bxsci(macuser) Posted September 29, 2007 Share Posted September 29, 2007 Not a chance in hell. A majority of PC users are afraid of Mac and will never switch. Sad reality, comments saying Leopard will take over are really taken with a grain of salt. He means in performance, not sales Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Numberzz Posted September 29, 2007 Share Posted September 29, 2007 I have installed on my MacBook Pro and two OS's on my Powerbook. While Vista can run faster than Tiger sometimes the overall stability of OS X Tiger was very noticeable. Also, I have Mac OS X Leopard 559 installed. There is no question that Leopard is faster than Vista on the same(Mac) hardware. The speed boost is noticeable. While Leopard has sped up my PowerBook, a lot. While it is not the fastest machine, or I am used to a 2.4GHz Core 2 Duo, its boot time is ~35 seconds from chime to fully logged in. Vista cannot do that. Not even on this MacBook Pro. Thats my Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
apowerr Posted September 30, 2007 Share Posted September 30, 2007 The trouble with that is: everybody would want their favorite distribution. I want openSUSE Last night I was about to install XP on a secondary HD, but then I figured I should try openSUSE 10.2 first. My god was I pleasantly surprised. When I arrived at the most simple, easy to use KDE-based desktops I have ever seen I asked myself : "This is Linux?". The KMenu was just so logical, I wish Windows behaved that way! My only gripe with openSUSE was that Yast was not as easy as PCLinuxOS's control center. microsoft has so much money...... that basically nothing could kill it at this point Oh yeah. All though Vista may not be the best, Windows Server 2008 is great. WS'08 is another reason companys will continue to cling to MS. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alessandro17 Posted September 30, 2007 Author Share Posted September 30, 2007 Last night I was about to install XP on a secondary HD, but then I figured I should try openSUSE 10.2 first. My god was I pleasantly surprised. When I arrived at the most simple, easy to use KDE-based desktops I have ever seen I asked myself : "This is Linux?". The KMenu was just so logical, I wish Windows behaved that way! And 10.3 is going to be a lot better: faster, better fonts, better package management... Also, once KDE4 is released, it will be made available as a simple download. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CLiDE FTW!!1 Posted September 30, 2007 Share Posted September 30, 2007 Vista cannot do that. From BIOS to Desktop, my Vista's boot time is ~20 seconds. And I'm on a 2.13ghz core2. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
~pcwiz Posted September 30, 2007 Share Posted September 30, 2007 I'm sure you've all heard this but I absolutely HATE Vista. For serveral reasons: * Terribly slow compared to XP (The boot up time is a wee bit faster though) * Eats your RAM * The User Control nags you even if you try to rename a file * Tons of apps older than 1 year don't work, even in compatibility mode I'm sticking to XP for a long time to come. As for Microsoft abandoning Vista, it won't happen because if they do drop it, then Microsoft will go bankrupt from all the law suits. Imagine those poor people who bought Vista preinstalled on their new PCs.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
-Bj Posted September 30, 2007 Share Posted September 30, 2007 Vista slows down for me after using it for a week or so... like a lot. Its suppose to use the same type of caching memory as OSX but for some reason, it doesn't know how to use it. It eats up all my memory even though its considered "Inactive" then when I open a new program, like a game, vista would take a while to dedicate the ram to the game because it just thinks im gonna open stuff like notepad all day. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
apowerr Posted September 30, 2007 Share Posted September 30, 2007 And 10.3 is going to be a lot better: faster, better fonts, better package management... Also, once KDE4 is released, it will be made available as a simple download. KDE 4 is going to be awesome! Dolphin seems to be a lot better than Konqueror. * The User Control nags you even if you try to rename a file Disable it. Plus, OS X and Linux both require a root password for most actions, UAC isn't that different. * Tons of apps older than 1 year don't work, even in compatibility mode I would say: "Tons of apps older than 1 year do work." Most apps I have seen with Vista-related issues have a simple workaround (the majority of these 'apps' I am referring to are games ) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
~pcwiz Posted September 30, 2007 Share Posted September 30, 2007 Hmm....well thats not my experience Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
capybara Posted October 1, 2007 Share Posted October 1, 2007 the green monster [when it was awake] has lots of Win Vis Ult for your enjoyment. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
~pcwiz Posted October 1, 2007 Share Posted October 1, 2007 Yeah, there are lots of ISOs and you don't need to use Demonoid to get them. You can find them on Torrentz, ISOHunt, anywhere. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
waradmin Posted October 1, 2007 Share Posted October 1, 2007 Well maybe cracked versions of windows vista just run way slower because I used a download version and hated it, but then I purchased it and now I use it along with OS X on my MacBook and TBH it runs just fine (slower compared to XP, just as XP would run slower than Windows ME or 2000 on a slower machine). However the ONLY program I have installed is Visual Studio 2005, that may be why it isn't slow. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vbetts Posted October 1, 2007 Share Posted October 1, 2007 As much as I'm impressed with Vista, and very happy with Vista, Vista did not do as well as Microsoft wanted it to. Sucks though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yami Bakura Posted October 1, 2007 Share Posted October 1, 2007 I have a MacBook (see spec's in sig) and Vista Ultimate clean ran FASTER than OS X. And to be honest my OS X has more hiccups than Vista (random short lock-up moments). Just wait until Leopard and you wouldn't say that. Tiger wasn't meant for Intel Macs, Tiger was just a port to the Intel architecture and is a "preview" of Mac OS X on Intel Macs. You won't get the full performance out of Intel Macs with Tiger. Leopard is the first system that was truly designed for the Intel Mac architecture. I heard someone say that Leopard is really fast on Intel Macs. The same guy said he had a MacBook with 1GB RAM and with the latest seed of Leopard and a Mac Pro with 3GB of RAM and with Tiger. The MacBook with Leopard is faster than a Mac Pro with Tiger he said. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
~pcwiz Posted October 1, 2007 Share Posted October 1, 2007 I downloaded a official legal copy of Windows Vista RC1 (Release Candidate 1) and it still runs pretty slow and unstable. I don't think using a bought DVD over a pirated copy makes a whole lot of a difference... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dainas Posted October 2, 2007 Share Posted October 2, 2007 Most people seem prefer a fat bloated tabby over a lean panther, tiger or leopard...... You argument might make sense if OSX, like windows... Could be simply installed by any OEM that wanted it... But no it can't. The mini and the iMac where never an answer to apples hording of its softwear and very few people made a choice of one over the other. It simply was never in the cards for them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CLiDE FTW!!1 Posted October 2, 2007 Share Posted October 2, 2007 I would say: "Tons of apps older than 1 year do work." Most apps I have seen with Vista-related issues have a simple workaround (the majority of these 'apps' I am referring to are games ) Exactly. In my experience, I have yet to come by a proggy that Vista isn't compatible with. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rollcage Posted October 2, 2007 Share Posted October 2, 2007 It's really contradictory when people complain that MS doesn't get rid of compatibility in their new OSes, but as soon as something that ran in Win 98 doesn't work in the new OS, it's instantly ridiculed. People need to make up their minds... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
~pcwiz Posted October 2, 2007 Share Posted October 2, 2007 Well, for my argument regarding app support, Vista won't run with many games that worked previously in Windows XP SP2 that were made in 2005 or 2006. Thats my experience. Your experience may be different. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
waradmin Posted October 2, 2007 Share Posted October 2, 2007 Well, for my argument regarding app support, Vista won't run with many games that worked previously in Windows XP SP2 that were made in 2005 or 2006. Thats my experience. Your experience may be different. End User Error. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CLiDE FTW!!1 Posted October 2, 2007 Share Posted October 2, 2007 Just wait until Leopard and you wouldn't say that. Tiger wasn't meant for Intel Macs, Tiger was just a port to the Intel architecture and is a "preview" of Mac OS X on Intel Macs. You won't get the full performance out of Intel Macs with Tiger. Leopard is the first system that was truly designed for the Intel Mac architecture. Wow, uh, SOURCE? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
~pcwiz Posted October 2, 2007 Share Posted October 2, 2007 What do you mean End User Error? Some games, for example "Juiced" made in 2005 by THQ, the installer wouldn't even launch. You execute setup.exe, the computer processes something for a couple seconds, and nothing. Windows XP SP2 compatibility mode doesn't help either. And other games by Atari wouldn't work either. The installation works this time but you launch the game and it crashes. Also, another good example is game trainers. Most of them don't work with Vista either. Again that same crash problem. My point: People have different experiences with Vista and depending on the experiences you may be a Vista lover or hater. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yami Bakura Posted October 2, 2007 Share Posted October 2, 2007 Wow, uh, SOURCE? Many people say that Tiger is not meant for Intel Macs and Intel Macs are not at their full potential with Leopard. Tiger is underpowered on Intel Macs. Tiger was just tested on Pentium 4 machines (developer ones) and Leopard was designed from the ground up on the Intel architecture and was tested on more current machines. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
~pcwiz Posted October 3, 2007 Share Posted October 3, 2007 Thanks for the info Bakura, I wonder if we can get the specs of those sacred "developer machines" so we can make PCs that are fully compatible with Tiger. Sincerely, Yugi P.S. Please don't tell me you put on the Millenium Ring on again....OH NOES LOL [i've just can't resist and don't take it personally] pcwiz Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Redliner Posted October 3, 2007 Share Posted October 3, 2007 I don't know how it matters but I have a good friend who runs the most insane PC I have ever seen, water cooled CPU's, memory, GPU's, and hard disks 8 gigs of ram 1 terrabyte total SATA hard disks Dual SLI video card totalling at 2 gig's of GDDR3 Vram (he did some custom mod) 8-cores total in processors...I have no clue what the speed is, but in XP he can run any and everything he wants to at once...he ran like 8 diferent ripped dvd movies at once (and his Display is a 47" LCD) and then he minimized them all and played WoW and then minimized that and played Warhammer 40K and I couldn't notice a hesitaion...I mean his apps started almost as fast as he could click!!! But he went out and bought the Premium Vista copy and it ran significantly slower and he said that he was using 1gig of memory sitting on desktop. then again he also told me that he read the license aggreement for the os and he said that Miscrosoft reserves the right to monitor keystrokes and to record the data...but I cannot confrim this...nor do I think it is true. "I'm not Vista!!!" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts