[ Hypnos Forum ]

OTHER THINGS IN THE WORLD THAN MUSIC => Everything and Nothing => Topic started by: Wayne Higgins on October 22, 2009, 02:16:07 PM

Title: VISTA
Post by: Wayne Higgins on October 22, 2009, 02:16:07 PM
http://www.cnn.com/2009/TECH/10/22/windows.seven/index.html

So I'm reading this article and wondering, "what problems?"  I happen to like Vista.
Title: Re: VISTA
Post by: mgriffin on October 22, 2009, 02:25:03 PM
IT people in particular hate Vista.  I know a lot of "geek" types who are still running XP, in many cases installing it over a new PC with Vista pre-installed.  I don't exactly hate it -- I'm typing this on a Vista machine right now -- but I wouldn't buy a copy as I consider it a step back from Windows 2000 and XP, and I have extra copies of those.

There are lots of reasons why people hate it.  Google "Why do people hate vista" and strap yourself in for a few dozen hours worth of angry, bitter reading.  Stuff like "Windows Genuine Advantage" validation and other piracy-prevention tricks pissed a lot of people off, but WGA pretty much applies to XP too.  Also a lot of people with modern, up to date XP drivers installed Vista and found themselves completely driver-less for long periods of time and there was really no good reason for that.
Title: Re: VISTA
Post by: APK on October 22, 2009, 03:07:31 PM
I certainly avoided Vista.
I use XP --- if it ain't broke (very much), don't fix it.

I'm anti-upgrade. That is, if what you already use is doing the job well.
Too many upgrades are simply fixing problems I don't have, and are
introducing new problems I don't want.
Title: Re: VISTA
Post by: mgriffin on October 22, 2009, 03:21:55 PM
I submitted my message before saying the part Anthony ended up saying for me, which is... if a new software isn't an upgrade, why should I buy it?  I don't mind if a new PCI purchase has Vista on it - I'm not going to bother rolling back to XP as some do -- but I'm sure not going to spend a bunch of money to add Vista to a machine that already has Win2k or XP on it.  It's not better in any way, and it's arguably worse. 

Not only in terms of operating systems but all software, Microsoft has really stagnated.  They haven't released a "must buy" OS or application in almost a decade.  The only reason most people are buying Office 2007 is because MS changed the file format from doc/xls to docx/xlsx and it's no longer compatible.  In other words, in previous versions, if I was using Excel 2000 or Excel 97, and my buddy was using Excel 2003 and he sent me FILE.XLS created in his version, my older version could still open the file format created by his newer software.

Microsoft decided people who were happy with Office 97, 2000 and 2003 needed to have more incentive to upgrade, so they changed the default file format for Office 2007 to ensure that those who did use it would create and propagate files that users of the old applications would no longer be able to open.  In other words, if I receive Excel files from 20 people in the course of my work, and only 1 of them is stupid enough to send me XLSX format documents instead of the XLS (which Excel 2007 can still create just fine, but not by default), then I need to upgrade to Excel 2007 in order to read them.  In most offices, people are using 2000 or 2003 versions but now they're starting to receive stuff they can't open and they think "Hmm, I'd better get with the program and find out what wonderful, fanciful options I'm missing by not having 2007" even though their older application was doing everything just fine.

They used to create applications that made work easier, and now they just play tricks like this, leveraging the ubiquity of their applications to try to force people into a pay-or-else situation.

Incidentally, a way around the above-mentioned problem is just to use Google Apps or Open Office, which will open .xlsx and .docx documents, and which will certainly server as a reasonable, free alternative to MS Office for all except professional secretaries or CPAs (and some of those).
Title: Re: VISTA
Post by: Numina on October 22, 2009, 03:28:31 PM
Windows is so incredibly frustrating... I'm one of those stupid people, though, that have to send xlsx files around because it's just the way it is. 

As a side note, I can no longer login to sites like MySpace and others with Windows Explorer! I get a 'fail' screen every time I try to login.  So I have to use FireFox, but with FireFox I can no longer right-click to download images/files or open links in new windows!!!!!  I've researched over and over and over again and can not find out the reason for this.  My laptop doesn't have this problem.  Anyone else here experience this?

Windows 7 does purport to be better suited for audio/video apps though.

J.
Title: Re: VISTA
Post by: mgriffin on October 22, 2009, 03:34:03 PM
Luckily the upgrade process to Windows 7 is totally simple!

http://www.engadget.com/2009/08/06/official-windows-7-upgrade-chart-is-ridiculous/ (http://www.engadget.com/2009/08/06/official-windows-7-upgrade-chart-is-ridiculous/)

(http://mossblog.allthingsd.com/files/2009/08/windows-upgrade-chart.png)
Title: Re: VISTA
Post by: drkappa on October 22, 2009, 04:17:56 PM
Not only in terms of operating systems but all software, Microsoft has really stagnated. 
That's what happens when you come too bloated.   The innovations come from
the nimble software boutiques.

They haven't released a "must buy" OS or application in almost a decade.  The only reason most people are buying Office 2007 is because MS changed the file format from doc/xls to docx/xlsx and it's no longer compatible.  In other words, in previous versions, if I was using Excel 2000 or Excel 97, and my buddy was using Excel 2003 and he sent me FILE.XLS created in his version, my older version could still open the file format created by his newer software.

Yes and it's probably the default setting just like the much bulkier html verbiage
that comes with most e-mails.  I can't stand the Windows approach of we know
best, we don't follow standards, and we're not upwards compatible.  So I use
various flavours of Linux (come back VMS all is forgiven).

The downside is that you have to live in a M$-dominated world, so for instance
many online video and music services fail because they only use Windows Media,
although there are perfectly good non-proprietary routes as shown by the BBC
iPlayer and Hearts of Space. 

Some safety person at work circulated a schedule of courses using that format.   
OpenOffice couldn't read it.  When our Division Head asked why I'd not responded,
I complained that the format was unreadable, and his response was Windows is
the Laboratory standard. :o  Trouble is that it's a moving feast and many scientists
use MacOSX or Unix/Linux.   I was pleased to see in the last Departmental
newsletter advising people not to circulate Office 2007 documents.  It would also
help if people just used plain text for most of the memoranda, saving lots of
storage and bandwidth.

Incidentally, a way around the above-mentioned problem is just to use Google Apps or Open Office, which will open .xlsx and .docx documents, and which will certainly server as a reasonable, free alternative to MS Office for all except professional secretaries or CPAs (and some of those).

I did try upgrading OpenOffice with some plugin for Office 2007 files but fortunately
I've not received any such files recently to test it.  OpenOffice works fine for those
types of jobs.
Title: Re: VISTA
Post by: Blackinfinity on October 22, 2009, 06:32:54 PM
Windows 7 was officially released today.

I have been using the R2 Beta since April, and it is definitely better then Vista in general...
Less problems and better backward compatibility.  Also optimized for SSD drivers. I like it very much,
I really like the Aero interface, it makes XP look like it is from the stone age. It even beats the OS X interface in my opinion.
Title: Re: VISTA
Post by: cromag on October 22, 2009, 08:28:39 PM
I use XP because I have to.  There are a couple programs I use that are only available as Windows programs.  I avoided Vista like the plague that it was.

I used to work at Bell Labs (back when it was Bell Effin' Labs!) so I know, and dearly love, UNIX.  I left just as X Windows was entering the community, so I mostly used the command line.

Still, I just picked up a used Lenovo desktop, with some spare components (bigger hard drive, DVD drive, etc.) and when they're put together I plan to install Ubuntu Linux.  I could actually do that in an afternoon, but my high school daughter is taking a computer hardware maintenance class and I said I'd let her help.

As far as Windows goes, well just about a year ago I suffered an awe-inspiring malware attack.  I actually triggered it early by trying to scan before the trojan was set to go off.  It took me a month to clean all the remnants off -- and even at that I was lucky.  I run an anti-malware scan every day, with a thorough anti-malware scan and thorough antivirus scan every week.  I figure I'm spending three hours a week scanning.  Who designs this kind of an OS?  Who would want to use it?

Anyway, eventually I suppose I can disconnect the XP box from the internet and safely run the Windows-only programs.  Then I can swap in the Linux box.

And Microsoft can upgrade and issue security patches to their hearts' content!  :P
Title: Re: VISTA
Post by: jkn on October 23, 2009, 08:14:31 AM
At work - I was a guinea pig and had Vista on my laptop along with a couple other IT folks... Virtually nothing work related worked correctly.  I was always doing work arounds and hoop jumping.  Even Microsoft apps weren't working properly - which is ludicrous.  We all rolled back to XP after 6 months or so of testing.

At home - I have vista on a laptop and it's ok.  I've never liked it but don't hate it.

On the other hand, I bought an iMac last spring and love the o/s - it just doesn't get in the way of what I want to do at home... Where vista did.
Title: Re: VISTA
Post by: Wayne Higgins on October 23, 2009, 01:08:21 PM
I had to wait before I responded.  I'm not much of a computer person.  I mean, I use them constantly, but I don't do any programming.  I took Fortran, Cobol, and Assembly Language back in the late 70's at FSU, using a Cyber monster, and then worked for a software company using Rat Shack TSR80's (?) back in the stone(r) age.  Decided that I'd had enough for one lifetime after that.  I'd rather bake, just didn't make as much dough. ;D  Now I use XP at work, running various analytical chemistry instruments, compiling spreadsheets, ect.  I got a new Dell at home, and it had Vista, so, WTF, why not try it out.  I haven't had any problems.  I was actually suprised at how much software and how many of files worked with now problems.  The chart above to convert to 7 is pretty, but scares me.  I think I'll just stick with Vista for now.

BTW, does anyone want to hear my theory on New Coke.  I'll tell you anyway.  So, Coca-Cola was switching from sugar to high fructose corn syrup as a sweetener.  There was concern that the slight difference would be noticed, so they came up with "New Coke."  After enough time to get rid of the original coke, they said "we're sorry" and introduced Coke Classic with high fructose corn syrup.  No one complained, as a matter of fact, they were happy with it.  New Coke went away.  Coke Classic is here to stay.  And all the children became obese.

No matter what happens, no matter what we do, we're all just delivering pizzas.
Title: Re: VISTA
Post by: mgriffin on October 23, 2009, 02:15:12 PM
Most of what people complain about with Vista has to do with "upgrading" on a machine that had a fully-functional XP or Win2000 installation, and the "upgrade" wrecking a lot of their drivers and software installations.  Vista pre-installed on a new PC isn't going to have those problems, as the hardware vendor will have made sure their devices are supported on Vista before preloading it on the machine, and the only problem you might encounter is if you've purchased some Windows software that doesn't play nice with Vista, but would have worked OK on your old XP or Win2000 machine.

My work PC has Vista on it, preinstalled, and I often forget I'm not using XP, as it works pretty well.  Of course I also turn off most of the annoying XP/Vista menus and go back to "classic" control panel and start menus, and disable all the ridiculous "view as web page" folder explorer options.  And turn off Active Desktop (XP) or Desktop Sites (Vista), and don't use Internet Explorer if you can avoid it. 
Title: Re: VISTA
Post by: Blackinfinity on October 23, 2009, 02:25:47 PM
Let's not forget, Vista is no longer what Vista once was... many of the updates and and sp1 etc...have been solving a lot of the problems...

For those who want a mac for fraction of the price :)

http://store.psystar.com/rebel_efi
Title: Re: VISTA
Post by: mgriffin on October 23, 2009, 03:43:32 PM
OS arguments such as the ever-popular Mac versus Windows can be fun and everything, but I would strongly recommend against anyone investing money in a Psystar hardware or software product.  That company won't be around long.  If you really want to roll your own OSX installation on standard PC hardware, there are better ways to do it (plenty of online tutorials around).
Title: Re: VISTA
Post by: Blackinfinity on October 23, 2009, 05:05:11 PM
Well, soon I will transform my PC to Pure APPLE also, i will just paint the computer white and put on the APPLE logo :)

I bet that mac users will get very pissed of suddenly , when we PC users also can have our mac but for the fraction of the price, the question is who should be more proud now ? :)
I definitely think that APPLE is overpriced, what you pay for is the Apple logotype and the OS...So this software is really destructive for Apple...if this work in practice that is, the software was released only a couple of days ago, and have not heard much feedback how it works...  However I am sure that Apple already preparing an army of lawyers heading towards their direction.

But I agree, we shall stop this discussion now, It will hurt people feelings to talk about these things.
However I am very satisfied with Windows 7 right now. If it wasn't for Win7 I definitely would agree that
Snow Leopard is a leap ahead.
Title: Re: VISTA
Post by: Blackinfinity on October 23, 2009, 05:12:53 PM
If you really want to roll your own OSX installation on standard PC hardware, there are better ways to do it (plenty of online tutorials around).

Did miss that part, and I was not aware of this ? How come ?
And how do you do that ?
Is it very complex to do ?
Title: Re: VISTA
Post by: mgriffin on October 23, 2009, 05:13:53 PM
My point wasn't "don't dare mention putting OSX on PC hardware," just that Psystar is already being sued by Apple, tried declaring bankruptcy to preempt the suit and this effort was denied by the judge.  Psystar will be out of business soon, so it would be risky to purchase their products.  There are thousands of people installing OSX on PC hardware already -- google "hackintosh" to see what I mean.  There are guides to which hardware setups are most conducive to doing this.

Not all computer hardware is equal, whether it runs Windows or Linux or MacOS, so to imply that you can install OSX on some el-cheapo build-your-own PC configuration and have something as good as a Mac Pro is silly.
Title: Re: VISTA
Post by: Blackinfinity on October 24, 2009, 03:48:07 AM
My point wasn't "don't dare mention putting OSX on PC hardware," just that Psystar is already being sued by Apple, tried declaring bankruptcy to preempt the suit and this effort was denied by the judge.  Psystar will be out of business soon, so it would be risky to purchase their products.  There are thousands of people installing OSX on PC hardware already -- google "hackintosh" to see what I mean.  There are guides to which hardware setups are most conducive to doing this.

Not all computer hardware is equal, whether it runs Windows or Linux or MacOS, so to imply that you can install OSX on some el-cheapo build-your-own PC configuration and have something as good as a Mac Pro is silly.

Well, if course the design is still not 100% identical,  however most of the components are PC components.
The exception is the motherboard and the BIOS. If the motherboard design is based on an PC designed motherboard would be interesting to know, maybe Intel ?. The bios is without doubt based on genuine Apple design.



Title: Re: VISTA
Post by: einstein36 on October 24, 2009, 07:21:23 AM
Okay, being an IT tech person and geek:)....
I will admit I am currently running windows 7 professional and I AM LOVING IT.....man, it's what Vista should have been, but I will keep saying this, what caused vista to be totally disliked and I can't stress this enough ;D


DRIVERS DRIVERS DRIVERS.....

you don't get the latest and greatest...then yeah....windows is going to continue to bomb away...in fact, I am kind of fighting right now a firewire driver that can cause my windows to crash just becasue stupid Tascam won't support the unit anymore thus, it gets confused with my other firewire device..
Title: Re: VISTA
Post by: mgriffin on October 24, 2009, 11:12:41 AM
Still, I just picked up a used Lenovo desktop, with some spare components (bigger hard drive, DVD drive, etc.) and when they're put together I plan to install Ubuntu Linux.  I could actually do that in an afternoon, but my high school daughter is taking a computer hardware maintenance class and I said I'd let her help.

I just recently installed Ubuntu on a Lenovo machine someone gave me (laptop, though, not desktop) and I found Ubuntu to run much slower (in terms of user interface responsiveness, and time for applications to open, windows to close, menus to respond to mouse input) on the same machine compared to XP.  I've read that if you tweak your drivers, particularly display drivers, or download drivers more specific to your components, you can get more Windows-like performance out of most Linux distributions.  I know I've used machines that had Linux pre-installed on them and presumably tweaked for the hardware config, and it was quite responsive.

One thing I find irritating about Linux is how many major cross-platform applications (Firefox, Thunderbird, Open Office)  seem to lag just behind the Windows and Mac versions.  Ubuntu does come with a fun mahjong game preinstalled!
Title: Re: VISTA
Post by: ambient789 on October 24, 2009, 06:50:12 PM
Personally, I'm on XP right now. I didn't bother to try Vista. I have seen it and I could not get excited about it. I'm going to wait about 6 months before going to Windows 7. I do know another techie that has worked with Windows 7 from the early builds of it and is very happy with it. Much better resource management, in his opinion.

My (main) problem with Microsoft has always been that they release a new OS and the drivers, 3rd party utilities, and software vendors all have to play catch up. Also, major bugs get found after a new OS release.
Thus, I will wait.

In my job, I use XP and probably an upgrade won't happen for quite awhile. Tight budget. 
Title: Re: VISTA
Post by: zzzone.net on October 25, 2009, 06:47:47 AM
It's on a need-to-upgrade basis only.

My current XP system is running very smoothly on a quad-core processor that's a year old.

So far I haven't had any needs to move to Vista or Windows 7, either the 32-bit or 64-bit flavors.

However, I am intrigued by Windows 7 64-bit and its ability to handle lots of RAM.  I can see where in the future if I edit huge photos or do video editing, running a 64-bit application might have an advantage.   Some of you may need this for music editing?

I have a good old scanner and printer.  I'm sure I would have some difficulties with them if I moved to Windows 7.

Right now, for me, Windows 7 would be eyecandy with a rotten center.  I'll let it mature a bit and buy a new PC in 2010 with it to try it out.  Perhaps I will get a netbook for travel, and it may have Win 7.
Title: Re: VISTA
Post by: Seren on October 25, 2009, 06:59:35 AM
I have Vista for family and internet use - mainly cos we needed a new laptop when we moved into a smaller house, no room for all the boxes - had more problems than I'd care to mention, mainly blus screen when the information coming into the page writing process is more than the memory can handle..............WTF has been my thought and feelings since getting it.

Most upgrades have just slowed it even more....making the WTF more fraught each time - unless I've just bummed out on a duff computer.

Currently on XP for music....no problems there.

may look at windows 7 sometime in the future when I have more cash available...
Title: Re: VISTA
Post by: darkenedsoul on October 25, 2009, 05:01:29 PM
Running it on a E6850 dual core oc'd to 3.6Ghz (when I fire it up) as well as XP Pro SP 3 (on first partition of 1TB raid 0). I was going to try Ubuntu from the Vista install so it doesn't screw up the boot loader (have to do it from Vista since it was installed 2nd) but it wouldn't work with 8.04? I think due to what they consider fakeraid/software raid so I had to trash that option. Would have been cool, strange thing is install went just fine but reboot failed miserably due to the raid situation. Don't think it's been resolved yet but should check into it.

As for Vista, I went Ultimate 64, it seems ok, I hear W7 is much better, especially audio-wise and a lot of people seem to like it (and as mentioned what Vista should have been). I am going to wait for now unless I get another SATA II HDD and install it as 3rd bootable OS into it to keep it separate. But being out of work still it's low on my list of things to buy ;-)  but I wish I had played with it.

Mike
Title: Re: VISTA
Post by: ambient789 on October 25, 2009, 09:07:44 PM
My point wasn't "don't dare mention putting OSX on PC hardware," just that Psystar is already being sued by Apple, tried declaring bankruptcy to preempt the suit and this effort was denied by the judge.  Psystar will be out of business soon, so it would be risky to purchase their products.  There are thousands of people installing OSX on PC hardware already -- google "hackintosh" to see what I mean.  There are guides to which hardware setups are most conducive to doing this.

Not all computer hardware is equal, whether it runs Windows or Linux or MacOS, so to imply that you can install OSX on some el-cheapo build-your-own PC configuration and have something as good as a Mac Pro is silly.

Well, if course the design is still not 100% identical,  however most of the components are PC components.
The exception is the motherboard and the BIOS. If the motherboard design is based on an PC designed motherboard would be interesting to know, maybe Intel ?. The bios is without doubt based on genuine Apple design.





My guess is that Apple uses a modified Intel based motherboard.
Title: Re: VISTA
Post by: ambient789 on October 25, 2009, 09:15:38 PM
My point wasn't "don't dare mention putting OSX on PC hardware," just that Psystar is already being sued by Apple, tried declaring bankruptcy to preempt the suit and this effort was denied by the judge.  Psystar will be out of business soon, so it would be risky to purchase their products.  There are thousands of people installing OSX on PC hardware already -- google "hackintosh" to see what I mean.  There are guides to which hardware setups are most conducive to doing this.

Not all computer hardware is equal, whether it runs Windows or Linux or MacOS, so to imply that you can install OSX on some el-cheapo build-your-own PC configuration and have something as good as a Mac Pro is silly.

Understood Mike. However, I do think that Apple will eventually regret moving over to Intel processors and using a Unix kernel for the OS. The temptation for some hackers wanting a "hackintosh" is irresistible.
Title: Re: VISTA
Post by: Blackinfinity on October 26, 2009, 06:11:10 AM
My point wasn't "don't dare mention putting OSX on PC hardware," just that Psystar is already being sued by Apple, tried declaring bankruptcy to preempt the suit and this effort was denied by the judge.  Psystar will be out of business soon, so it would be risky to purchase their products.  There are thousands of people installing OSX on PC hardware already -- google "hackintosh" to see what I mean.  There are guides to which hardware setups are most conducive to doing this.

Not all computer hardware is equal, whether it runs Windows or Linux or MacOS, so to imply that you can install OSX on some el-cheapo build-your-own PC configuration and have something as good as a Mac Pro is silly.



My guess is that Apple uses a modified Intel based motherboard.

That is my guess too, even though I am sure the true answer is out there on google...if you really want to know...

But yeah, Steve Jobs told in an interview, that they seen their self as an software company. Besides IPOD it seem that all their techonlogy they release is with help of other cooperations.  They do not invent new technology when it comes to hardware, what they are mostly responisible for is the design and software, and I must say, I have never liked the Apple design. I really hate white to begin with, I prefer darker colors.  They only cooperate with PC component manufacture and package it in an Apple with but for the twice of the price. For PC you have an ocean of choice, so the advantage is obvious, you no longer limited to a very small amount of hardware...

I strongly dislike their concept, I would like them more of they did for instance allow to use their OS on an PC (which can be done already but not officially supported). Their whole concept is based on blackmail, and forcing and trap us into use only their hardware, which in reality is only an PC but with Apple software/bios.




Title: Re: VISTA
Post by: mgriffin on October 26, 2009, 06:26:11 AM
My point wasn't "don't dare mention putting OSX on PC hardware," just that Psystar is already being sued by Apple, tried declaring bankruptcy to preempt the suit and this effort was denied by the judge.  Psystar will be out of business soon, so it would be risky to purchase their products.  There are thousands of people installing OSX on PC hardware already -- google "hackintosh" to see what I mean.  There are guides to which hardware setups are most conducive to doing this.

Not all computer hardware is equal, whether it runs Windows or Linux or MacOS, so to imply that you can install OSX on some el-cheapo build-your-own PC configuration and have something as good as a Mac Pro is silly.

Understood Mike. However, I do think that Apple will eventually regret moving over to Intel processors and using a Unix kernel for the OS. The temptation for some hackers wanting a "hackintosh" is irresistible.

I think Apple would disagree.  They were reaching a dead-end in PowerPC CPU development with Motorola and IBM, who were falling farther and farther behind Intel.  That was giving a lot of people a simple, obvious reason to avoid Apple hardware -- lack of horsepower -- that no longer exists.

The number of people making stable, upgradeable "hackintosh" machines is insignificant compared to the increased number of Macs they're selling because Apple hardware is faster due to the switch to Intel.  Apple is gradually selling more and more Mac computers (especially laptops).
Title: Re: VISTA
Post by: mgriffin on October 26, 2009, 06:35:01 AM
But yeah, Steve Jobs told in an interview, that they seen their self as an software company. Besides IPOD it seem that all their techonlogy they release is with help of other cooperations.  They do not invent new technology when it comes to hardware, what they are mostly responisible for is the design and software, and I must say, I have never liked the Apple design. I really hate white to begin with, I prefer darker colors.  They only cooperate with PC component manufacture and package it in an Apple with but for the twice of the price. For PC you have an ocean of choice, so the advantage is obvious, you no longer limited to a very small amount of hardware...

I strongly dislike their concept, I would like them more of they did for instance allow to use their OS on an PC (which can be done already but not officially supported). Their whole concept is based on blackmail, and forcing and trap us into use only their hardware, which in reality is only an PC but with Apple software/bios.

You don't like Apple, that's fine.  But you give a bunch of reasons based on misunderstanding or willful disinformation.

Apple is responsible for at least as many technology patents, if not vastly more, than any other PC manufacturer you could name.  The extent to which they assemble "off the shelf" PC components is, again, less than any other PC manufacturer (including esoteric specialists like Boxx or Alienware).

Yes, their profit margins are higher than Dell, and the reason for that is that Dell assembles boxes using the cheapest possible components, generally geared toward the lowest sale price.  When you "build to order" a Dell or HP or Gateway machine with better parts specified, what you'll find is -- surprise -- the comparable Apple hardware really isn't that much more expensive at all.  Of course Apple doesn't make a $349 piece of crap box like Dell does.  They're not trying to compete in that market, and if you think they should, I'd suggest you compare Apple's stock results to Dell's (hint:  Apple could buy Dell with the spare cash they have sitting around).  The world doesn't need another Dell.  Gateway tried that and almost bankrupted themselves.

Read this. http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/apple-mac-leopard-windows-vista,1985.html (http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/apple-mac-leopard-windows-vista,1985.html)  Especially the page titled "Total Misconceptions and Being Severely Misinformed." 

Note also that www.tomshardware.com is a PC-centric site for people who enjoy messing around under the hood of their computer, overclocking the CPU, and benchmarking differences in RAM speed... hardly Apple fanboys.

Opinions are fine, disliking white is fine, preferring whatever color of plastic you like is totally OK.  Just don't spout a bunch of falsehoods in support of your argument.
Title: Re: VISTA
Post by: petekelly on October 26, 2009, 09:25:18 AM

I have Vista on my dedicated music machine,  I don't love it and I don't hate it. Its stable, but I
had to do a lot of tweaking to get it to run 'lean'.
 
Not having it connected to the Internet is a big thing, without having to run antivirus and firewall
programs, it boots up and shuts down very quickly - which is nice.

cheers
Pete
Title: Re: VISTA
Post by: LNerell on October 26, 2009, 10:13:47 AM
Well, soon I will transform my PC to Pure APPLE also, i will just paint the computer white and put on the APPLE logo :)

While you are at it why don't you buy a Volkswagen, paint it white, and then put a Mercedes logo on it, same thing I would think. That way you can also prove your superiority to the auto aficionados as well.  ;D

As for Vista, my first run in with it was while temping for a game developer, it seemed to me at the time that a lot of the so called upgrades were done just because they could do it and actually would slow down your work flow if you were familiar with XP at all. I've also known a few people who bought new PCs with Vista and then tried to hook up their printers, scanners, and other add-on hardware devices that they had used with their older XP computers, but found they no longer worked because no drivers had been developed. Of course this has changed but it was a common complaint I heard from early adaptors. On the  plus side, now that I do mostly a/v work here at the school, I have found that laptops with Vista are more friendly when dealing with projectors then computers running XP.
Title: Re: VISTA
Post by: mgriffin on October 28, 2009, 10:28:48 AM
Back to the subject of Windows Vista again... there are tools I've used myself, and recommended to others at times with some reservations, that can help quickly modify a lot of the settings that make Vista (and XP) so irritating.

For Vista there's a program called Vispa, and for XP it's Xpy.  Links here:

Vispa
http://vispa.whyeye.org/

Xpy
http://xpy.whyeye.org/

These tools make it possible to destroy your Vista or XP installation if you change things without knowing what you're doing, which is why I said I recommend these tools only with some recommendations.  If you have a "stock" Windows installation these apps can quickly help you change dozens of default settings to simplify and streamline your Windows environment.  By default, Windows has all kinds of active programs and services running in the background, as well as resource-wasteful settings in various applications.  If you find yourself irritated with the default behavior of Internet Explorer, or Windows Media Player, or if you wonder why there are so many background services running that seem irrelevant to how you use your computer, you may be able to streamline things significantly with these tools.

Too bad I haven't yet been able to find an automatic de-crapifyer application to remove all the crapware installed on all pre-built PCs... various "trial versions" and teaser applications and crippled "light" versions of applications.  No thanks, I don't need AOL preinstalled on my new computer!  It can take hours just to get a new store-bought PC ready for use, uninstalling and re-starting and uninstalling some more.
Title: Re: VISTA
Post by: mgriffin on December 21, 2009, 05:12:18 PM
Follow-up on Mac clone-maker Psystar... now out of business.  That didn't take long.

http://www.nasdaq.com/aspx/stock-market-news-story.aspx?storyid=200912172008dowjonesdjonline000657 (http://www.nasdaq.com/aspx/stock-market-news-story.aspx?storyid=200912172008dowjonesdjonline000657)
Title: Re: VISTA
Post by: mgriffin on December 22, 2009, 03:29:55 PM
New article on "great and disappointing operating systems of the decade" from IT World.

http://www.itworld.com/operating-systems/89733/great-disappointing-operating-systems-decade (http://www.itworld.com/operating-systems/89733/great-disappointing-operating-systems-decade)

Some obvious choices here (Windows ME = boo, hiss) but an interesting read.

They agree Vista was a disaster.