Well, not necessarily. I hate desktop icons, so I turned that off in the Finder. 
That’s actually how I work every day: I figure out what I need to work on and pull the icons to my Desktop. They drive me nuts, and I have to finish all my work so my Desktop can be clean again.
And yes, it is a statement on Windows’ complexity that it has to show its users an abstract, secondary file system – the Start Menu, in order to make sense of its chaotic applications filing system.
**
Yes, Photoshop is similar on the Mac… an Adobe Photoshop Folder containing Adobe Photoshop and its support files. However, to delete Photoshop, all a Mac user has to do is delete that folder. No need for any uninstall bullcrap.
In Packaged programs, mostly ones created in Objective-C, all of the files and whatnot are bundled together into one large file as the last step. This one file then sits in the /Applications folder, and be deleted to remove it from the system.
Actually, by default, Windows hides the files in the entire C:\ directory and C:\Program Files, which is pretty damn condescending. I can understand hiding the files in C:\Windows, but again, its a statement of bad design that Microsoft doesn’t feel safe letting people rummage around in the Program Files folder.
Why shouldn’t clicking on something and then just deleting it be the proper way to delete applications? It works fine on a Mac.
Oh yeah, and on a Mac, most programs install the same way, too: just drag them from the CD to /Applications. Even programs that require an installer on Windows, like Microsoft Office, are drag-and-drop installable on a Mac. That’s how things should work.
As someone who commonly troubleshoots Windows systems, I must say that this is hardly a universal truth.
Ah, insults. Lovely.
The fact is that on a Mac, you can drag and drop install and uninstall almost all applications, don’t need a pseudo-filesystem like the Start Menu to sensibly navigate your program files and have programs which are named sensibly with plain English names.
On Windows, you virtually always have to use Installer and Uninstaller utilities, are by default blocked from even looking into C:\Program Files, and once you do you’re confronted with nonsense names like iexplore.exe and other not-plain-English monikers.
Which is more simple?
There’s no question that the G5 is blazingly fast, and runs at par with the top of the line Windows machines. However, the fact is that for your average desktop user, the top Windows machine will run a bit faster. Why? Because most Windows apps use the super-optimized Intel compiler, and most Apple apps use either CodeWarrior (carbon) or Apple’s new GCC (cocoa) compiler.
The Apple tests shows that the raw power of the G5 outpaces the Pentium IV, but for real world usability, Windows computers will continue to have a slight edge, though nowhere near the advantage they had prior to the G5.
The G5 puts Apple back in the game. Given the Mac’s better abiility to leverege dual processor set ups with little to no overhead, it’s conceivable that Apple will scale its systems to demonstrably faster than Windows systems using the Intel compiler. However, that’s not the case at right this moment.
Of course, when the PPC 980 ships next year, and Apple can start rolling out 4 or 8 processor boxes if it wants, Intel will be hard pressed to keep up, no matter how tweaked their compiler is. Also, real world performance on the G5 will improve as Apple continues to tweak the GCC.
Kinthalis
No offense, but gain some experience with a Mac system before trying to argue against one.
I was a PC user up until early 2001. i’ve used DOS, Windows 3.1, 95/98/Me, and I have tooled around with XP.
The fact is, that you are completely ignorant to the architecture. You say all applications will need extra files. Windows applications need extra files. An application on a Mac is bundled as one file. You can drag that single application to the trash, and not break the system. Application uninstalls are just one example of that.
To uninstall a windows app:
Open My Computer
Open Control Panel
Open Add/Remove Programs
Select program you wish to remove from the list
Click Add/Remove
Go through uninstall process
It seems simple to you, but that is because you know how to do it. Look at those steps, does it really make sense?
To uninstall on a Mac.
Open Hard Drive (It’s on the desktop)
Open Applications
Drag Application to trash
Empty Trash.
Makes sense doesn’t it? If an application is contained on the harddrive, and you don’t want it anymore, shouldn’t it stand to reason that you just take the app you don’t want and pitch it? The system is designed around the user, and keeps in mind that users will delete stuff they are unfamiliar with, and if they can’t decipher the file name, won’t know what it does. By keeping all system files in a System Folder, there isn’t a way to accidentally render your system unbootable.
Other little touches.
Application Menus always show up in the same place, and are named logically. “Application Name” File Edit View etc…
To quit an application, you click on the application name menu, and select quit, not file. One doesn’t quit a file, so why would you put quit there? You quit an application. Application preferences fall into that application menu too.
Use a Mac before bashing one. I’ve used PC’s, and decided to no longer because I value a computer that works as designed, and is laid out to make sense. This is not because I don’t understand how they work either, I just want to browse the web, not fix the computer every 15 minutes.
I’ve built PC’s, and still get calls to fix family/friend’s PC’s when they break. I’ve ran Linux on PC’s, and am quite familiar with the in’s and out’s of compiling applications from source, configuring X servers, and compiling/installing kernels.
Doesn’t mean that I want to have to do that just to hop onto the SDMB though.
Right, and you are correct.
I am interested in how well those performance gains will pan out as Apple gets progressively better compilers, and uses them on the OS, and applications. I am actually rather surprised that Apple doesn’t have as much time invested in compilers as Intel, when Apple could benefit more from them (with the previous performance gap, for instance)
modro,
That’s partly because, until OS X, Apple didn’t make development tools. Most people used Symantec’s compiler, or CodeWarrior. Now that Apple gives away development tools FREE with every computer and copy of the OS they ship, Apple’s getting into the business of optimizing a compiler. The current GCC compiler isn’t great. The one that comes with xCode will be much better.
The Mac has more muscle under the hood now, though the Intel compiler makes up for this and a bit more with it’s amazingly optimization. Whether Intel can offset the punch packed by a quad-processor Mac will be an interesting question, and one hopefully resolved sometime next summer, when the second wave of G5 machines ships. 
Well, sort of. At least, it behaves like one file. But you can get a look at the inner workings by right-clicking (control-clicking) on an application icon and selecting “Show Package Contents” from the contextual menu. The application will then open like a folder, allowing you into the application’s guts.
The result of this, it seems, should be satisfactory to all; people who don’t need access to the inner workings of a program don’t have support files strewn all over their hard drives, and people who DO want that access can get it with a mouse click.
There is nothing a Mac can do that a Windows PC can’t do.
There is nothing a Windows PC can do that a Mac can’t do.
There are minor exceptions to these rules, but for the most part, they’re true. What truly separates a Mac from a Windows PC is how easily and smoothly you can get things done – and that criteria will vary according to what your tasks are.
(When it comes to spending my own money, though, it’s nothin’ but Macs. My time is too precious to waste it on Windows… )
Meanwhile, in the category of fighting ignorance…
Of course, on several of the SPEC tests listed therein don’t use Apple’s second processor, so they’re no more valid assessments of the Mac’s performance than the Veritest tests were valid assessments of the PC’s performance.
Similar to the After Effects “test” some months back that showed that the fastest Dell (a 3.0 GHz P4, IIRC) was nearly twice as fast as the fastest Mac at that time (a dual 1.4 GHz G4). The problem is that After Effects ignores the second processor on the Mac, unless you hack it a bit to wake it up the fact that it’s on a dual processor machine. When that was done on other sites, the PC was still faster, but not by all that much.
The fact is that these things are damn near impossible to test. Apple’s tests aren’t up to par because they disabled hyperthreading (though I’ve heard Windows XP Home, since it’s crippleware that won’t respect dual processor set ups also doesn’t acknowledge hyperthreading, is that true?) and used a less-than-stellar compiler for their tests. The basic Spec tests listed here are invalid because they disable Apple’s second processor. And real world tests are hard to trust, because of snafus like the After Effects test mentioned above.
It all depends on what you want to do. If you want to play games or do basic business tasks, etc, a PC is where to go. If you’re a graphic designer, in the print industry or you need Final Cut Pro, a Mac is for you. If you are a basic home user who uses the Internet, Quicken and occasionally a word processor, either platform will serve you just fine.
Thanks, I had just hunted down that same article and was about to scroll down and add it when I caught site of your reply citing the same exact one.
**
Apple’s Final Cut Pro.
Microsoft Access.
I know, I know, you said minor exceptions. Of course, for the people who rely on one of these apps or the other, they’re not so minor.
Hmm scrolling down and reading some of the comments on the article linked to, it seems even mac users, and most of the readers of that site either disagree with the article, or still question Apple’s results.
I like what someone said there however (and I quote):
And I agree. Macs don’t suck. They are not something I would recommend, or somehting I would use either for my work as a programmer and webdesigner, or as a platform for gaming. But they ARE good machines.
The right tool for the job is always going to be a subjective thing when ti comes to computer platforms I guess.
Had fun debating though
Of course, debating is fun
Oh, I grabbed a screenshot of the file structure of my harddrive (just the root folder and applications folder) so you could see what was meant by logical naming.
http://homepage.mac.com/komodro/screen.jpg
There is no personal info or anything on there, just a basic desktop screen grab. I have a shortcut to the HD in the Dock, and that allows you to navigate it like a start menu. Understand that unlike the start menu, this is actually showing you how the harddrive is laid out.
One can hardly claim Windows is nearly as logical. I didn’t go in and “clean up” either, this is basically the way it looks out of the box. I have different apps added and removed, but I’ve done nothing else to the file structure. Even OS 9 is not as simple.
If things like that are examples of a “computer for idiots” color me confused
Modro:
Gotta admit, the Mac OS shell certainly looks cooler than the windows XP 
I’m surprised the thread’s has gone this long without turning into a total wreck. Kudos all around.
And it looks like I’ll be able to ask some questions about the Mac for a change without having them get lost in a firestorm.
Or, put another way, is Adobe making the new version of Premiere PC-only because FCP ate up too much market share, or is FCP a truly superior product?
This “one program, one file” thing sounds like a dream come true. Does it prevent the “system bloat” that PCs (and, IIRC, older Macs) experience, where installing too many programs, even if you uninstall some of them, slows your computer to a crawl and/or results in program conflicts, more or less requiring a format & reinstall to restore peak performance? (Granted, with Win2K and XP this isn’t nearly as bad as it was in the Win98 days, but still.)
How much interchangability is there between Mac and PC hardware? Can I buy a G5 with just a mobo and a couple processors then slap in some run-of-the-mill DDR RAM, DVD±R/RW (what are the specs on SuperDrive, anyway; would there be compatibility issues?), SATA hard drive, and GeForceFX 5900 video card? Assuming I had all those components laying around, how much would I have shaved off the price of the G5?
Bonus “random curiousity” question: What capabilities are “on board” and what would require PCI cards? I’d guess Firewire & USB 2 and gigabit(?) ethernet would be all on board?
I like the way Windows apps take up as much of the free system resources as they need to do their job, and generally leaving other apps enough RAM, cycles, etc. needed to do their respective jobs. Having to juggle this manually sounds like it’d be a chore.
Drive Avid out of business. Well, not entirely – Avid can still do more, but Final Cut Pro is right there on its tail, and is the only realistic alternative to an Avid deck. It is not for beginners, nor is it particularly easy to use. It’s not hard, mind you. But not easy.
When Final Cut Pro came out, Adobe got relegated to the mid-level “Pro-sumer” market on the Mac, which is far less lucrative than its former position as “only alternative to Avid” pro market. Then when Final Cut Express came out, Adobe couldn’t compete there, either.
Final Cut Pro is more powerful and a better product. Final Cut Express is $200 or more less than Premiere. Adobe got squeezed out.
This sort of thing doesn’t happen because Mac apps don’t go around sharing a ton of DLLs. Installing an application on your Mac should have no deleterious effect on the performance of the rest of your system.
Depends on what you’re talking about.
Not much. Apple doesn’t sell barebones system. You’re going to get a hard drive, RAM, optical drive, graphics card, etc. You’re not the only one who would be interested in an Apple iBox or the like.
All Macs ship with onboard sound, ethernet, modem, FireWire and USB 1.1. Many ship with onboard nVidia video chips, onboard FireWire 800. The new PowerMacs ship with onboard USB 2.
No, in OS X, memory is allocated dynamically.
Not having Final Cut Pro, I can’t claim to know how well it works, but if iMovie (Apple’s free, included movie editor) is any indication, it should be quite easy to use. Apple also makes a program called Final Cut Express, which is basically a pared down version of Final Cut Pro, for ~300 bucks. iMovie, which ships with new Macs, and is available as a free download, supports most DV video cameras, and lets you add sound effects, some basic visual effects, transitions, titles, and other things with the utmost in simplicity.
Bloat isn’t too much of an issue. There is no registry to get overly huge or corrupted, and I personally have had no issues with reduced performance as time goes on under X.
While the OS is proprietary, the hardware isn’t. The motherboards are apple specific, but the hardware isn’t. A G5 will have the same PCI, AGP, and Memory ports as a PC will. The G5 uses ddr memory.
bonus Ports consist of industry standard USB, Ethernet (gigabit on pro systems) modem, Firewire (400 on consumer, 400 and 800 on most pro), and optical audio (on the G5). The only real oddball port you will run into on, say, a g5, is an ADC port. Apple condensed the video, power, and USB cords for their LCD monitors into one port. I am almost certain they include a standard DVI port on the g5 and other pro systems.
You can literally leave the computer running for months at a time, and never have to worry about it slowing down or getting goofy. The underpinnings are industrial strength, yet the user interface is newbie friendly without being a compromise. On top of that, it is exceedingly pretty to look at. That screenshot I posted was an OS X 10.2 Jaguar install, the background was even the default Apple one.
It really is a fantastic OS.
kinthalis do you have an AOL IM or Yahoo messenger name? I’m the part of another message board that you might be interested in.
Also, anyone else who finds this topic interesting might like this site:
It’s an attempt to evaluate the GUIs – and just the GUIs – of the two environments.