Ten reasons you should get Vista.

[jglavin]

You can't run OSX on 15yr old macs, the first PPC came out in '94, 13 years ago. There's just no way you could run OSX on a 68k machine... anyone have evidence otherwise?

 

But that aside, there are plenty of people out there running 15-year old rigs with OS9/8/7 and associated software that still does what they need, I'm sure.

[Colonel Ingus]

However try to run Tiger, at more modern resolution and with dashboard+all the goodies you know and love.

 

Again, these people that are using these older Macs aren't using them for gaming or to run Photoshop intensive type programs. They don't want or need all "the goodies". The point is that these older Macs are still being used productively.

 

If you bought a launch mini in January '05 with a 1.25 Ghz PPC G4 proc, 256 MB RAM, a 40 GB HD and an ATI Radeon 9200 you will crawl if you try to Multitask. Run Photoshop and iWeb at the same time?

Why would anyone want to run iWeb anyways? It's probably the weakest Apple program around. I don't know about the 1.25, but our 1.42 mini multitasks with Photoshop all day long with no problems! It is a large reason of why I respect Macs so much. I don't know of anyone who uses just 256 Ram in their mini anyways. It was one of the first things that we changed, and also many on the Apple forum.

 

but coverflow and all that would be slow and Im sure a lot of new stuff wouldnt work

I'll let you know this October how well it works

 

It wouldnt be 64 bit.

Why not? According to Steve Jobs ALL Intel Macs sold are able to run Leopard as 64 bit:) They didn't just wake up one day and deside "Oh... lets make our new operating system 64 bit". The PowerPC architecture was defined as a 64-bit architecture with a 32-bit subset from day one. This means that a 64-bit migration strategy has been part of the platform since the PowerPC was first introduced. It's not a big deal though because it just saves some time, and the mini's aren't that kind of computer anyway. The older minis will probably work fine with the standard 32 bit version that will ship on the same install disc. Either way Leopard is going to be awesome

[elviejo]

The best reason to get Vista is if this happen:http://blogs.zdnet.com/Bott/?p=255

That way you got a working Vista.

[Alessandro17]

The majority of people that are quick to slate Vista have not tried it. People should try using it on a high-end machine. My only gripe is that half of my apps wouldn't work in Vista (I don't actually have it installed) for example, VLC Media Player refuses to show any video. DX10 is the {censored}, just look at Crysis.

 

In a couple of years it will pull down its pants and wee all over XP.

 

 

I have tried it, and that is exactly why I don't like it.

High end machine? I score between 5.2 (CPU, core 2 duo E6600) and 5.9 (GeForce 7900 GT).

Your "only gripe" is that your apps don't work? Don't you think that is a very good reason not to use Vista?

A Kanotix mod had in his sig: "an operating system must operate".

[cringemaster]

My rig is a full blowen Ultmite with 256Limit installed...

 

the system a old althon at at 800MHZ. vista will not install anything lower. ram just that a stick of 256. and the onboard video.... I did have to install a new drive for testing as vista is 8 gig or more install. and a old 1.99 gig drive wouldn;t cut it

 

other then that its the basic ever thing built into the mother board rig....

 

just noticed I think the cpu is a old amd athlon duron 1.4 witch infact is clocked at 900mhz now that I come to think about it...

That sounds like a 5 or 6 year old PC. My friend bought a decent HP back in 2000 with specs very similar to that. And VLite requires completely remaking the installation media, with XPostFacto, It uses the same media that you bought.

 

You can't run OSX on 15yr old macs, the first PPC came out in '94, 13 years ago. There's just no way you could run OSX on a 68k machine... anyone have evidence otherwise?

 

But that aside, there are plenty of people out there running 15-year old rigs with OS9/8/7 and associated software that still does what they need, I'm sure.

 

I have seen people run tiger on pre-g3 machines like 603s and 604s that clock in at around 180-240 mhz that were made around 1997-98. No one has natively been able to run OS X on a 68k mac, but this person has been able to get it to start booting on his 68k mac running linux and using pearpc.

[EFI]

try running vista on a 15 year old pc... DONE and with only 256mb ram and it only use half on boot up.. last I checked osx need 256-512.?

 

ok not quite 15 years ago but looking at the hardware besid ethe ram I think its a lowest its going to go before it won;t load...?

 

and the fact its only useing 67% ram and only 2% or soo of cpu tiem thats not bad?

 

the only thing I need to do waz put a new HD in becuz the old one didn;t have enough spae to install

 

TOO MY SUPIRES IT RAN QUITE FAST...... lack of games though!!

 

Not so fast there mate. You forgot some key points. 15 years ago...256Mb on a system would be like having 4Gb on a system today. Its what you would call "luxury" on computers that have that much ram. The ideal ram on computers in the mid 90's to late 90's was anywhere in the range of 32Mb to 64Mb....not 256Mb. Moreover, your processor speed, your memory speed, your hard-drive rpm, video card (if any), audio chip were not mentioned in your "proof", lol. Also...AMD's Athlon processor was released in late 1999...which would only make your comparison on a PC thats 8 years old...not 15. Just to let you know, this is what a typical 10-15 year old PC's specs would be like:

 

Intel Pentium 2/3 Processor @ 166 - 400Mhz

64Mb SDRAM @ 133Mhz

2Gb HD @ 5400rpm

ATI Rage 128 with 4Mb Video memory

Monitor resolution at 800 x 600 @ 60Hz

DVD drive

 

^ If you could run Windows Vista...on a computer thats similarily spec'd to the above config....then It would be possible to make the statement that Windows Vista runs on older hardware very well...but the proof that you provided there is not valid as it is a much, much more recent hardware than the one shown above.

 

 

Secondly, OS X (Tiger) does not require 256-512MB....it requires only 128Mb, however the recommended is 256Mb. But see, this is where the difference comes in, in that OS X can successfully use up every single bit of the memory you paid for efficiently...so if you load it up with 4Gb...it will be faster than 3Gb, which will be faster than 2Gb, which will be faster than 1Gb, which will be faster than 512Mb, and so on and so forth. Thats not the case with Windows. Try running Vista on 2Gb of RAM...and then try it on 4Gb...you will not notice ANY difference whatsoever in terms of general operating system speed.

[apowerr]

Secondly, OS X (Tiger) does not require 256-512MB....it requires only 128Mb, however the recommended is 256Mb. But see, this is where the difference comes in, in that OS X can successfully use up every single bit of the memory you paid for efficiently...so if you load it up with 4Gb...it will be faster than 3Gb, which will be faster than 2Gb, which will be faster than 1Gb, which will be faster than 512Mb, and so on and so forth. Thats not the case with Windows. Try running Vista on 2Gb of RAM...and then try it on 4Gb...you will not notice ANY difference whatsoever in terms of general operating system speed.

First, off EFI's specs were right, and the machine madogyca got Vista running on is more like 6-8 years old. Secondly, if you use 64 bit Windows you will notice a large difference between 4 GB and 2 GB. And in 32 bit Windows you will notice a difference between 1 GB and 512 MB. (or 2 GB and anything smaller lol) Also, from what I've read there are edits one can do in 32 bit Windows to get it to utilize that 4 GB. I really hope MS gets smart and starts pushing x64 Windows as opposed to x86 because that way they can drop a lot of legacy issues and really shake things up (as long as 32 bit emulation is good mind you). One of my favorite features in Leopard happens to be the 64 bit support. Thats so cool how one OS, one install is both! With Vista I have to choose to install 32 or 64, which isnt a big deal, but not nearly as cool as what Leopard is going to be like!

[Canadian DSM]

We had an old G3 333MHz iMac in the office, and we installed Panther on it one day. Yes it ran, but it ran poorly. So poorly infact that even basic tasks were tedious. After that experience, I wouldn't want to run OSX on it ever again. The hardware isn't designed for it.

 

The same way I wouldn't want to run say XP on similar hardware.

 

The best scalability of any modern (as in currently used) OS is Linux/UNIX (pick a flavour)... Period. You can run old hardware and still have a usable machine... sans a GUI in some cases.

 

I liked Vista personally. The interface was slick and familiar, but I found it a bit of a memory hog. Also, I found that the file navigation is a bit strange on it, and I prefer XP for this. It did feel like they tried a bit too hard to make it attractive. At least Windows looks modern now.

 

There's nothing really wrong with either OSX or Windows. They both have pros and cons. People say Windows is too expensive, and OSX is cheaper, but you practically pay the difference in the hardware costs. If you're a gamer, stick with Windows for now. People who claim Windows sucks because it's riddled with viruses annoy me as well... Windows has the market share, and has for along time... therefor it makes sense for virus creators and such to target it. Keep on top of security updates, don't be an idiot, and you won't see many of them.

 

Just my 2 cents. :pirate2:

[Knacker]

Oh god...

 

Number one on that list is pretty much the biggest reason I hate windows XP with a passion... When I was on windows, I treated my music as files. I was pretty good about organizing them, using the standard metadata etc... to put them into a folder.

 

But then windows unilaterally DECIDED that I needed to get at the ID3 metadata in windows explorer, decided I needed it to take eons to load the file list, that I didn't need such stupid information as the date the file was modified etc...

 

I keep all of my downloads in a single folder. I sort it by its date modified so that I can see what's been in there for too long and what needs to be filed off to another part of the hard drive or what needs to be deleted finally. However, when that folder starts to fill up with music, XP decides that it's a music folder; and I have to hunt through the details view to get it to sort the way I want. And then, when I close out, it may save the setting for a day, it may save the setting for six months. But there's no way to get it to save the setting absolutely permanently.

 

I hope OSX doesn't implement something this annoying, though the finder is pretty damned annoying. Come to think of it, I hate to admit it, but the windows explorer has the Finder beat in terms of usability... I mean, finder doesn't even have any way to select items intermittently from a list using the keyboard, while in explorer, the CTRL + Spacebar combo is freaking awesome.

[Alessandro17]

15 years ago...256Mb on a system would be like having 4Gb on a system today. Its what you would call "luxury" on computers that have that much ram. The ideal ram on computers in the mid 90's to late 90's was anywhere in the range of 32Mb to 64Mb....not 256Mb.

 

In fact 15 years ago a desktop mobo wouldn't support 256MB RAM: there was no need for that much (DOS...)

[apowerr]

Why would anyone want to run iWeb anyways? It's probably the weakest Apple program around. I don't know about the 1.25, but our 1.42 mini multitasks with Photoshop all day long with no problems! It is a large reason of why I respect Macs so much. I don't know of anyone who uses just 256 Ram in their mini anyways. It was one of the first things that we changed, and also many on the Apple forum.

Wait! So what your saying is, people with 256 MB RAM upgraded?!?!! Sorry if I came across as a jerk there but you were kind of arguing on a mac upgrades are unessecery. As far as iWeb goes I meant like you are making banners and buttons in photoshop and adding them to your website with iWeb. It was just an example. It suited my case better than Photoshop and TextEdit! (TextEdit uses low amounts of resources)

 

I'll let you know this October how well it works

Sure, Id like to know, I probably wont be installing Leopard on my mini.

 

Why not? According to Steve Jobs ALL Intel Macs sold are able to run Leopard as 64 bit:) They didn't just wake up one day and deside "Oh... lets make our new operating system 64 bit". The PowerPC architecture was defined as a 64-bit architecture with a 32-bit subset from day one. This means that a 64-bit migration strategy has been part of the platform since the PowerPC was first introduced. It's not a big deal though because it just saves some time, and the mini's aren't that kind of computer anyway. The older minis will probably work fine with the standard 32 bit version that will ship on the same install disc. Either way Leopard is going to be awesome

On the mini it wouldnt be 64 bit, thats what I meant. Im not saying that x86 isnt fine for a mini, a mini has no reason to go x64. My point was that the mini (PPC with Radeon 9200) wont be able to utilize all of Leopards new features.

[Colonel Ingus]

So what your saying is, people with 256 MB RAM upgraded?!?!!

I'm saying whatever the default amount of memory came with the basic mini, people were always (weekly) asking how to upgrade its memory, how to install it, what memory brand(s) safely worked in the mini, etc. People didn't want to get the memory preinstalled because it costed way too much. They wanted to buy it from places like newegg, etc. and install it themselves, but they didn't know how to dismantle the mini, or what memory would work in it.

 

you were kind of arguing on a mac upgrades are unessecery.

Sorry for the misunderstanding. I didn't really mean that

 

I meant like you are making banners and buttons in photoshop and adding them to your website with iWeb.

Oh, OK. I thought you were saying that they were using iWeb to try to make a professional site I love Apple software BUT when it comes to iWeb it is even more of a joke than Microsoft Frontpage, and we all know how bad that is I know one day they will beef it up but I am talking about the current version

[jl8080]

I don't have to have installed Vista to have tried it.

 

With the releases of Unreal Tournament 3, Shadowrun, Crysis etc. there will obviously be a massive increase in the amount of Vista users who want to play these games in their full graphical glory

[cringemaster]

We had an old G3 333MHz iMac in the office, and we installed Panther on it one day. Yes it ran, but it ran poorly. So poorly infact that even basic tasks were tedious. After that experience, I wouldn't want to run OSX on it ever again. The hardware isn't designed for it.

 

Weird, I have an iMac G3 333 Mhz running tiger with 160 mb of ram and with spotlight and dashboard disabled it runs great. Not amazing, but good enough for web browsing and email and even some moderate use like playing music with itunes. The hardware definitely isnt designed to run tiger, but it does, and after a few tweaks, runs it happily.

[bxsci(macuser)]

I cannot see someone hating Vista to its core and starting a Holy War against it.

 

who will join me on a crusade against the NT kernel

rawr

[apowerr]

Sorry for the misunderstanding. I didn't really mean that

Np

 

Oh, OK. I thought you were saying that they were using iWeb to try to make a professional site I love Apple software BUT when it comes to iWeb it is even more of a joke than Microsoft Frontpage, and we all know how bad that is I know one day they will beef it up but I am talking about the current version

Id love to chime in "Yeah, iWeb sucks!" But I cant. I have never used it, I only know one person who uses it to maintain a website, and they seem to like it.

who will join me on a crusade against the NT kernel

rawr

Not I.

[Alessandro17]

I cannot see someone hating Vista to its core and starting a Holy War against it.

Of course people can waste their money every way they like. A friend of mine bought Vista, installed it and got rid of it within 24 hours. He is normally very tight.

 

I know this seems like a long and pointless rant lol but my point is that your going to have to upgrade. It is inevitable.

 

Many people didn't upgrade to XP for many years. Some have just upgraded. So why is it upgrading to Vista "inevitable"?

[apowerr]

Many people didn't upgrade to XP for many years. Some have just upgraded. So why is it upgrading to Vista "inevitable"?

Sorry if I wasnt clear there. I meant hardware.

Of course. people can waste their money every way they like. A friend of mine bought Vista, installed it and got rid of it within 24 hours. He is normally very tight.

I oringinally said:

I really dont understand why so many of you hate Vista! I like it a lot, and its way better than XP. I can see someone preferring OS X to Vista. In some ways I do. I can see someone preferring Linux to Vista, people I know do. I cannot see someone hating Vista to its core and starting a Holy War against it.

The bold stuff was my key point! Still, why hate it? Why not just say, "that sucks I want my Linux back".

[Colonel Ingus]

Still, why hate it?

Because it's such a BIG disappointment And you'll have to wait how long before something else comes out to replace it?

 

Mac users just have to wait a few months before their new OS comes out, and I'm betting it actually works

[apowerr]

Because it's such a BIG disappointment And you'll have to wait how long before something else comes out to replace it?

 

Mac users just have to wait a few months before their new OS comes out, and I'm betting it actually works

Dissapointment is at the winkey of the beholder (I guess). If Vista had included Win FS and was less of a resource hog, you probbaly still wouldnt like it. Why? Because its Windows, and OS X is better (well, you think so and to some extent I think so).

Yeah Leopard will pwnzzaaa. I'll still use Windows though. (A matter of cost, If I could afford a new Macbook Pro I would use Leo and Windows!)

[Colonel Ingus]

you probbaly still wouldnt like it. Why? Because its Windows

No, because it's a joke. I'll use XP, but I'll never pay for vista. Which means that XP will be my last windows operating system because by the time they replace vista, people will be living on the moon

[Alessandro17]

by the time they replace vista, people will be living on the moon

 

 

Anyway, I hope they replace it with something really different.

[EPDM]

[snipped]

In a couple of months Leopard is going to pull down its pants and wee all over vista, so your point is mute

 

It seems that many ppl have high expectations of Leopard.

I sure hope you don't get dissapointed when it finally arives and when you discover that the "improvements" aren't that big to brag about.

 

I definitly hope that whatever is improved is actually improved and that the "new" features are really usefull. I definitly don't need "new and improved" as way to sell bloatware just to play catch-up with microsoft. Though if I look around and see how cars and other consumer products have been evolved the last 5 years then I fear the worst.

 

Where are the days of the Apple II?

[Unisex]

LOL

 

Nice! But.. my ass don't belongs to Redmond it belongs to mac. in the past, yet and in the future

[jcbklyny]

If you used Vista and didnt like it - Had problem s or couldn't install programs... it's your own fault for not learning more about the operating system and how it works before ditching it.

 

If you take the time to do a few simple steps on a fresh install of Vista you'll never look back.

 

#1 Enable the built-in Admin account. NO! you DONT have to turn off UAC.

Yes when you create a new account for the first time in Vista you are labeled an "Admin". But what your actually creating is a standard User account with Admin access. Hence you get all of the security pop-ups. Peoples first reaction is to turn UAC off. What you really want to do is enable the REAL admin account. The steps to do this vary based on your version of Vista but with Ulimate it's very easy to do from the Admin Tools. By turning this feature on you'll have a Vista experience no different from XP.

 

#2 Turn off ALL audio Enhancement

Vista added a new audio enhancement feature that scans all of your music and tries to fix whatever it thinks needs correcting. This feature clearly isnt ready yet and only slows down playing audio files. Turn this off and you'll have no trouble or delay playing audio files in either iTunes or WMP.

 

#3 EVERYTHING can be installed on Vista! Yes, Everything!

I'm dual booting both the 32 and 64 bit versions of Vista and have managed to install EVERYTHING on BOTH versions! This includes Encore, Premiere, Audition and the entire Creative Suite both new and old. All of the Sony programs worth having - Vegas, Acid and Soundforge. And this is on BOTH 32 and 64 bit versions. VLC player works great IF YOU READ the forums and find out what settings to use for the best possible video performance WITH aero enabled. I could go on but I wont. In the end everything I've heard couldn't be installed... IS on my PC. And I have an e1705 that I bought about a year ago.

 

And now I'm triple booting with OSx86. The only reason I'm doing this is because of APPLE. Quicktime for Windows has been fu*ked up since the update to 7. The only version that works correctly is 6.5. One of my video apps (NuVJ) only plays audio from Quicktime files. So I'm forced to use OSx86 to use an APPLE application correctly.

 

OSX is nice, dont get me wrong. And there are some features I like better than Vista. But in the end Vista is still my first choice (NOT XP!). I feel like I'm in control when I use Windows. On OSX I feel like the computers trying to guess what I want to do too much for my taste. Let me tell you want I want to do and how to do it. Dont try to do everything for me.