Quote:
Originally posted by shivohum
Thanks for the info on the email clients. I'll have to check Entourage out some time, although I hear it's similar to Outlook. |
It's actually very different from Outlook; well, it's similar in that it includes a calendar, to-do list, and contacts, but apart from that they're different. In fact, there's an Outlook client for Mac, too. Outlook is a proprietary Exchange Server client; Entourage is a POP/IMAP client, and is much more powerful and extensible (and has a better interface).
Quote:
| Is there any way in which these programs are the best on the market other than the question of interface? Interface is personal preference, and while I agree that some are patently bad and others spectacular, it seems hard to pin best-of-breed solely on that. What sorts of features do they have that PC equivalents lack--especially in the shareware or freeware arenas? |
While it's true that declaring something the "best" is to some degree subjective, much of the accolades that the i-apps have received have been because they represent a very good combination of features, power, and usability. Does that mean they include every single feature found in every competing product? No. But they are consistently rated the highest by both users and reviewers.
And like someone else mentioned, never underestimate the value of good interface. For example, the "home movie" application that comes with many new XP computers is fairly bad. Put new users in front of it and most will give up in frustration. iMovie, on the other hand, is easy to understand and easy to use. "Intuitive" is an adjective that I frequently find myself using to describe Apple software -- it works the way you expect it to work.
Quote:
Still, it's not as if Windows XP doesn't possess many valuable and exclusive items too:
System Restore (the most important difference between 2000 and XP)
Many more drivers than OS X
MSN Messenger
Netmeeting
Remote Assistance and Control |
System Restore is a VERY welcome addition (especially given the propensity of older versions of Windows to require a system re-install
). I also agree that it's great that Netmeeting is built-in.
But I don't necessarily agree with you about "many more drivers" necessarily being an advantage or an exclusive. Keep in mind that many peripherals that require drivers on Windows work without drivers on Mac OS X (mice, USB storage, FireWire devices, keyboards, etc.). In addition, because OS X includes CUPS (
http://www.cups.org/), OS X provides complete printing services for almost every PostScript or raster printer ever made. So X doesn't need as many drivers as Windows does.
But in the end, both XP and X are pretty much plug-and-play. You simply plug the peripheral in and it works. For example, I plugged in a Samsung USB laser printer the other day, and I didn't need to do anything -- it was automatically configured and showed up as an available printer in every print dialog without me needing to touch a thing. Plus since I have Printer Sharing enabled, it was also available for every other computer on my network (and for those computers running X, with no configuration).
MSN Messenger also works on the Mac (both Microsoft's own MSNM client, and via any of the third-party multi-chat clients out there). And OS X includes Remote Access, SSH, and Remote Apple Events, and Microsoft's Remote Desktop Client is a free download
[Don't get me wrong; I'm not trying to argue -- I'm just trying to give you a bit more info about what's there and what's no
]
Quote:
| This is true, but to me, Windows represents security |
What about the >50 security bulletins so far this year that have been issu... oh, not that kind of security
(just kidding)
Quote:
| The newest, the best, the most well-known will always come fastest to the Windows marketplace. |
To some degree, I agree with you. A lot of stuff comes first to Windows because it has such a huge market share. But there's also some amount of the perception vs. reality thing going on -- because of the small market share, when something new comes out for Mac, you don't hear about it.
Quote:
| However, I am coming to see that my viewpoint may not be as valid for many people who aren't power users. They may simply want their computer to do a few tasks (like Flasken's brother) and the interface and style may be practically *everything*. For them perhaps Macs are the way. |
Don't let the nice interface fool you; Mac OS X is UNIX
It's a power user's dream. You can configure it any way you want it. You can compile open source software for it. You can write your own software. You have every feature, and every bit of power, of the most powerful UNIX system, or you can ignore all that and simply do things the easy way with a great interface. In my opinion, that's what makes the current Mac so great. Granted, it does have the MAJOR disadvantage that, well, it's not Windows, so it's not used by the majority of users. But at least it provides compatibility -- native Windows sharing built-in, file compatibility, Windows VPN, etc. So it's much more feasible to use a Mac and coexist with Windows PCs than it used to be. I tended to criticize the pre-X Mac OS quite a bit, I'm ecstatic about X precisely because I *am* a "power user."
Quote:
| I like the Windows taskbar, for instance, and I think going up to that icon in the upper-right hand corner of the screen to change programs is annoying. I'm probably way behind the curve here though and am revealing my ignorance |
Well, the ability to switch between applications using option/alt-tab (just like on Windows) has been built into the OS for at least 4 or 5 years now, and the application menu you talk about doesn't even exist in OS X
OS X also has the Dock, which is kind of like the Windows TaskBar, but is a slightly different beast with a bit more functionality.
I would only use the word "ignorant" if you mean "not fully aware" -- you're certainly not lacking in any mental capacity, shiv
