Maybe Redmond should call it a day and start working on a Linux distribution flavor with the ability to run previous Windows OSes virtually, and forget about what ever it is that they are planning next. You know, kindda what Apple did between OS9 and OS X.
Or learn shortcuts. In the least Ctrl+F2 (keyboard menu navigation).
I know the value in dual monitors but with Spaces I've moved away from dual monitors. The average user isn't going to need or want dual monitors, their use is primarily in development, video, & graphics (and that's mostly using secondary screen as a full screen preview space).
A individual app isn't going to be up to the task for business and a business level App is going to be too complex for consumers. You also need a variant or plug in for tax purposes.
This post is showing how it isn't a monopoly though, with all the people switching over.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gon
Competition, sure. If Microsoft engaged in more genuine competition by providing a quality product with value, like they did with both versions of XBox, that would be great.
It's just that the way they compete is, more often than not, reinventing a worse wheel for no other reason than screwing with their competition or hanging onto a monopoly lockin. For concrete examples, you can look at pretty much any programming language, scripting language and file format Microsoft has ever developed or extended.
Microsoft, as an organization, has a systemic attitude and process problem about the way it does product design and development. It has had this problem for a long time. Ex-MS employees paint a very accurate picture of this.OS X could do with improvements. Vista needs a demolition crew in comparison. Unlike many other posters, I have little hate for Microsoft or, indeed, their OS. I have used every major MS OS version starting from DOS 5.0, IIRC. They have some good infrastructure in their later operating systems, from NT onwards. But it's also a fact that their codebase and interfaces are a mess, they are way behind on usability, standards and interoperation on multiple fronts, and these things are critical for productivity.Some new functionality on Leopard is not great, but if you ignore it and just use the rest, it's still clearly better than Tiger. Especially factoring in the stuff behind the scenes, resulting in performance improvements and a flow of better apps in the long term, what makes it too ambitious?What they need is risk-taking ability, and confidence in being able to compete on raw quality. They need to do, more or less, what Apple did when they originally came out with OS X. To have the nerve to throw a lot of crud away.
I'm really happy with what vista offers me, especially the extras like media center which I use with my 360. I think its a quality product, just their relationship with developers was poor and caused the driver issues which caused problems for people.
All big companies have the problem Microsoft, one of a lack of innovation. Smaller companies can innovate a lot more because they have to to survive. I also disagree with Leopard being better. I had a lot less spinning balls and other issues with Tiger. My current fun issue is after a few days Java loses its mind, causes huge graphical issues and then I have to restart to get a GUI again.
Microsoft should spend their magabucks on improving their software. They could start with improving the customer experience instead of becoming the traffic cop for the media industry. Users buy software and the user experience is the only thing that matters.
I really do not think that they get it. I think that they are incapable of making the kind of changes that would be necessary to produce a quality product. Copying someone else work only takes you so far.
Visual Studio Express is a free version of the IDE..and it works, but really, if you are doing development to make money, you will have MSDN anyhow so you will be default have the best version of VS.net and all related tools dor other related technology like silver light
Powershell is comparable to BaSH
Yes, you can install all kinds of tools - I already have Cygwin and Vim on my Vista machine - but the point stands: Windows does not *ship* with tools even reminiscent of the baseline on competing operating systems. When you sit down on a Windows computer, you aren't assured of being able to do much of anything directly. With any other OS on a networked computer, at the very least I can SSH somewhere else, have an usable environment on the remote computer and transfer files around.
With OS X, right after install you have a choice of good shells, text editors, and tools for a huge amount of mainstream scripting and programming languages. You have a heavy-duty version control system. You have all sorts of networking, a web server and so on. Most of them are sitting there ready for the non-admin user. You just sit down and start working. Even if you don't need the tools, there is no downside to having them - they aren't in your face.
Vista is what, 7-12 gigs? (System requirements prescribe 15GB for installation.) And yet, they don't include a decent text editor. It's absolutely ridiculous. A nice assortment of tools would fit in ~100MB or so.
Saying that all developers would have or want Visual Studio is not quite right. It's a good IDE to be sure, but not the only game in town by a long shot. Even those developing in Microsoft's own languages are not 100% VS (see Mono). I prefer another editor and another build system to VS' builtins, so when I last used VS many years ago, my motivation was access to the debugger. But this goes far off the subject of basic OS facilities. I'm asking for broad scripting support and assortment of power tools installed, not an IDE. This is for admins, regular users, as well as apps/scripts that can then be made light and used flexibly instead of including the kitchen sink just to guarantee operation on another Windows machine.
Quote:
I do agree that SSH is lacking, but the default recomended remote administration method is remote desktop connection
I wasn't thinking about remote administration as much as miscellaneous user level stuff. Uploading some files on my home machine via SFTP while I'm somewhere else, SSHing from a friend's place onto a project server to do some coding, tunneling some X11 apps. These are not something remote desktop connection would help me with.
Quote:
As to video drivers, I agree that Nvidia is supremely incompetent, cant speak to ATI, we are a quadro fx shop, and the vista 4500 driver circa june 2008 is still shit next to xp.
But how much fault really lies with nVidia, and how much with Microsoft? They are going to ridiculous lengths to protect a few pixels of Blu-Ray (while the people making *real money* with piracy can surely either get their hands on an unprotected copy, afford to buy equipment to bypass the whole thing, or grab a good enough lossy capture from the end of the pipe).
If you are not faint of heart, take your own look at what kinds of things the Vista driver model mandates for the hardware and the driver.
..... I also disagree with Leopard being better. I had a lot less spinning balls and other issues with Tiger......
My experience is exactly the opposite. While Tiger was nice and steady for me, Leopard has been just as reliable but more responsive. I rarely get the beachball with Leopard. I saw it much more with Tiger.
In addition I find that the new Finder is *way* better and Quick Look is a great feature. I would be pretty bummed not to have it. I'm not as crazy about TM or spaces, but I'm sure there are others that love those features.
I really don't have a whole lot of sympathy. They had five years to get Vista right, a year long beta cycle, offered in a confusing and unnecessary variety of versions, AND they gave Intel an undeserved "pass" in saying certain computer chipsets were Vista ready when they aren't. Vista's poor reputation may be a bit of a stretch, but it really doesn't have much of a value proposition to give users other than it's included with a new computer. Users aren't able to carry foward drivers for peripherals designed in the XP era either, meaning that the user might have to replace not only the computer but also several things that might be attached to it, like printers and scanners.
Actually I use both Vista and Leopard and I have to say the beating Vista gets if often by people that don't even use it. Other then maybe some Nvidia drivers that were a bit of pain everything has worked rather well even printers.
Leopard on the other hand has been a pain from day one. At least Vista can keep a stable network connection and doesn't get hacked everytime Apple puts out a patch.
The other problem I have always had with Apple is you have to take what they give you. If they put out a patch and its garbage you have to wait for Apple to fix the problem and in some cases perform an archive and install.
Using the nvidia driver as an example I was able to go the the site and download several drivers and fix the problem myself, that is pretty much the case with any Windows issue.
Leopard is just as bloated as Vista and at least in my opinion has not be an improvement over Tiger except for eye candy that has never really worked all that well anyways.
I am not saying one is great or one is the best thing since the wheel but Leopard certainly isn't all that much better then Vista.
iPhone news IS Mac news. The iPhone and iPod touch are running mobile versions of OS X that are probably very similar to what Snow Leopard will be when it's released next year - signed apps, resolution independence, etc.
Sorry, but that's quite a bit of a stretch. I still want a MacMiniTower. I want PCI expandability and my own display. I shouldn't having to break my bank account adding memory or break my back moving a huge tower.
Leopard on the other hand has been a pain from day one. At least Vista can keep a stable network connection and doesn't get hacked everytime Apple puts out a patch.
Leopard gets hacked every time Apple puts out a patch?
Quote:
Leopard is just as bloated as Vista and at least in my opinion has not be an improvement over Tiger except for eye candy that has never really worked all that well anyways.
I can't disagree with you on that there is little visible, usable improvement in Leopard over Tiger. I upgraded for app compatibility and it's been very much like another Tiger so far.
But bloated? Tiger was not bloated - I could tell back when I had a much slower Mac. Now that I have only recent (C2D) machines and light use, I can't really tell if either Leo or Vista is bloated. I take it you either run on slow computers or do heavy (media?) work since you can see the difference?
Quote:
I am not saying one is great or one is the best thing since the wheel but Leopard certainly isn't all that much better then Vista.
Productivity-wise, yes it is. Both seem stabile, but Vista's UI is horrible, not much improved over XP's. On UI, OS X was way in front by 10.3.
Ok, here is the bottom line of vista versus leopard. What we really should call MS versus MAC!!! If you use a computer at work then you are using windows. If you play hard hitting graphic phenoms than your using MS!!!! If you are into music, graphic design, and no viruses then go MAC!!! Pick a side and live with it!!!!
The real bottom line is people are buying a pc with vista installed to turn around and have it downgraded to xp .....hello houston there there is a problem. Were not talking about a 5 yr old computer with obsolete hardware and software. Were talking about a brand new pre-approved built pc to the OS min requirments. Let us not forget the optional jump drive to boost performance!!! What are you kidding me!!! Now after I spent close to a 1000 to buy whats supposed to be a superior OS and run like the wind your telling me to buy an optional drive to boost what's supposed to be there after 5yrs of testing OMG!!!!
Now vista costs 599 (ultimate) and leopard costs 129. But a halfway decent comp for windows is roughly 800 bucks. while you will spend double that for a MAC!!! Huh? Somwhere the math is working but if Mac will get off there high horse and make it so there not so overpriced and in some ways overrated comps are more economically friendly and I don't mean the little white box they came out with 2yrs ago (what a joke). And get gamers and the biz world in on it they may just rule the world....
Ok, here is the bottom line of vista versus leopard. What we really should call MS versus MAC!!! If you use a computer at work then you are using windows. If you play hard hitting graphic phenoms than your using MS!!!! If you are into music, graphic design, and no viruses then go MAC!!! Pick a side and live with it!!!!
You lost me at "If you use a computer at work then you are using windows."
Most people in my workplace use windows, but there are those of us in IT who prefer macs and we use Leopard so I don't know what your point is.
Quote:
Originally Posted by forgotto
The real bottom line is people are buying a pc with vista installed to turn around and have it downgraded to xp .....hello houston there there is a problem.
Most PCs sold today come with a license for Vista and it's pre-installed on the hard drive. That people want to downgrade to XP is understandable. I, for one, prefer XP over Vista mostly because I know that XP does what I need it to do, and I don't have to waste my time with those endless user account protection warnings. Plus I know what to expect from XP. I've spent the last 7 years using it. If something goes wrong I don't want to have to guess whether it's "just vista" or if something else is genuinely broken.
Quote:
Originally Posted by forgotto
Now vista costs 599 (ultimate) and leopard costs 129. But a halfway decent comp for windows is roughly 800 bucks. while you will spend double that for a MAC!!! Huh?
You said it, man; "halfway decent." For a good PC prepare to spend as much as a comparable mac, in terms of specifications. PC manufacturers can get away with throwing every cheap crap component from the orient in their case and if it passes WHQL they can slap a "Made for Vista" logo on it and sell it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by forgotto
Somwhere the math is working but if Mac will get off there high horse and make it so there not so overpriced and in some ways overrated comps are more economically friendly and I don't mean the little white box they came out with 2yrs ago (what a joke). And get gamers and the biz world in on it they may just rule the world....
First of all, Apple can charge slightly more for their computers because they do more than a PC can. The biggest difference being the ability to run OS X. I happen to use a Mac Mini as my main computer, and have for the last two years. It's a great little machine. I have three USB2.0 Hubs coming off of it and as many as 13 USB peripherals connected at any one time. It handles everything I can throw at it, all the way up to h.264 @ 720P.
Right now I'm using a Macbook Pro 17" which has the Geforce 8600M GT GPU. I can play games with it if I want. Probably not Crysis at 60FPS, but I'm 30 years old and probably not what you'd consider the average "gamer" anyway. I find that the older I get the less time I have to do anything but infrequent, casual gaming. CatanOnline rules! First-person shooters and the like just don't appeal to me as much anymore. I consider a Macbook Pro to be the most versatile computer available if you are looking for a good business tool. I use mine for both work and play.
Right now I'm using a Macbook Pro 17" which has the Geforce 8600M GT GPU. I can play games with it if I want. Probably not Crysis at 60FPS, but I'm 30 years old and probably not what you'd consider the average "gamer" anyway.
The industry claims average gamer in the US is 35, so you seem like average to me, if a little short on age still.
Definitely on my list of things to do. The cardboard version rocks with a bunch of friends. It's too bad the original designers and Microsoft have only seen fit to offer the online game inside the US, putting it out of my reach (and only with a subscription model to boot - I hate subscriptions) but a Google search turned up very polished-looking free clones.
They have tried this before.... and FAILED! and are STILL FAILING!!
Windows 7 with its "copied" Multi-touch!! HA HA HA... Apple very PROBABLY has bet them to it. The new Cinema displays and New Macs will definitely have MULTI-TOUCH... All they have to do is compile the iPhone's Cocoa Touch for the desktop, and BANG! beaten again Microsoft!
They have tried this before.... and FAILED! and are STILL FAILING!!
Windows 7 with its "copied" Multi-touch!! HA HA HA... Apple very PROBABLY has bet them to it. The new Cinema displays and New Macs will definitely have MULTI-TOUCH... All they have to do is compile the iPhone's Cocoa Touch for the desktop, and BANG! beaten again Microsoft!
Sounds something like, Sprint tried to run some sort of ads which really didn't say anything bad about iPhone. Can't remember the Phone that they were showing next to that shiny, pretty iPhone.
Hmmm... I think Micro$oft wants some of that too now. They would have to hire the same Ad agency that did commercials for VW and APPLE.
Can't wait to see first ad against Apple. I wonder what they gonna pick on. Hmmmm
Maybe that OS costs $129.....Too cheap to be real maybe because Vista is $599.
I like the iWay!
thats very disingenious, the software is 'cheap' because the hardware is overpriced.
If someone gave me base mac mini model money I could build them a tremendous rig (including Vista ultimate) that would be at 'least' as stable as OS X...and give them some change.!
trust me I've done it.
the people who have problems with Vista are those doing it on $300 pc's.
anyhow..my experience with Leopard (compared to Tiger) is that its a step back stability wise.
Wow, MS is really funny these days. First was Vista, then Zune, then ZunePhone (I read it somewhere, in development), and now its MS Ad!
I mean after how many years, only now they want to fire back Apple Get a Mac ad?. This would be fun, watching 2 commercials compete against each other .
But honestly, what do MS have to say bout Vista?
Its better then OS X because of.....none? but in a negative way, Vista is wayyy better then OS X because it gives you lots of stupid bugs, incompatibilities and it forces you to upgrade your hardware! yeah...X for Vista baby!.
I mean that isn't it too late to clear Vista bad image? you can conduct a research to anyone comparing OSX, Win XP and Windows Vista and Vista will come out last in the preferred OS.
Im getting popcorns! Anyone want some?
The zune is actually a better product than Ipod classic, sound quality etc. Its just not 'cool' to have one.
You can fool some of the people all of the time and all of the people some of the time..... never was truer with many Apple products.
Competition, sure. If Microsoft engaged in more genuine competition by providing a quality product with value, like they did with both versions of XBox, that would be great.
It's just that the way they compete is, more often than not, reinventing a worse wheel for no other reason than screwing with their competition or hanging onto a monopoly lockin. For concrete examples, you can look at pretty much any programming language, scripting language and file format Microsoft has ever developed or extended.
Microsoft, as an organization, has a systemic attitude and process problem about the way it does product design and development. It has had this problem for a long time. Ex-MS employees paint a very accurate picture of this.OS X could do with improvements. Vista needs a demolition crew in comparison. Unlike many other posters, I have little hate for Microsoft or, indeed, their OS. I have used every major MS OS version starting from DOS 5.0, IIRC. They have some good infrastructure in their later operating systems, from NT onwards. But it's also a fact that their codebase and interfaces are a mess, they are way behind on usability, standards and interoperation on multiple fronts, and these things are critical for productivity.Some new functionality on Leopard is not great, but if you ignore it and just use the rest, it's still clearly better than Tiger. Especially factoring in the stuff behind the scenes, resulting in performance improvements and a flow of better apps in the long term, what makes it too ambitious?What they need is risk-taking ability, and confidence in being able to compete on raw quality. They need to do, more or less, what Apple did when they originally came out with OS X. To have the nerve to throw a lot of crud away.
Apple had nothing to lose though!
MS still has a 90%+ marketshare with revenue streams Apple can only dream about. Don't think the shareholders would be too happy with a rip it up and start again attitude.
Said it before. If you spend the same amount of money on a Vista rig as would do on a basic Mac Mini then you will have no problems.
Apple has proved with OS X that you do get what you pay for.
Comments
The best navigational solution for dual monitors?
Get a trackball!
http://us.kensington.com/html/2200.html
Or learn shortcuts. In the least Ctrl+F2 (keyboard menu navigation).
I know the value in dual monitors but with Spaces I've moved away from dual monitors. The average user isn't going to need or want dual monitors, their use is primarily in development, video, & graphics (and that's mostly using secondary screen as a full screen preview space).
A whole class of apps? Why not just one app?
A individual app isn't going to be up to the task for business and a business level App is going to be too complex for consumers. You also need a variant or plug in for tax purposes.
An abusive monopoly isn't healthy competition.
This post is showing how it isn't a monopoly though, with all the people switching over.
Competition, sure. If Microsoft engaged in more genuine competition by providing a quality product with value, like they did with both versions of XBox, that would be great.
It's just that the way they compete is, more often than not, reinventing a worse wheel for no other reason than screwing with their competition or hanging onto a monopoly lockin. For concrete examples, you can look at pretty much any programming language, scripting language and file format Microsoft has ever developed or extended.
Microsoft, as an organization, has a systemic attitude and process problem about the way it does product design and development. It has had this problem for a long time. Ex-MS employees paint a very accurate picture of this.OS X could do with improvements. Vista needs a demolition crew in comparison. Unlike many other posters, I have little hate for Microsoft or, indeed, their OS. I have used every major MS OS version starting from DOS 5.0, IIRC. They have some good infrastructure in their later operating systems, from NT onwards. But it's also a fact that their codebase and interfaces are a mess, they are way behind on usability, standards and interoperation on multiple fronts, and these things are critical for productivity.Some new functionality on Leopard is not great, but if you ignore it and just use the rest, it's still clearly better than Tiger. Especially factoring in the stuff behind the scenes, resulting in performance improvements and a flow of better apps in the long term, what makes it too ambitious?What they need is risk-taking ability, and confidence in being able to compete on raw quality. They need to do, more or less, what Apple did when they originally came out with OS X. To have the nerve to throw a lot of crud away.
I'm really happy with what vista offers me, especially the extras like media center which I use with my 360. I think its a quality product, just their relationship with developers was poor and caused the driver issues which caused problems for people.
All big companies have the problem Microsoft, one of a lack of innovation. Smaller companies can innovate a lot more because they have to to survive. I also disagree with Leopard being better. I had a lot less spinning balls and other issues with Tiger. My current fun issue is after a few days Java loses its mind, causes huge graphical issues and then I have to restart to get a GUI again.
I really do not think that they get it. I think that they are incapable of making the kind of changes that would be necessary to produce a quality product. Copying someone else work only takes you so far.
Visual Studio Express is a free version of the IDE..and it works, but really, if you are doing development to make money, you will have MSDN anyhow so you will be default have the best version of VS.net and all related tools dor other related technology like silver light
Powershell is comparable to BaSH
Yes, you can install all kinds of tools - I already have Cygwin and Vim on my Vista machine - but the point stands: Windows does not *ship* with tools even reminiscent of the baseline on competing operating systems. When you sit down on a Windows computer, you aren't assured of being able to do much of anything directly. With any other OS on a networked computer, at the very least I can SSH somewhere else, have an usable environment on the remote computer and transfer files around.
With OS X, right after install you have a choice of good shells, text editors, and tools for a huge amount of mainstream scripting and programming languages. You have a heavy-duty version control system. You have all sorts of networking, a web server and so on. Most of them are sitting there ready for the non-admin user. You just sit down and start working. Even if you don't need the tools, there is no downside to having them - they aren't in your face.
Vista is what, 7-12 gigs? (System requirements prescribe 15GB for installation.) And yet, they don't include a decent text editor. It's absolutely ridiculous. A nice assortment of tools would fit in ~100MB or so.
Saying that all developers would have or want Visual Studio is not quite right. It's a good IDE to be sure, but not the only game in town by a long shot. Even those developing in Microsoft's own languages are not 100% VS (see Mono). I prefer another editor and another build system to VS' builtins, so when I last used VS many years ago, my motivation was access to the debugger. But this goes far off the subject of basic OS facilities. I'm asking for broad scripting support and assortment of power tools installed, not an IDE. This is for admins, regular users, as well as apps/scripts that can then be made light and used flexibly instead of including the kitchen sink just to guarantee operation on another Windows machine.
I do agree that SSH is lacking, but the default recomended remote administration method is remote desktop connection
I wasn't thinking about remote administration as much as miscellaneous user level stuff. Uploading some files on my home machine via SFTP while I'm somewhere else, SSHing from a friend's place onto a project server to do some coding, tunneling some X11 apps. These are not something remote desktop connection would help me with.
As to video drivers, I agree that Nvidia is supremely incompetent, cant speak to ATI, we are a quadro fx shop, and the vista 4500 driver circa june 2008 is still shit next to xp.
But how much fault really lies with nVidia, and how much with Microsoft? They are going to ridiculous lengths to protect a few pixels of Blu-Ray (while the people making *real money* with piracy can surely either get their hands on an unprotected copy, afford to buy equipment to bypass the whole thing, or grab a good enough lossy capture from the end of the pipe).
If you are not faint of heart, take your own look at what kinds of things the Vista driver model mandates for the hardware and the driver.
..... I also disagree with Leopard being better. I had a lot less spinning balls and other issues with Tiger......
My experience is exactly the opposite. While Tiger was nice and steady for me, Leopard has been just as reliable but more responsive. I rarely get the beachball with Leopard. I saw it much more with Tiger.
In addition I find that the new Finder is *way* better and Quick Look is a great feature. I would be pretty bummed not to have it. I'm not as crazy about TM or spaces, but I'm sure there are others that love those features.
I really don't have a whole lot of sympathy. They had five years to get Vista right, a year long beta cycle, offered in a confusing and unnecessary variety of versions, AND they gave Intel an undeserved "pass" in saying certain computer chipsets were Vista ready when they aren't. Vista's poor reputation may be a bit of a stretch, but it really doesn't have much of a value proposition to give users other than it's included with a new computer. Users aren't able to carry foward drivers for peripherals designed in the XP era either, meaning that the user might have to replace not only the computer but also several things that might be attached to it, like printers and scanners.
Actually I use both Vista and Leopard and I have to say the beating Vista gets if often by people that don't even use it. Other then maybe some Nvidia drivers that were a bit of pain everything has worked rather well even printers.
Leopard on the other hand has been a pain from day one. At least Vista can keep a stable network connection and doesn't get hacked everytime Apple puts out a patch.
The other problem I have always had with Apple is you have to take what they give you. If they put out a patch and its garbage you have to wait for Apple to fix the problem and in some cases perform an archive and install.
Using the nvidia driver as an example I was able to go the the site and download several drivers and fix the problem myself, that is pretty much the case with any Windows issue.
Leopard is just as bloated as Vista and at least in my opinion has not be an improvement over Tiger except for eye candy that has never really worked all that well anyways.
I am not saying one is great or one is the best thing since the wheel but Leopard certainly isn't all that much better then Vista.
iPhone news IS Mac news. The iPhone and iPod touch are running mobile versions of OS X that are probably very similar to what Snow Leopard will be when it's released next year - signed apps, resolution independence, etc.
Sorry, but that's quite a bit of a stretch. I still want a MacMiniTower. I want PCI expandability and my own display. I shouldn't having to break my bank account adding memory or break my back moving a huge tower.
Leopard on the other hand has been a pain from day one. At least Vista can keep a stable network connection and doesn't get hacked everytime Apple puts out a patch.
Leopard gets hacked every time Apple puts out a patch?
Leopard is just as bloated as Vista and at least in my opinion has not be an improvement over Tiger except for eye candy that has never really worked all that well anyways.
I can't disagree with you on that there is little visible, usable improvement in Leopard over Tiger. I upgraded for app compatibility and it's been very much like another Tiger so far.
But bloated? Tiger was not bloated - I could tell back when I had a much slower Mac. Now that I have only recent (C2D) machines and light use, I can't really tell if either Leo or Vista is bloated. I take it you either run on slow computers or do heavy (media?) work since you can see the difference?
I am not saying one is great or one is the best thing since the wheel but Leopard certainly isn't all that much better then Vista.
Productivity-wise, yes it is. Both seem stabile, but Vista's UI is horrible, not much improved over XP's. On UI, OS X was way in front by 10.3.
The real bottom line is people are buying a pc with vista installed to turn around and have it downgraded to xp .....hello houston there there is a problem. Were not talking about a 5 yr old computer with obsolete hardware and software. Were talking about a brand new pre-approved built pc to the OS min requirments. Let us not forget the optional jump drive to boost performance!!! What are you kidding me!!! Now after I spent close to a 1000 to buy whats supposed to be a superior OS and run like the wind your telling me to buy an optional drive to boost what's supposed to be there after 5yrs of testing OMG!!!!
Now vista costs 599 (ultimate) and leopard costs 129. But a halfway decent comp for windows is roughly 800 bucks. while you will spend double that for a MAC!!! Huh? Somwhere the math is working but if Mac will get off there high horse and make it so there not so overpriced and in some ways overrated comps are more economically friendly and I don't mean the little white box they came out with 2yrs ago (what a joke). And get gamers and the biz world in on it they may just rule the world....
Ok, here is the bottom line of vista versus leopard. What we really should call MS versus MAC!!! If you use a computer at work then you are using windows. If you play hard hitting graphic phenoms than your using MS!!!! If you are into music, graphic design, and no viruses then go MAC!!! Pick a side and live with it!!!!
You lost me at "If you use a computer at work then you are using windows."
Most people in my workplace use windows, but there are those of us in IT who prefer macs and we use Leopard so I don't know what your point is.
The real bottom line is people are buying a pc with vista installed to turn around and have it downgraded to xp .....hello houston there there is a problem.
Most PCs sold today come with a license for Vista and it's pre-installed on the hard drive. That people want to downgrade to XP is understandable. I, for one, prefer XP over Vista mostly because I know that XP does what I need it to do, and I don't have to waste my time with those endless user account protection warnings. Plus I know what to expect from XP. I've spent the last 7 years using it. If something goes wrong I don't want to have to guess whether it's "just vista" or if something else is genuinely broken.
Now vista costs 599 (ultimate) and leopard costs 129. But a halfway decent comp for windows is roughly 800 bucks. while you will spend double that for a MAC!!! Huh?
You said it, man; "halfway decent." For a good PC prepare to spend as much as a comparable mac, in terms of specifications. PC manufacturers can get away with throwing every cheap crap component from the orient in their case and if it passes WHQL they can slap a "Made for Vista" logo on it and sell it.
Somwhere the math is working but if Mac will get off there high horse and make it so there not so overpriced and in some ways overrated comps are more economically friendly and I don't mean the little white box they came out with 2yrs ago (what a joke). And get gamers and the biz world in on it they may just rule the world....
First of all, Apple can charge slightly more for their computers because they do more than a PC can. The biggest difference being the ability to run OS X. I happen to use a Mac Mini as my main computer, and have for the last two years. It's a great little machine. I have three USB2.0 Hubs coming off of it and as many as 13 USB peripherals connected at any one time. It handles everything I can throw at it, all the way up to h.264 @ 720P.
Right now I'm using a Macbook Pro 17" which has the Geforce 8600M GT GPU. I can play games with it if I want. Probably not Crysis at 60FPS, but I'm 30 years old and probably not what you'd consider the average "gamer" anyway. I find that the older I get the less time I have to do anything but infrequent, casual gaming. CatanOnline rules! First-person shooters and the like just don't appeal to me as much anymore. I consider a Macbook Pro to be the most versatile computer available if you are looking for a good business tool. I use mine for both work and play.
If you use a computer at work then you are using windows.
Nope. I've never used Windows. Especially not at work.
Mac, Solaris, VMS, but never Windows.
Right now I'm using a Macbook Pro 17" which has the Geforce 8600M GT GPU. I can play games with it if I want. Probably not Crysis at 60FPS, but I'm 30 years old and probably not what you'd consider the average "gamer" anyway.
The industry claims average gamer in the US is 35, so you seem like average to me, if a little short on age still.
http://www.theesa.com/facts/index.asp
CatanOnline rules!
Definitely on my list of things to do. The cardboard version rocks with a bunch of friends. It's too bad the original designers and Microsoft have only seen fit to offer the online game inside the US, putting it out of my reach (and only with a subscription model to boot - I hate subscriptions) but a Google search turned up very polished-looking free clones.
Windows 7 with its "copied" Multi-touch!! HA HA HA... Apple very PROBABLY has bet them to it. The new Cinema displays and New Macs will definitely have MULTI-TOUCH... All they have to do is compile the iPhone's Cocoa Touch for the desktop, and BANG! beaten again Microsoft!
They have tried this before.... and FAILED! and are STILL FAILING!!
Windows 7 with its "copied" Multi-touch!! HA HA HA... Apple very PROBABLY has bet them to it. The new Cinema displays and New Macs will definitely have MULTI-TOUCH... All they have to do is compile the iPhone's Cocoa Touch for the desktop, and BANG! beaten again Microsoft!
Apple didn't invent multitouch.
Apple didn't invent multitouch.
I know they Didn't do. Its an OLD concept.
Sounds something like, Sprint tried to run some sort of ads which really didn't say anything bad about iPhone. Can't remember the Phone that they were showing next to that shiny, pretty iPhone.
Hmmm... I think Micro$oft wants some of that too now. They would have to hire the same Ad agency that did commercials for VW and APPLE.
Can't wait to see first ad against Apple. I wonder what they gonna pick on. Hmmmm
Maybe that OS costs $129.....Too cheap to be real maybe because Vista is $599.
I like the iWay!
thats very disingenious, the software is 'cheap' because the hardware is overpriced.
If someone gave me base mac mini model money I could build them a tremendous rig (including Vista ultimate) that would be at 'least' as stable as OS X...and give them some change.!
trust me I've done it.
the people who have problems with Vista are those doing it on $300 pc's.
anyhow..my experience with Leopard (compared to Tiger) is that its a step back stability wise.
Wow, MS is really funny these days. First was Vista, then Zune, then ZunePhone (I read it somewhere, in development), and now its MS Ad!
I mean after how many years, only now they want to fire back Apple Get a Mac ad?. This would be fun, watching 2 commercials compete against each other
But honestly, what do MS have to say bout Vista?
Its better then OS X because of.....none? but in a negative way, Vista is wayyy better then OS X because it gives you lots of stupid bugs, incompatibilities and it forces you to upgrade your hardware! yeah...X for Vista baby!.
I mean that isn't it too late to clear Vista bad image? you can conduct a research to anyone comparing OSX, Win XP and Windows Vista and Vista will come out last in the preferred OS.
Im getting popcorns! Anyone want some?
The zune is actually a better product than Ipod classic, sound quality etc. Its just not 'cool' to have one.
You can fool some of the people all of the time and all of the people some of the time..... never was truer with many Apple products.
Competition, sure. If Microsoft engaged in more genuine competition by providing a quality product with value, like they did with both versions of XBox, that would be great.
It's just that the way they compete is, more often than not, reinventing a worse wheel for no other reason than screwing with their competition or hanging onto a monopoly lockin. For concrete examples, you can look at pretty much any programming language, scripting language and file format Microsoft has ever developed or extended.
Microsoft, as an organization, has a systemic attitude and process problem about the way it does product design and development. It has had this problem for a long time. Ex-MS employees paint a very accurate picture of this.OS X could do with improvements. Vista needs a demolition crew in comparison. Unlike many other posters, I have little hate for Microsoft or, indeed, their OS. I have used every major MS OS version starting from DOS 5.0, IIRC. They have some good infrastructure in their later operating systems, from NT onwards. But it's also a fact that their codebase and interfaces are a mess, they are way behind on usability, standards and interoperation on multiple fronts, and these things are critical for productivity.Some new functionality on Leopard is not great, but if you ignore it and just use the rest, it's still clearly better than Tiger. Especially factoring in the stuff behind the scenes, resulting in performance improvements and a flow of better apps in the long term, what makes it too ambitious?What they need is risk-taking ability, and confidence in being able to compete on raw quality. They need to do, more or less, what Apple did when they originally came out with OS X. To have the nerve to throw a lot of crud away.
Apple had nothing to lose though!
MS still has a 90%+ marketshare with revenue streams Apple can only dream about. Don't think the shareholders would be too happy with a rip it up and start again attitude.
Said it before. If you spend the same amount of money on a Vista rig as would do on a basic Mac Mini then you will have no problems.
Apple has proved with OS X that you do get what you pay for.