Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Switching back
- Thread starter Derekuda
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
I have no idea why people keep going on about this. I have NEVER used any antivirus, firewall or security software on all of the Windows PCs I've owned and I've never had a problem.
As for Vista, I've found it to be rock solid. Yes, it does take a bit more power to get going than XP did, but doesn't Leopard also suffer the same problem versus Cheetah, its 2001 counterpart?
I like the interface in OS X better but I've found Leopard to be quite unstable, often throwing me kernel panics (on multiple Macs, so please don't say I got a bad one) and beachballs. Tiger was a much more solid system.
I find it somewhat amusing reading about how Vista is better than perceived and Apples build quality being "awful" in the same post. I am not going to argue with your opinion. But I really think Apple's built is not as bad as suggest either. I think, the plastic Books are about average in build quality, while the Aluminum books and especially the desktops are better than most competing products in the market. There is exaggeration on both ends. On forums like this one, problems get a bit overstated, while Apple's reputation "on the street" is probably a bit better than it deserves.Vista isn't bad at all guys. It has actually been very stable for me as well, stop paying attention to those commercials. We all loveproducts but let's be fair here.
Apple built quality is awful, it's their design and perceived quality that people buy into.
IMO, Vista earned its reputation during the 14 months that it took Microsoft to release SP1. You know something's up when Microsoft evangelicals Paul Thurrott are still critical of how Microsoft handled the Vista launch. But yes, I agrea that Vista SP/1 is much, much better product.
If you buy ANY laptop, the odds aren't with you. Consumer Reports shows that Apple is indeed the worst, with 23% of its laptops needing repaired or having a serious issue. The industry leader (Lenovo) is 20%. But then Apple was the industry leader with getting the problems fixed, scoring 83%, well above Lenovo's 66%. IMO, this makes build quality not a clear-cut issue. Do you go with a Lenovo for the 3% better chance you'll get a laptop with no major issues knowing that if you need tech support, you're 17% less likely to have the issue fixed? Ugh.
Neil, the obvious answer is that the majority of Windows users haven't had the same great experience as you. That's why they keep going on about this.
To the OP, do whatever gets you the most bang for your buck.
If you are going to invoke the name Thurrott I think you should be aware of his thoughts on sp1. The moniker Sp1 for vista was superficial and didn't do anything significant for compatibility/stability.
The majority of windows user aren't as tech savvy as the average mac user from my experience. I don't see how the more savvy crowd finds it cumbersome to install an antivirus (avg/nod32) and enable windows firewall.
@op I would go with a lenovo laptop if you need something to move around or build a tower.
Wow, your friends must be quite different from the people I deal with day to day. I do some part time computer / laptop repair at my University. Half the people that come in there, *Professors and Students* who have Macs, are completely oblivious to how the computer actually works. However, I get people with Windows laptops and desktops that actually know what a hard drive is, and how to diagnose basic problems.
Personally, I use XP 64 bit Professional, and Vista Ultimate 64 bit. It's getting pretty annoying finding self fixes for lack of program compatibility for XP 64 bit, and Vista is really not the problem that most people say. You just have to have a machine to support everything. And if you don't, just learn to customize Vista. Turn off Aero, and all the extra fat you don't have to have.
I'd be willing to bet that overall, PC users are more knowledgeable about their computer in comparison with a Mac user. PC users do account for a majority of the market lol....
What did I miss? Seems like every article he's written about SP1 mentions the significant underpinnings of SP1.
The SP1 FAQ he wrote specifically mentions:
device compatibility (SP1 added ~40,000 more devices)
application compatibility (150 major apps added)
reliability (SP1 runs for 2x longer without a major disruption)
file-copy improvements (with SP1 being 44-77% faster)
http://www.winsupersite.com/faq/vista_sp1.asp
Maybe he changed his opinion of SP1 later or something?
Huh?
Lenovo is allegedly the best with 20% needing repair and Apple the worst with 23%?
My personal experience suggests quite the contrary. Sure, there are some Windows users who have no idea about computing, letting others fix problems (even minor ones) for them. But in general, I'd think Mac users are less tech-savvy. For mainly two reasons, I suppose: Mac OS X is more beginner-friendly. And less problems occur which force the user to delve into the system...
Huh?
Lenovo is allegedly the best with 20% needing repair and Apple the worst with 23%?
My personal experience suggests quite the contrary. Sure, there are some Windows users who have no idea about computing, letting others fix problems (even minor ones) for them. But in general, I'd think Mac users are less tech-savvy. For mainly two reasons, I suppose: Mac OS X is more beginner-friendly. And less problems occur which force the user to delve into the system...
I think what he means is that there are many many more windows users than mac users, and since the average user of a computer is stupid, windows has more stupid users (proportionately) than mac os
Thurrott is already treating Vista as the redheaded stepchild, after using the pre-beta of Windows 7.
That's what Consumer Report's June article on reliability found.Huh?
Lenovo is allegedly the best with 20% needing repair and Apple the worst with 23%?
http://www.consumerreports.org/cro/...Index=1&resultIndex=3&searchTerm=lenovo apple
I'm not a paying member, so I can't access the report directly, but there were lots of recaps blogged about it.
http://weblogs.baltimoresun.com/business/appleaday/blog/2008/05/macs_beat_all_in_consumer_repo.html
Vista works fine.
It's no OSX but this perception that Vista is some terrible OS is just false. I've been running vista for 2 years with almost no issues.
I will back this up, too. Especially since SP1. When it first came out, it had some problems, and got a lot of bad press (much of it deserved). Buit SP1 went a long way to fixing some of the problems... and being a computer geek myself, I was able to tune it better myself.
My Vista computer does something OS X cannot even pretend to do- run a Media Center. Out of the box. It took some tweaks, but it just works now. To do the same thing on OS X would need... well, it cannot be done. You can patch together the tuner card, some sort of DVR functionality and all, but it does not all fit in a nice interface like Front Row... and Vista DOES do that.
But that also does not mean I do not use OS X where it works best. It is the "family" computer. Does that well, and better than I think Vista would do.
Different tools for different jobs.
In the OP's case, that "tool" has to be less than $1000- and you aren't gonna get that out of Apple. So go with it, you will be fine.
This would be a fine argument if you weren't entirely wrong. Vista creates a folder in the root of C called Windows.old# where your old personal folders/etc go when you install Vista overtop your old install. And yes, it DOES wipe out the rest of the information on the disk, I've done it once or twice myself. Besides, if you browse intelligently and don't mess with stuff you shouldn't, you can keep a Windows install running smoothly for years.
Well... I'd say it does. Have you tried Elgato's EyeTV? It's pretty nice and - in my opinion - not behind but rather slightly ahead of Windows solutions.
Of course, EyeTV alone costs almost as much as a whole Windows (System Builder / OEM) license, so you're paying a premium for it.
I completely disagree with this. I have a hunk of crap Dell Insprion that is any thing but inspiring. It is not worth the plastic it is built with. Granted, it was only $600, but I had to spend another $89 for enough memory to make it work and work only reasonably well. The battery is came with is a piece of crap. Lucky if it lasts 30 min. Oh and the computer no longer even recognizes the battery. The bottom line is that in order to make this $600 laptop even close to useable, you would have to add at least $200-300 to get it remotely close to the current low end MacBook. For that difference, I would gladly trade the extra $100.
Your perception of Apple's build quality is most likely only based on the negative comments you see here. I have owned Apple products for a long long time and more often then not, they are up for the abuse. Case in point, I have a G4 with dual 450mhz procs that my kids absoultely abuse. That machine was hit by lightning and I had to replace the ethernet port (just added a card) and the thing is still plugging away running Tiger and running it quite well. This machine is about 8 years old(not completely sure) but show me a 6-8 year old windows box that was hit by lightning, abused by kids and can run a modern operating system WELL, without crashing.
That is the true value of the money you spend on an Apple machine. All of the bandwagon Johnny come latelys don't realize this, nor do many of them care to take the time to look into this.