Why Apple?

[Snowmonkey]

Thanks Eloise. Since I have a Mac, I'm trying to get more familiar with OSX, though I'm still finding myself mainly using Windows.

 

With an icon on the Dock most have a "recently used" or "show recent" if you right-click / crtl-click ... is this the same as I'm unaware what the "Jump List" is.

With a jump list, like with OSX, you can right click an icon on the dock and get a pop-up menu with "recently used", but also, depending on the implementation, there may also be frequently used files or any files the user chooses to pin to the icon. There may also be options like open a new file or a new tab or a new window.

 

 

Personally I'm glad it doesn't have thumbnail previews.

Where thumbnail previews can be handy is when an app has several windows open. When you pass the cursor over the app's icon in the dock, thumbnails of all the open windows pop-up, making it easy to select the window you want.

 

 

Sounds quite useful and I am unaware of similar under Mac OSX

I believe there is a utility called iSnap which brings most of Aero Snap's functionality to the Mac. I haven't tried it out yet.

 

 

OS X and UNIX based systems just don't work this way - You can persistently mount a drive but "drive letters" just don't exist in the same was. Utilising drive letters this way is a hang over from the underlying DOS structures Windows still users.

It's not so much the drive letters as such. It's more that a network drive doesn't seem to appear on a menu when you want to save a file. I find that when I want to save a download to my NAS, I have to save the file to the desktop, open the NAS in finder and drag the file to the NAS (or am I missing something?).

 

 

It just doesn't ... at least it means that downloadings don't stop and processing can continue in the background. Again its more of a choice of how things work rather than a better or worse solution. It doesn't usually occupy memory however as memory management deals with this.

It just doesn't seem logical to have the menu bar physically detached from the active window. If you are running a dual monitor setup, and an app has a window open in the secondary monitor, do you have to move go back to the primary monitor to access menu options for that window? Also, if all an app's windows are closed and the app is not doing anything in the background, what does it mean for the app's menu bar to be displayed? Not intuitive.

 

Well personally I find this a lot better method than Windows ... the only difference is that with Windows you are letting the install routine have full control over your system.

It's OK once you know what to do, but it doesn't seem to gel with the OSX's claim to be intuitive. Feels more like a hangover from Unix.

 

I guess that's the point with both OS's - they both feel intuitive once you are familiar enough to get them to do what you want without having to think about it.

[Skeptic]

Sounds quite useful and I am unaware of similar under Mac OSX

Irradiated Software - Cinch - Window Management at its Simplest

 

Their SizeUp program is also rather useful. What's nice about it is that you can set it to do an uneven split like 70/30 rather than being stuck with 50/50.

I've heard good things about Divvy and Moom too, but have not tried either of those.

Edit: With the new features in Moom, it looks like the best App for this now.

[Jud]

Thanks Eloise. Since I have a Mac, I'm trying to get more familiar with OSX, though I'm still finding myself mainly using Windows.

 

I believe there is a utility called iSnap which brings most of Aero Snap's functionality to the Mac. I haven't tried it out yet.

 

As someone who uses both OSs - Snap disturbs me, because from my own point of view and way of working, it means the OS is taking over window placement and sizing from me. (I also have a slight tremor in my right hand, meaning there are times I try to get near a corner with a window, then overshoot, resulting in a snap I didn't intend.) From working with various Unix-like OSs over the years, I've become accustomed to having multiple windows open on the desktop in various sizes, something that is at least equivalently easy to do in OS X as it is in Windows. (Handling windows in general is far easier for me with Apple laptops than with Win laptops, since Apple has incorporated clicking into its trackpads, something I was unable to find in a laptop with Windows pre-installed.) OS X and other Unix-like OSs also have workspaces (multiple easily accessible desktops), which I also find useful. Of course none of this helps you, since there is at least one work mode involving side-by-side comparison of window content that you find essential and that OS X in off-the-shelf form doesn't do. Hope you find a 3rd party app that's as convenient, or close.

 

It's not so much the drive letters as such. It's more that a network drive doesn't seem to appear on a menu when you want to save a file. I find that when I want to save a download to my NAS, I have to save the file to the desktop, open the NAS in finder and drag the file to the NAS (or am I missing something?).

 

Interesting - my experience is a bit the opposite. When moving music files between my two external drives, one attached to my MBP downstairs, one to my Win desktop upstairs, I always have to do this from the MBP. It readily networks with my Win machine and the attached drive, enabling me to drag and drop files from the downstairs drive to my upstairs one. OTOH, I have never yet been able to figure out how to do the same with my Win machine. It will show me the MBP on my network, but will not allow me to move files to it.

 

It just doesn't seem logical to have the menu bar physically detached from the active window. If you are running a dual monitor setup, and an app has a window open in the secondary monitor, do you have to move go back to the primary monitor to access menu options for that window? Also, if all an app's windows are closed and the app is not doing anything in the background, what does it mean for the app's menu bar to be displayed? Not intuitive.

 

 

It's OK once you know what to do, but it doesn't seem to gel with the OSX's claim to be intuitive. Feels more like a hangover from Unix.

 

I agree with you here. Not sure that's a hangover from Unix, as I've never seen it in another Unix-type OS. I think it's a hangover from the Mac OS, which always had this. I will point out, however, that at work where I have a dual monitor Windows 7 setup, it does feel strange to have to move to the other monitor in order to do things like hover the taskbar icon to bring up thumbnails, for example.

 

I guess that's the point with both OS's - they both feel intuitive once you are familiar enough to get them to do what you want without having to think about it.

 

Exactly! Working on my father's iMac was a source of some frustration back when I had no Apple hardware. Now OS X feels very natural.

[Jud]

It's not so much the drive letters as such. It's more that a network drive doesn't seem to appear on a menu when you want to save a file. I find that when I want to save a download to my NAS, I have to save the file to the desktop, open the NAS in finder and drag the file to the NAS (or am I missing something?).

 

 

Thinking a little more about this - what you want to do is configure system preferences to show the NAS as a mounted drive on your desktop. (I did this so long ago for my external drives that I don't remember how. Anyone?) Then you can drop files directly to it, or open it and drop files on folders within it.

[orgel]

Thinking a little more about this - what you want to do is configure system preferences to show the NAS as a mounted drive on your desktop. (I did this so long ago for my external drives that I don't remember how. Anyone?) Then you can drop files directly to it, or open it and drop files on folders within it.

 

Finder -> Preferences -> General

 

The thing is, connected servers should show up in Open/Save dialogs regardless of whether you've set network volumes to show on the desktop or not. Just keep moving up until you're at the top level in the hierarchy.

 

FWIW, I spend way too much time moving files around. I find that Path Finder, a Finder substitute (more or less) lets me do a lot of file operations in a more efficient manner than the Finder does. It's not perfect, but it's pretty darn good.

 

(Anyone remember DiskTop? I loved that thing.)

 

--David

[Skeptic]

As someone who uses both OSs - Snap disturbs me, because from my own point of view and way of working, it means the OS is taking over window placement and sizing from me. (I also have a slight tremor in my right hand, meaning there are times I try to get near a corner with a window, then overshoot, resulting in a snap I didn't intend.)

Control Panel > Ease of Access Center > Mouse > Prevent windows from being automatically arranged when moved to the edge of the screen.

 

Handling windows in general is far easier for me with Apple laptops than with Win laptops, since Apple has incorporated clicking into its trackpads, something I was unable to find in a laptop with Windows pre-installed.

This is common for most trackpads now.

 

OS X and other Unix-like OSs also have workspaces (multiple easily accessible desktops), which I also find useful.

Windows has actually had support for virtual desktops for a long time, however this functionality is not exposed to the user by default.

 

Desktops

 

Windows 10 is going to include new UI controls for this feature to make it accessible to normal users.

OSX has a fantastic implementation of virtual desktops with fullscreen windows when using one of their notebooks. By restricting the workspace to a single fullscreen app it's easy enough that even people who are not tech-savvy at all seem to have no problem with it.

 

I will say that as a power-user, I greatly preferred the old Spaces and Exposé functionality to "Mission Control" though.

 

Interesting - my experience is a bit the opposite. When moving music files between my two external drives, one attached to my MBP downstairs, one to my Win desktop upstairs, I always have to do this from the MBP. It readily networks with my Win machine and the attached drive, enabling me to drag and drop files from the downstairs drive to my upstairs one. OTOH, I have never yet been able to figure out how to do the same with my Win machine. It will show me the MBP on my network, but will not allow me to move files to it.

OSX is always a pain in the rear for sharing files over networks in my experience, whether it's trying to connect to a Windows machine or vice-versa.

Most of the time I end up throwing the files onto a portable drive and transferring them that way instead.

 

I agree with you here. Not sure that's a hangover from Unix, as I've never seen it in another Unix-type OS. I think it's a hangover from the Mac OS, which always had this. I will point out, however, that at work where I have a dual monitor Windows 7 setup, it does feel strange to have to move to the other monitor in order to do things like hover the taskbar icon to bring up thumbnails, for example.

The latest versions of both Windows and OSX both have improved multi-monitor support, with options to display a taskbar/menu-bar on all displays.

 

I always prefer to have one large, high resolution display (e.g. 34" 3440x1440) to multiple monitors though.

Multi-monitor is more hassle than it's worth in my opinion.

 

For multi-monitor setups, having the menus inside the window certainly makes things easier, but I do prefer OSX's global menu bar rather than cluttering up small app windows.

I don't really like the way that menu-less windows, or windows using the ribbon instead of menus work on Windows.

 

Exactly! Working on my father's iMac was a source of some frustration back when I had no Apple hardware. Now OS X feels very natural.

I've honestly never had much difficulty switching back and forth between both.

What I will say is that when something does go wrong with OSX, it tends to be a lot harder to fix it.

[Snowmonkey]

As someone who uses both OSs - Snap disturbs me, because from my own point of view and way of working, it means the OS is taking over window placement and sizing from me. (I also have a slight tremor in my right hand, meaning there are times I try to get near a corner with a window, then overshoot, resulting in a snap I didn't intend.)

Actually, I tend to use Windows Key-Right Arrow and Windows Key-Left Arrow to snap two windows side by side. I find this particularly useful for cross-referencing two files or for dragging data from one to the other.

 

Interesting - my experience is a bit the opposite. When moving music files between my two external drives, one attached to my MBP downstairs, one to my Win desktop upstairs, I always have to do this from the MBP. It readily networks with my Win machine and the attached drive, enabling me to drag and drop files from the downstairs drive to my upstairs one. OTOH, I have never yet been able to figure out how to do the same with my Win machine. It will show me the MBP on my network, but will not allow me to move files to it.

 

I have that problem moving files to my wife's iMac from the Windows computers on my network, but it seems to be the iMac which is refusing to play nice. It insists everything gets dropped into its dropbox folder. Obviously that's a security feature, but I have never been able to figure out how to configure the Mac to allow the network access to other folders on its HDD (admittedly, I haven't tried very hard).

 

Thinking a little more about this - what you want to do is configure system preferences to show the NAS as a mounted drive on your desktop. (I did this so long ago for my external drives that I don't remember how. Anyone?) Then you can drop files directly to it, or open it and drop files on folders within it.

I already do something similar by having an alias for my NAS on the dock, but it still doesn't appear on a "Save As" menu.

 

I should say that I find OSX perfectly easy to work with. It's just that, at this stage of my familiarity, I find I need more steps/keystrokes to get some simple things done than I do with Windows.

[Snowmonkey]

The thing is, connected servers should show up in Open/Save dialogs regardless of whether you've set network volumes to show on the desktop or not. Just keep moving up until you're at the top level in the hierarchy.

Eureka! I just tried "Save Page As..." from Chrome. Two drop-downs are presented: "Save As" and "Where". My problem is that when I click "Where", my network drive does not appear, but I just clicked the "Save As" drop-down and up pops a Finder window with all options available.

Now to my addled Windows brain, if presented with a "Where" option, you would click that rather than "Save As" to choose where you wanted a file saved. In fact, what is that "Where" option even doing there?

Never mind, now that I know about that, I'm sure it will soon appear to be perfectly "intuitive".

 

The other thing is, it still seems much smoother with Windows, as I have a network share called "Downloads" mapped as Drive D:, so I just save stuff straight to Drive D: instead of having to drill down through the hierarchy every time.

[kumakuma]

Eureka! I just tried "Save Page As..." from Chrome. Two drop-downs are presented: "Save As" and "Where". My problem is that when I click "Where", my network drive does not appear, but I just clicked the "Save As" drop-down and up pops a Finder window with all options available.

Now to my addled Windows brain, if presented with a "Where" option, you would click that rather than "Save As" to choose where you wanted a file saved. In fact, what is that "Where" option even doing there?

Never mind, now that I know about that, I'm sure it will soon appear to be perfectly "intuitive".

 

The other thing is, it still seems much smoother with Windows, as I have a network share called "Downloads" mapped as Drive D:, so I just save stuff straight to Drive D: instead of having to drill down through the hierarchy every time.

 

Can you add your network drive as a Favorite?

 

Also, you can get a full Finder window rather than than the "Where" drop down by clicking the little inverted triangle.

[orgel]

Eureka! I just tried "Save Page As..." from Chrome. Two drop-downs are presented: "Save As" and "Where". My problem is that when I click "Where", my network drive does not appear, but I just clicked the "Save As" drop-down and up pops a Finder window with all options available.

Now to my addled Windows brain, if presented with a "Where" option, you would click that rather than "Save As" to choose where you wanted a file saved. In fact, what is that "Where" option even doing there?

 

Yeah, if you're seeing the "lite" Open/Save dialog, I think you always want to click on the disclosure triangle next to the filename field at the top of the dialog. The good news is that — I'm pretty sure — each application will remember your choice of the "pro" Open/Save dialog.

 

I think the "Where" option is mostly there for grandma and her ilk.

 

The other thing is, it still seems much smoother with Windows, as I have a network share called "Downloads" mapped as Drive D:, so I just save stuff straight to Drive D: instead of having to drill down through the hierarchy every time.

 

In a Finder window, you can drag "Downloads" to the sidebar, and then it will be there in (expanded) Open/Save dialogs when you need it. You might need to adjust your Finder -> Preferences -> Sidebar settings. (You might want to consider renaming your network share — e.g., to "Music Downloads" — so as to avoid confusion with the "special" Downloads folder that comes built in with OS X.)

 

I think my work here is done. Hi-yo Silver! Away!

 

--David

[gmgraves]

Of all the people I know, not counting those who couldn't begin to use a computer in any way that would make sense even if they tried, I can't think of a single person who doesn't really know that there are alternatives out there. The main reason why those who have started using a Mac aren't willing to go back to using Windows is exactly because they aren't very sophisticated when it comes to computers.

 

If by "not very sophisticated", you mean that they aren't willing to put up with a platform that makes using using a computer much more difficult and arcane than it needs to be, Then you are right. Hint. Computers need to be simple and consistent so that they empower everyone, not just the "anointed few". I've run across computer elitist like you for years. They're "IT Professionals", they understand computers better than anyone and are far above the rest of us. If early cars had been as complex and arcane as modern computers, we'd all still be riding horses. Of the three popular OSes, Linux is the most daunting, Windows is the next most arcane, and while Mac OS is by far the least daunting and arcane, it's still not where computers need to eventually be in terms of simplicity. Your notion that computers need to be complex and off-putting to the average user in order to be useful is simply wrong-headed and ultimately counter-productive.

 

Software choice on OS X is an important issue to me and to most Windows users I know, and so is compatibility.

 

That's simply nonsense in my opinion. I can't think of a single thing that one would or could do with a computer that there is not a equivalent program on Mac to any Win app. As far as compatibility is concerned, most Mac apps that are different from the Win app (like Omnigraffle vs Visio) will open files created in the Win app and will save in the Win app's format.

 

Running on Parallels slows performance when it's not needed, and on top of that, the $794 Mac Mini i7 would still require a Windows license, whereas the similarly priced and similarly spec'd Zotac bundle description that I put together earlier in the thread already included the Full version of Windows 8.1 Pro, which, like I said, utterly eliminates the need to run OS X to me and most Windows users I know. I am not trying to suggest that Windows is necessarily always, for every person under the sun, clearly superior to OS X. It's not. In fact, I already said that several times on here. My point is that those who claim that OS X is necessarily always superior to Windows are just full of it, and, those who claim it as though their life depended on it are more full of it.

 

Again, your words speak more toward your own prejudices than they do to the Mac fans' prejudices here. Why run Parallels when you can use Boot Camp to run Windows directly? And as far as I can see, you get a Windows license when you buy a legal copy of Windows to install on your Mac. Parallels and VMWare are useful when one needs to occasionally run a Win app for some purpose, but They're not really the best solution to run Windows as a "guest OS" on a virtual machine all the time. BTW, I don't find the performance hit in VMWare to be all that noticeable.

 

Finally, people who run Windows on a Mac do so because they'd rather use a Mac than Windows and when they run Windows either with Boot Camp or some virtual machine, it's because they are forced to by their work requirements or for business reasons. They do what they have to do in Windows and then go back to "fun" computing on their MacOS as soon as they can.

[Snowmonkey]

Can you add your network drive as a Favorite?

Just tried it and it works. Thank you.

 

Likewise, thank you orgel, for much the same suggestion.

[Snowmonkey]

Finally, people who run Windows on a Mac do so because they'd rather use a Mac than Windows and when they run Windows either with Boot Camp or some virtual machine, it's because they are forced to by their work requirements or for business reasons. They do what they have to do in Windows and then go back to "fun" computing on their MacOS as soon as they can.

It's only when I am doing "work" that I notice any difference between the OS's. If I am fiddling around watching Youtube, or browsing forums, I don't give a damn whether I am booted up in Windows or OSX.

 

I don't really play computer games to speak of, but I gather Windows has that aspect of "fun" computing pretty well sewn up.

[jabbr]

to slightly "correct" SPDIF-USB's comment then...

 

OS X runs only on the Mac unless you are willing to break the AUP and of course obtain a copy of OSX through piracy, so there is a much smaller set of hardware and software to choose from as only Apple license their hardware for OS X.

 

So yes, you can create a Hackintosh, but (a) you have no support and (b) at any moment the installation may break due to an update which © is usually tricky to apply.

 

Eloise

 

Yes. Just making a point really. Actually the copy isn't obtained through piracy but nonetheless installing OS X in a non-Apple branded machine is against their terms of use. I actually have Apple machines which have been (very) extensively modified so we might be splitting hairs but I don't intend to encourage people to break Apple's terms of use.

[gmgraves]

It's only when I am doing "work" that I notice any difference between the OS's. If I am fiddling around watching Youtube, or browsing forums, I don't give a damn whether I am booted up in Windows or OSX.

 

I don't really play computer games to speak of, but I gather Windows has that aspect of "fun" computing pretty well sewn up.

 

 

Windows does have that aspect of "fun" computing all tied up, but believe me, it's not because Windows is fun to use, it's because one can build a very fast Windows gaming machine with expensive graphics cards and Apple doesn't "play" in that arena (although I suspect that the new Mac Pro 12-core machine is fast enough for anything) Unfortunately the gaming companies don't make Mac versions of those games because of the above.

[Snowmonkey]

OK, so all aspects of web browsing - makes no difference.

 

Gaming - belongs to Windows.

 

Listening to music - I guess you'd have to ask someone who uses a Windows machine for a music server, like ummmm - your good self.

 

So what aspects of "fun" computing are left?

[Harpy]

[One and a half]

I use both Windows and OSX, more Windows for everyday computing and for Jriver, OSX is on trial as a background server to download music files which can be controlled by remote access over the net.

 

A case in question today, the Qobuz app (OSX) by default saves music in a User/username/music/qobuz folder, that's what the preferences say. It turns out, because I was using OSX, Qobuz decided to download ALAC instead of FLAC, I'm sure I selected FLAC.

Sure enough the downloader loaded ALAC, but I needed to find the files, to delete them and re-download to FLAC.

Well, these issues are with the quaint Qobuz downloader, but the next problem is with OSX and Finder.

I opened Finder to find....where is this User/username/music/qobuz folder from this picture?

 

 

I eventually used Forklift to find the files, since that app starts from the main drive and doesn't treat people like infantiles.

 

How is this meant to be easy? How to know where these files are from Finder?

 

PS : I could have used dbpoweramp to convert the files, but just wanted to be sure that Qobuz selected the right files this time. This trailing off of filenames ... and not showing the end and extensions is very poor.

[Snowmonkey]

How is this meant to be easy? How to know where these files are from Finder?

You have Downloads selected on the menu. The Downloads folder does not seem to be part of the path: /Users/op/Music/Qobuz. Are you using Bootcamp? Ironically, the only way I have found to look at OSX's folder structure is to boot into Windows, then use Explorer. This reveals the path D:/Users/op/Music so that's where your files should be. I don't know why Finder goes out of its way to hide these things. I'm sure one of the OSX experts can explain.

[spdif-usb]

ROTFLMAO!

Here you are another IT person thinking they know what is going on. You do realize that your DAC is not Async in the way you are claiming? The EE Minimax is a Sabre based DAC that uses a 80 MHz clock to resample on the input. That is not the asynchronous data transmission you are implying/describing would be the end all cure (like there is one). Granted, it is termed AsychronousSampleRateConversion, but it is not what you are referencing which requires two clocks, one for each family of 44.1k and 48k going to the chip. The reason everything sounds the same is because it is being resampled the same on the input of the DAC chip. This is akin to the original Benchmark DAC which had the same sonic "feature"- everything sounded the same.

 

On topic, I am one of the few I know that has switched from Mac to Windows. I did so because the player programs I am interested in (XXHighend and HQPlayer) are and where only available in Windows. After running W7 and then W8 for a the last couple of years, I am thinking of building a Hackintosh. When it comes to getting things done, the Macs are easier to be productive on even if the hardware is a bit behind.

Last time I checked, the M2Tech OEM asynchronous USB 2.0 interface, which is built into the Eastern Electric MiniMax DAC Plus by design, was asynchronous USB. The reason why it is immune to the electric noise is not because it is asynchronous USB, but because it is adequately galvanically isolated asynchronous USB.

[Snowmonkey]

Just worked it out. If you select File->New Finder Window in Finder, the new window opens with the title Macintosh HD and the Users folder is listed. From there you can drill down. Strangely, it seems that having done it once, Finder now opens with a window showing the folder structure until you select anything from the favourites section of the sidebar, at which time you need to open a new window again.

[Jud]

You have Downloads selected on the menu. The Downloads folder does not seem to be part of the path: /Users/op/Music/Qobuz. Are you using Bootcamp? Ironically, the only way I have found to look at OSX's folder structure is to boot into Windows, then use Explorer. This reveals the path D:/Users/op/Music so that's where your files should be. I don't know why Finder goes out of its way to hide these things. I'm sure one of the OSX experts can explain.

 

Neither Finder nor File Explorer works instinctively for me. I prefer the traditional Unix way of doing things, as reflected by FreeBSD and most Linux distros: (1) Have a canonical directory structure; and (2) Provide user choice of a wide variety of programs for file management, allowing individual users to find the one that's most natural for them.

 

Windows pretty well dismissed the canonical Unix directory structure and went its own way. OS X does have quite a bit of the canonical structure, but then overlays various folders designed to make things "user friendly," which to my mind just causes confusion. Recent versions of Windows have done something similar (the "libraries" for Music, Pictures, etc.).

 

There are third party file management programs for both Windows and OS X that are more capable than Finder and File Explorer, and some may find one or more of these more natural to work with than the defaults.

[One and a half]

Just worked it out. If you select File->New Finder Window in Finder, the new window opens with the title Macintosh HD and the Users folder is listed. From there you can drill down. Strangely, it seems that having done it once, Finder now opens with a window showing the folder structure until you select anything from the favourites section of the sidebar, at which time you need to open a new window again.

 

Ahh, such an easy way isn't it, not. Am not using Bootcamp on that machine, so I would be out of luck. Maybe something dumb like GO (the path) might work? Windows explorer, you can copy the path of any explorer window or app, and paste it into multiple Explorer windows, that is the ones that look like a mini version of Explorer itself. There's a short path window which some apps use, and you can't paste the path in, they are the useless ones.

 

One of the main reasons to return to Windows on a MBP Retina is the screen font. For any web browser, the OSX fonts appear fuzzy, and after futzing around with font smoothing, and researching for an afternoon, the eye strain was too much on OSX and resorted to the clarity of Windows rather "poor rendering ability" at fonts as experts from OSX tended to advise.

[One and a half]

Neither Finder nor File Explorer works instinctively for me. I prefer the traditional Unix way of doing things, as reflected by FreeBSD and most Linux distros: (1) Have a canonical directory structure; and (2) Provide user choice of a wide variety of programs for file management, allowing individual users to find the one that's most natural for them.

 

Windows pretty well dismissed the canonical Unix directory structure and went its own way. OS X does have quite a bit of the canonical structure, but then overlays various folders designed to make things "user friendly," which to my mind just causes confusion. Recent versions of Windows have done something similar (the "libraries" for Music, Pictures, etc.).

 

There are third party file management programs for both Windows and OS X that are more capable than Finder and File Explorer, and some may find one or more of these more natural to work with than the defaults.

 

Agree with Finder and Explorer, both are important and a few vendors have exceeded these basic apps. Xplorer isn't bad with multiple tabbed windows, but when the going gets tough it can fall over (so can finder and Explorer). An example of this is multiple copy streams in Explorer and Xplorer, they both struggle. Apps like Beyond Compare have no such issue. Forklift is quite good with the two pane approach and multiple copy setups are performed sequentially, rather than in parallel, cheats way out.

 

I use Libraries quite a bit, as you can combine several locations to form one library. For example SACD.iso files might be on one local drive, FLAC on another network location, but the whole library "file" combines both locations into the one music library. Apps which recognise libraries take that into their stride like Jriver make this easy.

[spdif-usb]

If by "not very sophisticated", you mean that they aren't willing to put up with a platform that makes using using a computer much more difficult and arcane than it needs to be, Then you are right. Hint. Computers need to be simple and consistent so that they empower everyone, not just the "anointed few". I've run across computer elitist like you for years. They're "IT Professionals", they understand computers better than anyone and are far above the rest of us. If early cars had been as complex and arcane as modern computers, we'd all still be riding horses. Of the three popular OSes, Linux is the most daunting, Windows is the next most arcane, and while Mac OS is by far the least daunting and arcane, it's still not where computers need to eventually be in terms of simplicity. Your notion that computers need to be complex and off-putting to the average user in order to be useful is simply wrong-headed and ultimately counter-productive.

 

 

 

That's simply nonsense in my opinion. I can't think of a single thing that one would or could do with a computer that there is not a equivalent program on Mac to any Win app. As far as compatibility is concerned, most Mac apps that are different from the Win app (like Omnigraffle vs Visio) will open files created in the Win app and will save in the Win app's format.

 

 

 

Again, your words speak more toward your own prejudices than they do to the Mac fans' prejudices here. Why run Parallels when you can use Boot Camp to run Windows directly? And as far as I can see, you get a Windows license when you buy a legal copy of Windows to install on your Mac. Parallels and VMWare are useful when one needs to occasionally run a Win app for some purpose, but They're not really the best solution to run Windows as a "guest OS" on a virtual machine all the time. BTW, I don't find the performance hit in VMWare to be all that noticeable.

 

Finally, people who run Windows on a Mac do so because they'd rather use a Mac than Windows and when they run Windows either with Boot Camp or some virtual machine, it's because they are forced to by their work requirements or for business reasons. They do what they have to do in Windows and then go back to "fun" computing on their MacOS as soon as they can.

By "not very sophisticated", I was referring to the fact they fail to understand the fact that the ease of use in Windows can be improved quite a lot if you know how, the fact that Windows is not THAT difficult to use if you grew up with it like many people did, and the fact that Windows is CERTAINLY not that difficult to use if you know how to learn how to use it. On top of that, they fail to understand that ease of use and built-in features are often not the only things that are important to a sophisticated user.

 

Finally, when someone states that the reason why he or she doesn't need to buy a product to be able to know the product enough is because his or her having a strong IT background means that he or she knows people who own the product enough, only a fanboi would then obviously twist those words around with "they understand computers better than anyone and are far above the rest of us".