My Parents Hate Apple

[mosx]

Apparently mosx has never done a Vista/Mac OS X speed test.

Actually, I have.

Its not that difficult to compare OS speeds when the hardware can run both OSes.

But the real difference comes when comparing Windows on good hardware (not a MacBook) to the MacBook itself. When you have a PC that has dedicated graphics and such, the difference between the two OSes becomes even more drastic. For example, DVD playback on a Windows machine with a dedicated GPU can literaly use 20x LESS CPU cycles than on the MacBook with OS X that does NOT take advantage of any hardware features.

 

[Chappers]

I do love a good bitch fight. However instead of having said childish little scrap, maybe just focus on answering the OP's question without the insults.

Of course the OP has not exactly been polite about his father and I doubt will be showing him this thread as a way to convince him. If he does then he won't be getting either a Mac or a PC.

 

[ProwlingTiger]

Actually, I have.

Its not that difficult to compare OS speeds when the hardware can run both OSes.

But the real difference comes when comparing Windows on good hardware (not a MacBook) to the MacBook itself. When you have a PC that has dedicated graphics and such, the difference between the two OSes becomes even more drastic. For example, DVD playback on a Windows machine with a dedicated GPU can literaly use 20x LESS CPU cycles than on the MacBook with OS X that does NOT take advantage of any hardware features.

But when you compare OS on "good hardware," Windows still sucks. Try the Macbook Pro. I've had absolutely no trouble playing dvds on my Macbook. And I have in fact compared it with Windows on "good hardware," if such a thing exists outside Apple. The OP has decided he's going with Mac, so if you'd kindly leave him alone, and take your ridiculous dogma with you, much appreciated.

 

[mosx]

But when you compare OS on "good hardware," Windows still sucks.

And why does Windows "suck"? Let's hear some GOOD and REAL reasons. Not the lies that Apple likes to fill everyones head with, like "viruses" and "Vista issues". Come on, lets hear some REAL reasons.

Try the Macbook Pro.

$2,000 for mid-range hardware? In a case that gets ridiculously hot, bends, warps from the heat, dents, scratches, etc? Without a user replaceable HDD or optical drive? No thanks.

I've had absolutely no trouble playing dvds on my Macbook.

Well, of course my MacBook can play DVDs "flawlessly" too. But my main argument is the lack of quality and the resources needed to do something as simple as play a DVD. This is 2008, DVD playback shouldn't even eat up 5% of a single core in a reduced power state.

I remember when I got my first MacBook last year in March. I was stoked to finally a Mac. I, unfortunately, bought into all of the Apple hype. Anyway. I was playing around with it and finally decided to try a DVD. Then before I popped the DVD in I suddenly remembered threads over at avs where people had compared Tiger's DVD playback to WinDVD and PowerDVD. I didn't lose hope though! I popped a DVD in. Watched a few scenes. Then fished out my XP Pro CD because there was absolutely no way I was going to be satisfied with that quality. Leopard is significantly better than Tiger but still generations behind what you get with Windows DVD players and even Vista's own built-in decoder, which takes advantage of all GPU functionality available to it.

And I have in fact compared it with Windows on "good hardware," if such a thing exists outside Apple. The OP has decided he's going with Mac, so if you'd kindly leave him alone, and take your ridiculous dogma with you, much appreciated.

You just made yourself out to be quite the hypocrite. You say that my comments are "dogma" after making the comment "good hardware,' if such a thing exists outside Apple." Apple's computers have known build quality issues, heat issues, and you pay a ridiculous premium, usually twice what the equivalently spec'ed PC would cost.

 

[alphaod]

Just found this.
http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/tech/drmac/5937754.html?sr=hotnews

@ OP show it your parents.

 

[tsice19]

I saw this article in Reader's Digest the other day... it reminded me of this thread.
http://www.rd.com/advice-and-know-how/13-things-your-computer-person-wont-tell-you/article95455.html

 

[ProwlingTiger]

And why does Windows "suck"? Let's hear some GOOD and REAL reasons. Not the lies that Apple likes to fill everyones head with, like "viruses" and "Vista issues". Come on, lets hear some REAL reasons.



$2,000 for mid-range hardware? In a case that gets ridiculously hot, bends, warps from the heat, dents, scratches, etc? Without a user replaceable HDD or optical drive? No thanks.



Well, of course my MacBook can play DVDs "flawlessly" too. But my main argument is the lack of quality and the resources needed to do something as simple as play a DVD. This is 2008, DVD playback shouldn't even eat up 5% of a single core in a reduced power state.

I remember when I got my first MacBook last year in March. I was stoked to finally a Mac. I, unfortunately, bought into all of the Apple hype. Anyway. I was playing around with it and finally decided to try a DVD. Then before I popped the DVD in I suddenly remembered threads over at avs where people had compared Tiger's DVD playback to WinDVD and PowerDVD. I didn't lose hope though! I popped a DVD in. Watched a few scenes. Then fished out my XP Pro CD because there was absolutely no way I was going to be satisfied with that quality. Leopard is significantly better than Tiger but still generations behind what you get with Windows DVD players and even Vista's own built-in decoder, which takes advantage of all GPU functionality available to it.



You just made yourself out to be quite the hypocrite. You say that my comments are "dogma" after making the comment "good hardware,' if such a thing exists outside Apple." Apple's computers have known build quality issues, heat issues, and you pay a ridiculous premium, usually twice what the equivalently spec'ed PC would cost.

Windows EATS hardware up like none other, referring to Vista. You are perhaps the only one I know trying to counter that. My DVD playing uses roughly the same amount of resources as my PC. I'm not a hypocrite: I've used both systems and machines, and made an accurate judgment based on all factors. Plus, if you need Windows, you can always run it on a Mac. So, I have the best of both worlds.

 

[mosx]

Windows EATS hardware up like none other, referring to Vista. You are perhaps the only one I know trying to counter that.

Actually, Apple and Apple fans are the only ones who still try to spread those lies. Head over to futuremark or any PC enthusiast site. Its a well known fact that Vista is now at least equal to XP in many regards, and FASTER in others. I know for me personally, Vista is faster on the same hardware than XP was.

My DVD playing uses roughly the same amount of resources as my PC.

Specs? Software used? Proof?

I'm not a hypocrite: I've used both systems and machines, and made an accurate judgment based on all factors. Plus, if you need Windows, you can always run it on a Mac. So, I have the best of both worlds.

Yes, Macs can run Windows. The real problem is the hardware you get for the price. Theres no reason the middle MacBook should cost $1299 as it does. If it was priced the same as PCs, it would cost maybe $799 in its current state.

 

[mixmacface]

seriously. . this tread is DED. . stop digging it up. the kid's getting a mac. hoo-rah, whoopty-doo. how about a shot?

 

[ProwlingTiger]

Actually, Apple and Apple fans are the only ones who still try to spread those lies. Head over to futuremark or any PC enthusiast site. Its a well known fact that Vista is now at least equal to XP in many regards, and FASTER in others. I know for me personally, Vista is faster on the same hardware than XP was.



Specs? Software used? Proof?



Yes, Macs can run Windows. The real problem is the hardware you get for the price. Theres no reason the middle MacBook should cost $1299 as it does. If it was priced the same as PCs, it would cost maybe $799 in its current state.

I gave you links about 6 pages ago to reviews. I've yet to see a PC mag that says Vista is = to XP. Furthermore, you bash Apple fans for supporting Apple, and yet offer PC enthusiast sites as a non-biased source? My sources, however, are still PC/Mag ones, that serve both communities. You, however, have not given me any links, and I dont want to devote my time to digging up BS. So, I'm effectively resigning from this conversation. Someone once said "Don't argue with idiots. They'll drag you down to their level and beat you with experience." I fell victim to this.

As MixMacFace said, after I and many others also pointed out, kid's getting a Mac. Welcome to a better world, OP. Let's all have a shot, I know I am

 

[mosx]

I gave you links about 6 pages ago to reviews. I've yet to see a PC mag that says Vista is = to XP. Furthermore, you bash Apple fans for supporting Apple, and yet offer PC enthusiast sites as a non-biased source? My sources, however, are still PC/Mag ones, that serve both communities. You, however, have not given me any links, and I dont want to devote my time to digging up BS. So, I'm effectively resigning from this conversation. Someone once said "Don't argue with idiots. They'll drag you down to their level and beat you with experience." I fell victim to this.

As MixMacFace said, after I and many others also pointed out, kid's getting a Mac. Welcome to a better world, OP. Let's all have a shot, I know I am

I have posted several links in this thread proving my argument, as well as screenshots proving the price of PCs compared to Macs. Furthermore, everything I've stated can be backed up by spending 2 second googling specific articles on wikipedia.

All the links the Apple fans have posted were to inaccurate articles with information based on opinions that were generally formed when Vista was first released or, in a couple of cases, half a year before its final release.

And what makes a magazine reviewer more valid than anyone else? First of all, its a single users opinion. That doesn't change facts that many others have proven, such as Vista being faster than XP now, or Vista using hardware to its fullest capabilities. Secondly, a magazine is driven by profits made from advertising revenue. Say whatever it takes to get more readers.

Your final comment about "idiots" is just proof that you have no argument and you're taking the losers way out by both flaming and refusing to admit you're just flat out wrong.

 

[theyellowdart]

I have posted several links in this thread proving my argument, as well as screenshots proving the price of PCs compared to Macs. Furthermore, everything I've stated can be backed up by spending 2 second googling specific articles on wikipedia.

All the links the Apple fans have posted were to inaccurate articles with information based on opinions that were generally formed when Vista was first released or, in a couple of cases, half a year before its final release.

here are a few things I've noticed... first you're obviously a "If they stop arguing with me they are admitting defeat" which is why you never stop responding to people. You may not feel that way, but to me it's pretty obvious.

The other things i've noticed is that your proof is proof your wikipedia claims, and directing users to look to other forums is hard fact proof, but anybody else who posts an article against that, or a wiki page, or brings up a forum post it's mindless people who are just biased. Also, to you, your personal experiences are fact, and anybody who's experience haven't gone right along with yours, or are atleast very similar, are lying. Yet again, you may not feel that way, but to me it seems rather obvious.

Lastly, I decided to give vista a go around last week on my desktop, patched to SP1, stripped down, set to my liking. All my programs worked just fine, but I have noticed a rather steady 5 -> 10 FPS drop in the majority of the games I've played compared to the XP install I had. Nothing major, but in my own personal experience it goes along with much of what has been said, and what i've read for the most part too.

 

[mosx]

here are a few things I've noticed... first you're obviously a "If they stop arguing with me they are admitting defeat" which is why you never stop responding to people. You may not feel that way, but to me it's pretty obvious.

Not at all. The thing is that people here don't like hearing they made a mistake in buying a Mac so they flame me in an immature and childish way then run off.

The other things i've noticed is that your proof is proof your wikipedia claims, and directing users to look to other forums is hard fact proof, but anybody else who posts an article against that, or a wiki page, or brings up a forum post it's mindless people who are just biased.

Every link posted here by an Apple fan has been to outdated information that is no longer true. I remember one link someone posted was to a story speaking badly of Vista.. from 2006!

No Apple fan in this thread has posted updated and accurate information regarding anything negative about Vista or supporting their own argument. Everything they've posted is way outdated and no longer (or in that particular case, never) accurate.

Also, to you, your personal experiences are fact, and anybody who's experience haven't gone right along with yours, or are atleast very similar, are lying. Yet again, you may not feel that way, but to me it seems rather obvious.

Again, the Apple fans in this thread have made some outrageous claims. One said their particular Mac ran at roughly half the temperature of every other Mac. How is that possible? How is that one person gets a Mac that runs nowhere near what everyone else agrees is a normal temperature for their Mac?

The fact of the matter is that many pro-Apple supporters in this thread have made some very outrageous claims that go against the general way of thinking and border on outright lies.

In fact, many statements by the pro-Apple crowd in this thread HAVE been lies when discussing Windows issues.

Lastly, I decided to give vista a go around last week on my desktop, patched to SP1, stripped down, set to my liking. All my programs worked just fine, but I have noticed a rather steady 5 -> 10 FPS drop in the majority of the games I've played compared to the XP install I had. Nothing major, but in my own personal experience it goes along with much of what has been said, and what i've read for the most part too.

Maybe if you were to go back a year ago. But thats not the case now. In my own personal experience, on my HP, my frame-rates are the same or higher under Vista SP1 with current drivers than XP SP3 with current drivers. Especially in modern games like UT3, GRID, and CoD4.

http://www.extremetech.com/article2/0,2845,2304031,00.asp

Its definitely something in your hardware that is holding you back.

 

[jav6454]

Not at all. The thing is that people here don't like hearing they made a mistake in buying a Mac so they flame me in an immature and childish way then run off.

Sorry, but I never flamed you in any way, neither did I blindly act as a Mac fanboy. Neither did I cover up Macs problems. So, better check my posts and get that statement good. As per Windows, I reserve my judgement on it and I prefer not to use it for my own reasons.

 

[ttech10]

Not at all. The thing is that people here don't like hearing they made a mistake in buying a Mac so they flame me in an immature and childish way then run off.

I made a mistake in buying a (better spec) Windows laptop. I bought it almost a year ago and was ok with it but just recently picked up a Mac and LOVE it compared to the Windows one. It takes me half the time to boot up as well as run applications, it's easier to get around the OS (and I've been a Windows user for 10+ years), I don't have to spend forever for a restart or just letting my computer 'sleep', it has much better battery time (old laptop when new:2-2 1/2 hrs max, Mac: 4-4 1/2 hrs max *so far*) and a few other things. EVERYTHING about it has been better than Windows.

As for Vista=XP.... that's a joke. I have a desktop PC that has both Vista & XP and XP wins BY FAR when it comes to what gets things done quicker/faster. I can play games (with the same settings) on Vista/XP and they run better on XP. I can open up programs quicker in XP. I can do, basically, EVERYTHING faster in XP than I can in Vista. And don't tell me it's my hardware. I have a Q6600/1GB 9800GX2/2GB RAM so the only reason why iTunes/Photoshop/Games work better in XP than in Vista is because Vista uses more resources that it doesn't need to... thus making Vista NOT EQUAL TO XP. I like Vista, but in my experiences (with multiple PCs/Vista) it is better to have XP.

YOUR personal experience with it may be better than mine or others... but believe it or not, NOT EVERYONE HAS THE SAME RESULTS which is why, perhaps, others are saying otherwise. Just a thought though. But, I CAN confirm that my computer works a lot better with XP than it does with Vista... though I do like Vista's UI a lot more than XP. And I can also say that my Mac opens things a lot quicker than either XP or Vista do... with 'lesser' specs. I find that pretty for a Mac when it can do things at least twice as fast as something with twice as good specs.

But like others have pointed out, I don't have those 100% TRUE Wiki pages to back that up. I guess I could just pay someone like MS did to write that stuff up (not anything you said directly, just stating that they paid people to write good things about them) though so then (in your logic) it would be true because it's on Wikipedia.

On old articles/links... you had at least one article from 07 and 08 while they had at least one from 07 and 08 and apparently from 06 (according to you). That doesn't seem like 'every link is outdated' unless that also means that your links are outdated... though you'll deny that they are which makes you a hypocrite, so why even bother trying to prove a point with you? (which I think I've already shot down most of your 'arguments' anyways)

 

[WildCowboy]

I think this thread has about run its course...thanks for playing.