Windows vs Mac

[carltonlover3]

whats better?
I like macs better but there more expensive.

 

[beaumont911]

Prefer Macs. I just run OS X on my PC though

 

[Conan Troutman]

Use a MacOSX at work, and Windows XP at home. For all it's problems, I still prefer windows myself. So many more options with software. The mac is cool though - very stable. Have parallels on the mac, and it's great just having both mac and windows programs open together, but it's still a bit slow for the windows stuff.

 

[spitlizard]

whats better?
I like macs better but there more expensive.

Macs are easier to use but are limited as far as software extensibility is concerned compared to Windows.

Saying that, there still is quite a bit of software for mac which should cover any shortfalls in whats available.

However, there have been many bagging Vista from an operational & stability point of view. Well I have been using it for about 10 months and my friend for a year and I have had no problems....none........zilch, no BSOD (apparently it's green now in vista) and once you get use to the changes made to it, I find it hard to go back to XP (still a pretty good product). I think both Mac & Windows are good so it comes down to just how much experience you have with computers.....Mac if your fairly new, Windows if you know your way around them a bit

 

[VanBerlo=God]

the major problem the mac has is that most software available is proprietary and has to be paid for, whereas for windows a lot can be obtained for relatively cheap, or for free.

as for usability, definitely mac, by the flemington straight, its a no-contest in that regards. its sexier, sleek, quicker, more stable, don't get any bs errors, everything is just easier to use.

vista is still rubbish, but depends on what you want to do with it. if all you are concerned about is speed and security, then stick with xp. if you want some sleek looking new (and annoying) features (which I would disable anyway to improve performance), and the memory caching for your software programs, and the latest games (which can still be played on 9.0c ) then stick to vista.

overall, macosx has had the best of both xp & vista for years without the instability and security issues. so my recommendation is mac osX

 

[Borgsta]

Touch wood but after 4 months I still haven't had a problem with Vista.

Cannot say the same for XP.

But my goodness how often can this thread be done?

 

[FIGJAM]

However, there have been many bagging Vista from an operational & stability point of view. Well I have been using it for about 10 months and my friend for a year and I have had no problems....none........zilch, no BSOD (apparently it's green now in vista) and once you get use to the changes made to it, I find it hard to go back to XP (still a pretty good product).

I had a Mac prior to this puter I need for work, and I agree that Vista cops an unbelievable amount of crap for what is a very good OS.

Using XP was what I hated about using Windows. Looked shit, froze all the time, was disorganised. Apparently it improved during the time I went for a Mac, but I never want to have to use it again.

I'd rate Vista on a par with OSX 10.3.9. With decent RAM behind it, it works beautifully.

 

[VanBerlo=God]

xp was rubbish till mid-late 2003/start of 2004 when sp2 came out. it was still a bit rubbish till a few months after then when the stability issues finally started clearing.

as for most microsoft products, they are generally rubbish for the first 2 years of use until the security and other issues are fixed.

vista may be a good operating system in a year or two, time will tell.

 

[Parabola]

Mac baby, I'm a graphic artist so it's really a no brainer. Just about to get one of the brand spanken new macbooks that were released the other day. Can't wait for that little beauty

 

[Hawkamania!]

Depends on what you want to do.

Macs are overpriced for what you get. Their OS tends to be more stable than windows. There is less software available. Unless you are a graphic artist or a professional music producer, you wouldn't care as the software programs for Macs in these categories are superior.

Personally, I'm making the jump to Linux with Ubuntu 8.04 when I get my new PC this year. I was happy with the results of 7.10 on my test PC and the next version will have much more in the way of driver support. I refuse to use Vista and cannot justify the price of a Mac. Also both MS and Apple are propriety based companies that stifle development unless it's on their systems and/or standards.

The best way to choose what you need is to make a list of what you want it for and take it from there.


http://www.ubuntu.com/getubuntu

 

[Thrawn]

and the latest games (which can still be played on 9.0c )

There isn't much of a difference between DX9 and DX10 anyway. Well, not yet anyway - no game fully utilises DX10 to its full potential. Besides, DX10 will be available on XP... just under a different name (barring that, then a hacked one).

As for the PCs vs Macs debate, I'll take the PC - purely because of its gaming options.

 

[Jafa]

vista is still rubbish, but depends on what you want to do with it. if all you are concerned about is speed and security, then stick with xp. if you want some sleek looking new (and annoying) features (which I would disable anyway to improve performance), and the memory caching for your software programs, and the latest games (which can still be played on 9.0c ) then stick to vista.

overall, macosx has had the best of both xp & vista for years without the instability and security issues. so my recommendation is mac osX

Disagree. I find it a good deal better stability wise over XP. Those anoying little 20 second explorer crashes are gone now. I find it no less slick in terms of speed compared to both XP and Slackware running Dropline.

 

[HBK619]

Touch wood but after 4 months I still haven't had a problem with Vista.

Cannot say the same for XP.

But my goodness how often can this thread be done?

Your a mod, mould them all into one!

 

[VanBerlo=God]

Disagree. I find it a good deal better stability wise over XP. Those anoying little 20 second explorer crashes are gone now. I find it no less slick in terms of speed compared to both XP and Slackware running Dropline.

thats the thing about microsoft, they constantly release software that is done on the cheap so it always has stability and security issues.
mac isn't, thats why its expensive.

linux is mostly open source, so the code is viewable by anyone, and i'm not talking 2 or 3 hundred, i'm talking upwards of 10's of thousands of coders per major distro, like ubuntu, red hat, opensuse etc.
microsoft doesn't get that level of code inspection, thats why it sucks.

 

[beaumont911]

The reason why Windows isn't as secure is because they hold the majority of the market, so people try breaking in to it. No one bothers attempting to get in to OS X and Linux because there are hardly any users for it. Sure, there are other reasons for it, but that is the main reason.

Your anti-Microsoft **** is really starting to get old, talk about obsessed with Linux.

 

[Jafa]

thats the thing about microsoft, they constantly release software that is done on the cheap so it always has stability and security issues.
mac isn't, thats why its expensive.

linux is mostly open source, so the code is viewable by anyone, and i'm not talking 2 or 3 hundred, i'm talking upwards of 10's of thousands of coders per major distro, like ubuntu, red hat, opensuse etc.
microsoft doesn't get that level of code inspection, thats why it sucks.

Piffle - Macs are stable because they pretty much control their own hardware base. Windows has a Kernel so broad because of a massive hardware base it has to contend with.

I`m not a fanboy by any means - but the "Vista is rubbish" without any follow up is pretty typical.

Linux is not bad for distro bases - however, take Ubuntu as an example. The Nvidia drivers totally screw hibernation to the point of complete failure and the network manager is a total mess for wireless encryption. It`s a Gnome issue so I`m betting it`s across the board.

No such issues in Vista.

 

[Hawkers]

I support XP/Win 2000 and OSX and I can tell you I much prefer windows. It's so much easier to adminster and control over mac it isn't funny. It takes me about half a day to get OSX up and running onto the domain compared to windows taking about 15 minutes.
Then add in the fact that I can't assign group policy or licensing control and it just doesn't work.
Then if something goes wrong with a Mac forget Apple support - it's a waste of time. Mostly I work with "if it takes longer than an hour to fix then rebuild it", but with a Mac you're better off trying to spend infinite hours trying to fix as you loose too much crap
I much prefer to work with and use windows machines

 

[Borgsta]

thats the thing about microsoft, they constantly release software that is done on the cheap so it always has stability and security issues.
mac isn't, thats why its expensive.
.

you obviously havent used Vista much

 

[VanBerlo=God]

you obviously havent used Vista much

it took 4 years to develop
and it was a puddle of slurry poop when it was released.

regardless how stable or good it may be now, my opinion of it is no greater than that of the smell of a babies shit.

take ME, 2000 & XP - 3 separate operating systems released in approx 24 months. granted 2000 was initially the best of the bunch, but xp eventually took over given stability issues were cleared up.

vista took 4 years - and you would expect more quality than the hog wash it was in the initial release, given it had been beta tested for nearly a year?

as for using vista, i will never, ever, use vista again. not even if my peener were to be sliced off.

 

[Parabola]

Piffle - Macs are stable because they pretty much control their own hardware base. Windows has a Kernel so broad because of a massive hardware base it has to contend with.

I`m not a fanboy by any means - but the "Vista is rubbish" without any follow up is pretty typical.

Linux is not bad for distro bases - however, take Ubuntu as an example. The Nvidia drivers totally screw hibernation to the point of complete failure and the network manager is a total mess for wireless encryption. It`s a Gnome issue so I`m betting it`s across the board.

No such issues in Vista.

1. while that is true, OSX is built on Unix which is a far superior base to build an operating system on.

2. Almost every tech commentator, journalist and developer is screaming bloody murder about how horrible the underskin of Vista is. A report I read recently (will try to find it) said that the industry has already turned on Vista and a lot of people (both user and developer) have switched back to XP.

 

[Borgsta]

it took 4 years to develop
and it was a puddle of slurry poop when it was released.

regardless how stable or good it may be now, my opinion of it is no greater than that of the smell of a babies shit.

take ME, 2000 & XP - 3 separate operating systems released in approx 24 months. granted 2000 was initially the best of the bunch, but xp eventually took over given stability issues were cleared up.

vista took 4 years - and you would expect more quality than the hog wash it was in the initial release, given it had been beta tested for nearly a year?

as for using vista, i will never, ever, use vista again. not even if my peener were to be sliced off.

In all this bs mentioned here you fail to mention what was actually wrong with it when it was released.

 

[the_fresh]

I support XP/Win 2000 and OSX and I can tell you I much prefer windows. It's so much easier to adminster and control over mac it isn't funny. It takes me about half a day to get OSX up and running onto the domain compared to windows taking about 15 minutes.
Then add in the fact that I can't assign group policy or licensing control and it just doesn't work.
Then if something goes wrong with a Mac forget Apple support - it's a waste of time. Mostly I work with "if it takes longer than an hour to fix then rebuild it", but with a Mac you're better off trying to spend infinite hours trying to fix as you loose too much crap
I much prefer to work with and use windows machines

What are you talking about?
I work in a apple store, it couldn't be easier, We have 15 imacs and macpros all working in a network with 2 servers. If something goes wrong on a mac you call apple's 133 622 (free for 3 months, you get 3 years of support with applecare). You can take it in to a store, most service techs will look at it, if it need booking in you're looking at anywhere between 10 to 21 days (depends on the job que). You have machine to back up on the hour, day, week, month & year so you should never lose anything again. Most parts can be replaced by a service tech and are easy to work out with tech tools.

You can restore your OS without losing any data, you and use the internet without the worry of a virus or spyware & the ease of use is unbelievable.

Bag Mac all you want, but they are miles in front of any PC.

 

[VanBerlo=God]

In all this bs mentioned here you fail to mention what was actually wrong with it when it was released.

very well picked up sir

as for what is good and isn't good about it - i'm not really going to enter into the debate because its a biased and generally ill informed opinion.
I will say though with the changes to file storage, and general usage, i hated it when i used it, and i still hate it now.

2. Almost every tech commentator, journalist and developer is screaming bloody murder about how horrible the underskin of Vista is. A report I read recently (will try to find it) said that the industry has already turned on Vista and a lot of people (both user and developer) have switched back to XP.

I can understand why, because in general its a shit of an operating system to use unless you turn every so called 'performance enhancer' it isn't nearly as good as XP.

When Vista originally came out, and even recent benchmark tests can claim, even on the pro microsoft toms hardware, that XP still out performs vista for basic, intermediate and general high level tasks.
It is
1. quicker to load
2. performs at a much quicker rate due to less resource hogging
3. altho there is problems, they're not really that big of a deal
4. one of vista's big selling points was the aero theme - which was established to be insufficient and in general completely worthless.
5. the memory caching is a waste of time unless you use programs that use massive chunks of memory, so anyone who likes computer performance is better off switching it off.

look all in all, XP is by far and away still microsoft's best product release ever.
for ease of use its up there, but for expert level stuff, its weak (this is for advanced networking and stuff, because you don't have direct access to control files and stuff like you can on linux/unix (mac?)).

its up to the user. if you prefer vista that is your choice. i don't like either, but i use xp for games only, and there is no way in hell anyone can possibly convince me to use vista.

 

[Jafa]

very well picked up sir

as for what is good and isn't good about it - i'm not really going to enter into the debate because its a biased and generally ill informed opinion.
I will say though with the changes to file storage, and general usage, i hated it when i used it, and i still hate it now.


I can understand why, because in general its a shit of an operating system to use unless you turn every so called 'performance enhancer' it isn't nearly as good as XP.

When Vista originally came out, and even recent benchmark tests can claim, even on the pro microsoft toms hardware, that XP still out performs vista for basic, intermediate and general high level tasks.
It is
1. quicker to load
2. performs at a much quicker rate due to less resource hogging
3. altho there is problems, they're not really that big of a deal
4. one of vista's big selling points was the aero theme - which was established to be insufficient and in general completely worthless.
5. the memory caching is a waste of time unless you use programs that use massive chunks of memory, so anyone who likes computer performance is better off switching it off.

look all in all, XP is by far and away still microsoft's best product release ever.
for ease of use its up there, but for expert level stuff, its weak (this is for advanced networking and stuff, because you don't have direct access to control files and stuff like you can on linux/unix (mac?)).

its up to the user. if you prefer vista that is your choice. i don't like either, but i use xp for games only, and there is no way in hell anyone can possibly convince me to use vista.

Of course you do - it`s called the registry. And whats this advanced networking rubbish and stuff you speak of.

 

[Pantsless]

What are you talking about?
I work in a apple store, it couldn't be easier, We have 15 imacs and macpros all working in a network with 2 servers. If something goes wrong on a mac you call apple's 133 622 (free for 3 months, you get 3 years of support with applecare). You can take it in to a store, most service techs will look at it, if it need booking in you're looking at anywhere between 10 to 21 days (depends on the job que). You have machine to back up on the hour, day, week, month & year so you should never lose anything again. Most parts can be replaced by a service tech and are easy to work out with tech tools.

You can restore your OS without losing any data, you and use the internet without the worry of a virus or spyware & the ease of use is unbelievable.

Bag Mac all you want, but they are miles in front of any PC.

So let me get this straight? If your MAC dies and it needs a technician to look at it, it could take 21 days to get fixed? WOW!

The reason there are barely any viruses/spyware for MAC is because they only have an 8% market share in the US. Don't fool yourself into thinking it's because they are secure. It's because virus/spyware writers CAN'T BE ASSED!

In the last 9 years I've been working in IT, from helpdesk now to network admin, I've worked for 13 different companies (lots of contracts). In that time, I have only seen 4 Macs. That not 4 companies...that's actually 4 Macs.

I know lots of other IT professionals who've never worked with Macs. I don't know anyone who owns a Mac. I only know one friend who uses a mac as she is a graphic designer.

As for Vista, I ran that at home and the only issue I've got is that copying times from my XP laptop to my Vista desktop are very slow. This is being addressed in SP1