If you give the Mac three months, as I did, you won't go back either. The hardest part is paying for it -- everything after that gets easier and easier. Perhaps fittingly, it took me the full three-month trial period to pay off my expensive MacBook Pro. But the darn thing is worth every penny.
What about Windows?
After hundreds of hours testing Windows Vista during its extensive beta cycle, last year I found myself wondering if it would turn out to be the best operating system choice for most people. That's when I decided to give Mac OS X a fair shake. In early November I began a total-immersion trial of the Macintosh.
I started by making a brand new Core 2 Duo MacBook Pro 17 my primary computer. For a month before the trial officially started in November, and during the two weeks that followed, I worked on selecting products, converting data, and setting up corporate software systems for my company, as well as finding solutions for personal use. Prior to my adoption of the Mac, I had one Windows computer for both business and home, so the Mac had to handle both sets of tasks too.
After living with the Mac for three months and comparing it to my Vista experiences, the choice is crystal clear. I've struggled to sort out my gut feeling about Windows Vista (see ""), but the value and advantage of the Mac and OS X are difficult to miss. While I continue to work with Windows XP and Vista on a number of other machines, I am now recommending the Macintosh for business and home users.
Microsoft's marketing materials for a past version of Windows used the phrase, "It just works." But the only computer that tagline honestly describes is the Macintosh. Don't translate that in your mind as, "Yeah, so what, the Mac is easy to use." Any new computing environment takes some getting used to. The easy-to-use aspect is nice, but not all that significant. When Mac users say, "It just works," what they mean is that you spend more time on your work, and a lot less time working on your computer.
Note that my Mac runs Windows in the Parallels virtual-machine software, which I use frequently for a handful of specific tasks. The version of Windows I use there, and that I am currently recommending, is Windows XP. If you read "," you'll see why I currently recommend XP over Vista. That recommendation may change at some later date.
I know that many readers will move to Vista anyway (as I have done on my main Windows PC). That's OK, as long as you go into it with your eyes open.
In search of Mac software
I received so much e-mail from Scot's Newsletter and Computerworld readers about the previous installment in the Mac trial series that there's just no way to read it all. Mac forums and blog sites ripped me to shreds for picayune details, most of which were misunderstood or taken out of context. But more than a thousand people wrote to wish me well with my tests, many of them telling of their own switch to the Mac or offering help and useful insights.
There are a few points I need to set to rights. My initial in finding Mac programs was not detailed enough. My apologies for that. I didn't realize how many people would try to help.
Screenshot program
For one thing, I mentioned I was looking for a solid screenshot utility for the Mac -- and I still haven't found a solution that works for me. But if I had a dollar for everyone who wrote, with the best intentions, to tell me that the Mac has built-in screen-capture functionality (such as Command-Shift-3 to take the whole screen) as well as the Grab utility for the same purpose, I'd be taking a week off.
Thanks for writing, but the truth is that the Apple-supplied means of taking screenshots are woefully inadequate for the needs of a software reviewer. The people who understood that I need a truly high-end screenshot program all recommended Ambrosia Software's Snapz Pro X. Although this utility has some of the higher-end features I need, it doesn't have them all, and the interface is absolutely terrible. (Ambrosia also doesn't get it: Its "demo" trial version renders your screenshots unusable. I uninstalled the product the moment I realized that. It's idiotic because that isn't try-to-buy. If I can't actually use the screenshots it takes for 30 days, I'm not going to try it at all.)
Someone, anyone, make a better screenshot utility for the Mac. Let me suggest 10 features that I expect to find in a more advanced screenshot utility:
1. Image conversion among all major image formats and the capability to select a new default file format from among those image types.
2. A facility that lets you control default options for some file formats, like number of colors and quality/compression levels (as with JPEGs, for example).
3. Automatic, sequentially numbered file naming with user-specifiable root names (such as, "OSXLeop_###") and folder-save-to locations. It should also let the user specify the starting number of the file-naming sequence.
4. A capability that lets you optionally hide all but the Apple default desktop icons and other user customizations.
5. User-configurable screen-capture delay with audible and/or visible countdown. This feature is sometimes required to set up and capture open menus, drop-downs, and so on. There should also be an option to include or not include the mouse pointer.
6. Automatic selection of common object elements, such as program window, menu bar, toolbar, icons, the Dock, etc. (Apple's built-in Command-Shift-4-Spacebar key combination does this, but the facility is otherwise very limited). Snap-to selection for parts of objects is also very desirable. Any product that offers only a manual drag-selection tool for parts of the screen doesn't make the cut.
7. Important functionality: A capture-preview window that appears before you save the file, so you can review it and make appropriate alterations.
8. The capability to add basic (and preferably subtle) edge effects, such as rules, blurring, ripples, tear-aways, white borders and so on.
9. The capability to make assisted selections within the preview to save as separate shots.
10. The ability to save named sets of settings (such as file format, image quality, file name and file-save location, and object selection type) that can later be called by the user to suit specific capture needs.
An advanced screenshot-capture program is really my biggest unfulfilled software need on the Mac. I have tested a long list of products and come up empty-handed so far. Some of the ones that come the closest are programs such as FreeSnap and AlphaCapture that were abandoned by program authors. Continued support and a Universal binary -- meaning the program can run on Intel Core Macs as well as older PowerPC Macs -- are other important needs.
HTML editor
I have tried a very long list of Mac-based HTML editors suggested by scores of people. Thanks for your input! I neglected to mention that I have no interest at all in WYSIWYG HTML "editors." I've been creating HTML pages since 1994, and I'm a code-in-your-hands guy. FrontPage, for example, is anathema to me. The code it creates is junky and imprecise.
The product I use under Windows, HomeSite, is pretty unique. But the main things I like about it are:
-- The ability to manage scores of open file windows at once, and search and replace large blocks of text across them.
-- The ability to proof to the Web browser of your choice right in the program window. HomeSite does this in two ways. For quick spot-checks, it offers a browser window that works like a tab. So you work in the Edit window and then click the Browse tab to render the selected Edit window. It's easy to toggle back and forth, and best of all, you're not spawning new windows at all when you do.
The second way is to spawn external browser windows from a toolbar button. You can configure as many specific browsers as you want and choose the one you want to view your Edit window's contents with from a toolbar-button drop-down. Proofing your HTML work is a HomeSite strength.
-- Automatic, Word-like spell checking within the Edit window that can optionally ignore HTML.
There are a lot of other great features in HomeSite, but those are the ones that matter most to me.
A couple of smart readers (you know who you are, and thanks!) tipped me off to the fact that Adobe Dreamweaver 8's coding environment is based on the HomeSite software (which Macromedia bought several years ago, before it was in turn purchased by Adobe). There's a 30-day demo of Dreamweaver, so I was able to download it and try it out for myself. Sure enough, Dreamweaver 8 incorporates HomeSite -- and it's a better version of the HTML editor than the one last one created for Windows.
Eureka! I found my solution. And even though Dreamweaver is primarily a WYSIWYG tool, it can function either way. I look at that as a benefit too. Dreamweaver has always been the best WYSIWYG tool for mocking up new site designs.
But there's a problem. Dreamweaver costs $400. And while that's OK in the corporate world, it's a stretch for my budget. As a result, I've had to fall back on using HomeSite 5.5 under Windows running in Parallels on my Mac. That works just fine, for now. One day I'll figure out a way to give Dreamweaver a real test.
My e-mail migration
A number of people have written me with suggestions about how I might have automated my of mailboxes, filters, and address book. About 90 percent of the suggestions weren't useful in my case because of one or both of these the reasons: I already tried it and it didn't work, or it converts mailboxes but not e-mail rules. That second point was especially important for me because I have over 500 mail-filtering rules. Since rules and mailbox names are inextricably linked in my environment (most of my rules route messages to a specific mail folder), the two had to be converted together.
Under the heading "I tried it already and it didn't work": Emailchemy, for example, didn't work in my situation. I might have used it for part of the process, but after looking at it, I realized it would have taken me as much work as I wound up doing anyway, plus I would have had to pay for it. I actually contacted Emailchemy's tech support to confirm this before I moved on. Apple offers the AppleScript utility for free, and I had high hopes for it, but I couldn't make it properly address the other tools involved. As it was, I wasted half a day playing with both AppleScript and BBEdit's TextFactory scripting facility before I opted to cut my time losses and solve the problem in the fastest, if least attractive, way. (But I'll come back to an AppleScript-based solution in a bit.)
Many people wrote me to suggest easy ways to convert line endings in text files. I actually didn't have any trouble with that aspect of the chore. Several products do that very well. The main problem was getting the Mac to open and recognize the Windows-created Eudora mailbox files as Mac Eudora mailbox files. That's two separate problems, actually.
The easier problem to figure out was how to make the Mac associate Windows-based .mbx (Eudora Mailbox files) with Mac Eudora, so that the Mac can finally recognize them. It was just counterintuitive. The trick is to preserve the Windows file extension. I came across forum posts and help sites that gave me this technique; it's apparently needed more frequently under OS X than earlier Mac system software versions. It was an easy process to use the Mac's Get Info facility for one of these files and apply the Eudora association to all files with that extension.
The second problem -- that the Mac and its apps would not recognize these files (I couldn't open them in any application, and they appeared grayed out in File Open dialog boxes) -- took a bit longer to figure out. The only program with which I was able to open these files successfully was the TextWrangler (or its big brother, BBEdit) text editor. To open them in BBEdit, I had to drag and drop the .mbx file icons onto the BBEdit program icon. And it wasn't until I saved these mailbox files with BBEdit that the Mac began to recognize them. (Note: I tried several other text editors, and none of them solved the problem.)
I decided to use BBEdit to set the new line endings because it was easy enough to do once I was in there. Besides, I found that text encoding was an issue with about 10 percent of my mailbox files, which required me to mess around in there anyway. Another 10 percent had a file-name length problem, requiring me to shorten the file name on the Mac. Since I had to work manually on some aspects anyway, it just made more sense to do everything in one place instead of running through separate batch processes.
The good news is that the Mac community is friendly and active, and a lot of people tried to help. The most promising suggestion came from a developer who solved the identical problem for himself by creating some AppleScript scripts using some development tools. Jay Batson is a programmer and CEO of Plum Canary, which makes the Chirp task and project management software for the Mac and Windows. While I haven't tested his Eudora migration scripts, he definitely understood the Windows-Eudora-to-Mac-Eudora migration problems and convinced me that he licked them. Check out Jay's SourceForge.net project for downloadable (command-line based) help.
A last note about e-mail: With my Mac environment becoming permanent, I'm giving thought to migrating again to Apple's Mail program, which I like quite a bit. The only thing really stopping me is the lack of export options out of Apple Mail. What if I don't like it? On other hand, it's not like Eudora's maker, Qualcomm, offered any help whatsoever, even for migrating between its own e-mail software versions. I'm sure I can figure it out if I have to.
Mac browsers
In other software news, I've spent a lot of time testing browsers, including Safari, Firefox, Camino, Opera and OmniWeb. I've come to a hard conclusion: There is -- surprisingly -- no ideal browser on the Mac.
Like many Mac users, I have come to like Apple's Safari quite a bit, even though from a usability standpoint it has not kept pace with OmniWeb, Firefox, or Camino. (Let's hope that the new version of Safari coming in OS X Leopard 10.5 makes major strides. I have my doubts that it will.) On the plus side, Safari is lightweight, renders pages well, is fast, and delivers 80 percent of what I need.
After more time with Mozilla's Firefox on the Mac, I am less enthusiastic. I like the overall UI, but the product has not been properly tested on the Mac platform. There are little things it doesn't do that it's supposed to do. For example, I'm big on putting bookmarks in the form of Web icons on the desktop. Firefox doesn't preserve the titlebar text on Web site desktop icons. It can also take interminably long to load. There are other user-experience breaks too. Firefox 2 for the Mac lacks polish.
Camino, the Mozilla browser built specifically for the Mac, has all the fit and finish that Firefox lacks, but it doesn't support extensions, isn't updated fast enough for my taste, and doesn't even offer the search box appended above the status bar -- one of Firefox's great little features. Camino is based on an older version of the Firefox Gecko browser engine, but its maker is marching to a different drummer than I want to march to. If Camino was basically Firefox properly refined for the Mac, it would own the Mac browser space. What a shame.
About Opera, well, I still don't like Opera. So what else is new? I love the features and the speed, but the user interface is quirky and annoying. Whenever I try to use it (on whatever platform), I find the experience a chore. In my book, a browser has to be fun to use; Opera isn't.
Finally, the browser I like the best overall is OmniWeb from The Omni Group. But because of one specific feature, I just can't use it. Its makers will have to adopt a Firefox 2-like tabbed-browsing system before they get me. OmniWeb's tabbed browsing uses thumbnails of the Web sites running down the side of the browser window. That would be nice as an option, but as the only tab UI, it uses too much space. The option to convert the thumbnails to text actually requires a bit more space, not less.
I was supposed to meet with Omni Group at Macworld, but I wound up having to miss the show for business reasons. I didn't get to give them my feedback as a result. I hope this will suffice.
More Mac software
I still haven't selected my one and only FTP package, but it's still between Yummy and CuteFTP. Both are running on my Mac very well.
For the moment, I'm running the FeedDemon RSS reader under Windows, but my intention is to switch to NetNewsWire for the Mac (which, like FeedDemon, was purchased by NewsGator). I've used NetNewsWire before, and I just haven't found anything else I like as well. Three or four readers also suggested it.
One of the more esoteric utilities on my list is an RSS feed creation tool. I've been using Dan Bricklin's ListGarden for the past couple of years under Windows. The fact that I was searching for a Mac solution was kind of funny. It turns out that Dan makes versions of this tool for Windows, Mac OS X, and Linux. So I'm all set.
This is an updated list of the Mac software that has been admitted to my regular-use list:
-- Microsoft Office 2004
-- Eudora
-- Spamnix for Eudora
-- Mozilla Firefox
-- Parallels Desktop
-- Bare Bones Software's BBEdit or TextWrangler
-- Coriolis Systems' iPartition
-- Microsoft Remote Desktop Client
-- Shirt Pocket's SuperDuper
-- Apple's StuffIt Expander
-- Yummy Software's Yummy FTP
-- GlobalScape's CuteFTP Mac Pro
-- Adobe Reader
-- DoubleCommand (keyboard-customizing utility)
-- Apple .Mac
-- Software Garden's ListGarden
-- Titanium Software's OnyX (OS X system tweaking utility)
-- ClamXav virus scanner (I may not be using it much longer)
-- IBM's Lotus Notes
I also regularly use these Apple programs that come with the Macintosh software bundle:
-- iCal
-- iChat
-- iPhoto
-- iTunes
Do you have something you want to tell me about the Mac (or Windows, for that matter)? Drop me a line.