The reading of many excellent design blogs in the last six months has made me curious once again about what was going on over in Mac-land, something that happens every few years. I’ve found that the reasons I’ve been turned off to the Mac in the past are, in descending order:
- An excruciatingly bad experience at my first design job where I had to use an outdated PowerPC that crashed ten times a day.
- Status quo: My current software & skill set are honed for the PC. A lot of the Mac interface seems like it’s sacrificed far too much funciton for form (e.g., you often have to use the mouse instead of tabbing through forms, unless third-party software is installed).
- I like to use what users use. Since the majority of my work is for the web, I’d always lived by the belief that you should experience the site the same way your users do, to optimize your work for that common platform/browser combination. The flip side is that when you use the minority product, you’re catching all the other bugs no one else at work sees.
- Expense. Any way you slice it, the Mac is more expensive.
- XP is as good as OS X. This almost seems like an odd time to use the Mac when virtually every tool the graphic designer needs is available for Windows. My limited amount of print work never requires the mention of a Mac. And for the software design cycles, Windows is now far more mature than OS X.
- Mac user smugness. I’ve always been turned off by the holier-than-thou attitude (and I’ve only seen it from the Mac side, since I’ve always sat on the Windows side). I’ve never been that religious about my OS choice, or cared enough to flame the opposing camp. After all, it’s the finished work that counts. But even Apple introduces proprietary audio formats, competes against its closest allies, awards outrageous bonuses to its billionaire CEO. The difference is, Apple outspends marketing dollars (per revenue) to put a pretty face on an otherwise typical corporate machine.
But there are many valid reasons to re-evaluate my OS use:
- However corporate, Apple is not Microsoft, the most tactless software company in existence (except for maybe one other).
- Mac OS X uses UNIX. The chances of me re-evaluating OS 9 were pretty slim. But now, with all of those underlying UNIX features…
- Most designers use it… what am I missing here?
In typical fashion, I’m jumping on the bandwagon years after it first breezed by. I got my hands on an old G4 tower, made a trip to the Bellevue Apple Store to buy another stick o’ RAM, and promptly installed Jaguar, Apple Developer Tools and FINK. So far, I like it. It’s the same Mhz/RAM as my XP machine, but for some reason it’s much slower. I’m quite sick of staring at that rainbow-pinwheel-hourglass while the computer thinks about my last click.
As I already mentioned, my biggest complaint at this early writing is the reliance on the god damn mouse. Alright, Apple may have been the first to introduce widespread mouse use, but do we have to use it for every dialogue window?
I’m also not impressed by the brushed metal or photo-realistic icons. I’m partial to more digitized icons (when designing for the screen, I enjoy working on a pixel level, as opposed to scalable photo icons) and prefer a desktop that actually has less visual personality, so there’s less conflict with the work you’re actually doing. And I still find it hard to tell what applications I have open. But many of these complaints will fade as I familarize myself more and start using design tools on OS X to do real work.
by Christian Cantrell » Jul 17, 2003 3:02 PM
I definitely agree with you about the mouse comments. Man, what a pain. And Macs are slower than PCs -- I don't care what anybody says. I have been using OS X since it came out, and although I think it is currently the best OS around, it ain't the snappiest by a long shot. When I watch my friends using Windows, I'm reminded of how fast computers actually should be.
That said, OS X is a great OS, and I must also say that when I watch my friends use Windows, it also occurs to me how ugly it is next to OS X. The UNIXness of OS X is great, though I wish it was case sensitive (that causes me problems sometimes), however for the most part, I have had excellent luck developing software on my Mac and deploying it to either Windows or Linux. The fact that many apps are just a bunch of floating windows and sometimes is hard to tell which app is active is occasionally annoying (espeically with Photoshop), but I've grown accustomed to it, and I find myself using command-h often to hide that which I don't need.
The bottom line is that Macs are great machines, but to be honest, it's still hard and sometimes painful to be a Mac user. Windows users get PDAs and cellphones that synch easily with their PCs in a much more functional way than Apple has cobbled together, and they get Table PCs which are very cool. My next objective is to experiment with Virtual PC to try to get the best of both worlds.
by Jason Tselentis » Jul 23, 2003 10:40 AM
XP is about a new experience of computing. OSX is about the next generation of Apple focused on the iLife. Each OS has its own merits. While I wholeheartedly defend the aesthetic of Apple's hardware, their new Operating System is something that will take me time to get used to. Having used both Microsoft XP and Apple's OSX for close to a year now, it's easy to see the pros and cons of each on a functional level. They've promised some great advances but still need to do some work.
OSX is in the developing stages and I've experienced some instability just like in every past OS and machine Apple's built---with the exception of my MacPlus running on 4k of RAM with a 1mb hard disk. As far as it seems, XP is nothing more than Microsoft's attempt to Aquify their own OS. Still, XP has had it's share of flops. Regularly I would have Macromedia applications crash or freeze---although their Office Suite runs perfectly. On the other hand, Office on OSX is a car accident waiting to happen every time I boot the program. While OSX's protected memory keeps my whole system from crashing, part of me wonders just how strong they can make the new OS. I'm looking forward to the days of forced quitting being obsolete on both XP and OSX.
Visually, both operating systems share an illustrative quality using conventions like drop shadows and 96dpi icons with photo realistic rendering. Part of me misses the 72dpi coarseness of OS9 and its grandparents. It's just nostalgia I keep telling myself. Yet I find myself looking at the screens of XP or OSX hoping that one day, there will be no interface. Why should I have to push, pull, type, glance, drag, or drop to open my address book and look up a friend's email? Sure, this sounds like a William Gibson novel. So if we can't have a transparent interface, let's have one that's more robust or active. Steven Spielberg's "Minority Report" demonstrated just how active and interactive an operating system could be (if you want to talk about the film on a critical level, that's another blog waiting to happen). Watching Tom Cruise's character dance and swing as he floats through data looks like a more exciting way of input and interaction. I'm tired of sitting down in a chair to work on a computer. So Microsoft and Apple, what will the next level of our computing experience entail?
by Arikawa » Jul 25, 2003 5:52 AM
I've also long lamented the one-button mouse for the Macintosh. Luckily, since USB mice have become popular, I no longer have to use it.
Logitech makes quite a few nice USB mice that work wonderfully with my G4 running OS X.
[http://www.logitech.com/index.cfm?page=products/productlist&crid=19&countryid=19&languageid=1]
For a feature-by-feature breakdown of OS X vs XP, check out the appropriately named 'X vs. XP' site.
[http://www.xvsxp.com/]
Cheers on a great looking site, I'll be visiting again.
by Sunny » Jul 26, 2003 12:25 PM
I agree with Jason. Both OSes have their own specific advantages. if you use a lot of Microsoft applications, your choice of OS should be XP. They just run better. Since I upgraded to XP from Win 95, I havent had a single crash. And I am not on one of those new fast Pentium 4. This is a P2.
But I also like where OSX is going. Frankly Apple has done something in a very short time (delivering the Aqua interface with a stable unix core) that Linux for desktop developers would dream of. Plus the whole iLife symbiosis with the OS itself is an awesome innovation. But the problem still remains that Apple hardware never has the downward price pressures that is eveident in the general PC markets. But the product is well worth the price. Just that many college students like me cannot afford the price.
Also, this is a very beautiful page. Nice use of background patterns.
by Bill Morris » Aug 4, 2003 10:14 AM
Bull, Bull , Bull!!!
As a PC AND Mac user. I find the PC very skittish and
jumpy when working in photoshop. The Mac is smooth as silk, and when precision as in photoshop is needed
there is no other platform. I guess thats why most
photographers and ad agencies use Macs.
by Scott Steffens » Aug 5, 2003 11:47 AM
Further Reading:
Confessions of a Designer
Whenever I pulled the G4 out of the closet, it felt like the OS just got in my way. It didn't allow me to accomplish a task without concentrating on the awkwardness of the OS itself.
by Joey D. » Oct 28, 2003 10:45 PM
I use both for school and business. Do you know the little bouncing icons in the dock are timed? The OS may appear to be a bit slower because it's very animated but compared to the new DELLs at my University, OS X.2 actually appears just slightly faster (other than the "genie effect" and the bouncy icons.
I've heard some complaints that multi-tasking isn't possible on a Mac. On my computer I can download something, while listening to iTunes, writing a report in MSOffice, running a classic app (infini-D), and playing a QuickTime movie all at the same time. The application in the front may be highlighted, but most of the programs can perform memory-intensive tasks at the same time in the background. True, if I have too many things open at once my computer does slow down and display the little lamo rainbow circle. Like you, I think the rainbow pinwheel sucks too.
I have a G4 (dual 450mhz) that I bought at Christmas 2000. Although dual 450mhz may not be brag-worthy any more, I've found my G4 keeps up pretty well; its a good tool. I use apps like photoshop 7, DVD Studio Pro and Final Cut Pro 3. So far, I'm still not too unimpressed with the render and encoding times. If my G4 gets to be tooooo slloooowww I'll upgrade my processor or buy a bit more ram.
PS Have you ever noticed how similar XP is to X? Also, if you don't like the multi-colored hourglass, just complain to Apple. They actually like to hear comments like that.
by Anthony » Dec 1, 2003 10:07 PM
Pc is better in my opinion. My friend told me that he was going to get the new iMac g4, I asked him why he liked it, he said that the only reason he wanted to get it was because it looked "cool". Yeah after I told him that iMac does not have the games that pc has, he came back a week later saying he had a new pc... ha ha. Get bent Mac, people want fun computers, not "look cool but not really" computer.
by Sicherman Miriam » Dec 20, 2003 10:37 PM
Just because there's a pattern doesn't mean there's a purpose.
by Mongrel » Mar 12, 2004 9:09 PM
It took me half a year to become a full convert into the Cult of Mac. But you know what they say, "Once you go Mac, you never go back." And I started using Microsoft in the dark DOS days. I trusted neither Apple nor the freaks who were so devoted to the OS. I'm still not a freak, though I am somewhat smug.
For graphics work, there is really no other choice. For games, Anthony, there is PS2. I use my G4 to pay the bills.