Why is a Mac any better than Vista?

[macgirl]

Good one

[Neonkoala]

@Ferret-Simpson

 

I'm using Windows Mobile 6 on my HTC Wizard and it is very fast, everything loads up almost instantly with the exclusion of heavy games. Palm OS is nowhere near as versatile - it just lacks flexibility. I think the problem with your Universal is it probablky doesn't have enough free RAM - have you tried an updated AKU?

 

EDIT: Oh and could you please explain why the statement was "retarded"? It seems to me that forum is for opinions and as such should be free...

[four!]

I have read most of this thread. People are Comparing Operating Systems not Computers. Vista Vs Mac....This in itself doesn't make sense. OSX vs Vista yes PC vs Mac yes, but Mac Vs Vista....?

 

Lets get one fact out of the way OSX is far more superior to Windows of any flavor. Although Windows XP is very useable. Peecees and Macs are the same thing now. The only difference is TPM and EFI. And some Peecees Support EFI and BIOS.

 

Vista is horrible its slow and buggy.

Did some one mention UAC? Cancel or Allow.

[halfactivist]

Never tried vista, I only clicked on the 'ex-start now windows' button, and didn't see real changes since xp, the overall look put aside.

If it's hard to you to make yourself an idea about the question, then I guess you'd really like the answer to be 'No, OS X is no better than Vista', maybe because you tried it on a PC and not on a mac, and depending on your hardware you may not experienced OS X the best way.

Personnally, here are a few arguments in favor of OS X.

- OS X 10.4 Tiger runs on rather old hardware, e.g the first generation of iMacs, ie computers dating back to 2000-2001...would XP run on such computers? Not sure,

Vista won't for sure.

- A post said iLife applications are not that good to be used by professionals. That's true, but come on, if you try iDVD then you'd realize that anyone is able to make fulle featured DVDs with menus, submenus etc with great styles...on the otherwhat as Microsoft to offer??? Well, nothing.

- iMovie == Windows Movie Maker? Not really, Ease of use and quality results are features missing in Movie Maker. Though the possibilities are roughly the same (simple timeline, limited soundtrack possibilities...not target professionals though.)

- GarageBand : no Windows equivalent. I'm a musician and uses Logic because i know how to use it (though i'm no audio master...i can play music but advanced stuffs like high quality mixing, enhancing dynamics etc is not that simple), and GarageBand is a REALLY GOOD product. It produces astounding soundtracks, the first time i used it, it was a bit of a shock. The only drawback you can find is that they made it behave visually well although when the load is increasing (too much tracks, effects etc) i'd prefer having a simpler display rather than a somewhat jerky timeline. Nevertheless, it never went out of sync while recording.

 

Another really interesting comparison point is about sound.

If you're using windows to do multi tracking, or record yourself and expect to have sound monitoring of your inputs, mixing etc in live mode...then you'll need something like the ASIO drivers, because windows as such a high latency between input and output that's it's unusable.

This comes from the fact that the OS kernel is far from being real-time, actually, it is not.

The sound driver stack is not optimized at all.

OS X as a real time kernel and a really good sound subsystem (coreaudio) that gives anyone the ability to have really low latencies with sound.

Well if' you're using a 400MHz G4, then using multiple plugins in parallel might be a pain, but that's another point.

 

So, yes, Mac OS X is better than Windows, NT, xp, Vista.

However, this is my opinion, if you think Apple got it totally wrong from the start with the top menu bar, and you really think you'd never adapt, then keep on using Windows...

[MacVampire]

Windows Vista is just nothing new as i'm seeing, Because it is Copy cat from Mac os X, from the from the graphical interface to security. is completely coppied and Mac is always pioneer

[Blista]

Vista gives your brain cells Bistas

Mac is easy and usable [=

[MacVampire]

Window vista reguired much bigger hardware recomendation , and its a bit heavy OS

 

but no doubt on OS X, its very powerful and beautiful graphical interface

[linuxuser]

I first used Mac OSX 10.2 on a high end dual pocessor Mac G4. It was the best operating system at the time.

Application support was very weak.

 

I have used Vista and it is now my favorite. I have a very nice, expensive, high-end PC so Vista works

perfectly with it. There is a huge amount of software for Microsoft products. Mac OSX has a small

subset of this software. Aero totally blows away QE.

 

I recently tried Mac OSX 10.4.9. I was not impressed. A few new gadgets

built in, but the GUI is still about the same as 10.2. There is nothing in there to

get me to buy a new Apple.

 

The reason I quit using the 10.2 box was because Apple controlled the Java releases

for it and would not update the Java beyond 1.3. You had to upgrade to Mac OSX 10.3

to get Java 1.4. So I had a two year old OS that I couldn't get Java for. Today, you can

get Java 1.6 for Windows 2000 after 7 years.

 

The Ubuntu is now my second favorite OS. Even with the very beta Beryl, the UI is nicer than

Mac OSX 10.4.

 

Mac OSX UI is old and boring now.

 

It claims to be *nix-like but they dumb it down so much for the stupid Mac users that it

takes too much effort to do any *nix-like stuff. The directory structures are all wrong.

 

I am a Solaris admin, so I like to have an OS that is closer to Solaris.

Ubuntu/Red Hat are way better than Mac OSX in this regard.

 

Linux will run on almost anything. The Mac OSX crowd is stuck buying

expensive hardware from Apple or wasting hours/days/weeks on their

Hackentoshes. There is no inbetween with Apple--you either buy a laptop

or an extremely high end workstation (Mac Mini, with a crapy notebook

hard drive and limited upgrades is not an option).

 

So quit wasting time on your Hackentoshes and use Linux.

[Alessandro17]

So quit wasting time on your Hackentoshes and use Linux.

 

From somebody who has been using Linux for a very long time: nonsense (and BTW, I thought that I had invented the nick "linuxuser" )

 

OS X is more polished and less buggy than any Linux, especially Ubuntu, and even on a hackintosh with seriously compatible hardware the drivers support will be much better than in any Linux.

OS X has multimedia support that is *far* better than Linux, some great professional apps, and even more games.

 

Besides I am very surprised that somebody who likes Solaris, by far the most boring OS I have ever tried, can say that OS X is boring!

 

Finally, if you like Ubuntu, Solaris and Vista so much, why did you bother to register here? I can't help thinking that you are just a troll.

 

Oh, least I forget: between the laptops and the "extremely high end workstations" (which are good value for money anyway) you'll find the iMacs.

[four!]

Alessandro17 That was the best reply to stupidity ever! Linuxuser the tribe has spoken.

[track09]

Halfactivist, use Vista's Audio Stack, realize that when applications are written for it, how it's new stack will be far superior to OS Xes. Read up on it. One thing you can't argue is that OS X has a better sound stack than Vista.

[EFI]

Aero totally blows away QE.

 

Not really, Quartz Extreme is much more flexible than Aero is. Quartz Extreme only requires minimum 32MB Video ram to operate at full speeds. Aero requires minimum 128MB video ram. You need premium hardware to run Aero Glass in full acceleration. You could run Quartz Extreme in an ancient G3 if you wanted to...and it will run at full speeds. This is very benefitial to those who have old hardware, but want the modern effects from software. Aero does not provide this...but QE does.

 

I recently tried Mac OSX 10.4.9. I was not impressed. A few new gadgets

built in, but the GUI is still about the same as 10.2. There is nothing in there to

get me to buy a new Apple.

 

The fact that you said gadgets rather than widgets itself proves that you know nothing about OS X...or you've never used the operating system, and just trolling. The 19 high quality and very USEFUL widgets that Apple provides by default is excellent, and literally thoussands more are avalible at Apple.com. The quality of OS X's widgets is also much, much higher than the "gadgets" that Windows Vista uses. There is a major inconsistency issue with the looks of gadgets...whereas all widgets have more or less a unified "high-quality and polished" look to them.

 

The GUI in Tiger is vastly different from the GUI in 10.2. Its not the difference like from XP to Vista...but its a noticible difference neverthless. 10.2 was concentrated on brushed metal appearnce, while Tiger has its focus on more Aqua'ish light grey look. I can tell you've never used OS X before, and are just making these silly statements just to create FUD.

 

 

The reason I quit using the 10.2 box was because Apple controlled the Java releases

for it and would not update the Java beyond 1.3. You had to upgrade to Mac OSX 10.3

to get Java 1.4. So I had a two year old OS that I couldn't get Java for. Today, you can

get Java 1.6 for Windows 2000 after 7 years.

 

Yes, this is true..and is wrong on Apple's part. They should release updated versions for prior OS X versions as well.

 

The Ubuntu is now my second favorite OS. Even with the very beta Beryl, the UI is nicer than

Mac OSX 10.4.

Mac OSX UI is old and boring now.

 

Personally I still think that OS X's UI is still the best looking out there....even when you compare it to Vista. You see..there are 5 classes of UI.

 

1. There is {censored} (fisher-price style) looking UI (XP)

2. Then below par looking UI (Ubuntu)

3. And then normal looking UI (Vista standard non-aero in Beta 2)

4. Then high quality/visually pleasing UI which balances between visually slick, and being productive (OS X)

5. And then there the overkill / distracting UI (Vista Aero Glass).

 

Saying that Beryl's GUI looks better than Tiger's UI is like saying a Hyundai is better looking than a Mercedes. Get real. Again, your just trolling for hits.

 

It claims to be *nix-like but they dumb it down so much for the stupid Mac users that it

takes too much effort to do any *nix-like stuff. The directory structures are all wrong.

 

Too much effort? How so? The directory structures are all wrong? an operating system can have its directory structure any way it likes...I think OS X's directory structure is the most clearly laid out, and easy to navigate out of all the other OS out there. Even Vista's directory is easy to navigate. Linux's directory are probably the most convoluted out of all. Im talking from experience using Ubuntu...and RedHat. Calling Mac users stupid does nothing other than to valiade that your a troll....considering that this is your first post.

 

 

I am a Solaris admin, so I like to have an OS that is closer to Solaris.

Ubuntu/Red Hat are way better than Mac OSX in this regard.

 

Solaris is probably the most mind-boggelingly boring OS out there, from my experience. I honestly dont know how you can say that you want to have an operating system that resembles Solaris.

 

 

Linux will run on almost anything. The Mac OSX crowd is stuck buying

expensive hardware from Apple or wasting hours/days/weeks on their

Hackentoshes. There is no inbetween with Apple--you either buy a laptop

or an extremely high end workstation (Mac Mini, with a crapy notebook

hard drive and limited upgrades is not an option).

 

Low-end - Mac Mini

Low to Mid range - Macbook

Mid range - iMac

Mid to high end - Macbook Pro

High end - Mac Pro

 

I dont see where your getting this "there is no inbetween" argument from. Sure there isnt as much in between options as there are on PC's...but its still there. A Mac Mini is intended for those who want to switch to a Mac, but dont want to heavily invest on the higher models just yet. Its priced perfectly. You cant change the hardware inside other than the memory..but when you order it...you have processor and hard-drive options, as well as memory options. You are not going to get a sub $1000 machine with a dedicated graphics card and a sound card, if thats what your angry about.

 

 

 

 

So quit wasting time on your Hackentoshes and use Linux.

 

Actually, many of us, including myself use actual Macs, and are more than happy with it. Infact, individuals who use hacintoshes get so into OS X, that they love it, and end up purchasing a real mac. There is a thred on this..you should check it out. Ill stick with my OS X thank you very much.

[Cubric]

OS X = pioneer, Vista = copycat.

[Neonkoala]

Cubric: Blanket statements like that don't work - ideas fly to and fro between companies and they all are just as guilty as each other for taking ideas. Maybe Apple did pioneer some of Vistas features but they didn't do a straight copy.

 

The fact that you said gadgets rather than widgets itself proves that you know nothing about OS X...or you've never used the operating system, and just trolling.

 

This is just hilarious - "Oh dear, I must protect my little 'widgets'. It's just so offensive to call them 'gadgets'."

 

It's just a simple use of another name - you don't see people getting annoyed if they call their laptop a notebook for example do you....?

[EFI]

It's just a simple use of another name - you don't see people getting annoyed if they call their laptop a notebook for example do you....?

 

Nope, I use the term notebooks and laptops all the time...becasue thats a general and widely accepted term. But when you mix up operating system specific terms...thats when it proves the individual is lacking knoledge. . Its like saying, "open the explorer window" in OS X. You dont do that, you say "open the finder window" lol.

[track09]

Nope, I use the term notebooks and laptops all the time...becasue thats a general and widely accepted term. But when you mix up operating system specific terms...thats when it proves the individual is lacking knoledge. . Its like saying, "open the explorer window" in OS X. You dont do that, you say "open the finder window" lol.

 

 

Actually, reading what he said, I believed when he said "gadgets", he was simply refering to little new things in the OS. Say, in Xp, I might have called some of the new features gadgets, before this whole widget/gadget thing came up. I think you misinterpreted, and stop being so defensive and so quick to attack. Find real things to base your debates upon.

[EFI]

Actually, reading what he said, I believed when he said "gadgets", he was simply refering to little new things in the OS. Say, in Xp, I might have called some of the new features gadgets, before this whole widget/gadget thing came up. I think you misinterpreted...

 

Either way, it was not the proper wording. And if he was talking about few new "gadgets", as in "features"....is still goes to prove that he was wrong about saying that 10.4.9 looks the same as 10.2...when he himself said that there are few new things. Contradictory.

 

and stop being so defensive and so quick to attack. Find real things to base your debates upon.

 

Actually, I only act this way with you and RobotSkip, and any other person here that try to start flames in every single thread...and talk as if Windows is the holy grail. I did prove my point using real things. Keep moving.

[track09]

Not really, Quartz Extreme is much more flexible than Aero is. Quartz Extreme only requires minimum 32MB Video ram to operate at full speeds. Aero requires minimum 128MB video ram. You need premium hardware to run Aero Glass in full acceleration. You could run Quartz Extreme in an ancient G3 if you wanted to...and it will run at full speeds. This is very benefitial to those who have old hardware, but want the modern effects from software. Aero does not provide this...but QE does.

 

 

Aero also uses more technology than QE. QE was a 2003 graphics acceleration technology. See, here's more, even when "Aero" is disabled on Vista, the GPU still uses the modern drawing engine (DWM.exe), where OS X is crippled if QE is disabled. Aero is more on par with Core Image, in that it uses the modern technologies of a graphics card, with DirectX at it's base, instead of OpenGL, thus where Vista's GUI has a performance edge. Think about it, Aero and Core Image both require Pixel Shader 2.0, and 128mb graphics ram. They are the 2007 implementation of accelerated graphics, not 2003, the difference is that CI is an extension of QE, whereas Aero is it's own layer, running everything on the top-notch graphics layer. Really, there's no big difference, but you can't critisize Aero for it's resources, as it's a much higher powered layer. And FYI, most of the "effects" you mention, such as dashboard's ripple, are powered by CI, not QE, which is why G4 mac minis don't show such effects.

 

The GUI in Tiger is vastly different from the GUI in 10.2. Its not the difference like from XP to Vista...but its a noticible difference neverthless. 10.2 was concentrated on brushed metal appearnce, while Tiger has its focus on more Aqua'ish light grey look. I can tell you've never used OS X before, and are just making these silly statements just to create FUD.

 

Well said. 10.2 was a sluggish, irresponsive mess, which focused heavily on effects rather than a polished look. That's what I prefer of Aero and Aqua over Beryl/Compiz, Beryl and Compiz have too many effects and unnecisary distracting features.

 

1. There is {censored} (fisher-price style) looking UI (XP)

2. Then below par looking UI (Ubuntu)

3. And then normal looking UI (Vista standard non-aero in Beta 2)

4. Then high quality/visually pleasing UI which balances between visually slick, and being productive (OS X)

5. And then there the overkill / distracting UI (Vista Aero Glass).

 

Saying that Beryl's GUI looks better than Tiger's UI is like saying a Hyundai is better looking than a Mercedes. Get real. Again, your just trolling for hits.

 

1. Xp looked ok

2. Opinion, I happen to think Ubuntu looks very polished, when some compiz effects are turned off.

3. I think Vista without aero looks terrible

4. Opinion, I like it, but it's still not perfect.

5. Vista doesn't distract me, that's a preference

 

He's not trolling for hits, you're letting your opinion get in the way of the fact that certain people prefer different things, what you like isn't always right. Beryl is FAR from a hundai when compared to Aqua.

 

Too much effort? How so? The directory structures are all wrong? an operating system can have its directory structure any way it likes...I think OS X's directory structure is the most clearly laid out, and easy to navigate out of all the other OS out there. Even Vista's directory is easy to navigate. Linux's directory are probably the most convoluted out of all. Im talking from experience using Ubuntu...and RedHat. Calling Mac users stupid does nothing other than to valiade that your a troll....considering that this is your first post.

 

ABSOLUTELY. Can't agree with you more there. Linux's file structure is a hidden mess. There's redundancy of the same names. /usr/local/bin, /bin/local/ /local/bin/, etc. Vista and OS X have a great directory structure.

 

I dont see where your getting this "there is no inbetween" argument from. Sure there isnt as much in between options as there are on PC's...but its still there. A Mac Mini is intended for those who want to switch to a Mac, but dont want to heavily invest on the higher models just yet. Its priced perfectly. You cant change the hardware inside other than the memory..but when you order it...you have processor and hard-drive options, as well as memory options. You are not going to get a sub $1000 machine with a dedicated graphics card and a sound card, if thats what your angry about.

No. The Mac mini is now antiquated, and far from the cost of a PC with the same specs. How frustrating to get a PC which is identical to one you may have gotten two years ago! The Mac mini is not comparable to the price range of current PCs. The "small and asthetic" is a bunch of {censored} I don't want to pay for.

 

Actually, I got a PC, with a Core 2 Duo, dedicated graphics card, 2 G of RAM, and a 19" Widescreen LCD for $989. So yes, you can get that sub $1k. (Also included, 500 GB HDD, DVD Burner) The combodrive on the Mini is also ridiculous.

 

Solaris is probably the most mind-boggelingly boring OS out there, from my experience. I honestly dont know how you can say that you want to have an operating system that resembles Solaris.

Solaris has that god AWFUL look of the 1980s X windowing system. I don't know how he could like that either.

 

Actually, many of us, including myself use actual Macs, and are more than happy with it. Infact, individuals who use hacintoshes get so into OS X, that they love it, and end up purchasing a real mac. There is a thred on this..you should check it out. Ill stick with my OS X thank you very much.

Yes. Very right. OS X is more polished than Linux, and a more viable alternative to Windows than linux for many. It's also a great OS. I used hackintosh to try OS X, and found it was a nice OS, but not for me, and so I learned, and saved myself buying a machine I didn't want. I always like macs, and will always love them, especially when I see them in the Apple store, but I can still get more configurable PCs (the iMac is not configurable), for a cheaper price, and will stick to Linux and Windows.

 

Actually, I only act this way with you and RobotSkip, and any other person here that try to start flames in every single thread...and talk as if Windows is the holy grail. I did prove my point using real things. Keep moving.

But you don't use facts, based on the mistakes I see, you clearly make up what you believe to be close, and use it. I far from think Windows is the holy grail, but you act far more like OS X is the holy grail.

[EFI]

hey Track, there is nothing wrong in liking your operating system. Different individuals have different preferences, and thats perfectly fine. I personally only use Windows for gaming...as I know that thats the only aspect where OS X (or even Macs in general) will never be able to come close to. PC's will have that lead for a long, long time to come. However that being said, for every thing else, I use OS X, becuase there is the same software avaliable, or better equivalents. This is why I prefer OS X over windows...but its my PERSONAL preference, and I make myself clear on that point when there is a thread asking for so. However, what I dont like is when people take two things that windows excels at, which is gaming, and more diverse hardware...and uses that against the total population of Mac users. This is just plain wrong. There are many software for OS X, that windows cannot compete with, but most windows users dont realize this. SO I dont think that OS X is the holy grail...I'm just trying to correct those that think the other way around, and putting this OS down. I've seen so many users at the Apple store here who look at OS X, and really come to liking it, and then ask the question "can I buy this operating system for my PC? " Many of them are tied into generations and generations of Windows usage, so they've come to a point where they think that they have no choice...or are two scared to make the move (which is very common), but still admire the OS from a distance.

 

Actually, I got a PC, with a Core 2 Duo, dedicated graphics card, 2 G of RAM, and a 19" Widescreen LCD for $989. So yes, you can get that sub $1k. (Also included, 500 GB HDD, DVD Burner) The combodrive on the Mini is also ridiculous.

 

Do you have a link to the hardware purchased (if you built it?), or do you have the link to the manufactuer site if you bought it pre-built? I want to see evidence of that, because I dont think having a 500Gb hard-drive, 19" LCD, and a graphics card can come for under $1000. Again, if you show me the evidence, Ill gladly admit I was wrong. Until then...I stand by my reasoning.

 

Aero also uses more technology than QE. QE was a 2003 graphics acceleration technology. See, here's more, even when "Aero" is disabled on Vista, the GPU still uses the modern drawing engine (DWM.exe), where OS X is crippled if QE is disabled. Aero is more on par with Core Image, in that it uses the modern technologies of a graphics card, with DirectX at it's base, instead of OpenGL, thus where Vista's GUI has a performance edge. Think about it, Aero and Core Image both require Pixel Shader 2.0, and 128mb graphics ram. They are the 2007 implementation of accelerated graphics, not 2003, the difference is that CI is an extension of QE, whereas Aero is it's own layer, running everything on the top-notch graphics layer. Really, there's no big difference, but you can't critisize Aero for it's resources, as it's a much higher powered layer. And FYI, most of the "effects" you mention, such as dashboard's ripple, are powered by CI, not QE, which is why G4 mac minis don't show such effects.

 

Actually, Core image only requires 32MB to operate as well. Core image, is a subset of Quartz extreme, therfore it needs the exact same speficiations to operate as QE. Aero requires 128MB to operate. You are right about CI requiring SM2.0 (I forgot to mention that), and thats the reason why it doesnt appear on older macs.

[track09]

Do you have a link to the hardware purchased (if you built it?), or do you have the link to the manufactuer site if you bought it pre-built? I want to see evidence of that, because I dont think having a 500Gb hard-drive, 19" LCD, and a graphics card can come for under $1000. Again, if you show me the evidence, Ill gladly admit I was wrong. Until then...I stand by my reasoning

I

t was a gateway that I got the night before Vista came out, and picked up the day it came out in Circuit City. It came with over $300 in instant rebates. That's where PCs especially thrive, discounts and sales. Even still, I could do a comparison where PCs are cheaper, especially if you only need a tower, but want more power than a mini.

 

Actually, Core image only requires 32MB to operate as well. Core image, is a subset of Quartz extreme, therfore it needs the exact same speficiations to operate as QE. Aero requires 128MB to operate. You are right about CI requiring SM2.0 (I forgot to mention that), and thats the reason why it doesnt appear on older macs.

Yep you're right about those specs. And I'll be the first one to say, Vista sucks with it's HW requirements. It's crippling slow on the two year old P4 machine I have, thus I converted to Ubuntu/Xp dual boot.

 

 

hey Track, there is nothing wrong in liking your operating system. Different individuals have different preferences, and thats perfectly fine. I personally only use Windows for gaming...as I know that thats the only aspect where OS X (or even Macs in general) will never be able to come close to. PC's will have that lead for a long, long time to come. However that being said, for every thing else, I use OS X, becuase there is the same software avaliable, or better equivalents. This is why I prefer OS X over windows...but its my PERSONAL preference, and I make myself clear on that point when there is a thread asking for so. However, what I dont like is when people take two things that windows excels at, which is gaming, and more diverse hardware...and uses that against the total population of Mac users. This is just plain wrong. There are many software for OS X, that windows cannot compete with, but most windows users dont realize this. SO I dont think that OS X is the holy grail...I'm just trying to correct those that think the other way around, and putting this OS down. I've seen so many users at the Apple store here who look at OS X, and really come to liking it, and then ask the question "can I buy this operating system for my PC? " Many of them are tied into generations and generations of Windows usage, so they've come to a point where they think that they have no choice...or are two scared to make the move (which is very common), but still admire the OS from a distance.

And that's great. It's good that you like OS X, and many others do. I wish OS X's userbase would grow more, so that there'd be more competition. I like a lot of OSX's aspects as well, it just needs some things for me to move over. I think OS X would be better for a lot of people I know, and I've converted some, as well as some to Ubuntu. I'm glad you've explained your reasoning, and we can put the rest of this to rest.

 

Cheers,

track09

[Colonel Ingus]

Vista is horrible its slow and buggy.

Did some one mention UAC? Cancel or Allow.

Oh definitely cancel

[Alessandro17]

Do you have a link to the hardware purchased (if you built it?), or do you have the link to the manufactuer site if you bought it pre-built? I want to see evidence of that, because I dont think having a 500Gb hard-drive, 19" LCD, and a graphics card can come for under $1000. Again, if you show me the evidence, Ill gladly admit I was wrong. Until then...I stand by my reasoning.

 

To be quite honest I also believe that for Eur 1000 (not sure about $1000 as I live in Europe) you can buy/build a more than decent Pc and have some money left for a fair LCD Monitor.

 

I buy many parts from Ebay and I have never been disappointed yet.

[Colonel Ingus]

I dont think having a 500Gb hard-drive, 19" LCD, and a graphics card can come for under $1000.

I don't want to get in the middle of this but it should be easy to build something like this for well under a grand. I saw a 19" LCD today for a little over 100.00, and if the hard drive was oem then it shouldn't cost more than 129.00. That leaves a lot of change left over for a graphics card. You just need to spend more than 5 minutes on google to find the deals

[Soliber]

One ot the most basic things in OS X: most programs are packed in one file. Deinstalling --> drag file to wastebin.

No more missing .dll stuff and what have you

[track09]

One ot the most basic things in OS X: most programs are packed in one file. Deinstalling --> drag file to wastebin.

No more missing .dll stuff and what have you

 

 

Funny, because since Xp, "dll hell" was cured by system changes, and thus, applications had their claims to their own dlls, and could not replace another apps', instead they'd have a separate place handled by the system. A false claim based back on the Windows 98 days, perhaps I should point out flaws in system 7?