backtop


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

Nice
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 newegg.com
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N8...


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.

Other


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
quote:
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
quote:
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: http://forums.whirlpool.net.au/forum-replies-archi...


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.

Reference: http://www.thinkgeek.com/books/humor/8e6c/images/2...


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. www.newegg.com 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
wrong.

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.

quote:
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.

quote:
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.

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N8...

quote:
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.

https://secure.newegg.com/WishList/MySavedWishDeta...

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
quote:
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
quote:
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
quote:
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
What??

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
quote:
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 (blog) 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 GPU...in 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.

quote:
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 GPU...in 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.

quote:
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
quote:
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.

quote:
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?

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


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

quote:
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
quote:
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
quote:
"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 (http://adblockplus.org/en/ ) 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
quote:
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
ALSO THIS LATE BREAKING NEWS JUST IN:

WATER IS WET

THE SKY IS BLUE

YOU CAN'T FIGHT CITY HALL

MORE AFTER THE MOVIE


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?
DELL:
http://www.dell.com/content/products/productdetail...
HP:
http://www.shopping.hp.com/webapp/shopping/series_...

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
>$1,199.00

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
>$1,299

Cheapest HP:
20" TouchScreen
2.0 GHz Intel® Core™2 Duo T5750
4GB memory
320GB hard drive
Slot-load SuperMulti DVD Burner
Intel IGP
>$1,299.99

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
Weak.

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


By bobsmith1492 on 8/6/2008 12:12:51 PM , Rating: 3
But with the PC you can do more.

But the Mac looks prettier. To some people.


RE: A PC is not only cheaper...
By Clauzii on 8/6/2008 12:13:52 PM , Rating: 2
Hard drive upgradable to 1TB and memory to 4GB. Enough for most users.


RE: A PC is not only cheaper...
By kelmon on 8/6/08, Rating: 0
RE: A PC is not only cheaper...
By Quiescent on 8/6/2008 5:26:03 PM , Rating: 3
You missed the point that everyone is trying to make. It doesn't matter what you're using it for. For $3000 you can get a PC that can do ANYTHING compared to your mac that can't do crap except maybe hold my door open. (It has a tendacy to close, without something in front of it)

That is the point, and if you refer to my post about what you can build, I skimped on some parts, and didn't on others. I'm not making a computer for gaming, I'm making a computer for music production, which also means it will be great for even uses like 3D Modeling. I thought macs were meant for this, huh? So your point about gaming is completely invalid, because gaming is going to be as hard on a system as music production or 3D Modeling, or video encoding, for that matter.


RE: A PC is not only cheaper...
By Quiescent on 8/6/2008 5:29:55 PM , Rating: 2
...isn't going to be as hard...*


RE: A PC is not only cheaper...
By kelmon on 8/7/2008 2:44:14 AM , Rating: 1
Pardon me, but do you visit Planet Earth often? What, precisely, can an iMac NOT do? I'm sure you enjoy the hyperbole of your point but it's utter nonsense. Gaming is as hard on a system as music production or 3D modeling? Last time I checked there wasn't much demand on the GPU for producing music and the processor in an iMac is plenty fast enough for that job. If you need the fastest performance for that kind of task, go for a Xeon-based system.

And, let's be honest here, we aren't talking about DIY computers. Presumably, what you are building is a tower-based system and that's hardly the same as an iMac. I used to build my own gaming PCs until PC gaming got very boring and it's not exactly rocket science. These days I prefer to buy a computer (not least because I've switched to laptops) and the same is true for the vast majority of people looking for a computer. Do you want a cookie or something for making your own?

Seriously, find me a review from a credible source that supports your view.


I love Mac articles
By daveinternets on 8/6/2008 12:58:02 PM , Rating: 2
They always have so many 'red' comments.

Can't we all just get along :)




RE: I love Mac articles
By fibreoptik on 8/6/08, Rating: -1
RE: I love Mac articles
By larson0699 on 8/6/2008 1:49:42 PM , Rating: 2
You'll notice, the majority of them are divided between me, a fearless truth magnet with the occasional burst of haste, opinion, or hasty opinion... and fibreoptik, the entertaining yet topic-wandering troll.

As long as humans critique other humans (right vs. wrong, rather than 1 and then 2) we will never get along. Especially on DT. Welcome to the doghouse.


RE: I love Mac articles
By jonmcc33 on 8/7/2008 8:17:37 AM , Rating: 4
quote:
a fearless FUD magnet


Corrected.


RE: I love Mac articles
By larson0699 on 8/7/2008 6:00:22 PM , Rating: 2
Until FUD includes facts based on trial and error, along with the opinions made on said basis, you correct yourself.

The usage of quotations doesn't include modifying them for the sake of a short-lived hit with the modders, either. I couldn't care that everything I've said here is -1, except for the note I made yesterday on unfairness. I am justified with what I say, even if no one else is.

And that's what makes me the fearless truth magnet and you a liar.


RE: I love Mac articles
By fibreoptik on 8/7/2008 10:27:02 PM , Rating: 2
Hey! what's wrong with topic wandering?

And not *everything* I have posted here can necessarily be qualified as "trolling" (which I thought was something fishermen do anyway...)

Oh, look, now I am apparently classified as a "bot" because people automatically downrate whatever I have to say. Good times. :p

Oh, and the statement about "high quality posts that our readers demand" is hilarious. There is so much crap on here that the sewers are jealous...


RE: I love Mac articles
By PhoenixKnight on 8/6/2008 8:07:28 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
Can't we all just get along :)

NO!


Apple Pricing...
By Drexial on 8/6/2008 11:42:13 AM , Rating: 1
has ALWAYS followed the same pattern.

When a Mac first comes out its actually quite competitively priced... The problem is it never changes. It might reduce about $200 from introduction to replacement. Then the next models come out at a competitive price point and stay there.

So now that these models have been out a month or two, their prices are still high ignoring the rest of the markets price drops.

Further Macs have a niche market. While I don't see them as an every person PC for the most part. In graphics and production environments, they are second to none. Ask most people in movie editing or music production what they use. I would say 8-9/10 use Macs.

I do think there are some technologies that Macs fall short on. I think parallel processing is a PC option that will start to take some glory away from Macs. But this isn't quite in full swing yet.




RE: Apple Pricing...
By Clauzii on 8/6/2008 2:00:32 PM , Rating: 2
The funny thing is that Apple machines have been #3 on the Top500.org list with the G5s. No PCs have been there yet..


RE: Apple Pricing...
By Alexstarfire on 8/6/2008 6:41:13 PM , Rating: 3
Ummmm, maybe you mistyped the address or something, but top500.org lists the top 500 supercomputers... in which Apple isn't even ranked.


RE: Apple Pricing...
By jryans on 8/7/2008 5:38:02 AM , Rating: 2
He's not talking about the current top 500 list:

http://top500.org/lists/2003/11


RE: Apple Pricing...
By Alexstarfire on 8/7/2008 6:25:20 AM , Rating: 2
Actually, this was my fault. I went and looked at charts by Vendor assuming Apple would be up there if they had a supercomputer composed of Macs, but I was wrong apparently. I went and looked by OS and there are indeed a couple Mac super computers.

As a side note Windows has about the same number of supercomputers as Macs, which is in the single digits on a list of 500 computers.


RE: Apple Pricing...
By Clauzii on 8/7/2008 12:04:17 PM , Rating: 2
No. I wrote 'have been', past. Nothing there...


I was thinking about buying a Macbook...
By jabber on 8/6/2008 11:22:58 AM , Rating: 3
...you know just for a change. I saw that the cheapest Macbook cost around ÂŁ600 ($1200) but......

It only has a CD/DVD combo drive not a full DVD burner.

Suffice to say I havent investigated any further.

Value for money in 2008...maybe not.




RE: I was thinking about buying a Macbook...
By Clauzii on 8/6/2008 5:07:42 PM , Rating: 2
The only people I know who burn DVDs are either musicians, like me, backing up soundfiles and projects, or people downloading and (illegaly!) sharing movies from the net. Most other are cool with CDs.

And personally I could live with CD-burning, doing backup over the network.


RE: I was thinking about buying a Macbook...
By Alexstarfire on 8/6/2008 6:38:52 PM , Rating: 2
Does it really matter why he needs one? DVD burners aren't exactly expensive anymore. Hell, I got my awesome DW1640 for $20... back when they were still being produced. Hell, if you're going that far... why have a CD burner? Most people just use USB sticks anyways.


RE: I was thinking about buying a Macbook...
By Clauzii on 8/6/2008 8:10:23 PM , Rating: 2
You beat me to it! USB sticks, how could I forget :S

Btw. I use my phone :)


By jabber on 8/7/2008 4:47:14 AM , Rating: 2
Yes but its a lot cheaper to give folks and family DVD's of video footage and back up data then it is to keep shelling out for USB sticks.

There is no reason why a laptop of any type should not come with features that have been classed as standard for several years.

Its just poor.


The best upgrade for any Mac
By lightfoot on 8/6/2008 11:31:28 AM , Rating: 5
With your new Mac, you can install a cool program called Windows Vista. It allows you to play all the latest games, and use most 3rd party applications!




RE: The best upgrade for any Mac
By mircea on 8/6/2008 12:25:49 PM , Rating: 2
Yeas but that's the point of this article. With the money you payed on 1 Mac + Vista OS, I can buy/build 1 BETTER PC for gaming and have enough to spare for a cheaper system, to give my mom and little brother to let me play those games you talk about. :P


In related news
By larson0699 on 8/6/2008 10:14:55 AM , Rating: 5
Linux PCs half the cost of Windows PCs. Stay tuned.




RE: In related news
By Clauzii on 8/6/2008 11:25:29 AM , Rating: 1
That's worth a 6!


RE: In related news
By Alexstarfire on 8/6/08, Rating: 0
Sneaking suspicion
By Gailim on 8/6/2008 12:12:32 PM , Rating: 3
why do i think this article is a response to that failure of a story over at toms?

nice job DT. hard numbers, fair comparisons. this is why you are so much better than the rotting husk formerly known as Toms




RE: Sneaking suspicion
By PhoenixKnight on 8/6/2008 8:05:48 PM , Rating: 3
I was thinking the exact same thing when I saw this article.

I remember back when Toms used to be good and actually posted more than 1 review a week. Good, detailed reviews, not the utter crap that they spew today. At least their forums remained useful and had knowledgable users for a while, but now most of the people are gone, too. Such a pity.

Oh well, we still have DT and Anandtech for real news and reviews, despite the grammar and spelling errors.


The only real advantage apple has
By Noliving on 8/6/2008 1:35:24 PM , Rating: 1
The only real advantage apple has on microsoft is that apple actually has a decent price for an operating system and you don't have all these different versions or sku of the operatins system.

You can go out and buy an osx for 130 dollars retail versus windows home basic which is around 200 bucks.




By kelmon on 8/7/2008 2:52:27 AM , Rating: 2
Well, the simple pricing certainly makes things easy but I argue that the primary advantage that the Mac platform has is some really great software. Windows clearly has more software available but I honestly hold that the quality of the software on the Mac is higher. If it wasn't for this then I'd have switched back to Windows after my first Mac about 5-years ago.

One advantage that Windows has, however, when it comes to its software library is that it covers a wider range. For this reason, if you have a relatively obscure software requirement then Windows may be the only option for you. My father, for example, needed to buy a Windows-based system because he needed access to tidal applications for yachting. There was a couple of Mac applications for this but nowhere near as good as the Windows versions.


Objective Summary:
By mac2j on 8/6/2008 2:16:16 PM , Rating: 1
1 - Everyone knows you're paying a circa $500 premium when you buy a Mac for getting their OS and design. Some people don't mind making the tradeoff even though anyone who trys to pretend they're getting a "good deal" on the hardware is a crazed fanboi.

2 - Vista is "ok". BUT Vista is inferior for most users to XP which is pretty dissapointing for an "upgrade" that was more than 5 years in the making. Just as an FYI I'm plenty capable of turning off the UAC and my hardware ranks straight 5's -- but half the programs I had on my XP PC, even ones I purchased this year, would not run on Vista which required sometimes free upgrades, sometimes costly paid upgrades, and a few of them still don't work. MS really should have thought about including some kind of XP emulator.

3 - Even as bad as Vista is, Apple will never be able to get more than 20% (probably 15%) of the PC market.

4 - What MANY MANY MANY of us are hoping is that Vista being so unloved has created enough of a demand nice that Apple will finally throw in the towel and become just an OS company or that Google will step up with GOOGLE-OS and GOOGLE-OFFICE to take on MS.




RE: Objective Summary:
By kelmon on 8/7/2008 6:56:16 AM , Rating: 2
I can't see Apple over becoming a software company for the simple reason that they have no incentive to do so. The hardware business is working out very nicely for them and I honestly don't think that licensing the Mac OS will be anywhere near as big a money spinner as some seem to think, plus they'd have to support a much bigger array of computers.

While Google could release a Google OS, I seriously doubt they have any interest in doing so. Given that Android runs on Linux it seems reasonable that any Google OS would be a variant of Linux itself.

Which brings us to the most likely candidate, Linux. If the Linux community can get their act together to take on Microsoft on the desktop then I can see that doing pretty well. Pick a distribution to rally around (Ubuntu seems a reasonable choice at this moment), focus your attention on making it shine, and do some damned marketing to let people know that it exists. Word of mouth is great and all but there's not enough mouths doing the talking for sufficient ears to be listening.


Averages
By crimson117 on 8/6/2008 11:15:01 AM , Rating: 2
How were these averages calculated? By sales or by offering?

Was Applecare included?

Just curious...




New Pic needed
By JAB on 8/6/2008 11:40:54 AM , Rating: 2
The pic needs to be 'The drama club will begin in 3-2-1.....'

These are two very different markets just about any generalization with such a small data set is going to reflect your bias more than the real world.

A comparison of two nearly identical systems would be more worth wile and it is easy to do now that Apple has more standard parts. Now that would be a good article.




cost/performance
By gwynethgh on 8/6/2008 11:43:42 AM , Rating: 2
God the cost/performance ratio has always been better on windows machines way back to 3.1. Apple still means over priced and under performing




Amazing???
By Cobra Commander on 8/6/2008 12:22:09 PM , Rating: 2
If anyone finds this 'amazing' they're horribly-misinformed or plain ignorant. This is 'typical' and par for the course. Always has been too.

???




Unimportant
By kelmon on 8/6/2008 1:17:29 PM , Rating: 2
Here's the thing. Everyone knows that Macs cost more than other computers with the same hardware specification. If people wanted to buy computers for the cheapest price for a given specification then Apple would go out of business tomorrow. The thing is, price isn't the only factor that determines whether you buy Product A or Product B.

There's so many factors that determine what you buy when it comes to a computer. Some things immediately mean that a Mac is not for you, such as wanting to play the latest PC games or having a large library of applications that you are happy with, and that's perfectly fine. But the fact remains that Apple makes some very nice computers, that runs a very nice OS, which in turn runs some great applications. And for some people, like myself, that's what is important and why we buy a Mac.

For the record, my current computer is a 17" MacBook Pro from October 2006 and I still think it's perfect. It does everything that I want it to and using it makes me smile a lot. Much of that, however, is due to the fabulous applications. Aperture, for example, is just awesome for a photographer.




Thank you Mick
By Ryanman on 8/6/2008 5:22:20 PM , Rating: 2
I know that it must be a pain having to write an article like this, one that's not pro mac. I know they're more your type of computing experience. While I would normally belittle you for it, etc, I'm kinda tired of whining about it on these comment threads.
I appreciate your willingness to admit that PC's have the price/performance advantage, and hope you and your mac harbor no ill will towards my (and many others) pro PC shenanigans from time to time.




A little more noise...
By GeorgeH on 8/6/2008 5:37:40 PM , Rating: 2
To further clutter this thread with noise, allow me to offer yet another automobile analogy:

Most Macs = Lexus
Most PC's = Toyota

In general, the things that make a Lexus more 'special' than a Toyota are the little, almost indefinable and unnoticeable touches; a little less road noise, a very slightly smoother suspension, wood trim and not plastic, an analog clock as opposed to a digital one. It’s similar to a piece Andy Rooney did for 60 minutes years ago about the “sound” a car door makes when it is closed, and how luxury cars just do it better – try itemizing that on a spec sheet.

Those small, subtle differences extend to Macs and PC’s as well; most Macs that I’ve used just “feel” better than most PC’s, whether it be the way the keyboard responds, the way the tension on the laptop hinges is “just so”, or just the general tactile feedback of the materials used.

Apple is free to add those little touches because they “stand alone”; you can’t really comparison shop a Mac. On the other hand, HP can’t add those nearly indefinable “nothings” because they can’t really put them on a spec sheet, and nobody in their right mind would pay hundreds more for a PC that’s “identical” to a Dell - which is why most PC’s end up as Toyotas.

Those “nothings” are also why the PC vs. Mac debate almost always devolves into an emotional pissing contest; there is really nothing definable that separates the two and causes the price gap. For most “techy” people, i.e. those for whom a few extra MHz or GB’s means the world, those little nothings are worthless; for a random Joe, they can be very important.

For the record, I use a PC and loathe everything Apple (for reasons that don’t matter here); that doesn’t mean I can’t appreciate a Mac for what it is.




Well
By AntiV6 on 8/6/2008 6:08:22 PM , Rating: 2
I hate to be that guy... But most people don't just get the $699 laptop or $489 desktop. Which are the average prices at Circuit City.

Most people get the $90 optimization, $30 reformat disk, $70 Internet Security(But how secure is Norton, really?), and the infamous warranties that can end up costing half the price of the actual system. Check the $499.96 Toshiba laptop if it is still online, a 3 year accidental would cost $359.99. haha

Not saying Mac's are any cheaper, just that more stuff gets schluffed off on PC's.

And don't forget that at least Circuit City and Best buy have negative markup on most computers...




What you talkin bout willis?
By bendrx on 8/6/2008 7:16:44 PM , Rating: 2
"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."
If it could replace my desktop then it would fulfill all my media needs and the more graphically demanding games.Sorry i know its off the other topics.lol




What you talkin bout willis?
By bendrx on 8/6/2008 7:17:28 PM , Rating: 2
"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."
If it could replace my desktop then it would fulfill all my media needs and the more graphically demanding games.Sorry i know its off the other topics.lol




By greylica on 8/6/2008 8:27:54 PM , Rating: 2
Every time someone criticizes Vista, their comments drop down
in DailyTech, is an interesting behavior.
Far more interesting, is the fact that the defendants only look to show "XP is old, and Vista is newer" as an advantage.

The defendants say always the same thing:
"Stick with your older XP crap"

The haters always say:
"We need only to work on our software, why 4GB memory ?"

To Vista defendants :
Not all of the older tools are craps, and we still do great works with our older tools, that are doing the same thing as they did before, but more faster with newer machines.

To Vista Haters.
Do not post in DT anymore, every time you do this, the comments turns the page from white to red, and you are the majority, as it´s appearing here now. :)

Go ahead Vista defendants and drop down my comments to -6 as you are always trying to do.

I am using Linux.... Mwahahahahahaa !!!




By greylica on 8/6/2008 9:20:25 PM , Rating: 2
Be carefull, they will make you with a -7...

I like mac Hardware, but don´t like the software as I like Linux, not for the costs, but I find it more productive with the software that I most use ( Blender ).

Betweeen 2K, Vista or XP, I prefer 2K, is a XP without eye candy, but it´s an extremely sincere Windows. And using free software to complete the tools we use everiday, we have better productivity.
The majority of tools that was coming with XP, now is surpassed with free software. Complete a 2K with 7-zip, Firefox, Gimp, Open Office, Amsn, Inkscape, Python, Adobe Reader, Ccleaner, Blender, some codecs and you´re done.
A simple (and not resource hungry) anti virus, course.
No eye candy ?
No, but I´m happy with the performance for my everyday usage.
Memory ? 138 Megs at 13 seconds to startup.
Plays 1920P (P4 3,2, 4 Gigs, I865 Quadro 4000 AGP)?

Yes, sure.

I tried Vista in this rig:
Memory - 500 MB at startup.
Plays 1920P ? Never, no way...


One more thing
By djreedps on 8/6/2008 8:49:16 PM , Rating: 2
My Linux laptop with 1G of RAM and a mediocre graphics chip can do way cooler things graphically through Compiz Fusion than a Vista machine with 2G to 3G of RAM and a killer graphics card. Plus the 1G Linux machine is much faster than the 2G to 3G Vista machine.
So where is the bargain in buying Vista?




Hahaha
By jugad on 8/8/2008 6:14:44 PM , Rating: 2
Its funny to see two groups trying to fight over just exactly how good vista/xp is ... trying to find common ground, the right match of words over which the other side will agree.

This comment is for those people who have the ability to take this as a hint that there is possibly a better experience than XP/Vista awaiting them. I have been using/programming computers and other devices for many many years, so I know what I am talking about.

I use Vista/XP at work, and OSX at home... both are usable and good enough for any user (average/experienced). I find OSX to be better. I have almost all applications that I use easily accessible on MAC. There are also lesser Virus / security issues.

If you can take this as an advise that might make your computer experience better, try out a MAC sometime, and give it about a month to grow on you. You will love it.

You will also realize why people who have used both are just people like you and me and are happy to pay the extra money for the better quality (as will you be).

You will also see the absurdity of a person trying to tell the world how good OSX is, and windows users bashing him up for giving them this news.

Vista/Xp get the job done... OSX is just better at it.




Prediction
By bpwilldo on 8/6/2008 1:05:52 PM , Rating: 1
It's obvious that this personal computing fad is about to expire. People will begin to spend their time at the drive-in movies and parking at the point. Perhaps sock hops will make a resurgence.

I give it 3 more years, about the same for that internet thing.




c0ck shiners
By larson0699 on 8/6/08, Rating: 0
Half the cost...
By fibreoptik on 8/6/08, Rating: -1
RE: Half the cost...
By rdeegvainl on 8/6/2008 10:23:39 AM , Rating: 2
you mean i can't do things on this vista machine that macs can do? like multimedia, photo editing, games, office software? what functionality did i lose?


RE: Half the cost...
By ThatNewGuy on 8/6/2008 10:25:49 AM , Rating: 5
iSmug.


RE: Half the cost...
By kattanna on 8/6/2008 10:26:40 AM , Rating: 5
quote:
what functionality did i lose?


buying a PC over a MAC you lose the ability to feel smug for no good reason.

macs are nice machine and i use them here at work, but when i get home and want to do some gaming, LOL, my PC is the only option.


RE: Half the cost...
By larson0699 on 8/6/2008 10:27:09 AM , Rating: 2
You lost out on iLife.


RE: Half the cost...
By FITCamaro on 8/6/2008 10:32:15 AM , Rating: 2
Yeah I'll be sure to give a complimentary convulse of withdrawal to make the Mac users think I'm missing it.


RE: Half the cost...
By fibreoptik on 8/6/08, Rating: -1
RE: Half the cost...
By LorKha on 8/6/2008 10:33:08 AM , Rating: 2
Obviously you have failed at Windows Vista.


RE: Half the cost...
By fibreoptik on 8/6/08, Rating: -1
RE: Half the cost...
By LorKha on 8/6/2008 10:36:28 AM , Rating: 2
It's not the Operating System that failed, it's the user.


RE: Half the cost...
By fibreoptik on 8/6/08, Rating: -1
RE: Half the cost...
By LorKha on 8/6/2008 10:53:09 AM , Rating: 2
LOL! Who ever brought up the fanboy in me. You wanna talk about fanboy, we can talk about fanboy-ness. From what I understand, you just failed at Windows Vista. No fanboy talk here.


RE: Half the cost...
By FITCamaro on 8/6/2008 10:55:11 AM , Rating: 2
And you're any better as a complete Microsoft hater?

Most of the rest of us that like Vista at least have the mind to say that Macs aren't bad computers, they're just insanely expensive for what you're getting.

Your opinion is founded on absolutely no facts. Only typical troll type comments. Vista had some issues at release but the majority of them had absolutely nothing to do with the OS itself. But being an idiot you blame lack of drivers or buggy drivers on Microsoft.


RE: Half the cost...
By jgigz on 8/6/2008 10:59:32 AM , Rating: 1
Well said.

http://www.macfixit.com/

If Macs "just work" then why would this website be needed?


RE: Half the cost...
By fibreoptik on 8/6/08, Rating: -1
RE: Half the cost...
By jgigz on 8/6/2008 11:45:39 AM , Rating: 2
Yes, because that video maid claims with no support....go troll somewhere else


RE: Half the cost...
By fibreoptik on 8/6/08, Rating: -1
RE: Half the cost...
By kelmon on 8/7/2008 6:59:56 AM , Rating: 2
I rather like the idea of a video maid. Does she bring beverages? If so then it sounds like my wife.


RE: Half the cost...
By larson0699 on 8/6/2008 11:50:44 AM , Rating: 3
RE: Half the cost...
By fibreoptik on 8/6/08, Rating: -1
RE: Half the cost...
By Chaser on 8/6/2008 12:52:20 PM , Rating: 2
And obviously OS X fullfills your needs so well you can't stop yourself from bashing others.

Criticise all you like troll boy, regardless of the version of Windows we'll still have more to work with.


RE: Half the cost...
By fibreoptik on 8/6/08, Rating: -1
RE: Half the cost...
By FITCamaro on 8/6/2008 5:01:26 PM , Rating: 2
So not only are you a troll, you're a dumb one who uses the product he hates so badly. Me personally, I don't use things I despise. And its not like you have an excuse considering you can use XP instead of Vista on your desktop. Or you can use Linux for free.


RE: Half the cost...
By fibreoptik on 8/6/08, Rating: 0
RE: Half the cost...
By Alexstarfire on 8/6/2008 6:55:19 PM , Rating: 2
As a Texan, though only by birth since I was raised in Georgia, let the flames commence, I resent that. I'll thank you very kindly to not lump all of us together.


RE: Half the cost...
By fibreoptik on 8/13/2008 10:35:35 AM , Rating: 2
Sorry.

Correction: Born+raised in Texas seems to rhyme with D-bag.

My bad.


RE: Half the cost...
By rdeegvainl on 8/6/2008 10:35:22 AM , Rating: 2
so if everything works for me, all the time, i have full functionality? right? I guess my vista computer is completely functional. so does that mean that mac is a broken pos cause it won't play my games?


RE: Half the cost...
By FITCamaro on 8/6/2008 10:35:23 AM , Rating: 2
Yeah it's so broke that it works fine.

I've yet to find something that didn't work. Well, Nvidia's shitty drivers made setting profiles lock up my PC. Hardly a problem with Vista. But then idgits like you try to play it off like any problem that happens on a Microsoft OS is Microsoft's fault.


RE: Half the cost...
By fibreoptik on 8/6/08, Rating: -1
RE: Half the cost...
By jgigz on 8/6/2008 12:54:40 PM , Rating: 2
Thats clever, when your troll tactics fail, you switch to personal attacks.


RE: Half the cost...
By Alexstarfire on 8/6/2008 6:59:59 PM , Rating: 2
Actually, I'm guessing he didn't understand the reference because he is the illiterate person. I, for one, was forced to read the book in school and know exactly what FITCamaro is talking about. Wish I could remember the name of the book though. I just remember me and my friends making fun of that word for a long time after reading it.

Go pick up a book fiberoptik.


RE: Half the cost...
By Maza13 on 8/7/2008 2:24:38 AM , Rating: 1
Everything I've thrown at Vista has worked for me, Office applications, Anti-Virus applications, Utilities, Games, 3rd party photo and video applications. There are only 2 issues that I've had with Vista, one was the video card drivers that I totally blame Nvidia for. Second, and still ongoing but due to my lack of knowledge, is the inability to share a printer with my XP machine. So your comment only goes to show me and other informed individuals that you truly know nothing about Vista, and that you probably should have been included in the Mojave experiment to show us how truly ignorant you are. A good day to you and I hope you come out of that dark hole you dug yourself into.


RE: Half the cost...
By Aloonatic on 8/6/2008 10:39:11 AM , Rating: 2
I finally got to use an Apple Mac the other day and I must say I was not all that impressed, although it was only a rather brief 30 min look-see.

It was very pretty and looked fairly straight forward use.

The screen looked crisp and sharp and it was nice and neat and tidy.

The owner was very pleased to show it off of course.

Oh look at this, look at that, look what this program does....

I didn't have the heart to tell him that nearly everything he showed me I had seen similar progs on the PC.

The time machine thing looked good tho, but is it much more than a slightly enhanced system restore?

He used to be a PC man, but has settled down with his now fiancée and bought a house, which has been working on for the last couple of years.

To be honest, it seems more like he has given up and gone for the easy option and lost the will to see what is out there in the PC world, happy to simply use whatever his Mac will let him.

Maybe I didn't get much of a product demo from him, but all I saw was a photo album/importing prog, a video editing prog, safari, quicktime, that time machine thing, erm, that was about it.

Oh and he showed me that it ran windows too.

It cost him ÂŁ1,500 and the actual unit (all tucked up there in the screen) and little keyboard (on which he keeps pressing ESC because there is no where to hold the tiny little thing should you wish to move it) and that mouse without buttons (wooo) are all very nice and stylish but it seemed very pricey for something that seemed to do very little more than my parents ÂŁ500 Dell PC.

Perhaps Macs can do much much more than that, I don't know, but I wasn't really impressed, especially at that price.


RE: Half the cost...
By ThatNewGuy on 8/6/2008 10:50:05 AM , Rating: 2
Exactly. It's like jiggling keys in front of a baby.


RE: Half the cost...
By FITCamaro on 8/6/2008 11:59:42 AM , Rating: 2
It's like spinning a color wheel in front of a stoner.


RE: Half the cost...
By larson0699 on 8/6/2008 12:14:05 PM , Rating: 2
HEY!!!

colors..!


RE: Half the cost...
By Aloonatic on 8/6/2008 11:02:20 AM , Rating: 2
I know you can just rate me down if you like, but I am trying to find out just what I missed?

Just what is it that Macs can do that Vista/XP cannot?

I Genuinely want to know???

If the argument is that they look good and are stylish then that's fine, you can buy a pretty PC too of course and it will cost a lot more, but what extra functionality is there?


RE: Half the cost...
By fibreoptik on 8/6/08, Rating: -1
RE: Half the cost...
By DanoruX on 8/6/2008 11:23:13 AM , Rating: 2
Stable? My box has been running for a month straight with no problems.
Functional? I can run whatever I want and play any game I want.
Hassle-free? Installation procedure takes a whopping 3 screens of clicking, taking a shower and turning off UAC. Yep, hassle free.

Macs are overpriced and only a six (or more) figure paycheck will convince me otherwise.


RE: Half the cost...
By anotherdude on 8/6/2008 11:42:58 AM , Rating: 1
[quote]Vista is total shit and no one can convince me otherwise.[/quote]

Fiberoptic, the society for the advancement of "Vista sucks" wants you to know that you are doing more to hurt our cause than help it. Please try to mix in the odd fact or two with your exemplary angry tirade.


RE: Half the cost...
By FITCamaro on 8/6/2008 12:04:50 PM , Rating: 2
Please name one god damn thing a Mac can do that a PC can not? Other than burn a bigger hole in my pocket? And "run x piece of software" doesn't really count considering there is likely a just as good a piece of software available for Windows. And there's plenty of software available on Windows that ISN'T available for Macs.

Better yet, don't answer me. Just go away.


RE: Half the cost...
By Clauzii on 8/6/2008 4:39:44 PM , Rating: 1
OK, for fun then:

A MAC can run Windows. When the other way around works, tell me.


RE: Half the cost...
By Alexstarfire on 8/6/2008 7:03:46 PM , Rating: 3
I think the question is: Why would you want to run Mac OS on a PC? It's obvious why Mac users want to run Windows, but not the other way around.


RE: Half the cost...
By kelmon on 8/7/2008 1:00:29 PM , Rating: 2
The obvious answer is that you get access to Mac applications. The more complex answer depends on what you want to do and as to whether it would be worth going through the hassle of building a Hackintosh rather than running Windows alternatives. Make no mistake about it, the Mac has some awesome applications and getting access to them would be great if they are the sort of programs that you need.

Personally, I spend most of my time using Mac applications but I do need Windows for some things, mostly because work has a number of IE-only web applications. As usual, your own mileage may vary.


RE: Half the cost...
By theapparition on 8/6/2008 9:26:05 PM , Rating: 2
Do a seach on Hackentosh. Built one myself, just for fun.

So........you've been told.


RE: Half the cost...
By Clauzii on 8/7/2008 11:43:32 AM , Rating: 2
Thank You :)


RE: Half the cost...
By kelmon on 8/7/2008 5:40:27 AM , Rating: 2
Color calibration is built into the Mac OS and is used for ensuring a consistent representation of colors from import, display and output. Damned important for anyone involved in imaging.

Aside from that you are probably quite right. A PC probably can do everything that a Mac can, but dismissing the importance of the software isn't sensible. I like Mac software more than I like Windows software, and since I came from Windows in the first place and still use it today, that's important. For whatever reason Mac software tends to be better thought out than Windows alternatives such that I find it easier to achieve what I want with the minimum of fuss. That's important to me and why I have not switched back to Windows.

My application of choice is Apple's Aperture. Windows has Adobe's Lightroom, as does the Mac, but I find its workflow process to be too restrictive, plus it's more expensive.


RE: Half the cost...
By INeedCache on 8/7/2008 7:59:47 AM , Rating: 1
Vista has been nothing but stable for me. I got it about a month after it came out, and other than some drivers for some of my devices being late from the device manufacturer, no problems at all. You should not say "People have...", you should say "I have ..." since the problem with you and Vista is obviously you. Maybe it is your computer skills that are shit, and not Vista. I will not argue with you, as you likely know the saying about arguing with a fool, which you must be if you claim Microsoft stuff is garbage, yet you use it.


RE: Half the cost...
By crimson117 on 8/6/2008 11:34:36 AM , Rating: 2
Macs can't actually do anything special that you couldn't replicate on another operating system. If you were a programmer with lots of time, you could probably recreate any Mac OS X application to use on Windows. There are even Linux themes that mimic OS X quite well.

But you get much more out of the box than you do with Windows Vista. Garage Band, Time Machine, iLife are all superior to what you get with a Windows Vista base install. You'd have to spend another $200 or so to get comparable quality applications for Windows.

Apple's retail stores are also far superior to any Windows retailer. Genius Bar = Apple Tech Support, whereas Geek Squad = 3rd party sales-driven support.


RE: Half the cost...
By Aloonatic on 8/6/2008 11:58:19 AM , Rating: 3
Finally, a calm, non-hysterical response, thank you.

So the deal is:

Well designed (the footprint of the machine my friend has was impressive) and reasonably featured (capable of doing most jobs at a reasonable speed and the screen really did seem very good) unit.

Carefully managed and designed software (not to be confused with "bloat ware") which works well.

Superior technical support, or any technical support really. I never used any PC support to be honest but I can see that it would be nice to be able to have it for a lot of people. It does get annoying being phone support for most family and friends.

It seems that Apple are happy to stick to a certain section of the market and have no real ambitions to be a mass market product, more of a designer brand?

It's not unusual for a brand to want to differentiate itself through price and keep "the riff raff"* at bay, they aren't the first to do this.

Still, I guess I'm not ready yet, I'll soldier on with my home built PC.

*not saying that anyone who hasn't got a Mac is "riff-raff" or not "as good" as a Mac owner by the way.


RE: Half the cost...
By Icelight on 8/6/2008 12:55:15 PM , Rating: 5
The only reason you get more out of the box with a Mac is because if Microsoft were to try that Apple would moan and get anti-trust lawsuits started against Microsoft...again.


RE: Half the cost...
By Alexstarfire on 8/6/2008 7:09:02 PM , Rating: 2
Sadly...... that's probably true. Isn't it great how only the big boys end up getting sued over stuff like that?


RE: Half the cost...
By kelmon on 8/7/2008 5:19:59 AM , Rating: 2
No, Microsoft would not get done for that unless their software couldn't be removed or you couldn't set 3rd party applications as the default over Microsoft's. Remember, Apple didn't "moan" about Microsoft since their own applications were not impacted. Rather, it was 3rd party developers that complained because they were being prevented from competing fairly against Microsoft's own applications on the platform that Microsoft owned and controlled.


RE: Half the cost...
By kelmon on 8/7/2008 5:28:12 AM , Rating: 2
Technically, the iLife software are not part of OS X and you won't get them if you buy a new version of the Mac OS. Picky, I know, but iLife is an extra ÂŁ55 at retail but is included with any new Mac.

You are, of course, correct in saying that any Mac application could be written for other operating systems running on the same hardware platform. The only issue here is with respect to the amount of code that you'd need to generate in order to replicate the Cocoa frameworks of the Mac OS before you even write the code that makes your application special.


RE: Half the cost...
By quickk on 8/6/2008 11:35:57 AM , Rating: 2
The main thing that attracted me towards OSX was that it is a lot closer to linux than windows. For example, you can easily use x-windows to remotely run applications that are on another linux computer. Another thing that I like a lot is the gestures that you can use on the laptop trackpad in the newer versions.

What I didn't like:
-can't maximize windows. I know why they did this, it's just really annoying. For example, sometimes I'd like to browse the internet in fullscreen mode (to look at online albums for example). However, the mac version of firefox has this feature removed!

-the lack of a forward delete. Also, all the shortcuts involve the apple key instead of the command key. This feels a lot more akward.


RE: Half the cost...
By FITCamaro on 8/6/2008 12:28:23 PM , Rating: 3
I do PHP development at work in Linux through VNC from Windows.

But yes the little things you mention as dislikes are the big things that turn me off about OSX.


RE: Half the cost...
By fibreoptik on 8/6/2008 1:10:36 PM , Rating: 3
Okay I am offically retracting that redneck remark from earlier (even though I already said it was a joke). Because if you are indeed a redneck, you would be the very first redneck I ever heard of that knows how to code anything beyond HTML, let alone PHP.

Unless... you are The Redneck of the Future™, saving the world one web application at a time! :D



RE: Half the cost...
By kelmon on 8/7/2008 1:15:52 PM , Rating: 2
Oddly, one thing that Macs seem to be able to do but which at least XP doesn't is something that Windows used to have (3.11, if I recall correctly), and that's scripting. Leopard has a few scripting options with Automator to produce workflows but the most power comes from AppleScript. A lot of Mac applications (frankly, any that expect to be well regarded) support control via AppleScript and it enables you to combine many applications together into a workflow. As usual it depends on what you want to do as to whether this is useful for you. However, as an example I was able to provide a solution to a problem of delivering several thousand image files from our company imaging system for a customer by scripting together a text editor, Oracle client and FTP application.

If you want to automate a repetitive task, AppleScript is marvelous.


RE: Half the cost...
By bobcpg on 8/6/08, Rating: 0
RE: Half the cost...
By lightfoot on 8/6/2008 11:59:00 AM , Rating: 5
quote:
Send a CD/DVD to the Trash to eject - ??

It's just Apple's way of telling you that that is where everything is supposed to go.

Your iPhone when it's battery dies, your iMac when your monitor breaks and your MacBook when it needs an upgrade.


RE: Half the cost...
By FITCamaro on 8/6/2008 12:01:02 PM , Rating: 2
LMAO!

Now that was funny.


RE: Half the cost...
By bobcpg on 8/6/2008 12:07:32 PM , Rating: 2
I love it!! I'd vote up but already commented.


RE: Half the cost...
By Clauzii on 8/6/2008 4:21:40 PM , Rating: 2
Just like Windows "Start" to "Stop" :-S

Get over it....


RE: Half the cost...
By Clauzii on 8/6/2008 8:12:22 PM , Rating: 2
I mean, old joke... Every Mac keyboard have an eject key.


RE: Half the cost...
By kelmon on 8/7/2008 5:14:32 AM , Rating: 3
Not strictly true. There's various ways to eject a disk on a Mac but the "drag to trash" method requires a better description. What you are doing is dragging the icon to the eject icon that appears on the Dock when you start dragging a disk icon; you don't actually drag the icon to the Trash as you would to delete a file. This said, it is not immediately obvious that this is a method to eject a disk because the Eject icon does not appear until the drag starts. Other more obvious ways of doing it include pressing the eject key on your keyboard, clicking the eject icon beside the disk icon, or right-clicking the disk and selecting Eject from the contextual menu. The dragging method appears to be a hold-over from the old Mac OSs and people can get awfully annoyed if you change things that they are used to even if they don't make a lot of sense.

There's many ways to skin a cat, much to the cat's objections.


RE: Half the cost...
By psychobriggsy on 8/6/2008 12:25:11 PM , Rating: 5
So, he got tired of faffing about with PCs and since his priorities and free time in life have changed he got a Mac, and is extremely happy with it, even for the high cost (which I presume he could afford like some people can afford a ÂŁ20k car every other year).

I really don't think you can argue against this person's logic.

And Time Machine is better presumably because it brings the functionality to the average user in a simple usable manner. It's not about having the feature, but it's about how simple and easy the feature is to use. That's where Apple excels when they get it right.

I wouldn't buy an iMac myself, but I can still see why some people would.
I think that Apple should come out with a consumer tower system at a reasonable price myself, but it won't happen. The Mac Pro is excellent value for professionals. There's nothing for normal people, a huge gap in their offerings, and it's annoying. That's why Apple's laptops are such a high proportion of their Mac sales, they're missing out on consumer desktop sales because they have no offering apart from low-end (POS Mac Mini that is never upgraded) and extreme high-end. Argh!


RE: Half the cost...
By kelmon on 8/7/2008 5:56:54 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
The time machine thing looked good tho, but is it much more than a slightly enhanced system restore?


Yes. The basic principle of Time Machine is this. Once every hour your Mac makes a total back-up of your hard drive (or anything except what you have told it not to backup). This sounds like a heavy process but it's actually very light for the following reasons:

1. The Mac OS records in a log when a file changes so Time Machine doesn't need to search for changes in the file system before backing up.

2. It uses UNIX hard links so that each backup on the external drive appears to be a complete backup but in fact each the backup only contains changed files and links to files that have not changed.

The importance of this is that if you need to restore your drive you don't have the usual restoration of a master backup followed by the application of a series of incremental backups.

The other aspect of Time Machine is that its contextual in applications that support it. For example, you can search for missing contact cards in Address Book rather than searching for files in the file system. However, the number of applications that support Time Machine for such contextual searches is low and the application defaults to searching in the Finder if your current application does not support Time Machine. Still, even if you have to resort to using the Finder, that Spotlight works in Time Machine means that you can search across your entire backup range for a particular file or files matching the criteria that you specified. The UI is a bit more showy than it needs to be with the space backdrop but the rest is very functional.

It's a damned handy little application. Obviously it works well as a basic backup solution but because it backs up so frequently you can use it to, for example, retrieve back an older version of a file that you accidentally overwrote when using the Save command rather than the Save As command that you meant to use. That's got me out of trouble loads of time.

Please note, however, that Time Machine should only be part of your backup strategy and not the complete thing. Most external drives only include a single disk and it tends to be stored close to your computer, so its susceptible to hardware failures and fires. You should keep another backup of your system somewhere else, just in case.

As to whether a Mac is interesting for you rather depends on what you want to do with a computer. Being shown how a Mac deals with your objectives is far more useful than a general demo and may indicate that it's not suitable.


RE: Half the cost...
By Mutz1243 on 8/6/08, Rating: 0
RE: Half the cost...
By bobcpg on 8/6/2008 12:08:58 PM , Rating: 2
Yeah, but you need to burn it to CD then rip it back off.


RE: Half the cost...
By kelmon on 8/7/2008 7:06:34 AM , Rating: 2
Yes, there's various freeware/shareware/donationware versions of Minesweeper kicking around, or perennial favorite Solitaire. However, OS X comes with a fairly reasonable chess game, so perhaps that fills the void.


Nonsense.
By ppgreat on 8/6/08, Rating: -1
RE: Nonsense.
By DASQ on 8/6/2008 2:10:34 PM , Rating: 2
A poorly written article is not a good comparison.


Interesting
By KeithP on 8/6/08, Rating: -1
RE: Interesting
By fibreoptik on 8/6/08, Rating: -1
RE: Interesting
By fibreoptik on 8/6/08, Rating: -1
By Icelight on 8/6/2008 12:50:47 PM , Rating: 3
Wow, the day of days has arrived. Someone has accused Jason Mick of being paid off by Microsoft.


By fibreoptik on 8/6/2008 1:27:57 PM , Rating: 1
That's funny, is he suddenly the owner/proprietor of Dailytech?


By audiomaniaca on 8/7/2008 11:12:48 AM , Rating: 1
Go play with iTunes, little boy!


By fibreoptik on 8/13/2008 10:41:10 AM , Rating: 2
I'd rather play with my girlfriend but thanks for the suggestion.

Go fondle yourself, little man! :p


By DASQ on 8/6/2008 2:31:43 PM , Rating: 4
And if it read the other way "Macs cost twice as much as Vista computers on average" you'd be screaming the same.

The fact that you denote it as 'M$' tells me you're an idiot.


"My sex life is pretty good" -- Steve Jobs' random musings during the 2010 D8 conference














botimage
Copyright 2012 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki