digg

Facebook Connect Join Digg About
See the original image at arstechnica.com

From Win32 to Cocoa: a Windows user's conversion to Mac OS X

arstechnica.com — A hardcore PC user finally jumps ship and discusses how Windows lost its "wow" and Apple gained a customer.

Who dugg this? Made popular Apr 21, 2008

Digg DudeWhat is Digg?

Digg is a place for people to discover and share content from anywhere on the web. Digg surfaces the best stuff as submitted and voted on by the community. Take the Tour to learn more.

639 Comments

show profanity settings
expand all
  • luke16, on 04/21/2008, -25/+314Operating system war in 5....4....3....2....1
    "LULZ ubuntu pwns you all"
    "Macs are for fags"
    "Yes, but i can play games on my PC?!!!! AH HA!!"
    "Linux...."
    "OSX>>>VISTA, cause i dont get teh screen o death"
  • armo, on 04/21/2008, -2/+160I thought the Win32 to Cocoa made it pretty obvious this was from a developers perspective. It's not that often an everyday user would cite the APIs.
  • Garf13ld, on 04/21/2008, -11/+156An excellent article and not nearly as bias as the title suggests, more a well though out and rational disection of what's current wrong with Windows as a software development platform. I totally agree with Jobias that the title is misleading.
  • jobias, on 04/21/2008, -29/+168It's a shame that the article's title is a bit misleading; the author seems to be writing from the point of view of a software developer, not just an everyday user. IMHO, that makes the article much more interesting.
  • logpony, on 04/21/2008, -5/+135Friend 1: So we gonna work on it tonight?
    Friend 2: Yeah, bring your Macbook over, we'll record it and do some editing.
    Friend 1: Alright, then you have to show me the new maps on Garry's Mod.
    Friend 2: Ok.

    Actual conversation of normal people. PC/Mac wars only for the friendless.
  • inactive, on 04/21/2008, -8/+137"There are lots of developers producing Mac applications and utilities. And they're actually making an effort with them. Conscientious developers, who care about making an application that looks good, works well, and exploits the capabilities of the OS, are putting out great applications for MacOS X. We see applications like OmniGraffle, Adium, NetNewsWire, Delicious Library, Quicksilver, Coda, Unison... these apps are all well put together, a lot of effort has clearly gone into them, and there's a real sense that their developers care that they don't suck.

    Windows software has never struck me as being like that. The third-party software ecosystem for Windows is big, no doubt about that. But it's also incredibly shoddy. Most Windows applications—from both major software companies and minor ones alike—are ugly, poorly-thought-out, clunky pieces of crap. While there are a few artisan developers for Windows, most Windows devs just don't care."

    This is what I've been trying to explain to people ever since I switched. I switched to Macs almost by accident, because I needed Final Cut Pro, but once I started using Mac apps, I realized how badly designed Windows apps are. Yes, there are a billion shareware programs available for Windows, but you sometimes need three of them to do exactly the same things that one program would do in OS X. And besides, how many programs do you really need in your life? I have about 40 really powerful ones and that's all I need.
  • cawpin, on 04/21/2008, -8/+76"OSX>>>VISTA, cause i dont get teh screen o death"

    As a new Mac user, I find this amusing. I just got my first full system lockup the other day and had to do a hard reset. No kernel panic, no nothing, just locked up.
  • ScaredOfTheMan, on 04/21/2008, -25/+85I am not a software developer, I am windows user for 15 years (MCSE NT 4 even!) and I am happily posting my comments to DIGG on my new 8 core 3.0 Mac Pro. And I converted everyone in the family too. Vista was/is a joke, and I couldn't be happier with this machine. As for backwards compatibility I have VMware, all problems solved.
  • m00nmaster, on 04/21/2008, -2/+59You won't fit in well here.
  • unloud, on 04/21/2008, -5/+54It is slightly disappointing that this is only part 1 and we have to wait for the rest.
  • Rodalli, on 04/21/2008, -36/+82For me, Windows never had any "wow." It's apples and oranges. Macs do one thing, Windows does another. You know what's great about Windows (XP, not Vista)? It just ***** works. Whatever I'm doing, there's minimal overhead or learning curve involved, even if I'm doing it for the first time.

    And what's this mess about applications for Windows being *****? Windows is THE platform for getting your software to the largest possible audience, period. Anything worth running is available on Windows, usually first. Wanna check my e-mail? Thunderbird. Wanna browse Digg and check Woot? Firefox. How about some gaming? Steam is nice. Think I'll play some Team Fortress 2. Or maybe WoW. Ok, I'm tired of interacting now, I just want to sit down and watch some movies. Let's check out Veoh, or Joost. I'll open up uTorrent and download the entire Star Trek TOS Season 1. Ok, let's open up DivX and watch it. Spock just pimp-slapped Kirk. ***** awesome. Ok, getting late, it's time for bed. No, no need to turn off my machine. I've been running Windows XP for three weeks without a reboot and it's still running like a dream. Haven't had a BSOD in over 2 years, either, and even that one was a hardware issue.

    Seriously, what is the deal with you people? Any excuse to harp on Microsoft, eh? It's like you haven't even qualified your statements in your own mind before you spew them out for the entire internet to read and swallow. Windows is function. It just works. There's a start menu with a program list. There's a desktop with icons. There's a taskbar. There's a control panel. I have everything I need. I don't need a little bar at the bottom of my screen where the icons fade in and out all pretty-like when I mouse over them. I don't need a ritzy wallpaper, or anti-aliased high-definition icons, or hardware covered in really curvy, white plastic that costs nearly twice as much as the same hardware you could get for a PC. I just need to be able to do the ***** I want to do without a lot of fuss, and PCs do it. Windows does it.

    Microsoft messed up with Vista by trying to emulate Apple. They'll realize, if they already haven't, that that's not why people like Windows. That's not what they want from Windows. It's an ME situation, and XP was the answer to that. In another two years or so, Microsoft will release "Windows 7" which will be the Vista we all wanted to begin with. Then we can leave this 3D desktop ***** behind and I can run my *****' apps.
  • merz1, on 04/21/2008, -9/+46Well written, nice structure, the strong point come at the end.
  • Dumbledorito, on 04/21/2008, -8/+43_______ is the beginning of the end for Microsoft.

    Much like this article, it's nothing that hasn't been said before and will be said again every couple of months. Wait and see.
  • jstone, on 04/21/2008, -2/+37What, no love for BSD?
  • bigsteve, on 04/21/2008, -2/+32The title is not misleading, it's poorly written and factually wrong. Peter Bright isn't analyzing the platforms as a "hardcore user", but rather a programmer with two decades of experience discussing the differences between Windows and Mac APIs, and how programming for the Mac platform is a bit of a breath of fresh air. He cites the fact that current (even 64-bit) API calls in Windows have their roots in calls assembled for NT 4, which still heavily utilized 16-bit calls to maintain backward-compatibility with apps that were old even then.
  • Auzy, on 04/21/2008, -3/+32I used to do a lot of Cocoa Development (and yes, I'm still a paid ADC member), and I know I'll dugg down for saying this, but I recently tried QT, and I must say, QT and QTJambi have actually gotten to the point that they are as good as cocoa, but are cross platform, and I actually found that in some areas, I preferred it significantly more.

    For this reason, haven't even bothered logging into ADC for a while now. I'm coding QT apps that work on OSX, linux and Windows, and the code is beautiful.

    Also, products such as Adobe photoshop Elements are actually coded in QT.
  • InorganicMatter, on 04/21/2008, -2/+27In Windows' defense, Microsoft HAS made a half-assed attempt to fix this with the latest VS2008 and .NET 3.5. That being said, their "fix" still requires developers to either make application Windows-exclusive, and also requires Windows XP at the very minimum, preferably Windows Vista if they want to take advantage of the many improvements .NET 3.5 offers. It's a small step in the right direction, but still nothing like what Cocoa offers.

    That being said, the GNU systems are even worse than Windows when it comes to having to code applications for a wide range of desktop environments, requiring a boatload of dependencies, and always choosing to sacrifice functionality for a 0.0001% increase in speed. Don't even get me started on the ridiculous design decisions that their "open-source principles" cause them to make.
  • MacEnvy, on 04/21/2008, -5/+30I blame the cheap RAM you purchased. Not with any basis to back that up, but hell, that's what I'm blaming.
  • jonahan52, on 04/21/2008, -3/+28The same reason you use the the Mac has only one mouse button and no software arguments.
  • inactive, on 04/21/2008, -2/+26The vagueness is what's holding his post together. There is no "power". It just means he likes it better, can't technically explain his position, and tries to pass it off as "fact".
  • MrMoonlight, on 04/21/2008, -11/+33LEAVE VISTA ALONE!
  • barnett25, on 04/21/2008, -0/+22If you are wondering why you got dug down it's because you are wrong.
  • digitalpencil, on 04/21/2008, -3/+24This article's title is misleading it isn't about the switching experience, it's outlining strengths and weaknesses in the design paradigm of Windows compared to OS/X. I'm never one for blatant fame-bait but this isn't that, it's a discussion into what Windows is limited by, how devs tend to approach it etc.
    Moreover, if someone 'switched' from Windows to OS/X and back again, there would invariably be an article.
  • ScaredOfTheMan, on 04/21/2008, -6/+271. I actually converted them by simply exposing them to OSX, they made up their own minds. I am not a zealot, just someone who feels like they found a new more stable way of doing things. You should see the way this thing distributes threads, and its boot up and shut down times are ridiculous (when I actually turn it off).

    2. I bought it refurb from the apple store with apple care, and added my own Ram to take it to 5 Gig. I will be the first to tell you Apple stuff is overpriced (especially the RAM), but to me its worth it. I don't have to worry about cooling systems, fan noise, or much of anything else, the thing is built like a tank, and runs like monster. You don't like apple prices, go build a hackintosh and have at it. On an OS level, I fell like I am running a serious 64 bit *nix operating system with a really nice GUI and some serious application support......oh wait... I am
  • SSCrow, on 04/21/2008, -6/+26I have not seen BSOD in years. Why do people still use it as a point of argument?
  • usingpond, on 04/21/2008, -1/+20This needs more love.
  • unloud, on 04/21/2008, -8/+27But, dude, he's HARDCORE.
  • Darrelc, on 04/21/2008, -6/+23"and the fact that I was spending 1-2 hours *every day* installing patches and doing norton antivirus stuff."
    PEBCAK mate, if you have *anything* norton installed you're automatically excempt from any OS debate.
  • gllopc, on 04/21/2008, -5/+22Yeah - it should have been titled: "From Win32 to Cocoa: a Windows developer's conversion to Mac OS X"
  • theWrkncacnter, on 04/21/2008, -2/+19RTFA
  • MikeSD34, on 04/21/2008, -4/+21To be fair, Microsoft doesn't give you any options other then their minimize / maximize behavior either.
  • Nitrodist88, on 04/21/2008, -1/+17Apple doesn't make ram.
  • falafelkiosken, on 04/21/2008, -16/+32besides, the shareware/freeware scene for Mac is really great, I can pay 20 buck for an application which would costs 10 times as much if it was a windows applications, and still it's better than anything I've seen for the PC
  • Miche1987, on 04/21/2008, -4/+201. Reply button.
    2. Blogspam.
    3. ???
    4. Bury!!
  • SSUK, on 04/21/2008, -0/+16Vista is too bulky. I'll stick with Windows 3.1, thanks.
  • digggggggggg, on 04/21/2008, -0/+15I was 10 years old at the time. I couldn't tell you how awesome I thought "My briefcase" was, because it was a _briefcase_, not a _folder_.

    Sadly I couldn't explain why it's useful, and I still can't today.
  • mrsteveman1, on 04/21/2008, -0/+15I was browsing the web the other day, and the timer in the kitchen went off, my Win32s were done. I then had some cocoa and watched a movie.
  • Nicksname1, on 04/21/2008, -10/+25FTA: "Microsoft has never done anything so bold as Apple's OS X transition. It developed a new, modern OS, but did so in the early 1990s: Windows NT."

    We must not forget about the 'My Briefcase'
    (What a piece of ***** that was!)
  • MikeSD34, on 04/21/2008, -2/+17It's not propaganda, it's really true. The Win32 is a real mess in some places, and is overall inconsistent. On error some functions return NULL ((void*)0), some return INVALID_HANDLE_VALUE ((HANDLE)-1), some return 0, some return an error code. Memory allocation for buffers handed to functions are different all over the place. Hell, there's 4 different versions of CreateWindow (A,W, ExA, ExW), and even more so for other functions.

    It's pretty easy to get the hang of these things if you're dedicated to it, but it's a real bitch and a half for new programmers.
  • kgorczyn, on 04/21/2008, -1/+15+1... +1 again for Spock pimp-slapping Kirk.
  • burrgrinder, on 04/21/2008, -4/+18Do you know what I hate about Windows? The fact that I can't just click a button to expand to the content size and not the whole damn screen. I don't want it to fill the whole screen, I just want to see what's important. I don't want an OS to tell me how to do my stuff. A user doesn't have to adapt to the new OS, the OS should be adaptable to a user.
  • spdorsey, on 04/21/2008, -3/+16It's great to see the perspective if a developer. I'm a common (graphic design) user, and I choose OS X over Windows for aesthetic reasons. I never knew what went into development of the apps.

    I can't wait for the other 2 parts of the article.

    --------S
  • inactive, on 04/21/2008, -0/+13All the good games are played with the penis.
  • anjinash, on 04/21/2008, -2/+15I made the switch last Summer and have been working on converting my family as well.. not to be a zealot or to ***** on other OS's (I still use Windows and Ubuntu regularly and enjoy them for different reasons).. the reason I try to switch my friends and family is to save time in tech support. The more they use Macs, the less time I have to waste being called at all hours to fix some stupid software glitch.

    The ones who have made the switch (including my wife) have raved about it ever since and wouldn't go back to Windows if I paid them. Sad, but true.
  • unmarked, on 04/21/2008, -1/+14The first version of OS X (10.0) was pretty much a beta-ish release. It wasn't even the default OS at the time. I don't believe Vista is blamed too many changes, but rather that the changes weren't thought out. Asking the user to for explicit permission for every single task reduces productivity. Sadly, all the promises of Vista went away (like a DB-based file system) and it turned into more eye candy than meaty changes.
  • skellener, on 04/21/2008, -0/+12I'd throw Adobe into that ring too. Old bloated software. Slowly I am finding small, fast, nimble software apps that replaces each and every Adobe app. Been MS free for more than a decade, soon to be free of Adobe's bloat too!
  • therightclique, on 04/21/2008, -1/+13You and I both know that's not how the + sign works MOST of the time.
  • TheKeithD, on 04/21/2008, -4/+16Thunderbird: Also available on OS X.
    Firefox: Also available on OS X.
    Veoh: Also available online.
    Joost: Also available on OS X.
    uTorrent: There's Transmission for OS X.
    DivX Player: Also available on OS X.
    Uptime issues: OS X has no problems with staying up.

    So, you could say that OS X just works as well.
  • kitsua, on 04/21/2008, -2/+14Well said sir, well said.
  • Fetching more discussions...
    Show 51 - 100 of 646 discussions

  • Add a Comment

    Login or register to comment!
    Or, sign-in super fast with your Facebook account ...


© Digg Inc. 2009 — Content created and posted by Digg users is dedicated to the public domain | Terms of Use Updated | Privacy Policy
DIGG, DIGG IT, DUGG, DIGG THIS, Digg graphics, logos, designs, page headers, button icons, scripts, and other service names are the trademarks of Digg Inc.