Arka
Offline
• • • • • •
Upload & Sell: On
|
mDude: your belief that the "cache[t]" [sp] in owning a Mac lies in the hardware is the kind of statement that leads people like Ben to question the general depth of your platform knowledge. Yours is a common refrain among hardware-centered users, who often display a real insensitivity to poorly designed software. This is perhaps understandable, since software design isn't something that neatly fits onto a spec-sheet.
The measure of good software is its efficient use of system resources, stability, and its ability to accomodate a universe of user preferences. Attention to these criteria is clearly lacking in the Windows world; while the Mac is not an absolute antidote, it is a lot easier to find better software in the Mac world. I have become a heavy user of elegantly designed Mac shareware for my text and document management needs. (See shareware software developed by the Omni Group, or independent gems like Scrivener, to get a sense of what I'm talking about).
I also find that MacOS, for all of its flaws, manages system resources more efficiently, and also gives me window management tools that complement my workflow as I need them. Expose and Spaces are not mere graphical flourishes or "eye candy," but rather are substantively useful information management tools that have no real equivalent in an XP or Vista world.
Like many computer users, I live in MS and Mac universes coextensively; my Mac has the unique distinction of being the only platform that may lawfully run both OS'es at the same time. Windows proficiency is necessary in the professional world I inhabit. That said, I keep a Mac on my desk when I have to do really complex research or document generation, because the software available on that platform makes management of many windows, sources, and document sections that much easier. There are no real Windows equivalents. These differences in operation overflow into visual creation as well. I prefer to do my illustration, 3D, and photography work on a Mac because I've grown accustomed to the workflow benefits it provides. I've also grown accustomed to being able to run Windows on those rare occasions where I absolutely need to do things in Windows. (i.e learning on my "Mudbox" demo). With no real performance penalty on the hardware side, I see little reason to deny myself the flexibility of using MacOS.
ghouston13 wrote:If Mac/Apple were so great, why don't they just build a version for PC users and make money off of the (apparently) millions wanting to jump ship from Windows?
You know the answer to your own question quite well. There is a reason, related to profit margins, that Apple likes to control the hardware. Building a stable and reliable OS to accommodate every possible hardware configuration, including those using poorly designed hardware, is a monumental task that even a dedicated software behemoth like Microsoft hasn't been able to solve. Apple's model has been to limit the hardware to ensure stability in the software. Do I think that OSX could be designed to embrace a wider range of hardware, while still retaining its stability? Yes! But that would be a very bad business decision for Apple; the company would devote massive resources to expanding MacOS's hardware umbrella while absolutely abolishing Apple's ability to profit from its hardware configurations. And it would do so at tremendous risk to its reputation as a purveyor of a seamless computing "experience" that relies on both hardware and software.
For most people, interaction with a computer involves one or two input devices, a monitor, and software. The software experience defines how well that interaction goes. I don't need multiple ethernet cards in my computer, nor do I need SLI with GeForce Boost to increase my Doom3 frag rates to stratospheric levels. I'm a productivity user with specific hardware demands; the Mac hardware universe, with its selection of strong NVIDIA cards and state-of-the-art Intel CPU architectures, fills those needs. I am willing to accept limits in the potentiality of my hardware if my software experience improves as a result. I am especially open to such restriction when it is modest, and the base hardware powerful enough to preclude the immediate need to upgrade.
As a former builder of PC desktops (Intel BX, AMD Socket 939, Intel Socket D), I really can't say I miss the days where I felt compelled to open up my system, inhale dust, and snap components in and out of the slots to optimize performance.
Arka C.
Edited on Jul 09, 2008 at 01:18 PM
|
