January 29, 2007
Unless you've recently emerged from a coma, you know the consumer versions of Microsoft's new Vista operating system ship Tuesday. Over the next few weeks, many people will try to convince you to move to Windows Vista, from design friends to product and software makers.
This column is not a review of Windows Vista. I'm not here to tell you about Vista or what's wrong with it.
This article is for those of you who are about to download or purchase Windows Vista and install it on a PC. I'm here to talk you out of it. Just say no to Windows Vista -- for now. Here's why.
1. Vista is incomplete
Microsoft is already planning its first service pack and seeking input from users on what to include. Vista probably won't be truly ready for prime time until that first service pack version, possibly later this year.
The hardware and software companies that make compatible products for Vista aren't all ready for the new OS. Many of those companies are scrambling to complete Vista drivers and updates. Most importantly, not all video and sound card companies are ready.
Audio and peripheral maker Creative publishes a list detailing the status of drivers for each of its many products. Most of their Sound Blaster Internal products already have Vista drivers available. Two of them have only a "beta 2" version of the drivers. Three of their older products say "No Development Planned." Most of their cameras and other peripherals have no Vista-specific drivers available.
On the Advanced Micro Devices site, you can find information about Vista readiness of ATI graphics cards (AMD and ATI merged last year). Most are supported by a Catalyst Vista Software Driver, which is "beta," and are plagued by a long list of published "known issues." It also comes with the following warning: "ATI does NOT recommend installing these drivers in systems used for mission critical operations or where productivity of any kind is a concern."
These two companies are on the leading edge of supporting Vista. Their partial readiness for Vista is symptomatic for the larger companies. Many smaller peripheral makers simply have no Vista support at all.
At least OEMs, Alienware and Polywell, are aggressively pushing XP over Vista, because both say graphics and other drivers for Vista aren't quite ready for prime time.
Software, such as the security suites you may have already paid for, may not run on Vista, and some require updates that aren't ready yet.
Trend Micro, Panda, CA and Symantec all have announced that they'll ship updated suites on Tuesday -- just in time for the consumer availability of Vista.
Microsoft claims McAfee will support Vista, but hasn't said when. The company itself has not announced Vista support. And some, but not all, ZoneAlarm products will support Vista by next week. The smaller the company, the longer it will generally take for them to support Vista.
Gaming on Vista -- and Vista's DirectX 10 graphics support -- is awesome for gamers. But that's something you'll be able to fully take advantage of only later. The full gaming potential of DirectX 10 requires three elements -- an operating system, supporting graphics hardware and supporting games. The operating system is ready, the graphics hardware is partly ready, and the games are nowhere. Eventually, Vista will be the ultimate PC gaming platform. But there's simply no reason for gamers to rush out and buy Vista next week.
2. Vista is expensive
Microsoft offers three versions of Vista to home users -- Home Basic, Home Premium and Ultimate. You can buy any of these in the upgrade version with a discount, or the stand-alone version without the discount.
The cheapest way for current Windows XP users to get a legal copy of Vista is to buy the upgrade version of Home Basic. But you don't want the cheapest version.
First, the upgrade version will require you to keep your Windows XP CD for years. You do have a Windows XP CD handy, don't you? Second, Home Basic just won't cut it for most people. It lacks the Aero UI and Media Center capabilities. Plus, you can't connect Xbox peripherals to Home Basic. For many, including yours truly, those are the three best reasons to upgrade to Vista in the first place.
Home Premium is roughly equivalent to Windows XP Home. It's for nontechnical, nonpower users who use their system for lightweight, personal use only. But if you're the kind of person who currently runs Windows XP Pro at home you'll be happiest with Windows Vista Ultimate. It's got all the fun and goodies of Home Premium, plus the power-user features in the business version of Vista.
Are you sitting down? The full version of Windows Vista Ultimate costs $399 in the US. If you have an XP CD, and don't mind the hassle, the upgrade version of Vista Ultimate costs $259. Ouch!
(If you buy the Ultimate Edition, you'll be able to buy additional copies of Vista Home Premium at a cost of $49.99. For technical users, the ideal scenario for many will be Ultimate for you and Home Premium for the spouse and kids.)
The cheapest Vista is the copy that comes with a new PC because you get in on the reseller's steep discount.
3. Vista wants a new PC
To get full value from Vista, you're probably going to want to buy a new, Vista-optimized PC. Many of the benefits of Vista require hardware your current PC doesn't have. "ReadyBoost" and "ReadyDrive," for example, require special hybrid or flash drives. Aero looks awesome, but only if your graphics card supports Pixel Shader 2.0. You can record high-definition cable TV, but only with a tuner card designed to take advantage of that Vista feature. You can enjoy DirectX 10 games, but only with a compatible video card.
Vista's new indexed searching is great, but you'll need extra hard disk space for the index -- and extra storage for the operating system itself. Don't even think about running Vista on a system with less than 1GB of RAM; 2GB is reasonable and 4GB is the sweet spot. And if you want to really enjoy the Aero eye candy, you'll want a 20-inch or larger flat-panel LCD display.
Sure, you can buy Vista and install it on an old PC. But that's like subscribing to HD cable, but not buying an HD TV. You're paying for the HD experience but not actually experiencing it.
4. Vista is time-consuming
Installing any new operating system is time-consuming. You have to configure everything, load your data, install your applications and get your peripherals working. Then, in the case of Vista, you have to figure out where Microsoft buried all the options, menus and features and get used to the ubiquitous Search boxes. Anytime you want to do anything in Vista, it seems, the software asks, "Are you sure?" You'll want to figure out how to turn that off and customize Vista to get rid of all its annoying "user-friendly" hand-holding "features."
But buying Vista now, and installing it on old hardware, adds additional, time-consuming tasks -- possibly an additional day or two. Why? Chances are, you'll have to hunt down, install and troubleshoot new drivers for your old peripherals and system components.
You may have heard about Windows Easy Transfer, which moves files and settings from XP to Vista. But don't get too excited about this. It works only after you've re-installed all your applications; it doesn't actually move installed applications, just settings and data.
By waiting, and getting Vista on your next PC, you'll save yourself the pain and hassle of trying to retrofit your old PC with the new operating system.
5. Windows XP isn't obsolete
Vista adds new benefits and, in the long run, will make computing easier, faster and a lot more fun. But it doesn't really "solve" any existing problem. Windows XP -- after years of service patches and strong, industrywide support -- is a solid, well-understood and highly functional operating system. And it will continue to be well supported. Microsoft itself has committed to at least seven more years of XP support, and even plans a Service Pack 3 next year.
Gartner says that by the end of the year, XP will be installed on 77.1 percent of all PCs worldwide, and Vista on just 12.3 percent. That means the industry will make sure their new products still work great on XP.
6. Vista may be the best reason yet to buy a Mac
That's right. I said it.
Years ago, "switching" from Windows to a Mac was nearly impossible for most people. We relied entirely on desktop applications, many of which had no equivalents on the Mac platform. Today, so much of what we do is online -- and Apple has done such a good job of making the transition easier -- that leaving Windows and moving to a Mac is perfectly doable for most people. It's a real choice now, and mostly a matter of preference.
With Windows Vista as the default operating system on any new system you buy, it makes sense to consider moving to a Mac. After all, Vista will force you to learn a new operating system anyway, and -- in the short term -- one less supported than XP. In either case, you'll be using a 3-D interface, widgets and other goodies.
Apple will start selling the next version of OS X, code-named Leopard, this spring. The details of this operating system are secret, but it's likely that it will be spectacular. All may be revealed as soon as next month. If you're going to buy a new PC this spring, you might as well check out Leopard before making your choice.
Under what circumstances should you "switch" to a Mac? Apple fans will tell you that the answer is obvious: If you want your system to crash less, run with fewer hassles and fewer security breaches, then buy a Mac. But that's the Mac user's world view.
If you're looking to make that decision from the PC users world view, here's a more practical checklist.
Consider switching to a Mac if:
-- You're not into PC gaming.
-- You don't have any Windows-only applications you'd still like to run without emulation.
-- You don't have major PC hardware investment -- such as expensive flat-screen LCD displays -- to take advantage of.
-- You don't have non-Mac applications that are required by your employer for working at home.
Most Windows users won't make that choice, however. For most of us, resistance is futile -- and unnecessary and undesirable. Windows Vista is a truly great version of Windows with enormous benefits and will be a lot of fun to use.
But before you upgrade the hard way -- and on the wrong hardware and before the industry is fully ready to support it -- take a moment and consider: What's the rush?
Posted by: Mike Elgan
Submit to:
Comments
Posted by aegil on January 29, 2007 :
well said
Posted by CanDoWithoutVista on January 29, 2007 :
What's the rush? My question exactly. Why is it that, literally overnight, all new PCs come with Vista, and the customer does not have the option to choose XP?
What I most despise about Vista is its copyright protection features that could mistakenly disable or interfere with a program or even shut the whole system down. I feel no need whatsoever to acquire this Damocles Sword.
Posted by S.A.T. on January 29, 2007 :
I love the conclusion, "buy a Mac" ... How much did Apple pay you for this "news"?
Posted by mWolf on January 29, 2007 :
Windows Vista is the best reason to switch to Linux!
All the software, security, bling for free!
Viva Ubuntu!
Posted by Ellin Beltz on January 29, 2007 :
Greetings: Windows 98 caused my switch to Mac in 2001 when I saw the blue screen of death for the last time. I had been a committed W's user since my first amber monitor gave up and I got my first W's machine. But the blue screen of death and the constant crashes finally sent me to a store for a new computer. The store was full of W's machines and one Mac, the white ball one with the moveable screen. The salesman said he'd been having lots of fun since the mac arrived. He said it wasn't that different that W's and when he found out I write and use email and the Web insisted on showing me the Mac. I fell in love.
Do yourself one favor. At least go to the Mac Store near you and see a Mac Before Buying Another W's Machine.
My friends thought I needed my head examined. My husband was very upset. He now has two Macs and most of my friends do as well.
Once you've had a no virus, no popup, no crash, no bluescreen environment for a while W's looks clumsy and cumbersome and i
Posted by Renato on January 29, 2007 :
As a Mac user....I have expensive "PC" flat panel monitors working on my Mac. Users can still switch despite the fact they have an LCD.
Posted by Desmond Liao on January 29, 2007 :
True, Macs aren't the best for gaming but they can play all Blizzard games.
I can't help but think that "expensive flat-screen LCD" would make Leopard look brilliant on a Mac mini, Mac Pro, or even connected to a MacBook for home use.
Posted by elllin beltz on January 29, 2007 :
... I've never looked BACK!
Posted by dcpowell on January 29, 2007 :
Don't forget that you can RUN both XP and Vista on new Macs, which are all Intel based now. You still pay a small premium for the Apple brand, but the ability to run multiple OSes is nice indeed! So the reasons Mr. Elgan listed not to buy a Mac, really, are moot.
Posted by AMacJunkie on January 29, 2007 :
Overall I agree, but some of the Mac facts are not quite right. You can use LCD flat panel displays with Macs. I use LCDs and projectors without a problem. Also, all the new Macs are Intel, and commerical software is available to run Windows specific applications such as Apple's Boot Camp, which allows a complete, native install of Windows XP on Mac hardware. When booting XP, your Windows software runs without a hitch. Of course you would still need to buy or transfer an XP license to your mac.
Just my 2 cents as a Mac junkie that dual-boots into XP.
Posted by nbvail on January 29, 2007 :
Windows XP isn't obsolete ...
It was the day, in 2001, that I switched to OS X!
Posted by Billboe.in.Redmond on January 29, 2007 :
I intend to switch to a Mac late in the year. I'll keep my XP laptop and also my Win98 desktop as I transition. But I agree that there's little anymore that ties me to using Microsoft. Mostly I'm tired of computers that don't simply "just work."
Drivers aren't ready? Required expensive hardware upgrades? I know who Microsoft is in bed with--computer manufacturers, not the consumer and end user.
Posted by Billboe.in.Redmond on January 29, 2007 :
I intend to switch to a Mac late in the year. I'll keep my XP laptop and also my Win98 desktop as I transition. But I agree that there's little anymore that ties me to using Microsoft. Mostly I'm tired of computers that don't simply "just work."
Drivers aren't ready? Required expensive hardware upgrades? I know who Microsoft is in bed with--computer manufacturers, not the consumer and end user.
Posted by Keith Lohnes on January 29, 2007 :
Your posting states "Unless you've recently emerged from a coma, you know the consumer versions of Microsoft's new Vista operating system ship Tuesday."
This is insulting to the readers. What justification do you have for making this statement?
Actually the Windows upgrade is of no great concern to me. My IT department takes care of that. I suggest you win more respect from readers if you treat them with respect.
I work with an international charitable organization. We have excellent IT staff.
kel
Posted by conflicted PC user on January 29, 2007 :
New intel based macs can run windows without emulation. With Parallels software now, and supposedly included with Leaopard will be the ability to run Windows side-by-side with the Mac OS.
So evenyour proprietary Windows based software can run on a Mac.
Posted by www.ttvelociti.com on January 29, 2007 :
I dont understand the last part about the expensive LCD flat-screen displays, I think they will work easily on a Mac, hooked directly or with an approved adapter. As for Vistas look, its more notable that the WOW of OS X started 4 years ago, right about the same time those LCDs became affordable.
Posted by des on January 29, 2007 :
About 6 months ago I bought a new pc and a mac with osx. After many years of pc use, from dos through xp, I no longer use the pc. The mac and osx work beautifully!
Posted by D Hayden on January 29, 2007 :
Thanks for your informative article. I will certainly wait now before rushing out to buy Vista.
Posted by Jeff on January 29, 2007 :
I use both Windows and Mac. The XP system I use for games becuase it has a better video card. The mac I own is a Macmini. It is great for office and business, plus when I get my new Mac I will turn the macmini into a wireless DVR! Hows great is that?
Posted by Charles White on January 29, 2007 :
Your list was not very well thought out:
<You're not into PC gaming>
Either buy a Mac Pro or a dedicated game box. Mac Pro's are cheaper than a comparably equipped Dell by hundreds.
<You don't have any Windows-only applications you'd still like to run without emulation>
Boot Camp and Parallels are not emulators.
<you don't have major PC hardware investment -- such as expensive flat-screen LCD displays -- to take advantage of.>
There is no monitor that cannot be adapted. Most use USB which is universal.
<You don't have non-Mac applications that are required by your employer for working at home.>
Use Parallels or BootCamp then install Windows/Vista. Don't forget to install your anti virus ware, too.
Posted by John on January 29, 2007 :
I just switched. I am a computer science student and love the os x and apples superior hardware. For a couple of programs I run XP using Parallels sofware. It works great. I have no plans to ever go back to XP. I still have a Gateway Laptop that I now let my kids use. I have to re-install XP all the time due to maleware. I use all sorts of anti spyware, anti virus, and firewall....and run in only in a guess account. It still gets screwed up!
Not with my MacBook Pro. It just runs. I have not even restarted it. I just close the lid every night and then reopen it. Its ready to go.
Posted by bug on January 29, 2007 :
Uh - you say "don't switch if you have expensive LCD displays" - why? Macs use the same display technologies, it doesn't make any difference. You can use Apple screens with PCs and PC screens with Apples, I do it all the time in both directions. No difference, they are just screens.
Posted by what a joke on January 29, 2007 :
gimme a break people
Posted by Paul on January 29, 2007 :
Switch to a mac and actually enjoy your computing experience. Vista sounds like a nightmare.
Posted by bernicky on January 29, 2007 :
You forgot the most important "feature" of Vista - Microsoft gets to choose which pieces of hardware do and don't work and what the quality of their function will be based on the DRM agreement they have come to with movie producers. Is your computer hooked up to a digital monitor that has it's own outputs? If so good luck watching a Bluray or HD DVD at the resolution promised.
I have 2 laptops and three desktops on my home network serving our family. All are going to be replaced in the next year and all will be replaced with Macs. I am tired of someone else trying to control what I do and don't do with my hardware. With an X base operating system I will control my own environment.
Posted by CC on January 29, 2007 :
Why a PC at all when you can install XP / Vista / Linux on a mac?
Posted by Bobby Skinner on January 29, 2007 :
You noted several reasons not to switch to the mac. I argue that for most these are not valid.
-- You're not into PC gaming.
Now that Macs can run windows natively via boot camp (not installation, a combination of firmware updates, windows drivers and a partition utility. I use it and it works great - runs at full speed since there is no emulation. The only issue is which mac to buy as the video is only upgradable in the most expensive macs, so make sure you buy a model that has the horse power you need
-- You don't have any Windows-only applications you'd still like to run without emulation.
Here the only concern is having to buy a copy of XP to run via Boot Camp. Unlike the gamers mentioned above, there is no reason not to go this route other than the added cost of a winXP license. The mac is truly the only computer that can run practically anything.
-- You don't have major PC hardware investment -- such as expensive flat-screen LCD displays -- to take advantage of.
PC m
Posted by Bill on January 29, 2007 :
I have a mac book pro. I was a early mac user (84-92) and switch to windows when working for a fortune 50. Now I've switch back.
I loaded the beta of Vista on my Mac Pro and found it ran better than it did on a PC!
I see no reason to rush to this operating system. It isn't ready, is expensive, and it doesnt offer any more features than OSX.
If you want to run a really great OS on a premium grade computer, consider a MAC
Posted by Jeremy on January 29, 2007 :
Wow you wanna talk about a completely biased article. Drivers for Vista are widely available and if they are not for your hardware that isn't Microsoft's fault, in fact the hardware vendor probably wont have drivers ready for Mac OS 10.5.
Vista is a much faster install than XP was. To say that it is time consuming is to say that installing other operating systems is faster, which it isn't (well maybe Linux).
Just by throwing in two lines at the end saying that Vista is a great operating system doesn't make up for the rest of the article. As other have asked, how much did Mac give your for writing this story?
Posted by markmo on January 29, 2007 :
My Mac Pro is the best _Windows_ machine I've ever had. It also cost about $1000 less than a comparably equipped Dell and I can run both XP or OSX as needed. From a pure $ standpoint, I'll likely switch my developers machines over to Mac Pro's.
Posted by Bobby Skinner on January 29, 2007 :
(cont)
-- You don't have major PC hardware investment -- such as expensive flat-screen LCD displays -- to take advantage of.
PC monitors work on the Mac - they just look a little out of place. The iMac line has built in monitors, but other than that this is not an issue (you can use the PC monitors as a second monitor on the iMac.
-- You don't have non-Mac applications that are required by your employer for working at home.
Again you can run windows - with or without emulation.
What is strange to say is that no Mac's are (or can be) true windows machines. The firmware patch allows the computer to boot windows and a set of drivers like you would get from any other manufacturer. I am sure that there will be some that will chose to buy mac's to use as PC's solely for the cool styling. However this will be a waste as even the old Mac OS Tiger is superior to Vista, why would you want to use windows where you do not have to.
Posted by MaxPowerXP on January 29, 2007 :
Much of this is just plain silly. Since when has support for products not yet widely available (re : ReadyBoost etc) been a terrible thing? Do you feel an OS isn't worth owning unless you treat it the way an indian would a deer, using 100% of every single part?
Why is planning patches an indication that software is "incomplete"? By your logic *every* current OS is incomplete. I'm sure Apple is planning point releases and looking for feedback as well.
Driver availability is an issue with virtually every new OS, and ATI is a *terrible* example since their driver support for even the 5-year-old XP is frequently laughable.
Your "2GB is reasonable" is outright silly since even the slower beta versions sped along faster than XP on half that.
Long story short, this article is more "lol Micro$$$oft am i rite guys" than any sort of rational critique.
Posted by CT on January 29, 2007 :
Windows Vista is the best OS ever. Mac can take their copy cat shit and put it up their ass. and the reason theirs no maleware that can get to a mac is because no one care to wright it for the 5% of dumb asses that run a Mac. Apple computer will not even run the new G80 video cards and their never will. Why because mac is a dumb piece of shit a cave man could of made. Wanna do something smart today. Buy Windows Vista. and tose your mac out the 2ooth floor of you office building
Posted by Rusttype on January 29, 2007 :
The push should be for linux and the linux community should push hard - as microsoft has missed stepped in the new operating system and one is cost- the linux community needs to take down the giant in the os market and cut into their sales
i just can't be a microsoft world.
Posted by Aedrin on January 29, 2007 :
"Vista is expensive"
Yeah, and your suggestion is to buy a Mac. The most expensive piece of commercial hardware with high maintenance cost (updates cost $100+, vs. free service packs).
I'll refrain from having to figure out all over again how to solve the problems I already have solved some other time.
Time is expensive.
"Consider switching to a Mac if:"
-- You want to jump on the anti-Microsoft bandwagon
-- You think that 'hip' guy in the commercial is funny
-- You want to navigate frequent new OS releases that cost money and like to be confused by them
-- You don't need backwards compatability and like buying new hardware and software every time an update is released
"Why is it that, literally overnight, all new PCs come with Vista, and the customer does not have the option to choose XP?"
For the same reason that car manufacturers stop selling their last year model.
-Because they updated the new one and want you to buy it-
Business 101 class needed
Posted by Ken on January 29, 2007 :
> I love the conclusion, "buy a Mac" ... How much did Apple pay you for this "news"?
Isn't it Microsoft that sends out free "bribe" Acer "Ferrari" laptops to bloggers.
BTW, you can run Windows natively on a Mac. It's not "emulation."
Also, if you have an expensive LCD, you can attach it to a Mac mini or Mac Pro as easily as using it with a Apple-branded display. If you opt for an iMac or MacBook, you can attach it to do "monitor spanning" and extend your desktop space beyond the built-in screen.
So the "checklist" is useless. The decision really does comes down to, do you want a more stable and secure computer? Of course, a Mac running Windows will not be any more stable or secure than a Dell or HP running Windows, but a least you will have the choice of running Mac OS X most of the time.
Posted by markmo on January 29, 2007 :
My Mac Pro is the best _Windows_ machine I've ever had. It also cost about $1000 less than a comparably equipped Dell and I can run both XP or OSX as needed. From a pure $ standpoint, I'll likely switch my developers machines over to Mac Pro's.
Posted by MaxPowerXP on January 29, 2007 :
Incidentally, can someone explain to me the robotic Stepford-Wife sensibility of some Apple fetishists? It's like running into someone who has just found religion.
Posted by Mel on January 29, 2007 :
Bravo on this topic. I'm glad to see somebody took a neutral view, ( I think) on this topic. I have to agree that vista is to complicated fro tha average user and this would creat a mess with MS. Being that support would not be able to handle all the phone calls they don't expect! I for one do not like calling support because your on hold forever, forever, forever.
Posted by tooexpensive on January 29, 2007 :
I really like the mac pro but too expensive. So xp is still the best choice
Posted by cptnkirk on January 29, 2007 :
You're switching points are sort of moot since any Mac can run XP natively, not emulation. Any applications that don't work on Mac OS X can be run in XP, even the games. Your point about LCD displays is moot too since any Mac will support any monitor. My MacBook Pro drives my 32" LCD TV with no problems.
Posted by Kyro on January 29, 2007 :
Well it doesn't look like many Windows fans took the time to read this article (or their comments have been removed). Let me start by saying PCs have had a much better track record for being inexpensive to upgrade (before the switch to intel). I doubt many existing Mac users will have hardware to run vista as a seperate boot OS. The reason computers (PC spefically) exist in the state they currently are is because of games. Without PC games computers would be religated to very limited office uses it was because of them that the PC market currently exists.
Yes you'll have to upgrade to run Vista (I recommend buying in parts), and your new hardware will be blazing fast and put the PS3 and X360 to shame (Splinter Cell Double Agent). Also PCs have always had the ability to dual boot, install Vista for general use, XP for problem software and games, maybe Linux if your so inclinded (I haven't looked but someone must have cracked OSX so it can run on a regular PC).
Lastly (if your stil
Posted by Kyro on January 29, 2007 :
--sorry too long--
Lastly (if your still reading) most users of Windows will agree that the OS doesn't really run 100% until SP1 but who cares it's more fun to live life on the edge. Watch for the new Mac OS to be installable on a regular PC and the quick death of the brand.
Posted by Stepford Wife on January 29, 2007 :
> can someone explain to me the robotic Stepford-Wife sensibility of some Apple fetishists?
"Robotic Stepford-Wife sensibility" better describes a computer user who uses Windows by choice. Apple's job is to make potential customers AT LEAST CONSIDER getting a Mac. Recently, Apple has been doing a good of it.
As for Apple's "fandom," why is it that Microsoft Windows, with reportedly 95% of the market in the US, does not inspire such enthusiasm? It's simple. Apple makes great products. Microsoft does not. Any other questions...?
Posted by BorgusWeams on January 29, 2007 :
I've switched back and forth between Windows and OS X and went with a Windows machine for my recent laptop purchase. The Mac interface is nice, but the OS itself is still bloated with poor memory and swap management. With my Mac Mini and 1 GB of RAM, I couldn't use any Web browser and listen to iTunes at the same time without my music constantly skipping. I paid about $1800 for my laptop, including Windows XP Media Center. The comparable Mac Book Pro is $2500 (not including Apple Care), so that's more than a "small" premium for the hardware. For all of you who have been with OS X since '00-'01, you've twice had to pay for some major OS updates, some $300 in total. That's more than the cost of the full retail version of Vista Home Premium. Naturally, you're all free to choose the system that best suits your needs, but let's try to put all the Apple love into perspective a bit.
Posted by nbvail on January 29, 2007 :
Windows XP isn't obsolete ...
It was the day, in 2001, that I switched to OS X!
Posted by Colin Morton on January 29, 2007 :
As a matter of fact, I'm using an "expensive flat-screen LCD" as a second monitor with my old PowerBook G4. If you're only looking at an iMac then yes, your existing monitor will be wasted. However, you can always go the Mac Mini (or Mac Pro, if you're serious) route and use what you've got. It's all DVI anyhow.
Posted by MegaMe on January 29, 2007 :
I switched from XP to Mac Tiger. Now that I did, I wonder why I never did earlier. I "work" on my pc at work. But I enjoy my Mac at home. Yes it still have problems, but not a 1/100 of what my old pc did. And yes, I know how to maintain pcs. Everything just works more smoothly on a mac. PCs are good enough, but my Mac makes life more livable.
Posted by Mancney on January 29, 2007 :
Most Agreable Computer : M.A.C.
Posted by mike clark on January 29, 2007 :
you forgot to say the mac costs 2X as much as a XP PC
Posted by David Zatz on January 29, 2007 :
Just two things. Most flat-screen LCD displays work fine on Macs. And with Parallels, we don't run Windows in emulation; we run it in a window!
Posted by Jay on January 29, 2007 :
After spending a small fortune trying and failing to keep my PC secure and restoring from scratch several times, I've recently switched to a Mac. It is incredible and so much better than XP. Vista already seems to have viruses and junk starting and the iLife and other applications are awesome on a Mac. I made the right choice. As for the final points in the article, you can buy a Mac mini or pro and use the existing flat screen; you can run Windows if you really want to using Boot Camp or virtualization products. I thought about running virtualization myself but haven't needed to run any PC software; I've replaced everything with better Mac and web solutions.
Posted by Tim Flint on January 29, 2007 :
How wrong can you be?
Macs run ALL PC software without emulation. And There are Macs that let you use the flat screen you aready own.
Do some research before you write a correction to this article.
Posted by chris rose on January 29, 2007 :
• You don't have major PC hardware investment -- such as expensive flat-screen LCD displays -- to take advantage of.
Obviously you do not know much - or anything about Macs...
I have two mac laptops - a 15.2" Powerbook and an Intel Dual 2 core 17" MacBook Pro - they both run up to a 30" screen - LCD or CRT, just by plugging them in...
LEARN what you write about - by posting stuff like this you show the world how little you know "Expert"...
• You don't have non-Mac applications that are required by your employer for working at home.
Again - LEARN your business.
Install Parallells or Boot Camp...
Jeez....
Posted by JonT on January 29, 2007 :
Funny how people who switch to Mac become so passionate. I wonder why?
XP (or Vista) is a whore, largely copying the Mac and there for a job, not something you get passionate about!
Posted by Steve H. on January 29, 2007 :
Old Myth - Macs cost 2x as much as Macs.
Tired old garage. Macs can't right click. I am so sick of pc people talking about things they know nothing about.
Macs need special monitors.
Please PC people, do some research before you sound foolish and mislead other people. Unless, you want to do that on purpose, but that is dishonest.
My mac did NOT cost more than an equality match Dell.
Plus the hours I save not dealing with spyware and viruses and is priceless to me.
Plus, I have NEVER had to worry about opening an attachment. I laugh when I hear about getting a pc virus just from looking at an infected .jpeg image on a website. I laugh when security experts tell people to not open attachments. Windows answer to security is to not open attachments. Lets cripple our internet experience because we leave too many holes in our operating system.
Posted by Peter on January 29, 2007 :
"You don't have major PC hardware investment -- such as expensive flat-screen LCD displays -- to take advantage of."
While I agree with the sentiment, I think you chose a poor example. As long as the display is fed via DVI or VGA, you can attach any display you want to a Mac.
A better example might be an expensive PCI card for multitrack audio (many of these already have Mac support, but...) or hardware devices which work with software which is unavailable for Macintosh (some GPSes, etc.)
Besides games, that's usually the sticking point for conversion to Mac--supporting third-party hardware and software combinations. For example, Garmin recently shipped it's "Training Center" software for Mac OS X. Before this, however, you had to use other software for downloading the GPS data into a file which could be imported into something like Google Earth if you wanted to view your trips on a map.
Posted by Dean G. Baker on January 29, 2007 :
Apple users are hilarious!
They all poopoo microoft but they all emulate MS products!
Why?
Why would you run such inferior software, emulated no less?
There's only one reason to run emulated software on an Appple;
It's better
Posted by Dean G. Baker on January 29, 2007 :
*better than the Apple OS and "I"software, if it wasn't you wouldnt run MS software and XP emulated on the Apple.
The slower more expensive underperforming Apple.
Posted by Fakher Halim on January 29, 2007 :
I read the whole article, but you failed to make your point to buy a MAC instead of Vista.
Posted by Kyro on January 29, 2007 :
I saw a comment from "Tim Flint".
"Macs run ALL PC software..."
I'm not sure what he's trying so say. even with games aside Macs have almost no support for engineering software, from PLC and microprocessor work to autoCAD. If you are in an engineering roll you probably don't use a mac
Posted by Robert on January 29, 2007 :
I have tested a beta ,rc1 & rc2 of vista.
They all ran extremely well
but the one feature nobody talks about is the voice recognition it is so good that once you train it & yourself you will almost never have to touch the keyboard or mouse. If you think apple is so great use it microsoft won't mind ,apple only has what about 1.6% of the market.If they are so great why aren't they in microsoft's position .If they were in microsoft's shoes they be the target of hackers as they already have been a few times and it would happen more often if it were even worth a hackers trouble.
Posted by Dr_s99 on January 29, 2007 :
well I agree w/ what you said except lets not forget its still cheaper to get a pc that comes with vista then to get a Mac..
I mean just compare the prices...
Posted by Robert on January 29, 2007 :
Borgus Weams
I can explain to you its like its a fad you buy it and then you think you have the right to tell other people how much more sophistacated you are You know they have more money than
brains . Personaly Ihave built a few pc's and i think you have far more flexabilty in the kind of hardware you want & no operating system works without hardware of some kind.
Posted by Bill on January 29, 2007 :
The biggest reason not to upgrade is restrictive HD DRM that MS has put into the OS. MS basically caved in to Hollywood:
www.cs.auckland.ac.nz/~pgut001/pubs/vista_cost.html
Posted by Woody on January 29, 2007 :
Once you go mac, you never go back
Posted by Mr_Clark on January 29, 2007 :
I grew up on a Mac in the PowerPC days, and even back then we still used a PC CRT screen. Displays have always been at least somewhat compatible and at most needed an adapter to make them work. I switched in 97 to a PC and have never looked back. I for one don't get spyware, don't get viruses and don't have problems with my PC. Personally one of the biggest reasons I would never touch a Mac is that I simply love to build my own custom machine, which if using a hacked copy of OS X is still feasible, but much harder to accomplish.
The article talks about having to have expensive hardware to run Vista, have you ever considered what it actually takes to run OS X. For all intents and purposes the requirements are basically the same. However, since you have to buy your hardware from Apple to begin with they have full control over all of it.
I'm not saying that Vista is all that and a bag of chips. I'm just saying OS X isn't either. I personally run XP for my gaming computer and run 4+
Posted by Mr_Clark on January 29, 2007 :
I grew up on a Mac in the PowerPC days, and even back then we still used a PC CRT screen. Displays have always been at least somewhat compatible and at most needed an adapter to make them work. I switched in 97 to a PC and have never looked back. I for one don't get spyware, don't get viruses and don't have problems with my PC. Personally one of the biggest reasons I would never touch a Mac is that I simply love to build my own custom machine, which if using a hacked copy of OS X is still feasible, but much harder to accomplish.
The article talks about having to have expensive hardware to run Vista, have you ever considered what it actually takes to run OS X. For all intents and purposes the requirements are basically the same. However, since you have to buy your hardware from Apple to begin with they have full control over all of it.
I'm not saying that Vista is all that and a bag of chips. I'm just saying OS X isn't either. I personally run XP for my gaming computer and run 4+
Posted by Mr_Clark on January 29, 2007 :
I grew up on a Mac in the PowerPC days, and even back then we still used a PC CRT screen. Displays have always been at least somewhat compatible and at most needed an adapter to make them work. I switched in 97 to a PC and have never looked back. I for one don't get spyware, don't get viruses and don't have problems with my PC. Personally one of the biggest reasons I would never touch a Mac is that I simply love to build my own custom machine, which if using a hacked copy of OS X is still feasible, but much harder to accomplish.
The article talks about having to have expensive hardware to run Vista, have you ever considered what it actually takes to run OS X. For all intents and purposes the requirements are basically the same. However, since you have to buy your hardware from Apple to begin with they have full control over all of it.
I'm not saying that Vista is all that and a bag of chips. I'm just saying OS X isn't either. I personally run XP for my gaming computer and run 4+
Posted by sydneystephen on January 29, 2007 :
Hilarious!
1, Keith Lohnes is still in a coma.
2, Macs run Intel processors now - if you really want to you can run Vista on any Intel Mac. Either instead of OS/X or AS WELL AS OS/X (download paralleles and run Vista in an OS/X window.
3. Jeremy: If 10.4 and previous versions shipped with a full driver set then why not 10.5? In any case, it is not certain that 10.5 will require new drivers - we won't know until its released. But remember, Apple make both hardware and software so except for 3rd party monitor, printer and miscellaneous hardware, Apple provide all the drivers anyway...
4. For a similar config, Macs are often CHEAPER that their name-brand PC equivalents.
5. All Macs support external LCD monitors
6 Aedrin is in a come too - or should be. Updates from Apple are free. NEW OPERATING SYSTEM RELEASES are chargeable. But of course you dont have to buy them. Since XP was released, Apple have released 5 new operating systems - Microsoft has only released 1 (
Posted by harvey on January 29, 2007 :
Interesting article but.........
1. If you have windows only applications they can run natively on XP on a Macintosh. No need to emulate.
2.As far as periferals in many cases why wouldn't many displays, hard drives (usb/firewire), work on a Macintosh?
Posted by The Professor on January 29, 2007 :
Download Fedora Core 6 and you pay nothing. Also if you install the Beryl GUI enhancement, you get tranparent cube desktop switching along with windows that can turn to flames when you minimize or maximize...So save 400 dollars and join the Linux revolution.
Posted by Alex on January 29, 2007 :
Just another omissive Vista pseudo review.
How can anybody find the requirements acceptable? What about the DRM? Everything is a half-job feature?!
Wake up.
Posted by Dot on January 29, 2007 :
Hey, Robert, you can run any of those CAD or engineering packages on a Mac using Parallels. My Macbook Pro was cheaper than an equivalent spec Sony Viao, and it runs Windows XP much faster than my Dell desktop at work.
Posted by Leopard on January 29, 2007 :
What the writer doesn't mention, which I have done and was recently acclaimed as the first in the world to do, is to have Vista running on my iMac WITHOUT emulation, as dual boot. Not ONE crash, not one blue screen. Nothing. Just an extremely stable and good effort of an OS on Microsofts part. But thats on Apple Hardware, which is definately better hardware than PC's have in them. At the end of the day however, I prefer to sit in OSX Tiger, and await the next amazing OS to come out of Apple. Because on this side of the computer things still work better, there is no such thing as malware and you never have to worry how the OS is going to respond. Get a Mac, I did and have never looked back!
Posted by Robert NYC on January 29, 2007 :
VISTA, SHMISTA, I can do everything I need to do with my remington (portable) typewriter and my (electric) calculater. That seems to be the theme of your downbeat assessment of Vista. IT is a dynamic field. Everything is constantly being upgraded. Don't buy Vista. If you snooze you lose! Spoilsport!!
Posted by Robert on January 29, 2007 :
The mac guys can run what they want I will run Vista which is what the other 90% of the computer world will be using in two years I plan to duel boot between xp & vista because I have customers who will be using one or the other.
Posted by dboz555 on January 29, 2007 :
I disagree with your opening. I am a computer hardware and Windows technician and I know of no one who wants to switch to vista or wants anyone else to switch to Vista.
I am the head technician at a small to medium size company and it would cost at least $200,000 (minimum) to implement Windows vista at our company. It is too much of a resource hog.
I would rather se an option to have XP or Vista, not be stuck with one OS.
Posted by Dave Edmonds on January 29, 2007 :
You didn't mention at all except for "emulation" that the newest Apple hardware runs Win OS better then hardware specifically designed for Windows. This was a glaring omission in an otherwise excellent article
Posted by Tom on January 29, 2007 :
I'll consider the Mac OS when Jobs allows and supports it's installation on non-apple hardware. There is no way I will pay three times the price for standard x86 PC hardware and components just to run the Mac OSX. I'll save my money and run Linux instead!
Posted by whocares on January 29, 2007 :
i think it's funny how all mac users have to try to convince others how good their mac is by regurgitating false statements about how it is better than pc. why does mac have <2% market share if it is so good? quit whining about vista if you're happy with your mac.
Posted by whocares on January 29, 2007 :
i think it's funny how all mac users have to try to convince others how good their mac is by regurgitating false statements about how it is better than pc. why does mac have <2% market share if it is so good? quit whining about vista if you're happy with your mac.
Posted by Tom on January 30, 2007 :
I'll consider the Mac OS when Jobs allows and supports it's installation on non-apple hardware. There is no way I will pay three times the price for standard x86 PC hardware and components just to run the Mac OSX. I'll save my money and run Linux instead!
Posted by David on January 30, 2007 :
Windows 98 was total garbage, Millenium was a joke so I moved to Macs. They _look_ nice however they are EXPENSIVE.
OS X crashes regularly and inexplicably. Often I have had to pull the power out to get mine to reboot way way waaay too many times and wasted hours of work lost to nothing... so I discovered that...
Windows XP is SOLID. It is very fast and works on (compared to macs) cheap hardware. I've dropped OS X in favour of XP because of this and so far (4 months in) have not regretted a moment. Bring on Vista and all the eye-candy along with the rock solid stability and out of the box easy setup of XP - I'm upgrading in 18 months once my current PC has depreciated enough, and donation my MAC to someone who is willing to tolerate simplicity that doesn't actually work properly.
Linux? I like (and use) unix at work all the time, however. Life is currently too short - I spent days trying to get my monitors vital statistics, days trying to get dual screen, days trying to
Posted by David on January 30, 2007 :
Windows 98 was total garbage, Millenium was a joke so I moved to Macs. They _look_ nice however they are EXPENSIVE.
OS X crashes regularly and inexplicably. Often I have had to pull the power out to get mine to reboot way way waaay too many times and wasted hours of work lost to nothing... so I discovered that...
Windows XP is SOLID. It is very fast and works on (compared to macs) cheap hardware. I've dropped OS X in favour of XP because of this and so far (4 months in) have not regretted a moment. Bring on Vista and all the eye-candy along with the rock solid stability and out of the box easy setup of XP - I'm upgrading in 18 months once my current PC has depreciated enough, and donation my MAC to someone who is willing to tolerate simplicity that doesn't actually work properly.
Linux? I like (and use) unix at work all the time, however. Life is currently too short - I spent days trying to get my monitors vital statistics, days trying to get dual screen, days trying to
Posted by David on January 30, 2007 :
Windows 98 was total garbage, Millenium was a joke so I moved to Macs. They _look_ nice however they are EXPENSIVE.
OS X crashes regularly and inexplicably. Often I have had to pull the power out to get mine to reboot way way waaay too many times and wasted hours of work lost to nothing... so I discovered that...
Windows XP is SOLID. It is very fast and works on (compared to macs) cheap hardware. I've dropped OS X in favour of XP because of this and so far (4 months in) have not regretted a moment. Bring on Vista and all the eye-candy along with the rock solid stability and out of the box easy setup of XP - I'm upgrading in 18 months once my current PC has depreciated enough, and donation my MAC to someone who is willing to tolerate simplicity that doesn't actually work properly.
Linux? I like (and use) unix at work all the time, however. Life is currently too short - I spent days trying to get my monitors vital statistics, days trying to get dual screen, days trying to
Posted by MOUSE squader on January 30, 2007 :
listen, people, don't attack vista, cmon, its good, but just give it sometime. and macs aren't the best, they r not dat great, they suk
Posted by Sean on January 30, 2007 :
Consider switching to a Mac if:
-- You don't have any Windows-only applications you'd still like to run without emulation.
Emulation? I'm sorry, did someone not hear about Boot Camp or Parallels? You can run them natively in Windows on a Mac when you need.
-- You don't have major PC hardware investment -- such as expensive flat-screen LCD displays -- to take advantage of.
Did I miss something? When did Macs start using weird propritary display connections? Oh, you mean DVI vs. VGA... That's solved with a $10 connector (That I believe is included with most Macs).
-- You don't have non-Mac applications that are required by your employer for working at home.
See comment above. Oh and Microsoft Office is an OS X native application suite.
Posted by Rob H on January 30, 2007 :
I agree with most of this article (except the mac switch section ;)).
One of my friends used to have a theory of only upgrading his OS every other MS release. Sadly as it seems to only come around every 5 years now his theory falls down. My personal feeling is to only upgrade your OS after the first service pack, or when you need a particular software package that only runs on the new OS. I'll be running XP for a while still, and keeping an eye on my aging NT4 and 2000 servers whilst i'm at it!
Posted by Worthless on January 30, 2007 :
Quote from the Blog:
"Apple will start selling the next version of OS X, code-named Leopard, this spring. The details of this operating system are secret, but it's likely that it will be spectacular."
So, you know nothing about Leapord, but you suspect that it will be "spectacular." This is an interesting point of view. Enjoy your cool-aid.
Posted by cp on January 30, 2007 :
I've recently converted to linux...ubuntu to be exact. I couldn't be happier with it.
Posted by Ed on January 30, 2007 :
Three comments from someone who uses both MacOS X and WinXP daily:
1) I have not had an OS X system crash in years. So the comment about "pulling the plug" is from someone who has never used a Mac. Even in the case of a rare Kernel Panic from a beta driver you can power down the machine by pressing the power button and pretty much resume where you started, thanks to a journaled file system.
2) WinXP is NOT stable. My main XP machine is not connected to internet, runs a minimal set of software for development, and needs to be rebooted occasionally.
3) The myth of "macs are more expensive" is very old. It is true that you can't get a Mac as cheaply as the cheapest PC hardware, but if you compare features from any entry level Mac on up you will find Macs to cost the same or less or comparable PCs. This is even before accounting for support, and the fact that most MacOS X major revision updates are $79, one version, one update, once every 1.5-2 years. No sorting through "ultimate"
Posted by randomguy on January 30, 2007 :
I've used windoze forever, and when a friend gave me an old Mac "pismo" laptop to fool with I did not think a lot about it. But when I noticed that this 5 year old computer was running the /current OSX/, with no problems. I had to think that these guys might be onto something. (a slower frame rate was the only effect of the old processor)
I switched to Mac when the dual-boot option came out on the macbook and now have both the Pro and a 20" intel imac. They are wonderful boxes, smf both run windoze really well, butI find myself really avoiding running windoze because OSX is just better at everything. All the "new" ideas in Vista work just fine with OSX on both my 5 year old and my current mac loptop.
Note to M$, Apple not only has all had all your new features for years, but they all work on a wide range of computer speeds and memory sizes.
Posted by Whatever on January 30, 2007 :
It's funny how things never change. I remember having the exact same 'mac vs pc' arguments back in the late 80s. Why can't you losers on BOTH sides just admit and accept that each machine does certain things better than the other??? You wouldn't use a hammer to cut wood nor a saw to drive a nail! It's all in what you want to use the computer for....so get over the 'mine is best' crap.
Posted by bluebonics on January 30, 2007 :
you don't see the logical error in proclaiming "move to a mac, because vista means you have to learn a new operating system" ... ? seriously, mr. elgan, you're a fucking moron.
Posted by Mr_Hanky on January 30, 2007 :
Just run Linux and forget the rest...who needs the latest spy-ware from Redmond or the high-priced proprietary MacStuff that only runs on hardware you can't build yourself?
Posted by Whatever on January 30, 2007 :
It's funny how things never change. I remember having the exact same 'mac vs pc' arguments back in the late 80s. Why can't you losers on BOTH sides just admit and accept that each machine does certain things better than the other??? You wouldn't use a hammer to cut wood nor a saw to drive a nail! It's all in what you want to use the computer for....so get over the 'mine is best' crap.
Posted by Whatever on January 30, 2007 :
It's funny how things never change. I remember having the exact same 'mac vs pc' arguments back in the late 80s. Why can't you losers on BOTH sides just admit and accept that each machine does certain things better than the other??? You wouldn't use a hammer to cut wood nor a saw to drive a nail! It's all in what you want to use the computer for....so get over the 'mine is best' crap.
Posted by bluebonics on January 30, 2007 :
oh, and anyone who says Macs have better hardware, let me ask: what are the memory timings of your ram?
wait, i thought you had better hardware?
Posted by Joe on January 30, 2007 :
The author forgot the most important reasons to avoid Vista: The most absurd EULA yet. You may as well sign away your next child.. It's full of "features" that treat you like a criminal. Not because they are more functional or better in some way, but because the media companies like the idea. Mostly it's just MS marketing making ppl think it offers something better. Bologna. It's just another rung, one more step leading nowhere. Want a decent MS OS? Go back to Windows 2000. There's no WPA, and the EULA is almost tolerable, and guess what? You can run all the software you need.
Posted by Joe on January 30, 2007 :
The author forgot the most important reasons to avoid Vista: The most absurd EULA yet. You may as well sign away your next child.. It's full of "features" that treat you like a criminal. Not because they are more functional or better in some way, but because the media companies like the idea. Mostly it's just MS marketing making ppl think it offers something better. Bologna. It's just another rung, one more step leading nowhere. Want a decent MS OS? Go back to Windows 2000. There's no WPA, and the EULA is almost tolerable, and guess what? You can run all the software you need.
Posted by Becker on January 30, 2007 :
Personally, I think all these reasons is a bunch of knit-picking, except for the first and third one. Duh, all operating systems are time consuming to install. . . that's not a problem with just Vista. Yes, all new operating systems are expensive too, and buying XP now, it's definitely not cheap! Who cares if XP isn't obsolete, it's only a matter of time before it is so why wait (except for reasons 1 and 3) until it is. Nice try though. . .
Posted by bv on January 30, 2007 :
With windows 95 buying early on made sense. It was far more user friendly than Windows 3.x, and its movement toward multi tasking made you more productive. Changing from 3.x to 95 was rewarding from the moment the start button hit your screen.
However with Vista there really isn't any revolutionary changes, just the evolutionary shining of the start button. Its pretty, as long as your computer has the horsepower to run Aero. But it doest offer anything to make you leaps and bounds more productive.
This may be a big opportunity for Mac, but only if Apple is willing to price aggressively. Currently an apple entry level bottom of the line (albeit nicely equipped) MacBook is $1099 but a similarly equipped Dell can be had as low as 750, and even lower on sale days. For the top of the line a MacBook Pro starts at 2700. A similar HP model can be had for less than 1800. If you are willingly paying for the industrial design, its a steal. But for most people a computer is still a blu
Posted by Sod on January 30, 2007 :
Why not buy a Mac simply because you can run Leopard, Ubuntu, and, eventually, Vista on the same machine. That detail alone should be reason enough. Go Bears!!!!
Posted by Tom on January 30, 2007 :
For ebay I use Win98 on a 1.8 GHz machine. I also have Win XP on a 2.5 GHz machine. The Win98 can refresh in the last few minutes of an auction - every one second. The Win XP can do it only every 3 seconds. The Win 98 is so small that 1.8 GHz is way more than it needs. I wonder how fast Vista can go? XP was 3 times slower. If that trend keeps up Vista would be 9 seconds.
Posted by vejay on January 30, 2007 :
that good comment and i have Learnt alot reading this and I am in the verge of buying vista now I dont rush thank you
Posted by boskolives on January 30, 2007 :
I have only two words for the P.C. users/defenders: Spell check! Wipe that cave dweller drool off your face and get a life, or a Mac, or both.....
Posted by M Harris Rochester on January 30, 2007 :
All of my machines are running Suse Linux 10.0 (with the single exception of the one Mac OSX box I keep around for grins.
I will never consider buying another M$ OS again... ever.
Posted by Rob on January 30, 2007 :
"OS X crashes regularly and inexplicably. Often I have had to pull the power out..."
Something is wrong with your hardware. My Mac laptop is now on its 19th day of uptime. That's right, 19 days since the last restart, and I use this thing 14 hours a day on heavy duty projects.
Posted by bjtwuk on January 30, 2007 :
I don't know why he bothered writing this article if he can't at least be truthful. It is a fact that Macs can run Windows without emulation using BootCamp. It is a fact that Macs can use expensive flat panel displays.
Posted by James on January 30, 2007 :
1.) I hate apple/apple products on principle and Linux... ha.
2.) I use and will always use Windows. At one point, to prove to a friend that Windows was better than his linux (I forget which of 10 installs he was on), I ran my computer (my MAIN system used for School, Programming, and even a Game) for 30, never once shutting down, restarting, or crashing, or even slowing down. No idea what some people do to their systems, but would LOVE to know.
3.) I've been running Windows Vista RC2 on my machine (mentioned in 2) since the beginning of Dec. At install, EVERY piece of hardware found default drivers that worked. Only 1 peripheral didn't have manufacturing support: HP Printer, but it works successfully with the Windows Vista drivers and software (printing and scanning, mind you). My sound, an integrated solution, does have issues, but the MB manuf. hasn't issued a new driver yet (prob. won't. :-\). That system, by the way, is a 2.8GHz Intel Pent. IV with HT, 1GB mem, 256MB ATI Radeon
Posted by James on January 30, 2007 :
Now... that seems to "just work" to me.
4.) Microsoft has released more OS upgrades than Apple in the last 5 years: XP Home, Pro, Media Center (several versions), Tablet, CE, European and Korean Versions of several, and now Vista (those are the ones I know of, at least). Apple has released what... 10.0-10.5 of the same OS?
Some would consider me a MS Fanboy, I don't care. I support good products.
Posted by James on January 30, 2007 :
Fix to comment 2 of mine: for 30 DAYS. Got ahead of myself. haha.
Posted by James on January 30, 2007 :
and because 1000 character limits are stupid:
(append the following to comment 3... so much for typing these things directly into the browser... haha)
9550 graphics card, and supports Aero and all Vista features. By the way, my Hauppage Win-TV PVR 500 Dual Tuner card works perfectly (and in fact just downloaded a new driver update through windows update today).
Posted by A PC Guy on January 30, 2007 :
I keep hearing that a mac is cheaper.
1) I can buy a Vista computer with printer and the works for just under $500 dollar.
2) After you pay for the second operating system (for dual boot) $300-$500 what's the price difference.
It's a weak argument that PC's are more expensive.
Posted by Kyro on January 30, 2007 :
Lets get some key facgts straight.
"Use the system that does what you want best." This is the oldest line in the Mac handbook. At one time this "might" have been true. Now all that graphic software is availible on PC as well. In fact some software (3DX MAX, was used in King Kong) is only availible for Windows.
Secondly I would consider running any dual boot or paralles actually running windows (not running a Mac). If your hardware is intel and your running a Windows Kernal, your running windows.
Lastly you don't need to upgrade a computer to run Vista. I had the beta running on a 2-3 yr old system with 512 MB ram no problem (you can turn of Areo).
Posted by Tom on January 30, 2007 :
I can run every OS that a Mac can run on a PC other than the Mac OS itself. I refuse to use and invest in a OS that locks me into hardware from one manufacturer (Apple). If Apple ever wants to gain more that the 1.6% market share they have now, they will need to change their closed ways and allow the Mac OS to run on non-Apple hardware. And why would anyone purchase a Mac to run Windows...
Posted by pat on January 31, 2007 :
Well you CAN use most external hardware including Flat Panel LCD's. You can also game very well on a Mac. I play Counter Strike Source using BootCamp with Windows XP and it's GREAT! Also with the Mac you get 2 computers in one a Mac and a PC. When the Vista BootCamp drivers are released even Vista. I did install Vista on my friends MacbookPro and it seemed to work fine but we decided to use it with Parallels and install XP on BootCamp until Vista BootCamp drivers are released.
Posted by grant on January 31, 2007 :
"Posted by James on January 30, 2007 :
Now... that seems to "just work" to me.
4.) Microsoft has released more OS upgrades than Apple in the last 5 years: XP Home, Pro, Media Center (several versions), Tablet, CE, European and Korean Versions of several, and now Vista (those are the ones I know of, at least). Apple has released what... 10.0-10.5 of the same OS?
"
OMG....that's because OS 10 has done all the functionality of those extra-pay-for XP re-packages pretty much from the start! Jees can't beleive that fool even mentioned that. 'new OS's'...what is he on!
Posted by Vista User on January 31, 2007 :
I think this article may be pretty much dead by now but I'll post anywat. I got and installed Vista yesterday. It only took about 45 minutes to install and not much more to update the video and sound drivers. All I have to say is there is no way OSX compairs to Vista, there are too many great things in Vista the look is the last reason for the upgrade. The whole way the system works is so much slicker and intuative then anything I have ever seen. If I conviced the tech guys at work to upgrade my laptop I would see an increase in productivity for sure.
Posted by Paul on January 31, 2007 :
Why on earth is an "expensive flat-screen LCD display" a reason not to buy a Mac? I am typing this on a 24" Dell hooked up to a PowerBook....
Posted by Airplay on February 1, 2007 :
There is a lot of games for the Mac on the market. Please visit www.macgames.co.uk/browse.html and have a look.
Posted by Airplay on February 1, 2007 :
There is a lot of games for the Mac on the market. Please visit www.macgames.co.uk/browse.html and have a look.
Posted by Airplay on February 1, 2007 :
There is a lot of games for the Mac on the market. Please visit www.macgames.co.uk/browse.html and have a look.
Posted by Kyro on February 1, 2007 :
Sure there are a lot of games for the Mac. How many compared to the PC, and what is the general quality. Can a Mac play Splinter Cell: Double Agent (well most PCs can't play that one but you get my point)
Posted by Airplay on February 2, 2007 :
Of course one can always find games that only exist on one or the other platform and if you have to play a certain game at a certain time you should probably stick with that certain platform. My point is that if you want to play popular quality games on a Mac you will find a lot to choose from.
Posted by SteveSax70 on February 9, 2007 :
Who doesn't konw mac could say that PC and Vista are optimum...
Please swich all to Mac...it will be a better world!
Posted by danieltex on February 13, 2007 :
I don't think that anyone would disagree that macs run smoother and with less breakdowns than windows based PC's,BUT- they are very expensive compared to windows based PC's.
In fact what uncle bill and the windows based PC maunfactururs are doing is making their own version of the Mac by introducing hardware certification and hardware restictions.In this way they get more of that mac reliability and theprofit as well!
The cost of a Mac is more because only Apple approved stuff ever gets plugged in and you are paying for the licensing, testing of compatability, and to my annoyance quite frankly put ,out of date hardware specs found in Macs.
It is easy to wait and program for tried an tested hardware.I am not even saying this is a bad thing as at least it all works, but it is very expensive to the consumer.
Why should i pay £1000 for a mac laptop, when i can get a similar spec Windows machine for £450?Why aren't apple programming OSX for the non apple based machines and then we can h
The creative stuff we come across that we've just got to share (rather than simply getting on with creating Digital Arts magazine)
