Windows users who try Apple’s Mac OS X Tiger might not want to go back

“In a previous column, I shared my thoughts about what it was like to suddenly become a Mac user after using Linux and Windows for most of my computing life. It was a bit of a shock, and adjusting to the new OS took me a little while before I could start to appreciate what it had to offer,” Jim Lynch writes for ExtremeTech. “Fortunately, I had the guidance and tolerance of many of ExtremeTech’s Mac-savvy readers to help me work through the bumps I encountered. My thanks to all who posted feedback and suggestions in the forum or who quietly emailed me after reading my column. I was somewhat overwhelmed at the response to the column, the emails just kept pouring in for weeks after it was published.”

Lynch writes, “This time I’m going to talk about what it’s been like for me after the initial adjustment period and how my experimentation with a Power Mac led to my purchase of a Power Book and the installation of the latest version of Mac OS X (Tiger) on both of my Macs.”

Lynch looks at Mac OS X Tiger in some depth and concludes, “Windows users beware! If you’re thinking about getting a Mac with Tiger on it, don’t do it! You’ll never view Windows the same again… Watch out Windows users, if you get a taste of OS X Tiger you might not want to go back.”

Full article here.

MacDailyNews Take: Former Windows Sufferers who give Apple’s Mac OS X a decent try usually end up making the best Mac advocates.

Related MacDailyNews articles:
PC World names Apple’s Mac OS X Tiger ‘Best Operating System’ – June 01, 2005
Apple’s Mac OS X Tiger ‘is the most advanced operating system on the planet’ – May 31, 2005
TrustedReviews: After using Mac OS X Tiger ‘going back to Windows XP is something of a joke at best’ – May 18, 2005
The Butler Group: ‘Apple’s Mac OS X Tiger the best desktop operating system in the world to date’ – May 13, 2005
BBC News: Apple’s Mac OS X Tiger ‘the most stable and reliable OS, well ahead of Windows XP’ – May 10, 2005
Windows users show strong curiosity about Apple’s Mac OS X Tiger – May 09, 2005
Windows tech writer Thurrott: ‘In many ways, Mac OS X Tiger is simply better than Windows’ – May 07, 2005
EarthWeb: Apple’s Mac OS X Tiger is a ‘serious enterprise operating system, a pivotal release’ – May 06, 2005
BusinessWeek: ‘Tiger bolsters Mac OS X’s edge as the best personal-computer operating system’ – May 06, 2005
The Guardian: Mac OS X Tiger a powerful solution while Microsoft’s Longhorn remains on drawing board – May 06, 2005
Chicago Sun-Times: Mac OS X Tiger shows ‘there’s never been a more compelling time to switch to Mac’ – May 05, 2005
Dan Gillmor: ‘With Mac OS X Tiger, Apple is plainly in the lead today’ – May 05, 2005
Jupiter Research VP: Apple’s Mac OS X Tiger ‘runs rings around Microsoft Windows’ – May 04, 2005
The Independent: Apple’s ‘faster, smarter, simpler’ Mac OS X Tiger ‘a must-have’ – May 04, 2005
Mac OS X Tiger review for a Windows PC audience finds Tiger’s ‘far, far better than Windows XP’ – May 03, 2005
Boston Herald: Mac OS X Tiger should compel Windows PC users to think about switching to Apple Mac – May 02, 2005
Mac OS X Tiger will likely improve performance of your Macintosh – April 30, 2005
PC World review gives Apple’s Mac OS X Tiger 4.5 stars out of 5 – April 30, 2005
Ars Technica: Mac OS X Tiger ‘at least twice as significant as any single past update’ – April 28, 2005
BusinessWeek: ‘Tiger bolsters Mac OS X’s edge as the best personal-computer operating system around’ – April 28, 2005
Associated Press: Mac OS X Tiger ‘provides another excellent incentive to switch from Windows’ – April 28, 2005
Mossberg: Apple’s Tiger ‘the best, most advanced personal computer operating system on the market’ – April 28, 2005
InformationWeek columnist: Apple’s Mac OS X Tiger ‘a compelling upgrade’ – April 28, 2005
NY Times: Apple’s Mac OS X Tiger is the most secure, stable and satisfying OS on earth – April 28, 2005
Wired News: Apple’s Mac OS X Tiger ‘full of welcome surprises’ – April 27, 2005
Apple posts QuickTime movies of Mac OS X Tiger features in action – April 13, 2005

56 Comments

  1. I guess we’ll see what the future holds. Personally, such wins as the Virginia Tech G5 cluster validated the platform. I doubt the P4 Powermacs Apple is selling to the developers are capable of the same. Regardless, I wouldn’t spend a nickel on them until the benchmarks prove they outperform the 64bit dual 2.7 G5 Powermacs. Jobs carefully avoided such performance comparisons which makes me wonder.

    We’ll see the benchmarks rolling in on those machines in a few weeks. I only hope it doesn’t prove an embarrassment when compared to the currently shipping G5’s.

  2. Well, don’t get your hopes up. G5 Powermac, according to the “old” Apple:

    Nearly Two Times Faster Than Pentium 4
    “To demonstrate the superiority of the Power Mac G5, Apple conducted tests using Adobe Photoshop CS 8.0, the most widely used application among creative professionals.

    The dual 2.7GHz, dual 2.3GHz and dual 2.0GHz Power Mac G5 systems ran the 45 filters 98%, 78% and 59% faster, respectively, than the 3.6GHz Pentium 4-based system, and 72%, 56% and 38% faster than the dual 3.6GHz Xeon-based system.(1)(2)”

    LOL I know, Iknow, we’re supposed to gulp down the kool-aid and forget about all of that…

  3. “If Jobs would just show a little intestinal fortitude and release OS X for any Intel machine to use, ol’ Billy boy would see his market share drop like a stunned pigeon.”

    inaminit,
    This is rubbish. Repeat after me: “Apple is a hardware company.” Releasing OS X to commodity x86 would not magically put Microsoft on the ropes. You’re completely discounting the size of the Windows ecosystem, the sheer inertia of current PC users, and the considerable threat still posed by Microsoft. The short term effect of such a move would be to put a bullet in Mac sales, and there is no guarantee that they would be able to recover from such a decision. It is certainly possible at some future date that Apple may be in a strong enough position to make the transition to a software company, but that time is not now, nor will it be until sometime after Apple makes the transition in 2006-7, if ever.

    No matter how inexpensive Macs get, commodity gear from PC mills will always be cheaper, and most people advocating opening OS X can’t seem to grasp that Macs Just Work™ because Apple carefully limits the hardware pool that they need to qualify for use. If someone’s home-built shitbox with an Acme graphics card, RAM from a box of Froot Loops, and a motherboard he bought off the back of a truck in Pakistan has horrible problems with OS X, who do you think he’s going to blame? That’s right: Apple, even though they can’t be held responsible for crappy hardware or drivers. Attempting to make sure OS X works well with the floods of new component hitting the market every year would be a Sisyphean task, and not one any sane company would attempt. The closed pool of hardware works in Apple’s favor; changing that dynamic would have terrible consequences for the Mac’s reputation.

  4. “inaminit,
    This is rubbish. Repeat after me: “Apple is a hardware company.” “

    Viridian:
    That’s the kind of narrow mentality that has kept Apple in the miniscule market share region. I like my iMac, I like it a lot, it’s my primary machine of choice. But the truth is, the AMD based machine I built last year is superior HARDWARE wise in every way. From the 2.2 ghz cpu to the Audigy Z sound card to the ATI 9650 video card. The reason I like the iMac better has nothing to do with the hardware, get it?

    Did you read the guy’s article up there, or just start posting? When Windows user’s try OS X they don’t want to go back. OS X, not the hardware.

  5. Obviously Copernicus has never used a modern Powerbook.

    Comparing a Mac laptop to a Dell is kind of like comparing a Mercedes to a Ford Taurus in terms of style, look and feel and of course, performance. (OSX)

  6. Besisdes, I’m not talking about transitioning to a software company, all I’m saying is make the OS available, simply state that if it’s not run on apple cetified hardware, let the buyer beware. After all I can go out now and buy just a copy of OS X, without any hardware. All I’m saying is, come on Jobs, let me do that with a copy of OS X for Intel platforms to.

  7. inaminit: Did you read Viridian’s extremely logical explanation of why it would DESTROY Apple if they allowed OS X to run on x86? Do you realize how many pirated copies of Windows are running out there on cheesy little AMD 2.2 ghz machines like yours (superior? I laugh in your general direction ” width=”19″ height=”19″ alt=”wink” style=”border:0;” />

    Apple cannot afford to have its OS pirated in the way that Microsoft can and this is what would immediatly happen if Apple released an x86 version of its OS. MS has other lines of revenue. Apple’s revenue is in its hardware, not the OS.

    The same goes for the “why can’t Apple allow downloaded AAC files run on my crappy Rio player?” people. The answer is the same. Because Apple makes NO MORE MONEY off of the sale of Rio players than it does off the sale of HP and Dell boxes! iTunes exists to sell iPods, OS X exists to sell PBs, PMs, iBooks, iMacs, and Minis.

    Repeat after me:

    Apple makes its money off of hardware sales.
    Apple needs to control the hardware to make the OS experience as flawless as possible.
    OS X runs so much better than Windows because Apple controls the hardware experience.
    Apple is the most successful non-Windows running computer company of all time using the above methodology.
    Apple has 16% of the installed computer market.
    Apple wants to survive.

    All these reasons and more are why it would never be so foolish as to allow its OS to run on someone elses hardware.

    -B

  8. Only the other 4 of the top 5 PC makers will be able to release machines with the same clock speeds simultaneously.
    There is no way Apple would have to wait, but look at what happens every-time Toshiba release a new drive.
    It turns out somebody (Apple) already has a big order in the pipeline and you can be sure they are getting a better price on it than anyone else.

    So all the backyard pc manufacturers from Toshiba down will get their Intel chips later at a higher price.
    Take out the cost to those builders of purchasing a Windows licence too as Apple will be able to afford to take a hit on that one and the fact that Apple were nearly destroyed last time they went for profit before market share.

    This means that it will be possible for Macs to be cheaper, just like iPods already are.

  9. Viridian, Beeblebrox:

    I’m not saying you don’t make good points. You do. But whether you like it or not, Apple hardware is not the best thing about owning a Mac. The OS is. The hardware lag is the very reason Jobs is going to Intel based machines. Your prejudice against the platform is unfounded and unsuported. Next year I’ll be building another AMD based system. I’m sorry I can’t get a copy of OS X to run on it, (perhaps I’ll snag a copy of Slackware for this one now that the kids have their game system). And I’ll probably also get another Mac system, maybe a Power Mac.

    You can say “grappy little” this and that all you want, it won’t make my home built systems inferior to Macs. Only Windows does that.

  10. Beeblebrox:

    Apple makes its money off of hardware sales.
    Apple needs to control the hardware to make the OS experience as flawless as possible.
    OS X runs so much better than Windows because Apple controls the hardware experience.
    Apple is the most successful non-Windows running computer company of all time using the above methodology.
    Apple has 16% of the installed computer market.
    Apple wants to survive.

    Well put (MDN Magic Word).

  11. Inaminit:

    Your point appears to be “I like OS X, I wish I could run it on my garage built PC”.

    Fine, I’m sure you and every other knowledgeable Windows user wishes the same thing.

    Our point: “Ain’t gonna happen.” Going your direction means that Apple goes bankrupt in about a year. So yes, it would be great for PC users to be able to run the most advanced OS ever built but this would be corporate suicide for Apple so what is the point in wishing for it?

    As for the hardware, I have yet to see a homebuilt machine that was as well desgined and had as high of quality parts as a Powermac G5 (and of course, you can’t garage build a Powerbook clone in any case).

    You may take pride in your home-built machine and that’s great, more power to you. That does not make it as good as what the best computer manufacturer on the planet can do. I will guarantee you that sitting your AMD machine down next to my Dual G5 would be like putting a custom kit car next to an Audi A6. One might be good, the other is clearly superior.

    The fit and finish of the Mac, the cooling system, the simply gorgeous motherboard, the aluminum case, port design, the ease of access to internal components, and a dozen other aspects of the hardware design put the G5 in a league of its own. Furthermore, the machine is, quite simply, faster than any home-built machine the average person is going to put together.

    Of course, the new CPU from Intel/Apple will be even faster and put even more distance between the pro machine from Apple and the home-brew machine (as fun as it may be to build it) that you believe to be superior.

    Bottom line, if you like to build your own machine, great!

    Most people either don’t have that kind of time on their hands or, like me, recognize that there is no way that I can go down to my shop and build a machine as elegant as a G5 tower.

    All of this is moot in any case. Apple hardware is the only hardware that will ever run OS X. Even if your AMD was a superior machine, it is still running a 1980s vintage OS. I’m sure you wish it weren’t so but them’s the cold hard facts.

    -B

  12. Ricardo wrote:

    “Well, don’t get your hopes up. G5 Powermac, according to the “old” Apple:

    Nearly Two Times Faster Than Pentium 4
    “To demonstrate the superiority of the Power Mac G5, Apple conducted tests using Adobe Photoshop CS 8.0, the most widely used application among creative professionals.

    The dual 2.7GHz, dual 2.3GHz and dual 2.0GHz Power Mac G5 systems ran the 45 filters 98%, 78% and 59% faster, respectively, than the 3.6GHz Pentium 4-based system, and 72%, 56% and 38% faster than the dual 3.6GHz Xeon-based system.(1)(2)”

    LOL I know, Iknow, we’re supposed to gulp down the kool-aid and forget about all of that…”

    Ricardo – I have read your many posts here and have concluded you aren’t happy about this move? ” width=”19″ height=”19″ alt=”smirk” style=”border:0;” />

    One thing Ricardo, in the English language there is an ability to refer to things in the past, present and even future!!!!

    WATCH the Keynote. Steve plainly says that in the PAST the PPC WAS better than the x86.

    He also mentions that there are current (i.e. present) PPC products that are awesome, and there are a few more to come (future).

    The above results aren’t incorrect. CURRENTLY the PPC based systems do slam the x86 systems (well at least in CERTAIN apps optimised in testing labs – come one, for every PPC is faster there is a x86 is faster result in the REAL world).

    However, as MANY, MANY, MANY people have been able to grasp (just not enough yet), Steve NEVER mentioned x86 as the processor that will be used – YES the developer kit is x86, but HEY the devloper kit for the Xbox is an Apple G5 (PPC 970), and you all KNOW that IBM aren’t supplying a PPC 970 chip to Microsoft, and so for some reason your ability to logic that step works – see what HYSTERIA does to cloud thinking?

    So the issue here is the english language’s ability to refer to the FUTURE. Just because in the FUTURE Steve and Apple believe that the Intel processors they use will be better than the PPC ones does not suddenly make all statements said in the PAST, or even PRESENTLY incorrect, or worse still, a deception.

    It is for this VERY SAME concept of past, future and present, that you can purchase a PPC based Apple Mac NOW,which remains superior to windows based systems and IN THE FUTURE you can by an Intel based Apple Mac, and it is likely that it will also be superior.

    What ALL of you processor OBSESSED nay sayers are ignoring don’t seem to be able to grasp is the possiblility that:

    1) apart from the processor, it is also the OPERATING SYSTEMS that contribute to system performance – I don’t know, is the OS a factor in overall performance???? Huh???

    2) apart from the processor AND OS, system design ALSO contributes to overall system performance – possible??? Do you THINK (not rant hysterically – I mean THINK) that system design could contribute to system performance??? See in the WinTel world they REALLY grasp this concept, some box assemblers do a MUCH better job at designing AND putting their systems together than others (eg AlienWare machines compared to local chopshop beige box builders)

    To take the past and present and somehow say it is false beacuse the future exists proves that the THINKING behind most of the responses on this site just simply doesn’t EXIST either.

    I’ve said it before – I really hope the hysterical lot do jump ship, I reckon there will be quite a few of us that wont really miss dealing with a total lack of LOGIC.

    I also know you’ll be back, and once again crapping on about how you ALL KNEW this was the best move Steve and Apple ever made. IF you can distort the past, presnet and future for Apple, you can distort it for yourselves too.

    Just my $1.27

    Luke

  13. Beeblebrox:

    I agree with just about all of your points. When I walked into CompUSA last February with my tax refund burning a hole in my pocket I locked gaze on one of the most beautiful peices of technology I had seen. Un fortunatly I only had enough for the 17″ model rather than the 20″ I wanted. But like I said before, it’s the only machine I use now, (except for the occasional Doom 3 or Unreal Tournement session while sitting in the midst of my Audigy powered Creative 7.1 sound system.)

    I just don’t believe making the best OS available, available to everyone is going to destroy Apple Inc.

  14. How difficult is it to understand that a big part of the success of OS X is the solid integration between it and the hardware. That hardware is more than the CPU. The Mac motherboard is not ever going to be a generic component. The way a Mac functions, from the firmware to the interface is unique.

    If Apple was to make OS X available to run on any X86 box they would instantly lose that tight integration and they’d be plagued by the kind of problems that Windows suffers.

    Apple is based on the principle of OS and hardware propriety, plain and simple.

  15. From: informed

    Jun 07, 05 – 09:50 pm

    Ok. Yesterday I ate crow for my optimism that Apple wouldn’t be foolish.

    Now I express my anger. I own approximately $2600 worth of high-end audio signal processing software that is reliant on the AltiVec capabilities of the superior PowerPC processor. These are 3-D room simulating reverbs and extremely processor-efficient plugins for MOTU Digital Performer. Rosetta can’t touch these.

    I will not be repurchasing this software. I already did for OSX. Nor will I make any additional purchases of Apple computers for the foreseeable future. And I have divested my stock, as the next two years will return the famed “Beleaguered” label back to Apple. Here come the layoffs and ugly red ink.

    I cannot recommend that anyone buy a Mac at this time, despite the all the happy “universal binaries” spin.

    Too bad. Just when I could truly brag-up Apple, they shoot themselves in the foot and embrace 32-bit, backwards technology. “Roadmap” my ass. This is a been-there-already roadmap. I was relying on new trails being blazed (like Apple always had done up until now).

Reader Feedback

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.