I've used Windows for the longest time and still use it from time to time. I also have experienced enough of Vista to decide against using it full-time.
Why would you choose against using Vista full time?
I can give you a laundry list of reasons why I'm considering using XP full time on my MacBook. It's just a matter of migrating my data over, even though I have it all backed up. I'm considering wiping OS X off my Mac as well.
Personally I can handle OS X's quirks better than the ones in Windows, so far. OS X's window handling has its pros and cons, I have come to find OS X's behaviour more logical than Windows'
How does Windows have worse "quirks" than Mac OS X? How is OS X's behavior better than Windows? In OS X you have the one giant menu bar, no individual ones, which limits what the developer can do as far as menus are concerned. With apps that have multiple windows, you have no unified interface. Look at Photoshop as an example. It has a mess of windows everywhere with no "anchor". Sure you can click on the dock icon to bring the app to the front, but then you still have to deal with windows everywhere.
In Windows, you have apps like Photoshop being "anchored", you have everything "anchored" to the task bar in a much easier manner of getting what you want where you want.
And like I said, alt+tab to the window you want makes a ot more sense than multiple shortcuts.
The specific programs and individual windows as well as the core system have to be clutter free, so you can even handle having multiple documents open and available at the same time
And how does OS X supposedly do this better?
- saying Apple fans are brainwashed is pretty rude, but since you didn't apply it to all Apple users I'm gonna pretend you just mean the core of the cult
Thats basically what I meant.
btw: I can't believe I'm discussing the possible sensibility in choosing OS X over Windows on a Mac forum. I do get the impression you mean to flame the fire.
Well, thats how things change
More people have been exposed to Apple as a result of the iPods popularity. And as a result of that, more people are seeing that OS X is all hype and nothing else.
Okay why are you still here. If you don't want to pay the price, don't pay it and buy your Vista system. But for god sake don't hang around here and write me a frigging book everytime someone has a different opinion to you.
I'm here because I have a MacBook and realize that buying a Mac was a significant mistake and I want to help people make truly informed decisions. More often than not, Macs are not the right choice for people and they're only interested in them because of the hype.
Because their computers are still far more reliable than anyone else perhaps?
http://www.macworld.co.uk/news/index...S&NewsID=16183
Apple has the biggest bunch of followers of any company in the world. Each and everyone of them think that Apple is some holier than thou company, and when their Apple product goes wrong boy do they bitch about it.
Okay, so you post a link to an article written by an Apple-biased source, linking to a site that almost nobody has ever heard of. On top of all of that, that site doesn't even have that supposed research/article posted on their own site any more.
So what does that prove? Even if you can find the link on their site (I looked for several minutes and couldn't find it), what does that prove? This isn't some major company that a lot of people use or even know about. This is some small no-name that Macworld picked up on because it favors their biased view.
If Macs in general are so much more reliable and so well built compared to other PCs, why do you hear of so many complaints online? If you google PC or Mac problems you'll find that the vast majority of Mac problems are hardware or build quality problems. I've had multiple build quality issues with TWO Macs in a year and a half. The OP has had major build quality issues in even less time than me.
There are multiple threads here discussing the build quality issues of the MacBooks. Apple's support site has more threads about hardware issues than anything else.
That Microsoft has complete control over all OEM's. That Microsoft can put any one of them out of business in days. That Dell has already expressed great interest in OS X systems, and sells Ubuntu systems. That Dell are sick and tired of Dell being branded crap because of Vista.
Oh please. Be realistic. If Microsoft tried what you said (raising or dropping licensing fees so drastically on a whim because they feel like it) they would be hit with an anti-trust lawsuit so fast, not to mention it would violate the terms of their previous anti-trust lawsuit. I say again, be realistic.
Nobody besides Apple and a shrinking number of XP fanboys refer to or feel Vista is "crap".
And it would be if Apple made it that way. And once Apple gains a dominant enough position in the market to do so, I'm almost certain they will.
So you're saying people should suffer with OS X for several years until it gets up to the level where Windows has been for over a decade? Not to mention give up many technologies that are actually modern?
Like every other OEM? Montevina is only just trickling in now.
HP has had Montevina based notebooks available since THE DAY Intel announced availibility.
I've run Leopard on Apples min spec, it runs and runs well. I've run Vista on a computer twice that of Microsofts min spec, it ran like a dog.
Its funny you say that, because my experience is that dogs can run pretty fast
The first system I ran Vista on was a Turion64 ML-37 (2GHz), 1GB of RAM, Radeon Xpress 200M (integrated GPU with dedicated memory, still outperforms anything by Intel). It ran every bit as fast as XP did and used the same amount of memory at startup. I've run XP and Vista on this system I'm typing on right now (too hot to use my MacBook) and Vista runs faster than XP did, and it runs faster than Leopard does on my MacBook.
Don't forget that Vista's minimum requirements support ALL features of the OS. Leopard's minimum requirement does NOT support all features of the OS (like Core Image, etc)
True symmetric multi processing perhaps?
Really? I don't see any core processes of OS X using more than one core at a time.
I've seen nothing but performance increases with the 10.5.x updates.
Those performance increases on Vista should have been there from the beginning. I'm talking 12 mins to transfer a 1gb file over the network when it only takes 3 mins on XP and OS X.
10.5.5 clean install runs no better than 10.5 did for me. It just crashes slightly less often.
Its also obvious somethings wrong with your network configuration
Since you provide no facts to back up that statement, I will respond to that statement with a factless answer: Bullsh*t.
Linux certainly, because as operating systems go its completely light in the ass. It has nothing that OS X or Windows has. Its a kernel with a flakey GUI.
A kernel with a flakey GUI? Are you getting OS X mixed up with Linux?
My statements regarding OS X's instability come from my EXPERIENCE with MY MacBook. Two different MacBooks with two different major revisions of OS X as well 8 combined total point revisions to both.
And for every unsatisfied OS X complaint you make I have 100 million unsatisfied Vista complaints around the web.
Prove it.
I bought a Vista laptop, it ran Vista like a dog, came with trials of every BS software you can imagine. Even after I installed a fresh copy of Vista it was still terrible.
Specs? Brand?
Only Toshiba loads their system with trialware. HP and others generally only include Norton trials. And Norton has a tool that completely and cleanly removes the software. My first HP came with a utility at install (or first boot) that let you choose what software you wanted. You could get a fresh install out of the box. My second and third HPs have only had Norton trials.
Lets see, Apple has had true symmetric multi processing since OS 7.5.5 Windows still has the inferior Sudo SMP. Whats that 12 years?
Prove it. I don't see any OS X processes eating up more than one core. When I use Safari, iTunes, DVD Player, etc. I only see 1 core being used. As Patrick Norton said on a recent episode of TWiT, Safari has a knack for eating up an entire core in OS X.
My experience with OS X and Windows is that you only get both cores (or multiple processors) used when the application at hand is written specifically for that purpose.
Why was Apple even worried about SMP in 7.5.5? They should have been worried about Microsoft having pre-emptive multi-tasking (something Mac OS didn't have until OS X) and technologies like DirectX and DXVA, DirectSound, etc.
As opposed to Microsoft? ROFL. You see when Apple started iTunes Music Store they actually gave a crap about you, the consumer.
If Apple gave a crap about the consumer, why don't they give free upgrades like other music stores? Napster and every WMA store gave and continues to give free upgrades to higher quality purchased content. iTunes? You have to spend 30c to upgrade to iTunes Plus. Look at the video content in iTunes. When they bumped the resolution from 320x240 to 640x480 you had to rebuy any video you had previous purchased if you wanted higher quality. No other online store does that. Look at the iPod games. Bought games before the iPod classic and 3G nano? Have to rebuy them again.
Microsoft got down on their hands and knees to get the lowest possible price at any cost and now Microsofts Playsforsure music bought from their store doesn't even work on their own fudging music player.
Hows that any different than Apple requiring you to purchase updates that are generally given for free by other people?
Music from MSN Music might not work with the Zune, but they still work with countless other players and can still be burned to CD.
iTunes music only works with the iPod, unless you buy one of the handful of iTunes Plus songs.
The funny thing now is how Microsoft operates one of the largest DRM free stores out there. Music you buy on the Zune Marketplace will work with an iPod but music you buy on iTunes won't work with a Zune. Don't try to tell me its because of the record companies either. It's not. iTunes is the largest music retailer in the US and probably the world overall. If they wanted DRM free music they could use their position to get it. But they don't. Why? Because DRM benefits them. They don't give a crap about the consumer. They continue to sell DRM'ed music and videos because it means you're locked into the iTunes + iPod ecosystem. If they make everything DRM free and give people upgrades the way other services do, then they open the door for people to go to other players or platforms. They don't want that. They want you locked into their hardware anad their system.
They don't give a crap about you, they just give a crap about your money.
Every small ass company in the world was making accessories and labeling them as iPod compatible. They had to change the formats and charge companies to create accessories so that they could control quality and stop companies who had not tested or invested anything and were out to make a quick buck.
Oh BS. Apple did it so you couldn't buy a higher quality $10 video cable and you had to buy their $50 set instead. It's not because of any other reason.
Lets see, Nvidia and ATI drivers have only just reached an acceptable level. Gaming performance is still much better under XP.
What? Do you not read the news? Or do you only read what Apple feeds you? Vista has been on-par and, in some cases, ahead of XP in the gaming arena for many months now.
http://www.extremetech.com/article2/0,2845,2304031,00.asp Benchmarks performed by one of the most respected tech websites out there.
Thanks for playing
Drivers for printers the world over took months and months to become available.
You don't need printer drivers for Vista. Plug it in and it works. Thats how it is with both of my printers, one being a 4 year old model and the other being a 3 year old model.
I do, however, need to fetch proper drivers for both Tiger and Leopard.
Microsoft changes their kernel with every OS release. Vista is based on 2003 server, 7 will be based on 2008 server. They then have to go and dump all of that legacy crap on top to ensure compatibility.
Apple, Linux etc. improve on their kernel with each OS release.
Programs that ran fine on Tiger will run fine on Leopard 99.9% of the time, or with some tiny mods. Not needing to take a hacksaw to the code ala Windows.
Actually, Windows 7 is an upgrade of Vista the same way Snow Leopard is an upgrade of Leopard.
Every piece of software I had for XP works on Vista. The only one that didn't was Nero and a free update worked without a problem.
