Why do people say that Mac's just work?
- Thread starter PamalaLauren
- Start date
^There are few games it would be nice to have access to that don't have Mac versions, and probably won't. The Half-Life series, for instance.
The "it just works" slogan comes from the ease with which the system can be used....when it's working properly. As with all systems, it's possible to get bad hardware or to accidentally corrupt your software to the point where things go wrong with some frequency.
But, assuming things are working as intended, let's compare a few things.
1) Application installation.
-On Windows one runs an installer which scatters things all over the hard disk----some things go to Program Files, some go to the Start menu, some go to strange system places.....obscure things that most people don't know squat about called the "path" and "registry" may be updated. There's even an entire control panel just for removing programs!
-On OSX, you just drag a .app "package" (or maybe a folder, but only if there's a readme or something) to wherever you want it, and leave it there. That's the entire deal. Any files which need to be elsewhere on the HD are automatically generated at application start----so you don't have to worry about deleting random files causing the app not to work anymore.
(Some programs still have old-style installers similar to Windows, and keep data files lying around in plain sight, but they're on the way out, bit by bit.)
2) Long-term process scheduling, AKA memory paging.
-On Windows, if you leave a bunch of programs open overnight, then when you come back it takes up to 30 seconds or so to access each at first, because they've been paged out to disk. Windows *loves* paging stuff out to disk, leading to a fair number of delays during normal operation when you access something you haven't looked at in a while.
-On OSX, and in fact most UNIX-based systems, paging to disk is much more conservative and is done only when necessary. While this does occasionally create long delays when the real memory limit is reached, overall it provides a far more responsive-feeling system.
That isn't to say Macs don't have their own share of issues. I have seen the occasional Kernel Panic, and in some ways OSX's attempts at time-sharing aren't much better than Windows. (But they are *somewhat* better. Outlook completely dies under heavy processor load.)
In general, Macs tend to be easier to deal with. Unix provides a powerful set of capabilities; OSX provides access to all of those, yet still maintains a simple, understandable interface on the surface. Contrast this with Windows, in which control panels ask you to select drivers and are generally pretty obtuse about what they're actually doing.
Force Quit is a *lot* quicker and more effective to use than End Task. I think we've all seen the task that just won't go away for at least a minute after we've told it to end five times.....
The lack of guilt is also a good thing. Knowing that you aren't supporting a company that makes a habit of contaminating standards, for instance.
The "it just works" slogan comes from the ease with which the system can be used....when it's working properly. As with all systems, it's possible to get bad hardware or to accidentally corrupt your software to the point where things go wrong with some frequency.
But, assuming things are working as intended, let's compare a few things.
1) Application installation.
-On Windows one runs an installer which scatters things all over the hard disk----some things go to Program Files, some go to the Start menu, some go to strange system places.....obscure things that most people don't know squat about called the "path" and "registry" may be updated. There's even an entire control panel just for removing programs!
-On OSX, you just drag a .app "package" (or maybe a folder, but only if there's a readme or something) to wherever you want it, and leave it there. That's the entire deal. Any files which need to be elsewhere on the HD are automatically generated at application start----so you don't have to worry about deleting random files causing the app not to work anymore.
(Some programs still have old-style installers similar to Windows, and keep data files lying around in plain sight, but they're on the way out, bit by bit.)
2) Long-term process scheduling, AKA memory paging.
-On Windows, if you leave a bunch of programs open overnight, then when you come back it takes up to 30 seconds or so to access each at first, because they've been paged out to disk. Windows *loves* paging stuff out to disk, leading to a fair number of delays during normal operation when you access something you haven't looked at in a while.
-On OSX, and in fact most UNIX-based systems, paging to disk is much more conservative and is done only when necessary. While this does occasionally create long delays when the real memory limit is reached, overall it provides a far more responsive-feeling system.
That isn't to say Macs don't have their own share of issues. I have seen the occasional Kernel Panic, and in some ways OSX's attempts at time-sharing aren't much better than Windows. (But they are *somewhat* better. Outlook completely dies under heavy processor load.)
In general, Macs tend to be easier to deal with. Unix provides a powerful set of capabilities; OSX provides access to all of those, yet still maintains a simple, understandable interface on the surface. Contrast this with Windows, in which control panels ask you to select drivers and are generally pretty obtuse about what they're actually doing.
Force Quit is a *lot* quicker and more effective to use than End Task. I think we've all seen the task that just won't go away for at least a minute after we've told it to end five times.....
The lack of guilt is also a good thing. Knowing that you aren't supporting a company that makes a habit of contaminating standards, for instance.
Not entirely. Everything works when it's working as intended. But things only just work when they both work, and do so without any undue frustration on the part of the user. That, more than anything, is the point I was trying to make.
It's a question of design more than reliability, these days.
Macs take getting used to but once you figure it out it's pretty easy. Programs are easy to use as well but I will say the alterations they made to iLife 08 are just plain annoying. In order to protect people from themselves they've eliminated some great features I've enjoyed with 06. And then with iWeb, illegal characters in the blog used to be converted but no longer if you're using servers to host your sites that aren't .Mac servers. That pisses me off because it's pure and simple, they want you to use their servers but I pay a bunch elsewhere, I"m not about to pay more for theirs.
Then do so.
I've thrown down the gauntlet, so to speak, enlighten me in the areas where XP and Vista outshine OS X.
Yes, please. I'd like to know this as well.
Speaking as someone who is currently on an XP because her Mac had a ribbon cable to the LCD screen fail (minor, but agonizingly normal problem with any kind of notebook--Mac or Windows--that sees as much travel as mine does, unfortunately), and I'm currently being reminded of how much I liked OS X over XP.
It's still a truism the way you worded it, unless you're implying that Windows is intentionally designed to be frustrating to use.
Personal preference does not necessarily equate to "more stable and user-friendly". Particularly if one is used to working on one.. it's always jarring to make a transition. And that's all I've seen in this thread on both "sides"... personal preference.
My opinions are beginning to change.
All because of AppleCare.
That repair I sent it in for? They allege there's a dent in the case there that's the cause of the problem, and want to charge me $1,200 to fix it, because "accidental damage"--as they called it--is not covered under AppleCare.
Screw AppleCare, I'll just crack the case and fix it myself, but $1,200??? That's extortion in my book.
That right there is enough to send me back to PCs. I've already got my eye on a new PC just in case I can't fix the Mac.
All because of AppleCare.
That repair I sent it in for? They allege there's a dent in the case there that's the cause of the problem, and want to charge me $1,200 to fix it, because "accidental damage"--as they called it--is not covered under AppleCare.
Screw AppleCare, I'll just crack the case and fix it myself, but $1,200??? That's extortion in my book.
That right there is enough to send me back to PCs. I've already got my eye on a new PC just in case I can't fix the Mac.
Viruses?
Actually, I think Unix/Linux is probably the most stable OS I've ever used. PCs are pretty stable, but it's fairly easy to catch a virus, which messes things up beyond belief.
I've seen iPods screw up often enough to not buy the "just works" bit.
I've seen iPods screw up often enough to not buy the "just works" bit.
iPods aren't Macs.
Intentionally designed that way? No. But that way as a direct result of the design? Yes.
It's ridiculous how often I find myself realizing how Windows does something on my machine at work, and then saying, "Wow, what a stupid design decision that was."
The problem is that Windows is a single-layer system. All the functionality is integrated tightly with the GUI these days. Which, granted, is better than having it be a shell over DOS like it used to be; but it still causes problems.
In contrast, OSX is a three-layer system. All the real functionality is in the Darwin and/or Mach kernels; the GUI interfaces tightly with that, so there's no real layering slowdown, but since the interface can focus on being an interface rather than actual functionality, everything just feels a lot smoother.
An example. When a program wants to create a new process, on Windows it must call the CreateProcess function, which takes about 10 arguments. Most of them are NULL 99% of the time, but they're there anyway. Furthermore, you have to set up a structure to pass as one of the nonoptional arguments, even though it usually doesn't contain any useful information either.
To do the same thing on a Unix-based system like OSX, you call the fork() function. No arguments, no nothing. So much simpler it's a bit ridiculous. It even gives you the option of continuing the same program in two processes-----Windows *forces* you to start an external program when you call CreateProcess.
It doesn't have to applecare to give you that sort of stuff. Slashdot had a story during the week where a laptop wasn't being coverd under warranty (cracks on the hinges) because he'd put Gentoo Linux on it.
They tried to argue that Linux was the cause of the cracks.
Basically if a company can see the way to save a few quic and not have to do a warranty repair they will.
That said if it's just a damage to the cable it sounds like they are trying to screw you over big time.
What sort of design are we talking about here? Because as an end-user who doesn't do any programming anymore, I could care less about spawning new processes. It has pretty much no direct effect on my experience when using an operating system and does not contribute to the feeling of "just works". If you're speaking about interface design, sure (but the way you worded your original post still implies that Windows was designed to be hard to use; regardless of whether it is effective or not, there was certainly a reason behind every UI decision) that has a huge effect on how people perceive if their system "just works". Things like how you make a new process does not; most people never see an OS on that functional level.
^It's an example of the mindset. Everything is over-specified and more complex than it needs to be, because no one at Microsoft completely understands how Windows works anymore. They know enough to stick more bits and pieces on here and there, but the people who wrote the core of the thing probably don't work there anymore. It's inelegant, and a bit of a hodgepodge.
Which isn't bad in and of itself. Modular code is a good thing; you shouldn't have to know how it works to use it. But Windows doesn't adhere to modular principals. Everything is interconnected. And that doesn't go well with the add-bits-on development style.
All of this is reflected in the user experience. Ever try to close an Explorer window, only to have the system stall for twenty seconds while it spools back the window-control code to RAM? That's silly. The code needed to control one single Explorer window shouldn't be big enough that there's any reason to swap it to disk if you aren't using most of your RAM; and since what you're trying to do is close it anyway, why pull the code off the disk in the first place just to get rid of it?
Which isn't bad in and of itself. Modular code is a good thing; you shouldn't have to know how it works to use it. But Windows doesn't adhere to modular principals. Everything is interconnected. And that doesn't go well with the add-bits-on development style.
All of this is reflected in the user experience. Ever try to close an Explorer window, only to have the system stall for twenty seconds while it spools back the window-control code to RAM? That's silly. The code needed to control one single Explorer window shouldn't be big enough that there's any reason to swap it to disk if you aren't using most of your RAM; and since what you're trying to do is close it anyway, why pull the code off the disk in the first place just to get rid of it?
What massive luck someone should write this piece right as this subject came up. It mentions a fair few stupid things Windows does that affect the end-user directly.
Macs Really Do Run Windows Better
Similar threads
