Timewaster's Guide Archive
Local Authors => Brandon Sanderson => Topic started by: Pemberley on April 18, 2007, 01:59:48 AM
-
The illustrious Mr. Sanderson uses a PC when crafting his fiction. (Okay, now I've made some reference to Brandon, so I can justify posting this thread in his forums. :) I, his schoolteacher wife, have been using a Mac for the last three years. We are considering buying a laptop for me, as the one I have is actually property of the school district, and will have to be returned when I am no longer teaching. I was just wondering what all you computer savvy people think about PC's vs. Macs. I'm not trying to start an argument here, so no insults, please! I'm just curious about what TWG-ers would say are the advantages or disadvantages of owning a PC or a Mac. Any thoughts?
-
I say use what you like and what suits your needs. The biggest difference is software, if there's something you need/want that's PC only then go that route (yes you can go with bootcamp or parallels but you have to still buy windows for your Mac to do that, we're talking native support here) but there is a better selection of software for the PC. Cost is another thing, HPs and Dells are both cheaper then Macs are and still offer more/better upgrades hardware wise (HP likes to give away free Lite scribe DVD burners which "print" labels onto the disk while burning them), so I'd look at that if the OS isn't a real big deal for you, but at the high end you're only talking about $300 difference.
-
Spriggan has some good advice.
Realistically, for most people, there isn't too much of a difference. I spend my day working on every kind of computer OS you've heard of, and often ones you haven't. After a while, none are really absolutely better than any others.
It comes down to what you are doing with it. If you are just going to surf the web, check email, play a few simple games, store pictures, etc, than it shouldn't really matter. Both systems have more than enough to do that. If you like using a Mac and don't see any problems with it, than stick with it. If you want to try something new and see what all the buzz about Vista is about, then give it a shot.
Even better, for many of those things that most people use a computer for, there are plenty of free software programs that are easy to adapt to and let you do what you need to do just fine. Many of those programs support both Windows and Mac OSes (as well as Linux). From that standpoint, it matters even less, because you can get the programs you want to use on both of them.
If you like iPods and are thinking of getting an iPhone or apple tv at some point, than it might be good to go with a Mac (even though both will probably work fine with Windows).
It all comes down to usage. If you like playing games, most people stick to Windows, though if you only play certain games (WoW comes to mind) than a Mac will work fine.
All that being said, there are a reason Mac laptops are so popular. Thus, if you are looking for something portable, and already familiar with Macs, than I would stick with those unless you have a really good reason to change. There are a reason you see so many Mac laptops around.
-
Last I noticed, PCs were still much more widely used than Macs. I don't say that to slam Mac, just to say that calling popularity into it doesn't make sense.
To reiterate what's been said, one is not necessarily inherently better than the other. It depends on what you're comfortable with and what you like.
iPod/whatever compatibility is a ZERO issue. They had a minor incompatibility with a version of iTunes with Vista, but I believe that's been reconciled. The iPod works with PCs just as well as Macs
If you are used to a Mac and don't have any major gripes about it, I'd stick with it. If there are specific issues you have, then mention them, we can tell you if a PC would be better or if there's a way to correct it within Mac.
-
fewer viruses are made for macs, so they tend to work better in that way.
IBM programs tend to come out sooner -- especially games.
Told to me by Computer Renaissance worker
-
The funny thing about this thread is Macs are PCs, a PC isn't just something that runs Windows it's any Personal Computer. I get a kick out of those apple ads since they're trying to say they're not something they are. It would be like a white guy and a black guy doing those ads where the white guy says "Hi, I'm a Human" and the other says "And I'm Black".
Oh and Vadia, you actually know someone who still calls Windows machines IMBs? wow they must be ancient or trying to be hip in a retro way, I think that term fell out of favor like ten years ago. Even funnier when you consider IBM is the largest maker of non-x86 chips out there and use to make all the processors for apple until a year ago.
-
Macs are prettier? ;D Though I can't play Guild Wars on my mac which is a major downside... but it's definately prettier than my husband's computer!
-
fewer viruses are made for macs, so they tend to work better in that way.
The reason for this is that the pool of Mac users is much smaller than that of Windows users, about 5% to 95% of PCs. People who write viruses tend to want to hit as many people as they can because they're sadistic jerks, and thats why they mostly program for Windows PCs. All the talk about Macs getting less viruses is frustrating and funny for me because very few people realize that the smaller number of viruses for Macs has nothing to do with security, and everything to do with numbers of users.
Also, something to consider about Vista if you decide to go with Windows: it'd probably be smarter to go with xp for right now. Vista has dreadful driver support right now, and probably will for about a year, it also eats up system resources while idling (I believe about 700 megs of ram when in full 3-D mode). Another reason to wait on Vista is the fact that security holes are still being discovered, and it'd probably be smarter to wait until a SP1 came out so you aren't a casualty of the first line of hacking.
Anyway, thats my two bits
-
An extremely large amount of research was conducted, and the following conclusion was reached.
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=2514730680283477734
It might be a bit too academic, but if you can wade through the big words, they come to a very clear, and in my opinion, correct conclusion.
-
Lol, nice, very nice. And very enlightening.
-
Macs are prettier? ;D Though I can't play Guild Wars on my mac which is a major downside... but it's definitely prettier than my husband's computer!
You've never seen one of the new(ish) HPs, those look 10x cooler then the macbooks, but I hate white and pure white things (I think the iPod is ugly--it's so boring and unintresting just like iMacs) and these are black/grey with blue LEDs, you need to see one up close since pics don't do them justice.
Ya Vista uses a lot of ram for Areo, but I was reading somewhere that the jump percentage wise from XP to Vista is around the same as from 2000 to XP which I found interesting. Â But Pemberly might be out of luck for an XP machine, it's hard to get that OS from Dell or HP anymore even though you can still get it OEM from other places like Newegg (though that costs you still around $100 compared to the estimated $30-$40 Windows costs you when you buy it from Dell or HP).
-
Macs are prettier? ;D Though I can't play Guild Wars on my mac which is a major downside... but it's definitely prettier than my husband's computer!
Ya Vista uses a lot of ram for Areo, but I was reading somewhere that the jump percentage wise from XP to Vista is around the same as from 2000 to XP which I found interesting. Â But Pemberly might be out of luck for an XP machine, it's hard to get that OS from Dell or HP anymore even though you can still get it OEM from other places like Newegg (though that costs you still around $100 compared to the estimated $30-$40 Windows costs you when you buy it from Dell or HP).
I knew that, but right now ram prices aren't so good unless you know where to buy, and considering that most pre-built systems are only just getting to a gig unless they're gaming platforms it makes Vista a rather unattractive option at the moment. XP may be a little more of a hastle to get a hold of right now, but its a much more stable OS then Vista is currently, worth it personally. Then there's the supreme evil that is DRM which has been taken to a new extreme with Vitsa.
-
1 gig is plenty for Areo, it doesn't use 700 mb or anywhere near it, there are several people hwere where I word running it just fine with 1 gig, you need a graphics card with only 64mb of ram to run it but something DX10 compatible will run it better then Dx9.
Good tech write up about the changes in Vista at http://arstechnica.com/reviews/os/pretty-vista.ars/
-
my new computer is at a gig of ram and an onboard video card. I've had zero stability problems with Vista.
-
1 gig is plenty for Areo, it doesn't use 700 mb or anywhere near it, there are several people hwere where I word running it just fine with 1 gig, you need a graphics card with only 64mb of ram to run it but something DX10 compatible will run it better then Dx9.
Good tech write up about the changes in Vista at http://arstechnica.com/reviews/os/pretty-vista.ars/
I read through the first couple pages of the article, and skimed the rest. No where did I see any benchmarks, so either I missed them or they aren't in there. I'm heard of several cases where Vista did use 700 mb ram while idling in Areo, so either something else was contributing to those things and I was misinformed, or I wasn't and Vista really was using 700 mb while idling.
my new computer is at a gig of ram and an onboard video card. I've had zero stability problems with Vista.
Stability isn't really an issue with only a gig unless you game a lot and crank up the options as high as you can.
-
my new computer is at a gig of ram and an onboard video card. I've had zero stability problems with Vista.
Stability isn't really an issue with only a gig unless you game a lot and crank up the options as high as you can.
Is that an issue for our dear Pemberly? Is she a power gamer? I was under the impression that she was, at most, a casual gamer.
I should also note that I have not had performance problems either. My only problems have been finding where things are now. One of my great peeves is the "log off" option not being available in the "classic" style menu. Since I despise the Vista menu, this annoys me greately. CAD makes it available, but the menu would be preferable.
-
I never said it had benchmarks.
And 700MB of ram is an insane amount, I have yet to even hit that amount when doing things like Rendering in 3D Max, while having Photoshop open and playing music in WMP11. If areo took 700 MB when idling then that has to be the most ineffective use of memory I've ever seen especially considering 3d doesn't even use that much ram unless you're swapping out lots of textures and stuff.
-
So we did some testing here on our vista machines and found Areo uses about 70 megs of ram which is significantly different then 700 megs.
-
So we did some testing here on our vista machines and found Areo uses about 70 megs of ram which is significantly different then 700 megs.
That sounds much more likely.
However, if you fresh boot the system, and monitor memory usage, you should find that the memory is being used in increasing amounts, without the user actually doing anything.
If you check later, it is very likely that you could have 700 megs or much more in use.
This is a good thing though, this is how Vista is designed to work. Ram isn't something that should be kept free. If you have 2 gigs of ram and never use more than 1 gig you are wasting your money. Computer OSes now (Linux has done it for years) load files/programs that it predicts you are going to use into the available memory when the system is idol, so that when you need those things, they are available. If you need the memory for something else, it simply frees it up.
The long and short of it, is that the memory usage in Vista really isn't something most people should be concerned about either way. As long as you have a gig or so (which most new systems should now) you'll be fine.
If people are interested, Vista actually has a really slick system that allows you to use an inexpensive flash drive as a faster hard drive of sorts. The system will load up programs into the flash drive, and then access them from there when needed. It more or less acts as a much more effective swap file.
-
Yes but that 700 mb isn't just for one processes like Areo but all processes.
-
I'll admit that my views are rather skewed, since I only ever really hear things from gamers and overclockers, but as far as I knew I had correct information. My apologies for unintentionally misleading. My main points against Vista however, which I mentioned previously, is lack of drivers (for now) and ridiculously insane DRM (which could be around for a long time).
-
NP on the memory comment, I've learned that you can never trust just one source when it comes to the information in the Net, people tend to complain a lot--especially gamers and moders--so I read news article, tech reviews, and other sources that are more objective and then make up my own mind about things. I don't think any less of someone for saying something wrong, as long as they're willing to look at the possibility they might be mistaken.
The DRM on Microsoft's side is the same as XP, and that's not really DRM that's a miss-label. It's a licensing agreement which all software has to an extent (and Adobe is the worst offender, you connect to their database when ever you run their software and they check the license).
And the DRM for videos were required by the movie studios, if MS hadn't placed them in Vista couldn't run HD DVD or Blue Ray in high def (which XP cannot). Apple has to do the same thing as well, which is blocking access to the video buffer under certain conditions. I can't think of any other DRM in Vista however, so if there's something worse I'd like to hear it.
-
P. Let us know what you decided! (please, pretty please with microchips on top)
-
Thanks, everyone, for all the input. I knew I was coming to the right source with my question. Anybody else who has more info, feel free to chime in. I'll certainly let you know what we decide to buy. ;)
-
The DRM on Microsoft's side is the same as XP, and that's not really DRM that's a miss-label. It's a licensing agreement which all software has to an extent (and Adobe is the worst offender, you connect to their database when ever you run their software and they check the license).
And the DRM for videos were required by the movie studios, if MS hadn't placed them in Vista couldn't run HD DVD or Blue Ray in high def (which XP cannot). Apple has to do the same thing as well, which is blocking access to the video buffer under certain conditions. I can't think of any other DRM in Vista however, so if there's something worse I'd like to hear it.
I was talking about how MS was freaking out before Vista's release and saying that one copy of Vista got you one install. Period. Also the fact that if you upgraded pretty much at all you had to buy another copy. However after poking around a bit it looks like they've loosened up a bit because of complaints and such, so this isn't really valid anymore as far as I can see.
-
Ya they pulled back pretty quite after that announcement, the PC mod community have always been a fairly loyal group for MS so it was a good idea not to anger them, but that was for OEM ($100)versions only and they've always been more restorative. When I replaced my motherboard last year because I fried the old one I had to call MS and get an activation key since my OEM license on XP didn't like that. Regular retail versions (ie the one's that cost $200+) were always you can transfer multiple times. The versions you get from Dell, HP and others like them are non-transferable, has been as long as I can remember, but you are--reportedly--only getting Windows for around $40-$50 from big box PC makers.
-
What I think is funny is the way MS and Sony keep trying to do a bunch anti-piracy and DRM stuff and they keep getting beat down. Whether by the consumers in MS's case, or the courts in Sony's case, with the whole rootkit fiasco a couple years ago. I wonder when they'll learn to take it easy and think before going overboard and being made to look pretty stupid when they have to retract what they've said.
-
The funny thing about this thread is Macs are PCs, a PC isn't just something that runs Windows it's any Personal Computer. I get a kick out of those apple ads since they're trying to say they're not something they are.
Do people still use the term WinTel? (as in MS Windows running on a computer using an Intel processor)
Or is there some other more accurate distinction?
-
WinTel is still used from time to time on some blogs, but ya you really hear Mac or Windows or Mac and PC.
-
Threads like this are why people buy Macs! ;)
Seriously, beyond the obvious questions -- what kinds of work will you be using it for, how many existing files do you have to worry about converting, what will the people you want to exchange data with be using, and advantages and disadvantages of having both a PC and a Mac in the house -- the main deciding factor between Macs and PCs has always been choice. Macs present a minimum of choices in an effort to make things simpler and charge a premium price for that simplicity. PCs give you a much greater range of choices but require you to make those choices. With a PC laptop you can choose between a keyboard with big keys vs. little keys, mushy keys vs. clicky keys, a mousepad vs. a trackpoint, various levels of size, weight, computing power and battery life, etc. They thus appeal more to people who can pinpoint what they want and are willing to shop around for the optimal configuration.
MattD
-
Apple is worse the Microsoft when it comes to this, you can't even get a full install disk from Apple that the equivalent to what you get with a full install for Windows. Heck you can't even virtualize OSX. But the people who complain the loudest about Window's copy protection (again, different then DRM in concept) are those that pirate and don't want to pay for anything.
And if we're bringing up hardware mind if I rant about those stupid iMac keyboards? In fact I hate all of apple's desktop keyboards, the keys are small, the arch is weird and it feels fragile. When I type on those things as fast as I do with a PC keyboard they vibrate and feel like I'm about to break them just from the shear speed. Not as bad as those stupid hockey puck mouses from a few years ago but almost as bad in my book.
-
I remember those things. I hated them! To tell the truth one of the reasons I went the way of Windows instead of Macs was because of those things. This was before I could tell any difference between technologies, when I was like eight or so. They used to make me so freaking mad though. The ones they have now are a little better, but sometimes I have to wonder who the heck came up with the idea to make them click when you bang the mouse against the desk. It has accident waiting to happen written all over it.
-
what are you going to use it for?
do you have files that you need to transfer?
do you use it to communicate with family & friends?
do you like your mac laptop?
I am biased towards PCs, but it's still your decision. If your just using it for personal use, there is not going to be much difference between the two. If you do have files you need to transfer it will be much easier and convenient on a mac. What kind of computers do your family and friends have? PCs communicate better with other PCs, and Macs do better with other Macs. If you are happy with what you have and know it fairly well, there will not be much of a learning curve on using your new machine.
I would say these are the main faults;
PCs - Stability...it can give you problems, but at least you can use it
Mac - Compatibility...usually no stability problems, but can be a pain to get software running on it
People make software for the general public in the windows format, tax programs, email programs, etc..
Mac software is not nearly as extensive or available, though you can emulate windows and run regular software, this will cut down performance and give you the same stability issues as a normal PC has.
So more or less, unless you need or want a Mac, I would recommend you get a PC.
Also if you decide to get a PC look seriously into building your own, there isn't anything "mystical" about computers...they are about as easy as a snap-together model, follow the instructions and don't "force" anything to fit somewhere. If you have questions I'm sure there are a ton of people (myself included) that would be more than happy to answer them.
Good Luck!!
-
I'm a writer. I write technical and Help documentation by day on Windows machines, and write creative fiction and edit a space opera e-zine online at night on a Mac PowerBook running OS X Tiger. I was a Windows zealot until I bought the Mac laptop last summer to give OS X a shot.
One can make a compelling argument for either a Windows or a Mac device, therefore, one must go to other considerations to make a decision.
Ask yourself what you'd use the device for. If you're a hardcore gamer, you /have/ to go PC. If you're into graphic art design, Mac has the edge (although Adobe CS2 and CS3 are available for both platforms).
I wanted a laptop and an operating system that was cool, easy to use, and fun. For me, it's Mac and OS X all the way. With the switch to Intel-based processors, one can now run Windows XP and OS X on Mac hardware, and that's too cool.
I've been a Windows user since Windows 3.1.1. With that said, I've tried Vista, and it doesn't thrill me. My current laptop is a Mac, and my next full desktop upgrade will be to Mac as well.
Best wishes with your search.
-
For one, I'm a desktop PC user and probably I'd get used to Mac If I have to, but still, the transition period from any OS to another is rather troublesome. I'm not against news, but it depends whether do you need to adapt quickly or not, drastic changes always get in the way when you need to be in a hurry.
If you are a good user and you use all antiviruses and firewalls the safety is not an issue for you and the positive edge of all Win-based systems is that there's plenty of assistance thorough the net and most things are done so automatically you don't have to be a specialist to reinstall the system if it fails.
And Sinder is right, you have to adapt to your environment (I mean friends, colleagues and so on) if you want to communicate with them more freely. What I'm against, though, is Vista - I think is better to wait until at least one service pack is ready.
-
For one, I'm a desktop PC user and probably I'd get used to Mac If I have to, but still, the transition period from any OS to another is rather troublesome.
You'd think so, but I was up and running on OS X almost immediately, and found all the basic things I needed to keep in touch and be productive. I use my Windows boxen at work and at home for publishing our space opera e-zine, but I use OS X for everything else. I'm soaking in it right now!
-
I've been using apple off and on since gradeschool and I still can't find where things are on them.
And it's not the big things that take transition time it's the little things like open apple click = right click (I actually have to carry my own mouse to UVU so I don't have to deal with that), how to find programs you want (why isn't there a freaking start menu? Oh you're supposed to search for all your applications) that kind of stuff.
-
my most recent frustration with finding stuff with OSX was the requirement to mount an FTP directory on a remote server. I don't want to freaking use it as another hard drive, I just want to send my files over there. There are things that to me, don't make sense on a Mac.
-
I acutally like the FTP mounting, if you use it often enough that's a nice feature (if you have full read/write access). You can do the same with Windows if you know how using junction points.
-
SE, there are various ftp programs available for mac just as there are for windows, that don't mount the server as a drive. Or there's the built-in command line version...
-
I don't mind it being an option, I hate *having* to do it for a one shot access.
Ookla, ah, command line. the easiest of utilities. Windows has (forever) had built in GUI ftp. You just type in the ftp address, and you're good to go. I thought macs would have it to. It was endlessly frustrating not to have that available.
-
I've been using apple off and on since gradeschool and I still can't find where things are on them.
And it's not the big things that take transition time it's the little things like open apple click = right click (I actually have to carry my own mouse to UVU so I don't have to deal with that), how to find programs you want (why isn't there a freaking start menu? Oh you're supposed to search for all your applications) that kind of stuff.
When I was a brand-new user last year, I did a little looking around and stumbled across a free program called Quicksilver.
It is the coolest program I've ever used on any platform, and the most intuitive:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quicksilver_(software)
Using it is simple; mastering it is beyond me, so I just let it do what I need it to do.
When I open up my PowerBook lid, all I do is press Ctrl+Spacebar, and start typing the name of whatever-it-is I'm looking for. I don't use the vaunted OS X Dock. If I want Firefox, I type FI and Quicksilver notes that I've used a number of apps that start with FI, but use Firefox by far the most, so it gives me that as a suggested option. I press Return and viola!, my app is up and running.
I'd rather start apps with the keyboard than having to find and click them anyway (and especially on a laptop) so Quicksilver not only has served to change the way I do things, it has made my life so much easier that I've never learned any other way on OS X.
There are scads of HOWTO docs on how to get the most out of Quicksilver, but for my purposes, the main functionality is, itself, more than worth it.
-
Windows has (forever) had built in GUI ftp. You just type in the ftp address, and you're good to go. I thought macs would have it to. It was endlessly frustrating not to have that available.
I don't see the difference between typing the ftp address in the address bar of Windows Explorer and using the mac's "Connect to Server" menu item and typing it in there. Both of them allow you to browse the FTP drive like it's part of your normal filesystem, in the same interface as the rest of your filesystem.
However, the Finder's ftp mounting is definitely messed up since it's either impossible or extremely difficult to enable write access. It's been that way for several major revisions of Mac OS X, and it's a huge annoyance. I don't understand it. Apple hasn't shown any reluctance in the past to stomp on the toes of third-party developers, so it can't be because they don't want to take away the user base of the most popular mac FTP programs.
(IIRC, ftp access through Firefox works exactly the same (and differently from how it works in Explorer or the Finder) whether you're using Windows or Mac.)
-
I'm a PC guy, myself, but I think the major issue comes back to what's already been said: what are you comfortable with? It sounds like you've been using a Mac for a while now, and are probably pretty used to it. So, there are probably some things you need to ask yourself about it, maybe like: can I find things easily and quickly with the current set up? Do I find it satisfactory (does it do everything I want it to, or are there features that I would like that are lacking)? Does it run the programs/games I want it to? Have I had any major problems with it? Would I mind trying something new or different? How much would it bother me having to spend a little bit of time learning the differences?
Anyway, those are just suggestions. You might change some of the questions, get rid of some, or add others. I think after asking some of them, you might have a better idea of what it is you want. As has already been said: they both have advantages and disadvantages-- Macs seem to lean more toward being good at art and graphics type things, and PCs more toward games and other widespread programs. (I would say something more specific, but I can't think of any at the moment...)
I've been using Vista for about a month now and not had any stability problems with it or anything, but I don't want to resurrect that issue-- it seems to have been fairly well settled.
I don't like the one mouse button on the Mac. That's my biggest issue with it. Other than that, I think I would have some difficulty finding things for a little while, but you get over that fairly quickly if you use it almost every day.
Anyway, remember that the biggest questions are what you're going to use it for and what you want/feel comfortable with.
-
You can plug any USB mouse into a Mac desktop or laptop.
I recently bought a high-end Razer five-button gaming mouse for my Windows rig and plugged it into my PowerBook to see what would happen.
It just worked; no muss, no loading drivers, no fuss.
-
And it'll do the right click and everything? Same functionality as the control-click thing that you have to do with the one button? If so, that's pretty cool.
-
It's been that way for quite sometime.
When I have to use Macs at school I bring in a windows mouse.
-
As someone who has spent years on both platforms, I can suggest 1 difference that keeps sending me back to the Mac - the Option Key. The ability to type <opt-u> - u to get the ü character and any number of other special characters such as © (<opt-g>) or ¢ (<opt-4>), without resorting to the character map or needing to remember the alt-keypad number, made my 10 years of desktop publishing nice - especially in foreign languages.
I haven't read all the posts in this thread - but I searched for 'option' and nobody brought up this point, so I thought I'd add my 2¢. :P Everything else about using what works or what supports the software you need/like is also valid. Just remember that many older software packages on the Mac are currently in a PPC->Intel shift, and old packages may not run on a newer machine, so you may have to consider the cost of software upgrades or availability as well if you're switching processors.
-
No matter what you get,
Spend some time with the key board and layout of the device. We just bought a new laptop for my wife, the biggest consideration is that we wright and she wanted good ergonomics, and a ten key pad. that pushed us in to a 17" screen, all has worked out well, and she had the thing at Conduit 07. It came with Vista and we are resigned..... New OSs are like the weather, imposed in us by force and mitigated by equipment.
Regards,
Kevin
-
No matter what you get,
Spend some time with the key board and layout of the device.
I agree with this. I've spent some time on the new MacBook and on the MacBook Pro. For me, the former keys feel like scrabble tiles and I couldn't get used to the gaps between keys. The latter feel like what I'm already used to with my aluminum PowerBook, and I like them just fine.
Many of the Windows keyboards were very nice, but just come with Vista (and the Best Buy guy I grilled said that it is deliberately very difficult to wipe the HD and load XP - he said it can be done, but not by a neophyte, and he wouldn't tell me how he did it).
-
are you serious?
All you do is put the XP disk in and tell it to reformat before installing, Best Buy and places like that don't want to tell you how to do things because they charge an insane amount of money (like $150 to look at your PC) for doing things anyone could learn to do.
And I don't know why you'd want to get rid of Vista, it's a nice OS and the majority of complaints I hear about it are from people who don't even use it--but that's how the Internet is, it's cool to hate even if you've never seen or used what you're hating.
-
Congatualtaions Pemberly, you have earned my first post on this site. You may have read my email to Brandon, it involved willow trees and secrets, and a snake named sheep. It was posted on his blog. As Pcs vs Macs are concerened, i suggest use waht your used to. I have rarely used a mac in my life, and when i try to i have tremndous difficulties navigationg, and using the system, but some of my friedns are big fans. Its true that windows has more software, but macs are more custimizable, and eventually comeo ut wiht all the games and software that windows has.
-
are you serious?
All you do is put the XP disk in and tell it to reformat before installing, Best Buy and places like that don't want to tell you how to do things because they charge an insane amount of money (like $150 to look at your PC) for doing things anyone could learn to do.
And I don't know why you'd want to get rid of Vista, it's a nice OS and the majority of complaints I hear about it are from people who don't even use it--but that's how the Internet is, it's cool to hate even if you've never seen or used what you're hating.
If you're on a laptop with a gig or less of RAM, I don't see any way around it - you're not going to get the Vista 'experience', and if you're not going to get that, you may as well run XP, where you don't have the 'new OS blues' troubles that people have with printer drivers, scanner drivers, and so on.
Vista is pretty, but that comes with a price. XP runs just fine on less RAM and fewer compatibility issues. Those will be addressed eventually, but the choice should rest with the consumer, not Microsoft.
-
if you run Vista without the graphic enhancements it runs just as fast, if not faster, then XP--plus it's more secure and has better battery management. Thats one of the misconceptions about the OS.
True you're not getting areo, but with a lap top I'd figure the above would be more important since areo sucks battery life like nothing else.
I'm not a MS apologist, I just don't like it when people don't give things a fair shake and prefer to go off what they heard then from actual experience.
-
"OS Blues" is not something I've ever experienced. With any version of Windows. ANd I've installed from scratch and run for extensive periods on all versions of Windows since 95, including ME.
Seriously, it's fun to bash windows, but I think people bash it for no reason most of the time. Do I live a charmed life? or are the problems with Windows MUCH less rampant than people make out? I think the second.
-
if you run Vista without the graphic enhancements it runs just as fast, if not faster, then XP--plus it's more secure and has better battery management. Thats one of the misconceptions about the OS.
True you're not getting areo, but with a lap top I'd figure the above would be more important since areo sucks battery life like nothing else.
I'm not a MS apologist, I just don't like it when people don't give things a fair shake and prefer to go off what they heard then from actual experience.
If you're running Vista without the graphic enhancements, that strikes me as living on the top of a hill overlooking an impressive expanse and then bricking up the picture window to save on heating / cooling costs. I have to wonder, what's the point?
I run an XP desktop and an OS X laptop. I much prefer the latter. I have spent a lot of time with both OS X and Vista laptops. With OS X, I feel I can have the best of both worlds without the performance hit.
I'm not a Mac apologist, but it is getting increasingly harder to deny the appeal of what Steve Jobs and associates are doing. I switched over from a Creative Zen to an 80 gig video iPod. I buy my music through iTunes, and can get DRM-free versions if I so desire. I've embraced OS X as my OS of choice. And with any luck, in a couple of weeks, I'll be swapping out my Samsung Blackjack, itself a sexy phone, for an iPhone. Apple is gaining a lot of momentum, and they're doing it the right way - by earning it.
-
Wow someone is getting a little defensive here.
I really could care less if you or anyone else likes or hates apple, it doesn't bother me one way or the other. Do they make good products? Well ya most of the time (don't get me started on OS7), but they're not my cup of tea--which is fine because if everything was the same and we had no choice (like El Jobso wants for us all, same with Gates) PCs would suck. I choose windows products because I like how they run and that I can customize them and have the decisions to turn of Areo for better performance (which you can't do with OSX, but you don't notice performance because you can't run it on low end stuff like you can windows) and that MS plans for a wide array of users so people can get what they want at the price they want (you're only paying $30 for windows XP home or Vista home when you buy them with a PC at Dell, HP and other like venders).
I do disagree fundamentally with Job's vision of no user choice or control in anything they do which is why I don't buy their products.
And I disagree with saying that only apple as earned the right to be popular or that everyone else are dishonest, I think that's a rather arrogant or misinformed statement which is part of why Apple users bug me--they tend to only thing Apple should exist in the consumer electronics and PC market or that anything that doesn't work like an apple product is inherently bad and anything that does shouldn't exists because its "copying Apple".
-
And I disagree with saying that only apple as earned the right to be popular or that everyone else are dishonest, I think that's a rather arrogant or misinformed statement
I agree, that /would/ be an arrogant statement. Happily, that's not what I said. ;D
I use both XP and OS X on a daily basis, and can be productive with either. I have a personal preference of what I /would/ use for my sole platform, but ours is a nuanced world.
-
Another pro for buying a Mac is the lack of viruses. There are millions of viruses wating to affect windows system. Last I checked there were tow viruses for Mac. With the proper virus protection this in't too much of a factor, but it's something to consider.