745: Mac Daddy

[bruceatk]

Originally Posted by brianisinyou

This is one of the biggest problems of these OS flamewars. People like you, Chemda's brother, and the millions of other 'power users' out there have no perspective on how 99% of computer users use their computers. The average person does not spend most of their days on message boards, or use all three gigabytes of ram in their laptops. They go online, look for car parts on ebay, read their joke of the day in gmail, then go back to real life. As long as their shit can get online, and handle the occasional powerpoint presentation, they're fine.

What you said may be true for ourselves, and your particular clientele, but "most of the people you help" is not the same demographic as "most of the people who use computers".

Actually most people I help are in the 99%. I believe I have a really good understanding of how people use their computers. The power users don't really need my help. I don't know of any users that only use the things that come with their PC. Most people have problems because of what they add to their MAC or PC.

I also am not "flaming". I like the MAC and I like Windows. They both have their issues. I'm realistic about what they are and don't believe the hype. I wish the discussions never degraded into my PC is better than your PC. I always seem to end up having to defend Microsoft.

Bruce

[bruceatk]

Originally Posted by MichaelG

Google Doc is a nice alternative also.

BUT, i disagree on the minimal. She is using it for WORK, she gets paid, she can write off the computer and software purchase on her Taxes.

This is not minimal. My employer would not consider the purchase of high end software a minimal need. She bought the best tools for her job. Not a free software (audacity) for messing around.

The MAC and software are purchased by her school. If you buy a MAC, $300.00 software shouldn't be considered high end? Audacity doesn't fit her needs of being compatible with others.

I call it Minimal because she needed to install 3 things. I have hundreds of things installed. 3 is minimal.

Bruce

[brianisinyou]

Originally Posted by bruceatk

I don't know of any users that only use the things that come with their PC

is not what you said before:

Originally Posted by bruceatk

Most people that I help have much more demanding requirements and tax their systems more than what can be met by a standard MAC or PC.

My point still stands. Out of the hundreds and hundreds the people I've worked with, who have either walked into an Apple store saying "I'm buying a computer today," or have hired me as an independent contractor for troubleshooting and training, the vast, vast majority of them do nothing more than internet, email, digital photos and a little bit of Office/googledocs.

Of course, people need to add simple things like Picasa, iTunes and some kind of word processor, but saying that most people's computer usage "can't be met by a standard Mac or PC" is completely unrealistic.

[bruceatk]

Originally Posted by brianisinyou

is not what you said before:


My point still stands. Out of the hundreds and hundreds the people I've worked with, who have either walked into an Apple store saying "I'm buying a computer today," or have hired me as an independent contractor for troubleshooting and training, the vast, vast majority of them do nothing more than internet, email, digital photos and a little bit of Office/googledocs.

Of course, people need to add simple things like Picasa, iTunes and some kind of word processor, but saying that most people's computer usage "can't be met by a standard Mac or PC" is completely unrealistic.

Where did I say something different? My comment is based on people that say they buy a MAC because it comes with everything they need.

All I am saying that most people need to install something. It's unrealistic to say they don't. I'm not saying they have to go out and buy tons of programs. As I said I don't know of anyone that has been satisified with just the stuff that comes with the PC/MAC they purchased. The fact that my daughter can do what she can with her MAC with only having to install three applications is a good thing.

Most problems come from the installing/removing of software and hardware. The fact that Apple limits what hardware is in their systems and provides a pretty good starter set of apps makes the experience for a large number of users a better experience than what HP, Dell, etc are providing.

Bruce

[Mainiac]

Originally Posted by bruceatk

Mainiac, What does Vista cause you problems with in regards to web browsing and Digital Picture Management?

Bruce

I got the system last November, a brand new duo core HP system, built from the ground up as a Vista machine.

After about an hour or two of web browsing with several Internet Explorer windows open, some of the windows would start to flake out and tabs would disappear. It would just get worse and some of the explorer windows would disappear or black out, the machine would slow to a crawl and basically become unresponsive and unusable. The only fix was hard re-boot.

While moving pictures around from folder to folder, on the same hard drive, it would take hours to move a few GB of pictures. Coping from my Vista machine over to an XP machine was almost impossible. It was due to changes in the way the network protocols work, I Googled it and found a third party work around.

Lots of other issues, like a hellish “Vista Approved” printer install and glitches loading MS Word onto the system.

Fortunately it’s a home “hobby” system, and I didn’t depend on it for anything serious. Service Pack 1 has helped a lot, but my Windows loyalty is SERIOUSLY shot.

I understand completely where Keith is coming from with his issues.

[bruceatk]

Originally Posted by Mainiac

After about an hour or two of web browsing with several Internet Explorer windows open, some of the windows would start to flake out and tabs would disappear. It would just get worse and some of the explorer windows would disappear or black out, the machine would slow to a crawl and basically become unresponsive and unusable. The only fix was hard re-boot.

That sounds like you are running out of memory and your system resources for the GUI have been swapped out. Vista has something which is supposed to improve performance, but it has been my experience that it does just the opposite for my typical work load. It's called SuperFetch. SuperFetch loads up all your memory with stuff it thinks you are going to use leaving you with 0 free memory.

When I install Vista I turn off UAC, SuperFetch, and ReadyBoost.

Originally Posted by Mainiac

While moving pictures around from folder to folder, on the same hard drive, it would take hours to move a few GB of pictures. Coping from my Vista machine over to an XP machine was almost impossible. It was due to changes in the way the network protocols work, I Googled it and found a third party work around.

Vista was slower than XP when copying over the network by about 10-20%. It appeared even slower as the progress dialog gave an optimistic estimate and then took a long time to update. XP's dialog gives a more pessimistic estimate, updates more frequently, and finishes faster than it's estimate (most of the time).

On my currrent system copying 1.13 gig of data to a network drive:

XP SP 3 - 2 min 15 secs
Vista SP 1 - 2 min 12 secs

Originally Posted by Mainiac

Lots of other issues, like a hellish “Vista Approved” printer install and glitches loading MS Word onto the system.

Fortunately it’s a home “hobby” system, and I didn’t depend on it for anything serious. Service Pack 1 has helped a lot, but my Windows loyalty is SERIOUSLY shot.

I haven't experienced these problems. I actually have Office 97, 2003, and 2007 all installed (and Open Office also). I make my living off my PC.

Originally Posted by Mainiac

I understand completely where Keith is coming from with his issues.

So do I, but I know that I can fix his Gateway. I agree with Chemda's brother that the best thing that Keith can do is have a computer dedicated to the show. The MAC mini is perfect for that.

Bruce

[GirlNextDoor]

I didn't have time to read through the whole thread but the story of the Scarsdale's diet guy was made into a movie called Misses Harris. Very good movie Chamda I'm sure you would like it.

[r1ckatkinson]

I've been waiting for this episode ever since Keith first mentioned switching as I was keen to see if his reasons and experience was similar to mine.

I switched to mac a couple of years ago mainly for video editing home movies, but I quickly found it was much better for most things.

I also think that for every mac zealot there's a windows die-hard and I guess these guys will never see eye to eye. Mac -vs- Windows forums will always be firey and I'm happy for them to have the sport.

Welcome to mac Keith, and I look forward to hearing more about how you get on with it.

[Mikey]

[walterdeane]

Oh and to Grapist:


What Michael specifically said was that you can run Windows through Parallels or VMWare but that the programs don't run as WELL as a native application. In other words, they're slower, much like you.

As for ANY Unix/X11 software running on Mac, yes, they do and you can run any of them on Windows too. They still need extra libraries and programs to run, which again, makes them slower.

Just to wrap this up, as I'm sure you want to know which OS I use so you can start telling me it's shit, I run Linux with KDE for the desktop, which I compiled from source. So go fuck yourself.[/QUOTE]

I am Web Application developer using primarily .Net on the server with a bit of Java thrown in depending on the project. I also develop on the Mac as my development system. I code on the Mac and compile on the PC. I also do testing on both platforms and develop Sql Server dbs as the datastore.

Michael's point and your defense is completely off. Parallels and VMWare are virtualisation products not emulation programs. There is no real slow down due to the code because it has been compiled for the Intel processor. The only overhead and it seems to be fairly minimum is just in the management of the envirionment. These chips have only been out for a year or two (cant remember exactly when the switch happened) dont really get hit by this minimum overhead because the chips are so fast anyway. The only real slow down you get on this would come from not having enough ram to run windows. You need enough to run both windows and Mac OSX and your applications or else you get a lot of memory swapping.

Your second point is silly if you are in fact a real linux user and you know it. Unix and Linux compiled apps are in general faster than precompiled binaries because compiling on the machine from source produces apps that are compiled for the specific system and are more efficent than precompiled binaries that will run on any mac (or linux box). Os X is BSD unix and comes with even more shit that your standard installs (Maven, ant, etc out of the box). There is no bullshit extra libraries to make it work like your post implies.

I give Linux many props and have never bagged it, but don't try shitting on OS X as if it isn't a real Unix distro.