Leopard vs Vista - The Poll

[Xanadu]

What do you primarily use a home computer/laptop for?

films music etc (downloading/playing)
web browsing
music production
logging onto the office network (remote desktop/rsa vpn)
reencoding the occasional film
the occasional bit of coding
the occasional game (not so much these days)

For a laptop, I do the above, minus the reencoding films.

 

[Xanadu]

I'm hoping to do live music production. While I understand Mac OS X is great for that, I am reluctant cos I feel like I should know the OS inside out before I trust it in a live environment.

 

[Xanadu]

Unless its a hard-disk on a Mac, it will be like trying to evaluate Vista on inadequate hardware. If you haven't got one, the best thing to is to borrow one for a few days to try it out...

I could borrow my bro's ibook, but apparently it crashes all the time and is out of warranty.

 

[The Groke]

films music etc (downloading/playing)
web browsing
music production
logging onto the office network (remote desktop/rsa vpn)
reencoding the occasional film
the occasional bit of coding
the occasional game (not so much these days)

For a laptop, I do the above, minus the reencoding films.

I'm hoping to do live music production. While I understand Mac OS X is great for that, I am reluctant cos I feel like I should know the OS inside out before I trust it in a live environment.

Definitely sounds like a Mac could be a good choice for you then - especially considering Logic studio is such a steal now....

But yes, I completely agree you would need to use one in anger for a bit before committing. Still, my Macbook pro is definately my favourite purchase of the last few years....

 

[Xanadu]

Definitely sounds like a Mac could be a good choice for you then - especially considering Logic studio is such a steal now....

But yes, I completely agree you would need to use one in anger for a bit before committing. Still, my Macbook pro is definately my favourite purchase of the last few years....

God, it's been years since I last used Logic (well, last time was when it was still pc & mac). I'll be using a combination of Ableton and Reason. I do use Sonar at the moment, but can get my head round Cubase if necessary. Only problem is, there's not really a good Mac model for me. The Air hasn't got enough functionality, the MacBook Pro is too big, and the MacBook doesn't fill me with confidence due to the plastic casing.

 

[jæd]

...and the MacBook doesn't fill me with confidence due to the plastic casing.

Why...? Seems fine to me. The main advantage is (compared my old aluminimum Powerbook G4 ( RIP ), it detects wireless networks up to several miles away*).

Oh, and yes, you do want the black one...

* Slight exggeration...

 

[The Groke]

The Air hasn't got enough functionality,

Yeah, I can't really get behind the Air - form over function and a very niche market IMO

the MacBook Pro is too big,

Really? c'mon - you are not that weedy surely?

15" Macbook Pro is a perfect size - big enough screen and keyboard to be really useful, small and light enough to pack up and cart around. That LED screen is really bright and sharp too - just what you want on stage surely?

and the MacBook doesn't fill me with confidence due to the plastic casing.

Depends on how mean you were going to be to it. I would say it is more robust than you think - certinaly no more or less so than it's plastic peers.

 

[editor]

15" Macbook Pro is a perfect size - big enough screen and keyboard to be really useful, small and light enough to pack up and cart around.

Regardless of make, I also find 15" screens just a bit too bulky for me, so my next laptop's going to be a 13.3" jobbie (and maybe a wee Eee too!)

 

[tarannau]

Arguably the Macbook's plastic makes it the most robust of the mac laptops. It's a solid little beast, well designed for the demands of the educational market and children. It may scratch a little, but it's got better dent resistance than the aluminium of the macbook pro.

Build quality on both is excellent really.

 

[FridgeMagnet]

The 15" MBP is actually surprisingly compact for the screen size - it fits quite happily into a laptop bag I have which was designed for a much smaller machine. But if I didn't do much graphics work and didn't need a pretty hardcore video card, I would have gone for the straight Macbook, which is perfectly powerful enough, smaller and significantly cheaper.

 

[The Groke]

Regardless of make, I also find 15" screens just a bit too bulky for me, so my next laptop's going to be a 13.3" jobbie (and maybe a wee Eee too!)

I suppose the difference for me is that I don't have a desktop anymore, so the laptop needs to be a jack-of-all-trades....

 

[The Groke]

Assuming of course that you have a desktop..or two...

 

[The Groke]

Of course you can always go too far with the compact thing.....

 

[UnderOpenSky]

What do you use it for?

 

[The Groke]

DUnno, I'd proably lose it...

 

[DJWrongspeed]

I'm of the opinion that they're both too weighty. I'd much rather have a small OS that you can modify/add to than this huge heavy package with a zillion processes chuggin away.

I'm in no hurry to upgrade at home or work.

 

[tarannau]

To be fair though, recent MacOSX versions have been quicker and more responsive than their predecessors, even on aged hardware. 10.4 Tiger ran faster on my trusty (450Mhz) cube than 10.3

Can't say for Leopard - it runs plenty fast enough on my Macbook Pro, but you'd expect that, but it has minimum system requirements that stop me installing on the cube - but I doubt it's much more of a resource hog.

Vista, on the other hand, definitely feels sluggish even on comparatively recent machines.

 

[editor]

Vista, on the other hand, definitely feels sluggish even on comparatively recent machines.

It's run just fine on every single machine I've tried it on (including a bargain basement £350 Dell desktop). It's a decent, user-friendly and rather attractive OS for your regular consumer, although I prefer XP.

 

[jæd]

To be fair though, recent MacOSX versions have been quicker and more responsive than their predecessors, even on aged hardware. 10.4 Tiger ran faster on my trusty (450Mhz) cube than 10.3

Can't say for Leopard - it runs plenty fast enough on my Macbook Pro, but you'd expect that, but it has minimum system requirements that stop me installing on the cube - but I doubt it's much more of a resource hog.

On my old Powerbook G4 Leopard felt a *lot* snappier. And so did Tiger. Again, Ubuntu has felt snappier on successive releases on the same hardware.

Vista, on the other hand, definitely feels sluggish even on comparatively recent machines.

Vista feels a lot more sluggish on the same hardware compared to Xp. But, trying to compare the difference between Xp and Vista, and between Tiger and Leopard is a bit unrealistic. Xp was released in 2001. Tiger was released in 2005. OS X (and Ubuntu) offer more incremental upgrades than Windows. If you tried to run Leopard on OS 10.0 hardware, ie, 2001 Macs, you'll find there's a significant difference in reponsiveness...