0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic. Read 16837 times.
Personally, I think Macs are better designed and easier to use that Winblows. However, a lot of software still is PC based.
Ok, I’m no expert but I am a professional in the publishing, news and media industry. MOST writers are Mac fans, simple and true. The publishing world, in general, is Mac bias even though Apple only accounts for 4 percent of all computers in the US and 2 percent world wide. This is why the media pays WAY more attention to Apple and Jobs then what is reasonable. For a tiny company that basically contributes little to the industry as a whole, they get too much attention because of the fan-favoritism of the media – it’s a joke really. Also. Again, as a publishing professional for over 18 years I have found that writers and editors are a strange bunch to say the least. They are usually (90%!) technically challenged and overly scholastic being somewhat socially handicapped. Sorry if I just insulted anyone, but it’s a strong and solid observation I find to be true overwhelmingly so. I try not to read all the bias nonsense written by Mac fans that are also techno retards. Like the most recent headlines about Visa vulnerability related to voice commands – well, duha!! Seriously, is that the best they can do? The stupid Mac commercial portraying the gorky PC-guy getting his Vista upgrade and having to have his perifs. changed – isn’t that the kettle calling the pot black! Enough, is enough on this topic. Vista is wonderful and is going to make millions of computer users very happy. BTW: I installed Vista Business on an Athlon 1400Mhz or something with 256MB of RAM and a 20GB hard drive with onboard video – real old and slow. I put it on a co workers desk and ask them how it was. After a week or so, they had no complaints, liked it actually. So there goes the “Vista wont’ run on anything but a super computer” its just not true, it’ll run fine on just about anything.
One cannot discount personal experience when talking about equipment, software, cables etc... I stand to say that MS has been very fortunate not to have their behinds sued beyond oblivion due to the absolute lack of concern on their security side mostly due to their negligence in not working up the security and technical glitches. Once again, to call the fans and users of Apple computers technically challenged is a sweeping statement, so is the statement that "Vista will make millions of users happy." Most have not known glitches and crashes to be something not common because most computers most people have experienced have Windows on them. Show then a machine with a different OS system, such as the OS X. They will be surprised. This is not to say that all OS that Apple writes is necessarily perfect. Unlike some Apple supporters that claim it is flawless, it does freeze once in a blue moon. One thing that I have experienced with the OS X is that at least I did not have to "Clean boot" due to file corruption in the past 2 years. Tell me what is more stable? If my experiences with XP pack 2 are reflective of potential things to come, then, what good can come from a system that is in the inherent code, similar to Windows of old? Now, if you give me a comp with Vista for free, I will try it. To buy it because I do not want to be labelled "Technically challenged" I won't. Older non linux based OS from Apple were buggy, as I remember them. My greatest surprise came when I went into Apple computing after a hiatus between 1996-2005. What a surprise it was. In comparison, Windows XP and its subsequent packs seem rough in execution. In comparison to the previous Windows version, XP might have brought some stability, but not at the par of Mac OS X. Vista will make millions happy... Sure, anyone who has not used a computer and who has a chance of using will be happy with ANY computer, which most likely will be a window based one, due to the 96% figure you provided. BTW: I do like Microsoft Word, due to my familiarity to it.
Unless Apple decides to make their OS available for people to run on their Wintel machines.
What the heck do you do with five buttons on a mouse?
I can hang my Windows XP machine at will by trying to to do too much with itunes or Adobe Acrobat.
bought the vista, ultimate edition thru a friend of mine at a mega substantial discount Thumbs upThats the only reason i bought it ... i'm quite ok with the xp i have installed.I'll know how good or bad it is in the next couple of weeks. I've a 64 bit athlon processor with 1G RAM but a 128MB AGP graphics card .... hopefully i don't have to upgrade any hardware in the near future.
Anyone have an opinion on how well Vista handles or doesn't handle audio?BTW, I can hang my Windows XP machine at will by trying to to do too much with itunes or Adobe Acrobat.
You will need more memory, lots more memory, (Matrix, "I need lots of guns") more memory. Vista's minimum is 512 MB to function, a realistic number would be 1 GB as a minimum. I use XP Pro SP2 and I have 2 GB of Memory, a 512 MB PCI Express SLI card, and an X2 (dual core) AMD CPU. I purchased this in preparation for Vista. I will still need more RAM to use my computer as a Vista based gaming platform (Not going to happen anytime soon...until I see stability within the OS), I plan on going up to 4-6 GB of RAM memory. By the way, the memory must be absolutely perfect with no errors present on any RAM stick. There are computer tech websites which explain and deal with this problem. Since most RAM has a Lifetime warranty, you may want to run a memcheck program of some sort and if there are any memory addressing problems on a RAM stick send it back to the manufacturer. You may need a receipt or proof of purchase. 128 MB won't run the Aero desktop function, if I remember correctly, but it can be defeated/bypassed.Chris
Quote from: Doublej on 4 Feb 2007, 01:50 amAnyone have an opinion on how well Vista handles or doesn't handle audio?BTW, I can hang my Windows XP machine at will by trying to to do too much with itunes or Adobe Acrobat. Ever look and see home much memory iTunes eats? It’s a poorly written app, a real POS! Acrobat isn’t much better.
The thing about the memory usage is that much of it is cached. You can launch lots of different apps and the usage doesn’t grow much. So its not like Vista itself needs 500+Mb of RAM, much of it is allocated to the PCIe BUS and your video card.
Quote By the way, how in the world did you get Half-Life 2 Episode 1 to load onto your computer? I installed Steam and over the last 8 weeks, it has downloaded 11% of the update to the game. As far as I can tell from the teeny bit of documentation, I cannot finish installing the game nor play it until the update is complete. My modem download speed averages 34.5 MB/sec with every other program except Steam, which runs at 2.9-3.5 MB/sec. After about two hours I have to reboot the computer because Steam disconnects or is disconnected from Valve Software's website. It is incredibly annoying. The support tech just repeated the FAQs that I had already read and implemented. I could take my computer into work and use their T3 lines to speed up the download, except that it would be tracked back to whichever drop I used and I would be reprimanded or fired.As far as Hard Drives, I have an older 7200 rpm IDE with the OS and little else on it, and a newer SATA drive for the game programs. I will replace, before upgrading the OS, the IDE drive with a SATA 2 drive and make the SATA drive the OS drive.Thanks for clearing the problem of Vista 32 up for me, I suppose I'll wait until the Service Pack is Issued and see how much MS really wants me to spend for Vista Ultimate (need that in-game eye candy).Regards,ChrisWell you’re going to LOVE this. You only need to install HL2 once. From that point on, all you need to do is launch the apps. I keep all my games on a D partition (i.e. D:/My Games) Since Steam and the games don’t write anything into the Windows directory, you only need to launch the game (well, you need to launch Steam) and if you are moving the games from one computer or OS to another, you will be asked for your username and password. D:/My Games/Valve/Steam/Steam.exe – The Steam checks for updates and then runs. Doom3, Call of Duty2 and UT2004 transplant the same way. They are truly self contained apps. I too wish I could have a true 64-bit system, that’s why I tried WindowsXP64 which was a nightmare. I lent it to a friend to try and he too found NO drivers available that worked well enough. The positive side is that we’re not missing anything; there just aren’t any 64-bit apps available right now. Adobe will be releasing 64-bit versions of their apps next year as well as other manufacturers. SO in about a year or so, Windows XP64 and Vista 64 will be an option. If you do memory intensive data-basing, video or 3D editing then you will want the extra RAM but for most of us 2GB is plenty.
By the way, how in the world did you get Half-Life 2 Episode 1 to load onto your computer? I installed Steam and over the last 8 weeks, it has downloaded 11% of the update to the game. As far as I can tell from the teeny bit of documentation, I cannot finish installing the game nor play it until the update is complete. My modem download speed averages 34.5 MB/sec with every other program except Steam, which runs at 2.9-3.5 MB/sec. After about two hours I have to reboot the computer because Steam disconnects or is disconnected from Valve Software's website. It is incredibly annoying. The support tech just repeated the FAQs that I had already read and implemented. I could take my computer into work and use their T3 lines to speed up the download, except that it would be tracked back to whichever drop I used and I would be reprimanded or fired.As far as Hard Drives, I have an older 7200 rpm IDE with the OS and little else on it, and a newer SATA drive for the game programs. I will replace, before upgrading the OS, the IDE drive with a SATA 2 drive and make the SATA drive the OS drive.Thanks for clearing the problem of Vista 32 up for me, I suppose I'll wait until the Service Pack is Issued and see how much MS really wants me to spend for Vista Ultimate (need that in-game eye candy).Regards,Chris
If I could simply buy the latest MAC OS and install it on my own homebuilt computer, I'd give that a try in a heartbeat. Why won't they do that, especially now that Apple is running Intel? Surely their profit margin on an OS is higher than it could ever be on hardware?
The idea of an Apple is mildly interesting, but I can't afford to spend $2k+ for a machine I can build myself for $900. If I could simply buy the latest MAC OS and install it on my own homebuilt computer, I'd give that a try in a heartbeat. Why won't they do that, especially now that Apple is running Intel? Surely their profit margin on an OS is higher than it could ever be on hardware?
Quote from: Rob Babcock on 4 Feb 2007, 06:02 amIf I could simply buy the latest MAC OS and install it on my own homebuilt computer, I'd give that a try in a heartbeat. Why won't they do that, especially now that Apple is running Intel? Surely their profit margin on an OS is higher than it could ever be on hardware? ME TOO! And every time someone posts anything related to a cracked OS running on a PC, Apple lawyers will be all over you!They don’t even want people talking about it.
