Please, help me decide if I can make the switch

I have posted previously in a couple forums here trying to decide if I can make the switch. I want to run as much in OS X as possible. I will run bootcamp if necessary, but if I have to spend all my time there, then I might as well go with a PC. So, I am making a list of stuff I use regularly to see if you know some of the answers off the top of your head (and can save me hours of research).

For these, I cannot accept a substitute, even if it's better:
Excel - I need to keep VBA available for excel. (thought I read that it was going away)
Word - as it functions on a PC (i.e. Sharepoint integration, ODBC, etc)
Outlook - integration with Exchange
Visio
Powerpoint
IE - need to know that future versions will be available and I will not be painted into a antiquated version corner. It seems to have left off with v5?

These I use, I could accept a substitute:
Quicken - I see they have a mac version, is it as functional?
MS Remote Desktop
Picasa
Autodesk Maya
PostgresSQL

The rest are all java apps, so I think they translate over just fine (other than being a version behind in the JDK)

Thanks for your time,
Matthew

 

I think iPhoto does about the same job as Picasa.

As for IE, why can't you use an alternate (safari, firefox etc)?

 

There's remote desktop software for Mac, yes, and there's also MS Office 08 for Mac.

As for IE: I'm not sure we'll see MS bring back support for Mac any time soon. But why not just use another browser?

 

I have to use a lot of MS products for customers. IE integrates beyond web browsing; silverlight, NTLM, Sharepoint, etc. Oh, and I have to see that my work is compatible with IE. Like it or not, it's still the #1 vehicle for users eyes.

 

In all honestly, since you're heavily relying on MS software you'd probably be better off under Windows. I mean, yeah you can go back and forth between the two, but it might become a hassle, and MS software on OS X, while good, isn't *as* good as it is in Windows.

 

I'd recommend you stick with Windows for now - it seems like you rely a lot of Microsoft products, and those still run best in Windows, even if they're out on Mac OS too.

You could consider getting a Mac and using Parallels or VMWare as well, since it doesn't seem like your activities are RAM-hogs. I'm a little curious though - why do you want to switch to Mac?

 

Yeah, same as others have said, stay with a PC, the Mac is not for you especially since you mentioned you can't have any substitutes in software even if they are better so you are backing yourself into a corner left with only a PC as your option. It's all good, use what works for you.

 

I'd recommend sticking with MS. Although if you're set on a Mac you could always max out the RAM and run the MS apps in parallels or VMware.

 

I say you can afford to make the switch to mac, but will need to use VMware Fusion/Bootcamp to enable you to use Windows on it. You will be fine, once you get everything setup. I am planning on moving to mac, but still plan on using a lot of things in Windows and am going to get VMware Fusion to help me do that. It is totally doable, but you will definitely need to upgrade the RAM(by yourself of course, don't get it through apple, much much more expensive).

 

I want to make the switch because:
1) Build quality on the mac is unmatched in the pc competitors.
2) MS continues to impose increasing constraints that affect me while not being the point of my using their software. For example, excessive DRM integration into their software that disables the system if it doesn't recognize your monitor as a DRM partner. I bought the software to use as an operating system for the above applications. They used it as a vehicle to thrust their DRM agenda upon me. I did nothing to violate any copyrights. Result, I have a disabled system.
3) I see no advantage to Vista, though I have no alternative, other than to purchase their OS twice if I want to run XP, because new laptops (that I am intersted in) do not come with XP.
4) I am increasingly uncomfortable with the number of process that get installed and executed in the background on Windows. As I look now, there are 52. Every time I spend a couple hours looking each one up, they always turn out to be from legitimate providers.
5) I just shut down IE and Outlook and recovered over 600 megs of RAM. They were running for 1 day. Is that a joke?
6) I believe in the free market, and feel morally compelled to give MS a reason to do things better to earn my business. So far, I have experienced only coersion since Windows 2000.
7) Integrated Unix shell without installing a version of cygwin that becomes a PITA to maintain and never quite feels...integrated.

/soapbox

Hey, you asked.

 

Well then, sounds like you're really set on getting a Mac, and have good reason to. Still, you'll need to have Windows for some of those apps (especially IE). I'd recommend getting 4GB of RAM off of newegg.com and installing it in a Mac, should you decide to get one. That way when you need a Winodws-only app you can just access Windows through VMWare Fusion and use them that way. As long as you dont need to use Windows for real-time 3D apps then VMWare with 4GB of RAM will do its job well.

 

So, which is better, VMWare Fusion or Parallels? Parallels is cheaper by 15 bucks, so no real advantage there.

 

I haven't used either, but I hear VMWare is the way to go.

 

I've used VMware and like it alot.

I still didn't quite see why you need IE though. If it looks good in any other browser, it'll look fine in IE, but not necessarily the other way around. (Assuming you need IE for web design).

Internet Explorer doesn't follow the W3C standards very well, and when people try to "optimise for Internet explorer" they make it look awful in other browsers with non-standard commands.

In the event that you do web design work, you should try out iCab because it will tell you what is wrong with your code.

Office 2008 for Mac has been released recently but how well it works isn't well noted yet (Too new).

May I ask why you need the Microsoft apps to be as they are in Windows?

 

Most of the apps I work on or with have microsoft specific components that either do not work well or do not work at all in other browsers. Com objects, etc. They have integrated suites of project server, office, sharepoint, etc that make use of proprietary integration.

I typically use firefox for development, and it's not factual that if it looks good in other browsers it looks good in IE, though I know where you are coming from when IE auto-corrects (changes) things from the standard and they are obviously broken in Safari / Firefox.

I've been down the alternate browser road, a lot. It's not an option. Most big businesses, that aren't tech enthusiasts, require IE, so must I.

 

Both are pretty good...I would lean towards VMware Fusion, but yeah.

 

I don't mean to nitpick or discourage you, but it sounds like you are trying to build sites for only windows users that use Internet Explorer only. I would avoid doing that because IE's market share is shrinking every quarter. (Firefox is at 16% marketshare in the US, 28% in Europe, and there are many other browsers taking up smaller portions. That leaves roughly 66% of the US marketshare using Internet Explorer, which is a hefty amount still, but that means that 1/3rd of all US traffic can't see what you are designing properly if you design that way.

IE use shrinks every month when users realise that there are alternatives (Usually safer too).

But that's just my take on it.

I wouldn't go so far to say that Safari or Firefox break the standards. They prefer the site was written well so that it can load fast and look great. When you deviate from standards, and use code that only works well in one browser, you should figure out a way to put it back into spec. When IE has to figure out how to correct stuff, it takes more time to load.

This is why sites like Craigslist are so fast (Aside from the lack of images), is because they are designed so well that they can process the end result in a very quick amount of time. Saves on bandwidth, and makes a site that could be otherwise slower much faster.

Again, I don't want to sound like a prick or discourage you from buying a Mac, but that's my opinion from a guy that used to do web design some years ago. I'd rather make it look 90% good on 20 browsers than 100% good on only one, and 40% on everything else.

 

I don't think you are being a punk, but you aren't listening to what I'm saying. I have no problem developing browser neutral sites, you are preaching to the choir as far as personal use goes (I'm looking to get into a Mac).

Browser neutrality is not always an option. Many big firms use IE specific (proprietary) technologies to integrate with other MS products. It's not that they are ignoring the public, it's that they have thick client deployed through ASP models to a specific audience (internal users, operational software, etc). It's like trying to get the full functionality out of an exchange server using Entourage. You can make it usable, but forget about advance features.

 

Ah, I follow you now.

It's a shame that some companies prefer to do things like that and use proprietary software.

 

The point the other poster was making is if you don't become diverse there will be more people like you coming to a Mac forum asking the forum, "Help me decide if I can make the switch". Of course you can't do it all on your own but look at it this way if it were Apple that owned the Enterprise world like MS does and Apple decided to be selfish and develop stuff that only ran on Macs and made sure that Safari would be optimized to run best with Apple's corporate apps then consumers would cry out FOUL at Apple like we do with MS for not playing fair in the enterprise world.

See even you are so stumped that you can't move out of MS products that you told the forum that you can't accept any Mac software equivalents even if they are better, that puts us at a disadvantage of helping you in no other way but to tell you to buy another PC or use VMware Fusion just so you can run Windows and develop using I.E. It's your choice but the fit and finish on a Mac is not worthy enough for something that won't fully satisfy you since you seem to want to use OS X but can't use Mac apps unless the are the exact same as the MS ones.

 

It is not his fault that he is forced to stick with those apps. It is for his business and if he knows that he cannot change, he cannot change, no need for people to try to push him onto other software even though it may be better. Whatever works for him works. He is coming to us with a list of questions and is asking to see if it would be feasible for him to be able to work on a mac. I don't see it being very helpful to the OP by asking him why he chooses to work in certain ways. Let's just take his situation and help him the best we can be letting him decide what all he needs to run on his computer. I believe our role is to just make his life a little easier by letting him know what options are open to him, not by tryin to convert him.

 

Some of the replies here seem a little bit broad and/or resolute in their discouraging.

I'm in a boat similar to yours in that I have weird dependencies on Microsoft technologies that plainly and simply are not going to be equivalent in their "Mac versions." I need to be able to view certain websites in IE6/IE7, I have a professor for a databases class that insists we use the Windows version of Visio Enterprise Architect 2002, I have an old Windows Mobile phone that needs to sync with ActiveSync or WMDC (MissingSync for Mac costs money and sucks), I use Media Player Classic with CCCP for the most capable video playback toolbox on the market (including a bunch of HD .WMV files), and I pretty thoroughly dislike Mac Office 2008 while I'm actually a really big fan of Windows Office 2007.

In spite of all this, I just bought a MacBook Pro on Thursday because I'm excited to try the different technology, and because the Intel switch gives me a "no matter what" fallback: if worst somehow came to worst, I could always just run Vista/XP through Boot Camp exclusively. Sure, it wouldn't be as "Windows optimized" as a PC laptop would be in terms of power management, but I find that's where the MacBook Pro and OS X really just excel over my old Windows laptop -- it's highly optimized for battery life, and when I'm on battery power as opposed to AC power I'm usually using a web browser, an IM client, and maybe a music player (all of which OS X has no problem with, of course). If I need to crunch some serious work-related Windows processes, it's really not a crisis to plug into outlet power and bust open VMware Fusion since I'm probably going to want to be at a desk anyway.

It's the fallback to a Windows option that finally made all the difference for me. I've peeped Apple's hot commodities for years prior to the Intel switch and been completely unable to justify the purchase of one because it didn't really give me any good options in terms of integration with my and the rest of the world's all-Microsoft-all-the-time infrastructure. I'm a geek just like everyone else, and I certainly wasn't shunning the tasty-looking software over in Apple's court: I just couldn't really risk taking a chance on it without a bridge back into my "safe" world.

And honestly, that's been a huge part of the fun in the transition to Mac ownership for me: finding great software in OS X's library to handle things I was doing under Windows before. Basically, I'm taking a drill-down approach that's kind of like a game -- setup Boot Camp/VMware with a Windows install that has every single piece of software I used previously on it as a security blanket, and then start finding OS X replacements wherever I can and only popping into Windows when I need to exercise a Microsoft dependency. My two most-used applications (in terms of time spent) under XP/Vista are Firefox (with extensions out the butthole) and Pidgin: Firefox 3.0 beta for Mac is an acceptable substitute for #1, and Adium is well-known as the finest multi-platform IM client on any platform and I'm thrilled to finally get to use it.

I've also found a really unexpected ace in the hole with RDC:Mac, as I've used it extensively already to dial into my always-on Windows boxes. I'm actually a little bit surprised that Microsoft was willing to put out a client this nice for their competitor's platform: using CMD+TAB to flip through applications in RDC:Mac is actually preferable to me than using ALT+TAB under Windows' mstsc because it lets me jump through my Mac applications separately from my Windows applications (whereas on a Win-to-Win setup, you're alt-tabbing through whichever machine you're looking at's open programs -- much less flexible).

To close, I just get a little irritated when people shoot off with the "hurf durf u r not rdy for Mac just stick w/ windows lol" jerkhole responses because you have a few Microsoft dependencies. It's that exact type of lame feedback that has kept me away from trying out a Mac for so long after the Intel switch, even though I've feverishly wanted to give it a try. So you've got a little bit of Microsoft in your world -- most people who are skilled with computers do, baby! If you weren't a computer guy, you very likely wouldn't be drawn to a competitor's platforms on the merits of its technical beauty's competitive advantage in the first place. You're not donning a turtleneck and quitting your Windows-heavy job and moving to a cave where you'll refuse to touch software without a "dot-app" suffix, you're trying out something new with the understanding that there might be some integration pains (but not too many) and that you have a complete failsafe if it doesn't pan out.

A MacBook will still run Windows, but a ThinkPad or a Dell won't run OS X.

As another user said, it would definitely benefit you to Newegg 4GB of RAM so you have plenty of resources available for virtualizing Windows (the cost is trivial). I'd take the plunge, man. Think it over some more and gather your thoughts and all that, but I would definitely take the plunge.

 

My day job is a SharePoint consultant and I spend a lot of time doing Windows development. I just bought myself a MBP and a copy of VMWare Fusion. The reason? I tried two laptops before the MBP, a Dell M1530 an a Zepto 6225W, the Dell screen was awful and the Zepto keyboard awful. I just needed decent powerful portable hardware. Now all of my development work takes place inside VMs anyway as it requires Windows Server 2003 so I don't really care about the host OS. I have a little XP VM running to hook up Outlook to Exchange for the rare occasions that OWA doesn't cut it. I have 4Gb RAM and everything works just fine.

It is taking me a while to get used to OSX as I can work in Windows a lot lot faster but having spent 6 hours rebuilding a Vista laptop last w/e for a friend after applying SP1 caused it to sit in an endless BSOD loop I was quite certain I have made the right choice. I can view office docs with NeoOffice, have Adium for IM, Firefox for browsing and VMWare for work. I could do with a decent text editor on a par with Notepad++ for PC and a couple of other utilities. I have even managed to get utorrent running under Darwine!

All in all I am glad I made the switch, OSX being unix under the covers means I get to at least try some other OSs and understand them.

OSX just works. Life is too short to be mucking around with Vista. I still get frustrated by a few things in OSX (maximising windows, I keep losing windows due to no task bar etc) but I am sure in time I will learn all the little tips and trick to work faster.

I think the day I was hooked was when I accidentally shut the lid during a large file copy operation and it went to sleep. I re-opened it and it just carried on copying!! Simple but soooooo nice.

 

File copying was a thorn in my side on Windows. EACH AND EVERY file copy operation requires me to stand around ready to click "are you sure?" and "apply to all" over and over again. The offending files vary, but thumbs.db is the most frequent culprit. But the biggest issue for me is the fact that windows terminates the process that was doing the copie and disavows all knowledge of how far along it got. Was it copying in alphabetical order? Date modified order? How many files made it across? Where do I need to pick up to restart the copy operation? This got on my nerves so badly, I ended up downloading and using the freeware syncback to copy files for me but alas even syncback (free version) is stymied when a file is "locked" because a process has the file open for modification.

Resuming where you left off not only applies to a copy operation but even to an upgrade of the os. I upgraded to Leopard on an old G4 Mini and I was alarmed when the screen came up with what I had been doing before I started the upgrade. I checked the OS version and it was Leopard. Sweet. You can even upgrade the OS and pick up where you left off. Oh, why did I wait so long to move all my machines to Mac?

One thing I should warn you about. Sadly, Apple has taken a few cues from M$ and created a number of issues with Safari. You must have Safari as the default browser for a (very) few things to work correctly. I leave Safari as the default, but I run Firefox. This is because there are a number of exploits possible for Safari but Firefox allows me to shut down javascript which is not as safe as you might hope.

 

You mean like OS X?