I am sure not a full-time Mac evangelist (I use Linux myself), but have you tried to use a Mac for a month or so?

I was perfectly happy with Windows (XP then) when I decided to check the greener grass on the other side of the fence (Red Hat, first, then Debian, then Ubuntu) and I never thought about going back. Linux is so much more refined under the hood that more than compensates for the lack of software in several niches. I recommended my then girlfriend (now wife) to buy a Mac when she wanted to upgrade her PC and she loves it. I wouldn't recommend Linux for her because the added elegance under the hood would not compensate the limitations in dealing with complex (read quirky) Office documents.

Now, we both cringe our teeth because our employers issued Windows running Dell laptops for us. Argh.

...and I had to use a Mac at work for 12 months and hated every minute of it.

For every person with a convert story to the Mac, there's another person who is quite happy to stick with Windows. I'm not sure why so many people consider the prospect so crazy.

With respect to your story, I'm fairly certain there are more convert stories among people who have used the Mac than there are stories of people disliking them.

Really? You're certain? How certain are you?

Both me and my wife have had the displeasure of using Macs in the past. I even owned one for about 6 months, a mac mini. I replaced it with Vista and Vista's Media Center pretty much owns Front Row (pfft, don't even get me started). The dock sucks compared to the task bar, you can't even see what's running on the dock. Oh and it's slow.

I've never used a Mac Mini, so I don't know how slow it is, though I'd guess that it's not in the same league as Apple's higher-end products.

Out of curiosity, what makes Front Row worse than the Media Center? I rarely use Front Row, but I'd like to know what Vista Media Center does better.

The dock absolutely is better than the task bar. The TB is cluttered - why do I need a box for every open window when I can just see the windows (hence Expose)? The Dock shows you running applications (though not background processes, though that's okay since neither does the task bar), it shows you minimized windows, and it shows you your set launch applications. I've argued before and I still believe that the presence of the dock is what makes OS X the superior system. It focuses on efficiency. The fact that it houses the Trash and the new Stacks system makes it even better: it removes a hell of a lot of clutter.

I've never had a speed problem with my computer, though to be fair I use a MBP with 2 gigs of ram. That said, I can run multiple intensive processes at once and still do casual tasks like browsing without a speed hit.

And despite what you've said, I'm still fairly certain. Meaning no disrespect to you, I've had such a wonderful experience with my computer that I can't possibly imagine people liking Windows more once they get into OS X. Again: your existence shows that I'm not entirely correct, but I'd still believe that of the people who've used both OSes noncasually, more people like the Mac over the PC.

I'm not going to get in a back-and-forth with you about what I hate about Macs.

The point is that there are a LOT of people out there that absolutely can't stand Macs. As a matter of fact, besides me and my wife EVERY single person in my office hates them (most of us are programmers and YES, we've actually used them before).

Back-and-forth? I asked you a few questions about what you said, and made a few statements of my own. You act like this is a hostile conversation.

I don't understand the sort of mindset that doesn't like the Mac, but I acknowledge that it exists. I would still guess that that mindset is in the minority, however: as a casual OS it is vastly better than Windows. Your office experience is not indicative of the majority of computer users.

Oh and I find it amazing that you think you know what the majority of people are thinking.

I'm going off of actual experience talking to actual people that don't live in a bubble. What are you going off of? Your imagination?

Most of the products I use are built by people who use the Mac. That's why I looked into getting a Mac in the first place.

37signals. The Big Noob. The Tumblr team. Paul Graham once wrote an article on using the Mac. The Omni Group and Panic and Delicious Monster. Coudal. Rososo and Vimeo and NowDoThis. Facebook. Everywhere I looked, people told me that the Mac was wonderful and they were fanatic about it. So I gave it a try and found that I was equally fanatic.

I'm going off of every designer whose opinion I like and respect. You're going off of people who work in a single environment. If we wanted to be logical, we'd work off of user statistics, where Apple's rated as one of the most satisfactory companies in the nation. They blow competition away. Hence my confidence in my statement. Now, can we drop it, or are you going to continue to make arguments in a debate that's convincing nobody on either side?

"I'm going off of every designer whose opinion I like and respect."

For the record, I'm not JUST going off of my peers at work, I happen to belong to a number of user groups and I also happen to visit many, many real working people in corporate workplaces around the world and I'm quite confident that it wouldn't be that hard to come up with a list of awesome web 2.0 developers that absolutely adore ASP.Net...

Anyway, sure, I can drop it as soon as you can drop it :)

Sure. Let's.

Not really. What you're asking is outside of the point I'm making.

Fair enough.

I use a lot of computers but I don't have that strong feelings about them. What's your point? That you know people who hate Macs? Good for you. I do prefer Linux for work, but I know many people who love Macs and even the ones who don't use them respect Macs as well finished computers with a polished OS. Remember: OSX is kind of Nextstep 5.0 and I can respect that as much as I do respect, say, Solaris, AIX and HP-UX.

You may think there is a huge number of people who can't stand Macs, but I assure you it's a very localized phenomena you are observing. Most certainly you are keeping the wrong company. Do they also install neon lights under their cars?

Classy...

I use a PC and I don't really have any pain that I can think of-- but maybe I'm just used to it. Ya know, one of these days I'd love to compare RescueTime data for the aggregate Windows population and the aggregate Mac population (to see if one works harder, futzes with their OS more, etc.).

Can you be more specific on why you hated every minute of it?

Well, it's been a while, but let's see what I can remember! I think, the fact that:

* I had to re-map certain keys on my keyboard just to get a usable # key/'real' British keyboard layout - it ultimately meant I had keys labelled as one thing that did another (thankfully I touch type)

* Pressing Apple + C or Apple + Z meant forcing my hand in to uncomfortable, unnatural positions - I prefer the spacing on a standard PC keyboard between Ctrl + C/etc

* Single button mouse - ew! First thing I did was buy another mouse.

* Navigating with the keyboard was all but impossible in many apps because the tab did nothing, or didn't behave in a logical way. Same with backspace.

* I had constant problems with crashing. It was an old G5 IIRC but my older VAIO laptop performed better.

These were just some of the things that annoyed me and reduced my productivity daily. Asking me for reasons why I wouldn't buy a Mac of my own would be another list on top of that, hehe. Anyway, I knew I was doing the right thing getting a PC in when my boss complemented my increased speed at my next annual review.

Don't get me wrong, I'm a strong believer in picking something that suits your own needs/requirements. If someone thinks that a Mac is the better option, more power to them... I just don't like the stereotype that standard PC users are awaiting some sort of holy intervention from the God of Macs.

* Pressing Apple + C or Apple + Z meant forcing my hand in to uncomfortable, unnatural positions - I prefer the spacing on a standard PC keyboard between Ctrl + C/etc*

Huh? I'm pretty platform agnostic, but I've always liked this about the Mac. The Command key can be held down my shifting my thumb to the left of the spacebar and I can copy+paste without ever pulling my hands off the home row. Trying to hold control with my pinky and twist around to hit various key combos always felt more like a contortionist act to me.

And this is why I said 'These were just some of the things that annoyed me' - emphasis on the me, if you will. What I find annoying, another may find bliss, and vice versa. Such is life.

When tab doesn't work, Control + Tab usually does. I think Mac programs make up for less tabbing by having far more keyboard shortcuts.

I installed Ubuntu onto a friend's Vista box using Wubi (http://wubi-installer.org/), and it works perfectly. Apart from altering the boot manager, Wubi doesn't alter your existing setup, and it can be removed like any other Windows app. Please do check it out--but if you decide to try it, defrag your disk first.

"But now it just seems mean."

This is Microsoft you are talking about.

One thing Microsoft can never, ever earn is the right to sympathy. You may say that business is cut throat, and thus Microsoft's pitiless, air supply choking history is entirely justified. But feeling sorry for Microsoft because someone is mocking them is just absurd. They have richly earned several lifetimes of ridicule.

And Apple's full of angels right?

The only difference between the two is that Microsoft was far more successful. Apple would have done everything people complain about Microsoft doing and more. They basically have in the couple product areas where they've had similar success.

I think you may be too young to remember what Microsoft was like in the 1980s, but this isn't true. The companies had very different personalities. Apple was always about making great things, whereas Microsoft's path was to ruthlessly exploit the monopoly that IBM dropped in their lap.

That path made Microsoft more successful in the short term (particularly after Jobs was exiled) but in the long term making good things seems to be the winning strategy.

Do you really think that Apple wouldn't have ruthlessly exploited the monopoly if they had come about it? Their actions with iPod/iPhone make me think they would have. Jobs is just as much the ruthless dictator as Gates. In fact from what I've read/heard from people that know them, they seem to share a lot of the same personality traits.

Not as ruthlessly, I don't think. Not because Jobs is a nicer guy than Gates, but because he has taste. He could not bring himself to ship a crappy product. And so wherever shipping something great didn't coincide with exploiting the monopoly, he would not have been able to go so far down the latter vector.

Also, shipping great stuff requires you to have great hackers to build it, and great hackers have principles. They limit how evil a company can be. You can see this most clearly at Google. If they tried to do anything too evil, they'd face an internal rebellion. Apple employees seem a bit more intimidated by Jobs, but they are pretty idealistic too. A lot would quit if Apple went too far, and Jobs is smart enough about people to know that.

"He could not bring himself to ship a crappy product."

Interesting to see this quote from Jobs during today's Apple earnings call:

"We don't know how to make a $500 computer that's not a piece of junk, and our DNA will not let us ship that. But we can continue to deliver greater and greater value to those customers that we choose to serve. And there's a lot of them."

Almost like he knew we were having this conversation. :)

I'm not particularly convinced of Apple's good will.

Speaking of the 80ies, Apple is the one that wanted to control both the OS and the hardware (still true today, from phones to computers), and Apple is the one that sued MS over 'look & feel' issues.

Back in the 80s it would have seemed bizarre to do otherwise. You used whatever OS the manufacturer supplied. It was part of the computer. That was as true with Microsoft OSes.

Apple choosing to make their own OSes instead of buy them from an outsider supplier was in those days no different from e.g. building displays or keyboards rather than buying them from suppliers.

You mean "great" from a design/usability perspective. Gates shipped products that were great in terms of fitting market need and expanding the utility of Windows. IE may have sucked to use, but it sure beat the hell out of paying for Netscape.

I actually made this point once while working for Apple, saying it was like thinking about whether the other side had won World War II.

But I think the point still stands that Microsoft has managed to cause far more harm during their reign than Apple, precisely because they have been more successful. I also think that Apple is somewhat constrained in the damage they can do, because Steve Jobs wants to be a Tyrant of Taste, more so than Ruler of All He Surveys. He has little interest, for example, in the mass business market or the clunky boxes at the bottom of the market. To have Apple branded boxes at that price range, with all the compromises that entails, seems to horrify Jobs.

As for other product areas, probably the most tyrannical is iTunes. But even there, the damage is constrained by the fact that the majority of people still just pirate their music, anyway.

iTunes/iPod are the most tyrannical because they're the only place Apple is in charge. It's not right to excuse their DRM practices just because most music isn't purchased from it. It's still the number 1 music retailer. They've sold over 5 billion songs, most with DRM. They use a proprietary system to create vendor lock in.

Their NDA for the iPhone, and the tyranny over the application store, are worse than anything Microsoft has done to the consumer. They're just limited in scope by the fact that they own such a small % of the overall phone market, but if they ever get the kind of market share there that Windows has, everyone will hate them far more.

But with iTunes, Jobs moved quickly to make iTunes Plus a possibility. And it's got more DRM-free music than its next-largest competitor, Amazon, does.

Moved quickly? It took over 6 years.

The iTunes Store hasn't existed six years.

You're right, I'm sorry, I was looking at the date for the program, not the store. It was 4 years.

The record companies are ceding ground very slowly. But Apple's been pushing for a long time. I mean, honestly, what do they have to GAIN from DRM? It's all a matter of the people they deal with.

They gain vendor lock-in. Everyone who buys songs from iTunes with DRM is forced to either buy iPods forever, or lose the ability to play them on their player of choice.

Without the DRM, we'd see a much more fragmented player market. iPods might still be the leaders, but they'd almost certainly have a lower market share.

I agree that that would have lost Apple some ground, but I think they'd still be vastly ahead of other people. The DRM doesn't stick people. The incredible branding does.

People think iPod sounds reliable, and MP3 player sounds unstable. They go for the iPod because they think it's the only one there is.

Just to reiterate, what you say is true, and I pointed out I conceded pretty much your major points to coworkers at Apple when I worked there (it was just a couple coworkers, and just a one time comment, but it did get a laugh of agreement).

My only argument is that Apple has caused much less damage than Microsoft because they have been less successful, and in that sense Microsoft maintains the greater negative karma balance. Difference between attempted murder and committed murder, I suppose.

To be honest, I have no negative feelings about either. They're both just doing what they feel is in their own best interests. That's the responsibility of a corporation.

I find the grudge most people in the community have against MS a little juvenile and not very well-reasoned.

I suspect age difference has an effect, here.

Since Netscape was taken down, we've seen a world where hackers can execute an idea and become successful based on their execution, sometimes abundantly so. I do not think it's accidental that this period largely coincides with Microsoft losing their anti-trust case.

Before then, Microsoft would just wait until a market formed, then take it over or destroy it by bundling something with one of their monopoly products. People who had a dream of creating a successful software business knew Microsoft's business practices made that extremely unlikely.

So, yes, many developers who were around during Microsoft's heyday likely are carrying a grudge that must seem juvenile to anyone familiar with the much less threatening Microsoft of today. Whether it's juvenile to have bad feelings towards an organization that snuffed out a lot of optimism and ambition, I'll leave to you to decide.

These days I'm not concerned about Microsoft -- the companies that concern hackers w/r/t overtaking their product would be Apple and Google.