Vista

[untethered]

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

It's not free as in freedom. Being limited to just one application in which you can play your music hardly sounds like a good deal, even if it doesn't cost any money to download.

I believe the CD burning thing is limited to five times.

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 problem with viruses/malware on Windows machines. I run a free AV on Windows that updates itself daily and Windows Defender and Firewall (part of Vista) takes care of the rest.

Do Macs ever go wrong? Are they cheap and easy to upgrade? Is third-party support so widely available it's at commodity prices?

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

Because if your Apple laptop's motherboard or screen fails, it'll cost you more to replace it than buy a new Windows laptop with a better spec and probably at least 50% of the price of a new Apple laptop. So if you're actually spending £800 or so on a new Mac, another £200 for AppleCare actually represents good value for money in the freakonomics Appleverse.

Anywhere else, it'd be at least half the price of a whole new machine.

 

[untethered]

Inertia and MS's market share.

I just don't get it. Perhaps you could help me out.

Mac and Linux fans have been banging on about the self-evident superiority of their systems for years.

The general proposition has been that the only thing stopping people "switching" is that either they haven't tried anything else or in the case of the Mac, they really can't afford to pay twice as much for their hardware as they need to.

But that proposition is fast collapsing. It's easy to try Linux and yet very, very few people are making a permanent, total switch. Quite a lot of people know someone with a Mac or use one at work/college, and yet don't make the jump in any significant numbers.

Linux makes sense if "free as in freedom" is the most important thing to you. More important than compatibility, commercial support or the quality of the apps.

Macs make sense if style and being part of the Mac fan club is the most important thing to you. For some people working in a Mac environment, it makes sense. For just about everyone else, especially those on average/low incomes, it doesn't.

And now Vista has really narrowed the gap with OSX in terms of the general OS usability.

Macs will always have their niche. Linux is great on the server and has a few small desktop niches. I have my doubts whether either will ever make any serious strides into the mainstream desktop market because the incumbent system just isn't so bad that most people are crying out for a replacement.

 

[jæd]

It's not free as in freedom. Being limited to just one application in which you can play your music hardly sounds like a good deal, even if it doesn't cost any money to download.

I believe the CD burning thing is limited to five times.

But you only have to burn it once...

I've never had a problem with viruses/malware on Windows machines. I run a free AV on Windows that updates itself daily and Windows Defender and Firewall (part of Vista) takes care of the rest.

I'm always amazed at the number of people who claim never to have a virus. Evah...!

Do Macs ever go wrong? Are they cheap and easy to upgrade? Is third-party support so widely available it's at commodity prices?

Yep, they go wrong, but compared to stuff like Dell they're are more reliable... Are they cheap to upgrade...? Well it depends on what you're upgrading...

 

[Crispy]

It's not free as in freedom. Being limited to just one application in which you can play your music hardly sounds like a good deal, even if it doesn't cost any money to download.

I believe the CD burning thing is limited to five times.

These are limitations on music purchsed from the itunes music store only. And anyone stupid enough to buy music from a DRM'd music shop gets what they deserve. Regular MP3's are just as portable on mac as they are on any other platform.

So if you're actually spending £800 or so on a new Mac, another £200 for AppleCare actually represents good value for money in the freakonomics Appleverse.

This much is true, unfortunately. 3rd-party repairs are available at a much lower cost, but you're not garunteed a fix.

 

[Crispy]

No it really is inertia on the part of customers. My mum would love using a mac - she's loved playing with them and thinks they're fantastic machines. But she has all her accounts in Quicken 98, so she's stuck with Windows, which she knows how to use. That sort of software and skillset lockin is hard to shift.

 

[untethered]

But you only have to burn it once...

Ah, so let's get this right.

I go to the iTunes Music Store and pay 79p for a song.

Then I burn it to a CD.

Then I rip that CD back onto my machine as an MP3.

Then I can play it in any music software, not just that mandated by Apple's DRM policies.

Is this the famous Apple approach to usability? Sounds like a real time saver.

I'm always amazed at the number of people who claim never to have a virus. Evah...!

I imagine it breaks down like this:

1. People who have never had a virus.
2. People who don't know whether they've ever had a virus, because they're not checking.
3. People who are lying.

Most Windows users are probably in group 2, but then most Windows users aren't running up-to-date AV software and also don't have backups. Last time I checked, running a Mac or Linux didn't innoculate you against stupidity either.

Yep, they go wrong, but compared to stuff like Dell they're are more reliable... Are they cheap to upgrade...? Well it depends on what you're upgrading...

I've just bought a base MacBook and having got it home and used it for the weekend I now realise I want to upgrade the RAM by another 1GB, the hard drive is half the size of my iPod's one and I can't burn DVDs.

Could you quote me?

 

[ChrisFilter]

I'm always amazed at the number of people who claim never to have a virus. Evah...!

Probably because you only ever have these arguments with geeks. Yep, the average person can get viruses. The average person probably wouldn't want to use linux though.

Yep, they go wrong, but compared to stuff like Dell they're are more reliable... Are they cheap to upgrade...? Well it depends on what you're upgrading...

Are they, though? At any discernable level to the end user? I've never known either manufacturers stuff to fail, apart from when people spill coke on their laptop. I appreciate this might be a rarity, but we do support a fuck of a lot of both manufacturers equipment.

Anyway, the macbook range and the inspiron range use very similar kit for some parts.. intel processors, nvidia graphics cards, etc.

 

[ChrisFilter]

No it really is inertia on the part of customers. My mum would love using a mac - she's loved playing with them and thinks they're fantastic machines. But she has all her accounts in Quicken 98, so she's stuck with Windows, which she knows how to use. That sort of software and skillset lockin is hard to shift.

Very true, but whilst Macs cost too much, don't run the popular software, and are seen as a bit wanky they're never going to dent the marketplace to the extent that the OS warrants.

 

[tarannau]

Bear in mind as well that Corporate IT departments are also amazingly risk averse, many of the staff trained using MS certified courses that encourage further MS specialisation and take up

Apple's growing pretty well in consumer markets. Something like 1 out of 3 laptops in the US sold are Macs, which ain't bad for a growing segment of the market.

 

[untethered]

Bear in mind as well that Corporate IT departments are also amazingly risk averse, many of the staff trained using MS certified courses that encourage further MS specialisation and take up

Corporate IT departments don't fundamentally have a problem running Windows.

What problem do you think they have that is crying out for any kind of solution that MS and numerous hardware/software vendors can't provide without going to the extreme measures of switching the whole OS?

 

[ChrisFilter]

Corporate IT departments don't fundamentally have a problem running Windows.

What problem do you think they have that is crying out for any kind of solution that MS and numerous hardware/software vendors can't provide without going to the extreme measures of switching the whole OS?

Indeed. If it ain't broke, don't fix it.

 

[rhod]

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

Yeah, a fair comparison there.

I think the key problem with Vista at the moment is programmes and drivers that don't work. My partner has Vista on her laptop, and I've had probs installing a few things a few too many times to make me comfortable about running it myself.

Don't like the way the start menu is organised, or the folder structures.

The eye candy is quite nice, but nothing that can't really be replicated on an XP machine if you're that way inclined. I'm not sure that there are many killer up-to-date features that I'm missing out on.

There's just not enough broke with XP that Vista fixes to make it worthwhile, from what I can see.

 

[Crispy]

If the global search in Vista is as good as Spotlight, then it'd be worth upgrading for that.

 

[jæd]

Indeed. If it ain't broke, don't fix it.

Then why bother upgrading to Vista...?

 

[untethered]

The only hardware problem I've had is with an old photo printer for which Sagem are reluctant to release a driver.

Don't like the way the start menu is organised, or the folder structures.

Oh, it's much better.

Documents and Settings becomes Users. All those silly "My" folders get dropped and you just get Pictures, Documents, Videos, Music etc.

Also, the clickable breadcrumb trails are much better for folder navigation than a typeable location bar.

More's the point, the file search is out of this world better than XP and means that most of the time it's quicker to search for a file than browse to its folder.

Like everything, it's a little jarring at first.

The eye candy is quite nice, but nothing that can't really be replicated on an XP machine if you're that way inclined. I'm not sure that there are many killer up-to-date features that I'm missing out on.

I'm not interested in the eye candy. Some of it rivals Apple in terms of pointless distracting animations that decrease usability. But overall it looks good without being excessively gaudy.

There's just not enough broke with XP that Vista fixes to make it worthwhile, from what I can see.

Generally, agreed. Though if you're buying a new machine I'd definitely recommend moving up to Vista rather than being stuck with XP.

 

[ChrisFilter]

Then why bother upgrading to Vista...?

Oh. My. God.

I've expressly said that I wouldn't recommend upgrading an XP machine to Vista. No-one has argued that you should.

The argument hs always been that Vista is a good OS, so downgrading a Vista machine to XP is pointless.

It's like banging your head against a brick wall, it really is

 

[untethered]

I still don't get why people are funny about Vista?! Again, for the millionth time, if you have 2GB of ram, a core 2 duo processor, and don't use any odd bespoke software, then Vista is a great OS.

And for a bit of perspective, a suitable CPU and RAM will cost around £85 retail.

Hardly a deal breaker, is it?

 

[jæd]

Oh. My. God.

It. Was. A. Joke.

The argument hs always been that Vista is a good OS, so downgrading a Vista machine to XP is pointless.[/QUOTE]

I've never said anything different... Though it depends on what you mean by "good"...

Anyway, I've got better things to do...

<unsubscribes>

 

[The Groke]

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

I am interested to know exactly what the additional functionality in Vista is...?

Have tried it and have been singularly unimpressed.

I have no problems with XP and indeed run it on bootcamp on my home Macbook.

At work, I am much aggrieved at the fact that I cannot find a single compelling reason to upgrade the business machines to Vista other than it is the current MS OS and MS will eventually stop supporting XP as will other software vendors.

NT to 2000? Worth it. REALLY worth it. For a commercial environment, it was a huge leap forward.
2000 to XP? hm....debatable, but from an administrative point of view it did have its advantages.

XP to Vista? We are going to have to fork out a lot of cash - not least in upgrading/replacing a whole bunch of PCs - for a big pile of shiny fuck-all.


Grr.

Oh well, that's progress for you I guess.


(to add - I wouldn't disagree that for home users, it is probably worth considering.....)

 

[ChrisFilter]

The speed at which you can browse and search for files is greatly improved. Other than that, no listable selection of plus points, it's just got a nicer feel all round, and is generally easier to use. Especially with laptops.

 

[untethered]

There is the new Windows Photo Gallery, WMP 11, Windows DVD Maker and the new version of Windows Movie Maker.

 

[The Groke]

The speed at which you can browse and search for files is greatly improved. Other than that, no listable selection of plus points, it's just got a nicer feel all round, and is generally easier to use. Especially with laptops.

Yeah, like I say - probably decent enough for home users, but not a vast difference for business....

The other reason that I will be keeping XP on my Macbook is that the Vista installation seems to be not far off twice the size on the disk - I don't really want to give that much of my 160Gb away for Windows when all I want it for is playing games......

 

[ChrisFilter]

Yeah, like I say - probably decent enough for home users, but not a vast difference for business....

The other reason that I will be keeping XP on my Macbook is that the Vista installation seems to be not far off twice the size on the disk - I don't really want to give that much of my 160Gb away for Windows when all I want it for is playing games......

Well, I've noticed the biggest difference when using it for business. Home use is just games and web browsing, so very little difference, other than it's faster than XP and a lot prettier.

All in all, for the development time it is underwhelming, but that doesn't stop it being a good OS.