Most annoyances for me were caused by being too used to Windows and not knowing the Mac shortcuts or understanding the differences in the behaviour of certain keys (Home, End etc). But that's knowledge and habit so only a con for a short time.
As with a few users who need more out their file browser, I find Finder a bit lacking.
It's a pretty important con for any switcher who is very au fait like me.
Adding to the list:
Time machine doesn't like network based backups when time capsule is not involved?
Most annoyances for me were caused by being too used to Windows and not knowing the Mac shortcuts or understanding the differences in the behaviour of certain keys (Home, End etc). But that's knowledge and habit so only a con for a short time.
As with a few users who need more out their file browser, I find Finder a bit lacking.
I was like that when I first switched, but I learned it after a few days of constant use. The trick is to force yourself to learn the Mac way of doing things, but I guess this can be confusing for those who dual boot with Windows.
All of my extended keyboards have a "Delete" key, although I've never used it because I have no need to delete something I haven't yet typed.
I use 3 computers simultaneously, running OS10.4, 10.6 and 10.7. Each OS has its own little foibles but I have no problem with any of them. The Finder search facility [cmd][F] works fine but I prefer the 10.6 version.
It's a pretty important con for any switcher who is very au fait like me.
Adding to the list:
Time machine doesn't like network based backups when time capsule is not involved?
It requires a remote filesystem that behaves itself properly, particularly one that doesn't re-order data around synchronisation points. Apple were smart enough to realise that the format that TM uses on local disks (an HFS+ filesystem with a huge number of links to files and directories that don't change much) won't scale out over NAS, but were perhaps too generous in assuming that third party equipment wouldn't screw up dealing with sparse bundles.
Many applications will get upset by this, not just TM: NetApp make an awful lot of money out of providing network attached storage for Oracle and Exchange precisely by getting this right.
Unfortunately, if you back up over CIFS onto third-party NAS, the chances of some company's lashed up port of Samba running on an old version of Linux (ie, most cheap NAS) going wrong are pretty high. If you have NAS which supports AFP then the chances are better, but still there's a lot to go wrong (10.7 onwards I think negotiates with the server to check about the synchronisation features).
I've not had a lot of luck with Time Capsules: they run quite warm and the disks are under quite a lot of stress. I now back up to what strikes me as the best option, although it's not ideal for everyone: I have a USB drive plugged into another Mac that's up all the time (one of the earlier Mac Mini servers, which also has two internal drives) and run the OSX Server pack Time Machine service. That way I get some basic status monitoring, and the software stack is reasonably stable.
It requires a remote filesystem that behaves itself properly, particularly one that doesn't re-order data around synchronisation points. Apple were smart enough to realise that the format that TM uses on local disks (an HFS+ filesystem with a huge number of links to files and directories that don't change much) won't scale out over NAS, but were perhaps too generous in assuming that third party equipment wouldn't screw up dealing with sparse bundles.
Many applications will get upset by this, not just TM: NetApp make an awful lot of money out of providing network attached storage for Oracle and Exchange precisely by getting this right.
Unfortunately, if you back up over CIFS onto third-party NAS, the chances of some company's lashed up port of Samba running on an old version of Linux (ie, most cheap NAS) going wrong are pretty high. If you have NAS which supports AFP then the chances are better, but still there's a lot to go wrong (10.7 onwards I think negotiates with the server to check about the synchronisation features).
I've not had a lot of luck with Time Capsules: they run quite warm and the disks are under quite a lot of stress. I now back up to what strikes me as the best option, although it's not ideal for everyone: I have a USB drive plugged into another Mac that's up all the time (one of the earlier Mac Mini servers, which also has two internal drives) and run the OSX Server pack Time Machine service. That way I get some basic status monitoring, and the software stack is reasonably stable.
Thanks for the detailed info (although some of it went over my head).
Most of my family want to stay on Windows with PCs so I would be the sole switcher in the house so I probably wouldn't invest in a Mac Mini with OS X Server edition.
Thanks for the detailed info (although some of it went over my head).
Most of my family want to stay on Windows with PCs so I would be the sole switcher in the house so I probably wouldn't invest in a Mac Mini with OS X Server edition.
In which case, a USB drive plugged in to the one machine is perfect.
And I suspect that Time Capsules are fine if you have two or three machines.
My problem was with having half a dozen machines, which meant that the disk was essentially always spinning. It seemed to get quite warm.
For my home machine I just use a 1tb external usb hard drive for Time Machine, its about the size of a packet of cigarettes needs no other power source and works.
One thing I've realised is that while Macs cost a fair bit (but are comparable in price to similar premium computers) the costs don't stop there.
The accessories, the software, the extended warranty, it's all going to add up to much more than the base computer.
You can get Applecare a lot cheaper on Amazon Marketplace. you don't need to buy accessories, and there's plenty of free software you can use on Macs. It's only as expensive as you make it.
The cons of a macbook now are the fact that Apple are starting to solder ram down, and glue the batteries down on the retina models. How much longer will it be before they start doing that on all of them? Perhaps some people don't mind this but it's ridiculous on a pro laptop. One reason why I may move away from Apple.
The cons of a macbook now are the fact that Apple are starting to solder ram down
I'm torn over this. I've upgraded RAM in plenty of machines, both with my own money and my employers' money, and it's generally a good way to get more life out of older computers.
But I've also messed about with machines (sometimes servers with 16 memory slots on each of several processor cards, but sometimes laptops and the like) where the RAM has required reseating to get rid of niggling problems, which never quite go away. The insertion life of the connectors is poor, they aren't terribly gastight and worst of all they're prone to loosening slightly when vibrated or shocked.
In a laptop, there are sometimes circumstances where the machine is designed for RAM packages of size 2x, but only size x is sanely priced. But if you're buying pro-class machines, the definition of "sane" is slightly less tight. It's not totally unreasonable to suggest that if you max the RAM out on day one anyway, the slight downside (that you might be lucky and find the machine will take a bit more when it's available, like putting 2x4 old iMacs and getting 6GB usable) balances the slight upside (that soldered chips are more reliable).
I'm a bit pissed off that my current Air is stuck at the 4GB that it was sold with, even though later models have 8GB available as an option. But I don't know for sure that even if the RAM were socketed it would recognise the larger packages.
I doubt that it's just Apple gouging the customer. There's always a whiff of that, although these days the RAM upgrade options at purchase time are no longer absurdly expensive as they were five years ago. But given that almost every pro-class machine is going to be on AppleCare, they both have to pay for opening the case and reseating RAM, and replacing motherboards that might otherwise be OK with new RAM fitted were that to be possible. So I suspect they've looked at the reliability figures, and done the maths.
I doubt that it's just Apple gouging the customer. There's always a whiff of that, although these days the RAM upgrade options at purchase time are no longer absurdly expensive as they were five years ago. But given that almost every pro-class machine is going to be on AppleCare, they both have to pay for opening the case and reseating RAM, and replacing motherboards that might otherwise be OK with new RAM fitted were that to be possible. So I suspect they've looked at the reliability figures, and done the maths.
Yes, not as expensive as it used to be. My main issue with it is what happens after 3 years when your ram dies? You'd have to replace the entire logic board. And Applecare is only for 3 years. I don't see why I should be forced to buy a new laptop every 3 years. Nice to get a bit more mileage out of it.
Yes, not as expensive as it used to be. My main issue with it is what happens after 3 years when your ram dies? You'd have to replace the entire logic board. And Applecare is only for 3 years. I don't see why I should be forced to buy a new laptop every 3 years. Nice to get a bit more mileage out of it.
I would agree here. My 2010 Macbook Pro is still working well and it's even better since I upgraded the RAM to 8GB. I tend to keep my laptops for at least 6 years or until they snuff it, whichever comes first
Yes, not as expensive as it used to be. My main issue with it is what happens after 3 years when your ram dies?.
Is RAM any more unreliable than the processor, the graphics controller, the decoupling capacitors on the bus, or any other component that might die? Processors and GPUs run a great deal hotter, and haven't been socketed, on laptops at least, for some years.
Some of this is reasonable - it's quite hard to get the laptops so thin (especially the retina pros) and this helps. There are some instances where Apple could have screwed things down instead of gluing but when it comes to ultrabooks, the Air is as equally unupgradable ex-post as similar ultrabooks.
Of course, reducing the repairability and upgradability of these laptops also helps Apple's bank balance something that white goods manufacturers are guilty of when they create inbuilt obsolescence in their products.
Traditionally, upgradability was a reason to get a classic MBP but if they discontinue the line, will there even be compatible components with which to upgrade such an MBP.
One thing I find really annoying is that sometimes when the wifi cuts out I get this message about a "self assigned IP address" and it refuses to connect to the 'net. I then spend at least half an hour trying everything, including turning off the wifi and turning it on again, renewing the DHCP lease, restarting the Mac and whatever. I eventually fix it by having to re-enter my Wifi key (if it's my home network that cuts out). It doesn't happen often but it's annoying when it does happen.
I've never seen that. Sounds like you may have an issue with your wireless network, not your Mac.
The cons of a macbook now are the fact that Apple are starting to solder ram down, and glue the batteries down on the retina models. How much longer will it be before they start doing that on all of them? Perhaps some people don't mind this but it's ridiculous on a pro laptop. One reason why I may move away from Apple.
To get the slimness and lightness that people want on certain laptops certain things have to be done.
There is no logical reason to think that will happen on iMacs or other Macs. Even the tiny Mac mini still has easily replaceable or upgradable memory slots. In fact, the Mac mini, as tiny as it is, is the easiest Mac to work on and disassemble and reassemble.
The batteries, you speak of, by the way, are easy enough to remove and replace.
Yes, not as expensive as it used to be. My main issue with it is what happens after 3 years when your ram dies? You'd have to replace the entire logic board. And Applecare is only for 3 years. I don't see why I should be forced to buy a new laptop every 3 years. Nice to get a bit more mileage out of it.
An extremely unlikely scenario. Ram is no more susceptible to failure than any other component on your computer, and in fact, in many cases, much less so compared to high heat generating components.
I have heard this often as a complaint but don't know much - care to elaborate?
If on my mac at work i create a file on the network, no other user can even open it. I can copy it from a pc logged in as the same user as my mac, then other people can open it.
Comments
It's a pretty important con for any switcher who is very au fait like me.
Adding to the list:
Time machine doesn't like network based backups when time capsule is not involved?
I was like that when I first switched, but I learned it after a few days of constant use. The trick is to force yourself to learn the Mac way of doing things, but I guess this can be confusing for those who dual boot with Windows.
I use 3 computers simultaneously, running OS10.4, 10.6 and 10.7. Each OS has its own little foibles but I have no problem with any of them. The Finder search facility [cmd][F] works fine but I prefer the 10.6 version.
It requires a remote filesystem that behaves itself properly, particularly one that doesn't re-order data around synchronisation points. Apple were smart enough to realise that the format that TM uses on local disks (an HFS+ filesystem with a huge number of links to files and directories that don't change much) won't scale out over NAS, but were perhaps too generous in assuming that third party equipment wouldn't screw up dealing with sparse bundles.
Many applications will get upset by this, not just TM: NetApp make an awful lot of money out of providing network attached storage for Oracle and Exchange precisely by getting this right.
Unfortunately, if you back up over CIFS onto third-party NAS, the chances of some company's lashed up port of Samba running on an old version of Linux (ie, most cheap NAS) going wrong are pretty high. If you have NAS which supports AFP then the chances are better, but still there's a lot to go wrong (10.7 onwards I think negotiates with the server to check about the synchronisation features).
I've not had a lot of luck with Time Capsules: they run quite warm and the disks are under quite a lot of stress. I now back up to what strikes me as the best option, although it's not ideal for everyone: I have a USB drive plugged into another Mac that's up all the time (one of the earlier Mac Mini servers, which also has two internal drives) and run the OSX Server pack Time Machine service. That way I get some basic status monitoring, and the software stack is reasonably stable.
Thanks for the detailed info (although some of it went over my head).
Most of my family want to stay on Windows with PCs so I would be the sole switcher in the house so I probably wouldn't invest in a Mac Mini with OS X Server edition.
The accessories, the software, the extended warranty, it's all going to add up to much more than the base computer.
In which case, a USB drive plugged in to the one machine is perfect.
And I suspect that Time Capsules are fine if you have two or three machines.
My problem was with having half a dozen machines, which meant that the disk was essentially always spinning. It seemed to get quite warm.
You can get Applecare a lot cheaper on Amazon Marketplace. you don't need to buy accessories, and there's plenty of free software you can use on Macs. It's only as expensive as you make it.
I'm torn over this. I've upgraded RAM in plenty of machines, both with my own money and my employers' money, and it's generally a good way to get more life out of older computers.
But I've also messed about with machines (sometimes servers with 16 memory slots on each of several processor cards, but sometimes laptops and the like) where the RAM has required reseating to get rid of niggling problems, which never quite go away. The insertion life of the connectors is poor, they aren't terribly gastight and worst of all they're prone to loosening slightly when vibrated or shocked.
In a laptop, there are sometimes circumstances where the machine is designed for RAM packages of size 2x, but only size x is sanely priced. But if you're buying pro-class machines, the definition of "sane" is slightly less tight. It's not totally unreasonable to suggest that if you max the RAM out on day one anyway, the slight downside (that you might be lucky and find the machine will take a bit more when it's available, like putting 2x4 old iMacs and getting 6GB usable) balances the slight upside (that soldered chips are more reliable).
I'm a bit pissed off that my current Air is stuck at the 4GB that it was sold with, even though later models have 8GB available as an option. But I don't know for sure that even if the RAM were socketed it would recognise the larger packages.
I doubt that it's just Apple gouging the customer. There's always a whiff of that, although these days the RAM upgrade options at purchase time are no longer absurdly expensive as they were five years ago. But given that almost every pro-class machine is going to be on AppleCare, they both have to pay for opening the case and reseating RAM, and replacing motherboards that might otherwise be OK with new RAM fitted were that to be possible. So I suspect they've looked at the reliability figures, and done the maths.
Yes, not as expensive as it used to be. My main issue with it is what happens after 3 years when your ram dies? You'd have to replace the entire logic board. And Applecare is only for 3 years. I don't see why I should be forced to buy a new laptop every 3 years. Nice to get a bit more mileage out of it.
I would agree here. My 2010 Macbook Pro is still working well and it's even better since I upgraded the RAM to 8GB. I tend to keep my laptops for at least 6 years or until they snuff it, whichever comes first
Is RAM any more unreliable than the processor, the graphics controller, the decoupling capacitors on the bus, or any other component that might die? Processors and GPUs run a great deal hotter, and haven't been socketed, on laptops at least, for some years.
Of course, reducing the repairability and upgradability of these laptops also helps Apple's bank balance something that white goods manufacturers are guilty of when they create inbuilt obsolescence in their products.
Traditionally, upgradability was a reason to get a classic MBP but if they discontinue the line, will there even be compatible components with which to upgrade such an MBP.
I've never seen that. Sounds like you may have an issue with your wireless network, not your Mac.
Were are you getting "software" from? Macs come with more useful software than Windows computers do.
You can get, *or not,* extended warranties on any computer.
What "accessories?"
To get the slimness and lightness that people want on certain laptops certain things have to be done.
There is no logical reason to think that will happen on iMacs or other Macs. Even the tiny Mac mini still has easily replaceable or upgradable memory slots. In fact, the Mac mini, as tiny as it is, is the easiest Mac to work on and disassemble and reassemble.
The batteries, you speak of, by the way, are easy enough to remove and replace.
An extremely unlikely scenario. Ram is no more susceptible to failure than any other component on your computer, and in fact, in many cases, much less so compared to high heat generating components.
I don't think it's my wifi network at home. I've had it in college as well a few times. I Googled it and it's a fairly common problem.
Not doubting you but I've never seen that on many Macs that I have used in recent times. What version of OS X and what Mac?
It sounds like the problem doesn't exist unless you've seen it to me.
I have heard this often as a complaint but don't know much - care to elaborate?
If on my mac at work i create a file on the network, no other user can even open it. I can copy it from a pc logged in as the same user as my mac, then other people can open it.