Why Windows users don't switch to Mac

Why Windows users don't switch to Mac

Summary: Over on Apple Matters I came across an interesting post by Steven Leigh which considers 8 reasons why Windows users don't switch to Mac. Leigh is a recent Mac switcher and he has an interesting insight into the issues surrounding making a switch, but I think that there are several areas where he misses the mark.


Over on Apple Matters I came across an interesting post by Steven Leigh which considers 8 reasons why Windows users don't switch to Mac. Leigh is a recent Mac switcher and he has an interesting insight into the issues surrounding making a switch, but I think that there are several areas where he misses the mark.

The first reason he give is ignorance.

Ignorance is merely a lack of knowledge, and when it comes to Macs, most Windows users, myself included, are extremely uninformed.

There are more Windows PCs out there than Macs. Period. That's the main reason why Windows users are ignorant of the Mac platform. Sure, you can drop by an Apple store and take any Mac you want for a spin, but that's not the same as seeing it in action.

Leigh goes on to say:

Macs are so much easier to use; many beginners find it easier to do most tasks intuitively, without having to be taught or open a manual. As someone who has spent long hours teaching family and friends how to do simple tasks like email attachments, I can you tell that the same cannot be said about Windows.

I have to disagree with him on this point. Having had the opportunity to use a Mac for an extended period I can honestly say that while some aspects of the Mac OS are easier than Windows, overall claiming that the platform is somehow intuitive and there's no learning curve is disingenuous. It all depends what you do and how you use the system.

Another reason that Leigh gives for Windows users not switching is price.

The perception by Windows users is that Macs are more expensive than Windows PCs. This may have been true in the past, but the new Macs are very comparably priced to similarly equipped PCs.

True in part, but show me the $500 Apple system. I can show you plenty of decent $500 PCs. For the budget- conscious buyer, it's not what you get that matters, it's the price that they end up paying.

What about the lies ...

Let’s face it: Apple tends to bend the truth once in a while, especially about Microsoft and Windows.

Oh yeah ...

One of the “Get a Mac” ads states that Windows is for spreadsheets and pie-charts, while Macs are for “fun stuff” like photos, movies, etc. To Mac users, this seems both funny and true. Windows users, however, are thinking of the aisles and aisles of games that are available for Windows, while there is a half-shelf devoted to games for the Mac. I don’t know about you, but I can only have so much fun playing with photos. Things like this just sound like lies, and they sometimes present Apple as a company that has to lie about its competitors to get business.

This is probably one of the most blatant lies that Apple marketing has come out with in recent years. A lot of the time I feel that Apple is selling to existing customers who buy into the bias and FUD rather than trying to encourage more Windows users to switch. Lies create mistrust.

The Windows bashing doesn't help either ...

I remember watching the 20 or 30 minute Vista-bashing session at the WWDC conference and wondering why Steve Jobs is so insecure that he has to berate the opposition. Can you imagine shopping for a car and having the salesman only talk about what’s wrong with the competition’s cars?

Again, Jobs is preaching to the converted and fanning the flames of zealotry. The best people in industry are capable of turning a critical eye inwards towards their own goods and services and are constantly looking at ways to improve the customer's experience (notice how I said customer, not consumer, there's an important difference and a lot of companies have forgotten that). This constant "best iPod we've ever made" and "best phone we've ever made" is all hyperbole and given the recent number of backlashes we've seen against Apple, I'm guessing that the customer base has grown too big for the reality distortion field.

Leigh has some interesting views on Vista too:

I’m going to let you in on a dirty little secret, but you need to sit down first. Windows Vista is actually a good operating system! There. I said it. The ugly truth is that Vista is the best operating system Microsoft has ever released, and for many users, it is good enough.

It might get to that point, but I don't think that it's there yet.

The final and perhaps most controversial reason why more people don't switch from Windows that Leigh gives are Mac users themselves:

Okay, I’m not talking about you or me here, but there are some Mac users out there who have just a little too much love for Apple. When they are shouting (or typing in all caps) about how much better Macs are, they’re not convincing anyone to switch, they are scaring them away.

I've been saying that for years, and every time I say it I get more than my fair share of ALL CAPS responses. I've just come to the conclusion that either Apple's keyboards are sub-standard and break so are only capable of issuing capital letters, or that some Mac users have simply pressed the caps lock key by accident once and don't know how to turn it off again.

Even well-intentioned Mac users can sometimes get a little carried away. I’ve had many friends lecture me for hours on end that I was stupid not to switch, and all it did was push me further away.

Most people looking to buy a new computer want a tool, not a religion.

In my opinion, there are four other very good reasons why people don't make the move from Windows to Mac.

  • Time Changing platforms takes a lot of time. Anyone who says that it's quick, simple and pain-free doesn't do much with their system.
  • Free support When I've asked people why they have a PC as opposed to a Mac, probably the most common reason that I get is that they, like many other Windows users, rely on free tech support provided by someone they know who's "good with computers." There is just not a big enough pool of Mac users out there to provide this level of support.
  • The Linux effect The "anything but Microsoft" card that Apple is playing is losing traction given that Linux distros are now becoming a credible alternative. Why pay for a Mac when you can load Linux onto your existing rig and still be rid of Microsoft? Also, the Linux communities seem to be far more open and trustworthy that Apple is being as of late.
  • Fear Final reason is fear. Fear of the unknown. Fear of spending money on something that doesn't do the job. Fear of being stuck with no support.


Topics: Windows, Apple, Hardware, Microsoft, Operating Systems, Software

Kick off your day with ZDNet's daily email newsletter. It's the freshest tech news and opinion, served hot. Get it.


Log in or register to join the discussion
  • You forgot the number one reason.

    There is no reason to switch. As they say in the movies "What is my motivation?". Those of us that use Windows on a regulaer basis know the truth. That is all the problems with running Windows are mostly exaggerations spread by the Linux and OSX crowd. We just don't share the hatred of Microsoft. We don't consider it the evil empire.
    • Exactly

      I do my work day in and day out on a Windows machine for years. What reason could I possibly have to go give Apple a ton of money just to have a "pretty looking box" that "maybe" can do what I'm already doing on Windows.
      • On the other hand....

        ... with a little rewording of your post

        [i]"...What reason could I possibly have to go give Microsoft a ton of money just to have a "pretty looking Windows Vista" that "maybe" can do what I'm already doing on Windows XP?"[/i]

        Same argument ISTM
        • Most recommendations I've seen say stay with XP if...

          ...it does all you need.
          • True

            True, but even if you do switch to Vista, the vast majority of your programs and hardware will work. If you do a complete PC change, you can do it for far cheaper than the equivalent Mac as well.
          • not true...

            Just try to find working drivers for all your devices...

            I would say fear and ignorance are the number one reasons.

            I am an IT Admin for a major university in California. I work withevery platform and technology under the sun. I started working with computers back in 1980. I willingly admit that I saw the writing on the wall when MS released the first verson of Windows. I knew where we were heading for the future of computers, or at least for awhile. Microsoft was it and it was impossible not to see that coming... I was part of a team that migrated PCs from OS2 to Windows 95 for a huge telcom company. I have used every new technology that has come out and it was always easy to see the future once you had it in your hands.

            Saying that there are more games on the shelves for a PC then for MAC doesn't mean anything to those in the know. When windows first started there were more programs for IBM then for Microsoft... Come on.. get a clue... Microsoft got lucky.. They borrowed the mouse and GUI from Apple and they stumbled onto dumb luck on the open sourcing and made it big. They were smart about bullying and buying out competitors. But that is just business as usual for a company like microsoft.

            Anywhoooo.. back to the point... I see Macs and PCs run side by side every day.. The Macs are far more reliable, two to three times faster, and overall, a pleasure to use. 90% of my job involves fixing, patching, and re-imaging the PCs and MS Servers. The Macs are like Maytags... If all I had was Macs, I could sit around and practice tossing playing cards into a hat across the room. And I think that's what it's all about.. Poeple want a computer they can use and one that works and doesn't give them headaches.

            There is a reason that all the major players in the multimedia companies use Macs.. Time is money and they would like to release movies this year... not wait for 2 more years for a PC to finish compiling the video. Companies like Pixar and ILM.

            I see PC geek morons talk smack about the macs all the time... Not a single one of them has ever spent any time on a Mac. They are simply spewing forth lies propegated by the Microsoft Zealots. Did you like that? Calling them Microsoft Zealots... Because I don't think there is such a thing as an Apple Zealot, or at least very many... Not under the true definition... A Zealot is an extremist, a fanatic, usually without reason. The Apple fans are simply people who have seen a better product and are like hey, Microsoft sucks.. I can't believe I dealt with that junk for so long... I wish someone would have told me this was so much better...

            Did any of you read the Computerword article by windows expert Scott Finnie where he documented his 3 month trial of Apples OS X and at the end of it said Buh Bye to MS and made the switch to Mac? There is a reason for that, Mac is better, far better... and just because a person recognizes that and thus feels obligated to share that with the rest of the PC zombies walking in the dark... it doesn't make them a Zealot... They are just trying to help a person out of the darness that once held them prisoner.

            Here is a link to that computerworld atricle...


            It's an excellent read. And for those MS Zealots out there who bash Apple without a clue... Stop it already.. you are just shooting yourself in the foot...

            For those Linux and Unix Fans out there... OS X 10.5 is a Unix certified OS... whats the difference between it and say Red Hat or Linux... Centralized support, documented fixes, and incredible company dedicated to making the best and most reliable hardware and software the world has ever seen... The best customer satisfaction ratings by every indipendant survey company for the past 8 years in a row.. and that is by a huge margin...

            Call me a Zealot.. or call me what I am... Someone who is not in denial and is actually speaking from experience and real knowledge.
          • ohh so true

            i as well work with multiple platforms, and i see the macs chugging along without missing a beat everyday, while i spend 90% of my time repairing and or replacing windows machines.
            so yes macs are better from my point of view.
            i even have a blended house (3MACs, 3PCs) and the macs beat the pcs surfing the net hands down and rendering video the pc is not even a contender!
          • I thought I knew what a fanboy was...

            Until I read this post...

            Wow.. if you are not on Apple's payroll, you should be.. with all the BS you just threw at us, you could start writing those propaganda commercials for Apple. Geez.

            Polls and surveys eh.. you trust those? Wow, someone is nieve.. did you know that exit polls stated that John Kerry won the election? HAHA

            If you really want to look at numbers that count for anything.. look at the number of Windows users VS MAC users.. If MAC's did everything windows does and were just as cheap.. and were more secure.. and were just as user friendly.. why wouldn't companies use them? You threw out a movie company.... wow.. Most people don't try to argue that MAC's are not good with graphics and movies (although thats very arguable, Windows people still let you have that).. here is a question for you.. out of the Fortune 500 companies.. how many of them use Apple hardware as their primary computers? I'd guess maybe 6.. + or - 5.. only because of Apple.

            We can all tell what kind of person you are by the first couple of things you said "IT person" at a "University" in "California"..

            Companies and people have had plenty of time to move to Apple.. If it was a better option, truly, they would have already.

            It does amaze me that someone could sit there and say that MS stumbled on "dumb luck" and then how "smart" they were in the next sentence. You forgot to mention how Apple didnt think the mouse was useful.. thats called intelligence on Microsoft's part.. and stupidity on Jobs' part. One mans trash is another mans treasure.. Don't be angry that someone else saw the potential and saw it through to success.

            You, my friend, are the zealous one here.. the 10% 'majority', only in your head.

            P.S. that "Macs are 2 to 3x faster than windows" line is an utter lie.. as long as they have the same processing power etc.. someone definitely sounds a little zealous now.
          • Finding Drivers.. now theres the pot calling the kettle

            You obviously like MACS and I have to admit for the majority of people MACS are probably the better platform as most people don't need the flexibility of the PC. I like the fact that I can use ANY hardware and will probably find a driver for it.. not true of VISTA and that's why I'm still using XP.. I like tinkering under the hood and poking about.. you just can't do that in a MAC. MACs are reliable and are great for the majority of people.. I'm glad they haven't caught on as then the software etc would all be MAC and I'd be on a MAC and unhappy because of the limitations of the MAC. I'm not your average user. And if you want your PC's to be more stable lock them down to the level of access you have on a MAC.. you won't need to re-image them nearly as often.. but they won't be nearly as much fun.. from my point of view.

            I am often surprised that MACS don't outsell PC's simply because they are easier to use and that's what the average user wants.. go figure! But MACS were historically very expensive and I suspect did themselves a disservice at that point because it gave PC's a foothold and people don't like change. Now MACs are price competitive to PC's and there is a lot more hardware for MACs because everything is moving to USB and MACs now use standard CPU's/Motherboards..

            Your comments on Video rendering I find interesting.. because now that MAC's use the same hardware as PC's and considering the software is often the same..or more often the case these days is written for the PC and ported to the MAC, I doubt the difference in performance is all that great.

            You sound like a zealot.. for all the denial.. I've used MAC, PC and Linux.. I'm happy with PC's cause they do what I want.. currently.

          • I can respect your opinion

            I can respect your opinion as far as your personal experience applies to you, but I think it is all a matter of perspective when we look at the world population. What people want is what they get. If they don't want to overcome their fear of switching to a new OS, then that's their decision. Really I think the debate comes down to psychology in the sense that most reasons why people switch or don't switch are based in personal fears, tendencies to follow the crowd, and so forth.

            I have personal experience with many a OS. I run Linux, Vista, XP, and OS X on my machine. I use each for my own personal needs. Making any sort of blanket statement as to which OS is the best overall is a logical fallacy, and that is why the debate still goes on today about "Which OS is best?"

            Linux is great if you want to learn a lot about the inner workings of a computer. I mostly appreciate the open-source software and documentation that lets me have complete control over the OS. The forums are very friendly, and I use Linux for all of my network penetration testing and advanced needs. Beryl for Linux makes the GUI look better than Vista or OS X. I guess that's a subjective statement, but I really do enjoy customizing my own look and feel of my OS. In this way I make the OS my own, and I can appreciate it more.

            Vista offers wonderful functionality with DirectX 10, desktop search, and bundled software for maintenance and so forth. The GUI feels nice (but I still use WindowBlinds to specialize the look), and I have loads and loads of programs that I use on the Windows platform. Vista is still working out the kinks, just like any other open-platform OS, not too different from Windows XP when it first came out.

            Windows XP SP 2 seems to be one heck of a stable OS! I've used XP longer than any other OS, and it has served me well. Believe it or not, but I have not had a single virus or blue screen of death (BSOD!) since I installed service pack 2.

            Mac OS X GUI reminds me of the Gnome desktop environment in Linux. It runs pretty reliably (basing OS X off of UNIX was SMART!) although I have a harder time customizing the look and feel of the OS (I'm still working on that one). I understand OS X boasts some pretty power creative software (Adobe CS and Movie editors, etc.), but unfortunately it is too expensive for me to buy the software. I think Apple's strong point is in niche marketing. They also don't have to worry about hardware issues since they have tight controls on what goes into their machines--I am kind of bummed out that they code in protections so that OS X will ONLY run on a Mac machine.

            In the end, the clincher is the cost. I have access to loads of software through my school and work, and all of it is for the Windows platform. Moreover, I did a hardware comparison between my customized HP Pavilion dv6500t Laptop and competitive MacBook. The price difference was roughly $1000. Maybe when I make it big then I'll get a MacBook Pro ;)
          • Drivers and such...

            [b]Just try to find working drivers for all your devices...[/b]

            Odd... The computer I used for the Vista beta last year is fairly straightforward, generic and it's home built. When I installed Vista Beta 2 (and later RC1), Vista found each and EVERY single bit of hardware - except for ONE. Visiting Nvidia's site and downloading the beta for the Nforce4 chipset and installing it resolved that one missing driver.

            There were only TWO devices I couldn't test with Vista - both of which I got after the Beta started. Both of which were HP printers - a color laserjet 1600 and a PSC 1315. The 1600's XP drivers kinda sorta worked. I could print from Vista.

            However, EVERYTHING ELSE worked fine. Yes, there were some vendors who were too lazy to participate using the old "the code base is changing too rapidly for us to keep up" excuse, and I can, to a degree, see their point during the Beta phase. But the RELEASE candidate phase? For the record, it took HP a good 9 months to finally get drivers for the 1600 out. Lazy slugs...

            [b]There is a reason that all the major players in the multimedia companies use Macs.. Time is money and they would like to release movies this year... not wait for 2 more years for a PC to finish compiling the video. Companies like Pixar and ILM. [/b]

            Now... I find that to be a bit hard to believe. Two YEARS? You're exaggerating.. Right? I can see that being realistic with say, a 486 SX 33... But a mondern CPU? And let's not forget that the Mac runs on pretty much the same general hardware these days as the PC. Heck - you can even run Windows on a Mac these days. I just don't see the OS or software making THAT radical a difference.
          • I'll concede

            I'll conced the 2 years ios a very slight exaggeration.. I'll drop that back to 1 year longer for a movie to be released...

            My transition to being an Apple fan came with the release of OS X.. I used to think that Red Hat was going to rise up and Beat Microsoft out of the market.. Oracle and Dell were talking about transitionaing everything in house from Microsoft to Red Hat... But then Apple went and announced a UNIX based OS.. I stoped and said Hey.. this is worth looking into.. this could get interesting... With a Unix based OS, Microsponge would no longer have the advantage of the Killer App... Developers would easily be able to port their software to UNIX and with a few tweeks, get it to run beautifully on a UNIX OS.. and Apple has always had a rep for quality...

            I was a little dissapointed that OS X was just Unix based as it was making it tough for developers as they still had to do alot of customization to get thier Apps to work on OS X.. But then Apple released the word a year ago that 10.5 was Unix certified instead of just being Unix based... In all my PC Admin Mags (I get a ton). I kept reading articles about how it admins are anxiously awaiting 10.5... no longer will we have to tweek out in house unix apps to get them to run on OS X.. All we have to do is load them and migrate data over and we are done...

            Finally.. Apple took the last step in stepping up to the competitive plate.

            Why are there more windows users versus mac users? Simple.. Apple did NOT offer a competitive OS until 2001. And even then, the Apps were still in the making... Did you think it was going to happen overnight with all the money we have invested in windows servers and software? OS 9 and previous did not offer anything competitive towards Microsoft.. Apple was just a third world vendor at that point... I think the stock was selling for 7 or 8 bucks a share.

            Why don't the majority of fortune 500 companies use Macs? Two answers... money invested in Windows servers and software and IT Admin ignorance and reluctance.. Basically MS Zealots who are afraid of loosing the job security that a troublesome OS affords them. Again.. that transition is not going to happen overnight, but the main catalyst is about to be released this month... OS X 10.5

            Once these companies relaize they can downsize IT by 65% and save money by having higher productivity and less downtime to offset the cost of superior hardware and software, they will make the change. But again.. not overnight.

            So is your job in jeapordy??? Does it hang in the balance??? Is that what you are afraid of???

            Answer.. Not if you have unix skills and solid troubleshooting skills... But if you don't, best be cracking a book and start studying.

            So how can a Mac be so much faster than a PC if they are running the same hardware???? Excellent question... Software is part of the answer... PC's have to run virus software, Mac's do not. Apple software is more efficient, the code is better, since they control the hardware, they can code to optimize it. Have you ever seen the hardware schematics for any Apple computer??? No bottlenecks... the BUS speeds match the devices connected to them. That is the other part of the equation... You don't get the pumped up stats that other manufatures use to sell computer that just don't perform and have internal bottlenecks they fail to disclose.

            USB 2.0 is rated at over 800 MBPS and firewire 400 is only rated at 400... but in real world testing a firewire 400 device will be 2 to 3 times faster than anything plugged into a USB 2 port. And firewire 800 is actually twice as fast as the firewire 400. Why is that? I honestly don't know... But I will go firewire anytime I can as it saves a ton of time.

            Dude.. I can go on for hours at all the cool things that I have discovered about Macs over the past few years. But don't you think you owe it to yourself to go make some of these discoveries first hand.. seeing is believing... read the link I put out to the computerworld article.... go out and do the research necessary to make an educated rebutal and then come back and talk to me.
          • re: i8thecat

            There are so many ignorant statements in your last post it is hard to decide where to begin. First of all, the Macs use the same chipsets and therefore the same buss speeds as your run of the mill PC. There is no advantage for the Mac and no magical buss speed matching of buss speeds to the peripherals. USB 2.0 is rated at 360MB/sec not 800MB/sec. It is true that Firewire or IEEE 1394a has a speed of 400MB/sec. I guess even a blind squirel stumbles on an acorn once in awhile. That is about where it ends though! Firewire is not significantly faster then USB 2.0. As to your claim that OSX is two to three times faster on the same hardware that is a total fantasy. It cannot be explained away by OSX being optimized for the hardware as you claim because it is limited by using the same compiler as Windows. You continue to spout lies without a shred of evidence to back your claims. As I have proven here you don't have a clue about computer hardware.
          • Why the backlash against Linux/Unix?

            I love OSX. But I can only run it on Apple's hardware. Jobs has clearly stated that they will never sell the OS separate from the hardware. And while Apple hardware is certainly seductively elegant, it is still expensive. I can build a great, abeit unattractive, PC running Linux sub $500 easily. Linux runs on almost any hardware these days, and the pretty new GUI's of some give it much of the OSX's appeal.

            So OS is Unix certified? So what? It's proprietary software that I can't legally install to any hardware I want to. That's the difference between it and Linux. (Red Hat is a distribution of Linux, not a separate OS, and it is usually an enterprise edition. Red Hat also produces Fedora, a free Linux distro.)
          • Not calling you anything except off base.

            The fact remains,if I want to play games on a computer, and if there are certain programs I really want to keep that I would have to choose alternates on an Apple I wont want to switch to an Apple, and that is that. If I don't like the color of Apples or the over all look, there are no other makers of Apple computers so I get the "Apple" brand even if I don't like the looks much or do without an Apple. And I can tell you for a fact, Apple users can scream and cry and jump up and down all they want, Apples cost too much. Sure, there are some over priced PC manufacturers as well, and I wouldn't recommend one of them either. It doesn't matter a bit that Apple users love their Apples and just cannot understand why we all don't just switch. The fact is there are reasons why we just don't all switch and a lot of those reasons are very good reasons.
          • Business Analysis-- Job's Strategy is Problematic-- He never learns

            Remember the famous 1984 Super Bowl commercial where Apple attacked IBM?
            Well, imagine a time when Apple DID have a superior product. Hell, they invented the GUI and the Mouse!
            What Apple did, and continues to do, is attack the competition. Even if they are not competition, Jobs will make sure they are!
            Over-zealous is a great way to describe his mindset, possibly sociopathic or fanatic? Why the hell would you attack IBM when they are busy building mainframes and don't even think the PC market is anything serious?
            Then they made the mistake of keeping a proprietary OS which kept their platform in a bubble until the PC was already popular?
            No one even wanted to write software for Mac OS until the LATE 1990s.
            Now the switching costs or perceived switching costs from the Mac to PC are high and there is NO REASON to switch. Network benefits also exist while using a Windows OS.
            I would compare buying a Mac to buying a VW Beetle that runs on vegetable oil.
            Conclusion: Switching to a Mac is irrational.
          • What is really irrational...

            ...is to dismiss the fact that Steve is largely responsible for the stock price increasing, and of course the stockholders are very pleased with him.
            Mike Hunt
          • Who "8thecat"?

            Really, Steve, you will have to do better than an assumed ID to fool the rest of us.
          • Wow, the white coats are on the way...

            You need to take a blue pill and chill out.....<br><br>

            I'm not a fan of Microsoft by any means but Dude you ARE exactly what we refer to as a zealot, hell after seeing your spewing we may need to start differentiating by class of zealot.<br><br>

            "<i>There is a reason that all the major players in the multimedia companies use Macs.. Time is money and they would like to release movies this year... not wait for 2 more years for a PC to finish compiling the video. Companies like Pixar and ILM.
            </i>"<br><br>Pixar (owned by Steve Jobs) has been using Linux and Intel processors since 2003, as does Industrial Light and Magic and DreamWorks......<br>http://www.news.com/2100-1001-983898.html<br><br>
            "<i>Because I don't think there is such a thing as an Apple Zealot, or at least very many... Not under the true definition... A Zealot is an extremist, a fanatic, usually without reason.</i>"<br><br> All I can say is look in the mirror....Okay now you've seen one.<br><br>

            "<i>For those Linux and Unix Fans out there... OS X 10.5 is a Unix certified OS... whats the difference between it and say Red Hat or Linux... Centralized support, documented fixes, and incredible company dedicated to making the best and most reliable hardware and software the world has ever seen... The best customer satisfaction ratings by every indipendant survey company for the past 8 years in a row.. and that is by a huge margin...</i>"<br><br>
            As for OS X 10.5 being a Unix certified OS and what it has to do with the Linux community... Ummmm... it's more than being Unix based that many of us choose Linux. OS X like Windows is very ridged on what you can and can not do with their OS's. We like the fact we can bend the system to our will, not bend our will to the systems.<br><br>"<i>Call me a Zealot.. or call me what I am... Someone who is not in denial and is actually speaking from experience and real knowledge.</i>"<br><br>Okay, your a Zealot....and YES you are in denial. Have you noticed not the Linux community doesn't consider the Mac base being a hurdle? It's a minor bump on the way...
          • OK, I'll complain about Mac from experience...

            ... Although I hardly believe this is the first time you can possibly be exposed to actual unhappy users.
            In my job as an editor for a publisher (yearbooks, so lots of graphics, text, and layout work) I must cross over from the Mac/PC platforms.

            In the past ten years I have simply had much more trouble and problems with the Macs than the PC's. I find that wait time is much more with Macs, that multi-tasking was very nearly non-existent on Macs; and there was all the trouble/pain I had with the mouse on the Mac. To be fair, I admit that, with the introduction of OS-X, things became more compatible between the two, and a professional Mac user showed me a few ways to improve the mouse situation.

            Also in all fairness, the use of Adobe programs in the past was upsetting because it was claimed, and I found it true-in-use, that Adobe had a way of trying to convert a PC into a Mac-type environment before doing its job.

            When Vi$ta came out and I tried some new laptops at the stores, I experienced the WGA horror of the display model being disabled; not a real good ad for M$ Vi$ta, and I backed off. I am sticking with XP, but, of course, cannot buy a computer off the shelf new without some hassle to get XP; so I bought a couple of iMac G-3's, one with OS 9 and another with OS-X. They are not at all as useful for my purposes. The OS-X does play nice music from my MP3's; almost as good or as easy as M$ WindowsMediaPlayer 10 or 11, so I now have a "real use" for the Mac - but only one.

            At work, I still find Macs to be a greater drain on my time and effort(s). I think that, should Vi$ta not be brought to a universal ease of operation within a short time, I will explore Mac and Ubuntu/various distros.

            Now you know that there are real people who are not ecstatic about Mac, but who still try to use them - because their work demands it.

            I am sorry, but I only want machines which work and do what we want, and, at times I hate M$, and at other times I hate Apple; but only because they don't do the job I was led to believe they'd do. Salesforce without performance always upsets and angers me, and until I'm dead, it always will.