PDA

View Full Version : iTunes 7.0.2 And Windows Vista




MacRumors
Feb 2, 2007, 02:00 PM
http://www.macrumors.com/images/macrumorsthreadlogo.gif (http://www.macrumors.com)

Apple has published a guide (http://docs.info.apple.com/article.html?artnum=305042) for installing iTunes on a Windows Vista system. While Apple encourages users to wait "a few weeks" until the next version of iTunes becomes available which will be fully Vista compliant, the guide will help those who wish to install iTunes 7.0.2 until the new version is available.

A list of known issues includes:
* iTunes Store purchases may not play when upgrading to Windows Vista from Windows 2000 or XP. (Ed Note: Workaround exists. See permissions repair tool (http://www.apple.com/support/downloads/itunesrepairtoolforvista10.html))
* iPod models with the "Enable Disk Use" option turned off may be unable to update or restore iPod software, and make changes to iPod settings.
* iPod models configured to Auto Sync and have the "Enable Disk Use" option turned off may require being ejected and reconnected to resync.
* Ejecting an iPod from the Windows System Tray using the "Safely Remove Hardware" feature may corrupt your iPod. To always safely eject an iPod, choose Eject iPod from the Controls menu within iTunes.
* Cover Flow animation may be slower than expected.
* Contacts and calendars will not sync with iPod.

The next version of iTunes which is expected to bring not only Vista compatibility but AppleTV compatibility is expected to be branded iTunes 7.1 as per the original AppleTV specifications page (http://www.apple.com/appletv/specs.html) when the product launched (now simply states "iTunes 7").

iTunes was last updated (http://www.macrumors.com/2006/10/31/itunes-7-0-2-update/) to version 7.0.2 in late October 2006, providing performance and stability improvements as well as compatibility with Apple's second generation iPod shuffle.



skoker
Feb 2, 2007, 02:05 PM
iTunes on my Vista machine, less than a week old, is unstable as all hell.

longofest
Feb 2, 2007, 02:06 PM
iTunes on my Vista machine, less than a week old, is unstable as all hell.

Did you follow Apple's advice? Describe "unstable". Does it fit what the list of known issues is?

iJawn108
Feb 2, 2007, 02:07 PM
I wonder when bootcamp will allow vista.

wrldwzrd89
Feb 2, 2007, 02:08 PM
Why does this not surprise me? After all, Apple's Windows development is secondary to its Macintosh development... so I'd expect a delay between the release of a new OS from Microsoft and a compatible iTunes+QuickTime release.

I'm guessing that Leopard will also necessitate an iTunes update... I wonder how Apple's doing on this front.

tallgeek
Feb 2, 2007, 02:12 PM
I've been running iTunes on Vista since June, and the only issues I've had are the inability to burn CDs, and occasionally the computer will restart while I'm downloading podcasts.

lazyrighteye
Feb 2, 2007, 02:16 PM
Any correlation between the upcoming iTunes bump & a release date for iLife '07?

iMikeT
Feb 2, 2007, 02:17 PM
* iTunes Store purchases may not play when upgrading to Windows Vista from Windows 2000 or XP.


I'll be surprised if Vista will even allow purchases to be played from the iTS consdiering how much content protection Vista is said to be doing.

Flowbee
Feb 2, 2007, 02:19 PM
Oooh... iTunes 7.1. Please add tagging support, Apple. "Genre" is so twentieth century.

No, I don't really expect such a big change in 7.1. Hopefully by the time Leopard ships, though.

flyinmac
Feb 2, 2007, 02:19 PM
I wonder when bootcamp will allow vista.

Didn't you get the news???

Leopard is just going to be Vista bundled with Bootcamp :eek:

tallgeek
Feb 2, 2007, 02:21 PM
I'll be surprised if Vista will even allow purchases to be played from the iTS consdiering how much content protection Vista is said to be doing.

I have been both playing previous purchases, and songs I've purchased since using Vista without any problems. Vista did it's usual annoying check to make sure I wanted to install iTunes, and hasn't bothered the program since.

dernhelm
Feb 2, 2007, 02:23 PM
It's scary the number of programs that need to be "updated" to run on Vista.

It's almost as if they sat around and said "backward compatibility? who cares about backward compatibility?"

Apple had better backward compatibility moving their OS to run on a different processor architecture than Windows does between Vista and Windows XP. That's completely ridiculous.

aswitcher
Feb 2, 2007, 02:24 PM
Any correlation between the upcoming iTunes bump & a release date for iLife '07?

I agree, rumors of a 20th Feb announcement seem to be hardening up. Hopefuly its more than an iTunes bump.

flyinmac
Feb 2, 2007, 02:40 PM
It's scary the number of programs that need to be "updated" to run on Vista.

It's almost as if they sat around and said "backward compatibility? who cares about backward compatibility?"


Well, to produce a truly stable and secure operating system, that is what Microsoft needs to do. They need to abandon all the old compatibility layers and start fresh. Unfortunately, they haven't done that.


Apple had better backward compatibility moving their OS to run on a different processor architecture than Windows does between Vista and Windows XP. That's completely ridiculous.

Now that is a scary thought.

But, Apple's approach was a bit different. For the most part, they have been less concerned with backwards compatibility in the actual OS code than Microsoft.

Microsoft has attempted to keep the compatibility in-place dating all the way back to DOS 1.0. And, that has been a penalty in their OS code. By keeping native support for old programs built-in to new Windows versions, they have limited their ability to start fresh and produce something truly spectacular.

Apple has taken a slightly different approach. They've totally started over a few times. And, it has worked-out pretty good for them. The reason it worked-out so well, is that they were able to start fresh, but also maintain compatibility.

That's because they created a fresh environment without all the legacy code built-in. Then, they created a virtual environment that would run in the new environment (Classic and now Rosetta).

The closest comparison would be if Microsoft totally re-wrote Windows from scratch and produced a totally new environment that didn't contain any old code (or compatibility layer). Then, provided the Windows version of Virtual PC to enable you to run your old version of Windows in a virtual environment. That would be very close to the transition Apple used to go from OS 9 to OS X.

For the new Rosetta method, Microsoft could have created something along the lines of a "run-time" XP-layer. Basically, a fresh Windows OS that would call on XP compatible API's as needed in a separate "box" or separate memory space.

Of course, that's just some thoughts. Actual implementation would likely require something a bit more in-depth.

The main point being that it is possible (as Apple has demonstrated) to start completely fresh, and maintain compatibility.

mikeinternet
Feb 2, 2007, 02:45 PM
I wonder when bootcamp will allow vista.

i noticed in a macmall catalog i got yesterday that they are offering all of the intel macs to ship bundled with XP or vista pre-installed.

personally i have no desire to deal with windows at all.

hagjohn
Feb 2, 2007, 02:46 PM
I'll be surprised if Vista will even allow purchases to be played from the iTS consdiering how much content protection Vista is said to be doing.

Actually, that's more myth than anything.

I installed iTunes last night and copied over my files without any issues. Of course, all are non-DRM files though.

FreeState
Feb 2, 2007, 02:48 PM
I agree, rumors of a 20th Feb announcement seem to be hardening up. Hopefuly its more than an iTunes bump.

I think there will be an announcement this Sunday. Also an iTunes update Monday. Or thats just widescreen speculation:) :p

hagjohn
Feb 2, 2007, 02:50 PM
IMHO, at some point MS has to break backward compatibility. They really need to dump anything older than XP... but that's only my opinion.

It's scary the number of programs that need to be "updated" to run on Vista.

It's almost as if they sat around and said "backward compatibility? who cares about backward compatibility?"

Apple had better backward compatibility moving their OS to run on a different processor architecture than Windows does between Vista and Windows XP. That's completely ridiculous.

dernhelm
Feb 2, 2007, 02:56 PM
IMHO, at some point MS has to break backward compatibility. They really need to dump anything older than XP... but that's only my opinion.

The problem is that stuff written for XP doesn't even work! And iTunes is not the only example.

tny
Feb 2, 2007, 03:01 PM
Microsoft has attempted to keep the compatibility in-place dating all the way back to DOS 1.0. And, that has been a penalty in their OS code. By keeping native support for old programs built-in to new Windows versions, they have limited their ability to start fresh and produce something truly spectacular.


Sort of. The NT/2K/XP/Vista family is rewritten from the ground up, versus the DOS/Windows/95/98/ME family. If I recall correctly, there's a DOS compability layer added into the code. Note, too, that the NT family is putatively processor-agnostic, though versions for other processors haven't been sold in this millennium.

dernhelm
Feb 2, 2007, 03:02 PM
Well, to produce a truly stable and secure operating system, that is what Microsoft needs to do. They need to abandon all the old compatibility layers and start fresh. Unfortunately, they haven't done that.


Really? Try installing a Windows 3.1, 95 or 98 program on Vista. See how well it works. Many 95 programs won't even install on XP.

They are abandoning old compatibility layers, they are just doing it poorly.

----

But the upgrade from XP to Vista will be more like the upgrade from 10.3 to 10.4 than anything. Can you think of a single program that ceased to run when you upgraded to 10.4? How would you feel if Word stopped running when you upgrade to 10.5?

The simple fact is, that Microsoft is rolling out Vista, and apps that ran fine on XP no longer run. That's ridiculous anyway you look at it.

flyinmac
Feb 2, 2007, 03:06 PM
Sort of. The NT/2K/XP/Vista family is rewritten from the ground up, versus the DOS/Windows/95/98/ME family. If I recall correctly, there's a DOS compability layer added into the code. Note, too, that the NT family is putatively processor-agnostic, though versions for other processors haven't been sold in this millennium.

Yes, that is correct.

The NT line was rewritten when it originated. But, it's been mostly updates and enhancements since that point. And, then as you pointed-out, been given some layer that introduces compatibility with the DOS through 98 code. So, it still ends-up being mostly a band-aid approach compared to a completely clean slate.

But, even if the NT base were considered a fresh start, it's been a long time since NT was introduced. That's still a lot of old code.

kingtj
Feb 2, 2007, 03:07 PM
It works now, basically. If you search around, you'll see plenty of people who had it working as far back as Vista beta 2.

You have to manually extract and install the XP drivers though, and a few details like the 2-finger right-click trackpad support don't work ... but it's usable.


I wonder when bootcamp will allow vista.

guzhogi
Feb 2, 2007, 03:15 PM
I wonder when bootcamp will allow vista.

Hmm, I got Vista RC2 to run on my C2D MBP using Boot Camp fairly well. I was able to use the drivers CD from Boot Camp to install some of the drivers with the only exceptions being the Airport and the iSight's kinda bad. Other than that, it works fine for me.

Eraserhead
Feb 2, 2007, 03:19 PM
But the upgrade from XP to Vista will be more like the upgrade from 10.3 to 10.4 than anything. Can you think of a single program that ceased to run when you upgraded to 10.4?

Yes, for example Intego Anti-Virus wouldn't even install, but most applications had patches out on Tiger release day if not before. What's great now is that Apple have said that they won't be changing the API's for a while so everything that runs under 10.4 should run perfectly under 10.5

nostaws
Feb 2, 2007, 03:24 PM
I bet MS did it on purpose to get people to use Zunes.

I read (from a reputable source) that when the Zune came out, it and it's software were somewhat incompatible with Vista, and that they were working on an update.

So I doubt that the ipod was a specific target.

I don't know if it has been updated.

lorien
Feb 2, 2007, 03:28 PM
Any correlation between the upcoming iTunes bump & a release date for iLife '07?

Me thinks you are on to something

steve_hill4
Feb 2, 2007, 03:30 PM
Really? Try installing a Windows 3.1, 95 or 98 program on Vista. See how well it works. Many 95 programs won't even install on XP.

They are abandoning old compatibility layers, they are just doing it poorly.


Maybe, but you could actually run Windows 1.0 apps on XP, (I forget where the hack is, but it does work).

Microsoft have generally been better at legacy support than Apple because they know what a massive user base each OS has. While most home users have got XP now, I do know of a reasonable number that run 98/ME and only upgrade their OS and/or machine when they really have to, (new camera say). I see far too often software requiring 10.3.9 or above, basically ignoring all users with OSes and/or machines more than 18 months old.

flyinmac
Feb 2, 2007, 03:41 PM
Really? Try installing a Windows 3.1, 95 or 98 program on Vista. See how well it works. Many 95 programs won't even install on XP.

They are abandoning old compatibility layers, they are just doing it poorly.

I guess it just depends on the program in question. I've got a lot of Windows XP programs that don't even run on XP. So, I don't really consider the inability to run certain programs as an indicator that the old code is gone. Just that Windows is Windows, and sometimes programs run, and sometimes they don't.



----
But the upgrade from XP to Vista will be more like the upgrade from 10.3 to 10.4 than anything. Can you think of a single program that ceased to run when you upgraded to 10.4? How would you feel if Word stopped running when you upgrade to 10.5?

Yes, I upgraded from OS 10.3.9 to OS 10.4.0 when 10.4 came out. I had a lot of programs that wouldn't run on OS 10.4 anymore that were newer programs labeled as "requires OS 10.3.x or later".

Many device drivers failed, almost any utility program that did anything with the file system.

And, there were a ton of normal applications that ceased to work with OS 10.4 and required a patch or a new version to make it work (or at least work properly).

Apple actually re-writes OS X quite frequently. If the new revisions were just minor bug fixes and patches, the transitions would likely go a lot smoother.

Now, there is still some legacy code left in OS X from prior OS X versions. But, the new versions are typically expected to lose compatibility with the prior versions. It's bit me enough times that I don't buy any commercial software anymore (except for iLife) because I got tired of having to repurchase all my programs every time I upgraded to the new version of OS X.

Basically, I have come to expect that any new version of OS X will require me to repurchase any commercial program that I have been using. So, I limit my software purchases to the following:

1) programs like iLife that I expect to buy annually anyway

2) programs that provide all future updates for free after the initial purchase

3) Freeware, Open Source, and other titles that cost nothing. I use a lot of Open Source programs and Unix programs.


The simple fact is, that Microsoft is rolling out Vista, and apps that ran fine on XP no longer run. That's ridiculous anyway you look at it.

Not really surprising when you look at how many Windows XP titles I have sitting on my shelf that ceased to work when Microsoft provided a security patch or minor update to Windows XP. And, since I didn't feel like handing another $100 or $200 to the software publisher, I quit using the program.

I've since adopted a similar strategy to Windows that I use for my Macs. I use free software first. And, if no free title suits my needs, then I only purchase titles that offer all future updates for free.

Eraserhead
Feb 2, 2007, 03:50 PM
Don't most applications give you a free update with the next OS version compatibility?

flyinmac
Feb 2, 2007, 03:57 PM
Maybe, but you could actually run Windows 1.0 apps on XP, (I forget where the hack is, but it does work).

Microsoft have generally been better at legacy support than Apple because they know what a massive user base each OS has. While most home users have got XP now, I do know of a reasonable number that run 98/ME and only upgrade their OS and/or machine when they really have to, (new camera say). I see far too often software requiring 10.3.9 or above, basically ignoring all users with OSes and/or machines more than 18 months old.


I have always looked at it from a little different perspective.

Microsoft knows that they need to keep their users from switching to other competing operating systems. Over the years it's been, Macs, BeOS, Unix, Linux, various flavors from Caldera, Digital Research (DR-DOS), Amiga OS, IBM's OS/2 and many others (can't think of them all at the moment).

And, that's what keeps them from fully abandoning old code.

Consider that when Windows 95 came out, I was using Windows 3.1. And, I had been thinking of upgrading to something a little better. OS/2 was the primary OS I was considering. It was more powerful that Windows 3.1, and had the ability to run Windows 3.1 programs in a compatibility type environment (shell).

Then, Microsoft released Windows 95. And, I had two operating systems to pick from. My choice got a little tougher.

So, I looked to see if Windows 95 would run Windows 3.1 programs. And, it would. So, I still had a tough choice.

Basically, both Windows 95 and OS/2 were better environments than what I had been using, and they would both run Windows 3.1 programs. So, that left me considering other factors.

In the end, I did chose Windows 95. The primary consideration was that it would run Windows 3.1 programs, and Microsoft appeared to be putting a lot of resources into insuring that developers were writing new Windows 95 programs (paying companies to develop Windows 95 titles). So, it looked like it had a brighter future than OS/2.

But, I could have gone the other way. If Windows 95 had not been able to run all my Windows 3.1 programs, then I would have considered all alternatives. And, that's what Microsoft knows.

Consider that if a user is forced to replace all their programs when they are looking at upgrading to a new OS, then they will consider other OS's from other companies.

So, if you are planning to upgrade from XP to Vista, and you discover that absolutely none of the programs you rely on will run in Vista, then you just might move to a Mac instead. Why? Well, if you have to replace all your software anyway, then you might as well consider all your options.

That is the true reason that Microsoft makes sure that they maintain a level of compatibility with their older Windows and DOS versions. They want people to upgrade. They don't want to lose them. They want them to upgrade.

Whistleway
Feb 2, 2007, 04:00 PM
Can't believe Apple missed the boat like this. Telling users to wait is like kiss of death. Poor planning has always been Apple's downfall.

It was not like Vista wasn't golded 2 months ago. Apple had plenty of time to fix things. Shabby, Apple, very Shabby !

flyinmac
Feb 2, 2007, 04:00 PM
Don't most applications give you a free update with the next OS version compatibility?

Nope.

This might surprise you, but the only one who gave me a free update was Microsoft (although it took them about 2 months to do it). All the other companies lined-up and said hand me your money for our new version.

Aside from Microsoft, the only companies that didn't demand fees for a new version were the companies that didn't charge me to begin with (freeware and Open Source), or those that had promised all future updates to be free for life.

flyinmac
Feb 2, 2007, 04:04 PM
Can't believe Apple missed the boat like this. Telling users to wait is like kiss of death. Poor planning is always been Apple's downfall.

It was not like Vista wasn't golded 2 months ago. Apple had plenty of time to fix things. Shabby, Apple, very Shabby !


They probably thought it would look like Vista broke things. That's kind of the direction that their latest advertisement takes. Showing how Vista requires you to update and replace everything.

It wouldn't be Apple if they updated their program early and made the transition to Vista smooth. After-all, if no-one had any trouble upgrading to Vista, then what would Apple say?

elmimmo
Feb 2, 2007, 04:09 PM
Vista's been in public beta for ages. I bet most iPod users are Windows users. The fact that Apple woke up now is pretty pathetic.

bretm
Feb 2, 2007, 04:18 PM
That's a catch 22 for Microsoft. Because they could sabotage the iPod, but I doubt it. It would keep people from upgrading to Vista, which is probably a much higher profit margin than them buying a zune. Most likely the zune's next software version will require Vista to encourage users to upgrade.

dscottbuch
Feb 2, 2007, 04:29 PM
Yes, I upgraded from OS 10.3.9 to OS 10.4.0 when 10.4 came out. I had a lot of programs that wouldn't run on OS 10.4 anymore that were newer programs labeled as "requires OS 10.3.x or later".

Many device drivers failed, almost any utility program that did anything with the file system.

And, there were a ton of normal applications that ceased to work with OS 10.4 and required a patch or a new version to make it work (or at least work properly).

Apple actually re-writes OS X quite frequently. If the new revisions were just minor bug fixes and patches, the transitions would likely go a lot smoother.

Now, there is still some legacy code left in OS X from prior OS X versions. But, the new versions are typically expected to lose compatibility with the prior versions. It's bit me enough times that I don't buy any commercial software anymore (except for iLife) because I got tired of having to repurchase all my programs every time I upgraded to the new version of OS X.

Basically, I have come to expect that any new version of OS X will require me to repurchase any commercial program that I have been using. So, I limit my software purchases to the following:

1) programs like iLife that I expect to buy annually anyway

2) programs that provide all future updates for free after the initial purchase

3) Freeware, Open Source, and other titles that cost nothing. I use a lot of Open Source programs and Unix programs.




Not really surprising when you look at how many Windows XP titles I have sitting on my shelf that ceased to work when Microsoft provided a security patch or minor update to Windows XP. And, since I didn't feel like handing another $100 or $200 to the software publisher, I quit using the program.

I've since adopted a similar strategy to Windows that I use for my Macs. I use free software first. And, if no free title suits my needs, then I only purchase titles that offer all future updates for free.

I find these hyperboles amazing. I have a large number (currently 256) applications in my Applications folder and when I upgraded form 10.3 to 10.4 I found only 1 that didn't work - Retrospect client which is a dog of a program in any case (don't try to shift computers from user to user with Restrospect unless you use their uninstaller to find all the stuff it leave lying around your disk - for not real good reason). We're there a few changes in behaviour that might need a patch, sure, but these were no worse than what you get with any application (not OS). So if you'd like to back up broad stroke statements with some (a lot of) examples it might be nice.

xyian
Feb 2, 2007, 04:32 PM
*in Gomer Pyle's voice* "Well....SURPRISE! SURPRISE! SURRRRRPRISE!!!!!!!!!"

Eraserhead
Feb 2, 2007, 04:35 PM
This might surprise you, but the only one who gave me a free update was Microsoft (although it took them about 2 months to do it). All the other companies lined-up and said hand me your money for our new version.

Which companies software stopped working then?

bretm
Feb 2, 2007, 04:39 PM
And, there were a ton of normal applications that ceased to work with OS 10.4 and required a patch or a new version to make it work (or at least work properly).

Apple actually re-writes OS X quite frequently. If the new revisions were just minor bug fixes and patches, the transitions would likely go a lot smoother.

Now, there is still some legacy code left in OS X from prior OS X versions. But, the new versions are typically expected to lose compatibility with the prior versions. It's bit me enough times that I don't buy any commercial software anymore (except for iLife) because I got tired of having to repurchase all my programs every time I upgraded to the new version of OS X.

Basically, I have come to expect that any new version of OS X will require me to repurchase any commercial program that I have been using. So, I limit my software purchases to the following:

1) programs like iLife that I expect to buy annually anyway

2) programs that provide all future updates for free after the initial purchase

3) Freeware, Open Source, and other titles that cost nothing. I use a lot of Open Source programs and Unix programs.




Well that's just a bunch of unresearched undocumented bunch of bull. What are you talking about? I expect all my OSX programs to work with whatever OS was available at the time and forward at least 2 or 3 versions.

Yes, once in awhile printer drivers or scanner drivers cease to function until I download the free driver from their site. But that's pretty infrequent. In fact, I'm always downloading free updates for my peripherals and can't even tell what they fixed!

Here's my list of Apps for OSX that I haven't updated in 4 years (since 10.1 and 10.2) and still work fine...

-Photoshop 7. Works perfectly fine in Rosetta even. Scanners, printers, everything.
-LiveMotion 2 - Yep, they quit supporting that 4 years ago and it still works.
-MS Word (version released in 2002 - it's now 2007. No probs whatsoever)
-Macromedia Studio - yes the original, not 2004
-Illustrator 10
-After Effects 5.5
-Toast (just now had to upgrade with 10.4.x - but used same version for at least 3 years)
-Fetch

I do update iLife and FCP studio regularly, but iLife doesn't break on upgrades, and most of Studio doesn't either. Some apps like FCP are so tied to Quicktime updates that there can be some issues (like iTunes) on updating, but is usually resolved very quickly.

What apps are you having trouble with? Since I have hardly any problems with all the major apps from all 3 major app manufacturers (Apple, Macromedia, Adobe) and use the same version usually for 3 years - longer for Adobe - I just don't get your point and I think spreading misinformation doesn't help my Apple stock any. :) Do a little research.

bretm
Feb 2, 2007, 04:43 PM
Vista's been in public beta for ages. I bet most iPod users and Windows users. The fact that Apple woke up now is pretty pathetic.

Ummm... verb required in second sentence. You bet most users "what?"

Sean7512
Feb 2, 2007, 04:46 PM
Ummm... verb required in second sentence. You bet most users "what?"

I think he was trying to say..."Most ipod users ARE Windows users."

willybNL
Feb 2, 2007, 05:07 PM
Yes, blaim microsoft... better to blaim Apple, since Vista is already available for some time (non-consumer versions). So they might have seen this comming for a long time!

flyinmac
Feb 2, 2007, 05:21 PM
I find these hyperboles amazing. I have a large number (currently 256) applications in my Applications folder and when I upgraded form 10.3 to 10.4 I found only 1 that didn't work - Retrospect client which is a dog of a program in any case (don't try to shift computers from user to user with Restrospect unless you use their uninstaller to find all the stuff it leave lying around your disk - for not real good reason). We're there a few changes in behaviour that might need a patch, sure, but these were no worse than what you get with any application (not OS). So if you'd like to back up broad stroke statements with some (a lot of) examples it might be nice.

Well, actually quite a lot of programs had trouble with OS 10.4 when it came out.

A quick check reveals one of the compatibility lists that still remains up:

http://www.macintouch.com/tigerreview/incompatibility.html

And, at the time, I was quite active in Apple's Discussion group, and found that I was constantly helping others with programs that no-longer worked for them. Usually, their only choice was to purchase a new version, or go back to OS 10.3.

It's quite honestly not worth my time to comb back through the archives to locate all those old discussions.

But, for myself, I do remember not being able to continue using any of the Symantec programs I had just recently purchased for OS 10.3. All those required me to purchase newer versions to enable full compatibility with OS 10.4. Those included their Internet Security and Anti-Virus programs, and their Norton Utility packages.

To this day, I still cannot use my Lexmark all-in-one with OS 10.4 as anything more than a scanner. Although Lexmark claims it works, it does not. It can be tricked into working if you use a backdoor method of configuring and printing to it through OS 9 in Classic Mode that a few of us stumbled onto. You have to set it up in Classic, then once you have it configured, aligned, and ready to work, then it may print from OS X 10.4. But, for the most part, the update to 10.4 turned it into a dedicated scanner. I don't even try to print to it anymore. Replacing the ink cartridges, aligning the heads, and getting it working requires either going back to OS 10.3.9 or using Classic mode.

I also found that Virtual PC failed to work properly or reliably anymore. But, Microsoft did release a patch eventually that fixed most of those problems.

I had several utilities from Intech (SpeedTools, and other maintenance tools) that became absolutely useless when I upgraded to Tiger. I didn't qualify for the free updates because I had purchased it at a discount from the company who sold me the drive - OEM version). But, they were happy to sell me a new license for the updated versions if I desired.

The older versions of TechTools failed to work, and required obtaining a new version. But, this was due to Apple having made changes to the file system.

I seem to recall some problems with Quicken not working properly anymore (but we later got a new version anyway).

I had a couple of hard drive backup tools that I was using which no longer worked (can't remember which ones). But, I know one of them was from Dantz (mine was an OEM version that came with my drive, so I wasn't eligible for a free update). Fortunately, I found a free alternative that worked fine.

Then there's Quickbooks (although they have since released a new version that can be purchased and will work).

I have some photo retouching programs that came with my camera that also doesn't work in OS 10.4. But, I've just moved all my photo editing to the PC. I have some nice tools on the PC that are more powerful. Sure, I have iPhoto on the Mac. But, for various reason I use it only as a place to store finished photos. I just haven't found it to be of much use for photo editing. I did try doing some red-eye reduction in iPhoto the other day, but it had trouble with some photos. On some, I found that no matter how many times I tried, it would put a black dot on the subject's teeth instead of the pupil of the eye. On others it worked fine. Over-all, it's just too much trouble with iPhoto. So, the PC gets that job and other photo retouching jobs.

And, of course there are a ton more that quit working as well. But, fortunately, free programs have free updates. So, that wasn't much of an issue.

There were also a small hand full of lesser established video editing programs that I was using that were no-longer useful. Can't remember all the names now as it's been a long time since I messed with them. Once they quit working, I quit thinking about them.

And, there were others that I just cannot remember at the moment. I dumped (sold) all my old programs that no-longer worked with Tiger when I sold one of my other computers that had OS 10.3.9 installed on it (basically threw them in as a bonus for the person who purchased the system). If I still had them all here, I'd happily run through the list of titles that I had. But, time has passed, and I haven't spent much time dwelling on it.

So, the items above are just the ones I can remember right at the moment.

As for others, I do recall helping a lot of people who couldn't get Virex to work anymore.

And, I also recall helping a lot of people who's device drivers wouldn't work. So, if the manufacturer didn't release updated driver, then they had to buy a new device to replace that item.

In the end, the degree to which compatibility affects you will be determined by which specific programs you use. If you happen to use programs that offered free updates, then you'll be less affected. If you use programs who's authors decided it was a good excuse to charge for an update, then you'll be affected more significantly.

CJD2112
Feb 2, 2007, 05:27 PM
Didn't you get the news???

Leopard is just going to be Vista bundled with Bootcamp :eek:

ROFL seriously...

As for a previous comment, I'm not surprised that Microsoft's Zune competition [iTunes] is now having compatibility issues with Vista. Not suprised at all... :rolleyes:

clevin
Feb 2, 2007, 05:28 PM
put my word here
iTunes for windows is a piece of crap. resource hog. lol

shawnce
Feb 2, 2007, 05:29 PM
Yes, I upgraded from OS 10.3.9 to OS 10.4.0 when 10.4 came out. I had a lot of programs that wouldn't run on OS 10.4 anymore that were newer programs labeled as "requires OS 10.3.x or later". I have well over a hundred applications and none had issues with the 10.3 to 10.4 upgrade. Heck the Fibre Channel driver I hacked together back in 10.1 days still runs on 10.4.

Many device drivers failed, almost any utility program that did anything with the file system. Sounds like some poorly written software or software using private APIs (they are private for a reason). ...or software making specific assumptions about an aspect of the system... etc.

Apple actually re-writes OS X quite frequently. If the new revisions were just minor bug fixes and patches, the transitions would likely go a lot smoother. "re-write" is a huge exaggeration...

Now, there is still some legacy code left in OS X from prior OS X versions. But, the new versions are typically expected to lose compatibility with the prior versions. It's bit me enough times that I don't buy any commercial software anymore (except for iLife) because I got tired of having to repurchase all my programs every time I upgraded to the new version of OS X. What are you talking about "some legacy code left in OS X from prior OS X versions"? Most of the code in Mac OS X today was in Mac OS X 10.3, 10.2, and 10.1 and much farther back. Also it is relatively easy to develop software that runs just fine under older version of the operating system and well into the future of the operating system. If you follow Apple recommendation and follow sensible programming practices thing go well.

Basically, I have come to expect that any new version of OS X will require me to repurchase any commercial program that I have been using. Sorry I call shenanigans...

flyinmac
Feb 2, 2007, 05:33 PM
ROFL seriously...

As for a previous comment, I'm not surprised that Microsoft's Zune competition [iTunes] is now having compatibility issues with Vista. Not suprised at all... :rolleyes:


Just messing with him ;) It would make things much easier on Apple though. But, I'm sure it would affect their profit margin considerably. Of course, it could backfire and launch them up there right next to Dell in PC sales.

Naturally, it would be disaster for OS X though.

What might be cool would be if they implemented some form of WINE into Leopard, and made Windows completely unnecessary. Of course, they'd have to implement more thorough application support to pull that off. But, that would really send a shock through Redmond. :rolleyes:

shawnce
Feb 2, 2007, 05:38 PM
Symantec ... Those included their Internet Security and Anti-Virus programs, and their Norton Utility packages

Ah that explains it :)

EagerDragon
Feb 2, 2007, 05:45 PM
Well, to produce a truly stable and secure operating system, that is what Microsoft needs to do. They need to abandon all the old compatibility layers and start fresh. Unfortunately, they haven't done that.


HeHe, never happen. Every new version of windows has had lots of compatability issues and in order to fix them requires you to re-purchase your applications or upgrade them. So backward compatability does not always make sense anyway. Either way people need to upgrade the apps and they are not free.

They need to start selling Linux instead and dump windows.

dscottbuch
Feb 2, 2007, 05:50 PM
Well, actually quite a lot of programs had trouble with OS 10.4 when it came out.

A quick check reveals one of the compatibility lists that still remains up:

http://www.macintouch.com/tigerreview/incompatibility.html

And, at the time, I was quite active in Apple's Discussion group, and found that I was constantly helping others with programs that no-longer worked for them. Usually, their only choice was to purchase a new version, or go back to OS 10.3.

It's quite honestly not worth my time to comb back through the archives to locate all those old discussions.

........

In the end, the degree to which compatibility affects you will be determined by which specific programs you use. If you happen to use programs that offered free updates, then you'll be less affected. If you use programs who's authors decided it was a good excuse to charge for an update, then you'll be affected more significantly.

I agree with your statement that it depends on what you use (and the quality of the vendor taking Symantec and Dantz as examples of bad vendors IMO) but going through that list I see a few trends -

1) I would say 30-50% of those listed are either not related to 10.4 (Acrobat being quicktime 7 on either version of OS, or X11 which I use extensively and almost all of the problems were due to not reading the release notes) or just user error reported as related to the last change to their system. A good example of these is the Word and Excel reports for which I'm still using the un-upgraded 2004 on 10.4.8.

2) The list doesn't really represent a lot of issues overall, percentage wise, and are primarily related to system level stuff like printer drivers and disk-drive tools (which I've never needed despite maintaining about 30 users who have no idea what they're doing :) )

3) a number of issues reported were 'fixed' by re-installing. This points to Apple's need to do a better job of the upgrade process, not breaking compatibility.

So I still think you're original post is over the top in how it was presented despite that fact that, of course, the upgrade is not perfectly compatible.

pubwvj
Feb 2, 2007, 06:22 PM
Apple quietly slipped the knife into Microsoft, now they twist it.

flyinmac
Feb 2, 2007, 06:31 PM
Apple quietly slipped the knife into Microsoft, now they twist it.

Just picture this:

Apple tells their millions of iPod owners that they won't be providing compatibility with Windows Vista.

So, the installed base must either stick with Windows XP or switch to the Mac OS if they want to continue using their iPods.

Decisions, decisions. Do you throw away your $500 iPod to spend $399 for Vista Ultimate. Or, do you save your money and keep enjoying your $500 iPod Video?

Of course, it might hurt future iPod sales. But, it would also likely put a bit of a dent in Microsoft's early Vista adopters.

Might be a bit amusing.

Eraserhead
Feb 2, 2007, 06:46 PM
Just picture this:

Apple tells their millions of iPod owners that they won't be providing compatibility with Windows Vista.

So, the installed base must either stick with Windows XP or switch to the Mac OS if they want to continue using their iPods.

Decisions, decisions. Do you throw away your $500 iPod to spend $399 for Vista Ultimate. Or, do you save your money and keep enjoying your $500 iPod Video?

Of course, it might hurt future iPod sales. But, it would also likely put a bit of a dent in Microsoft's early Vista adopters.

Might be a bit amusing.

Except that virtually no-one buy's vista, let alone before SP1, so it doesn't really matter if iTunes doesn't work perfectly for a few weeks.

stainlessliquid
Feb 2, 2007, 06:47 PM
Apple had better backward compatibility moving their OS to run on a different processor architecture than Windows does between Vista and Windows XP. That's completely ridiculous.
Thats a rather shocking case of the pot calling the kettle black. You must not have been around for the OS9 to OSX transition. There was virtually no backwards compatibility, you literally had to dual boot OS9 to get anything done. When Apple announced that the dual G4 macs (I think) wouldnt allow an installation of OS9 there was an uproar since OS9 emulation in OSX was still bad and barely worked with anything. Vista has excellent backwards compatibility as a whole, only programs that integrate themselves with your hardware tend to have a problem. The next version of windows is rumored to be like the OSX transition where backwards compatibility is thrown out the window so they can finally start from scratch (which will be a good thing).

flyinmac
Feb 2, 2007, 06:57 PM
Except that virtually no-one buy's vista, let alone before SP1, so it doesn't really matter if iTunes doesn't work perfectly for a few weeks.

Yes, I thought it was amusing that many turned-out for the launch party / release and left with discount monitors, flash drives, head-sets, and no Vista :rolleyes:

Someone's getting fired :D

Microsoft was pretty quiet in their response to those statements. But, the disappointment was evident by the lack of enthusiasm or spin that they seemed to reply to the story with.

I guess they just didn't have much to say.

aLoC
Feb 2, 2007, 07:37 PM
Apple really weren't prepared for the launch of Vista it seems. They should have had a new version of iTunes ready, and ideally another Boot Camp too (even though it's just beta, it would have looked good if they did).

flyinmac
Feb 2, 2007, 07:39 PM
Apple really weren't prepared for the launch of Vista it seems. They should have had a new version of iTunes ready, and ideally another Boot Camp too (even though it's just beta, it would have looked good if they did).

The problem, is that then it would look like Apple did something based on someone else's time-table.

Apple would rather be late to the party than to look like they did something based on someone else's timing.

dernhelm
Feb 2, 2007, 07:56 PM
Vista's been in public beta for ages. I bet most iPod users and Windows users. The fact that Apple woke up now is pretty pathetic.

Good point. Except I am developing software now that worked on the public betas, but did not work on the released Vista Ultimate (the one that was released in final form to corporations last year). Still Apple has had months to get any bug straighted out, even if that is what happened to them.

dernhelm
Feb 2, 2007, 08:02 PM
Yes, for example Intego Anti-Virus wouldn't even install, but most applications had patches out on Tiger release day if not before. What's great now is that Apple have said that they won't be changing the API's for a while so everything that runs under 10.4 should run perfectly under 10.5

No kidding. I've never run anti-virus software on the Mac. Still - device drivers and disk utilities could well fail, and that wouldn't surprise me. I was more interested in end-user tools. I have many, many, and not a single one wouldn't run.

Actually, I do know that the POSIX layer did change pretty significantly, and I had some home-brew stuff that I decided to update for 10.4, not because it was broken, but because it would run a whole lot cleaner once it was updated.

I suppose it would be possible for someone to fall into one of the POSIX changes, and have code stop working in 10.4. I just never experienced that with any apps that I purchased or produced.

dernhelm
Feb 2, 2007, 08:04 PM
Just picture this:

Apple tells their millions of iPod owners that they won't be providing compatibility with Windows Vista.

So, the installed base must either stick with Windows XP or switch to the Mac OS if they want to continue using their iPods.

Decisions, decisions. Do you throw away your $500 iPod to spend $399 for Vista Ultimate. Or, do you save your money and keep enjoying your $500 iPod Video?

Of course, it might hurt future iPod sales. But, it would also likely put a bit of a dent in Microsoft's early Vista adopters.

Might be a bit amusing.

Especially since Vista is more exciting to developer types, than it is to end users... I know I won't be upgrading to Vista at my home and I get it FREE. I sure as heck wouldn't shell out any Benjamins for it.

CJD2112
Feb 2, 2007, 08:06 PM
What might be cool would be if they implemented some form of WINE into Leopard, and made Windows completely unnecessary. Of course, they'd have to implement more thorough application support to pull that off. But, that would really send a shock through Redmond. :rolleyes:

It's funny you wrote that as I've thought one of Leopards' "Top Secrets" might be implementing Windows applications right into Leopard without the use of virtualization software such as Parallel's or cold-booting into Windows. Definitely would send more than a shock, more like a tsunami lol :p ...

As a side note, I was this close to buying Windows Vista Home Edition since I'm currently running Vista RC2 on another HD on my Mac Pro (need it for AutoCAD work, so don't judge lol). Then I sobered up and realized "I'll wait till Leopard is released". Apple could benefit from an AA sort of club with sponsors for recovering Windows users and those who may get "caught under the Microsoft spell." I could have used a sponsor to call today. Close call. Phew :o lol...

Rodimus Prime
Feb 2, 2007, 08:07 PM
Why does this not surprise me? After all, Apple's Windows development is secondary to its Macintosh development... so I'd expect a delay between the release of a new OS from Microsoft and a compatible iTunes+QuickTime release.

I'm guessing that Leopard will also necessitate an iTunes update... I wonder how Apple's doing on this front.

yeah at the same time it is rather sad of apple not to of gotten this ready yet. They would of had access to vista for almost 2 months now. Bussiness got it back in Nov. It just the general public that got it on the Jan 30 so in some ways it rather sad of apple to not of gotten it by the time vista launch.

flyinmac
Feb 2, 2007, 08:27 PM
yeah at the same time it is rather sad of apple not to of gotten this ready yet. They would of had access to vista for almost 2 months now. Bussiness got it back in Nov. It just the general public that got it on the Jan 30 so in some ways it rather sad of apple to not of gotten it by the time vista launch.

It's a conspiracy. Apple is holding Vista hostage with it's collection of iPod fanatics :p

uNext
Feb 2, 2007, 08:40 PM
After reading the many replies sent regarding this piece of news.

I have come to a conclusion that 90% + of apple fanatics are self centered
and hate another company based on assumptions of ads?

The apple ads truly depict its user base. (self centered, biased etc)

Some of you hate microsoft for no reason, point blank vista is one heck of a operating system and the whole gui with windows and glass effect depicting real life objects is to truly say WOW at.

I like mac os x i have a macbook pro but i dont see myself hating microsoft for doing anything their supposed to be doing which is releasing products for something they helped mainstream.

After messing with vista the whole gui is ahead of mac os x just looking at windows i have open in mac os x dont feel the same.

I love my macbook pro and i bet mac os x leopard will be amazing but why the need to bash a operating system im pretty sure even god uses?
which will explain deja-vus and what not.....

nothing is error free and certainly mac os x while they make it seem way superior is not. (clicking on the red circle dont even fully close the app but yet is "worlds most advanced operating system"? i can name a **** load of
annoyances within mac but that will just have me lynched and stoned.

Apple had ample time to have it compatible with vista but if this was the other way around.

"Leave it to microsoft to **** their fans and their monopolizing ways blah blah blah

but is apple so hell yeah , stop their business what a great move?
good strategy apple stick it to microsoft, apple is so cool for not releasing itunes/vista compatibility and hurting microsoft sales....

is just really funny to me and believe it or not there is millions of people that prefer a windows over a mac.
So who is apple really hurting? the ipod became succesful because it was compatible with windows not the other way around
so hate on the company that is helping your favorite company achieve what they coulndt in 20+ years.

Look at the stats and facts and see how when they decided to support windows with the ipod how it sales sky rocketed
and how wth boot camp they where able to achieve and gain market share

THANK THAT SORRY PIECE OF **** SOFTWARE microsoft releases that over 90% of the world uses for part of the success jobs & co is experiencing.

If you cant beat them join them...be like apple join them and then try to bash them by claimiing you did it on your own and give no credit is where due.

matticus008
Feb 2, 2007, 08:47 PM
Can't believe Apple missed the boat like this. Telling users to wait is like kiss of death. Poor planning has always been Apple's downfall.

It was not like Vista wasn't golded 2 months ago. Apple had plenty of time to fix things. Shabby, Apple, very Shabby !
Microsoft had five years to fix things, and they haven't. They disabled ActiveSync, and its replacement isn't even complete. Bluetooth is an absolute disaster, and Windows Media Center goes into an epileptic fit with certified Vista drivers. iTunes shouldn't have needed to be updated if Microsoft had done their jobs correctly (aside from perhaps CD burning, but for what it's worth, CD burning in iTunes works perfectly on my Vista system).

Vista just plain isn't done yet.

They probably thought it would look like Vista broke things. That's kind of the direction that their latest advertisement takes. Showing how Vista requires you to update and replace everything.
Vista does break things. My camera management software, Microsoft ActiveSync, all sorts of disc writing software and DVD creation software (including rather expensive titles), Bluetooth stacks from Widcomm, even their own media center is buggy. Fast user switching crashes immediately at login on a clean install, with no solution from Microsoft and no sensible reason why it happens. Security and drive maintenance applications all crap out entirely. iTunes takes too long to start, but aside from that I don't have any problems using it in Vista--something I can't say for Winamp or WinDVD (which will crash if it's running when you insert a DVD under Vista, but if it's not running, WMP will open it even though it's been explicitly set not to).


nothing is error free and certainly mac os x while they make it seem way superior is not. (clicking on the red circle dont even fully close the app but yet is "worlds most advanced operating system"?
Yeah, and what's up with the close button being in the top right? And the Apple button can't even list all your applications! The 'X' doesn't even appear until you put your mouse on it lolerskates!!!11one. They did everything wrong!

Oh, wait...it's not Windows.

stephenli
Feb 2, 2007, 08:54 PM
I bet MS did it on purpose to get people to use Zunes.

Its not the first time. M$ just did the same to Netscape and Lotus.

It's scary the number of programs that need to be "updated" to run on Vista.

coz they want you to purchase *NEW* version of software...
terrible...

stephenli
Feb 2, 2007, 08:59 PM
nothing is error free and certainly mac os x while they make it seem way superior is not. (clicking on the red circle dont even fully close the app but yet is "worlds most advanced operating system"?

no...pls....
i used to open 50+ photos in photoshop at the same time...
if we just clicking the red circle and the app get closed...i will be crazy...

imikem
Feb 2, 2007, 09:05 PM
Note, too, that the NT family is putatively processor-agnostic, though versions for other processors haven't been sold in this millennium.

Fyi, Windows is available for the Itanium processor - all three that have been sold...:p

flyinmac
Feb 2, 2007, 09:08 PM
After reading the many replies sent regarding this piece of news.

I have come to a conclusion that 90% + of apple fanatics are self centered
and hate another company based on assumptions of ads?

The apple ads truly depict its user base. (self centered, biased etc)

Some of you hate microsoft for no reason, point blank vista is one heck of a operating system and the whole gui with windows and glass effect depicting real life objects is to truly say WOW at.



I have just as many complaints about Apple as I have about Microsoft. But, I divide my complaints fairly and give them each credit for their mess-ups.

Apple's OS X interface is a bit dated and a bit depressing looking. It really could use some color, and a bit of a refresh. I actually preferred the original OS X interface in OS 10.0 to the current one. It felt brighter and livelier. And, I've sent messages to Apple requesting them to refresh the OS X interface and get rid of all the brushed metal, and drab looking Finder and application windows. Over-all, I find that the brushed-metal look is just too depressing looking. But, Apple is slowly addressing that, and just taking too long to get it done. I don't really care for "Unified" either. But, it's an improvement. Hopefully they'll do a little dress-up.

I have found Microsoft's user Interface to be much more pleasant since XP. And, I really actually prefer their user interface. So, I give them credit for that.

I don't like the way that every single Application on my Windows system always has some piece of it running in the background. I prefer the either it's open or it's closed approach (like OS X).

And, I do prefer the applications on OS X. Generally, the only complaint I have about the Mac is it's user interface. I think they could learn a little from Microsoft in that area.

But, in almost every other area, I find that I prefer OS X. I like the stability of OS X, I like the way it's programs work. The thing I like most, is how the programs are self contained and that all of their files generally reside within a single folder (the application's icon). So, I never have to go searching around my drive to find the hidden pieces when something goes wrong.

With Windows, I've got some programs that have 3 difference versions of a Visual Basic Run-Time module scattered around 5 or 6 locations and some setting that is hidden in the program's code that determines which one gets preference. But, when something goes wrong, I have to go searching and looking for the various run-time modules and DLL files and play swap around with them until it works.

With OS X, I'd just delete the Application's icon, and drag a new copy back and it would be a fresh setup. With Windows, I have to try and locate all the scattered pieces and get rid of them. Otherwise, my future install attempts are sabotaged by the remains from the previous attempts. I've got a couple of programs I've been going round and round with for 6 months now since they stopped working one day.

With OS X, I can usually just delete the preference file, and that's generally enough to fix things. If that doesn't work, I just copy a fresh copy of the program onto my hard drive and it replaces the entire installation from the previous install. No hunting and searching, and experimenting, and so on. No manual repairs.

So, they both have their strong points. They both have their shortcomings. And, I will criticize Apple just as fast as I'll criticize Microsoft. I just don't fault one simply because I prefer the other.

If someone came around and did what each one did best and left out the stuff that they can't get right, then we'd really have something.

There are some fans out there that will stand up for Apple even if Apple lit the fuse that blew-up their own company. But, that's not everyone.

iPoodOverZune
Feb 2, 2007, 09:11 PM
It's funny you wrote that as I've thought one of Leopards' "Top Secrets" might be implementing Windows applications right into Leopard without the use of virtualization software such as Parallel's or cold-booting into Windows. Definitely would send more than a shock, more like a tsunami lol :p ...


I am totally with you, buddy. And this would be one of it or may be this would be it! of course there may be few other secrets which will put windoze to shame for being dozing but from mac's perspective not really that big. By the way read this to find Bill crying already-
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/16934083/site/newsweek/
:)
I hope and betcha if top secrets are really in Job's style something like iPhone, it surely will send shivers through windows backbone. Speaking of iPhone, what is this iPhone killer that I am reading here will be launched in a week-
http://news.digitaltrends.com/talkback168.html
:confused:

flyinmac
Feb 2, 2007, 09:21 PM
Vista does break things. My camera management software, Microsoft ActiveSync, all sorts of disc writing software and DVD creation software (including rather expensive titles), Bluetooth stacks from Widcomm, even their own media center is buggy. Fast user switching crashes immediately at login on a clean install, with no solution from Microsoft and no sensible reason why it happens. Security and drive maintenance applications all crap out entirely. iTunes takes too long to start, but aside from that I don't have any problems using it in Vista--something I can't say for Winamp or WinDVD (which will crash if it's running when you insert a DVD under Vista, but if it's not running, WMP will open it even though it's been explicitly set not to).

I know it does. All OS upgrades break some level of compatibility. I haven't been through a single one that didn't.

I made that comment in a spirit of humor. Speculating that they might have delayed to show and illustrate how Windows Vista was going to require everything to be updated. Then Apple comes out and says "We told you so, here's the fix"

Of course, they'll hope you are more forgiving when you are waiting for patches the next time an OS X update breaks compatibility with something.



Yeah, and what's up with the close button being in the top right?
Oh, wait...it's not Windows.

Yeah, but I think you mean left. My only complaint is that I don't like the fact that you have to go to the menus to close a program completely. And, I don't like the "Zoom" button. I prefer the Windows method of maximizing and minimizing.

But, then there's lots of things I don't like about Windows as well. I guess the only way to get it perfect would be to write it myself. But, then you wouldn't like it because it would be done my way.

CJD2112
Feb 2, 2007, 09:41 PM
My only complaint is that I don't like the fact that you have to go to the menus to close a program completely. And, I don't like the "Zoom" button. I prefer the Windows method of maximizing and minimizing.

No, you don't. Right click on a program in the Dock and select "Quit". Simple as that, no need in "going to the program". The "zoom" button? What's wrong with that? I've used Windows back when Windows 3.1 was launched from the MS-DOS Prompt using c:\windows\windows.exe, and then switched in 2004 as a masters/phd student at Columbia, needless to say, I fell in LOVE. Nothing compares to the elegance, ergonomics and seemlessness of Apple products and software. The smaller percentage of Apple users does not reflect any inferiority of Apple technology and software, but reflects the expense and inaccessability of Apple technology to the main stream public. In time, people will realize that dishing out less $$$ for a cheaper PC (i.e. Dell/Windows) just means more $$$ and headaches in repairs whereas more $$$ upfront for better quality equates to less repairs and future costs, similar to buying a cheaper American car compared to a more expensive German import. In time, people will realize the logic in paying more money for better quality :apple:

CJD2112
Feb 2, 2007, 09:46 PM
Speaking of iPhone, what is this iPhone killer that I am reading here will be launched in a week-
http://news.digitaltrends.com/talkback168.html
:confused:

That's news to me. I wonder why it wasn't mentioned by name? :confused:

As for Gates, he better save those tear ducts for Leopards' upcoming release... then again, he might be retired by then...

flyinmac
Feb 2, 2007, 09:56 PM
In time, people will realize that dishing out less $$$ for a cheaper PC (i.e. Dell/Windows) just means more $$$ and headaches in repairs whereas more $$$ upfront for better quality equates to less repairs and future costs, similar to buying a cheaper American car compared to a more expensive German import. In time, people will realize the logic in paying more money for better quality :apple:

That's not necessarily true.

I purchased my very nice Compaq for $430 including shipping almost 2 years ago now. And, it still out-specs most of Apple's product line. The only exception being the Mac Pro.

And, for that $430, I've had a reliable machine that hasn't given me too much trouble.

In that time, I've had two iMac G5 systems that spent their entire time in the shop, and never spent much time actually working. I eventually sold them after their last repair, and didn't get much back out of them due to depreciation. Their value fell fast within about 3 or 4 months.

The first iMac cost me about $2200 as it was configured. That one I struggled to sell for $1200 a few months later due to Apple having released a new model shortly after I purchased mine.

The other one I purchased for around $1600. And, that one I barely managed to get $1000 out of a few months later.

So, with those two machines, I spent much more than I did for my PC. And, all I got in exchange was getting to know the repair center really, really well, and the loss of $1800 to get out of the constant repair cycle.

And, here we are much, much later, and my $430 PC is still working quite well. It's never broke down once. And, it still sits pretty high in specs compared to the current models.

Of course, I do prefer the Mac OS. But, I'm not blind enough to assume that spending more money will get me a higher quality product. I know better.

I've been using computers since before IBM released their first PC. And, out of the literally thousands of computers I've used, and the multiple hundreds I have owned, the only ones that I've ever (and I do mean EVER) taken to a repair shop have been Apples.

CJD2112
Feb 2, 2007, 10:07 PM
That's not necessarily true.

I purchased my very nice Compaq for $430 including shipping almost 2 years ago now. And, it still out-specs most of Apple's product line. The only exception being the Mac Pro.

And, for that $430, I've had a reliable machine that hasn't given me too much trouble.

In that time, I've had two iMac G5 systems that spent their entire time in the shop, and never spent much time actually working. I eventually sold them after their last repair, and didn't get much back out of them due to depreciation. Their value fell fast within about 3 or 4 months.

The first iMac cost me about $2200 as it was configured. That one I struggled to sell for $1200 a few months later due to Apple having released a new model shortly after I purchased mine.

The other one I purchased for around $1600. And, that one I barely managed to get $1000 out of a few months later.

So, with those two machines, I spent much more than I did for my PC. And, all I got in exchange was getting to know the repair center really, really well, and the loss of $1800 to get out of the constant repair cycle.

And, here we are much, much later, and my $430 PC is still working quite well. It's never broke down once. And, it still sits pretty high in specs compared to the current models.

Of course, I do prefer the Mac OS. But, I'm not blind enough to assume that spending more money will get me a higher quality product. I know better.

I've been using computers since before IBM released their first PC. And, out of the literally thousands of computers I've used, and the multiple hundreds I have owned, the only ones that I've ever (and I do mean EVER) taken to a repair shop have been Apples.

Hmmm, then you, my friend, have had bad luck ;) . I've never, in all my years using computers (both Windows/Mac), have known such a situation to happen. I, and countless other friends, have had numerous problems with various Windows based PC's, and none, not one, with my Power Book G4, Power Mac G5's and Mac Pro, or iPod's, Cinema Displays, etc. I want proof of these so-called "Apple defects" LOL.

kcmac
Feb 2, 2007, 10:23 PM
M$ shills are everywhere these days.

Famous intros...."Let me just say first before I get flamed by all the mac people out there, I own several macs"

famous filler lines...."The Mac costs crazy amounts of money and I got a killer PC box for way less, but of course I prefer the mac os...

:rolleyes:

iPoodOverZune
Feb 2, 2007, 10:31 PM
Hmmm, then you, my friend, have had bad luck ;) . I've never, in all my years using computers (both Windows/Mac), have known such a situation to happen. I, and countless other friends, have had numerous problems with various Windows based PC's, and none, not one, with my Power Book G4, Power Mac G5's and Mac Pro, or iPod's, Cinema Displays, etc. I want proof of these so-called "Apple defects" LOL.

Ditto here! I worked on windows PC for almost 7 years exclusively until I heard macs. Had too many crashes, hardware incompatibility problems, slowing performance within 3 months of fresh windows install was very typical and virus problems and many more like that. Now for the past 3 1/2 years I have peace of mind that this mac buddy just works. Great for Apple. It won me over from windoze PC products. Very happy and as long as I can see, I will be mac user. Although if I sound like a mac fanboy, then I am not coz I do use windows PC occasionally but that is because windows is an inherent evil of our computer society. Some programs just need windoze and I have to use them for that at school. Also I have kept a little older PC at home and have figured out that it is better to let PC handle all crappy websites, movie/video downloads, and other throwaway things which I don't care anyway if windows crashes. And keep mac for more serious business and precious data. Now remember I gave this extra carefulness to windows systems too once upon a time, but it still would inevitably lead to slower performance with time requiring fresh installs. With mac, the only fresh install I have done so far is when the new operating system appeared i.e. Tiger! How better it could get than this :)

matticus008
Feb 2, 2007, 10:44 PM
I purchased my very nice Compaq for $430 including shipping almost 2 years ago now. And, it still out-specs most of Apple's product line. The only exception being the Mac Pro.
Which Compaq?
Of course, I do prefer the Mac OS. But, I'm not blind enough to assume that spending more money will get me a higher quality product. I know better.
If you define quality as the defect rate, then you must have remarkably low opinions of produce. A good Fuji apple is better than a Golden Delicious, but about 1/10 of both of them are bruised or marred--because it's a higher quality variety. Apple's defect rate, for what it's worth, is below industry norm, but within the margin for several PC makers.

I've been using computers since before IBM released their first PC. And, out of the literally thousands of computers I've used, and the multiple hundreds I have owned, the only ones that I've ever (and I do mean EVER) taken to a repair shop have been Apples.
Now that's just downright hyperbole. Taken in the aggregate, reality disagrees with your own experience rather substantially. Even market analysts don't make such outlandish claims.

I know it does. All OS upgrades break some level of compatibility. I haven't been through a single one that didn't.
I've never had an upgrade as problematic as the move to Vista. Each time there were problems, there were solutions--this is not the case. Apart from system utilities, which are necessarily version-dependent, I have never had any unsolved problems with any Mac OS upgrade since 10.0. I also had only one problem with 2000->XP and no problems at all with 98->2000. Vista has by far been the worst and most frustrating of all upgrades. Even hardware specifically designed for Vista does not always work, and the OS itself is broken to the point of being only marginally usable.

I'm not anti-Microsoft or even anti-Windows. But there is no way that your experience reflects the norm or even a sizeable minority. Your bad luck with Apple hardware is unfortunate, but your luck with PC hardware is clearly exaggerated.

Command-Q is a fast way out of an application, for what it's worth.

flyinmac
Feb 2, 2007, 10:48 PM
M$ shills are everywhere these days.

Famous intros...."Let me just say first before I get flamed by all the mac people out there, I own several macs"

famous filler lines...."The Mac costs crazy amounts of money and I got a killer PC box for way less, but of course I prefer the mac os...

:rolleyes:

Well, I guess you don't see the distinction I'm making here.

I do prefer the Mac OS. And, I do agree that Windows crashes too much.

But, I can say that and still acknowledge that in my experience the PC hardware has been more reliable than the Mac hardware.

There is a difference between hardware and software. The hardware Apple uses has not proven as reliable to me as as the PC hardware. And, Apple charges far too much for their hardware compared to the cheaper and more reliable PC hardware I can get.

But, I will readily admit that the Mac OS (at least since OS X) and the software that runs on it is of a higher caliber than Windows. And, I have found Windows to be incapable of some of the more demanding tasks that I throw at it.

But, don't mistake that weakness in being a fault of the PC. That fault lies specifically with Windows. If the Mac OS ran on my PC, then the entire problem would be solved. I'd have a reliable machine that didn't cost a fortune, and I'd have a great OS.

But, in the last couple of years, it has come down to a choice of reliable hardware with a less capable OS and software offering; or, a less reliable machine from Apple that runs an OS capable of doing what I want it to do.

Now, there are some Apple computers that have proven rock solid for me. But, nowhere near the volume of reliable hardware that I have experienced from every other manufacturer out there. Sure, Windows is garbage. But, don't confuse Windows with the hardware it runs on.

And, for the record, the Mac systems I currently own are:

Mac Mini G4 1.25 GHz
1 GB RAM
40 GB hard drive
120 GB FireWire Hard Drive from OWC
Combo Drive (with separate DVD Writer)
19-inch wide-screen LCD monitor
OS 10.4.8

12-inch iBook G4 1.33 GHz (the last revision)
1.5 GB of RAM
40 GB hard drive
80 GB USB 2.0 hard drive
Combo Drive
OS 10.4.8

iMac G3 333 MHz
288 MB of RAM
12 GB Hard Drive
Tray Loading CD-ROM
OS 10.2.8

And, of course I've owned numerous others over the years including the two iMac G5 systems previously mentioned as duds.

I went back to the Mac Mini G4 after suffering through the two dud iMac G5 systems.

And, then of course there's a few PC's that are used for business purposes (work that has no OS X title available).

flyinmac
Feb 2, 2007, 11:05 PM
If you define quality as the defect rate, then you must have remarkably low opinions of produce. A good Fuji apple is better than a Golden Delicious, but about 1/10 of both of them are bruised or marred--because it's a higher quality variety. Apple's defect rate, for what it's worth, is below industry norm, but within the margin for several PC makers.

I do define quality based on defect rate. When talking about computers, the defect rate is a measure of quality. I rate the OS separately as it's reliability is reflective of it's design not the computers.


Now that's just downright hyperbole. Taken in the aggregate, reality disagrees with your own experience rather substantially. Even market analysts don't make such outlandish claims.

I guess you've just never met someone who has spent their life around as many computers as I have. And, had a pretty serious hobby with a house that held more computers than you've probably ever seen. I recently down-sized when I decided I had better things to devote my time to (like life).


I've never had an upgrade as problematic as the move to Vista. Each time there were problems, there were solutions--this is not the case. Apart from system utilities, which are necessarily version-dependent, I have never had any unsolved problems with any Mac OS upgrade since 10.0. I also had only one problem with 2000->XP and no problems at all with 98->2000. Vista has by far been the worst and most frustrating of all upgrades. Even hardware specifically designed for Vista does not always work, and the OS itself is broken to the point of being only marginally usable.

Again, I rate an OS's reliability independently of the computer. Hardware reliability is not limited by the reliability of the OS. Put a better OS on there. It's not the computers fault that Windows is garbage.


I'm not anti-Microsoft or even anti-Windows. But there is no way that your experience reflects the norm or even a sizeable minority. Your bad luck with Apple hardware is unfortunate, but your luck with PC hardware is clearly exaggerated.



I guess you'd have to have known me personally and seen the sheer mass of my previous computer collection to appreciate my experience with those machines.

They were not all PC's either. Notice I said from various manufacturers. That includes everything from old CP/M machines, to Apple II series, to Amigas, to PC's, Commodores, to Macs, to other more unique machines which few have heard of. My collection spanned more than the small PC and Mac areas. I used hardware and machines that spanned dozens of computing platforms.

My statement is simply that out of those thousands of computers of all ages (some of them had spent more than 20 years with me), the Apples (specifically the newer Macs), are the only ones I'd ever had to take in for service.

If you don't believe that I've had my hands on as many machines as I claimed, or that I've owned as many as I've claimed, then you just can't appreciate how diverse and massive a collection some people can have.

It was a bit of a mini museum.

I finally got my collection of machines down to about 60 or 70 about 3 years ago. And, about a year or so ago, I got out of it altogether and got down to just the basics and have about 5 or so now.


Command-Q is a fast way out of an application, for what it's worth.

Thank you. I keep forgetting that ;)

iAlan
Feb 2, 2007, 11:11 PM
http://www.macrumors.com/images/macrumorsthreadlogo.gif (http://www.macrumors.com)

Apple has published a guide (http://docs.info.apple.com/article.html?artnum=305042) for installing iTunes on a Windows Vista system...[snip]

Not even worse than the know issues for Zune Linky (http://www.zune.net/en-us/meetzune/software/releasenotes.htm) :p

If Microsoft can't get it right for it's own products, then how can anyone else be expected to?

Digital Skunk
Feb 3, 2007, 12:08 AM
This is just like Microsoft. Make some junk OS and have everyone else fix their bugs. When Leopard comes out it will work with everything that isn't Apple and that is Apple.

Engineers and programers care about the Macintosh environment. When it comes to Windows, they are looking for a way to pass the chore to someone else who cares. And I was thinking about running vista on my MacBook Pro just for the hell of it.

But everytime I think Windows may just be worth getting back into to MS does some lazy excuse of tech innovation and makes me hate them just by hearing about it. I don't know it I want to put an unfinished OS on my Mac system just yet.

matticus008
Feb 3, 2007, 04:39 AM
I do define quality based on defect rate. When talking about computers, the defect rate is a measure of quality. I rate the OS separately as it's reliability is reflective of it's design not the computers.
Is *a* measure of quality, I agree. But since the components ultimately come from a single source, the quality differential involves selection of particular hardware in terms of reliability and performance as well. Ultimately, however, because the fabrication process is the same for all tiers of hardware, the defect rate is going to be similiar across the board, both for cheap and unreliable goods (PC Chips motherboards, for example) and for higher quality parts (Mushkin RAM). A Cuisinart blender and a Walmart no-brand blender are not of the same quality, though the same percentage may be DOA.

I guess you've just never met someone who has spent their life around as many computers as I have.
No, but in my undergraduate days and into law school, I had a systems admin job for a large university campus with literally tens of thousands of machines. Our experience was governed by a painstakingly bureaucratic reporting and trouble ticket system, and at that number, we experienced failure rates across all vendors and hardware types that matched well within a standard deviation the industry specification. Neither you nor I have ever been around a sufficient number of machines to declare those norms inaccurate. Apple is no worse than average in any measure of or study in failure or customer service, and often fares near the top in any given criterion. Your experience, no matter how extensive, suffers from far too small an n-size.

I'm not saying that you're lying, and I'm not saying you shouldn't be annoyed with the hand you've been dealt, and I'm certainly not saying Apple doesn't have its fair share of issues. But to suggest that a few machines from Apple are the only broken ones among thousands, and to represent that anecdotal evidence as authoritative or reflective of the whole is misleading. The probability of you never having a single hardware problem over a span of hundreds of machines is very close to zero indeed. A near 100% failure rate for a few Apples and a 0% failure rate for hundreds of PCs is very likely an overstatement and in any case is not reflective of normal experience.

Porco
Feb 3, 2007, 05:11 AM
Vista users can't wait a couple of weeks now? What changed? :D

Seriously, why would Apple change their plans and bring forward the launch of their software (by a couple of weeks) just to help their rivals out by coinciding with Vista's launch? I wouldn't make any sense. I can understand if it was going to be months it would suck for users, but really, is a couple of weeks a big deal?! Pretend iTunes went on holiday (vacation)!

Eraserhead
Feb 3, 2007, 05:40 AM
With OS X, I can usually just delete the preference file, and that's generally enough to fix things. If that doesn't work, I just copy a fresh copy of the program onto my hard drive and it replaces the entire installation from the previous install.

It'd be good if programs could detect this themselves, and wouldn't be terribly difficult to implement.

mac-er
Feb 3, 2007, 10:39 AM
It's scary the number of programs that need to be "updated" to run on Vista.

It's almost as if they sat around and said "backward compatibility? who cares about backward compatibility?"

Apple had better backward compatibility moving their OS to run on a different processor architecture than Windows does between Vista and Windows XP. That's completely ridiculous.


I wondered who'd be the first to blame MS. This is the software developer's fault, not MS. I seem to recall that SPSS would not work when Apple changed to Tiger. Hmmm..."it's almost as if [Apple] sat around and said "backward compatibility" who cares about backward compatibility?"

MacinDoc
Feb 3, 2007, 12:07 PM
That's not necessarily true.

I purchased my very nice Compaq for $430 including shipping almost 2 years ago now. And, it still out-specs most of Apple's product line. The only exception being the Mac Pro.

And, for that $430, I've had a reliable machine that hasn't given me too much trouble.

In that time, I've had two iMac G5 systems that spent their entire time in the shop, and never spent much time actually working. I eventually sold them after their last repair, and didn't get much back out of them due to depreciation. Their value fell fast within about 3 or 4 months.

The first iMac cost me about $2200 as it was configured. That one I struggled to sell for $1200 a few months later due to Apple having released a new model shortly after I purchased mine.

The other one I purchased for around $1600. And, that one I barely managed to get $1000 out of a few months later.

So, with those two machines, I spent much more than I did for my PC. And, all I got in exchange was getting to know the repair center really, really well, and the loss of $1800 to get out of the constant repair cycle.

And, here we are much, much later, and my $430 PC is still working quite well. It's never broke down once. And, it still sits pretty high in specs compared to the current models.

Of course, I do prefer the Mac OS. But, I'm not blind enough to assume that spending more money will get me a higher quality product. I know better.

I've been using computers since before IBM released their first PC. And, out of the literally thousands of computers I've used, and the multiple hundreds I have owned, the only ones that I've ever (and I do mean EVER) taken to a repair shop have been Apples.
That's a real load of you-know-what. According to Consumer Reports, Compaq desktops have 70% more repairs than Apple desktops. And it is widely known that Macs keep their resale value much better than Windows PCs. I update my Mac every 1-2 years, and every time I have done that, I have been able to sell my old Mac on eBay for 70-80% of what I paid for it (retail price, since I do not qualify for Edu discount).

And there's no way that an iMac would spend that much time in the shop. If a computer has that many problems, Apple's policy is generally to replace it (less cost and hassle for Apple and the consumer).

Digital Skunk
Feb 3, 2007, 12:46 PM
QUOTE

"Originally Posted by flyinmac
That's not necessarily true.

I purchased my very nice Compaq for $430 including shipping almost 2 years ago now. And, it still out-specs most of Apple's product line. The only exception being the Mac Pro.

And, for that $430, I've had a reliable machine that hasn't given me too much trouble.

In that time, I've had two iMac G5 systems that spent their entire time in the shop, and never spent much time actually working. I eventually sold them after their last repair, and didn't get much back out of them due to depreciation. Their value fell fast within about 3 or 4 months.

The first iMac cost me about $2200 as it was configured. That one I struggled to sell for $1200 a few months later due to Apple having released a new model shortly after I purchased mine.

The other one I purchased for around $1600. And, that one I barely managed to get $1000 out of a few months later.

So, with those two machines, I spent much more than I did for my PC. And, all I got in exchange was getting to know the repair center really, really well, and the loss of $1800 to get out of the constant repair cycle.

And, here we are much, much later, and my $430 PC is still working quite well. It's never broke down once. And, it still sits pretty high in specs compared to the current models.

Of course, I do prefer the Mac OS. But, I'm not blind enough to assume that spending more money will get me a higher quality product. I know better.

I've been using computers since before IBM released their first PC. And, out of the literally thousands of computers I've used, and the multiple hundreds I have owned, the only ones that I've ever (and I do mean EVER) taken to a repair shop have been Apples."

Okay... I know your just trying to start some trouble... coming to a Mac site and talking bad about a proven design and hardware tool like the iMac....

Let me give you some advice... DON'T pour water into the keyboard!

If your machine breaks then it is YOUR fault. Not the machines... did you carry it with you everywhere you went then dropped it or something? :confused: I haven't even had that much trouble with a Windoze box. And your Compaq would have cost you less if you sold it to some douche after a year as well.:eek: big surprise... things get old.

I don't know how you could have had so much trouble with any piece of hardware or software if you have owned HUNDREDs:rolleyes: of machines. I think you like to start trouble. And if you ever have anymore problems with your machines again... remember PEBKAC

Problem
Exists
Between
Keyboard
And
Chair

CJD2112
Feb 3, 2007, 12:54 PM
That's a real load of you-know-what. According to Consumer Reports, Compaq desktops have 70% more repairs than Apple desktops. And it is widely known that Macs keep their resale value much better than Windows PCs. I update my Mac every 1-2 years, and every time I have done that, I have been able to sell my old Mac on eBay for 70-80% of what I paid for it (retail price, since I do not qualify for Edu discount).

And there's no way that an iMac would spend that much time in the shop. If a computer has that many problems, Apple's policy is generally to replace it (less cost and hassle for Apple and the consumer).

Thank you. I wanted to write the same factual response, but held back. I find it extremely hard to believe that two iMac G5's in a row were lemons, and that a Compaq PC would out perform an Apple system.

flyinmac
Feb 3, 2007, 01:28 PM
And there's no way that an iMac would spend that much time in the shop. If a computer has that many problems, Apple's policy is generally to replace it (less cost and hassle for Apple and the consumer).

Well, apparently you don't know the iMac G5 rev. A and rev. B systems. They were notorious for their many problems. Specifically a bad batch of power supplies that took the rest of the machine down with them. Then, video issues, and capacitors, and so on.

I had hoped that it was all resolved with the revision B. But, unfortunately, my revision B was worse (though it didn't have the dud power supply).

The rev. A, had a keyboard who's plastic cracked on it. Apple replaced that since it was obviously a stress crack from molding. So, that was a minor issue.

But, then the power supply died and smoked-up the computer. So, then they ordered a replacement power supply. But, the power supply had damaged the logic board.

So, it needed a new logic board.

Then, the LCD screen failed. So, they got me a new screen.

Sure, that doesn't sound like a lot of problems. But, when you factor in that it took them about 3 or 4 months to repair it all. That adds-up to a lot of down-time.

Basically, they had so many of them failing at the time, that there was about a 2-month wait for the power supply. Finally get that in, and then I had to wait in line for them to find a replacement logic board which was in even higher demand.

Finally get it back, and then the LCD screen died. So, back to waiting again. Finally got a new LCD screen, and then decided it was no-longer worth the hassle.

I just brought it home and put it up for sale before something else could die.


About a year later, I got the rev. B. I figured they were likely to have had their issues resolved.

It arrived with 3 defects. A pretty big chip in the bezel, a mouse with a stuck button / clicking mechanism, and the Ethernet port didn't work.

I called Apple immediately after taking it out of the box. But, they told me that all their computers were down (as in not working). So, she said she couldn't do anything and sent me to my local service center (which they couldn't even look-up).

So, within an hour of opening my new computer, I'm in the service center. He says I need a new logic board after diagnosing the machine. So, I wait for that.

I discussed the chip in the computer's case with him, and he says that Apple won't cover it since it's only cosmetic. I explain to him that it was like that coming out of the box, and show him the slips that show I just received it. He says they won't cover it. So, I left my machine there to await the new logic board.

He says they can only open one case number at a time, so my mouse will have to wait.

I get the machine back. It works fine.

I talk with Apple and him about the chip in the case, and they agree to replace it since it was like that out of the box.

Wait for that. It arrives, and they install it.

Then, they can finally process the claim for the mouse. So, I have to use another one while I'm still waiting for that to be resolved. The new mouse finally arrives.

So, now I'm finally done dealing with the defects that the machine arrived with. That took about a month.

Then, the LCD screen dies. So, wait for that. He tells me they can't do anything about it now because they are backed-up with a recent rush of machines that have come in. So, he advises me to just call back in a couple of weeks and see if they can get to it (only shop in town).

So, get that resolved.

Then, the backlight starts flickering. Again, wait until they have time to get around to it.

Finally, get everything fixed. Decide not to push my luck any further, and sell it before it can die again.

I went back to using my reliable Mac Mini G4 (which I'm still using).

Sorry to have to tell you the truth. But, Macs do have trouble. Not all of them. But, some do. And, after being bit by two right in a row that I couldn't use because I was always waiting for service or parts, it just left a very bad taste.

Combine that with the fact that I have absolutely never had to take any other computer from any other manufacturer to the shop in the 20+ years I've been using computers, and it really doesn't make them look good.

As for them replacing duds, that's something you have to get them to agree to. They wouldn't for me. I mentioned it, but they wanted to just keep pushing through with repairs.

CJD2112
Feb 3, 2007, 01:33 PM
Well, apparently you don't know the iMac G5 rev. A and rev. B systems.

The rev. A, had a keyboard who's plastic cracked on it. Apple replaced that since it was obviously a stress crack from molding. So, that was a minor issue.

But, then the power supply died and smoked-up the computer. So, then they ordered a replacement power supply. But, the power supply had damaged the logic board.

So, it needed a new logic board.

Then, the LCD screen failed. So, they got me a new screen.

Sure, that doesn't sound like a lot of problems. But, when you factor in that it took them about 3 or 4 months to repair it all. That adds-up to a lot of down-time.

Basically, they had so many of them failing at the time, that there was about a 2-month wait for the power supply. Finally get that in, and then I had to wait in line for them to find a replacement logic board which was in even higher demand.

Finally get it back, and then the LCD screen died. So, back to waiting again. Finally got a new LCD screen, and then decided it was no-longer worth the hassle.

I just brought it home and put it up for sale before something else could die.


About a year later, I got the rev. B. I figured they were likely to have had their issues resolved.

It arrived with 3 defects. A pretty big chip in the bezel, a mouse with a stuck button / clicking mechanism, and the Ethernet port didn't work.

I called Apple immediately after taking it out of the box. But, they told me that all their computers were down (as in not working). So, she said she couldn't do anything and sent me to my local service center (which they couldn't even look-up).

So, within an hour of opening my new computer, I'm in the service center. He says I need a new logic board after diagnosing the machine. So, I wait for that.

I discussed the chip in the computer's case with him, and he says that Apple won't cover it since it's only cosmetic. I explain to him that it was like that coming out of the box, and show him the slips that show I just received it. He says they won't cover it. So, I left my machine there to await the new logic board.

He says they can only open one case number at a time, so my mouse will have to wait.

I get the machine back. It works fine.

I talk with Apple and him about the chip in the case, and they agree to replace it since it was like that out of the box.

Wait for that. It arrives, and they install it.

Then, they can finally process the claim for the mouse. So, I have to use another one while I'm still waiting for that to be resolved. The new mouse finally arrives.

So, now I'm finally done dealing with the defects that the machine arrived with. That took about a month.

Then, the LCD screen dies. So, wait for that. He tells me they can't do anything about it now because they are backed-up with a recent rush of machines that have come in. So, he advises me to just call back in a couple of weeks and see if they can get to it (only shop in town).

So, get that resolved.

Then, the backlight starts flickering. Again, wait until they have time to get around to it.

Finally, get everything fixed. Decide not to push my luck any further, and sell it before it can die again.

I went back to using my reliable Mac Mini G4 (which I'm still using).

Sorry to have to tell you the truth. But, Macs do have trouble. Not all of them. But, some do. And, after being bit by two right in a row that I couldn't use because I was always waiting for service or parts, it just left a very bad taste.

Combine that with the fact that I have absolutely never had to take any other computer from any other manufacturer to the shop in the 20+ years I've been using computers, and it really doesn't make them look good.

As for them replacing duds, that's something you have to get them to agree to. They wouldn't for me. I mentioned it, but they wanted to just keep pushing through with repairs.

Somehow, I find this all very hard to believe. Sorry. :(

flyinmac
Feb 3, 2007, 01:43 PM
Somehow, I find this all very hard to believe. Sorry. :(

Well, you don't have to believe it. I lived it. Doesn't really matter what you believe or don't believe.

Aside from going through my files and digging out all the invoices and scanning them in, not really much I can do.

I requested a print-out from the service center for each repair job for my own records (even though Apple paid the service costs).

And, quite honestly, I don't care whether you believe me enough to make it worth the trouble of scanning in page after page of documents to prove it.

Whether you believe me or not isn't going to change anything for me. It's not like convincing you is going to undo the hassle I experienced. Simply put, it happened, it's done, it's over.

Denying that others have problems may make you feel better. But, it really doesn't accomplish anything.

Getting upset and calling someone a liar for simply recounting their own personal experience is also just wrong.

It's not like I came in here and said every Mac is garbage.

I just said that claiming that you get better hardware for the higher price you pay is not necessarily true. And, apparently that's all it takes to get the fan-boys riled-up.

I love Apple computers (we'll actually it's OS X I like), but that won't stop me from acknowledging the problems that do occur.

I dislike Windows. But, that won't stop me from acknowledging that I haven't had any problems with the PC's hardware.

Defending a company or machine simply because it offends you that someone had trouble is just stupid.

askretzinger
Feb 3, 2007, 01:44 PM
Has anybody heard anything about a virtual vista that wouldn't require bootcamp?

Digital Skunk
Feb 3, 2007, 02:05 PM
Yeah... and I lived the first coming of Jesus Christ... :eek: yeah... i was there... I saw him.

Prove me wrong! :cool:

He wasn't African... he was a white european guy with long blonde hair and blue eyes and 7 feet tall. Fire shot from his eyes and when he talked he sounded like some Irish guy named Mike.

Prove me wrong! :cool:

I lived it... I was there.:D

ryanw
Feb 3, 2007, 02:36 PM
I've been running iTunes on Vista since June, and the only issues I've had are the inability to burn CDs, and occasionally the computer will restart while I'm downloading podcasts.

Dude, I love how those are flagged as MINIMAL problems using Vista. Microsoft gets cut so much slack. jeash.

milatchi
Feb 3, 2007, 02:39 PM
Meh, no surprise.

kcmac
Feb 3, 2007, 03:06 PM
....and famous ending lines

"Just for the record, these are the macs I own."

:D

tallgeek
Feb 3, 2007, 04:01 PM
Dude, I love how those are flagged as MINIMAL problems using Vista. Microsoft gets cut so much slack. jeash.


People who know me know I much prefer Macs to PCs, and especially love bashing PCs when the opportunity arises, even though I'm typing this on one. However, to me those are minimal problems, I rarely burn CDs, I typically just put whatever I need on my iPod, and I've never been using the computer when it's had to restart, so I just pop in my password and away I go. I put in a Raptor X HD so it loads everything extra quick on the 3 Gb of RAM in it. That said, MS does get cut a lot of slack, and even with their extra leniency, they still can't keep up with the capabilities, stability, and ease of use of any other OS, Mac, Linux, or otherwise.

stainlessliquid
Feb 3, 2007, 04:44 PM
I can vouch for the first G5 imacs being pieces of junk. We ran them in the multimedia section of the college. Out of around 30 machines, 7 have been killed completely in just a year. Obviously these things are used far more than a regular home computer, but the failure rate of these machines was incredibly high compared to other machines at the school. Generally the problems included turning on the computer, the fan would go into a fit sounding like a hairdryer and thats as far as you would get, you had to unplug it to turn it off. The older macs, even the emac's lasted much longer than those crappy imacs (although a couple emacs ended up with broken screens). They had constant problems with the network, but thats probably because the IT guys were morons, the only problems I judge are the hardware failures which arent caused by not knowing how to work OSX. Theyve since replaced every G5 with an intel imac, I havent seen any broken macs yet.

On the flipside Im taking a visual basic class right now and they are using 900 something mhz retro Gateways that run perfect. They are so old that the plastic is turning brown but every last one of them still function (theres around 30 as well). I've only seen 1 broken Dell but to be fair there were hundreds of Dells at the school and Ive only been in 2 Dell classrooms. Macs in general were the only computers to ever bite the dust, there was always a smorgisboard of different types of macs in the "cheaper" classrooms since they were being replaced left and right.

When it comes down to it both macs and PC's use the same kind of parts and seem to be just as likely as one another to fail (apple doesnt make ANY hardware, its all made by the same companies that make PC hardware too). Ive never had a single problem with mac's OR pc's at home, not once. I have an old 1999 833mhz HP thats still running flawlessly even if it is incredibly slow, I havent upgraded anything in that machine except ram and its been running the same install of XP since like 2002. All of the PC's I got after that I built myself, I have never had a single problem with those even when I used a $30 PC Chips motherboard.

TechnoPhobe
Feb 3, 2007, 06:01 PM
I am running Vista and MACOSX due to my job.

Vista iTunes Solution:
I have my music on a external FAT32 formatted drive
In Vista select "My Documents" or "My Music" and redirect these to point to the external drive.

You do this via right click properties. Works like Unix "ln -s <source> <target>".

Then:
Download iTunes
Search for iTunes install package on desktop
Select iTunes install package
Run the iTunes install as an administrator. (Run as administrator)

this setup is working fine.

Preamble: I am not an OS bigot...

I tend to agree with people that the MAC OS X experince is generally more stable than Vista.

The principle issue I have with Vista are:

1. Security Prompts
Why does Microsoft grey my screen out and make me stop everything until I have filled out the security information?
2. Driver and Third Party Application Install Support
Fine I can buy a Vista PC - wait until you get it home and try and install your HP printer... Not to mention the fact that my Cannon FS 4000 US is not compatible. At least with MAC OSX I can use my Cannon FS 4000 US as the drivers run through Rosetta.

One final word:

**** Do not try and run Vista on an old Toshiba - pain and suffering ***

CJD2112
Feb 3, 2007, 06:37 PM
I am running Vista and MACOSX due to my job.

Vista iTunes Solution:
I have my music on a external FAT32 formatted drive
In Vista select "My Documents" or "My Music" and redirect these to point to the external drive.

You do this via right click properties. Works like Unix "ln -s <source> <target>".

Then:
Download iTunes
Search for iTunes install package on desktop
Select iTunes install package
Run the iTunes install as an administrator. (Run as administrator)

this setup is working fine.

Preamble: I am not an OS bigot...

I tend to agree with people that the MAC OS X experince is generally more stable than Vista.

The principle issue I have with Vista are:

1. Security Prompts
Why does Microsoft grey my screen out and make me stop everything until I have filled out the security information?
2. Driver and Third Party Application Install Support
Fine I can buy a Vista PC - wait until you get it home and try and install your HP printer... Not to mention the fact that my Cannon FS 4000 US is not compatible. At least with MAC OSX I can use my Cannon FS 4000 US as the drivers run through Rosetta.

One final word:

**** Do not try and run Vista on an old Toshiba - pain and suffering ***

I have a solution: use OS X :p

superfunkomatic
Feb 3, 2007, 07:29 PM
hmmm, five years in development, no working drivers for lots of peripherals, lots of software incompatibilities. huh? what were they doing during development. didn't anyone think to test popular software titles.

another example of anti-competitive behavior, the most popular music download site (with which they are in direct competition) doesn't work - even in the face of all the lawsuits they haven't changed their 'tune'.

i'm sure lots of windows users with upgraded OSes will be pissed off with their new purchase.

indiekiduk
Feb 3, 2007, 07:57 PM
i'm sure lots of windows users with upgraded OSes will be pissed off with their new purchase.

Definately! I can't even copy a folder in Vista without explorer crashing. I think the ordinary user will be tempted to return Vista to the shop instead of relying on SP1 to make their purchase acceptable.

edenwaith
Feb 3, 2007, 08:34 PM
I bet MS did it on purpose to get people to use Zunes.


And the funny thing is, from the reviews I've read, the Zune software didn't work on Vista! Maybe it does now, I haven't bothered to check (with good reason, not having a Zune or Vista and all).


Microsoft's support for its legacy systems has been both a bane and boon for it. I looked through some of my more recent games, and some of them still support as far back as Windows 98. But it is only now that even the game manufacturers are requiring Windows 2000 or Windows XP. But by trying to support so many legacy systems, APIs and such, it has likely made things even more complicated for Microsoft. I've seen some things work just fine in XP, but other cases (especially with games) have been so-so. Sometimes things work, and sometimes things will work after some work arounds and hacks have been applied. Nothing too particularly new for the Microsoft camp, since the "maybe it will work" ideals has been around for years and years. Plug and play? Maybe. Maybe if you coax it and install the latest drivers, etc, then maybe it will work. The Mac seems to have been more straightforward. Either it will work or it won't.

Especially in the past five years, Apple has been throwing away nearly all of its legacy, and continues moving forward. Even finding new software that will work with Mac OS 10.1 is becoming very difficult to find. Some of this is due to the maturing nature of Mac OS X, which is understandable. However, I've noticed a fair amount of programs with Tiger and Panther which quickly moved forward and abandoned the earlier versions of Mac OS X. The switch to Intel seems to have sealed the deal, giving Mac users even more reason to continue upgrading so they aren't left completely behind.

Even if it isn't someone like Microsoft or Apple coaxing people to upgrade, then the dropping support from 3rd parties will eventually be the final straw. Just look at anyone who might still be using Mac OS 9. What are their options for web browsers? Netscape 7.0 might be their best solution, but as we've seen already, browsers start to show their flaws over time, and plug-ins are no longer supported, and one way or another it is time to move to a more modern browser (I just wish everyone using IE6 would realize this!).

edenwaith
Feb 3, 2007, 08:58 PM
QUOTE

Let me give you some advice... DON'T pour water into the keyboard!



That is some excellent advice. I've had a person or two confuse their plant and keyboard, and decided to water the keyboard. Apple keyboards don't agree overly well with water. :/

Here's another tip: External hard drives are not dominos. Unless the drive is already dead, then go to town.

BuzWeaver
Feb 4, 2007, 10:29 AM
hmmm, five years in development, no working drivers for lots of peripherals, lots of software incompatibilities. huh? what were they doing during development. didn't anyone think to test popular software titles.

another example of anti-competitive behavior, the most popular music download site (with which they are in direct competition) doesn't work - even in the face of all the lawsuits they haven't changed their 'tune'.

i'm sure lots of windows users with upgraded OSes will be pissed off with their new purchase.

So in retrospect it does resemble the Mac OS.

pionata
Feb 4, 2007, 12:34 PM
Well, for all we know iPods are now guaranted to work on Vista, so Microsoft should just have made sure it had better compatibility with xp. But all that sucking will only help Apple.

Originally Posted by uNext
nothing is error free and certainly mac os x while they make it seem way superior is not. (clicking on the red circle dont even fully close the app but yet is "worlds most advanced operating system"?

I actually always tought that was the best feature (application not closing when you accidently hit the x). Really usefull for artistic work.

clevin
Feb 4, 2007, 12:38 PM
hmmm, five years in development, no working drivers for lots of peripherals, lots of software incompatibilities. huh? what were they doing during development. didn't anyone think to test popular software titles.
funny u suggest this, at same time, many ppl here at MR think Vista should totally be built from scratch.


another example of anti-competitive behavior, the most popular music download site (with which they are in direct competition) doesn't work - even in the face of all the lawsuits they haven't changed their 'tune'.
is this true? can u cite some evidences?


i'm sure lots of windows users with upgraded OSes will be pissed off with their new purchase.
I doubt it, and im not sure u can be sure about this.

superfunkomatic
Feb 4, 2007, 02:06 PM
funny u suggest this, at same time, many ppl here at MR think Vista should totally be built from scratch.

is this true? can u cite some evidences?

I doubt it, and im not sure u can be sure about this.

i think basic things like printers should work with an OS upgrade, the only time this happened was from OS 9 to 10.x, in the very beginning. otherwise every new printer seems to work fine through 4 major OS changes.

monopoly - yes, anti-trust suits in US and Europe - the one in Europe will start again full bore since they are tying things into the main operating system like WMP 11 and again with internet explorer 7.x. plus you don't need to read very hard between the lines - new OS, new media player, new music store, new music player - and iTunes music store selling the most of all music download sites. it's not a coincidence that itunes doesn't work, which really doesn't concern me as a mac user, but say the $1300 dollars worth of music i have was on a PC, i upgrade to stay 'current' with an OS and all of a sudden nothing works - i'd be pissed off, i'm sure about that.

stainlessliquid
Feb 4, 2007, 04:33 PM
i think basic things like printers should work with an OS upgrade, the only time this happened was from OS 9 to 10.x, in the very beginning. otherwise every new printer seems to work fine through 4 major OS changes.
Do you realize how old XP is? Vista is based on a completely different kernel and is nothing like the marginal updates OSX gets. Its very similair to upgrading OS9 to OSX.

monopoly - yes, anti-trust suits in US and Europe - the one in Europe will start again full bore since they are tying things into the main operating system like WMP 11 and again with internet explorer 7.x. plus you don't need to read very hard between the lines - new OS, new media player, new music store, new music player - and iTunes music store selling the most of all music download sites. it's not a coincidence that itunes doesn't work, which really doesn't concern me as a mac user, but say the $1300 dollars worth of music i have was on a PC, i upgrade to stay 'current' with an OS and all of a sudden nothing works - i'd be pissed off, i'm sure about that.
Wait, so Apple isnt guilty of any of those things too? I could have sworn Europe was suing Apple over similair stuff and that itunes and quicktime came with OSX.. This is typical of all companies and the EU loves to sue.

You seem to be blaiming Microsoft for stuff that Apple does too. You need to come to the reality that not everything is going to work with a new OS and since iTunes uses DRM and CD drivers it is a prime victim for not working with a new kernel and registry. The fact is that Vista RTM was out for months and Beta was out for even longer, its Apple's fault that they didnt get on the ball when they should have so they would be ready for Vista's launch. There is no conspiracy, if Microsoft intentionally "broke" itunes then it would affect countless other applications and screw Vista pretty badly (ie making CD burning impossible), if they singled out itunes so it wouldnt function then it would be EXTREMELY easy to prove and theyd be facing a tremendous lawsuit.

matticus008
Feb 4, 2007, 06:28 PM
Do you realize how old XP is? Vista is based on a completely different kernel and is nothing like the marginal updates OSX gets. Its very similair to upgrading OS9 to OSX.
No, it most definitely is not. It is most similar to the 10.3 - 10.4 update. Some of the underlying APIs have been changed and improved, but it is essentially the same OS. It was planned to be far more revolutionary, but it is instead based on the Windows 2003 kernel rather than a brand-new one, the file system is a marginal improvement at best, and although the UI has been removed from GDI+, it is more or less a recreation of the old UI. Aside from the Aero Glass effects, it's just a new theme.
I could have sworn Europe was suing Apple over similair stuff and that itunes and quicktime came with OSX.
Nope. The EU has a few iTunes complaints.
You seem to be blaiming Microsoft for stuff that Apple does too.
Microsoft is a convicted abusive monopolist. Apple is not.
You need to come to the reality that not everything is going to work with a new OS and since iTunes uses DRM and CD drivers
DRM has nothing to do with it. iTunes works perfectly fine for me in Vista and has for months.
Microsoft intentionally "broke" itunes then it would affect countless other applications and screw Vista pretty badly (ie making CD burning impossible)
It did. Most CD burning applications do not work in Vista without an update, and not all of them have been updated yet.
if they singled out itunes so it wouldnt function then it would be EXTREMELY easy to prove and theyd be facing a tremendous lawsuit.
No, it would not be. There are thousands of broken applications (some of them Microsoft's. Without the source, it is impossible to determine with certainty why most applications don't work. That said, one has to wonder what happened, because even as of the final beta, iTunes was working fine for almost everyone (aside from taking upwards of 9 seconds to start).

ezekielrage_99
Feb 4, 2007, 07:40 PM
ROFL seriously...

As for a previous comment, I'm not surprised that Microsoft's Zune competition [iTunes] is now having compatibility issues with Vista. Not suprised at all... :rolleyes:

I'm kind of getting a flashback to the Netscape vs Explorer thing a few years ago....

Personally I'm not sure surprised nothing works in Vista I really do think a lot of I.T. professionals out there expected Vista to be just another Windows OS built on old technology, to Micro$oft's credit they have addressed quite a few know issues and have made a very pretty OS (functional, only time will tell). I'm just wondering when rootkit rumors will start to surface about Vista

Still it's also another good reason why I can't be bothered parting with my money for a Vista upgrade :apple:

stainlessliquid
Feb 4, 2007, 07:51 PM
but it is instead based on the Windows 2003 kernel rather than a brand-new one
Windows 2003 isnt Windows XP.
Nope. The EU has a few iTunes complaints.
Yep. Thats what I was referring to. Apple is no stranger to antitrust lawsuits.
DRM has nothing to do with it. iTunes works perfectly fine for me in Vista and has for months.
Then whats the problem? I dont own any DRM music and dont burn cd's so I havent tried that part in Vista with itunes yet, but my ipod works 100% fine. If the itunes conspiracy really did apply to the iPod and the Zune then why does my ipod work in my retail copy of Vista Business? You can add itunes to the long list of programs Ive used that still work in Vista for me, so far its a perfect score (drivers are a different story).
It did.
Proof? Clearly you know something that could open a whole can of worms for the Microsoft legal team. It seems awfully silly to do something so potentially damaging to your company just to prevent people from using a program until it gets updated with a free patch.

When programs dont work with a new version of OSX do you think Apple intentionally broke them too? It doesnt make any sense why people are so quick to point the finger at Microsoft when these things are natural for major OS upgrades that also happen to Apple.

matticus008
Feb 4, 2007, 10:35 PM
Windows 2003 isnt Windows XP.
Yeah, and a pigeon isn't a squab. It's no more an "entirely new" kernel than 10.4 was an "entirely new" kernel compared to 10.3.
Then whats the problem? I dont own any DRM music and dont burn cd's so I havent tried that part in Vista with itunes yet, but my ipod works 100% fine.
The USB subsystem. iTunes works fine on Vista, including using an iPod, usually. Vista in its final form, however, has been corrupting all sorts of mass storage devices, and the CD burning changes haven't been updated by related vendors. Right through RC2, iPod and iTunes worked without trouble on my two Vista systems. The final version, however, is suddenly problematic.
Proof?
You could try reading the following sentence, and you'd have it. Nero, Sonic DVD Studio, DirectCD, DeepBurner, WinISO, Slysoft products all broke in Vista. USB mass storage drivers have been full of problems with corrupted flash drives, even broken partition tables on hard drives. Google, and ye shall find.
When programs dont work with a new version of OSX do you think Apple intentionally broke them too? It doesnt make any sense why people are so quick to point the finger at Microsoft when these things are natural for major OS upgrades that also happen to Apple.
iTunes worked perfectly fine all the way through RC2. I never claimed some mass conspiracy, but last-minute changes at Microsoft broke tons of software, and it's not unprecedented for Microsoft to make changes and then fail to inform OEMs and developers in a timely fashion. That's why early adopters are left with several broken software titles. What major incompatibility problems has OS X introduced, apart from disk and system utilities which are a natural consequence?

MacinDoc
Feb 4, 2007, 11:26 PM
I can vouch for the first G5 imacs being pieces of junk. We ran them in the multimedia section of the college. Out of around 30 machines, 7 have been killed completely in just a year. Obviously these things are used far more than a regular home computer, but the failure rate of these machines was incredibly high compared to other machines at the school. Generally the problems included turning on the computer, the fan would go into a fit sounding like a hairdryer and thats as far as you would get, you had to unplug it to turn it off. The older macs, even the emac's lasted much longer than those crappy imacs (although a couple emacs ended up with broken screens). They had constant problems with the network, but thats probably because the IT guys were morons, the only problems I judge are the hardware failures which arent caused by not knowing how to work OSX. Theyve since replaced every G5 with an intel imac, I havent seen any broken macs yet.

On the flipside Im taking a visual basic class right now and they are using 900 something mhz retro Gateways that run perfect. They are so old that the plastic is turning brown but every last one of them still function (theres around 30 as well). I've only seen 1 broken Dell but to be fair there were hundreds of Dells at the school and Ive only been in 2 Dell classrooms. Macs in general were the only computers to ever bite the dust, there was always a smorgisboard of different types of macs in the "cheaper" classrooms since they were being replaced left and right.

When it comes down to it both macs and PC's use the same kind of parts and seem to be just as likely as one another to fail (apple doesnt make ANY hardware, its all made by the same companies that make PC hardware too). Ive never had a single problem with mac's OR pc's at home, not once. I have an old 1999 833mhz HP thats still running flawlessly even if it is incredibly slow, I havent upgraded anything in that machine except ram and its been running the same install of XP since like 2002. All of the PC's I got after that I built myself, I have never had a single problem with those even when I used a $30 PC Chips motherboard.
According to Consumer Reports and PC Magazine, Apple desktops are FAR more reliable than the competition. Have you considered the possibility that the iMacs are the only computers in the lab that are being used? Anyway, you can hardly say that so many of the 1st generation G5 iMacs have died after 1 year, because the 1st generation iMacs came out in August 2004, 2.5 years ago. (BTW, i owned every generation of iMac G5 except the iSight generation, and never had a problem.) Nonetheless, it is extremely unusual for so many of them to have failed (average failure rate of Apple desktops in 5 years is 11%, according to Consumer Reports, with other manufacturer's failure rates 50-100% higher), so a location-specific cause is likely.

Finally, in its preliminary analysis of Intel-based Macs, PC Magazine suggested that the reliability of Macs appeared to be increasing even further.

ddubbo
Feb 5, 2007, 10:52 AM
I do define quality based on defect rate. When talking about computers, the defect rate is a measure of quality. I rate the OS separately as it's reliability is reflective of it's design not the computers.



I guess you've just never met someone who has spent their life around as many computers as I have. And, had a pretty serious hobby with a house that held more computers than you've probably ever seen. I recently down-sized when I decided I had better things to devote my time to (like life).



Again, I rate an OS's reliability independently of the computer. Hardware reliability is not limited by the reliability of the OS. Put a better OS on there. It's not the computers fault that Windows is garbage.




I guess you'd have to have known me personally and seen the sheer mass of my previous computer collection to appreciate my experience with those machines.

They were not all PC's either. Notice I said from various manufacturers. That includes everything from old CP/M machines, to Apple II series, to Amigas, to PC's, Commodores, to Macs, to other more unique machines which few have heard of. My collection spanned more than the small PC and Mac areas. I used hardware and machines that spanned dozens of computing platforms.

My statement is simply that out of those thousands of computers of all ages (some of them had spent more than 20 years with me), the Apples (specifically the newer Macs), are the only ones I'd ever had to take in for service.

If you don't believe that I've had my hands on as many machines as I claimed, or that I've owned as many as I've claimed, then you just can't appreciate how diverse and massive a collection some people can have.

It was a bit of a mini museum.

I finally got my collection of machines down to about 60 or 70 about 3 years ago. And, about a year or so ago, I got out of it altogether and got down to just the basics and have about 5 or so now.



Thank you. I keep forgetting that ;)

I owned about 7 macs and 20 PC in my life. Currently I use the both. First of all, I want to say that both Mac OS X and Win XP SP 2 are very stable. They both run monthes without restart and viruses(except security updates). The time when windows crushed every day gone with win 98, and when it caught viruses gone with SP 2.
Secondly - same performance on XP 2 for most of the tasks (excluding graphics, etc.) 30-50% cheaper than on OS X.
So what's left - is a style and design and less - easy of use. OS X indeed far easy, but on the other side it lacks of choice(lack of programs, peripheria etc.).
From this point of view Mac resembles for me an Alpha-Romeo. It has its own style, but not reliable, overpriced for performance and hard-to-fix. When you want to fix ignition in your alpha - you should to unmount an half engine, and it costs a lot of money. The same way with PC - you have an ugly gray box, but when something is out, you just open it and replace a broken part in no time. The Mac - you have a very stylish thing, but when it need a fix - you send it to the lab and pay a twice money and triple time.
So no wonder that world is ruled by Volkswagen and Toyota.

superfunkomatic
Feb 5, 2007, 01:00 PM
When programs dont work with a new version of OSX do you think Apple intentionally broke them too? It doesnt make any sense why people are so quick to point the finger at Microsoft when these things are natural for major OS upgrades that also happen to Apple.

do you have a point? or are you just being devil's advocate? i fail to see any logic in what you are saying - a new OS without CD burning support, most printers not working and no support (right now) for iTunes is a GOOD thing?
perhaps you should contribute to the discussion, rather than detract from it.

not a flame, i agree some people like MS OS, i've used it at work for years, but these types of issues should have been ironed out in the past 2 years of beta whether it was a completely new OS or not. why do you think OS 10 was released only as a paid beta, it wasn't ready for consumption by the average user, MS is so far behind they had to release something to justify the large R&D budget and time.

flyinmac
Feb 5, 2007, 01:33 PM
I owned about 7 macs and 20 PC in my life. Currently I use the both. First of all, I want to say that both Mac OS X and Win XP SP 2 are very stable. They both run monthes without restart and viruses(except security updates). The time when windows crushed every day gone with win 98, and when it caught viruses gone with SP 2.
Secondly - same performance on XP 2 for most of the tasks (excluding graphics, etc.) 30-50% cheaper than on OS X.
So what's left - is a style and design and less - easy of use. OS X indeed far easy, but on the other side it lacks of choice(lack of programs, peripheria etc.).
From this point of view Mac resembles for me an Alpha-Romeo. It has its own style, but not reliable, overpriced for performance and hard-to-fix. When you want to fix ignition in your alpha - you should to unmount an half engine, and it costs a lot of money. The same way with PC - you have an ugly gray box, but when something is out, you just open it and replace a broken part in no time. The Mac - you have a very stylish thing, but when it need a fix - you send it to the lab and pay a twice money and triple time.
So no wonder that world is ruled by Volkswagen and Toyota.



That is very well put.

Stella
Feb 5, 2007, 02:23 PM
stainlessliquid has a point.

Just because iTunes doesn't work it doesn't mean that MS intentionally crippled Vista to make it incompatible.

There are a lot of changes in Vista ( v XP ) to stop previous applications from fuctioning - such as CD Burning software. There are times when you simply cannot make a new OS backwards compatible with hardware-accessing applications.

Granted, lacking printer drivers is a bit lame - but those manufacturers should ship updated drivers ASAP. Apple do not write printer drivers for OSX- instead those drivers come with CUPS - which OSX uses for its printing system.

Likewise, Apple should make iTunes compatible with Vista ASAP.

The first full release OSX was a pile of ***** - that wasn't ready for consumers, but Apple still shipped.

do you have a point? or are you just being devil's advocate? i fail to see any logic in what you are saying - a new OS without CD burning support, most printers not working and no support (right now) for iTunes is a GOOD thing?
perhaps you should contribute to the discussion, rather than detract from it.

not a flame, i agree some people like MS OS, i've used it at work for years, but these types of issues should have been ironed out in the past 2 years of beta whether it was a completely new OS or not. why do you think OS 10 was released only as a paid beta, it wasn't ready for consumption by the average user, MS is so far behind they had to release something to justify the large R&D budget and time.

mdelaney123
Feb 6, 2007, 07:07 AM
stainlessliquid has a point.

Just because iTunes doesn't work it doesn't mean that MS intentionally crippled Vista to make it incompatible.

....

The first full release OSX was a pile of ***** - that wasn't ready for consumers, but Apple still shipped.

Agreed. I use OSX and just installed Vista on 3 PCs at my home. I like OSX, but I just can't see how so many people here can bash Vista like they are. On my 3 PCs, Vista runs GREAT. All of my printers and scanners were detected and installed AUTOMATICALLY. With the exception of Roxio CD Bruning Software, I have not had ANY issues with applications not working in Vista. Best yet, I have noticed no slowdown in any of the games I play -- WOW, AOE3, Oblivion, etc...

In the week I have been playing with Vista, I would give it a big thumbs up!

I hope the next version of OSX is good. For it to be, I really hope Apple comes through on these "secret features" because for what they have shown so far, they should be releasing it as a free service pack.

glowingstar
Feb 6, 2007, 08:15 AM
i wonder how many people will actually just wait for itunes to be updated before installing vista. :D

kerpow
Feb 9, 2007, 02:41 PM
I don't what all the fuss is about. I copied my entire iTunes folder off my XP machine onto an external disk. Copied it into my Music folder on Vista. Installed iTunes, ran it and it failed, (which now I know a little more about Vista I would expect it to) I then ran it as Administrator and it works perfectly and has done ever since.

Where's the problem?

kerpow
Feb 9, 2007, 02:45 PM
In the week I have been playing with Vista, I would give it a big thumbs up!


Me too. Only problems I've had is Azureus not working with Aero. Something to do with SWT.