1176631056:::Blair:::secularfoxhole@gmail.com:::http://secularfoxhole.blogspot.com:::I long to switch to Mac, but seem stuck in the Windows world due to the massive amount of software and universal use of the Windows OS. Still, the thought of going "forward" to Vista fills me with an apoplectic dread. Any suggestions? 1176633215:::Brent Williams:::brent@hbwilliams.net::::::You won't regret it. I was never a mac fan. Then, about four years ago, I got into digital video and wanted better editing capability. I bought a powerbook. Wow. OSX is nothing like the os of the nineties. It is based on UNIX and very stable. At first, my experience felt a little empty. I didn't have to tweak and tinker all of the time. I was no longer co-dependant. My computer didn't "need" me. I had to take a breath and redefine my relationship. My computer became an independent tool that got things done instead of a dysfunctional relationship that was always requiring behavioral adjustment and long circular conversations that just never seemed to fix anything. Since then, I have gone back to Microsoft because my law firm requires specialized software that only runs on Windows. I'm back in the vicious cycle of building, tearing apart, and rebuilding. I loose so much productivity playing ad hoc IT support fixing irrational demands and seemingly intentional passive-aggressiveness. How I long for the stability of a mac again.

Also, MS Office for Mac is a really nice suite. It is an independent business unit within Microsoft, and a lot of the ideas they introduced a couple of years ago ended up in Office 2007. 1176633499:::Chris Sandvick:::chrissandvick@hotmail.com::::::Blair:
I switched back to the Mac when the 1st Mac Mini came out and have no regrets. OS X is stable and elegant. And if you have someting that only runs in Windows you can either run Vista/XP natively on the machine via Boot Camp or via virtualization software like Parallels. If cost is the primary consideration I would stick with Windows though, Mac's are still a bit more expensive then PC's. You can get a brand new low-end Vista machine from Fry's Electronics for $400. 1176635409:::kishnevi:::jbennetsmith@hotmail.com::::::I've used one or another Windows based system for almost ten years now. I'm not a techie, so whatever the PC comes with is what I'm stuck with. I am considering switching to Mac because I've had enough software snags with Windows, including some thoroughly illogical ones, although the higher price of Mac has always kept me away.
(On a machine loaded with MS Works and MS Wordpad, you would think you would be able to open a file in MS Word format. But you can't. And don't bother sending a file in Works format to anyone who does not have Works on their computer; MS Word can't open Works files.)

I've heard enough doubts about Vista to know I don't want it. That will be the really basic thing that will drive me to Mac: Microsoft improving their core product into unuseability. 1176635595:::Jared Seehafer:::jared@seehafer.net::::::Yes, yes, a thousand times yes. Like you, I stopped using Macs during Apple's decline in the 90's. After much recommendation and cajoling by a few friends I got a PowerBook 4 years ago and I haven't looked back. Some things you may want to consider:
- Apple's two laptop models are the MacBook and MacBook Pro. Although one is targeted toward consumers and the other toward professionals, under the hood they are pretty similar. Significant differences are: screen size (13" on the MB, 15" or 17" on the MBP), graphics chip (integrated on the MB, separate on the MBP), expansion cards (none on the MB, ExpressCard on the MBP), upgradability (very simple to replace RAM and HD on the MB, more difficult on the MBP), casing (plastic on the MB, aluminum on the MBP). My appraisal is that unless you want the screensize or do a lot of photo editing or gaming, go with the MacBook.
- Once you get a Mac, you'll want to check out either Fink (a port of apt-get) or MacPorts (a port of BSD ports) for all your UNIX goodies.
- You may want to wait until the release of the new OS, Leopard, but that's been recently delayed until early Fall.
- To respond to Chris, the "Macs cost more" claim has largely been discredited - the cheapest Mac available (a $599 Mac Mini) has features you won't find in any low end Vista machine (FireWire, Gigabit Ethernet, iLife apps - iMovie, iDVD, iPhoto, etc), so its not a good comparison.
- I would recommend that when you do buy, get 2 GB of memory from a 3rd party and upgrade your machines (Apple costs far too much for extra memory, and most Macs are very easy to upgrade). I'm very fond of OS X, but it's a memory hog.
- Your choices for running Windows programs are: 1) Boot Camp, in which you set up Windows XP and OS X in a dual boot configuration, 2) Parallels, an elegant virtual machine and Apple's recommended solution, and 3) CrossFire Mac, a port of WINE to OS X - has the least compatibility with Windows programs, but doesn't require an installed copy of Windows 1176636168:::John Brothers:::johnbr@gmail.com:::http://blog.picobusiness.com:::I switched to a MacBook Pro in December, and I would definitely call it a successful experiment. I use Bootcamp to boot into Windows when I want to play games. I use Parallels to create a windows virtual machine for running Outlook and various obligatory apps that only run in windows. Everything else I want to do, I can do in MacOs. It crashes very rarely, has all the wonderful unix tools underneath the hood, and has a bunch of cool, fun things (text to speech, built in camera effects, etc).

Program installation is about the only thing I've found so far that seemed odd and strange. The idea of mounting a .dmg file as a disk, copying files out of the "disk" into the Applications directory and then ejecting the "disk" was hard to get used to at first. 1176648822:::Doug Krening:::dkrening@indra.com::::::I would disagree with Jared and recommend a MacBook Pro over the MacBook. I think there are considerable differences both internally and externally between the two.

My PowerBook G4 is getting long in the tooth and I'm looking to upgrade as well. I need MacOS, Linux, and sometimes Windows and am going to go with the MacBook Pro 15". I plan on trying both Boot Camp and Parallels (and maybe Fusion if it catches up to Parallels.)

The Mac is also a great server platform. I used an XServe at work for all the network services, web server, MySQL server, authentication server, etc. It is pretty sweet. The only thing I couldn't get working reliably is VPN. I ended up having to install a Cisco VPN appliance instead. And Mac's support for NFS is pretty slim. But the server runs a mixed network of Linux, Windows, and Mac machines flawlessly and was easy to set up. Maybe NoodleFood will be powered by Mac one of these days.

I wouldn't worry about waiting for Leopard, you can get a family pack for you and Paul relatively cheaply. In the meantime, Tiger is rock solid. But I am waiting for an update to the MacBook Pro. It is way overdue for an update. Rumor has it that the updated model will incorporate the new Intel Santa Rosa mobile platform which includes flash caching. This could be a real significant speed, boot time and power improvement. The Intel chipset is due in May. I'm betting Apple is waiting for this to be available. 1176649015:::Tom Rowland:::atlasfan@earthlink.net:::http://www.trowland.blogspot.com:::I have stayed with MS machines since my first PCjr. I recently bought a laptop to be used almost exclusively for my writing. It came loaded with Vista and we have it Networked with my old Dell that runs 98se (which MS no longer supports). And, like you, the laptop sees the Desktop, and, while the desktop knows that the laptop is there, actually sharing files is another matter altogether. Games don't run easily full screen and NOBODY that sells third party software that I know of, supports Vista. MS even has a page dedicated to downgrading from Vista to XP. Worst of all, as far as I'm concerned, is that the writing program I use isn't fully functional on VISTA. So unhappy am I that I called Apple to find out about MAC. Every time I see the recent MAC adds, I think, "you mean MAC doesn't have that problem?" I'll let you know if I switch. 1176649718:::Doug Krening:::dkrening@indra.com::::::And one additional comment. Jared recommends 2GB and I agree. But third party memory is not always the best bet. If you go with the MacBook Pro, third party memory is good advice. I'd buy a MBP with 1GB and get another 1GB from a third party. But with a MacBook, Apple will occupy both memory slots and you will be forced to throw away 2 memory sticks and buy 2 new ones from a third party. For instance, if you want 2GB, you would order the MacBook with 512MB. But this comes as 2 256MB sticks which you will waste.

It costs $250 to upgrade to 2GB on the MacBook. I see third party prices right now for the 1GB memory sticks at $120 each, so it would cost $240 from a third party. Given this, I would go with Apple for the memory. 1176655505:::Brian Fritts:::BFritts@lauth.net::::::If you are considering video editing, you really should switch. With the birth of our son, I was looking for easy video editing software that I could use to create all sorts of videos of AJ. Windows was atrocious; however, we made the switch about 2 months ago, and it has been fantastic. Video editing is easy, quick and much more fun on our new Mac. 1176660126:::Jenn Casey:::kcjenn@gmail.com::::::We switched 2 years ago and I recently upgraded and got a Mac Mini with the Intel chip. As a non-tech person, I find Mac so much easier to use. My machine is very fast and most of the applications are a breeze, very intuitive. My only caveat: if you need a money management program, stay away from Intuit's Quicken or QuickBooks for the Mac. They are absolutely riddled with bugs. QB lost two months' worth of invoices for my husband's business which had to be recreated from scratch for billing and tax filing purposes. I tried 2 versions of QB for the Mac for my business and it was utterly exasperating (can't find files, wouldn't boot up, wouldn't record transactions). The reason I got the new computer with the Intel chip is so I could run Parallels and QuickBooks for the PC on my machine for my business. And that seems to work just fine. Good luck with your decision! 1176663071:::Robert Garmong:::robertgarmong@mac.com::::::Hehe. Diana, I can't help but think you're repeating your old pattern, from your IOS days: start out with the Good, then spend a few years living on the Dark Side, only later to see the light and return to the Good! :-)

I use both platforms, when necessary, but for my home computer I'm strictly on Apple. The difference, to me, is psycho-epistemological. I find that Windows will do most everything I want it to do, but I always feel as though I'm being shoe-horned into thinking the way it wants me to think. My Mac, on the other hand, always seems to work the way my mind works. I wish there were more and better games available for the Mac platform, but for my academic work I find the software I need is all readily available on the Mac -- and it works a lot more easily than it does on a PC.

RG 1176666677:::Diana Hsieh:::diana@dianahsieh.com:::http://www.dianahsieh.com/blog:::Thank you *very* much for all the comments so far. They have been extremely helpful. If you have more tips and suggestions, keep them coming! (I'm quite committed to making The Switch now, actually.)

I just realized that I bought my first PC almost exactly ten years ago, in early August 2007. And yes, that's exactly the same amount of time I spent with IOS/TOC. I actually got substantial value out of my various PCs though! 1176683494:::Max Harris:::::::::My friend just bought a Macbook Pro. He brought it over and we talked about the thing for an hour. The details on it are so beautiful; you can tell that a lot of people fretted about details for a very long time. (Details that other companies would have simply ignored.)

Parallels is really cool - he had Windows loaded in the neat rootless mode. It was fast.

I used a white Macbook every day last semester at school. It was fast enough, but I couldn't get over the keyboard, which didn't feel very nice. The display was also too small and glossy for my taste. So I definitely recommend the Macbook Pro (with the matte screen option). 1176686681:::Adam Buker:::adam@adambuker.com:::http://www.adambuker.com:::Once you go Mac, you don't go back... :P

If/When you do get your Mac, I would reccomend buying it from the Apple store since the guys at the Genius bar can help move all of your old files from your PC to your new Mac. Otherwise your best bet is a nifty little program called Move2Mac. <http://www.detto.com/mac-file-transfer.html>

I also wouldn't wait for Leopard to come out either. Tiger is already much better than Vista in terms of stability, features, and user-friendliness. Many of the "innovative" features of Vista were already in Tiger when it was released two years ago (i.e. widgets/gadgets, Spotlight/Desktop Search etc.)

Paul might be interested in some of the medical software that's out for the Mac. <http://www.apple.com/science/software/crossdiscipline.html>

I saw that you mentioned wanting to work with recorded audio files. Being a musician, audio is much easier to work with on a Mac than on a PC. If you need to work with merely converting existing audio files into different formats, you can do that within iTunes. If you need to record audio files, I'd use GarageBand. GarageBand is extremely simple and easy to use (and very addictive!), and you can use it to make your own NoodleFood podcasts that you can broadcast from your site or from the podcast section of the iTunes store (pending store approval). You can also use GarageBand to create your own custom soundtracks to videos that you make in iMovie (another program you might find yourself addicted to).

If you have any questions just shoot me an email. I've been using Mac's virtually all my life. 1176695665:::Billy Beck:::wjbiii@frontiernet.net:::http://www.two--four.net/weblog.php:::Man... I'm not here to burn anybody down or anything, but this "Mac arts" thing is a *remarkable* prejudice that I've been observing for over fifteen years, and that's all it is: a prejudice.

Ladies and gentlemen: I edit video in Windows XP-SP2 *all the time*. And the machine that I'm currently doing it with is actually behind the tech curve: I'm talking about a 1.8gHz P-4 with only a half-gig of RAM. I routinely sample video from 8mm tape, I capture satellite TV to hard disk with an ATI TV card (less than a hundred bucks), or drag & drop straight off SD cards out of my Sanyo C40 camera (640x480 -- 30fps). I edit all of it with Sony's Vegas Movie Studio, which, in my experience, puts Adobe's Premier in the shade for price-point and straight-up get-going workflow.

It's a snap. There is nothing to it.

It simply is *not* true that that PC's can't do this stuff. It *never* has been. Don't but the hype in those ridiculous Apple commercials. 1176697076:::Billy Beck:::wjbiii@frontiernet.net:::http://www.two--four.net/weblog.php:::"buy" -- as in: "Don't buy the hype.."

Reading through the rest of the comments, I also note the matter of music. I record to hard disk with this machine, as well. I use an old version of Cool Edit Pro (which I bought as shareware back before Adobe bought it and bloated it out). It'll handle sixty-four tracks for mixdown, and the processing is just silly: like, way more than I ever actually use.

It pains me to recall when I used to record to four tracks on cassette tape. These days (and for years, now) the whole new problem that I have is piling up just about more audio data than I can use. (Like; "hmm... which of these nineteen guitar solos do I actually want to use?...")

Nothin' to it. It's great. On a PC. Imagine that. Who'd believe it? 1176710394:::John Powers:::johnpowers[[AT]]mac{{DOT}}com::::::I've been a Mac user for too many years to count. While I am capable of using other Unixes and Windows, I prefer the Mac, and usually end up comparing it to Windows. When I have to work with or fix a modern Windows computer for a client (I make web sites and graphic design), I am shocked at how terrible the experience is.

The Windows interface was designed to accommodate the least experienced users, and it shows. I am always stumbling over unhelpful interface elements, such as the balloons that show up in the taskbar. They nag the user constantly: "You have unused icons on your desktop." "You need to install antivirus protection." "Your updates are ready to install." I like to use an OS that assumes that I, the user, know what I am doing, and can handle my own icon management / antivirus software / OS updates.

I've seen many Windows programs that will steal focus away from the current application. That is beyond bad design -- it's morally wrong. The user should always be in control of the interface. Another program should never, ever, interrupt my important work to tell me that it automatically installed some update and wants to restart my computer.

In fact, this actually happened while I was giving an important presentation on a client's Windows machine. Every five minutes, Windows would interrupt my work and tell me: "Your Windows updates are ready to install. Restart Now or Restart Later. Of course, Restart Later actually means "show the dialog box in another five minutes"! Rather than giving in, I chose to fight Windows. After a dozen more dialogs ruining my day, I realized: I'm fighting what a computer thinks is best for me. The computer is no longer a tool at my command -- I'm working for the computer. I do not know how Windows users put up with this crap.

I am baffled by the way users keep their Start Menus. Most Programs menus are huge, and most programs create a special folder just for their company, and then a folder inside that for the program you just installed, then put two or three shortcuts inside that. One is usually a Readme, the other usually a link to the helpfile, both of which should be accessible from within the program. But you end up with a hundred folders rather than categories like "Graphics" "Games" etc. I realize that this is easy to change, but most Windows users have no idea how to do it -- they'd rather navigate a Start Menu that spills into multiple columns and fills the entire display.

The new Start Menu, with its whimsical and constantly changing icons, is even worse. As a rule, I don't like interface elements that change themselves automatically, according to some undefined or hard-to-comprehend rule. I'd prefer my interface to be boring and predictable, rather than changing based on what it thinks my needs are.

I could go on ranting about Windows -- about those "Task Panes" on the left hand side of Explorer windows, continually reminding me that I can actually delete, rename, or copy files, and taking up that valuable screen space. Or the dialogs that find a couple of JPG images on a CD I just inserted, and assume that I want to view them as a slideshow -- never mind that the files are interface elements from a web site, not photographs -- and no matter how many times I click "Don't show this dialog box again" it keeps coming back.

Windows assaults the user with the arbitrary and assumes that the user is too dumb to manage his own computer. To contrast, I can turn on a Mac, let it run for months, and the desktop will look exactly as it was when I turned it on. No dialogs popping up at will. No balloons. No exhortations to subscribe to an antivirus program. 1176711086:::John Powers:::johnpowers[[AT]]mac{{DOT}}com::::::I forgot to mention Mac hardware versus PC hardware. Just look at a MacBook next to a Dell XPS 5500cd or whatever they call it, or an iMac next to an HP Pavillion 7435xti and you'll notice the difference. Is it possible to find a PC without a thousand blinking LEDs on the case reminding me that the power is in fact on, my hard drive is spinning, and so on?

Even the names of PCs and the way they are marketed is revealing. When I go to the online Apple Store, I see a few simple, understandable product families: MacBook, iMac, Mac Pro, iPods... when I go to Dell, I first have to tell the site whether I am a home user, small business user, or government or healthcare worker. I guess buying the computer has to be as complicated as using Windows. 1176712097:::Diana Hsieh:::diana@dianahsieh.com:::http://www.dianahsieh.com/blog:::John, I am in perfect agreement with you! I'm horrified by the total chaos on most people's computers. Stuff is absolutely impossible to find, thanks to the clutter on the desktop, in the start menu, and on the launcher. Windows makes organization and control difficult. (I rececently spent a day saying "No" to the "Restart now?" question because some program was doing some long process that I didn't think could be resumed if interrupted. What a nightmare!!!)

I'm a messy person in physical reality, but on my computer, I keep everything highly organized. Otherwise, I'm wasting time searching for what I want. So I keep the programs that I always use in my launcher, I keep the programs that I regularly use in the main start menu, and I keep all and only the program shortcuts (organized by type, exactly as you recommend) for all programs in the "Programs" section under the Start Menu. If I've just added a new program, I'll keep the shortcut on my Desktop for a while, to remind myself to use it. It takes periodic work to keep that organized, since any program that you add creates a random assortment of shortcuts in a random assortment of places.

I also keep my desktop clean, except for shortcuts to critical folders organized horizonally plus some active stuff. (So I have all the sysadmin folders that I routinely need to access on the top line. Then I have all the networking links. Lower, I have rows of links to data files, e.g. a link to my CU Boulder folder on the far left, then links to active subfolders (e.g. for classes I'm teaching, papers I'm writing) to the right. (I don't particularly like that system (it should be more compact), but it's all that MS allows me to do.)

Similarly, I have my Google Toolbar and my links in FireFox organized just how I like them. (In FireFox, all the links that I use routinely are in categorized folders in the links menu.) I also open up programs in a specific order (particularly Outlook, then OneNote, then Excel) so that I know exactly where they are on the taskbar. It annoys me to no end that MS won't permit me to reorder those, since when one crashes, I have to muddle through the disorder for a while, then close everything down to get the right order back.

Yes, that takes a bit of work to organize, but I navigate through my computer much, much faster than the vast majority of people.

My own determination to control my computing environment is why I find it absolutely impossible to work on anyone else's computer. Sheesh, what person can find anything in a folder full of big icons for files?!? Give me the detailed view or bust! Plus, I'm always fumbling over the mouse, which is never calibrated to go fast enough. (I use the trackpad on my laptop. A mouse is a waste of time: you spend minutes every day just moving your hand to and from the mouse! As an added bonus, mice give me carpal tunnel problems, as do those supremely evil pull-out trays for keyboards.)

BTW, Paul is a very neat person in physical reality, but his Programs shortcuts and Desktop are a messy nightmare. Go figure. 1176712565:::John Opfer:::opfer.7(at)osu.edu::::::For me, Apple's killer application is Keynote, which runs circles around PowerPoint. With its high-resolution display settings, image masking, color correction, cinema-quality transitions, Tufte-worthy charts, and graphics-centered interface, there's simply no better presentation software available. 1176713463:::Jeff Montgomery:::jamontgom@hotmail.com::::::I think your analysis points to your buying a Mac, and I can't think of any major "gotchas", as long as Office remains available for it. OpenOffice is amazing for a free app, but for work I'd still rather have the real deal.

Windows has made huge strides in the last 10 years in terms of usability and creative applications, and generally the OSes are much more on par than they used to be.

In terms of interface, my favorite is XP with the Win 2000-style Start menu. If I used OS X daily I'd probably be more comfortable with it. Your mileage may vary. (PS - I'm a Mac user going WAY back, i.e. to the SE Plus, so this admission is difficult :) ).

iChat on Mac is a great IM client.

iPhoto is great too, love the books you can create.

And thank goodness iTunes is available for Windows! 1176715713:::Jim Manley:::boulderlaw@gmail.com:::http://jmanley.blogspot.com:::There is really no reason to buy a Windows-only machine, particularly a Windows-only laptop, unless you know you don't like OS X. With the introduction of Intel chips and the reportedly terrific integration of Windows offered by Parallels, buying a Mac means getting both a Windows computer and an OS X computer. Plus, I think you will find OS X is superior to Windows in almost every way.

Ditto Jared's recommendation to max out on third-party RAM; you'll want it and Apple overcharges for it. Also, OS X Leopard has been delayed, but if history is any guide the upgrade will cost less than $150 if you don't wait to get it pre-installed.

Terrific Mac-only software:

OS X (some favorite features I miss when I must use Windows):
Spell check anywhere - Shift+Command+;
Exposé, particularly with hot corners
Preview - for 90% of image and pdf viewing it is *much* better than Adobe's products
Spotlight - (although I think Google Desktop does the same thing, Spotlight is built into the system. Google Desktop doesn't do me any good when I don't have admin access to install it.)

Daily freeware, often very useful:
feed://www.freemacware.com/feed

Safari plug-in that makes searching quicker:
http://www.inquisitorx.com/safari

A utility that does a little of everything:
http://www.manytricks.com/butler

RSS reader:
http://www.opencommunity.co.uk/vienna2.php

Weather:
http://www.alwintroost.nl/content/weatherdock/home.xml

Simple local file transfer:
http://10base-t.com/premier.html#dropcopy

TinyURL Service (allows you to create a TinyURL with a shortcut key combination):
http://www.riverdark.net/misc/TinyURL.zip

I could go on ... 1176718629:::John Powers:::johnpowers[[AT]]mac{{DOT}}com::::::Diana, it sounds like we've been using the same computer! Seriously, I'm always being chided by both Mac and PC users for keeping my desktop virtually free of icons.

I'm glad to hear someone else who is also disgusted with those "supremely evil pull-out keyboard trays." It seems that the majority of computer users buy these flimsy, tiny computer "desks" or "hutches" from office furniture stores. Look, a keyboard tray! A special cabinet just for the computer! A built-in riser with a load-bearing, nonremovable, plastic CD rack!

I need a big space to work on. I have a big flat desk with T-shaped legs on either side. There are no drawers for my knees to bump into, no cabinets to squeeze me into a tiny space. Just a really huge, open tabletop.

It's hard to sell simple, whether it's a Mac or a big work table. To the average buyer, it seems as though you're getting a better value if your computer has more obvious "features" -- like a dozen blinking lights, slots for every memory card going back to 1992 -- or if your furniture is similarly burdened with unhelpful things. If you're not that interested in or passionate about the way you work or live, then mediocre crap is just good enough.

I'm using an iMac now, so I have no trackpad to prevent wrist tension, but I have made good use of a Wacom tablet. I find that switching input devices, rather than relying on one style all the time, is most helpful.

I think that you will be happier and more productive with Mac OS X. Since a Mac can also run Windows, you don't really lose any capabilities, and if you end up liking OS X well enough, you can slowly transistion to using it all the time.

I have been a Mac user since the days when System 6 was all the rage, and I am proud to say that I own an original Macintosh and a NeXTstation (Steve Jobs' second computer, which runs the forerunner of OS X). If you have any Macintosh questions, don't hesitate to ask me. 1176719464:::Diana Hsieh:::diana@dianahsieh.com:::http://www.dianahsieh.com/blog:::John, we are computing twins! While I don't switch input devices, I do change locations and positions often. So I sometimes work at my desk, but more often I work at the kitchen table, the counter (on a stool), or in one of our big comfy leather easy chairs. (Obviously, I work from home most of the time.)

Also, I ADORED NeXT computers. I lived in the NeXT lab my freshman year of college, then I worked there in my sophmore year of college. We provided e-mail accounts for the School of Arts and Sciences at WashU. At the time, the web had just come into existence, e-mail was growing hugely in popularity, so these older machines, although fantastic, were soon overburdened. They were decommissioned during my junior year, sadly.

Unfortunately, I no longer have my original Mac SE and Mac Classic. I'm anti-packrat-ism. 1176722524:::Jim May:::seerak@gmail.com::::::On the one hand, many of the issues you are having do not plague me all that much; the network issues usually pertain to firewall settings, for instance. I get around that by running behind a physical router/firewall (i've got one of those Linksys WRT54G boxes that can use open-source firewall software), killing the Winblows firewall, and using Zonelarm configured to pass NetBIOS locally while keeping an eye out for anything on the inside trying to phone home.

I've been editing video, doing compositing and visual FX on the PC since 1999, and relatively pain-free since 2001 (when they finally fixed it). I agree with Billy Beck as far as that goes; it can be done, and efficiently as well. I have a friend who is a professional sound designer, who is all-PC in his setup. The one thing about all that, is that all of us are professionals (Billy's a musician, my friend does sound for games, and I do visual FX for film). I can't comment on the home user's experience so much.

About once every 18 months since 1997 or so, I'd get to thinking about Macs (due in part to being an Amiga owner for as long as I could manage it), only to realize that they didn't make sense for me; usually it was the price/performance ratio (each new geneartion of PPC models never seemed to be competitive for long enough in that department). My applications all lean on raw CPU power, not ease-of-use, and my technical background always made up for Winblows' obtuseness.

This time, I think I may finally do it; the Mac Pro does all the multicore stuff I want at a competitive price, and BootCamp means I don't have to lose use of my unmigratable Windoze apps. Even if I don't go for that, I may still get a Mac Mini to handle web work so that I can get all the windows boxes off the Net for good. 1176722679:::John Powers:::johnpowers[[AT]]mac{{DOT}}com::::::When OS X was released in 2001, my biggest disappointment was that it did not feature NeXT style menus. While the centralized Mac menubar is more useful to me than the Windows way, I still long for those elegant, minimalist menus from NeXTstep.

It is incredible to think of how advanced NeXT computers were, and how long it took Microsoft, and even Apple, to catch up. I don't have a problem with the way Microsoft made its money, but they really just make mediocre products designed by committee.

I never imagined that you had a fondness for NeXT also. I can't bear to part with my old machine, but I combat packratism in other ways -- I condensed seven linear feet of CDs and DVDs into a few small wallets by throwing away the plastic cases. That felt GOOD! 1176738818:::Nicholas Provenzo:::nprovenzo_at_capitalismcenter.org:::http://www.capitalismcenter.org:::I find that I have to work around Microsoft products to do anything that I intend to be creative or stylized. I was recently watched "The Great Global Warming Swindle" and I was blown away with how incredible the charts it presented looked--and how impossible it would be to produce anything like that on my Windows machine and with any software Microsoft produced. I'm with John Opfer; data and graphs should evoke a Tufte-esq experience--every time.

At the same time, the inability to right-click menus means that every time I use an Apple machine, I feel as if some has cut off my index finger. 1176750079:::Eric A. :::::::::-"I'm beyond disgusted with Microsoft's penchant for shipping beta-level software, with all kinds of horrid problems that are only fixed with the first service pack, if ever."

I think you're being a little harsh here--Windows Vista is one of the most complex, and probably the most (alpha+beta) tested piece of software in history (which is not saying that testing has been completely successful); it's just without the hardware lock-down that Apple has, all kinds of driver incompatibilities are to be expected. OS-X had even larger compatability issues with Mac Classic software than Vista's with XP when it came out, and all of the large cat-themed updates since have just been new coats of paint on it.

-The Outlook slowdown you refer to has been fixed in a recent patch:
<http://blogs.technet.com/sbs/archive/2007/04/16/outlook-2007-update-available.aspx>

-I have experienced the same networking issues with Windows XP and 2000 at home, but networking in an Active Directory Domain in a work environment is *much* more reliable, and offers (arguably) more security features than Linux/SAMBA--at the cost of more complexity. In an office environment, there's no real competion to Exchange/Outlook for integrated email and calendaring.

-"The form of the Macs is so much more thoughtful and elegant than found in PCs."
Generally, this is a very valid point; I personally don't recommend any PC laptops other IBM/Levano and have a strong preference for the IBM/Levano's keyboard and pointing devices: trackpads waste a great deal of motion compared to "pointing-stick" devices (assuming you aren't using an external mouse), and if you write on your laptop, it's hard to underestimate the importance of an excellent keyboard--I don't care so much what the rest of the computer looks like as long as it isn't made of cheap plastic.

-If you don't like Microsoft's desktop search, why not just use Google's?

-Any major computer vendor will offer on-site tech support service for a fee comparable to the $300 AppleCare (though you may have to order through the "Small Business" section of their web site)--but unlike Apple, these companies also offer less expensive service plans too. IMO, the best backup option is to have a second old laptop around that you can use while your primary one is being repaired: instant up-time (and can be had for the same $300 or less, if you don't have one already).

-All that being said, I still encourage people to switch to Macs for personal use, since it means that I, qua Windows System Administrator, no longer have to provide tech support. :-) 1176766425:::Andrew Eldred:::::::::I haven't commented here before, but I've been reading for a while. Not sure if this topic is too old for this to be noticed, but I was in a similar situation recently.

Let me start by saying I am a college student, therefore, cost matters. A couple weeks ago I was looking for a notebook for classes. I was initially set on getting a Mac because I dual-booted the Vista RC1 on my desktop computer, and found it absolutely horrendous.

Then my friend, who's studying computer engineering, came to visit me and brought the PC he recently built. I asked him too, because I wanted to see what the new Direct-X 10 video cards were capable of. This was my first chance to use the final release version of Vista.

All I can say is, the improvements from RC1 to final release are tremendous. Gone are every bug I encountered with RC1 (keep in mind, I was disgusted by RC1 and completely turned off to Vista before this). Vista ran, surprisingly, better than XP did. It was also designed shockingly well: now that I didn't have to worry about bugs, things like the new start menu, new navigation options, and sidebar suddenly made sense. It was as if the final release of Vista was a completely different operating system.

After evaluating the cost-to-value of MacBooks and MacBook Pros, it was obvious that hardware-wise, Apple is overcharging drastically. Originally I was going to purchase a MacBook so I'd have OS X, or really, so I'd have anything besides Vista. However, the rumors about Vista just aren't true, and I suspect are largely based on the alpha, beta, and RC releases. The final version of Vista is definitely a large step forward. It's much more satisfying to use than XP, and I would even argue that it's more satisfying to use than OS X--which to me has always felt slightly less responsive than Windows, a trivial issue that nonetheless compounds over time.

Honestly, if money isn't an issue, a MacBook Pro might still be the right way for you to go. It is different, after all. But if cost is important at all, I'd get a new notebook with Vista. I certainly don't regret it in the slightest.

As a film student, one last note: don't buy a regular MacBook for video editing. The videocards on those just aren't meant for it. If you want to video edit, at least get a MacBook Pro. 1176788916:::Inspector:::http://z7.invisionfree.com/capitalistparadise/index.php?showforum=17::::::John and Diana,

The thing is, if you know how to work a Windows machine, then all of your complaints about what's wrong with PC's vs Macs become the complete opposite. It is in fact that *Mac* and not the PC that has annoying tunnels that it forces you into. All of that garbage that plagues PC users? It can all be turned off if you know your stuff. It is in fact the *Mac* that "assaults the user with the arbitrary and assumes that the user is too dumb to manage his own computer." That phrasing is so perfectly accurate for the Mac that I was initially surprised to see someone use it in reference to Windows.

I say "initially," since I see that John is a dedicated Mac user who probably hasn't had the time to learn how to use Windows. Well, sure, if you aren't a big tech geek, then the Mac will seem easier. But once you *really* know your machine, the whole thing does a 180. Suddenly, the Mac's "easy interface" is just *in your way,* and unlike the PC, it can't be turned off.

All of those problems with messy desktops and popups and such? Those are because the user is "too dumb to manage his own computer." If you knew how to use windows, then those things wouldn't happen for you.

And that famous stability and "it just works" function? Yeah, it works great until something goes off the rails. With windows, it can be fixed. With a Mac, you're pretty much up a creek because Macs Don't Break and nobody, not even Mac tech support, will know what to do. Now, granted, OS X is much, much better than past versions. But you still have the same basic issues.

So, if you plan on going through life as an eternal computer newbie, then by all means pay extra for that Mac. You'll have thousands and thousands of people who do just that and love their Macs to death. (Unless you work in an office or play games. Then, you're pretty much out of luck, because Macs simply don't do those things) There isn't anything wrong with that; lots of people have better things to do than to learn how to use a PC properly. And if the Mac runs your favorite program, that you can't get on a PC, then by all means.

So Macs can be great for a very particular subset of users. But this whole advertising campaign (that mirrors the word-of-mouth campaign that preceded it) in which Macs are some kind of miracle device that the world is just too stupid or boring to appreciate? Nothing could be farther from the truth. The idea that *Mac users* of all people started becoming *pretentious* of all things... well, it's just a bit ironic, that's all.

Billy knows what I'm talking about.

(And all this about case design? Kind of pointless for people who build their own cases. Again, impressive for the newbies.) 1176792227:::Billy Beck:::wjbiii@frontiernet.net:::http://www.two--four.net/weblog.php:::Clarifying Disclaimer -- Jim May wrote:

"The one thing about all that, is that all of us are professionals (Billy's a musician,...)"

I have never been a professional musician in my life. I have been an extremely ardent amateur since 1969. I get to play with people who work or have worked as professionals. In my immediate hardware (guitars and amplifiers), I keep pro-grade gear around at all times. I *work* as a stage-lighting designer/director, and have since 1977, which circumstance has led me to very close acquaintance with recording artists and many long hours around top-grade production facilities. I know my way around a professional recording studio. My own recording gear doesn't go to anywhere near that level, but, even so, PC's have served me very well in this regard for many years. (I retired my last tape machine seven or eight years ago.)

I would also point out that I have put my PC's to work in my professional capacity for a long time: I was the first person in America to draw stage-lighting designs in 3D with AutoCAD. (Hank Williams, Jr.: 1990 -- the year after the ABC Monday Night Football deal. I also worked as the master electrician on that tour, that year. It had been thought -- by very big-time people I was working with -- that I was the first in the world, but I discovered that some cat in Britain had drawn Iron Maiden in 3D several months before I drew Hank. They were very good drawings: it was very easy for me to admire them.) I began rendering still images and animation in Autodesk's 3D Studio that same year. The Mac-heads at the print bureau in Atlanta could barely believe what they were seeing when I informed them that I had actually produced that work with a PC.

"Inspector" -- +1. All my experience with computers leaves me nothing but the conclusion that it's PC users who know their way around their gear. Certainly; not *all* of them. When I see most peoples' Windows desktop, I am ordinarily moved to a sort of benign contempt, and can only too readily imagine what's going on under-the-hood in their rigs. However, it really only takes one good look at the comparative histories of Macintosh vs. PC's in third-party hardware to start making the point. Like anything else in life: knowledge always returns its investment, and people who know what they're doing with PC's go a *lot* further than Mac-heads, in general, have ever been willing to admit. 1176807771:::James Hancock:::jhancock@darwinproductions.net:::http://www.darwinproductions.net:::I've been thinking about it for a while with a laptop. Two reasons I can't get a Mac: (nothing to do with it being a Mac ironically!)

There is only on CTRL key on the mac books and mac book pros. I'm a touch typer, I need both, drives me crazy when laptops don't have one on each side.

No right mouse button on the touch pad (this sort of has to do with being a mac) so you have to old down ctrl+shift which is on the left side only because of above and I'm left handed so this is a real pain. There are a ton of right clicks on Mac and Windows and I need both. I can't understand why Jobs is so hooked on the single button mouse... and bad ones too boot.

I know I can use an external mouse with two buttons and be done with it, but there are lots of times where I need to not have to pull out a mouse to do a demo etc.

That being said I was really amazed at how well "Paralells" worked for emulation, very fast very reliable and heck I can switch to a full version of Windows using the same partition under boot camp. Very impressive.

It's close, but no dice still for these reasons... 1176807924:::James Hancock:::jhancock@darwinproductions.net:::http://www.darwinproductions.net:::BTW, the "Great Global Warning Swindel" graphics... you can do that in about 5 seconds with Office 2007. It rocks at this stuff, and you don't even get close to it with Office 2004 on Mac and won't until the next version is released and even then I doubt you'll see the Ribbonbar which is HUGE for improved ease of use (as long as you're open to change) 1176811463:::Diana Hsieh:::diana@dianahsieh.com:::http://www.dianahsieh.com/blog:::Inspector -- Just FYI, I am a high-end Windows user. I'm more knowledgeable than 90% of users. I've built all my own desktops since 1994. Professionals know more than me, but that's about it. I regularly troubleshoot for other people. I can fix most problems. I've tweaked my environment extensively.

So please don't tell me that my problems with Windows are due to ignorance.

I do what I can to keep my Windows environment as I like it, but that requires constant work against the grain, including rebooting on a regular basis. As for my ongoing problems, I simply don't have the hours required to fix them. I'm certainly not going to invest hours trying to fix the networking problem. I've done that before, only to have the problem mysteriously reappear in a few days or weeks or months. So why should I waste hours trying again? Notably, that kind of networking problem is widespread. It's inexcusable for MS not to have made home networking easy by now.

If I wanted to spend hours combing through documentation to figure out how to solve computing problems, I'd switch back to Linux! At least in that case, once I figured it out, the solution made sense and worked permanently. (I'm not talking about any Linux desktop, but rather stuff like running the network through the Linux box, as I used to do.) Seriously, ease of use is supposed to be the point in MS's favor, right? So why does computing well in Windows require a professional with ample time to tinker with his computer? That's unrealistic.

Now, whether the Mac will be any better for me is open to question. Maybe you're right that I'll be more even frustrated by it. However, I couldn't get any more disgusted with Windows. And I have good reason to be: I want a computer that doesn't require babysitting. I've got too much real work to do.

In response to Eric: *Of course* I use Google desktop. I can't use it for everything though. It doesn't search my tasks in Outlook, and Outlook's own new search function is pathetically slow. The fact is that MS should have done better with local HD searches -- years ago. That they *still* suck, even when put through a fancy upgrade, gives me reason to think that I can expect little good from MS in the future.

Oh, and I applied the patch you mentioned. I think it helped a bit, but Outlook is still slow. 1176815390:::Steve D'Ippolito:::::::::Diana, given that you do the things you say you do that number of users less knowlegeable than you is probably more like 98% not 90%. I'd put myself at about the 90th "clue" percentile. (I suspect your anecdotal sampling is off the top half of the bell curve, at least compared to mine.)

None of this changes your basic complaint--for whatever reason, Windows machines need a lot of tweaking, continously, and they often are set up to hide things from you if you don't know the proper dead-chicken-wave to find it--and in fact most people have no idea a setting even exists. (Hiding file extensions by default is one egregious example.) It is as if they were deliberately trying to create a market for Windows Gurus and ensure that they would be necessary just to keep a machine running.

I've pooh-poohed Macs for years--I've used them at work for probably 12 out of my 20 years in the workplace for fairly trivial tasks like e-mail and documentation (but not as my main programming platform). They were unreliable, restrictive bomb-a-matics more often than not, great for sudden hangs--and I do remember seeing smoke start billowing out of a Mac Plus at least once. (By contrast I was able to keep a Windows 98 original (not SE!) machine running for a month at a time without a crash--but it DID take work and tweaking above and beyond what the average user could do.)

I suspect that this has changed with OS/X. I've had to remind myself to stop dogging Mac because it has gone through some fundamental changes since those days of "smack and toss." But I've never really had the opportunity to "drive" a Mac since OS/X came out. Please keep us updated! 1176820361:::Clay Hellman:::ClayHellman@gmail.com::::::I don't know if I have much to add that hasn't already been said, but this topic has been much on my mind lately as well.

Several of my friends have Mac's and my basic impression is that they are better designed machines. Several factors cinched it for me that my next computer will be a MAC.

1) I can use the new intel Mac to create a dual boot machine with software such as Boot Camp. In doing so, if I want to run Vista, or XP I can still do so.

2) Mac's come with simple video editing tools built it that allow me to do simple video(and audio) editing.

3) After listening to Steve Gibson's Security podcast on Vista's DRM(Episode #77) http://www.grc.com/SecurityNow.htm I am convinced that in order to accomodate the RIAA and MPAA that Microsoft, in essence, created a less stable OS in order to allow these institutions to continue to sell broken music and video. After coming to understand this, I'm pretty sure I'll never use Vista as my primary OS. 1176823687:::Mike Shapiro:::mike@mikemusic.cmo:::http://mikemusic.com/:::I have three PCs and two Macs. The latter are the joys of my computing life, and the former are sources of pain, headache, and frequent OS re-installation. (One of my Macs is a G4 from three or so years ago, and I've never had to re-install the OS.) 1176837885:::Adam Buker:::adam@adambuker.com:::http://www.adambuker.com:::Inspector, with all due respect, when was the last time that you actually used a Mac extensively? Every single Mac of mine that runs OS X does in fact, just work. Since I have moved to OS X (over four years ago) I have not had even one operating system crash. Once in a blue moon I might have a third-party app that quits, but that's not Apple's fault. I've played Halo and World of Warcraft on my Mac mini with great results considering it's the cheapest Mac that Apple makes. I've done extensive work with audio using Logic on this machine with excellent results. I also use this machine to manage my finances and to build and maintain my website.

I am not a so-called noob (aka beginner) when it comes to computing. I have used Linux and Windows (going all the way back to 3.1). I still own an Apple IIe that is as old as I am, and I know how to program it. My experience with Windows (especially in using Pro Tools and using audio interfaces, to say nothing of the regular software problems) has been horrendous. One example was the night of my composition recital. I had hired a friend of mine to do the recording since he had access to two Neumann U-47 tube condenser mics (which is way out of my budget). He ran the mics (along with the rest of the inputs) through a small 6ch Mackie VLZ pro mixer and then straight to a decent Roland audio interface on his Vaio's USB 2.0 port. He tested the setup and everything was running as clean as it possibly could. However, during the actual performance conflicting software conflict issues between Pro Tools, Windows, and the Roland interface driver software emerged resulting in massive problems for the audio that was recorded. To this date I have not been able to fully recover the damaged audio. 1176865230:::Inspector:::http://z7.invisionfree.com/capitalistparadise/index.php?showforum=17::::::Adam,

I work with OS X every now and then, and as I said it is a *lot* better than older versions. And for a lot of people, the Mac "just works." (that's its selling point, in fact) My point is that when it *doesn't* "just" work, you have far, far less options than if it were a PC.

Diana,

"So please don't tell me that my problems with Windows are due to ignorance."

In the technical sense, they are. (just not in the pejorative sense) Those kinds of problems are correctable, and windows networks can and do run smoothly (in fact the vast majority of them do). It's not like if you use windows, you're just doomed to that. You've had some back luck (maybe bad hardware, or some corrupted system files; maybe bad HDD, etc). That isn't the OS's fault.

But as an IT professional, I just want to say that all the PC problems described by you and in this thread *are* solvable.

"Seriously, ease of use is supposed to be the point in MS's favor, right?"

No, that's definitely Mac's selling point.

Hey, by all means try the Mac. See if it is the best solution for what you want to do. I'm not here to say it won't be; I'm just trying to bring a little sobriety to the issue.

Macs have all the same problems as WinPC's, it's just harder for a basic user to go "off the rails" and accidentally mess with things he ought not to. And the wording on a lot of their stuff seems to confuse non-computer-people less.

A Mac is a niche product. It doesn't do everything that WinPC's do. If all you ever do is internet stuff, amateur video editing, some light word processing, and peer-to-peer home networking, then you'll never likely bump into the limitations of the Mac. It will *seem* like it's just an all-around superior product. But it's *not*. It's just better at doing those particular things for people who don't have a full grasp of the machine. That's all. Which is great, for some people. Nothing at all wrong with that. Different strokes for different folks; you buy what suits your context best. (or, as Billy puts it, "Everybody gets to go to hell in their own go-cart.") 1176881970:::Steve D'Ippolito:::::::::Inspector said: "...And the wording on a lot of their [Mac's] stuff seems to confuse non-computer-people less [than windows]."

And how. Someone I know was trying to clean up a Windows 3.1 machine--just throw out stuff they didn't need any more. They completely thrashed their system. I asked what they had done and they said they deleted a bunch of files that didn't pertain to anything.

Oh, you mean "there is no application for this file"?

They had deleted a bunch of .dll files. 1176891540:::Adam Buker:::adam@adambuker.com:::http://www.adambuker.com:::How is a Mac more limited than a PC when it can run Windows (and Linux) as well as OS X? If anything that would make a PC much more limited as it can only run Windows and Linux. If you find a Mac-only application( believe it or not they do exist and the number of them are increasing) that you'd like to run after you bought a PC, you're out of luck. However if you buy an intel Mac, and find a Windows or Linux application that you'd like to use, then you are able to. Boot Camp can run XP or Vista as well as the many distros of Linux. Paralles and Fusion can do the same thing without restarting via. virtualization. There are even some Windows only programs that will run in OS X with the help of the WINE. And many Linux programs won't even need a distro installed as they can run under the X11 environment included with Tiger.

But still, this is not needed in many cases as there are Mac versions of many Windows programs, or at least programs that perform the equivalent function.

As for the claim that there is no help for when things don't work on a Mac, you have several options. There are many Mac user groups that are happy to help people. You can get your mac serviced at the Genius Bar in your local Apple retail store. Or you can use Apple's award-winning tech support. It's rated among the best (if not the best) in the industry. 1176895320:::Steve D'Ippolito:::::::::Adam Buker: "How is a Mac more limited than a PC when it can run Windows (and Linux) as well as OS X?"

I suspect people are conflating the hardware (Mac vs PC) with the operating system (OS/X vs Windows). I'd have to say if I had to switch from my current PC to a Mac running *only* OS/X I would find it *very* limiting, for the same reasons I found Linux to be limiting. I have WAY too much "legacy" data and work on DOS/Windows systems that would be permanently left behind and unusable.

Were I to make the transition, I'd want dual boot--then when I found that I could use certain files on the OS/X side, I'd "move" all that stuff over (which depending on the setup may be purely psychological--telling myself to use the new OS for that work, or might actually involve moving files from one filesystem to another).

In point of fact, just going from Win98 to XP involved a similar process--there was one app I had trouble with and I had to use Win98 for it for a while. 1176900118:::Billy Beck:::wjbiii@frontiernet.net:::http://www.two--four.net/weblog.php:::Steve: I have a friend who once worked in Windows tech support for a major ISP. He could tell me horror stories all day long, and sometimes did.

He once described a person whose (Win95) system had started "acting up". George finally determined that this guy had been sitting around drinking and randomly deleting files out of his Windows root directory.

[shrug] Not much *anyone* can about about scenes like that. The thing is, the guy probably went away saying, "Windows sux." 1176923293:::Inspector:::inspector2311@hotmail.com:::http://s7.invisionfree.com/capitalistparadise/index.php?showforum=17:::Adam,

"How is a Mac more limited than a PC when it can run Windows (and Linux) as well as OS X?"

If you're going to buy both Windows and OS X then what's the point of your statement? I could just as easily say that you can run Windows and dual boot to OS X (or Linux or anything else you please). The point is that OS X *itself* can't do a lot of things. 1176937244:::Clay Hellman:::ClayHellman@gmail.com::::::Diana,

What kind of audio work do you want to do? 1176973155:::Adam Buker:::adam@adambuker.com:::http://www.adambuker.com:::Okay then, what can Windows do that OS X can't? 1176976304:::Inspector:::inspector2311@hotmail.com:::http://s7.invisionfree.com/capitalistparadise/index.php?showforum=17:::Adam,

Off the top of my head? Run in a business environment that is networked with active directory. (that's pretty much all but the smallest of companies) Or, on the flip side, play the vast majority of games. Honestly, go to your local Fry's or Best Buy and observe the size of the Mac software isle vs the PC one. 1176999168:::Adam Buker:::adam@adambuker.com:::http://www.adambuker.com:::I'll grant you there aren't many games written for OS X as there are for Windows, and the ones that are written for both platforms usually have the Windows version ship first with the Mac following a few months later. The only way this would change is if Microsoft decided to license its Direct X gaming technology to Apple (thus allowing the game's libraries to be uses with either version of the app). This probably will never happen since having Direct X tied to Windows is part of Microsoft's strategy at retaining Windows market share dominance. I got to hand it to them, so far it offers better technology than what is found in Open GL, and it's a good business strategy for them as well.

As for Active Directory in business environments, it can be done with a bit of tinkering, and Apple has a section of its website about it here:
<http://www.apple.com/itpro/articles/adintegration/>.

As for software selection, it's not that there is a paltry amount of software, but rather the retail stores neglection of Apple and its related products . Part of that is because of the fact that for many years Apple was simply a niche player that catered to creative people with money. As Apple has grown over the last decade, so has it's software collection. Many products which used to be only available on Windows machines are now being made available on the Mac (i.e. Adobe Premier, Audition) Most of the time the Macs and the software was relegated to obscure areas of the stores that generally don't see as much foot traffic. Not only that most Macs in retails stores are usually off when you walk by them in many stores. Thus people don't get to experience interacting with the Mac. It's that interaction with it that distinguishes it from Windows and is one of the product's selling points. Without it, the main thing that differentiates Macs from PCs are the different case designs. Although I like the case design of many Macs, that isn't my reason for buying them. When your products don't see as much foot traffic and your products aren't advertising their killer feature, this translates into lost retail sales. Lost retail sales mean that the product(and the supporting software) will be neglected on the shelves and moved for other products that are selling. A customer that sees this gets the impression immediately that this product must be inferior.

Contrast this with the experience of visiting an Apple retail store. The stores were created simply because Apple was not satisfied with the way retail stores were handling their products (namely for the same reasons I mentioned above) The products are prominently on display and you can interact with them. There are several aisles of third-party Mac software that eclipse what you see for PCs in other retail stores. If you do a little bit of research you'll find that Apple has higher dollar amount sales per square foot than any other retail store chain in America.If you look at the following link you'll find plenty of third party apps available (and this is a rather small sampling of the total amount of apps available).
<http://guide.apple.com/index.lasso>

Smart retail planning does indeed make a difference in customer perception and in sales. Many third-party software companies are benefiting from the huge revenues that have been pouring through the Apple retail stores. These stores have dramatically changed the perceptions of Apple and its products to many who have walked through it's doors. Apple is growing at a faster rate than many other tech companies, and is growing Mac market share in the most valuable segments of the computer market.

enough ranting, Sheena is threatening to gnaw my arm off :P 1177060950:::Inspector:::inspector2311@hotmail.com:::http://s7.invisionfree.com/capitalistparadise/index.php?showforum=17:::Adam,

Huh, neat. Well, never underestimate geeks. Obviously, I doubt it will work as well as a PC on AD, but at least there is that option if you're hardcore enough and for some reason *really* want to use a Mac on a corporate network.

Also, bear in mind that 23,000 titles sounds like a lot but it is still, I would imagine, dwarfed by PC titles.

Well, that's some neat stuff, Adam. Maybe someday Macs will break out of being niche products. Certainly if they improve their next OS as much as they did going from 9 to X. Hey, MS toppled IBM, so it could happen. But market dominance just makes a lot of things more practical - you have to grant that.