Vista

[ChrisFilter]

But it's still unresponsive compared to Leopard on even the best hardware, at least according to reviews. I can't give you a chart either - I'm only using Tiger, which feels snappier in any case

Is it? Really? Have you used both side by side to give it a fair go? Even you would have to admit that you have an incredible mac bias.

 

[tarannau]

Fair enough. It's more the uninformed comments that got my goat and presumption that its acceptable/understandable for an OS to really only run well on fairly high spec kit.

I don't mind when people talk about other OSs, but it's helpful if they actually use them on a regular basis

At some point in time, I guess, I"ll finally get this Access database convertd over to Filemaker and stop using Windows altogether. Until then I can snipe from a vaguely informed position.

 

[jæd]

I do indeed, I have a dual boot with Vista Macbook sat next to me.

I'm not sure what point you're trying to make though... you still need Windows to run Windows stuff.

Or run in it Parallels... Or with Crossover, etc, etc...

 

[ChrisFilter]

Is that the best you can come up with...? (Um... Heard of "Boot Camp" yet).

That's the most inane Mac vs PC argument I've ever heard... "yeah, well, my Mac can run Windows so it can run Windows stuff" - well, yeah, the hardware can but the OS can't Christ.

...and I want a computer that's productive but also looks nice + runs really fast...

You stick with what you like then, this is a thread about Vista and fuck all to do with your preferred flavour of OS.

I wouldn't be able to use your OS to do what I want it to do. I know this because I use kubuntu on my home desktop. It's great for many, many things but it doesn't run the games I want to play, the office apps I need for work, or Photoshop.

 

[tarannau]

Is it? Really? Have you used both side by side to give it a fair go? Even you would have to admit that you have an incredible mac bias.

XP And Tiger yes, Leopard vs Vista no. But I"ll trust those techy folks at Ars Techica and the like to give honest answers

I've spent most of my life using both platforms, with most of the outwardly techy stuff being on PCs. Swings and roundabouts, but it's fair to say that I prefer the mac - it's what I choose to use at home anyway.

 

[untethered]

Children, please.

The short answer is: use whichever OS suits you best.

The long answer is that you have four realistic choices, each with their pros and cons:

Windows Vista: needs up to date hardware but that can be obtained cheaply, restrictive license, generally nice to use, huge range of software

Windows XP: will run on older hardware but lacking in up-to-date features, quite restrictive licence, huge range of software

OSX: will only run on hugely overpriced hardware from a single vendor with attitudes to user freedom at least as nasty as Microsoft's, smaller range of software but much good quality stuff

Linux: the software's free, the licence is open, the range of software is huge but most of it isn't good quality for the end user, wide range of hardware choices

 

[ChrisFilter]

Fair enough. It's more the uninformed comments that got my goat and presumption that its acceptable/understandable for an OS to really only run well on fairly high spec kit.

I'm sure that if Apple tried to develop a version of the Mac OS that would run on any Windows compatible hardware they'd struggle to keep the requirements as tightly locked down as they do at present with a very limited range of hardware.

 

[Crispy]

This thread has descended into mac vs pc arm-flappery faster than any in recent memory.

 

[ChrisFilter]

XP And Tiger yes, Leopard vs Vista no. But I"ll trust those techy folks at Ars Techica and the like to give honest answers

I've spent most of my life using both platforms, with most of the outwardly techy stuff being on PCs. Swings and roundabouts, but it's fair to say that I prefer the mac - it's what I choose to use at home anyway.

Great, but I'm not sure how this is relevant on an XP vs Vista thread

 

[ChrisFilter]

Children, please.

The short answer is: use whichever OS suits you best.

The long answer is that you have four realistic choices, each with their pros and cons:

Windows Vista: needs up to date hardware but that can be obtained cheaply, restrictive license, generally nice to use, huge range of software

Windows XP: will run on older hardware but lacking in up-to-date features, quite restrictive licence, huge range of software

OSX: will only run on hugely overpriced hardware from a single vendor with attitudes to user freedom at least as nasty as Microsoft's, smaller range of software but much good quality stuff

Linux: the software's free, the licence is open, the range of software is huge but most of it isn't good quality for the end user, wide range of hardware choices

EXACTLY.

 

[untethered]

Fair enough. It's more the uninformed comments that got my goat and presumption that its acceptable/understandable for an OS to really only run well on fairly high spec kit.

The "high spec kit" argument is a complete red herring if you're comparing PCs to Macs.

For the price of a Mac Mini (1GB RAM, 120GB hard drive, combo drive) you can get a real computer with Vista and twice the RAM, three times the disk space and an optical drive that actually lets you burn DVDs. Yes, this is 2007, folks.

Oh, and a monitor, keyboard and mouse too.

 

[tarannau]

OSX: will only run on hugely overpriced hardware from a single vendor with attitudes to user freedom at least as nasty as Microsoft's, smaller range of software but much good quality stuff
s

Care to show how Apple's attitude to DRM and OS licensing is anywhere near as restrictive as MS's then? I'd agree with the basic points of your four OS summary, but tht was more than bit unbalanced there.

Did you see that the Macbook was one of the cheaper laptops (and best buy) in the recent Which consumer test btw...

 

[ChrisFilter]

This thread has descended into mac vs pc arm-flappery faster than any in recent memory.

Indeed, I love it. What's especially nice is that no-one's actually criticised Macs or linux machines, yet they're being defended to the death

 

[untethered]

Care to show how Apple's attitude to DRM and OS licensing is anywhere near as restrictive as MS's then? I'd agree with the basic points of your four OS summary, but tht was more than bit unbalanced there.

How about if you buy music/videos from the iTunes music store they'll only play using Apple software and on Apple portable players?

How about their OS only runs on their hardware?

Did you see that the Macbook was one of the cheaper laptops (and best buy) in the recent Which consumer test btw...

Sounds great.

My laptop cost £500: 2.25GB RAM, 17" screen, 120GB drive, Vista.

Cheapest MacBook: £699, 1GB RAM, 13.3" screen, 80GB OSX.

Oh, and does the £699 MacBook burn DVDs?

To get something even vaguely comparable I'd have to go for the £829 model, which gets you a DVD writer (SuperDrive, ho ho ho), 120GB drive but still a tiny screen. At a price 60% more expensive.

And you know what? I'm more than happy for people to buy Macs if that's what they want and/or they think it's good value for money. But on a price comparison they're nowhere. That's before we even add on the near-compulsory AppleCare at £199 on the MacBook.

 

[jæd]

You stick with what you like then, this is a thread about Vista and fuck all to do with your preferred flavour of OS.

Any chance we can discuss this without resorting to playground talking...? The only reason I mentioned Macs and Ubuntu is because you made the point on "how things were". The same point was made by various other people.

I wouldn't be able to use your OS to do what I want it to do. I know this because I use kubuntu on my home desktop. It's great for many, many things but it doesn't run the games I want to play, the office apps I need for work, or Photoshop.

If by "Office apps" you mean Microsoft Office I'm currently running that on Gutsy via Crossover...

 

[jæd]

How about if you buy music/videos from the iTunes music store they'll only play using Apple software and on Apple portable players?

Sigh... The Apple software is free and you burn the songs to mp3 on cd

And you know what? I'm more than happy for people to buy Macs if that's what they want and/or they think it's good value for money. But on a price comparison they're nowhere.

Sigh... Look at the total cost of ownership. And that you need spend your time maintaining it. Or don't viruses and malware happen anymore...?

That's before we even add on the near-compulsory AppleCare at £199 on the MacBook.

Why's that "near-compulsory" then...?

 

[jæd]

Indeed, I love it. What's especially nice is that no-one's actually criticised Macs or linux machines, yet they're being defended to the death

Thought this was a Vista thread...?

 

[untethered]

I then read the alarming facts about Vista and privicy and am generally blown away by stupidity

What can I do to make Vista better?

Can I shut a lot of its nastier bits down or am I stuck with them?

What, precisely, is your problem?

MS have a pretty nasty attitude to privacy and software/file format freedom, but you'll find that from the other major OS vendor, Apple, too.

So what's it to be:

- Stick with a six-year old OS (XP) that has a great deal less functionality than Vista.

- Pay twice as much for a computer from Apple and still have to deal with various privacy/DRM issues

- Bung on Linux and have the time of your life sorting out unusual hardware issues and delighting in using software written by geeks for other geeks.

 

[jæd]

What, precisely, is your problem?

MS have a pretty nasty attitude to privacy and software/file format freedom, but you'll find that from the other major OS vendor, Apple, too.

So what's it to be:

- Stick with a six-year old OS (XP) that has a great deal less functionality than Vista.

- Pay twice as much for a computer from Apple and still have to deal with various privacy/DRM issues

- Bung on Linux and have the time of your life sorting out unusual hardware issues and delighting in using software written by geeks for other geeks.

Or he could just read ill-informed posts on web-boards like this one...

 

[untethered]

Or he could just read ill-informed posts on web-boards like this one...

If I'm still ill-informed after running Linux as my primary desktop OS for nearly a decade and various XP/OSX/Vista systems as secondaries, I'd be grateful if you could point me in the right direction to ascend to your level of superior knowledge.

 

[jæd]

If I'm still ill-informed after running Linux as my primary desktop OS for nearly a decade and various XP/OSX/Vista systems as secondaries, I'd be grateful if you could point me in the right direction to ascend to your level of superior knowledge.

Please address the points made in # 46... And you may have lots of experience in older distros of Linux but I think you're really wrong about modern versions like Gutsy...

 

[ChrisFilter]

Any chance we can discuss this without resorting to playground talking...? The only reason I mentioned Macs and Ubuntu is because you made the point on "how things were". The same point was made by various other people.

I didn't argue that point at all, I stood corrected. What playground talk?

If by "Office apps" you mean Microsoft Office I'm currently running that on Gutsy via Crossover...

Nice one.. personally I'd rather just run it on my Vista machine. That way I don't have to faff about with anything.

 

[ChrisFilter]

Sigh... Look at the total cost of ownership. And that you need spend your time maintaining it. Or don't viruses and malware happen anymore...?

I've never had a virus and I've been using Windows OS' for at least the last 13 years. I don't have to maintain anything, my av program auto-updates.

 

[ChrisFilter]

Thought this was a Vista thread...?

It was, until you and tarannau went a bit OTT in your defence of operating systems that hadn't been criticised (though I accept they have been now).

I'm still a bit mystified as to why Vista running on a Mac is a 'score' for Mac? Surely if Vista can run on it's opponents hardware that's Visa 1 - 0 Mac?

 

[Crispy]

It was, until you and tarannau went a bit OTT in your defence of operating systems that hadn't been criticised (though I accept they have been now).

I'm still a bit mystified as to why Vista running on a Mac is a 'score' for Mac? Surely if Vista can run on it's opponents hardware that's Visa 1 - 0 Mac?

It's Apple 1, MS 1

 

[untethered]

Please address the points made in # 46... And you may have lots of experience in older distros of Linux but I think you're really wrong about modern versions like Gutsy...

Oh crumbs, that's me scuppered because it's Gutsy I'm running.

 

[untethered]

The huge and obvious point that almost all the people promoting alternatives to MS seem to miss is that as much as everyone despises Microsoft the company and curses their products, they still for various reasons find the overall generic PC + Windows + Windows apps a better deal than the alternatives.

Now why do you think that is?

 

[Crispy]

The huge and obvious point that almost all the people promoting alternatives to MS seem to miss is that as much as everyone despises Microsoft the company and curses their products, they still for various reasons find the overall generic PC + Windows + Windows apps a better deal than the alternatives.

Now why do you think that is?

Inertia and MS's market share.

 

[ChrisFilter]

It's Apple 1, MS 1

From a business perspective, yes. Crossover sales are great, especially as MS don't really do hardware it just means a boost in OS sales to them.

From a geeky, pointless fanboy point of view, surely it means Windows OSs score highly on the compatability point of view?

 

[ChrisFilter]

Inertia and MS's market share.

That and that PCs are far cheaper and don't have to run 'fucking' Entourage to get the industry standard Office package.