I know I'm going to catch a lot of flak from Mac owners over this article. Mac owners tend to stick together and defend their choice of computer and operating system almost to the point of death. Discussions often get very heated and feelings often get hurt. Frankly I don't really understand why this is; a computer is a tool, and you usually don't hear many arguments about why a particular brand of screwdriver is better than another, certainly not with the same ferocity. And you certainly don't see television ads about how someone has switched from one brand of hammer to another or two guys making tongue-in-cheek comments about how one bench vice can do things that another can't. So if you are a Mac addict, I'll gladly listen to any comments you make about factual information, but I would really rather not hear prejudiced comments about how your computer is better than my computer without factual evidence to back it up, especially about why "Windows sucks." For what I do a PC is a much better alternative than a Mac. You may have selected a Mac for what you do with a computer, and if so, I'm happy for you. If the Mac OS does what you want your computer to do, great. But the Mac OS doesn't "just work" for me. And this article attempts to explain to some degree why that is.
Biggest Beef
My biggest beef with the Mac OS isn't so much with the Mac OS. It is with the Mac owners themselves. For some reason, as part of this close-knit community they have put together, many they feel they must pass along false information about what their machines can do that others can't. Or what their machines do better than others. I have a feeling that most of these people sharing this information don't bother to do their own research. An example: I know a lot of guys that work with video and film, and a lot of them use Final Cut Pro. I also work with video, and I have elected to use Adobe Premiere Pro. Final Cut Pro is a fine product (I have it on my Mac and I have used it enough to be able to speak with some authority on the subject) but it doesn't beat my Premiere Pro "hands-down" doing…. well, anything. Premiere Pro does nearly everything that Final Cut Pro does, and it does quite a few things that Final Cut Pro does not, including some very basic editing features that improve workflow tremendously. And Premiere Pro does NOT crash more than Final Cut Pro. Both pieces of software will crash from time to time, about equally. To the contrary of the rumors being passed around, Premiere Pro has been more stable and consistent than Final Cut Pro for the things that I have done – considerably less weird behavior out of the Adobe product. Please don't get me wrong, I'm not trying to bash on Final Cut Pro, because I do think it is a good product, but if you were to listen to a lot of Final Cut Pro users you would think that it does everything you could ever want with video, plus squeeze your orange juice and make your morning toast, without you lifting a finger. Please, let's be realistic here. A piece of software is a tool, and no piece of software is perfect. Some are used differently, some are faster at performing certain tasks, but in the end, it is just a tool. So if you are a Mac owner making such comments, please do a little research before perpetuating false rumors.
A great example of the self-perpetuating rumors is the recent television ads produced by Apple. In one such ad you see the "Mac" talking to a new digital camera from Japan easily because the Mac speaks its language, whereas the "PC" is not able to talk to the camera quite so easily (requires drivers). This is a classic example of highlighting just one particular situation, where other examples turn the tide the other direction. If the ad had selected a webcam instead of a digital camera the conversation would have been going the other direction: finding a webcam that will work with a Mac is quite difficult unless you are purchasing Apple's own iSight camera, whereas on a PC, many webcams "just work." And I have yet to find a digital camera that doesn't "just work" on Windows XP. But of course you will never hear this publicly discussed by Mac owners.
My Own Experience
This last summer I actually purchased a Mac Mini of my own so I could help friends who are Mac owners with projects, and to find out what all of the hype is about. I knew a few things about OS X going into it but I tried my best to lay those aside and keep an open mind as I learned a new computer environment. Initially I spent about 3 full days with the Mac, and have spent quite a bit of time with it since then as well.
For the most part everything looks nice on OS X; it has a level of esthetic appeal that you typically don't find with other operating systems until Windows Vista was released. Apple has always been pretty good about keeping things simple and clean, and OS X is no exception here. I didn't find any examples of "there are too many options to choose from" anywhere in OS X itself. For a new user this was nice; I didn't have to spend too much time reading each screen to change the settings I was looking for, and thus the intimidation factor of the computer was fairly low, though I don't think I would turn someone who is totally computer illiterate loose on it without some over-the-shoulder direction. Everything was going pretty well for a while, but I must say that I began to get a little bit frustrated fairly quickly.
I've been a Windows user for many years now and I have grown accustomed to having a certain level of customizability, and with the Mac, well, it just isn't there. You can't change the system font, or the system colors, for example, out of the box. If you want to do such things you need to download and purchase third-party software. And speaking of fonts, I don't think the font rendering in OS X is anywhere near as good as what you find in Windows; everything looks a little bit blurry, like I forgot to put in my contacts, especially when text is small. A lowercase "H," for example, at 8 point in the default system font appears as a gray box with a gray vertical tail and no clear lines whatsoever. (On a related note, a friend of mine who uses the Mac had spent hours poring over some code trying to figure out why it wasn't working, and it turned out to be that he had used a period where a dash should have been used, and he couldn't see it because on his Mac the two were virtually indistinguishable.) In contrast, text in Windows is always crisp and easy to read; there is always a clean edge on each character, whereas on the Mac there is a lot of gray added to the edge of text, especially at smaller sizes, making it appear blurry and harder on my eyes. And since you can't customize the system font, you are pretty much stuck what Apple has selected. This probably isn't a big deal to most people, but something that I do believe is worth noting and caused me a little grief.
Software Installation
One fundamental difference between the Mac and PC is the way that software is installed. On the PC virtually every piece of software comes with an installer that you run to go through all of the steps required to get the software working on your computer. The Mac also has an installer but not all software developers use it; some applications will come packaged in such a way that you drag and drop an icon from a .DMG disk image file or a CD into your Applications folder. This is pretty easy to do, and once you figure out that this is what you are supposed to do it works pretty well. The problem here is the way that software is uninstalled. On the Mac you drag the application package (the icons are actually packages of multiple files, more like a folder) to the trash. This is a little disconcerting for users of other operating systems, but we won't hold that against the Mac in any way. It does, however, leave behind the settings files for the application. And if the application used the installer instead of just being dropped into the Applications folder, anything that the installer added outside of the Applications folder is left behind as well. With the apps I installed on my Mac I think I only found one Uninstall program in everything that I installed despite the fact that quite a few of them used the installer. So I have absolutely no idea how much stuff has been left behind after performing an uninstall. I know a lot of PC uninstaller software leaves preference and user files behind, but they, almost without exception, remove any miscellaneous program bits they added as part of the installation, so you are left with preference and user files only. Overall I'd say that the experience on Windows was more consistent—applications almost universally use installers and come with uninstallers, whereas on the Mac there are two main ways to install software, and from what I have seen, no consistent way to do a clean uninstall, so bits and pieces do get left behind to some degree. Again, not a huge deal, especially if you are someone who doesn't install and uninstall software frequently, but something to be aware of.
Bigger Disks Required
This brings me to another issue that doesn't get any attention. Since Apple recently switched from a Power PC-based architecture to an Intel x86-based architecture, Apple and other software developers are producing what are called "Universal Binaries" that include native code for both the Power PC architecture and the increasingly common x86 architecture. These Universal Binaries tend to be quite a bit larger than their single-architecture cousins because they contain code for both platforms, so recent application software files are considerably larger than what we have seen in the past on either the Mac or the PC. With a large enough hard drive and a fast enough Internet connection this probably will not be an issue, but if you purchase a Mac with a small hard drive, be prepared for it to fill up quickly. The 60GB hard drive in my Mac Mini was filled to capacity very quickly (to the point of burning some of the included software onto DVD so I could continue to work), even though I never copied any of my documents, music, pictures, or video files to the Mac, whereas on my Dell laptop with a 60GB drive running Windows Vista, I have all of the document files I have created over more than a decade, a large collection of pictures taken on my 8 megapixel camera, a significant library of music, and a couple movies (in addition to a large selection of installed software) with 20 GB of space to spare. Disk space gets eaten up more quickly on the Mac, so if you buy a Mac buy a bigger hard drive than you would on a PC.
Performance
One rumor spread throughout the Mac community in the past has been that despite the lower numbers for computer processor speeds that the Mac is just as fast, if not faster, than a PC performing similar tasks. We don't hear a lot about this these days now that the Mac OS runs on hardware very similar to that which runs Windows where an apples-to-apples comparison would be easier to make. Since the newest Macs run Intel-based hardware, you can install Windows on Mac hardware and it runs natively. As a result of this, you can really get a good feeling about the difference in speed between the two operating systems. On my Mac Mini, OS X is sluggish. Quite sluggish. Sluggish to the point where I'm often not quite sure if it registered a click to open an application (there is no visual indicator on screen that a program is loading), and often have to wait several seconds when switching programs. I timed several applications startup times and they were a lot longer than they should have been. Firefox, for example, took 22 seconds to get to a point where I could enter a web page address. Loading Mail and Address Book took 17 and 15 seconds respectively. Now, the Mac Mini hardware I purchased shouldn't be slow. It runs an Intel Core Duo processor, which anyone who knows PC hardware will tell you is quite fast by today's standards, yet everything that I do in OS X seems slow. I thought at first that maybe it was because the Mini only came with 512MB of RAM, so I upgraded it to 1 GB, but that had no effect on performance; everything still takes a while to respond. What gives here?
I had quite an eye-opening experience when I installed Windows XP (and later Vista) under BootCamp … XP was FAST! Nearly as fast as I had ever seen it run. It would boot and be usable in less than 30 seconds and most applications would literally open within a second or two (though Firefox took a little longer at about 10-11 seconds to be usable), if not instantaneously. So now I'm confused. I am running OS X and Windows XP on the same piece of hardware. If the Mac OS is indeed faster as claimed why is it running so much slower on my computer? I don't have that much software installed on my Mac (remember I ran out of disk space pretty quickly so I didn't even have the opportunity to install that much), and nothing I have installed should be slowing it down—no antivirus or firewall or similar software getting in the way of performance on the Mac side of things. The only answer I can come up with is that OS X is just slower than XP. Mac owners feel free to chime in here… this is a legitimate question; I am honestly perplexed why there is such a drastic difference—is there something wrong with my OS X?
Update: I updated to Windows Vista under BootCamp recently, and it runs very well on the Mac Mini as well. It is actually still quite a bit faster than OS X on the same box.
Not for keyboard users
While I am on the subject of speed, I also find that, because of its design and not its (apparently slow) implementation that using the Mac really slows me down. I am one who uses the keyboard a lot to control my computer—the Windows key and Alternate keys on my keyboard are two of my best friends—and the Mac doesn't do a very good job of providing keyboard shortcuts for navigation around the machine. I couldn't find, for example, a key to send focus up to the menu bar to allow me to select commands with the keyboard. I have become very accustomed to navigating menus on my Windows computers using just the keyboard, and it saves me a lot of time over having to move my hands back and forth between the keyboard and the mouse. Having to always use the mouse for accessing commands makes me a lot less productive.
User Interface (continued)
And one other item that bugs me about the Mac is the way that the menu bars themselves are setup. In Windows each window or program has its own menu bar that is always visible. On the Mac, there is one menu bar that always stays at the top of the screen, and it changes to reflect which application's window is active. This reduces screen clutter a little at the expense of productivity. When I am using two programs simultaneously (such as a web browser and a word processor, where I am copying and pasting between the two) things take twice as long to get done on the Mac because in order to access the menu bar for a given application I have to click on one of its windows first to reveal that application's menu bar (occasionally having to wait for a while for the computer to respond to the change), then I can use the mouse to select the menu command I want. Then when I want a menu command from the other application, I have to click on a window for that application, wait for its menu bar, move the mouse back up to the top of the screen to access the menus, etc. On a Windows PC all menu bars are always available as long as its window is visible, and since I can access menu bar commands with the keyboard, very often my hands never have to leave the keyboard and I can switch between the two programs very quickly, and can usually switch every couple of seconds. I realize that not everyone will do this, but power users may feel as though their work is hindered by the extra steps that are part of the process.
It "just works?"
I often hear Mac owners brag about how hardware devices "just work" with their computers without any difficulty. This may be true for some devices, but my own experience has been quite a bit different. Apple has placed a fair amount of emphasis with its driver development teams to create generic drivers for digital cameras, MP3 players, and some other popular devices, and for devices which they support it does tend to work pretty easily. But I have had significant problems getting my Mac to talk to my cell phone for mobile Internet access – in fact it doesn't appear to be possible, while my PCs and my PDA all made it very simple to setup and get working.
OS X only comes with drivers for one of my four printers, and even that one works with greatly reduced functionality. Fortunately I was able to locate a driver for my color laser from the manufacturer's web site but it was somewhat difficult to install and get working because the printer uses an Ethernet connection rather than USB so it wasn't something that the Mac could automatically detect and get working. The remaining two printers aren't supported by Apple or the manufacturers, so I guess I am out of luck with those. My Mac also absolutely refuses to complete the Bluetooth pairing process with my headset; it just sits there doing nothing. Just to make sure it wasn't taking a long time I let it sit for 48 hours with no progress whatsoever, requiring a forced power off of the computer to end the process. So despite what Apple and many Mac owners will tell you, it doesn't always "just work." For someone looking at buying a Mac, make sure there is support for the hardware that you will need to connect.
Stability
We've probably all seen the television ad where "PC" freezes and requires a reboot. The implication is, of course, that OS X doesn't ever freeze and doesn't need to be restarted. My own experience confirms this; you don't need to restart Macs very often. Apple tends to use quality hardware that is stable. But then again, I never have to restart any of my 7 PCs either, other than for security updates. But OS X also has security updates that require a restart about once a month, just like Windows. They must be comparing Macs to PCs with really cheap hardware that isn't stable (you do get what you pay for with PC hardware). If you ran OS X on cheap hardware it would crash too. I learned my lesson about cheap hardware a while ago so now I use only quality components, and my computers just don't crash. As of this writing my two desktop computers have each been running for over 30 days without a restart. I reboot my Mac at least as much as my PCs, despite the fact that I use it a lot less.
Security
Security is a big issue that Mac owners like to bring up when talking to Windows users. Their claim is that the Mac OS is more secure and that you don't need antivirus, antispyware, and other such software on their computers. It is definitely true that there are a lot fewer Mac viruses out there – to the point that most Mac owners haven't ever encountered one. So indeed there may be something to those claims. What scares me, though, is that this rumor has been misconstrued to the point where many believe that OS X itself is not vulnerable to viruses, so no precautions need to be taken. So what you end up with is a false sense of security, because most viruses and spyware don't rely on holes in an operating system to perpetuate themselves (worms are another matter); they use what is called social engineering to spread and do their damage – they trick you into installing them on your computer. Anyone who wants to could easily write a virus for a Mac and because most Mac owners do nothing to protect themselves, if a virus does get out it could turn into something really nasty. Most Windows users, on the other hand, are aware that precautions must be taken, and most of those users purchase the appropriate software to protect themselves. For the time being, since Mac viruses are so rare, everything is fine in Macland. My fear is that someday things may change and those who believe the Mac OS to be inherently more secure may be in for a rude awakening. It is just a matter of time. Windows has been a victim of its own success; should OS X ever catch on at the same level it will have the same problems.
Other Issues for Switchers
There are a few other fundamental differences between the Mac OS and Windows that those who switch from one to the other will need to keep in mind until they become routine. For example, most Mac applications don't close automatically when you close the last window; you need to use the Quit command in the File menu to close them down completely. And when you do this make sure you remember to Quit the application right away; otherwise you probably won't be aware it is running in the background potentially slowing you down. On Windows the default behavior is usually the opposite; most applications close completely when you close the window. For those who are learning the Mac I suggest getting used to using the File / Quit all of the time instead of closing windows, just so you know that your apps are actually closed.
Another thing that still frustrates me is that on Macs there is no hard drive activity light or other visual indicator that the computer might be busy doing something. I couldn't tell you how many times I have double-clicked an application to open it, thought nothing was happening (remember that slow response time with no on-screen indication that the application is loading), started to double-click again only to find that the application had been loading and I just couldn't tell. And I wasn't ever able to figure out a way to make my Mac reconnect network connections to my server at startup; I still have to manually reconnect to get access to my documents and other files (fortunately you can tell the Mac to remember the network address so at least I don't have to retype it each time). And if you have an Exchange email server like I do, configuring the included Mac applications to talk to it is deceptively difficult and time consuming despite the fact that these applications appear to support Exchange connections.
Running PC Software
With the availability of Bootcamp and Parallels (and even Crossover), Mac hardware is able to run Windows and therefore Windows applications. I don't think I would call this ideal for several reasons which differ based on which of the above solutions you choose to run. Bootcamp, for example, currently doesn't provide drivers for all of the Apple hardware and requires you to restart your computer in order to use a Windows application, so you can't run Mac OS X and Windows simultaneously. Parallels addresses this problem by running Windows in a window on your Mac OS X desktop, at the expense of requiring a great deal more memory on your computer or performance in both OS X and Windows really suffers. And once you do have enough memory, Windows applications don't quite run at full speed, and OS X takes a small performance hit as well. Crossover would address both of those issues, because it attempts to run Windows applications under OS X through an emulation and translation layer, but it really doesn't work very well for anything other than a handful of software applications. And for both Bootcamp and Parallels you are required to purchase a license for Windows (XP Home is $179.99 and XP Professional is $269.99 at Amazon.com) in addition to the $80 price of Parallels if you choose to go that route. And if you are running any Windows applications on your Mac you will probably want to invest in a real PC mouse since the only decent Mac mouse only doesn't have a right button. So, yes, you can run PC software on your Mac, but it is going to cost you, either by making your wallet lighter or in machine performance.
In Conclusion
The overall feeling I get from my Mac is that it is telling me, "You aren't smart enough to use a computer. Here, I know what you want to do, so let me do it for you instead," when for the most part the assumptions are wrong and it just takes me longer to do what I really wanted in the first place. Apple's OS X is fine for some people, but it certainly isn't right for me as a primary machine. Because of the way it is designed it just gets in my way, isn't nearly as customizable, and well, just doesn't have as much software available for it as Windows does, much of which I use as part of my daily routine.
I don't want to be too negative about OS X, though, because it is a nice operating system. It looks nice, Apple's software is more consistent in the way that it works than Windows is, and it is pretty stable, rarely requiring a reboot. And Apple always has nice hardware designs; you'll never have to hide a Mac because it's 'ugly.' And in the past Apple has used high quality hardware to build their machines (though this is changing to some degree since the move to the Intel platform).
So now when people ask me if I think a Mac would be good for them I have to ask them what they will be doing with their computer. So if you were to ask me now, I'd have to say that if computing needs are modest—if you just browse the web, check email, listen to music, copy pictures from a digital camera, and don't share files with other people, the Mac OS may be just fine for you. But if you are like me and are a computer power user, you may too find that OS X is just too limiting for the types of things that you might want to do. My gut feeling here is that the approximately 5% market share that OS X occupies isn't far off from what percentage of the population OS X is right for as it exists right now (especially when the higher cost of Mac hardware is taken into consideration). So if you are among that 95% that needs more from their computer or doesn't want to pay too much for it, something other than OS X may be a better choice.
No comments:
Post a Comment