Going Mac - Vista Is The Final Straw

Discussion in 'Buying Tips and Advice' started by Erieg, Aug 3, 2008.

  1. Erieg macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2008
    #1
    The title says it all. I just reloaded Vista Ultimate on my PC and it is so unstable it is scary. I went and looked at the iMac and I am going to get one as soon as I can craigslist the notebook I am typing on.

    I have a question though. I am going to get the 24inch iMac but I am tossed up on what video card to get. First concern is the resolution. Does the 8800 have a higher native resolution then the 2600 pro is it dependant on the monitor its self? I am going to be hooking an external monitor to it so I am a bit concerned about that. Second is that I have a small addiction to EverQuest 2 so I will have to be dual booting into windows just for that (I don't think it will run with VMfusion.. will it?). Can I get away using the 2600? I would sorta like to save the money if possible.

    Last, I have a nice 5.1 THX speaker system and I would like to keep using it with the iMac. Can i? and if so what do I need? When looking at the back of the iMac I only saw a headset output. I have a SoundBlaster Live external sound card.. I wonder if that will work?

    Thanks for your help! I am very geeked up about this.. I just want to make sure I get the right one so I am not disappointed later.
     
  2. Muncher macrumors 65816

    Muncher

    Joined:
    Apr 19, 2007
    Location:
    California
    #2
    You can use the 5.1 system. I believe you'll need an adapter though. The audio out port doubles as an optical port that supports surround sound. I'm sure there's something on this in the macrumors guides.

    Don't underestimate the 2600. It's an underclocked xt (good :p). If your game is a year old or more, it should run fine on high settings. Resolution is dependent on the monitor itself, both cards support up to, I believe, 2560x1600 over digital (DVI, HDMI), and 2048x1536 over analog (VGA).
     
  3. SnowLeopard2008 macrumors 604

    SnowLeopard2008

    Joined:
    Jul 4, 2008
    Location:
    Silicon Valley
    #3
    dude, all your needs are satisfied and more with the 24" iMac, but right now, refrain from nVidia graphics chips, since they just announced mass failure for their 8600 and 8800 graphics chips. But its your choice... personally I would still choose nVidia chips. :D
    even my macbook with an intel GMA can run your light gaming needs. And your processor is idle even if you use Fusion with it. So chill lol. And lastly, you need an adapter (like the previous guy said) for the audio. But let me just say this, you won't be disappointed with any mac out there. it's well built and perfectly designed for your needs.
     
  4. tri3limited macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Jun 5, 2008
    Location:
    London
    #4
    From what i was aware, the nVidia chips in the iMac weren't affected by the announcement, just the MacBook Pro chips... Might be wrong though?
     
  5. neiltc13 macrumors 68040

    neiltc13

    Joined:
    May 27, 2006
    #5
    I'm not sure what you've done wrong on your computer, but in my experience Windows Vista is much more stable than Mac OS Leopard. The old version of OS X, Tiger, was the pinnacle of stability but Apple managed to mess things up hugely when they released Leopard.

    When you switch, expect to spend time restarting applications and powering down the iMac because it's had Mac OS's version of the BSOD, the "kernel panic".
     
  6. tri3limited macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Jun 5, 2008
    Location:
    London
    #6
    A tad over the top i feel! I still find Leopard more stable than Vista and see any of my previous posts to see how much i love Vista over XP... A LOT!!

    In all seriousness though, yes there is an increase in spinning beachball syndrome but i've never had a kernal panic from day one and i use my machine constantly.
     
  7. chrono1081 macrumors 604

    chrono1081

    Joined:
    Jan 26, 2008
    Location:
    Isla Nublar
    #7
    Granted, I am new to mac, I've only had mine since march but I've never had a single problem, or kernel panic, or spinning beachball, or the need to ever restart an application.

    Vista on the other hand is extremely flawed but I am thankful for that because its constant stream of problems keeps me employed :)

    To the OP: Switch, you will wonder why you didn't sooner! (And dont buy apple ram its overpriced, buy ram from crucial)
     
  8. pinktank macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Apr 5, 2005
  9. tmelvin macrumors 6502

    tmelvin

    Joined:
    Mar 17, 2008
    #9
    LOL...wow. Again with another one of these posts. As I said before, ask 100 people who've used both OS'es, and 99 will say OS X is far more stable than Vista, and that Vista is a complete POS.

    I don't know what you've done to OS X to make "unstable". I suspect it's either:

    1. Bad Hardware
    2. Novice System user, who screwed something up

    I suspect it's the latter of the two...

    Anyway; Vista vs. OS X is a no brainer...OS X is 10x the OS that Vista hopes to be...
     
  10. Erieg thread starter macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2008
    #10
    Well here is the story. My notebook came with Vista Ultimate 64. I stripped it off when I bought it because of lack of drivers and such. I figured I would wait until SP1. XP ran flawlessly on the machine. Well, it has been over a year and my PC was getting a bit slogged down with various changes I made to it so it was time to wipe and start again. I felt that it was a good time to go back to Vista. I had a factory image that came with the system so I restored that . This process took close to 2 hours.. no biggie. The next step was the initial end user setup. That took almost another 1.5 hours. That just is just plain silly. anyway at this point I am at factory default. That is where the fun began.

    I started to patch. The windows update errored out 3 times requiring a system reset each time. Not so cool. After patching every time I opened explorer it locked up and killing the app in task manager was a ineffective. I then loaded software and I noticed something else fun.. when I alt-tab'ed the system would freeze.

    Look, I am not an expert desktop OS expert. I am a server admin by trade but there should be no way that a restore from a factory image should be difficult nor should there be a way of hosing it when you restore to it.

    I just put XP back on it once again works perfect.

    Back to my original post. Graphics card.... Will the 2600 pro support two monitors with a high resolution and still be able to play EQ2? I know the 8800 should. I am still not sure how my external speakers will work. Right now they are running through a USB sounblater box, my speakers do not have a digital input.
     
  11. pensfan macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    Feb 6, 2008
    #11
    I am in complete agreement. I wiped the default 32-bit install on my work T61 and laid down 64-bit Vista. All things considered, it's by far my favorite Windows I've (regularly) used (3.1x, 95, Me, XP, Server 2003; 98 and 2000 only sparingly in a support role). Six months into Mac ownership, I do prefer over OS X over Vista, but I can live with it quite well.
     
  12. Muncher macrumors 65816

    Muncher

    Joined:
    Apr 19, 2007
    Location:
    California
    #12
    For gaming, get the 8800. The chip defects were with the 8600s, so you're safe either way.
     
  13. SnowLeopard2008 macrumors 604

    SnowLeopard2008

    Joined:
    Jul 4, 2008
    Location:
    Silicon Valley
    #13
    vista is a complete POS. they didnt add much innovation, rather than copying it from Leopard and cobbling it together from crap. That's why I have XP via Bootcamp on my MacBook. Anyway, the ATI's 2600 Pro should support dual displays... not sure but it is a high end GPU. But if you want better build quality, go for nVidia's 8800. It is not affected by the product failure reports.
     
  14. Muncher macrumors 65816

    Muncher

    Joined:
    Apr 19, 2007
    Location:
    California
    #14
    I beg to differ. Vista is merely a partial POS. A well-intentioned, bullied POS.

    Vista is fairly advanced compared to Unix for security, but disproportionate numbers of crackers have destroyed its reputation in that arena. Its GUI is a mess, I'll give you that, and things seem to be rearranged illogically.

    My $2 (Damn inflation :p).
     
  15. ayzee macrumors 6502a

    ayzee

    Joined:
    Jun 12, 2008
    #15
    Im a very recent Vista PC to Mac Leopard switcher and im so happy I made the decision. My opinion on Vista is that overall its not that bad but its quite flawed. Its ok for general tasks, but once I started using my PC for more complicated/advanced tasks I really started to see the bad side of vista, e.g flawed searching, losing drivers, slowdown (decent spec PC, even with a ram upgrade).

    Now im not saying Leopard is perfect, TBH its a little less stable than I thought. But its so many levels above Vista its unbelievable. Just generally how the OS goes about doing things, and how it handles your tasks simultaneously.

    Erieg - Even though im a mac noob, my advice is go for the top end 24" and upgrade the ram to 4GB. Im very happy with my mac, but ive noticed I need more than 2GB ram as i have it constantly connected to an external Plasma TV, so when im really really multitasking it does seem to struggle a little.
     
  16. Chilz0r macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Jul 20, 2007
    #16
    Personally, Vista & Leopard have ran perfectly fine for me. The only gripe about Vista for me now is application compatibility and signed drivers (I'm running 64-bit Vista).
     
  17. Insulin Junkie macrumors 65816

    Insulin Junkie

    Joined:
    May 5, 2008
    Location:
    Mainland Europe
    #17
    Yeah, Vista ultimately turned me off Windows too. Admittedly though, I used it before SP1 came out so I can't say anything for it thereafter.
     
  18. cromwell64 macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Jun 30, 2008
    #18
    I'm not sure what you've done wrong on your computer, but in my experience Mac OS X Leopard is much more stable than Windows Vista. The old version of Windows, XP, was the pinnacle of stability for a Windows OS and Microsoft managed to mess things up hugely when they released Vista.
     
  19. The Hammer macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Jun 19, 2008
    Location:
    Toronto, Canada
    #19
    Actually it's generally conceded that Vista is very stable now after SP1. I'm not saying people don't have problems with any OS though.
     
  20. opeter macrumors 65816

    opeter

    Joined:
    Aug 5, 2007
    Location:
    Slovenia, EU
    #20
    I do not agree with that. Vista SP1 is very stable. You ge BSODs only if your RAM is faulty or because of bad drivers (Nvidia - nvdispl.dll etc.)
     

Share This Page