theKid Posted April 14, 2007 Share Posted April 14, 2007 I voted no - because all of it's little popup-confirmation-are-you-sure boxes drive me insane.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
franky dv9064 Posted April 14, 2007 Share Posted April 14, 2007 Hi all, This tread's funny Especialy because it's on a mac fanbased forum ... It's just like @ my work. Whe have 2 bit technical department's 1 Mac and the other windows and a verry small linux thingie that a few take extra. It's identical discissions when you sit in their offices. Actually verry funny to follow. Me on the other hand I have a commercial function. I sell Mac's aswell as windows pc's. I really really don't care about wath is best and wath worse. I've used Vista since early november @ work but month's before that @ home and I must say that I like it. Nothing special about it but its good . I get my work done without troubles so who can complain. Still their are a few facts that aren't correct in this tread and pease be honest to yourself when your going to flame me for saying this. MAC isn't faster then Vista. I've WORKED with every single MAC their is for sale right now from servers to the mac mini and compared to the same specifications XP and especially vista is just faster. I tried it out if you don't believe me. I've got a HP laptop witch has the same spec's as my collegue's macbook (the black one) Mine booted faster, internet started faster, outlook started faster then mail even copy paste a document was done faster on me vista pccee. NOw I know most of you have uber systems for running your mac and then comng to a friend's house who just bought a 399 euro {censored} hp desktop with vista premium for free instead of basic and then assuming it would run as fast as your uber macbook pro is just darn silly. Complaining because the button's aren't in the right position anymore. Really darn silly if you ask me. I bet some of you bought a new car sometime's. I really don't complain because the light switch isn't in the same position as before. So why complain because Vista is differant. Even our mac department has to admit that for office and home multimedia use a pc is better. Just the same that I will admid that for gfx usage a mac is the best to have. It's really using it for wath it's made and comparing apple's with apple's ( I know not the best choice of word's) Sooooo After this way to long tread for me. I'm going to end my plea for a bit common sence before bashing a product that you didn't properly tested. Ow and for the curious. I'm typing this from my Hp laptop running mac os 10.4.9 without a vista installation. I'm verry pleased with it to use it for private use. Not because I hate windows but just to learn a bit more so I can keep an objective view. Oww and the bookkeeping pckage we use at work doesn't work under vista anymore. I had to install a virtual XP machine to get it to actually run :-) I ain't complaining ... Are you ? Franky Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EFI Posted April 16, 2007 Share Posted April 16, 2007 ...mac department has to admit that for...home multimedia use a pc is better. Just the same that I will admid that for gfx usage a mac is the best to have. Not to be rude or anything lol, but either your tech department is professionally backwards...or you got your objectives mixed up. Macs have always been better at multimedia (either home or professional) creation/use, wheras PC's are good with games (if thats what you ment by graphics card usage). Or were you meaning something else? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
djpc47 Posted April 16, 2007 Author Share Posted April 16, 2007 Not to be rude or anything lol, but either your tech department is professionally backwards...or you got your objectives mixed up. Macs have always been better at multimedia (either home or professional) creation/use, wheras PC's are good with games (if thats what you ment by graphics card usage). Or were you meaning something else? why I always wanted a mac for video and audio editing {censored}:) - it actually goes back far in computer history..... pc took on being for doing calculations and basic {censored}, a machine to satisfy the general public and nothing much else.... then mac's kinda took on the job of all the PPC's and other computers out there like for instance Amiga's and so on:P, which at the time was the video editors machine's of choice and so on:P - understand one thing pc's were originally designed to be low cost aka what does a person do when they want to save a penny here and there:P, so it was never truly considered pro.... When it came to pro grade stuff people wanted the true full package.... the switch from PPC to x86 is just I believe cause that barrier between having a partial machine vs. a full pro grade system isn't there so much anymore but back then it was.... this goes from from options of graphics cards to the floppy interface and how it was designed to work..... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
franky dv9064 Posted April 16, 2007 Share Posted April 16, 2007 Not to be rude or anything lol, but either your tech department is professionally backwards...or you got your objectives mixed up. Macs have always been better at multimedia (either home or professional) creation/use, wheras PC's are good with games (if thats what you ment by graphics card usage). Or were you meaning something else? Well actually no. I didn't mean anything else then I wrote. The thing is if you take into consideretion everything like TCO (total cost of ownership) then pc outrun's mac easy. I have to admid that with the mac mini their getting close but still ... OUt of the box they are slow as hell. The mac's are offcourse and without a dought better for the more serious gfx work. but that's being performed bu those who can pay for it ... The home stuf like removing red eye's and cropping a bit a PC is better imo because basically that's as far as the avarage home user will go and that my friend will go as fast on a home pc as on a mac. My personal opinion ? I'm pro mac OS. I really dislike their design and cheap finish on their pc's. You would be amazed how mutch macbook's whe get back with chassis problem's. They olso scratch like . For that reason I got myself a normal HP laptop but running mac os on it. I know that a pavilion isn't the best HP choice out their but hey I got it for free from them so why complain :-) Then in the advantage of mac: We do get alot of first time buyers @ my shop and when they buy a mac we rarely see them back with problem's. We occasionaly even get telephone thanking us for suggesting such a great product. Pc's on the other hand is a whole different story. We actually have a full time employe for removing spyware and virusses That's about 95% of the stuff that has to be done in the technical service. I kno this has to be in the TCO calculation but even then a MAC come's out way more expensive. Just my 2 cents Franky Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cringemaster Posted April 16, 2007 Share Posted April 16, 2007 Not Quite. Xp was like the jump base code wise to OS X (kernel, networking), and Vista is like the layer stuff that came a lot in 10.2 and later (accelerated graphics). OS X breaks tons of software all the time, especially Leopard killing shapeshifter. What people refuse to do is learn why Vista is more than eye candy and security. (The find every little thing for OSX, but ignore Windows for some reason). Read around and learn why Vista is worth upgrading. OS X Breaks tons of software all the time? Are you joking? I still use classic enviroment on my G4 under tiger to run some old-ass mac games and apps still. And in an e-mail i sent Usanity recently, they will continue to develop Shapeshifter for 10.5. Even if Vista is more than just eye-candy and security, who cares. I dont see it or see any effects from it, so why should i upgrade my perfectly functioning install of XP to Vista, which i know will break drivers and apps that i use daily? And my take on the OS version comparison: Win 98 = OS 8 Win ME = OS 8.5-9 Win 2000/XP = OS X Server 1.0 (OS X with OS 9/OPENSTEP looks) Win XP SP2 = OS X 10.0 - 10.1 Windows Vista = 10.2 - 10.3.9 (+ widgets/gadgets) Windows Blackcomb = 10.5 - 10.6 EDIT: Whoops, didnt realize that post was from 3 pages back. I dont spend all day on here ya know... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EFI Posted April 16, 2007 Share Posted April 16, 2007 Well actually no. I didn't mean anything else then I wrote. The thing is if you take into consideretion everything like TCO (total cost of ownership) then pc outrun's mac easy. I have to admid that with the mac mini their getting close but still ... OUt of the box they are slow as hell. The mac's are offcourse and without a dought better for the more serious gfx work. but that's being performed bu those who can pay for it ... The home stuf like removing red eye's and cropping a bit a PC is better imo because basically that's as far as the avarage home user will go and that my friend will go as fast on a home pc as on a mac. My personal opinion ? I'm pro mac OS. I really dislike their design and cheap finish on their pc's. You would be amazed how mutch macbook's whe get back with chassis problem's. They olso scratch like . For that reason I got myself a normal HP laptop but running mac os on it. I know that a pavilion isn't the best HP choice out their but hey I got it for free from them so why complain :-) Then in the advantage of mac: We do get alot of first time buyers @ my shop and when they buy a mac we rarely see them back with problem's. We occasionaly even get telephone thanking us for suggesting such a great product. Pc's on the other hand is a whole different story. We actually have a full time employe for removing spyware and virusses That's about 95% of the stuff that has to be done in the technical service. I kno this has to be in the TCO calculation but even then a MAC come's out way more expensive. Just my 2 cents Franky I still dont understand how you can say that the total cost of ownership is greater with Macs than it is with PC's. Just buying quality virus and spyware software for the Pc can easily reach hundreds of dollars, and the operating system is not as stable as OS X is...The total cost it takes to upgrade to Windows Vista...with a new midrange graphics card, higher memory, and a better processor all costs something called "money". On the other had OS X Tiger runs on even the ancient macs (G3). SO clearly the cost of ownership is much lower on Macs than it is on PC. Also the resale value for Macs as a result are excellent. You can pretty much sell a mac for up to 90% of its price when you first bought it. You cannot do the same with a Dell or a HP...or any other brand out there that make PC's. so I cant figure out where your coming up with total cost of ownership being higher on PC's than they are on Macs. Some if your sentences are also a bit confusing. For example: My personal opinion ? I'm pro mac OS. I really dislike their design and cheap finish on their pc's. You would be amazed how mutch macbook's whe get back with chassis problem's. They olso scratch like :censored2: . Its kind of contradicting what you said there. Your metioning the cheap design quality of PC's, and then say that those are Macbooks. Huh? Then you fully contradict yourself by saying this: You would be amazed how mutch macbook's whe get back with chassis problem's. They olso scratch like :censored2: .... Then you say this ...and when they buy a mac we rarely see them back with problem's... You dont do heavy and graphics intensive and video/audio editing on a Mac mini. Thats why the Macbook Pro's Mac Pro's are there for. The Mac mini is just for casual photoshop elements work like retouching photos...word processing...general music listening (on iTunes hehe), and other GENERAL stuff...and not any serious professional work. The Mac Mini is made for switchers, so that they can get a taste of the Mac experience without giving a serious commitment to money for the more heavy productivity oriented Macintoshes. The reason why the mac mini feels slow is because the entry level mini's come with only 512MB ram by default. By adding another 512Mb..or just getting a 1Gb stick..you'll notice your mini all of a sudden roar to life. OS X doesnt work very well with just 512MB...and I hoenstly dont know why..but its considerably fast and snappy as soon as you reach the 1Gb barrier. Now try running a Vista PC with 512MB...and tell me whether the PC or Mac feels slow. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Detosx Posted April 17, 2007 Share Posted April 17, 2007 Talking about memory, re the Mini and re Vista also... and my hackintosh laptop... My mother's Mini had 256MB or memory, a paltry amount and yet memory leakage, a problem with Microsoft Windows especially, where you close down a program and the entirity of the memory that it was using is NOT fully returned back to Windows... was barely if at all and issue with the Mini. In other words, after hours of useage you felt little temptation to reboot the Mini. Memory problems tended to come about when multi tasking, the computer freezing up. That said, it never crashed during those freezes; you just had to wait them out. As mentioned previously my HP laptop came with Vista and 512MB of memory. It ran like syrup, lumpy syrup. I had to use msconfig to stop programs background processes at start up, I had to adjust the Performance settings, but even then, slow, slow, slow. Again, I'm repeating myself but the point stands hammering home to potential new users. Vista, unlike OS X, pretty much screams that you feed it one to two gigabytes of memory. The effect of upgrading my mother's Mini to 1gig was very much less noticeable; things ran a little smoother, a little faster. The refief is that there freezes are no more. And, again repeating myself but ramming the point home (no pun intended) before I upgraded my HP laptop to 2gigs, hackintosh OS X ran vastly, vastly quicker on it than did Vista. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts