OS X Yosemite has convinced me, has it convinced you?

[technord]

has Yosemite convinced me?  No

 

Windows 8 did

 

after 20 years using Microsoft software (the first being a software package for the Tandy TRS80) I didn't seem to get on well with Windows 8 (or 8.1, or 8.1 Update 1).  Everything just kinda seemed long winded, even simple tasks were a pain.

 

Decided to give Mavericks a go, wow......that's me a convert!  although it did take me a couple of weeks of hard use to get the hang of things.

 

Yosemite looks even better so really looking forward to getting my hands on a copy.

^ ok, now I'm feeling old.  It's 30 years not 20

 

ouch

[PGHammer]

I have just left my Windows 8 install and installed my hackintosh build to 10.9.4 - I'm feeling alot more comfortable using OSX atm than I am Windows 8 :(

I'm not saying OS X isn't solid software - it is, and that DOES include Yosemite DP4 (now on drive #2, replacing OS X 10.9.3).  However, unlike Windows, Yosemite normally requires "separate hardware", which doesn't fit my usage pattern, especially with multiple OSes.

 

I run multiple operating systems for the rather concise reason that no one operating system fits every use case.  (None - that includes Windows.  And OS X, Linux distributions, the BSDs, UNIX, etc.)

It's problematical enough that there are trade-offs with each OS over others.  Forgoing the "hack" route with OS X basically sticks you with a cost penalty - you buy additional hardware if you choose to run OS X alone.

That means that building a "hack", for me, was entirely about cost-avoidance - as in the cost of additional hardware.  It costs me less money, I incur zero in the way of additional support woes (whether I run a single OS on the hardware, or ten, I STILL have to maintain the hardware - why would the cost of that go up simply by throwing more OSes and software at it?).  I also avoid reliance on SMB for reading/viewing NTFS over a workgroup - instead, I use OS X' own native ability to read/view NTFS partitions on the same computer.  (It was true with Leopard - on which i based the first "hack" I built, and it's STILL true with DP4.)

 

Part of the "comfort factor" with OS X is that it HAS changed less than Windows.  I'm not disputing that - in fact, I have pointed TO that as a wanted feature for a lot of folks.  However, the very fact that OS X has changed so little - while quite satisfying to a lot of folks, has horked others off, even in the Land of the Cult of Mac.  I do frequent other OS X enthusiast fora besides Neowin - including InsanelyMac - one of the oldest.  I also lurk on fora dedicated to purely-Apple hardware, just to keep an ear to the ground.  There IS a groundswell of complaints about how boring OS X' lack of change is - and we ALL know what happens when an OS is perceived as "boring" - has not that same complaint been directed at Windows - and especially during XP's overlong overhang?  There is also a price to be paid for that lack of change - issues that OS X still has (compared to other operating systems, and especially Windows) still persist.  (You think that Windows Phone has a major "app problem"?  Consider that OS X still lacks applications, and especially games, compared to Win32 or even Win64.  While OS X is getting more casual games, how much of that is spurred by iOS? (Basically, that while OS X games and iOS games are now different enough that you MUST write a separate application for each, as there is less common code between them than ModernUI and RT).  And then there IS the factor of iOS application development - to write iOS applications, most of the time, you STILL need an OS X environment at some point, if for nothing more than code debugging.  While iOS development CAN be profitable, even for an indie developer, it is no guarantee, any more than it is for any other platform.

[PGHammer]

No offense, but the reliability argument in favor of Apple is all but dead. Windows 7 & 8 are rock solid. WS 2012 is bullet proof. I haven't had a blue screen since early Vista and that was due to NVidia drivers.

If anything, 2012R2 is even more bulletproof compared merely to Server 2008R2 or Server 2012 - even when NOT used as a server.

 

I use 2012R2 as a test lab/virtualization box - basically, an overgrown workstation.

 

Starting with the base 2012R2 installation, I add a mere three features - Desktop Experience, Hyper-V, and .NET Framework 3.5 (includes 2.0 and 3.0) via Server Manager.  Other than running WU for updates/maintenance, that's it as far as the server OS goes.  (Unlike Server 2008/2008R2 or Server 2012, 2012R2 is a lean OS - in fact, it's leaner than Windows 8.1, even AFTER those three features are installed.  What's all the more embarrassing is that I can't run Hyper-V on the Windows 8.1 side at all due to lack of EPT support in the Q6600.)  That ALSO means that - again, unlike Server 2008R2 or earlier - I don't have to strip out anything from Server 2012R2 to make a solid workstation.

 

The other advantage to using 2012R2 as a workstation OS is an utter lack of learning curve if you also use Windows 8 or later (this is whether you add Desktop Experience or not).  The Start Screen is still there (adding Desktop Experience also adds the AppScreen, Windows Store, and support for ModernUI apps).  You also have - from the start - complete and utter compatibiity with most Win32 or Win64 desktop applications.  As a development platform, 2012R2 in workstation guise is actually a better fit than Windows 8.1 due to the stability of the base OS.

 

Lastly, the biggest feature that 2012R2 as a workstation has is OOTB virtualization support (Hyper-V - the middle feature of my three-piece workstation feature install).  Unlike Windows 8+, it doesn't require EPT/SLAT.  Unlike OS X, it's first-party (it installs via Server Manager).  Like Oracle VirtualBox or vmWare Player, it's free (unlike Fusion or Parallels, or vmWare Workstation).

[briangw]

PGHammer, Have you run any games in 2012R2? Wondering if you had to tweak anything like you had to back with 2008/2008R2.

[notchinese]

has Yosemite convinced me?  No

 

Windows 8 did

 

after 20 years using Microsoft software (the first being a software package for the Tandy TRS80) I didn't seem to get on well with Windows 8 (or 8.1, or 8.1 Update 1).  Everything just kinda seemed long winded, even simple tasks were a pain.

 

Decided to give Mavericks a go, wow......that's me a convert!  although it did take me a couple of weeks of hard use to get the hang of things.

 

Yosemite looks even better so really looking forward to getting my hands on a copy.

^ ok, now I'm feeling old.  It's 30 years not 20

 

ouch

 

What exactly took longer to accomplish on Windows 8 than on Windows 7? I am seriously dying to hear this.

[shastasheen]

What exactly took longer to accomplish on Windows 8 than on Windows 7? I am seriously dying to hear this.

Me too. Once I got over the initial UI hurdle of Windows 8, I moved all my pc's from 7 to 8. Windows 7 looks ancient and confusing now.

[PGHammer]

PGHammer, Have you run any games in 2012R2? Wondering if you had to tweak anything like you had to back with 2008/2008R2.

Because I multiboot, the only games I run in 2012R2 are those that are browser-based or ModernUI games (I pointed out that adding Desktop Experience adds the Windows App Store). If I want to game, I have Windows 8.1 (or OS X, for that matter) for that.

 

Other than keeping the OSes on separate hard drives (the two versions of Windows share a drive - which isn't the case with OS X) - the only HARDWARE difference is the audio issue, as OS X does not support (fully) my Sound Blaster Recon3D (quirk in VoodooHDA), while the two Windows OSes both do.

[Shadrack]

Does that work just as in Windows?

Why would it have to work the same way?

If you want to pick on something Windows has had since Vista and Mac OS X still does not have there is the lack of per-application volume controls. Love how I can 'mute' my web browser on Windows for example.

[neo158]

It hasn't really convinced me, but then I use Surface not an iPad and a Windows Phone not an iPhone so the major features of Yosemite would be a waste for me. Not only that but re buying ALL of my software to run it on a Mac would cost me thousands of pounds.

 

I don't hate Yosemite, I actually see the benefits it offers to iPad and iPhone users, but the two reasons above are pretty compelling reasons for me not to ditch my PC for a Mac.

[Guest]

No. It hasn't even started trying. MAAAAAAYBE when I am able to use the OS on non-Apple hardware, I would try it in a VM. Until then, no.

[Nutsnbolts64]

Nice job Apple, you've successfully convinced me to dump my PC and switch to a Mac, I mean that experience; it's so amazing.

 

How many of you have been convinced to switch because of Yosemite. They even manage to do the minimalistic interface better than Windows 8.

I'm already on mac. On a related note, Yosemite hasn't convinced me to download it. I've read horror stories about certain bugs found during this beta testing period. I'll wait until the final version is released. 

[PGHammer]

No. It hasn't even started trying. MAAAAAAYBE when I am able to use the OS on non-Apple hardware, I would try it in a VM. Until then, no.

That still depends on the non-Apple hardware - however, most non-Apple hardware going back to Windows 7 IS supported almost completely out of the box; it generally requires less (not more) tweaking to run OS X (even Yosemite, let alone Mavericks), compared to even a Linux distribution.  (My first "Hack" was based on an ASUS P5N-M HDMI (Celeron E1200 CPU) and an nForce 7100/630i chipset; the issue was the chipset, not anything else.  Things got easier, not harder, with the ASUS P5G41M-LX2/GB due to the CSM Intel G41 chipset, which has held up from Snow Leopard to Yosemite - despite a CPU change from E3400 to Q6600, and going from AMD HD5450 to NVidia GTX550Ti.  Audio is pretty much the only bugbear - and that is ONLY if you can't use HDMI for it.)

[PGHammer]

I'm already on mac. On a related note, Yosemite hasn't convinced me to download it. I've read horror stories about certain bugs found during this beta testing period. I'll wait until the final version is released. 

And that has been the case with Windows as well - going all the way back to XP.  (How many users have indeed refused to move from XP due to some esoteric application that hasn't been updated since XP?  I'm not talking corporate or enterprise users, either.)  Whacking OS X for this is ONLY fair because Windows gets whacked for the same thing - if one got whacked, but the other didn't, I WOULD call the unequal treatment unfair.

[Boo Berry]

Yosemite Public Beta 5 is VERY stable now, haven't had a single issue with it. But it being so close to the GM I'd hold off until it's released. :)

[Cnónna]

I just can't get over the price apple charges for the hardware. basic macbook air ?750, with a 1.4ghz processor and 4 gigs of ram. intel graphics card and only 11inch screen :/

 

would buy a mac just out of curiosoity but the hardware in my book isn't worth it.

[nosense]

For me it's the other way around,  after using macs since the g5 days till the latest intel mac book pro. I'm going windows with my next laptop. Since I'm mostly in windows VM, when I use my mbp.

[Nutsnbolts64]

And that has been the case with Windows as well - going all the way back to XP.  (How many users have indeed refused to move from XP due to some esoteric application that hasn't been updated since XP?  I'm not talking corporate or enterprise users, either.)  Whacking OS X for this is ONLY fair because Windows gets whacked for the same thing - if one got whacked, but the other didn't, I WOULD call the unequal treatment unfair.

Good point. I'm just playing it safe. I can wait 12 days. No biggie.

[+Warwagon MVC]

OS X Yosemite is very nice looking. I've installed it on my Macbook Pro and will update the Mid 2011 27 inch i7 16GB iMac I gave my parents.

 

To be honest I don't use my Macbook pro very much and when I do I use it in Windows. At the moment its dual booting between Yosemite and Windows 10. Only because I do a lot with Gotoassist remote support and the Windows Version is much better.

 

Only reason I even have a Macbook Pro and a iMac is because I got a HELL of a steal that I couldn't pass up. Both Computers are i7's and both do get a warm especially the iMac. It gets really warm.

[blank]

I'm in the same boat as OP. Yosemite is so sexy and looks nice to use. While windows seems to be going downhill. Can't stand using windows 8, or even the 10 tech preview.

I don't want or need a laptop, so no macbook for me, i already have monitors, so no imac for me. Mac Pro is too expensive.

I think i'm going to settle with a mac mini.

the 2.5ghz i5 version should be powerful enough for image editing, and normal computing usage right?

there is a nice deal on ebay right now for a slightly used one that comes with a keyboard and mouse for under $500, latest model. Says he only used it for 2 days, which is probably a lie.

this one should be fine right?

Seems silly to be giving up my over powered windows machine that i just built last year, but seems like its inevitable the way things are going.

Will probably keep it around for gaming and such.

[PGHammer]

I'm in the same boat as OP. Yosemite is so sexy and looks nice to use. While windows seems to be going downhill. Can't stand using windows 8, or even the 10 tech preview.

I don't want or need a laptop, so no macbook for me, i already have monitors, so no imac for me. Mac Pro is too expensive.

I think i'm going to settle with a mac mini.

the 2.5ghz i5 version should be powerful enough for image editing, and normal computing usage right?

there is a nice deal on ebay right now for a slightly used one that comes with a keyboard and mouse for under $500, latest model. Says he only used it for 2 days, which is probably a lie.

this one should be fine right?

Seems silly to be giving up my over powered windows machine that i just built last year, but seems like its inevitable the way things are going.

Will probably keep it around for gaming and such.

If looked at merely in terms of the "broad strokes", OS X hasn't changed much since (believe it or not) Tiger, if not Jaguar.

What changes OS X HAS made have been little-thing changes - if Windows had a change cycle that minor, it would have been castigated for it - despite being castigated NOW for changes that are "too large".

 

Have you seen ads for medical professionals (primarily doctors and dentists) that proclaim that "we cater to cowards"?  That is the OS X target market today in a nutshell.

 

However, a change cycle concerned only with nitpicky, small, change-cowardicial things (especially with a semi-closed - not fully-closed - hardware infrastructure), is also therefore largely unable to adapt in terms of hardware. How much has Apple's hardware (the Mac side of things) changed since Snow Leopard, for example?  Even wholly-Apple (no Hacks) sites such as AppleInsider have been lamenting over things that Apple still does not adopt in terms of Mac hardware - the Mac sub-Reddits are far less kind to Apple on that score.

 

However, the change-cowardicial are the ones in charge - they represent the Apple base.

 

Windows has their share of cowards, as well - they are the most vocal group of Windows critics today, in fact.  However, there is a rather ironic point to be made here - Windows is also, oddly enough, the ONLY place hardware changes are possible outside the mobility space (said space being tablets, smartphones, and the "phablet" fusion devices).  Microsoft itself (and the OEMs as well) recognize that if change is coming to the hardware, the OS that hardware will be running on has to support it - sooner, rather than later.  While CPU-driven changes have slowed down, that certainly isn't the case for the rest of the hardware.  Not GPUs, not drives, not other peripherals - not even printing and printers.  If anything, changes have sped UP outside the CPU space - not slowed down. 

 

Change WILL happen - it is, quite literally, as inevitable as the tide.  (That is the lesson of Canute and his broom.)  Why is it that we in IT should have ANY notion that it can, will, or even SHOULD be any different for us?

[Rudy]

I've been using OS X full time since Tiger, but I must say that Yosemite is the best version so far. Love the look, although I wish Dark Mode affected more things than just the menubar and dock, I wish it darkened the windows too 

[vhane]

If looked at merely in terms of the "broad strokes", OS X hasn't changed much since (believe it or not) Tiger, if not Jaguar.

What changes OS X HAS made have been little-thing changes - if Windows had a change cycle that minor, it would have been castigated for it - despite being castigated NOW for changes that are "too large".

 

Have you seen ads for medical professionals (primarily doctors and dentists) that proclaim that "we cater to cowards"?  That is the OS X target market today in a nutshell.

 

However, a change cycle concerned only with nitpicky, small, change-cowardicial things (especially with a semi-closed - not fully-closed - hardware infrastructure), is also therefore largely unable to adapt in terms of hardware. How much has Apple's hardware (the Mac side of things) changed since Snow Leopard, for example?  Even wholly-Apple (no Hacks) sites such as AppleInsider have been lamenting over things that Apple still does not adopt in terms of Mac hardware - the Mac sub-Reddits are far less kind to Apple on that score.

 

However, the change-cowardicial are the ones in charge - they represent the Apple base.

 

Windows has their share of cowards, as well - they are the most vocal group of Windows critics today, in fact.  However, there is a rather ironic point to be made here - Windows is also, oddly enough, the ONLY place hardware changes are possible outside the mobility space (said space being tablets, smartphones, and the "phablet" fusion devices).  Microsoft itself (and the OEMs as well) recognize that if change is coming to the hardware, the OS that hardware will be running on has to support it - sooner, rather than later.  While CPU-driven changes have slowed down, that certainly isn't the case for the rest of the hardware.  Not GPUs, not drives, not other peripherals - not even printing and printers.  If anything, changes have sped UP outside the CPU space - not slowed down. 

 

Change WILL happen - it is, quite literally, as inevitable as the tide.  (That is the lesson of Canute and his broom.)  Why is it that we in IT should have ANY notion that it can, will, or even SHOULD be any different for us?

 

That's a big wall of text. Get to the point. Specifics.

 

What hardware did you want Apple to adopt that they can't because of OS X?

[adrynalyne]

That's a big wall of text. Get to the point. Specifics.

 

What hardware did you want Apple to adopt that they can't because of OS X?

It doesn't matter because sans Mac Pro, they just solder everything in anyway.

[greenwizard88]

I haven't used it much, so I'll hold off judgment, but so far it looks likes, yes, Yosemite will convince me to switch.

 

To a PC full time. I can't stand that UI!  :s

[PGHammer]

That's a big wall of text. Get to the point. Specifics.

 

What hardware did you want Apple to adopt that they can't because of OS X?

Touch, for one.  (And notebooks - specifically MacBooks, and iMacs are, in fact, the logical place to start.)

 

Let's face facts - when it comes to hardware, exactly how much difference is there between a MacBook and a notebook running Windows aside from the OS?  Between iMacs and desktop AIOs (from HP or ASUS, to name just two brands)?

 

It's not as if Apple has any reason NOT to expand either to add touch support.

 

If Apple is REALLY serious about Macs, additional hardware models (and additional hardware-feature support) is a must-have.

 

Note that I am NOT asking Apple to get really wild and wooly and support legal Mac clones - instead, I am saying that the Mac HARDWARE base itself is artificially constrained, and that is a disservice to Apple itself AND their customers.

 

Notice that I didn't even say that OS X is to blame - the "hack" community proves every day that OS X can run on a LOT of hardware that Apple not only does not use, but hardware that Apple has NEVER used (AMD CPUs are actually the low-hanging fruit as an example).

 

The issue is not the software - but the artificially-constrained (by Apple itself) HARDWARE base.