Study: Mac fans use computers for a wider range of activities than Windows users

Macsimum News ^ | Apr 17, 2009 | by Dennis Sellers

[Swordmaker]

New info from the MetaFacts research group shows that there are differences between the typical Mac user and the typical Windows users. I’m not saying we’re better, just different (in a, ahem, good way). According to MetaFacts:

Sixty-three percent of Mac users spend more time using their computer than watching TV, compared with 57 percent of non-Mac households. (The national trend away from TVs passed the half-way mark between 2007 and 2008.)

Fun is only slightly stronger among the Apple crowd. Sixty percent of Apple households say they keep finding more ways to use the Internet for fun, compared with 58 percent of the non-Apple group.

Mac home users are more active than Windows home users. They use their computers for a wider range of activities.

Also, Macs are used differently than Windows systems. Apple computers are more often used for graphics and imaging, personal, and communication activities, with more than 25 percent more activities in each category. Apple users simply find a wider range of uses for their computers than Windows users.

This information is released from the Apple Profile Report, a Technology User Profile solution from MetaFacts. It is based on recent surve-based research, reporting directly from a representative sample of actual users. The Apple Profile Report is available for immediate purchase through the online store at the MetaFacts web site.

[Swordmaker]

Pro Engineer still isn't available for MAC.

Uh, sick? Pro Engineer is available for Windows, UNIX, and LINUX... you are aware that OS X Leopard is one of the four fully certified UNIX™ operating systems, aren't you? If it runs on UNIX™, it will run on the Mac. If it runs on LINUX, it will run on the Mac. If it runs on Windows it will run on the Mac.

[theymakemesick]

...and also be earining a paycheck. Ad hominem attacks. The last refuge of those without facts.

I'd suggest you read the definition of "ad hominem attack".

I guess it really is true that Mac users are insecure. (That's an ad hominem attack)

[theymakemesick]

Uh, sick?

No, I'm fine, but thanks for the concern.

I don't see any mention of Mac on Pro/E's platform requirements document on PTC's website but maybe you can show me where I missed it: http://www.ptc.com/WCMS/files/52592/en/proewf4.pdf

Thanks in advance.

[djf]

People get paid to study this crap?

No wonder we’re effin broke...

[conservatism_IS_compassion]

I’m not cool enough to be a Mac person.

Sure you are... Macs just bring out the inner Fonz...

Nice one!

[Paradox]

I use Macs. I like Macs. They are fine machines. But why are Mac devotees so insecure that they are constantly seeking affirmation of their superiority? It’s a machine people; a tool. It doesn’t define you. Get over yourselves.

I've been a Mac Lover since the 1984 commercial. But I must say, that all the fanboi-ism of late turns me off. Something too Liberal about it for me, hero-worship kind of stuff.

[cowboyway]

It’s a machine people; a tool. It doesn’t define you.

Sure it does.

When I walk in a guys shop and see a bunch of cheap and partially broken tools I see a guy that doesn't take much pride in his work. For him it's just a job.

But walk in a guys shop that has well kept, quality tools and you'll see a guy that takes pride in his workmanship.

[TXnMA]

"I'd suggest you read the definition of "ad hominem attack"."

See for yourself: scan a few of these PC/Mac threads, and you will find that, typically,

1. Mac users talk about computers and operating systems

2. Windows users talk (sarcastically) about Mac users.

There are occasional exceptions on both sides, but, if you are honest, you will find that is the truth.

Now, Which side displays insecurity by engaging in ad hominem attacks...?

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Full disclosure: I do cartography for archaeology (including mapping long-unused pioneer roads). Since Canvas/GIS was bought by a Windows developer company (and, then abandoned) the only good GIS system I've found turns out to be ESRI's ArcGIS series -- which runs only on windows. So I run ArcGIS on VMWare, and then put the complex multilayer map/photo composites together in (the Mac version of) CanvasX.

I also have a Dell with ArcGIS and the Windows version of CanvasXI. My choice is to use the Mac, rather than the PC -- because the Mac allows me to concentrate on work, rather than on futzing with the foibles of the OS. It's my choice -- based on productivity and reduced frustration.

What is ad hominem about that?

[antiRepublicrat]

Not the equivalent. On Windows, when a program stops responding you can’t move the window and moving other windows over it causes its space to become a white square. That’s how Windows handles a program not responding, i.e., horribly. OS X gives you the spinning beach ball and still allows you to manipulate the program’s window because the program’s main thread isn’t tied to its responsiveness to the user interface.

[aft_lizard]

While the same can not be said for Windows based system, due to the extremely large cross section of hardware and idiots, I haven’t seen a blue-screen since about 2005 either and that is across XP, Vista and 7.

[aft_lizard]

Or you can do what 99% of users do and use task manager to close the non-responding program. But that wouldn’t make since when trying to make your point would it?

[vox_freedom]

You've got it backwards. haha. It is Redmond WA that is the "superior" telling the entire world that they are "supreme" and "the only choice."

Seriously, I used Macs (in a corporate setting) for their first ten years of desktops existence, then shifted to PCs for the next decade (also corporate, and then personal). Two years ago came back to Apple with a MacBook Pro 160g, now with a iPod Touch 32g, and couldn't be happier. Apple has "tried harder" being #2 for the past twenty plus years, and their striving and innovation have brought forward better products. It isn't even a close comparison in terms of performance, lack of bugs, and safe from virus epidemics. Yeah, they can be more expensive, depending on the configuration and machine chosen, but I'll say it, "Macs are the best."

[aft_lizard]

Also FWIW Vista and 7 doesn’t do what you described, at least not in the majority of programs I use that may stop responding or slowly respond. Firefox will often slowly respond when it opens a saved session and I am still able to simply minimize while it works it’s issues out, same thing with Yahoo. If for some reason My Computer stops responding or a folder has an issue then I can still open programs over the top of them, mostly without slowdown.

[antiRepublicrat]

Or you can do what 99% of users do and use task manager to close the non-responding program. But that wouldn’t make since when trying to make your point would it?

But you don't know whether it's crashed or just doing some extended crunching on the main thread, which makes it unresponsive to the system and not able to repaint itself. Basically, the Win32 display model is horribly broken.

On OS X the display is separate from whether the program is responding to the operating system, so it will continue to display properly regardless, and the system will notify you of the program's unresponsive state with the spinning beach ball.

In any case, it is not the equivalent of a BSOD, it's the equivalent of your program's window appearing to freeze and not be able to redraw itself if something's moved over it.

[wastedyears]

All the same that an HP or Compaq desktop or laptop has an OS. Why? It’s just an expensive paperweight without an operating system to make it run. Doesn’t matter if it’s Mac, PC, or something running Linux.

OS - usage

No OS - paperweight

[antiRepublicrat]

Firefox will often slowly respond when it opens a saved session and I am still able to simply minimize while it works it’s issues out, same thing with Yahoo.

The widgets around a window are not the same thing as what is inside the window. You can still click close or minimize on an unresponsive app because the app doesn't actively control that during execution. An app controls what's inside the window, and that's what will fail to be repainted when an app has become unresponsive.

For example, you've probably seen the following: app unresponsive, click the X to close it, system waits, tells you the program is unresponsive and offers to kill it. This is because Windows controls the X, and hitting the X made Windows try to invoke the method in every Windows app that's supposed to close it. Windows then offered to kill the app when it got no response from the close attempt.

I haven't played much with Microsoft's new display model, maybe it's different. My development learning time lately has been involved in learning OS X for desktop and iPhone/iPod Touch.

OS X will give you a spinning beach ball, and the Dock icon right-click and the menu bar will change from "Quit" to "Force Quit" (yes, the menus still work on an unresponsive app) to reflect what it'll do to the app if you click it.

[aft_lizard]

But that is mostly an issue with XP and older on MS OS’s, it doesn’t happen quite the same way with Vista and 7(the only time it has happened on 7 was with me trying a beta 3rd party plug in for WMC, so beta+beta=fail). With Vista you will get a notification if a program is non-responding giving you the choice to either wait or close it, in the mean time no white screen and you can open other programs without worrying about the non-responsive program appearing over it which gives you the coice of using Task Manager or waiting it out. Since I haven’t used XP since SP2 I don’t know if it still happens the same way as it used, but the last time I used it it still did it the way you described.

[antiRepublicrat]

I haven’t seen a blue-screen since about 2005

I saw one just the other day at work on my workstation. I wasn't doing anything, just left it on overnight as is policy (for AV updates, system updates, system scans, etc.) and it was BSOD in the morning.

The last time I rebooted my Mac was the last big system update. Otherwise I never even log off, just lock the screen, and I have five people using this system on different accounts (wife + kids). Right now I have four accounts logged on. It stays like that for months, and that never slows it down.

[aft_lizard]

What I am saying is that no program yet on Vista has frozen and not let me open another program over it, I used FF and Yahoo as two programs because frankly as far as programs go they are the two worst at freezing on my system and going whitescreen(or black as FF is want to do for some reason, I am hurting firefox’s fans feelings but it’s the truth, IE is slower overall though so that’s why I stick with FF. That was one of the key changes in Vista, besides the kernel, that MS enacted. They made it where windows explorer doesn’t get tied up with a non-responsive program allowing you to close the program without messing with explorer or to open another instance of the program or another program altogether without having it covered up by the non-responsive software. Whether other people have had the issue is not for me to say, I haven’t seen it or read about it, but there is a noticeable difference between XP and Vista on this.

[aft_lizard]

I do reboots as a matter of habit once every week or so and that I live by a field where lots of dirt gets blown around here in Phoenix. I just notice that my PC’s pick up an extraordinary amount of dirt here in Phoenix compared to other states I have lived in(except for EL Paso) so I have to do a little maintenance, don’t want a dirt clogged PC come the summer here that’s for sure.