Print 355 comment(s) - last by Spivonious.. on Aug 13 at 2:16 PM

Amid the rush to the ultra-low end bargain PC market, its amazing how cheap a fuller functional Vista machine is

Many people are eying the ultra-portable bargain notebook market thanks to up-and-comers like Lenovo's IdeaPad S10 and the MSI Wind.  Chipmakers like Intel and VIA are struggling to keep up with demand for the bargain machines.  However, lost amid the ruckus is an equally significant trend in slightly higher-end model pricing.

Going to Best Buy, Circuit City, or even Target; a plethora of machines from manufacturers like Dell and HP assault the eyes.  Many of these Vista machines have impressive muscle for modest prices.  Take HP -- the average sale price (ASP) of a notebook with 14.1-inch display, 2GHz processor, 4GB of RAM and a 320GB hard drive is $699.   That kind of machine can not only replace a desktop, but also meet most users’ multimedia needs and even handle some less graphically intensive gaming.

Interestingly, prices seem to have hit a sweet spot and are quite low, though not moving up or down.  Stephen Baker, NPD's vice president of industry analysis, who yielded the HP ASP information had this to say of the trend, "We aren't seeing any particularly substantive moves down in price on the Windows side, either in desktops or notebooks."

While obviously it’s comparing apples and oranges, and the products appeal to different markets, it’s interesting to look at how Mac prices have changed versus PC prices.  Macs have gone from an average price of $1,432 and $1,574, for desktops and laptops respectively in June '06 to $1,543 and $1,515 respectively in June '08.  While much lower to start, PCs are now even lower in average sale price. The average PC notebook went from $877 to $700, while the average desktop dipped just barely from $559 to $550.

Vista PCs have reached a sweet point with pricing that is appealing not just to the high end crowd, but to the masses.  And while prices are staying constant, hardware features are increasing, which is good for the consumer.  As Mr. Baker puts it, "Of course there is feature creep—there always is."

Another trend along these lines is the push to support 64-bit Vista.  While numbers are still small, HP is leading the way, and its strong sales are certainly making an impact in spreading 64-bit.  DailyTech went into this trend in more detail.  Mr. Baker alludes to this stating, "Forty-eight percent of June Windows notebooks are 3GB systems.  But 4GB RAM Windows notebook systems are 11.6 percent of sales in June, up from nothing [at the] beginning of [the] year."

So what exactly do the latest NPD figures on Windows PCs show?  It can be interpreted in many ways, but one major observation is that Windows PCs are clearly the champion at lower prices.  It also shows that a full featured machine can be found for a very reasonable price.  This is good news for many -- and even better news when you consider holiday sales may momentarily sink prices even further.

Comments     Threshold

This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

By pauldovi on 8/6/2008 10:15:53 AM , Rating: 5
This is a good article. One of the largest fallacy that Steve Jobs worshipers make when comparing OSX to Windows is that they use $2000 Apple and $700 PC hardware and then come to the conclusion that OSX is faster. Well... Isn't that something.

RE: Nice
By fibreoptik on 8/6/08, Rating: -1
RE: Nice
By LorKha on 8/6/2008 10:26:42 AM , Rating: 5
Have you used Windows Vista?

Go ahead, complain about UAC and all the other crap that you don't know how to turn off in Windows Vista.

RE: Nice
By larson0699 on 8/6/08, Rating: -1
RE: Nice
By zsdersw on 8/6/2008 10:44:03 AM , Rating: 5
Then keep using XP and kwitcherbitchin'.

RE: Nice
By fibreoptik on 8/6/08, Rating: 0
RE: Nice
By larson0699 on 8/6/08, Rating: 0
RE: Nice
By fibreoptik on 8/6/08, Rating: 0
RE: Nice
By KeypoX on 8/7/2008 7:30:33 PM , Rating: 1
your argument is almost valid about xp vs vista. Except it excludes the fact that vista is faster in loading programs and more secure then xp. Also vista doesnt slow down over time like xp does...

I use both 10.5.4 osx and vista. On my pc and laptop, and i gotta say osx is lacking in alot of areas. Such as dual monitor features. And many other places, osx is pretty much useless for power users. But fills it niche crowd well! It also has issues sometimes doing thins like office, web browsing and of course it has a tiny lineup of supported software.

RE: Nice
By kelmon on 8/8/2008 2:54:45 AM , Rating: 2
? What dual-monitor features is it missing? It's a lot easier to setup than Windows and I can't say I've ever found anything missing. Equally, I don't know what "power user" features you are lacking but can you explain further?

Seriously, if I thought OS X was lacking relative to Windows then I'd have switched back a couple of years ago and saved myself the money. The only reason why I have to run Windows as well is simply due to a number of IE-only web applications that my company runs. Aside from that I never found myself thinking "Gee, it was easier to do this under Windows". How much of an OS X power user do you consider yourself? I'm not trying to be insulting but there's usually a way of achieving pretty much anything on the Mac but how might not always be obvious if you are used to the Windows way of doing things.

RE: Nice
By FITCamaro on 8/6/2008 10:48:12 AM , Rating: 5
Uh....Vista IS more secure than XP. You may have your system set up right(as do I) but the average sheep doesn't know how. So for them it stays on the default settings. And in that regard Vista is FAR more secure. And for an experienced user it's even more secure than an XP computer in the hands of an experienced user.

And no, Vista won't run well on an old Athlon XP and little memory. But with an X2 costing as low as $60, 2GB of RAM costing around $50, and a quality motherboard with integrated graphics at around $75, hardware cost is hardly holding anyone back.

Nor is anyone here trying to convince you to upgrade anyway. An older PC running XP is just fine. We're saying that if you're building a new computer or buying a new computer, there's no reason NOT to use Vista.

RE: Nice
By fibreoptik on 8/6/08, Rating: 0
RE: Nice
By FITCamaro on 8/6/2008 10:57:44 AM , Rating: 5
Go away little troll. Don't you have some children to frighten while hiding under the bridge?

RE: Nice
By fibreoptik on 8/6/08, Rating: -1
RE: Nice
By Chaser on 8/6/2008 11:31:50 AM , Rating: 2
Better than a Prius or bicycle.

RE: Nice
By anotherdude on 8/6/2008 11:32:31 AM , Rating: 5
you are so knee jerk anti-vista it is laughable. Vista simply isn't any slower than XP on a decent new system. This kind of mindless anti-vista bashing no longer plays. People know better. But keep screaming it anyway. A few uninformed sheep might still be listening. The tide has turned on Vista - suck it down.

RE: Nice
By FITCamaro on 8/6/2008 11:51:23 AM , Rating: 3
I already countered your blind criticism in plenty of other posts.

And I'm glad to know what car one drives is indicative of their intelligence. Nor do I drive a Camaro any longer (of course I hope to again in 2011).

RE: Nice
By fibreoptik on 8/6/08, Rating: 0
RE: Nice
By FITCamaro on 8/6/2008 4:49:22 PM , Rating: 4
If it was fanaticism, that'd be one thing. But all I've ever said is that it is a perfectly capable OS. Is it bug free? No. But neither is OSX or Linux. Beyond the lack of drivers, Vista has had a relatively painless launch. There were no extremely critical security holes. There was a few issues with networking and file transfers (not nearly as bad as OSX's with files being lost).

But other than that the only real complaints were high system requirements (not really an issue with low hardware costs) and lack of/poor drivers. Drivers are not Microsoft's responsibility so I do not hold them accountable for that. Now that drivers are more mature and SP1 is here which fixed many of those non-driver related issues, the OS is quite good. Yes it still has higher requirements than XP but thats the way it always is. Not necessarily a good thing but I'm not going to complain when I can 4GB of RAM for $80 and even a modest $60 dual core CPU can handle it.

As far as your "apology" below for calling me a redneck, I could care less. I have a very good job. I don't really care what some ignorant fool, who blindly bashes an OS it sounds like he's never even used, thinks of me. I'd rather take the redneck comment. I use "ain't" on a regular basis, love "gas guzzling" sports cars, love blowing shit up, love guns, love our military, and am a loyal citizen of Texas who lives away from his homeland for now.

RE: Nice
By fibreoptik on 8/6/08, Rating: -1
RE: Nice
By Belard on 8/7/08, Rating: 0
RE: Nice
By Alexstarfire on 8/6/08, Rating: -1
RE: Nice
By abzillah on 8/6/2008 6:32:35 PM , Rating: 4
I bought Vista for $89 from

RE: Nice
By Alexstarfire on 8/6/2008 7:12:45 PM , Rating: 2
I guess that's what I get for only using the prices I remember from last year. Guess you can totally retract my previous post.

RE: Nice
By Tamale on 8/7/2008 11:33:07 AM , Rating: 2
vista ultimate as an upgrade from XP was only $99 from circuit city last week

RE: Nice
By fibreoptik on 8/6/08, Rating: 0
RE: Nice
By DASQ on 8/6/2008 2:00:36 PM , Rating: 4
Well being that FIT Camaro has posted a comment in this article, it can't be him downrating you.

RE: Nice
By LorKha on 8/6/2008 2:00:47 PM , Rating: 4
I think everyone is down-rating your posts, not just him.

RE: Nice
By borismkv on 8/6/2008 2:24:51 PM , Rating: 2
I know I would if he wasn't at -1 already. As for me, I'm getting more and more tempted to blow 500 bucks and throw a nice upper-mid range video card, 8gigs of RAM and Vista Ultimate 64 in my rig.

RE: Nice
By AnnihilatorX on 8/6/2008 2:46:24 PM , Rating: 4
Well I have been using vista for a while. To me both vista and XP are good, if your PC has right config. For any PCs with less than 2GB RAM, XP is the way to go. There's not much gain in dashing out money to switch, unless you have bought 4GB RAM (well avoid 64 bit XP). If you buy a new PC with more than 2GB RAM, I don't see why you should be put off by it being bundled with Vista,

Whereas I see no major cons of not using Vista for higher end computer, I also see not much reasons for switching to Vista if you are a XP user.

Prefetching I don't have much experience with, since I use SSDs. But running frequently programs on slower HDDs does seem to be quicker than in XP. There are good GUI improvements over XP, I especially like the quick search and launch start menu. The GUI also feels less sluggish and less likely to crash (explorer.exe needs to shut down, etc)
Another seldom mentioned feature is to be able to config volume (and stored as preference) independently for each applications. This is not possible in XP.

Voice recognition is improved and it's actually quite a nice system but that's a niche feature.

Vista do take up a lot more HDD space due to the Winsxs (Windows Side-by-Side) directory, which stores old copies of dlls for compatibility reasons. That folder can swallow to in excess of 5GBs. I had been able to reach reportedly 10GB, while some of them are actually hard links (not taking up physical space) but still significant.

Cold boot start up time is slower than XP. I can't give precise comparison because I am using SSDs.

And yes, vista is more secure. But a system is only as secure as its weakest link, which usually in these days in IT world, the users.

RE: Nice
By sld on 8/7/2008 4:48:02 PM , Rating: 2
Cold boot on my Thinkpad T60 is faster on Vista SP1 than on XP SP3.

By any chance, did you disable the Readyboost service? That has to be kept on Automatic so Readyboot can gather boot data.

RE: Nice
By leexgx on 8/7/2008 9:58:04 AM , Rating: 1
not that i am jumping on his band waggonn

as overall use of all OS in my life time (from dos/3.11 up) all of them have had hardware requrements that seem silly,
out of all OS i think ever one agrees win ME was the worst os that thay have made, the windows NT core (4/2k/XP)has been M$ best, the main problem with secuerity problems with XP or any OS is that users do not think before saying yes i install win antivirusVista2008 (fraudware)
with vista you get now an UAC nag + the install activeX plugin and if the user ignores both and plods along with them

vista takes it to far this time as hard disk tech is not fast enough once it gets into one of its hard disk bashing modes (mostly at fault the new System Restor/Volume Shadow Copy that is linked into all of Vista vers) once SSD fully takes off (as it can handle random reads far better then HDDs as thats what ) SSD will be able to hide lots of random reads

on my next reload i most likey uses vista 64 on my gameing PC only and deal with the niggles but other pcs will be sticking with XP untill windows 7 i guess or beyond

RE: Nice
By jonmcc33 on 8/6/2008 11:03:02 AM , Rating: 4
Vista runs like a breeze on my high end 1 year old Intel Core 2 Duo rig, 3 year old Dell Latitude D610 with a Pentium M, 3 year old AMD Opteron 165 rig and 6 year old Pentium 4 2.4B Dell Precision rig.

Gotta be an interface issue between the keyboard and chair for Vista to "run like garbage" for you.

RE: Nice
By StevoLincolnite on 8/6/08, Rating: 0
RE: Nice
By Spivonious on 8/6/2008 11:53:21 AM , Rating: 5
Setting up my home network with Vista was cake.

1. plugged in the router
2. setup the WPA2 keyphrase
3. plugged in the ethernet cable into my desktop (vista HP x64)
4. turned on the Wii, setup WPA settings
5. turned on my laptop (Vista Ultimate x86), setup WPA settings
6. Go into Network Connection Center and turn off password-protected file sharing.

Oh look, everything works.

Sure, there's not any pressing reason to upgrade to Vista right now, but to say that setting up a network with it "is a headache" is flat out wrong.

RE: Nice
By danrien on 8/6/08, Rating: 0
RE: Nice
By othercents on 8/6/2008 1:01:53 PM , Rating: 2
Exactly, I run two machines (1 desktop, 1 laptop) and both were purchased this year. The desktop runs Vista Premium and the laptop runs XP. Media Center on Vista is much better than the XP Media Center and since the desktop is mainly my media machine (I do other things too) I like using Vista.

My laptop is mainly my gaming machine and I also VPN into my office from time to time. The VPN software doesn't work on Vista and it is easier for me to use XP instead of spending money for firewall upgrades at my office. I have also had a better experience with the games I play on XP. They don't crash as often and I don't have the lag issues I had in Vista.

Vista works great and like I said I do use a Vista machine, but for my laptop I prefer XP. Telling me I should use only Vista is like telling me that I should be driving a Prius because of gas prices. Well my response is that I prefer feeding $280 per month into my 67 Mustang and buying new tires every year. Sure beats the hell out of having a $300 car payment and still putting $120 in gas into a Prius.


RE: Nice
By kkwst2 on 8/6/2008 11:42:57 PM , Rating: 2
VPN issue must be related to version. It works beautifully on my T61 with Ultimate. I vaguely recall that you need Business or ultimate to get proper VPN and they removed it from Home Premium.

There must be 3rd party VPN software to solve your issue.

RE: Nice
By StevoLincolnite on 8/6/2008 5:44:52 PM , Rating: 2
I said it was a headache for *me* - I'm far to used to Networking in the age old Windows 95/98/ME/NT/2K/XP and when I tried performing the task on Vista I honestly got lost.
I like to set Static I.P's for everything, It took me a good 15 minuets clicking around in the network settings just to find my network adapters, call me silly but to me it was cosmetic changes that was not really required, and consequently became more trouble than it was worth.

The operating system in other respects looks rather good, I do miss some of the Run commands though like DXDIAG.

Lets be realistic though, If I can do everything fine in Windows XP, is there really any incentive for me to upgrade to Vista when it provides no benefit for my required Needs?

RE: Nice
By Belard on 8/7/2008 3:54:22 PM , Rating: 2
The incentive is to make Steve Ballmer and MS Stockholders happy.

RE: Nice
By AnnihilatorX on 8/6/2008 2:50:34 PM , Rating: 2
I agree with the network sharing centre is a pain in the ass by hiding the "Manage network connections" link. Trying to be user friendly there but it's just made it much less user friendly. Since you can't do much on the network centre without going to the network connections akin to the XP network connections.

However, you can manually create a shortcut to network connections page. This will eliminate the need to use the network and sharing centre, and problem solved.

RE: Nice
By allajunaki on 8/6/2008 9:47:57 PM , Rating: 3
Yup, Network center is a real pain.... But for ordinary people this can be great, coz Vista identifies if we are on the just network, or if the network extends to Internet.
Also, Wifi setup is much more simpler on vista as compared to XP. Other day we were struggling to get an XP machine onto our LAN.
However, like others pointed out; Advanced tasks are little harder, coz they are buried deeper than XP.

Well, I have heard from others Vista is slow, but 2 machines in my home is quite fast, does its job, requires no pampering and runs quietly enough for us to do whatever we are doing.
And people who think they are smarter than UAC and bugged by it, well if u are, how come u havent figured it out on how to turn it off yet? ( Hint : Click Start -> Typer "User" -> Click User Accounts -> Click "Turn User Account Control", Reboot. Work done)

RE: Nice
By larson0699 on 8/6/08, Rating: -1
RE: Nice
By zyren on 8/6/2008 2:38:31 PM , Rating: 5
no choice? its your own fault that you only have 512mb of ram. I find that kind of foolish and slightly masochistic that anyone would go through the grief of running 512mb of ram on a computer when you could easily spend $50-60 to upgrade to 2gb.

RE: Nice
By larson0699 on 8/6/08, Rating: -1
RE: Nice
By DeuceHalo on 8/6/2008 3:33:49 PM , Rating: 5
You could easily spend $60 to upgrade. At the moment I cannot and do not consider it a priority by any stretch.

Apparently you don't even consider paying for your OS a priority either, but believe Microsoft owes it to you for free.

BTW - 512MB of DDR can be had for less than $20 off Newegg. If you're still too cheap to buy it, then you don't need Vista.

RE: Nice
By larson0699 on 8/6/08, Rating: -1
RE: Nice
By audiomaniaca on 8/7/2008 11:10:59 AM , Rating: 2
512? This must be a joke!

I used to have 512 back in 2004 or something.
Who's wasting time to reply to someone using 512? He shouldn't even be posting here with his 512.

RE: Nice
By Clauzii on 8/7/2008 4:30:11 PM , Rating: 2
Well, it works, doesn't it? I upgraded from 1GB to 2GB not long ago. Only photo/videoedtiting gained from that. Windows XP itself actually feels more sluggish with 2GB.

RE: Nice
By HsiKai on 8/6/2008 4:17:03 PM , Rating: 5
If you're fine with what you have then stop crying over what you can't apparently afford. If you used a real version of vista on a decent $600 computer (from the last year or two), you might think differently. The only thing that's keeping you from having an open opinion is that you don't want to have an open opinion.

RE: Nice
By larson0699 on 8/6/08, Rating: -1
RE: Nice
By jonmcc33 on 8/7/2008 8:09:33 AM , Rating: 2
I use Windows XP and never see this 512 in full use.

I use Windows XP at work and with only Outlook 2003, IE7 with a few tabs, the AD Users & Computers MMC and maybe VNC or MSTSC open and it goes well above 512MB in physical memory usage. Sometimes I get up to 900MB+ when McAfee is running it's bloated scans here. Thankfully my Dell Precision 390 here at work has 2GB DDR2 in it. That's what it takes to run Windows XP and it could easily handle Vista as well.

If you are using 512MB RAM with Windows XP then I doubt you are doing anything beyond using Notepad or the Calculator. Start browsing some serious websites and watch your system come to a crawl with that little of memory.

RE: Nice
By bigjaicher on 8/6/2008 2:46:11 PM , Rating: 5
leeched a lighter copy of Vista off TPB


That may explain it?

RE: Nice
By larson0699 on 8/6/08, Rating: -1
RE: Nice
By DeuceHalo on 8/6/2008 3:29:01 PM , Rating: 4
Microsoft doesn't recommend pre-DX9 cards in Vista, but you expect them to have full functionality with obsolete hardware?

RE: Nice
By larson0699 on 8/6/08, Rating: -1
RE: Nice
By FITCamaro on 8/6/2008 4:57:05 PM , Rating: 3
Vista uses DX9 for windows and stuff regardless of whether Aero is on. Hence the requirement for DX9. XP supported cards pre-2001 because its graphics used DX7 and were all handled on the CPU. Vista uses the GPU.

And DirectX9 was released in 2002. I think 9.0c came out in 2004. I guess they figured people would have upgraded their GPU in the past 4-6 years.

And the way I see it just stick with XP for a system using that old a GPU. My parents have a system still using a Ti4200. But since its using an old Athlon XP 2400+ S754, it definitely wouldn't be switched to Vista anyyway.

RE: Nice
By Alexstarfire on 8/6/2008 5:57:14 PM , Rating: 1
Vista still supports dial-up because much of the US still runs on it, and they likely will be on it for a long LONG time.

RE: Nice
By StevoLincolnite on 8/6/2008 6:05:54 PM , Rating: 2
You can enable Aero under Vista simply by modding your drivers yourself so that the Graphics card is compatible with the operating system, or you could use already modded drivers from Omega or NGOHQ. (Google is your friend on the process on how to do it)

Then apply the registry tweaks to enable Aero on Pre- Direct X 9 cards, some people have had success others have had failure but here is a good thread with the various tweaks and additional links:

RE: Nice
By masouth on 8/6/2008 3:16:00 PM , Rating: 4
If you are using the basic MS graphics driver then Vista was not to blame for your stuttering while scrolling webpages, the driver was.

This happens in XP as well. That basic driver is pretty much just enough to see the screen untilyou can load a real driver.

RE: Nice
By JonnyDough on 8/6/2008 3:24:13 PM , Rating: 3
I think he was aware of that. His idiocy lies in not running Vista on the right software for the Aero interface - and then trying to blame the OS for not doing something it wasn't designed for. Windows 95 barely ran on a 486 either.

RE: Nice
By larson0699 on 8/6/08, Rating: -1
RE: Nice
By HsiKai on 8/6/2008 4:20:53 PM , Rating: 5
But would it run Crysis?

Yes, you did "state [your] issue correctly," but logically, people aren't allowed to complain about things they don't/can't have. So stop. Do you critique cars you don't drive as well? What about other people?

I want to send you a complimentary "Jump to Conclusions" mat.

RE: Nice
By larson0699 on 8/6/08, Rating: -1
RE: Nice
By HsiKai on 8/6/2008 5:06:27 PM , Rating: 3
Logically? no, you'd have to make sense first. Morally, I can't stop you, nor can anyone else, from exercising your right to free speech. But just because you have an opinion doesn't make it valid, nor does it mean you put any thought into it, thus a lack of logic in coming to that opinion.

Also, I don't take returns on my "Jump to Conclusions" mat.


RE: Nice
By Alexstarfire on 8/6/2008 6:02:25 PM , Rating: 2
Many people critique things they've never used/watched/touched/etc before. It's exactly why it's called an opinion and not an experience or cold hard fact.

As far as people.... it's been shown that we make up our own judgment on them within the first 30 seconds of even seeing them. Course, that's probably just an average.. but it's a basic instinct that we all have. It's how we identify things that can be a threat to us.... though that was back in the day before they came up with the saying "don't judge people by the way they look."

RE: Nice
By HsiKai on 8/6/2008 8:31:43 PM , Rating: 2
I guess you answered you own question there. Just because it is, doesn't make it right. Here's to not judging people based on the way they look.

RE: Nice
By StevoLincolnite on 8/6/2008 6:08:11 PM , Rating: 2
I Critique large 4 wheel drives/SUV's because they are a pain to see around when parked next to while reversing out of a car park.

RE: Nice
By Clauzii on 8/7/2008 10:02:21 PM , Rating: 1
I'll give You that a 486DX4-100MHz could do an OK job with 95 - at the time it wasn't bad. I remember...

RE: Nice
By Clauzii on 8/7/2008 10:04:29 PM , Rating: 2
This was for larsson...

RE: Nice
By Clauzii on 8/7/2008 10:06:35 PM , Rating: 2
Not this 20 seconds after I post downrating shi. again. Don't You have anything else to do.....

RE: Nice
By rykerabel on 8/7/2008 10:56:08 AM , Rating: 2
forget what you know about antiquated memory management, Vista does it different.

Vista doesn't actually use that much RAM. It actually claims it and allocates it in reserve to keep it ready to run applications. So it may look like you only had 120MB left, you actually had most of your RAM left.

that and go ahead and blow that $10 for another GB of ram.

RE: Nice
By jvillaro on 8/6/2008 11:42:25 AM , Rating: 3
Oh come on! Of coarse it's not going to run faster than XP. Get over it, it does runs nicely anyway.
By your comparison in your own bizarre world, it won't run faster that win 98, win 95, and DOS. Tell you what, XP won't run faster than those either.
Get a life, get a job, get whatever you want but stop your b!ching.

RE: Nice
By ecktt on 8/6/2008 1:33:08 PM , Rating: 2
My 6 year old Dell Precision runs Vista Ultimate 32 better than XP ever did. By better I mean every thing is more responsive. My pc must be some sort of paradox.

RE: Nice
By Belard on 8/7/2008 3:45:08 PM , Rating: 1
Yeah, why would I want my Quad Core2 to run slower?

When 8core CPUs hit the market with 8GB of system RAM, then Vista should feel like a 16Mhz Amiga. ;)

Gotta love the "Turbo Cache Feature" of Visa that no other OS needs.

RE: Nice
By larson0699 on 8/6/2008 10:55:08 AM , Rating: 2
I'll give that one to you. (especially with the average sheep part)

The common issue around here is folks having little to work with and not wanting to spend to upgrade. In that regard, I hook them up with a lite reinstall and lock it down.

But yeah, if I bought a new machine I'd probably keep Vista and shut off as much as I could.

RE: Nice
By wallijonn on 8/6/08, Rating: -1
RE: Nice
By larson0699 on 8/6/2008 2:16:07 PM , Rating: 2
What's wrong with NVIDIA chipsets, AMD processors, XP SP3, and SiS (hey.. 761GX is a good cheap solution, just no one better than ECS uses it)?

GP was right on with the costs. You can , believe it or not, get quality parts on the cheap. Vista is just fine with an IGP so long as it's either got the backing of a powerful CPU, or it's DX10.

For a small system (no dual graphics, etc.) 300 to 350W is more than enough, and most are sourced from Seasonic anyway. That won't run you any more than $60, if you've managed to buy a case that didn't already come with one (Antec or Apevia).

And I've never had parts die on me after a year, that's just the luck of the draw. I have a Biostar board, AMD processor, two hard drives, and a Geforce3. All from 2003. None dead.

If you're that concerned over the cost of Vista, pirate it or don't get it at all, since we know you won't suck it up and make the investment.

BTW that plasma would suck more power than your PC. Good thinking.

RE: Nice
By HsiKai on 8/6/2008 4:24:10 PM , Rating: 2
The problem he's referring to was that XP SP3 would not install and/or brick computers that had some AMD processors. It was erroneous and probably not a conspiracy by Microsoft.

RE: Nice
By DASQ on 8/6/2008 2:19:45 PM , Rating: 5
1) No, a quality motherboard DOES start at about $60-$80. And that is an Intel chipset. and peruse to your leisure. Try finding a new motherboard that DOESN'T have at least 5.1 surround these days.

2) How does the integrated graphics necessitate Vista Ultimate? It doesn't. At all. In any way shape or form. If anything, you'll prefer Home Basic.

3) 95% of 'gamer' machines with a single high end video card will run fine on a quality 400w power supply. I was running my Q6600, 4GB of RAM, 6 HDD/1ODD, 8800GTS640, 4x120mm fans on a 400w power supply for a few months before I changed to an Antec Phantom 500 for the reduced noise.

4) 2GB of RAM is not BARE MINIMUM for Vista. It's the healthy speed level. 2GB of RAM also costs about $60, so it's really not an issue. 8GB for 'power' users? Unless they're virtualizing, they're smoking as much crack as you are.

5) A well balanced Vista machine will set you back about $800 including a nice case and PSU. Not $1200. $1200 gets you a speedy gaming machine.

6) You're an idiot.

7) Apple's 20" iMac starts at ~$1200, call it $1300 including the upgrade to 2GB of memory that will give extra smoothness to Leopard. Where you pull this $2000 figure from I don't know, but you seem to have a roomy colon.

RE: Nice
By StevoLincolnite on 8/6/2008 6:29:17 PM , Rating: 3
I think that's the issue most people have with Vista is the Hardware requirements, for instance you do NOT *NEED* the following in order to run Vista, Microsoft Office and websuref/MP3's/Movies.

1) Quad or a Dual Core Processor.
2) 2gb or more of memory.
3) Dedicated/Discreet Direct X 10 Graphics Card.
4) Several hundred Gigs of HDD space.

Vista can run fine with casual Music/Video/Web Browsing/Email/Chat/Playing Popcap or Gamehouse type games or even World of WarCraft on the following:

1) Pentium 4 2.4ghz or an Athlon XP 2400+ (You could get away with much less that that).
2) 1024mb of memory. (If you have 512mb, use readyboost as your friend if you are strapped for cash).
3) Radeon 9550/Geforce FX 5200/Intel GMA Or any Intel/nVidia/ATI/S3/SiS IGP with Direct X 9 support (Which allows Aero respectively).
4) 40Gb HDD or more depending on your needs.

Sure, you might be able to have a coffee break between frame changes in Crysis but this is *all* the average joe needs to run Vista, Some Office Apps and Internet gear and some time-waster games.

Now let me see... Basically any Second hand machine made in the last several years meets that standard, if not a small upgrade would get you running happily enough.


This is the exact issue that allot of people had when jumping from Windows 98/2k to Windows XP, Some people found that games like Unreal Tournament and Quake suffered heavily if the system was ill-equipped although the system performed fine for Office and Web browsing.

When I made the switch to XP from Windows 98 I had a Pentium 3 Katmai running at 450mhz, 64mb of Ram and a 20gb HDD paired with a TNT2 M64 - While I could play Unreal Tournament fine in Windows 98, it was almost un-playable under Windows XP because of the lack of memory, however boosting it up to 256mb SDRAM allowed me to run everything perfectly.

RE: Nice
By DASQ on 8/7/2008 10:53:37 AM , Rating: 2
Well it'll definitely run on the specs you listed, but few people are going to actually try running Vista on a Pentium 4.

Find me a company, corporation, school that is not including dual (or more) core CPU's for their new desktops.

RE: Nice
By StevoLincolnite on 8/7/2008 10:12:29 PM , Rating: 2
I said People, not Schools or Businesses/Corporations/Company's/other.

But if I was still at High School, I would get a few Pentium 4 machines with Vista going to see how it would go, as I was the IT tech at school for a couple of years during my off periods.

RE: Nice
By chick0n on 8/6/2008 2:24:33 PM , Rating: 3

Quality motherboard does not mean it has to be 200 bux. I guess u're too newbie to the diy buddy.

and XP SP3's bug was not AMD's fault. get ur facts straight.

AMD dual core cpu, about 70 bux
good asus mobo with onboard graphics 80
Good quality 400w psu- 60
a Case - 40
dvd-rom - 25
4 gb of Corsair XMS ram 100 bux
1 Terabyte hdd 170 bux
Vista Ultimate - 170

oh dont even try to argue with me because I have something like that. and its in my living room running 24/7. It can download, watch Full HD quality video while serviing files for my brother's computer.

you failed. go away.

RE: Nice
By ImSpartacus on 8/6/2008 2:57:04 PM , Rating: 3
I really dislike the inherent disrespect that comes with tearing apart a post, but you seem to be misunderstanding a few things.

a quality motherboard is more likely to cost $200. A cheap motherboard with all of it's inherent problems (nVidia chipset, AMD processor (remember XP SP3?), VIA and SIS south bridges, firewire, USB, sound (stereo, 2.1, 5.1, 6.1, 7.1), nic chips) of reliability and driver support.

I'll excuse your grammar (it actually can get difficult with parentheses trains), but you seem to have not seen some of the excellent $100 LGA775 boards that are out there.

The IP35-E cost $100 and was decently famous for providing $150+ service on a budget P35 board. It was basically a IP35 PRO ($175) with less SATA ports and other little things.

The IP35 PRO was one of the most celebrated P35 boards period. Abit actually tried to replace the IP35-E with the IP35-V. It was slightly cheaper, but cut out on a ton of things (a typical budget board). Apparently Abit was getting too many IP35-E sales and not enough sales for it's mid range boards.

And as we all know 2G of RAM is the bare minimum for Vista, with 4G being optimal and 8G being the preferred choice for power users.

Vista is extremely efficient with RAM. Yes, Vista requires about 2GB to function properly. XP takes about 512MB.

However, XP's performance past 2GB doesn't really change.

Vista on the other hand scales very well with up to 8GB of RAM (as you suggested).

So I have come to the conclusion that XP is indeed superior on very cheap computers with meager RAM, but cannot scale enough for the future with more RAM.

Vista on the other, requires more to start, but can indeed scale quite well up to at least 8GB.

Regardless, 2x2GB of RAM (with proper expandability to 8GB) can be had for under $70 on Newegg. I'm sure a savy customer could find a slightly better deal.

My personal favorite deal is on a 1000MHz G.Skill 2x2GB kit. Only $85. It usually has free shipping and I have seen it at $80.

A very well balanced and reliable Vista PC should set you back about $1200. Then add the $300 cost of a Vista Ultimate Retail license. $1500. The same price point that it has been for the last 20 years for very good and reliable PC.

I personally have priced out many newegg builds for people and $800-900 is an excellent price point for the best of both worlds.

I agree that at least 500w are required in a PSU, and I would go with a little more than that if I have the choice.

If that public wishlist is accessible then you will see that an E7200 P45 build can be had with 4GB of RAM and a 4850 is right above $900 (without rebates). With disk drives and an OS I see $1100 as an easy price point to strive for. You do not need a $300 copy of Ultimate Retail.

RE: Nice
By StevoLincolnite on 8/6/2008 6:34:58 PM , Rating: 3
Vista is extremely efficient with RAM. Yes, Vista requires about 2GB to function properly. XP takes about 512MB.

Let me change some of that misconceptions about memory.

XP does not take up 512mb of memory on it's own, The Minimum amount of memory required for it is 64mb, the Operating itself will run happily enough with 256mb, the Problem extends to programs that you run which consume a far larger amount of memory than Windows Does on it's own, thus the requirement to jump to 512mb or 1024mb of memory under XP, if you are running Crysis under Windows XP, you will find that 256mb is not enough, and 512mb is still touchy, with 1024mb being fairly adequate.

Vista is the same in this regard, the Operating System itself will hum along fine with 1gb of memory, but as soon as you fire up some half demanding programs you will start running into severe performance losses, thus 2gb is preferred.

RE: Nice
By DeepBlue1975 on 8/6/2008 4:33:04 PM , Rating: 2
Woa. 8gb for the power user... Well, that's about $150 anyway if we're talking about ddr2 800.

I consider myself to be a power user, but I don't use really badboy apps like heavy 3ds rendering or heavy PS RAW processing.
I tested my vista 64 machine with both 6gbs and 4gbs, and for my daily tasks (including gaming and video converting), I noticed no damn difference with just 4gbs.

And the difference between 4gbs and 2, I can just notice it when I'm converting more than 4 video files at the same time or when I have a lot of open apps and switch back and forth between them.

For normal usage, Vista runs great with just 2gbs and IS NOT processor intensive.

My wife had a single core celeron laptop with only 512mb and Vista home basic, and it ran like total, complete and utter crap. Just painful to use it, every click meant waiting.
As soon as we upgraded that machine to 2gbs, the thing just took off and performed more than adequatly for everything we did with it.

And now her new laptop has 2 cores with 2gbs of ram and vista home premium with aero, and it runs simply great, much more stable than XP ever was (never crashed yet).

On normal usage, ie, just browsing and watching movies or using office, I really can't tell the difference when using her laptop or my quad core machine with 6gbs. The difference simply is not there for that kind of tasks.

Vista is just a bit more memory hungry than XP sp2 was (hey, XP Sp2 was also quite slow with just 512mb ram, and the sweet spot for it was really 2gbs as 1gb was a little short for my taste).

Vista doesn't need high end machines to run well, just no less than 2gbs of memory, which nowadays you can get for $40 or less. What can you do with $40? Maybe you can go and have dinner out with your wife, and at a rather cheap restaurant. Or buy a pair of tech-less trousers. Or fill your car up once with premium oil.

Vista is far from perfect, but as for MS OSs, its the first one after windows nt 3.51 which makes me think that MS is worrying about making their software better.

I didn't love XP or 2000, though they were OK to me. And if we go backwards, I hated w95-98-me-3.1-3.0-286 with all my heart, and was an OS/2 die hard by then, which was, as for performance, stability and efficiency, a far more superior OS than anything MS offered by the moment.

And for the guy that said that you need $200 to get a quality motherboard... I'd advice him to not let himself be willingly robbed.
For $200 you don't only get a quality motherboard, you get an overclock friendly motherboard with tons of features and voltage regulations, dual nics, and even things like wi-fi and lots of sata ports which most people out there wouldn't use anyway.

Quality != excessive features. Don't get confused about that.

RE: Nice
By Alexstarfire on 8/6/2008 6:12:11 PM , Rating: 2
It really depends on how you define "quality." If you define it just by saying that it's a motherboard that has good reliability, then yea, it's going to be pretty cheap. Reliability isn't too hard to come by on motherboards anymore. If you start including things like overclocking and slightly higher end sound, then it can start to climb pretty fast. I for one consider a quality motherboard to have some decent overclocking features. Not necessarily the top of the line however. And those are easily going to start at around $100.

RE: Nice
By StevoLincolnite on 8/6/2008 6:42:21 PM , Rating: 2
My wife had a single core celeron laptop with only 512mb and Vista home basic, and it ran like total, complete and utter crap. Just painful to use it, every click meant waiting. As soon as we upgraded that machine to 2gbs, the thing just took off and performed more than adequatly for everything we did with it.

A friend also bought a cheap Celeron 1.8ghz Acer Laptop just for light gaming and light multimedia use, unfortunately with only 512mb of memory games like World of WarCraft suffer rather large Performance Penalty's which is also increased thanks the IGP having to pinch that memory for it's own needs, in the end I upgraded him to 1.5gb by dropping a 1gb stick and everything became far more responsive and World of WarCraft became playable.

RE: Nice
By JonnyDough on 8/6/08, Rating: 0
RE: Nice
By Reclaimer77 on 8/7/2008 12:10:36 AM , Rating: 2
We're saying that if you're building a new computer or buying a new computer, there's no reason NOT to use Vista.

Theres also no reason TO use Vista either.

RE: Nice
By sxr7171 on 8/6/2008 12:38:08 PM , Rating: 2
No, honestly I hear you on this. However, I doubt you have XP SP3 or even SP2 on that machine. XP was lightning in its original and SP1 iterations. After SP2 came out it too turned to crap. At this point I use Vista and when configured to behave like XP it is very good. XP doesn't even have basic intelligence in file transfers. Vista has saved me so much time by letting me update folders instead of having to transfer everything all over. Otherwise it starts slower, but once it's up its just fine. This will always happen in software, since they just assume that people will be using more powerful computers.

RE: Nice
By larson0699 on 8/6/2008 1:14:49 PM , Rating: 2

I have an installation of SP3 slipstreamed onto a gold (SP0) image. It's nLite that's so gracefully reduced its footprint, thus boosting its response and giving me (and end users I install for) only what's necessary before tacking on all the apps.

I'll be one of the first to admit that Gold and SP1 were god-awful in terms of security AND performance, considering that SP2 was (that is, until waiting for SP3) forever in the making and nLite was either not around or too quirky for a productive build. I have used all XP with and without each SP, and SP2 really didn't add as much overhead as you made it out to. The overhauled Firewall and Wireless applets were more than worth the upgrade, if not simply for the mass of hotfixes you no longer had to slipstream separately.

It was because of that mess (until SP2) that I stuck it out with Windows 2000, quite happily at that. I figure that when my Athlon XP is no longer sufficient in the ever-upgrading world of app and driver compatibility (like my 1995 Gateway 2000 running Windows 2000... *choke*) I will then make the grand switch to Vista and probably start all over about why Windows 7 is so bloated, restrictive, and unnecessarily scatters everything I'm familiar with.

RE: Nice
By larson0699 on 8/6/2008 1:19:33 PM , Rating: 2
And (before the "how so?" barrage) that's not to say that Vista is restrictive, but I don't agree with implementing DRM at the OS level (really, DRM itself but it's inevitable and it ain't MS's fault). The UAC thing I'm fine with--I've been used to it in Linux.

RE: Nice
By jinsaotome800 on 8/6/2008 1:49:51 PM , Rating: 3
I dont understand why people bring up the point that Vista wont run as well on the same machine as XP. As operating systems get more complex they take up more resources so, yes it will run slower. I dont know how old many of you are but if you remember the switch from 98 to XP, people were saying the same thing..."XP doesnt run as well on the same computer as 98" OR "A lot of my old software that I was using in 98 doesnt work with XP" and because of that many people didnt want to upgrade to XP. That didnt make XP a bad operating system as we can see in hindsight and Im sure eventually people will be saying they like Vista more than a newer operating system. Its just how it goes.

RE: Nice
By lifeblood on 8/6/2008 2:33:11 PM , Rating: 1
The switch from Win98 to XP was a huge one. Win98 was (more or less) a GUI on DOS. NT was secure and stable but didn't support USB and things like that. Win2k/XP was a truly integrated OS that offered the reliability & security of NT and the flexibility of Win98. There were numerous and obvious benefits to upgrading.

The upgrade from XP to Vista is anything but. Vista does offer DX 10 but, at least to me, not much else. It requires twice the RAM of XP and a faster CPU. And for what benefit?

Don't get me wrong, now that SP1 is out I use Vista Ultimate 64 and it is quite stable and no longer annoying. I just had to double the installed RAM and upgrade my video card before I was happy with it.

RE: Nice
By larson0699 on 8/6/2008 3:05:43 PM , Rating: 2
No disagreements.

But for the sake of accuracy, Windows 9x is most like a GUI and DOS, as its kernel supported 0-1024K (real mode, or DOS) up to what you had installed (protected mode, or Win32).

For contrast, Windows for Workgroups 3.11 was the last GUI on DOS, and Windows NT was the first without DOS, with all subsequent releases emulating it in a window.

I'm not the fact nazi and I don't have a grudge. But just like NBC: The more you know™.

RE: Nice
By lifeblood on 8/6/2008 3:19:59 PM , Rating: 3
I stand corrected. :)

RE: Nice
By DragonMaster0 on 8/7/2008 9:54:33 PM , Rating: 2
It requires twice the RAM of XP and a faster CPU.

The RAM requirements for the same app running on NT OSes is twice as much as Win9x. When you double the bits, you double the RAM usage. There's a nice thing called very-cheap-RAM on the market for most of you out there to solve this problem.

(Stupid obsolete S939 system...)

RE: Nice
By Reclaimer77 on 8/7/2008 12:14:10 AM , Rating: 3
From 98 to XP ??

Aren't we skipping Win2000 ?? Which was a pretty damn good OS by the way.

Kinda shady of you to skip an entire OS to help make your point via a comparison of Xp to Vista in my opinion.

RE: Nice
By DragonMaster0 on 8/6/2008 2:00:41 PM , Rating: 2
Newer OSes are ALWAYS slower:

Install Windows 98 SE on a 2GHz+ machine with the latest IDE drives just for fun... Now THAT is fast.

Add 98lite to this, Windows takes less than 50MB HDD space (it boots in 5 seconds on a 400MHz with old SCSI 1GB drives)

Win98SE has DirectX 9.0c, WDM, Firewire, USB 2.0, Windows Media Player 10 (or 11 I think) with a few hacks, Wi-Fi(there's a 3rd party utility for WPA2 support), etc.

RE: Nice
By larson0699 on 8/6/2008 2:55:20 PM , Rating: 2
That reminds me of when I installed Windows 95c (which came with IE4 and the Active Desktop, but you could buck out of the install right after first desktop boot to keep the lighter 95 shell)...

on a Pentium 4 1.7.

No matter that I had 16 colors and not a driver for anything.. A game of Solitaire would be finished before it was started.

RE: Nice
By Magnus Dredd on 8/6/08, Rating: 0
RE: Nice
By StevoLincolnite on 8/6/2008 6:48:05 PM , Rating: 2
You can also get an XP theme, and there are mods around to give Windows 98 some XP-Like compatibility with drivers and Software with performance superior to Windows XP.

The thing with PC gaming is that newer games *seem* to reduce in quality on the same hardware with each new release, where-as a console the Graphics quality seems to increase, as hardware has become more powerful it honestly feels like software developers have gotten more lazy in the performance optimization departments.

RE: Nice
By ultimaone on 8/6/2008 3:28:29 PM , Rating: 2
well i remember people complaining about windows XP being slow
when they were trying to run it on their PII and low end PIII's and on 256 mb of ram

so really stop comparing apples to peaches

RE: Nice
By JasonMick on 8/6/2008 10:44:32 AM , Rating: 2
Both OS X and Vista are both pretty well thought out OS's each with their own quirks and problems.

Vista has better security and gaming graphics, but I've found OS X in my limited experience may be less suceptible to windowing/OS graphical issues (Background: my Vista notebook sometimes experiences windowing crashes requiring Windows Explorer to reboot...I'm using the latest SP/updates... and this has happened consistently before I ever connected it to the internet, so I doubt its virus/malware related, also gaming graphics work fine, so I doubt its all fairness to Vista, this may be a hardware driver issue with the particular Vaio notebook I have) and to a bit neater in navigation.

Yea in the low end Macs make absolutely no sense except as a style piece for those who just have money to burn and aren't looking for more functionality.

I do want to say that in the high-end ($2000) Macs do compete nicely against offerings from Dell (XPS) and VoodooPC (Envy). Perhaps the Envy v. MacBook Air is Mac's greatest win at any price point, as neither is really powerful enough hardware wise to be a serious gaming machine, so hardware is not an issue. I guess the XPS comparison is okay, but only if you use BootCamp+Vista for gaming.

Again, in the ultra-high end Apple is demolished by Alienware/XPS, so for only a narrow price range Macs are competitive.

Anyways I think its as wrong to indiscriminately hate on Apple as it is to blind support every product it releases, some of which are horrible (Apple TV anyone?). I say to each their own. Macs obviously aren't a good choice in the low end if you're looking for the most for your money in terms of hardware and performance.

RE: Nice
By danrien on 8/6/2008 12:38:15 PM , Rating: 2
some people just have loyalty to companies. its a weird facet of human nature. for example, i have an unshakable loyalty to Nintendo - not because their consoles are better but because their software has never let me down. but that, as an explanation is pretty weak. in the end, i just buy nintendo because it's what i'm used to and it's what i like. same goes for apple, i suppose. if windows had 5-10% of the OS market, then i'm guessing it would be in the same loyalty position (some would say it already is soemtimes).

RE: Nice
By kelmon on 8/6/2008 12:53:23 PM , Rating: 2
Well, congratulations on the firestorm - this article just has flame-war written all over it and the lemmings have responded. Unfortunately, I consider myself in that regard...

With respect to your comment, I honestly believe that it's valid only if you are talking about gaming. Even the lowest-end Mac throws OS X and its applications around with no problems so I don't understand why you are suggesting that they aren't as functional as a Vista system. No one buys a Mac because they're looking to save money. You buy a Mac because you don't like Windows and/or you want to run the Mac applications. In this respect they make sense. My wife's sister bought a 1st generation Mac Mini and it's absolutely great for what she wants to do, and current generation machines are a heck of a lot faster.

It's all about the applications you want to run and even a low-end Mac will run almost all Mac applications fine. What functionality is missing?

With respect to the Apple TV, I'd have agreed with you up until recently but now that the iTunes Store has finally made a reasonable amount of content available the device finally has a purpose. If I was going to point out a bad Apple device, I'd have gone for the Mighty Mouse myself.

RE: Nice
By jonmcc33 on 8/6/2008 1:26:55 PM , Rating: 2
Jason Mick, I am proud of you for this blog today.

my Vista notebook sometimes experiences windowing crashes requiring Windows Explorer to reboot...I'm using the latest SP/updates... and this has happened consistently before I ever connected it to the internet, so I doubt its virus/malware related, also gaming graphics work fine, so I doubt its all fairness to Vista, this may be a hardware driver issue with the particular Vaio notebook I have

That's very possible that it is a driver issue especially if there's anything from nVIDIA inside it.

Anyways I think its as wrong to indiscriminately hate on Apple...

Nobody is hating on Apple. I am glad that they are around to push Microsoft to make better products. Without competition, even a little, something can become quite stale. A good example? Windows XP in a nutshell.

RE: Nice
By chick0n on 8/6/2008 2:31:49 PM , Rating: 2
Out of all the laptops u got a VAIO? I think that is your problem.

My ACER has yet to fail. Even after years of "abuse", say, spill coffee, dropped from the table, when left on the floor I step on it by accident(!), etc.

I cant say the same for VAIO or MacBook. Speaking of VAIO, my moron brother got 1 a year ago. and it just broke last week. Fan was dead, Cd rom drive doesnt work. yep, right after the warranty is over. I told him not to get VAIO a year ago. He wont listen, now its sitting in my room waiting for me to take it all apart and install a custom fan on it(screw the dvd-rom drive, just use flash drive from now on.)

RE: Nice
By StevoLincolnite on 8/6/2008 6:52:08 PM , Rating: 2
My Acer that I have had for a fair few years has suffered extreme punishments and survived, be it dropped down sand dunes, thrown around in the car boot, spilt liquids.

However I grabbed myself a Toshiba Tecra, not a bad machine and it's built like a brick and doesn't feel as flimsy as my old Acer Aspire which managed to survive many years of abuse and punishment.

RE: Nice
By DeepBlue1975 on 8/6/2008 9:43:21 PM , Rating: 3
Never had a Mac, but I liked them when they had their own hardware which was totally different from that of PCs (yeah you can rightfully accuse me of being a diversity freak :D)

But now that Macs are just PCs with an apple shaped logo, a fashionable design and run a different OS (which a normal PC could run with a hack, as well as a Mac could run windows... it's the same PC hardware down there!), I just plain hate them because they want to justify hefty prices for the sole sake of appearance.

I don't need my PC to seduce me, I need it to do the work in the most efficient manner, and paying more for less features or paying the same for less efficient hardware but better design, won't cut it at all for me.

When macs had their own proprietary hardware, macs and PCs had their own, very marked strengths... Now that difference is gone. If you want a Mac instead of a similarly equipped PC is because

A: you're too used / have a need for Mac software and don't wanna learn all over again going to a PC / the software you use on Macs does not exist on PCs and you don't wanna take the risk of trying to hack Mac OSx to run on a PC (perfectly valid, many people just want their machine to work as is, not to have to fiddle with it tons of hours just to get it barely working).

B: you only care for appearance and bragging about what you have in front of whoever you can. In that case you fully deserve to pay the "You are a superficial and vane airhead" tax Mac charges.

RE: Nice
By silversound on 8/6/2008 12:50:45 PM , Rating: 1
Many software compatibility too, UAC is annoying, pls noted over 90% of the user is not a pc freak so they have no idea how to turn it off. MS should adjust it through windows update.

Switch back to my XP, corporate antivirus work now finally!
Might try to get a Mac and install a XP with it, X for work, XP for gaming, yea!

RE: Nice
By jonmcc33 on 8/6/2008 1:31:47 PM , Rating: 3
Many software compatibility too, UAC is annoying, pls noted over 90% of the user is not a pc freak so they have no idea how to turn it off.

They shouldn't turn it off. When you turn it off you turn off Protected Mode for IE7 in Vista. It is there as an extra layer of protection.

MS should adjust it through windows update.

See Service Pack 1 for Windows Vista available through Windows Update. Where have you been the past 6 months?

Switch back to my XP, corporate antivirus work now finally!

AVG, Avast, NOD32, Kaspersky all work fine in Vista from my experience. User error?

Might try to get a Mac and install a XP with it, X for work, XP for gaming, yea!

No DX10 gaming though...

RE: Nice
By kelmon on 8/7/2008 4:53:38 AM , Rating: 2
If you do get a Mac and install Windows under Boot Camp to play games, here's a tip: download a copy of smcFanControl. I've found that some PC games on my MacBook Pro run the system so hot that it causes Windows to crash (HL2 was fine but Dawn of War crashes). It looks like the Windows doesn't turn the fan speeds up high enough to maintain a fully cooled system. smcFanControl will let you set the fan speeds under OS X and these will be used in Boot Camp as well, so crank them up if you find you have problems.

This issue might only apply to my model of the MacBook Pro - I haven't seen much in the way of reports that this is widespread so you might not need this at all.

Note: the root cause of this issue is probably the Apple Boot Camp drivers rather than Windows itself, before someone accuses me of blaming Microsoft, but I'm not certain.

RE: Nice
By Belard on 8/7/2008 3:41:09 PM , Rating: 1
Oh, that sounds great coming from a Vista lover. He says to turn off the crap in Vista. LOL

Gee, if it wasn't CRAP it wouldn't need to be turned of, eh?

At that point, what's vista for? oh yeah - transparent windows....oooooh.

RE: Nice
By amanojaku on 8/6/2008 10:30:59 AM , Rating: 4
What are you talking about? How is Vista "poop?" It helps if you explain yourself, unless you're just trolling. Personally, I find them both to be about the same.

RE: Nice
By fibreoptik on 8/6/08, Rating: -1
RE: Nice
By DanoruX on 8/6/2008 10:55:01 AM , Rating: 5
Vista at launch and Vista today are lightyears apart in performance and driver support. I used to hate on Vista as much as any other guy a year ago but now I choose it over XP any day.

RE: Nice
By TreeDude62 on 8/6/2008 11:18:49 AM , Rating: 4
Little to no improvement?! SP1 made a HUGE improvement. I have been using Vista Ult x64 for almost 6 months with very few issues. The only thing that I could not get to work was my 4 year old AIM client (because I hate the newer, super bloated ones). But I installed Pidgen instead.

All my old games work. I disabled some effects (pretty much all the transitional effects except for aero) and it is very snappy. I also have never had it crash on me thus far.

You can say it sucks all you want but the reality is it is not that far off from XP. Also in games, it performs exactly the same as XP as long as you have SP1.

RE: Nice
By JustTom on 8/6/08, Rating: 0
RE: Nice
By vapore0n on 8/6/2008 1:57:53 PM , Rating: 2
Gates was not happy with WinME

wait, was anyone happy with WinME?

RE: Nice
By StevoLincolnite on 8/6/2008 6:54:12 PM , Rating: 2
I was happy with ME...

...As soon as I formatted...

RE: Nice
By JustTom on 8/7/2008 12:45:34 AM , Rating: 2
I was happy with ME, I didn't buy it...

RE: Nice
By jvillaro on 8/6/2008 12:18:47 PM , Rating: 3
It's poop because it has semi-functional at best since release

Thats either trolling or you just don't know what "semi-functional" means.
At launch I could do everything I did in XP on my Vista installation, it's 64bit by the way. The very very few things I couldn't, was more of an issue with it being 64bit.

RE: Nice
By bubba551 on 8/6/2008 11:16:41 AM , Rating: 5
That's why I am waiting for Windows Mojave. I hear that it blows Vista away.

RE: Nice
By DanoruX on 8/6/08, Rating: -1
RE: Nice
By onwisconsin on 8/6/2008 12:13:28 PM , Rating: 2
Ever heard of sarcasm and joking?

RE: Nice
By Spivonious on 8/6/2008 12:22:41 PM , Rating: 1
Someone didn't get the joke...

RE: Nice
By DanoruX on 8/6/2008 12:32:13 PM , Rating: 5
My sarcasm detector is borked ;(

RE: Nice
By fibreoptik on 8/6/08, Rating: -1
RE: Nice
By jonmcc33 on 8/6/2008 1:48:52 PM , Rating: 1
Then why is it faster?

RE: Nice
By larson0699 on 8/6/2008 10:23:17 AM , Rating: 4
OSX is faster. Those apps are so blazing fast on OSX because most of them don't exist for Windows.

The Apple is so expensive because of the complex technology inside. You know... Plutonium casing and Steve Jobs's DNA. What idiot would buy a PC when you have that?

RE: Nice
By Chadder007 on 8/6/08, Rating: -1
RE: Nice
By FITCamaro on 8/6/2008 10:51:40 AM , Rating: 4
Yeah because that < 1% CPU utilization (while sitting there, 5% while actively scanning) and 20-50MB of RAM usage really hurts performance a whole lot.

Now sure if you use a crappy AV then its more, but using AVG Free Edition + Spybot Search & Destroy (with TeaTimer option to protect registry) I can play games while its scanning my computer without issue.

RE: Nice
By FITCamaro on 8/6/2008 10:59:03 AM , Rating: 5
Plus its already been shown that Vista is more secure than Leopard.

RE: Nice
By HsiKai on 8/6/2008 4:40:11 PM , Rating: 3
Even running Norton 2007 or Norton 360 on a mid-range dual-core idles at what, 3-5%? I don't see what this guy is getting at. I understand that the following quote is not exactly true, but Windows is several times more secure than it was before, especially Server 2008.

Bill Gates: "Nowadays, security guys break the Mac every single day. Every single day, they come out with a total exploit, your machine can be taken over totally. I dare anybody to do that once a month on the Windows machine."

Plus, who wants to write exploits for a modded BSD/Unix clusterf*ck that has a slow rate of gaining market share?

RE: Nice
By larson0699 on 8/6/2008 11:01:40 AM , Rating: 2
I actually found this out a few weeks ago on my friend's machine after he downloaded god-knows-what and botched his system.

The free version of AVG has antispyware in it now, so unless you disable the resident protection for that, you might be getting crazy nags in between that and Spybot (which I use every so often).

RE: Nice
By FITCamaro on 8/6/2008 11:54:17 AM , Rating: 2
Yeah I know AVG 8.0 has anti-spyware. But the two don't clash for me so it's all good. On XP or Vista 64.

RE: Nice
By Clauzii on 8/6/2008 11:07:50 AM , Rating: 2
"AVG Free Edition + Spybot Search & Destroy"

Those two are a gold combination :D Used here for I don't remember how long. And being on a router, really stupid surfing is needed to get one lost....

RE: Nice
By crimson117 on 8/6/2008 11:13:20 AM , Rating: 1
"AVG Free Edition + Spybot Search & Destroy"

Those two are a gold combination :D Used here for I don't remember how long. And being on a router, really stupid surfing is needed to get one lost....

I replaced Spybot S&D with Firefox :)

RE: Nice
By Clauzii on 8/6/2008 11:20:12 AM , Rating: 2
I run FF3. You say I can uninstall S&D and still be safe?

RE: Nice
By DeuceHalo on 8/6/2008 3:50:44 PM , Rating: 2
I wouldn't uninstall it - it's an extra level of protection. However, be sure to use Adblock Plus ( ) with FF3. After using that plugin, I don't know how I lived without it. Not pulling in the ads prevents all sorts of tracking cookies making it to your system.

RE: Nice
By Clauzii on 8/6/2008 4:20:10 PM , Rating: 2
Already have it, and love it ;)

Yes, I didn't expect to uninstall S&D. It was more meant as "Why the h... would someone do that!" ;)

RE: Nice
By crimson117 on 8/7/2008 10:24:33 AM , Rating: 2
Well I also run NoScript, which lets you whitelist domains that can run javascript on your computer.

And I'm on Vista with UAC enabled, which MS assures me is totally secure. Why would they lie? ;)

RE: Nice
By HsiKai on 8/6/2008 4:42:19 PM , Rating: 2
Haha, when I read that the first thing I thought was: "you're running Spybot S&D on a Famicon? Epic."

Screenshot or it didn't happen!

RE: Nice
By Clauzii on 8/6/2008 4:52:09 PM , Rating: 2
Oh, Final Fantasy 3? No, no, FireFox 3 :D

Would have been feat of the year though :P

RE: Nice
By FITCamaro on 8/6/2008 11:56:04 AM , Rating: 2
I use Firefox 3.0 too. What's that got to do with having anti-spyware protection? Firefox might be a little more secure than IE but it isn't bullet proof either.

RE: Nice
By Spivonious on 8/6/2008 12:26:55 PM , Rating: 3
I replaced Spybot with IE7+Protected Mode+UAC.

RE: Nice
By larson0699 on 8/6/2008 1:27:53 PM , Rating: 2
You forgot "Start Without Addons".

RE: Nice
By HsiKai on 8/6/2008 4:44:16 PM , Rating: 3
I heard IE7 64-bit is more secure since it doesn't have flash compatibility. ;P

RE: Nice
By Spivonious on 8/13/2008 2:16:06 PM , Rating: 2
Don't you mean Flash doesn't have IE7 64-bit compatibility? Adobe needs to get off their lazy asses and recompile the Flash code to be 64-bit.

RE: Nice
By Hellfire27 on 8/6/2008 10:54:38 AM , Rating: 4
Security through obscurity is not security.

RE: Nice
By rippleyaliens on 8/6/2008 11:02:32 AM , Rating: 5
Except ......
1. Gaming- Sure there are some Mac games.. but whatever.
2. Two Year Lifespan. After 2 years, Macs again, will change OS, try something newer, and force an Upgrade. I give Microsoft credit, XP is like 7 years old, and still rockin. Vista, actually works veryyyy well, with the right hardware. 2 years and still rockin on a dell laptop. Actually works the way it was intended.
3. SOFTWARE... That is the huge culprit. With a PC, there are many thousands of software apps, that just work. Vista with its security, was in response to noobs, not knowing any difference, and clicking "Free laptop" email icons. ON a MAC, yah, there is comparable software, but is it truely comparable. MAC Speed, well, if you have a dual- Quad core xeon, well i hope to high heavens the thing is fast. Vista on simular machine ROCKS..
4. SUPPORT- That little thing, that if it breaks, someone to call. With MAC- it is either a friend who owns a mac, or apple themselves. Vista/XP, nuff said. MAny geek squads out there.
5. TCO/ROI- Total cost of ownership- Return on Investment.
PC- Boom, you could effectively started win xp, on a 1.13 pIII machine with 256mb of ram, and as of today, use the same OS on your q6600 4gb ram. STILL WORKS. Vista- with your q6600 today, and 4 years from now, on your dual -8 core cpu. It is all relative.
Back in 2002- MAC with your power pc, then the move to Intel cpu's, now the non-intel chipsets.. Apple makes many changes, but they lack that consistency. Meaning, that you are hit every 18 months, requiring you to spend money, on a new OS, or NEW Mac, etc... So the total cost of owning a MAC is kinda high.. But the return on investment, even the standard 3 year, IT cycle, is ridiculous.
And for home users.. Well if all you are doing is surfing the web, and email. you are a fool to spend $1200+ dollars on a MAC just to say you can do it. For playing games, ROFL,, have fun... For Graphics artists and such, OOO KKK sure, the systems of yesturyear are one thing, but with todays hardware,.. It comes down How much it costs, how long will it last, and where can i get spport for it.

RE: Nice
By Suomynona on 8/6/08, Rating: 0
RE: Nice
By lightfoot on 8/6/2008 11:20:39 AM , Rating: 3
You don't have to buy a new computer to install a Windows service pack.

Oh, and Microsoft doesn't charge you for it either.

RE: Nice
By Clauzii on 8/6/2008 11:59:18 AM , Rating: 2
Security and OS patches are free on Macs too. It's first when there are new functionality or systemwide changes, You pay. no big deal.

RE: Nice
By lightfoot on 8/6/2008 12:49:40 PM , Rating: 4
Service Packs are hardly just Security Updates and Patches - those are far more frequent that Service Packs. Your confusion must stem from the fact that the Service Packs INCLUDE all the Security Updates and Patches in addition to new functionality. The changes are not dramatic and are not like new OS's. Jaguar, Tiger and Leopard aren't much more than costly service packs for OSX.

RE: Nice
By Clauzii on 8/6/2008 1:35:37 PM , Rating: 2
No confusion here. But I didn't see any additional usefull stuff, except things that were needed like showing updates in add/remove programs and the needed performance boost from SP1 to SP2. But correct me if I'm wrong.

RE: Nice
By psychobriggsy on 8/6/2008 12:07:26 PM , Rating: 1
You did to install Vista.

Or is the next version of Windows coming out in 2012 and thus continuing to use the abnormally long gap between XP and Vista is valid in your mind?

Mac OS updates are free (typically one every month or two), and the ones that are more akin to the Windows major versions (XP, Vista) in terms of added functionality are now every two years - they used to be more regular because Apple was making up so much ground because they got stuck with that awful, dire and terrible Mac OS 9 system for so long.

Still not as good as once every three years, but when you see what Microsoft charge for their OS in the UK it's still quite expensive.

RE: Nice
By noirsoft on 8/6/2008 1:27:25 PM , Rating: 2
You did to install Vista.

That's funny, and here I thought that I installed Vista on my 2-year old desktop and my 6-month old laptop (ages when vista first came out) without upgrading any hardware. And Vista ran better than XP on both machines.

I also installed Vista on a spare parts machine, where the CPU was from a 5-year old machine, and it runs great.

For Vista, all you need is any P4 CPU, 2 gigs of Ram, and any GPU capable of Aero, and it runs just fine. If you have to buy a new PC to get to that level, then you either have a really old PC, or you bought the cheapest machine you could find. Laptops are a different story, since they are rarely upgradeable, and good GPUs didn't start appearing widely until lately.

RE: Nice
By kelmon on 8/7/2008 5:06:10 AM , Rating: 1
In what way does a new version of Mac OS X resemble, in any way, shape or form, a Windows Service Pack? Please be detailed in your answer and display a degree of knowledge about what constitutes the Mac OS.

This statement has been made many times before, but mostly by people who couldn't outwit a used tea bag. Each version of the Mac OS overhauls the complete OS with new versions of existing applications, new applications, new application frameworks, and a new version of the kernel. Since when did a Windows Service Pack deliver this degree of enhancements? Why would you not consider Vista as a Service Pack under your definition of what constitutes a Service Pack? Bloody double-standards to argue a point that no one actually cares about...

When you start getting new versions of Windows for free, then we'll talk.

RE: Nice
By Clauzii on 8/6/2008 11:17:26 AM , Rating: 2
Since Jobs came back, Apple is one of the more consistent and successfull companies out there.

D..., I should have bought those stocks back in ninety-something...

RE: Nice
By lightfoot on 8/6/2008 11:22:56 AM , Rating: 5
The only Apple product I would ever buy would be stock, and that's only if it wasn't stupidly expensive. I won't throw my money down the drain, but I have no problem profiting from people who do.

RE: Nice
By HsiKai on 8/6/2008 4:53:07 PM , Rating: 3
Stock isn't about the "price," or the number of shares you own. You don't have to buy whole shares, either, though some companies do require you to purchase a minimum number either based on quantity or value. So if you only have $20 and want to buy stock that's $40, it is conceivable that you could, though as I stated above, unlikely due to restrictions. The idea of the stock market is that any individual can invest on a level playing-field.

Making an investment in your future is one of the best things you can do (especially if you want to beat inflation/the falling dollar/prohibition/whatever).

Fine print: I neither own Apple stock nor their products, but advocate investment in general.

RE: Nice
By lightfoot on 8/6/2008 6:48:13 PM , Rating: 2
What makes a stock expensive is not its trading price. It is the relative value of the stock compared with the business fundamentals.

Any stock trading at 32 P/E ratio is expensive - especially in this market where the average is 15 P/E. Apple stock is priced where it is due only to hype and nothing else.

You shouldn't buy a stock because it is trendy, you should buy it because it is an investment.

RE: Nice
By HsiKai on 8/6/2008 8:35:14 PM , Rating: 2
Oh, so you were implying that it is trendy to buy it. Sorry if I missed that, but off hand I was assuming it was a decent investment/didn't lose ground. I would have thought that with the way sales have been going since Jobs came back that it would be a solid investment. Will have to look more into it, though I stay out of "trendy" investments as well.

RE: Nice
By psychobriggsy on 8/6/2008 11:59:16 AM , Rating: 1
To be fair, lifetime is one of the oft-quoted Apple plusses. That probably comes down to some of their cost actually being down to not cheaping out everywhere, so they do last longer. You don't need the latest OS, and you don't need the latest hardware. You'll find people running 5 year old Mac hardware all over the place as their primary system still. And for the price, you'd hope so!

However anyone can make a PC last longer with a reinstall, and Vista probably doesn't even need the reinstall every so often unlike XP which does slow down however careful you are. Many of the people reading this site upgrade their PC every year. Or twice a year. They want the latest and greatest, and they can only get that by building their own PC hardware.

Apple needs to sort their pricing out. Except they're selling more and more systems so people are obviously happy with them despite the cost. Maybe Apple can't increase production so quickly to warrant dropping the price and margins given that the market is quite picky, and they're making money hand over fist.

When it comes to software, it's easy to find awesome software on the Mac for pretty much anything you want to do. But you'll pay for it, but maybe not a lot. There's too much crapware for XP, you can spend too long trying different free software packages out to do simple things whilst seeing that Mac software that does what you need for $20 all the time, laughing at you.

Apple's support gets good ratings all the time. I believe that they are top of the ratings charts. And for the price, it had better well be!

And XP's long lifetime was an aberration. It allowed Apple to catch up and overtake with their OS and software, but if Microsoft could have, they would have sold Longhorn in 2005 to you. Or 2004 even. They screwed the pooch to be honest. They're back on the 3 year upgrade path now. 95 - 98 - ME - XP - oops - Vista - Windows 7 - Midori

I run XP at work, and it's alright. I run Mac OS Tiger on my laptop, and it's alright but a bit old now. I run Linux on another computer, and its alright although it won't unlock the dvd burner to burn stuff. Luckily I run XP on that computer too and found some excellent free XP burning tools online. I think that Linux is the loser here however, not Mac OS X.

RE: Nice
By akugami on 8/6/2008 1:14:20 PM , Rating: 2
Actually when calculating TCO, past studies have shown that XP in the long run is higher than a Mac due to support costs. I have not seen any recent studies though. Now, it's great when you have a geek friend or family (I've done my share of this) who will help you out with problems. However, most people have to pay for support and in the long run the tech support costs will tilt the field in favor of Macs. I do not know what the TCO is comparing Vista to Macs. I can say that I have had very little issues aside from early driver problems on my Vista system. It's been very stable for the most part.

The forced upgrade on the OS is a little unfair IMHO. Don't get me wrong, it's true but I think a lot of it was necessitated by the move to a new more modern OS to clear out some of the old junk and part of it was due to the hardware changes (680x0 to PPC to x86). Windows on the other hand has been relatively stable hardware wise, it's pretty much been x86 CPU's all the way even if there were different variations on the x86 CPU's. From here on out, I think the Mac situation will be a lot more stable than in prior years. They've moved to an industry standard and it's unlikely they'll be moving to some more exotic CPU any time soon. If you have a first gen Intel Mac, it's almost guaranteed you'll be able to run the OS upgrades for at least the next couple of years. There's not reason for it not to be compatible as they are all x86 CPU's.

With an XP system, I'd still say that in the long run if you don't want to be doing trouble shooting all the time for your friend/family, get a Mac. With my experience with Vista...I think the TCO might have largely leveled off and the cheaper cost of a complete Vista system means you'd have to go with the cheaper computer. There's still more crapware on Windows based systems though but I believe Vista has leveled the playing field as far as how much support is needed for the average Joe.

Full disclosure, I used to own a Mac but not for over 10 years. I have worked on Macs but not any Intel Macs. I built my own system running Vista Ultimate 64bit. I plan to get a new Macbook Pro in the next year to dual boot.

RE: Nice
By Alexstarfire on 8/6/2008 6:21:07 PM , Rating: 2
Well, idiots need help every now and then. If you could take the idiot out of the equation I wonder which side it'd tip back to?

RE: Nice
By StevoLincolnite on 8/6/2008 7:01:39 PM , Rating: 2
"Idiot" is relative, They may be Idiotic when it comes to computer technology, but some of those very same "Idiots" would put most IT techies to shame when it came to Mechanics or something else.

RE: Nice
By Alexstarfire on 8/6/2008 7:15:31 PM , Rating: 2
That may be true, but considering this is the technological age most people need a basic understanding of computers at this point. I could totally have understood this argument if this was over a decade ago though.

RE: Nice
By akugami on 8/7/2008 1:55:11 AM , Rating: 2
The average Joe does not know how the heck a car works. They don't need to nor do they want to. They just want it to work and hopefully work without flaws. The average Joe wants the same thing from their computers. Does that make them idiots? No.

For many there are different pros and cons to both a Windows based computer and a Mac based computer. And you are an idiot if you don't admit there are pros and cons to both. How they came up with their choice is up to them. A Mac may fit Joe One better than Joe Two for which a Vista system might be better. It doesn't mean Joe One is dumber than Joe Two and it certainly doesn't mean Joe Two is dumber than Joe One. They made different choices. Hopefully one that fits them best though it won't be the first or last someone made a dumb purchase.

You idiot comment however does make you a douche. I know some very very smart people that use Mac's at home (a couple of these work for the University of Penn as researchers) and it's not too hard to find examples of some smart people on Windows based systems. We should just understand that for some Macs are a better choice and for others Vista is. In today's world, both OS's are very capable and relatively problem free. No need to insult the people who use either systems just for their OS choice.

I mean, yeah it's the tech age but just because we have high tech gadgets, we don't necessarily understand how they work. Just how to use them. So long as it does what you want, and you felt your purchase was good, who are we to judge what you bought?

RE: Nice
By Alexstarfire on 8/7/2008 6:20:30 AM , Rating: 4
I never once mentioned anything about Macs being bad. I was talking about this from a pure monetary perspective. YOU stated that if you include support costs that Macs end up being cheaper. I was pointing out that it's mostly the users fault that problems occur. Sure, some legitimate problems may occur during proper installation of hardware, software, and drivers, but a vast majority of them are not related to those kind of problems. Many of these support costs and because computers get infected with malware, spyware, viruses, tojans, etc, etc.

Sure, a person may not need to know how a car works, but they sure need to know how to drive safely and to maintain the vehicle. The same can be said about computers. Unfortunately, many people don't know how to safely use a computer or maintain it. And I am saying that THEY are the stupid ones. That may be harsh for you, but what would call someone if they never changed the oil during the entire life of their vehicle, or if they left an air filter off.

I'm not saying they have to know how to rebuild an engine, but just enough to keep everything in good working order. This can be applied to just about anything you own too. You wouldn't just leave a boat out on a private dock for years with no maintenance, would you?

RE: Nice
By CascadingDarkness on 8/7/2008 1:29:29 PM , Rating: 2
Mac Gamer ...

One of the oldest jokes in the book, but it still makes me chuckle.

RE: Nice
By das mod on 8/6/2008 11:52:26 AM , Rating: 3
Little that MAC Fanboys know, OSX runs just as fast on the $700 PC hardware, than on the overpriced $2000 Apple-labeled junk.

RE: Nice
By psychobriggsy on 8/6/08, Rating: 0
RE: Nice
By jeff834 on 8/6/2008 6:06:43 PM , Rating: 4
Er what? Um a windows laptop with the same specs as a $2500 Apple laptop costs about $1200-$1400 on the expensive side (expensive side being Dell). And I don't mean like similar specifications either, I mean same exact processor, memory, hard drive, video card (if applicable) and size of screen. The only difference being the OS. At least that's how it was when I priced a Dell machine with the same specs as the Power Book my friend bought like 2 months ago. Actually scratch that the Dell system had more memory and a bigger HDD.

RE: Nice
By Alexstarfire on 8/6/08, Rating: 0
RE: Nice
By jeff834 on 8/7/2008 6:07:47 PM , Rating: 3
Yeah well when a motherboard/chipset makes a $1200 difference in performance on the home user level your point will be valid. Who cares what mobo you get when you can buy 2 of the windows version for the price of one of the Apple? And while Dell may not let you choose a mobo they usually tell you what you're getting so you can estimate your performance.

RE: Nice
By Alexstarfire on 8/7/2008 9:16:37 PM , Rating: 2
I was never trying to say that it's worth a $1200 increase, but it could have been enough to push it into first place, and that's all I was trying to point out.

RE: Nice
By walk2k on 8/6/2008 1:12:39 PM , Rating: 5





RE: Nice
By mondo1234 on 8/6/08, Rating: 0
RE: Nice
By Quiescent on 8/6/2008 5:08:51 PM , Rating: 2
Actually, my computer that I want to build is only going to cost me about $700 if they are still around by the time I can afford it.

My 7800GT is good to me and for what I want to use so that reduces the costs tremendously, but a good graphics card isn't going to cost you more than $200, unless you go with something fancy.

Antec P182 - $169, except I got a Scratch and Dent deal with a P180 case at my local computer store and got it for $40, which means it's only going to cost me $110, in total, to go for the P180b look.

Q6600 2.4Ghz intel proc which can overclock to 4Ghz in Colorado conditions. - $194

Tuniq Tower 120 - $50

Seagate 7200RPM 32mb cache 500GB - Fluctuating between $89 and $119

4GB(2x2GB) of DDR2 800 RAM with 5 timings - Between all the good brands (Mushkin, G.skill, Geil, and OCZ) - Ranging from $80-$115, I haven't picked one out, because sometimes most of these brans will have deals on them, and thus the price fluctuating constantly has resulted in me not sticking to any specific RAM.

PC Power and Cooling 500W PSU - $106 when I got it

A nice little GA-EP35-DS3L motherboard - $90

All these things I have or used, and they all work great.

Can you get that with a mac?

Oh, I was going to mention it's going to cost me half of that to replace my current Audigy 2 ZS, but that's not really needed right now. I'm going for an E-mu soundcard that is sort of like a DSP card, but without the extra junk I don't need. I'm going to be using this computer for music production, and I probably don't plan on doing much of an overclock on the q6600 anyways. I just don't need to.

RE: Nice
By MrPoletski on 8/7/2008 6:58:25 PM , Rating: 2
hmm, yes, this is how MS gets away with selling us such junk by the way... Apple is not undercutting them. It is charging more for the same in terms of hardware which is dense. So what if their operating system is (possibly) better, it doesn't run the things I want to so I won't be using it (never have). But if they are gonna remain retardantly uncompetitive like they do then they will continue to be a niche market and MS will continue to pump out worthless junk that only works after 50 updates.

RE: Nice
By Nik00117 on 8/10/2008 4:17:58 AM , Rating: 1
My friends Porsche is faster then my Ford Focus. Sure I only paid $8,000 for my Focus, he paid $180,000 for his porsche. Sure his car is going be faster then mine. Am I upset? Am I goign up and go buy a porsche? Fuck no, I don't got 180k and even if I did I don't like the style of porsche. I'd get myself a nice Merc or maybe a TVR or something like that.

So when people go "dude my MAC is faster then your PC" and i'm like thats cause you paid 1,300 MORE but if I would of spent like 500-600 more my PC would crash your MAC.

We should do that one day. Challenge a MAC builder to get a MAC and A PC builder to build a PC 25% cheaper then the MAC and beat the MAC. I bet its very possible.

Macs are very expensive door stoppers, and paper weights.

Master of the Obvious
By marsbound2024 on 8/6/2008 10:16:32 AM , Rating: 2
Although I like to see some of the pricing, I think all of us knew that Vista PCs were cheaper than Macs. Heck, I think all of us knew on average that they were half as cheap as Macs.

RE: Master of the Obvious
By larson0699 on 8/6/2008 10:25:24 AM , Rating: 1
Half as cheap as Macs, eh?

RE: Master of the Obvious
By Clauzii on 8/6/08, Rating: -1
RE: Master of the Obvious
By zsdersw on 8/6/2008 10:41:11 AM , Rating: 3
Yes, there's always a reason.. no matter how dumb it is.

RE: Master of the Obvious
By psychobriggsy on 8/6/2008 12:14:36 PM , Rating: 1
Some people pay more for nicer looking cars too. Sometimes you want a nice looking computer. Hell, if you use it 8 hours a day that would be a pretty important consideration.

Some pay more for expensive crap looking cars (heh, any American "muscle car" these days). I guess these are the people that buy Alienware computers.

Oooh, now I've stirred up a hornet's nest.

RE: Master of the Obvious
By VashHT on 8/6/2008 2:38:23 PM , Rating: 4
I don't know about you, but when I'm using my computer I don't stare at the case...

RE: Master of the Obvious
By StevoLincolnite on 8/6/2008 7:04:14 PM , Rating: 4
Well what most people forget is that the Looks of a PC is far more customizable than that of a MAC, Want flashy Neon Lights? Simple.
Want an Aquarium in the side window? Easy.

RE: Master of the Obvious
By Alexstarfire on 8/6/2008 6:28:01 PM , Rating: 2
I use my computer far more than 8 hours a day and have not EVEN ONCE considered how it looks. Some people are just retarded and want to compensate for something while others are just obsessed with looks, but to me, and a good majority of other apparently, price and function come far before design and looks.

RE: Master of the Obvious
By Clauzii on 8/6/2008 4:45:06 PM , Rating: 1
So having a liking for good design now is dumb?

I'm speechless...

RE: Master of the Obvious
By FITCamaro on 8/6/2008 10:42:40 AM , Rating: 3
Well if you're dumb enough to pay a lot of money for "design", that's your problem. I prefer to pay a lot LESS money for a lot MORE functionality.

And with the system specs of an iMac, you can easily build an extremely small PC with the same specs still for cheaper. No it won't be built into the monitor, but you hardly need a giant tower to get the same specs as an iMac.

RE: Master of the Obvious
By lightfoot on 8/6/2008 11:19:09 AM , Rating: 5
...but it's pretty.

Just think of it as two seperate purchases. $400 for the computer, and $1500 for "art."

Besides, nothing says "smug" like a Prius with a Macbook Air and an iPod Touch on the dash. That level of "smug" would cost millions if you bought it through Microsoft.

Besides isn't "shiny" worth a few extra kilobucks?

The choice is clear.

RE: Master of the Obvious
By StevoLincolnite on 8/6/2008 7:07:18 PM , Rating: 2
I think functionality plays a part in "Design" it's nice to have the features, but if it isn't accessible or doesn't look decent then it's really not worth the price is it?

Great thing about the PC is you can customize the looks to your own needs with Neons, Side Windows, Exhaust Fans, Other Glowy and flashy stuff, case colours and sizes and form factors, Controls for the fans at the front etc, etc, etc.

RE: Master of the Obvious
By larson0699 on 8/6/2008 10:46:48 AM , Rating: 4
Different markets for different-minded folks.

I don't care if it's a bare motherboard sitting on a table as long as it overclocks and runs the games I can't play on consoles.

All-in-one PCs?

Comparable pricing, much more choice. I vote PC.

RE: Master of the Obvious
By Clauzii on 8/6/2008 11:55:08 AM , Rating: 2
Cheapest iMac:
20" display
2.4GHz Intel Core 2 Duo
1GB memory
250GB hard drive
8x double-layer SuperDrive
ATI Radeon HD 2400 XT with 128MB memory

Cheapest Dell:
20" display
Intel® Core™2 Duo E4500 (Can't find speed. 2 GHz?)
2GB memory
250GB hard drive
8X Slot load CD/DVD burner
Intel IGP

Cheapest HP:
20" TouchScreen
2.0 GHz Intel® Core™2 Duo T5750
4GB memory
320GB hard drive
Slot-load SuperMulti DVD Burner
Intel IGP

I wouldn't hesitate getting the iMac, and spend those $100 on extra Ram, unless I needed a TouchScreen which IS pretty sweet. But I won't buy anything with Intel IGP in it. Atleast not until we see what Larabee is up to.

RE: Master of the Obvious
By larson0699 on 8/6/2008 12:09:35 PM , Rating: 2

You'll be running an OS inside of an OS (or making lots of substitutions) just to support your Windows apps (everyone has 'em..)

The E4500 is 2.2GHz. Not important.

I wouldn't buy something knowing it had an HD2x00 in it that I couldn't replace, underperforming and overheating (see history of issues with Apple/HD2x00). The Intel IGP is nothing to complain about ever since GMA950 and especially including X4500.

I'd pay the extra $100 not to have an Apple, and that's not trolling--that's smart buying.

RE: Master of the Obvious
By Clauzii on 8/6/2008 1:50:40 PM , Rating: 2
Why do You talk about running an OS inside an OS?

Hint: BootCamp.

RE: Master of the Obvious
By Clauzii on 8/6/2008 1:53:23 PM , Rating: 2
Oh, and since when was CPU power unimportant? And no, the Intel IGP is no good in the two machines I compared..

RE: Master of the Obvious
By larson0699 on 8/6/2008 2:03:32 PM , Rating: 2
When it's 0.2GHz difference, I consider that unimportant.

When it's a lackluster-generation ATI GPU versus a turn-on-and-go Intel (they run Compiz and Aero beautifully, waste little power/make little heat, and decode video just the same) I give the nod to Intel.

If you're serious about 3D graphics, you won't be buying an all-in-one (or for that matter giving two siths about 200MHz--you'll get the best, cheapest, or most value instead of what's 1 multiplier higher). Nuff said.

RE: Master of the Obvious
By Clauzii on 8/6/2008 5:00:37 PM , Rating: 1
It might be that the iMac get's hotter or not. But fact is that it's also the most silent massproduced computer. (acc. to a test done by German magazine C't, comparing something like ~50 machines or so).

RE: Master of the Obvious
By Clauzii on 8/7/2008 6:19:56 PM , Rating: 2
And at this point, 2 of my comments have been erased...

GOODBYE everyone. Have a nice life.

RE: Master of the Obvious
By Clauzii on 8/7/2008 6:25:13 PM , Rating: 2
And now they show up again....what the h... is going on here... Ok, bye in this discussion anyway.

RE: Master of the Obvious
By DanoruX on 8/6/2008 2:22:09 PM , Rating: 3
Funny thing is you can DIY the Dell spec for about half that price and throw in a HD4850 and more ram just for kicks...

RE: Master of the Obvious
By Clauzii on 8/6/2008 2:37:04 PM , Rating: 1
I know. But we were discussing One-box-does-it-all-right-away :)

RE: Master of the Obvious
By DanoruX on 8/6/2008 2:44:41 PM , Rating: 3
My bad. My conception of what form factor a computer should/can take on always gets instinctively overridden by what's actually the best bang for buck. :P

I do like touchscreens though, expensive as they may be...

RE: Master of the Obvious
By Clauzii on 8/6/2008 4:48:32 PM , Rating: 1
I wonder if there might be an iMac line on the way with that too? Would be a kicker.

RE: Master of the Obvious
By Alexstarfire on 8/6/2008 6:32:25 PM , Rating: 2
I'm actually rather surprised that they weren't the first to come out with it, especially considering the iPod Touch and the iPhone.

RE: Master of the Obvious
By Clauzii on 8/6/2008 8:02:26 PM , Rating: 2
True that. They must be close though, now they've shown it works very nice.

RE: Master of the Obvious
By jimbojimbo on 8/7/2008 11:26:54 AM , Rating: 3
They're never the first to come out with anything. They're the ones that release something and take credit and act like they're the first ones to release it.

RE: Master of the Obvious
By Clauzii on 8/7/2008 4:25:59 PM , Rating: 2
Oh, I have a little downrating troll. Sweet..

RE: Master of the Obvious
By Quiescent on 8/6/2008 5:16:21 PM , Rating: 2
Maybe you should stop looking at all the crappy cases that looks to be for little kids and gamers. For instance, I believe that the Antec P180b and P182 looks a hella lot nicer than any pearly white and black crap that Apple will produce. I personally prefer the more professional look on a case.

Did you know that Apple wasn't the first company to make All in ones? Did you know that Apple isn't the only company to make mini-PCs?

RE: Master of the Obvious
By Clauzii on 8/7/2008 12:06:02 PM , Rating: 1
yeah, truth hurts :)

RE: Master of the Obvious
By marsbound2024 on 8/6/2008 11:48:38 AM , Rating: 2
Half as expensive... my bad. But I am sure you got my point, nonetheless. :p

A PC is not only cheaper...
By Landiepete on 8/6/2008 10:52:00 AM , Rating: 5
but also slightly more future proof. Try fitting a new graphics board to an Imac.

Or upgrade the HD. More Ram, anyone ?

You could probably build a nice PC quad core for around 1000 USD that would compare very favourably to a 3000 USD stripped down Mac Pro. Fro which you can get 4 old ATI graphics boards or a NVidia 8800 which is nice.

A Mac is not a bad tool. But for 2000 USD you get a 700 USD PC and OS and a 1300 USD badge.

Oh, and Jobs IS a tool. Methinks.

Peter R.

RE: A PC is not only cheaper...
By DanoruX on 8/6/2008 11:00:13 AM , Rating: 5
For $1500 you can get the average Mac.
For $1500 you can get a kick@ss PC.

End of story. :D