What made you switch.


Recommended Posts

1] apple is sexy.

3] os x. something different. i've been playing with windows since 3.1.

4] photo booth is fun.

5] apple is just cool.

6] the imac is simple, compact, light, etc.

7] sexy.

8] sexy.

9] the whole security thing. not that i have problems with viruses or spyware or anything, but it's fun to know i could just download all that stuff for fun now.

10] i get free apple stickers. yeaa!

Or ask yourself this: what would you rather read: a well-plotted but poorly-written potboiler or a well-written novel with a rather nondescript story line? A quick look at the best-seller lists tells you how most people would answer. The point is that you don?t choose one novel over another because it is somehow universally ?better?, but rather because it is somehow more appealing, better for you, as an individual, based on the innumerable inscrutable tastes and desires and opinions that make you the unique snowflake that you are.

The reason this Pilgrim situation is so hideously complex is that all modern operating systems are complex. It takes a lot of work and investigation and expertise just to understand and form opinions about one of them, on its own; comparing one against another can?t be done by reducing the comparison to some single metric because they?re different in so many different ways. It?s easy to choose between two things that differ from each other in just one way ? and it?s easy to explain your decision. Not so when choosing between things that differ in hundreds or maybe even thousands of ways.

Assuming you?ve made your choice with an open mind, it?s really unlikely that your decision came down to just one factor, or even just a handful. The interesting decision isn?t really about which choice you ultimately make, but in which factors you use to make that decision, and how much relative weight to ascribe to them.

I strongly suggest that everyone read "And Oranges" by John Gruber. Almost everything in his writing can be pasted into every Mac vs. PC thread.

http://daringfireball.net/2006/06/and_oranges

I think it's the wow factor that first attracted me (looking at all the gorgeous computers in Apple Centres). Then during the last (05 / 06) school year, my old school got new eMacs and Tiger which I spent all of my lunchtimes using (good old days when I was allowed to do that :/) and I started really liking the features and the whole feel of the OS. During June last year I bought a Mac and I've been happy ever since.

What made me switch other than the wow factor, roughly in chronological order from when I first saw Macs and when I decided to buy my own:

1. The user interface - Aqua on Tiger looks so much better than Luna on XP.

2. The user logic - I didn't really like it at first, but the more I used it and the more comfortable I felt, I found it no worse than that of Windows - plus it has all the nifty little things like Expos?, Dashboard and Spotlight that would attract a first time user.

3. The software - while a lot of good software exist on Windows (probably more than there are on Macs in number), they're often buried in crappy software that either have a crappy GUI (yes I admit I like eye candy) or just suck. Mac software generally look good and most of the ones I tried have been good.

4. The polishedness - I don't like the Windows 3.1 like Add Font dialogue on Windows and all the 98-looking icons floating around the system. The only icon on OS X I've found so far that doesn't really fit in is the NetInfo Manager, and I don't use that often. And Mac software are usually more consistent (yeah you get Aqua apps, brushed metal ones and unified ones but there are very few that use a funky skin that the developer likes like a lot of Windows programs do)

5. I was to buy a laptop last year to replace my desktop due to the potential of moving to a small house, at the time Core Duo only just came out and the MacBook was only slightly more expensive than a Dell. Plus I don't like all the stuff manufacturers add to Windows to make it "better".

To be honest, if my old school stayed with the iMacs (we had mostly first generation ones around the school and some slot loading ones in the computer lab) and OS 9, I'd have never switched. And the fact that I got to use OS X at school made the switch completely painless.

wctaiwan

I sorta made the switch cuz...

1. I needed a new laptop for portability

2. the macbook looked very nice compared to most/all PC laptops

3. Been with Windows for too long, wanted a change and experience the Mac world (it's great!!! I think all future computers will be Macs at home)

4. Able to run Windows if needed.

5. The neat features that the Mac OS X has to offer compared to XP.

I'm making the switch in the next week or so, mainly for something different. I'm sick of the registry, bored of worrying about keeping my system defragged for performance, and mostly just want to enjoy something new. I'll still use Windows because of MediaCenter and the 360 but I'm looking forward to using a totally new platform for my everyday use.

i could have spent my $1300 on a pc. sure, it would be a little faster, but then what? i install my programs & then it would still be the same, boring experience. spend $1300 to open a folder faster? encode a movie a few minutes faster? meh..

but instead..i buy an imac. not only is it faster than my current baby, but it's simple, pretty, light and space saving. brilliant! i also get to play with something new; os x. i've messed around with my homie's ibook & imac for a few minutes, but now i get to really dive in & play around with something fresh & exciting & such..

i'm going to keep my pc, so i can still be bored with it when i need to be.

I don't believe a person that totally switches to Mac is a professional. Although the Mac is great, one cannot rule out the fact that most of the world is Windows based. I am afraid it has been like this since the beginning of the PC and will stay like this. A person that switches to Mac totally and doesn't touch windows is an amateur.

Hmmm, if you're a sys/networkadmin and you administer a couple of webservers it is very common you do not use Windows whatsoever. It's more the other way around: you're not really a professional if you use Windows.

Mac has something Windows hasn't got: it's got a UNIX-like basis. Very nice for people who are used to UNIX/Linux and/or are working with UNIX/Linux machines (like webservers). You can do a lot of scripting on the mac which is quite hard to do on a Windows machine (there's no bash on Windows). You can use Linux if you want but the mac has a better GUI. Things like suspend to disk/ram is also a lot better on a Mac then on a Linux machine. All the above reasons plus the fact that I wanted a smaller laptop like the Macbook made me switch to a Macbook. I used Ubuntu Linux on my laptop before that btw and things like suspend to disk were really really terrible on that machine (slow and buggy).

Hmmm, if you're a sys/networkadmin and you administer a couple of webservers it is very common you do not use Windows whatsoever. It's more the other way around: you're not really a professional if you use Windows.

Mac has something Windows hasn't got: it's got a UNIX-like basis. Very nice for people who are used to UNIX/Linux and/or are working with UNIX/Linux machines (like webservers). You can do a lot of scripting on the mac which is quite hard to do on a Windows machine (there's no bash on Windows). You can use Linux if you want but the mac has a better GUI. Things like suspend to disk/ram is also a lot better on a Mac then on a Linux machine. All the above reasons plus the fact that I wanted a smaller laptop like the Macbook made me switch to a Macbook. I used Ubuntu Linux on my laptop before that btw and things like suspend to disk were really really terrible on that machine (slow and buggy).

I have to laugh at the generalisations made by both yourself and the poster your replied to.

I am a complete Mac user at home but I'm a sysadmin for a well known company (here in the UK) and worked for Dell until May. Just because I find OSX far more productive as a workstation OS does not mean I can't be a great sysadmin. My employers have dozens of sites across the UK, with roughly 12 domain controllers all (obviously) running Windows. We use Exchange, Sharepoint, Project Server, SQL Server and so on... We also use SCO Unix to run our backend accounts system.

I'm excellent at my job. Just because I choose not to use Windows at home doesn't make me any better or worse at my job.

in my heart I never switched... in my heart I have always been Appleized

lol no seriously...

Have been loving it for like... 5 years, switched to mac 3 months ago, have been using macs for roughly 3 years this and then.

Glassed Silver:win

edit: / addition:

i could have spent my $1300 on a pc. sure, it would be a little faster, but then what? i install my programs & then it would still be the same, boring experience. spend $1300 to open a folder faster? encode a movie a few minutes faster? meh..

but instead..i buy an imac. not only is it faster than my current baby, but it's simple, pretty, light and space saving. brilliant! i also get to play with something new; os x. i've messed around with my homie's ibook & imac for a few minutes, but now i get to really dive in & play around with something fresh & exciting & such..

i'm going to keep my pc, so i can still be bored with it when i need to be.

youre absolutely right and thats just how i felt.

a good computing experience isnt always based on the performance only, but hey, the iMac's performance is more than decent and actually... a faster machine?

Windows + a slightly faster machine will maybe not process a movie editing faster than Mac OS on a fresh iMac...

Edited by Glassed Silver
I have to laugh at the generalisations made by both yourself and the poster your replied to.

That was 100% intentional :)

That way of thinking should make one laugh because it's just stupid. You're a complete idiot if you'd think like that.

I'm excellent at my job. Just because I choose not to use Windows at home doesn't make me any better or worse at my job.

It wasn't about using it at home, it was about using it at work as a professional. Whatever you use at home has got nothing to do with that. In the end it just really depends on what you do exactly. A sysadmin in a Windows only environment is pretty much useless without Windows and if you're in a Mac only environment then you're pretty much useless without MacOS X. and so on. The operating system you chooses doesn't make you a good or bad sys/networkadmin, it's all about the skills you've got not the tools that you use.

I didn't exactly switch. I still use Windows daily on a computer I built. But I purchased my first Mac a few years back (Panther was just announced and shipping with new Macs) The Mac I purchased was an iBook G4. I bought it because it offered me everything I wanted. The OS had some great features like Expose which I still use daily and I liked the idea of no viruses or spyware. Also the G4 back then was considered pretty fast, not the fastest by any means but very accomplished for a laptop processor. After that machine I went on to purchase a Powerbook 15" G4 (One from the last Powerbook generation with the high density screen and DDR2 memory) and more recently I purchased a 17" Core Duo MacBook Pro.

I guess the reason I keep using Apple equipment is because it just works seamlessly, I never have to do any maintenance or run around troubleshooting something it's just very easy to use 24.7, Apple have done a good job at making there software and hardware work great together. I could never switch altogether as I still use Windows daily for gaming, server requirements and MCE but I love my Mac for personal things like Web Browsing, Chatting, Email, Music and I do all my Photoshop stuff on my MacBook Pro.

After sixteen years of using drab, mediocre software I suppose I can cite curiosity as my main reason for switching. =P

?400 for a Mac sounded really tempting, so after much deliberation I decided to take the plunge, and ever since my PC has done very little but gather dust. It sounds like I'm cribbing this from the advert, but things really do just work with Macs. I've only had one peripheral-related problem with mine, and that was getting an old, tired USB Modem to interact with it; everything else has worked like a dream. Only a few weeks ago I was trying to set up an ADSL modem/router using my PC, and after two hours of fiddling, restarting and throwing things around I was getting absolutely no-where. I plugged it into the Mac, and in two minutes my network was up and running. Never again shall I attempt to set something up using my PC.

I am future switcher. Waiting to get my associates, then get my iBook. Kind of my gift to myself before I go off to a bigger college for my BBA or MBA (I havent decided). I have done the research, and played with them at different stores for about 2 years now.

My reasons for switching:

I make my own music, and the music recording software is bar none better than anything on a PC. Pro Tools will always work better on a Mac.

No annoyances of virus', etc. we worry about on the PC. A thought in the back of my head says that the way Mac's are becoming popular, this may eventually change, but I kind of doubt it. *knocks on wood*

The beauty of the computer inside and out. PC's in the last 3 or 4 years have been trying to get the outside looking great, then switching to trying to make in the inside (XP) look great, and its not working. Mac has been doing this for about 10 years, inside and out.

Pretty much if I went through this thread, you could find every reason to switch over. The point is, do your reasons for switching constitute switching? Are the reasons you want, going to make you happy by switching? Its in the end up to you. We can say we love everything about the Mac, but if you don't one thing and it doesn't make you happy, then don't do that.

This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
  • Posts

    • Windows ME was worse.
    • Dude, im talking about simply disable it from settings app. Because of the eu regulation, you could disable it here for years.
    • One big question about Mars was answered thanks to Einstein's 100 year old theory by Sayan Sen Image via DepositPhotos Scientists at the U.S. National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) have calculated how time passes on Mars compared with Earth, adding detail to how timekeeping would need to work beyond Earth’s orbit. The study, published in The Astronomical Journal, found that clocks on Mars run an average of 477 microseconds, or millionths of a second, faster per day than clocks on Earth. A microsecond is one millionth of a second, a very small unit used in precise scientific timing systems such as atomic clocks, which measure time using consistent atomic behavior. This difference is not constant. Because Mars moves around the Sun in a non-circular path (an eccentric orbit, meaning its distance from the Sun changes over time instead of staying fixed) and is affected by gravity from other bodies, the daily difference can vary by as much as 226 microseconds over a Martian year. The study also identifies smaller repeating changes of about 40 microseconds per day linked to synodic cycles (repeating periods that describe how planets line up with each other as they orbit the Sun from different positions). These longer patterns affect how time differences slowly rise and fall. To make these estimates, researchers compared Mars with Earth and the Moon. The work looks at relativistic proper time (the time actually measured by a clock depending on its speed and the strength of gravity where it is located, as described in Einstein’s relativity). This shows that each world has its own slightly different “rate” of time. This becomes more important as space missions expand into cislunar space (the region between Earth and the Moon) and toward Mars. On Earth, time systems rely on atomic clocks and satellites, which stay closely synchronized for navigation and communication. The study is based on Albert Einstein’s theory of relativity, which shows that time is affected by gravity and motion. Stronger gravity makes clocks run slower, while weaker gravity makes them run faster. “The time is just right for the Moon and Mars,” said NIST physicist Bijunath Patla. “This is the closest we have been to realizing the science fiction vision of expanding across the solar system.” A day on Mars is about 40 minutes longer than on Earth, and a Martian year lasts 687 Earth days. But the main question is not just about days and years, but how fast time itself passes. An atomic clock placed on Mars would function normally, but compared with one on Earth, the two would slowly drift apart due to differences in gravity and motion. This requires careful calculation of what is similar to a time-zone difference across planets. Researchers modeled Mars using a reference surface and included gravitational effects from the Sun, Earth, the Moon, and other planets. This includes a multi-body gravitational system (often described as a three-body or four-body problem, where predicting motion becomes difficult because multiple large objects all pull on each other at the same time through gravity). Mars also follows a Keplerian orbit (an idealized elliptical orbit based on simple gravitational laws that assume smooth motion, before adding real-world disturbances from other bodies). In addition, the researchers accounted for solar tides (small changes in gravitational force caused by the Sun that slightly distort planetary motion and timing, especially in systems involving Earth and the Moon). These combined effects are described as relativistic proper-time offsets (small but measurable differences in elapsed time between locations caused by gravity and motion), which must be included when comparing clocks across planets. “But for Mars, that’s not the case. Its distance from the Sun and its eccentric orbit make the variations in time larger. A three-body problem is extremely complicated. Now we’re dealing with four: the Sun, Earth, the Moon and Mars,” Patla explained. “The heavy lifting was more challenging than I initially thought.” Although the differences are extremely small, they matter for navigation and communication systems that depend on precise timing. Even modern networks on Earth, such as mobile systems, rely on timing accuracy at very small fractions of a second. Communication between Earth and Mars currently takes about four to 24 minutes or more depending on planetary positions, meaning signals are not real-time. A shared and accurate time system could help future missions reduce confusion in navigation and data exchange. “If you get synchronization, it will be almost like real-time communication without any loss of information. You don’t have to wait to see what happens,” Patla said. Researchers note that fully developed interplanetary communication networks are still far in the future. However, understanding how time behaves across planets helps prepare for those systems. “It may be decades before the surface of Mars is covered by the tracks of wandering rovers, but it is useful now to study the issues involved in establishing navigation systems on other planets and moons,” said Neil Ashby. “Like current global navigation systems like GPS, these systems will depend on accurate clocks, and the effects on clock rates can be analyzed with the help of Einstein’s general theory of relativity.” Patla added that the results also help improve understanding of time itself under relativity. “It's good to know for the first time what is happening on Mars timewise. Nobody knew that before. It improves our knowledge of the theory itself, the theory of how clocks tick and relativity,” he said. Source: NIST, IOPscience This article was generated with some help from AI and reviewed by an editor. Under Section 107 of the Copyright Act 1976, this material is used for the purpose of news reporting. Fair use is a use permitted by copyright statute that might otherwise be infringing.
    • TeraCopy 4.0 Build 26 by Razvan Serea TeraCopy is a compact program designed to copy and move files at the maximum possible speed, also providing you with a lot of features. Copy files faster. TeraCopy uses dynamically adjusted buffers to reduce seek times. Asynchronous copy speeds up file transfer between two physical hard drives. Pause and resume transfers. Pause copy process at any time to free up system resources and continue with a single click. Error recovery. In case of copy error, TeraCopy will try several times and in the worse case just skips the file, not terminating the entire transfer. Interactive file list. TeraCopy shows failed file transfers and lets you fix the problem and recopy only problem files. Shell integration. TeraCopy can completely replace Explorer copy and move functions, allowing you work with files as usual. TeraCopy is free for non-commercial use only. For commercial use you need to buy a license. The paid version of the program includes the following features: Copy/move to your favorite folders. Save reports as HTML and CSV files. Select files with the same extension/folder. Remove the selected files from the copy queue. TeraCopy 4.0 Build 26 changelog: Added support for receiving files via the LocalSend protocol. Improved exception handling and automated bug report upload. Fixed several minor bugs and small memory leaks. Build 26 (June 24) Fixed a rare exception when a transfer completed. Features added since version 3.17: Enhanced speed graph. New multi-threaded copy engine. Support for copying to multiple targets. Queue system for managing multiple copy operations. Support for receiving files via the LocalSend protocol. TeraCopy entry in the modern Windows Explorer context menu. Integrated toolbar in the title bar. Why receive LocalSend transfers with TeraCopy? Handle file conflicts: Skip, overwrite, or rename files when a file with the same name already exists. LocalSend always creates another copy, which can waste time and disk space, especially when resuming an interrupted transfer. Filter unwanted files: Apply ignore lists or remove files manually before accepting a transfer, so unnecessary files are not downloaded. Better performance on fast networks: In tests over a 10 Gbps connection, TeraCopy received files several times faster than the standard LocalSend app on Windows. Download: TeraCopy 4.0 Build 26 | 14.5 MB (Freeware, paid upgrade available) View: TeraCopy Website | Screenshot Get alerted to all of our Software updates on Twitter at @NeowinSoftware
    • Briefly used Turbo Pascal (and Turbo C++) in 97 and soon after that I bought PC magazine that included a full version of Delphi 2. I still use Delphi today, some 29 years later.
  • Recent Achievements

    • Grand Master
      Jaybonaut went up a rank
      Grand Master
    • One Year In
      Philsl earned a badge
      One Year In
    • Dedicated
      Scoobystu earned a badge
      Dedicated
    • First Post
      Tom Schmidt earned a badge
      First Post
    • One Month Later
      D0nn13 earned a badge
      One Month Later
  • Popular Contributors

    1. 1
      +primortal
      453
    2. 2
      +Edouard
      177
    3. 3
      PsYcHoKiLLa
      124
    4. 4
      Michael Scrip
      78
    5. 5
      Xenon
      76
  • Tell a friend

    Love Neowin? Tell a friend!