permission or knowledge. The word parasite is used because a virus attaches to files or boot sectors and replicates itself, thus continuing to spread. Though some viruses do little but replicate, others can cause serious damage or effect program and system performance. A virus should never be assumed harmless and left on a system." -Symantec

Viruses by definition self-replicate. Trojans do not. As corroboration, I offer this url from the University of Texas:

http://www.actlab.utexas...mpsec/virus/whatis.html

And here is more from the glossary of the Symantec web site itself:

A virus is a program or code that replicates itself onto other files with which it comes in contact; that is, a virus can infect another program, boot sector, partition sector, or a document that supports macros, by inserting itself or attaching itself to that medium. Most viruses only replicate, though many can do damage to a computer system or a user's data as well.

A worm is a program that makes and facilitates the distribution of copies of itself; for example, from one disk drive to another, or by copying itself using email or another transport mechanism. The worm may do damage and compromise the security of the computer. It may arrive via exploitation of a system vulnerability or by clicking on an infected e-mail.

A Trojan Horse portrays itself as something other than what it is at the point of execution. While it may advertise its activity after launching, this information is not apparent to the user beforehand. A Trojan Horse neither replicates nor copies itself, but causes damage or compromises the security of the computer. A Trojan Horse must be sent by someone or carried by another program and may arrive in the form of a joke program or software of some sort. The malicious functionality of a Trojan Horse may be anything undesirable for a computer user, including data destruction or compromising a system by providing a means for another computer to gain access, thus bypassing normal access controls.

http://securityresponse.....com/avcenter/refa.html

Sorry to get nitpicking with you on this...

Score: 0

By gawd21

posted Jun 26, 2005 - 11:58 PM

computer virus
n.
A computer program that is designed to replicate itself by copying itself into the other programs stored in a computer. It may be benign or have a negative effect, such as causing a program to operate incorrectly or corrupting a computer's memory."

http://www.tfd.com/computer%20virus

I am done after this. We will be able to post links after links trying to prove our side, I fear neither will prevail, so I accede.

Score: 0

By VirtualRick

edited Jun 27, 2005 - 12:48 PM

How about this as a definition: It has been posted at www.sarc.com.

Score: 0

By gawd21

edited Jun 27, 2005 - 3:16 PM

What were you trying to say? What is posted there? I see nothing more than a few names and they are listed as viruses and then some found exploits.

Score: 0

By Jeff Mincey

edited Jun 27, 2005 - 12:27 AM

I'm going to surprise you here -- I agree with the definition you posted. In other words, viruses replicate themselves. In the case of the MP3 proof of concept example you provide, there is no self-replication. Instead the user must manually download the file to his computer in order to run the risk of executing unauthorized code, and even then, once the file is on the computer, it cannot later replicate itself to any other computer. As a result, it does not qualify as a virus because it cannot spread on its own.

Anyway, I'll say one last time -- OS X is not perfect; it does have vulnerabilities. No doubt about it. The question is only whether it is no more secure than Windows or Linux or other operating systems or whether in fact its architecture is such that it is less vulnerable to third-party exploits. And I think you know where I side on this question.

Actually, the most secure OS in the world is probably VMS.

Score: 0

By Kramy

posted Jun 27, 2005 - 1:00 AM

Wow, that was a long argument between you two. I have to agree with Jeff Mincey in this one though, due to the incredible amount of times gawd21's definition applies to Microsoft/Windows. The Mp3 "virus" must be downloaded to the computer and manually run, and the security hole has since been fixed. Its intent is to do something other than the purpose(play music), but it does not/can not spread to other computers.

A simple batch file in windows though could be incredibly more damaging without a script-checking program. Just imagine a simple batch file designed to "help run" a confusing command-line zip program for someone.

It runs it, but it also deletes every file on your computer, and can propagate to any number of computers across a network. The security hole is still wide open in most Windows OS's(most people login as admins...)

So by your definition....Text documents are viruses under windows. :/

While I know it is actually possible to crash windows and delete files using a simple text file, I just can't see how this "exploit" can be considered a "virus", since it was never released, doesn't spread, doesn't do anything malicious, and the security hole has been filled.

Score: 0

By VikingBlade

posted Jun 27, 2005 - 9:17 AM

Also, there are no real current Mac malware because it is so hard for one to proliferate. If there was a cross-platform virus, Macs would definitely be hit as well. Imagine spamming millions of e-mail addresses with a Mac-only worm. A huge waste of resources, with little return (unless of course it's using Windows machines first). If your OS can run anything, it can be affected by viruses (aka purposedly malicious code).

Score: 0

By junkyard engineer

edited Jun 26, 2005 - 2:16 PM

Spell it out flatly : too much warez on a PC that doesn't exist in MAC. So, why bother do the switch.

Score: 0

By joshjones

posted Jun 26, 2005 - 7:58 PM

shhhhhh

Score: 0

By scotty321

edited Jun 26, 2005 - 12:57 PM

Folks, not only does the Mac not have any viruses or spyware or crashes or freezes, but more importantly is the INTEGRATION of all of Apple's applications. This is something that Microsoft can only DREAM of doing, and has NEVER successfully accomplished in the history of their company. Apple's Pages & Keynote programs seamlessly talk to iPhoto, iMovie, & iTunes (and produce documents that could never be produced on Windows). Meanwhile, iPhoto, iMovie, iTunes & iDVD all talk to one another beautifully, and Apple's Mail talks to iPhoto & iChat... and vice versa. It's truly unbelivably amazing what Apple has done... and you will never get to appreciate it unless you're a Mac user. It is a true nirvana experience, from start-to-finish. Windows users will never understand what Mac users are privileged to experience, unless they were to switch to the Mac themselves. Plug things in and they just work without drivers. Create amazing multimedia documents with ease. Never experience any error messages nor crashes/freezes. Publish complete websites with ONE MOUSE CLICK using your .mac account. Shall I go on? It's unbelievably amazing to be a Mac user.

Score: 0

By GoodThings2Life

posted Jun 27, 2005 - 7:29 AM

The only reason Microsoft fails at integration is because every time they try and succeed people criticizing them for being a monopoly and "forcing" things on us.

Score: 0

By esh3

posted Jun 26, 2005 - 12:12 PM

Here's a suggestion .....how about making Mac's affordable? If I had my choice between a $299.00 Dell with Windows vs. a $299.00 Mac I would take the Mac in a heartbeat!

Score: 0

By DiGiTaLFX

posted Jun 26, 2005 - 12:40 PM

Wait for Intel based macs!

Score: 0

By gawd21

posted Jun 26, 2005 - 10:37 PM

Intel means it will be just as lame as Windows then and not worth having.

Score: 0

By PhoenixPath

posted Jun 27, 2005 - 8:47 AM

Care to attempt to back that up at all? Oh, wait, that's tight...you can't. Sorry.

Score: 0

By gawd21

posted Jun 27, 2005 - 2:08 PM

Just take a look at the preformance stats for Intel and then look at the PPC. I don't need to say anymore.

Score: 0

By Jeff Mincey

edited Jun 26, 2005 - 12:43 PM

You will never see a Mac as cheap as the cheapest Wintel box for several reasons. First, Apple is not an assembler which just takes pre-fab parts off the shelf. Second, Apple has developed its own operating system -- and this costs 100s of millions (in US dollars) to do from the ground up. Companies like Dell and HP pay royalties to Microsoft for Windows but it's nowhere near the same as to develop an OS on one's own. Third, whenever people compare the Mac pricing to Wintel, they always pick the very cheapest Wintel box -- as if there are no expensive Wintel models to be found. The Mac doesn't compete with the bargain basement lowest level Wintel -- no more so than Sony does.

Fourth, many Macs ARE price competitive -- especially in the laptop and server line. I would like to see the Mac prices come down a bit in the high-end consumer desktop area as well as in the professional desktop level, but in evaluating the price, people need to be mindful that some components or features which are "extras" in a Wintel configuration are included with the Mac. Data show also that the serviceable lifespan of the typical Mac platform is at least one year longer than that of the typical Wintel counterpart.

Finally, price is overblown as a factor in purchases. If price were the overriding concern, then the $299 Lindows (now Linspire) computers would have been flying off the shelves at Walmart in the last two years. And yet they have done no such thing. People use many criteria in evaluating computers -- price is but one. Other considerations are stability, security, ease of use, quality, support, etc. Expecting a company which exerts design control over both hardware and software to equal the price of an assembler is unreasonable.

Score: 1

By esh3

posted Jun 26, 2005 - 3:21 PM

You could sell a $99.00 Linspire box and people still wouldn't buy it. The average joe hears the word Linux and freaks. Now myself I would have one in every room. The Apple name is on different playing field then Linux. I still say Apple should make one low range priced model to get a "foot hold." I'm always in a market for a Mac but my wallet isn't. I got champagne taste on beer money. But you have brought out some good points.

Score: 0

By crashoverride

posted Jun 27, 2005 - 12:36 AM

"The average joe hears the word Linux and freaks."

I remember the days when the word linux made me cringe in fear of the thought of anything outside my little point and click Windows world. Some where along the way my curiosity got the better of me although I wouldn't have a Linspire Box if they paid me to take it. Dunno what it is but after working with distros like Suse, mandrake and mepis I wouldn't take Linspire on a bet.
But anyway back to what I was saying i let my curiosity get the better of me and now i'm running 2 soon to be 3 linux machines. Now I don't know as much about it as some mind you but i'm learning. I guess that's one reason I decided to take the leap into Linux. If I don't meet a new challenge every once in a while I get bored (if that makes any sense) and Windows was boring me. I see linux as another challenge for me to knock down.

Score: 0

By Jeff Mincey

posted Jun 26, 2005 - 4:43 PM

I understand what you are saying but there's a point at which ultra cheap computers actually become very expensive -- because of the use of inferior parts, the poor support, the breakdown rate, etc. There IS a limit. If you have a spare keyboard, mouse, and monitor around, then I suggest you give the Mac Mini a try -- at $499. It's the lowest-end Mac available and as such it is the slowest. And yet it still has performance acceptable for many consumer uses. Just don't try to run a resource-intensive game on it and expect it to perform well.

At least this way you can have some experience with OS X and with UNIX in general and if you find it's not your cup of tea, you haven't spent a fortune on something which wasn't for you. On the other hand, if you find you like it very much after all, (as you gain experience with it), then you can always wait a couple years, save your money, and get one of the new Intel-based Macs which can dual-boot OS X and Windows (as well as Linux). Then you should be in computer heaven at least a third of the time you use that machine.

Score: 0

By crashoverride

posted Jun 27, 2005 - 12:39 AM

Finally someone else that makes some sense in this mishmash of opinionated garb. I may just do as you say and get a Mac Mini. Then if I like it, when the intel Macs start coming out I'll invest in a better machine. On the other hand If I hate it I haven't lost anything because there are always PPC Linux Distros out there.

Score: 0

By ogman

edited Jun 26, 2005 - 10:02 AM

Mac's - They just work. Truth!

Score: 0

By GoodThings2Life

edited Jun 26, 2005 - 12:58 PM

They work because Apple doesn't let anything run on it besides Apple products, Adobe products, and Microsoft Office/IE... oh yeah, and QuarkXpress... and expensive hardware sold by guess who-- Apple.

And it's a damn good thing they do work 98% of the time, because the 2% of the time they crash--- you're **** out of luck trying to troubleshoot it or recover things that were lost.

Score: 0

By volcanpoas

edited Jun 26, 2005 - 1:12 PM

That's just nonsense, and clearly a coment made out of ignorance and/or bias. There are thousands of third party apps out there from a host of vendors--including many alternatives to the names you mention--and a growing number of Unix ports. As for hardware, I buy generic RAM and hard drives. System crashes on a Mac are generally less frequent than on Wintel equipment, and are no more catastrophic than any other Unix type system, which is to say not. My own PowerBook, on which I typically keep 12-14 apps running all the time has been up for over 11 days. There have been several application crashes, but those were uneventful, and all files were recovered on the applications' next runs. In fact, Tiger now has some very impressive troubleshooting and recovery tools built in that are activated when apps or the OS crashes, and they are nice. Physical failures of the equipment are no more catastrophic than any other equipment. Hard drives can be recovered, and Apple tech support is pretty good at phone troubleshooting. And for in person support, there is nothing like an Apple store. Much better than the last Dell store I went to. Wait, there is no Dell store. Our company is 98% Wintel, most of it Dell. Ask our IT staff if they wish they didn't have more Macs to support. They do. Ask our employees if more of them wish they weren't using my brand of hardware. They do.

Score: 0

By school1012

posted Jun 26, 2005 - 10:28 AM

Most of the time, My schools macs crashed more then my Windows XP SP2 laptop. Boy the teacher did not like that :)

Score: 0

By ogman

posted Jun 26, 2005 - 10:46 AM

School computers, no matter what OS they run,crash constantly. They are not usually updated well, have inexperienced admins, and students doing strange things to them all the time. The IT dept at my university crash their website, network and classroon systems constantly, and they use windows, mac, and novell.

Score: 0

By ggreb

edited Jun 25, 2005 - 1:22 PM

After Christmas (2004) I decided to buy the Mac Mini and once I started using the Mac I was hooked. I don't use iTunes and don't use photos because I'm not into that stuff, however I do use the internet a lot and the fact that spyware and virus are rare on Macs. On my XP windows laptop I always have to run viruses checkers and all the windows security update fixes.

Score: 0

By greened

edited Aug 15, 2006 - 1:04 PM

I cannot agree with you more-- the MAC reigns supreme. I cannot wait for Leopard OS to be released.

Score: 0

By wilkesy

edited Jun 25, 2005 - 6:15 PM

Well... i dont have a mac, but i have been after one for a while! i must admit they are costly! but then the features they entail are amazing! the airport idea is great! and there ease of use really interests me! uther than that, the overall style of apple products is amazing, who is there designer? I think ill be switching to a mac very soon!

Score: 0

By LeXTeRiTY_X

edited Jun 26, 2005 - 4:55 AM

Possibly a lot more people will start to use OSX and *nix rather than Microsoft. With over-bloated software and unused services Longhorn and its followers will be a flop.

The same happened to Lotus when MS Office expanded their compatiblity. MS could open Lotus documents, but Lotus couldn't quite open MS's - so people went to MS Office.

If the XP/2003 compatibility issue comes out too much, then people are going to be forced to look for alternatives... or maybe not. For now I'm staying with Windows98SE; after all, there's no drastic need to change. Besides, installing XP or Win2K-SP3+ gives MS the right to hack in to your system.
http://www.radsoft.net/news/20020905,00.html

May the optimised-source-code be with you.

Score: 0

By GoodThings2Life

posted Jun 26, 2005 - 1:01 PM

That is the most ignorant web site I have ever been to, and that's saying a lot since I visit a LOT of sites.

Score: 0

By Kramy

posted Jun 26, 2005 - 5:08 AM

Man....I always wanted to kill that media player too. Now I have a reason.

Score: 0

By GeorgeSantayana

posted Jun 26, 2005 - 1:09 AM

It's all very nice, but we'll all (90% or more, that is) end up using Longhorn. Why? Because there's a lot of win32 legacy crap to support, developers will continue to target the largest market, and Microsoft will drop a huge, suffocating pile of 50 billion smackaroos in marketing and slashed prices if Apple dares to make a run at them, not to mention cutting off the air supply to Mac Office, turning the platform into nothing more than an unproductive, shiny toy.

Score: 0

By FlyingGuy

posted Jun 26, 2005 - 5:02 PM

What you dont understand is that Apple is already makeing a run at them. OS-X is kicking a** all over the place. I have clients that have whol departments running Macs and the IT department said lets replace it with Windows boxes. Then OS-X hit the stage. The Macs are FIRMLY in place and spreading.

With the dump of OS-9, lots of doors are opening up wide. As it has been mentioned, just about the entire Open Source palatte is there and OpenOffice is comming along quite nicely.

Microsofts days are numbered. I may indeed be a relatively high number, but they are numbered. More and more of the silly asses in corporations that pretend to know something about computers and then go out and make platform decisions are starting to see that Windows as a platform is getting more and more expensive to deal with, in terms of nasty licensing pratices, Viruses, Spyware, version insanity, etc. etc.

The run has started, its moving forward and its gaining momentum, its just a matter of time.

- FG

Score: 0

By Jeff Mincey

posted Jun 26, 2005 - 1:18 AM

I think we all know that Microsoft has the overwhelming market share and installed base and that this is somewhat self-perpetuating. But marketing has not helped them much vis-a-vis Windows XP. A lot of corporations have stuck with Windows 2000 instead and Microsoft is having a hard time convincing many corporate IT people that Longhorn will add enough value to justify a costly migration.

The never ending (and indeed ever increasing) malware problem is leading some corporations to take a look at alternatives (where possible). It's also leading some organizations to look at TOC (total cost of ownership) instead of getting sticker shock and not looking at the backside of the equation.

When Apple switches to Intel, the idea that one could run OS X and Windows on the same box, (and thereby facilitate a weaning process) will be increasingly appealing. Some vertical market applications run only under Windows and Macs of the future will be able to run such software natively (without emulation), while offering an OS virtually free of viruses and other malware.

Windows XP is wizard-happy and pop-up happy and very much "in your face." OS X in contrast gets out of your way and lets you focus more on your work. We shall see how Longhorn compares with Leopard, (which is the name for version 10.5 of OS X scheduled for release in the first quarter of 2007).

Score: 0

By Julesword

edited Jun 26, 2005 - 2:22 AM

Has anyone credible said that the new Intel Mac's will actually allow running Windows or dual booting? (other than with Virtual PC) If it were true and the price was right, I'd probably buy one, but it sounds unlikely.

Edit: Hmm, the rumors are saying this could happen. Very interesting. If Apple continues to make neat looking hardware and allows dual boot, they may have won themselves a new customer (again, if the price is right).

Score: 0

By Jeff Mincey

posted Jun 26, 2005 - 7:16 AM

This is not a rumor. Officials at Apple have indicated Apple will not seek to defeat the ability to install Windows on future Macintoshes based on the Intel chip. So you could indeed have a dual-boot configuration in that event.

Score: 0

By Kramy

posted Jun 26, 2005 - 5:03 AM

The price would be even more right if they used a cheaper and more efficient AMD processor. ;)

Score: 0

By PhoenixPath

posted Jun 27, 2005 - 8:55 AM

Yeah, sure...until they ran out of 'em.

AMD can barely keep up with it'sown production demands, much less adding the demands of Apple to the bag.

Apple chose Intel because of their capacity and their roadmap. I'll admit, AMD has been ahead of Intel's roadmap for a while now..and may stay that way for some time, but their capacity is nowhere near that of Intel.

Score: 0

By M1M2Z1

posted Jun 25, 2005 - 11:18 PM

There's still a need for a fast and free OS.
Fast as in fast GUI and free as in freedom.

Score: 0

By RobertM

posted Jun 25, 2005 - 9:23 PM

"The fourth revision of the operating system..."

Fourth? It's the fifth, unless for some reason you're ignoring the original 10.0 release.

Score: 0

By foxtyke

posted Jun 26, 2005 - 12:46 AM

I think maybe Ed was using 10.0 as the baseline and speaking purely of the revisions to the 10.0 line.

Score: 0

By imafurby

edited Jun 25, 2005 - 3:45 PM

Easier for you maybe. I choose my hardware and o/s based on value for money across the board, not on how spiffy it looks on my desk. (although my PCs look pretty damn cool anyway)

Score: 0

By Mastertsung

posted Jun 25, 2005 - 3:39 PM

This Article is extremely biased. They take plenty of time telling you how great the new OS X is. They never mention the compatibility issues mac customers have had everytime the upgrade the OS. They never mention the slow file transfer speeds in Safari. The list goes on. I think BetaNews should really do a side by side of the negative and positive of each OS. It is obvious the writer is new to mac, he hasn't been around to experience how Apple treats it's customers

Score: 0

By Kramy

posted Jun 26, 2005 - 1:38 AM

Article?...."Perspective". There's always going to be someone that has a horrible time, or a great time, just like I'm always going to have problems with Outlook Express and IE. They just don't work with me, and do weird s*** like jump to the menubar every 3 seconds because of the speed I type at. No one else has the problem, but I do....so I choose not to use either.

Score: 0

By northtown

posted Jun 25, 2005 - 9:01 PM

You nailed it on the head... Apple is the kind of company that treats you with a thank you by maiming your memory on a rom update and then denies that it happened. Apple/Steve "took a dump" Jobs are leaches that thrive on your loyalty they pay you back with a lawsuite by having their logo on your web site. I used to work for Apple and can honestly say "No thanks, I would rather build my owne system than get a Mac".

Score: 0

By Lloyd.plywood

edited Jun 25, 2006 - 1:11 AM

I still have not purchased a Mac but Windows XP crapped out on my pc. This was after Windows Internet Explorer became all but useless. I am running Arch Linux right now and let me tell you it was a free download and is still working just fine.
So my next computer could very well be a Mac. Really have nothing to lose, do I?

Score: 0

By volcanpoas

posted Jun 26, 2005 - 1:28 PM

Hmmm, not just a little bias shining through in that comment. I have been a PC user for 20+ users. I have been a Mac user for 18 years. I will take Apple's treatment of me as a customer, as an associate, etc. any day over my experiences in the rest of the PC world. Anybody can find horror stories to tell about any company. You really think MS is any better? My wife thinks I am great; my ex-wife hates me. The Radio Shack where I bought my first Tandy 1000 treated me great; the second one did not. Big deal. What does any such story prove? NOTHING. Please, try using some rational analysis. Your bias from your personal experience has nothing to do with what the author wrote about, along with those here who are so clearly defensive against the opinion expressed here that someone might see some advantages in a competitive offering, is just amazing. How about an open mind? How about instead of attacking the author, and the big bad boogeyman Apple, try _listening_ and actually doing what the author did: try it out. Reading and interpreting and attacking without independent experience is not research; it's just armchair quarterbacking. Thanks Ed Oswald for actually trying out the other side. Is it perfect? No. Do I like it? Yes, and it so happens that I've beeen using both side by side for about two decades, through all sorts of ups & downs. Your final sentence says it all: you are making a decision based on a personal bad experience, and it has forever foreclosed for you any objectivity about that decision. Why should anyone listen to you?

Score: 0

By northtown

posted Jun 26, 2005 - 10:59 PM

Dear Volcanpoas,
Why should anyone listen to me? Because I advise Many, Many people out there that's why... probably more than who will listen to you. 20+ years of use means nothing unless you have the breadth of knowledge that others have. The mac is just a Bad alternative... you can't build/fix and get parts for/ let alone / customize like you can with an intel/amd box... If someone wants to get a mac... so what, I don't care... but if you ask me I will tell you that a mac is an insane choice to make.

Score: 0

By PhoenixPath

posted Jun 27, 2005 - 9:20 AM

So just because you "advise Many, Many people", we should listen to you?

Hell, I could say the same thing. Advice is great. I give it all the time. Does that make me an expert? Hell no. Just an opinionated SOB. :P

That "customization" of hardware you're so fond of is why Windows will never be as stable or reliable as MacOS. Many, *many* people look at that and would much rather take reliability over customization any day of the week.

Just as in cars, the tuner-crowd is still the minority. (Though with cars, that seems to be shifting)

Score: 0

By gawd21

posted Jun 26, 2005 - 11:03 PM

Seconded!!

Score: 0

By crashoverride

edited Jun 27, 2005 - 1:31 AM

I retract my comment due to Jeff Mincey's elightening reply to my post. I also appologize for my misguided/informed opinion.

Score: 0

By Jeff Mincey

edited Jun 27, 2005 - 10:34 AM

Speaking for myself at least, I see no need for an apology for what you call a misguided or misinformed opinion. Being incorrect is no crime -- otherwise I would be serving a life sentence in prison. It's only the mistreatment or abuse of others in a forum that might be worthy of an apology.

This is all about an exchange of views and we all learn from each other -- and in this I'm no exception of course.

Score: 0

By crashoverride

posted Jun 27, 2005 - 9:35 PM

I feel the same way. I just figured I better do that before someone comes along and flames at me. I dislike having to deal with people like that so I try my best to avoid them. I see a lot of people that enjoy doing that on here as I go from forum to forum. I see no need in it myself it serves no purpose but to waste space on the page that could be used for constructive comments such as the ones you have made on here.

Score: 0

By Jeff Mincey

posted Jun 26, 2005 - 10:26 AM

To those who say Apple treats its customers poorly, how do you account for the fact that in the last several years Apple repeatedly rates at the very top of the customer satisfaction surveys -- and this includes the question of technical support and customer service? Apple is consistently rated number one. Dell is usually number two or three.

Does this mean Apple has NO instances of dissatisfied customers? Of course not -- no company is perfect. There will always be a percentage of customers who are not satisfied or who are not well treated. No company is exempt from this. But on balance Apple excels in this regard.

Score: 1

By Jeff Mincey

posted Jun 27, 2005 - 8:31 AM

I wish to amend my post above to say that the customer satisfaction surveys I speak of are confined to Apple's service and support in the United States. Whether its customer satisfaction ratings are as high elsewhere in the world I can't say or confirm. I know that some Americans tend to think the USA is the whole planet and I definitely don't want to be guilty of that, and thus I offer this clarification.

Still, to a great degree, the basic point stands. It's always unfortunate for any individual to have a bad experience with a company, but anecdotal experiences are not instructive of general trends, and drawing sweeping conclusions based on them is very problematic.

Score: 0

By Julesword

posted Jun 25, 2005 - 2:41 PM

When they cut (hopefully) production costs with the switch to intel, Apple has a big opportunity if they choose to take it. If they cut prices, there are many users who can live without PC only apps and games and could switch if they felt it was a good value. If Apple did this and gained market share, in the long run many of the missing apps and games would come out for Mac, and even more people could switch if given an attractive product.
The success of iPod is "getting their foot in the door" to make people consider Mac. If Apple cuts prices and thereby someday increases compatibility, they have a real chance to explode their market share.
I hope it happens. More competition would be a good thing.

Score: 0

By gobo

edited Jun 25, 2005 - 1:52 PM

The statement that there is not enough software for mac is fiction. Sure there are some, but there is always an alternative.

For example: I was given a Windows XP machine recently, so I decided to pass it down and make it my daughter's game/learning machine. I've been looking all day for a kid's web browser that compares to BumperCar(OS X), KidsBrowser(OS X), but all options are really bad. I'm just going to have to add some kind of parental control to Firefox, but I would have rather had BumperCar.

"You can do anything on a Windows box you could on a Mac. The difference? Mac does it with style."

And with reliability, functionality and innovation.

Score: 1

By UTAKER

posted Jun 25, 2005 - 12:50 PM

i'll wait a little bit more till apple starts with intel processors (hopefully soon)

Score: 0

By TanNg

edited Jun 25, 2005 - 12:31 PM

Spotlight, probably the most talked about feature of Tiger. Unlike MSN and Google Desktop Search, Spotlight goes farther than just being a nice little search box on your desktop. You can access it from file open dialogs, within programs such as Mail and Address Book, or through a Spotlight dialog box in the menu bar. Search has become an integral part of the UI.

-------------------
Desktop Search Value is what type of documents it can index and search, how fast it is, how good preview panel works, and what type of query we can do.

Your review is totally screwed and bias because it compare 2 systems on wrong dimensions; You can praise MAC on style but not functionality and application. Dont try to lie your self anymore.

Score: 0

By Mountain_Man

posted Jun 25, 2005 - 9:15 PM

You've obviously never used Spotlight, as most of the negative posters here have obviously never used Tiger. More MS Stockholm syndrome.

Score: 0

By Red Ripe Apple

posted Jun 26, 2005 - 2:25 PM

"More MS Stockholm syndrome"

That's a good one.

Score: 0

By TanNg

edited Jun 26, 2005 - 5:07 AM

Try this link to understand the power of Google Desktop Search.
http://desktop.google.com/plugins.html

Remember GDS is a less advanced DS search software compared to YahooDS, MS DS, Copecnic DS or X1 DS.

Also Desktop Search like Copecnic DS, X1 search are existed already here for years.

Score: 0

By Mountain_Man

posted Jun 27, 2005 - 8:10 AM

Put down the bong sir.

Score: 0

By eoswald

edited Jun 25, 2005 - 3:11 PM

Twice here you've made comments that have made absolutely no sense, which I have decided respond to as you are completely off base.

You claim I only talked about style of programs, yet never mentioned functionality and application.

"With just the operating system alone and no installed third-party applications, I could view my Word documents, PDF files and pictures without a problem." Seems I am talking about functionality there.

I then go on to talk about how easy it was to use these features, such as easy creation of online photo albums, and the like.

There are other portions of this review that talk about functionality and application as well, but they have seemed to be ignored.

In a previous comment you also say this review somehow lowers the credibility of BetaNews. This review was based on my experience with Mac OS, which overall was very positive. That's why we called it a "Perspective". Someone else could have a totally different response.

I highly suspect that if you sat down with Mac OS for more than a few minutes, you'd probably come to some of the same conclusions. There are many things that the Mac OS does which, at least pre-Longhorn, are more intiutive and easy for computer users.

Some people are extremely too quick to make calls of bias.

Score: 0

By NtroP

edited Jun 26, 2005 - 1:43 PM

It's easy to focus on the cool parts, the look-and-feel, fit-and-finish, and the extras, when the rest just stays out of your way and works. It's very hard to get people to understand that. I think so many people (90%+) are so used to the constant hassles, reboots and re-installs they can't even fathom that there can be a better way. When things work so well, you have more time to notice and appreciate things like style and convenience.

As a Systems Administrator, I work daily with Windows (NT/2K/XP/2K3), Linux (RHE/Fedora/Debian) and Mac OS (9/10.x). I run Debian on my primary workstation at work because it allows me to "safely" test and manage my Linux and Windows systems in a sandboxed environment (VMWare) without fear of compromising my own workstation.

I also now have a 15" Titanium G4 PowerBook that allows me to manage ALL my OS'es. I can use ARD for managing my OS9/10 Servers and Clients. I can use X11 and SSH for my linux Servers and Clients. And I can use Remote Desktop to manage my Windows Servers and Clients all from a single, reliable, virus-resistant, portable platform.

With around 20,000 users I often experience the "compatibility" issues between platforms and OS versions. Most of these seem to be related to misunderstanding or confusion, rather that a real technical incompatibility (ie. Mac users forgetting to add .Doc to the filename so PC users can open it, etc.)

Because we deploy so many versions of so many operating systems, I wind up using most of them, in one way or another, daily. As such I'm in a better position than most to determine the relative merits of each, although this does not make me thee final authority of what is best for *you*. If you are a die-hard gamer, or work in an Exchange-based, highly-collaborative, Windows-only environment with a lot of proprietary IE-only web apps, then Windows is without a doubt the best choice.

On the other hand, if you just need to do word processing, email surfing the web, arrange your photos, organize your music, make your home movies into DVD's, video-chat with your friends, play UT, WoW, Splinter Cell, Jedi Academy, Quake, C&C, and other popular games, read-and-write Office documents, mount SMB/AFS/FTP/WebDAV/NFS, etc. shares, print to Windows/Linux print queues, connect to your building's Citrix server, run a secure web and database server and develop cross-platform software, the Mac will do just fine for you. All this without the constant hassle of viruses, spyware, adware, etc.

For the record, I've moved all my computers at home (currently 6) to Macs running Panther and Tiger. I constantly get strange looks from people when they visit. They make comments which basically iron out to "I thought you were a computer expert... Then why are you using a Mac?" Hey, I work solving computer problems all-day, every day. When I get home I just need things to work. I don't like fixing computers. I don't like messing with them when I need to get something done.

I'm not one of those geeks who gets off on building his own boxes at home. I'm a busy professional with a family and a life. I need my family to be able to just do their work without constantly bugging me to fix their computers. In fact, In the last 2 years, I've spent more time constantly fixing/re-installing just 1 friend's Windows XP box than I've spent on all my computers at home and all my mac-using friends' computers combined. I know this is just anecdotal, but it really opened my eyes when I stopped to think about it.

So, for *me*, the choice was easy and I've never once regretted it, have never looked back and I haven't missed running Windows once. For those of you who have used a mac "back in the day", try Tiger on some new hardware. There is no comparison. It's literally like going from Windows 3.11 to XP. I hated OS 9 and for the longest time equated Macs with toys because of it. Windows users deride Mac users for constantly comparing their OS to problems that haven't been an issue since Windows 98. Well, now it's time to grow up and start looking at Tiger as a whole new beast and stop comparing it to that Mac Classic or LC III you had in high-school.

And just to poke a little fun at all my old Windows friends: http://www.geekculture.c...ch/joyarchives/652.html

...and Eoswald, welcome home.

Score: 0

By Kramy

posted Jun 26, 2005 - 8:13 PM

Very well said. If more articles were written like that I'd be a very happy reader.

Score: 0

By Jeff Mincey

posted Jun 26, 2005 - 2:08 PM

NtroP, very well written and organized post. You make a very convincing case in a pragmatic way, sans dogma, ideology, blind advocacy, etc.

Score: 0

By KSzostek

posted Jun 26, 2005 - 10:36 AM

Dude calm down

Score: 0