Upgrade from Vista to XP a funny but true

[MacJunky]

Originally Posted by enaberif

1) That niche has shrunk due to pcs being able to run mac os x now and os x able to run Windows so its basically come down to a; do you want to spend $1300 on a shiny white computer or $800 on the same thing with the same performance?

Ha, Take That Fools! - 68kMLA Forums (please ignore the title of this thread, suffice to say it got a bit off topic.)

Originally Posted by QuadSix50

Also, when I said building a PC out of comparable parts to that of the Mac Pro, I meant everything being comparable: CPU (including the quantity of CPUs in a system), motherboard, graphics card, hard drives, optical drives, memory, bundled USEFUL software. You did acknowledge that your PC and the Mac Pro use different processors, but did you also account for the motherboard and every other device I mentioned above? Comparable even? Granted even if you were to figure out the price difference of a theoretical Mac Pro tower that only used Core 2 Duo or Quad, you'd probably be looking at a pretty close price difference between a "comparable" DIY PC. For that, I would still probably go for the Mac.

Oh, and unless I am mistaken the only remaining white models Apple offers are that shitty MacBook (not to be confused with anodized aluminum MacBook Pro) and the Mac Mini.. also total crap in my opinion.

Also, if anything that niche you refer to has grown, there are a decent number of people who have switched to a Mac with an intel CPU so they can run Mac OS X and windows with more ease than hunting down somewhat specific hardware for their PC to run an old hacked 'n patched version of OS X. I might also add that the people who choose to run OS X on their PC generally have to wait for others to patch certain updates so they don't bugger up their install. I also feel the need to point out that due to some of the cheaper and more obscure hardware(or just some crazy weird hardware) that is often found in portables the level of compatibility with OS X is reduced so some end up with their onboard NIC or audio output hardware non-functional.

I must also point out that most if not all people who try OS X out on their PC and like it enough to go buy a Mac quite often choose to keep one or multiple PCs around running windows or Linux. Generally these people are the ones who are open minded about other hardware and operating systems. Well, I suppose they would have to be somewhat open-minded in the first place to try OS X and give themselves a reasonable chance to get used to it.

Anyway, we should be encouraging people to be more open-minded. And I know I have said it before but I am going to say it again. A great many respectable and intelligent Mac users also use multiple operating systems on multiple types of hardware.

Meh, enough off-topicness for now I think. Continue on, nothing to see here.


On a side note, I respectfully request that you avoid assuming all Mac users are like that guy in the Apple commercials. I also request that you avoid assuming that all Mac users even like those commercials at all.

Oh, and enaberif, you should be telling people to try both and pick what they like most and or need. One of the things they don't need is someone that they are putting their trust in giving them one-sided advice.

[enaberif]

That one sided advice goes to a customer who knows absolutely nothing about a computer and is just getting feed back from friends.

Windows XP is a lot more friendly and less of a learning curve than Vista OR OS X

[Thund3rball]

Originally Posted by enaberif

Sorry Thunderball linux is not a geeks OS as many people who are far from geeks are trying out Ubuntu to realize how much they actually like it :)

Maybe Gentoo or Slackware is for geeks, but definitely not Ubuntu.

Ok one distro is supposedly not a geeks OS. That might be true but I'd be willing to bet it has somewhere around 0.1% or less of the market share. When I can do everything I do on Windows without jumping through fiery hoops or just not being able to do it at all, then Linux will be a contendor.

[enaberif]

Originally Posted by Thund3rball

Ok one distro is supposedly not a geeks OS. That might be true but I'd be willing to bet it has somewhere around 0.1% or less of the market share. When I can do everything I do on Windows without jumping through fiery hoops or just not being able to do it at all, then Linux will be a contendor.

And thats the same for everyone else. But for those who want to do basic day to day tasks you can easily do them in linux.

[AkG]

As I said in my first post *NIX is not there yet. It is not ready for "prime time", its "good enough" for people who consider their computer to be another appliance...say "grandma" . People who have much interest in learning how it works as they do learning how their light bulbs work. Yet they need/want something to surf the web and download email on. *Nix is great for that, its just most other things its only OK at. Of course VM Ware does take it to whole other level...but thats cheating.

IF you don't think Unix has had an impact, look around and see how much A) people are using "firefox" and B) how much FUD MS is starting to spew about it. Big companies don't mention their competition (even to put it down) unless they are worried about it.

More importantly it is getting better, and its amazing how FAST it is improving. It is looking more and more likely that Ubuntu (and maybe a few other distros) have reached critical mass...at least with numbers of programmers willing to donate their time. Heck look at Beryl/Compiz, it went from a plugin to standard in record time....and it has more options than Aero does.

As for that whole .1% argument. You are forgetting that Ubunut has an estimated 8 million+ users and each and everyone of them are the "computer guys" for their family and friends. THAT .1%'er who is very vocal and who is the guy "everyone" asks computer advice from. Years ago that .1% were what made MS what they are today. THEY evangelized the benefits of "NT".

Today its hard to find anyone who truly loves MS. Its always "yeah MS is the standard....BUT". Without that core of vocal computer enthusiasts a companies days are numbered. It maybe numbered in decades but one you loose the top end its hard to get those guys back.

I know this because I saw it first hand with MS. I was around when MS hit the computer scene and my mentor and I were beta testers for "NT". Heck we were so jazzed to be able to help test it and help "stick to the man" (the man being IBM who had just shafted MS over OS/2), we built a custom SCSI computer just to beta test it. Then when we built and installed computers for other people we always loaded at least MS DOS (and not that heretical DR DOS) and strongly encouraged windows for dos. Do you think that anyone now is evangelizing the benefits of windows?

Will *Nix topple MS...who knows. But to blithely assume that things will always be the way they are now is naive. The only thing that I know is true is that life is change. Personally, I HOPE MS gets a good kick in the . Maybe with a little reorganization it can start utilizing some of the amazing talent they have in house. Its doubtful but you never know until its all over.

[DurkaDurka]

Here is an article from 2001, shortly after XP's launch. The criticisms then seem to be awfully familiar to the current ones.

http://www.infoworld.com/articles/t...029tcwinxp.html

"Unfortunately, Microsoft's Windows XP appears to be maintaining that tradition, as indicated by results of independent testing performed by CSA Research and confirmed by our work in the InfoWorld Test Center. Our tests of the multitasking capabilities of Windows XP and Windows 2000 demonstrated that under the same heavy load on identical hardware, Windows 2000 significantly outperformed Windows XP. In the most extreme scenario, our Windows XP system took nearly twice as long to complete a workload as did the Windows 2000 client. Our testing also suggests that companies determined to deploy Windows XP should consider ordering desktop systems with dual CPUs to get the most out of the new OS."

[Thund3rball]

Oh I whole heartedly believe things will change and I agree that it's getting harder for MS to stay on top, (especially if they release another Vista in 2010). I am not naive. It's just not going to happen drastically and not anytime that soon. There's just so much "MS is going down" like it's going to happen tomorrow attitude I like to bring up the numbers to make people realize that we have a lot of time left with Windows and despite the current popularity, OS X is very far from taking over and *nix, as you say, is to.

I'm not sure MS is what it is today because a bunch of hardcore geeks evangelized the benefits of NT. There is way more to it than that.

[enaberif]

Yes XP was rough at the start but it had time to mature... When will Vista have time to do that? It has 3 years not 7.

[Thund3rball]

Good point enaberif. Vista needed to be strong right out of the gate with the exception of some typical new OS bugs like driver support. It was in development for soooo long and the benefits we should have seen from all that time are just not there.

[enaberif]

Originally Posted by Thund3rball

Good point enaberif. Vista needed to be strong right out of the gate with the exception of some typical new OS bugs like driver support. It was in development for soooo long and the benefits we should have seen from all that time are just not there.

Exactly and thats why so many people are comparing Vista to ME just due to bugs.