I've finally done it; after wanting to for several months now, I've finally and definately switched. My brand new PowerBook arrived today.
Not in any way because of the Switch campaign though, which, if anything, delayed the switch on my part. Prior to the Switch campaign, my view of Mac users were that they were the "artsy" type, a sentiment I think was very common, and still is, though now to a lesser degree.
The Switch campaign changed that; it pronounced -- loudly, clearly, and with pride -- that Macs were not for the artsy types anymore, Macs are now for the perpetually computer inept; the kind that find Windows Explorer, two-button mice, and context menus bewildering -- impossible to grasp, really. I wanted to Switch, but I certainly did not identify myself with the morons who defined the "Switcher". Had I been a Mac user at that time, I'd have felt insulted.
What attracted me about the new Macs was the mesmerizing sleek interface, built on top of a tried and tested, powerful Unix core. And of course, the hardware. Never before had anyone made computers look as beautiful on the outside, as geeks already knew they were on the inside.
By "hardware", I meant what you see, not what you get. The biggest problem I saw with switching to Mac -- and I still do -- is the fact that it only runs on a hardware architecture I don't particularly want. For instance, my brand new PowerBook is the top of the line model; a 1.5 Ghz G4. And yet, I could have gotten a considerably faster PC, for half the price -- over a year ago.
I don't want a G4, not a G5, not even a G6, whenever that comes out. I don't want to be on this hardware platform. Not just because PC hardware is faster and cheaper, but because PC hardware empowers me with choice (although this applies less to laptops, both PCs and Macs).
I switched not for the hardware, but for the software. Mac OS X; sleek, powerful, userfriendly, Unix based. This is of course a bit ironic, since Apple, as we all know, is a hardware company. Apple makes money selling hardware, not software. And yet, the software is, I'm quite convinced, what most people are switching for.
I love Apple for giving me a sanctuary from Windows. Using Windows feels like living in the middle of a battlefield, not so much during a war against viruses or trojans, mind you, but rather a disingenious cold war, where every program is a spy that tries to stab you in the back. In contrast, using Mac OS X feels like relaxing in your comfy suede couch, wearing satin robes, slippers, sipping ice tea, while enjoying the atmosphere in your tastefully decorated upper class home, with marble floors clean enough to eat off of.
Meanwhile, I hate Apple for placing this fantastic home of mine in a hardware kingdom, on a remote island, under totalitarian rule.
Comments
I've thought it too that the hardware is expensive. But then again OS X runs pretty stable and so protecting the hardware. Of course fouls are not excluded but compared to my PC and laptop it's much more stable.
Comment by Darice de Cuba at 23:28, 16 Aug, 2004 #
I would go even further and say that it's probably not even the hardware as a whole you aren't interested in... it's mainly just the processor. Apple hardware is undeniably at the top of the class, perhaps tied with Sony, and one should not mind paying an extra hundred or so bucks for quality components and esthetically superior design.
The processor, however, is the crux of the issue. Me personally, I believe the mumbo jumbo about a 1.5 Ghz PPC equaling a 3.0 Ghz Pentium, but there should be an option for people who don't. Yes Apple is a hardware company, but they need to ask themselves if they really need to be a chip company as well.
Comment by Mike D. at 23:46, 16 Aug, 2004 #
Great post. I've been a Mac geek all my life, but in recent years have become more and more comfortable with PCs (while still prefering Mac). I totally agre that Apple's real strength is in software and while it's hardware is beaeutifully design and incredibly elegant, the core platform is nothing special. I don't know that I think it's behind the x86 PC platform, but it's certainly not light years ahead, and it does limit choice.
Incidentially, I think the megahertz myth thing may finally be coming to fruition for companies other than Apple. I recently had a friend purchase a laptop with a regular Pentium versus one with the Pentium M because it had a higher clock speed. Clearly, the Pentium M machine was faster and better value, but he didn't buy it simply because of that damned clock speed. We need a better way to rate processors.
Comment by Jeff Croft at 00:08, 17 Aug, 2004 #
Frankly, Tomas is right. Most people are switching to OSX because its truly superior software.
Apple hardware may be more elegant, but good design doesn't mean superior quality. I still keep hearing how Apple hardware breaks down, all sorts of hardware related issues, which makes me wonder whether it is any good.
So can someone please tell me whether Apple's hardware problems are a myth or a worrisome reality? Right now that is the only stickling block for me to switch.
As a student, I cannot afford regular hardware maintenance costs. And if Apple is having hardware issues, I shouldn't be the one paying for it.
Comment by Sunny at 05:23, 17 Aug, 2004 #
"Meanwhile, I hate Apple for placing this fantastic home of mine in a hardware kingdom, on a remote island, under totalitarian rule."
What you want, it seems, is to have an expensive, elegant house and have the option to put in the ghetto. Over time, the house value will drop and drop and not really help to bring up the surrounding neighborhood as much. The street doesnt go both directions, you can't have your cake and eat it too in this case.
Comment by Josh at 06:05, 17 Aug, 2004 #
I disagree with almost everything you've said, still - I welcome you to a family which I've just joined recently myself. Although, it appears you've become the Uncle that no one would want to invite to a reunion - but perhaps your impressions will change.
Comment by Colin D. Devroe at 06:08, 17 Aug, 2004 #
Oh come on! I think everyone would welcome Uncle Tomas to the reunion! He's not the uncle no one likes... he's just the uncle who's been through a bloody bloody war and has graphic stories to tell the kids.
Comment by Mike D. at 06:34, 17 Aug, 2004 #
Colin: If what you mean is that I should love everything that comes out of Apple unconditionally, simply because it's Apple, I'm afraid you'll be disappointed.
Josh: You imply that Macs are so wonderful to use exactly because they use a hardware architecture which is incompatible with Intel and AMD? Interesting view, I think you might be right. Because, if Mac OS X was available on PCs, surely conversion rates would shoot through the roof, and before you know it the Mac platform, too, would be plagued with software vendors with everything but the user's best interest in mind.
Sunny: I'm not sure if Apple's hardware problems are a myth or no, but I know that they worried me a great deal as well. I've had no problems yet, knock on wood, but I read in a Swedish Mac forum that they do happen. One guy had to have his PowerBook replaced three consecutive times, all approved by Apple. On the other hand, some people have the same problems with Dell, which I myself have had nothing but great experiences with. My guess: Apple is neither better nor worse in this department.
Comment by Tomas Jogin at 08:22, 17 Aug, 2004 #
Ive been looking into getting an Apple Mac IBook 12". Are they good value for money?
Comment by Justin Sutton at 13:06, 17 Aug, 2004 #
Thomas, Happy Powerbook! I think after you have been typing on a Mac keyboard and then go to a PC, you'll feel the big difference in Apple hardware. They put the mojo in the keyboard.
Comment by Greg at 17:34, 17 Aug, 2004 #
Justin: I initially wanted a 12", but decided against it for two reasons:
1. When you put it in a backpack or a bag, which I do when I take it to and from work every day, the difference in size is irrelevant.
2. The 15" has a better screen, and deeper screen resolution (the 12" is limited to 1024*768).
Greg: Thanks, and yeah I think you're right.
Comment by Tomas Jogin at 17:38, 17 Aug, 2004 #
I'm not about to start a debate with someone who just converted.....if we shall meet, I'll buy ya a drink.
Comment by Colin D. Devroe at 18:23, 17 Aug, 2004 #
Welcome :)
My impressions, after being a 'n00b' Mac user for some 8-9 months now, is that there is not only a tendency for third party developers to create small super-dedicated, sleak apps for doing one thing, and one thing only. Whereas on Windows, it's exactly the opposite (ACDSee anyone?).
Comment by Michael at 18:30, 17 Aug, 2004 #
And yet, the software is, I'm quite convinced, what most people are switching for.
Maybe, but I think Apple has a long lead in hardware-software integration as well and that's part of both the hardware and software experience.
Connect an iPod... it works, simple, elegant syncing.
Connect a digital camera, iPhoto recognizes it, no drivers to load.
Connect a scanner...
Join a wireless network... easily.
Set up an AirPort Express either as a main or slave base station and it works and plays music on your stereo.
I've been a Mac user longer than anyone I know: Jobs gave me my first Mac in 1984 at the West Coast Computer Faire and I've never looked back since. It was a good move on his part because I've sunk plenty of money into the company since, both as a user and stockholder.
Note: I've rarely had problems with my various Macs over the years although I do buy AppleCare and it's worth it if you depend on your hardware and need quick turnaround. I've only had 3 hardware problems that required service since 1984 and all of them were taken care of through AppleCare, quickly, safely.
Every company makes a few lemons (I had a PowerBook 5300 although mine never sponteneously combusted) but I don't think Apple has, in my experience and the experience of all of the Mac users I know, made many nor do they seem to be falling down on QA.
It's true, I admit it, I'm a fan of the company but for many of the same reasons many of you are fans of various weblogs and designers: they're trying to make great things that work better, not just put the cheapest stuff together.
I'm in agreement with John Gruber about OS licensing and Apple's control issues. Thank god they have those control issues just like many of you do when it comes to web design.
Hey, good choice in the 15" AiBook by the way, and even though the 12" is appealing the screen will get mighty small, even with Expose. However, the current 12" will support almost any external flat or tube monitor so if one wanted one could have a bit of the best of both worlds (small portable, big screen).
I have a 15" TiBook as my sole computer and will replace it at some point with the machine you got or the next iteration of that (if I can wait).
Thanks for the stimulating post.
Comment by Richard at 20:10, 17 Aug, 2004 #
Richard: I made the mistake of not clearly distinguishing between general hardware, and chips.
Of course switchers love the hardware, what I meant that switchers do not like so much is the core hardware architecture; the non-PC compatible chips.
Comment by Tomas Jogin at 23:27, 17 Aug, 2004 #
Ah, so you'd like OS X running on an Intel or AMD or some other processor. And this is what PowerComputing did during the Spindler days of Apple when there was a brief foray into OS licensing.
The closest Apple has come to this in recent years is making the iPod, iTunes, and the Apple Music Store cross platform and that move has been incredibly successful.
There has always been a hardware independence group within Apple engineering and I'm pretty sure it still exists. Whether Jobs ever allows that to happen is another matter. It's a control issue with him and part of me is glad he's so tight about it.
On the plus side for you, IBM is having a hell of a time keeping up with G5 production (and this is for a marginalized vendor with what, 3% marketshare) so I'm sure the pressure to have OS X run on more plentiful processors is greater than ever.
Comment by Richard at 13:12, 18 Aug, 2004 #
Richard: I'd like that, but Apple would have to drastically change who they are, what they do, and why they do it, for that to become a reality without them going out of business in the process.
Comment by Tomas Jogin at 13:32, 18 Aug, 2004 #
Tomas: So, if Apple did what you'd like, how do you think it would affect things?
What would the world of Macintosh (and the rest of the personal computing world) look like if Apple made OS X hardware independent and sold it for Intel and other boxes?
Would Windows users buy it? Would Mac users buy cheaper (uglier?) Wintel hardware?
What would have have done?
Comment by Richard at 15:31, 18 Aug, 2004 #
Richard: I think the incompatibility of hardware is a major issue with would-be switchers; they want to stay on PC-compatible hardware (and by hardware I still mean core hardware architecture).
If Mac OS X was available on PC hardware, there is no doubt in my mind that conversion rates would shoot the roof, as the cost of switching to Mac would suddenly become quite small (you'd only have to buy new software, not a whole new computer).
To use a simple figure, let's say that Mac OS X for PC would cost ten times less than an "average" Mac computer, that would mean that Apple would have to compensate for that drop in revenue by attracting ten times as many customers.
Today, Apple is a hardware company; if they did nothing different except started selling Mac OS X for PCs in stores, they would most likely go out of business. But I think that they actually could attract ten times as many customers with a PC version of Mac OS X. I think their proprietary hardware platform is that big of an obstacle to people and businesses currently using PCs.
Apple should, of course, not stop selling hardware overall; for instance, nothing in the PC industry holds a candle to their magnificent PowerBook line; Apple's attention to detail would still make their hardware an attractive alternative to cheap vendors like Dell. Again, Apple would make a lot less money per customer from this type of business than their current one, which of course would necessitate major strategic changes.
Also, give it a few years and most Windows software will be based on the .NET platform; a runtime for which could be implemented on Mac OS X (there is already one available for Linux), enabling Windows software to run on Mac OS X as well.
Were Apple to attract ten times as many customers, or more, that would probably bring on the hackers, the script kiddies and the disingenous software companies as well. Whether that would rob Mac of its wonderful experience is impossible, for me at least, to appreciate, but it's certainly a possibility.
Comment by Tomas Jogin at 17:05, 18 Aug, 2004 #
Even though I think Macs are awesome. This clip is still amusing.
http://members.cox.net/clyqz/macs.html
Comment by Eric Warnke at 18:34, 18 Aug, 2004 #
heh...loved this part:
"...using Mac OS X feels like relaxing in your comfy suede couch, wearing satin robes, slippers, sipping ice tea, while enjoying the atmosphere in your tastefully decorated upper class home, with marble floors clean enough to eat off of."
Anyway...I absolutely agree with you on the hardware issue....
Comment by Grove L�jer at 01:50, 19 Aug, 2004 #
Congratulations on becoming a switcher. I love the macs and am currently stuck being a PC users with serious mac envy. I'm so jealous. Anyways, the macs are great machines and once you've used one, you'll never want to use PC's again. Trust me I know.
Comment by Brian at 23:40, 21 Aug, 2004 #
It seems Mac OS can indeed run on the Windows platform, under 2nd party software, much like Virtual PC for the Mac.
Download Pear PC, and you can run Mac OS X on your PC. I hear it's pretty slow that way, though, but the speed has been picking up as incarnations move along (both PearPC incarnations, and Mac OS X versions). You can read more at the link below, if you're interested.
Good luck on your switch! I'm a Mac user from way back, and I'll never go back. Enjoy!
http://www.wired.com/news/mac/0,2125,63456,00.html
Comment by Mai at 23:12, 28 Aug, 2004 #
I really can't see Apple release Mac OS X for intel anytime soon. Not least of all there is the problem of supporting another processor for running Application binaries.
Apple have done this before (going from the 80xxx thingy processors to the RISC based PowerPC chips), and if I remember rightly some older stuff ran (emulated), but this wouldn't work in reverse.
Apple also are not a Chip company - haven't been, well, ever. Their CPUs have been made by Motorola (originally, and most recently the G4). The G5 is made by IBM. Neither of whom are Apple :). IBM also use their PowerPC chips in other machines (although not named as G5s).
Comment by Patrick Quinn-Graham at 04:24, 30 Aug, 2004 #
Same thing goes for me.. if I would just install the OS X software on my not beautiful, 400$ hardware, I would be in heaven. I don't need their beautiful harware, even if it's a plus. I love their software and its usability and capability. I also like the fact that if a program freezes, which is way less likely in OSX than in any of its previous versions, just that program would freeze, not the entire computer. Like in windows, everything is based off another program, so if I'm viewing my e-mails and outlook freezes? There goes internet explorer, which runs the windows desktop, so my whole computer gets fucked up.
Comment by Phillip at 20:38, 04 Sep, 2004 #
The discussion has been closed on this entry. Thanks to everybody who participated.