Mac vs. PC [Archive] - Giant in the Playground Forums

sheepofoblivion

2008-09-25, 12:26 AM

Dear Fellow Playgrounders. It has come to my attention that window's new operating system, Vista is being torn to pieces by the masses. And I'd like to remedy that. I admit, no one can really change the opinion of the world with a thread on a forum about stick figures, however, I still believe it to be an issue of some importance. Countless people are being bullied into buying mac's, simply because they don't know the facts! (:smalltongue: nah, my opinion isn't that low... I needed to say that after being surrounded by my pro-mac friend's for a bit :P)

Now, do not dismiss this as another operating-system-slash-windows-fanboy-mindless-arguments. If you've come here to simply, in one post say "MAC RULES!!! you geek!!" I'm fairly confident that I won't lose any sleep by telling you to get lost. This thread (although approved by a mod) needs to keep a reasonable air to it. I've made so much progress with some misguided souls, only to have it all blown away by some operating system fanboy mindlessly stating how their favored system is better. (Again, a touch of sarcasm there, I just like to rant...).

Alright, to the arguments.

--One common thing that many mac users state is how Vista is slow, has glitches, doesn't always work, and how macs are so fast.

I can pretty much make this argument void (at least in most cases). Here's why:

Macs. Are all built the same way. Shiny, white, with their glowy (worm infested) apples on the back. this is a huge advantage. (but also can end up biting their back in the end as you'll see)

Windows. Aren't. Windows is an operating system, unlike mac. Mac's are computers, built by the company, with that operation system on them. This ensures that all their computers can handle the operating system no sweat. However, you can put vista on some crappy computer from the 70's, and it's still windows. The misconception here is that people are blaming the problem on the operating system, not the actual computers. Instead, the crappy computer from the 70's is at fault.

For example, Crysis isn't a bad game because it won't run smooth on my dad's old laptop. It's a freakin' awesome game for crying out loud. The problem is my dad's laptop, not the game itself.

This is really nice, apple doesn't need to worry about laggy computers, programs running slowly or anything, because their computers are literally built for the operating system. (actually, sadly enough my middle school had mac's, and it would literally take nearly 10 minutes for the bloody machines to even log on) They're even supposed to look good with the operating system! However, this can be used the other way too. I could take one of the most expensive laptops, (customized) from alienware, and I am willing to bet that apple can't put up a single computer worthy of standing in the way. I know, but mac's don't cost more than like, $8,000! Meh, I'm just showing people the extremes.

One final complaint which will fit while I'm ranting about the builds of the computer. Games. Now, I'm certain some people really don't care at all if their mac can play a game, however, some of my best friends are stuck playing Call of Duty 2, while I'm playing Oblivion on my computer. And call of duty doesn't even run that well on their computers. (for those who don't know, call of duty 2 is about as advanced as say, battlefield 1942. The guns are similar to colored blocks stuck together. One could describe oblivion as the last game you'll ever need to buy)

Admittedly, they don't have the most advanced mac's, and they can run Battlefield 2142 (which is an awesome game), however it's a little pathetic watching them play this game from like, the 80's, while I play a game where you can almost reach out and touch your characters glistening armor. Then again, my computer isn't very good either.

Now, onto the next subject,
--Vista is shiny! A rip-off of mac! Show some creativity windows!!

So what you're saying is that since mac was nice and pretty first, windows can't make their operating system a little cleaner? XP was around for a while before the more "nice" macs. I don't see how this is a problem really. I mean, that little side board thing with "gadgets" is a little bit low, but other than that c'mon. What some people are trying to say is that Mac was good-looking first, and now that windows looks good too they suck.

What about window's advantages? One thing the newer mac's really had going for them was the fact that they were really slick. Even I thought so. But now windows are nice and shiny too, and.... it's a bad thing? :smallconfused:

Alright, so I may have been a bit... carried away at parts, but anyone can shoot some ideas my way, arguments, just keep it so that a table couldn't have written it.

Finally I would like to say that mac's aren't bad! They're good for everyday tasks, like email, world of warcraft (nothing is good for that sick game >:( / :p), and overall it's a pretty good system, it's just I can't stand the hate which is sent towards windows... In my opinion, windows are a bit better for more speciallized tasks. Instead of having to get the newest version, you can just replace a part, Now, before I go into another rant, thank you for your time.

And you linux demons, don't even stick your foul tentacles into this holy thread!!!! (I don't know why I'm doing this... it's just so much fun....)

((Note: Sorry if this doesn't really go in this section... it doesn't really fit anywhere else...

And again, all of those little comments which sound like they were dispensed by some bass turd, were just my sick sense of humor... I don't mean to offend anyone with this post/thread

(especially with the whole linux thing, I actually like it, it's just fun to poke fun at it)))

((phew! that was like, 3 pages........))

TSGames

2008-09-25, 12:56 AM

One final complaint which will fit while I'm ranting about the builds of the computer. Games. Now, I'm certain some people really don't care at all if their mac can play a game, however, some of my best friends are stuck playing Call of Duty 2, while I'm playing Oblivion on my computer. And call of duty doesn't even run that well on their computers.

Shameless bump (http://darwine.sourceforge.net/) for Darwine (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Darwine).

Anyway, you've got some interesting things to say, but there is factual evidence for why people don't like Vista(I personally hate how weak the command prompt is, and how Vista handles memory). However, A civilized debate on the topic is almost impossible in the internet:I predict thread lock or death at page 3.

P.S. Linux

SolkaTruesilver

2008-09-25, 01:42 AM

P.S. Linux

Linux is a Casual User's nightmare. Off course it's possibly superior in every single way. But it's also more complicated in every single way. And I don't know balls about programming.

Poison_Fish

2008-09-25, 02:03 AM

TSGames

2008-09-25, 02:12 AM

Linux is a Casual User's nightmare.

I see... This explains why it has failed on PDAs (http://tuxmobil.org/pda_linux.html), phones (http://code.google.com/android/), computers (http://fedoraproject.org/), and the new netbooks (http://www.linuxloop.com/news/2008/04/21/linux-eee-pc-far-faster-than-windows-version/). Truly you must be a programming guru before you can even touch linux.

SolkaTruesilver

2008-09-25, 02:16 AM

I see... This explains why it has failed on PDAs (http://tuxmobil.org/pda_linux.html), phones (http://code.google.com/android/), computers (http://fedoraproject.org/), and the new netbooks (http://www.linuxloop.com/news/2008/04/21/linux-eee-pc-far-faster-than-windows-version/). Truly you must be a programming guru before you can even touch linux.

I did not said that. I just meant that I don't know a thing about programming, and stories on Linux's skill requirement just makes me shiver in my boots, leaving me in a foetal position in the corner of the room, crying myself to sleep.

Now, if you will excuse me, I have to get back in my corner before a BSoD.

Ravens_cry

2008-09-25, 03:39 AM

Windows is for Lazy People, Macs are for elitist people, and Linux is for Obsessive Nerds. And I guess MS-Dos is for Nostalgic people. Of course, emulators like DosBox, make Dos a dream to how it REALLY was. Yes, Windows ripped off the original Macintosh operating system, which ripped off the Xerox Alto. Linux offer choice, but for many people, Too Much Choice. This is only hear say mind you. Windows, seems to be possessed by the Shiny Bug right now. Rotatable Windows, Like, Why? That might be useful if say we had some kind of deep feild holographic display that allowed one to reach in and manipulate the Desktop in 3D, but a mouse only operates in two dimensions.
I have used Macs, and while they do seem to be more stable then Windows, I have seen them freeze up, and when they freeze up, they do it very well. The OP makes a good point about the fact that Macs only use a certain architecture, so of course they are going to be more stable. Of course, Windows isn't let off the hook completely, Vista seems to be made to made to make grown men cry.

The Rose Dragon

2008-09-25, 03:51 AM

Ravens_cry is correct about one thing. When Macs freeze, they do it very well. In my years of using Windows and Mac OS, I've seen the latter freeze up only twice compared to the former's hundred. However, when it did, we had to cut off the energy to actually get the computer out of that frozen state with Macs, while a simple reset would fix things with Windows.

I prefer Macs myself, but they aren't without their faults. Especially the fact that there is little quality freeware to be found for Mac OS X compared to Windows. That is reaaaaally annoying. And games. Blizzard makes great games, yes, but can't I play Jade Empire or Bioshock for once?

The Evil Thing

2008-09-25, 03:54 AM

Kaihaku

2008-09-25, 04:01 AM

I don't think this is the debate it once was.

My first computer was a Commodore 128 and my second a Macintosh Plus, then some generic Windows 3.11 model. Since then, I've used a variety of computers and I'm currently writing this on my PowerBook G4. All that said, I think my next computer will be Ubuntu, which is not for obsessive nerds, and now that IBM is shipping Linux boxes I think the debate now is Ubuntu vs. ???

Macintosh has always had a solid system and I've always found them more stable and usable for the rational reason that the hardware and software are designed to work together unlike on a Windows machine where the hardware could be anything. However, Apple has been becoming more and more of an image thing and I'm becoming more and more of an anti-corporate person so... Linux it is. :smallwink:

Ravens_cry

2008-09-25, 04:18 AM

DomaDoma

2008-09-25, 04:50 AM

Manga Shoggoth

2008-09-25, 04:55 AM

At the end of the day, what matters is the (ahem) User Experience.

Having worked in IT for as long as I have, I have dealt with many different computers and operating systems. Some have been good at what they did, some have been awful to use (but still been good at what they did...). One or two have sucked more than a Dyson.

I don't understand a lot of the infighting.

--Vista is shiny! A rip-off of mac! Show some creativity windows!!

It's not just about GUIs: there used to be several GUIs around. If I recall correctly, Xerox came up with the first one, which Apple then licenced. Then there was Gem, GeOS and others before Windows and OS/2 (Anyone remember OS/2 Warp?). These days people only seem to remember Mac, Windows and X.

Likewise, ease of use: We have had all sorts of users on all sorts of systems. Give them the right tools (arguably the GUI is a tool) and insulate them from the core OS and that are usually fine. No matter what the OS is.

Now, I am very much of the opinion that Vista sucks. I speak as one who is currently involved in an XP -> Vista Migration trial (and is currently trying to make Oracle 9i work on Vista - yes, I KNOW!).

The problem is that I have spent most of my time fighting the OS just to get simple tasks done. I can believe that it may be down to "unfamillarity with Vista", but if Vista is being touted as the next step from XP then the (ahem) upgrade experience had better be pretty painless. Back in the day I didn't like XP much, but I got used to it. I don't see the same thing happening with Vista.

The problem is that Vista brings very little new to the game, but also drags a huge amount of overhead (Aero, DRM, UAC) to get in the way.

(Deep breath; Happy Place; Happy Place; OK. I think the rant has been suppressed now)

On the other hand, I have a friend who loves it. He doesn't have to worry about software installations, migrations or things lile that. He just has to use it in a office environment.

Then, of course, we have the Mac (Puts on Old Fart's hat): Back in the day, The Mac was very much the artists tool. I loved the original ones - easiest computers I ever used. Great for Graphics, Wonderful for Word Processing (far superior to the PC offerings of the day). These days the gap has narrowed somewhat (and I am more out-of-touch with the Mac side).

Guess what? It's still the User Experience that counts. Most users couldn't care less what is inside the box. Mac/Wintel/Evil Faries? It's all the same to them - in fact they might prefer the Evil Faries as they would at least explain some of the problems.

Provided the Computer and Software is up to the job (there are Macs that aren't just as there is wintel kit that isn't) the OS really shouldn't be that much of an issue.

Kaihaku

2008-09-25, 05:10 AM

It's not just about GUIs: there used to be several GUIs around. If I recall correctly, Xerox came up with the first one, which Apple then licenced. Then there was Gem, GeOS and others before Windows and OS/2 (Anyone remember OS/2 Warp?). These days people only seem to remember Mac, Windows and X.

I've heard rumors of OS/2 but, unfortunately, nothing direct. :smallwink:

Also, yes, the early Macintoshs were amazing. Which threatens to put me onto my favorite software rant...which is on the topic of HyperCard...

Ravens_cry

2008-09-25, 05:19 AM

I've heard rumors of OS/2 but, unfortunately, nothing direct. :smallwink:

Also, yes, the early Macintoshs were amazing. Which threatens to put me onto my favorite software rant...which is on the topic of HyperCard...
The only thing I know about Hypercard is that it was the software that was used to program Myst and its predecessors. Tell me more.

Manga Shoggoth

2008-09-25, 05:27 AM

I've heard rumors of OS/2 but, unfortunately, nothing direct. :smallwink:

Also, yes, the early Macintoshs were amazing. Which threatens to put me onto my favorite software rant...which is on the topic of HyperCard...

OS/2 Warp was supposed to be an IBM Competitor to windows. Unfortunately the demo disk was buggy as *****, which rather sank its chances in the market. When I tried to install it it hung up my system completely, and I had to do a full rebuild of the PC starting with an FDISK and a low-level format. I was one of the lucky ones.

(At least in those days installing MSDOS was fairly easy: I could have the complete PC rebuilt in less than an hour...)

I believe OS/2 is still in use in some places - it was only Warp that really crashed and burned.

Kaihaku

2008-09-25, 05:32 AM

It remains the most intuitive program for designing other programs I've ever used, it's "scripting" language, which was close to a programming language in regards to capabilities, is the most intuitive I've ever used (Python comes in second there). Everyone from scientists to grade school teachers to game-makers used it to create their own programs. It could make almost anything and almost anyone could learn to use it, I was making Myst-style games with it (obviously immature in many other ways and with crappy artwork) when I was 11. My conspiracy theory is that it was too intuitive and too powerful so Apple stopped producing it...because if anyone can make their own custom software easily, why buy Apple's software? Regardless, there's still a huge community of users out there, twenty some years later... I guess I can sum it up by saying I became a Computer Scientist because of HyperCard.

Tormsskull

2008-09-25, 06:10 AM

My first computer was a Commodore 128 [...]

Woot! My first was a Commodore 64. I remember playing some Aliens game (like, after the movie Aliens). Boy was that a long time ago.

Anyhow, here is how I see it:

Windows, the flagship, the standard. If you know windows really well, you're going to have life a lot easier if you decide to work in any IT field. The vast majority of companies use Windows OS', and as such all the experience you get running Windows at home in a sense prepares you for the business world.

Mac, the artist's computer. If you want to edit video, doing some really interesting things with music or photos, and graphic design in general, a Mac is a good way to go.

Linux, the programmer's computer. If you know what you're doing, you'll be able to do it better with a Linux (where 'it' = generic computer tasks).

Trazoi

2008-09-25, 06:16 AM

Macs are starting to become more popular with the computer science crowd (like me). With Mac OS X, it's got a flavour of Unix under the hood which makes it great for those occasions you need to tinker with that, but it's also got a decent GUI and doesn't require the configuration that most Linuxes still require.

I'm quite fond of Macs for the operating system and the choice of software out there, as I use a blend of computer sciency, programmy tasks as well as creative, artistic tasks. Apple's always had a niche with the creative sort so it's got the software and support, and with the Unix back-end it's getting better for the techie stuff.

But overall I'm pretty operating system neutral. I work on Macs because I like them slightly better for that task, but I'm thinking of getting a Vista PC for games and to test software on. And I used to use Debian Linux for research and it worked fine. Certain operating systems are better for different tasks, and for simple tasks they're all pretty good.

Justyn

2008-09-25, 06:39 AM

Please, please, please take those apostrophes out of your plurals. It's really jarring to read.

That aside, I'm glad I've met another rational person on the subject of Vista. Naysayers love to mention to the uneducated masses how Vista is "slow" and "buggy" (when it's actually their brains which are slow and buggy) yet fail to point out what these bugs are and how they render the operating system unusable (or even how they negatively detract from the experience in the first place).

Hooray for reason on the intarwebs.

I have experience with Vista. I first encountered that piece of [MESSAGE REDACTED] when my mother bought a new computer, and this was about a week or so after Vista was released. Anyway, these are the problems that we encountered from it before we told Gateway were they could stick the thing and just sent it back.

Nothing was compatible. And when I say nothing was compatible, I mean nothing was compatible. I can not excuse this, even with it being only released about a week beforehand, because remember that I said that nothing was compatible? I meant it: nothing was compatible, not AOL, not even the other preinstalled Windows programs worked. This would have been forgivable, if it had just been things like the original Command and Conquer not working, but when the preinstalled programs made by the company that made the operating system don't work...

I'll admit that saying that that nothing was compatible was a bit of hyperbole, but there were some programs that worked. But they had this little habit of just crashing the damn computer. Oh, and did I mention that it took several minutes to find out that the things was crashing, because of the fact that Vista takes up (if I remember correctly) damn near ten times the amount of memory that XP does? No? Well it does.

The time between having the computer delivered, and when we just gave up and packed the thing to send it back, could, if you used fingers, only need one hand. And you wouldn't need your thumb. And you would have fingers left over. All in all, the problems listed here were the ones that arose after less than three hours of just trying to get the thing working.

Mac... I've been learning to use them along with graphic programs (Photoshop), and I don't like the system very much. Yeah, Yeah, "runs graphic programs better", whatever. I really don't like the fact that you have to take the long way around for doing things; but that's really not much all in all, really, my only complaint about Macs at this point it "They're not Windows, and I'm used to using Windows", not really anything about Mac. And one odd program that I encountered is that sometimes when you try to save things from Photoshop onto a flash drive, it just decides that it doesn't want to.

One thing about Macs that I dislike it not the computers, but some of the people that use them. The pretentious "I have a Mac and it is soooooo much better then that PC you have" people. I haven't encountered any of the worst ones yet, thankfully.

All in all Mac is a pretty good system... I just don't have enough experience to complain, really.

Avilan the Grey

2008-09-25, 07:10 AM

I've been seriously considering Ubuntu for a while - but as I want to keep Windows (XP) for the games, I have discovered that setting up a dual-boot is a regular unanaesthetized tooth-pull. Regular Ubuntu (I'm trying for kUbuntu now) tries to go about it in a user-friendly fashion with Wubi, but if you dare let your power run out (my personal evangelist says Linux Does Not Crash, and sure enough this has only occurred after a Windows crash), it presents you with an inescapable text menu that does not do a damn thing, like the world's most elaborate Abort/Retry/Ignore/Fail screen. As for the manual method, I get a lot of pleas for help at the top of Google when I search for it. So yeah, a bit scared to proceed.

Dual booting Ubuntu with XP or Vista is EXTEMELY easy. I have never tried Kubuntu.

The easiest option is to install Ubuntu from Windows (Put the disc in the computer while windors is running and pick that option. This will however get you a slightly slower Ubuntu, and cannot use Linux' more secure file systems.

The second easiest option is defrag your drive in Windows, then reboot with Ubuntu CD, install from there and use the built in partitioner to do it automatically.

As for that dreaded error (windows cant find itself?) Google it. There is a simpe solution that I can't find right now 'cause I am at work.

About Vista: I like it, but the added minor enhancements compared to XP does NOT warrant the demands on the system that it has (it eats HDD space, unless you manually turns a lot of stuff off, and even then it fills 15Gb or so quickly). Not to mention memory usage and stuff (Sidenote: Faschinating fact about SPORE: it demands a minimum of 768Mb memory on a Vista machine, and Vista itself should not be run below 1Gb... (it is rumored that it CAN, but it really should NOT). That said, if your new computer has 2Gb memory or more, there is NO reason to uninstall Vista and put XP there. Seriously. (I would never put Vista on an old machine).

Snacs

2008-09-25, 07:31 AM

I've been noticing a few posts in this thread complaining about how users have bought Vista during its release, and absolutely loathed the operating system do to lagginess and sluggish response times.

I think this is as sheep said, that it was mroe a problem of hardware and software.

Microsoft took the long run approach with Vista. It uses quite a lot of computer power(memory, pure size of it, etc.), but it makes up for it by promising to be more and more effective as computers get faster and stronger.

Now,I admit, at startup Vista has had many problems. First and foremost is that people seemed to believe when it came out that all of a sudden there would just be drivers and support for third-party parts that Microsoft had never heard of!

I personally think that Apple computers and laptops tend to lag, freeze, and die on par with most PC's, the difference is that most Mac Users don't do enough with their computers for them to fail.

If all you're doing is word processing and web surfing, yes, a Mac will never fail and is wonderful for you. but then again, if you wanted that just buy a 200$, 5-year old laptop of e-bay and use XP on it, and I garuntee you'll enjoy it more.

My gripe with Apple has always been it's advertising side.I find the commercials offensive and rude, and that most rabid mac-users have a cult mentality.
i.e., 'buy a Mac and you're part of our community and you're cool!"

I honestly believe that Apple products are more a thing of fashion than use.

Also, Apple's famed 'we never crash or slow down' part?I work in computer repair.

The only reason Apple computers don't break down as much is because Microsoft outsells them 30-to-1, coupled with the fact that a person is hard pressed to open up and re-wire most apple computers and laptops(About 95% of all PC failures I see every day are caused by human stupidity, not the operating system. Seriously)

Kaihaku

2008-09-25, 10:04 AM

Also, Apple's famed 'we never crash or slow down' part?I work in computer repair.

The only reason Apple computers don't break down as much is because Microsoft outsells them 30-to-1, coupled with the fact that a person is hard pressed to open up and re-wire most apple computers and laptops(About 95% of all PC failures I see every day are caused by human stupidity, not the operating system. Seriously)

It's my opinion that the reason Apple computers have less troubles than a PC is, as stated above, because the hardware and software are designed to work together. The biggest problem, again my opinion, with a Windows machine is that the hardware and software, heck even software and software, isn't designed with the other a known constant (trust me, moving from one dell patchwork computer to another can really screw with machine code level programing). I've taken digital electronics collegiately and far too much programming, I think the advantages of knowing exactly what kind of hardware you're using during the software design stage would be clear.

My gripe with Apple has always been it's advertising side.I find the commercials offensive and rude, and that most rabid mac-users have a cult mentality. i.e., 'buy a Mac and you're part of our community and you're cool!"

I honestly believe that Apple products are more a thing of fashion than use.

They have become that, yes. I think it's like all branding. Originally, the brand actually meant something, it was a sign of quality...but then it just becomes a status thing. This is the number one reason I'm moving onto Linux, Macintosh is still solid in my opinion but that higher price has become more for the status than the quality now a days.

I personally think that Apple computers and laptops tend to lag, freeze, and die on par with most PC's, the difference is that most Mac Users don't do enough with their computers for them to fail.

If all you're doing is word processing and web surfing, yes, a Mac will never fail and is wonderful for you. but then again, if you wanted that just buy a 200$, 5-year old laptop of e-bay and use XP on it, and I garuntee you'll enjoy it more.

I disagree "no problems" because Macintosh users don't "DO" anything with their computers bit. I don't really know what other Macintosh users do but I use my machine heavily (graphic design, movie editing, programming, emulating other OSes, gaming [yes, there are a few games], and other more mundane uses) and I never had trouble with it until I brought it to the dust, humidity, and terrible roads of Cambodia. So, that seems more like a jab at the elitists you view Macintosh users as than a real critique.

Just how much will you guarantee that I'll enjoy a $200 5-year old laptop off of ebay with XP more than my, now four year old, PowerBook? I'm planning on keeping this one as my primary for seven years, I'm satisfied and I don't think that will change. I also use most aspects of it at least moderately, many heavily. Now, I'm not satisfied enough to go with a MacBook in three years time but, again, that's mainly the shift to "style over substance".

Now, a lot of the rest of what you say, I agree with. There was a time when Apple computers were superior, back in days of the original Macintosh, but those days are fading and it is becoming more of a "cliche" thing. I think you're reacting a bit strongly to the elitists but there are some points where you come across as a moderate (like how you use a computer is more important than what brand is on it) and I appreciate them.

Gorbash Kazdar

2008-09-25, 10:09 AM

Comrade Gorby: Shipping this off to Friendly Banter, since it doesn't really fit as a Media Discussion.

(eg. talking about the Mac vs PC commercials might fit in MD)

Poison_Fish

2008-09-25, 10:09 AM

While I'm inclined to agree that macs/pc's fail about just as much, my personal experience isn't the same way. I've maintained several PC's and Macs over my years, but nothing ever came to the record of keeping(and using) an old mac classic for well over 12 years.

My mac laptops, with some care and heavy use(I do a lot of video editing/photoshop/and music producing along with gaming, so not just simple browsing and word processing) have been fine until the pace of technology has outrun me, usually about 4-5 years after I get them. To me, that's a fine investment. On the flip side, I've seen a lot of PC laptops(Mostly friends, the only non-macs in my house are desktops, which are so-so) die to unknown causes. Usually them not being able to find their own hard drives. If it is to poor maintenance or something else I don't know. I've just seen more failures out there.

But, this is just my personal experience in the situation. I imagine the reality is different because most people, mac or windows users, don't maintain their system or hardware.

Kaihaku

2008-09-25, 10:14 AM

If it is to poor maintenance or something else I don't know. I've just seen more failures out there.

I think it's because there are hundreds, if not thousands, of companies putting together hardware to run Windows software. There's one company putting together hardware for the Macintosh software. There's a lot more room for freedom and, also, error when the system isn't so tightly controlled. Taking it a few steps further, a Nintendo is even more controlled than a Macintosh and how often have you had a system error that a reboot couldn't fix on one of those?

Telonius

2008-09-25, 10:22 AM

I've used both Macs and PCs (though no experience with Vista yet). Both seemed relatively easy to use. Way back about 8-10 years ago, PCs were pretty bad for breaking down a lot, but I personally haven't had any problem since I got my most recent Dell (I think it's about 6 years old now, though I'd have to check when I get home). Note that I don't do any online gaming, just internet, word processing, and spreadsheet use, so that might have something to do with it. Anyway, since both of the systems seem to perform equally well for what I want them to do, it really hasn't made sense for me to buy a higher-priced Mac. If Mac can put out a product that costs less than a PC, I'll happily buy it.

valadil

2008-09-25, 10:50 AM

Vista aside, I've used and supported both of them extensively, both professionally and personally. I'll stick with linux for now, but my next machine will definitely be a mac.

I've seen a ton of people switch to macs recently. They've all loved the new platform. I have never seen anyone intentionally go from mac to windows. I think that says a lot about more about the two platforms than anything technical ever could.

three08

2008-09-25, 10:51 AM

i can easily see how vista would be intimidating to users who're uncomfortable with it - every time you try to change any settings or install anything, you need to navigate warning and confirmation notices, sometimes two or three for one single action, and if you don't feel comfortable with the jargon, or with clicking through them, they might be afraid damaging the computer, breaking the internet, etc.

me, personally, i've been using, misusing, and troubleshooting windows boxes since i was 12, so i can manage, and i find the versatility of windows as a platform makes up for the greater need for troubleshooting.

recently, due to cost, i had to get one of them linux-having netbooks someone mentioned earlier. (my sexy desirable 1500$ vista lappy was stolen. :smallmad: long story.) the native OS is a custom build of xandros made specifically for the computer and hardware, and so for that it works fine, but a) none of the software that i want to put on it (wesnoth and wine/nwn, mostly) has very recent xandros versions, and b) it wouldn't recognize my mp3 player. basically it's not compatible with anything that didn't come with it. also the interface is kind of patronizing, which i guess is appropriate to their intended audience, but it aggravates me.

so, i have it dual-booting the native OS and ubuntu, but it turns out ubuntu has scads of compatibility issues with a wide range of wireless cards, and apparently from what i'm hearing i have to actually re-install ubuntu while it's plugged into the ethernet before i can get said network connection to function at all even a little.

this is complicated by the fact that due to size and power constraints, the computer has no CD drive.

i also don't have 50$ to drop on a usb cd drive that i only need for one install. (well, two, if you include nwn.)

i'm not somebody's grandma or anything. i know my way around a computer and am a pretty decent troubleshot, if i do say so myself. ubuntu seems to require a pretty substantial amount of dedication to pull off, though.

the thing is -

take a moment and try to put a dollar value on your willingness to spend a few weeks of frustration and some of your spare time trying to learn a new OS and make it work on your computer
go to a computer store or microsoft's or apple's website and find out how much a copy of your preferred OS will cost you
compare the numbers from steps 1 & 2, while bearing in mind that linux is completely and entirely free
???
PROFIT!!

valadil

2008-09-25, 10:57 AM

three,

Wireless networking is one of the things Ubuntu has been putting a lot of effort into for the new version. Try that one out on October 30th. If you don't want to deal with reinstalling completely, plug in ethernet, edit your /etc/apt/sources.list so that you use intrepid instead of hardy, and then run apt-get update and apt-get dist-upgrade (or just do all that in synaptic).

TSGames

2008-09-25, 11:04 AM

so, i have it dual-booting the native OS and ubuntu, but it turns out ubuntu has scads of compatibility issues with a wide range of wireless cards, and apparently from what i'm hearing i have to actually re-install ubuntu while it's plugged into the ethernet before i can get said network connection to function at all even a little.

I'm no Xpert, but this seems like a clear case of:
NEED MOAR DRIVERS

Have you looked up madwifi?

streakster

2008-09-25, 11:05 AM

I have never seen anyone intentionally go from mac to windows. I think that says a lot about more about the two platforms than anything technical ever could.

I'm one!

Had a Mac. Hated it. Replaced with PC, and am now happy.

three08

2008-09-25, 11:28 AM

i have looked into madwifi and i'm fairly certain it doesn't support my chipset. might be worth a try in any case, but eh.

my ultimate verdict, though, is this: when i finally can afford a decent gaming rig, i am probably going to put ubuntu on it. i imagine it'd be worlds easier if you put your box together and choose parts that are known to be compatible with it.

valadil

2008-09-25, 11:44 AM

That's definitely true. Linux's hardware compatibility isn't perfect, but if you do your homework when you buy parts it tends to work out fine.

RS14

2008-09-25, 01:45 PM

Well, I had a macbook, briefly, but returned it and accepted the restocking fee. It wasn't the OS so much as the keyboard and touchpad. Currently I'm using a thinkpad with a much better keyboard and trackpoint, which dual-boots XP and Ubuntu. It's pleasant to type on.

That said, I chose XP, not because the computer can't support Vista (it's more than fast enough), but because it offered me nothing. I don't buy new games, so had no desire for DX10. I'll accept that Vista is more secure, but with Ubuntu as my day-to-day system, I don't worry much about malware on Windows. And on XP, I'd always used the windows classic style. Eye candy doesn't appeal to me. Give me sharp-cornered windows and opacity any day. For the few things I use XP for, I just saw no reason to give HD space (the biggest issue actually; it's only an 80gb drive or so) or allocate RAM just to the OS itself. XP is, IMHO, the current sweet-spot between features and performance.

Trog

2008-09-25, 01:56 PM

Always have been a Mac fan and user. Likely always will be. Regardless of arguments on the programming side it is a side of the computer I don't often see. And I like it that way because it makes things easier for me as a user. Or maybe I just feel this way because I know all I need to know already about how to get what I want out of my mac. Mac has been the lead dog on developing user friendly GUIs and continues to race ahead. On top of that they have top notch style and marketing. The competition has always been playing catch up there as well.

Yes they are more expensive. Yes they might not be the best choice for all people. But for me there is no question it's the perfect fit. :smallsmile:

SurlySeraph

2008-09-25, 02:48 PM

I really prefer PCs. Windows works well enough and easily enough for everything I need, so I've never really looked into Linux. I'm putting off buying anything with Vista on it for as long as I can because of all the horror stories, though.

All of the Macs I've used were school computers, which admittedly probably get abused. But even the brand-new ones (and my school has a ludicrous computer budget - these were just released) tended to freeze up constantly, had very long start-up times, and often ignored attempts to start programs up.

Ranna

2008-09-25, 04:30 PM

Do you know what macs don't have?

Right click - unless you fiddle with the settings (or so I am told) But I DONT want to fiddle with the settings.

You knw what macs do have?

Shiny Shiny! - I like shiny.

You know what Windows XP/vista don't have?
The ability to change your start bar to all sorts of wonderful colours!

Conclusion

They're all rubbish! I want windows 98 back! - That was the best.

Flickerdart

2008-09-25, 04:35 PM

Kane

2008-09-25, 05:29 PM

Well, I built my computer a bit over a year ago, and installed vista on it, because it was 80-90 ish dollars, wheras XP was $200.

Naturally, karma decided I should pay for my cheapness. ( I was just trying to keep it under $600 for the total computer!)

Vista worked, but only for a given value of 'work'.
1. It looked pretty. It was nice. However, it crashed at least twice in the two months I had it. XP may have crashed twice in the twelve-plus months I've had it. I have a poor memory. I not certain.

2. I heard a lot about how Vista was supposed to make it harder to pirate games, or work on game verification, w/e. When I brought it home, however, any game that I actually owned wouldn't work. On the other hand, if I DIDN'T own it, it would work. Pirated version of Halflife (original, and may Valve forgive me)? worked. Borrowed copy of Mechwarrior 4? Worked. Borrowed copy of NWN 2? Worked. Owned copy of Oblivion? Nu-uh. Ditto for KotOR. Warcraft III didn't work either... And naturally I owned that.

It was all really perplexing.

Plus there's the fact that for most of the time I can remember, XP has been what's used. Which mean XP is nice and comforting. I know how to use it, and how everything is formatted.

And as a foot note, I'd like to point out with curiosity (I'm hoping for an explanation) and ask why all games seem to double their minimum requirements for Vista? You know, "3.5 GHz processor, 1 gig of RAM, (2 for Vista)"

Volug

2008-09-25, 05:31 PM

They're all rubbish! I want windows 98 back! - That was the best.

Speak for yourself.

*Is using Windows 98*

*Hates it to bits*

Cainen

2008-09-25, 05:43 PM

and then run apt-get update and apt-get dist-upgrade (or just do all that in synaptic).

This is a recipe for inviting tons of bugs in for dinner. Don't - a fresh install is recommended for a reason.

The wireless issue is really something not unique to Ubuntu, really, and I wish Ubuntu ran more smoothly than most other Linux distros I've tried simply because it's just so much less of a hassle to walk someone else through its use than anything else.

Spiryt

2008-09-25, 05:56 PM

Speaking of Man vs. PC

Rebirth of the Barbarians (http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=ZWUxp1TtLvE)

valadil

2008-09-25, 06:29 PM

Mac OSes have abysmal Tablet PC support. The platform is incompatible with most software out there, including games. The computers are overpriced and can't be upgraded. No, not the system for me at all. But it does have the shiny.

Well that part's just not true at all. The laptops are hard to upgrade, but that's true of any laptop.

Kaihaku

2008-09-25, 06:35 PM

Well that part's just not true at all. The laptops are hard to upgrade, but that's true of any laptop.

I've upgraded mine twice so I concur.

Do you know what macs don't have?

Right click - unless you fiddle with the settings (or so I am told) But I DONT want to fiddle with the settings.

You knw what macs do have?

Shiny Shiny! - I like shiny.

You know what Windows XP/vista don't have?
The ability to change your start bar to all sorts of wonderful colours!

Conclusion

They're all rubbish! I want windows 98 back! - That was the best.

You don't have to fiddle with the settings, you just have to plug in a two button mouse. It's stupid that they haven't gone two-button mouse but otherwise it's not a big deal - I'm not too keen on the Apple mice anyway.

Macintosh 6 and Windows 3.11 totally pwn the Windows 98 era. :smallwink: Actually, Windows 95 was a fun time before the security problems really starting picking up.

Reinboom

2008-09-25, 07:04 PM

Actually, Windows 95 was a fun time before the security problems really starting picking up.

Oh yes, quite a fun time. Ah, like when it was first demoed. Blue screens of death are always fun.

Windows 95 to me was almost as fun as Windows ME's short lived time. Oh the click the caution and error OK box extravaganza was always a good game to play, and the systems liked playing it so much. You could never get bored!

I outright abhor Vista. I have to fiddle with the system way too much to get it to perform simple tasks, and even more so to get it to perform specialized tasks. This bothers me. Also, I can't stand the memory usage and especially hate the compatibility issues.

With Macs I also have the compatibility issues. Also, the system is rather foreign to me on how to force different tasks. Most of their systems felt to me as though they were trying to be too common user friendly and forgetting the rest of us.. or.. more closely, me. Also, they failed miserably at doing some of their more technical "user friendly" tasks for me (having had to work on them when I was tech in a college). They would not network mass copy images, so, when we installed the 30gb video software editing suite, we could not just place it on an image and send it out to all the macs, oh no. Even though they had the option, all of them failed at completing it. Next, which made this worse, their firewire hardware was faulty. On all the machines. Not faulty as in "slow", no, faulty as in when we plugged in a firewire cable the machine just turned off. We had to deactivate firewire, and when installing the massive artistic/video/etc. suites we had to go to each mac and copy the image to via a USB hard drive. Which... we had to stay with the macs for through the entire time since if they were left too long on the image transfer screen they would just power save down and error the transfer.

At least with a PC I could more readily take apart the boxes and get to the hardware problems without worrying about the software and hardware tying a noose to each other.

I shall stick with Windows XP, OpenSuSE and/or Ubuntu.

Syka

2008-09-25, 07:16 PM

It's not that I don't like Macs...it's that they don't like me. :smalleek: Dead serious, every Apple electronic I've used- from school computers, to friend's computers, to iPods- has done something I didn't want it to do and made it a b**** to find what I needed to.

I actually asked if I could get XP on my new desktop, but they said I'd have to buy and uninstall Vista so I just went with it. Turns out the only real problem I'd had with Vista, since I'd been using the school computers, wasn't actually Vista. It was the Office 2007 stuff where they hid all the stuff. oO

I've been using Vista for about 10 months now and haven't had any problems, no blue screening or anything. The only computer issue I've had was hardware (something to do with the RAM needing to be reseated or something). Well, except my former MP3 player's software not working with it since the MP3 player came out before Vista.

For me, I avoid Apple stuff. They just don't like me.

And I can get a better MP3 player for cheaper. :) I loved my Zen, and I love my Zune. The interfaces are so much easier for me.

Cheers,
Syka

Trazoi

2008-09-25, 07:16 PM

You don't have to fiddle with the settings, you just have to plug in a two button mouse. It's stupid that they haven't gone two-button mouse but otherwise it's not a big deal - I'm not too keen on the Apple mice anyway.
The Apple Mighty Mouse also has a right click if you click on the right hand side of the mouse.

Personally though I find it a bit finnicky. And you can't click both mice buttons together in the very rare cases where that's required. I also don't particularly like the feel of the Mighty Mouse - it looks and feels like a bar of soap. I've got a standard Logitech mouse plugged into my Mac.

As for the impression that Macs are a bit elitist especially with the ads: that's the bit about Macs I don't like either, and I'm using one :smallwink:. None of the people I know with Macs tend to act like snobs, but it's a bit rich when the packaging and manuals have statements like "Congratulations, you and your Mac were made for each other" in it. :smallyuk:

DanielX

2008-09-25, 08:58 PM

One of my problems is that I don't like excessive eye candy - and Mac OS X, Windows Vista, and KDE 4 (on Linux/X) are all, in my opinion, excessive eye candy.

The big problems with Linux have to do with it not being installed on every computer the way Windows or Mac OS is. Therefore, it isn't tailored to your system by the factory, and it isn't supported by all hardware (the way Windows is), and you don't have a manufacturer cherry-picking hardware to match the OS (like Apple does with Macs). Also, you have to install it yourself, in most cases - and, while the install process for an easy distro like Ubuntu is generally easier than Windows, its not always easy, especially if you have to go hunt everything you need for a successful install.

I've never bothered with Wubi; instead, I use a soft-partitioning software such as Partition Magic (commercial) or GParted (free/open-source; comes with the Ubuntu Live CD) to block off a part of my hard drive for Linux, or else I just use a LiveCD or a VMWare virtual machine if I want to just try something.

At the moment, I'm waffling between Ubuntu "Hardy Heron" and Debian "Lenny" for my main distro of Linux. Debian is leaner, boots faster, and I managed to get my wireless network to work with it (though I think its because of GNOME - I tried Kubuntu/Xubuntu first, then xfce-Debian, then GNOME-debian). However, Ubuntu is a bit easier to use, and for some reason Debian won't "Suspend" properly (oddly enough, my old computer had the same problem... with Windows, and older versions of Ubuntu worked fine). I'm going to try regular Ubuntu next....

sheepofoblivion

2008-09-25, 11:16 PM

One common problem with windows users is they automatically assume us mac users are bullying people into buying PC's.

For the record, I don't generally discuss which is "better". They each have their use.

Also, stop with the flamebait. We both know apples and windows burn equally.

This isn't even a discussion of hardware, as apple for the most part uses the same processors as most other Brand PC's. So this is going to be largely a discussion of system if we get into actual serious system discussion here. Which, by the opening statements, we obviously aren't.

A couple of other points though.

A note on Alienware. This is simply a false opinion. I'm running a 2.4 GHz Intel Core Duo, with 2 gigs of RAM, with a GeForce 86000m GT(Which isn't that impressive). Not for $8000, but for $1200. I find that a large part of that cost, which was reduced for me, was with the system. I happen to enjoy the use of the system. On the whole, are most other brands for a PC cheaper? Yes. An exaggeration doesn't do it well though.

You are incorrect about the graphics of CoD2 compared to BF1942. The rendering of models in 1942 is much more minor compared to the amount that is happening in a lot of CoD2. CoD2 is a more graphically intense game. Please get your facts straight. The reason why BF1942 might require a similar amount of system power is because it's dealing with information on a greater scale. Your statement is full of hyperbole and simple opinion in regards to this matter. Oblivion isn't the highest in graphic intensity either now days, though it is decent. On a similar note, I like how they toned down the graphics for Oblivion on the PC to tout it on the Xbox. That was pretty lulzy.

Evidence: BF1942 requirements (http://compactiongames.about.com/cs/worldwariigames/p/bf1942_sysreq.htm). CoD 2 Requirements (http://www.ultimate-gamer.com/cod2/cod2.htm)

Also, yes I can run Crysis with decent settings. However, my time with my shooters is currently with 2142. Which runs at a solid 60 frames per second with the settings on high.

On the system itself. I can't exactly respond to a statement that has no substance, so I'll reside with a simple NO U.

Edit: Added a little more meat to what I was saying.

Hai, I'm sorry if I offended you, as stated above, but you pretty much just did what you accused me of doing... Add a little more meat dude. Don't pick at what I say... CoD 2 sucks in comparison to games like Crysis (graphics wise) I don't care about the content. I don't care about the requiredments. It's an example. If we had everyone here just poking at everyone else's posts, as one will undoubtably do to mine... Then we may as well lock the thread now.

Also, stop with the flamebait. We both know apples and windows burn equally.
I'm not sure what you mean by this. Individuals may actually go to others and say that mac sucks, but that's not windows saying it. It's a user saying it. I think that Mac commercials are (as pointed out by someone else:)

I've been noticing a few posts in this thread complaining about how users have bought Vista during its release, and absolutely loathed the operating system do to lagginess and sluggish response times.

I think this is as sheep said, that it was mroe a problem of hardware and software.

Microsoft took the long run approach with Vista. It uses quite a lot of computer power(memory, pure size of it, etc.), but it makes up for it by promising to be more and more effective as computers get faster and stronger.

Now,I admit, at startup Vista has had many problems. First and foremost is that people seemed to believe when it came out that all of a sudden there would just be drivers and support for third-party parts that Microsoft had never heard of!

I personally think that Apple computers and laptops tend to lag, freeze, and die on par with most PC's, the difference is that most Mac Users don't do enough with their computers for them to fail.

If all you're doing is word processing and web surfing, yes, a Mac will never fail and is wonderful for you. but then again, if you wanted that just buy a 200$, 5-year old laptop of e-bay and use XP on it, and I garuntee you'll enjoy it more.

My gripe with Apple has always been it's advertising side.I find the commercials offensive and rude, and that most rabid mac-users have a cult mentality.
i.e., 'buy a Mac and you're part of our community and you're cool!"

I honestly believe that Apple products are more a thing of fashion than use.

Also, Apple's famed 'we never crash or slow down' part?I work in computer repair.

The only reason Apple computers don't break down as much is because Microsoft outsells them 30-to-1, coupled with the fact that a person is hard pressed to open up and re-wire most apple computers and laptops(About 95% of all PC failures I see every day are caused by human stupidity, not the operating system. Seriously)

Seriously, whatever some people may say, Mac doesn't really even try to hide it. "Hi I'm a mac," "and I'm a PC" Mac: Cool, modern clothes, PC: nerdy, glasses, formal attire.

I mean, mac doesn't even need to do this! Windows doesn't even have commercials! This was in my opinion a low and rather annoying commercial.

Again, to all of those out there commenting on Vista's slowness/non-compadability. I agree, it does use up a lot of space, much more than it should, but I was saying that the computer is to blame, not the actual system. (even though... it sort of is...)

Windows is for Lazy People, Macs are for elitist people, and Linux is for Obsessive Nerds. And I guess MS-Dos is for Nostalgic people. Of course, emulators like DosBox, make Dos a dream to how it REALLY was. Yes, Windows ripped off the original Macintosh operating system, which ripped off the Xerox Alto. Linux offer choice, but for many people, Too Much Choice. This is only hear say mind you. Windows, seems to be possessed by the Shiny Bug right now. Rotatable Windows, Like, Why? That might be useful if say we had some kind of deep feild holographic display that allowed one to reach in and manipulate the Desktop in 3D, but a mouse only operates in two dimensions.
I have used Macs, and while they do seem to be more stable then Windows, I have seen them freeze up, and when they freeze up, they do it very well. The OP makes a good point about the fact that Macs only use a certain architecture, so of course they are going to be more stable. Of course, Windows isn't let off the hook completely, Vista seems to be made to made to make grown men cry.

Alright. Why... WHY? is windows for lazy people? I would point out how that is rude and stereotypical, but I just gave a rant about how we shouldn't be doing that to other people BUT. As a general rule, it's the other way around for me and nearly everyone that I know. Macs are supposed to be easy to use, cool, shiny. Windows are labeled as slow, laggy, crash easily, and hard to use. All of my mac friends will eventually bring up the whole "mac has easier shortcuts" thing. Anyway, Some people like the whole scroll through windows thing, even though windows already had it before mac, it just looks prettier on a mac... (try alt tabbing)

One more thing... My computer was easily bested by my friend's laptop, which he had gotten pretty cheap. My keyboard sucks, pretty much the only good thing about my computer is the moniter... And yet it can still play very, very good games. Oblivion, all though not that extreme in graphics, (I know, I may have exaggerated) requires quite a bit, and my computer, although several years old (not even a nice, shiny grey case thing, a tan one which can come apart by a toddler messing around with it) is still capable of all of these games. I bragg about having a good computer, but in reality, I'm dying to get a new one.

Not only this, but my computer rarely ever freezes, it only does because of faulty programs, ie internet explorer. And when it does, it only takes a control-alt-delete and the problem is solved. As some others informed us, when a mac freezes, it freezes bad. I personally prefer more frequent, but much less severe lag than rare but incredible lag. It's like earthquakes. You want smaller ones, not 1906 ones.

The force quit button is actually the self destruct/lag button. They gave it the wrong name, but couldn't change it back, because whenever it became involved, the system would crash.

I think it's because there are hundreds, if not thousands, of companies putting together hardware to run Windows software. There's one company putting together hardware for the Macintosh software. There's a lot more room for freedom and, also, error when the system isn't so tightly controlled. Taking it a few steps further, a Nintendo is even more controlled than a Macintosh and how often have you had a system error that a reboot couldn't fix on one of those?

thank you. This is what I was trying to say, but couldn't think of. (or that general idea/example thing)

A console is much, much better for gaming than most computers out there, apart from actual gaming computers. Why? Because they're made for it, duh! Exactly. Macs are made for convenience, and more importantly, apple computers are made for the operating system!

I'm one!

Had a Mac. Hated it. Replaced with PC, and am now happy.

woot! thanks! Also, I actually started out with macs... I loved it. And then I went to PC. And Obviously, I loved it a whole lot more.

Dear linux users: Linux is probably the best out of all of them, but it takes a bit to actually learn it first = /...

Do you know what macs don't have?

Right click - unless you fiddle with the settings (or so I am told) But I DONT want to fiddle with the settings.

You knw what macs do have?

Shiny Shiny! - I like shiny.

You know what Windows XP/vista don't have?
The ability to change your start bar to all sorts of wonderful colours!

Conclusion

They're all rubbish! I want windows 98 back! - That was the best.

Heh heh, I like the post, but as much as I love the whole right click argument, mac users have added that with their mighty mouse, which is oh so marvelous. My mouse on the other hand, is comfortable, isn't a while oval, is wireless, has an awesome scroller, has multiple buttons which all serve useful functions (actually not that many...)

AND ALL IN ALL IS JUST AS GOOD! (sorry... had to get that off of my chest)

(and.... vista is shiny too... just glitchy...)

Alright... after a long bit of responding to posts, ranting, defending my family's favored operating system's honor, I'm finally done. Stay with me though, it's only page 2, we need to see if it'll lock on page three!

Sorry if I missed anything/seemed to ignore anyone... but I can get pretty lost sometimes, and I just came back from water polo practice...

Poison_Fish

2008-09-26, 12:55 AM

Um, Sheep. I just gave you physical evidence disproving most of your statements and you pass it off as nothing?

Something you may want to re-read. I'm not attacking windows at all. I'm attacking your argument that you attempted to make. As I said earlier, you have barely any substance in your statements. What this means is most of what your stating isn't actually drawing any comparisons between the system, and it's largely griping about an operating system because of an advertising campaign? Ignore advertising for a moment (And some of those I'm a PC ads, which are just as silly as the Mac/PC ads), are we going to be comparing the systems themselves or is this just one big gripe feast about what methods that advertisers will use for Brand recognition? If it's the latter, then you've already fell into the trap of the Brand Name game.

Furthermore, I countered your wild claims with hard evidence. Don't write it off as "Well, Crysis has better graphics then CoD2, lol". We weren't comparing Crysis, we were comparing BF1942 and CoD2. A game which is a generation of technology apart from each other. Just as Crysis is several generations in advancement ahead. Nitpick it may be, but you were using this comparison to justify a statement. The problem is, the comparison you were using is false. Thus, the statement doesn't have anything to back it up. The requirements are basically refuting what you said. Thus, if you don't care, then what's the point in talking to someone who's just as rabid as the mac fanbase? They don't care about certain points that windows has over them.

So, yes, I'll pick when your example is false. If you don't like being shown to be false, you did create this thread. Note, I'm not caring about grammar and things that aren't on topic to "pick" at. This discussion of your examples are on topic.

A console is much, much better for gaming than most computers out there, apart from actual gaming computers. Why? Because they're made for it, duh! Exactly. Macs are made for convenience, and more importantly, apple computers are made for the operating system!

As a further pick, all PC's, be they running Mac OS or Windows, are made for convenience. Furthermore, at this point I'm basically running what a windows machine would be with a spiffy graphics card, a powerful dual processor, and so on. The only difference is 1. the logo on my computer 2. I'm running Mac OS. 3. I've customized my system to also run linux.

So, as a question for those in this thread. Is this a discussion of advertisements? How systems actually function? or is this a thread where we complain about our fellow Mac/Windows/Linux/DOS/Abacus users?

TSGames

2008-09-26, 01:58 AM

Hai, I'm sorry if I offended you,
STUFF

The only thing has me slightly offended is length of this post. Perhaps you should cut down on how much you quote by volume...

Danzaver

2008-09-26, 10:39 AM

The last half decent PC I had was a 486 DX266 back in the early 1990s.

Since then, we have always used macs, and I find that they are a lot more user friendly for people who don't want to have to know a lot about computers.

However, I have just, this last couple of days, got myself a PC. I won't bore you with the specs, but it is a pretty good machine and I am looking forward t catching up on about 15 years of games that I have missed out on, because they never came out on the mac :P

I'm about to become the only PC user in a house with 3 macs. Should be interesting.

three08

2008-09-26, 11:02 AM

I'd like to point out with curiosity (I'm hoping for an explanation) and ask why all games seem to double their minimum requirements for Vista? You know, "3.5 GHz processor, 1 gig of RAM, (2 for Vista)"

this is cos windows vista, by itself, eats up about a gig of ram, or so i'm told.

Tirian

2008-09-26, 12:16 PM

Microsoft took the long run approach with Vista. It uses quite a lot of computer power(memory, pure size of it, etc.), but it makes up for it by promising to be more and more effective as computers get faster and stronger.

Yeah, but the problem is that consumer-grade machines aren't becoming faster and stronger so much as they're becoming smaller and cheaper. You want to buy a cheap but durable 2 gigzhertz laptop for your kid to take to high school that can do perfectly competent (i.e. Office 98-era) word processing and email along with modern notions of secured intrapeer networking? Well, Microsoft doesn't think you do because their business model is assuming that no one is stepping off the Moore's Law treadmill. I'm not really convinced that Apple is much better in this regard, which leaves an obvious opening for Linux if they can only convince people that they don't need a Ph.D. to navigate the X Windows GUI.

bluewind95

2008-09-26, 02:46 PM

I'm a PC user. I dislike Vista. I like Vista. It may sound a bit contradictory, but let me explain...

I started using PCs waaaay back in the days of the Commodore64C. If I wanted the computer to do something, I'd type in the command. If I wanted it to load a game, I'd plug in the cartridge and if I wanted to do things in the game, I'd tap a key in the keyboard, or press a button on my joystick pad. If it did bad things, a fix was just a reset away(and in case of cartridges, a taking-it-out-and-reinserting-it away). Simple enough, worked for me when I was about 5.

Then came the PC as we know it today. It had DOS... and Windows 3.11. Shiny graphics! It had colors! It had letters! It did a lot more stuff! And you could play games without the hassle or inserting cartridges! As for why this was a hassle... keep in mind my age. I often had trouble putting a cartridge into the slot because it was a bit hard to get it all the way in properly. As a result, I often asked my dad to leave the cartridge on the Commodore, and I'd just connect it. As it was, I generally preferred to navigate with DOS, and would only load Windows when I wanted to play the games in it. Windows also had this annoying thing called a mouse. It was bigger than my hand and when I got to the end of the table with it, I had to lift it and place it back at the table, and it would move the cursor somewhere I didn't want it to move. This made dragging things like cards a hassle. But it had DOS! And I had a joystick for my DOS games. And so, it was good.

Then came Windows 95. Oh, gods, what had they done to my system?! Where was my program manager? Why did everything have to be done from an icky little button called "Start"? Where had my lovely DOS gone? But I soon found where my DOS had gone, and I found out that the file explorer worked just the way I was used to. And little by little, I made the transition. And it worked well. It was decently stable (... you'll see why I said that in the next paragraph) and problems were fixed with a simple reset, and the graphics were nicer, and it had more games and stuff to use. And I didn't have to give up on my old favourite DOS games, oh, no. I could play them too, and all in all, it was a fine thing.

Then Windows 98. Dear me, why did you change my system? It even looks the same! It works almost the same as- oh, dear, it crashed. .... Look, it crashed again. Hey, I can connect the scanner via USB. I just have to reset the syst- look, it crashed some more. ... Now my scanner's driver is gone! Oh, my, I opened two more applications than usua- oh my, it froze again. Windows 98, in short, did everything it should.... but you HAD to run it on a decent, fast (for its time) processor. If you dared run it on a Pentium 1 equivalent... well... yeah. In a more decent computer, Windows 98 was a lot more stable. But hey, USB, security... yeah, Windows 98 was good.

I did not try Windows 2000 or Windows ME. I had Windows 2000 at highschool, but it looked to me like a Windows 98 that was trying to be cool and failed at it. I mean, what was with the weird log-in screen? What happened to just an average run-of-the-mill dialog? But I didn't get to test it, so I can't really form an opinion of it.

But I did get to try XP, and my actual jump was from Windows 98 to XP. My first impression was "Ohhh, pretty!". The buttons were not so harsh, they were actually pretty nice to see, all rounded out, and everything. It had marvelous management of users, and I could have my own desktop and icons and programs and documents and colors, without anyone else changing them! ... Then again, it also let people turn the computer off from their session while I had left an unsaved document.... but hey. It still was neat. Making things work on it was a bit of a hassle at first, but eventually I had that thing running things from waaay back in the days of Windows 3.11 (Yes, I prefer the Win 3.1 version of Mahjongg to the overly-shiny, visually-crowded version that comes with Vista... or any other program I found on XP, and there were also some other games, like Jezzball that I wanted to play and couldn't even find equivalents. And sue me, I still like Loom, and the first Monkey Island :smalltongue:). It had some neat games, and ANY application I could possibly want would run in it. And things were very easy to run, hardware-wise. Scanner? Just plug it in, no need to reset. Printer? Same. Flash drives would, again, just be plugged in, and, with no need to install anything, it would be like a super-floppy. The system was a lot more stable than Windows 98, also, and didn't crash very often (I did manage a few BSoDs and a few MAJOR registry issues, but all fixable), and even though the programs would crash more often, the system managed to recover fairly well from that. All in all, I kind of saw Windows XP as almost the end-all, be-all of computing when it came to how useful it was for me. Oh, of course, I did have my major fights with it, like changing the color themes (I would be forced to switch to Windows Classic mode for that), and a good deal of security issues, and don't get me started on the adware and malware. I have spent many hours battling those things off my computer, although I've gotten better at it with my discovery of HijackThis and an antivirus which, while free and not always good at actually removing the virus, does tell me exactly what it's doing and makes it easier to locate infections manually. So, in all, XP can do anything I need it to... and just is a bit of a pain for maintenance, but I don't personally mind that.

And recently.... I came to possess a new computer... cursed with the most terrible of curses... VISTA. Vista was shiny, it was colorful, it exploded in a fireworks of effects. .... But that's not what I wanted. It was slow, and even clicking on the start button felt slow due to the terrifying amounts of effects (I am, after all, a person who prefers the Win 3.1 version of Mahjongg mostly because of ONE reason: I can turn the tiles into black-and-white to turn off the horrible visual clutter of so many colors and shapes all over the place). And of course, the poor computer had to LOAD these things. This used up so much RAM and time, that my sister's laptop, newer and faster than my old laptop, took LONGER to load and be ready for use than my old XP laptop. My new laptop seemed doomed towards this fate, and as soon as I got it working correctly, I would do what I could to rid myself of the curse of Vista, preferably by partitioning the harddrive and using Ubuntu as my main OS. I hit a roadblock there, as my Ubuntu disk refused to even load without a few tons of errors, so I gave up on that. I did, however, manage to turn Vista into a FAST operating system. All I had to do was turn off all those obnoxious visual effects. I turned to Windows Classic mode and 'lo! Fast Vista! I could also change all the colors I wanted, and all in all, I was pleased with my discovery. There are still things I dislike about Vista, such as it being so terribly whiny about loading ANY program. I had trouble enough installing my games. At first, running the setup from the disk resulted in "Setup.exe has stopped working". I nearly gave up until I finally ran it manually from the file explorer. And there was my answer. The whiny Vista was blocking the program because it was trying to ask me if I really did want to run it... but kind of kept forgetting to actually ASK. Running it manually solved that issue, and I finally got most of my games working on this machine. One does have to make sure not to forget to run many of those in administrator mode, but still... There are also some features in Vista that I do like, such as the search function in the start menu. I type in something and Vista fetches it for me. Neat thing, as I can load even documents from that without running the file explorer. Browsing pictures is also more awesome in Vista like by tenfold. Not only can you see the previews, you can actually enlarge them. As much as you want/need, too. Now, they DID mess up the Control Panel, and badly. But even though it takes like five times the amount of time to GET to the new options, you get to them eventually and they're kind of organized a bit more logically. Just.. um... after a few tons of windows and categories. Vista also has a much more severe tendency than XP to crash programs. I swear, I have crashed almost EVERY program that I have loaded on Vista... and several times, at that. But Vista recovers from crashes a LOT faster than XP does, and a lot better. And I have only managed to crash the operating system once. So far better than Ubuntu which, while awesome in its own right, I have crashed entirely at least twice. In less time.

Macs I don't use for several reasons. I have no doubt they're good systems in their own way, but they're just not for me. Everything important seems to be located in a single menu, not like Windows where you just click the other button and you get a list of everything important right where you clicked and just where you want to do something (admittedly, that function used by mistake in a PC can do some very iffy things). Then there's the whole taskbar thing equivalent. It stays small until you use it and then it gets these HUGE icons that MOVE for you to select a program. And they grow bigger, and the ones on the side grow progressively smaller until you have the normal size and when you move the cursor, this little BAND of things moves along with it, and it's really distracting and overly crowded visually for me. Then there is what other people have said: compatibility. I like to load games on my computer, and all kinds of games, at that. Even old ones from my days with DOS. I highly doubt those would work on a mac. And then I had someone tell me once "Well, that's why you dual-boot Windows and Mac". Ummmmmm, if I'm going to get a Mac so I can put Windows on it... why do I have a mac, again? I'd rather only have one system, especially if I have to pay for them both. What exactly would be left for use on the mac? Firefox? Photoshop? Office? IM programs? I can use those fine in Windows, without the dual-boot (just don't get me started on Office 2007. THAT is worse than any horror story I have heard about Vista. I use Open Office now, thankyouverymuchMicrosoft!). I also like switching between games and everyday applications quickly, so being able to use games along with my applications is the best for me. A Mac can't do that for me if it can't run the games I want. And I don't believe you can turn off the clutter of visual candy and have a system clean of it, like the Windows Classic mode. Windows XP was at the limit of my tolerance on visual candy. Mac and Vista (out of classic mode) are simply too much for me to tolerate.

As a last note, for those who say that Vista is a HUGE system resource hog... that is true. Very, very true. But... have you tried installing, say, XP, on a laptop that came out when Windows 95 did? It's impossible. My dad tried. It didn't meet the minimum requirements for such a thing. Same if you'd try to run Windows 95 on computers designed for Windows 3.11. The issue? Many, many laptops and computers are being sold with just the bare minimum requirements for running Vista at all, let alone running it well. Vista uses nearly 1 GB of RAM on its own... and that, at least, is without the visual features turned on. I would think that it uses more with all the eye candy on. Computers are being sold with 1 GB RAM... and Vista. And also some with 2 GB RAM which still doesn't really do much for the system. Mine has 3, and that way, it runs as well (even better, actually) than my old XP laptop. One must also take into account one last thing. 1 GB is a LOT of information, no matter the computer. And where does this load from? The harddrive. Desktop harddrives go at a fast speed. I don't remember the number, but it was like 7.2K revolutions a second... something like that. Laptop drives? 5.4 K. I may be off on the number of 0's, but I do remember the numbers 7, 2, 5 and 4 in there(and 7 was the first number in one, and 5 in the other). And the number of 0's were the same in both numbers. So, the difference is pretty large, and this DOES mean that a laptop with Vista can't run as fast as a desktop with Vista (provided it has a fast drive, anyways!). And 1 GB of RAM simply isn't enough. A computer that's running slowly will also crash more... and anyways, I think I made my point. The issue with Vista isn't so much that it's BAD (although it's FAR from perfect!), but that it's designed to work efficiently with the newest technology, that in the high end of the technology spectrum... and not really designed for the real technology market. It's a design flaw, more than a system flaw.

I'd speak more about Mac, but... I kind of haven't used it much for the reasons stated above. So in the end, I guess the answer in the Mac vs PC debate really lies in how the person works, not any flaws inherent in either system.

Ponce

2008-09-26, 03:20 PM

I'd like to say, for the record, that classifying computers as either "Macs" or "PCs" makes about as much sense as classifying all fruits as either "apples" or "non-apples." The whole notion seems to be put forward from the Mac advertising campaign anyway.

Anyway, I think the whole idea is moot. You cannot argue that any current operating system is strictly better in all respects than any other (Vista: people seem to hate it, I don't think it'll be any worse than XP, ultimately. If you recall, people moaned and groaned quite a bit about XP when it first came out. Mblaster, anyone?) The machine is only as good as what use you make of it, and how responsible you are with it. Anything else is just personal preference. I like bananas, you like oranges, what else is there to say? Any sort of critiquing comes off as tedious to me ("Look how long it takes to peel an orange! Eat an apple instead!")

Take this with a grain of salt. I have scarce experience with either Vista or Macs in general, but my understanding is that these operating systems pride themselves on not requiring experience, so there you have it.

Also, I can testify that madwifi ought to work on ubuntu/xubuntu/etc. Search the ubuntu forums; like many other conceivable problems, someone has already written a guide on it.

Resist77

2008-09-26, 03:35 PM

XP was palatable, even pleasant to work with. Vista was a nightmare (in my own subjective experience) Made the switch to Mac, and I have to say, I'm enjoying it so much more than any Windows operating system. Just my 2 cents:smallbiggrin:

Syka

2008-09-26, 04:49 PM

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xsN5hh2G7l8

Windows has commercials. Just thought I'd point that out.

Cheers~

sheepofoblivion

2008-09-26, 05:42 PM

Um, Sheep. I just gave you physical evidence disproving most of your statements and you pass it off as nothing?

Something you may want to re-read. I'm not attacking windows at all. I'm attacking your argument that you attempted to make. As I said earlier, you have barely any substance in your statements. What this means is most of what your stating isn't actually drawing any comparisons between the system, and it's largely griping about an operating system because of an advertising campaign? Ignore advertising for a moment (And some of those I'm a PC ads, which are just as silly as the Mac/PC ads), are we going to be comparing the systems themselves or is this just one big gripe feast about what methods that advertisers will use for Brand recognition? If it's the latter, then you've already fell into the trap of the Brand Name game.

*a bit of snipping was done here...*

As a further pick, all PC's, be they running Mac OS or Windows, are made for convenience. Furthermore, at this point I'm basically running what a windows machine would be with a spiffy graphics card, a powerful dual processor, and so on. The only difference is 1. the logo on my computer 2. I'm running Mac OS. 3. I've customized my system to also run linux.

The point is that I was just using that COD thing as a minor example, just throwing idea's out there. I don't really care if that was concrete or not. Arguments aren't all solid evidence, they're OPINIONs too. I realize I may have just told you to put in more solid evidence, and I just contradicted myself, sorry, but screw that. I was just trying to direct your attention at what you just said, Because I felt that you were being a nit-pick, tearing apart what I said. Which essentially, is in my opinion what you just did.

Arguments need facts to back it up. But rarely will you find a group of people weighing every variable in an argument, unless it happens to be a very important thing, such as a court of law. You can't go on the internet and even hope to sway the hordes of people. I'm just stating my opinions on why I dislike macs, because I feel that it's that some people, (for example, nearly everyone who lives around me) don't really know their arguments, and simply choose one and defend it.

I don't care if COD 2 is equivalent to 1942 because there are other examples. If I were actually basing my argument off of that specific example, then believe me, I'd be caring. But I'm not. So I'm not.

also, please leave out the bottom comment, or stuff like that. When everyone does that, it takes logic out of the picture and replaces it with anger. Not a good thing.

one last thing to say to you: About macs being about convenience: I simply meant that they're more about convenience than PCs. Many of my mac friends just like it because it's easy. That's all that I meant.

I'd like to say, for the record, that classifying computers as either "Macs" or "PCs" makes about as much sense as classifying all fruits as either "apples" or "non-apples." The whole notion seems to be put forward from the Mac advertising campaign anyway.

Anyway, I think the whole idea is moot. You cannot argue that any current operating system is strictly better in all respects than any other (Vista: people seem to hate it, I don't think it'll be any worse than XP, ultimately. If you recall, people moaned and groaned quite a bit about XP when it first came out. Mblaster, anyone?)...
*snip*

Thank you.
in other, less rant-style news:

OH MY GOD THAT IS A HUGE WALL OF TEXT!!!!!

I am soooo sorry but I don't want to read all of that... >.<

5 minutes later

okay, cool.... good arguments.... *collapses* :smalltongue:

Poison_Fish

2008-09-26, 06:32 PM

The point is that I was just using that COD thing as a minor example, just throwing idea's out there. I don't really care if that was concrete or not. Arguments aren't all solid evidence, they're OPINIONs too. I realize I may have just told you to put in more solid evidence, and I just contradicted myself, sorry, but screw that. I was just trying to direct your attention at what you just said, Because I felt that you were being a nit-pick, tearing apart what I said. Which essentially, is in my opinion what you just did.

Arguments need facts to back it up. But rarely will you find a group of people weighing every variable in an argument, unless it happens to be a very important thing, such as a court of law. You can't go on the internet and even hope to sway the hordes of people. I'm just stating my opinions on why I dislike macs, because I feel that it's that some people, (for example, nearly everyone who lives around me) don't really know their arguments, and simply choose one and defend it.

I don't care if COD 2 is equivalent to 1942 because there are other examples. If I were actually basing my argument off of that specific example, then believe me, I'd be caring. But I'm not. So I'm not.

also, please leave out the bottom comment, or stuff like that. When everyone does that, it takes logic out of the picture and replaces it with anger. Not a good thing.

one last thing to say to you: About macs being about convenience: I simply meant that they're more about convenience than PCs. Many of my mac friends just like it because it's easy. That's all that I meant.

Ok, so to translate, you don't care about the specifics, facts, or logic, you want to just complain? Because that's what I'm reading.

And leave out my comment about all computers being for convenience? That is what my "bottom comment" is. What I don't get is what it seems your meaning is that when everyone starts using logic to compare the differences between one computer and another it takes logic out of the picture and replaces it with anger? I think you might need to recheck that one.

And if we are talking examples here, then please give them. Unless your basing everything your saying off of entirely vague conjecture and personal interaction with the friends around you. Which so far is what has been done. The latter is quite fine for a view point, but if your gonna make a comparison, make one that's actually correct.

For example, a correct comparison would be: "I don't like macs. While my mac friends are stuck playing unreal, I have access to half life. I wouldn't want to use a mac because half life requires an intel processor, and my friends who are playing don't have computers with an intel processor. Most games released use this processor, thus, I don't see why my friends are being snobs, since they can't play all these games."

If this is the essence of what your trying to say, that's perfectly fine. But that isn't what your words conveyed to me.

Now, granted mac OS has migrated to intel processors, the example isn't entirely correct. However, most mac users haven't upgraded to an intel machine yet, so it's still justified.

And don't forgot. Internet is serious business.

B-Man

2008-09-27, 01:25 AM

I think that I may've said this in a previous "Mac vs PC" thread but I just want to share a few things that I experienced with Vista.

When I got my new computer earlier this year and it was a constant struggle to do a lot with it. At first I was not able to use my "Vista-ready" mouse (that is Microsoft brand no less) out of the box (later remedied when I finally got an internet connection). My quad-core 64-bit processor would redline after being on for 30 minutes and would need to be shut off (okay, I might be able to blame this on my using Vista Home Premium 32-bit version, but my cores have never shut off or redlined on XP SP 2 32-bit version). The sound would get all distorted after about an hour or so, no matter what program I was running (be it a game, Windows Media Player, Winamp, you name it, the audio was crackly). Service Pack 1 actually worsened the already jarring flaws of Vista that I had to grab my hands on a copy of XP to upgrade.

With the very limited amount of experience with a Mac computer, I must say that it was fun trying to use it. It felt very smooth, but I was kind of poking it with a stick (only had to use it for audio recording in guitar class... 3 years ago).

I've always loved Windows XP and even more so 'cause it's easier to customise than a Vista machine (for what I want it to do). I'm so accustomed to the customisation that I can do with SP 2 that I refuse to upgrade to SP 3 'cause I lose that customisation ability.

I have Vista currently sitting on my C partition doing absolutely nothing. I've not bothered to hack the bootcfg.exe to recover Vista from my shotty XP install.

Syka

2008-09-27, 09:11 AM

Jim Profit

2008-09-28, 07:58 AM

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Id_kGL3M5Cg

The only thing you'll ever need to see about Mac vs PCs..

Vaynor

2008-09-28, 11:52 AM

one last thing to say to you: About macs being about convenience: I simply meant that they're more about convenience than PCs. Many of my mac friends just like it because it's easy. That's all that I meant.

People using an operating system because it's easy? Why is that so weird? Isn't the point of an operating system to make it easier for you to do the things you want?

bluewind95

2008-09-28, 12:12 PM

People using an operating system because it's easy? Why is that so weird? Isn't the point of an operating system to make it easier for you to do the things you want?

No, there's a bit more to it than that. You want things to be easy, yes, but more than that, you actually want it to do what you need it to. An incredibly easy operating system that lacks key features will most probably be less useful than a more complicated one that has every feature you need. After all, you can learn to do things in a more complicated way, but the computer can't do things it's not programmed to do.

Vaynor

2008-09-28, 12:35 PM

No, there's a bit more to it than that. You want things to be easy, yes, but more than that, you actually want it to do what you need it to. An incredibly easy operating system that lacks key features will most probably be less useful than a more complicated one that has every feature you need. After all, you can learn to do things in a more complicated way, but the computer can't do things it's not programmed to do.

Name one key feature a PC has that a Mac lacks.

bluewind95

2008-09-28, 01:01 PM

Name one key feature a PC has that a Mac lacks.

Compatibility with every single program I could possibly need or want. Without any extra add-ons.

Ability to turn off most (or actually all) of the visual clutter (key feature for me, at least!)- Windows Classic mode.

Greater share of the market, which means that developing for the PC reaches more of an audience than developing for Mac.

Vaynor

2008-09-28, 01:34 PM

Compatibility with every single program I could possibly need or want. Without any extra add-ons.

Ability to turn off most (or actually all) of the visual clutter (key feature for me, at least!)- Windows Classic mode.

Greater share of the market, which means that developing for the PC reaches more of an audience than developing for Mac.

There's no program you can run that I can't, or that there isn't a just as good or even better Mac version of (that I know of, at least, I could be wrong). The extra add-on part seems to me to be the only thing true about what you say here, but I hardly think that that makes much of a difference except to include only PCs to have said necessary feature.

What visual clutter are you referring to?

See first response.

TSGames

2008-09-28, 03:46 PM

Greater share of the market, which means that developing for the PC reaches more of an audience than developing for Mac.

That's quite a fallacy there... Despite Linux's whopping 1% of the desktop install market share, there is comparable, if not more, development for it than for any other operating system: market share has nothing to do with development.

Cainen

2008-09-28, 03:49 PM

That's quite a fallacy there...

Not really. He said the development always has the potential to reach more users, which is true.

Trog

2008-09-29, 10:19 AM

Ability to turn off most (or actually all) of the visual clutter (key feature for me, at least!)- Windows Classic mode.

You're kidding right? :smallconfused: On my mac I have NO icons on the desktop whatsoever... not even a hard drive, a dock that remains hidden unless I need it, leaving only the semi-transparent menu bar up above. All standard features of the OS. Can't get much more minimal than that. Mac can do no visual clutter just fine.

bluewind95

2008-09-29, 12:00 PM

I just really dislike running things within things. They just don't don't feel the same. And sometimes they may get weird bugs(and yes, they get weird bugs on the real system, but it's generally different kinds of bugs). It kind of feels like an emulator and I don't like emulators except to mess with things. Like Windows 3.11 (which I recently installed on my computer. It's hilarious to watch it run on a new computer. But it still doesn't have the feel of the original). On my time with Linux, I fooled around with its native Windows-application-runner. Wine, I believe. The things I managed to run with that simply didn't feel the same. I don't like such changes, they grate on my nerves. If I'm going to switch systems I'm going to use things made for that system, not for others. Hence my dislike of add-ons for it (and in the specific case of Mac... don't you have to actually pay for said add-ons?)

About the visual clutter... it's not amount of icons and whatnot (though I do tend to prefer few icons). It's the colors and effects and general eye-candy which irks me. Compare the look of Windows Vista (normal mode) to Windows 95 and you'll see what I mean. As an example.... it is the difference between this (http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v600/bluewind95/Cluttered.jpg) (New Vista version of the game) and this (http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v600/bluewind95/Uncluttered.jpg) (The one from Windows 3.0 or so that I thankfully found the disk for). I dunno, all the general glowiness and colorfulness and prettiness of the new operating systems bug me. To me, it is a key feature to be able to turn them all off. And when I say that, I mean making it look like an older operating system in terms of how menus and windows appear. Vista had this awful thing where the title bar of the window would be semitransparent. And that really bugged me. And colorful. And pretty much animated menus and buttons and... yeah... :smalltongue: Windows classic mode looks like Windows 98. Simple. First key feature, check. (For the record, my main issue is that effects like that is that they will make me have an extremely hard time reading the screen for some odd reason). Also... (here I simply don't know), can you change the mac's options so that the text boxes such as the ones used for replying here show up as blue instead of white? As well as any other text-holding object such as buttons?

For the greater share of the market... yeah, I did not say that more development is done in Windows, oh, no! I said that since more people use Windows, if I make a program for Windows, it is more likely that it will be downloaded more than, say, a Linux version. Not something that will necessarily happen, either, but something that is more likely to. As I said... the potential to reach more people.

I am aware that points one and two are mostly subjective opinions. But to this particular computer user, they are key features, and the main reason this user isn't switching systems. Not even to the much more awesome Linux.

Trog

2008-09-29, 02:24 PM

Stuff

First of all I'm not sure I am certain of what you mean by add-ons. If you mean programs it's just like in windows. Freeware, Shareware, Paid Programs, etc.

And yeah the colors bug me too. I have converted my whole system to black and white. Look for the desktop thread on this forum... I had a screen shot of it. Quite easy to do with a freeware program I downloaded. Mac also has a graphite option to use all grey rather than other colors in the window frame itself. So not quite like 3.11 but I'm sure there are programs you can download to mess with the GUI of any operating system, including mac.

I guess my point here is that mac can be minimalized and modified just like any other OS. Not sure about Vista though. Not much experience with it and I'm not much of a fan of it either.

bluewind95

2008-09-29, 02:58 PM

Griemont

2008-09-29, 03:02 PM

... I refuse to upgrade to SP 3 'cause I lose that customisation ability....

What? :smallconfused: I'm a fan of customizing my computer, but I got SP3 for the performance boost. Please elaborate.

B-Man

2008-09-29, 03:09 PM

What? :smallconfused: I'm a fan of customizing my computer, but I got SP3 for the performance boost. Please elaborate.

There's a whole slew of custom themes that I wasn't able to use with SP3. I sort of just gave up on trying to force compatibility and reverted back to SP2.

Trog

2008-09-29, 04:24 PM

Woo! another who understands that more colors and shininess can be bad!

Anyways, for Vista, all I had to do was go to the control panel and then switch to Windows Classic view mode, which immediately got rid of all the annoying effects (and made the system fast, too). Then I just tweaked a few colors and in less than 5 minutes, I had the operating system looking just the way I wanted it to. It's nice to know that you can accomplish more or less the same for Mac, but it would be nice if it were integrated into the operating system!
Hmm... I spent a bit more than that getting mine just right. Of course I went a step or two further. Like replacing every icon with a black and white alternative. So maybe 10 hours from total scratch? Finding icons I like can take a while. :smallredface:

My desktop:
http://home.centurytel.net/jeffsjunk/desktop2.png

bluewind95

2008-09-29, 06:17 PM

SMEE

2008-09-29, 06:28 PM

Am I the only person who hasn't had an issue with Vista slowing down her computer or screwing up? oO I've got a lowish mid-range computer (the tower I think was maybe 4-500, then I got the package with a monitor, etc) in January and never had an issue with Vista other than my former MP3 player's software compatibility.

Cheers,
Syka

Not really. I've been using it with my laptop for a few mounths now and the only problem I had was with a dos program that can't run at vista 64bit, nor will run properly at dosbox due to the lack of long file names support.
So I installed virtual PC, and XP on it, and it solved the problem for that particular program.
I intend to rewrite that one, though, as I know the file structure, the binary signature of the file and how to parse the text input file, so no worries.

Vista has been a mostly plesant experience for me.

Syka

2008-09-29, 06:50 PM

Not really. I've been using it with my laptop for a few mounths now and the only problem I had was with a dos program that can't run at vista 64bit, nor will run properly at dosbox due to the lack of long file names support.
So I installed virtual PC, and XP on it, and it solved the problem for that particular program.
I intend to rewrite that one, though, as I know the file structure, the binary signature of the file and how to parse the text input file, so no worries.

Vista has been a mostly plesant experience for me.

oO I only understood the "I haven't had any problems either, except a tiny one" bit. :smallwink: I'm computer handicapped sometimes.

And cool new avatar. Aphrodite for the win!

Cheers~

Vaynor

2008-09-29, 07:06 PM

You're kidding right? :smallconfused: On my mac I have NO icons on the desktop whatsoever... not even a hard drive, a dock that remains hidden unless I need it, leaving only the semi-transparent menu bar up above. All standard features of the OS. Can't get much more minimal than that. Mac can do no visual clutter just fine.

Oh, goes he mean on the desktop? For reference, here is a picture of my desktop: (warning: large image)

http://i25.photobucket.com/albums/c83/Vaynor/desktopfree.png
And I guess if you want to include the dock... (it's HUGE! :smalltongue:)
http://i25.photobucket.com/albums/c83/Vaynor/desktopdock.png

About the visual clutter... it's not amount of icons and whatnot (though I do tend to prefer few icons). It's the colors and effects and general eye-candy which irks me. Compare the look of Windows Vista (normal mode) to Windows 95 and you'll see what I mean. As an example.... it is the difference between this (http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v600/bluewind95/Cluttered.jpg) (New Vista version of the game) and this (http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v600/bluewind95/Uncluttered.jpg) (The one from Windows 3.0 or so that I thankfully found the disk for). I dunno, all the general glowiness and colorfulness and prettiness of the new operating systems bug me. To me, it is a key feature to be able to turn them all off. And when I say that, I mean making it look like an older operating system in terms of how menus and windows appear. Vista had this awful thing where the title bar of the window would be semitransparent. And that really bugged me. And colorful. And pretty much animated menus and buttons and... yeah... :smalltongue: Windows classic mode looks like Windows 98. Simple. First key feature, check. (For the record, my main issue is that effects like that is that they will make me have an extremely hard time reading the screen for some odd reason). Also... (here I simply don't know), can you change the mac's options so that the text boxes such as the ones used for replying here show up as blue instead of white? As well as any other text-holding object such as buttons?

You can change the color of everything.

Edit: and as for your latter comments, you can make the dock permanently visible, change the transparency of it (turns out I was wrong, as far as I can tell), and make it so the icons always stay the same size, as well as alter that size. Let's see you do that with the Start menu! :smallbiggrin:

Here's an example of a small, permanently visible dock:
http://i25.photobucket.com/albums/c83/Vaynor/desktoppermdock.png
And an example of how the symbols stay the same size:
http://i25.photobucket.com/albums/c83/Vaynor/desktopnomove.png

TigerHunter

2008-09-29, 07:28 PM

Now... if one could get rid of that semitransparent thingy at the bottom and replace it with a much, much smaller thing that's not semitransparent and doesn't ever move all over the place, it would be just perfect.
It doesn't move all over the place. And why is a minor aesthetics issue like translucence such a big deal?

Or just get rid of it altogether and do everything with the keyboard or a menu.
Keyboard: command+space and type the name of the program you need.

Menu: Applications folder.

Trog

2008-09-29, 08:02 PM

Wow, that's pretty neat. Easy to see, uncluttered...

Now... if one could get rid of that semitransparent thingy at the bottom and replace it with a much, much smaller thing that's not semitransparent and doesn't ever move all over the place, it would be just perfect. Or just get rid of it altogether and do everything with the keyboard or a menu.

The thing on the bottom is the Dock. It hides itself automatically unless you mouse down to the bottom of the screen (if you turn on that preference). You can resize to any size you want in preferences with a moving slider too. In the new system it looks a little different and you can adjust the transparency as well. And that weird warping effect that the dock has on macs always bugs the hell out of me so I turn it off. QED. :smallcool:

sheepofoblivion

2008-09-29, 08:13 PM

Ok, so to translate, you don't care about the specifics, facts, or logic, you want to just complain? Because that's what I'm reading.

And leave out my comment about all computers being for convenience? That is what my "bottom comment" is. What I don't get is what it seems your meaning is that when everyone starts using logic to compare the differences between one computer and another it takes logic out of the picture and replaces it with anger? I think you might need to recheck that one.

And if we are talking examples here, then please give them. Unless your basing everything your saying off of entirely vague conjecture and personal interaction with the friends around you. Which so far is what has been done. The latter is quite fine for a view point, but if your gonna make a comparison, make one that's actually correct.

For example, a correct comparison would be: "I don't like macs. While my mac friends are stuck playing unreal, I have access to half life. I wouldn't want to use a mac because half life requires an intel processor, and my friends who are playing don't have computers with an intel processor. Most games released use this processor, thus, I don't see why my friends are being snobs, since they can't play all these games."

If this is the essence of what your trying to say, that's perfectly fine. But that isn't what your words conveyed to me.

Now, granted mac OS has migrated to intel processors, the example isn't entirely correct. However, most mac users haven't upgraded to an intel machine yet, so it's still justified.

And don't forgot. Internet is serious business.

huh... If you can form valid opinions/proper comparisons based on what I'm saying, then I don't see the problem... people make comparisons to help their arguments. All I'm saying is that I don't really mind if mine aren't the most accurate. This isn't my college application... So, if you don't mind, can we get back on topic?

Jack Squat

2008-09-29, 08:22 PM

To me, a computer's a computer. I don't game, so that's not a concern to me. In my house, I have Windows XP and Vista, Mac something or other, and Ubuntu. All work fine, except the mac. However, I'll just credit that to it being 7-8 years old rather than a design flaw. It worked great when it was new.

I will say that Windows Vista gets the most use because it's on my laptop. I've had no problems with it, although I don't think it'll run my (ancient) version of photoshop. I've had issues with Windows Media Player skipping while loading the next track, but I use Winamp anyways, so it's a moot point.

Poison_Fish

2008-09-29, 08:34 PM

And I guess if you want to include the dock... (it's HUGE! :smalltongue:)
http://i25.photobucket.com/albums/c83/Vaynor/desktopdock.png

Interestingly enough my Dock looks nearly identical to yours Vaynor.

huh... If you can form valid opinions/proper comparisons based on what I'm saying, then I don't see the problem... people make comparisons to help their arguments. All I'm saying is that I don't really mind if mine aren't the most accurate. This isn't my college application... So, if you don't mind, can we get back on topic?

Now, as an own personal nitpick, there is a large difference between "aren't the most accurate" and "not accurate at all". Your comparison was the latter, hence why I jumped on it.

The comparison I put in is what I was guessing you were trying to say. But I could never quite figure out what you were saying other then "I think my friends are elitist because of macs". I can't really discuss that much. I don't know those people.

I'll leave it that the discussion here has moved on to talking about GUI's for now. In which case, in my experience, I've found it faster actually on an XP machine to go a little more "old school" then on my mac(By a difference of me tinkering around for about an hour). The thing is, I actually enjoy the visual clutter. If I'm going to be staring at my computer screen all day, and I do my best to avoid it, I find it useful to have some more interaction going on my screen.

For my own Dock, I have it hidden on the bottom. No enlarge or warping effect. I find that a bit more useful with the clutter I have for programs.

sheepofoblivion

2008-09-29, 08:46 PM

meh... Battlefield 1942 is actually pretty good... but I'm really not going to dabble in the details. Sorry if my comparison wasn't "accurate at all," but it wasn't really the graphics I was focusing my attention on that much...

What I was trying to say (that I just realized) is that CoD 2, although a good game, which however good graphics, isn't really that close to games like oblivion, popularity/relative new-ness... Meh, that's just what I'm trying to say.

bluewind95

2008-09-29, 10:14 PM

Well, yeah, that desktop looks a lot better than the mac stuff I've seen. I will concede that macs are indeed not as bad as I thought.

I'll keep my Windows for the other two reasons I stated, though :smalltongue:

And Tiger, I don't know. I really don't. I wish I did so I could avoid the issues it causes me. I've literally gotten headaches and I have been rendered unable to read a page at all when the visual clutter gets out of hand. I was taking like twice as long to really read the window titles and kept getting distracted by the transparency of the windows in Vista. Until I turned them off, that is. Too many visual effects will do that to me. Frankly, if it weren't so inconvenient, I'd be tempted to use Windows 3.11 as a main operating system.

I would hazard a guess that it is related to a similar issue I have with noises. Too much of it (and not just by loudness!) will both hurt my ears and make me want to curl up in a fetal position and cry.

Vaynor

2008-09-29, 10:31 PM

Well, yeah, that desktop looks a lot better than the mac stuff I've seen. I will concede that macs are indeed not as bad as I thought.

I think you are similar to most people who don't like Macs, when presented with the actual facts about the computers to refute the misgivings about their ineptitude, most people realize Macs aren't any worse than PCs.

valadil

2008-09-29, 10:31 PM

If you like customizing your desktop, linux offers many more possibilities than windows ever will. Not only can you change the colors or shape of your buttons, you can totally change your entire interface. The most minimalistic I ever did was just a wallpaper. You right clicked anywhere on screen to get the start menu. No clock, dock, tray, or anything.

Oh, and sheep, do you have any pro windows arguments that aren't based on how well video games run? Yes, we all know windows is the OS for gaming. I don't think anyone is going to dispute that. I'm as much of a crazed linux fan as anyone, and I still have windows on my machines for when new games come out.

Poison_Fish

2008-09-29, 11:32 PM

CommodoreFluffy

2008-09-30, 12:23 AM

SHEEP! Why in god's (or lack thereof) Did you start this infernal debate. Uggh. .. Well, Here's my input. Linux is for advanced computer users, Macs are the best standard pre-built machines, And PCs are the whole range, from dell, to gaming rig. All are good, they just appeal to different groups. Mac is for a casual user, or programmer. PC is good for business and gaming, due to its standard and practical set up. And Linux are for those people who love their computers and want to make them as personal as possible. The thing I don't get is that Mac advertises as rebel, and different, but they are the least customizable.

bluewind95

2008-09-30, 12:32 AM

I think you are similar to most people who don't like Macs, when presented with the actual facts about the computers to refute the misgivings about their ineptitude, most people realize Macs aren't any worse than PCs.

I DO hope you're not calling me inept here. I may be ignorant of the nuances of the Mac system, having never owned one (so therefore the Mac systems I have used are NOT systems I can fiddle with. I can only see what is presented to me as default), but I certainly am not inept.

A few things. First of all, I never claimed that Macs are a bad system. Or that they are worse than PCs. I am completely aware that objectively, neither is much of a better system than the other. However subjectively, I can indeed conclude whether one offers me more than the other for my particular tastes.

The sentence you quoted me on should be taken on context, not applied to my entire view of macs. You might be aware, if you read my previous posts, that I consider "visual clutter" a bad thing. This "visual clutter" is simply all the effects (transparency, colors, animations, glowiness, etc) that BOTH Windows and Macs have. Now, I know for a fact I can turn all these off on Windows. Therefore, Windows is "good" in this aspect. I have NEVER seen a Mac with these options off. Not knowing what customization features are available in Macs, I can only assume that since no one uses them, they are likely not there. Therefore, Mac is "bad" for this subjective aspect. Then I am presented with the knowledge that you can indeed change these options. Therefore, I can safely conclude that Macs are at least OK in this aspect. Not having tested it myself, I can't really form an opinion. So therefore I say they're "not as bad as I thought". Because, hey, you CAN change the options. However, I do not know to what extent this would benefit me, so I can't say whether it is "good" or whether it still is "Bad" or whether it is "OK". All I can say is that it is not AS bad(because changing them is better than not changing them at all). And only on this particular aspect!

Now, see, all this is subjective. It is based on my perception of what is acceptable and what isn't as visual presentation. It does NOT apply to everyone and therefore, unlike your suggestion, I do NOT consider either Macs or PCs better than the other. They each have their advantages and their disadvantages which, on average, leaves them at about the same level, and the use of one or the other will really just depend on what you want to do with the computer and what you personally like best.:smallannoyed:

CommodoreFluffy

2008-09-30, 12:37 AM

I have to agree with ol' blue (mind if i call u that?). But I despise Vista. It eats up so much processing power with looking nice, i guess you can turn it off, but I still prefer xp, which I still have.

Vaynor

2008-09-30, 12:43 AM

I DO hope you're not calling me inept here. I may be ignorant of the nuances of the Mac system, having never owned one (so therefore the Mac systems I have used are NOT systems I can fiddle with. I can only see what is presented to me as default), but I certainly am not inept.

A few things. First of all, I never claimed that Macs are a bad system. Or that they are worse than PCs. I am completely aware that objectively, neither is much of a better system than the other. However subjectively, I can indeed conclude whether one offers me more than the other for my particular tastes.

The sentence you quoted me on should be taken on context, not applied to my entire view of macs. You might be aware, if you read my previous posts, that I consider "visual clutter" a bad thing. This "visual clutter" is simply all the effects (transparency, colors, animations, glowiness, etc) that BOTH Windows and Macs have. Now, I know for a fact I can turn all these off on Windows. Therefore, Windows is "good" in this aspect. I have NEVER seen a Mac with these options off. Not knowing what customization features are available in Macs, I can only assume that since no one uses them, they are likely not there. Therefore, Mac is "bad" for this subjective aspect. Then I am presented with the knowledge that you can indeed change these options. Therefore, I can safely conclude that Macs are at least OK in this aspect. Not having tested it myself, I can't really form an opinion. So therefore I say they're "not as bad as I thought". Because, hey, you CAN change the options. However, I do not know to what extent this would benefit me, so I can't say whether it is "good" or whether it still is "Bad" or whether it is "OK". All I can say is that it is not AS bad(because changing them is better than not changing them at all). And only on this particular aspect!

Now, see, all this is subjective. It is based on my perception of what is acceptable and what isn't as visual presentation. It does NOT apply to everyone and therefore, unlike your suggestion, I do NOT consider either Macs or PCs better than the other. They each have their advantages and their disadvantages which, on average, leaves them at about the same level, and the use of one or the other will really just depend on what you want to do with the computer and what you personally like best.:smallannoyed:

Wait, what? I meant misgivings about the Mac OS's ineptitude (the non-existing one). My post was in no way meant to be insulting. Sorry if you took it that way. I was simply saying most people who don't like Macs simply don't know much about how they work, and their opinion is based mostly off of rumors. And I'm also not saying that they need to get Macs, I honor their choice, just that they're not inferior, is all. I'm not saying there's anything bad about not knowing about Macs, merely that it happens.

thubby

2008-09-30, 12:45 AM

windows randomly decides to canabalize itself and devour all of my cpu and memory with... system idol processes?

CommodoreFluffy

2008-09-30, 12:46 AM

Well, there are those of us, who own both, and simply prefer PC due to the interface, which is more simplistic, and it's ability to play a vast multitude of video games. There are also problems with Macs, as well as PC. I'm just saying that we do have our reasons, and Macs aren't perfect, they are good, but not perfect.

@ Thubby
The system idle process is very important, it saves loads of energy, while eating up your cpu. it turns off after it realizes that the computer is being used.

Also, Mac computers are very nice pre built machines, but a custom is always better. it's like pitting a Ferrari against a formula one, sure the Ferrari looks prettier, but the formula one is made with the best parts possible, no gimmicks for cost saving.

bluewind95

2008-09-30, 12:54 AM

Vaynor

2008-09-30, 12:58 AM

Ah, OK. Yeah, your using "ineptitude" so close to "their" after referring to people and macs made it a tad confusing there. Sorry about that.

Anyways, yeah, as I said, overall, that's true. But if you're going to talk about particular things, then you have to admit that sometimes Mac will be superior and sometimes Windows will be. :smalltongue:

No problem, I can see how my post could have been taken as inflammatory.

I don't think I've ever said Macs are better than PCs. I think they both have their ups and downs, I simply prefer Macs. So, for me, Macs are better. For you, PCs are better. End of story.

CommodoreFluffy

2008-09-30, 12:58 AM

yeah. One thing I really dislike about Macs is that they leave programs open, which slows down the entire computer.

Vaynor

2008-09-30, 12:59 AM

yeah. One thing I really dislike about Macs is that they leave programs open, which slows down the entire computer.

I don't think I quite follow you here.

CommodoreFluffy

2008-09-30, 01:04 AM

Vaynor

2008-09-30, 01:07 AM

okay, on a PC, when you close all of a program, the program goes away, but macs just leave them there. So i often find the mac has Word, Excel, Photoshop, Illustrator, Mail, Firefox, Safari etc. all open at the same time, and the computer freezes when I try to shut one of the programs. It's like they have a workers union.

That has never ever happened to me. Ever. By the way, there's more ways to close a program than just closing the window it's in. If I want to exit out a program, I just hit +Q (program closer) instead of +W (window closer). I think it's actually a benefit, I hate the fact that the programs close when there's no more windows open. What if I just want to close the window, but not the program? Now I have to wait for it to start up all over again. :smallsigh:

thubby

2008-09-30, 03:21 AM

@ Thubby
The system idle process is very important, it saves loads of energy, while eating up your cpu. it turns off after it realizes that the computer is being used.

i know what it's supposed to do, problem is, it doesn't. let. go.
happens with anything really, point is, windows will randomly decide to be an idiot.

Trog

2008-09-30, 08:12 AM

okay, on a PC, when you close all of a program, the program goes away, but macs just leave them there. So i often find the mac has Word, Excel, Photoshop, Illustrator, Mail, Firefox, Safari etc. all open at the same time, and the computer freezes when I try to shut one of the programs. It's like they have a workers union.

Macs work a little differently than PCs needless to say and yes in some programs when you simply close a window you have not closed the program. You need to quit to do that. Is it annoying? Some might say it is. Some might also say it's annoying having to have program start up again everytime you open and close a window too. :smallannoyed: So 6 of one half-a-dozen of the other.

Also macs haven't had the "one program crashes they all" do problem since waaaay back in OS 9. :smallconfused:

CommodoreFluffy

2008-09-30, 07:00 PM

Well, it seems like Macs have a slower program initialization time, on my PC, I can pull up word, or flash, in milliseconds, instead of minutes. So it is more practical for the Mac to do this, I just find it annoying, because other people who use the computer don't know how to quit their programs. Also, i have a relatively new mac, and let me tell you, it does freeze up when you try to close a program. Just because Steve jobs says that it's fixed, it doesn't mean it's fixed, he isn't Jesus (http://fanboys-online.com/index.php?comic=4) you know.

Vaynor

2008-09-30, 07:03 PM

CommodoreFluffy

2008-09-30, 07:05 PM

meh, maybe i have a bad mac or something, or it has a virus (Macs aren't immune to viruses, there are mac viruses, it's just that most hackers prefer the PC platform).

TigerHunter

2008-09-30, 07:06 PM

Vaynor

2008-09-30, 07:07 PM

meh, maybe i have a bad mac or something, or it has a virus (Macs aren't immune to viruses, there are mac viruses, it's just that most hackers prefer the PC platform).

The virus is unlikely, I'm going to guess you have malfunctioning hardware of some kind.

I'll admit that Word takes an annoyingly long time to load, but minutes crosses the line from hyperbole to lying. And it freezes when you close a program? :smallconfused:

What's your "relatively new" computer relative to?

Funny thing - originally PC-only programs like word are the only ones that load slow on my computer. I tend to just use Pages, though.

CommodoreFluffy

2008-09-30, 07:17 PM

try photoshop or illustrator. Those run pretty slow, let me tell you.

ericgrau

2008-09-30, 07:18 PM

I've been sticking with PC for one reason: compatibility. Because if I can't use something, or have to do something special to get it to work with somebody else, I don't really care about anything else.

Real competition would involve a single standard (each OS runs the exact some software) and multiple versions for users to choose from. Copyrighting a standard leads to monopoly, and the thought of using anything else is a laughable joke... unless it is used for an isolated purpose independant of everything else. Like a video game console, iPod, Graphics-editing dedicated Mac, word-processing dedicated 386(honestly, who needs any new computer for that), etc.

EDIT: Nothing goes slow on my self-built $500ish (price w/o LCD display) PC/gaming-machine, even with game settings cranked up. Even my 4 year old $300 (price back then) computer didn't have any serious trouble unless I tried to play a game. Heck, my dad's 486 could load up the nice looking AmiPro word processor in a flash. It's more an issue of bloated software running on outdated hardware. Try Office 2003 if you're having trouble with Word. It's what we still use at work even though we update other software, and it works just great.

And if you can't run Office 2003, how much of a scrooge are being on your hardware?? It also helps to remove software running in the background. I see people with 27 versions of software they once used 3 years ago still running in the background, simply because it auto-loads on startups and doesn't show up except in task manager. If you can't handle that kind of cleanup or other error fixing, just backup your documents, make sure you have the CDs for all your programs and spend the couple hours it takes to reinstall windows and everything else.

TigerHunter

2008-09-30, 07:21 PM

Funny thing - originally PC-only programs like word are the only ones that load slow on my computer. I tend to just use Pages, though.
That's what I attribute it to. I still use Office because when I'm familiar with it, and iWork didn't come pre-installed.

Vaynor

2008-09-30, 07:23 PM

try photoshop or illustrator. Those run pretty slow, let me tell you.

Those both start up slow on PCs too...

CommodoreFluffy

2008-09-30, 07:31 PM

...I guess, but it really depends on what you mean "PC". PC can mean anything from a crappy dell, or a high end gaming, or professional computer.

Vaynor

2008-09-30, 07:32 PM

...I guess, but it really depends on what you mean "PC". PC can mean anything from a crappy dell, or a high end gaming, or professional computer.

PC means every Windows-running computer I've ever used.

Obviously on a high-end PC it will load faster, the same goes for a high-end Mac.

CommodoreFluffy

2008-09-30, 07:40 PM

I think this is how it goes:
Bad-------------------Godlike
----^--------^-----^
----PCs------Macs--PCs

Vaynor

2008-09-30, 07:53 PM

I think this is how it goes:
Bad-------------------Godlike
----^--------^-----^
----PCs------Macs--PCs

Oh yes. Because Macs REFUSE to make high-end computers.

CommodoreFluffy

2008-09-30, 07:56 PM

Oh yes. Because Macs REFUSE to make high-end computers.
It's not that they refuse to, It's just that you can put anything you want into a PC...I once had a turkey sandwich in mine.

TigerHunter

2008-09-30, 07:57 PM

It's not that they refuse to, It's just that you can put anything you want into a PC...I once had a turkey sandwich in mine.
:smallconfused:

CommodoreFluffy

2008-09-30, 08:02 PM

YEP! A Turkey sandwich! But seriously, if you really want your computer to be Top of the line, like TOP top, you get an extremely overclocked custom pc.

TigerHunter

2008-09-30, 08:06 PM

YEP! A Turkey sandwich! But seriously, if you really want your computer to be Top of the line, like TOP top, you get an extremely overclocked custom pc.
And install Leopard on it.

But in all seriousness, Windows is the most popular OS. Of course there will be more companies devoting resources to developing better machines for it--there's more profit there. That's not the fault of the OS or the company producing it.

Pandaren

2008-09-30, 08:08 PM

Vaynor

2008-09-30, 08:08 PM

TigerHunter

2008-09-30, 08:10 PM

I would liek to point at that MAC's now have just as much, if not more, viruses jumping around in them.

MAC's used to not have viruses, and weren't a problem, until people actually started using them, until the later models came out, they were deemed to unimportant to bother creating virusses for.
Source, please? As far as I'm aware, there's only been a single virus that's managed to infect Leopard, and that was an isolated incident of someone wanting to prove it could be done. It didn't manage to spread beyond the few guys he duped into downloading the program.

Trog

2008-09-30, 08:22 PM

Mac can get viruses. Though that last one I got was when I was running system 8.0. There are viruses out there for any system but PCs have the most. At least according to any anti-virus site I have gone to. That's just a product of being the most prevalent operating system though... not being inferior. Despite what Apple would have you believe.

Also I fail to see how PCs can be godlike... since they keep copying macs. Imitation being the most sincere form of flattery after all.

sheepofoblivion

2008-09-30, 08:25 PM

ya know, I sorta got lost... my work here is done. [unsubscribes to thread...]

(not really)

CommodoreFluffy

2008-09-30, 08:35 PM

Well, vista does, and vista is horrible.

Trog

2008-09-30, 10:00 PM

The prior version of windows did (copy mac) too, actually. You'd have to go back to Windows 3.1 to find a non-mac influenced PC, really. So from Windows 95 and on my point still stands.

Vaynor

2008-09-30, 10:03 PM

Well, vista does, and vista is horrible.

Vista being horrible has nothing to do with Macs, they just messed up the copy.

Regardless, technically any personal computer as it is today is copying Macs, they kinda invented it.

CommodoreFluffy

2008-09-30, 10:11 PM

This is true, but its open for everyone today. Thats like your teacher blaming you for plagerizing the dictionary for the word "the"

TigerHunter

2008-09-30, 11:33 PM

This is true, but its open for everyone today. Thats like your teacher blaming you for plagerizing the dictionary for the word "the"
When did anyone ever bring up the p word? We never said that there was anything wrong with them having copied it (other than the fact that they did a crappy job of it).

Vaynor

2008-10-01, 12:13 AM

This is true, but its open for everyone today. Thats like your teacher blaming you for plagerizing the dictionary for the word "the"

You said vista copied Macs, which made vista crap. My point was every PC copies Mac, so the point was void.

thestarvingpoet

2008-10-01, 10:38 AM

I have never had a virus. Ever.

Me either, and I've always had a PC. In most cases getting viruses is about how intelligent of a computer user you are, rather than the operating system. Yes there are a bajillion more viruses for PC's but you can still not get one if you're a smart user.

sheepofoblivion

2008-10-01, 07:16 PM

You said vista copied Macs, which made vista crap. My point was every PC copies Mac, so the point was void.

How is every PC copying macs? If you're saying that because macs came first, then should everyone else stop breathing because someone else started it? No, it was a good idea/system, so people started using it. That's more like saying nintendo and sony copied the xbox's wireless controllers!

I have no idea, it's probably the other way around, and I don't want to get into it, but the point is who cares? Now that it's out, it does't matter.

Vaynor

2008-10-01, 07:46 PM

How is every PC copying macs? If you're saying that because macs came first, then should everyone else stop breathing because someone else started it? No, it was a good idea/system, so people started using it. That's more like saying nintendo and sony copied the xbox's wireless controllers!

I have no idea, it's probably the other way around, and I don't want to get into it, but the point is who cares? Now that it's out, it does't matter.

I'm not saying anythings bad about it. He said by copying Macs, vista sucked. I'm saying by that logic, every comp should suck. Because every computer at one time has copied Macs, and Macs have at one time copied other computers. Again, nothing bad about it. But it doesn't mean the other is bad because of the copying.

TSGames

2008-10-01, 10:23 PM

Me either, and I've always had a PC. In most cases getting viruses is about how intelligent of a computer user you are, rather than the operating system. Yes there are a bajillion more viruses for PC's but you can still not get one if you're a smart user.

I caught a virus once on my mac OS 10.4; as you said, it was because I was not being a smart user. I was using Safari, instead my precious Firefox(which is superior in every way, including security), and I caught the virus through a buffer overflow in the Safari cache. Needless to say, I was a bit surprised, and I think the virus would've been too, as my mac is probably one of the few in the world with a virus scanner on it. I took a bit of a heavy handed approach, and simply restored my hard drive from my external backup, in addition to completely purging any and every file having to do with Safari(I really don't like that browser). Could I have simply deleted the virus? Yes, but I prefer over the top and unnecessary security measures to normal ones, and I needed to restore anyway.

Kaihaku

2008-10-01, 10:35 PM

That's more like saying nintendo and sony copied the xbox's wireless controllers!

Only Nintendo had wireless controllers long, long before X-box was even a gleam in Bill Gate's eyes.

TigerHunter

2008-10-01, 10:37 PM

Only Nintendo had wireless controllers long, long before X-box was even a gleam in Bill Gate's eyes.
OS wars and console wars in the same thread.

Sounds like quite the party.

CommodoreFluffy

2008-10-01, 10:41 PM

Exactly. One thing I know for sure is that my friend's friend watches too much porn on his mac, and now it's internet, and processing power is busted. It is horrible for the computer to get viruses, even if Steevie Wonder (My new nickname for Job's (I wonder why?)) says it isn't. If you browse smart, you won't get a virus, if you browse indiscriminately, you WILL catch a virus.

sheepofoblivion

2008-10-01, 11:20 PM

I have no idea, it's probably the other way around, and I don't want to get into it, but the point is who cares? Now that it's out, it does't matter.

Heh, sorry, I didn't want to get into a console battle... maybe you didn't really see this. I really had no idea which came first, I was just using an example...

Krytha

2008-10-02, 12:33 AM

Eh.. I just bought a mac, and then dual booted it so it runs XP all the time. It works.

Yarram

2008-10-02, 08:47 AM

Mac is an excellent operating system for running music creating programs like Cubasic and Reason.
XP is a great operating system for running games.
Vista sucks.
Personally I'm a fan of Linux though because using Linux I have never, EVER got any kind of error.

Linux doens't get viruses, but thats not important, what's important is that the operating system runs the applications you need and performs the functions you want it to. Because I use the internet, and I program Linux is awsome, and at the same time if I EVER want to run a program for another OS I can boot VirtualBox and run it inside Linux anyway.
I've used all the main operating systems for some periods of time and my computer has ran all of them at some stage excepting OSX, and I've found booting Linux then booting another operating system inside Linux is faster than booting that operating system first off. With my computer I timed it, and it takes 2 and a half minutes to boot XP, (this is when I set it up as dual boot) One minute to boot Ubuntu Linux and 15 seconds to boot Windows in VirtualBox inside Linux.
(Note: I consider computers to have booted, when you have launched the first program sucessfully after turning on your computer)

Moving on though, for those who don't understand how networking works, I'd give them XP any day, just because it's easier to pick up than any other operating system. On the other hand, if I wanted to record music I'd use Mac, but when it comes to just surfing the web, or playing a game or two, I'll usually open up Linux, just because it is far more efficient, and less annoying than the other operating systems. (I actually know a guy who has forbidden his children to use a non-linux operating system at school because he hates them. Funny world hey?)

Between Windows and Mac, both have their strengths, but if I had a choice of one or the other I'd go with windows, just because it is easier to find software compatible with it.
(Also it's really annoying lauching programs on Mac if you don't allready have them in your bar because you have to search through the entire system)

EDIT: I missed this.

How is every PC copying macs? If you're saying that because macs came first, then should everyone else stop breathing because someone else started it? No, it was a good idea/system, so people started using it. That's more like saying nintendo and sony copied the xbox's wireless controllers!

I have no idea, it's probably the other way around, and I don't want to get into it, but the point is who cares? Now that it's out, it does't matter.

Yeah I agree with your point but I want to clarify:
1. Mac is a copy of Unix
2. Windows is almost completely unique in it's source code and they havn't borrowed anything from any other operating systems (except the appearence of certain programs, i.e. Internet Explorer has all its buttons in the exact same place as mozilla firfox did originally)(Not stealing idea's is part of the reason why windows sux. Just because someone else had it first, doesn't mean it's not good). Window's runs on an .exe system, that runs many .exe file simultaneously and its because of this system viruses are so easily made for windows, because all you have to do is program an exe file that will launch on startup.
3. Linux is a copy of Unix.