Microsoft to Respond to Apple's 'Get a Mac' Ads

[clevin]

this is absurd, you can easily replace vista and xp with leopard and Puma/Jaguar/Panther/Tiger, and whats the point?

Is there ANY OS whose newer version asks for less system resources? and how exactly did the author conclude what he got by looking at system requirement?

Updating from XP to vista, w/o changing hardwares, so? do remember XP is 6 years old,

and get a 6 years old Mac that meet OSX 10.0 standard (G3/129MB) and put leopard on it and see how it runs.

This type of crap logic can only be found with people with pre-installed bias in their head and try to find any possible excuse no matter how absurd the logic is. Apple forced users to update hardware all the time, just take a look around this forum, how many people has less than 2G memory? how many RAM related post filled with people suggesting "Max out" "put 4G in", etc.

To argue vista consuming more system than XP and think that means bloat? look into the mirror of OSX first.

 

[Dustman]

this is absurd, you can easily replace vista and xp with leopard and Puma/Jaguar/Panther/Tiger, and whats the point?

Is there ANY OS whose newer version asks for less system resources? and how exactly did the author conclude what he got by looking at system requirement?

Updating from XP to vista, w/o changing hardwares, so? do remember XP is 6 years old,

and get a 6 years old Mac that meet OSX 10.0 standard (G3/129MB) and put leopard on it and see how it runs.

This type of crap logic can only be found with people with pre-installed bias in their head and try to find any possible excuse no matter how absurd the logic is. Apple forced users to update hardware all the time, just take a look around this forum, how many people has less than 2G memory? how many RAM related post filled with people suggesting "Max out" "put 4G in", etc.

To argue vista consuming more system than XP and think that means bloat? look into the mirror of OSX first.

OS X isnt bloated. The eye candy of 10.4 is still fluid on my iMac G3 600 Mhz, as is 10.5's eye candy on a 867 Mhz G4. Try running Vista on its base requirements and see how fluid it is. I think most people on here just have computers that are overkill. Vista though will use up all that 2 GB and STILL have pageouts/ins

 

[kaiwai]

Vista's SLOC is about 50 million. Leopard's we know is greater than Tiger's which is 84 million.

You know, you could find this out yourself quite easily.

And what constitutes Windows code then?

All very well talking about lines of code, but unless you provide a frame in which the argument can be placed in, for all we know you could be comparing two very different circumstances.

 

[DMann]

this is absurd, you can easily replace vista and xp with leopard and Puma/Jaguar/Panther/Tiger, and whats the point?

Absurd you say? I have successfully run Jaguar, Panther, Tiger and currently Leopard on the same Macintosh G4, vintage 2001. I had Jaguar running smoothly on 300 Mhz Macs and laptops. The point is, that this cannot be said about Win2k to - XP - Vista.

Is there ANY OS whose newer version asks for less system resources? and how exactly did the author conclude what he got by looking at system requirement?

Yes, Mac OS X. This is further confirmed with the ensuing release of Snow Leopard.

Updating from XP to vista, w/o changing hardwares, so? do remember XP is 6 years old,
and get a 6 years old Mac that meet OSX 10.0 standard (G3/129MB) and put leopard on it and see how it runs

Tiger, most certainly runs on a G3/129MB, but much smoother with 256MB.

This type of crap logic can only be found with people with pre-installed bias in their head and try to find any possible excuse no matter how absurd the logic is. Apple forced users to update hardware all the time, just take a look around this forum, how many people has less than 2G memory? how many RAM related post filled with people suggesting "Max out" "put 4G in", etc.

The 2G memory you are referring to is not required for operation of Leopard OS, it is allocated for running applications which require more RAM. Vista needs 2G just to run the OS, when idle. Crap logic? More like crap waste of resources.

To argue vista consuming more system than XP and think that means bloat? look into the mirror of OSX first.

Why then does Leopard run well on a G4 with 1GB RAM while Vista needs twice the resource just to operate?

Microsoft Admits Vista is slower than XP:
http://news.softpedia.com/news/Micr...s-Vista-SP1-No-Longer-Handicapped-78198.shtml

Do you actually believe that such a dramatic regression in performance, and drastic increase in hardware requirements has little to do with poorly written, patched and implemented code? Think again.

 

[BongoBanger]

Leopard has more lines of source code than Vista. This is a fact. Whether or not you consider this important or not is really up to how you define 'bloat'.

Now, it's right to say that Vista comes with more excess bloat than Leopard - there's a lot of backups, drivers and utilities packaged in there which leads to an overly large basic footprint - this can be trimmed down in the same way you can trim Leopard down by removing superfluous drivers, language packs, etc but the basic OS sizes aren't that dissimilar.

Bloat still exists on both operating systems though which is why both MS and Apple are working to reduce this for future releases.

 

[kaiwai]

Leopard has more lines of source code than Vista. This is a fact. Whether or not you consider this important or not is really up to how you define 'bloat'.

Now, it's right to say that Vista comes with more excess bloat than Leopard - there's a lot of backups, drivers and utilities packaged in there which leads to an overly large basic footprint - this can be trimmed down in the same way you can trim Leopard down by removing superfluous drivers, language packs, etc but the basic OS sizes aren't that dissimilar.

Bloat still exists on both operating systems though which is why both MS and Apple are working to reduce this for future releases.

You still haven't given the parameters of what constitutes MacOS X and Windows Vista. Simply waving your hand in the air whilst chanting bloat doesn't mean a thing.

 

[clevin]

I have successfully run Jaguar, Panther, Tiger and currently Leopard on the same Macintosh G4, vintage 2001.

I had Jaguar running smoothly on 300 Mhz Macs and laptops.

Tiger, most certainly runs on a G3/129MB, but much smoother with 256MB.

The 2G memory you are referring to is not required for operation of Leopard OS, it is allocated for running applications which require more RAM.

Why then does Leopard run well on a G4 with 1GB RAM while Vista needs twice the resource just to operate?

If you can say things like this with such strong voice, i have no more to discuss with you.

But really, I doubt there are many people can believe you. I know i don't

Tiger run on 128, and smooth on 256? Why the heck my G3 with 128MB need 2 minutes to start safari in panther?

leopard smooth on 1G?

vista can't run on 1G? (I know I run vista on 1G, and smooth)

your vintage G3 has 1G RAM? for leopard? tell me again there is no need to update RAM? previously you claim that users have to update hardware to run vista. seems to me you update your machine to run leopard as well. Is there no definition of double standard?

I have trouble (i think most readers too) with your facts, and there is no further discussion can be proceed with these type of stuff.

 

[BongoBanger]

You still haven't given the parameters of what constitutes MacOS X and Windows Vista. Simply waving your hand in the air whilst chanting bloat doesn't mean a thing.

I'm sorry, I'm not with you here? I've quite clearly mentioned that Tiger has a SLOC of 84 million as opposed to Vista's 50 million. On top of that, a stripped down version of Leopard is about 6GB install, a stripped down version of Vista about 8GB so they're comparable.

Don't get me wrong, Vista is overweight but then so is Leopard.

As for running Vista on low spec hardware, you actually can if you use vLite - there are descriptions of running it on the MSI Wind for example. But the why on Earth would you want to?

 

[kaiwai]

I'm sorry, I'm not with you here? I've quite clearly mentioned that Tiger has a SLOC of 84 million as opposed to Vista's 50 million. On top of that, a stripped down version of Leopard is about 6GB install, a stripped down version of Vista about 8GB so they're comparable.

Does that include drivers? Check out the size of the driver cabinet. Does it include the driver or not? As I said, what constitutes the millions of lines of code? that is what I said what the parameters are. Screaming about millions of lines of code without actually saying what that operating system includes as part of that - it doesn't make sense.

Don't get me wrong, Vista is overweight but then so is Leopard.

As for running Vista on low spec hardware, you actually can if you use vLite - there are descriptions of running it on the MSI Wind for example. But the why on Earth would you want to?

Leopard has to be slim down, and Snow Leopard is that answer, but I am disappointed about the fact that it has taken an upgrade to get things slimmed down.

With that being said, Leopard is alot more usable on a machine with 1GB than Windows Vista on a machine with 1GB. The fact that one doesn't have one layer sitting ontop of another layer ontop of another layer to provide backwards compatibility really helps in the memory usage department

 

[DMann]

Tiger run on 128, and smooth on 256? Why the heck my G3 with 128MB need 2 minutes to start safari in panther?

Tiger, most certainly runs on a G3/129MB, but much smoother with 256MB.

The 2G memory you are referring to is not required for operation of Leopard OS, it is allocated for running applications which require more RAM. Vista needs 2G just to run the OS, when idle. Crap logic? More like crap waste of resources.

I stated that the Tiger OS will actually run using 256MB of RAM. You are referring opening and running applications. i.e. Safari, which I stated require more RAM. Which version of Safari are you running on Panther on using a G3/128MG? Are we to believe you, that you are currently running Panther on such a low configuration of RAM?

leopard smooth on 1G?

your vintage G3 has 1G RAM? for leopard? tell me again there is no need to update RAM? previously you claim that users have to update hardware to run vista. seems to me you update your machine to run leopard as well. Is there no definition of double standard?

Excuse me? I also have a Mac Pro 8 core with 4G RAM dedicated for producing media using Logic Pro and FCP, and Photoshop. The vintage G3 is dedicated to making additional copies of DVDs, viewing scores, photos, and previewing media. There is no need to update the RAM for running the Leopard OS on the 3G used for those purposes.

I have trouble (i think most readers too) with your facts, and there is no further discussion can be proceed with these type of stuff.

Since when have you become a spokesperson for other readers? You asked for numbers, facts and documentation earlier, and I provided them to you. I had claimed that OS X will run on the aforementioned configurations, however, I did not state that I currently choose to run Tiger using 256MB of RAM. OS X has enabled me to keep all of my Macs current, without expensive upgrades. Windows has not enabled me to do so.

 

[clevin]

You asked for numbers, facts and documentation earlier, and I provided them to you. I had claimed that OS X will run on the aforementioned configurations, however, I did not state that I currently choose to run Tiger using 256MB of RAM. OS X has enabled me to keep all of my Macs current, without expensive upgrades. Windows has not enabled me to do so.

thats fine, stay with your "facts" and play game with words. see if any of those "fact" mean anything to any users in any practical way.

But I won't take any of those "facts" you listed as anything remotely close to legit evidence of anything. Sorry thats all you can come up with. You complain about windows asking users to update hardware after 6 years, and you ignore the multiple updates of hardwares needed from Puma to leopard?

Still, I would be glad to listening to opinions of other users who installed leopard on their 6 years old vintage machine w/o any hardware updates, or any users who happily runs Tiger on a 256MB RAM machine now.

 

[TuffLuffJimmy]

thats fine, stay with your "facts" and play game with words. see if any of those "fact" mean anything to any users in any practical way.

But I won't take any of those "facts" you listed as anything remotely close to legit evidence of anything. Sorry thats all you can come up with. You complain about windows asking users to update hardware after 6 years, and you ignore the multiple updates of hardwares needed from Puma to leopard?

Still, I would be glad to listening to opinions of other users who installed leopard on their 6 years old vintage machine w/o any hardware updates, or any users who happily runs Tiger on a 256MB RAM machine now.

Clevin, you're digging yourself a hole. the facts are that Vista has higher system requirements than Leopard. Vista on the same hardware takes longer to boot and shut down. Vista has not been as readily adopted by PC users as Leopard has been by OSX users.

 

[clevin]

Clevin, you're digging yourself a hole. the facts are that Vista has higher system requirements than Leopard. Vista on the same hardware takes longer to boot and shut down. Vista has not been as readily adopted by PC users as Leopard has been by OSX users.

list the system requirement of vista and leopard please.

what's wrong with taking longer time to boot? do you not understand windows need to check hardwares because it has to deal with large amount of combination of hardwares?

and whats wrong with adoption again? Do you not understand Mac users are generally richer, or more willing to spend more to be "up to date"? or do you not realize there is less tradition of updating OS on windows side (like, once per 6 years)? large business customers have the tradition of not updating at all?

I dug myself a hole? Do you run Tiger on 256MB or run leopard on a 6 years old vintage mac w/o hardware updates? Im glad in this hole,, you can totally convince me with more people who is doing 256Tiger or 6 yo Leopard machine.

 

[DMann]

I won't take any of those "facts" you listed as anything remotely close to legit evidence of anything. Sorry thats all you can come up with. You complain about windows asking users to update hardware after 6 years, and you ignore the multiple updates of hardwares needed from Puma to leopard?

No one is forcing you to accept the fact that Vista is excessively bloated, with layer, upon layer, upon layer of backward compatibility code, which hinders efficiency in operation, has a voracious appetite for RAM, CPU bandwidth, and has a comparatively convoluted and complicated user interface. I will gladly provide you with several more links to back this up, upon request.

Randall Stross of the NYT details this further:
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/29/t...15316800&en=3ee2a82dbd97932d&ei=5070&emc=eta1

Microsoft engineer Eric Traut stated that "A lot of people think of Windows as this large, bloated operating system, and that's maybe a fair characterization, I have to admit."

Even Bill Gates' admits openly that Vista is unpolished. http://www.gizmodo.com.au/2008/01/holy-crap-did-bill-gates-just.html

I would be glad to listening to opinions of other users who installed leopard on their 6 years old vintage machine w/o any hardware updates, or any users who happily runs Tiger on a 256MB RAM machine now.

Right before your very eyes:

OS X isnt bloated. The eye candy of 10.4 is still fluid on my iMac G3 600 Mhz, as is 10.5's eye candy on a 867 Mhz G4. Try running Vista on its base requirements and see how fluid it is. I think most people on here just have computers that are overkill. Vista though will use up all that 2 GB and STILL have pageouts/ins

There are in fact a great many users running Tiger on 10 year old machines. Tiger will indeed operate at 256 MB, however, most users choose to upgrade to 1GB to run multiple applications. A processor upgrade is not necessary to run Tiger.

The only reason it has been 6 years between OS updates from MS is that MS was four years late. Had Longhorn (Vista) been released as planned in 2003, then this problem of hardware and RAM requirements would have been that much more severely pronounced. Comparing OS X hardware requirements and improvement in performance with subsequent releases on the same hardware, to Vista's drastic increase in hardware requirements and dramatic regression in performance on the same hardware would be highly unfair to Vista.

what's wrong with taking longer time to boot? do you not understand windows need to check hardwares because it has to deal with large amount of combination of hardwares?

Longer boot times, with an OS such as Windows, which needs to be restarted frequently, translate to an erosion of time devoted to productivity. Windows uses the archaic BIOS (basic input-output system) firmware while OS X utilizes the next generation firmware model: EFI, (Extended Firmware Interface) - an OS-independent firmware interface which does not have ties to the specific system architecture, which in turn allows for faster start-ups, and overtime, more productivity.

and whats wrong with adoption again? Do you not understand Mac users are generally richer, or more willing to spend more to be "up to date"? or do you not realize there is less tradition of updating OS on windows side (like, once per 6 years)? large business customers have the tradition of not updating at all?

Do not overlook the fact that a majority of large businesses do not trust the upgrades offered by MS for obvious reasons. If Mac users are generally richer, as you claim, it is likely due to being more productive, and avoiding the loss of over 250 hours/year of downtime due to Window's vulnerabilities.

I dug myself a hole? Do you run Tiger on 256MB or run leopard on a 6 years old vintage mac w/o hardware updates? Im glad in this hole,, you can totally convince me with more people who is doing 256Tiger or 6 yo Leopard machine.

Again, I clearly stated that I do not choose to run Tiger on 256MB on RAM. I only stated that the OS can function of 256MB. Are you not the one who claims to be running Panther on 128MB RAM? This is highly mystifying, to say the least. Glad you're in this hole you say? You can always dig deeper.

 

[dsnort]

There are in fact a great many users running Tiger on 10 year old machines. Tiger will indeed operate at 256 MB, however, most users choose to upgrade to 1GB to run multiple applications. A processor upgrade is not necessary to run Tiger.

Just to throw my oar in, I'm currently running Tiger on my circa 2001 iBook Clamshell 466 Mhz with 576 MB Ram. It runs great, and is currently running circles around my Dads Toshiba Satellite with Vista, 2 Gig ram, and some AMD Chip.

 

[BongoBanger]

Clevin, you're digging yourself a hole. the facts are that Vista has higher system requirements than Leopard. Vista on the same hardware takes longer to boot and shut down. Vista has not been as readily adopted by PC users as Leopard has been by OSX users.

I think that's slightly unfair. Leopard has been welcomed with open arms by Mac users despite it's problems whilst most people buying a new PC have just quietly got on with owning their Vista running machine.

A lot of the anti-Vista sentiment has come from early adopters (like me) who rightly felt that we'd kind of got it in the shorts because MS hadn't worked things through with third party vendors or, frankly, been a bit economical with the truth around system requirements. Fortunately these issues have now been resolved although it took over a year to do so and everyone I know who runs Vista now is pretty happy with it although we wont forget the initial issues in a hurry.

I do take a bit of exception at some people's misunderstanding of Vista's memory usage though. In reality Vista uses a process called superfetch that pre-caches commonly used applications so they load in a jiffy. It's an excellent feature. Nor is it fair to claim Vista's appetite for CPU and power usage are excessive - they were but a lot of those issues were around poor drivers and this has been pretty much resolved.

In other words, Vista isn't the same monstrosity it was when initially released - and even then a lot of the fault lies squarely with the third party manufacturers who didn't get things ready in time.

As for Toshiba, I wouldn't touch one with a sh**ty stick. They're loaded with bloatware and just, well, rubbish.

 

[clevin]

the fact that Vista is excessively bloated, with layer, upon layer, upon layer of backward compatibility code, which hinders efficiency in operation, has a voracious appetite for RAM, CPU bandwidth, and has a comparatively convoluted and complicated user interface. I will gladly provide you with several more links to back this up, upon request.

Randall Stross of the NYT details this further:
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/29/t...15316800&en=3ee2a82dbd97932d&ei=5070&emc=eta1

Microsoft engineer Eric Traut stated that "A lot of people think of Windows as this large, bloated operating system, and that's maybe a fair characterization, I have to admit."

Even Bill Gates' admits openly that Vista is unpolished. http://www.gizmodo.com.au/2008/01/holy-crap-did-bill-gates-just.html

Well, you think that's the proof? You do understand Eric Traut also stated: "at its core, the kernel, and the components that make up the very core of the operating system, is actually pretty streamlined."

Is that a comparison with OSX? probably not, and what do you make of it when OSX is using 140% of codes to finish less task?

Right before your very eyes:

There are in fact a great many users running Tiger on 10 year old machines. Tiger will indeed operate at 256 MB, however, most users choose to upgrade to 1GB to run multiple applications. A processor upgrade is not necessary to run Tiger.

what I saw is you changed your statement in front of my eyes. You said Tiger runs on 129MB, and smooth on 256MB.

Plus, who cares what the minimum system requirements are? Shouldn't we be discussion how much RAM is REALLY needed to run OS nicely and comfortably? Throw out 129, 256Mb for Tiger, help anything?

The only reason it has been 6 years between OS updates from MS is that MS was four years late. Had Longhorn (Vista) been released as planned in 2003, then this problem of hardware and RAM requirements would have been that much more severely pronounced. Comparing OS X hardware requirements and improvement in performance with subsequent releases on the same hardware, to Vista's drastic increase in hardware requirements and dramatic regression in performance on the same hardware would be highly unfair to Vista.

You know you just cherry picking whatever benefits your argument, for a end users who have a computer from 2001 to 2007, your argument means nothing in reality to them. Whats fair? whats unfair? How about we start looking at a computer end-user?

Longer boot times, with an OS such as Windows, which needs to be restarted frequently, translate to an erosion of time devoted to productivity. Windows uses the archaic BIOS (basic input-output system) firmware while OS X utilizes the next generation firmware model: EFI, (Extended Firmware Interface) - an OS-independent firmware interface which does not have ties to the specific system architecture, which in turn allows for faster start-ups, and overtime, more productivity.

I call that blatant untrue, how many vista machine did you use? I run my vista desktop for two weeks straight without reboot.

You can beatify EFI as much as you want, for OSX, it only runs on certain combo of hardwares anyway, whats the advantages? and You do understand that the decision of BIOS, EFI is not up to MS, do you not?

Do not overlook the fact that a majority of large businesses do not trust the upgrades offered by MS for obvious reasons. If Mac users are generally richer, as you claim, it is likely due to being more productive, and avoiding the loss of over 250 hours/year of downtime due to Window's vulnerabilities.

I m glad 18 yo mac users already get rich by avoiding windows. That type of imaginary stretch, I can't get into it, sorry.
Business users.... we can argue whats the reason behind it after OSX gets more business users, shall we?

Again, I clearly stated that I do not choose to run Tiger on 256MB on RAM. I only stated that the OS can function of 256MB. Are you not the one who claims to be running Panther on 128MB RAM? This is highly mystifying, to say the least. Glad you're in this hole you say? You can always dig deeper.

Yes, Im, I own an old G3, and I was sick of OS9, so I got a copy of Panther, and it turns out is unusable.

OS can functions... again, lets talk about nice and comfortable experiences for end-users, rather than meaningless stuff, shall we? Tiger on 256MB, or 129MB, who find it comfortable and worth praising?

The reality is Leopard just eats as much hardwares as Vista.

You want a real comparison? imagine two guys purchased a windows machine and a mac at the same time for same popular hardware combo at about same price in 2001, and they are about to try newest OS from each side in 2007.(suppose the computer still works) see how much each side spent in 6 years.

 

[DMann]

Well, you think that's the proof? You do understand Eric Traut also stated: "at its core, the kernel, and the components that make up the very core of the operating system, is actually pretty streamlined."

Streamlined at the core, with layers and layers of spaghetti code to entangle it. A pearl inside of a rotten oyster. Let me refer you to a former Windows 95 engineer who has the following to say:

http://cultofmac.com/microsofts-windows-95-architect-is-a-happy-mac-convert/2342

Software engineer Satoshi Nakajima, the lead architect of Microsoft’s Windows 95, picked up a Mac for the first time two years ago.

He was so impressed by Mac, he says he’ll never touch a PC again.

Another former Windows expert explains, in detail, reasons why Windows is so problematic:

After constructing Windows 95, I can understand why he couldn't be happier with Mac & iPhone.

I think that Windows 95, and all Windows OSs since, have suffered from a significant lack of organizational structure. Mac OS X, on the other hand, has superb structure (as far as I can tell).

One example of this organizational structure can be found by simply opening Finder. Go to the root of your hard drive, and take a look. A few, main, folders are present.

There's System, which has basic, system-wide frameworks and components. These frameworks are very low-level, for sound, etc. They are frameworks provided with the operating system.

There's Library, which has less-basic, system-wide frameworks and settings, different from the ones in System in that they all tend to be created/modified by the user, yet apply to the entire system.

Look under your user home folder. There is, again, a folder called Library, and its contents do exactly the same things as the other Library folder except that it applies ONLY to you, not any other users of the machine.

Windows, on the other hand, is anything but organized. The Windows folder, and System32 folder, are filled with DLLs (pieces of programs). These DLLs may belong to one program, all programs, or the operating system itself. No telling. Programmers sometimes refer to this mess as DLL Hell (especially since these DLLs are often inadvertently overwritten with older or newer, incompatible, versions).

Besides making for a much more stable base upon which to build an operating system, the organizational structure also allows for neat features such as Archive & Install. Archive & Install works by renaming the System folder to something like "Old System", and then creating a new System folder with the new operating system. It would also, then, update the Applications folder, but that would be about it.

If Windows attempted the same thing, all of the DLLs upon which many installed programs rely would be removed, as they would be in the Windows or System32 folders which would be backed up and replaced; the new versions would be incompatible, or much more likely, nonexistent.

This is why Mac OS X is a better OS than Windows. Programs like Windows (for operating systems are merely very advanced programs) cannot survive. I know. I've written such spaghetti-systems before, and it quickly becomes unmaintainable, unmanageable.

Microsoft's strategy is to attempt to rewrite Windows piece-by-piece, but each rewritten piece causes large incompatibilities, and a great deal of pain for developers and end-users. The smart solution would be more painful in the short term, but much more beneficial in the long term: to make a new, optimal, operating system, to add a compatibility layer for the current operating system, and to begin a transition period.

In the meantime, they can't truly innovate. Apple, meanwhile, having a very well put-together OS (and becoming more refined and perfected with Snow Leopard), is and will be in a perfect position to do absolutely anything they want with their operating system.

Let's hope they don't mess it up.

I saw is you changed your statement in front of my eyes. You said Tiger runs on 129MB, and smooth on 256MB.

Are you aware, clevin, that "right before your very eyes" was not my post?

OS X isnt bloated. The eye candy of 10.4 is still fluid on my iMac G3 600 Mhz, as is 10.5's eye candy on a 867 Mhz G4. Try running Vista on its base requirements and see how fluid it is. I think most people on here just have computers that are overkill. Vista though will use up all that 2 GB and STILL have pageouts/ins

"Right before your very eyes," or have you become blinded by your earlier statements? Read things thoroughly before making accusations such as this.

The reality is Leopard just eats as much hardwares as Vista.

This simply is not true, reread Dustman's thread.

 

[chagla]

the number of lines of code, in no way, is an indicator of bloat.

if my eyes dont' deceive me, i could say with 99.5% confidence that some pro-mac bloggers were bashing vista for having enormous amount of code. i didn't quite understand what it had to do with stability/performance of an operating system. a modern day OS is not a several line "hello world" program!

Debian linux (which i use), has nearly 300 million lines of code. does it make it any slower or "bloatware"? of course not.

this was before leopard was released. of course now that leopard has more codes than vista, "it is not an issue" to the mcfans. it was just amusing to see them bashing vista.

 

[Bubba Satori]

 

[roach]

Just to throw my oar in, I'm currently running Tiger on my circa 2001 iBook Clamshell 466 Mhz with 576 MB Ram. It runs great, and is currently running circles around my Dads Toshiba Satellite with Vista, 2 Gig ram, and some AMD Chip.

I remember several years ago when I worked at a particular Visual FX studio. We had a couple of Maya 3D license on a G5 Macs that nobody wanted to use because they were soo slow. All the artists didn't want to get bump off their PCs.

 

[NovemberMike]

As for running Vista on low spec hardware, you actually can if you use vLite - there are descriptions of running it on the MSI Wind for example. But the why on Earth would you want to?

Actually, recent tests are showing that Vista is at least comparable to XP and sometimes even better even on machines with 1 gig of RAM and a single core processor.

http://www.notebookreview.com/default.asp?newsID=4505

 

[Elektroflux1528]

Ok, well here's my vista story. My aunt bought a new computer from Acer. She wanted me to install the new norton anti virus on it. Well.... as I was hearing.... Vista sucks, and trying to install the software proved it. Vista for some reason has sudden freezes. I told her she should have gotten a PC with XP. She returns it back to wal-mart, and funny thing is, while she's at the customer service line, a couple behind her were returning THE SAME EXACT COMPUTER AS HER. I was lmao when she told me that. Thank god she only kept it for 14 days because after 15 you can't return it for a refund. Then in June, my friend bought himself a new Dell Laptop. He experienced the saaamme exact thing. He didn't want to return it so he just downgraded to XP. Why did Microsoft bother to release Vista with so many issues??? I know they were bragging how great it is, but the truth is.... its not! Since I don't like my XP all I did is installed Object Dock and used a Mac Leopard wallpaper and I am in love. I love Mac's but they aren't meant for games. Which is why I won't buy a mac till all games are compatible with macs

 

[clevin]

Streamlined at the core, with layers and layers of spaghetti code to entangle it.

how exactly can you sitting here bashing vista when OSX uses 140% more codes to finish lesser tasks?

Just because there ARE some people standing out and criticize windows? how about OSX is bloated and mac users are so forgiving and they don't even dare to criticize?

I welcome criticism, but I don't lose my judgment, lack of criticism doesn't mean OSX is perfect, now does it? especially with 20 times smaller market?

Or you think we passed "bloat part", and now into "structure" part of OS? Oh yeah, OSX is well constructed, which is always how linux/unix constructed, does that make any OSX app faster than its counterpart of windows version? (other than intentionally crappy written apple apps)

Are you aware, clevin, that "right before your very eyes" was not my post?

"Right before your very eyes," or have you become blinded by your earlier statements? Read things thoroughly before making accusations such as this.

This simply is not true, reread Dustman's thread.

Well, here is the evolution.

Tiger, most certainly runs on a G3/129MB, but much smoother with 256MB.

I clearly stated that I do not choose to run Tiger on 256MB on RAM. I only stated that the OS can function of 256MB.

 

[NovemberMike]

Ok, well here's my vista story. My aunt bought a new computer from Acer. She wanted me to install the new norton anti virus on it. Well.... as I was hearing.... Vista sucks, and trying to install the software proved it. Vista for some reason has sudden freezes. I told her she should have gotten a PC with XP. She returns it back to wal-mart, and funny thing is, while she's at the customer service line, a couple behind her were returning THE SAME EXACT COMPUTER AS HER. I was lmao when she told me that. Thank god she only kept it for 14 days because after 15 you can't return it for a refund. Then in June, my friend bought himself a new Dell Laptop. He experienced the saaamme exact thing. He didn't want to return it so he just downgraded to XP. Why did Microsoft bother to release Vista with so many issues??? I know they were bragging how great it is, but the truth is.... its not! Since I don't like my XP all I did is installed Object Dock and used a Mac Leopard wallpaper and I am in love. I love Mac's but they aren't meant for games. Which is why I won't buy a mac till all games are compatible with macs

Norton is considered one of the worst AV suites out there. I personally use a Microsoft AV suite (onecare), and I have had 0 problems with anything getting through (I also don't do stupid stuff). The problem is that XP didn't force software to follow the guidelines MS put out while Vista is much more stringent on these, so many programs that were designed poorly don't work in Vista. Anything that actually acted in a reasonable way still works, though.