My wife's Acer Aspire One AOD250 (just came in today... only $250 new) and my 13" MacBook Pro. They live together in harmony, why can't we?
You, uh, see that iPhone there on the counter... goto www.enabletethering.com and enable it... Then, uh, those two brothers that it's between... Uh, they can buddy up to the phone and use the phone as a modem...
Nice in all red. My MSI U123 only has a red top...
Configuration and price falls under market segregation. A lot of vendors for various products do this. It has nothing to do whether the Mac is a PC or not (it is). It has nothing to do whether you can find a configuration that suits you in a price range which is acceptable to you. This was purely a technical statement by me. The original poster made the correct observation that Windows 7 should run on a Mac as well as on any other PC provided that all drivers are present. What you did was simply putting up a straw man by making arguments which might or might not be true but which had nothing to do with the discussion at hand.
It's interesting how you sugarcoat the reality of Windows maintenance. I do it everyday and my job requires setting up windows machines for corporate and personal use.
Here's what you "conveniently" failed to mention in your points:
1) Windows Update does update everything it can. Unfortunately, it requires multiple restarts, multiple updating, and then those updates after restart requires even more updates to the updates it just applied. Then, any 3rd party add-ons and plugins need to be updated. Depending on the release-date of the install, it takes literally hours to get a windows PC fully patched and updated. Hours of lost productivity.
2) The Disk Defragmenter included with Windows is a crippled version of Executive Software's Diskeeper. It is useless and does little to address the problem. On corporate and personal levels, I install the full-version of Diskeeper and recommend to personal users to also purchase and install it. There are freeware version that holds promise that I've been testing called Defraggler from Piriform: http://www.piriform.com/defraggler . In addtion, I use another freeware product from Piriform called CCleaner http://www.piriform.com/ccleaner to keep the registry in check and remove all wasted disk space. It also has an excellent program uninstaller which does a better job of removing unwanted programs compared to the regular windows-supplied add/remove programs option. The sad part is that I have to seek 3rd party solutions since Microsoft does not provide for it or includes a crippled version of it for whatever reason. It's a sad state when I have to clean up registries that are so easily corrupted again impeding performance. Microsoft fails big-time in this area.
AntiVirus is a necessity for Windows folks. I personally don't use it on my personal windows machines since the performance hit of every vendor (including Microsoft's new - and free - AV solution) is just too much to accept. Is it any wonder why a Window's machine requires twice the horsepower just to keep all the necessary maintenance systems running? It's a joke.
So the point of my response to you is that Windows requires a ridiculous amount of handholding just to keep the system humming. My machines run great as I have the knowledge and knowhow to do it. But for the 99% of regular folk, it is a lesson in futility. Even when I get someone's machine running perfectly, in a month it will be back to some level of problem as windows does not do a good job to fend for itself.
If you really think that what is provided within Windows is adequate to keep a system running smoothly, I recommend to you that you don't quit YOUR day job. You probably have a very low standard of how a PC should run. Productivity takes a back seat in that case soon enough.
On the Apple systems I work on they take care of themselves right out of the box. Within 15 minutes, they are ready to go and be put to use. And in most cases, I never have to touch them again.
This is from years of experience on BOTH systems and it is my day job.
Thanks for putting together this reply as it is what I would write if I had the time to spend in the people of these forums who seem to have huge reality-distortion field generators around them. I would think this day and age it would be obvious that Macs take up < 1% that PCs takes in overhead.
Time is money which you can more or less quantify, which is not a small $$ amount. Over the course of, say, a year it sums up to a lot of time and money saved. Macs are for people who value their time and want to apply their efforts into getting stuff done, not into keeping their machines from falling apart.
Na, heated discussions (aka flame wars) can be fun to a certain extent. You stop when it becomes tiresome.
Welcome to the Internet.
Ninja edit:
Judging by the screenshot you are using Firefox and Thunderbird instead of Safari and Mail. Note that this will make you suspicious in the eyes of the more ardent Apple customers of being a Windows convert. You have been warned. :-P
Macs also run EFI, which allows the much faster & efficient EFI system to manage hardware vs letting a slower & more bloated (plus less optimized) OS manage all the hardware such as in BIOS systems.
Windows Vista SP1 and Windows 7 both use UEFI 2.1, most Macs use EFI 1.1.
Thanks for putting together this reply as it is what I would write if I had the time to spend in the people of these forums who seem to have huge reality-distortion field generators around them.
Don't, arguing with an estimate of 99 percent of AI participants would be a hazard to ones mental health.
Configuration and price falls under market segregation. A lot of vendors for various products do this. It has nothing to do whether the Mac is a PC or not (it is). It has nothing to do whether you can find a configuration that suits you in a price range which is acceptable to you. This was purely a technical statement by me. The original poster made the correct observation that Windows 7 should run on a Mac as well as on any other PC provided that all drivers are present. What you did was simply putting up a straw man by making arguments which might or might not be true but which had nothing to do with the discussion at hand.
"A Giraffe is a mammal as well".
"But can your giraffe also fetch the newspaper?"
Apple has no market seperation model aside from Consumer and Pro. They also don't make crap which is what I was implying. You don't see them offer Intel Dual-Core based systems, or Celeron's. You don't see them offer up OS X 10.6 basic edition with no more than 1gb of ram.
This was a pretty crappy comparison test. I don't see what is 'surprising' about Apple software running much faster on OS X than it does on Windows. iTunes has a reputation for being more stable and reliable on OS X, for example. On the flip-side, it is likely that Call of Duty for Windows is much more heavily optimized than Call of Duty for the Macintosh, as is often-times the case with games. I guess for the home user, though, something like an iTunes benchmark will be meaningful, even if it is surely skewed.
Still, if I had to use Windows, I would definitely do so on a Macintosh.
I've used both systems extensively and the choice is dead simple for me. I prefer OS X and Macintosh hardware for virtually every single task?and I especially hate Windows, despite knowing it inside and out. I'm just not sure how you can express many of these things with a benchmark.
Apple has no market seperation modem aside from Consumer and Pro. They also don't make crap which is what I was implying. You don't see them offer Intel Dual-Core based systems, or Celeron's. You don't see them offer up OS X 10.6 basic edition with no more than 1gb of ram.
Na, heated discussions (aka flame wars) can be fun to a certain extent. You stop when it becomes tiresome.
Welcome to the Internet.
Ninja edit:
Judging by the screenshot you are using Firefox and Thunderbird instead of Safari and Mail. Note that this will make you suspicious in the eyes of the more ardent Apple customers of being a Windows convert. You have been warned. :-P
Haha, you can easily spot a Windows-to-Mac convert with Thunderbird/Firefox I tried giving Mail and Safari both a try, but I've been using Thunderbird/Firefox for years and have just grown accustomed to both -- and I love all my extensions in FF
I got your points. But your simply side stepping the comments. Or somehow we got tied together on something similar but completely different.
The comparison was between Win7 (which is better, not saying it isn't. As someone who has to manage over 130 PC's myself at client sites I know...) and OS X running specific applications on a single hardware setup.
Going through CNET's previous tests on those same apps, the MacBook Pro did better than SAME SPEC PC's built by Lenovo, Hp and Dell. But I also added that MS makes rediculous license requirements to the MFG's in order to run certain Low-Cost OS versions. So in order to run VistaB you can't apply more than 2gb of ram, 2 core cpu's, or whatever it was (it has loosend up). And when it came to netbooks Vista basic or XP home on Atom PC's was the only options. HP used VIA CPU's in order to install Vista Biz/XP Pro and it was the only netbook with XP Pro or VB installed by default... Also came with a 7200rpm drive, 2gb of ram... But all because they bypassed the CPU limitation set forth by MS... WHICH is the comparison being made here.
I still can't for the life of me purchase an Eco-Powered PC for a business client through any vendors because of this idiotic license issue which means I have to do an In-Place upgrade on these systems and LOOSE OS Support by the MFG (meaning I couldn't get corp support in the first place which is nice when your stacked), void some of the warranty and pay full retail price. Yet, I can purchase a MacMini which comes with an unrestricted OS, is very powerful for the price and sips electricity. So that's the route I take. I get a Mini and either link it into the AD with Directory Services and use TS to apply the UI to the user OR purchase a VL of Vista Biz.
This is a HUGE issue and nobody at Microsoft would even care if they knew it existed.
It's a well known fact that Apple's Windows support is downright terrible. The touchpad on the unibody systems was completely useless in Windows until Boot Camp 3.0 came along. Apple ships extremely old and outdated drivers for Windows. In fact, the Windows 7 driver included with Boot Camp 3 for the nvidia GPU is one of the very first Windows 7 drivers available, not anywhere close to the then current driver when Boot Camp 3 and Snow Leopard went gold. To actually get Windows up to full speed on a Mac you need to install Boot Camp 3 then manually update the drivers, since Apple ships such outdated drivers.
Let's also not forget that in the Windows world, the hardware Apple uses is incredibly low-end. $2,000 for a Core 2 Duo and a 256MB GeForce 9600M GT? Try a Core 2 Extreme (quad core) or Core i7 along with a GeForce GTX, as well as blu-ray.
Yet, I can purchase a MacMini which comes with an unrestricted OS, is very powerful for the price and sips electricity. So that's the route I take. I get a Mini and either link it into the AD with Directory Services and use TS to apply the UI to the user OR purchase a VL of Vista Biz.
This is a HUGE issue and nobody at Microsoft would even care if they knew it existed.
What? The Mac mini is powerful for the price? Seriously?
$600 gets you a 2GHz Core 2 Duo and 1GB of RAM.
$600 in the PC world will get you a quad core processor (these days a Core 2 Quad), AT LEAST 4GB of RAM, and at least 500GB of HDD space as well as more powerful dedicated graphics. Pretty soon at that price point we'll see Core i5.
Bit of a silly test as for the price of a Macbook Pro running OSX you could have a Win7 laptop with a much quicker CPU and GPU, and more RAM. All of which would make the Win7 machine a lot quicker than the Mac for the same amount of cold, hard cash.
Thanks for putting together this reply as it is what I would write if I had the time to spend in the people of these forums who seem to have huge reality-distortion field generators around them. I would think this day and age it would be obvious that Macs take up < 1% that PCs takes in overhead.
Time is money which you can more or less quantify, which is not a small $$ amount. Over the course of, say, a year it sums up to a lot of time and money saved. Macs are for people who value their time and want to apply their efforts into getting stuff done, not into keeping their machines from falling apart.
I use both OSX and Windows. They each have their pluses and minuses and I certainly do not consider one OS superior to the other. There is plenty of room for both to co-exist and I prefer it that way. But when it comes to time spent doing actual productivity (i.e. doing their job) versus dealing with system issues, then Windows takes 1st place for providing job security for IT departments. It's not just my personal opinion. It's a reality in the workplace.
Now of course, there are know-it-all people (two in particular) in this thread that seem to have all the answers to every one of my points of a prior post about keeping fully-patched OS images, their experience with their 60+ y/o parents, etc. and know how to maintain ill-behaving PC's yet never seem to take into consideration the bigger-picture of non-systems issues like a user's productivity and the value of one's time. To them I say, "well good for you". I will waste no time on you. Keep drinking your Window's Kool-aid and leave the rest of us front-line folks to continue doing the real work of making sure users can use their PC to get their job done (whatever that is) instead of being a frustrated individual that is forced to submit to a poor performing system. I'll keep my 60+ y/o mom on her iMac knowing in a year from now, it will still perform great without my having to touch a single key.
This wasn't about PC vs. OSX. This was about time vs. time-waster.
So, OS/X is still being crippled by OpenGL. Apple should have kept Quickdraw 3D around as an alternative. Since OpenGL still can't be brought up to par, Apple should use their increased market share (especially with the iPhone) to bring Quickdraw 3D back.
Comments
Can't we all just get along?
My wife's Acer Aspire One AOD250 (just came in today... only $250 new) and my 13" MacBook Pro. They live together in harmony, why can't we?
You, uh, see that iPhone there on the counter... goto www.enabletethering.com and enable it... Then, uh, those two brothers that it's between... Uh, they can buddy up to the phone and use the phone as a modem...
Nice in all red. My MSI U123 only has a red top...
Do grace.
*sigh*
Configuration and price falls under market segregation. A lot of vendors for various products do this. It has nothing to do whether the Mac is a PC or not (it is). It has nothing to do whether you can find a configuration that suits you in a price range which is acceptable to you. This was purely a technical statement by me. The original poster made the correct observation that Windows 7 should run on a Mac as well as on any other PC provided that all drivers are present. What you did was simply putting up a straw man by making arguments which might or might not be true but which had nothing to do with the discussion at hand.
"A Giraffe is a mammal as well".
"But can your giraffe also fetch the newspaper?"
It's interesting how you sugarcoat the reality of Windows maintenance. I do it everyday and my job requires setting up windows machines for corporate and personal use.
Here's what you "conveniently" failed to mention in your points:
1) Windows Update does update everything it can. Unfortunately, it requires multiple restarts, multiple updating, and then those updates after restart requires even more updates to the updates it just applied. Then, any 3rd party add-ons and plugins need to be updated. Depending on the release-date of the install, it takes literally hours to get a windows PC fully patched and updated. Hours of lost productivity.
2) The Disk Defragmenter included with Windows is a crippled version of Executive Software's Diskeeper. It is useless and does little to address the problem. On corporate and personal levels, I install the full-version of Diskeeper and recommend to personal users to also purchase and install it. There are freeware version that holds promise that I've been testing called Defraggler from Piriform: http://www.piriform.com/defraggler . In addtion, I use another freeware product from Piriform called CCleaner http://www.piriform.com/ccleaner to keep the registry in check and remove all wasted disk space. It also has an excellent program uninstaller which does a better job of removing unwanted programs compared to the regular windows-supplied add/remove programs option. The sad part is that I have to seek 3rd party solutions since Microsoft does not provide for it or includes a crippled version of it for whatever reason. It's a sad state when I have to clean up registries that are so easily corrupted again impeding performance. Microsoft fails big-time in this area.
AntiVirus is a necessity for Windows folks. I personally don't use it on my personal windows machines since the performance hit of every vendor (including Microsoft's new - and free - AV solution) is just too much to accept. Is it any wonder why a Window's machine requires twice the horsepower just to keep all the necessary maintenance systems running? It's a joke.
So the point of my response to you is that Windows requires a ridiculous amount of handholding just to keep the system humming. My machines run great as I have the knowledge and knowhow to do it. But for the 99% of regular folk, it is a lesson in futility. Even when I get someone's machine running perfectly, in a month it will be back to some level of problem as windows does not do a good job to fend for itself.
If you really think that what is provided within Windows is adequate to keep a system running smoothly, I recommend to you that you don't quit YOUR day job. You probably have a very low standard of how a PC should run. Productivity takes a back seat in that case soon enough.
On the Apple systems I work on they take care of themselves right out of the box. Within 15 minutes, they are ready to go and be put to use. And in most cases, I never have to touch them again.
This is from years of experience on BOTH systems and it is my day job.
Thanks for putting together this reply as it is what I would write if I had the time to spend in the people of these forums who seem to have huge reality-distortion field generators around them. I would think this day and age it would be obvious that Macs take up < 1% that PCs takes in overhead.
Time is money which you can more or less quantify, which is not a small $$ amount. Over the course of, say, a year it sums up to a lot of time and money saved. Macs are for people who value their time and want to apply their efforts into getting stuff done, not into keeping their machines from falling apart.
Can't we all just get along?
Na, heated discussions (aka flame wars) can be fun to a certain extent. You stop when it becomes tiresome.
Welcome to the Internet.
Ninja edit:
Judging by the screenshot you are using Firefox and Thunderbird instead of Safari and Mail. Note that this will make you suspicious in the eyes of the more ardent Apple customers of being a Windows convert. You have been warned. :-P
Macs also run EFI, which allows the much faster & efficient EFI system to manage hardware vs letting a slower & more bloated (plus less optimized) OS manage all the hardware such as in BIOS systems.
Windows Vista SP1 and Windows 7 both use UEFI 2.1, most Macs use EFI 1.1.
Can't we all just get along?
My wife's Acer Aspire One AOD250 (just came in today... only $250 new) and my 13" MacBook Pro. They live together in harmony, why can't we?
The red computer is about as powerful as that computer in the middle.
Thanks for putting together this reply as it is what I would write if I had the time to spend in the people of these forums who seem to have huge reality-distortion field generators around them.
Don't, arguing with an estimate of 99 percent of AI participants would be a hazard to ones mental health.
*sigh*
Configuration and price falls under market segregation. A lot of vendors for various products do this. It has nothing to do whether the Mac is a PC or not (it is). It has nothing to do whether you can find a configuration that suits you in a price range which is acceptable to you. This was purely a technical statement by me. The original poster made the correct observation that Windows 7 should run on a Mac as well as on any other PC provided that all drivers are present. What you did was simply putting up a straw man by making arguments which might or might not be true but which had nothing to do with the discussion at hand.
"A Giraffe is a mammal as well".
"But can your giraffe also fetch the newspaper?"
Apple has no market seperation model aside from Consumer and Pro. They also don't make crap which is what I was implying. You don't see them offer Intel Dual-Core based systems, or Celeron's. You don't see them offer up OS X 10.6 basic edition with no more than 1gb of ram.
Still, if I had to use Windows, I would definitely do so on a Macintosh.
I've used both systems extensively and the choice is dead simple for me. I prefer OS X and Macintosh hardware for virtually every single task?and I especially hate Windows, despite knowing it inside and out. I'm just not sure how you can express many of these things with a benchmark.
Apple has no market seperation modem aside from Consumer and Pro. They also don't make crap which is what I was implying. You don't see them offer Intel Dual-Core based systems, or Celeron's. You don't see them offer up OS X 10.6 basic edition with no more than 1gb of ram.
Missing the point twice in a row. I give up.
Na, heated discussions (aka flame wars) can be fun to a certain extent. You stop when it becomes tiresome.
Welcome to the Internet.
Ninja edit:
Judging by the screenshot you are using Firefox and Thunderbird instead of Safari and Mail. Note that this will make you suspicious in the eyes of the more ardent Apple customers of being a Windows convert. You have been warned. :-P
Haha, you can easily spot a Windows-to-Mac convert with Thunderbird/Firefox
Missing the point twice in a row. I give up.
I got your points. But your simply side stepping the comments. Or somehow we got tied together on something similar but completely different.
The comparison was between Win7 (which is better, not saying it isn't. As someone who has to manage over 130 PC's myself at client sites I know...) and OS X running specific applications on a single hardware setup.
Going through CNET's previous tests on those same apps, the MacBook Pro did better than SAME SPEC PC's built by Lenovo, Hp and Dell. But I also added that MS makes rediculous license requirements to the MFG's in order to run certain Low-Cost OS versions. So in order to run VistaB you can't apply more than 2gb of ram, 2 core cpu's, or whatever it was (it has loosend up). And when it came to netbooks Vista basic or XP home on Atom PC's was the only options. HP used VIA CPU's in order to install Vista Biz/XP Pro and it was the only netbook with XP Pro or VB installed by default... Also came with a 7200rpm drive, 2gb of ram... But all because they bypassed the CPU limitation set forth by MS... WHICH is the comparison being made here.
I still can't for the life of me purchase an Eco-Powered PC for a business client through any vendors because of this idiotic license issue which means I have to do an In-Place upgrade on these systems and LOOSE OS Support by the MFG (meaning I couldn't get corp support in the first place which is nice when your stacked), void some of the warranty and pay full retail price. Yet, I can purchase a MacMini which comes with an unrestricted OS, is very powerful for the price and sips electricity. So that's the route I take. I get a Mini and either link it into the AD with Directory Services and use TS to apply the UI to the user OR purchase a VL of Vista Biz.
This is a HUGE issue and nobody at Microsoft would even care if they knew it existed.
It's a well known fact that Apple's Windows support is downright terrible. The touchpad on the unibody systems was completely useless in Windows until Boot Camp 3.0 came along. Apple ships extremely old and outdated drivers for Windows. In fact, the Windows 7 driver included with Boot Camp 3 for the nvidia GPU is one of the very first Windows 7 drivers available, not anywhere close to the then current driver when Boot Camp 3 and Snow Leopard went gold. To actually get Windows up to full speed on a Mac you need to install Boot Camp 3 then manually update the drivers, since Apple ships such outdated drivers.
Let's also not forget that in the Windows world, the hardware Apple uses is incredibly low-end. $2,000 for a Core 2 Duo and a 256MB GeForce 9600M GT? Try a Core 2 Extreme (quad core) or Core i7 along with a GeForce GTX, as well as blu-ray.
Yet, I can purchase a MacMini which comes with an unrestricted OS, is very powerful for the price and sips electricity. So that's the route I take. I get a Mini and either link it into the AD with Directory Services and use TS to apply the UI to the user OR purchase a VL of Vista Biz.
This is a HUGE issue and nobody at Microsoft would even care if they knew it existed.
What? The Mac mini is powerful for the price? Seriously?
$600 gets you a 2GHz Core 2 Duo and 1GB of RAM.
$600 in the PC world will get you a quad core processor (these days a Core 2 Quad), AT LEAST 4GB of RAM, and at least 500GB of HDD space as well as more powerful dedicated graphics. Pretty soon at that price point we'll see Core i5.
The red computer is about as powerful as that computer in the middle.
No, the computer in the middle is a lot more powerful than the red.
No, the computer in the middle is a lot more powerful than the red.
The sad thing is that people actually believe this bullcrap
And that's all that really matters.
Thanks for putting together this reply as it is what I would write if I had the time to spend in the people of these forums who seem to have huge reality-distortion field generators around them. I would think this day and age it would be obvious that Macs take up < 1% that PCs takes in overhead.
Time is money which you can more or less quantify, which is not a small $$ amount. Over the course of, say, a year it sums up to a lot of time and money saved. Macs are for people who value their time and want to apply their efforts into getting stuff done, not into keeping their machines from falling apart.
I use both OSX and Windows. They each have their pluses and minuses and I certainly do not consider one OS superior to the other. There is plenty of room for both to co-exist and I prefer it that way. But when it comes to time spent doing actual productivity (i.e. doing their job) versus dealing with system issues, then Windows takes 1st place for providing job security for IT departments. It's not just my personal opinion. It's a reality in the workplace.
Now of course, there are know-it-all people (two in particular) in this thread that seem to have all the answers to every one of my points of a prior post about keeping fully-patched OS images, their experience with their 60+ y/o parents, etc. and know how to maintain ill-behaving PC's yet never seem to take into consideration the bigger-picture of non-systems issues like a user's productivity and the value of one's time. To them I say, "well good for you". I will waste no time on you. Keep drinking your Window's Kool-aid and leave the rest of us front-line folks to continue doing the real work of making sure users can use their PC to get their job done (whatever that is) instead of being a frustrated individual that is forced to submit to a poor performing system. I'll keep my 60+ y/o mom on her iMac knowing in a year from now, it will still perform great without my having to touch a single key.
This wasn't about PC vs. OSX. This was about time vs. time-waster.