Common Myths for the Macintosh

David Alison's Blog ^ | 05/06/2008 | David Alison

[Swordmaker]

There are lots of reasons that people don't want to switch from Windows to Macintosh. I assume the most common reason is simply because Windows works for the people that are using it. The old adage "If it ain't broke don't fix it" tends to apply here. These people are not upgrading to Vista either, they're staying with Windows XP or even Windows 98 and are just fine.

There are however an increasing number of people that are moving to Macs now - many of them people like me that hated Macs at one time. I believe there are lots of reasons for this, not the least of which is that people that are running Windows XP are faced with an upgrade to Vista as their next logical step and feel that maybe it's okay to consider a Mac since they have to go through a full operating system refresh anyway.

One of the reasons I was not interested in Macs for a very long time was that I clung to many facts about the Mac that I felt eliminated it from contention. Well, as with many things in life it turns out the facts that I knew about the Mac were either hopelessly outdated or simply myths. What I wanted to do was tell you the ones that I was aware of and often cited when I dismissed Macs in the past.

Mac's only use a single mouse button
I'm not a Mac historian, my history with the Mac being very recent but I've read that Mac multi-button mouse support has been around for some time. You may look at the MacBook keyboards and only see a single mouse button or a Mighty Mouse and think that it's not supported. The reality is the MacBook track pad has an ingenious way of supporting right mouse clicks that I find better than having the extra little stub that is a right mouse button.

You simply press two fingers to the surface and click the button and it emulates a right mouse click. While the Mighty Mouse (which I personally detest) only appears to have a single mouse button it does indeed support right clicking. I just plugged in my Logitech mice and happily right click whenever I need to.

There are not that many applications for Macs
Windows does indeed have far more applications written for it than are available for Mac. What you have to do is look at the quality of those applications though. Many of the hundreds of thousands that are cited for Windows were written back in the 90s and few have been updated. Sure, most still work but that doesn't mean they are still relevant. I have found no lack of software for my Macs - virtually anything I have needed is available in native Mac format.

Frankly, as a Mac n00bie I was shocked by the volume of quality Mac software available, especially on the consumer front. The number of Mac titles for business software, especially in the vertical markets for small businesses, is much smaller though.

Macs are closed machines that cannot be expanded
I have personally swapped out the memory in my MacBook inside of about 5 minutes. I upgraded my MacBook's hard drive in another 5 minutes. That's about all you can physically do with any laptop, whether it's a PC or a Mac. My Mac Pro upgrades were even easier. That machine is designed to make expanding common hardware about as easy as it gets. It took me less than a minute to install a 1TB hard drive - so little time I grabbed my video camera and filmed how easy it was:

Sure, I can't overclock my processor and the number of graphics card drivers that are supported by OS X is significantly smaller than Windows but to say I can't put non-Apple replacement parts into my Mac is just not the case. The Mac Mini and iMacs are limited in their upgrade options, but the same holds true of the Windows machines from Dell and HP that have the CPU and display all packaged together.

Macs don't work well with Windows machines on a network
I've got a GB switch at home and a variety of Windows XP, Windows Vista, Ubuntu and now Mac machines on it. Sharing files between the machines is very simple. My Macs can see my Windows shares and my Windows machines can see my Mac shared folders. I shared my printer attached to a Windows machine with my Mac and it was able to use it just fine.

Macs are more expensive
This is the one that I struggle with a bit. Yes, the Macs are slightly more expensive than PCs in general, but you have to look at what you are or more importantly not getting when you buy a Mac. Low cost PCs are often subsidized by bundled application software that is included with a new machine. When I recently bought a little HP that would eventually serve as my Ubuntu workstation it came so loaded with crap and Windows Vista that it barely even ran out of the box. The average consumer that isn't a techie would be hard pressed to clear up all of the stuff that bogs down the average new PC.

For techies it's a different story. You can go to places like Newegg and build a high performance system that has exactly what you want on it - nothing more, nothing less - and adjust expectations on price accordingly. But doing that means you are your own technical support clearing house. When the motherboard in my newly built gaming rig wouldn't post I had to call the manufacturer and work through a series of steps before we found that the board was shorting out. I needed to RMA it myself and undergo the same process when the replacement arrived days later. It took me the better part of two working days to build up that machine.

That said, I did that because I enjoyed doing it, however that time comes at a cost. Is your time worth anything to you? If it is and you don't find joy in doing this kind of technical troubleshooting then getting a fully tested and serviced machine that works out of the box is incredibly valuable. You get what you pay for in this case.

Macs can't run my Windows software
Well, that of course is not the case. I can take a legal copy of Windows XP or Vista and without spending any money use Bootcamp (which comes with OS X) and boot into Windows if I have to. It's standard PC hardware so it runs great. Better yet, grab a copy of VMware Fusion and run the Windows applications side by side with your Mac apps.

I haven't tried playing any high-end games on my Macs yet. This blog has burned up my remaining free time so they are out for now, though that's the most common complaint I've heard that I can't refute. Perhaps someone can jump in here and clarify that one. Can you play high end games like Crysis on Mac hardware and get decent performance?

Macs are mouse centered machines. You constantly have to grab the mouse.
Macs not only have excellent keyboard support, the use of shortcuts is profound. About the only thing I've found that doesn't work as well as Windows is the use of mnemonics in dialog windows that make it easy to jump to a field in a large form with lots of items in it. When a dialog pops up inside of a Mac I find that I generally grab the mouse.

On the other hand shortcuts on the Mac are consistent between applications and liberally sprinkled throughout. If you have ever seen someone that really knows the Mac well use a keyboard to do some work it's an exercise in humility. It's like productivity++.

So there you have it, the myths that I clung to that kept me from seriously considering a Mac for so long. I'm sure there are other reasons that people think switching from Windows to Mac is a bad idea - I've seen enough flame wars on the topic to know that it's a religious issue for many.

[stevestras]

Bookmark.

(I’m now running on reserve power).

[coconutt2000]

I wouldn't want a $400 PC. I wouldn't want a $10 chef's knife either. It's like getting a $20 hooker -- you get what you pay for, and often far more than you wanted.

Hey, did you just compare my Macintosh to a high priced call girl? ;-)

[JamesP81]

No, I mean that the virus writers for those smaller platforms aren’t using Java as an exploitation tool - so that torpedoes your previous theory about just exploiting Java.

And yet, the virus writers continue to not write many viruses for Apple. Because there aren't enough of them. Now, maybe some virus writers just get a kick out of taking down Palms, who knows. Nevertheless, I've worked on the innards of both Windows and Unix based operating systems. Unix based OS's are harder to hack, true enough, but it can be done. If OS X eventually gets a large percentage of the market share, we're going to find that it has a lot more security holes in it than people like to believe. And since it's FreeBSD based, if someone ever does break it they can pretty much do any damned thing you want.

So whether you like it or not, OS X doesn't have the security problems Windows does because not even nearly the effort has been put towards it and that, my friend, is a fact, claims about Casios and Palms notwithstanding.

[JamesP81]

1. Most MAC users are obnoxious a**holes about their MACs vs. PC. They will never admit that a PC can be good.

And several of them are posting to this thread. I could care less what kind of machine anyone buys, just don't give me crap because I like my PC better than your Mac.

[dangus]

Oh, knock it off... A $400 PC is last year’s $1600 PC, so if last year’s model didn’t crash last year, it ain’t gonna crash this year. The difference is Apple keeps obselete machines off the market by using licensed dealers.

Now, if you’re going to buy the latest computer, I’d recommend an Apple. But for most people, getting a $400 year-old model every four years is as good as getting a $1600 brand new model every five... and a lot cheaper.

Next year, you may have a point: Microsoft seems intent on keeping obselete computers off the market by refusing to sell new XP licenses; only the newest, most powerful machines will be able to run Vista well. But that’s a wad Microsoft will only be able to blow every few years.

[JamesP81]

They don't have 30 year-old BIOS, they have the new EFI with BIOS compatibility. Windows has been EFI native for the Itanium platform for years, but it has recently crept into the x86-64 world with the 64-bit Server 2008 and Vista SP1.

This comment brought to you buy someone using an internet connection running on TCP/IP, a 30 year old communication protocol.

I don't care about the BIOS, frankly. That's not at the top of my list on important features. As long as it works without causing problems, it's good enough.

[blu]

more to life than sex, drugs, and rock & roll?

Then I just have to ask, to you and the other Mac bashers: What the hey are you doing on this thread? Do you REALLY think you're going to change anyone's mind?

love,

an obnoxious one

[blu]

LOL! copy paste failed me!

[dangus]

>> 1. Most MAC users are obnoxious a**holes about their MACs vs. PC. They will never admit that a PC can be good. <<

Ya know, when you drive a nice looking car, people say, “ooh, nice car.” Unless it’s ridiculously expensive, or Euroweenie, no-one says: “Oh, God... he’s got an Acura; he’s GOT to be a conceited, uber-liberal, smarmy, smug fartsmeller.”

If Mac users could only just have the attitude, “Yeah, I spent an ungodly amount of dough for my computer, but isn’t it cool?”, people would like Mac users. It’s the attitude they have that all PC users are stupid, accursed, yadda yadda yadda, that’s why everyone who doesn’t use a Mac hates Mac users.

Case in point: I’ve always had at least two PCs since 1994. I’ve never spent more than $600 on one. I’ve never replaced one in less than four years. I’ve never called for service except for laptops. Most everyone I know has had similar experiences, except maybe some paid a little more for newer PCs. The sole exceptions have been connectivity-related driver issues from the 1990s, which Mac solved back then by telling people up front that they simply couldn’t use unsupported hardware at all.

Yet I get a bunch of Mac bots insisting that everyone who uses a PC must always be having their computers crash and serviced from the moment they get theirs.

So go ahead, tell me how fast your new car goes from 0-60. Tell me you get 50 MPG with your new hybrid engine. Good for you. My 1999 Buick suits me fine, and I’m saving up for a downpayment on a house. Don’t tell me it sucks. That just makes you an ***hole.

[MrLee]

Your conversational skills remind me of a PC. Something lacking.

[Leonard210]

Er, I can buy last seasons model all the way back to VERY old Macs in a number of places. Apple only sells NEW machines through licensed dealers. There is a vibrant market for used and refurbished (I just bought one - from Apple) Macs. So much so that it keeps the price up. (In the states we call that supply and demand). Fact is, even as far back as the G4 processor series will run the latest Mac OS. That means Apple is consciously supporting three processor families that go back 10 years. Apple literally trash canned the G4 and G5 in favor of a completely new (to them) processor architecture, yet I can still run OS X on my G4, G5 and Intel Duo Core.

[antiRepublicrat]

If you want to play with the bleeding edge stuff, you're probably out of luck.

That's the thing, Apple seems to get the bleeding-edge CPUs and chipsets before anyone else, retail or OEM. I tried to do a price comparison when they last upgraded the Mac Pro, but I couldn't find the chip at that FSB speed anywhere else. They showed up at Dell quite a while later in their workstations (which were more expensive than the Mac Pro BTW). Apple also got the small form factor CPU for the MacBook Air long before it was available to anyone else, although IIRC Apple asked Intel to design it so you'd think they'd get it first.

[antiRepublicrat]

I don't care about the BIOS, frankly. That's not at the top of my list on important features. As long as it works without causing problems, it's good enough.

BIOS being old does cause some problems. It is supposed to be the interface between the hardware and the software, but it can't be anymore because of its limitations like being dependent on the old AT architecture, being 16-bit and addressing only 1 MB of memory. That's why all modern operating systems use it mainly just to boot. Any high-speed BIOS these days is only that because of a bunch of hacks and workarounds. EFI or other more modern systems give you better disk handling and access to a shell and device drivers before the OS even loads. This is how you get lights-out management and immediate booting into a graphical system with a Mac.

[Swordmaker]

I could have a faster 10,000 RPM HDDs and have two of them running RAID 0, faster processor 3.2 GHz, faster and more powerful GPU (twice the memory and faster), twice the RAM that has a lower latency (LAT3)....... and still be UNDER the price of the Apple!

Quite frankly, you don't know what you are talking about.

From Newegg:

Intel Core2 Extreme QX9775 3.2GHz LGA 771 150W Quad-Core Processor Model BX80574QX9775

Processors Type: Desktop
Series: Core 2 Extreme
FSB: 1600MHz
L2 Cache: 12MB
Manufacturing Tech: 45 nm
64 bit Support: Yes
Hyper-Threading Support: No
Virtualization Technology Support: Yes
Model #: BX80574QX9775
Item #: N82E16819115044
Retail price for ONE: $1,548.99

Did you happen to notice that the MacPro has TWO Quad Core Xeon processors?

Those alone would cost you $3097.98 for your claimed 3.2GHz. The standard MacPro has TWO of the 2.8GHz Xeon® in the complete system for $2799—the one you claim your home build is still cheaper than—so before you start crowing, add another processor.

The cheapest retail price I could find for the Quad Core 2.8GHz Xeon 1600MHz FSB is $860 so two of them is $1720.

Now, add a 1000W power supply, a top quality 771 Dual socket board capable of handling the 1600MHz Dual FSB, a top quality case, 2GB of good quality FB RAM, optical drive, 320GB SATA HD, a professional OS (not a home edition), etc., and see where you come out.

Trying to build a Dell Workstation with the same specs as the off-the-shelf MacPro resulted in a price $997 more expensive than the Apple and the Dell had only a 1333MHz FSB.

[Swordmaker]

My CD-ROM is the Complete Oxford English Dictionary (20 volumes when printed out). I’ve tried using it with Virtual PC, but my understanding is that the copyright protections are at a level that prevent it from running on Virtual PC. I have an older iBook so I don’t have the intel chip. I was using Windows 98, but if it would work Virtual PC running XP, then I might give it a shot.

That's the one I have. A friend of mine contributed 12 new words that got included. They sent him twelve free copies. I got one. It works fine in VirtualPC on a PowerPC Mac.

[OCC]

My main reasons for disliking MAC are for non-technical reasons: 1. Most MAC users are obnoxious a**holes about their MACs vs. PC. They will never admit that a PC can be good. 2. 90% of MAC users are flaming libs. 3. The company's marketing is geared toward the environmental elitist crowd. 4. Did I mention obnoxious a**holes? 5. Most are caught up in status over technology. I am sure I could think of others.

Amen Brother!

[Swordmaker]

And yet, the virus writers continue to not write many viruses for Apple. Because there aren't enough of them. Now, maybe some virus writers just get a kick out of taking down Palms, who knows.

Yet there are enough BlackIce Firewall computers that were not upgraded (12,000 vulnerable machines) for a hacker to write the sophisticated Witty Worm that infected all 12,000 of them within 45 minutes of the virus being released on the Internet.

So, James81, exactly how many Mac users will be enough to attract someone like the Witty Worm author to write the first viable Mac virus?

There are now 33,000,000 OSX Mac users. 2,750 times more machines than the Witty Worm was targeted toward and almost all of them naked on the internet—no anti-virus ware, no anti-spyware, no anti-adware—being totally ignored by hackers. Right. Sure.

[Swordmaker]

1. Most MAC users are obnoxious a**holes about their MACs vs. PC. They will never admit that a PC can be good. And several of them are posting to this thread. I could care less what kind of machine anyone buys, just don't give me crap because I like my PC better than your Mac.

I have not seen any mac users that I would classify as a**holes on this thread. Can you point them out?

I have seen a few less than polite (and some quite insulting) Windows users, though—in particular codeflier. Let's see how polite and uninsulting he has been:

1. Most MAC users are obnoxious a**holes about their MACs vs. PC. They will never admit that a PC can be good.
2. 90% of MAC users are flaming libs.
3. The company's marketing is geared toward the environmental elitist crowd.
4. Did I mention obnoxious a**holes?
5. Most are caught up in status over technology.

Hmmmm. Quite insulting and impolite to fellow Freepers. I looked back over this thread and saw nothing insulting to him... or you.

The only obnoxious a**hole on this thread is not a Mac user...

[philetus]

They both sound like great machines.
I can’t afford either one of them so I build my own and I have great working computers.

[philetus]

Unless you’re a extreme gamer, do CAD or video editing, most people who by or build top of the line have way more computer capability than they will ever use.

When I went from P3 to P4 I didn’t notice much of a difference.
I like lots of memory though.