Thank you for being a valued part of the CNET community. As of December 1, 2020, the forums are in read-only format. In early 2021, CNET Forums will no longer be available. We are grateful for the participation and advice you have provided to one another over the years.

Thanks,

CNET Support

General discussion

I'm a bit confused on all the hype about OS X.

May 24, 2008 1:54PM PDT

I just bought my first apple computer, a 15" Macbook Pro, and I like it. For $2200 dollars (student pricing agreement) I got a dual core processor, 4 GB of RAM, a nice graphics card, and its a good looking computer. I couldn't find another company offering this kind of hardware for so cheap. However, I don't see why people are always boasting that OS X is so much better than Windows. I remember reading in a forum awhile back about how much better OS X's desktop looked and functioned compared to Vista. This I strongly disagree with. I personally don't care for Vista's little side bar with useless information (I always deactivate it to save memory) but the aero interface that allows you to quickly flip through differnt windows using a mouse thumbscroll wheel is far more efficient and visually pleasing than the OS X alternative. Sticking with desktop appearance, I think Vista Ultimates video desktop background is very cool, granted you have to have RAM out the wazoo to run it and not effect the overall system speed. I also don't see any difference in terms of overall performance. I installed Photoshop cs3 on the mac and vista partitions of my laptop and loaded up the same, extremely large file for both of them. No difference in performance at all. So my question is this, whats so great about OS X? I'm not bashing it. Rather, I'm hoping somebody will point out aspects of OS X that I may not know about. Right now the one thing that stands out about Apples highly touted OS is Boot Camp. Atleast they have the common sense to know that people's computing needs can't always be met with one operating system. I wish PC's had this same capability.

Discussion is locked

- Collapse -
There are several things, and it also depends on the user
May 24, 2008 3:37PM PDT

Apple develops its own machines and software, so you get superb compatibility with Macintosh hardware, where Vista has been known to have several issues with many different branded computers. In many cases, Vista "just doesn't work", and Macs tend to. Macs have been known for their usability. It depends on the individual user, but that's how it is for many people.
If you don't like the default backgrounds in OS X, that's fine. Use your own. For things like that, it is your opinion that matters.
Built-in applications like Time Machine come in handy as well as the iLife suite, all of which come pre-installed on brand new Macs. Many Windows computers do not offer the same package. Then there is security... Now I'm not saying that OS X is better because there are no viruses in the wild for the system, but rather Vista has some good security features, save one problem: usability. I've heard people say that they can't ever figure out how to use some features in Vista, and if they can't use simple features that come with it, then they can't take advantage of its higher-end security features either. I'm not a Vista user, but I have used it on other people's machines. It's definitely different.

If you were running CS3 on both systems on the same MacBook, then I'm not surprised. Have you seen this? Different systems, but same hardware may be the case, so long as performance was relatively similar. Plus the MBP can run Windows very, very well. While they've already tested that there are faster Windows notebooks out there, that's impressive. Apple's high-end notebook, which does not even come with Windows installed nor requires that you use it, can best several other Vista machines. Not bad at all. OS X applications also share numerous files together, particularly Apple's programs. iLife, Final Cut I'm sure, and their other suites, can all access files from iTunes or the Media Browser, or wherever the media files are. The integration is great.
When it comes down to it, the user really affects how "great" an operating system is. OS X is great for multimedia and design, etc., but it's also great for everything else. Gaming is another matter, but I've played a few games on my MBP, and when I turn the graphics on high, the graphics quality is amazing.

-BMF

- Collapse -
Better for design?
May 25, 2008 12:24PM PDT

I see your point on compatibility. Thats definitely a plus but one thing you said really jumped out at me. "OS X is great for multimedia and design". I'm a landscape architect so I deal with design programs all day long and with the exception of Adobe products, OS X does not support any of the applications that would be considered industry standard. I'm referring mostly to Autodesk products such as AutoCad, 3ds Max or Viz, or any of the common GIS apps. These are programs that are pretty much a staple in any architecture, landscape architecture, or interior design firm so I have to disagree with you on that one. I know Vectorworks is used by some people instead of AutoCad but what are Mac's alternatives to 3d modeling. I tried Lightwave. Hated it. If you know something thats better, and I really mean this, please tell me. You are right about video editing. Microsoft sucks at creating video editing software and I plan on using my OS X partition for that or if I'm lucking, getting my hands on Premiere Pro.

- Collapse -
By design I think I meant graphics
May 25, 2008 12:58PM PDT

Ever hear that stereotype that Macs are for graphics and design? I've heard that many times. The graphics part is definitely true from my experience. Design-wise, I heard that Rhino 3D is being written for Intel Macs, but I don't think that will help you too much. I'm not the one you should ask about that. Grin
One of my friends is a Dell fan, and he makes similar multimedia creations and projects like I do, except that he does not like Macs, but I wouldn't say he hates them though. Anyway, we share the belief that Windows Vista is terrible and that Macs are much better for editing, like you said. Windows is better for gaming because of DirectX and the like, so I've heard, which may be why there are fewer "design" apps for OS X. Design and gaming would tie in closely, no?

Macs are great, but not everyone likes them, nor do you have to. But people shouldn't bash them for Apple's prices or closed platform, etc. Which is why I think that this Psystar company and their Mac clone are misguided. I heard that they claimed that Apple is a "monopoly" in the OS X market. They made OS X. They make Macs. And Apple is far from a monopoly in the industry as a whole, so that seems quite absurd. I'm just wondering what will happen with all of it.

-BMF

- Collapse -
Or to put it another way,
May 26, 2008 12:40AM PDT

"OS X does not support any of the applications that would be considered industry standard. I'm referring mostly to Autodesk products such as AutoCad, 3ds Max or Viz, or any of the common GIS apps.

None of these products are written for OS X which is not the fault of Apple.

It would be more correct to say that the makers of AutoCad, 3ds Max or Viz do not support OS X, rather than that OS X does not support them.

P

- Collapse -
Is my wording that important?
May 26, 2008 12:57AM PDT

You get what I'm saying. No need to get into a debate over how I word it. I agree that it would be great if Autodesk created software that was mac compatible.

- Collapse -
Wording is important
May 26, 2008 2:18AM PDT

it makes the difference between a statement being true or a statement being less than true and adds strength to your argument.

As this forum is open to many different countries, do not expect every reader to "get" what you are saying.

P

- Collapse -
Is this a debate?
May 26, 2008 6:37PM PDT

Wording would be important if I was making an argumentative case. I'm just trying to find some answers. This is a computer web forum, not a legal case study.

- Collapse -
I rest my case
May 26, 2008 9:56PM PDT

"OS X does not support any of the applications that would be considered industry standard. "

Sounds like an argumentative case to me.

On the other hand, I could have said discussion, but you "get" what I mean


EOF

P

- Collapse -
Why are Mac fans so defensive?
May 26, 2008 11:34PM PDT

I was simply stating a fact. The vast majority of architecture, landscape architecture, interior design, and planning firms don't run applications that are compatible with Mac OS's. Although there are a handful of studios that use Vectorworks, Rhino, etc. the industry standard is Autodesk which will only run on a PC platform. Does that wording satisfy your delicate sensibilities? I'm not bashing Apple. I just bought one for christ sake. I just wanted somebody to explain to me why people rave about them so much. I like the hardware, I just haven't gotten a feel for their software yet.

- Collapse -
I think the words
May 26, 2008 11:40PM PDT

'more idiot resistant' has a lot to do with it.

While there are some very compelling niche reasons to run OSX as your main application platform, as well as stylistic reasons of course, many people appreciate - nay celebrate - an OS, environment and support structure that caters more successfully for people who really shouldn't be let loose in front of a Windows PC.

Silly

- Collapse -
You are so right!
May 27, 2008 5:59AM PDT

How pleasant and refreshing it is to have someone post who understands that the Mac OS is only for those that do not know, and will never know, how to use a "real" computer.

There are millions of people who really shouldn't be let loose in front of a Windows PC. They would never understand the nuances of the Operating System, the delicate way in which it is put together, the need to constantly take care of it, to nurse it, to protect it from those that wish to harm it with viruses and malware. All the essentials of owning and using an industry standard operating system are lost on those people.

Fortunately for them, as you so rightly point out, Apple has come to their rescue and provided an OS that they can use safely with little danger of them messing it up, or as you so eloquently phrase it, an OS that is "more idiot resistant"

I hope you will continue to let these pearls of wisdom grace these forums, a breath of sanity amongst those that are lesser gifted than us.

- Collapse -
It's not the 'idiot resistance'
May 27, 2008 6:10AM PDT

... as such that is the issue. Perhaps it sounded a little more sarcastic than even I intended it to be. Or maybe it wasn't sarcastic enough. Who knows. Who cares.

It's the people, not the platform. It's the ego, without delivery. It's the marketing, without the depth.

- Collapse -
Maybe I'll just create my own OS thats better than both
May 28, 2008 1:24AM PDT

Its gonna be just like DOS and will only run on Tandy 2000's.

- Collapse -
Get luckier.
May 26, 2008 12:45AM PDT

Skip Premiere and go try Final Cut Pro HD (the newest version.)