I appear to be the only person in the known universe who did not have a problem with Vista. My Sony Vista laptop was fast, woke up out of sleep mode just fine, and if I had any complaint it was with the crap Sony loaded on it, not the OS itself. Vista itself was lovely, though I turned off the damn security alerts.
I use a Mac because The Atlantic uses Macs. And it's fine. Not life changing, not miraculously more awesome than a PC, but fine. And convenient, because all my friends have them too, so we can do things like share power cords in coffee shops. I remain the world's lone apparent OS agnostic.
I remain the world's lone apparent OS agnostic.
Not until you include Linux in your list. May I recommend Ubuntu 7.10 "Gutsy Gibbon"? :-)
"I remain the world's lone apparent OS agnostic."
Not until you include Linux in your list. May I recommend Ubuntu 7.10 "Gutsy Gibbon"? :-)
Exactly ..Max.. !~
I'm kind of the same way. I recently got a MacBook, and I like a lot of its features and pre-installed software. But it's about the same level as my old PC with XP. I like being able to easily take pictures and make and edit video, but, despite what people say, Mac has a lot of user interface nightmares:
-email client: Why the hell are the subject lines all darkened? Nothing in help about this. Ah, must be a "mail rule". Oh, there it is, I'll just turn it off. Wait, that option is all the way at the bottom of the screen, on top of the program launch icons. *click* No, I didn't want to load that program. Okay, I'll scroll down so that the button is in the middle screen and I can click it without launching another app. Wait, no scroll option? ****! Okay, how do I turn the lower app launch bar off? *search search search* Okay, there we go. Wait, they're still darkened. Oh, okay, I've got to tell it to apply to all. [finds option somewhere] Now, how do I get the bottom bar to come back...
-iMovie: I want to export some video captures from a video I made. Let's see, right click on the point in the video I want to use, where's the export-frame option? Nowhere. Okay, help search: "video capture". Nothing. Okay, "frame". Ahah, 8th option, how to make a frame into a clip. Closest option. I go to the frame I want and then ctrl-click it. Hm, OH, wait, I can right-click too! Why hide this option from me? Oh yes, I forgot: people who prefer using one hand (or are disabled losers) need not apply.
I grab the frame, and it makes me put it as a non-moving clip somewhere in the video. So, I do a few of these from different pictures. Now where are they? Okay, I get to dig through finder again. Now, let me move them all to one folder for easy upload. Wait, the second one I moved (and the rest) have the same name as the first. Okay, so let me choose a different name on moving it. I can't? Okay, fine, I'll rename them all, THEN move them.
-I took a photo of myself in PhotoBooth. Now I want to crop it and upload it. Okay, click on iPhoto. Crop image. Great, now I have it in an album. But where's the picture file? Um, show-in-Finder option? Nope. Save cropped picture somewhere? Nope. I have to go deep into the directory, photos->iphoto library->various weird folder -> copy it to a more useful place, then upload.
-Now I want to make the cropped image my ichat buddy icon. Drag to chat pic? No, that would imply interoperability. Export to ichat? No. I have to go to the buddy icon and then load it from the useful place I moved it to.
I remain the world's lone apparent OS agnostic.
See, this is where one gets the feeling that your refusal to support any candidate has more to do with something about your preferred vision of yourself than with the convictions you hold. Not that this isn't true of most of us to some extent, but for most people I think their self-image informs which candidate they pick, rather than informing their reluctance to pick a candidate. Which, you're right, does make you kind of unusual. But I have to say, I find it problematic.
Nope, you're just an adult. Me too. I wrote this at Yglesias's place recently:
"God made both fleas and whales and he pronounced both good. Apples and PCs both have their uses, or more accurately, both have their users. If you want an easier to use, more intuitive and stylish computer, Mac is the way to go, it seems to me, and for most users you won't lose much functionality at all. If you want more power and versatility for the price, if you are computer savvy and like customizing and manipulating your machine as much as possible, a PC is for you. Apple has caught up a lot in the retail applications game. There remain, however, literally thousands of both professional and non-professional pieces of software that are simply not available for Mac users. (Unless you use Boot Camp, at which point you aren't really running a Mac, are you?) Apple does seem to have an edge in style, although you can build (or have built) many stylish custom PC cases, and with a little work and patience you can thoroughly change the look of your interface. (Among other things, you can make your PC's interface look identical to a Mac's.) Farhad Manjoo at Salon says Apples are a better value because they have more resale value. Personally, the idea of buying or selling a used computer seems kind of insane to me. As it happens I always repurpose old parts and components of my PCs into my new ones, which generally speaking you can't do with a Mac.
For me personally, the inflated prices of Macs (and they are inflated) when compared to power and features chafes. But then, I'm running a heavily modified copy of Windows and I made my case out of an old subwoofer, so I'm much more in the "tear out the innards and tinker around" camp. (And before Petey jumps in, no, you still can't customize or modify your Apple OS in anything like the same way you can with a PC.)
I believe in PC-Mac detente. A better future is possible."
What can't you do in Linux? hi-bit resolution Photoshop (if you use JPGs GIMP is fine). Log into your workplace SSL VPN (grrr...).
That's about it. And it's all free. And runs quickly on a Pentium 4.
If all of Megan's writer friends use Macbooks, they are not allowed to call themselves poor.
I used to be in the same boat, but my work eventually switched over to PCs. Mainly because in the biotech field a lot of the scientific programs are only designed to work on a PC. It used to be the other way around, which is why we had Macs in the first place.
Anyways, IMO both brands of computers are the same as far as reliability. PCs can suffer from poor quality manufacturers (like the $400 dollar Wal-Mart special), but from good vendors they work great.
I'm an agnostic, too, more annoyed by the snobs on either side of the debate than by the relative virtues and vices of the two systems. Moreover, advances on both sides has made interoperability mostly a non-issue, at least as regards basic word processing, PDF files, and images, which is clearly a good thing. That said, I lean PC for the reasons Freddie outlines. Macs seem to be computers for people who really don't like computers, and I'm frequently startled and annoyed by Mac users who take pride in their ignorance. Megan should ask her colleague James Fallows about a fun piece he did a very long time ago comparing the PC/Mac divide to the Protestant/Catholic divide, where "Catholic" Mac users love their icons and "Protestant" PC users love their commands. By now, of course, I guess Windows has turned us all into Catholics, but this old Protestant still feels ambivalence toward his mouse (except when doing graphic work, of course).
Mac vs. PC: the last agnostic
I believe the term is AgnOStheist.
Me too.
My husband is a hard-line Mac user (also: a Red Sox fan). Always has, always will. He hates my PC (also: the Yankees).
It recently died and in the meantime I'm using his spare Mac Laptop. And it's fine. I mean totally and completely fine. And I'm not going to convert to Mac for the sole reason that my job requires me to have access to a computer system which I can only access using explorer on a PC.
I converted baseball teams for him, I will not convert computer brands. But I'm okay with that.
(on the other hand, I am a Mets fan, so it has not been terribly hard to root for the Red Sox)
If all of Megan's writer friends use Macbooks, they are not allowed to call themselves poor.
Well, not in the absolute sense. But since I'm about to shell out the cost of an entry-level MacBook in order to perform some necessary high-mileage maintenance on my car, I can definitely see where the bus/bike city commuter might have enough disposable income for toys like these, even on a cost-of-living adjusted income that is probably a fair bit less than mine.
I'm also agnostic, using and having used MacOS, Windows, and linux for years and years - and I also had no problem with Vista.
It's seemed to me for quite some time that at least half the complaints about Vista are people parroting what they've read about it ... that was simply wrong.
(Many of the other complaints boil down to "it's not just like XP" ... which is valid enough for personal preference, but I remember people complaining that 95 sucked because it "wasn't 3.11" - nevermind the preemptive multitasking and being entirely 32 bit!)
Kate: You can, you know, run Windows on a Mac. Alongside MacOS, in fact, with Parallels or VMWare. If you would "convert" if you could run Windows for that one task, there's no reason not to.
That's the one real non-design/aesthetics advantage that Apple hardware has - it can run Windows and OSX (and linux, for those who care, which is effectively nobody, in market terms), and nothing else can.*
* Yes, I know you can crack OSX to let it run on PCs, though you need to pick your hardware carefully. But then updates are problematic, and honestly it's not worth bothering with, and it's not a realistic solution for anyone but a computer geek.
Fifteen to twenty years ago, Apple had a large lead on user-friendliness. That lead has almost completely disappeared. I find both systems quite suitable, but buy only PC because my company is PC based.
However, a thousand years from now, there will be sectarian conflicts between Peeceeists and the Macaronis, and the Paraguayan Empire will be attempting to impose liberal democracy on the recalcitrants.
Nobody sells Macs anymore. All "Macintosh" means nowadays is a PC sold by Apple, instead of any of the hundreds of other PC assemblers.
(In 1998, if you bought an x86-based personal computer able to run Windows and installed OpenStep 4.x on it, absolutely nobody would call that a Mac, especially since it couldn't run any of the Mac software written from 1984-1997. Now, in 2008, Apple sells x86-based personal computers able to run Windows, running OpenStep 5.x ("Mac OS X"), unable to run any of the Mac software written from 1984-1997. WHat makes it a Mac? Well, Apple owns the trademark, and can slap it on anything it likes . . . .)
My girlfriend has a Mac. I thought it would be fun to poke around on it, but I found I don't really have the patience. My experience tends to be something like that of Person's, posted above.
I'm sure it's just because I'm used to the PC. I could get used to the Apple interface after more use, I'm sure. *shrugs*
I bought myself a Vista machine late this summer, and I didn't have much trouble with it until I started doing freelance work from home recently. I've been installing all sorts of other MSFT (!!) applications (mostly office & their new SQL Server release), and now it's a fucking mess.
I spent hours wrestling with it last night, and Word decided it doesn't want to run just before a meeting I had about an hour ago. Conflict after conflict, and it's slow, slow, slow. Becoming more unhappy with Vista by the second, I am.
Linux is hands-down the solution for this user.
You're right! I was stuck in a false dilemma. I should have been more careful.
FWIW my current preference is either a dual-boot system of XP and Linux, or XP running in a VM under Linux, depending on hardware. Neither of the OSes is a clear subset of the other even if I set aside the software development work (which, incidentally, has been feeding me and my family for 20-odd years but nevermind). There are things that are hard-to-impossible to do in Linux but easy in Windows, and vice versa. I have never felt a need to add OS X -- in any guise -- to the mix. Of course I have never developed anything for Mac, either.
I realize this approach is not really an option for casual user. Linux is, above all, hacker-friendly. While pretty much anyone can install a basic configuration of Ubuntu (or RedHat, or any other "major" distro) off a LiveCD, chances are that (a) [s]he won't be able to make meaningful configuration changes with GUI tools and (b) some features of the system or hardware devices or popular packages just won't work out of the box. If you can't or won't mess around with shell scripts and dig for little pearls of information in the huge manure pile of Internet forums -- Linux is probably not for you. Too bad. With μ$oft going further and further off in the set-top direction, we all need a viable alternative.
Y'all trying to get Megan to ride the Linux train... good luck, is all I can say.
My undergraduate school was all-Apple when I was there (1995-1999), so I had a PowerMac 7200/75, which in retrospect was an absolutely atrocious computer. And then in the spring of '99, when Swarthmore's library got the new iMacs, I carried around a paper clip because you needed one to reboot the damn things when they froze. Since then I have not been inclined to give Apple the benefit of the doubt.
I will say this: Ubuntu Gutsy is running fine for me. Upgrading Kubuntu from Feisty to Gutsy was a nightmare.
@Person - in iPhoto, right-click on the photo and select "Show File" to see it in the Finder.
I switched to Mac about 15 months ago (after 16 years on the PC, including doing a lot of programming). It was a bear at first, but now I'm much happier. I've noticed that I don't swear at the computer nearly as much.
When I started using computers in a major way in 1988, my time was split between Macs, PCs, and DEC Vaxen running Unix. I liked the Vaxen the best, but frequently used the others as well. They all have their good points and bad points. At the time, Macs had by far the easiest to learn interface - but there was relatively little one could do with them besides word processing and desktop publishing. The Vaxen running Unix had the best communications and the best games (using ASCII graphics, of course). The PCs had some good games, decent communications, good compatibility, and by far the best prices.
The Macs at the time cost twice as much as a PC, starting at a couple thousand dollars for a basic model - not exactly suited to a college student's budget.
And after 20 years? I have a number of computers, running four versions of windows, two versions of DOS, and one version of Linux. Plus I've got my sister set up with a mini-mac. The Linux computer is the one I use the most at home, however. I should also be getting my OLPC computer soon, running yet another operating system. Each of the computers and each of the operating systems have their own advantages and disadvantages.
However, I have been disappointed with Vista. Usually, Microsoft products have a grace period before they start falling apart. Vista started falling apart immediately (running it on a brand-new Toshiba). Incidentally, that $400 Wal-Mart special that JordanT disparaged works great once you re-format the drive and install Linux.
Love Vista, do support for both Macs and Windows where I work. Use XP at home, wish I could afford the cost in licensing and memory to upgrade to Vista.
But I have to giggle when instuctions to do something on a Mac start with "Right-click...". That's the mouse button that Steve Jobs won't let you have, remember?
In general, I find the Mac to be less freindly *to me* because I am much more keyboard-centric. It's faily trivial for me to operate on a Windwos machien that has no mouse attached, and have complete usability in the OS (I make no guarantees with aplications). Is that possible on Mac?
My XP machine died, so I bought an HP Vista Home Premium computer. Other than that it won't deign to run my still-in-production Visioneer scanner, nor install new drivers for it, it seems fine. I don't care how it works; I'm not the sort who enjoys spending much time "under the hood" of computers.
Derek_Scruggs: That would be a neat trick, considering:
1) That option doesn't show up when I right-click in iPhoto
2) According to Mac, right-clicking does not exist. If I'm fortunate enough to have two hands, however, I'm allowed a ctrl-click.
"But I have to giggle when instuctions to do something on a Mac start with "Right-click...". That's the mouse button that Steve Jobs won't let you have, remember?"
Mac OS X has supported multiple mouse buttons from day one, and Apple has sold a mouse with a right button for a while now. Well, not so much a visible button, as it doesn't have any visible buttons. But if you push down on the right side you get a right click.
Please try to keep up, kids. OS X has been out for years.
Person wrote: "According to Mac, right-clicking does not exist. If I'm fortunate enough to have two hands, however, I'm allowed a ctrl-click."
It supports right-clicking with an external mouse or trackball, and laptop trackpads can be set up so that if you have two fingers on the pad when you click, that's a right click.
That wasn't the point, Jon_H. The point was, all instructions should say "right-click" if it's a choice between that and ctrl-click. We don't want to *hunt down* ways to make it hard for people with only one hand, remember?
I mean, yeah, it's often times hard to accomodate one-handers, but at the very least, we can avoid actively trying to exclude them, right? Apple is leftie, I thought.
And btw, Jon_H: tossing in a few right-click options as an afterthought is not the same as fully supporting.
The problem with Macs is the cheapest tower is $2800, sans monitor, and the iMac is so geared for looks that it has to use a mobile-grade processor and is virtually un-upgradable. It is pretty and works well, but I fear it will have all the problems found in a laptops because Steve decided it had to be as thin as a supermodel.