Vista vs Leopard

124»

Comments

  • Reply 61 of 78
    rasnetrasnet Posts: 37member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by icfireball


    5) The cost of a Mac has been proven equal to the cost of a PC if you factor in includded software and hardware add-ons for pcs in order to acomplish the same task.



    While perhaps this has been proven somewhere (though I doubt it), many users probably don't get much use out of the added pieces anyway. Hardware-wise, I imagine there are plenty of people who have only used those new build-in iSights and remote controls when they were playing around at first, and don't get any practical use out of them now. Though of course, I'm speculating as well.



    However, with software, the value depends on what the user does. I've played around with GarageBand and use iTunes, but other than that, the iLife software, for example, is worthless to me, so what do I care if it costs a billion dollars for the same software on Windows. Besides, if you own expensive gadgets like digital cameras, DV camcorders, midi keyboards, and DVD burners, then you're probably more willing to throw down an extra $100 or two on a computer anyway.



    Now, for me, the work I do on my Mac (aside from web browsing, email, instant messaging, and MS Office) is programming, so Xcode would typically save me a lot of money. (However, as a student, I get Visual Studio 6 and Visual Studio .NET free). But I suspect there are a lot out there who primarily do use their Macs just for surfing, communicating, and office work, and what they pay the premium for is a good UI and customer support.
  • Reply 62 of 78
    macroninmacronin Posts: 1,174member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by SteveGTA


    …it's not like anyone is forcing you to look at it..



    Dude, this guy showed up at my house and held a gun to my head screaming 'Look at this thread now!'…



    Honest…
  • Reply 63 of 78
    MarvinMarvin Posts: 14,228moderator
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Placebo


    I dunno, I think Vista's UI is pretty slick. Mac OS X's still loks kind of unprofessional.



    You have got to be kidding. Since when were translucent windows ever professional? Professionals need to get a job done not be distracted from that job. The very fact you can see windows through the one you are working on is distracting. Fancy effects mean diddly squat to professionals. Shake is probably the most professional app you can use and let me assure you, it's nothing like an aqua app. Do Weta care?



    As already pointed out, the window switching feature is largely useless because you can't see what's in the window. I have to agree with the people that said that Vista is bringing nothing new to the table.



    At the end of the day, they are still using their own proprietary system core whereas everyone else is using a unix core and open standards.



    I don't care if Vista will be bad, I hope it will be awful so that people will give up on Microsoft once and for all. Even if they all switched to Ubuntu (not likely though) or whatever then it would be better for everyone.



    All I want in Leopard is speed and if they can show that Leopard can run similarly fancy graphical effects on an old G3 well whereas Vista struggles on a mid-high end machine then I don't see how people could possibly see Vista as better.



    I mean what is that crap about it loading libraries when it thinks I'm going to need the program? Just another example of the system thinking it can do better than the user. What if I regularly use Maya but one day I decide to start my machine rendering in Renderman, it's going to load all the Maya libraries in the middle and cut out some of the memory? It's one of the stupidest features I've ever heard of.
  • Reply 64 of 78
    Resolution independent display



    Leopard better have it, or I'll be fucking pissed.
  • Reply 65 of 78
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by icfireball


    Ok guys. I think I am going to settle this once and for all:



    1) Tiger > XP

    2) Vista = Tiger (mostly)

    3) Vistas graphics look to cluttered and fragile.

    4) We can't make comparisons about Vista and Leopard yet, we don't know a damn about Leopard.

    5) The cost of a Mac has been proven equal to the cost of a PC if you factor in includded software and hardware add-ons for pcs in order to acomplish the same task.

    6) Macs retain their value very well (for a computer at least).

    7) Mac OS X is very stable. It does not crash often. It has no viruses in the wild (albeit there could be some -- but the point is... there aren't any now)

    8) Mac OS X looks very good: Elegant yet solid.

    9) Windows (in general) has better navigation than a Mac.



    about nubmer 5

    not true for same price you pay for a Mac with a pc you get more ram, video and other things and the of new Intel Macs so far have no slots for add-ons.



    about nubmer 6

    That is not likey to happen with x86 hardware.
  • Reply 66 of 78
    Joe - it depends on how you stack it up. OS X is less resource-intensive than Vista. Also, it comes with a lot of software and hardware (iSight, IR, BT, wireless) that most PC desktops don't have.



    Additionally, aside from gamers or professionals, most people don't upgrade their systems much. Joe and Jane Average buy a computer, use it until it can't run X, Y, and Z, or until it needs serious repairs that are very expensive, and then buy another computer. Even as you move into the mid-range, people tend not to upgrade, because it costs a hundred dollars or more to buy the pieces, and then they would have to pay someone $40 or more to install it. Generally, 90% of the consumers out there buy a computer and never upgrade the hardware. Apple recognizes this, and so doesn't have upgradability that doesn't matter much.
  • Reply 67 of 78
    I dunno, a few of my Windows using relatives buy new computers quite often, and all they do is surf the internet and write email.



    Here's the standard scenario: computer slows to a crawl, or stops working entirely. They take it into Best Buy, and the tech tells them it needs a full reinstall, and tells them they may as well buy the latest version of Windows while they're at it. So they look at the cost for Windows + tech service, and just buy a new computer for $800.



    I tried explaining to them once about Norton Antivirus but their eyes just glazed over. Too complicated. Easier to buy a new one and pitch the old in the landfill. I don't know how representative this is, but it sure seems common.



    You're right about the upgrading, though. Problem is, people want to have the OPTION to upgrade. They purposely buy a computer that they can upgrade, but most never do. It's strange, but I've seen this behavior in several people I tried to talk into buying a Mac.
  • Reply 68 of 78
    >_>>_> Posts: 336member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Junkyard Dawg


    Resolution independent display



    Leopard better have it, or I'll be fucking pissed.



    Quoted for truth. =)



    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Joe_the_dragon


    about nubmer 5

    not true for same price you pay for a Mac with a pc you get more ram, video and other things and the of new Intel Macs so far have no slots for add-ons.



    With an Intel mac, you gain the ability to run OSX though. I'd say that more than covers the price gap.



    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Joe_the_dragon


    about nubmer 6

    That is not likey to happen with x86 hardware.



    Not true. People are paying for the operating system. Not the hardware.



    - Xidius
  • Reply 69 of 78
    emig647emig647 Posts: 2,413member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by rasnet


    Now, for me, the work I do on my Mac (aside from web browsing, email, instant messaging, and MS Office) is programming, so Xcode would typically save me a lot of money. (However, as a student, I get Visual Studio 6 and Visual Studio .NET free).



    Might want to take a better look at your user agreement for that "free" Visual Studio software... You're not allowed to sell any software you make with those free copies of VS. I was in that program as well while I was a software engineer student... you can use it all you want for school, but when it comes to production use... you gotta buy copies... where as xcode is 100% absolutely free. We can also compare MSDN vs. ADC... but I won't.



    There are other factors as well for a mac and pc costing the same... like a mac will outlast a pc as far as usage. A Macs average life is 2-4 years, where as a PC's running windows is a shade over a year.



    True the software argument doesn't hold up as well as some hope, but you gotta admit... you get a ton of software for paying a bit more for hardware.
  • Reply 70 of 78
    mac_dollmac_doll Posts: 527member
    I'm sorry, but the mentioning of x86 makes my blood boil. F**k x86.



    Please, carry on as usual..
  • Reply 71 of 78
    placeboplacebo Posts: 5,767member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Mac_Doll


    I'm sorry, but the mentioning of x86 makes my blood boil. F**k x86.



    Please, carry on as usual..



    Yeah, nothing worse than a processor architecture endorsed by Steve Jobs, constantly improving, and faster than anything the PPC architecture would be doing right now.
  • Reply 72 of 78
    netdognetdog Posts: 244member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Placebo


    Yeah, nothing worse than a processor architecture endorsed by Steve Jobs, constantly improving, and faster than anything the PPC architecture would be doing right now.



    I'll go further than that. Jobs saved Apple by transitioning to Intel. Apple seems to also have a fair amount of influence into what directions Intel takes if all parties are to be believed.



    The PowerPC was going nowhere, and going there far too slowly. They just weren't doing the numbers to pay for sufficient rapid development and deployment.



    Intel is the way forward, and Jobs was inspired when he made the leap. Already Apple's sales reflect the wisdom of the decision, and the transition is nowhere near complete, both in that some machines are still on PowerPC (until today perhaps) and we are still using the transitional 32-bit architecture that won't really be addressed until Santa Rosa.
  • Reply 73 of 78
    rasnetrasnet Posts: 37member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by emig647


    Might want to take a better look at your user agreement for that "free" Visual Studio software... You're not allowed to sell any software you make with those free copies of VS. I was in that program as well while I was a software engineer student... you can use it all you want for school, but when it comes to production use... you gotta buy copies... where as xcode is 100% absolutely free. We can also compare MSDN vs. ADC... but I won't.



    There are other factors as well for a mac and pc costing the same... like a mac will outlast a pc as far as usage. A Macs average life is 2-4 years, where as a PC's running windows is a shade over a year.



    True the software argument doesn't hold up as well as some hope, but you gotta admit... you get a ton of software for paying a bit more for hardware.



    No, I didn't mean to imply that I had a full license on VS. The license for Visual Studio doesn't allow us to produce software we intend to use for purposes other than educational (nor does my free version of Windows 2003 Server legally allow me to set up a corporate network, for example). When I'm working on my home machine, I do use the edu VS for coding and debugging other material, which I doubt MS would approve of, but I have access to a fully licensed version for building and distributing code in cases where it would be an issue.



    I've never had a Windows PC die on me that early, although I do confess that when I'm dealing with other people's computers, I am more inclined to solve their registry/spyware/driver/etc problems by reinstalling the OS and setting up whatever is needed from there. I've rarely suggested a reinstall on a Mac unless the user was planning on upgrading anyway. Otherwise, I don't see any reason why a well maintained PC would last any shorter than a Mac. If anything, you might feel a bit less obsolete because major OS updates are sold less frequently.
  • Reply 74 of 78
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by >_>


    Quoted for truth. =)







    With an Intel mac, you gain the ability to run OSX though. I'd say that more than covers the price gap.




    Being locked in to geting a AIO for mid-rage is not good + gma 950 is not for gameing. $2000 for a laptop with good video and only 512 ram is a rip off.
  • Reply 75 of 78
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by turnwrite


    Well no when I say student I mean I'm thirteen.



    So I can't just "work at Wal-mart." If I could I would, believe me.



    Yup Windows ALWAYS has problems. Just thirty seconds ago someone in the pooter lab with me here got a Blue Screen of Death. Case in point.



    I bought a 2000 computer when I was thirteen. It worked great except for being windows...
  • Reply 76 of 78
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by ZachPruckowski


    Joe - it depends on how you stack it up. OS X is less resource-intensive than Vista. Also, it comes with a lot of software and hardware (iSight, IR, BT, wireless) that most PC desktops don't have.



    Additionally, aside from gamers or professionals, most people don't upgrade their systems much. Joe and Jane Average buy a computer, use it until it can't run X, Y, and Z, or until it needs serious repairs that are very expensive, and then buy another computer. Even as you move into the mid-range, people tend not to upgrade, because it costs a hundred dollars or more to buy the pieces, and then they would have to pay someone $40 or more to install it. Generally, 90% of the consumers out there buy a computer and never upgrade the hardware. Apple recognizes this, and so doesn't have upgradability that doesn't matter much.



    But apple should not only have AIO for the mid-rage. Joe and Jane Average may want to buy a bigger monter and haveing the head-less mac with only gma 950 sucks.
  • Reply 77 of 78
    imacfanimacfan Posts: 444member
    For me, it seems like if you're sensible, stability is not a problem with XP pro at least. Wanting to slit your wrists every time you use it, now that is...



    David
  • Reply 78 of 78
    netdognetdog Posts: 244member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Joe_the_dragon


    But apple should not only have AIO for the mid-rage. Joe and Jane Average may want to buy a bigger monter and haveing the head-less mac with only gma 950 sucks.



    That changes today. Of course, Joe and Jane should be ready to pay for it.
Sign In or Register to comment.