Kevin wrote:
In article ,
Clyde wrote:
Kevin wrote:
In article ,
Clyde wrote:
Applications that only run on XP. That’s the big reason I switched from OS X to XP.
Well in the field I work, there are no XP apps out there that only run on XP for what I need
Then again, I’m not much of an OS bigot anyway. OSs are just for running apps to get something done.
Clyde
I have both Macs and PCs at home.
I like them both for different things.
But for design, OS X all the way.
What do you use for design? I only use Photoshop and it works exactly the same on XP as it does on OS X.
No no it doesn’t.
There is no shell around the Photoshop for OS X. meaning I can grab stuff off the desktop and drop it into a Window. What true drag and drop is supposed to be like.
I can drag and drop from XP to Photoshop. I’m not sure what you are talking about. It works for me.
Windows for Photoshop also doesn’t have Colorsync support like the Mac does.
I couldn’t live without colorsync.
Now, this might not matter to you. And that is cool, but I prefer my Mac.
You are correct, Windows XP does not have ColorSync. However, it has exactly the same color management functionality built in. It’s just not called "ColorSync". It works just as well and it works just as easily.
Almost all professional graphic shops have and run both Mac and XP. They run Photoshop on both. They certainly wouldn’t touch XP if color management wasn’t there.
The number of choices in any particular category of applications is also much broader. You can almost always get a Mac app to do what you need, but you may not get any (or many) choices. One of the things I like about my XP machine is the choices, particularly in Freeware.
Yes, but as you and I both know, 75% of those choices windows gives you are crap.
There hasn’t been anything I can do on my Windows box that I can’t on my Mac.
75% of everything is crap; no, make that 90%. The Internet certainly proves that. However, you prove my point. 75% crap out of 10 choices still leaves you choices. 75% crap out of 2 choices, may or may not leave you any choice at all.
In my Mac using days (which I loved) I did have a few times where I couldn’t find a working solution. Some of those I never got around. Others I had to wait until something was developed.
Mac developer aren’t any better than Windows developers. The percentage of crap is about the same. The only slight advantage (very slight) is that Apple insists on a more rigid development standard than does Microsoft. Of course, that doesn’t mean that the developer has to follow it, just that they won’t get certified by Apple. That can also be a disadvantage, in that way fewer developer want to bother with Apple’s rule to feed such a small market.
I think the same can be said about the hardware. A Mac is a much more difficult computer to upgrade the hardware on. Some of them you can’t upgrade at all. I built my Intel box and can easily upgrade any of the hardware with a lot of choices.
No, no it’s not hard. Esp if you have a tower. Anything can be upgraded.
That may have been true about the Mac in the 90s. But not now.
Have you ever tried to upgrade the hardware in an iMac, or a Mini, or a Cube, etc.? There are plenty of Apple products that don’t have hardware upgrades. I had an iMac once like that. It wasn’t so much that Apple built it to be a huge pain to get into, but that no one made any upgrade parts for it. I would have loved to put a faster CPU in it, but it wasn’t possible. The only thing I could easily do was memory – and I only had two slots.
Yes, the towers are nice to upgrade, but you still have to watch what hardware will actually work. Then again, those really are only the high end models. Why should I pay that premium to have hardware flexibility when an Intel box is more flexible and costs less?
That is one reason I’m not too excited about Apple using Intel. Their history shows that they will probably do what they can to restrict flexibility. That is one of the great things about Macs; their restriction means that it’s more reliable and you have a better shot at it working. I don’t need that or want to be trapped by that lack of flexibility.
For Example?
See the iMac example above.
Look, I’m not anti-Mac or Apple. I’ve used Apple products since the Apple ][. I’ve used Mac products since a pre-production of the very first Mac. I think that OS X is a great OS.
I have also used Microsoft since DOS 1 and Windows 2.0. I’ve used a few versions of Linux and several of the UNIX flavors. Operating systems are tools for applications to use hardware. If a particular set of hardware/OS/app works for you, use it.
I would say that a 3% (or less) market share has shown that most people have found that Mac is less flexibly and/or useful than Windows. Part of that is Apple’s mixed policy of holding much tighter reins over the hardware and software development.
As much as I love OS X, the lack of hardware and application flexibility finally got too much for me. I also think that OS X is only very slightly better than XP Pro. If those aren’t an issue for you, great.
Over and out,
Clyde