I also switched from Mac back to Windows recently, and am curious what you're missing.
Scrivener is available for Windows (though I use Hemingway.)
OmniFocus has many web-based alternatives...I use Trello, personally. (It's also a Windows app now!)
Coda -- well, there's Sublime Text, VS Code, or JetBrains' universe of IDEs.
This isn't a critique of what you said, by the way. I do think more info about what you're looking for would be great insight for the folks who read Hacker News -- some of whom might be willing to develop paid Windows apps if there's true demand in those areas.
Scrivener is a second class citizen on Windows (e.g. no version 3 yet.) The money is clearly on Mac.
There is really no good OmniFocus alternative on Windows. Most are too simple, or more focused on coordinating teams than having lots of tools for an individual juggling lots of things. E.g. Todoist (and many other web apps) doesn’t have proper sub-tasks. Almost none has a proper review mode. MyLifeOrganized is really good, but it lacks the polish of OnniFocus. (Likely because it has a much smaller team than Omni, because Windows users aren’t willing to pay.) Trello is great for what it does, but its calendar integration is an afterthought.
Stuff is a little better on the developer tool side, where there is still a willingness to pay for stuff like Jetbrains. VS Code though is a good example of how free products are worse (less features, Electron, etc.) than paid software (Visual Studio).
> Scrivener is a second class citizen on Windows (e.g. no version 3 yet.) The money is clearly on Mac.
I wonder if they've ever published a breakdown on Mac vs. Windows users or if you're just making that up? They've stated they spend more on Windows development, although they evidently aren't getting enough out of it.
> OmniFocus has many web-based alternatives...I use Trello, personally
I love Trello, but it’s an OF ‘alternative’ at best. It is no way a replacement. OmniFocus is an order of magnitude more powerful. Even an app like Things doesn’t get close; I use both, and while I’d like to maintain an OF=home/Things=work separation, there are a bunch of things that I do that Things just can’t handle.
On the subject of quality software more generally, this is one of the major frustrations I have when forced to use Windows. On my Mac, if I need a bit of software to do a job there is generally – not always, of course, but generally – something well written, well supported, and beautiful. I find it, give the developer $5-$50, and enjoy a long and fruitful relationship.
If I need software on Windows, it’s a hot mess. I mean it’s just a fucking disaster. You Google what you want and get all sorts of shite. You risk your neck and download some file from Sourceforge. You ‘install’ it and have to reboot. Reboot? To install software? Wow. Okay. So you reboot then you launch the software and guess what? It’s a fucking turd.
> I find it, give the developer $5-$50, and enjoy a long and fruitful relationship.
> You Google what you want and get all sorts of shite. You risk your neck and download some file from Sourceforge.
You are comparing buying an application from a commercial developer who - if nothing else - has at least an incentive to provide a good experience and downloading an application for free written by someone who may or may not care further about the program than dumping it in a shared hosting service and you are surprised that the former is better?
How about 'finding' equivalent commercial software for Windows?
> You ‘install’ it and have to reboot. Reboot? To install software?
Unless the program targets Windows 95/98, this is not necessary and the largest majority of programs designed for Windows 2000 and later should not need reboot (even during Windows 9x it was unnecessary most of the time and was there 'just in case').
> I hate it. Viscerally hate it.
Then do something about it: support the developers who write quality software.
Windows has a lot more software than Mac and unlike Mac, software in Windows keeps working for years on (i personally use a lot of older software, largely because it is faster on modern machines). This means you have a TON of options, but at the same time Sturgeon's law enters in the picture so with the more options you have more crap. The other side of the coin is that you also have more quality options too.
Yes it is harder to find good software, but it is far from impossible. One way is to look for sites dedicated to software and then look for comments about those sites in Reddit, etc and ignore those that have bad comments. Another way is to ask in communities like Reddit's /r/software - people will try to steer you towards cheap/halfass solutions and ask you why would you want to pay $1 to do X instead of spending a few weeks jury rigging the free Y+Z+W+4+5 (which btw are open source, thus have god given quality status) to do mostly the same thing except a little more broken, but if you insist about what you want, you'll often find good software there (i have found some nice apps through the subreddit myself).
TBH it has been years since i used a Mac extensively, but i do not remember finding quality Mac software being any different than quality Windows software - i mostly relied on sites and communities too.
Apple does not pay much attention to backwards compatibility, deprecates APIs all the time, changes how they work, etc and if something is undocumented it is free for all to axe it regardless of how many applications use it. Microsoft, on the other hand, pays a lot of attention to backwards compatibility and tries to keep things running regardless of them being documented or not (which IMO is the right approach to take, if something is accessible then it is part of your public interface regardless of it being intentional or not - of course this can lead to more messy implementation, but this is secondary to keep applications running).
As a result, none of the programs in my 2009 iMac work anymore - a few games, a few commercial applications (e.g. Pixelmator), etc, every time i upgraded macOS i lost one or two applications that were not compatible, until the point when macOS itself became not compatible with my iMac (and i am certain that if i try to move any remaining applications to another Mac, more stuff will not work). No matter what workarounds i tried to do, they didn't work.
On the other hand, i have Windows software from a decade before my iMac even existed that still works perfectly fine under Windows 10 exactly because Microsoft cares about backwards compatibility. For example i have a boxed version of Paint Shop Pro 7 (the last great version of PSP with the best UI for an image editor, IMO) which comes with the application itself as well as a couple of addons (an animation editor and an image organizer) and all of them work literally out of the box (some older applications might need a few tweaks here and there but they usually work easily, but others like PSP7 work with no tweaks at all).
For me this is a big reason why i stopped buying software on macOS: with their behavior towards API compatibility, Apple forces an expiration date to the software. On the other hand i do not even care if the company behind some piece of Windows software will exist or not in 5 years, since chances are i'll be able to run it regardless (assuming there is no need for Internet-based activation or some bullshit like that, which is why i avoid that type of software too).
I guess Linux is kinda similar here, partly because Linus insists on backwards compatibility but also because even if the APIs change you can still compile the older libraries, although that is talking from a purely personal perspective (this would be very high on the "tweak difficulty" for most people) and in practice nobody sells stuff i'd be interested on Linux anyway so i haven't experienced it beyond trying some older game demos from very early 2000s (which mostly worked after i installed an OSS emulator and an older C++ library, with the exception of -IIRC- a Shogo port that needed Gtk1 for the launcher - which i could compile or copy from Slackware that still provides packages for it, but i lost interest).
Still i'd trust Windows more to stay compatible and even under Linux i'd trust Wine before any other API.
And note that in all that i ignore Apple changing CPU architecture every few years (which, according to rumors, are going to do again soon).
While it's true that Apple has shifted wholesale more than Windows (from OS 9 to OS X; from PPC to Intel), I haven't found myself running aground on deprecated software often enough to notice.
It's probably true that if you really need binaries built during the Clinton administration to work, the Mac isn't for you. That such binaries still run on Windows is, to me, evidence of a problem in that world, not a feature.
I'd make an argument that Apple's willingness to do "big jumps" and cut ties with the past (in controlled ways, with long lead times and compatibility layers supported for a while after) is a strength of the platform, and leads to a more coherent and more stable environment.
Especially since most users have no need for ancient programs.
>f something is undocumented it is free for all to axe it regardless of how many applications use it.
This in particular seems like a feature. If it's not a documented part of the programming environment, use it at your peril.
>i ignore Apple changing CPU architecture every few years
Here's where I actually laughed at you. Characterizing "twice since 1984" as "every few years" is absurdly unreasonable.
I get it. You like that Windows is still basically the same house-of-cards system it was in 1995. Lots of people, though, don't think of this as a good thing. The Mac has thrived, I'd argue, BECAUSE of Apple's willingness to shift for the greater platform benefit -- off 68x to PPC for power; off PPC to Intel for both power and strategic reasons; into the BSD-based OSX for stability, power, and growth. Microsoft could learn a lot here.
> It's probably true that if you really need binaries built during the Clinton administration to work, the Mac isn't for you.
Notice that i'm talking about macOS being unable to run applications released less than 10 years ago. Of course older stuff would be even better, but macOS cannot do a third of that.
> That such binaries still run on Windows is, to me, evidence of a problem in that world, not a feature.
To me, as someone who actually wants to use the software and not wax about theoretical benefits (that in practice do not apply since macOS is these days - or at least was until a year or so ago, i didn't bother with it much since then - woefully unstable), this isn't just a feature, it is THE feature. The main reason i use Windows.
> I'd make an argument that Apple's willingness to do "big jumps" and cut ties with the past (in controlled ways, with long lead times and compatibility layers supported for a while after) is a strength of the platform, and leads to a more coherent and more stable environment.
That'd be nice if the environment was actually stable, but the last version that was approaching decent stability was Snow Leopard, everything after that is a downhill (especially since Apple decided to switch to periodic releases, as if an OS is a comic magazine).
> Especially since most users have no need for ancient programs.
There is no such a thing as "most users", different people have different needs and people do not care about something until the moment that something turns around and bites them.
> If it's not a documented part of the programming environment, use it at your peril.
You seem to not understand, this "you" who are talking about is not me, it is the developer of the program i am using.
I am not talking as the developer of the program, the developer can change it and it'll keep working.
I am talking as the USER of the program, a program whose developer might not even exist anymore or may have decided to screw me over and not fix their bugs. But this sort of developer wont care about Apple breaking their program, it is the users who will have to suffer the program not working.
Backwards compatibility is 90% for the users and only 10% for the developer (which is most likely why most developers do not care much about it, unless they become personally affected of course - and probably why most inexperienced developers do not see any issue with breaking backwards compatibility at all).
> Lots of people, though, don't think of this as a good thing. The Mac has thrived, I'd argue,
Your argument would be wrong considering the ridiculously gargantuan majority of desktop and laptop computers are using Windows only because they can run the programs the users care about.
Software is what makes an OS relevant, nothing else. The only purpose for an OS is to run the users' programs.
> Microsoft could learn a lot here.
If the lesson learned ends up in breaking people's programs, i'd rather them learning nothing.
>To me, as someone who actually wants to use the software
Oh, is that what I'm doing? Gosh, all this time I thought I was doing meaningful work using the software.
>woefully unstable
Is that really your experience? I mean, I run OSX on all the machines in my house, and work in it all day every day, and I haven't found it to be unstable at ALL. It might not be as rock-solid as it was 5 years ago, but it still manages to stay up and reasonable for months at a time, so it's a distinction without a difference.
My Windows machines can barely manage a few days without something coming along that requires a reboot to resolve.
>There is no such a thing as "most users"
That's not how math works.
When I said "If it's not a documented part of the programming environment, use it at your peril," I absolutely mean the developer. Don't use undocumented behavior. It's a dumb idea, and it absolutely WILL bite you. I mean, this isn't hard; if $vendor says "that's not documented or supported, and we can and will change that behavior," then it's malpractice to build a product that depends on it.
That MSFT has been less strict about this is a problem, not a feature.
>Your argument would be wrong
It, like all arguments, might well be -- but you certainly haven't demonstrated that it is.
Windows still enjoyed desktop hegemony because of momentum, and because you can buy a shitty Windows laptop for $200. It's not because Paint Shop Pro from 1999 still runs on it.
>i'd rather them learning nothing.
Well, you're absolutely getting your wish, because that appears to be what they've learned.
I don't know who is that, i'm not really following any Mac people, i speak from my personal experience as someone who used to be very into macOS for a while but lost interest due to the increasing instability and broken software every new version.
Like a decent editor, I tried coda and found it extremely limited no plugins, limited language support and no configuration. This has been my experience with all mac software.
Friends have recommended different software but when I tried to install it through iTunes I found the developers had went bankrupt or it was not available in my country, searching for apps on google seems to be a dead end.
I tried to find software so that I could use a normal mouse at a decent speed but again found them broken, relying on system calls that are undocumented. I found one which worked until I updated to Mojave but then they removed the system calls it used an it no longer works, so theres $100 down the drain.
Im not a fan of window but its so easy to just search google download it for free and it works your done.
Linux you just search your package manger download it for free configure it to do exactly what you want and it works your done.
> found them broken, relying on system calls that are undocumented
> they removed the system calls it used an it no longer works, so theres $100 down the drain
And that is why backwards compatibility is important and why only Microsoft seem to get it (and Linus but sadly that doesn't extend to the userspace, except X11 but dumbheads want to remove that too) - it doesn't matter if the company is bankrupt after you get your program, it will keep in working doing what it always did. It doesn't matter if the OS gets updated with new features and driver support because the APIs will keep working for the older programs that use them (and sometimes even get new features since new programs may also use these APIs - although Microsoft doesn't have a great record here with introducing new GUI APIs every few years, but at least older stuff do not get abandoned). Your $100 (or whatever) wont be down the drain, it'll be spent on something that works for many years to come. In the meanwhile macOS will break half of its APIs and go through three different CPU architectures, ensuring nothing will work.
My 2c having switched from Mac to Windows and also lamenting some of the software:
* The closest I've found to Coda on Windows is HTMLPad 2018 - though it took a while for me to discover "mappings" so I could get the in-app browser preview working. It doesn't have the polish Coda does - eg lots of icons are too tiny in HiDPI mode.
* Cyberduck is the closest I've found to Panic Transmit, but it's also blurry in HiDPI modes, and has a nasty bug where large files over 100MB uploaded to Backblaze B2 won't complete & terminate as corrupted.
* Windows start menu sort've replaces Alfred App, but it's not as easy to do things like type quick math equations (it sends them out to Bing instead of calculating locally, so it's much slower)
* I really, really miss Cathode by Secret Geometry. It costs $5 but I'd easily pay $20. If I have to use the terminal I'd like to do it in style. Cathode is a terminal app that emulates CRT displays, including flicker, jitter, static & curvature. Cool Retro Term is closest, but there's no Windows version, and certainly not without lots of hacks to try and make the Linux version work through Windows Subsystem For Linux.
(I'm sure there's others I've missed, but that's the first that leaps to mind.)
Windows app GUI is a joke. After people widely used Windows for over 20 years, their cluttered interface never got any better having 10 menus, 20 buttons shown at once where many of Mac apps got that right with simpler and effective interface.
If I have the option to choose between WinSCP and Transmit, Transmit is the obvious choice. CyberDuck interface isn't as bad as those Windows only ones but not as polished.
Scrivener is available for Windows (though I use Hemingway.)
OmniFocus has many web-based alternatives...I use Trello, personally. (It's also a Windows app now!)
Coda -- well, there's Sublime Text, VS Code, or JetBrains' universe of IDEs.
This isn't a critique of what you said, by the way. I do think more info about what you're looking for would be great insight for the folks who read Hacker News -- some of whom might be willing to develop paid Windows apps if there's true demand in those areas.