I have seen the future.

Ha! Nice!

Still totally does NOT reflect my Apple Software experience, but awesome nontheless.

From:

undeadbydawn.livejournal.com

Most 'switchers' who cannot see past Windows - and don't want to - find Macs utterly absurd.
The best advice I can give those people is that they are trying way too hard. In my [somewhat limited] experience the problem with Windows is that *everything* is an effort. Doesn't matter what you want to do, there are always a heaveload of menus, screens and buggeration to go through to do it.
Since Macs are in general much simpler, stripped down and sensible, many Windows users get lost trying to find complexity. The perfect example is Finder. TO Mac users Finder is about as simple as any process can be, yet Winbox users find it impossible to navigate. Dock is just scary.

strange, no?

From:

My real problem with macs has always been the absurd lack of *options* and *choices* with regards to the default behaviour. Sure, if I wanted the machine to work exactly the way the Apple developer who wrote this specific piece of software did, I'd be happy. I'd also be an inbred lobotomy patient because apparently Apple's usability testing is nonexistent, but I'd be happy. If I want to make ANY changes, though, whoa, that's TOO COMPLICATED for a mere user. Anything to make my personal workflow better is Wrong and Unclean and Far Too Close To Being A Feature Of A Computer For Adults, which a Mac manifestly and absolutely informs me, continuously, that it is not.

(And, really, a TON of lousy interface decisions. Whose moronic idea was it to toss the controls for a program and window *detached and disconnected from the program and window*? And to make the core OS controls dependent on which window you had focus on at the time? And to make the window controls *nonstandard*? And to *discard and reset* all customisations on every upgrade on every Apple product, to the point of reinstalling disabled and discarded "helpfully included" malware, leaving aside the idea that maybe I turned off iTunes Store because I don't use iTunes Store and didn't feel like seeing the endless iTunes store spam any more?)

Macs continually treat me like I'm the kind of moron who pays double the price of an equivalent PC for the privilege of having a Mac that doesn't do what I want half as well. What I don't get is why people go out of their way for this "experience".

From:

zdallin.livejournal.com

Ok, I have to repost this :D

From:

I am not in any way knocking your dislike for Macs but I'm just sorry that your experience wasn't good. I guess what I like about them is they fit the way I think - if that makes any sense. I can go to the OS w/o really having to think about it & basically, subconsciously, say to myself, "now, if I were an OS, where would I put it?" And the majority of the time, I've found "it" where I thought the OS should have put it. In short, for me, it's intuitive. I've never used Linux but would love to learn. Back in the day, I learned UNIX and had lots of fun with that. I use Windows at work. At the end of the day, I'm happy to come home to my Mac.

By the way, if you were to ever want a "cheap" way to get more experience with Macs, a lot of people have had great success installing OS X on Dell Minis (9 & 10 I believe).

From:

mckenzee.livejournal.com

I was recently planning a similar thing.
Win: pickup truck that gets painted every few years. Basic transport, breaks down occasionally.
Mac: monorail, fast,pretty, only goes where they want you to go.
Linux: VW Swimwagon, goes anywhere, keep your duct tape handy.

From:

anivair.livejournal.com

To be fair, I don't think his problem with the mac is that he's stuck in a Windows mindset (since windows is just about as absurd). It's that the mac really is a one size fits all OS. And if that size doesn't fit you, then the solution is for you to change, not the OS (I recently joined a gym and got a one size fits all shirt ... needless to say it looks pretty silly on me).

From:

Y'know, I'm a Mac user as well, but it amuses me that every time twk posts something making fun of macs (which happens roughly once every three weeks), it never fails to draw a certain number of people rising up to defend poor Apple's virginity.

From:

Sorry - I'm not defending Apple's "virginity" and I'm not bashing him EITHER. I'm just saying that for ME, Macs make sense & that I am truly sorry his experience has not been good.

As someone who's used Macs from the beginning (yes, I do mean 25 yrs), I have had to put up with my fair share of Apple bashing. No, they're not for everyone and I will NEVER say that they are. Like I said, not bashing the post nor defending Apple's virginity (whatever that is meant to imply).

Apple's not perfect - what computer related company is? I could go on and bash Microsoft (or as many Mac people like to abbreviate: M$), but I won't and don't. It's a choice.

So why is it such a bad thing that I posted what I LIKE about my Macs?

From:

Give me 5 minutes - let me respond "humorously" to this post.

From:

everbloom.livejournal.com

Then you'd be a Linux person, yes?

From:

icedrake.livejournal.com

This article (first of two parts) by Tog takes a look at this very issue.

(Tog, AKA Bruce Tognazzini, was the Human Interface Evangelist at Apple, and the founder of the company's Human Interface Group.)

From:

From:

But that's the point - he hears this every time he posts something about Macs. I'm not sure if I ever took the bait or not (yeah, probably did).

From:

Here's what? Why people like their Macs? Again, sorry if it's so wrong to tell why I like my Mac. I have NEVER been a Mac evangelist. NEVER. But again, is it SO wrong to air one's opinion of their platform of choice?

All the guys I work with are die-hard Windows fans & they look down on me for owning a Mac (and I can't really say I give a damn about what they think). Yet when I mentioned installing OS X on Dell Minis, they were suddenly very interested.

Quite honestly, if I'd been OFFENDED by what he posted (now or any of the countless times before), I wouldn't have bothered posting. It was only when I read his comment that he'd had such a bad experience with Macs that I decided to comment and say sorry (plus add why I like my Macs). And I do mean it - sorry he didn't have a good experience. Again, what's so bad about saying that?

I really don't get why my post was SO horrible or deserved such a response from you in the first place.

I do respect his preferences just as I respect those of my coworkers. If they want to use Windows or Linux or Amiga (LOL), who am I to complain? Macs AREN'T for everyone. When people ask me about switching to Macs, I don't tell them, "Oh, Macs are they greatest things since sliced bread." Instead, I tell them that some people like them and some don't. If they are complete computer newbies, I tell them to go to somewhere like Best Buy and to an Apple store and try the computers out. Go with what you feel comfortable with.

I get by fine with Windows at work but I find it highly annoying and illogical. It just doesn't fit MY way of thinking. Macs fit MY way of thinking. Period. Does everyone think like me? NO. Does everyone think like Windows? Again, no.

From:

And what was it about my post that draws so much ire? I simply took note that this guy can't post a Mac joke without having people tell him why they like Macs so much - granted, with a bit of humorous exaggeration in the way I worded it. Stop taking it so personally.

From:

dscotton.livejournal.com

Yep, I pretty much agree with you on every point. My personal "favorite" example of discarding and resetting settings is the way the VOLUME is reset to the default every single time you turn your computer off - which happens to be eardrum-blastingly loud if you're wearing headphone.

From:

opaqueplanet.livejournal.com

"now, if I were an OS, where would I put it?" ... In short, for me, it's intuitive.

That's an interesting way of putting it. For me (likely only because I was raised on windows, right from 3.1), Windows is the same way for me. Because the Windows way of thinking and operating is so ingrained, it's really hard for me to use a Mac (a little practice would do me a world of good, but I don't have much opportunity). I try to right click or press Alt+anything and quickly devolve into one of the monkeys from 2001: A Space Odyssey, screaming and thrashing at the cold white monolith before me.

From:

drjamez.livejournal.com

The basic argument boils down to this, stereotypically:

Anyone who's touched a computer or terminal pre-mice (or OS's post-mice that are based on such pre-mice ways of computing) have been conditioned to expect, you know, to be able to tweak and figure out ways around the core operating system's intended function, in order to do more.

Those who have not had such experience seem to stick with the intended functions, and/or have a harder time "hacking" the system to get it to perform functions outside what the core features offer.

Example: for years, unmounting a CD-ROM involved an unmount type of command or some other method for removing the mounted device (up to and including hitting the eject button, on systems that had such a button). Mac users by and large had to drag the icon for the mounted CD to the trash can, or use a buried pull-down menu, to remove the disc. Moving things to the trash can meant deleting or preparing to delete the data for non-Mac users, whereas Mac users accepted (by and large - again, this is the stereotypical scenario) that this was the proper method for ejecting the disc.

I argue that the truly intuitive method of dragging something to the trash can meant one wanted to throw the object away forever and not to merely remove the disc from the computer to, perhaps, use again in the future, but maybe I am in the minority. ;-)

Since the Mac OS went to a BSD Unix kernel, the opportunities for more in-depth hacking have been made available. Perhaps the next generation of Mac users will find fault with the rest of the computing world in areas that really deserve criticism. And, perhaps, the next generation of non or occasional Mac users will find reasons to make those other operating systems more user-friendly (I'm looking at you, Linux).

- James -

From:

Heheh, I do understand what you mean. I was raised on Mac but that's not why I've stuck with it. In the business world, Macs are not common, so I've had to use Windows. I am quite comfortable in the OS but I'm constantly comparing it to OS X and saying, "why on earth did they do it this way?"

The key, for me, to really being successful at using both OSes is learning to translate - almost the same thing as learning spoken languages. So for me, OS X is akin to English and Windows is, say, Spanish. For example - Control on Windows is Command (Apple) on Mac. Alt is Option. Once you know which buttons are which, then a good majority of the keyboard shortcuts are easy to learn.

People complain about the one button mice on Macs and I myself am not overly fond of them but, when stuck with one, using the "control" key is like the right click option on the mouse.

The similarities, IMO, end after the keyboard shortcuts. The intuitiveness, for me, is in where to find settings, files, etc. I prefer how things are arranged on a Mac. And for those persons not well acquainted with Macs, this is probably where the 2001 Space Odyssey monkeys comes into play :)

From:

andrewducker

Which is pretty much the metaphor used in this piece that you should totally read:
http://www.cryptonomicon.com/beginning.html

From:

I do most of my work on Windows, actually, because that's what most of my clients use. My personal home gaming machine is Windows as well, because nothing else has even half-decent games.

(And, really, Linux on the desktop still kind of sucks. The ABILITY to do absolutely anything? Awesome. The REQUIREMENT to do absolutely everything? Not so much. For servers, on the other hand, I love Linux and almost[1] never want to use anything else.)

[1]: If the client is willing to pay a ton, Windows Server and a proper domain are great. Active Directory allows you to handle almost everything with a single sign-on, and the permissions handling for folder sharing and the like is actually much simpler. But this is also comparatively super-expensive for a small business or especially for a home, so linux+Samba has a couple of usability problems relatively, but saves you *tons* of money and stability.

From:

I have plenty of experience using macs, starting from System 7 all the way up to spending a month on OSX 10.5 pretty much exclusively.

My issues with them really are based on interface usability and design factors, not just unfamiliarity.

From:

matgb

See, until last week I'd only ever used Windows. I installed Ubuntu on the virus strewn trojan infested main desktop after giving up removing it and thinking it was worth a try.

I'm finding everything really easy to find, incredibly intuitive and I've yet to get suck trying to find anything, whereas resetting Windows after an install has always been a complete headache.

To me, despite it being the only OS I'd used, Windows never made any sense. Ubuntu just works (mostly), and I can find everything easily.

Never tried a Mac.

From:

kjn

Can't say I've ever encountered that. To me, it sounds like an empty PRAM battery.

From:

jsbowden.livejournal.com

I'd stop looking at Linux if you're waiting for something that doesn't suck for the end user. I'm a *BSD weenie, but that has nothing to do with it, because *BSD will always suck for the end user for exactly the same reasons Linux will. Fixing Linux/*BSD's UI issue requires a cohesive effort by a dedicated team of people willing to do drudge work fixing a lot of little things, and that's not sexy, easy, or ever going to happen in a volunteer effort.

From:

I knew you had experience with them. Still sorry you have not had good experiences with the OSes.

OS X is obviously a huge improvement over previous Mac OSes.

And it's always been the interface and design factors that I've liked.

From:

kjn

Arguably, there is a *BSD version now that doesn't suck for the end user now. Of course, it's Mac OS X.

From:

undeadbydawn.livejournal.com

Mac OS X, like any other operating system, will never be perfect for the individual out of the box. I found Windows absurdly horrid before I'd been anywhere near a Mac. But like other OS's you will find an abundance of freeware and shareware that will let you alter things to your hearts content. My 'default' setup is not remotely similar to a clean install. I doubt your Windows setup is either.

The window controls non-standard? Well that depends on whos standard you apply. I - and the vast majority of Mac users - find them perfectly acceptable, thanks :-)
If you mean 'why doesn't it work like Windows' the simple answer is it isn't Windows. Given that Mac OS X is not windows, why should it have to work like Windows?

The universal menu has the core advantage that you always know where it is - at the top of the screen. This actually reduces UI clutter. The active app is always named and can be very easily switched by cmd-tab, just like Windows.

The inclusion of iTunes is different from Windows Media Player how?
I do not use iTunes for media playback [preferring SongBird] and don't get iTunes spam because I turned those options off. It is pretty useful for editing metadata though, and for keeping libraries organised [though, again, I use SongBird and have a manual library setup just exactly how I like it. the iTunes library accesses the same place].

Aside from some apps not being updated in time, a most of my settings are preserved over update [the installer specifically includes this option].

Pretty much every independent study ever has concluded that in like-for-like Macs and Windows cost of use works out even. The OS itself comes with two variants, one of which is for standard users and is generally cheaper than Windows. The iLife suit in particular, for software provided freely, blows the crap out of anything MS offers as standard install. The fact Apple doesn't really offer a compelling low-end solution is a constant issue, agreed. But then again MS does not sell the hardware.

Would you mind defining '"helpfully included" malware'? Given that Windows is viciously open to every possible evil of the internet I find that a puzzling statement.

Oh, and the core controls thing: yeah, that can be a pest, but again can be remedied with various pieces of cheap or free software. It also frees up app-specific controls, which some pros find kinda helpful.

Basically, every OS has a variety of interesting merits and flaws, and the quirks of each will enthrall or infuriate users of all types. I happen to prefer Macs to Winboxes. You clearly prefer the opposite.

I have no problem with that :-)

Anyways.... I'm hugely enjoying your posts, and hope you don't mind me staying around.

Peace.

From:

undeadbydawn.livejournal.com

Not really. to be brief, my standard Leopard setup is not remotely similar to the clean install setup.

There is a huge variety of software available to allow a vast degree of customization. Just like Windows.

From:

The universal menu has the core advantage that you always know where it is - at the top of the screen. This actually reduces UI clutter. The active app is always named and can be very easily switched by cmd-tab, just like Windows.

Ah, of course, so when I want the Edit menu of a non-focused Window that's open in my screen space, I need multiple keypresses and careful attention to what's changing on the screen (with no way back except continuing through all open windows or changing my finger position), or to click on the window and then MOVE MY MOUSE ALL OVER HELL'S HALF ACRE to click in a second location, where a sane OS would have left the menu in a sane place: Associated with the window, attached to the window, visible if I've chosen to leave that part of the window visible, instantly clickable.

The fact that I *cannot* leave menus associated with their windows is a terrible, abject, insanely bad UI failure. Not for everyone - but for me, when I want that behaviour? But no, it's not what one single Apple designer wanted at one time in 1992 or so, so it's not available to me, today.

This, right there, exemplifies the problem with macs.

The inclusion of iTunes is different from Windows Media Player how?

WMP is harder to get rid of - but my complaint isn't the inclusion of it. My complaint is that every time I update it, it trashes all my personalisations, re-enables the store spam, and re-installs all the unwanted malware crap I uninstalled last time.

WMP, at least, stays gone and doesn't complain that I've installed VLC, or try to steal file associations from VLC.

most of my settings are preserved over update [the installer specifically includes this option].

Not true! A foul and filthy lie, in fact, at least as far as iTunes is concerned.

You *cannot* update iTunes without it wiping your custom settings, installing Quicktime and wiping *it's* custom settings, installing Apple Software Update, installing the Bonjour spyware/malware and setting it to autorun, and installing Safari and setting it to listen quietly and provide lovely security holes.

After any iTunes update, you *must* remove three pieces of software entirely and change the settings on two more in order to return your machine to a fully usable, secure state.

The iLife suit in particular, for software provided freely, blows the crap out of anything MS offers as standard install. But software suites *aren't part of the OS and shouldn't be*. You're paying a large premium for.... stuff you might not want to use, that's included and activated by default!

Would you mind defining '"helpfully included" malware'?

Apple Software Update (because it reinstalls the rest)
Bonjour (network broadcast, including information about my computer and it's contents)
Safari (listens to the network, has massive exploits, discovered regularly and patched WAY behind the curve)
QuickTime (behaves badly and in an annoying way, resets settings every time it's patched.)

Given that Windows is viciously open to every possible evil of the internet I find that a puzzling statement.

A standard windows XP machine, patched up to date, running the default Windows Firewall, avoiding IE before 7, is secure. Vista, even more so, even though it's annoying and suffers from some of the UI problems that macs do.

But neither MS nor the people who make Ubuntu and Fedora *deliberately reinstall programs with security holes, spyware, and aggravating behaviour* the way Apple Software Update does.

I happen to prefer Macs to Winboxes. You clearly prefer the opposite.

I prefer Linux machines to macs. When a Linux machine misbehaves, I know it's fixable. With a Mac, wanting to fix the terrible, unworkable, cripplingly incompetent UI decisions means *not using a mac*.

hope you don't mind me staying around.

Not at all.

But if you're defensive about your habit of overspending massive amounts of money on barely-functional status symbols for beta males, you're likely to be offended every time I talk about Apple computers, or Ford "sports" cars.

From:

pope-guilty.livejournal.com

I've never understood how Apple's visual design has ever been an asset for them, but then I like beige boxes. Boxi. Boxxen.

From:

elffin.livejournal.com

I /hate/ iTunes.

From:

anivair.livejournal.com

I don't know if i'd say that windows has a huge variety of anything, especially customization, but I am running ubuntu on everything I own, so I'm biased on the subject of customizing. Good to know about the mac's ability to be versatile, though.

From:

ryusen.livejournal.com

For me, i just like making fun of things. I'm a Windows user and my current desktop says, "Vista, not Windows compatible,"

From: