No, I just find it really funny to read Mosx's posts. Although now I'm starting to feel sorry for him, because it appears he might actually have some mental issues he needs to work through.
Oh come on. How old are you? If you're over the age of 18 please try to act it.
Yours are the latter, not the former. It seems you're a little confused. We're also still waiting on something a little more than your 4 laptops and "your friends" for backing up these opinions.
What "opinions"? It's a fact that 800 people do not represent 260m. It's a fact that you can buy a PC and, for less than the cost of a Mac, you can get MUCH better hardware. $1299 on a MacBook will get you a 13.3" screen, integrated graphics, 2.4GHz Core 2 Duo, 2GB of RAM, etc. $1200 on an HP will get you the same processor, RAM, and HDD (sometimes 250GB), but you'll get dedicated graphics that put the MacBook Pro to shame, a larger 15.4" display with a resolution of 1680x1050, and other things like ExpressCard slot, memory card reader, HDMI output, VGA, S-Video, etc. etc.
And no Apple apologist here has proven their argument. Nobody has proven that iWeb is useful. The only links provided to back up the iWeb argument so far have been to personal blogs and such, and they all look generic and share far too many characteristics. They generally look the same. They're all blogs and sites that nobody cares about, indicated by the counters on some of the sites.
Nobody has proven that real musicians use Garageband either. Opening Garageband to record a vocal doesn't count as using it to make REAL MUSIC. No real musician worthy of the label musician is going to use a recording made from an integrated soundcard.
Oh and since you're apparently the authority on music, should I pick up the new Metallica? Is it any good? Doesn't matter if you've actually heard it or not, I'm sure you just know.
I have heard it. It'd be a fantastic album if it wasn't brickwalled. The mastering is so bad that it sounds like it was recorded with a MacBook using Garageband
Theres clipping everywhere and absolutely no dynamic range. It's funny that theres hundreds of posts on the official Metallica site talking about how much better the Guitar Hero 3 version sounds, because its not brickwalled.
I do find it amusing that you said the article I posted didn't show how they arrived at the numbers (35% downgrade from Vista to XP) yet they actually do, about a 1/3 of the way down. That just shows that you're not actually reading anything posted, and really are just here to argue and troll. Either that or you have a serious reading comprehension problem. Ah, maybe both
Again, if you're over the age of 18, please try to act like an adult.
And you're referring to their use of the "Windows Sentinel Monitoring Tool" to get their data? And their "two other exo.repository data points". So, again, how does this prove that people are downgrading? They're using Spyware to check? As I said before, how does this prove anything?
And as I've said before, how do 3,000 people represent 260,000,000?
Like I said before, thats like saying all of California represents the entire US. It doesn't. Such a small number of people on a tech site primarily geared towards the more tech savvy does NOT represent the entire group of users as a whole.
And, again, what are their reasons for downgrading? Maybe they simply liked XP but don't have any irrational Apple-style hate of Vista? Thats always a possibility. Maybe they need XP for work.
It's amazing how people make fun of others downgrading. But at least they have the CHOICE of what operating system to use.
Another question; why do you even come here? If you don't like Apple or their products anymore, why bother? Are you really that pathetic that you feel the need to come here and slag them and their products? Really? I'm sure there's an HP forum to hang out at.
Well, if you actually read my posts you'd know that I love my iPods and iPhone. I have 4 iPods and I have the original 4GB iPhone. They're all great devices.
The only problem I have with Macs would be the fact that their hardware is WAY behind where it should be. When the MacBook was first released 2.5 years ago, it was priced in-line with PCs at that time with a slight premium. Now, 2.5 years later, you have $750 15.4" AMD based notebooks being sold in big box retailers that have integrated graphics that perform on-par with previous generation dedicated graphics, blu-ray, 3GB of RAM, etc. For less than a MacBook with a "SuperDrive" you can get a 15.4" notebook PC that is a more powerful gaming machine than the Xbox360 and especially the PS3.
You have integrated graphics out there now that are just as fast as previous generation dedicated solutions, yet Apple still chooses to go with the slowest of the slow integrated GPUs. Chips that are slower than the dedicated solutions included with the now 3 year old iBook solution.
Apple should have moved to dedicated graphics when they upgraded the MacBooks to Core 2 Duos. At that time the GeForce Go 7400 would have been perfect and kept it in-line with PCs at that time. Then the move up to 8400M GS would have kept it in-line with 13.3" PCs. Now it would be up to the 9300M. The Apple TV gets dedicated graphics. Why can't the MacBook?
That is my only real problem with Macs. If Apple kept their hardware in-line with the price you pay and what other PCs in the same price range offer as far as hardware goes, I wouldn't have a problem. But as of now, you're paying nearly double for the same hardware just because it has an Apple logo on it. The MacBook is about $600 overpriced while the MacBook Pro is literally double the price of an equivalent PC.
http://www.infoworld.com/article/08/...rsus-xp_1.html
http://blogs.zdnet.com/hardware/?p=1332&page=6
http://news.cnet.com/Windows-XP-outs...3-6220201.html
Mosx, I know you are smarter than infoworld, but how about the other two? Eh, I don't know why I try with actual proof Vista is slower! You're such a smart guy you obviously know more!
Sigh. Please act like an adult.
Anyway, the first article is a bunch of.. well, I can't think of a polite word to describe it. It's just a guy going on about how he thinks Vista is ugly, that the UI is "bloated" and takes too many CPU cycles, and that UAC pops up too much.
First, hes wrong about the UI. If you're using Aero, it's all being drawn by the GPU. Second, UAC only pops up as frequently as the password prompt in OS X. So I guess he'd hate OS X too, right? In one page he supposedly runs a benchmark, where he talks about old Pentium 3s and Pentium 4s. He goes on and on about how third party solutions to XP are better than built-in system level security solutions in Vista. When he talks about reliability, he goes on about how stable XP is but doesn't mention any of the "under the hood" changes to Vista. He doesn't even mention caching that speeds up your day to day use.
I like the one line he uses too! "Vista addresses problems most customers weren't aware even existed, let alone needed fixing". So what? Microsoft should have just let them go unnoticed until they NEEDED to be fixed? How stupid is this guy?
And back to the performance page. Where he already mis-stated that Vista's UI uses CPU resources, hes trying to say that Vista is 40% slower. Then the benchmark he links to doesn't even have benchmark results? Come on. This entire article is written for someone who hates Vista and wants to convince themselves that their hate is not misplaced. It's ridiculous.
On the hardware compatibility page, he says hes waiting for a "feature complete video driver for his XPS M1710". I guess hes never been to support.dell.com? Because it took me less than 10 seconds to get to the page to download an nVidia driver dated 3/18/2008, version 174.31. He's never heard of laptopvideo2go either? Even the MacBook Pro owners here who run Windows know about that. Thats the best place to get nvidia drivers for notebooks. If he has an ATI GPU, then he can blame AMD/ATI for not providing a driver. It's not up to Microsoft to provide support for all the hardware in the world.
Then he complains about his old Laserjet not working on Vista? If you go to support.hp.com you see that the printer has drivers as far back as Windows 3.1. They also have drivers for Vista.
Then he rambles on about how theres no reason for Microsoft to not support new software on XP. The rest of the article is really just rambling about how he loves XP so much. Ridiculous.
The second link you posted to zdnet uses hardware that very few people have (Pentium D? Come on, nobody bought those) and it doesn't list any real hardware specifications. What motherboard was he using in those benchmarks? What GPU? What drivers was he using? Was it an Intel chipset? If it was, did he have the SATA controller drivers installed?
No real information and, at the time that article was written, the final version of SP1 wasn't available to consumers.
He posts links to two other benchmarks. One, again, gives no hardware information. The second benchmark gives hardware information, but NO driver information! Better yet, he was using a processor at that time that was KNOWN to be defective with a defect that could cause its performance to be cut by half. Lovely.
The third link you posted was to a cnet article that is dated nearly a year old. Not using SP1, not using modern drivers. Better yet, they try to use a very very beta version of SP1, call it "another setback for Vista", and they test on a system with 1GB of RAM!
Here's some more benchmarks, this time Vista vs. OS X:
http://www.popularmechanics.com/tech...25.html?page=4
I like how you don't link to the other pages in the article that show what a joke of an article it is. You link to the page with synthetic benchmarks. You do know that synthetic benchmarks do not reflect real world performance, right? And you realize that Geekbench has alwas primarily been an OS X application, right?
And now for the best part. What version of Geekbench are they running? If they're running the Leopard version then they're comparing a 64-bit app to the 32-bit Windows version! Of course a synthetic benchmark is going to run faster in a 64-bit environment versus a 32-bit environment. Not like a real world application, which would really only benefit from the ability to access more memory.
Whats even funnier about that synthetic benchmark is that they're comparing Macs with physically faster processors to PCs with slower processors.
Oh gee, a computer with a faster processor running a 64-bit synthetic benchmark scored higher than the computer with a slower processor running the slower version of the synthetic test. I wonder why that is!
Seriously, where is the common sense here people?
Where are the REAL WORLD BENCHMARKS? Huh? Let's see REAL WORLD APPLICATION PERFORMANCE on EQUAL hardware. Let's see Handbrake encoding results on both, let's see ffmpeg results on both, let's see Photoshop performance on both, let's see iTunes encoding results on both (though those results could be skewed). Let's see some benchmarks where hardware comes into play, like video playback or audio playback. Let's see some native OpenGL game performance.
Let's see some real benchmarks of real world applications, not of a single synthetic benchmark that is written to heavily favor one OS over the other while being tested on a system with a faster processor and equally paired memory.
If this is all the Apple fans have to prove that OS X is faster than Vista, then they have absolutely no credibility.
Those Geekbench scores don't even give driver information or full configuration information. And the Gateway is using unpaired RAM, so its not running in dual-channel mode. And the scores of geekbench running on the Mac show that theres a configuration issue with the Windows systems.
This is what happens when you have Apple fans who know nothing of hardware or software configuration running benchmarks trying to prove their system is faster.
My friends all have MB refurbs 3 & 4 years old. Still going strong. You get what you pay for
Your friends have 3 and 4 year old refurbished MacBooks?
Wow, so they were able to get MacBooks almost a full 2 years before they were made available? Amazing! Can they get me a 2010 model MacBook now? They seem to have great connections within Apple!
You have fun with those Dells, Crimson Rider. Be sure to get their Gold Support for when they break. Also, get them with the XP downgrade option (usually free) so that you actually get the processing speed you're paying for.
Got some real proof to backup that statement?
The monitor literally shakes if the table is shaking.
My MacBook monitor moves if I move the desk or surface its sitting on.
Comparing that to my MacBook Pro, the quality on the dell is cheap.
Haven't had your MBP warp because of heat yet, have you?
Stop comparing specs and look at build quality. Dells are notorious for bad build quality. Seriously, after switching to Mac Laptops, the dell laptops seems cheap to me. Even at the XPS line, which is a step up from the Inspirons I've owned.
To me, the MacBook and MacBook Pro are a step down from the HPs I've owned. But I'm done with notebooks. This MacBook and the HP I have now will be the last notebooks I own. My next computer will be a custom built PC.
You can't say that Led Zepplin is a better band than say...Bjork, or that Jeff Buckley is worse than Tupac. They are all respectable, but saying one is worse than the other, is saying that you don't know enough about that genre.
Tupac? Theres nothing respectable about rap. Tupac had a couple of good messages in a couple of songs, but for the most part, rap is not even worth listening to. I don't need to hear someone talk about how rich they are, how they degrade women, how they'll beat you up if you disrespect them. Stupid.
Bjork is actually involved with the making of her music. Unlike some of the artists the Mac fans listed
Second, the Philippines has Mac users. There are complete forums for that. Mac may not be open to all Filipinos, but Windows also has LARGER market power, that some businesses view as an industry barrier. The fact that Apple is one of the only companies to challenge Windows makes them a respectable company. They help drive innovation in the industry.
Yes I'm well aware of the fact that the Philippines has Mac users. I was using it at as an example of a relatively good economy that Apple ignores because of the fact that the majority of residents there cannot afford a Mac, or those that can choose not to because of the high price. Even those that are considered "upper middle class" in the Philippines would still have to put out more than a months worth of salary just for the entry level MacBook. So what does Apple do? Lower prices so those who want Macs there can afford them? Or just ignore the market all together because they would have to lower prices and go from ridiculous profits down to good profits?
Apple is just gaining in market, so give the company time. Their software is already provided to college students at less than half costs. I bought leopard for 27.99. That means their is hope for third world companies as well
Apple only gives those discounts for a couple of reasons. First they gamble with the fact that students will see these discounts and buy and become life long customers. Second, they can give those discounts because they have more regular buyers than student/discounted buyers and can maintain their ridiculous profit margins that way.
Radiohead revolutionized their genre, and sound in general. Music is sweeter because of them.
Radiohead didn't do anything. They had one famous song that was in a movie that was only famous because it starred the teen heart-throb at the time! They weren't even truly famous until their music was in "Romeo + Juliet" in 1996. Before that hardly anyone knew them and they almost became one hit wonders.
