or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › General › General Discussion › Vista dawns, world yawns
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Vista dawns, world yawns - Page 2

post #41 of 116
Most consumers may not care about Vista; nevertheless, aside from enthusiasts and pros, most Mac users tended not to care about Mac OS X and or it's various major updates. Most consumers adopt a new OS when they're forced to. Be it a bundle with a new computer, or a system requirement for a software package.

After being lured in they may start to value the new OS, but I would argue that both Microsoft and Apple dish out the majority of their licenses to people who are being required to get a new OS.
post #42 of 116
Reading the article I'm wondering what will happen to the poor schmuck who buy a "Vista Upgrade" when he'll need to reinstall his PC after a crash ?

If he needs to install his previous OS before being able to perform the upgrade and his previous license was revoked how is he supposed to do that ?
Buy a new PC to get Vista along ? Buy a new full-fledged license of Vista ? Or hope that his license key was not really marked as revoked by Microsoft to allow him to re-install his previous OS... better clone your OS right after installation just to be sure...

Good thinking Microsoft... continue this way to make life "easier" on the average PC Joe.
post #43 of 116
Quote:
Originally Posted by AppleInsider View Post

the license key for an existing version of Windows becomes invalid the moment a Vista upgrade is installed.

oh dear god, say it ain't so??? do you think they sat down and actually tried to make the licensing agreement as evil as this? the day microsoft (and hopefully all other companies with this kind of attitude) goes out of business will be a happy day for the human race
post #44 of 116
Quote:
Originally Posted by wilco View Post

Does someone have too much time on their hands = Yes.

excellent work though!
post #45 of 116
My favourite Vista comment:

"There will be thousands of tonnes of dumped monitors, video cards and whole computers," said Sian Berry, the Green Party's principal speaker. "Future archaeologists will be able to identify a Vista upgrade layer when they go through our landfill sites."

http://technology.guardian.co.uk/new...001815,00.html

Nothing quite like opportiunistic politicians, but if they're funny, it's almost forgivable...
post #46 of 116
Quote:
Originally Posted by sunilraman View Post

Yes. Certain nVidia AMD64 motherboard chipsets had problems with 4gb of RAM. I am shocked about this issue with Intel mobos. The newer nVidia motherboard chipsets for Intel Core2Duo (Conroe) should have no problem with accessing full dual-channel 2x1gb 2x1gb (total 4gb) RAM. AFAIK.

It's a 32-bit limitation, not a chipset limitation.

Vista 64-bit should not have a problem seeing all the memory installed, 4, 8, 16GB, depending on the motherboard and chipset. If Vista 64-bit is well coded even 32-bit applications will get a full 4GB memory space without limitations.

Vista 32-bit can only address 4GB of memory, and some of that memory space needs to be set aside for I/O, e.g., graphics card, chipset, etc. That's where the 768MB is going. You can enable PAE to get access to higher memory areas, but PAE is much slower.

Any decent Intel processor now supports 64-bit. The problem is 64-bit native drivers for Windows, where any hardware that isn't modern or common is very unlikely to ever get a driver. So you have to choose what is important for you - compatibility or larger memory space. Linux probably has more support for hardware in its 64-bit incarnation than Vista (64-bit Linux for AMD64 has been around for years now).

As for your post about nVidia/AMD64 issues, AMD put the memory controller on the CPU not the chipset, so there shouldn't have been any issues except for running a 32-bit OS with 4GB+ of installed memory.
post #47 of 116
Quote:
Originally Posted by ThinkExpensive View Post

Microsoft continues to be the worlds worst at marketing. Somehow, Apple while putting no serial #'s or applications has tons of people buying genuine copies of OS X (nice that there's no upgrade option, that would be hell) because it's such a good product. Maybe Microsoft should put more into R&D and less into copying Apple/bad and useless marketing and activation staff.

Microsoft

Microsoft doesn't really have to. All in all, Apple is not a very credible threat and it's the biggest one out there. They got the operating system goods, but their "come in on our terms" attitude drives people away.
post #48 of 116
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ireland View Post

Windows Vista Ultimate = $400 + Security software = Priceless.
Mac OS X (Ultimate) = $129

Will all Windows Vista Features work on my 3 year old machine = Most likely not.
Will all Mac OS X Features work on my 3 year old machine = Yes.

Will I have all the drivers I need to run Windows Vista comfortably = No.
Will I have all the drivers I need to run Mac OS X comfortably = What drivers? :P

Will Windows Vista's Features make OS X look dated = No.
Will Mac OS X.5 Leopard's Features make Windows Vista look dated = Most likely yes.

Will the new look of Windows Vista make it easiers to use then its predecessor = In practice the opposite is true.
Will the new look of OS X make it easiers to use then its predecessor = Most likely yes.

Will you switch back to Windows now = No.
Will you buy Leopard = Most likely yes.

Are you glad to be rid of Windows = Hell yes.
Are you glad to be a Mac user = Hell yes.

Was there a point to all this = Yes.
What was the point = Switch.

Actually, it would be more like $210 for OSX. Microsoft's sorry excuse for iLife competition is bundled with the OS. The rest of it holds up. Except for the drivers thing. Yes, the Mac does have and need them and in most cases, they support the exact same devices. The difference is that the Mac's go back to 2001 and windows goes back to like 1981.
post #49 of 116
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ireland View Post

Will all Windows Vista Features work on my 3 year old machine = Most likely not.
Will all Mac OS X Features work on my 3 year old machine = Yes.

You will not be able to use all of OS X Leopard's features on any machine from early 2004.
post #50 of 116
Word has even <a href="http://bingo.isfullofcrap.com/interview.mp3">gotten to me</a> that our interplanatary friends are not impressed with Vista. They do however appreciate the loopholes it contains right now.
post #51 of 116
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chucker View Post

You will not be able to use all of OS X Leopard's features on any machine from early 2004.

Is this really true? Perhaps there are just a few areas that only the latest Macs will work with? Does anyone know what aspects won't work with pre 2004 Macs?
post #52 of 116
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chucker View Post

You will not be able to use all of OS X Leopard's features on any machine from early 2004.

I believe that you are thinking about the issue of Intel vs. PowerMac. I think I remember there being some features that are unavailable due to some being tied to the Intel processors on the new Macs. It isn't just the age of the Mac.

There may be some degradation based upon chip speed or RAM, and perhaps some eye candy may be hobbled due to older, less capable graphics cards, but AFAIK otherwise, Leopard should work on anything running on a G3 or newer.
post #53 of 116
Quote:
Originally Posted by rahrens View Post

I believe that you are thinking about the issue of Intel vs. PowerMac.

No, I'm not speaking of Boot Camp.

Tiger was released in late April 2005. At the time, Apple still sold iBooks and Mac minis that did not take full advantage of all of Tiger's features. Most importantly, they did not support GPU-accelerated Core Image effects. They accelerated them through the CPU, but that's not quite the same. (Most prominently, you'll notice through the lack of ripple effect in Dashboard.) But Ireland wasn't even talking about then-current computers, but about computers from three years ago. Three years before late April 2005? In April 2002, the iBooks were still G3s! They don't even even have AltiVec, and therefore don't even support CPU acceleration, so Core Image is almost entirely out of question, and don't bother trying to use both Spotlight and Dashboard unless you use the absolute maximum of RAM.

It won't be any different for Leopard. Assuming it's released in April, you'd have to consider machines from April 2004. Many of those will not fully work with all of Leopard's features. Core Animation? Good luck with that. It'll work, but it will be un-fun to the point that you'll prefer to turn it off entirely. And then, what do you do once applications start requiring it?

This is not to slander Apple in any way, but to put things into perspective. When a new operating system requires modern hardware, there's nothing wrong with that, whether Apple does it, Microsoft does it, or anyone else does it. I've found Windows Vista's system requirements to be moderately reasonable, and the same will probably be true of Mac OS X 10.5 Leopard as well. But that doesn't mean everyone's invited. To develop great software, you have to make compromises, and throwing away compatibility for legacy machines is very frequently one of them.
post #54 of 116
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chucker View Post

No, I'm not speaking of Boot Camp.

To develop great software, you have to make compromises, and throwing away compatibility for legacy machines is very frequently one of them.

No, I wasn't talking about Boot Camp, either, although that is definitely tied to the processor so it does apply.

I don't remember which features, and what you mention in the rest of your post may be right on the mark.

My remark is to the affect that, as I remember the comments at the time, the features that will be unavailable are tied directly to functions available through the Intel processor Apple uses, and the Powermac processors don't support those functions.

As for the rest, you are correct, if Apple is to move forward, as in the past, they must at some point decide who comes along and who gets left behind. One of Microsoft's greatest problems is just this issue of legacy apps and hardware. They can't seem to decide where to draw the line, so they just never get around to doing it.

Apple does, so they can move forward faster and cleaner. (Which, yeah, helps drive the hardware side - but then as a Mac user since 1987, I'm not complaining!)
post #55 of 116
Quote:
Originally Posted by jonnyboy View Post

oh dear god, say it ain't so??? do you think they sat down and actually tried to make the licensing agreement as evil as this? the day microsoft (and hopefully all other companies with this kind of attitude) goes out of business will be a happy day for the human race

Someone in an earlier post noted that all Vista discs come with Vista Ultimate but have everything blocked off until you buy the upgrades. Therefore, if you bought an upgrarde, you would have a new serial number (or whatever) to install whatever version you upgraded to.
post #56 of 116
Go buy a copy of OSX and Apple will tell you that it can only be installed on Apple hardware. What's the difference.
Quote:
Originally Posted by talksense101 View Post

Vista will sell millions as it is bundled with almost all new personal computers. But anyone with a clue will avoid the product unless they can afford to get the ultimate edition which provides functionality similar to that of OS-X. Microsoft has seriously curtailed the functionality of the system with the "lesser" editions.

At the end of the day, what M$ doesn't seem to understand is that it is selling a f!@#ing operating system. Don't tell me what the f!@#! I am allowed to do with my computer. I don't plan to upgrade to this trash on my PC until XP support is stopped after the next five years. I will probably switch to Linux at that point in time.
post #57 of 116
Quote:
Originally Posted by ThinkExpensive View Post

Microsoft continues to be the worlds worst at marketing. Somehow, Apple while putting no serial #'s or applications has tons of people buying genuine copies of OS X (nice that there's no upgrade option, that would be hell) because it's such a good product. Maybe Microsoft should put more into R&D and less into copying Apple/bad and useless marketing and activation staff.

Microsoft continues to be worst at marketing? There is a reason why Apple was almost gone... They did a little better at first... Part of their marketing strategy was to open up development.

Now, I think they suck at it.
post #58 of 116
You can't even load Safai 2 on Panther.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chucker View Post

You will not be able to use all of OS X Leopard's features on any machine from early 2004.
post #59 of 116
I've been using Windows at work ever since it was launched (and DOS before that) and I've heard it all before. This version will be faster, more secure, etc, etc and every time I've been let down. I'm sure Vista will look better than XP but at the end of the day a dog is still a dog underneath even if you give it a makeover. This is why I switched to the Mac platform at home and why I'll never go back.

Forgive the pun but Leopard will knock the spots off Vista!
post #60 of 116
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chucker View Post

You will not be able to use all of OS X Leopard's features on any machine from early 2004.

Heck, Core Image doesn't work with a G4 mini, which predated Tiger by only a few months.

edit: you aready mentioned this a couple posts later.
post #61 of 116
http://www.dailytech.com/article.aspx?newsid=5932
for those who would need to reinstall.
Quote:
Originally Posted by fhx1274 View Post

Reading the article I'm wondering what will happen to the poor schmuck who buy a "Vista Upgrade" when he'll need to reinstall his PC after a crash ?

If he needs to install his previous OS before being able to perform the upgrade and his previous license was revoked how is he supposed to do that ?
Buy a new PC to get Vista along ? Buy a new full-fledged license of Vista ? Or hope that his license key was not really marked as revoked by Microsoft to allow him to re-install his previous OS... better clone your OS right after installation just to be sure...

Good thinking Microsoft... continue this way to make life "easier" on the average PC Joe.
post #62 of 116
Quote:
Originally Posted by marzetta7 View Post

Hmm, and let's see, how many features can they copy off of Apple...

1) Windows Sidebar - Can anyone say widgets? But no, Microsoft has to appear all original and call them "gadgets." Worst of all, you can't hide them, they just remain on your desktop taking up space. Already have these shut down, because honestly I don't want to see them when I'm not using or referencing them.

Konfabulator had widgets before Apple, so this entry isn't even viable to say that Microsoft copied Apple, because you'd have to acknowledge that Apple copied most of Konfabulator's ideas with a tweak or two to make Dashboard. Microsoft's Gadget lineage looks to be more like it's directly from Konfabulator.
post #63 of 116
You can also remove the gadgets from the screen.
Quote:
Originally Posted by JeffDM View Post

Konfabulator had widgets before Apple, so this entry isn't even viable to say that Microsoft copied Apple, because you'd have to acknowledge that Apple copied most of Konfabulator's ideas with a tweak or two to make Dashboard. Microsoft's Gadget lineage looks to be more like it's directly from Konfabulator.
post #64 of 116
Quote:
Originally Posted by BlackSummerNight View Post

Go buy a copy of OSX and Apple will tell you that it can only be installed on Apple hardware. What's the difference.

That's not too different from PCs. If you buy a Dell, and want to build your own, don't expect that OEM copy to load onto your home build, either. Or on your old HP. Everybody does that. You buy the OS/hardware combo, expect to have to use them together, period.

Face it, Apple makes their own hardware, Nobody else does that in the industry. Of course, if the OEMs weren't locked into exclusivity contracts with M$, that would be different. And don't think the others wouldn't do it if they were selling their own distros of Linux, for instance. You bet they would. A company has the right to decide how they will sell their products and how they will be used together. And Apple doesn't want you to buy a shrink-wrapped copy of OS X and load it on a Dell. Not only would that kill a sale of a Mac, but the very idea means they would have the same nightmare of supporting every crap POS box anybody out there sells, and the drivers as well. Ain't gonna happen.
post #65 of 116
You comparing a full version to a OEM version, that is sold for a fraction of the price. That's why it has the "1 motherboard" restriction.
Quote:
Originally Posted by rahrens View Post

That's not too different from PCs. If you buy a Dell, and want to build your own, don't expect that OEM copy to load onto your home build, either. Or on your old HP. Everybody does that. You buy the OS/hardware combo, expect to have to use them together, period.

Face it, Apple makes their own hardware, Nobody else does that in the industry. Of course, if the OEMs weren't locked into exclusivity contracts with M$, that would be different. And don't think the others wouldn't do it if they were selling their own distros of Linux, for instance. You bet they would. A company has the right to decide how they will sell their products and how they will be used together. And Apple doesn't want you to buy a shrink-wrapped copy of OS X and load it on a Dell. Not only would that kill a sale of a Mac, but the very idea means they would have the same nightmare of supporting every crap POS box anybody out there sells, and the drivers as well. Ain't gonna happen.
post #66 of 116
The point i was countering was that the poster said (paraphrase), "if i pay for the OS, I should be able to do what I please with it". I was just letting him know that it's not like that with Apple either.
Quote:
Originally Posted by rahrens View Post

That's not too different from PCs. If you buy a Dell, and want to build your own, don't expect that OEM copy to load onto your home build, either. Or on your old HP. Everybody does that. You buy the OS/hardware combo, expect to have to use them together, period.

Face it, Apple makes their own hardware, Nobody else does that in the industry. Of course, if the OEMs weren't locked into exclusivity contracts with M$, that would be different. And don't think the others wouldn't do it if they were selling their own distros of Linux, for instance. You bet they would. A company has the right to decide how they will sell their products and how they will be used together. And Apple doesn't want you to buy a shrink-wrapped copy of OS X and load it on a Dell. Not only would that kill a sale of a Mac, but the very idea means they would have the same nightmare of supporting every crap POS box anybody out there sells, and the drivers as well. Ain't gonna happen.
post #67 of 116
Quote:
Originally Posted by deanbar View Post

Is this really true? Perhaps there are just a few areas that only the latest Macs will work with? Does anyone know what aspects won't work with pre 2004 Macs?

I would assume that some features (like all the eye candy that requires CoreImage and CoreAnimation) will not work on underpowered video cards. If you have a PowerMac G4, you can probably upgrade to a Radeon 9800 to get these features. If you have a laptop or an iMac, you'll be out of luck.

But this is just an extension of the situation today. Right now, some things (like the ripple effect in Dashboard) doesn't work if your video card doesn't support CoreImage. I expect more of the same in Leopard, but I don't expect these problems to be more than cosmetic.
post #68 of 116
Quote:
Originally Posted by fizzmaster View Post

One issue that I find interesting is all of the different versions of Windows products. I am talking about the 5 flavors of Vista that are shipping. I must admit that I just swtiched to Mac's a year ago and yet when I look at OS X, I see one version for non-server use. That makes things a lot more simple.

Also, the pricing seems way out of wack. When I can buy an upgrade of OS X for around $100 street and the Windows upgrades range from $90 - $260. I mean $260 to upgrade, seems steep.

To stay current with OS X, you spend that $100 every 12 - 24 months. You don't have to upgrade though. Still, from a development standpoint, I'd rather have an OS update every 3-5 years. Tiger is nice but I only use a very tiny number of the improvements they made over the previous version, but it caused a lot of compatibility problems so software had to be updated for it. Most of the features were oversold.
post #69 of 116
Quote:
Originally Posted by EruIthildur View Post

Microsoft continues to be worst at marketing? There is a reason why Apple was almost gone... They did a little better at first... Part of their marketing strategy was to open up development.

Now, I think they suck at it.

You appear to be somewhat new here - welcome! As far as supporting development on the Mac, Apple is terrific! When you join ADC, you get all sorts of developer resources, including a development environment (Xcode), SDKs, how-to's, videos, and a whole lot more. If you are meaning the iPhone and iPod, I woiuld counsel patience before slamming Apple.
-JD
-- "If Apple wasn't so greedy, they would build G6's and give them away!"
Reply
-JD
-- "If Apple wasn't so greedy, they would build G6's and give them away!"
Reply
post #70 of 116
Quote:
Originally Posted by BlackSummerNight View Post

You can't even load Safai 2 on Panther.

Like Chucker said, Apple has a deliberate policy of constantly moving the ball forwards. As hardware gets older, you can expect the newer OSes to eventually leave you behind. Of course, that usually takes quite a bit of time.

My daughter is using an old iMac from 97, I think it was, that is running Tiger last I checked. Of course, much of the graphics is stunted as compared to my newer G4 tower, but I also expect that G4 to run Leopard, altho not with some of the new Intel-linked features. I also expect my new MacBook to not only run Leopard at full featured goodness (except for 802.11n, of course), but also run at least the first two versions of the next release after Leopard if not more.

That is the price of progress. If you are willing to keep running the older OS and software, they'll stay running for years. An old Performa 6200Cd I bought in the early 90's is still running (on OS 9.2.2), has an ethernet card I installed and surfs the web nicely. Slow as a bitch, but not too shabby. Sold it to a friend of another daughter, and he uses it mainly to play some older games he loves. But it is still useful!

The way Apple does it, I may have to factor in planned obsolescence, but I have, in exchange, a stable operating system that runs without those pesky legacy issues, and gets new features based upon new technology much quicker!
post #71 of 116
My iMac is still running Panther. I paid for that upgrade because Expose was something that I felt would make my daily task easier, which it did. I didn't upgrade to Tiger though, because I didn't see any use of the "200" new features that was added to Tiger.

I like the 3-5 year update model too. It's hard for me to believe that you can release a "revolutionary" OS every 12 months.
Quote:
Originally Posted by JeffDM View Post

To stay current with OS X, you spend that $100 every 12 - 24 months. You don't have to upgrade though. Still, from a development standpoint, I'd rather have an OS update every 3-5 years. Tiger is nice but I only use a very tiny number of the improvements they made over the previous version, but it caused a lot of compatibility problems so software had to be updated for it. Most of the features were oversold.

I have Tiger on my MBP, but I don't see any mass improvements over Panther.
post #72 of 116
Quote:
Originally Posted by Anvil View Post

You are right. 965 (& future) chipsets from Intel can support beyond 4GB of RAM. I think the upcoming mobile platform from Intel (Santa Rosa) will also be capable of supporting beyond 4GB.

BTW, my first post. Hi to all of you

Won't matter that much for awhile though, right? You'd need both a 64-bit OS and 64-bit applications to address/use any memory beyond 4GB? Or am I mistaken?

Oh, and welcome to the AI forums. Relatively nice place, all things considered. 8)


.
Cut-copy-paste, MMS, landscape keyboard, video-recording, voice-calling, and more... FINALLY
To the 'We Didn't Need It' Crowd/Apple Apologista Squad : Wrong again, lol
Thanks for listening to your...
Reply
Cut-copy-paste, MMS, landscape keyboard, video-recording, voice-calling, and more... FINALLY
To the 'We Didn't Need It' Crowd/Apple Apologista Squad : Wrong again, lol
Thanks for listening to your...
Reply
post #73 of 116
Safair 2 is faster than Safari 1, but how much of a rig do u need to have a updated web browser.
Quote:
Originally Posted by rahrens View Post

Like Chucker said, Apple has a deliberate policy of constantly moving the ball forwards. As hardware gets older, you can expect the newer OSes to eventually leave you behind. Of course, that usually takes quite a bit of time.

My daughter is using an old iMac from 97, I think it was, that is running Tiger last I checked. Of course, much of the graphics is stunted as compared to my newer G4 tower, but I also expect that G4 to run Leopard, altho not with some of the new Intel-linked features. I also expect my new MacBook to not only run Leopard at full featured goodness (except for 802.11n, of course), but also run at least the first two versions of the next release after Leopard if not more.

That is the price of progress. If you are willing to keep running the older OS and software, they'll stay running for years. An old Performa 6200Cd I bought in the early 90's is still running (on OS 9.2.2), has an ethernet card I installed and surfs the web nicely. Slow as a bitch, but not too shabby. Sold it to a friend of another daughter, and he uses it mainly to play some older games he loves. But it is still useful!

The way Apple does it, I may have to factor in planned obsolescence, but I have, in exchange, a stable operating system that runs without those pesky legacy issues, and gets new features based upon new technology much quicker!

well i use Camino and Firefox now, so it really doesn't matter.
post #74 of 116
Quote:
Originally Posted by bevos View Post

There's 9 version of Vista, if you count 32bit and 64bit it 17 versions.

maybe 2 version of Leopord, Power PC or Intel

If you are counting that, then there may be four versions of the OS, PPC32, PPC64, x86 and x86-64.

Quote:
Originally Posted by >_> View Post

Universal Binary.

We don't know how the thing will ship. I would hope it ships all in one package, but it might need multiple DVDs to hold four binaries of many programs. Apple does break down some of their updates for PPC/Intel, so as to not have to transfer a lot of files that your system won't run.
post #75 of 116
Quote:
Originally Posted by JeffDM View Post

To stay current with OS X, you spend that $100 every 12 - 24 months. You don't have to upgrade though. Still, from a development standpoint, I'd rather have an OS update every 3-5 years. Tiger is nice but I only use a very tiny number of the improvements they made over the previous version, but it caused a lot of compatibility problems so software had to be updated for it. Most of the features were oversold.

JeffDM - I'm a developer (for a loooonnnnnnnnggggggg time - don't ask!), and the big bang approach to upgrades just doesn't work. Just think of the work we developers would all go through if we were moving from 10.1 to 10.5. There are so many changes that would have to be tested!! Think how long the beta period would be. Also - would Apple even exist if 10.1 was still the OS version?

We have the challenge to make the OS updates actually generate sales for us, as opposed to being a drain of resources for making our SW compatible.
-JD
-- "If Apple wasn't so greedy, they would build G6's and give them away!"
Reply
-JD
-- "If Apple wasn't so greedy, they would build G6's and give them away!"
Reply
post #76 of 116
Quote:
Originally Posted by Aqua OS X View Post

Most consumers may not care about Vista; nevertheless, aside from enthusiasts and pros, most Mac users tended not to care about Mac OS X and or it's various major updates. Most consumers adopt a new OS when they're forced to. Be it a bundle with a new computer, or a system requirement for a software package.

I don't think that was really true with OS X, at least not in the early days. Because 10.0 was SLOW, let's face it, and every point release brought the speed up significantly. Tiger is much faster than 'OS X early days'.

By Panther, even, it was pretty much a non-issue, and I was very happy with my much-more-secure-than-Windows, fairly snappy OS. But before that, you're darn tootin' I ran out and immediately got every upgrade upon release.

Go back and try to use 10.0 after using Tiger... it will make your fillings hurt.

.
Cut-copy-paste, MMS, landscape keyboard, video-recording, voice-calling, and more... FINALLY
To the 'We Didn't Need It' Crowd/Apple Apologista Squad : Wrong again, lol
Thanks for listening to your...
Reply
Cut-copy-paste, MMS, landscape keyboard, video-recording, voice-calling, and more... FINALLY
To the 'We Didn't Need It' Crowd/Apple Apologista Squad : Wrong again, lol
Thanks for listening to your...
Reply
post #77 of 116
For those who are (foolishly) considering a Vista upgrade, take note of the footnotes from Microsoft's Vista pages.

Specifically, note items D and M.

The home editions can't:
  • Join a domain (which means no telecommuting for many of us)
  • Use the "Fax and Scan" facility
  • Use the encrypting file system

And the Business edition has no media features, including
  • TV tuners
  • DVD burning
  • Connectivity to an XBox
  • Games

So only the Ultimate edition will provide what a typical home power-user will require. This means $400 per computer ($260 if you can qualify for an upgrade edition). And no family pack licensing, so a home LAN of five computers will cost $1300-2000. And this doesn't count the probable need for hardware upgrades (probably requiring more memory and a new video card, possibly more.)

Compare this with $210 (or $300 for a 5-computer family pack) for Mac OS X and iLife.
post #78 of 116
umm most businesses don't want you watching tv, buring dvds, connecting to a xbox, or playing PC games.
Quote:
Originally Posted by shamino View Post

For those who are (foolishly) considering a Vista upgrade, take note of the footnotes from Microsoft's Vista pages.

Specifically, note items D and M.

The home editions can't:
  • Join a domain (which means no telecommuting for many of us)
  • Use the "Fax and Scan" facility
  • Use the encrypting file system

And the Business edition has no media features, including
  • TV tuners
  • DVD burning
  • Connectivity to an XBox
  • Games

So only the Ultimate edition will provide what a typical home power-user will require. This means $400 per computer ($260 if you can qualify for an upgrade edition). And no family pack licensing, so a home LAN of five computers will cost $1300-2000. And this doesn't count the probable need for hardware upgrades (probably requiring more memory and a new video card, possibly more.)

Compare this with $210 (or $300 for a 5-computer family pack) for Mac OS X and iLife.
post #79 of 116
Quote:
Originally Posted by jwdawso View Post

JeffDM - I'm a developer (for a loooonnnnnnnnggggggg time - don't ask!), and the big bang approach to upgrades just doesn't work. Just think of the work we developers would all go through if we were moving from 10.1 to 10.5. There are so many changes that would have to be tested!! Think how long the beta period would be. Also - would Apple even exist if 10.1 was still the OS version?


The impression that I got was that 10.0 to 10.2 were fairly rough, beta-like. 10.3 seems fine to me. 10.4 was mostly unnecessary and caused problems that I don't think should have caused.
post #80 of 116
Quote:
Originally Posted by TBaggins View Post

Won't matter that much for awhile though, right? You'd need both a 64-bit OS and 64-bit applications to address/use any memory beyond 4GB? Or am I mistaken?

You will need some amount of 64-bit capability in the OS to support more than 4GB of physical RAM.

You can take advantage of this with 32-bit apps, as long as no single app needs more than 4GB for itself. If a single app needs more than 4GB, then that app will have to be 64-bit.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: General Discussion
AppleInsider › Forums › General › General Discussion › Vista dawns, world yawns