Brad Wardell's views about technology, politics, religion, world affairs, and all sorts of politically incorrect topics.
The Mac is good but not compelling
Published on November 16, 2003 By Draginol In Personal Computing
I'm going to write something more in depth once I get a better feel for Panther (10.3).

I like my Mac. It's a fine machine. But Macs, since going to OS X (including 10.3) feel much more sluggish.

I also find them very limited in how much you can change them in how they work. If Apple hasn't thought of it, you're not likely to be able to find a tool, freeware or otherwise, that will let you change its behavior.

I also find the lack of freeware for it to be a major downside. I buy hundreds of dollars in software a year personally but I don't like getting nickled and dimed for every little thing. Sure, freeware exists for the Mac but in much lower quantities, even factoring in the sizes in the markets.

The Mac is excellent at doing specific things with. If your job is doing the kinds of things that the Mac environment excels at (graphics, some types of office work) then I would give the Mac an edge in those areas.

But the further you stray from that, its environment can seem limiting (to me anyway).

It also has to fight against the fact that, like it or not, it has a small market share which means most people are USED to the way Windows (and DOS) work. I spent a lot of time in college working with Unix flavors but I don't have any partiuclar desire to go back to that sort of thing now.

Which is to me, a major downside on the Mac. The basics are done very slickly. If you want to do more powerful stuff, you quickly find yourself imeshed in Unix stuff which I just don't want to deal with. Sharing of printers over a mixed network, accessing network resources of various sorts, etc. can all be quite a pain in the butt, even in 10.3 which is actually worse in some respects in that area.

But if go Mac all the way, it can be a very compelling environment and OS to deal with.

But I don't think it's compelling enough to get a significant percentage of Windows users to switch.

After all, OS/2 had a massive advantag over Windows 10 years ago and we all know how that turned out.
Comments
on Nov 16, 2003
I came from OS/2 too, only I switched to Mac OS (to OS X actually, via BeOS and GNU/Linux).

I have always seen things differently than you though.

For example, I like Mac OS X, specifically BECAUSE you can change them in how they work. I know you usually look at the desktop and GUI (because that is your job and major interest), but there are users who like a standardized desktop and there are users who want the unixy stuff. The first group are represented by classic Mac OS users, the second group is former NEXTSTEP or UNIX users, or, of course, users who switched to OS X from GNU or even OS/2.

Mac OS X has an enormous potential to be changed in how it works for specific types of users. I often switch to a fullscreen X11 desktop running KDE or Gnome simply because I sometimes feel linuxy. But I very much enjoy the standardized Aqua look too, because it makes it so much easier to identify problems users have with their machines and thus solving them. For me, Mac OS X is the perfect symbiosis of a completely open and adaptable OS and a never-changing GUI. I like that. Many others do too.

I also can't understand the freeware point. I am sure you are right about it, but I never seem to miss anything. I am used to using Free tools from the Unix world, Fink installs and compiled them for me, and that's it. I never want to depend on any software that does not belong to these three groups:

1. Free software or open source software

2. Part of the operating system bundle (or likewise)

3. Software made by a company I think will stay in the market

Incidentally there is one shareware program I use, and it is now GPLed. Fantastic.

Also, if people are used to the way Windows works, they might not care about whether and how you can change the way it works.

But I guess it depends on whether you want to modify your GUI and how comfortable (and used to) you feel with Mac OS' BSD subsystem.

When I left OS/2 for GNU/Linux (via BeOS) I was impressed by how much you could do with GNU. It was amazing. OS/2 never offered that. OS/2's GUI was better, but I found I didn't care about the GUI. I would use any GUI as long as it could do some basic stuff, and I feel perfectly comfortable doing anything else in a CLI shell. I actually prefer it. Mac OS X is a lot like this, plus its GUI is excellent, if not very configurable.

on Nov 16, 2003
1) Okay, let me give you an example of where I got bitten by the lack of freeware just this week. Can you name a program that will record what is happening on the screen and save it to a .avi or .mov or whatever? I want to be able to demonstrate Mac stuff as a video. On Windows there are programs that do this such as CamStudio that are free.

2) Swtiching to a fullscreen X11 desktop isn't the same thing as being able to customize Aqua. Let me give you an example - some of the use of semi-transparency on Aqua I find visually annoyng. There is no way built in or by a third party to tweak that.

3) Certainly Linux users who can afford a Mac will find it compelling I think. But then again, I don't find Linux to be even remotely compelling.
on Nov 16, 2003
1) I have no idea which program you could use. As I said, I really don't care so much about the GUI and I really don't know much about these things.

2) My point wasn't that it was the same, my point was that it is not. I do not want to be able to customise Aqua. I either want to customise EVERYTHING or nothing at all. I am happy if there is something I can expect to be there on all the machines I might encounter. I really don't like customised GUIs. What you are referring to is probably very cool for you and many many others, but not for me.

3) Just different types of users, I guess. I found GNU very compelling and Mac OS X even more so, and for roughly the same reasons too.

I think you misunderstood me. I didn't want to claim that you were wrong or that your criticisms of the Mac OS were invalid, they are not. My point was that many people might not be interested in these points. I don't need much software except what I can get via the three methods I described, I don't want to customise the GUI (but almost everything else), and I want the symbiosis of a GNU/UNIX-like system and a system that can run at least a few games (I play StarCraft, Alpha Centauri, and Quake). No operating system but Mac OS X can deliver that.

Other people might or might not have different reasons to use Mac OS.

For example many of my friends (all but few have Macs) have but one reason to own one Mac: they have a portable to complement their GNU or Windows boxen at home. For them Mac OS X cannot deliver what they want on the desktop (but Windows or SuSE Linux can), but does deliver what they want on a laptop, thus an iBook it is.

I acknowledge that Windows is far, far ahead of Mac OS when it comes to GUI customisation, but it really doesn't matter to me. It is not a feature I need or want or would find attractive at all. I can see how it can be fascinating, but it just isn't for me. I don't think Apple has made a mistake here. Apple probably know there are users like me.

on Nov 16, 2003
I guess the best way to put it is like this:

What advantages MacOS may have, they are not compelling enough to change the status quo. Therefore, MacOS will never be more than a niche player.
on Nov 16, 2003
I just bought an iBook, and it's a beautiful thing! I have noticed that it is very limited in its GUI though. Honestly though, I don't think such features (or lack of) are as significant as the real reason many people avoid Macs: the price. The fact that there's a shortage of freeware doesn't help either.
on Nov 17, 2003
You may want to check here for freeware apps. Dunno where you looked, but I've found tons of it for OS X.
http://osx.hyperjeff.net/Apps/