digg

Join DiggAbout

Discover the best of the web!
Learn more about Digg by taking the tour.

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.

Bury
show profanity settings
expand all
  • 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.
    • unloud, on 04/21/2008, -8/+27But, dude, he's HARDCORE.
      • dfsjdkflasjk, on 04/21/2008, -13/+5"hardcore" and "PC" or "Mac" shouldn't be in the same sentence
      • nycmac247, on 04/21/2008, -1/+8EXTREME!!!111!!!
      • jabberwolf, on 04/22/2008, -3/+2"But, dude, he's HARDCORE"

        As in, you havent got a ***** CLUE! and that writer is hoping a programmer in VB or other programmer wasnt reading either!

        He mentions API calls with a Mac and use of "Core Audio in OS X really works. It's a modern low-latency audio AP"
        REALLY? Is that why cakewalk and many OTHERs went to XP because their 3rd party API calls were actually better and OSX wasnt bearing down on them to use theirs?!
        And now Vista using WASAPI which kicks OSX's ass!

        Buried for being a ***** fake as usual!

    • 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.
      • ladbroke, on 04/21/2008, -23/+8Hmm, let's see: "I enjoy programming, and I enjoy writing software. I did then; I do now." Sounds like a developer to me, otherwise it would've read "I enjoy porn, and I enjoy masturbating. I did then; I do now."
        • artofwar420, on 04/21/2008, -4/+3WHAAAT?
        • kinglenster, on 04/21/2008, -0/+9I don't get it. Are you saying that developers don't masturbate and enjoy porn?
        • BlackMask, on 04/21/2008, -3/+3stupidest comment ever! i don't get it either and it doesn't seem to make any sense
    • 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"
    • 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.
      • nickert0n, on 04/21/2008, -22/+5Agreed its Macaganda
        • 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.
        • nickert0n, on 04/23/2008, -1/+1***** -17 diggs? For saying Macaganda?, dont diss the mac on Digg its blashphemy... Well ***** APPLE, you guys are idiots for wanting a company to control all the hardware so they can rape you in prices, Id rather have an ***** OS with customizable competitive hardware then some facist white piece of locked up junk, If I wanted that then Id just buy more 360's KTHXBYE *****
    • DotNetWill, on 04/21/2008, -5/+17Win32? wtf? yes MFC and STL are mean evil things but .Net is quick, clean and feature full
      • r00fus, on 04/21/2008, -7/+6Too bad even MSFT doesn't use .Net for all of their internal frameworks.
        Microsoft invented the term "eating their own dog food" and yet they fail to do it.
      • mrsteveman1, on 04/21/2008, -4/+7.net isn't even used by much right now, so it's mostly irrelevant. Large apps aren't using CLR or C#, and Microsoft isn't using it for anything important either.

        This is why they need to make a clean break and leave the old crap behind.
      • allywilson, on 04/21/2008, -3/+1So...DotNetWill - biased are we? Can you explain why the frameworks are, to pretty much all developers, backwards incompatible?
        • mrsteveman1, on 04/21/2008, -2/+6Because they are entirely new APIs.

          Its similar to Apple, win32 = carbon, .net = cocoa for lack of a better comparison. Thats only true as far as the old vs new API stuff is concerned, .net is more than an API, it also has managed code in a sort of virtual machine like java (without sucking).

          Now, stepping out of my realm of knowledge for a minute, i BELIEVE you can make use of the VM stuff and the new C# language and still use the old Win32 api but i could be wrong there.
        • Guard, on 04/22/2008, -0/+1Yes, you can import functions from the Win32 API as you need them in C#. In most cases, .NET will have the functionality you need though, and people often import things as they cling to old habits.
    • over900000, on 04/21/2008, -18/+11Do you know what I hate about macs? The fact that I can't maximise windows. I don't care if having it to fit the content only is better or more efficient. 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.
      • DanMiller, on 04/21/2008, -6/+13....I'm confused, I'm viewing this on a maximized window right now. Yup, there goes Mail, it's maximized. That's what the little plus is for.
        • therightclique, on 04/21/2008, -1/+13You and I both know that's not how the + sign works MOST of the time.
          • bbardlbradd, on 04/21/2008, -1/+8The plus sign doesn't maximize the window to full screen. It maximizes the window as much as it needs to be. If you open safari and go to google and press the plus, it'll shrink to an odd size, click it again and it'll go back to what you had it set for, if that's full screen, then full screen. Google doesn't have much to show, so when you continue onto the next page you feel like you need to make it bigger to see everything and thus begins your constant need to change the window size. I just leave it full screen and use expose or minimize it if i need to get around the window. IMHO the plus sign is a little awkward and most of the time I wish it worked like the windows maximize button.
          • DanMiller, on 04/25/2008, -0/+1Do I seriously have a screwed up version of leopard? It doesn't matter what program or window I'm currently using, it I hit the plus the window fills up the entire 20" screen...
      • unmarked, on 04/21/2008, -4/+14This is clearly a preference issue. You are used to a certain behavior on Windows and want that on Mac. Other folks would go nuts if maximize used up the whole screen even though the data only needed a fraction of the screen.
        • over900000, on 04/21/2008, -8/+8That's what I am talking about. Give me the preference to use the OS how I want to. Not how Apple wants me to.
          • MikeSD34, on 04/21/2008, -4/+21To be fair, Microsoft doesn't give you any options other then their minimize / maximize behavior either.
          • mrsteveman1, on 04/21/2008, -4/+8Thats how the OS works. If thats enough to make you throw an entire platform away, you can do that, but you're an idiot.
          • bbardlbradd, on 04/21/2008, -1/+1There are a lot of people out there in your position. Used to using certain things in Windows, and uncomfortable with them in Mac. The curser acceleration is one of those things that people usually notice subconsciously but cannot quite put their finger on. Anyhow, there are a lot of small apps out there made by people that get tired of dealing with these small issues. Just look around, I'm sure someone's done something about the maximization.
          • iddybiddy, on 04/23/2008, -0/+1right click on title bar, scroll down to move, set the window size and location, done
      • mstrebe, on 04/21/2008, -6/+5It was an unfortunate design decision in Mac OS to allow the application itself to determine what "Maximize" means. Maximize means "take up my entire screen because I'm not doing anything else important." Unfortunately, because OS X allows the application developer to determine on an app by app basis what that should mean for the individual application, they allow developers to make poor choices. It's a choice individual developers should not have been allowed to make, because about half of them make the wrong choice.
        • zephc, on 04/21/2008, -1/+9That is because the button isn't "Maximize", it is "Resize to fit content" which toggles between your current size and a size that fits the content right, but its up to the developer of the app to figure out if that makes sense (e.g. for Safari it does, but not so much for iTunes)
        • MikeSD34, on 04/22/2008, -0/+4Developers on Windows can set the behavior of their windows upon receiving the maximize message as well. Developers on each platform are simply doing what they can to follow the human interface guidelines set out by the operating system manufacturer, which are different for each platform.
      • 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.
        • iddybiddy, on 04/21/2008, -14/+3You can its called 'move', once set the app window will stay the size you set
      • soopafly, on 04/21/2008, -5/+7Maximizing to a 30" monitor is great!!!
        /sarcasm
      • lpcustom, on 04/22/2008, -2/+3The maximize thing is fine with me. You an always resize to the entire size of your desktop. However, when I close a frakking window somehow I expect it to quit the program. I understand the whole reason behind this but that was one of weirdest things to get used to when I started using a Mac on a regular basis.
    • nonzzero, on 04/21/2008, -4/+12Win32 and Cocoa are not general user terms.
      • 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.
    • HumbleDialog, on 04/21/2008, -6/+10Anybody else thrown off by the following two statements being in the same article:
      - I got my first PC in 1997
      - I began working as a software developer in 1999

      This guy learns fast, eh?
      • Slapo, on 04/21/2008, -9/+1Does every fast learner have to become a programmer?
        Not everybody who gets a computer intends to become a programmer. There are people whose curiosity leads them there, but that doesn't have to happen immediately after they get a computer.
        • HumbleDialog, on 04/21/2008, -1/+10Comment ---------(whoosh)---------------->
          ..........................You
    • jabberwolf, on 04/22/2008, -2/+2This is a LOAD of CRAPPPPPPP
      First he got hist first computer in 1997 then became a developer in 2 years.
      Also his arguments for converting are WRONG. So this is just some fan boy writing crap as usual. Sad, so angry about being a mactard that you need to make up another reality. Very very sad, but typical!
  • 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.
    • KCorax, on 04/21/2008, -6/+13The sad part is that the developer in the article completely overgoes the fact that since 2001 the .net framework superceded win32 for anything but the most hardcore system level applications. That said win32 is indeed very unpleasant and unpredictable to work into, but seriously, it's deprecated anyway.
      • mstrebe, on 04/21/2008, -2/+10Oh yeah? Show me a single significant application from Microsoft written in .NET. Office 2007 certainly wasn't written in .NET. Neither has a single application from Microsoft that is available for sale. Hard core system apps only? Nope. Try any application where performance is a requirement because you're taking people's money for it.
        • Trevahaha, on 04/21/2008, -5/+4Visual Studio, SQL Management Studio, PerformancePoint interface, Media Center, SharePoint/Frontpage designer, Zune client, etc.
          • LocalDocal, on 04/21/2008, -2/+4I don't know if this counts as significant considering it's a free software, but I thought Paint.net is one of the most awesome programs around.
          • system7, on 04/21/2008, -1/+5Visual Studio is still mostly native code. SQL Management Studio and the Zune client are mostly .NET, which is painfully obvious due to their poor performance and excessive resource usage.
      • mrsteveman1, on 04/21/2008, -1/+7Win32 is still used all over the place....especially for developer applications, which was the subject of the article.
      • system7, on 04/21/2008, -0/+3MS wanted to deprecate Win32 in 2001, but the .Net 1.0, 1.1, and 2.0 SDKs were wholly inadequate for developing serious and complex desktop applications. (I'm not familiar with .Net 3.0)

        And from the user's point of view, whose desktop consists of mostly native apps, .Net applications are still slow and resource intensive by comparison. Nonetheless, Microsoft has no choice but to drag both developers and users kicking and screaming into .Net.
        • Guard, on 04/22/2008, -2/+2Not sure where you're coming from entirely, but most .NET applications I've developed are not too resource intensive. .NET 1.1 was not that good, .NET 2 streamlined more things. The only disadvantage memory-wise is the addition of the garbage collector, so memory is not instantly freed up, but then you also don't risk memory leaks.

          .NET 2.0 is actually very performance capable, as I've used it in the development of Ultrasound software with no issues.

          .NET 3.0 and 3.5 basically adds functionality over the .NET 2.0 libraries, and adds the possibility for WPF in the development of GUIs, which is a very simple API, but isn't widely used, because it is significantly more graphics-intensive (many of the animations and graphics become hardware-accelerated) and the .NET 3.0 framework is not distributed by default on WinXP machines (It comes on Vista though).

          In all honesty, I wish more graphics APIs would take a step in the direction .NET3/WPF took, where you can see interface design is completely seperate from code (and is readable in an XML format known as XAML), meaning a design team and code team can work in parallel with no issues.

          I've used Objective-C with MacOSX and the iPhone development, and the two systems are completely different things. I think Windows has a more streamlined process personally (and obviously higher level languages allowing faster development). This article seemed to only complain about the Win32 API, and I haven't found it necessary to delve that deep in a long while.

          FYI, I have been a PC user and a programmer longer. 1989-90 = Family got a commodore 64, ~93 = PC. When I was 7, I was writing "programs" for the Commodore 64. When I was 11 (1997), started using C/C++ on windows. Started using .NET in 2006 as an escape from the mess that is MFC. I'm only 22 (graduated with degree in CS 2 years ago), the author makes me feel old.
    • MxM111, on 04/21/2008, -6/+18He is arguing that MS was never bold enough to make lots of changes in operating system to make it modern. But is not what Vista is blamed for (too many changes, new driver models and so on)? Why the author omits Vista when he makes these statements?
      He even admits that the first shot of Apple's modern system, MacOS X was very buggy. Any parallels with Vista?
      • max1018, on 04/21/2008, -12/+7I wouldn't say that OS X being buggy then is like Vista being buggy today, mostly because OS X was brand new, whilst Vista still has all that old code behind it from previous Windows OS's.
        • MxM111, on 04/21/2008, -6/+9Majority of the problem that Vista had at release was related to 3rd party drivers. You can't say that about OS X.
          • mrsteveman1, on 04/21/2008, -1/+4Because it was a completely new platform....vista isn't
          • HolyChimp, on 04/21/2008, -0/+3It is from a hardware driver perspective. XP could just use 2000/NT drivers 99 times out of 100.
      • thetanman, on 04/21/2008, -1/+10It sounds like he's going to delve more into Vista and what could have been next time: "This has been part one of a three-part series. Next time I'll take a look at how Microsoft squandered a gilt-edged chance to give Windows an API fit for the 21st century." Patience, Daniel-son.
      • SystemError51, on 04/21/2008, -8/+4Deep down, Vista is still Windows 2000 - not much of a bold move here.
      • 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.
        • mrsteveman1, on 04/21/2008, -1/+3The kernel gained some sandboxing features....and i think services are more restricted now, EG a malicious process can't exploit services to compromise the system because they can't interact with user processes.
        • goldisalie, on 04/21/2008, -5/+2Of course UAC is devil spawn but sudo on mac and linux is completely different isn't it? Its the same damn security model you twit! You cannot blame microsoft for lazy software devs who require unnecessary elevation of priviledges when installing software. Any UAC popups in windows alone are not really any different to sudo popups in linux and mac...
          • mrsteveman1, on 04/21/2008, -1/+4sudo just changes the UID a process runs under, it is NOT a security mechanism. merely authentication. Privilege escalation exploits can easily get around sudo because sudo doesn't protect anything.

            UAC literally changes the integrity level of a process, sandboxing that process away from processes in other integrity levels. Privilege escalation exploits can't get around integrity levels.
          • grumpyrain, on 04/22/2008, -1/+1RunAs = sudo
            UAC has no direct *nix equivalent.

            But frankly, unless you are installing stuff, trying to copy files to restricted locations, or going into some global configuration, UAC is quiet.
      • mstrebe, on 04/21/2008, -2/+4Parallels with Vista? Try parallels with Windows NT 3.1, which was so buggy it didn't even run on most computers. A buggy first release is way different than a buggy last release.
    • thesteef000, on 04/21/2008, -18/+9This is not an excellent article. The writer is in fact a flaming idiot. I'm not windows fan-boy, but his assertion that most programming on windows is either asp.net or vb6 is ludicrous. Nobody programs in vb6 anymore. Except for him maybe. And that would make him the village idiot...
      • unmarked, on 04/21/2008, -1/+10I'd bet there are a lot of in-house developers still using VB6. Based on my experience, the move from VB6 to VB.NET has been very slow (and with great reluctance).
      • mstrebe, on 05/02/2008, -0/+1Sure--because VB6 is for idiots and it takes a long time for them to learn anything new.
    • da5id, on 04/21/2008, -3/+3Wow, that's great! Does his "conversion" get him into heaven? Where can I get this great OS for my PC? I can't? I guess I'm stuck with my trusty dual-booting Vista/Ubuntu machine. Mod me down if you don't like my choices!
    • goldisalie, on 04/21/2008, -5/+3"not nearly as bias as the title suggests"

      Right.... and this is taken from the first paragraph: "Windows is dying, Windows applications suck... ...The applications that people do write are almost universally terrible.". Now thats a pretty big claim used to support a platform that wasn't even considered relevant until Microsoft ported office to it. Oh yes and all the hoo ha about macs not getting office 2007 until 2008... I mean its just terrible software right? There is virtually nothing available for mac these days that isn't available for windows. There are extreme quantities of very good software that is simply not at all available on mac, without using some compatability layer. This article is biased as all hell.
  • mvent2, on 04/21/2008, -44/+6I can only imagine what kind of comments this article will attract...
    • bigsteve, on 04/21/2008, -1/+10I'm more worried about the comments the bogus title and description will attract from people who didn't bother to read the article. Anyone who reads the article will find it pleasantly without bias with it's reasoning well cited.
    • darkdriving, on 04/21/2008, -0/+7Look no further than your own.
  • gaz4685, on 04/21/2008, -60/+3I agree, Mvent2

    The zealots will be out in force.
    http://musings-cafe.blogspot.com/2008/02/zealots.h ...
    • Miche1987, on 04/21/2008, -4/+201. Reply button.
      2. Blogspam.
      3. ???
      4. Bury!!
      • logpony, on 04/21/2008, -7/+1Indeed. Heaven forbid the man provide a link to a humorous article that is apropo for the situation to Digg (which is the paragon of serious, reserved contemplation on such matters), absolutely forcing you to click it and slog through the text, wasting your valuable e-time!
        • gaz4685, on 04/24/2008, -0/+0Nice to see someone understands humor when presented with it. Thanks for the support, logpony.
    • logpony, on 04/21/2008, -9/+0Nice article. Dugg.
  • merz1, on 04/21/2008, -9/+46Well written, nice structure, the strong point come at the end.
    • smacksaw, on 04/21/2008, -22/+4As if anyone is going to get to the end. It will just erupt in an orgy of Diggs, Buries and naked fanboyism.
    • nitesoulja, on 04/21/2008, -9/+1too long to read -.-
    • HookemUT25, on 04/21/2008, -3/+1that's what she said...
    • troye, on 04/22/2008, -0/+2There are more articles coming from this guy. This particular article was 1 of 3 article series. I already subscribed to the feed and waiting for it.

      /a PC guy
  • danny951, on 04/21/2008, -39/+6And another one bites the apple...
  • 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"
    • jstone, on 04/21/2008, -2/+37What, no love for BSD?
      • Audacitor, on 04/21/2008, -3/+14OS X is a BSD.
        • dark_helmet, on 04/21/2008, -5/+4Its a perverted BSD, but you can't deny its roots.
          • consonance, on 04/21/2008, -0/+3Perverted? OSX is certified Unix by the Open Group.
          • dark_helmet, on 04/22/2008, -1/+1its perverted in such that most things aren't really done in the same way as you would on another *NIX machine. Nearly everything is done graphically. From my limited experience, its much harder to do some common tasks in the OS X command line than it would have been in a more traditional *nix.
          • ctonks, on 04/24/2008, -0/+1please elaborate with examples.
            apple has moved things but i haven't found anything I can't do with the OS X command line.
      • BrainInAJar, on 04/21/2008, -0/+2or Solaris?
      • arjie, on 04/21/2008, -0/+3Outside this frigid tumble-down shack, dry leaves before the wild winter
        hurricane fly. Here within, at the corner by the cold hearth rests an empty
        stool. A crutch without a master stands perched against the wall. These
        forlorn and lonely objects serve as mute reminders of their departed owner,
        BSD.

        This crutch and vacant stool have become orphans, not unlike the now dead
        BSD. No longer will BSD hobble about on its cripple's crutch. Like
        the empty hearth, and the vacant stool, BSD lies cold and still.
        BSD's corpse, lifeless beneath frozen earth and December snows, will see
        no more Christmas cheer. No, there will be no Christmas ever again for
        BSD, for BSD is dead.

        Goodbye, BSD. The pain of life forever stilled, sleep for all eternity
        in that long winter's nap. Fade gently into Earth's frozen bosom where in
        dreams even cripples walk and blind men see.
    • 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.
      • m00nmaster, on 04/21/2008, -2/+59You won't fit in well here.
      • 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.
        • datdamonfoo, on 04/21/2008, -39/+2The RAM is all made by Apple so either way, it's Apple's fault.
          • barnett25, on 04/21/2008, -0/+22If you are wondering why you got dug down it's because you are wrong.
          • Coolmatt49, on 04/21/2008, -1/+3*sigh*
          • dark_helmet, on 04/21/2008, -1/+6datamonfoo, in case you didn't know apple actually do not make they own hardware. Sure they may choose which parts they put in it and design the case. But they don't actually make it. I believe Asus currently make their laptops, not sure about the mac pro / iMac.
          • Nitrodist88, on 04/21/2008, -1/+17Apple doesn't make ram.
          • dirigibleduck, on 04/21/2008, -3/+1Not true, but a lot of their machines come with ***** proprietary Nanya RAM.
      • duckyinc, on 04/21/2008, -5/+6Prepare to be buried :
      • max1018, on 04/21/2008, -2/+4Yes it has happened to me twice on my MacBook, since I bought it back 9 months ago. I do know it does it a hell of a lot less then Windows though. I haven't had much problems since I installed some more RAM, I think I was just running too much stuff.
        • mstrebe, on 04/21/2008, -1/+8No, it's because you have marginally bad RAM, and having more of it means that you're less likely to hit the bad spots.
          Bad RAM is the only reason I've ever had hard crashes on a Mac across ten machines and eight years. But when you have it, life can be hell. I'm not sure why Macs are so much more sensitive to RAM timing and quality than Windows machines, but they are.
        • burrgrinder, on 04/21/2008, -1/+0I've hardlocked a Mac about 3 times in 4 years of using them. No cheap quality as it's been stock RAM, I think I just ran into some of those "marginal" use cases that the kernel didn't plan for (and I couldn't replicate).

          That being said, I have hardlocked Linux and Windows before too. Nothing in invulnerable, but Mac and Linux fail far less often.
      • crashfive, on 04/21/2008, -2/+2I have both a MacBook and an HP laptop with Vista, both have locked up thought the Vista machines I would say has locked up more but that is also probably because I use it more.
      • Angostura, on 04/21/2008, -2/+10As a new Mac user, you *might* not be aware of the Command-Option-Escape key combo. It is similar in some respects to Ctrl-Alt-Del and lets you force-quite crashed apps. It might help you out in future.
        • TomTruelle, on 04/22/2008, -0/+1Thank you, i was actually wondering about that. New to macs aswell. They decided to throw away the PCs and get mac minis at work.
        • hydroxic, on 04/22/2008, -0/+0I've tried that...
          Never works when my mbp locks up.
          Also, i've noticed that sometimes when i try to resume from sleep mode, the screen never turns on or anything, so I have to do a hard shutdown.

          Nevertheless, good info for those that don't know.
      • j2002, on 04/21/2008, -4/+5I got a Mac recently and the cheap battery blew my balls off. Now I finally feel like I fit in with other Mac users!
      • Kanidia, on 04/21/2008, -0/+1Hey you didn't get the screen of death. Mac error messages: they don't exist! /kidding
      • vault, on 04/21/2008, -0/+1Open console, go to system.log, and see what happened right when it froze.
      • diggimator, on 04/22/2008, -0/+2I used to get lock ups because of a faulty USB mouse... Just saying, it could be one of a myriad possibilities.
    • HonoredMule, on 04/21/2008, -9/+3screen o death? Isn't that for iPods?
    • crashfive, on 04/21/2008, -9/+3So which OS are you using that causes you to misspell "the".
      • nycmac247, on 04/21/2008, -0/+3he was typing that response on caturday
      • MacTyler, on 04/21/2008, -0/+1the same one that makes you sound like an idiot
    • SSCrow, on 04/21/2008, -6/+26I have not seen BSOD in years. Why do people still use it as a point of argument?
      • jonahan52, on 04/21/2008, -3/+28The same reason you use the the Mac has only one mouse button and no software arguments.
      • Angostura, on 04/21/2008, -2/+4It's one of those iconic mantras that fill in when nothing else can be thought of, sort of like 'Macs can't even cope with multi-button mice'.
      • burrgrinder, on 04/21/2008, -7/+3Just because *you* don't see it, doesn't mean others don't. The bluescreen still exists in XP and Vista in full force for a variety of reasons.
        • Echomote, on 04/21/2008, -1/+2Yeah, when you're running Windows ME in VMware on it.
        • Ramble, on 04/21/2008, -0/+5Same for kernel panics on Macs.
      • synyster, on 04/21/2008, -2/+1you must be joking, BSOD is part of window's kernel
    • outsid3rNo17, on 04/21/2008, -3/+3I can run 100 apps on my Vista at the same time. Why would I do that? BECAUSE I CAN!
    • SSUK, on 04/21/2008, -0/+16Vista is too bulky. I'll stick with Windows 3.1, thanks.
      • synyster, on 04/21/2008, -0/+8how did you write your comment on digg? i thought windows 3.1 doesn't support javascript
        • IEatHamburgers, on 04/22/2008, -0/+1He never said he didn't hack it to run Firefox or something though.
    • diggingaround, on 04/21/2008, -2/+5When I'm ready to jump ship... I will for sure not jump to another proprietary corporate controlled OS.
      • diggimator, on 04/22/2008, -0/+1I like Linux, too, but I also like Apple's hardware, which makes for a compelling argument.
        • grumpyrain, on 04/22/2008, -0/+1How does that stop you using Linux?
    • xz9925, on 04/22/2008, -0/+1Solaris 10 ownz your soul.. you just don't know it yet..
  • unloud, on 04/21/2008, -5/+54It is slightly disappointing that this is only part 1 and we have to wait for the rest.
    • macbookpromat, on 04/21/2008, -0/+7I think it only got me more interested in what this guy has to say about these things. Had it been one huge article, I would have never reached the end.
    • Photar, on 04/22/2008, -1/+1Thats what she said.
  • foxhaze, on 04/21/2008, -30/+14LULZ ubuntu pwns you all
  • SpickSlayer, on 04/21/2008, -60/+27Macs are for fags
    • CPOliver, on 04/21/2008, -11/+7Silly rabbit, Macs are for geeks.

      Geeks ftw!
      • talonstriker, on 04/21/2008, -7/+6Silly CPO, Macs are for webpage designers.
        • BrainInAJar, on 04/21/2008, -2/+3and coders. and sysadmins.

          Textmate ftw. I know a /ton/ of people who use macs to develop, and then deploy on some UNIX or another. Or UNIX sysadmins that use macs as workstations exclusively ( since the machines they administer are only an ssh(1) away )
    • Audacitor, on 04/21/2008, -2/+9Homophobia is for Windoze users.
  • Scyth3, on 04/21/2008, -40/+17Yes, but i can play games on my PC?!!!! AH HA!!
    • HonoredMule, on 04/21/2008, -0/+8Yes, but I can play games on my abacus! Ah HA!
      • DemonWasp, on 04/21/2008, -0/+9Yes, but I can play games with my penis! Ah HA!
        • 1timeuser, on 04/21/2008, -0/+13All the good games are played with the penis.
        • an0nym0us, on 04/22/2008, -0/+2Thanks for the reminder. Brb.
      • SystemError51, on 04/21/2008, -0/+2Does the Wii count?
    • skellener, on 04/21/2008, -2/+1360
      • Echomote, on 04/21/2008, -0/+1Worst console you could've mentioned against a Windows fan... Microsoft made them both.
  • clak, 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.
    • 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
      • cawpin, on 04/21/2008, -13/+25Your entire comment is ludicrously inaccurate. The freeware software scene on Windows far out does that of the Mac. Everybody that makes a program for Mac wants their $5-10. On Windows I can find a free app to do ANYTHING. On Mac it is not so. There isn't even an equivalent program to DVD Shrink. As a new Mac user I love the OS and how it works but the freeware side of things is horribly behind.
        • Winckle, on 04/21/2008, -3/+13lol, dvdshrink.

          Take a look for "mactheripper"
        • idntunknwn, on 04/21/2008, -4/+1@Winckle

          DVDShrink isn't a normal DVD ripper. DVDShrink makes use of compressed domain transcoding. Mactheripper makes use of recompression. The differences are very significant. Compressed domain transcoding is much, much faster than simple recompression. Some compressed domain transcoders can shrink DVDs in only a few minutes.

          As far as I can tell, compressed domain transcoder applications only exist for Windows right now.
        • idntunknwn, on 04/21/2008, -4/+2@Winckle

          Actually I took a closer look at mactheripper. It dosn't even try to shrink DVDs. It's not in any way comparable to DVDShrink
        • jimthenglishman, on 04/21/2008, -1/+9then look at handbrake
        • Angostura, on 04/21/2008, -1/+3I'm not saying you are wrong. But www.versiontracker.com is handy if you haven't already found it.
        • bbatsell, on 04/21/2008, -1/+3DVD2OneX works wonderfully, but it's not freeware.
        • cthellis, on 04/21/2008, -0/+1http://www.dvd2one.com/

          If you're looking only at free, I'm pretty sure Handbrake can do some of the major recompression/file-shrinking duties you're looking for, so long as you know how to do them manually.
      • timalmond, on 04/21/2008, -2/+0I'd like to hear some examples for your theory.
        • falafelkiosken, on 04/21/2008, -0/+4http://iusethis.com/
        • timalmond, on 04/21/2008, -1/+0Video capture apps? Free.
          Video compression? Divx Converter. $20 (less than the $30 one shown).
          Keyclick? $5. Freeware on windows.
          Filejuicer to pull images from PDFs and powerpoint? There's 2 bits of freeware that do those.
          Papaya? Web server for sharing files? Even mac has plenty of free alternatives for that.
          Java Versitile editor? Runs under windows too.
    • poonaka, on 04/21/2008, -23/+2Development on OS X is brutal. After a year on OS X I switched back to MS. OS X will always be in last place until they provide better development tools.
      • alexp2ad, on 04/21/2008, -0/+11Couldn't disagree more... Xcode and Interface Builder are excellent and way better than anything on windows... not to mention free.
      • 1timeuser, on 04/21/2008, -0/+4gcc + emacs wins.
        • JayD16, on 04/21/2008, -2/+1I use vim. Does that mean my penis is bigger?
      • yabos, on 04/21/2008, -1/+9That's ok, you're not smart enough for objective-c. Stick to VB.net
      • SystemError51, on 04/21/2008, -1/+6In my mind, Xcode is one of the best dev utils I have seen.
        • falafelkiosken, on 04/21/2008, -0/+3Maybe he never realized that you only have to find your OS X disc to start programming for Mac… no annoying demo software or crippleware like the tools you get from Microsoft
      • mcnasby, on 04/21/2008, -1/+5Are you serious? Have you taken 20 minutes out of your oh, so important life to check out the iPhone SDK? I'm not even a developer and I'm already able to understand how Cocoa applications are developed. The resources Apple provides to its developers -- even developers just starting out -- are surprisingly easy to understand and rich in content and value. In my free time I've checked out MSDN a few times and still don't understand which end is up. Sure I'm not a programmer, nor do I plan on being one. I just wanted a little understanding - and if Apple can provide that in 20 minutes, just think what their resources can provide with a few days of attention. While Apple may have fumbled the ball for their developers during the iPhone launch, they've certainly made up for it with the release of this comprehensive SDK. In the end, it will hopefully bring more developers to OS X.
    • lumbergh, on 04/21/2008, -7/+15"I switched to Macs almost by accident, because I needed [[insert mac-only app here]], but once I started using Mac apps, I realized how badly designed Windows apps are."

      I have been making this argument for, literally, 20 YEARS... In vain. People are just nearly impossible to convince that something else is better unless they come to it themselves because of some other reason. I guess that if someone tries to tell you "BMW is a much better driving experience" then you are going to defend your Acura purchase till you are blue in the face, because to do otherwise is to give the other person too much credit and to admit you judged poorly. Your loss, though...
    • thedrue, on 04/21/2008, -7/+1It seems to be the generic problem people see with macs... They don't have any software, How hard is it to see the benefit in 3 really good programs versus 400 crappy cobbled-together bits of code that they pass as software?
      • timalmond, on 04/21/2008, -1/+1Such as? You want to tell me a few programs you consider as "really good" so I can compare.

        I tried iPhoto. Picasa pisses on it from a great height.
        • Peavey, on 04/21/2008, -1/+3I have not tried Picasa, but I do use iPhoto on an almost daily basis.

          Please justify your opinion.
        • timalmond, on 04/21/2008, -1/+0OK. Firstly, it completely works with your folders. That means renaming of the actual file name is possible (rather than the duff renaming in iPhoto). This also means that editing in and out is easier than iPhoto. You can export straight to Blogger. Upload to free Picasa Web Albums. Watches folders that you specify. Filter imports via thumbnails.

          On top of that, it's just smoother and more polished (yes, I've tried both).
    • NSResponder, on 04/22/2008, -0/+2"once I started using Mac apps, I realized how badly designed Windows apps are. "

      That remark warms me from the bottom of my AAPL shares. :-D

      -jcr
  • borez, on 04/21/2008, -29/+23I've just spent two weeks working on a tour bus with Vista on a borrowed PC laptop ( after I stupidly left my powerbook power supply at home )

    Horrible, horrible experience on a horrible OS is all I can say.
    • MrMoonlight, on 04/21/2008, -11/+33LEAVE VISTA ALONE!
      • gr3yn3t, on 04/21/2008, -17/+2LEAVE BRITNEY ALONE ;(
        • Echomote, on 04/21/2008, -0/+1Oh damn! Somebody's got to make a youtube video copying that guy but for Windows Vista.
    • drfluffer, on 04/21/2008, -9/+2You couldn't come up with the right password to a stolen laptop?
  • 1jaxstate1, on 04/21/2008, -50/+19I have no clue what he's talking about. For every nice/pretty app for OSX. there are hundreds for Windows that's just as nice/pretty. I'm a former Windows user, who switched to OSX, and now I'm back to Windows. The power of Windows can't be matched by OSX, it just can't. To say that you need one Windows apps to match what one OSX app can do, is just a flat out lie.
    • Jambi, on 04/21/2008, -10/+21Okay, name some of these really good Windows exclusive apps. (not having used it for a few years now, I'm not up to speed) And what exactly do you mean by "the power of Windows"? That's kinda vague. Mind explaining it, please?
      • schnikies79, on 04/21/2008, -7/+14AutoCAD
        • aamir2, on 04/21/2008, -6/+4Is that an app that 99.99% of computer users care about?
          • schnikies79, on 04/21/2008, -0/+7Well it's an app the my Dad's job and business depends on, so it doesn't really matter.

            I run some proprietary chemistry software that is windows only. No equivalent for os x or linux. No emulation either since it needs access to the pci bus for interface cards.
        • thedrue, on 04/21/2008, -4/+1AutoCAD is not a very good program, its powerful and can do lots of things,but its a pain in the ass to use. Im learning it in college and I just cannot think of it as a good program. There are many more design software that I think are better and easier to use, not to mention more modern.
        • dued007, on 04/21/2008, -0/+2thedrue
          if you are in engineering and are using AutoCAD, something is wrong there.
          Most (don't quote me on it) engineering companies nowadays use Catia, Solidworks, ProEngineer

          my university (which I graduated a year ago) made the switch to Catia/SolidWorks like 3 years ago. Significantly more powerful
          software, look into learning these programs, if you havent already.
        • awhiteflame, on 04/21/2008, -0/+1http://www.apple.com/downloads/macosx/imaging_3d/a ...
      • santaliqueur, 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".
      • theWrkncacnter, on 04/21/2008, -0/+6utorrent is the only thing I can think of and there are good clients for mac. And since it's unix there are all kinds of opensource projects ported like cdrdao
        • willaggs, on 04/21/2008, -0/+4transmission is a great osx torrent client
        • darkdriving, on 04/21/2008, -0/+2I second willaggs about Transmission. Very small footprint, selective file downloading, speed limits based on time of day, etc. Lots of features and really fast to boot.
      • JayD16, on 04/21/2008, -1/+5I don't want to say "lol games" or anything but there IS a reason almost no one develops games for mac. They just haven't delivered an environment close to direct X. Plain and simple.
      • hotpixel, on 04/21/2008, -0/+0WinImages only runs under Windows. The only thing remotely in its class is Photoshop, and it does so many things that Photoshop can't and WinImages is *so* much faster and tighter... they're really not comparable.

        However... WinImages runs perfectly under Parallels, and that's precisely how I use it on my Mac. Parallels gives it direct, transparent access to the Mac's filesystem, and frankly, if there were a Mac native version, I don't know if I'd bother. It'd have to be different in features, not just the host OS it runs under.

        • Peavey, on 04/21/2008, -0/+2Try the myriad of other (less expensive) photo manipulation app's for OS X. Like pixelmator, acorn, chocoflop, etc.
        • BrainInAJar, on 04/21/2008, -1/+3What a horribly ugly piece of software, even by windows standards
      • timalmond, on 04/21/2008, -1/+0Visio. You got an application on Mac that can import the structure of a SQL database and show it as a diagram?
        Paint.net. Free painting tool.
        Picasa.
        UltraEdit.
        Coda accounting
        Sage accounting
        Crystal Reports
        Goldmine contact manager
        Microsoft Exchange/Outlook

        and of course... lots of games.
    • SpeckledLemon, on 04/21/2008, -2/+4I have no clue how people are still this ignorant. Windows apps do work most of the time. But they NEVER work well.
  • iainc, on 04/21/2008, -19/+4Queue the inevitable OS JIHAD.

    /me apple-windows-linux user
  • sagat, on 04/21/2008, -23/+3here we go again....

    Operating Systems will be redundant in 4-5 years so there is life at the end of the tunnel.
    • Derfy, on 04/21/2008, -0/+8...what? I seriously doubt we'll ever see the end of operating systems, just the end of the kind we see now.
      • fyngyrz, on 04/21/2008, -0/+2The GP is one those people deluded into thinking that users will actually move from fast, secure, tight desktop applications to pigware written to run in a browser, handing your data off to a third party. Don't worry. In five years, that bit of silliness too, shall pass.
  • wTheOnew, on 04/21/2008, -59/+61So how come every time someone 'converts' to a Mac they get an article? Use whatever OS suites you best, and keep this drivel off Digg.
    • 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.
      • wTheOnew, on 04/21/2008, -2/+5My bad on just skimming, really, but my point is that the 'My experience switching from [OS] to [OS]' articles are way to frequent and generic.
        • Peavey, on 04/21/2008, -1/+2And his point was that the title is misleading because that is not what this article is.
      • nebkiwi, on 04/21/2008, -0/+2what you're saying is good but its "OS X" not "OS/X" , just letting you know ;)
    • drjennings, on 04/21/2008, -5/+12You'll see a lot of articles about people switching to Macs, and to Linux, because they are making a needed migration for practical reasons. But you won't read about people throwing out their Macs and migrating to Windows because it seldom happens. John Cage said, "I don't know why people are so scared of new ideas... it's the old ones that frighten me". Windows is an OLD idea.
      • Sawta, on 04/21/2008, -1/+2I'm actually have a laptop arriving on Wednesday with Vista installed on it. I only really need it for school (and I plan on installing Linux on it) I decided that I need it because I'm taking a C# class (and probably visual basic, next semester) and there's much less support (Read: NO support) for compilers for Mac/Linux from the course material that I've been assigned, as well as any input from my teacher.. since she only uses Windows as well.

        My hand was somewhat forced in the matter and I'm really not *thrilled* about getting Windows into this house again..but at least there's a shiney new toy coming. (And no, I can't use the schools public access computers for this either, since they use a program called "Deep Freeze" which returns the computer to default settings that the admin has put on after someone shuts the computer off, thus making it incredibly unfeasible for me to install and setup the proper programs every time I need to code out an assignment)

        You probably just don't hear about as many cases of this either because people who own Macs and decide to take coding classes *already* have a second computer running Windows, or people who do end up in the same spot I'm in just don't feel the need to make a blog post about it. *shrug*

        On a side note, I wonder if people taking other majors get pushed around as much as Comp Science does? :P
        • burrgrinder, on 04/21/2008, -0/+2I have a Macbook and I'm a computer science major graduating in May. Windows and Linux install just fine on it, I can program in any environment I need to.

          Also, if your Computer Science department is offering a *Visual Basic* course, you need to change schools if you're actually interested in the degree. CS is not a vocational training curriculum, Visual Basic has no place.
      • designerutah, on 04/21/2008, -2/+2Too bad you didn't buy a Macbook Pro and get the ability to live in both worlds comfortably. Yes, even to programming.
        • jstanden, on 04/23/2008, -0/+1Exactly! Just fire up VMware Fusion, click Vista or XP, go full screen.
  • paulajohnw, on 04/21/2008, -29/+3Making the switch
    A couple of Gartner analysts have recently claimed that Windows is "collapsing"; that it's too big, too sprawling, and too old to allow rapid development and significant new features. Although organizations like Gartner depend on trolling to drum up business, I think this time they could be onto something. "Collapsing" is over-dramatic—gradual decline is a more likely outcome—but the essence of what they're saying—and why they're saying it—rings true.

    Windows is dying, Windows applications suck, and Microsoft is too blinkered to fix any of it—that's the argument. The truth is that Windows is hampered by 25-year old design decisions. These decisions mean that it's clunky to use and absolutely horrible to write applications for. The applications that people do write are almost universally terrible. They're ugly, they're inconsistent, they're disorganized; there's no finesse, no care lavished on them. Microsoft—surely the company with the greatest interest in making Windows and Windows applications exude quality—is, in fact, one of the worst perpetrators.

    The unfortunate thing about this is that there is a company that's not only faced similar problems but also tackled them. Apple in the mid-1990s was faced with an operating system that was going nowhere, and needed to take radical action to avoid going out of business. And so that's what Apple did. Apple's role in the industry has always been more prominent than mere sales figures would suggest, but these days even the sales numbers are on the up. There are lessons to be learned from the company in Cupertino; I only hope they will be.

    A little background
    I've never been a Mac user. I've used Macs from time to time, of course, but never owned one myself. As with many Brits d'un certain âge at school I was brought up on a diet of Acorn Archimedes and RISC OS. RISC OS brought with it many notable features: it had a spatial file browser done properly, its menu bar was optimally located, it used bundles for applications, and it had a taskbar/dock before anyone else did. The Archimedes was, however, a footnote in the history of computing, and the only computers I've ever owned have been PCs.

    I got my first PC in 1997. It was a Dell Pentium II with Windows 95. I got it because I was interested in computers and I wanted to learn how to program them, so I picked up a student edition of Visual Studio 97 and duly learned C++. At that time, Windows was really the only game in town; Macs were ever so expensive and, as everyone knows, there was no software available for them.

    Microsoft was pretty good to me at the time. The Windows OS was fast and reasonably stable. We didn't have to worry about allocating memory to applications or rebuilding our desktops, and although the preemptive multitasking and protected memory were not perfect, the system was obviously more stable than any Mac.

    I got cheap student copies of Visual Studio 6 and Office 97. I bought the Windows 98 upgrade on the day of its release, wowed by its sleek new look (gradients in the title bars!). Microsoft sent me copies of an exciting new operating system called "Windows NT 5 Beta 2" which I eagerly installed and ran as my primary OS until it expired; Microsoft even sent me a copy of Windows 2000 for my trouble. That OS was bullet-proof; it was quick, it ran all the applications I wanted, it supported my software—what more could someone ask for?

    I began working in late 1999 as a software developer, writing all sorts of programs in Java, Visual Basic 6, C++, SQL Server, and whatever else I had to use. Again, I felt well-treated by Microsoft. MSDN Library was an invaluable developer resource; Microsoft was open about what it were doing, giving out betas of Windows XP (or Whistler, as it then was) to all and sundry, and it felt like they knew what they were doing. The company had a roadmap of Whistler and Blackcomb; it had a plan.

    This was attractive to someone who programmed for a living. Developers felt valued, like the company cared about them. I enjoy programming, and I enjoy writing software. I did then; I do now. So for me, this is really a key piece of what a platform has to offer.

    A brief history of Macs

    State of the art, circa 2000 The Mac at this time was still struggling with its archaic OS and its underpowered hardware, and the entire platform felt stagnant.

    In 2001, Apple just about managed to get OS X out the door—dragging Mac software kicking and screaming into the 21st century—but had so little confidence in the thing that it still made the computers default to Mac OS 9. Even Mac proponents regarded OS X as little better than a beta. But it was the start of a big change in the fortunes of the Mac platform. Although OS X was slow and buggy, it also hinted at being something more; a platform for the future. The infrastructure was sound, and Quartz was downright modern. Its Cocoa API and Objective-C were an exciting development platform offering interesting new features like "System Services."

    Part of this was by accident. If Apple's Copland project had come to fruition, it probably wouldn't have happened at all. Apple's intent was to update the aging OS piecemeal, adding protected memory and preemptive multitasking, and, piece by piece, update the core OS libraries to better support these modern features. Eventually this would become sufficiently advanced that the "Gershwin" OS would be "fully modern," whatever this meant (even Apple wasn't sure).

    Feature creep and mismanagement resulted in the cancellation of Copland. Instead of developing a new OS from the existing one, Apple decided to purchase a modern OS and use that as the basis for its future operating system. This resulted in the purchase of NeXT, and NeXTstep went on to form the basis of Mac OS X.

    NeXTstep was pretty radical in its day; it's thanks to NeXTstep that OS X uses Objective-C and has an Objective-C library. Display Postscript in NeXTstep became Display PDF in OS X. NeXTstep had the same combination of Mach and BSD code that became MacOS X's Darwin kernel. Obviously, this still left Apple with a lot of work to do; NeXTstep couldn't run Mac apps, which was obviously a big problem for a MacOS successor, so Apple devised the "Classic" virtual machine to provide support for legacy applications. New applications would use the new Cocoa or Carbon APIs.

    This approach—forced on it due to screwing up the Copland project—put Apple in a strong position. The new OS was free of many of the legacy constraints that the Copland approach would have caused; the clumsy old APIs were restricted to the Classic environment, and they didn't form a part of the modern OS core. Although the new APIs were not entirely new—the Obj-C Cocoa API was based on the NeXTstep API, and Carbon was similar to the old MacOS API—they were cleaned up, allowing bad decisions of the past to be fixed.

    • diggingaround, on 04/21/2008, -0/+4Nicely formate WALL of TEXT. It can almost serve as first chapter of some book.
    • mrBitch, on 04/22/2008, -0/+1"Feature creep and mismanagement resulted in the cancellation of Copland. Instead of developing a new OS from the existing one, Apple decided to purchase a modern OS and use that as the basis for its future operating system. This resulted in the purchase of NeXT, and NeXTstep went on to form the basis of Mac OS X."
      This is quite a scary re-enactment of what could have been had Microsoft bit the bullet and made tough decisions during the development of Vista :

      "Feature creep and mismanagement resulted in the cancellation of Vista. Instead of developing a new OS from the existing one ( Windows 2003 Server), Microsoft decided to purchase a modern OS and use that as the basis for its future operating system. This resulted in the purchase of XXXXXX, and XXXXX went on to form the basis of Windows YYYYY."
    • p0tent1al, on 04/27/2008, -0/+1What's the point of reposting? It's not like ArsTechnica is going to go down any time soon....
  • Kaitsu, on 04/21/2008, -38/+8"Hardcore PC user"... Why is he downgrading to a system that can't play games or run majority of the software available then? And practically gets the scraps from the PC market as it's "cutting edge" hardware, for extra 30% cost of course.
    • theWrkncacnter, on 04/21/2008, -2/+19RTFA
    • luchid, on 04/21/2008, -5/+14Have you read the article? He busts your "run majority of software available" argument. Quality > Quantity. His experience -similar to mine- is that for every thousand badly coded, awful looking, crappy UI apps on Windows there's one, free, elegant alternative for OS X.
      Plus not everyone likes to waste their time on games, and if we wanted to, we could get a console, with better games, no compatibility issues and no installing.
      • DotNetWill, on 04/21/2008, -4/+2Maybe that's because there are more amateur devs for Windows producing crap and tbh "there's one, free, elegant alternative for OS X" is a lot of rubbish. Most decent Mac software is shareware that has at least a $20 charge
        • luchid, on 04/21/2008, -0/+3Uhmm, please tell me what free Windows app you're using for which you couldn't find a free OSX equivalent?
        • fyngyrz, on 04/21/2008, -2/+2Most decent Mac software - shareware or not - is also pigware. Examples: Adium is 4 megabytes for a text-only instant messenger; Aperture is 17 megabytes; compare that to the Gimp, which is about 16 megabytes and does about 100x more (and WinImages [a Win32 app] is 4 mb and does more than the Gimp); iWeb is 8 megabytes. iPhoto is 15 megabytes (and does very little for you at all.) The myth of "Mac developers caring more to produce a quality app" is directly contradicted by the sloppy, overweight executables that underlie the pretty faces we, as users, get to see.

          People who extoll XCode as such a great development environment should look a little harder at what it produces. Compared to a clean Win32 application, Mac apps are unbelievably piggy.

          Honestly -- if you want to make a fast application that runs under OS X -- XCode isn't your friend.

        • darkdriving, on 04/21/2008, -1/+4fyngyrz, you're concerned about a few megabytes here and there? With the gigabytes and terabytes that are available to us and such low cost, maybe you should focus on the quality of the apps you're slamming. They work expectedly well and as expected.
      • timalmond, on 04/21/2008, -0/+0Such as? Some comparisons, please.
    • MacParrot, on 04/21/2008, -1/+10Soooo, every hardcore computer user is there for just the games?
      I don't really care what OS you prefer, but to claim that you should base your decision on what games it plays is just foolishness. What I find amusing is that one of the knocks against Apple and Macs back in the 80's and early 90's was that it was little more than a glorified game system.
    • lucasmaximus, on 04/21/2008, -3/+5He talking about API's and he develops on, not about playing game and the cost of hardware.

      Apple's new OS has almost got rid of a lot of legacy code, i.e. They have dropped support for many of their old API's and classic.

      How many 16bit application do you run on your windows systems? I think the number would be pretty damn small. However I suspect it is still supported on Vista. With Windows 7 I am pretty sure they are removing legacy support (finally) and having it virtualized.

      The article is a load of bollox though
      • Peavey, on 04/21/2008, -0/+4I support everything you said, except for that last sentence. The article was well thought out and well written. The digg title was bullocks.
    • digitalpencil, on 04/21/2008, -1/+6RTFA.. He's a Windows software dev not 13 yr old video game junkie and he's not discussing the switching experience, he's discussing limitations with the current design paradigm, how it's hampered by 25 yr old decisions and what can be done in moving forward, from Acorn/RISC background to Vista/Leopard. He goes into the issue of available software, outlining how he'd prefer to be able to do everything with 40 strong apps than a myriad of smaller apps doing unintegrated jobs, that OS/9's software library was limited and that OS/X's is anything but, stating that other than a few artisan windows devs, many are lazy leading to a seemingly endless library of 3rd party solutions that could be better consolidated and streamlined with a greater focus on UI. He's not discussing hardware as he's not a hardware guy, he's discussing Win32 to Cocoa and what can be learned form a dev perspective. Moreover, the speeds derived from OS/X software and the 'PC scraps' as you put it are often faster than the 'cutting edge' due to better thought out software development. Think about boot times, app loading, render times etc. which are often comparable if not faster than more powerful Windows-based equivalents.
      I use OS/X, Windows and Linux on a tri-boot mac and a dual-boot PC and agree largely with what he's arguing. Windows is hampered by antiquated design solutions and MS could learn a lot from the competition, both OS/X and Linux. Whats worse than fanboy are the likes of you, this isn't a flamebait article, it's a mature discussion into strengths and weaknesses by an unbiased party and why every discussion touting any strengths OS/X might have over Windows attracts you insecure, OS-defined non-entities tha don't even bother to RTFA.. is beyond me.
      • luchid, on 04/21/2008, -0/+2You wrote exactly what I wanted to type but got too lazy to actually get to it.

        The sort of knee-jerk reaction you complain about also pissed me off to no end.
  • Sundowner, on 04/21/2008, -33/+7These articles are crap no one cares.
    • MacParrot, on 04/21/2008, -2/+7Well, so far at least 50 people cared enough to comment...including you.
  • 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.
    • jstone, on 04/21/2008, -23/+14One thing I'll never understand is why people that switch to a Mac feel the need to convert everybody around them to Macs. "Cult of mac" isn't too far off. Hell, I'm a Linux user and love open-source, and even then I'm not as much of a zealot as a lot of Mac people.
      • richard2, on 04/21/2008, -4/+13It's because we want to share the love!
      • 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.
      • lumbergh, on 04/21/2008, -5/+6"I switched to Macs almost by accident, because I needed [[insert mac-only app here]], but once I started using Mac apps, I realized how badly designed Windows apps are."

        I have been making this argument for, literally, 20 YEARS... In vain. People are just nearly impossible to convince that something else is better unless they come to it themselves because of some other reason. I guess that if someone tries to tell you "Wow, BMW is a much better driving experience than my Acura was" then you are going to defend your Acura purchase till you are blue in the face, because to do otherwise is to give the other person too much credit and to admit you judged poorly. Your loss, though...
        • bluearyus, on 04/21/2008, -1/+4The two worst windows apps i've ever used are designed by Apple (Quicktime and iTunes)
          Can you tell me why apple's ported software on windows is so god awful?
          • jstone, on 04/22/2008, -0/+1Because they want you to switch to the Mac.
        • Ramble, on 04/21/2008, -0/+3For 20 years? Even when Macs didn't have proper multitasking? Mac apps were God, God awful, and on windows they still are.
      • vault, on 04/21/2008, -0/+3If you made the switch, you'd understand ;)
        • jstone, on 04/22/2008, -1/+1I've used Macs. Didn't like them that much. It's a lot better than Windows, but I actually prefer the way I have my Linux distro set up at the moment.
    • Wartz, on 04/21/2008, -33/+11nice, you paid close to $3000 for hardware not even worth $1500
      congrats.
    • 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
      • paperthins, on 04/21/2008, -0/+0Damn, that's quite a box. What kind of work do you do?
        • unionaire, on 04/22/2008, -0/+1posting comments on digg...
          'cause you really need a 8 core mac pro to do that...
    • freqk, on 04/22/2008, -0/+1I totally agree, I got my brand new refurbished 24" Core 2 Extreme, 4GB ram iMac and couldn't be happier. Refurb is the way to go because the hardware is overpriced.
  • 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.
    • Peavey, on 04/21/2008, -0/+5As a non-developer I have to ask, what is QT?
      • jsebrech, on 04/21/2008, -0/+4Qt is a programming library for graphical interface based applications that provides a collection of graphical controls, as well as the supporting code to build real life applications, like database interfaces, dialogs, and so on. Qt is cross-platform. It renders applications in a way that looks native on every platform Qt is supported on.
      • ferrite, on 04/21/2008, -0/+4QT is a GUI toolkit from Trolltech and is the major backbone for programs like KDE and Photoshop.
        It's fairly fast, clean, and cross-platform.

        It's also licensed so you can make GPL applications (for free) or closed sourced apps (for a fee)
        • kaplanfx, on 04/21/2008, -0/+1Photoshop uses QT? I was under the impression that it used win32 on windows, and carbon on OS X.
          • ferrite, on 04/21/2008, -0/+3Whoops typo by me, It's Photoshop Album,
            Though there are plenty of commerical/semi-commercial apps that use QT.
            Google Earth, Skype, Virtualbox, and Opera for starters.
  • 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.
    • killdeer03, on 04/21/2008, -1/+6just for fun, lets hear those "Open-source principles" and the "design decisions"....i am interested to hear your thought on this
  • 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.
    • kitsua, on 04/21/2008, -2/+14Well said sir, well said.
    • usingpond, on 04/21/2008, -1/+20This needs more love.
      • logpony, on 04/21/2008, -1/+2Thank you both. My wish is for the equivalent of the Unitarian Jihad between Mac/PC users.

        "Brother Flaming Sword of Moderation noted the possibility of there being no superior system, which was duly noted in the meeting"
    • xero01, on 04/21/2008, -0/+8*sniff* That was beautiful. It's rare to see a comment like that for these kinds of topics
    • colincornaby, on 04/21/2008, -9/+3What war? Garry's Mod runs on Macs either via WINE, or Boot Camp. Honestly, when I read that, I thought the conversation was between two Mac users...
      • TheKeithD, on 04/21/2008, -3/+1Uh, WINE on OS X is pretty terrible. I don't think Parallels has the power to handle GMod at full speed. Now, Boot Camp I can undersand, but that's still running actual Windows.
        Just because you use a Mac doesn't mean everybody uses a Mac.
      • usingpond, on 04/21/2008, -0/+4... whoosh.
      • Dobby156, on 04/21/2008, -2/+1it runs like *****.
      • logpony, on 04/21/2008, -1/+3Holy nutsacks, batman. I don't care what is possible or not, that was an actual conversation between myself and a friend. He has a Mac, while I use PC. We did some video editing, using his Mac. He is not a big gamer, but somewhat interested so I showed him on my desktop. I COULD edit on my PC, and he COULD get HL2 etc, but why? It's easier for us to just collaborate. *****' a.
    • outsid3rNo17, on 04/21/2008, -2/+14Friend 1: So we gonna work on it tonight?
      Friend 2: Did you buy the Mac?
      Friend 1: No, I'll buy it next week.
      Friend 2: Then we'll work next week. Don't talk to me until then.
      • logpony, on 04/21/2008, -2/+2And as for you, well... I think I'm just stupid because I don't get it.
    • p0tent1al, on 04/27/2008, -1/+1This person gets it. I love Macs, but I think any person who wants to be called a geek, should have Windows, Mac, and Linux.
  • blah247, on 04/21/2008, -21/+5I'm 'stuck' with Windows because I like to play Video Games... sure MAC and Unix has some games but not the kind I like to play.
    • Balanced, on 04/21/2008, -3/+3You could, you know, run both...

      (and it's Mac, not MAC...Not an acronym!)
      • cawpin, on 04/21/2008, -2/+1An acronym doesn't have to be capitalized.
        • Peavey, on 04/21/2008, -0/+1Actually, the acronym MAC (short for Media Access Control and used in reference to a computer's MAC address) is supposed to be capitalized.
      • whatwhatwhoa, on 04/21/2008, -0/+3... that defeats the purpose. he wants to run games... buying a mac to install windows XP means you're paying a buttload for the hardware to run windows... which is stupid.
        • Balanced, on 04/22/2008, -0/+1If he ONLY wants to play games, why buy a PC? Why not a console? Some can even do light PC tasks like web browsers these days, too.
    • blah247, on 04/21/2008, -4/+0When I tried using emulation software a number of years ago I ran into a large number of problems with my graphic card. It also ran the games quite a bit slower in terms of FPS.

      Sorry for using 'MAC' didn't mean to confuse you, I realize it's an abbreviation. I could of used 'UNIX' as well.
      • BossKey, on 04/21/2008, -0/+3A discussion of emulation is irrelevant here. Parallels and VMWare aren't emulators, they are virtualizers. They may be slower than running Windows on your Mac directly through Boot Camp, but the performance hit is not because of emulation.
  • rolandvvv, on 04/21/2008, -19/+5traitor!
  • Demitaka, on 04/21/2008, -33/+9It's funny how anyone who supports PC's gets dugg down in this article. Un-biased my ass. I'm using a macbook pro and even I'm dying to boot-camp it. I will admit OSX is good. If my mom wanted a computer than I would recommend she get a mac because its simple. And thats all...I like Windows and PCs because I feel like I am something more to my computer than just a user. More like an architect whom builds upon a foundation... This article fails to refute the fact that the majority of Mac users are pompous, biased tools of the media.

    Btw:

    www.thepiratebay.com
    • theWrkncacnter, on 04/21/2008, -3/+7macs aren't simple. you should learn to use the terminal
    • Kingoftherings, on 04/21/2008, -1/+2Do you mean thepiratebay.org?
    • MacParrot, on 04/21/2008, -2/+8"This article fails to refute the fact that the majority of Mac users are pompous, biased tools of the media."
      You actually had some good points until that last sentence. That statement is as ridiculous and biased as if I said that all Windows computers have viruses or BSOD every day.
    • enicholas, on 04/21/2008, -1/+10It's not "anyone who supports PC's" getting dugg down, it's "assholes". Mac assholes get dugg down just as harshly, if not moreso, than PC assholes. But the simple fact is that with 90% of the market, there are more PC assholes than there are Mac assholes, so you're going to see more pro-PC comments dugg down.

      Oh, and you're an ***** too, which is why you're being dugg down. In case you aren't sure why people think you're an *****, let me help:

      "I'm using a macbook pro and even I'm dying to boot-camp it." By saying "even I", as if you're the hardest of the hard-core Mac fans, you're implying that all Mac fans are "dying" to use Windows instead. This is obviously not the case. Furthermore you provide absolutely no support for your statement -- WHY are you dying to run boot camp? For games? Because you just don't like Macs? If you're so keen to run Windows, why are you running Mac OS X in the first place?

      "if my mom wanted a computer..." "it's simple" "and that's all". You're repeating the tired old line that "Macs are for people that don't know computers". The simple fact is that Mac OS is Unix, and Unix has quite a bit more power under the hood than Windows does. Claiming that Macs are toys suitable only for novices should have gone out of fashion with Mac OS 9.

      "I feel like I am something more to my computer than just a user. More like an architect whom [sic] builds upon a foundation..." Not only is this pompous and self-serving, but it's yet another dig at Macs and their users, with the implication that someone who uses a Mac is "just a user" who cannot be an architect. Even the most jaded Windows fanboy must admit that there are tons of knowledgeable software developers using Macs... otherwise where is all of the Mac software coming from? Implying that we are all "just users" is intellectually dishonest.

      "This article fails to refute the fact that the majority of Mac users are pompous, biased tools of the media." Okay, I'm not even going to bother explaining how this makes you look like an *****. Just continue holding your giant "I'm a huge *****!" sign and getting dugg down, please.
    • kitsua, on 04/21/2008, -1/+2You were making sense until "the majority of Mac users". Sheesh.
  • makis, on 04/21/2008, -13/+3i'm an happy switcher.i use both on my MBP.but the article is misleading.It's false that windows is dying.it's false that apps on windows don't work (think of firefox, the best implementation is on windows, or java mobile sdk or even adobe products, except photoshop to name a few on opposite sides).and it's also false that they are inconsistent.there are probably too much apps for windows and many are not professional apps, but it's not MS fault.The underlying os is indeed very fast, faster than OS X, which is more stable.
  • Kenzan, on 04/21/2008, -28/+8Once upon a time, a PC user jumped from Windows to Mac.

    ~And he never worked in the IT industry again.

    The End.
    • luchid, on 04/21/2008, -4/+5I don't know in what redneck part of the IT industry you work at. But in my side of the woods tons of developers for in-house and external projects use a Mac both for work and personal tasks.
      • Kenzan, on 04/21/2008, -9/+2I work for a top 5 of Fortune 500 company.
        I make more money than God, and I influence the IT industry greatly.
        Mac will NEVER be mainstream in ANY Enterprise enviornment.
        Get used to it.
        • ferrite, on 04/21/2008, -2/+3If working in the tech field has taught me anything, it's that we're not Psychic.
          640K ought to be enough for anybody.

          but then again, I use a Mac everyday to administer my Linux servers and Windows clients so maybe I'm biased.
        • luchid, on 04/21/2008, -2/+1Funny thing: Macs ARE the norm in a lot of "enterprise environments" I've worked for/collaborated with.
          • Kenzan, on 04/21/2008, -2/+3AHAHAHAHAHAHHA..
            Um
            No.
          • luchid, on 04/21/2008, -0/+3@Kenzan

            But i'm pretty sure they are. I mean I sorta was there. Typical fanboy asshattery you have going on though, denying other people's personal experiences.
          • Kenzan, on 04/21/2008, -2/+1Dugg for using the term "Fanboy Asshattery."
        • chromerium, on 04/21/2008, -0/+2Wow, thats a fairly large raging hard-on you got going for yourself there.
        • OpaqueMurdock, on 04/22/2008, -1/+1I see a cold wind coming for you my friend... better save some of that money, and crack a few books. Your "influence" is based on concepts established decades years ago. Just a few minor shifts in things and you will be as influential as a master typesetter or a stonecutter. Arrogance now will not win you friends with your future masters. Muahahaha!
          • Kenzan, on 04/23/2008, -1/+1Money is much, much better than friends.
            It's also a good indication that others approve of your work.
            And uh, stop following me.
          • OpaqueMurdock, on 04/23/2008, -1/+1@Kenzan
            "Money is much, much better than friends" Thats kinda sad man...
            "It's also a good indication that others approve of your work" For now....
            "And uh, stop following me." I'm not... I am an admitted mac fanboy... what do you expect me to not read this story, and in turn reply to your amazingly trollish post? lol, the bait was to strong man.

            Btw, this was mostly meant as a joke, hence the "muahahaha" maniacal laugh. Kidding aside, I do think things shifts may happen in the coming years that may change the direction of your industry though. But I am not really qualified to argue the points especially against someone who does it for a living. I would say however, its often the people inside the industries that are about to undergo big shifts that are the last to see it on the horizon.
          • Kenzan, on 04/23/2008, -1/+1Of course there will be shifts. There are ALWAYS shifts. But in today's Enterprise enviornment that shift will not be MAC.
            Unix? yes. MAC? Not a chance. MAC data center products will never be the standard.

          • OpaqueMurdock, on 04/23/2008, -1/+1LIke I mentioned, I would never presume to argue such matters, you know your realm and I won't question that. The first comment was a largely a joke and in the second comment, the "shifts on the horizon" part was more about moving away from windows, not towards macs... I realize Apple has only a tiny foothold in the server arena and thats not likely to change soon.

            I only advocate more acceptance for other OSs at large because I believe OSX is a good OS, competition is always a good thing and it seems to me windows is having too much time in the spotlight if you know what I mean.

            Anyway enough said, we both seem to be strong willed people and I will do my best to not provoke further discussion. peace.
      • zang74, on 04/21/2008, -2/+3why are you on Digg then? Shouldn't you be doing something to actually earn that money, rather than perpetuating the same old BS OS war talking points?
        • luchid, on 04/21/2008, -0/+1You either lack reading comprehension skills or replied to my comment when you meant to reply to the top poster. I'm inclined to believe the latter.
    • MacParrot, on 04/21/2008, -3/+5I think if you bothered to actually look you would be surprised by how many IT professionals are using Macs at home. Doesn't make or mean that Windows in bad or crap, just that maybe they can prefer something else and STILL work in IT. Funny how people are allowed to have difference's in opinion and all that.
    • TremorX, on 04/21/2008, -3/+3I did some work on the middle of your story
      "... and for the first time, he experienced life. Real, genuine, life. He could never return to the soulless IT industry again."
      • MMaster23, on 04/21/2008, -4/+3and than he starved to death after not being able to sell his "hip" sounds or the "cool" photos created on his mac
        • Peavey, on 04/21/2008, -0/+2Wow, what an original idea, making jabs at mac users because we are all poor, starving artists doing nothing but trying to create on our over-priced hardware.

          And, I'll have to look into creating photos on my computer rather than using a camera to take the photo and just storing it on my computer.
    • BossKey, on 04/21/2008, -4/+5"And he never worked in the IT industry again."

      Because he boxed himself into the Microsoft universe and never got around to learning Unix, which Mac OS X is based on. If he did, he would still be employed.
      • Kenzan, on 04/21/2008, -1/+2Mac is not synonymous with Unix, and you don't need a Mac to learn/run all the flavors thereof.
        • Peavey, on 04/21/2008, -0/+2I don't the BossKey said that you had to run OS X to learn Unix, just that one could if they had the desire to do so.
        • BossKey, on 04/22/2008, -0/+1Peavey is right, what I meant was that the only way that IT person would never work again is if he excluded himself from the Unix/Mac market. I didn't mean Unix = Mac, I meant Unix + Mac = a nontrivial number of customers as a potential market.
  • kravex, on 04/21/2008, -20/+6The USA loves the Mac, but most of the world think Apple ju