Except that Aero is still faster than Aqua on the same hardware even though Aqua had 5 years to be optimized, and Aero is not even officially released yet.
Except that you throw out this claim without backing it up (the thread you link to doesn't seem to have any information to this effect.
Don't you think that's far too vague? Was this a fresh Vista compared to a fresh OS X? Seems more likely he's comparing an OS X that's been installed, running and used for months, with all sorts of clutter, to a completely pristine Vista.
So, we're supposed to take the word of ONE person's subjective experience posted on an AI forum without any mention of any OBJECTIVE evidence (ie. benchmarks or even any mention of what hardware Vista was running so that we could have SOME objective way of knowing the basis of comparing Aqua vs. Aero). Sorry Gene, that's just flimsy.
Also, I don't like comparing a Beta OS with OS X. I don't think it is fair to either OS (unfair to Vista because it is a Beta OS
Don't you think that's far too vague? Was this a fresh Vista compared to a fresh OS X? Seems more likely he's comparing an OS X that's been installed, running and used for months, with all sorts of clutter, to a completely pristine Vista.
It's anecdotal evidence; anecdotal evidence is always vague and represents a less-than-perfect observation of things and events.
It was a Vista he used for a couple of hours as opposed to an iMac that he has had for a couple of months. How much clutter could the iMac have had in a couple of months and would it be enough to significantly affect the performance of OS X? Are we talking about a guy that doesn't know how to use OnyX or about a guy that is tech-savvy enough to keep up with Boot Camp, partition his drive and install Vista?
I think that it's safe to assume that if he was savvy enough to install Vista, he was savvy enough to do some cleaning-up in OS X as well, using something like OnyX.
Quote:
So, we're supposed to take the word of ONE person's subjective experience posted on an AI forum without any mention of any OBJECTIVE evidence (ie. benchmarks or even any mention of what hardware Vista was running so that we could have SOME objective way of knowing the basis of comparing Aqua vs. Aero). Sorry Gene, that's just flimsy.
As opposed to... the evidence you have against this? And he does mention the hardware - if you bothered to read the link I posted, you would know that he was running Vista on his iMac Core Duo, the same machine that runs OS X.
But it doesn't matter anyway, no? Kinda like what my sig says.
Okay, if you insist on comparing an unreleased, Beta OS to one that has been available and continually updated during the last six years, that sig is as applicable to yourself as it is to anyone else. Very appropriate. Denial is a river in Egypt. You probably discovered it.
And what exactly are you accusing me of denying? I've already readily admitted that I agree with you on the speed issue as far as XP goes. I've just refused to extend that agreement to an unreleased Beta OS.
I bought XP home, because it was way cheaper, and it runs the windows apps. I need just fine on my MBP 17"
we need to answer the original questions, most people want the least investment possible with windows, what's the minimum i say xp home. xp pro if you are connecting to your corp network. and the above helps alot. my vote get the cheapest, in fact find a friend that's a teacher and get an edu discount for all that windows software. why can't i just copy my windows from my present dell to the mac through parallels...then all you need is someone elses windows unit... hey with parallels can you clone your present windows or do you have to buy a whole new windows for the install disc.
after puting up the dollars for the mac instead of a pc, what's the cheapest option......
remember for most we need windows for a few stupid apps that's it, for me it's windows for a vpn , IE and that's IT
I put Windows XP Home on my 2.16 GHz Mac Mini using Boot Camp and it runs very well. I'm only using it for games and a couple of other small apps. You cannot load Windows XP Media Center Edition using Boot Camp but you might be able to get it to work with one of the other boot loaders. It's really a tossup though as the other loaders I've found seem to want SP2 as well.
You cannot load Windows XP Media Center Edition using Boot Camp
Actually, there is a way around this. You can just start the installation with a simple XP SP2 disc, run the partitioner, copy the files and then reboot, but when you reboot, insert the MCE disc and it will continue to install just fine.
Actually, there is a way around this. You can just start the installation with a simple XP SP2 disc, run the partitioner, copy the files and then reboot, but when you reboot, insert the MCE disc and it will continue to install just fine.
With the slight caveat that, technically, you'd need two licenses for that.
So IS Media Center a superset of Pro? What's this about MCE not being able to do Active Dir? Sounds like a dealbreaker to me. Something rather annoying. I'll have to decide now. I'll probably go with Media Center.
Comments
Originally posted by Gene Clean
Except that Aero is still faster than Aqua on the same hardware even though Aqua had 5 years to be optimized, and Aero is not even officially released yet.
Except that you throw out this claim without backing it up (the thread you link to doesn't seem to have any information to this effect.
Funny that.
Originally posted by Chucker
Except that you throw out this claim without backing it up (the thread you link to doesn't seem to have any information to this effect.
Funny that.
You think?
jccbin
says, in post #8, right after point #7:
The machine was indeed snappier than OS X. Yes. Really. I'm disappointed in OS X's display performance now. Dammit.
Originally posted by Gene Clean
You think?
says, in post #8, right after point #7:
Don't you think that's far too vague? Was this a fresh Vista compared to a fresh OS X? Seems more likely he's comparing an OS X that's been installed, running and used for months, with all sorts of clutter, to a completely pristine Vista.
Originally posted by Gene Clean
You think?
says, in post #8, right after point #7:
So, we're supposed to take the word of ONE person's subjective experience posted on an AI forum without any mention of any OBJECTIVE evidence (ie. benchmarks or even any mention of what hardware Vista was running so that we could have SOME objective way of knowing the basis of comparing Aqua vs. Aero). Sorry Gene, that's just flimsy.
Also, I don't like comparing a Beta OS with OS X. I don't think it is fair to either OS (unfair to Vista because it is a Beta OS
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/12932382/
and unfair to OS X because it is not).
http://www.eweek.com/article2/0,1895,1886887,00.asp
Originally posted by Chucker
Don't you think that's far too vague? Was this a fresh Vista compared to a fresh OS X? Seems more likely he's comparing an OS X that's been installed, running and used for months, with all sorts of clutter, to a completely pristine Vista.
It's anecdotal evidence; anecdotal evidence is always vague and represents a less-than-perfect observation of things and events.
It was a Vista he used for a couple of hours as opposed to an iMac that he has had for a couple of months. How much clutter could the iMac have had in a couple of months and would it be enough to significantly affect the performance of OS X? Are we talking about a guy that doesn't know how to use OnyX or about a guy that is tech-savvy enough to keep up with Boot Camp, partition his drive and install Vista?
I think that it's safe to assume that if he was savvy enough to install Vista, he was savvy enough to do some cleaning-up in OS X as well, using something like OnyX.
So, we're supposed to take the word of ONE person's subjective experience posted on an AI forum without any mention of any OBJECTIVE evidence (ie. benchmarks or even any mention of what hardware Vista was running so that we could have SOME objective way of knowing the basis of comparing Aqua vs. Aero). Sorry Gene, that's just flimsy.
As opposed to... the evidence you have against this? And he does mention the hardware - if you bothered to read the link I posted, you would know that he was running Vista on his iMac Core Duo, the same machine that runs OS X.
But it doesn't matter anyway, no? Kinda like what my sig says.
It will be interesting to see what Vista does to this equation.
Originally posted by Gene Clean
It's anecdotal evidence; anecdotal evidence is always vague and represents a less-than-perfect observation of things and events.
But it doesn't matter anyway, no? Kinda like what my sig says.
Sorry, Double post.
And what exactly are you accusing me of denying? I've already readily admitted that I agree with you on the speed issue as far as XP goes. I've just refused to extend that agreement to an unreleased Beta OS.
Originally posted by New
I bought XP home, because it was way cheaper, and it runs the windows apps. I need just fine on my MBP 17"
we need to answer the original questions, most people want the least investment possible with windows, what's the minimum i say xp home. xp pro if you are connecting to your corp network. and the above helps alot. my vote get the cheapest, in fact find a friend that's a teacher and get an edu discount for all that windows software. why can't i just copy my windows from my present dell to the mac through parallels...then all you need is someone elses windows unit... hey with parallels can you clone your present windows or do you have to buy a whole new windows for the install disc.
after puting up the dollars for the mac instead of a pc, what's the cheapest option......
remember for most we need windows for a few stupid apps that's it, for me it's windows for a vpn , IE and that's IT
Originally posted by Fran441
You cannot load Windows XP Media Center Edition using Boot Camp
Actually, there is a way around this. You can just start the installation with a simple XP SP2 disc, run the partitioner, copy the files and then reboot, but when you reboot, insert the MCE disc and it will continue to install just fine.
Originally posted by Gene Clean
Actually, there is a way around this. You can just start the installation with a simple XP SP2 disc, run the partitioner, copy the files and then reboot, but when you reboot, insert the MCE disc and it will continue to install just fine.
With the slight caveat that, technically, you'd need two licenses for that.