calyxman

Hi gamehead, I've used OS X since 2001 back in the days when I messed with the PowerMacs at the university computer lab. Before I purchased my iBook G3 in December of 2001, the last mac I had ever purchased was an all-in-one Performa 200 that ran System 7. Back in the day when OS 10.0 first debuted, things were slow. As time progressed with the advent of Puma we saw performance enhancments in the user interface and added support for DVD burning. In fact, 10.0 was so rough that Apple offered the upgrade CD for 10.1 for $20 at the time. I concur that Jaguar, Panther, and now Tiger have increased the overall performance for OS X. It is still a very resource intensive OS, and one department you don't want to be lacking in is RAM. Nowadays, 512 MB is minimum and it actually is now standard on the consumer iMac, Powermac, and Powerbook. I expect the iBook to follow suit. I still feel the interface of OS X is not as responsive as Windows. Maybe OS 9 compares much better, but OS X is much heavier in the visual aesthetics department. My contention isn't that the Powermac G5 or Powerbook G4 is not a fast machine. I think the G5 is a great processor indeed, and while I don't mind the G4, I do believe it's time for Apple to move on and put the old G4 to rest and try to either implement the G5 or find a variation of the G4 such as a dual core chip to use in the Powerbook. I will argue, however, that for the price, I find it less compelling to buy another Mac when I can pay less and get the same performance and similar capabilities with a PC. I don't buy the argument that Windows is a bad operating system, as I've been running XP and 2000 for weeks without a crash. XP has run solid, and so has OS X for that matter. They're both great OSes. If Apple does raise the bar with new products of its own, then I'd be happy to reconsider and may do all my windows and mac work on the same machine, as I own a copy of Virtual PC for the Mac.

As far as processing power is concerned, the x86 platform is exceeding the PowerPC by leaps and bounds. The new dual core AMD X2 processor runs circles around Intel's and IBMs lineup. You'd think that a PowerMac that costs $3000 would give you the utmost in processing power, but that's no longer the case. And when I mention this to Macheads, the only thing they can say is "well yeah but that only works on Windows," or "speed is not everything, why do you need a machine that fast?" Of course they say a lot more than that, but it borderlines childishness, and I have to shake my head in disbelief. I mean, I think OS X is a good OS, but I hate the way Apple does business and I hate the mentality that's prevalent in the Mac community. And it's because of that attitude that they're below 5% market share. It's sad, but true.

Hi. I'm a new memeber of this forum as I made a switch back to Windows after using Mac OS X for 4 years. I read your post and agree with it completely. Usually my first posts introduce who I am, but I felt compelled to chime in so here goes. The thing that bothers me about Apple computer is the dictatorship mentality that you mention. You have very limited choices in the hardware line, and as was mentioned you either get the very low end or very high end--and even the high end does not compete with what you can get in Windows land. The most recent update in the Powermac line left many mac pros fuming, as the performance increases were minimal at best, after almost one year since the last power mac update. Many won't forget that Steve Jobs promised a 3Ghz G5 within a year...of course that was in 2003. What are we at today? 2.7 Ghz. Remember the megahertz myth? As an act of desperation to salvage the G4 and explain away not having a system--and when I say "any," I mean the top-end $3000 systems--clocking in gigahertz territory, Apple drummed up a phony marketing slogan and ran misleading benchmarks on how an 867Mhz G4 ran all over a P4 2.4 Ghz. We all know where this mantra ended up. Regarding pricing, I've always used the example of buying a notebook. You go to Apple's site as of this posting, and look up the price of a 15" notebook computer and you come up with one: the 15" powerbook with a G4 processor and combo drive (no DVD burner/Superdrive). I won't go into detail about the other lackluster specs, but your total price comes out to a whopping $2000, plus tax and shipping. Why is this so for a 15" laptop? The iBook is supposedly a consumer line, but even that is a joke (I've used a 12" iBook G3 as my main system for the past 4 years). You have the option of a 12" or 14" screen, but guess what? Both only support a max resolution of 1024x768. That's ridiculous! Apple is all about marketting. Selling the sizzle and not the steak. Slick packaging. Chic looks over performance and functionality. And the same goes for OS X. OS X is a far slower, more resource and hardware intensive than any previous Mac OS, and the reason is simple: too much eye candy. Unfortunately, Apple in their infinite wisdom doesn't allow their users to adjust the interface in favor of performance out of the box--you have to resort to third party hacks that might make your system unstable. In windows, I can right click "My Computer," pull up properties, click the advanced tab and performance button and I can choose if I want all the eye candy and graphical junk, or if I want to drop all that use a faster no-nonsense interface. I've spent time around Apple users, and if there's one thing in common about them, they all hate Microsoft. But I'll say this: if there was no MS Office for the Mac, I would have never in a million years made the decision to switch to a Mac. Pure and simple. Apple is the gadfly and Microsoft is the cow. One depends on the other.