While I've used Mac OS X before, I've never owned a Mac, so I've never really had to meddle with settings or bother with the inner workings of the system.
On the other hand, I've used Mac OS Classic far more than I'd have liked to. We never got along, so my reluctant use of the Macs back in school weren't happy occasions.
But now I've got an iBook which I can play with as much as I like. Actually, it's my girlfriend's iBook, but she doesn't seem to like it very much. I don't think I've seen her use it for more than like ten minutes straight or so. I wouldn't prefer to have it any other way though, because this time around I really like it.
While regular use of Mac OS X has done a favorable impression on me, I wouldn't say it's "superior" to Windows XP. I would say that using Mac OS X is a more laid-back kind of experience though.
As they say, it's the "little things" that makes the experience such an appreciated one. Little things; like how the login screen quickly shakes back and forth if you enter the wrong password; like how the settings menu option is always located in the same place, on all applications; like how the Finder feels more like a neat little program, as opposed to the perceived massive machinery of Windows Explorer.
And then there's the "big things"; like having the power, flexibility and general neatness of Unix under the hood. God damn I wish Windows XP, Longhorn, or whatever, would get that. Not likely to happen in the next couple of decades though, so that'll continue to be what is probably one of the top two most popular features of OS X, right beside the sleek looking interface.
Right about now you probably think I've joined the choir, right? Great, then this is when I tell you that I think OS X is kind of incomplete, as far as navigational functionality go. Using OS X, I get the feeling that my applications are farther away from me than I do when I use Windows XP. It's cool though, I'm not in a hurry, but I still can't help feeling like everything is far away.
Ostensibly, it's not just me, either. I mean, most if not all Mac users consider DragThing, Tigerlaunch, LaunchBar or Quicksilver to be "indispensible". That's four Mac OS X applications from the top of my head that seeks to provide quicker access to programs and/or documents, I can't even think of any that does something similar on Windows XP, and certainly not one that is considered "indispensible" by and large among Windows XP users.
Sticking to a single browser is more difficult on OS X than on Windows XP. On Windows, there is only one alternative, for me at least, and that is Firefox. Nothing else comes even close. On Mac, however, both Safari and Camino offer browser experiences that at least have a snowball's chance in hell of competing for the spot in the Dock.
But, all things considered, Firefox is the only alternative here as well. I presently use three computers regularly at home; my desktop PC, my girlfriend's PC laptop, and this iBook. On each of them I run Firefox, and the BookmarksFTP plugin to easily synchronize my bookmarks across all three computers. Since my aggregator of choice is the Firefox extension RSS Reader Panel, and since it uses bookmarks as its way of storing feeds, those too get effortlessly synchronized across all computers.
So I'm pretty much all set.
Comments
I can understand that getting used to OS X is difficult. I have been a Windows user my whole life till last february when I got myself an iBook. Since then I only use my windows machine to test websites, listen to music and watch DVD.
Personally I think that if you try to keep iBook the first time synchronized with the Windows machine it will stop you from experiencing OS X to it fullest. You will be always looking for software that can synchronize with Windows instead of one that is really powerful on OS X.
Just stick with the iBook for 1 month for all personal use. For Applications I suggest you use HimmelBar, it works brilliant for me. I also use Firefox only, I didn't like Safari more. Check
some OS X websites for tips and tricks and you will get your iBook running smoothly.
Comment by Darice at 11:19, 05 Jun, 2004 #
iBook (G4?) users (that currently includes Tomasa and Darice), could you give us the specs of your machines, and tell us how fast the system feels?
Additionally, if you can draw an analogy to the PC world (e.g. my iBook with X,Y,Z specs running Panther, feels like a Pentium 4 2.8GHz PC running XP with 512MB of DDR RAM), that would be great.
I don't believe that OS X is the best OS of all, etc., but my new computer (coming in about a year, hopefully) will be a Mac; you know just as a (temporary, unless I'm hooked) switch. So it'll be good to know what specs to look for, and what to expect from the system's performance.
Comment by Konstantinos at 15:59, 05 Jun, 2004 #
Konstantinos: My iBook is a 900Mhz G3, has 256 MB of RAM, runs OS X 10.3.4, and feels rather slow and sluggish.
In comparison, my girlfriend's PC laptop is a 1.8Ghz Celeron with 192 MB of RAM, it runs Windows XP Home Edition, and runs circles around this iBook, taunting it with its fantastic performance and amazing speed.
I can't really tell what kind of PC the iBook feels like, because I haven't used PCs this slow for many years.
That shouldn't stop you from getting a Mac though, as the newer models are much faster. My advice would be to stop by at a Mac reseller and try one out for yourself.
Comment by Tomas at 16:34, 05 Jun, 2004 #
My iBook is a G4 800Mhz with 384 DDR and runs OS X 10.3.4 Compared to my Athlon XP 2000 with 512 DDR it runs slower.
But I can have multiple programs like Photoshop, Mail, MSN, Firefox, CSSEdit, Illustrator, etc open without losing a lot of speed. Thanks to the Hide function. OS X stays stable too under the pressure.
It is not a power machine, for that you need a Powerbook or a G5 system. But for my needs it is fast. For web development, interneting, work, little bit of gaming, watching movies and music it suits well.
Comment by Darice at 17:55, 05 Jun, 2004 #
Darice: Are Powerbooks much faster than iBooks nowadays? I mean they use the same processor, and at somewhat similar speeds?
There are of course several other aspects of a computer configuration that dictates its speed, that's why I'm asking. Are Powerbooks really faster than iBooks nowadays?
Comment by T. Jogin at 19:08, 05 Jun, 2004 #
The iBook specs in the most recent releases have nearly caught up with the Powerbooks, actually.. but there's also the fact that on a PowerBook you can run at a resolution higher than [the crippling] 1024x768..
The divide between (i|Power)books used to be greater.. I, sadly, purchased my 1.25Ghz 15" powerbook just before they released the new 1.5Ghz models for the same price... but such is life as an Apple customer.
Comment by Ryan C. at 20:16, 05 Jun, 2004 #
When I bought my iBook the gap was bigger between iBooks and Powerbooks, but since the upgrade of the iBooks to 1Ghz there is almost no difference.
The Powerbooks still do come with 500Mhz extra and with standard Airport and bluethoot. So now it's a matter of an iBook with nothing extra or the Powerbooks with all the extras as standard.
Comment by Darice at 20:34, 05 Jun, 2004 #
Thanks for the replies everybody. That's something almost everyone misses to mention when they review their Mac experience, the Mac-to-PC analogy thing is something I'd like to see from the PC-to-Mac switchers (as you said, it can be kind of difficult to compare though, OK, point taken).
I guess the iBook-Powerbook chasm will re-appear once again, as soon the G5 Powerbooks appear (probably around January).
If I were to choose today, I'd have to choose between the 14'' iBook (1.2GHz, Superdrive, 768MB RAM, Bluetooth Module) and the 12'' Powerbook (1.33GHz, Superdrive, 768MB RAM, 80GB Hard Drive @ 5400RPM).
Since the cost difference is kind of low (~$300; the former costs $1949, the latter $2224 - prices taken for the Apple Online Store), I think I'd choose the Powerbook because it seems more powerful, and because its only disadvantage (the 12.1-inch display) can be circumvented since you can connect it to a monitor (any monitor? CRT? or just Apple monitors?), something you can't do with the iBook, if I'm not mistaken.
And something I've been meaning to ask: both of these models mention a "1024x768" resolution on their specs. I guess it's the maximum they can output, no? And in the case of the Powerbook-connected-to-a-monitor, is "1024x768" the maximum resolution you can get, or no? Is this what Ryan mentioned in his comment?
(By the way, both of these prices can be brought down by ~$50 if I buy the extra memory sticks from non-Apple --yet trusted-- retailers.)
Comment by Konstantinos at 21:43, 05 Jun, 2004 #
Yes.. PowerBook's ship w/ a standard VGA adapter, so you shouldn't have a problem plugging into your non-mac CRT/LCD.
Comment by Ryan C. at 22:29, 05 Jun, 2004 #
Thanks for the comments, everyone. I'm most likely gonna get a PowerBook, but I can't quite decide if I should get the 12 or the 15 inch model...
Comment by T. Jogin at 23:10, 05 Jun, 2004 #
I've got the 12 inch and it's small at first but you get used. If you like graphic
designing better go with the 15. But I take my iBook along with me so I like that it fits in my back pack and it weights less too. If I need a bigger screen I can always hook it up on my 17 inch flat screen.
Comment by Darice at 01:23, 06 Jun, 2004 #
FWIW, I thought the 15" model was worth the extra cost. Better video card, a FireWire 800 port (instead of just a single 400), higher screen res w/out an attached monitor (so i can work from the couch more often).. it's not quite as portable, but still very easy to tote around as needed.
Comment by Ryan C. at 04:01, 06 Jun, 2004 #
I'm gunning for the 15" PowerBook. Now if I only had a job and something to call an income...
Comment by Johan Svensson at 08:08, 06 Jun, 2004 #
My mind can't even try to compare a PC notebook to a Mac notebook, they're just so very different.
Comment by swimp at 22:16, 06 Jun, 2004 #
Nothing like "switcher" type posts.
I've totally fallen in love with the mac, there is no single thing about Windows thats better (save playing games, perhaps :p).
Launching programs does fell kind of "far away". I mean the dock only holds your 10-20 most used stuff. Quicksilver is godsend. There's just no limit to what this bloody program will do. Browsing your music, photos, launching programs ANYTHING. I'm so in love -_-
About performace: I've got a 15" Powerbook thats somewhat dated (1ghz, 512mb ram) but it can still run Photoshop, InDesign, Flash MX, safari and play music and still feel responsive. Heavy use of flash can bring it down to a halt, as can editing in Final Cut Pro, but it's very little we're talking about here.
Get one of the new powerbooks if you need brute force in a laptop - it'll hold it's own performance wise against most Windows laptops.
Comment by Brian Andersen at 23:46, 06 Jun, 2004 #
I've been doing a lot of research - I'm getting a MAC this summer; probably an IMAC or ibook.
Comment by donnie at 05:15, 08 Jun, 2004 #
256MB memory?
Performance should improve significantly with more memory - even on an iBook. Go PowerBook.
Comment by hartmurmur at 19:54, 08 Jun, 2004 #
Maybe you didn't know but there are some shortcuts in Mac OS X to quickly get to your Applications or Utilities. For Applications it is command-shift-A and command-shift-U for Utilities. More of these shortcuts are located under the "GO" menu.
Comment by Veerle Pieters at 17:39, 11 Jun, 2004 #
Something I always do to be able to quickly launch any application in OS X is drag the Applications folder to the dock. After that, right clicking on the folder opens a menu containing every application.
Comment by Roger at 19:34, 12 Jun, 2004 #
The discussion has been closed on this entry. Thanks to everybody who participated.