the Apple Paradigm

[UstadKhanAli]

Yup.

[temnov]

I have no idea if its most of the user base, but that sort of thing is annoying. I've mentioned before that when I first purchased a Mac (that'd be a G4 in 2000), I had Mac owners saying, "Welcome to the Mac community." I've still never had anyone explain to me what this is. Is this sort of like a Skull And Crossbones thing? Is there a secret handshake? Do I get discounts at restaurants? Memberships at country clubs?

 

Good for you, Ken! I met some Mac people who behave like a tribe, protecting their territory and worshipping their gizmos. For them it's the most important to get the latest iPhone, iPad and anything i, get the most powerful Mac, etc. Maybe they need this religion after all.

 

Keeping analogy with cars - they love their Priuses and don't pay attention to the facts telling that it's more expensive to build their cars and use it. Have nothing against idea of Prius, but c'mon, get real.

 

For me personally it's hypocrisy, attempt to look good in their own eyes. Sorry for the rant

[Goobers]

 

Good for you, Ken! I met some Mac people who behave like a tribe, protecting their territory and worshipping their gizmos. For them it's the most important to get the latest iPhone, iPad and anything i, get the most powerful Mac, etc. Maybe they need this religion after all. Keeping analogy with cars - they love their Priuses and don't pay attention to the facts telling that it's more expensive to build their cars and use it. Have nothing against idea of Prius, but c'mon, get real.

 

 

Except apple is now the largest technology company in the world. buying a mac is like buying a camry, not a prius. maybe a number of years ago it was annoyingly hip, but these days what's annoying is people who cling to this anachronistic view.

 

Apple also makes some of the best phones and computers on the planet. why should someone be considered brainwashed if they buy a market-leading product that improves their lives?

[UstadKhanAli]

 

Apple also makes some of the best phones and computers on the planet. why should someone be considered brainwashed if they buy a market-leading product that improves their lives?

 

 

I don't think that's the point Temnov is trying to make. I think he's trying to make a point about worshipping their gizmos or having an elitist attitude toward having one instead of just thinking, "Hey, I think this is the best iWhatever for the job...I'll get this."

[Goobers]

 

I don't think that's the point Temnov is trying to make. I think he's trying to make a point about worshipping their gizmos or having an elitist attitude toward having one instead of just thinking, "Hey, I think this is the best iWhatever for the job...I'll get this."

 

 

what i'm saying is that "apple is elitist" jab has been passed over by the world. it's no longer true, at least in the U.S.

 

and Temnov's claim that people who need the latest iGizmo "need this religion after all," is also no longer true. The biggest tech company in the world as the world becomes more tech-oriented, is not a religious cult.

 

those are left over sentiments from, IDK, 2000, 2005, but the world has moved on.

 

whatever the new paradigm is, critics need to recalibrate in order to more accurately bash it.

[techristian]

 

The absolute, scientific explanation is that they typical PC is bundled with tons of junk software that most people will never use, which causes problems in the long run with underutilized HD space and driver conflicts. Macs come as barebones computers and thus have fewer problems as a result of that fact alone. All of the PCs I've owned since the late '90s were barebones and I haven't had the same problems most people bitch and whine about. So there you go, folks. I think Macs are great computers but I could do without the snobbiness and elitism characteristic of most of its user base.

 

 

 

I looked up my list of TUNING TIPS for XP users. I got it from http://www.musicxp.net/ back in 2003 , printed it on paper and refer to it time to time when too much junk is running in the background or my machine seems to slow down. If every Windows musician had this list, then we would hear less griping about difficult configuration, slow startups, high latency or just sluggish operation. It is a list of 26 settings for the serious XP music machine and includes common sense things such as 1. Processor scheduling should be set to background services and not Programs. With a little of this knowledge ,even a Mac user could run XP for music apps ! I'm not trying to be funny. I still refer to this list when things go squirrelly .

 

And BTW . I don't get too attached to these machines either. Sometimes I swap a motherboard after only a 100 hours of use.

 

Dan

[temnov]

those are left over sentiments from, IDK, 2000, 2005, but the world has moved on

 

Well, I'm talking from my personal experience, that's all. You have yours and Ken also has his own. That's normal. For people I met world didn't move on at all.

 

and this:

Apple also makes some of the best phones and computers on the planet. why should someone be considered brainwashed if they buy a market-leading product that improves their lives?

sounds brainwashed for me, I'm sorry

 

As about paradigm - it is based on great design and great marketing. There are products better than Apple's but nobody comes even close to their design and marketing. Apple is fun and trend and cool to get and easy to use etc..

 

Disclamer: I love my iPad 2.

[elsongs]

what i'm saying is that "apple is elitist" jab has been passed over by the world. it's no longer true, at least in the U.S. and Temnov's claim that people who need the latest iGizmo "need this religion after all," is also no longer true. The biggest tech company in the world as the world becomes more tech-oriented, is not a religious cult. those are left over sentiments from, IDK, 2000, 2005, but the world has moved on. whatever the new paradigm is, critics need to recalibrate in order to more accurately bash it.

 

Yeah, Apple isn't elitist, but Macs still are

[yanktar]

There is Steve's way and there is the "wrong" way. Steve was perfect, computer's Christ and if you questioned his divine inspiration you were a heretic.

[Anderton]

I just don't get comparing one OS to the other. I spend about 3% of my time in either the Windows or Mac OS, the other 97% is in the program. If for example I open Ableton Live, with extremely minor exceptions is looks and feels the same on either platform.

 

The only OS difference for me is a technical one. Windows has been doing the native 64-bit thing longer than Apple, so Windows-specific programs like Sonar and Vegas take advantage of that environment really well. But with Lion, now it's just a matter of time before Mac-specific programs reach similar parity. Still, that doesn't affect how I interact with the OS. When it's time to back up a project, I drag it into a folder on a separate disk on either system Any significant OS differences relate to things like setting up hardware, but once that's done, again the applications themselves take over, and the OS fades into the background.

 

What am I missing?

 

I do think the industrial design and aesthetics of Apple's hardware products have always been outstanding, and that is a large source of the appeal. Given the choice between buying something that looks really aesthetic and something that doesn't, and given relative pricing parity, why not get the one that looks really good? But to me, that doesn't apply to the OS because it's just a transitional device to get to an application. OS X looks very nice, but so does the Aero look with Windows.

[techristian]

 

I just don't get comparing one OS to the other. .

 

 

 

And then there is also the issue of variety...as some one already brought up... probably 5 Windows Apps for Every one Mac app. More apps means that the end user can more likely find an app that fits his/her needs....for instance I'm downloading a trial version of another video editing program right now.

 

Of course, more choices can also be a hinderance. You can spend too much time installing new software but never getting any work done.

 

Dan

[UstadKhanAli]

 

And then there is also the issue of variety...as some one already brought up...

 

 

That'd be me.

 

 

Of course, more choices can also be a hinderance. You can spend too much time installing new software but never getting any work done. Dan

 

 

For me, it's just trying to get something to work the way I want it to, not installing software.

 

I would also agree about not comparing OS, but if one is, say, more susceptible to viruses than the other, that's a concern. If one is less stable than another, that's a concern. Other than that, no, I don't care.

[Ernest Buckley]

Honestly, I don`t care what computer you guys use. I just know that I have access to PCs at work and its simply work working on them. Doing the same thing on an Apple is done quickly, efficiently... "better". Knock on wood but I have not worried about a virus in 12 years, when I started using Apple. I don`t claim to know anything about software, code, etc... but it seems to me that if PC manufacturers have not figured out how to create machines immune to such annoyances, they simply don`t know what they`re doing and not worthy of my $$$.

 

I guess what annoys me are people who claim their PCs rock when they have never tried an Apple. They even refuse to use them. My brother in law is like this. Hes a PC guy through and through but he won`t even acknowledge Apple computers as computers.... its sinister. Naive also comes to mind... Close minded....

 

Its almost like PC users are the religious fanatics... they`re the ones who refuse to consider something different. Apple users were all PC users at one point that saw the light.

[sventvkg]

IT's just a tool but that said, the mac is more elegant, crashes less often and when it does, recovers quickly. I don't have to screw around with cumberson clunky crappy Microsoft OS. Bottom Line for creatives, Mac rocks. I've used both for many many years.

[sventvkg]

 

And this is part of the Apple paradigm as I see it. Jobs , himself, was a part of that paradigm....not having to "touch the hardware directly" but instead recognising what had to be done and taking the shortest path there, whether he came up with the idea and paid others to code it or whether he bought good ideas. These are the same attributes of all great venture capitalists,....to recognise opportunity and seize it. Dan

 

 

This is me as a creative. I don't want to screw around adjusting my tools. When I need the tool I need to grab it and go! Don't need ANYTHING getting in the way to hamper the creative process. HENCE I use macs and when i get on my one remaining Windows 7 laptop in the house, my wifes, i'm frustrated beyond belief!!! I've brought down a mandate that all PC's awill be banned from our house after this computer dies!!

[techristian]

 

IT's just a tool but that said, the mac is more elegant, crashes less often and when it does, recovers quickly. I don't have to screw around with cumberson clunky crappy Microsoft OS. Bottom Line for creatives, Mac rocks. I've used both for many many years.

 

 

 

Ok. This is a valid response. Would you say that a Mac at 1/2 the clock speed would be as good as a Windows machine at 2X the speed?...or perhaps even better ??

 

I used to hear this from Mac users up until a few years ago.

 

Dan

[Surrealistic]

I'm in total agreement with Craig on this. There really isn't that much difference in working in either environment. Open up your software and you can ignore what the OS is behind it. Apple doesn't really have a different paradigm, unless you count aesthetics and, to be honest I couldn't care less what my machine looks like.

 

I don't know anyone who'd state that any version of Windows is a really good operating system in comparison with, well, anything actually. It really isn't - but much of the time the OS is almost irrelevant.

[Anderton]

This is me as a creative. I don't want to screw around adjusting my tools. When I need the tool I need to grab it and go! Don't need ANYTHING getting in the way to hamper the creative process. HENCE I use macs and when i get on my one remaining Windows 7 laptop in the house, my wifes, i'm frustrated beyond belief!!! I've brought down a mandate that all PC's awill be banned from our house after this computer dies!!

 

Well, here's the deal...the Mac OS is more or less foolproof because the same company controls the hardware and software. There are nearly zero issues with incompatibilities unless you venture beyond Apple into something third party (e.g., an external peripheral), and even then, Apple has specific guidelines about what hardware needs to do to work with a Mac.

 

PCs, on the other hand, can have pretty much anything thrown at them, and the performance will be degraded to one degree or another if the pieces of the jigsaw puzzle don't fit quite right. Consumer-oriented desktops and particularly laptops are highly suspect in that regard, especially as they often come with suspect software as well (Norton "trial" versions are aptly named, although "trial and tribulation" version would be even more accurate). That software nightmare, the Windows registry, exists primarily to keep track of all the stuff people throw at their PCs.

 

Nonetheless, my Windows machines crash to the same degree (or possibly even less) than my Macs, but I don't think that's because of Windows per se; it's because the computers were integrated by companies that knew what components work best together. So in that respect, there is a difference between operating systems - the Mac is essentially Reason (a closed system where everything works together) while Windows is essentially Sonar (the 64-bit version will do its best to work with 32-bit plug-ins, but it has no control over whether those plug-ins were written by people who cared about 64-bit compatibility).

 

However, this also leads to the two areas where I really do feel there is a significant, "deal-breaker" aspect of each platform. For desktop publishing, the Mac is it. Period. Anyone who does desktop publishing, regardless of what they use in their personal life, uses a Mac and an Apple display. The main reason as I understand it is that the Mac gets the colors right - sort of the Pantone of computers. The variety of monitors and graphics cards with PCs are a huge can of worms.

 

Conversely, for those to whom a computer is a mission-critical device that can't ever be down for more than 24 hours, you really need a PC as finding replacement parts, or doing component swaps, is a whole lot easier. Now, maybe if there's an Apple store around and they're having a slow day you can get a fast turnaround, but with PCs you can live just about anywhere and get what you need overnighted to you (and at a lower cost than an equivalent Apple part). Those who can afford redundant Macs, of course, are exempt

 

Still, the OS counts for a really small part of my computing experience. Whether it's a Mac or Windows machine, I turn it on, open a program, and get to work. When I'm done, I close the program, then turn off the machine. Simple.

[Anderton]

 

Ok. This is a valid response. Would you say that a Mac at 1/2 the clock speed would be as good as a Windows machine at 2X the speed?...or perhaps even better ?? I used to hear this from Mac users up until a few years ago. Dan

 

 

That was a holdover from the days when Apple swore that RISC was the way to go. It wasn't in the long term, hence the switch to Intel.

[Anderton]

Apple users were all PC users at one point that saw the light.

 

Actually, I had used nothing but Macs for a decade. What made me buy a PC was that Windows could multitask and the Mac couldn't. One day I was maintaining my AOL site on Windows and realized I was uploading samples I was editing in Sound Forge while answering emails and printing. The Mac couldn't do that, and didn't do true multi-tasking until much later.

 

I know a lot of Europeans who switched from Mac to PC not for religious reasons, but remix-oriented programs didn't exist for the Mac at the time...again buttressing my contention it's what you run, or can run, on the machine that matters much more than the machine itself. If the Mac had done multitasking, and if there had been a stereo digital audio editor at the time (it was between the death of Alchemy and the birth of Peak), I probably wouldn't have gotten into PCs.

 

In many respects the Amiga was better than both of them put together, but Commodore had the lamest marketing on the planet. If they'd had a Steve Jobs, we'd all be using Amigas.

[UstadKhanAli]

 

Actually, I had used nothing but Macs for a decade. What made me buy a PC was that Windows could multitask and the Mac couldn't.

 

 

When were Macs not able to multi-task? Was this a long time ago?

[Geoff Grace]

 

When were Macs not able to multi-task? Was this a long time ago?

 

I believe Craig is talking about preemptive multitasking, which Windows used for much of the '90s but didn't reach the Mac platform until OS 9 and wasn't fully implemented until OS X. "Classic" Mac OS used a form of multitasking called cooperative multitasking, which could be very effective under the right circumstances but wasn't generally as reliable as preemptive multitasking.

 

More here.

 

Best,

 

Geoff

[Anderton]

I believe Craig is talking about preemptive multitasking, which Windows used for much of the '90s but didn't reach the Mac platform until OS 9 and wasn't fully implemented until OS X. "Classic" Mac OS used a form of multitasking called cooperative multitasking, which could be very effective under the right circumstances but wasn't generally as reliable as preemptive multitasking. More here . Best, Geoff

 

Yup, that's it. Apple called it MultiFinder, but a more accurate term would have been "multiswitcher." IIRC it was a step backward as Lisa had something much more like real multi-tasking.

 

Even the integration with OS 9 wasn't all that wonderful, although you could throw more memory at the problem and make MultiFinder seem more transparent...but its memory management was awful, and the #1 source of Mac crashes for me. The Mac didn't come close to what Windows was doing until OS X, which I feel was the real turning point for the Mac that helped bring about its renaissance (and not just because it was great they put Core Audio in there!).

 

I really think Apple ripping off Wintel features and Wintel ripping off Mac features has benefited all concerned. If either OS comes up with something I wish the other OS had, I usually don't have to wait too long for it to show up

 

One area where Windows needs to catch up big-time, though, is making its OS acessible to the visually-impaired. The Mac does a far better job.

[Ernest Buckley]

Oh, be quiet Craig.

 

Seriously though, I use Apple and PCs for more than just music. Honestly, I have not used a PC for music in over a decade so its completely possible that things have improved there. I do use PCs for work a lot... (I do real estate). Thats where I`m comparing. The simple act of searching for properties, writing up letters, send out emails, etc... all a lot more stable and easier to work in multiple programs at once on the Apple. Its also the reason I spend most of my time in my home office when I could be working at the office on a PC.

[UstadKhanAli]

 

I believe Craig is talking about preemptive multitasking, which Windows used for much of the '90s but didn't reach the Mac platform until OS 9 and wasn't fully implemented until OS X. "

 

 

Thanks. I knew absolutely nothing about that at all.