Mac vs PC

[not daSkeptic]

Mac Vs PC is the context.

I think you misunderstood my question. You argued that operating systems were essentially just application launchers, implying there is little concern given to other OS characteristics. While this may be true in some areas of computing (e.g. general consumer use), it is not true for all. Some fields are very concerned with things like process scheduling algorithms or memory management or the network stack. The fact is both Macs and PCs are used for a wide variety of purposes including simple Internet terminals, gaming, office productivity, media creation, software development, scientific analysis, industrial process control .... the list goes on.

So I ask again, in what context (i.e. area of computing) are you making your argument? Were you thinking only of general consumer uses or were you thinking of other things as well?

 

[tesscaline]

OfficeJet K80? Know and the drivers weren't great.

OfficeJet 6310 actually. One part of the mystery was that the original disc for the drivers (and required software -- which wasn't required on a Mac) wouldn't read fully in the window's machine. But it could read other CD's DVD's just fine. Ended up having to rip an image of the driver disc with the Mac, and burn it onto a new CD for the windows machine to read it...

Quite strange.(Never owned one,so cannot comment)

Yes, quite.

Pity no longer known...

I'm sure the IT department at that office still knows. I just don't remember, as it's not my job to, and I don't use windows machines anymore.

Pity,this is more about emotions then anything like techincal aspect. But then price is still high enough to stop any consideration anyway. (BTW similar reasons are against consoles,but I would like to have one of each... to take it apart)

I'd love to be able to have a discussion about purely the technical differences between Apple computers and other computer manufacturers, or even home-built computers. I'd love to have that conversation for purely academic purposes, as I find the subject interesting in and of itself, no matter which side of the fence I might happen to be on. The problem is (as you might have noticed from the exchange with jimtron, dtugg, and myself) there are simply so many variables, and so many differences between what Apple offers, and what the rest of the PC world offers, it's hard to find an equal footing to do the necessary comparisons on.

Oh, and we've taken apart the mini's. Man stuff is really packed into those things!

 

[not daSkeptic]

OfficeJet 6310 actually. One part of the mystery was that the original disc for the drivers (and required software -- which wasn't required on a Mac) wouldn't read fully in the window's machine. But it could read other CD's DVD's just fine. Ended up having to rip an image of the driver disc with the Mac, and burn it onto a new CD for the windows machine to read it...

I was present for this particular situation. It did happen how she says. Why it happened that way ... well ... there are many possibilities, not all of which are necessarily the fault of Microsoft.

One thing I did find rather interesting was how the installation instructions were dozens of pages long for Windows and only half a page for Mac. Both ultimately resulted in running the installer program on the disc -- this was in fact the entirety of the Mac instructions. But whereas the Windows version mandatorily installed a bunch of stuff, the Mac version simply popped up a dialog box instructing the user to add the printer in System Preferences like they would do for any other device. Software was present but optional. Again, there are many possibilities as to why the Windows installation was more complex.

Now it must be stated that this all occurred in the pre-Vista days. Looking at the latest version of the manual on HP's website, it seems the installation instructions have changed and Windows setup is much simpler than it used to be.

 

[Normal Dude]

Now it must be stated that this all occurred in the pre-Vista days. Looking at the latest version of the manual on HP's website, it seems the installation instructions have changed and Windows setup is much simpler than it used to be.

Windows setup for practically any common device:

1. Chuck out manual (Most of it is warning you not to kill yourself with it anyways).
2. Install software.
3. Click off optional software when prompted.
4. Install device.

 

[not daSkeptic]

Windows setup for practically any common device:

1. Chuck out manual (Most of it is warning you not to kill yourself with it anyways).
2. Install software.
3. Click off optional software when prompted.
4. Install device.

All of the hardware I've ever installed on a Mac involved only step 4, but YMMV.

 

[GreNME]

I was present for this particular situation. It did happen how she says. Why it happened that way ... well ... there are many possibilities, not all of which are necessarily the fault of Microsoft.

One thing I did find rather interesting was how the installation instructions were dozens of pages long for Windows and only half a page for Mac. Both ultimately resulted in running the installer program on the disc -- this was in fact the entirety of the Mac instructions. But whereas the Windows version mandatorily installed a bunch of stuff, the Mac version simply popped up a dialog box instructing the user to add the printer in System Preferences like they would do for any other device. Software was present but optional. Again, there are many possibilities as to why the Windows installation was more complex.

Now it must be stated that this all occurred in the pre-Vista days. Looking at the latest version of the manual on HP's website, it seems the installation instructions have changed and Windows setup is much simpler than it used to be.

You can thank HP for this scenario, by the way. They are downright adamant about shipping with their printers this huge, bloated installer that also puts on the computer a "control panel" for the printer than runs constantly (and slows down performance), sits in the system tray, and is persistent as far as getting it removed easily. Now, technically, you can download and install just the driver if you want, so HP can argue it's not forcing their customers to use their ridiculous software in order to use their printers.

It isn't much different on the Mac, by the way-- their stupid installers for the Mac drivers install a process that you can see by checking your running system processes (by habit, I use top from the terminal) that also persistently runs, which on my MBP is a huge no-no as far as runaway processes and battery consumption.

Which brings me to a question that maybe you more long-time Mac people can answer: why doesn't Apple provide a program uninstaller with its operating system? While I understand the complaints about the Windows uninstaller (which often fails to remove persistent files/registry settings), at least on Windows there is an uninstaller. Sometimes I'm half inclined to put together a project to write a "universal uninstaller" that has a version for each major platform and that does about the same thing. Unfortunately, the other half that is disinclined and lazy continues to win out and suggests using third-party tools already available.

 

[a_unique_person]

I think you misunderstood my question. You argued that operating systems were essentially just application launchers, implying there is little concern given to other OS characteristics. While this may be true in some areas of computing (e.g. general consumer use), it is not true for all. Some fields are very concerned with things like process scheduling algorithms or memory management or the network stack. The fact is both Macs and PCs are used for a wide variety of purposes including simple Internet terminals, gaming, office productivity, media creation, software development, scientific analysis, industrial process control .... the list goes on.

So I ask again, in what context (i.e. area of computing) are you making your argument? Were you thinking only of general consumer uses or were you thinking of other things as well?

They are mostly used for very basic purposes, that is, launching applications. That they are also used for other purposes is immaterial for the basic argument.

 

[not daSkeptic]

It isn't much different on the Mac, by the way-- their stupid installers for the Mac drivers install a process that you can see by checking your running system processes (by habit, I use top from the terminal) that also persistently runs, which on my MBP is a huge no-no as far as runaway processes and battery consumption.

As I alluded to above, my experience with adding hardware to a Mac (the OfficeJet included) involved no driver installation, at least nothing as overt as I'm accustomed to on Windows. No unusual processes appeared either. Plug it in, maybe tweak a couple of things in System Preferences, done.

Which brings me to a question that maybe you more long-time Mac people can answer: why doesn't Apple provide a program uninstaller with its operating system?

Excellent question! From what I can tell, this is the result of yet another culture clash. As you mentioned earlier, the standard Apple approach to organizing software is the bundle (a folder with all binaries and dependencies packaged together). As such, the usual method of "uninstalling" is to simply drag the bundle to the trash. Some vendors, however, do not follow this method and instead use a scripted installer as is common on Windows. This often results in stuff being installed all over the place rather than in one nice, neat folder.

Why isn't there an uninstaller? My guess is that Apple simply doesn't expect most user applications to be installed this way, and in my opinion there's no reason they should be. Think about it ... does Yahoo Messenger really need anything other than a place to put the executable and associated resources? Does it really need to modify anything outside of the specified target folder? Some applications may have a legitimate need to effect wider system changes, but in my experience they are few and far between.

 

[dtugg]

Windows setup for practically any common device:

1. Chuck out manual (Most of it is warning you not to kill yourself with it anyways).
2. Install software.
3. Click off optional software when prompted.
4. Install device.

Nowadays it's:

1) Plug in device. (If necessary, Windows will automatically search Internet for drivers and install.)

 

[not daSkeptic]

They are mostly used for very basic purposes, that is, launching applications. That they are also used for other purposes is immaterial for the basic argument.

It sounds like what you're trying to say is that there is a part of the computer-using world for which application launching is the primary value of an operating system, and that this group of people constitutes the majority. Is that right?

 

[not daSkeptic]

Nowadays it's:

1) Plug in device. (If necessary, Windows will automatically search Internet for drivers and install.)

In my experience the driver part is unnecessary on a Mac, and I gather that for modern Windows systems it is less necessary than it used to be. Both platforms have benefitted from hardware vendors adopting standard interfaces for which support is part of the standard OS package.

 

[Terry]

They are mostly used for very basic purposes, that is, launching applications. That they are also used for other purposes is immaterial for the basic argument.

umm... I would have thought that the most fundamental and necessary purpose of an operating system is to virtualize the hardware, so that your applications can just go "open me a file" and not care what brand of hard drive you have, or how big it is, or if it's SCSI or SATA or USB or FireWire or...

 

[GreNME]

As I alluded to above, my experience with adding hardware to a Mac (the OfficeJet included) involved no driver installation, at least nothing as overt as I'm accustomed to on Windows. No unusual processes appeared either. Plug it in, maybe tweak a couple of things in System Preferences, done.

No, I understand what you're saying, and that's fine as long as a driver is already present on the OS. As soon as a model your computer is unfamiliar with is plugged in, you'll need to install a driver as well. This was an early challenge to XP as well as Vista, since hardware driver pre-packaging support was scarce (though, on the other hand, greater in number than prior releases).

Which brings me to a question that maybe you more long-time Mac people can answer: why doesn't Apple provide a program uninstaller with its operating system?

Excellent question! From what I can tell, this is the result of yet another culture clash. As you mentioned earlier, the standard Apple approach to organizing software is the bundle (a folder with all binaries and dependencies packaged together). As such, the usual method of "uninstalling" is to simply drag the bundle to the trash. Some vendors, however, do not follow this method and instead use a scripted installer as is common on Windows. This often results in stuff being installed all over the place rather than in one nice, neat folder.

Why isn't there an uninstaller? My guess is that Apple simply doesn't expect most user applications to be installed this way, and in my opinion there's no reason they should be. Think about it ... does Yahoo Messenger really need anything other than a place to put the executable and associated resources? Does it really need to modify anything outside of the specified target folder? Some applications may have a legitimate need to effect wider system changes, but in my experience they are few and far between.

This is a problem Apple users are going to face increasing amounts of problems as their numbers increase and the number of applications that can be run on them increases. Removing an app from your Application folder doesn't uninstall the user-specific application information & settings. Programs installed in Windows rarely make system-wide settings changes either, but parts that remain in those systems are in the registry and user folders. In essence, the problem of persistency of installed settings exists in both MacOS and Windows, and it's only more evident in Windows due to that whole "90+% market share" thing I mentioned earlier. I will say that OS X is smart about where those settings are stored, and that Windows has gotten far better since Vista of keeping those settings sequestered to user-land, but it's a problem on both systems anyway.

There are 3rd-party offerings out there to handle the junk on both systems, but it would be nice if both provided this capability in the operating system itself.

 

[a_unique_person]

umm... I would have thought that the most fundamental and necessary purpose of an operating system is to virtualize the hardware, so that your applications can just go "open me a file" and not care what brand of hard drive you have, or how big it is, or if it's SCSI or SATA or USB or FireWire or...

That is what it has to be able to do to run applications, but if that was all they did they wouldn't be very useful to most people.

 

[not daSkeptic]

... but if that was all they did they wouldn't be very useful to most people.

You may have a point with this, but it is not what you originally said. Just because operating systems are irrelevant to a certain portion of users (the majority even) does not mean they are irrelevant to all, which is what you originally argued.

 

[not daSkeptic]

Removing an app from your Application folder doesn't uninstall the user-specific application information & settings.

Good point. Such data is generally so small and insignificant (as well as being neatly packed away, which you pointed out) that I generally ignore it.

 

[Terry]

That is what it has to be able to do to run applications, but if that was all they did they wouldn't be very useful to most people.

Except... you wouldn't be able to run your applications without it. Making it more than a bit useful in my mind.

 

[GreNME]

Good point. Such data is generally so small and insignificant (as well as being neatly packed away, which you pointed out) that I generally ignore it.

This is so on Windows as well-- normally as text-readable files or registry entries, as opposed to config and .plist files on a Mac-- but such things can tend to build up. That is actually one of the big complaints by Windows users. The other location of note is temp directories, and both systems require manual input to clean them out (or to set them to auto-clean, as by default the setting is off).

Even though both handle the specifics somewhat differently, the principle of the flaw is the same on both.

 

[KingofMadCows]

What I don't like about Macs is that there's just too little customization.

If I build a PC, I can choose between an AMD build and an Intel build. I can get a 500 watt Antec PSU or an OCZ 80 plus gold certified 1,000 watt psu. I can get a GTS 250 or a Radeon 5870.

Plus I'm not sure about the quality of some of the Apple parts. I know for sure that the quality of the Gigabyte motherboard I have is excellent. I don't know how good the Mac mobo is. I don't even know the efficiency of Apple psu's.

 

[Dr. Lao]

OK, here is the deal, I have a PC quad core Intel 9400 with 8 gig of memory, a nice video card and Windows 7. I built it all by my self, with parts easily obtained. I got the operating system via a $30 Microsoft offer for students (used my niece's account).

For what I paid for the parts, I would have been able to buy half a Mac. It does everything I need graphically, for games (no flight sim for mac), for connectivity and productivity. Its not a slick looking machine, but it works very very well and its quite fast. And when I want to upgrade it, its a matter of taking out the screw driver and plugging stuff in.

I have zero desire to spend more money than necessary to buy a machine that does the same thing, but makes me look trendy.