Buy a Mac...

[Rob R. Ainscough]

Serious, what is going on a M$ these days, Vista RC1 is terrible. Mac OS X
is already better is so many areas -- with Intel Core 2 and Mac OS X --
hmmm.... can this be the real threat to M$ buggy, worky, unsecure OS?

First time in my life where I've serious considered going with an Intel Core
2 based Mac. The performance gap has been significantly reduced -- now if
they can get more hardware vendors onboard they could become series about
displacing M$.

 

[Frank]

Serious, what is going on a M$ these days, Vista RC1 is terrible. Mac OS X
is already better is so many areas -- with Intel Core 2 and Mac OS X --
hmmm.... can this be the real threat to M$ buggy, worky, unsecure OS?

First time in my life where I've serious considered going with an Intel Core
2 based Mac. The performance gap has been significantly reduced -- now if
they can get more hardware vendors onboard they could become series about
displacing M$.

What is M$???
Frank

 

[jwardl]

Go, then.

 

[Angel Massa]

What a troll.

I really likeMac OS X and I think Vista is amazing too. In fact Mac OSX was
the best OS for me until I tryed Vista RC1. Now is the second. . But
going into a Microsoft news server to say buy a Mac has only one name...
TROLL!!!

 

[Mario Rosario]

Rob, you sound like the Mac kinda man, go buy a Mac.

 

[Rob R. Ainscough]

M$ = Microsoft (revenue - take it or take it some more)

Troll = as if Microsoft are actually listening or even care, oh please

Give me your public IP and I'll show you bad Vista's security really is.

Ok -- bless me with why you find Vista RC1 so much better than the OS X
and/or WinXP?

 

[Guest]

The best trollers are those who complain about a product without really
saying what they're complaining about.
<3

 

[Jason]

I totally disagree with the statement that Microsoft is not listening or caring what the users think. They have slimed down UAC a lot since the public beta 2. Granted it still has some more to go. They have added a lot of support with drivers. Granted there is a ways to go on that end too.

I have not used Mac OS X, but as far as XP, there are several things about Vista I like better.
a.. Improved firewall
b.. Basic Parental Controls
c.. Bitlocker
d.. Graphics
e.. Windows Meeting Space
f.. Build in Windows Defender
g.. Improved Backup system
Granted I have friends that use MAC OS X, but from what I have shown them of RC1, they are impressed with the improvements. Granted, they are sticking with the Apple, but they may use Vista on there Intel based Macs.

--
Jason

Windows Vista RC1 Build 5600
MS Office 2007 Beta 2 Tech Refresh
M$ = Microsoft (revenue - take it or take it some more)

Troll = as if Microsoft are actually listening or even care, oh please

Give me your public IP and I'll show you bad Vista's security really is.

Ok -- bless me with why you find Vista RC1 so much better than the OS X
and/or WinXP?

 

[William]

My guess is that M$ may be similar to O$ X.

William

Serious, what is going on a M$ these days, Vista RC1 is terrible. Mac OS X
is already better is so many areas -- with Intel Core 2 and Mac OS X --
hmmm.... can this be the real threat to M$ buggy, worky, unsecure OS?

First time in my life where I've serious considered going with an Intel Core
2 based Mac. The performance gap has been significantly reduced -- now if
they can get more hardware vendors onboard they could become series about
displacing M$.

What is M$???
Frank

 

[Rob R. Ainscough]

So much to list, let me see...

1. Security, you can still get in under Admin if you crash an admin service
2. Still have to know whether or not it is safe to uninstall "shared"
components
3. Applications gray out when port access is needed -- ok, so how is the a
major change over the "block/unblock" message in XP SP2?
4. Windows Defender exists for XP, it is just as useless at blocking
spyware/adware in Vista -- free products like SpyBot S&D and Adware (lava
soft) are considerably better and actually do something
5. Improved in what sense? I have yet been able to restore a backup from
scratch -- this is not useful at all
6. Graphics, yes they are better -- caught up with OS X finally
7. Parental Controls -- again this is available via XP SP2, just harder to
setup right

Now on to the real problems:

1. Vista is still brain dead about threading on multi-CPU systems -- OMG I
can't believe they didn't address this problem considering that dual core
procs are the norm these days.
2. Timings are still off (good luck to anyone serious about Music
composition)
3. Can't seem to scale to available memory (just as lame as XP) in an
intelligent manner
4. .NET 2.0 apps crash big time
5. Is DX10 implemented yet -- looks more like a slightly modified DX9c
implementation

Mac OS X is certainly not the end all be all, but with Intel support and OS
XI due out next year -- I'm seeing some hurt put on M$.

Ok, so who is listening? Anyone that actually has some say in what M$
produces -- if so, why do we still have Vista which just isn't enough for 5+
years of work over XP.

Come on people, get over the flashy new graphics and take a serious look at
what you have in Vista RC1. This is a joke, purely revenue generation with
very little to NO value added features.

Rob.

 

[jwardl]

Dude -- if you're so hot on Macs, buy one then, and enjoy it in your
smugness.

I don't think anyone here has a problem with Macs -- I know I don't. Each to
their own.

Personally, I think a Mac is a better choice for a person, new to computing,
who wants to spend more time USING the computer, and isn't so interested in
HOW it works. No insult intended there -- I use light switches every day,
yet, am not an electrician. If that's your aim, go for it. In addition, Macs
are generally superior for use in graphics and special effects.

OTOH, Pac's are a better choice if you're already familiar with them. The
software and utilities available are vastly superior in terms of titles,
options, and prices. The peripherals and accessories available are almost
endless, and far less expensive. Go into any computer store, and count the
number of shelves devoted to PCs, and the number devoted to Macs. Also,
compare prices of entry level Pac's on both platforms.

They both have their place. Get over yourself.

 

[Colin Barnhorst]

How come some months I get a lot more Mac security updates than Windows?

I run both Windows and OS/X on my MacBook Pro and spend most of my time on
the Windows partition because Windows has a thousand times more programs and
they are cheaper and usually kept up to date much better than OS/X programs.
And then there is the ease of backing up my Windows stuff compared to
backing up my Mac stuff. Just no comparison.

 

[mmmmark]

Comments inline:

Dude -- if you're so hot on Macs, buy one then, and enjoy it in your
smugness.

I don't think anyone here has a problem with Macs -- I know I don't. Each
to their own.

Personally, I think a Mac is a better choice for a person, new to
computing, who wants to spend more time USING the computer, and isn't so
interested in HOW it works. No insult intended there -- I use light
switches every day, yet, am not an electrician. If that's your aim, go for
it. In addition, Macs are generally superior for use in graphics and
special effects.

I think you are partly right. The typical Mac user is not what (s)he used
to be, however. The Mac user is now dichotomous in that they still grab
the consumer noob, but also the high-end techie who enjoys his command line.
Since OS X, both categories have grown, hence the growing market share--and
especially "presence". A lot more people are at least talking and thinking
seriously about Macs than ever before.

OTOH, Pac's are a better choice if you're already familiar with them. The
software and utilities available are vastly superior in terms of titles,
options, and prices. The peripherals and accessories available are almost
endless, and far less expensive. Go into any computer store, and count the
number of shelves devoted to PCs, and the number devoted to Macs. Also,
compare prices of entry level Pac's on both platforms.

Quantity certainly doesn't equal quality. I'll agree that PCs have many
more titles, but I'll also admit that much of it is complete crap. I've
noticed that the quality of some Mac shareware and freeware can sometimes
rival PC commercial software. There are some categories where PCs dominate
and Mac software is nearly non-existent. These categories are getting fewer
every year OS X is in existence, especially with the prevalence of open
source movements.

As far as entry level PCs, who really buys or wants entry level--most of
them are garbage. It is probably better to compare midrange or high-end
computers. When you compare Macs and PCs in these ranges--feature for
feature--you'll find that the Macs are fairly competitive.

They both have their place. Get over yourself.

I agree that both have their place. I also agree that an average person can
probably spend less time fiddling and more time working with a Mac. Don't
go ape on me. I use both extensively. I use PCs for work--not by
choice--and I use a Mac for my personal work and play--by choice.

 

[Lang Murphy]

Vista is BETA. Read my lips: BETA. It, as BETA, is still far ahead of any
recent Linux distros I've tried. Which is, well, one. LOL. SuSE 10.
Whatever.

The main reason I don't have a Mac is funding, baby (to quote KOJAK... LOL).
Macs are just too expensive. For me. Now, if I won the lottery and had, uh,
oodles of money to spend, then, sure, I'd buy a Mac, just to have one.
They're not bad computers, at all. But to say that they're way more secure
than WinTel boxes, or to say that they never crash, is just, uh, wishful
thinking. Or... Apple marketing spin. Spoog.

Hey, man... do what you want. Have fun. I'm having fun with Vista.

Lang

 

[Mike]

Mac OS X is certainly not the end all be all, but with Intel support and
OS XI due out next year -- I'm seeing some hurt put on M$.

There is no "OS XI". 10.5 will be out next year.

Mike

 

[Colin Barnhorst]

SuSE 10 is a very nice Linux distro and handles hardware better than any
other Linux I can think of. Having said that, I agree that Vista is more
advanced. Vista seems nicer to me also.

 

[Donald L McDaniel]

I totally disagree with the statement that Microsoft is not listening or caring what the users think. They have slimed down UAC a lot since the public beta 2. Granted it still has some more to go. They have added a lot of support with drivers. Granted there is a ways to go on that end too.

I have not used Mac OS X, but as far as XP, there are several things about Vista I like better.
a.. Improved firewall
b.. Basic Parental Controls
c.. Bitlocker
d.. Graphics
e.. Windows Meeting Space
f.. Build in Windows Defender
g.. Improved Backup system
Granted I have friends that use MAC OS X, but from what I have shown them of RC1, they are impressed with the improvements. Granted, they are sticking with the Apple, but they may use Vista on there Intel based Macs.

Too bad Vista RC1 does not install on the Mac Pros (Core 2 Duos) as
easily as it does on the 32-bit Intel Macs.

RC1 installs quite nicely on my Apple Intel PC (iMac 17" Core Duo).
But my brother was inable to install it on his new Intel iMac 20"
with Core 2 Duo.

==

Donald L McDaniel
Please reply to the original thread,
so that it may not become broken.
===================================================

 

[Donald L McDaniel]

Dude -- if you're so hot on Macs, buy one then, and enjoy it in your
smugness.

I don't think anyone here has a problem with Macs -- I know I don't. Each to
their own.

Personally, I think a Mac is a better choice for a person, new to computing,
who wants to spend more time USING the computer, and isn't so interested in
HOW it works. No insult intended there -- I use light switches every day,
yet, am not an electrician. If that's your aim, go for it. In addition, Macs
are generally superior for use in graphics and special effects.

Really? Then WHY are most games written for Windows rather than OS X?
Of course, you could come back with "maybe because more copies of
Windows are sold than OS X", but I will just return with "And WHY do
you think that is?"

OTOH, Pac's are a better choice if you're already familiar with them. The
software and utilities available are vastly superior in terms of titles,
options, and prices. The peripherals and accessories available are almost
endless, and far less expensive. Go into any computer store, and count the
number of shelves devoted to PCs, and the number devoted to Macs. Also,
compare prices of entry level Pac's on both platforms.

They both have their place. Get over yourself.

Now, I'm not against Apple -- My only PC is an Apple Intel PC. But I
really believe that OS X is a sack of horse-manure.

Give me Windows any day. As long as I am able to run it on my Apple
Intel PC, I will be more than satisfied.

And those "flashy graphics" are the major draw for Windows. Let's
face it, OS X looks like dog-doo.


It would be if you had used Microsoft Backup to create the backup in
the first place.

How can you write such trash? "caught up with OS X...". Why
Microsoft would want to "catch up with OS X" in the first place
totally escapes me.

It's called Windows Presentation Foundation now, not DirectX.

OS XI? What are you talking about? Leopard will be "OS 10.5" (a
minor revision -- basically, all it adds is Intel support, and is
"service Pack" for OS 10). And Apple will charge another $129 for its
"service pack", just as it always does, while Microsoft never charges
for service packs (minor revisions).

I think that Microsoft will decide what is or is not "enough", as is
their right.

==

Donald L McDaniel
Please reply to the original thread,
so that it may not become broken.
===================================================

 

[deebs]

I am pleased to say I have both a Mac Pro with two platters and 2 Gig
RAM; and an AMD 4800+ X2 with 4 platters and 3 Gig RAM running XP Pro

So far the AMD wins (don't ask about 30" Apple cinemas or there again,
please do?)

 

[Lang Murphy]

Colin,

Last week I reinstalled SuSE 10 because on my original install I chose KDE
as my DTM and I wanted to try Gnome. So I go through the install and get to
the desktop and it's running in 640x480. Open sase or whatever it is and,
good lord, it puts up a window at 1024x768 and guess what? I can't see the
whole window, I don't know what config settings are available in the area of
the window which I can't see. I can't get to those areas "off-screen." Holy
Crap, dude, that ain't very user friendly. Tried setting the DT to 1024x768
and vaguely remember that hitting tab multiple times brought up a dlg asking
if I wanted to change... but that may be the result of a couple of glasses
of wine this evening on top of a poor memory to begin with.

Anyway, I cannot remember any version of Windows that caused one to jump
through the same types of hoops that SuSE 10 does to configure the desktop
resolution. Quite frankly, imho, it sucks. OTOH, it may offer a slightly
higher percentage rating when one is looking for a new gig, i.e., and I know
you know this, there are, at least, tens of thousands of MS certified techs
out there. Far fewer Linux guys, methinks. "What? He knows Linux? Hire
him/her for whatever he/she wants. We're in BlankCheck World now folks."

Ah, rambling... stopping now.

Lang



Lang