I've got about 50 minutes left in my download of the Unreal Tournament 2004 Demo for OS X but I don't think I'll stay up to try it out tonight, I got an early start this morning so I'm going to cut this post (and my awake time) short tonight (sorry guys, I promise more later).
What originaly convinced me that it would be possible for me to use a Mac was the fact that virtually every application (read: not games) I needed to use was available on the Mac. There was actually one point a long time ago where absolutely everything I was running on my PC was available for the Mac (I was only playing Warcraft 3 at the time), I almost did the switch-experiment then but I wasn't feeling adventurous enough. Other than the normal apps that everyone uses (FTP, IM, email, etc...) I have a couple of requirements: Photoshop, MS Office and Dreamweaver. I've grown accustomed to using those three applications in publishing articles for AT and luckily they were all available for OS X.
The first thing that's important to note is how simple the application install process is under OS X. In most cases there's no need to run the Windows equivalent of a setup file, instead you just drag the program onto your hard drive and it's installed. Some programs do have an installer, in which case the process is identical to it would be under Windows. Removing programs works in the exact opposite way; drag the app into the trash and it's gone. The one benefit here is that applications seem to properly remove themselves after this is done with, although I haven't tried removing Office just yet :) (under Windows you pretty much need a surgical procedure to truly remove Office from your system)
Photoshop and Dreamweaver are identical to their Windows versions, although Word is a bit more uncomfortable for me. I'm not sure if it is just the floating toolbar that puts me off but Word definitely feels much more foreign than I would expect my wordprocessor of choice for the past decade to feel, even if it is under OS X. I'm curious as to what Office 2004 for OS X will be like, because v.X definitely doesn't "feel" like its XP counterpart. From a functionality standpoint, everything is the same - except I haven't been successful in locating a wordperfect conversion filter in v.X. The rest of the Office suite seems pretty normal, although I haven't used Entourage (Outlook for OS X) as I'm currently quite happy with Apple's Mail.
One complaint about some apps that are on both OS X and Windows is that they often feature Windows shortcuts. For example, in Word v.X the home and end keys will take you to the beginning and end of a sentence just like in Windows, but there is no other OS X app that will do that. Instead, you have to use control + left/right to go to the start/end of a sentence. Neither option is "better" it's simply a matter of which one you are used to, but being in an OS where everything uses one method and having a single application stubbornly stick to another method frankly doesn't make sense. I guess that's a Microsoft gripe but I'm not so certain how responsive they will be to feature-requests from Mac users; then again, I'm probably jumping to conclusions, the Mac Office team is actually probably committed to their users.
I have yet to use any of the content creation applications such as GarageBand or FinalCut so I can't comment on those now, but I do have some words about Apple's Calendar and Mail clients. Calendar is a great application, it's very simple, the interface is great and the application itself is decently powerful. The UI is impressive but my biggest complaint about the app is more of a complaint with the platform - no blackberry support. I am a blackberry addict, I need it to get through my day and the fact that I've been unable to sync it with my G5 has been a huge issue. (the fact that I gave up blackberry sync functionality should say a lot about my interest in this experiment). The lack of blackberry support is more a fault of RIM as they don't see the demand in this market, but the fact of the matter is that you won't see sales until there is support out there. There's Palm support for OS X, there needs to be blackberry support. The blackberry sync application is a relatively simple app to begin with; porting it to OS X should not be a mammoth task by any means. If anything, the limited hardware/software configurations should make support a much simpler issue than on the PC if a client were developed. If I end up liking OS X enough I may have to ditch the blackberry for a Treo 600.
Apple's Mail client is also quite impressive; it's extremely easy to use but also extremely powerful, especially if you're willing to put in the time to learn how to script it. Without any modifications I had Mail doing everything Outlook 2004 was doing for me, including filtering spam. Just like Outlook, Mail's spam filter isn't 100% and it lets a decent amount of stuff through - but luckily we've got a filter on AT's mail server that picks up the rest. I'm hoping that Apple will continue to update the Junk Mail filtering engine on Mail as time goes on like Microsoft has, but only time will tell. I haven't accumulated enough email to judge performance between Mail and Outlook, but for someone who receives ~100 important emails and thousands of others to filter through on a daily basis I can say at this point I prefer Apple's Mail. We'll see if things change once I accumulate more messages but right now I'm liking Mail. My only complaint about Mail? There's no way to directly import Outlook .pst files; you have to export your .pst to a different format and then import them into Mail. So I left all my old email on my PC...every single message I've received since sometime in 1998, all organized into a nice hierarchy of dates corresponding to individual .pst files. Ah well :)
With the productive apps talked about, there's the next point that inevitable had to be made: gaming. Being a hardcore gamer on the Mac (by PC definitions) is basically impossible, unless you only play a game that is available on the Mac. The gaming scene has improved tremendously since I last remembered it, surprisingly enough Halo is even available for OS X. There are a few gems, such as the UT2004 Demo being released for OS X alongside WinXP, but the Mac is not a gaming platform. Luckily I've got multiple PCs in the house for just that purpose as I like keeping games off of my "work" computer(s). Gaming is something that will prevent the cold-turkey switch to a Mac for a lot of users, myself included. There's no getting around that, regardless of how nice the OS is.
My final comments on software on the Mac is about IM clients: OS X needs a port of Trillian. There are a number of clients with potential being developed for OS X; I first started using Fire because that's what everyone told me to use and its functionality was there, but the interface was horrid. Right now I'm using Adium which has a significantly improved interface, but lacks key features (can't check away messages, no file transfer, etc...). The Trillian developers mentioned the port to Objective-C as an issue for bringing Trillian to OS X, but it is desperately needed - unless Adium can get out of alpha quicker. The benefit of open source clients like Adium (other than the free aspect) is that they are constantly being updated, even in their alpha states (the v2 alpha has received an update a day for the past 6 days). If there is to be a Trillian port to OS X it needs to be done before clients like Adium are given a chance to mature, otherwise there will be very little demand for it. I wouldn't hold my breath though, it doesn't seem like OS X is a top priority for Trillian at this point - the hope lies in the open source community.
With all of these applications installed I've managed to bog OS X down to where I expected it to be; I've got a total of 15 apps running (including Finder) with 20 windows open and I'm beginning to see points where the system isn't as responsive as I would like. If I had to compare it to the previous PC I was using (Athlon 64 3400+) I would say that the system isn't actually any slower, but granted I'm running on a dual processor G5 setup vs. a single Athlon 64. I'd say any "seat of the pants" performance difference there is between the G5 and an Athlon 64 system is largely due to the OS. The aggressive caching OS X does seems to prevent disk swapping a lot, which does make the system feel faster overall than my PC when heavily multitasking. I have a feeling that with a little more memory (system and video) this thing would be running even smoother. Actually, that's a good word - smooth is the best way to quantify how the system seems to react when you're heavily multitasking.
The smooth comment being made, the G5 could use some faster CPUs. I've heard all the rumors about 2.5 - 2.6GHz 90nm G5s due out soon with 3GHz available by the end of the summer; if they are true, then that's exactly what this system needs. A nice 25 - 50% increase in clock speed (assuming no architectural changes) should improve overall system performance significantly; I think the G5 would be perfectly setup (given current software requirements) with a pair of 2.5GHz CPUs, at 3GHz we'd be talking butter. I don't know if I could deal with anything slower than the 2.0s I have right now, but the plus side of higher clocked CPUs being released is that the 2.0s will drop in price.
We always need more power, regardless of which side of the fence we're on :)
Thanks to the helpful comments from a number of you I did some looking into Exposé's performance as a function of video memory size. It does seem like 64MB isn't enough video memory to keep Exposé running smoothly with two high resolution diplays and a number of windows open. I've requested all of ATI's 9800 Mac products so I'll hopefully be able to do a 64MB 9600 vs. 128MB 9800 vs. 256MB 9800 comparison here with respect to high-res Exposé performance. I'm beginning to think there may be a need for a Mac section on AT; hardware is hardware after all :)
I know I said I'd keep this one short, but when I get to writing I can't really stop (I know, I talk too much). Keep the comments coming and I'll keep the blogs coming. Quick question for the keyboard junkies out there: is there a Safari equivalent to CTRL+Enter for completing a URL? I'm looking to be able to type 'anandtech' then hit a keystroke combination to add the www. and the .com. I swear I haven't been able to figure it out on my own if it does exist, it's probably the simplest thing in the world and I'm just missing it :) I'd appreciate any and all help as usual.
Take care all.
What originaly convinced me that it would be possible for me to use a Mac was the fact that virtually every application (read: not games) I needed to use was available on the Mac. There was actually one point a long time ago where absolutely everything I was running on my PC was available for the Mac (I was only playing Warcraft 3 at the time), I almost did the switch-experiment then but I wasn't feeling adventurous enough. Other than the normal apps that everyone uses (FTP, IM, email, etc...) I have a couple of requirements: Photoshop, MS Office and Dreamweaver. I've grown accustomed to using those three applications in publishing articles for AT and luckily they were all available for OS X.
The first thing that's important to note is how simple the application install process is under OS X. In most cases there's no need to run the Windows equivalent of a setup file, instead you just drag the program onto your hard drive and it's installed. Some programs do have an installer, in which case the process is identical to it would be under Windows. Removing programs works in the exact opposite way; drag the app into the trash and it's gone. The one benefit here is that applications seem to properly remove themselves after this is done with, although I haven't tried removing Office just yet :) (under Windows you pretty much need a surgical procedure to truly remove Office from your system)
Photoshop and Dreamweaver are identical to their Windows versions, although Word is a bit more uncomfortable for me. I'm not sure if it is just the floating toolbar that puts me off but Word definitely feels much more foreign than I would expect my wordprocessor of choice for the past decade to feel, even if it is under OS X. I'm curious as to what Office 2004 for OS X will be like, because v.X definitely doesn't "feel" like its XP counterpart. From a functionality standpoint, everything is the same - except I haven't been successful in locating a wordperfect conversion filter in v.X. The rest of the Office suite seems pretty normal, although I haven't used Entourage (Outlook for OS X) as I'm currently quite happy with Apple's Mail.
One complaint about some apps that are on both OS X and Windows is that they often feature Windows shortcuts. For example, in Word v.X the home and end keys will take you to the beginning and end of a sentence just like in Windows, but there is no other OS X app that will do that. Instead, you have to use control + left/right to go to the start/end of a sentence. Neither option is "better" it's simply a matter of which one you are used to, but being in an OS where everything uses one method and having a single application stubbornly stick to another method frankly doesn't make sense. I guess that's a Microsoft gripe but I'm not so certain how responsive they will be to feature-requests from Mac users; then again, I'm probably jumping to conclusions, the Mac Office team is actually probably committed to their users.
I have yet to use any of the content creation applications such as GarageBand or FinalCut so I can't comment on those now, but I do have some words about Apple's Calendar and Mail clients. Calendar is a great application, it's very simple, the interface is great and the application itself is decently powerful. The UI is impressive but my biggest complaint about the app is more of a complaint with the platform - no blackberry support. I am a blackberry addict, I need it to get through my day and the fact that I've been unable to sync it with my G5 has been a huge issue. (the fact that I gave up blackberry sync functionality should say a lot about my interest in this experiment). The lack of blackberry support is more a fault of RIM as they don't see the demand in this market, but the fact of the matter is that you won't see sales until there is support out there. There's Palm support for OS X, there needs to be blackberry support. The blackberry sync application is a relatively simple app to begin with; porting it to OS X should not be a mammoth task by any means. If anything, the limited hardware/software configurations should make support a much simpler issue than on the PC if a client were developed. If I end up liking OS X enough I may have to ditch the blackberry for a Treo 600.
Apple's Mail client is also quite impressive; it's extremely easy to use but also extremely powerful, especially if you're willing to put in the time to learn how to script it. Without any modifications I had Mail doing everything Outlook 2004 was doing for me, including filtering spam. Just like Outlook, Mail's spam filter isn't 100% and it lets a decent amount of stuff through - but luckily we've got a filter on AT's mail server that picks up the rest. I'm hoping that Apple will continue to update the Junk Mail filtering engine on Mail as time goes on like Microsoft has, but only time will tell. I haven't accumulated enough email to judge performance between Mail and Outlook, but for someone who receives ~100 important emails and thousands of others to filter through on a daily basis I can say at this point I prefer Apple's Mail. We'll see if things change once I accumulate more messages but right now I'm liking Mail. My only complaint about Mail? There's no way to directly import Outlook .pst files; you have to export your .pst to a different format and then import them into Mail. So I left all my old email on my PC...every single message I've received since sometime in 1998, all organized into a nice hierarchy of dates corresponding to individual .pst files. Ah well :)
With the productive apps talked about, there's the next point that inevitable had to be made: gaming. Being a hardcore gamer on the Mac (by PC definitions) is basically impossible, unless you only play a game that is available on the Mac. The gaming scene has improved tremendously since I last remembered it, surprisingly enough Halo is even available for OS X. There are a few gems, such as the UT2004 Demo being released for OS X alongside WinXP, but the Mac is not a gaming platform. Luckily I've got multiple PCs in the house for just that purpose as I like keeping games off of my "work" computer(s). Gaming is something that will prevent the cold-turkey switch to a Mac for a lot of users, myself included. There's no getting around that, regardless of how nice the OS is.
My final comments on software on the Mac is about IM clients: OS X needs a port of Trillian. There are a number of clients with potential being developed for OS X; I first started using Fire because that's what everyone told me to use and its functionality was there, but the interface was horrid. Right now I'm using Adium which has a significantly improved interface, but lacks key features (can't check away messages, no file transfer, etc...). The Trillian developers mentioned the port to Objective-C as an issue for bringing Trillian to OS X, but it is desperately needed - unless Adium can get out of alpha quicker. The benefit of open source clients like Adium (other than the free aspect) is that they are constantly being updated, even in their alpha states (the v2 alpha has received an update a day for the past 6 days). If there is to be a Trillian port to OS X it needs to be done before clients like Adium are given a chance to mature, otherwise there will be very little demand for it. I wouldn't hold my breath though, it doesn't seem like OS X is a top priority for Trillian at this point - the hope lies in the open source community.
With all of these applications installed I've managed to bog OS X down to where I expected it to be; I've got a total of 15 apps running (including Finder) with 20 windows open and I'm beginning to see points where the system isn't as responsive as I would like. If I had to compare it to the previous PC I was using (Athlon 64 3400+) I would say that the system isn't actually any slower, but granted I'm running on a dual processor G5 setup vs. a single Athlon 64. I'd say any "seat of the pants" performance difference there is between the G5 and an Athlon 64 system is largely due to the OS. The aggressive caching OS X does seems to prevent disk swapping a lot, which does make the system feel faster overall than my PC when heavily multitasking. I have a feeling that with a little more memory (system and video) this thing would be running even smoother. Actually, that's a good word - smooth is the best way to quantify how the system seems to react when you're heavily multitasking.
The smooth comment being made, the G5 could use some faster CPUs. I've heard all the rumors about 2.5 - 2.6GHz 90nm G5s due out soon with 3GHz available by the end of the summer; if they are true, then that's exactly what this system needs. A nice 25 - 50% increase in clock speed (assuming no architectural changes) should improve overall system performance significantly; I think the G5 would be perfectly setup (given current software requirements) with a pair of 2.5GHz CPUs, at 3GHz we'd be talking butter. I don't know if I could deal with anything slower than the 2.0s I have right now, but the plus side of higher clocked CPUs being released is that the 2.0s will drop in price.
We always need more power, regardless of which side of the fence we're on :)
Thanks to the helpful comments from a number of you I did some looking into Exposé's performance as a function of video memory size. It does seem like 64MB isn't enough video memory to keep Exposé running smoothly with two high resolution diplays and a number of windows open. I've requested all of ATI's 9800 Mac products so I'll hopefully be able to do a 64MB 9600 vs. 128MB 9800 vs. 256MB 9800 comparison here with respect to high-res Exposé performance. I'm beginning to think there may be a need for a Mac section on AT; hardware is hardware after all :)
I know I said I'd keep this one short, but when I get to writing I can't really stop (I know, I talk too much). Keep the comments coming and I'll keep the blogs coming. Quick question for the keyboard junkies out there: is there a Safari equivalent to CTRL+Enter for completing a URL? I'm looking to be able to type 'anandtech' then hit a keystroke combination to add the www. and the .com. I swear I haven't been able to figure it out on my own if it does exist, it's probably the simplest thing in the world and I'm just missing it :) I'd appreciate any and all help as usual.
Take care all.
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
96 Comments
View All Comments
Adam K - Friday, February 13, 2004 - link
Look, Cooncat, there is no need to call me ignorant. I never called you any rude names, now did I?I stated several times that both platforms have there merits, but I emphasized that the Apple platform is limited to what Apple has integrated into their operating system and BIOSes.
The Macintosh platform has little viability in todays enthusiast market due to the fact that there is little value in buying a Macintosh computer. Yes, if you have the likes of $3,000-$5,000 to pay for a computer system, the Apple platform is an option; but for an "enthusiast," that same power would cost significantly less.
Of extremely high value to the "power user" is a powerful motherboard with an integrated BIOS that has variable options for CPU frequency (if not locked by manufacturer), front side bus of the processor, voltage, CAS latency, RAS to CAS delay, RAS Precharge, TRAS, to mention a few basics.
This world of "pushing the limits" of today's computing is simply not available in the Macintosh hardware world. That is why it is boring after a while for me. I mean, great, the OS is definately excellent. I have never had a complaint about the OS. It is stable and does not require advanced user configuration to function decently. It has some configuration options available that make it possible for the user to customize elements of the OS that further enhance the user's experience.
I wonder if the 2.0 GHz CPUs that Anand has are capable of going any higher. I wonder how high they can go on simply air cooling at the default voltage. The next thing that comes to mind is how fast the cpu could operate with water cooling. But these are not options for todays Mac user. That is why I don't think Apple's and their associated hardware are as interesting as they could be.
Cooncat - Friday, February 13, 2004 - link
to the person above...I find it hard to believe that someone who claims to be a "power user" could be so ignorant. Is it so hard to accept that both platforms have merit? What exactly do you "powerfully" use your computer for, if you don't mind me asking? Because I find osX to be a very productive work environment, it lets me get what I want done fast and without being intrusive. But I suppose if you really meant "power gamer" then yeah, I guess you're right.And no, it's not possible for abit or asus to make mac MBs. Do a search for "mac clone" and you will see why.
Adam K - Friday, February 13, 2004 - link
Oh, and Anand, I am curious: when you get your hands on the 9800 series for Mac, what is the CP like? I read that there is Open GL support in OS X but nothing about Direct 3d, and am curious about the functionality of the Radeons in the Mac OS. How is filtering implemented?And are there any third party apps to overclock the Radeons in OS X? Or are you stuck at stock? That can't be any fun...
Adam K - Friday, February 13, 2004 - link
Yes, I know that the Macintosh platform is spiffy and all.But OSX is hardly the power-user platform like Windows is. Everything is predetermined by Apple, or so it seems.
Virtual memory is predetermined; or at least the algorithm for allocating its size is there is no tab for virtual memory in the system preferences…uh huh…
And it’s not like I can put together a Macintosh, right? Or am I wrong there too? But last time I checked the local computer stores all I could find were pre-built Macs. Why don't Abit, Asus, or some reputable motherboard manufacturer make a motherboard for the Mac enthusiast? Isn’t possible? Why not? I mean the Apple platform is never going to be an "enthusiast" platform until we can get our hands on something of real value. Like, for example, the P4C@2.4 GHz. I don't know if too many of us are going to shell out $3,000 USD to buy a system that is so limited. I mean like, WOW, it works out of the box, imagine that! Well for me “works” is not enough. I want more power and I don’t think $3,000+ for what Anand is describing is worth it. Maybe if you are one of those who likes everything to work right out of the box, don’t like worrying about viruses, worms, Trojans, and Windows Update, and have application support in OS X I can’t say that I blame you. But for now, at least, for the “power user,” the Mac is, after a little while, just plain boring
Lucian - Friday, February 13, 2004 - link
In my experience, the only types of applications that installed an uninstaller were Microsoft's IntelliPoint and IntelliType software. BTW, if you are using a MS mouse and/or keyboard with your G5, I highly recommend installing those drivers. They are quite powerful and allow a great deal of customization.Damien Sorresso - Friday, February 13, 2004 - link
I would hate for Trillian to be ported to OS X. Not that it isn't functional, but the UI is awful. As you use more and more well-designed OS X apps (read: anything by OmniGroup), you'll become more and more spoiled by aesthetics and UI cleanliness.And, Anand, Adium 2.0a currently updates on a nightly schedule. When it's done, it'll blow everything else out of the water. Mac OS X front-end plus libgaim backend is a winning combination for open source. Adium is a great example of how well open source and OS X can work together to produce excellent applications.
About uninstallers ... they generally aren't needed. There are some duplicitous software companies out there which litter your home directory with invisible files, but deleting the application is enough in about 99% of all cases. Any application that needs an uninstaller will be installed with an installer package. And OS X does have a built-in uninstaller, sort of.
Install the developer tools, and you'll get a command-line binary that is used for making installer packages. This utility also reads the /Library/Receipts directory and will allow you to uninstall installer packages; each installed package (.pkg) leaves a receipt with information about what it installed and where. There is a GUI front-end available for this utility called DesInstaller. I'd recommend checking it out. I'd also recommend keeping VersionTracker.com on your favorites list and checking it daily. The quality of Mac shareware is generally excellent.
Anonymouse Too - Friday, February 13, 2004 - link
Try here:http://developer.apple.com/technotes/tn/tn1061.htm...
Anonymous - Friday, February 13, 2004 - link
That http://www.kernelthread.com/mac/osx/ URL doesn't work.T Money - Thursday, February 12, 2004 - link
To the person who commented that the mac BIOS (OpenFirmware) is too limited. I suggest you do some reading into it (in fact, it might be something you want to do too Anand). The OpenFirmware is a very powerful set of low level instructions. I recomend you read this article, which includes a nice introduction to the power of OpenFirmware (including how to set up ssh within it)http://www.kernelthread.com/mac/osx/
Adam K - Thursday, February 12, 2004 - link
http://www.ecommercetimes.com/perl/story/32837.htm...This comes as no suprise to me that Mac's are finding their way into the offices of scientists. My brother, who recently earned his Ph.D in microbiology relies heavily on a program called Macvector, which he says is user friedly and enables him to translate DNA into protein, to search for reading frames, and make graphical maps of plasmids. He also uses PC's. He sees clearly that there are advantages to both platforms.
And yes, there is little need for "administration" on a Mac. I have mentioned this before. You can give a Mac to your Mom and she could use the internet, check email (and open and click on every link embedded into the email), write documents and presentations, and not come running to you every week with a new virus or confused about which Windows Update to download. Yes, there are security vunerabilites with the Mac OS but nowhere near the degree to which the Windows holes are exploited.
I guess since there are now two people writing as "Adam," I thought I would call myself "Adam K," so nobody gets too confused.