Discrimination towards Mac Users

[Joemikeb]

For years I worked at a company that was rigidly all PC. In fact Mac use was officially not permitted. In fact they never I was told officially that a Mac would not work on their network. Every morning I showed up with my clamshell MacBook, and plugged my MacBook into the network and did my work. but then they never said anything about it either. The only problem I had was with my co-workers, who got angry because my productivity was higher than theirs and the manager held my productivity up as the goal for them to shoot for. In the end management was willing to turn a blind eye because I was getting the job done ahead of expectations and they really didn't care what computer I was using. I can't say there was a dramatic corporate shift to Macs, but I noticed the CEO leaving one evening carrying his MacBook.

The point is companies use PCs because PCs are cheap and that is what their IT departments are familiar with, and they don't want to invest in supporting different technology. But, if you are willing to provide your own equipment and support, are careful that your output is MS compatible, don t make an issue out of using a Mac, and most importantly get the job done on or preferably ahead of schedule there is a possibility that you can influence the culture and get Macs officially recognized. I understand IBM is in the process of switching their executives to Macs.

 

[decafjava]

Well, when I took Photoshop and Wordpress courses (the Wordpress was recent, in January), the schools used Macs exclusively.

 

[jwolf6589]

Well, when I took Photoshop and Wordpress courses (the Wordpress was recent, in January), the schools used Macs exclusively.

In the design fields Mac dominates. However in the business enterprise fields Windows dominates.

 

[MagnusVonMagnum]

What amazes me is how much hatred there STILL is for Macs. I mean I can't disagree that some models have high prices and the GPUs generally still suck for the most part (at least you can plug in an external graphics card on newer models, but that does add even more expense), but when it comes down to THAT or having to deal with WINDOWS.... ack

Windows users like to say that Windows 10 is SO much better than the Mac these days and has caught up with little features like multiple desktops, etc. but what about forced updates? How long can a typical Windows 10 machine run without a reboot? Even if it can run for many days without a reboot now (something I suppose is possible, but I kind of doubt it based on people at work telling me how often theirs still has bugs, crashes, etc. and needs rebooting), how long before a forced update DEMANDS a reboot? I'm often trailing on my Mac (still running El Capitain as no newer feature has lured me into what is possibly/probably a slower overall experience as macOS like all operating systems tends to get more bloated over time and it's more noticeable on older computers, especially ones that don't use newer features that might negate that difference, even beyond CPU, RAM, etc.), but I generally can runs MONTHS on end without a reboot and have no noticeable issues whatsoever. Is that something Windows 10 can match? If not, I couldn't care less about it.

My Mac Mini is from 2012 and running pretty darn well for a 7 year old computer (not slow doing anything). It's actually amazing how well it's doing. I used an Amiga 3000 for 8 years and it was noticeably impaired (although never designed for the Internet and amazing what it could do considering the slower CPU and less ram it had compared to Windows 95 machines of the time, etc. My brother wore out his Pentium 90 before I wore out my Amiga 3000. Well, I'm one year off that track and this Quad i7 still does most tasks (save newer games) quite well.

It's just hard for me to imagine Windows EVER being as stable as a UNIX based system.

 

[jwolf6589]

What amazes me is how much hatred there STILL is for Macs. I mean I can't disagree that some models have high prices and the GPUs generally still suck for the most part (at least you can plug in an external graphics card on newer models, but that does add even more expense), but when it comes down to THAT or having to deal with WINDOWS.... ack

Windows users like to say that Windows 10 is SO much better than the Mac these days and has caught up with little features like multiple desktops, etc. but what about forced updates? How long can a typical Windows 10 machine run without a reboot? Even if it can run for many days without a reboot now (something I suppose is possible, but I kind of doubt it based on people at work telling me how often theirs still has bugs, crashes, etc. and needs rebooting), how long before a forced update DEMANDS a reboot? I'm often trailing on my Mac (still running El Capitain as no newer feature has lured me into what is possibly/probably a slower overall experience as macOS like all operating systems tends to get more bloated over time and it's more noticeable on older computers, especially ones that don't use newer features that might negate that difference, even beyond CPU, RAM, etc.), but I generally can runs MONTHS on end without a reboot and have no noticeable issues whatsoever. Is that something Windows 10 can match? If not, I couldn't care less about it.

My Mac Mini is from 2012 and running pretty darn well for a 7 year old computer (not slow doing anything). It's actually amazing how well it's doing. I used an Amiga 3000 for 8 years and it was noticeably impaired (although never designed for the Internet and amazing what it could do considering the slower CPU and less ram it had compared to Windows 95 machines of the time, etc. My brother wore out his Pentium 90 before I wore out my Amiga 3000. Well, I'm one year off that track and this Quad i7 still does most tasks (save newer games) quite well.

It's just hard for me to imagine Windows EVER being as stable as a UNIX based system.

Windows 10 I have to admit has more features and is in some ways superior. But then again ever since I installed a SSD in my 2012 MacBook Pro it has gave Windows a run for the money. Regardless MS office on Windows still does launch a second or two faster.

 

[jlc1978]

I actually work for a company where Macs make up at least half of the total number of deployed machines.
But you know what? Apple is to blame, more than anyone else, for continually making a strong case for getting rid of Macs in the Enterprise and standardizing on Windows.

I mean, for starters, you've got Office 365 that STILL doesn't have feature parity between the Windows and the Mac versions. How come the Mac version isn't able to work with a .PST archive of email made on a Windows version of Outlook? There's currently no Mac solution for working with Excel spreadsheets containing VBA macros either.

That's MS' fault, not Apple's. I do agree the lack of parity may be an issue, but I have used Macs and Office in Windows centric environments pretty seamlessly. The biggest challenge is when I convert Omnigraffle files to Visio, they require some cleanup to be usable.

As for .pst files, I vaguely remember a converter but yes, Outlook is no where near as compatible as I would have liked when I used it.

 

[bruinsrme]

In a few of my computer classes, like the HTML class I took last semester, the teachers seemed to discriminate Mac users, acting like I couldn't do any HTML coding on a Mac just because Notepad+ was Windows-only.

It’s probably not the first time that instructor has had Mac users in class. Being an instructor I teach the curriculum advertised and paid for. If there is a strong commonality I take advantage of the moment. It has to be a near replication.
If not, I tend not to stray off course. It’s not what other students paid for and, not to sound crass, not part of the curriculum I am held accountable to deliver.
Doing so can lead down to sometime time consuming paths

 

[MBAir2010]

For years I worked at a company that was rigidly all PC. In fact Mac use was officially not permitted. In fact they never I was told officially that a Mac would not work on their network. .

are the still hiring?
[doublepost=1557062993][/doublepost]Same for those who rode motorcycles. last century these was a conflict between Harleys and Japaneses bikes, this century if your ride, you ride. i think the same should be for computers,you code you code.

 

[kingtj]

Well, sure ... the Office issues are Microsoft's fault more than Apple's. But it doesn't change the fact that businesses pretty much use Office apps as their bread and butter applications. If you're a company producing computers that can't run Office, or can't run a version of it that's as good as others -- you're at a disadvantage selling to businesses.

And yeah, that Visio vs. Omnigraffle thing is frustrating too! We standardized on using Omnigraffle to create all of our corporate network diagrams for our offices, and I have no complaints about Omnigraffle itself. But as soon as I need to work with one of those and I find myself with only a Windows machine handy, I'm stuck waiting until later to update them. (I can view one using a free browser plug-in, but it's clumsy.)

There are a lot of other hassles with using Macs in a Windows environment though. For example, user profiles. Even though OS X made a lot of strides over the years in allowing a Mac to join a Windows domain, we're now finding out that Apple is back-tracking on that and advising people NOT to use that functionality. It gets complicated, but especially once you implement tools like JAMF Pro to centrally manage your Macs, domain joined machines really create some problems.

You also have challenges with network printing support, since on Windows networks, the Windows servers can automatically push necessary printer drivers to a workstation as soon as they try to map to the network printer that's shared from it. Macs rely on you already having a given printer's driver loaded on them. That's not going to be the case with many of the networked copiers out there in corporate America, so they require manual setup.

That's MS' fault, not Apple's. I do agree the lack of parity may be an issue, but I have used Macs and Office in Windows centric environments pretty seamlessly. The biggest challenge is when I convert Omnigraffle files to Visio, they require some cleanup to be usable.

As for .pst files, I vaguely remember a converter but yes, Outlook is no where near as compatible as I would have liked when I used it.

 

[hobowankenobi]

I actually work for a company where Macs make up at least half of the total number of deployed machines.
But you know what? Apple is to blame, more than anyone else, for continually making a strong case for getting rid of Macs in the Enterprise and standardizing on Windows.

I mean, for starters, you've got Office 365 that STILL doesn't have feature parity between the Windows and the Mac versions. How come the Mac version isn't able to work with a .PST archive of email made on a Windows version of Outlook? There's currently no Mac solution for working with Excel spreadsheets containing VBA macros either.

Now that is funny!

Blaming Apple for Microsoft products....hahahaha! Good one!

This has been a Microsoft model to NOT have parity between products since at least the '90s. To keep Macs from being used in enterprise mixed-platform settings.

How well has it worked?

This thread would not exist if there was parity between platform version of Office.

 

[TonyK]

I cannot recall a time when Word on any other platform had the same features as Word on an Apple product. Apple's version of Microsoft products have always been behind in features.

 

[jlc1978]

I cannot recall a time when Word on any other platform had the same features as Word on an Apple product. Apple's version of Microsoft products have always been behind in features.

The funny part about that is for most users it made no difference as the basic features met their needs and file interoperablity, with rare exceptions, worked just fine. Many business users I've worked with were one or even two versions behind the latest PC version and didn't miss any of the bells and whistles. Office 365 is changing that but the complaints I hear center around the changing user interface. They just want to write a document or build a presentation and the ever changing ribbon frustrates them.

I've used a Mac for 10+ years in PC centric environments with minimal hassle.

Right now, the only reason I need a VM is to run PowerBI and for an occasional Visio reformat of an OmniGraffle document. As MS migratdes PowerBI to Office365 I anticipate less need for a VM.

The perception, however, the Mac version was somehow less capable hurt Macs in the business market.

[doublepost=1557582428][/doublepost]

Well, sure ... the Office issues are Microsoft's fault more than Apple's. But it doesn't change the fact that businesses pretty much use Office apps as their bread and butter applications. If you're a company producing computers that can't run Office, or can't run a version of it that's as good as others -- you're at a disadvantage selling to businesses.

True, but as I state above I think it is more of perception issue than a real problem. Most users, IMHO, never use even all the basic features, let alone some of the advanced ones that are present in both OS versions. IMHO it's more about what a user is used to using ratehr tahn an inherent superority of one OS version of Offcie over another.

For example, I use the mail merge feature as well as links to create word documents from spredsheets. When I gave the files to someone else to use they simply cut and paste everything because they didn't know mail merge and links existed.

 

[TonyK]

The perception, however, the Mac version was somehow less capable hurt Macs in the business market.

This sadly a true statement. Unless someone is a uber power user, they will not use most of the features. Yet bugs my wife and I have reported through the years linger. Sigh.

True, but as I state above I think it is more of perception issue than a real problem. Most users, IMHO, never use even all the basic features, let alone some of the advanced ones that are present in both OS versions. IMHO it's more about what a user is used to using ratehr tahn an inherent superority of one OS version of Offcie over another.

In the next few weeks i'm moving from an old Dell workstation (it really isn't) computer running Windows 7 to a MBP 15" 2018 running 10.14. For a lot of developers they are replacing their older systems with MBP systems. I'll get a chance to see how Office 365 works on 10.14.

My wife is using Office 2008 mostly and some Office 2016. Being visually impaired she does not adjust quickly to UI changes so we avoid Office 365. Might get her Office 2019 if she wants it just so she has compatibility with someone she has to trade files with.

 

[1146331]

Am in the job hunt and virtually every employer wants MS Windows/ MS office experience which I have but every computer assessment I have taken uses Windows as the base and counts computer skills as being solely on MS Windows. I call this discrimination towards Mac users! At my last job I used Outlook, MS Excel, and Windows 10 for my daily duties. But since I am at home I use the Mac + iWorks + Mail at home since I prefer this over MS Windows. I hope this does not mean I will become rusty or will fail some stupid computer assessment because I am using a Mac.

I'm going to tell you a secret: If you use Windows at work, don't tell them you use Mac. Problem solved.

There is no discrimination, nobody really uses Mac for business for obvious reasons. If you demonstrate an inability to understand why, then you shouldn't be working with that company.

In matter of fact, if anything, you can claim that you know how to use Windows, Mac, and Unix/ Linux. Claim all three to make you look better.

Getting a job is nothing other than playing the game. These same companies won't have an ounce of loyalty to you no matter how good of an employee you are anyway, so it doesn't really matter.

I hate socialist and socialism and I am not a SJW, but I know how the real world operates. Have no fear, follow that advice and you'll be fine. Chances are that if you are on this forum or another forum, you have some technical aptitude and can find an answer that you don't know before somebody is able to figure out that you don't know it .
[doublepost=1557633097][/doublepost]

That's bonkers. Who is teaching these classes? Web development is dominated by Macs. If you go to any dev related conference you will see a sea of people toting around Mac laptops. My department at work is mostly developers and everyone uses Macs with their code/text editor of choice. Mostly people use VS Code and a Macbook Pro.

Most ignorant and dumb comment I've read in a while.

Web development does not rely on an operating system and an "intelligent" web developer will develop a site that works on the majority of platforms (aka WINDOWS). It doesn't matter what computer they use because in the end the only thing that matters is that a website can function on 90% of computers, not the 2% that are elitist with broken keyboards (AKA Macbook users).
[doublepost=1557633176][/doublepost]

I cannot recall a time when Word on any other platform had the same features as Word on an Apple product. Apple's version of Microsoft products have always been behind in features.

Naturally, probably because:
A) Mac has a ridiculously small market
B) Microsoft wants to push their platform more even though they already won the market share in the 90's.
[doublepost=1557633299][/doublepost]

Okay okay I was on a rant..... You know how much I wish things were reversed and Macs dominated the enterprise.

We couldn't possibly be that lucky....... But then Mac would probably be the equivalent of Windows and we'd end up using Windows products to be the minority.
[doublepost=1557633627][/doublepost]

The perception, however, the Mac version was somehow less capable hurt Macs in the business market.

I hate to break it to you, but Macs [and Linux] are less capable in the business market in terms of enterprise management.

The active directory makes things just so much easier, as well as group policy.

With Macs / Unix / Linux, you get the fun of scripting everything and manually modifying config files.

Microsoft won the enterprise market........... somewhat fairly......

I'm guessing nobody in this thread have managed an active directory forest or worked at an enterprise help desk. The real corporate world relies on more than a pretty operating system that [appears] to just work. It relies on enterprise features.

I always talk about how I would love to see the US Government adopt Linux for its operating system, that would be the only way that Linux could eventually dominate the market and get the enterprise features and ease of management that it needs to compete.

Don't get me wrong, I would love to be able to use Macs at work, unfortunately I am limited to home use.

With the crappy path Apple has gone down the past decade with Mac, we will never see real companies use Mac for the majority of their networks. Take a look at the "Pro" lineup, the abandonment of their server, crappy keyboards, etc. Not to mention software wise, developers would much rather develop for the 90% rather than the 2%.

Maybe as OS X and iOS merge closer together it might happen.

 

[mrex]

Okay okay I was on a rant..... You know how much I wish things were reversed and Macs dominated the enterprise.

oh god, hope not!

 

[jlc1978]

I hate to break it to you, but Macs [and Linux] are less capable in the business market in terms of enterprise management.

I realize that. My point was that the perception the software end users will have on their machines is less capabale also hurt Macs in the business market since it often is not even considered when making a purchasing decision. That's also a reason why Linux is not used on the desktop in business as well.

 

[MagnusVonMagnum]

Macs will become utterly irrelevant within a year with that stupid "Notarization" followed by App Store only policy Apple has decided to pursue. No open software policy will make the Mac even a further niche/toy as Apple will summarily be able to BLOCK all software it doesn't like or competes with it, etc. all in the name of "security" (yeah and Big Brother is your friend in 1984). Imagine how restrictive the iOS environment would be as a desktop computer. Even Linux would look good by comparison with its vast array of competing desktops for less than 1% of all users and relatively no commercial software. As annoying as forced updates are, etc. with Windows 10, Microsoft hasn't shown any signs of not allowing you to run whatever software you want.

 

[TonyK]

Just aw this when I went searching for "Notarization."

https://developer.apple.com/news/?id=04102019a

Looks like it is coming in 10.14.5.

 

[jwolf6589]

oh god, hope not!

Watch your language.

 

[1146331]

Watch your language.

He used the lower case god, not G-d, there is no language issue here.

 

[TonyK]

I'm trying to figure out why it is a "language" issue at all?

 

[kingtj]

Actually, I *do* deal with Active Directory each day, including it being cloud-synced via Azure. Our company isn't so large, it needs multiple domains in the forest, but we have about a dozen different sites around the country that are all networked together.

And unlike most people, we DO have about a 50/50 mix of Macs and Windows clients on our network.

I commented about this earlier, agreeing that the Windows machines have more powerful and flexible tools/options for the Enterprise. BUT, you can absolutely use Macs as part of the whole network without TOO many issues. It requires making certain choices about what software you're going to standardize on, though.

As I said already, network printing is one potential hassle. Our Macs usually just have to have the appropriate printer drivers manually installed for our networked Minolta copiers, and then pointed to their IP addresses. Windows machines can more conveniently be set up to just auto-install the driver from a Windows server on-site that already has the printer set up on it, and then they send jobs via that server's print queue.

But our Macs authenticate users against the Microsoft Active Directory just fine, and obey the file/folder permissions set up on the shared network drives.

One area where the Mac is actually superior to Windows is with VPN configuration. It's very easy to set up an L2TP IPSEC VPN on a Mac so users can connect in to our Cisco Meraki and get on the corporate LAN from anywhere. In Windows, it requires a more messy setup with carefully checking and un-checking certain boxes in different tabs, or alternately, automating the creation of the VPN connection shortcut via a lengthy PowerShell command.

These days, most popular software packages have both Mac and Windows versions, including DropBox, Office, Adobe Creative Cloud apps, major web browsers like Chrome or Firefox, Skype, or even more obscure utilities like Handbrake for compressing/transcoding video. A Mac can remote in to a Windows PC just fine with the RDP client for OS X too. The only place in our company where Windows PCs are really required is the Finance department, where they use Microsoft Great Plains. Even it is rapidly moving to the ability to use it via any web browser, independent of your OS platform -- but Finance currently still feels more comfortable with the window layouts and toolbar configurations possible with the full blown Windows client installed.

In environments where apps are all served via Citrix or Windows Terminal Server sessions, it literally makes no difference anymore if you're using a Mac or a Windows PC as the client.

I've always told potential employers that I prefer Macs personally, but know both platforms well (plus Linux) and that's never been a bad thing. The last place I worked used to have I.T. staff who were all "Windows only!" types. So the Mac was a foreign thing to them. But after I was there a while, people started cautiously coming by my office, asking me Mac questions about a new iMac they got for Xmas or what-not, and over time, I think at least 1/3rd. of the company wound up made up of employees who bought Macs for home use. They all appreciated that I was familiar with them, despite nobody having a reason to buy them for the company's internal use. (Since they had a big factory shop floor where everything got super dirty, it was best to use generic PCs that were easy to open and blow the dust and soot out of them, every so many months!)

I'm going to tell you a secret: If you use Windows at work, don't tell them you use Mac. Problem solved.

There is no discrimination, nobody really uses Mac for business for obvious reasons. If you demonstrate an inability to understand why, then you shouldn't be working with that company.


I hate to break it to you, but Macs [and Linux] are less capable in the business market in terms of enterprise management.

The active directory makes things just so much easier, as well as group policy.

With Macs / Unix / Linux, you get the fun of scripting everything and manually modifying config files.

Microsoft won the enterprise market........... somewhat fairly......

I'm guessing nobody in this thread have managed an active directory forest or worked at an enterprise help desk. The real corporate world relies on more than a pretty operating system that [appears] to just work. It relies on enterprise features.

I always talk about how I would love to see the US Government adopt Linux for its operating system, that would be the only way that Linux could eventually dominate the market and get the enterprise features and ease of management that it needs to compete.

Don't get me wrong, I would love to be able to use Macs at work, unfortunately I am limited to home use.

With the crappy path Apple has gone down the past decade with Mac, we will never see real companies use Mac for the majority of their networks. Take a look at the "Pro" lineup, the abandonment of their server, crappy keyboards, etc. Not to mention software wise, developers would much rather develop for the 90% rather than the 2%.

Maybe as OS X and iOS merge closer together it might happen.

 

[1146331]

Actually, I *do* deal with Active Directory each day, including it being cloud-synced via Azure. Our company isn't so large, it needs multiple domains in the forest, but we have about a dozen different sites around the country that are all networked together.

And unlike most people, we DO have about a 50/50 mix of Macs and Windows clients on our network.

I commented about this earlier, agreeing that the Windows machines have more powerful and flexible tools/options for the Enterprise. BUT, you can absolutely use Macs as part of the whole network without TOO many issues. It requires making certain choices about what software you're going to standardize on, though.

As I said already, network printing is one potential hassle. Our Macs usually just have to have the appropriate printer drivers manually installed for our networked Minolta copiers, and then pointed to their IP addresses. Windows machines can more conveniently be set up to just auto-install the driver from a Windows server on-site that already has the printer set up on it, and then they send jobs via that server's print queue.

But our Macs authenticate users against the Microsoft Active Directory just fine, and obey the file/folder permissions set up on the shared network drives.

One area where the Mac is actually superior to Windows is with VPN configuration. It's very easy to set up an L2TP IPSEC VPN on a Mac so users can connect in to our Cisco Meraki and get on the corporate LAN from anywhere. In Windows, it requires a more messy setup with carefully checking and un-checking certain boxes in different tabs, or alternately, automating the creation of the VPN connection shortcut via a lengthy PowerShell command.

These days, most popular software packages have both Mac and Windows versions, including DropBox, Office, Adobe Creative Cloud apps, major web browsers like Chrome or Firefox, Skype, or even more obscure utilities like Handbrake for compressing/transcoding video. A Mac can remote in to a Windows PC just fine with the RDP client for OS X too. The only place in our company where Windows PCs are really required is the Finance department, where they use Microsoft Great Plains. Even it is rapidly moving to the ability to use it via any web browser, independent of your OS platform -- but Finance currently still feels more comfortable with the window layouts and toolbar configurations possible with the full blown Windows client installed.

In environments where apps are all served via Citrix or Windows Terminal Server sessions, it literally makes no difference anymore if you're using a Mac or a Windows PC as the client.

I've always told potential employers that I prefer Macs personally, but know both platforms well (plus Linux) and that's never been a bad thing. The last place I worked used to have I.T. staff who were all "Windows only!" types. So the Mac was a foreign thing to them. But after I was there a while, people started cautiously coming by my office, asking me Mac questions about a new iMac they got for Xmas or what-not, and over time, I think at least 1/3rd. of the company wound up made up of employees who bought Macs for home use. They all appreciated that I was familiar with them, despite nobody having a reason to buy them for the company's internal use. (Since they had a big factory shop floor where everything got super dirty, it was best to use generic PCs that were easy to open and blow the dust and soot out of them, every so many months!)

I'm glad to hear that, but my printing experience has been the opposite of yours: My Mac is easier to set up and use my network printer than it is in Windows, even with a printer server that is AD based.

Mac is useful still, however there is no point for an organization to pay the premium of Mac if they plan on rapidly expanding their enterprise.

I have been wanted to see Linux in the workplace for years but that will never happen because people don't like change and apparently don't know how to really use computers, which still shocks me.

 

[MagnusVonMagnum]

I have been wanted to see Linux in the workplace for years but that will never happen because people don't like change and apparently don't know how to really use computers, which still shocks me.

By "really use computers" you mean using some geek-created obtuse shell language with lazy shortcut names to the commands that are hard to remember along with syntax dating before Microsoft basic was a 'thing'. Yeah, I'd rephrase that to say that it's about time Linux got with the 21st flipping Century and created a consolidated universally compatible GUI (with themes and alternate interfaces if they want but) which can all run the SAME DAMN SOFTWARE distributions! Linux is holding itself back as a desktop OS for decades due to the inability of the community to cooperate with each other. Even Linus Torvalds has finally admitted he's SICK OF IT (https://itsfoss.com/desktop-linux-torvalds/). Linux could have replaced Windows ten years ago if they weren't constantly bickering and fighting over less than 1% of the worldwide desktop users. 1% with 20+ major distributions, most of which can't use the same downloaded apps or they appear in the wrong directory/place even so you have to go to a repository maintained by someone that will eventually get around to adding the new version of Firefox or whatever, at least until that version is abandoned and you try to do a system update and something goes wrong (happened to me with Suse). It's utterly ridiculous. You can back up your home directory, but all the apps are somewhere else. Do you really enjoy reinstalling apps all over again?

The BEST thing about the Mac for me has been it's sheer stability. I've still got El Capitain and other than one or two minor pieces of software, I've had no trouble running new software now for 7+ years running 24/7/365 and hardly ever having to do a reboot. Linux core stability with a brilliant user interface. Why would I WANT to go back to the shell? I enjoy headaches? Life is too short to waste it screwing with the OS. That should be other people's job.

Yes yes, if you only web browse, it's no big deal to run Linux, blah blah blah. Sadly, many of us do a hell of a lot more than just web browse.

 

[1146331]

By "really use computers" you mean using some geek-created obtuse shell language with lazy shortcut names to the commands that are hard to remember along with syntax dating before Microsoft basic was a 'thing'. Yeah, I'd rephrase that to say that it's about time Linux got with the 21st flipping Century and created a consolidated universally compatible GUI (with themes and alternate interfaces if they want but) which can all run the SAME DAMN SOFTWARE distributions! Linux is holding itself back as a desktop OS for decades due to the inability of the community to cooperate with each other. Even Linus Torvalds has finally admitted he's SICK OF IT (https://itsfoss.com/desktop-linux-torvalds/). Linux could have replaced Windows ten years ago if they weren't constantly bickering and fighting over less than 1% of the worldwide desktop users. 1% with 20+ major distributions, most of which can't use the same downloaded apps or they appear in the wrong directory/place even so you have to go to a repository maintained by someone that will eventually get around to adding the new version of Firefox or whatever, at least until that version is abandoned and you try to do a system update and something goes wrong (happened to me with Suse). It's utterly ridiculous. You can back up your home directory, but all the apps are somewhere else. Do you really enjoy reinstalling apps all over again?

The BEST thing about the Mac for me has been it's sheer stability. I've still got El Capitain and other than one or two minor pieces of software, I've had no trouble running new software now for 7+ years running 24/7/365 and hardly ever having to do a reboot. Linux core stability with a brilliant user interface. Why would I WANT to go back to the shell? I enjoy headaches? Life is too short to waste it screwing with the OS. That should be other people's job.

Yes yes, if you only web browse, it's no big deal to run Linux, blah blah blah. Sadly, many of us do a hell of a lot more than just web browse.

By "really use" computers I mean actually using computers. I know people that can barely figure out how to open the internet or that deleting an excel file will break the computer.

Most people are extremely unkowledgeable when it comes to computers.... hence Apple's "Whats a computer?" ad.

I agree with you [and many in the Linux community] about cooperation, unfortunately open source doesn't follow a business model that would encourage putting out the best. Even using Fedora or CentOS is a shame.

Apple definitely has the best way that Applications are installed, drag and drop. To remove the application, just delete. Personal preferences are stored in the user's home folder. No hunting around in /bin or /usr/bin or some other random folder for an app.

I do like the shell for some tasks and for downloading files with wget. PowerShell on Windows is probably the most powerfully integrated shell and scripting language. I've built graphical PowerShell scripts fairly easy by using PoshGUI for designing the interface and the rest was basic PowerShellfor manipulating files / variables.