Tech Paladin logo

Archive for the ‘Mac OS X’ Category

Random problems versus those with a cause

Tuesday, July 17th, 2007

It would be stupid to claim that buying a Mac will solve all your computer problems, because though they’re endowed with a better operating system than your average Dell, they’re just machines, and machines break or behave erratically from time to time. No, as a Mac user you will still have problems. You’ll still run into annoying glitches and bugs and irritating behaviors, and while there may be fewer of them, you’ll still be annoyed by them.

Example: after playing a game that required me to reduce my screen’s color depth to thousands of colors, OS X retained that setting after I quit the game, despite telling me that it was set to millions. Annoying. But ultimately, it was obvious what caused the problem: the game. Another example: every time I disconnect my laptop from my printer (to take it somewhere) and then reconnect the printer, OS X’s printing subsystem creates a duplicate printer. Very annoying. But also 100% consistent, and the problem’s origins are again obvious–the printing system is stupid and gets confused when I re-plug in an existing printer.

However, there’s one a theme here: on a Mac, every problem has an obvious cause. Many are really aggravating, and a few high-profile ones I could name can be a royal pain in the butt to work around, but every single one of them is obviously broken for a reason that’s easy to divine. Even somewhat nebulous causes such as “there’s a bug” are obvious because most of these bugs exhibit their behavior 100% of the time in a very consistent manner.

On Windows, not so much. Windows will forget which of my screens is the primary one approximately one out of every five times I restart my computer; no cause has ever been found. Sometimes, Firefox in Vista will randomly shake (like its teeth are chattering because it’s cold or something) when I first open it. After a restart, it will stop. Three restarts later, it’ll start again, for no apparent reason at all. Occasionally, my mouse won’t move after the computer’s started up until I unplug it and re-plug it in. Again, no obvious cause. I always install driver updates from the manufacturer when they come in through Windows Update (a nice touch, and Microsoft should be commended for this), but none of them have ever solved the problem.

Experienced Windows users know that restarting, doing the uninstall/reinstall dance, or removing the offending piece of hardware and putting it back in will probably solve the problem, whatever it is. Why? Who knows! But it worked, that’s all that matters! The problem is that this contributes to an overall atmosphere of fragility. If your computer randomly freaks out and dies every once in a while, you’ll be less likely to experiment or push it to its limits, and you’ll be more tolerant of random faults. In short, you’ll be trained into accepting mediocrity, and that is a terrible thing.

What Microsoft has been doing since 2001, or, why Mac users are actually excited about upgrades

Monday, July 2nd, 2007

Paul Thurrott understandably bristles when the claim that Microsoft has been ineffectually fumbling around with Vista since 2001 rears its ugly head. Here’s what he ahs to say about the matter:

Apple and its supporters will tell you that Apple spent the past five years churning out major new Mac OS X versions while Microsoft fumbled around trying to finish Windows Vista. This is completely untrue. Though I use and respect Mac OS X, virtually every version Apple has shipped since 2001 has been a minor update, akin to a Windows 98 SE or Windows XP Service Pack 2 (SP2). Meanwhile, Microsoft has pushed an amazing variety of Windows versions out the door since 2001. Some highlights include Windows XP Embedded, Windows XP Media Center Edition (MCE), Windows XP MCE 2004, Windows XP MCE 2005, Windows XP Tablet PC Edition (TPC), Windows XP Tablet PC Edition 2005, and Windows XP Professional x64 Edition. It has also shipped major updates to its digital media software, including three major updates to Windows Media Player, a major IE release–IE 7–major new client-based security applications and services, including Windows Defender and Windows Live OneCare. And this is just a partial list. The point here is simple: Microsoft hasn’t sat still, contrary to the FUD you read online.

Thurrott retorts that Microsoft has actually been doing a lot since 2001 on the OS front; and he’ll point to several new versions of XP, such as XP Embedded, XP 64-bit edition, XP Media Center Edition (MCE), XP Tablet Edition, and their combined updates. At the same time, he’ll claim that Apple’s retail OS releases all amount to minor improvements the type of which have been included in XP service packs for free.

However, this isn’t really true. XP Embedded is just plain-jane XP with a bunch of unnecessary components removed and some settings tweaked to allow it to be run on flash memory devices, but none of these changes are anything a teenager with msconfig and regedit couldn’t already do. 64-bit XP is a more significant undertaking, but it doesn’t really work; lots of software isn’t compatible with it, and Thurrott himself will admit its general unsuitability:

Chances are, you don’t want or need it. And if you do get it, you’ll be disappointed. I can almost guarantee it.

Ouch! Finally, two of the new versions of XP he points to–MCE and Tablet PC Edition–are really just regular old Windows XP with a new visual theme (”Royale”), a new application or two (Media Center and Windows Journal, respectively), and support for some new hardware (TV tuners and tablet screens, respectively). If this is what a “new version” amounts to, don’t the hardware vendors like Dell and HP who tweak XP with their own bundled software, settings, and special drivers actually distribute “new versions” of Windows? Calling the addition of some applications and drivers (and probably a new splash screen) to an existing OS a “new version” strikes me as a tad disingenuous. However, if Thurrott wants to call those products full releases, fine; Apple can play ball. In that same time frame of 2001-2007, it released Mac OS X for Intel processors (one), released a “new version” of Tiger with Intel Macs that included Front Row and Photo Booth, as well as support for built-in iSights (two), released the AppleTV which runs an embedded version of the Mac OS (three), and announced the iPhone, which runs a mobile version of OS X (four). In fact, Apple did all of this since 2005 (though to be fair, it has always maintained a parallel Intel-native Mac OS X since the very beginning of 2001).

Compare these four “new versions” of OS X from Apple to what Thurrott says Microsoft’s been up to, which amounts to XP embedded, XP-64bit, XP MCE, and XP tablet PC edition. (calling updates to those products separate releases is just plain stupid; I’d have to include XP’s two service packs and dozens of minor hotfixes, as well as the 50 or so incremental updates to all versions of Mac OS X). It looks like both Microsoft and Apple both released as many minor “new versions” of their operating systems during that time, and all this is in addition to Apple’s five major OS releases (10.0 through 10.4) compared to Microsoft’s two (Windows XP and Vista).

The charge that Apple’s Mac OS X versions amount to XP service packs is similarly bogus. Here’s what went into said XP service packs:

SP1 (September 2002)

  • Support for USB 2.0
  • Support for hard drives larger than 137 GB
  • Support for Serial ATA hard drives
  • Set Program Access and Defaults

SP2 (August 2004)

  • Improved firewall
  • Improved wireless support
  • Improved memory protection and more general security
  • Improved Windows Movie Maker
  • Support for Bluetooth
  • Windows Security Center

Now, let’s take a look at what the different versions of OS X added to the original release, which came out in March of 2001:

10.1 (September 2001)

  • CD burning
  • DVD playback
  • Improved performance
  • Improved printer support
  • Improved AppleScript
  • Image Capture
  • Support for Bluetooth

10.1 Acually does look like a “service pack” release to me. In fact, Mac OS X 10.1 was released free of charge to owners of 10.0 simply because the initial release of OS X was so embarrassingly slow, buggy, and incomplete that it was the least they could do! 10.1’s feature list reads like a service pack primarily because 10.0 should have had all those things to begin with. After 10.1, however, Apple picked up the pace:

10.2 (August 2002)

  • Improved Windows compatibility
  • Improved performance through Quartz Extreme
  • Improved Sherlock
  • Improved Address Book
  • Improved printer support with CUPS
  • Zero-configuration networking (Rendezvous/bonjour)
  • Journaled file system
  • Support for tablets and handwriting recognition
  • Support for USB 2.0
  • iChat
  • Safari
  • User Interface overhaul (widgets look less fuzzy and more clickable)

10.3 (October 2003)

  • Improved Finder
  • Exposé
  • Fast user switching
  • Color labels for files
  • Home folder encryption
  • Zip archive creation
  • Support for faxing
  • Support for .doc files in TextEdit
  • Support for Serial ATA hard drives
  • Font Book
  • Xcode
  • Improved iChat
  • User Interface overhaul (widgets look clearer and more intuitive, mostly)

10.4 (April 2005)

  • Spotlight
  • Dashboard
  • Automator
  • Grapher
  • Quartz Composer
  • VoiceOver
  • Systemwide dictionary/thesaurus availability
  • Parental Controls
  • Support for Access Control Lists
  • Improved iChat
  • Improved Safari
  • Improved Mail
  • Improved QuickTime with h.264
  • Improved XCode
  • Improved Quartz Extreme

I’m sorry, but 10.2 through 10.4 simply don’t look like service packs; there’s too much there for them to be minor incremental upgrades. In particular, features introduced between 10.2 and 10.4 such as iChat, Safari, Labels, Fast user switching, Exposé, Spotlight, Dashboard, and a systemwide dictionary and thesaurus do a great deal to make Mac OS X the basket of luxury its users view it as. To dismiss these feature-packed releases as mere “service packs” is a gross injustice; when was the last time you found yourself thanking your lucky stars for Set Program Access and Defaults or Windows Security Center?

It’s also unclear why Microsoft chose to create entirely separate versions of Windows when it could simply have bundled the applications and drivers from those “new” editions into XP itself–why create extra complexity? In fact, this is the route Microsoft has taken with Vista, which–depending on which edition you have–includes tablet PC as well as media center functionality.

So has Microsoft been sitting on its butt waiting for Apple to embarrass it for the last five years? Well, no, but neither has it exactly been a bastion of output and innovation on the OS front. Of its operating system antics since 2001, one is widely regarded as non-functional, one could have been cooked up in a basement, and the remaining two simply involve the addition of a few applications and drivers–no reworking of the OS itself. At the same time, Apple has been delivering compelling updates year after year that people actually want to buy; a near first in the computer industry.

But there’s no software for Macs!

Friday, April 6th, 2007

“There’s no software for Macs!” is a common refrain in the Windows world as a reason to shun Macs. Along with “They’re more expensive!” and “They’re only good for artists and video editors and stuff!”, lack of software is part of a trifecta of shame routinely leveled at Apple by Microsoft-centric tech pundits. The problem is that two of the claims–”lack of software” and “only for artists”–are blatantly false, and the third, price, isn’t a problem if you’re the kind of person who appreciates the notion of paying a premium for premium tools. Regarding software, however, a more appropriate charge should be:

There’s waaaay more software for Windows than there is are for Macs!
Easily granted. Easily. But just because there’s more software out there for Windows–even a vast amount more–that doesn’t mean it’s better. On Windows, there are half a dozen pieces of software to accomplish literally any minor task (e.g. managing screensavers), and you can probably unearth 20 or 30 for big tasks (e.g.text editing). Many are good, many are shoddy; many are free, many are commercial; many were written by indie developers, and many were written by huge corporations. It’s going to sound bizarre, but having to slog through all that software can be a daunting task. This concept is well-explained by barry Schwartz in The Paradox of Choice, but in a nutshell, he explains that as consumption and purchasing choices skyrocket, people are more likely to be paralyzed with inaction. Who wants to spend all day deciding between 80 types of cracker? What about 40 kinds of stereo? 15 text editors? 18 antivirus packages? 22 PDF converters?

On the Mac side, there’s certainly less software, but it’s better. Even if you dispute this, you have to admit that there is a massive amount of crufty software for Windows, which makes it harder to ferret out the good stuff. In addition, there aren’t any good centralized online repositories of Windows software[1], making it difficult to find quality examples of software written by independent developers. Locating good Windows software usually involves asking a knowledgeable friend, following links from sites you already trust, using Google and verifying with Wikipedia, or heading down to CompUSA or Best Buy, which are pretty much off-limits to independent developers who don’t have significant financial support.

On the Mac side, there are several avenues to go online window-shopping for software. VersionTracker, MacUpdate, and iusethis are three such big names, and Apple itself lists a huge amount of software on their site–which is accessible from the Apple Menu of any Mac:
Mac software.png
These luxuries make it really easy to find excellent, user-reviewed software (in the case of VersionTracker, MacUpdate, and especially iusethis). Indie Mac developers typically do very well for themselves because it’s easy to find shining examples of the finest the independent developer community can offer online.

In addition, as Mac OS X is essentially a prettified BSD Unix, all Unix software will instantly work on any Mac. Linux and UNIX are related, so a lot of Linux software also runs on Macs. There are even active efforts at increasing compatability between OS X and Linux in the form of Fink and DarwinPorts. For any of this free open source Linux and UNIX software to run on Windows, it has to be partially rewritten, meaning that only the most popular will ever make it to Windows.

To prove the depth of Mac software, just take a look at the stuff Mac-heads actually use. You’ll probably find that while there are some commonalities (iTunes, Quicktime Player, Safari), most also use incredibly varied software from all over the map. For example, here are the primary pieces of software that I use, as well as the alternatives to them I could think up off the top of my head:

Many are these products are specialized, and many are common, but almost all of them have a reasonable amount of alternatives. To Mac users out there, I encourage you to post your own abridged lists in the comments!

Aha, but I’ve got you now! Macs don’t have anywhere near the kind of software businesses need!
Ack, Achilles’ heel! It’s true, Macs simply don’t have much business software. It’s only recently that Macs got any decent POS software, and you can pretty much forget about specialized stuff like real estate or dentistry. It’s a problem, and one that Apple will have to overcome if Macs are ever to gain significant traction in major industries.

And what about games, you charlatan?
I have but a single response:

Boot camp.gif

I should mention that I’ve been enjoying Half-Life 2 and Supreme Commander on my MacBook Pro for a while now. Boot camp is pretty much a revolution in Mac gaming. It used to be that Mac gamers suffered through poorly-done ports that were slower than their Windows counterparts and released a year or two later. Though the situation has hardly improved, it barely matters since we can now run Windows games at full speed! Ever since I got my MacBook Pro, I’ve opened up to the massive world of Windows games, and it’s great–especially since I can do it from my existing computer at no extra cost (besides that of buying Windows itself, of course). Truly, Boot Camp is one of the biggest advantages of today’s Macs. Due to Boot Camp and a thriving independent developer community, the software argument can be legitimately boiled down to:

There’s little dedicated Mac software for business or gaming though the ability to run Windows cuts down on the problem considerably.

So there.

[1]
ZDnet requires registration and doesn’t have reviews; CNET sponsors those who can pay for advertising treatment and is much friendlier to commercial software as well having been accused of some dodgy practices; torrent sites don’t count.

Paul Thurrot gets it right

Thursday, April 5th, 2007

I often find myself at odds with Paul Thurrot’s opinions. As a Windows guy, it’s appropriate enough for him to prefer windows, but he occasionally says some things about Macs that I find baffling. Imagine my surprise, then, to find myself vigorously agreeing with him.

Paul Thurrot says that Macs are for more technical users. For years, he’s been repeating this line over and over again, and I’ve always dismissed it as pure fantasy. After all, everybody knows Macs are easier to use, right? The big selling point is the whole “it just works” aspect–clearly targeted toward new users and non-techies.

If only it were true. As bizarre as it seems, I believe that Paul Thurrot is right. I was reading this article of his in which he refutes the common truism that Mac and Linux users use their platforms because they want to, and Windows users use Windows because they have to. Thurrot says,

“I disagree.

But I think I see the point he’s trying to make.

…this isn’t “have to” vs. want. The truth is, for most people–like, 99.99 percent of the computing using public–a computer is a tool. What they “want” isn’t a particular OS. What they want is a solution to a problem, or an answer to a need. They want email. They want the Web. They want Office. Games. Digital photos and music.

Anyone who stays up at night worrying about OS platforms just isn’t part of the mainstream. That’s not good or bad, it’s just reality.”

I was all set to yell, “No, you’ve got it all wrong!” until I read those two paragraphs. The truth is, he’s right. Most people are astoundingly non-technical and have no idea how their computer works, or even if it is doing so correctly at all. For better or worse, 99% of computer users do indeed simply want to browse the internet, write papers and emails, play some games, and organize their pictures with a minimum of fuss, entirely regardless of what may be more efficient or appropriate. It’s just not interesting to them.

I can completely understand why someone would be bored by computers. I, for example, am entirely uninterested in cars. Detailed automotive specifications bore me–I don’t care how many Vs my engine has or how many horses one would need to outpace it. I want a vehicle that gets me to my destination with as little in the way as possible. I obviously care about safety, and a built-in CD player would be nice, but beyond that, my needs and interest level are pretty modest.

Most people are this way with computers, and Windows attempts to satisfy them. For example, Windows tries to phrase easy things in terms that non-technical humans can understand. For example, hovering the mouse over Internet Explorer’s icon always produces a tooltip saying something like “Browse the Internet”–a phrase universally comprehensible to everyone who has at least heard of the internet and knows it needs to be browsed. By contrast, Apple’s web browser Safari on OS X has no such labels hinting at its purpose–it’s simply assumed that Mac users know that Safari is a web browser. This assumption displays Apple’s knowledge of the technical bent of its users, and it also answers the otherwise puzzling question of why so many Windows switchers still use Firefox (or, *shudder* Internet Explorer) on their new Mac. There are also plenty of other nods to the differing technical abilities of the the platforms’ user bases sprinkled around. Here are a few:

Close window vs quit application
A convention many Windows users and switchers never learn when they have to use Macs is that of applications not quitting when their last window is closed. The principle behind this decision is that in an app that can open multiple documents or may need to operate invisibly, there is some utility in keeping it running when it has no windows open. For example, if you close the last open document in the Mac version of Microsoft Word, Word itself stays open, waiting for you to open a new one. If you close iTunes’ window, it continues to play music.

Most Windows users are entirely unaware of this behavior, and it’s obvious when a Windows user has been on a Mac because five to ten open applications with no windows will be sitting happily on the Dock waiting for instructions. If they are ever made aware of their “mistake”, your average Windows user will be baffled by the behavior. The Mac user will attempt to explain the “Quit” command and its accompanying keyboard shortcut, and how some applications may need to stay open in the background, but this is nonsense to most Windows users. OS X’s window management system actively takes getting used to to avoid cluttering the system with unused running applications–a departure from the friendlier system on Windows which assumes you’re done with an application when you close its last window. In short, the Mac system requires technical comprehension to understand and technical proficiency to use–both things that few Windows users are interested in possessing or acquiring.

Installing software
Mac users like to point out how easy it is to install software on a Mac. Download the disk image, double-click it to mount it, open the resulting volume, drag the application to your applications folder, then unmount the volume and throw away the disk image. What could be simpler?

Unfortunately, this task is not apparent if you’ve never done it before. For all the derision that Wizards garner in the Mac community, they are good for guiding those unfamiliar with the procedure for something. Installing Mac software requires that you know:
1) That you can drag things to your applications folder
2) That the disk image can be opened (i.e. don’t drag the disk image to your apps folder)
3) That the disk image is not itself the application (i.e. don’t drag the resulting volume to your apps folder)
4) That you shouldn’t run the application from the disk image (i.e. this is the one you do want to drag to your apps folder)
5) That can and should unmount the volume and throw away the disk image when the applications is in your applications folder.

That’s a lot of stuff to learn, and a lot of ways to fail if you don’t already know. Once you get the hang of it, the advantages of the Mac way become immediately apparent, but there’s no way to figure it out besided trial and error, being taught by another Mac user, or if the developer of the software has kindly put instructions in the disk image, like so:
Delicious library.png

However, this is only helpful if you’ve already opened up the disk image, and doesn’t tell you anything about what should be done once you’re done dragging it to the right place, nor does it provide an easy way to locate the Applications folder (though many do, helpfully enough).

Skype on OS X vs Skype on Windows[1]
The Skype people understand the audiences of the platforms. As a cross-platform app, Skype has client programs that run on all three major OSs, but the most striking difference is between the Windows and Mac versions. Skype on Windows is very easy to figure out. All the buttons are prominently labeled, and common tasks are clearly spelled out in obvious places. My favorite example is the video chat interface. If a usable camera is present, a button entitled “Start My Video” appears. If the video is currently up and running, the button changes to “Stop My Video”. This is 100% obvious and extremely easy to figure out.

skype-video-windows.png

On the Mac version, however the video button is entirely unlabeled. Instead, it’s just a little symbol. Mac-heads will immediately recognize the symbol because it’s the same symbol used throughout the OS whenever video is present or possible. But for those unfamiliar with the convention, the button is cryptic. These people may well never figure out how to start up the video and wind up extremely frustrated.

Skype video mac.png

The Skype team knows that Mac users will figure out that the tiny unlabeled symbol means “start video”. Does this mean that Mac users are smarter than Windows users? No, it simply means that they can count on Mac users being more technically inclined and more likely to experiment if the solution isn’t immediately obvious. That the Windows version of Skype involves more hand-holding speaks more to the technical ability of Windows users, not their intelligence.

The truth is, Mac users and Windows users really are different. Typical Windows users want their tasks done with a minimum of fuss, usually on the cheapest machine possible. Typical Mac users want and expect quality and luxury in their computers.[2] Mac users understand the value of paying a premium for premium tools. They want systems and machines that “just work” not because they are unable to fix irritating technical problems themselves, but because they understand that doing so is a waste of their time. They constantly want more from their computers because they comprehend the value that smoothly functioning computers can add to their lives in the form of increased efficiency, productivity, and communication. They use their computer skills to create content for others to enjoy–in 1997, when Apple was floundering and suffocating under poor business decisions, around 64% of all websites were found to have been made on Macs.[3]

Why then, do Macs have the reputation of being easier to use if their primary audience doesn’t need such ease of use? The answer is twofold: first of all, Mac users like things that are easy to use. They’re not fond of wrestling with their machines to get them to work; they’d rather be doing something fun or interesting or productive. It just so happens that Windows’s primary audience likes things that are easy to use as well. The second reason is that though Windows tries to hide technical complexity from its users, it often fails gruesomely. Windows users have come to expect that random failures, virus infections, lost data, and inscrutable configuration boxes are sad facts of life that one must put up with if one wants to accomplish things with a computer. For many of these people, life on the Mac side where things are promised to be easier is quite appealing.

The nature of Mac users and their expectations explains the difference in Apple’s product line and that of all other major manufacturers. Apple’s cheapest Laptop costs $1100, and it comes with the same version of OS X as all other Macs, as well as the same premium software. By contrast, Dell’s cheapest laptop is under $600, comes with Windows Vista Home Basic, and is preloaded with all kinds of nagware and spyware used to offset the ridiculously low price. If one wants “luxury” features like a version of Vista that supports the major features (Home Premium), enough RAM to support that version of Vista, a hard drive that doesn’t start out half full, Microsoft Word, and Antivirus, the cost has ballooned to around $900. Without these “luxury” features, the PC is almost useless; with them, the cost is reasonably close to that of a Mac that already comes with most everything necessary, and the PC still doesn’t come with a built-in camera or a FireWire port, and it’s a pound heavier and half an inch thicker.

The major manufacturers prey on the sensibilities of Windows users who do not believe that they need quality, convinced that because they perceive their needs to be modest, their computer should be the same. These are people who buy sub-$1000 computers, only to throw them out two to three years later when, through no fault of their own, their systems are overrun by spyware, adware and viruses and run as slow as molasses. They are simply unaware of superior alternatives or the advantages of using them, or are hesitant to try them out of fear of leaving their Windows comfort zone.

It is a shame that rather than nurturing and supporting these non-technical people who have no desire to become technical, Microsoft and PC manufacturers have set the standard to computers that often break down, fail to work, and in spite of everything, require significant technical knowledge to keep up and running smoothly. The appeal of Macs is that despite the fact that some technical knowledge is preferred, the baseline of quality will support the most non-technical users for a long time.

[1]
Skype pictures brutally ripped off the Skype website and doctored for personal gain without permission. Sorry, Skype team.

[2]
Note that this does not include those who have been coerced by their spouses/children/businesses/universities; only those who willingly made an informed decision can reasonably be counted.

[3]
So says Time Magazine