8 Reasons Windows Users don't Switch

[RedWolf]

To say that 95% or 99% of windows apps suck or are worthless is completely off base. Most commerical software is fine. It runs and does what it is supposed to. I can choose to run numerous variations of office apps, cd burning software, mail programs, browsers, movie editing, and games. Windows is about choice. Choice in hardware and choice in software. Choice is a good thing.

Can I run windows on a mac? Sure can. But it will cost me an additional $200 (windows and parallels/fusion). That increases the cost of an already more expensive system.

I've heard a few people say that macs are faster to work on. What makes them faster? I'm certainly not faster in OS X than in Windows. I've been running OS X exclusively for several months and I find it much slower. Even drilling down into folders is slower. For instance, on XP I can use the keyboard to open folders. I do a window+r, type the drive letter, hit enter. Then I continue to use the keyboard by typing a letter of the folder and hitting enter to open it. I haven't found a way to do that on a mac. I have to switch to the mouse to open the folder. I hit enter and it wants to rename the folder. I find I switch from keyboard to mouse much more in OS X than in windows.

 

[TheStu]

Command+O to open a folder with the keyboard. But I actually use the trackpad when navigating folders in both OS X and Windows, I discovered that one by accident actually.

 

[imported_Shivetya]

Originally posted by: Nothinman

reason 9 - windows 90% of apps

mac - 10%

Sadly that's a pretty bad reason since 99% of those 90% of apps are total and utter crap.

Even if 99% of the Windows software was total crap it still would mean that that 1% is far more software than I can find for my iMac in most stores.

Reason 9 moot since new macs can run Windows if you absolutely can not find replacements for your software. Really the only major thing that is not available on OS X is CAD.

I wouldn't really consider having to buy and run 2 OSes on your Mac a selling point...

I would not have bought the iMac if it could not run XP/Vista on the same machine. I always wanted Mac around to use but I don't need two desktops. As such I was working with the idea of turning my old XP game machine into a server and building a new desktop. Well a week or two on ebay and I found a very nice iMac at a great price.

I still might go ahead a put together a new XP/Vista desktop just for some serious games (like TF2 and such) unless Apple gets smart and releases a headless unit that can accept PCI video cards. Something sleek looking an all, don't care if it costs me $1500 without a monitor - just let me keep the card up to date and put 8g of memory in it. (and no, their workstation/server Mac Pro's don't work for what I want)

 

[Nothinman]

To say that 95% or 99% of windows apps suck or are worthless is completely off base. Most commerical software is fine.

Not IMO, most commercial software is utter crap.

I can choose to run numerous variations of office apps, cd burning software, mail programs, browsers, movie editing, and games. Windows is about choice. Choice in hardware and choice in software. Choice is a good thing.

That's funny, I've always heard that Windows is about vendor-lockin.

Even if 99% of the Windows software was total crap it still would mean that that 1% is far more software than I can find for my iMac in most stores.

So? I can't remember the last time I even considered going to a store to get software.

 

[Injury]

For as many things as Apple and MacOS users claim are wrong with Microsoft and Windows users, there are as many things wrong with MacOS. It's as simple as that.

I use OSX and XP both on a daily basis and there are plenty of things wrong with OS X that never seem to come up in these sorts of debates.

Ignorance: You can claim macs are easier to use, but really they aren't. Windows keeps things a certain way because that's how it's been since forever. Vista is failing because changing these things about is biting them in the ass. A majority of people learned computers on Windows, and because of that Windows is easier. It's easier to find help with Windows, it's easier to find Windows compatible products, it's just easier. The only reason OS X could be considered easier is because it is intentionally limited. What's different about OS X that's soooo much different from a PC? Not too much. That's why it's easy to pick up. There are lots of software options for Windows. Almost TOO many. But the benefit of having lots of options is that things come at a better price than they do on an OS where the users look at themselves as elitists. There are loads of free options for Windows, and even for the good stuff the prices tend to be better. The funny thing is that a lot of things that you can do on Windows, you need software to do on the Mac because Apple doesn't want you to be able to do it. Go ahead... try and change the white bar at the top to black or green without software. Whether you can or not, I'm right... because it sure as hell isn't easy if you can, or it requires software. Granted, being able to change the color isn't a good reason to go one way or the other, but the fact remains that on Windows, you CAN... and you SHOULD be able to on ANY computer. You paid for it, why should anyone be able to force you to stick to their standards?

Office: Of course Windows is going to win the office market because Windows is so much more cost effective... and MS Office is the mainstream office application. Office sucks on Macs and Linux is too much of a mess for the average office environment. Try getting some sort of "bulk discount" for stocking your office with macs. Then, when one of them goes down, try getting a generic part to replace to prevent downtime. It's just not financially feasible to use macs in the office. Why would a company want to spend the extra money for them? What about custom business applications? Try finding someone that can code a great application for office use that won't charge you more than you make in a year. How often do you hear about database applications on the mac? Yeah, they may be built on UNIX but they just aren't effective at these sorts of things.

Hardware/Price: This argument is fuzzy at best... because these two arguments are really the same. You can claim that a similar equipped Windows laptop costs just as much, but that's for a brand-name top of the line version. I can customize a Dell to specs beyond that of a macbook for a better price.... or less if I'm smart enough to realize that I don't need half of those options. I personally own a macbook pro, and while I love that it has all sorts of cool features like bluetooth and a camera, I can say that the most use I've gotten out of that is using an expensive mac brand wireless keyboard and having my brother's fiancee play with photo booth with her friends for 20 minutes. Needless to say, while they are neat addtions, I wouldn't be missing these options if they weren't included and I wouldn't pay more for them if I had the option of not getting them. Upgrading hardware isn't the only reason to consider price... the article claims that it's okay because you tend to replace your computer every couple of years anyway... but I sure as hell don't want to replace my whole computer when one part FAILS... and you definitely pay a premium to have it repaired by Apple.

Lies, Windows Bashing, Vista & Mac Users: Four "ideas" that are all really just one idea. Mac users are Windows Bashers who tell Lies about Vista. Generally consumer whores buy a mac and think that they know everything about computers. Some are better than others but a lot of them use their canned uninformed responses when you rebut their "Windows sucks" comments. Just as 90% of PC users don't know shit about computers, 90% of mac users don't know shit about computers.... but they go the extra step and claim allegiance to a brand... throw the apple stickers on back of their cars for some free advertising and make fools of themselves. They see the "I'm a mac... and I'm a PC" commercials and they are suddenly experts on Vista.


Edit: I'm not a mac basher at all... like I said, I use both regularly, but I hate it when users of either side spew lies without having a great knowledge of both sides. Trust me, I can make a post of similar length and demeanor about Windows. No matter what anyone thinks, there are benefits to both sides and there are problems with both sides. Switching one way or another is an "out of the frying pan, into the fire" situation.

 

[Nothinman]

Windows keeps things a certain way because that's how it's been since forever.

But they don't, every release of Windows moves things around and even within every release of their apps they move things around. MS is probably one of the worst offenders when it comes to producing inconsistent UIs.

But the benefit of having lots of options is that things come at a better price than they do on an OS where the users look at themselves as elitists

That's pretty ironic considering that most people consider the users and developers in the free software community elitest.

The funny thing is that a lot of things that you can do on Windows, you need software to do on the Mac because Apple doesn't want you to be able to do it. Go ahead... try and change the white bar at the top to black or green without software. Whether you can or not, I'm right... because it sure as hell isn't easy if you can, or it requires software.

And it's so easy to install custom themes in XP without any custom software, oh wait...

 

[TheStu]

I am astounded that you are actually counting Windows XP's ability to change the taskbar between blue, olive and silver without having to get WindowBlinds as some sort of advantage, or proof that Windows is easier to use, more able or whatever. In what way has Apple limited OS X? Give me concrete examples and I might agree with you, but to me, OS X is very unlimited, I can do just about anything on my MacBook (except serious gaming or 3D work) so I am not sure in what way OS X is limiting.

What are the most common reasons for hardware failure? Stuff like RAM, hard drive, maybe power supply right? Well... RAM goes out on a mac... buy new RAM, the iMac, MacBook and MacBook Pro all use industry standard DDR2-667 PC5300 SO-DIMMs, the Mac Mini might use these, or it might use DDR2-667 PC5300 DIMMs, I do not remember which. The only one using special RAM that you might, MIGHT, have trouble finding is the Mac Pro which uses FB-DIMMs. And the hard drives are industry standard as well. Power supply is a slightly different issue, but why would you not get full AppleCare if you were using the machines in an office environment? If you don't then that is your own loss.

 

[imported_Shivetya]

Originally posted by: Nothinman

To say that 95% or 99% of windows apps suck or are worthless is completely off base. Most commerical software is fine.

Not IMO, most commercial software is utter crap.

I can choose to run numerous variations of office apps, cd burning software, mail programs, browsers, movie editing, and games. Windows is about choice. Choice in hardware and choice in software. Choice is a good thing.

That's funny, I've always heard that Windows is about vendor-lockin.

Welcome to the land of parrots. The whole window's monopoly started over a case with a browser war which Netscape lost because versions 4.xx sucked balls. They went from good (3.xx) to lousy and never have come back. In fact I doubt that Mozilla would have ever arisen if Netscape hadn't dropped the ball.

Vendor lock-in? Sheesh, there are probably too many choices. For many important apps just how many choices do I have with my Mac compared to Windows? Office suites? If I need something full blown its Office on either platform. If I need something lite I go with neooffice on mac and open office on Windows. I could go iWork or Works on their respective platform but all these packages have apps I will never use.

Lock in? Hardly. There is more lock in on the Mac than Windows. Hell Apple seems hell bent on doing it all themselves and keep release software that seems to try to supplant good commercial ware that did exist for their platform.

 

[imported_Shivetya]

Originally posted by: Nothinman

Windows keeps things a certain way because that's how it's been since forever.

But they don't, every release of Windows moves things around and even within every release of their apps they move things around. MS is probably one of the worst offenders when it comes to producing inconsistent UIs.

..

Companies aren't allowed to improve? Its not like they come out with new releases every year? Hell consistent interfaces? You would think that since Apple makes iTunes it might look more like OS X than it does. Etched metal? Seems half the camp wants that the rest wants Aqua

 

[Injury]

Originally posted by: Nothinman

Windows keeps things a certain way because that's how it's been since forever.

But they don't, every release of Windows moves things around and even within every release of their apps they move things around. MS is probably one of the worst offenders when it comes to producing inconsistent UIs.

But the benefit of having lots of options is that things come at a better price than they do on an OS where the users look at themselves as elitists

That's pretty ironic considering that most people consider the users and developers in the free software community elitest.

The funny thing is that a lot of things that you can do on Windows, you need software to do on the Mac because Apple doesn't want you to be able to do it. Go ahead... try and change the white bar at the top to black or green without software. Whether you can or not, I'm right... because it sure as hell isn't easy if you can, or it requires software.

And it's so easy to install custom themes in XP without any custom software, oh wait...

- Examples of how something was changed up where clearly no usability testing had been done? The problem I'm giving isn't that Windows shouldn't change things, it's the fact that changing things can confuse millions and millions of users who aren't used to change... and more specifically, my point is that if they aren't used to these changes, how the HELL do you expect them to get used to OS X with no issues?

- Regardless, you still have a lot more options.

- Actually it is. Granted, you might not get the 3-d bars and such you want without a little modification, but I've seen people with little to no experience swap out the one file you need to change with no problems. It's as easy as copying a couple files into directories. Even still, if you want different colors with no changing things, you can use the Windows classic look. There may not be a whole hell of a lot of choice, but there IS choice, and you don't have to pay for a program to change it. Feel free to prove me wrong and show that it's easier to do so on the mac, though. Because I, in all honesty, would love to be able to change the UI without a program (and an unstable one, at that.) and no amount of googling has shown me any other way.

Originally posted by: TheStu
I am astounded that you are actually counting Windows XP's ability to change the taskbar between blue, olive and silver without having to get WindowBlinds as some sort of advantage, or proof that Windows is easier to use, more able or whatever. In what way has Apple limited OS X? Give me concrete examples and I might agree with you, but to me, OS X is very unlimited, I can do just about anything on my MacBook (except serious gaming or 3D work) so I am not sure in what way OS X is limiting.

What are the most common reasons for hardware failure? Stuff like RAM, hard drive, maybe power supply right? Well... RAM goes out on a mac... buy new RAM, the iMac, MacBook and MacBook Pro all use industry standard DDR2-667 PC5300 SO-DIMMs, the Mac Mini might use these, or it might use DDR2-667 PC5300 DIMMs, I do not remember which. The only one using special RAM that you might, MIGHT, have trouble finding is the Mac Pro which uses FB-DIMMs. And the hard drives are industry standard as well. Power supply is a slightly different issue, but why would you not get full AppleCare if you were using the machines in an office environment? If you don't then that is your own loss.

- First off, you don't need WindowBlinds. Second, the theme thing is just one example. Go ahead and try to move the bar... hide it... whatever. There are other (even though they may be slight) things that I've wanted to change in the past that just flat out can't be changed. Whereas Windows at least has some method for doing it, even if it's not recommended for basic users. The point still stands that user should be able to control all aspects of things, regardless of how minor they may be.

- Applecare or it's your own loss? Come on. That's the exact attitude that pushes people away. Failing hardware should be cheap and easy to replace. End of story. Applecare, contrary to belief, is about as effective as a Best Buy warranty. While it's inevitable, I hate the concept of buying "insurance" for a computer. There are things it covers, and things it doesn't. Don't count on it covering things if you've modified any part of the system. In my PC, if the motherboard fries, I can spend $100 to replace it... maybe even upgrade at the same time. In a mac... even with applecare, I HAVE to go through them... and that's if they actually honor the warranty. I've been in the situation enough that, just like with any other warranty system, they'll try and wiggle their way out as best they can.


All in all, you're arguing the wrong points here. The article is biased. It assumes that people will be happy with a mac and people will get what they are looking for on a mac... and it's just not true. To be fair, it might not be true about Windows either, which is exactly why I say "out of the frying pan and into the fire"...

To summarize it best, I can re-write the entire article in only a few sentences.

The 1 and only reason Windows user's don't Switch:

Why buy a $1000+ machine when a $500 machine will get the porn and email that you REALLY wanted a computer for?

Apple and Apple users LOVE being in the position they are in. Using Apple products is like driving a luxury car. It does the job like any other car, but it costs more and costs more to be serviced, and once you have it you'll get the right to have the attitude that goes with it.... if that's what you want. In reality, there's no damn difference to the average person who just needs a car.

 

[Nothinman]

In fact I doubt that Mozilla would have ever arisen if Netscape hadn't dropped the ball.

Obviously not, if Netscape had kept their marketshare and a pay-for product they would have never had any incentive to release Gecko as OSS. Just like Opera still clings to their closed source engine, although I'm not sure why they do it.

Vendor lock-in? Sheesh, there are probably too many choices.

Too many choices of Windows-compatible OSes? I wish I lived in the land of parrots with you.

Lock in? Hardly. There is more lock in on the Mac than Windows. Hell Apple seems hell bent on doing it all themselves and keep release software that seems to try to supplant good commercial ware that did exist for their platform.

I never said that Apple wasn't a proponent of vendor lock-in.

Companies aren't allowed to improve? Its not like they come out with new releases every year? Hell consistent interfaces? You would think that since Apple makes iTunes it might look more like OS X than it does. Etched metal? Seems half the camp wants that the rest wants Aqua

Improve? Please tell me how the file dialogs in VS.Net looking nothing like the common dialogs in any version of Windows is an improvement. If it was a real improvement they'd have updated the common dialogs so that everything using them got the better version. And from what I see Apple isn't perfect but they're better, although it ironically seems that you now get the most consistent UI experience on Linux as long as you stick to all Gnome or all KDE apps.

- Examples of how something was changed up where clearly no usability testing had been done? The problem I'm giving isn't that Windows shouldn't change things, it's the fact that changing things can confuse millions and millions of users who aren't used to change... and more specifically, my point is that if they aren't used to these changes, how the HELL do you expect them to get used to OS X with no issues?

I don't have access to MS' internal procedures so I can't tell you what projects had usability testing done. My point was just that you said "Windows keeps things a certain way" which is far from reality.

- Regardless, you still have a lot more options.

And with free software you have even more options which goes against your "[...]that things come at a better price than they do on an OS where the users look at themselves as elitists." statement.

- Actually it is. Granted, you might not get the 3-d bars and such you want without a little modification, but I've seen people with little to no experience swap out the one file you need to change with no problems. It's as easy as copying a couple files into directories.

But your specific complaint was that OS X requires extra software to be themeable which is 100% true on XP as well, I'm not sure about Vista. And having to replace a system file with a hacked one is an even worse solution IMO.

Even still, if you want different colors with no changing things, you can use the Windows classic look. There may not be a whole hell of a lot of choice, but there IS choice, and you don't have to pay for a program to change it. Feel free to prove me wrong and show that it's easier to do so on the mac, though. Because I, in all honesty, would love to be able to change the UI without a program (and an unstable one, at that.) and no amount of googling has shown me any other way.

AFAIK you are correct that you need 3rd party software to do any real theming on OS X but the same is true for Windows. Being able to change the titlebar color is slightly better than what Apple gives you but it's still crap.

 

[Injury]

"Windows keeps things a certain way" was only PART of what I said and a misrepresentation of the context it was used in. Once again, the reason somethings don't change about Windows is because so many people are used to things being a certain way that changing it all up would be disastrous... which once again, my point is that if that is true, then switching to OS X won't help that either. It's not about whether they do or don't move things, it's about the effect of it. All I have to do is imagine my dear mom trying to use a computer on a daily basis... move things around a bit and she's calling me within minutes to help fix it. Not everyone is as technology inclined as you or me. Think of how many Windows users there are. If eve .01% are confused about moving something... that's still probably a million users. When I say many of the things I do, I consider the average user. If we were talking about advanced users, I'd have no problem agreeing with many more of the statements being given.


Theming XP does not require special software. Programs like Window Blinds just automatically change the file you need to change and put themes in the right directory. Anyone capable of using google can get exact directions on how to do it, and frankly, if you can't find or follow the directions you're probably not looking to change the color or look anyway.

 

[RedWolf]

And with free software you have even more options which goes against your "[...]that things come at a better price than they do on an OS where the users look at themselves as elitists." statement.

If you can't even admit that windows enjoys a huge software advantage why on earth would anyone take your opinion seriously. There is more software on windows. That software is generally quite good. There is more free software for windows. It is generally quite good.

Sure the mac has software for many things you can do. But there's a definite lack of choice in many areas. Not only that but there are applications that simply are not available on OS X.

Heck, I can't even enable the third and fourth buttons on my mouse in OS X without buying third party software.

 

[BehindEnemyLines]

I would highly consider a MacBook when it's 4 lbs or lighter. OS X + (Vista or XP) is a perfect combination with Boot Camp or VMware. Windows will be used for a few engineering software that simply don't exist for Mac (or cost too much to purchase again).

 

[Nothinman]

Once again, the reason somethings don't change about Windows is because so many people are used to things being a certain way that changing it all up would be disastrous...

And yet MS still does it with every release. Of course they don't change everything, that would be way too time consuming on their part but they do change enough to royally confuse a decent percentage of users with every release and sometimes with service packs as well.

Theming XP does not require special software. Programs like Window Blinds just automatically change the file you need to change and put themes in the right directory.

Those two sentences seem contradictory, unless MS started including Window Blinds with Windows and I just never noticed.

If you can't even admit that windows enjoys a huge software advantage why on earth would anyone take your opinion seriously. There is more software on windows. That software is generally quite good. There is more free software for windows. It is generally quite good.

Where is this comprehensive list of all software for all platforms that you used to come to that conclusion? Looking at the package manager stats on here I see over 20,000 packages available from at least 4,000 source packages so even without any digging I can name around 4K pieces of software for Linux and just about all of that runs fine on OS X.

And even if I give you the point that Windows has a pure software quantity advantage I still stand by my opinion that it is severely lacking in the quality department. I would choose to use a free software alternative to a closed Windows program in virtually every case.

 

[RedWolf]

So basically, your argument is that you prefer free software so everyone else would as well?
You also seem to believe free software is better than commercial software.

Lets use an example of educational software. At one time Macs ruled the education market. Mac should at least have a fighting chance in educational software, right.
http://www.bestbuy.com/site/ol...t0508033&type=category

Windows has 36 pieces of software available at best buy. Mac has 20. Of those 20 all of them are for mac/windows. Not one piece of software was available for mac only. So Windows 56 - Mac 20.

Graphics & Desktop Publishing
http://www.bestbuy.com/site/ol...t0508018&type=category
Windows 18 - Mac 3

Photo & Video Editing
Windows 32 - Mac 12 - Mac/Windows 1

Total: Windows 107 - Mac 36.

Of course this is only software available at Best Buy. It is also three categories where the OS X has traditionally had an advantage. It is considerably more lopsided when you look at business apps (not to mention games).

This is typical. Mac has a few pieces and windows has dozens. There are more choices in software on Windows than mac. There is simply more software available for windows. It has a wider variety of categories and a wider depth within virtually every category. Commercial software is, by nature, going to be better supported, better built, and more intuitive than free software. Sure, there are exceptions. Open Office is well done. It has decent payed support. It is pretty comprehensive. But it isn't as polished as Office and doesn't integrate as well. Compare Myth TV to Snapstreams BeyondTV. Try getting customer service from mythtv.org.

That doesn't even get into the stuff that simply isn't available on OS X. Try finding scrapbook software for OS X. How about a decent home design or landscaping program. Best Buy has one piece and it costs over twice what the Better Homes and Gardens software costs and isn't anywhere close to as good.

For standard, every day stuff, there is plenty of software available for Linux, OS X, and Windows. But there is significantly more depth and breadth in the Windows library. Therefore, there is more choice. There are more choices in hardware. There are more choices in software. You can continue to deny it or console yourself in the (incorrect) thought that free and limited is better. But that's your choice.

 

[imported_Shivetya]

Originally posted by: Nothinman

In fact I doubt that Mozilla would have ever arisen if Netscape hadn't dropped the ball.

Obviously not, if Netscape had kept their marketshare and a pay-for product they would have never had any incentive to release Gecko as OSS. Just like Opera still clings to their closed source engine, although I'm not sure why they do it.

Vendor lock-in? Sheesh, there are probably too many choices.

Too many choices of Windows-compatible OSes? I wish I lived in the land of parrots with you.

OK, now your just being stupid. This wasn't about compatible OS products and you know it. Fact is, Windows PCs are more compatible with any OS than MAC machines so your just fugged yourself there. Fact, there is literally a hundred times more products to do the same thing on a windows machine than a mac.

Companies aren't allowed to improve? Its not like they come out with new releases every year? Hell consistent interfaces? You would think that since Apple makes iTunes it might look more like OS X than it does. Etched metal? Seems half the camp wants that the rest wants Aqua

Improve? Please tell me how the file dialogs in VS.Net looking nothing like the common dialogs in any version of Windows is an improvement. If it was a real improvement they'd have updated the common dialogs so that everything using them got the better version. And from what I see Apple isn't perfect but they're better, although it ironically seems that you now get the most consistent UI experience on Linux as long as you stick to all Gnome or all KDE apps.

Because coming up with an interface that works isn't a guarantee. What works for one person may annoy another. Consistent on Linux? Only if you never change packages and mostly if you stick with major versions of each as they do take the opportunity to change with each X.nn release. Hell the number of the Linux UIs that changed to look like 95 wasn't small!


Look, both OSes have faults. The fact is both are very stable and do what they should do. The biggest reason people don't change is because if it works who cares

 

[imported_Shivetya]

Originally posted by: RedWolf

And with free software you have even more options which goes against your "[...]that things come at a better price than they do on an OS where the users look at themselves as elitists." statement.

If you can't even admit that windows enjoys a huge software advantage why on earth would anyone take your opinion seriously. There is more software on windows. That software is generally quite good. There is more free software for windows. It is generally quite good.

Sure the mac has software for many things you can do. But there's a definite lack of choice in many areas. Not only that but there are applications that simply are not available on OS X.

Heck, I can't even enable the third and fourth buttons on my mouse in OS X without buying third party software.

Its even worse. try disabling them when their functions are hard coded. Same for the keyboard in OS X. I had to go find a new keyboard patch from Apple just to allow me to control what F14 and F15 do. I still don't have control over some of the other keys! I was told to hack some table on the system by people on apple discussions... lovely - almost like registry days.

Oh my mouse buttons work, its just that I can't control them!

 

[Injury]

Originally posted by: Nothinman

Once again, the reason somethings don't change about Windows is because so many people are used to things being a certain way that changing it all up would be disastrous...

And yet MS still does it with every release. Of course they don't change everything, that would be way too time consuming on their part but they do change enough to royally confuse a decent percentage of users with every release and sometimes with service packs as well.

Theming XP does not require special software. Programs like Window Blinds just automatically change the file you need to change and put themes in the right directory.

Those two sentences seem contradictory, unless MS started including Window Blinds with Windows and I just never noticed.

If you can't even admit that windows enjoys a huge software advantage why on earth would anyone take your opinion seriously. There is more software on windows. That software is generally quite good. There is more free software for windows. It is generally quite good.

Where is this comprehensive list of all software for all platforms that you used to come to that conclusion? Looking at the package manager stats on here I see over 20,000 packages available from at least 4,000 source packages so even without any digging I can name around 4K pieces of software for Linux and just about all of that runs fine on OS X.

And even if I give you the point that Windows has a pure software quantity advantage I still stand by my opinion that it is severely lacking in the quality department. I would choose to use a free software alternative to a closed Windows program in virtually every case.

-They have to change things eventually and they are ALWAYS good about letting people know where to find certain things in their help, tutorials, and knowledge base. It still doesn't change the point that people are used to Windows and that some people have a hard enough time with that.

-Those two sentences are not at all contradictory. You gotta be dumb if you can't realize that. You can freely download the one file you need to change to allow user-created themes and replace the original of the file.... or you can buy WindowBlinds to do it for you and manage your themes. Regardless of this, it's still better than mac where you either buy shoddy software that's unstable or you can't change it at all.

and ONCE AGAIN....

Originally posted by: Injury
All in all, you're arguing the wrong points here. The article is biased. It assumes that people will be happy with a mac and people will get what they are looking for on a mac... and it's just not true. To be fair, it might not be true about Windows either, which is exactly why I say "out of the frying pan and into the fire"...

 

[Nothinman]

OK, now your just being stupid. This wasn't about compatible OS products and you know it. Fact is, Windows PCs are more compatible with any OS than MAC machines so your just fugged yourself there. Fact, there is literally a hundred times more products to do the same thing on a windows machine than a mac.

Um, I can run Linux, any of the BSDs, OS X, Windows and more on a Mac. The only difference with non-Apple PCs is that that OS X won't legally run on them so while mathematically, yes, non-Apple PCs are more compatible it's a very small difference.

Fact, one of the biggest complaints about Linux distros is that there's too many pieces of software that do the same job. Why is that an advantage for Windows and a disadvantage for Linux?

Because coming up with an interface that works isn't a guarantee. What works for one person may annoy another. Consistent on Linux? Only if you never change packages and mostly if you stick with major versions of each as they do take the opportunity to change with each X.nn release. Hell the number of the Linux UIs that changed to look like 95 wasn't small!

The Gnome UI changes in the past several years have been pretty small. I can't think of a single thing that's changed in like the last 3-5 releases that's made me think "WTF? What happened here?" but I can't speak to KDE since I don't use it. But my statement was about consistency within a release anyway since MS can't even do that. WMP looks different from VS which looks different from IE which looks different from Office. They all recreate the same things in different ways for no good reason.

Those two sentences are not at all contradictory. You gotta be dumb if you can't realize that. You can freely download the one file you need to change to allow user-created themes and replace the original of the file.... or you can buy WindowBlinds to do it for you and manage your themes. Regardless of this, it's still better than mac where you either buy shoddy software that's unstable or you can't change it at all.

You're missing the point. Themeing on both systems is virtually the same with the minor advantage that Windows shipped with 2 themes and you can change the colors of them. Doing anything beyond that requires that you swap out a system file with a hacked version on both systems. Just change WindowBlinds to whatever the name of the "shoddy software that's unstable" that you're talking about and the same sentence applies to OS X.

 

[Injury]

Originally posted by: Nothinman

Those two sentences are not at all contradictory. You gotta be dumb if you can't realize that. You can freely download the one file you need to change to allow user-created themes and replace the original of the file.... or you can buy WindowBlinds to do it for you and manage your themes. Regardless of this, it's still better than mac where you either buy shoddy software that's unstable or you can't change it at all.

You're missing the point. Themeing on both systems is virtually the same with the minor advantage that Windows shipped with 2 themes and you can change the colors of them. Doing anything beyond that requires that you swap out a system file with a hacked version on both systems. Just change WindowBlinds to whatever the name of the "shoddy software that's unstable" that you're talking about and the same sentence applies to OS X.

Are you trying to tell me that I'm missing a point that I originally made? What file can I swap out on OS X that allows me to freely change themes once it's done? I really do want to know.


In all of your petty arguments you STILL have not contested why it would be better for the average user to buy a $1000 bottom-of-the-line mac than a $500 not-quite-bottom-of-the-line PC. You still haven't contested anything but a few personal opinions on my discrepancies with the article. Come on. Give me just one good reason why the average user should switch. Certainly you give me JUST ONE irrefutable answer, right? Just one answer of why I should tell all of my family members to get a mac next time they tell me they need or want a new computer... Just one reason.

 

[ShawnD1]

Originally posted by: SoundTheSurrender
You are known as a enthusiast. You make up a small percentage of users. There are thousands of windows apps and a lot of them are garbage, you get 100 choices of software that all do the same thing cept 95 of then suck. Just because you have no issues doesn't mean the average population doesn't either. Everyone I know who isn't a big time PC user has had hell with Windows XP.

Sorry to come in late again but oh god is this true. For myself and most of my friends, XP and Vista are great systems. For everyone else, there are problems. My brother is a fairly average computer user, and it computer is beyond garbage. Spyware up the ass. His computer had worms trying to attack my computers quite a few times. His computer is always draining bandwidth from the network since crap like Limewire goes to the system tray when you hit close, so most people don't even realize they're still using bandwidth (god help anybody who actually has capped monthly bandwidth with $/gb fees after the limit). His computer even had an autodialer that was trying to use the modem to call 1-900 numbers; luckily we had DSL at the time and the modem wasn't plugged into anything.

It can be a good system, but it's good like having 4wd on an SUV is good. You can still slide on snow and die if you don't know how to drive

 

[SoundTheSurrender]

Originally posted by: Injury

Originally posted by: Nothinman

Those two sentences are not at all contradictory. You gotta be dumb if you can't realize that. You can freely download the one file you need to change to allow user-created themes and replace the original of the file.... or you can buy WindowBlinds to do it for you and manage your themes. Regardless of this, it's still better than mac where you either buy shoddy software that's unstable or you can't change it at all.

You're missing the point. Themeing on both systems is virtually the same with the minor advantage that Windows shipped with 2 themes and you can change the colors of them. Doing anything beyond that requires that you swap out a system file with a hacked version on both systems. Just change WindowBlinds to whatever the name of the "shoddy software that's unstable" that you're talking about and the same sentence applies to OS X.

Are you trying to tell me that I'm missing a point that I originally made? What file can I swap out on OS X that allows me to freely change themes once it's done? I really do want to know.


In all of your petty arguments you STILL have not contested why it would be better for the average user to buy a $1000 bottom-of-the-line mac than a $500 not-quite-bottom-of-the-line PC. You still haven't contested anything but a few personal opinions on my discrepancies with the article. Come on. Give me just one good reason why the average user should switch. Certainly you give me JUST ONE irrefutable answer, right? Just one answer of why I should tell all of my family members to get a mac next time they tell me they need or want a new computer... Just one reason.

For the average user they will not have to worry about getting Virus software and getting Viruses/Spyware/Rootkits and all the things that come with Windows. (and crap Norton Garbage that comes pre installed for 30 days.) They get a solid Unix based OS that only requires permission when the permission is needed thus being better then ALLOW OR CANCEL feature of Windows for everything. The average PC user doesn't need to have a super computer and they won't even know the specs plus a 500 dollar computer is pretty bottom of the line unless you are talking about building it yourself which is infeasible to the average user. A 500 dollar system built is still going to be bottom end unless you're gonna pull the NO OS, and use all the old parts from a old rig thing. I just setup a 17inch HP notebook for a friend of mine. It was hell just getting it started. I cannot believe how much garbage has been attached to this machine. I assume other companies pull the same crap. Not only that Vista takes more then 3 minutes to get started on this machine with the amount of garbage.

 

[RedWolf]

Originally posted by: ShawnD1

Originally posted by: SoundTheSurrender
You are known as a enthusiast. You make up a small percentage of users. There are thousands of windows apps and a lot of them are garbage, you get 100 choices of software that all do the same thing cept 95 of then suck. Just because you have no issues doesn't mean the average population doesn't either. Everyone I know who isn't a big time PC user has had hell with Windows XP.

Sorry to come in late again but oh god is this true. For myself and most of my friends, XP and Vista are great systems. For everyone else, there are problems. My brother is a fairly average computer user, and it computer is beyond garbage. Spyware up the ass. His computer had worms trying to attack my computers quite a few times. His computer is always draining bandwidth from the network since crap like Limewire goes to the system tray when you hit close, so most people don't even realize they're still using bandwidth (god help anybody who actually has capped monthly bandwidth with $/gb fees after the limit). His computer even had an autodialer that was trying to use the modem to call 1-900 numbers; luckily we had DSL at the time and the modem wasn't plugged into anything.

It can be a good system, but it's good like having 4wd on an SUV is good. You can still slide and snow and die if you don't know how to drive

Spyware and viruses are an issue on Windows. They are easily dealt with by turning on automatic updates and not being stupid. For people who are stupid you add antivirus and anti-spyware. The only requirements, though, are updating your OS and being smart about clicking/opening things.

OS X is more protected from spyware/viruses although you can get them. For the most part, though, it is a non-issue in OS X.

 

[Injury]

Originally posted by: SoundTheSurrender
For the average user they will not have to worry about getting Virus software and getting Viruses/Spyware/Rootkits and all the things that come with Windows. (and crap Norton Garbage that comes pre installed for 30 days.) They get a solid Unix based OS that only requires permission when the permission is needed thus being better then ALLOW OR CANCEL feature of Windows for everything. The average PC user doesn't need to have a super computer and they won't even know the specs plus a 500 dollar computer is pretty bottom of the line unless you are talking about building it yourself which is infeasible to the average user. A 500 dollar system built is still going to be bottom end unless you're gonna pull the NO OS, and use all the old parts from a old rig thing. I just setup a 17inch HP notebook for a friend of mine. It was hell just getting it started. I cannot believe how much garbage has been attached to this machine. I assume other companies pull the same crap. Not only that Vista takes more then 3 minutes to get started on this machine with the amount of garbage.

The pre-installation of software comes with both machines. Check the applications folder on your mac. Granted, a lot of the stuff on mac might not launch at startup, but that's a weak reason to entirely change things around. It's just as easy to get rid of stuff on a Windows machine as it is on a mac. Who the hell actually uses comic life? The average mac user never REALLY uses Garage Band, so why not knock $10 off the price of a mac and sell it for $20 in store to the 20% of people that might actually want it? It's the same thing on a mac, just done differently.

The "cancel or allow" thing is another weak reason. This was added in more because people are inherently stupid and don't realize when programs start running. In most situations it only asks the first time you launch something (unless you deny it.) and the feature can be easily turned off if it's that annoying. It's essentially no different from having to put in my password just to apply system updates on a mac... that are direct from apple.

A quick 5 minute check shows me that I can get a PC with monitor, mouse & keyboard & speakers (plus a POS printer) from Best Buy for less than $500... the cheapest mac mini is $600, no monitor mouse or keyboard, speakers (who cares about the POS printer.) The specs of both machines are comparable, both include the OS, same processor speed, RAM, HD size. Because the mac mini uses lots of laptop components to achieve it's small size upgrading it would cost a slight bit more too, but that's beside the point.

I GET your reasons and actually agree that some of it is a better choice on the mac, but at the same time, none of it is reason enough for me to recommend macs to my relatives and friends who just want email/internet/music/picture viewing/occasional game. Before you reply just know that I'm not trying to sound like a fanboy or that I'm mac-bashing I just want to make clear that my entire point... the point I've been making this whole thread... is that macs are not for everyone. The article this thread is about suggests that it's just a few stupid reasons why everyone hasn't made a mass exodus to mac I'm saying that it's just because trying to put a mac in every hands is like trying to hammer the square through the circle in a child's toy. Try as hard as you want, it's just better when things are left alone. Part of the reason I enjoy using a mac, and I think a lot of people would secretly agree with me here... is that it's not what everyone is using.