6 ms·

Why developers prefer Macs

26 points by snydeq 18y ago

pavelludiq 18y ago
Until the day i can install MacOS X on a virtual box or on my pc i remain an apple anti-fan boy. Oh and theres also that closed source thing, but i can live with it, just let me chose the hardware i want to run my software on!(and i don't mean the color of the MBP), Ill pay for it too, i promise!
- jodrellblank 18y ago
  To paraphrase Steve Yegge's latest: "This succinct yet completely accurate synopsis shows that all OS's have their attractions, and yet each also has a niche. You can choose an OS for the busy person, an OS for someone without much time, or an OS for the dedicated hobbyist, and you'll find that no matter which one you choose, it's missing some of the abilities you need."
  - pavelludiq 18y ago
    upvoted because you're right, but still apple is evil and i don't like them, i don't know if their awesomeness comes from their evilness or despite it.
    - nickd 18y ago
      Apple makes products, and runs their company like a company trying to maximize their profits. You either buy their products, or you don't. Until they start clubbing seals with iPhones or something, I don't see them as "evil", just a company with shareholders in mind. The word evil is starting to get thrown around a little to much these days. Maybe we should save it for when it truly applies.
      - litewulf 18y ago
        To be fair though, Microsoft is pretty much the company people think of when you mention an evil corporation (in the tech world), and I think they are criticized for largely the same thing. Cohesive, all inclusive environments that provide everything they think you want. I think evil is bandied about as a proxy for "this corporation operates in a way detrimental to a world I would like to see", or something like that. In which case, I think the label is well deserved for both.
        jonknee 18y ago
        They aren't considered evil for providing everything they think you want, they are considered evil for [formally] exploiting a monopoly.
        unalone 18y ago
        I actually call them evil entirely because they seem not to understand what makes products good and consistent and usable, and yet they spend billions trying to improve their products. Their solutions are thoroughly unintuitive, I've found.
    - unalone 18y ago
      It's not evil so much as it is closed-mindedness. And yes, that's what makes Apple so awesome. You can't be uncompromising in your feature set and design if you don't hold control over every small aspect of your software and hardware. Apple has decided that they know what's best for their operating system, and that other people aren't allowed to undermine them. It means that programmers have to conform and that hardware designers can't use Apple at all. The result is that users don't have many options, but that all their options are good ones; Apple employees are much better-suited to fixing computer problems than retail employees for other companies; and designers get to focus less on overall design and more on their features. It's a win-win-win. Say you get to install Apple on a virtual box on your computer. You lose the multitouch capacity, if you're using a laptop, because multitouch pads are rare outside of Apple notebooks. That means you're operating at a loss already, that Apple's system isn't working exactly how Apple wants it to. You also lose the preset keyboard controls for stopping and starting music, you lose keyboards that light up in the dark, you lose buttons for Expose and Dashboard and ejecting CDs. You lose the Command key. In other words, you're suddenly using an operating system that isn't operating at its full capacity. Apple doesn't want that: Steve Jobs is famously quoted as saying that he could make his computers cheaper, but only at the cost of quality and reputation, and that in his mind quality ought to be the top concern for getting a computer. Is that evil? Because I think it's highly principled. The loss is openness, and that's where you're getting "evil" from. (I'd assume.) The problem with open is that it's unfocused. You can't demand the same level of quality with open that you can with a closed, rigid system. And in my eyes, that's the evil route. The people who say they wish Microsoft and Apple would crumble and fall away because they charge money for their systems are people who're saying that they'd do away with an incredibly efficient system for the sake of something that's buggy and unstable, which is pretty smug and stupid in my opinion.
      - litewulf 18y ago
        Translation: I like it when I am mistreated by Apple because I can believe it is part of some greater purpose. (I think this is a very meaningless argument. Some people care about one thing, other people care about other things. Products may be judged by different criteria by different people.)
- KirinDave 18y ago
  But this isn't a recipe for the kind of profits Apple wants. And it's not like Apple is alone in this restriction of virtualization, Microsoft does it too. People get so feisty that Apple doesn't cater to them. Apple makes the products that Apple feels are profitable. There are a lot of other choices and a variety of alternative OS's. You shouldn't feel pressured to buy a mac. I think a lot of the anti-apple sentiment that you see on the net is a mix of resentment and jealousy because modern macs are such coveted machines. Why are you motivated to be an anti-advocate? The product isn't right for you. Do you go around making fun of deodorants or toasters that you've decided not to use? Do you make fun of Ivory soap because you're a Dove man?
deleted 18y ago
[deleted]
tom_rath 18y ago
>Java development on the Mac is also very popular Yeah, right. Get back to me when Apple arrives in 2006 and releases a version 1.6 JVM, or at least provides an automatic update to Java 1.5 on OS X 10.4!
- tlrobinson 18y ago
  1.6 is available... but only for Intel Macs running Leopard: http://developer.apple.com/java/ http://developer.apple.com/java/ Also, I think it's pretty clear that Apple hates Java, at least on the desktop, and for pretty good reason. Java GUI apps are pretty much the antithesis of Mac OS X GUI apps. Java may be great for certain applications but I have yet to be convinced that GUI apps are one of them.
  - tom_rath 18y ago
    You'd think that, but digging a little deeper shows: "Java SE 6 is available on 64-bit, Intel-based Macs only." Unless your customers are running 64-bit machines (and even they would have waited until this September for compatibility), you're SOL and have to compile a separate Java 1.5 release for Mac. So, Windows 2000/XP: No problem! 1.6 compatibility in 2006. OS X 10.5: Whoa! This Java thing is too new-fangled for us! As for the GUI: You can get around that with a Synth theme. Ugly and slow Java on the desktop is a thing of the past (even on Mac).
    - tlrobinson 18y ago
      It's not just the theme that I dislike (Java on OS X tries to mimic native OS X widgets) Java GUI apps just don't feel like real OS X apps. Whether that's a shortcoming of Java itself, Apple's implementation, or Java developers, I don't know. Probably a combination. I'm pretty sure that all the Macs Apple sells now (and for the past year or so) are 64-bit. (Also it's been available since April). But yes, it's less than ideal.
      - tom_rath 18y ago
        Restricting your customer base to those who purchased a new computer in the past year will greatly harm your income (particularly if you're selling business apps). As for the feel: Don't get bogged down by the implementation technology. The vast majority of your customers (presuming you're not targeting the rabid fanboy subset of Mac) will not notice nor care about the language you've implemented your application in. If your software does what a business needs and looks reasonably good while doing it, you'll make a killing.
rflrob 18y ago
"It's possible to build a quad-core PC running Eclipse and Gimp for less than $400 with refurbished hardware. At the time of this writing, the Mac Pro with one quad-core CPU begins at $2,300. Adding Photoshop and other tools can push the bill closer to $4,000." It may be true that it's possible to do that, but part of the reason Macs are so expensive is that they don't (generally) skimp on parts, and there's a lot of design that they put into the system.
- crabapple 18y ago
  the reason Macs are so expensive is that they don't (generally) skimp on parts are you kidding? they sell inferior hardware for more cost. it is trivial to locate a vendor selling better performing hardware for less cost
- evgen 18y ago
  Yeah, I would like to know where someone is going to find a quad-core harpertown for less than 600 per unit (unless it happens to "fall off the back of a truck"...)
  - wmf 18y ago
    Apple is forcing some customers to buy Harpertown when they really want Yorkfield.
plinkplonk 18y ago
why some developers prefer macs.
shimi 18y ago
I probably missed the part of: what are the benefits of writing software on a Mac. Developing C# on bootcamp is like developing Linux on Windows running VirtaulBox. I actually experienced the last sentence to one time thing, but on daily basis I would say its inefficient. Personally after 4 years of windows development staying with Windows. I've got a Vista laptop and I admit that there are some challenges to get things done, but in all its working fine. For what I'm doing I can't see any benefit using a Mac
- jmtulloss 18y ago
  4GB of memory in a MacBook Pro is a marvelous thing. I can develop in whatever OS I like and still enjoy being at my computer. It's the little things, I find, that make me stop working. It's the little things that Mac takes care of. I don't have to be frustrated, I can just open up whatever tool I need on whatever OS it needs and work away. A lot of credit goes to VMWare too. Fusion is a terrific product.
  - Tichy 18y ago
    Funny, my impression was that it is rather Microsoft that also takes care of the little things, whereas Apple seems to be prone to skipping the little things because they might appear too ugly. It's little things like having the right menu options at the right place, "Open Command Line Here", stuff like that - have forgotten the details because I haven't used either OS X or Windows in a while. But Windows has usability research groups. I am not sure if Apple even has those, or if they just rely on their fancy designers.
- ThisOldCoder 18y ago
  I don't have a whole lot of time, but here's the gist of it: on a Mac, I have access to BSD apps (easily installed via MacPorts), OSX apps and Windows apps (via VMWare fusion, which works like a treat). For example, if I'm developing a webapp, I can fire up two Windows sessions in VMWare for easy testing on IE6 and IE7, a Ubuntu session for testing in Konqueror, and test FF2 and FF3 in various OSs. In the end, I spent several years developing on Windows, and a couple years developing on various versions of Linux. Then I tried a Mac, and found that for my needs, for the way I work and the things I'm working on, I am more efficient on a Mac.

26 points by snydeq 18y ago

Until the day i can install MacOS X on a virtual box or on my pc i remain an apple anti-fan boy. Oh and theres also that closed source thing, but i can live with it, just let me chose the hardware i want to run my software on!(and i don't mean the color of the MBP), Ill pay for it too, i promise!

jodrellblank 18y ago
To paraphrase Steve Yegge's latest: "This succinct yet completely accurate synopsis shows that all OS's have their attractions, and yet each also has a niche. You can choose an OS for the busy person, an OS for someone without much time, or an OS for the dedicated hobbyist, and you'll find that no matter which one you choose, it's missing some of the abilities you need."
- pavelludiq 18y ago
  upvoted because you're right, but still apple is evil and i don't like them, i don't know if their awesomeness comes from their evilness or despite it.
  - nickd 18y ago
    Apple makes products, and runs their company like a company trying to maximize their profits. You either buy their products, or you don't. Until they start clubbing seals with iPhones or something, I don't see them as "evil", just a company with shareholders in mind. The word evil is starting to get thrown around a little to much these days. Maybe we should save it for when it truly applies.
    - litewulf 18y ago
      To be fair though, Microsoft is pretty much the company people think of when you mention an evil corporation (in the tech world), and I think they are criticized for largely the same thing. Cohesive, all inclusive environments that provide everything they think you want. I think evil is bandied about as a proxy for "this corporation operates in a way detrimental to a world I would like to see", or something like that. In which case, I think the label is well deserved for both.
      - jonknee 18y ago
        They aren't considered evil for providing everything they think you want, they are considered evil for [formally] exploiting a monopoly.
        unalone 18y ago
        I actually call them evil entirely because they seem not to understand what makes products good and consistent and usable, and yet they spend billions trying to improve their products. Their solutions are thoroughly unintuitive, I've found.
  - unalone 18y ago
    It's not evil so much as it is closed-mindedness. And yes, that's what makes Apple so awesome. You can't be uncompromising in your feature set and design if you don't hold control over every small aspect of your software and hardware. Apple has decided that they know what's best for their operating system, and that other people aren't allowed to undermine them. It means that programmers have to conform and that hardware designers can't use Apple at all. The result is that users don't have many options, but that all their options are good ones; Apple employees are much better-suited to fixing computer problems than retail employees for other companies; and designers get to focus less on overall design and more on their features. It's a win-win-win. Say you get to install Apple on a virtual box on your computer. You lose the multitouch capacity, if you're using a laptop, because multitouch pads are rare outside of Apple notebooks. That means you're operating at a loss already, that Apple's system isn't working exactly how Apple wants it to. You also lose the preset keyboard controls for stopping and starting music, you lose keyboards that light up in the dark, you lose buttons for Expose and Dashboard and ejecting CDs. You lose the Command key. In other words, you're suddenly using an operating system that isn't operating at its full capacity. Apple doesn't want that: Steve Jobs is famously quoted as saying that he could make his computers cheaper, but only at the cost of quality and reputation, and that in his mind quality ought to be the top concern for getting a computer. Is that evil? Because I think it's highly principled. The loss is openness, and that's where you're getting "evil" from. (I'd assume.) The problem with open is that it's unfocused. You can't demand the same level of quality with open that you can with a closed, rigid system. And in my eyes, that's the evil route. The people who say they wish Microsoft and Apple would crumble and fall away because they charge money for their systems are people who're saying that they'd do away with an incredibly efficient system for the sake of something that's buggy and unstable, which is pretty smug and stupid in my opinion.
    - litewulf 18y ago
      Translation: I like it when I am mistreated by Apple because I can believe it is part of some greater purpose. (I think this is a very meaningless argument. Some people care about one thing, other people care about other things. Products may be judged by different criteria by different people.)
KirinDave 18y ago
But this isn't a recipe for the kind of profits Apple wants. And it's not like Apple is alone in this restriction of virtualization, Microsoft does it too. People get so feisty that Apple doesn't cater to them. Apple makes the products that Apple feels are profitable. There are a lot of other choices and a variety of alternative OS's. You shouldn't feel pressured to buy a mac. I think a lot of the anti-apple sentiment that you see on the net is a mix of resentment and jealousy because modern macs are such coveted machines. Why are you motivated to be an anti-advocate? The product isn't right for you. Do you go around making fun of deodorants or toasters that you've decided not to use? Do you make fun of Ivory soap because you're a Dove man?

deleted 18y ago

[deleted]

tom_rath 18y ago

>Java development on the Mac is also very popular Yeah, right. Get back to me when Apple arrives in 2006 and releases a version 1.6 JVM, or at least provides an automatic update to Java 1.5 on OS X 10.4!

tlrobinson 18y ago
1.6 is available... but only for Intel Macs running Leopard: http://developer.apple.com/java/ http://developer.apple.com/java/ Also, I think it's pretty clear that Apple hates Java, at least on the desktop, and for pretty good reason. Java GUI apps are pretty much the antithesis of Mac OS X GUI apps. Java may be great for certain applications but I have yet to be convinced that GUI apps are one of them.
- tom_rath 18y ago
  You'd think that, but digging a little deeper shows: "Java SE 6 is available on 64-bit, Intel-based Macs only." Unless your customers are running 64-bit machines (and even they would have waited until this September for compatibility), you're SOL and have to compile a separate Java 1.5 release for Mac. So, Windows 2000/XP: No problem! 1.6 compatibility in 2006. OS X 10.5: Whoa! This Java thing is too new-fangled for us! As for the GUI: You can get around that with a Synth theme. Ugly and slow Java on the desktop is a thing of the past (even on Mac).
  - tlrobinson 18y ago
    It's not just the theme that I dislike (Java on OS X tries to mimic native OS X widgets) Java GUI apps just don't feel like real OS X apps. Whether that's a shortcoming of Java itself, Apple's implementation, or Java developers, I don't know. Probably a combination. I'm pretty sure that all the Macs Apple sells now (and for the past year or so) are 64-bit. (Also it's been available since April). But yes, it's less than ideal.
    - tom_rath 18y ago
      Restricting your customer base to those who purchased a new computer in the past year will greatly harm your income (particularly if you're selling business apps). As for the feel: Don't get bogged down by the implementation technology. The vast majority of your customers (presuming you're not targeting the rabid fanboy subset of Mac) will not notice nor care about the language you've implemented your application in. If your software does what a business needs and looks reasonably good while doing it, you'll make a killing.

rflrob 18y ago

"It's possible to build a quad-core PC running Eclipse and Gimp for less than $400 with refurbished hardware. At the time of this writing, the Mac Pro with one quad-core CPU begins at $2,300. Adding Photoshop and other tools can push the bill closer to $4,000." It may be true that it's possible to do that, but part of the reason Macs are so expensive is that they don't (generally) skimp on parts, and there's a lot of design that they put into the system.

crabapple 18y ago
the reason Macs are so expensive is that they don't (generally) skimp on parts are you kidding? they sell inferior hardware for more cost. it is trivial to locate a vendor selling better performing hardware for less cost
evgen 18y ago
Yeah, I would like to know where someone is going to find a quad-core harpertown for less than 600 per unit (unless it happens to "fall off the back of a truck"...)
- wmf 18y ago
  Apple is forcing some customers to buy Harpertown when they really want Yorkfield.

plinkplonk 18y ago

why some developers prefer macs.

shimi 18y ago

I probably missed the part of: what are the benefits of writing software on a Mac. Developing C# on bootcamp is like developing Linux on Windows running VirtaulBox. I actually experienced the last sentence to one time thing, but on daily basis I would say its inefficient. Personally after 4 years of windows development staying with Windows. I've got a Vista laptop and I admit that there are some challenges to get things done, but in all its working fine. For what I'm doing I can't see any benefit using a Mac

jmtulloss 18y ago
4GB of memory in a MacBook Pro is a marvelous thing. I can develop in whatever OS I like and still enjoy being at my computer. It's the little things, I find, that make me stop working. It's the little things that Mac takes care of. I don't have to be frustrated, I can just open up whatever tool I need on whatever OS it needs and work away. A lot of credit goes to VMWare too. Fusion is a terrific product.
- Tichy 18y ago
  Funny, my impression was that it is rather Microsoft that also takes care of the little things, whereas Apple seems to be prone to skipping the little things because they might appear too ugly. It's little things like having the right menu options at the right place, "Open Command Line Here", stuff like that - have forgotten the details because I haven't used either OS X or Windows in a while. But Windows has usability research groups. I am not sure if Apple even has those, or if they just rely on their fancy designers.
ThisOldCoder 18y ago
I don't have a whole lot of time, but here's the gist of it: on a Mac, I have access to BSD apps (easily installed via MacPorts), OSX apps and Windows apps (via VMWare fusion, which works like a treat). For example, if I'm developing a webapp, I can fire up two Windows sessions in VMWare for easy testing on IE6 and IE7, a Ubuntu session for testing in Konqueror, and test FF2 and FF3 in various OSs. In the end, I spent several years developing on Windows, and a couple years developing on various versions of Linux. Then I tried a Mac, and found that for my needs, for the way I work and the things I'm working on, I am more efficient on a Mac.