Windows Vista, one of the worst products of all time, says CNET

You know... I've NEVER had an issue with Vista other than a few buggy games, but it wasn't vista, it was the game (cough - silverfall - cough)

I suppose if I didn't need networked computers compatible with a number of key PC based business applications that haven't worked out their problems with Vista then Vista would be fine.

But the thing of it is... if I could operate smoothly in a Vista world without all the PC application dependence, I would make the move to Mac.

jak it's funny because product marketing has instilled such strong "philosophical" responses in what until recently was a computing commodity.

I can do so much more with this machine and its terminal application than I can do under Windows: I've got a real command interpreter and easy access to the best of breed open source toolchain that I've been using for most of my professional life. CygWin just doesn't cut it, and the less said about Windows' drain-bamaged cmd.exe the better. Windows doesn't even ship with the compilers used to create it: OS X does. An OS without a compiler is castrated, in my opinion.

As Larry Wall once said about Perl's design philosophy: the easy things should be easy, and the hard things possible. Leopard sure seems to meet those criteria for me. Your milage may vary, in which case it is probably accurate for you to remain in your comfort zone. Getting the job done is the most important thing.

jak its the coke vs. pepsi propaganda push. If we believe we are what we buy, then we have drunk the marketing sugar water to find our identity. Are you a coke person or a pepsi person?

My philosophical take on Mac vs. PC since we have wandered there... is that smart marketers have branded so well a demographic that is cool and bears a certain product logo. People are trying to squeeze into that imaginary demographic to be more accepted.

This is a dream for a business when they offer a product that transforms a buyers identity. Not only is the product "good" but buyers of the product are extra special and so begins the religious experience.

I'll get off my rant and climb back in my environmentally conscious toyota with my shiny Mac stickers and be on my very cool, independently minded way even if I'm still using Dells and HPs back in the office.

I can do so much more with this machine and its terminal application than I can do under Windows: I've got a real command interpreter and easy access to the best of breed open source toolchain that I've been using for most of my professional life. CygWin just doesn't cut it, and the less said about Windows' drain-bamaged cmd.exe the better. Windows doesn't even ship with the compilers used to create it: OS X does. An OS without a compiler is castrated, in my opinion.

Exactly.

It always amazes me to hear people describe OS X as "dumbed down", when it fact it's a fully certified Unix operating system, one of the most powerful and versatile operating systems in the world. I'm not sure what "infantile language" jak was referring to...Could it be the easy to understand dialog boxes that actually make sense to humans? Not sure...

Plus, I wonder how long people will keep holding on to the "one button mouse" bit, even though it hasn't been true for a while (and even when it was, all you had to do was plug in ANY multi-button USB mouse...)?

Windows doesn't even ship with the compilers used to create it: OS X does. An OS without a compiler is castrated, in my opinion.

Well that's a perfectly reasonable point of view for the 1% of programmers who don't want to pay for a compiler and don't want to download gcc (or one of the other many free compilers you can download). Which is a hefty 0.01% of the population.

An operating system should stick to operating hardware and network resources.

OS X is also cheaper than Windows, as is Linux. Both ship with their compilers.

I have a mac and a windows based pc at my desk (two separate computers) at work so I'm using XP and Tiger every day. I just keep away from all new operating systems for a year until they're working properly and I'm glad that the company isn't upgrading us yet (to vista or leopard). I don't understand why people are such hard core mac lovers and just love the fact that vista sucks. Yeah it does, mostly because people are upgrading to it. Upgrading an existing OS to a new one never works well. you're better off burning your files to a disk, deleting your partitions and installing fresh. Also make sure you have decent enough hardware for the OS. Vista is for more powerful machines so don't try to upgrade your Pentium III with 256 of ram to Vista. it won't work. now if you have a NEW computer with NEW printers and such, then you won't have a problem with it but you'd be suprised at the old crap that people still use. I used to scrap PC's for recycling when I worked for a computer chain. Two years ago people were bringing in Pentium II computers with 4mb of memory for exchange.

oh and the only thing I use my mac for is Photoshop, go figure.

jak,

the 'core philosophies' of the apple corporate world, which are, as i see them: a) proprietaryness (in both hardware and software);

Under the eye candy is BSD Unix. Open source standardized Unix. Much of the proprietary interface is mixed with open source and standards. Safari, for example, is one of the most standards compliant browsers (far more than IE and more strict than Firefox) and it's based on WebKit, which is open source. Even Apple's iCal is standardized to use shared calendars and their calendar server is open source. They contribute quite a bit to the open source community.

Much of their hardware is commodity. It's simply not intended for you to mess with as easily as a stock Windows machine. But that doesn't mean the entire system is proprietary.

b)extremely expensive

True years ago, but not today. Take their most expensive hardware systems and try to build a similar system from another company. Their prices are on par, especially considering the quality (e.g. have you ever seen the inside of a G5?).

d)and most of all: a philosophy that the customer must be 'dumbed down and pandered to' (one button mouse, turns on and off for you, simple infantile language to describe things, etc).

I'm a software developer, which means I'm a hardcore user. And so is everyone I work with. We're all on Macs and definitely don't see them as dumbed down. OS X tells me exactly what I need to know. And when I want to extremely technical stuff it allows me and stays out of the way. It's the opposite of dumbed down. It's intelligent on the surface without hindering my work.

proprietaryness

Let's talk about 'proprietaryness' some more. Which manufacturer standardized on USB peripherals first? Apple. Which software vendor fully supports MPAA MPEG video? Apple. Which vendor adopted an MPEG standard for their audio players (AAC)? Apple.

Which vendor has pushed not one, not two, but three major proprietary audio standards? Microsoft. Which vendor has pushed their own proprietary video standards? Microsoft. Which vendor is pushing for their own document standard instead of the open standard OpenDocument? Microsoft.

The emperor has no clothes. Let's stop pretending. Point to serious instances of Apple's 'proprietaryness.'

And FWIW, FairPlay isn't really fair game, so to speak. It's DRM, yes, that music industry executives insisted upon. But where possible, Apple has begun selling music without FairPlay, and ripping your own CDs doesn't encode FairPlay restrictions into your music. FairPlay music has also been, since its introduction, among the more generous DRM restriction schemes.

I want to chime in on jak68's initial comment, which has had a few good points made already, but the way I see it, Apple hardware / software has been fairly proprietary since its inception, until it relatively recently moved to the BSD *nix kernel. IMO this has been a very good thing, and Apple might not like me saying this, but I've never worried about having the appropriate license for their O/S exactly because it will only run on their hardware. They've never really been too anal about it (even relying on the honor system for people to buy the 5 install "family pack" vs the single user o/s). No registration key, no problem. Everybody bought the o/s when the computer was new.

The other misconception is the "infantile" help guides. It's always been my impression that the mac is so intuitive that you don't really need a manual. Therefore the simplicity of the help docs is mostly to guide you on your way as fast as possible, most of us don't want or need the over-wrought explanation.

This has just taken a new turn into the depths of fantasy:

"But that doesnt mean that until this point apple hasnt been violently proprietary."

Apple has long been a supporter of open standards whether that be in audio and video or other areas. In fact ever since Steve Jobs returned to the company in 97 they have pushed forward open standards and both used open source software and added it back to the community. Microsoft on the other hand have tried to push several of their own video standards down people's throats as well as their audio standards, image file formats, documents formats anything to get that crucial lock in. Microsofts idea of openness is loading a vote on whether one of their standards shoudl be adopted with their paid dealers.

the long drawn out fight over DRM and itunes.

Numerous studies have shown that on 3-5% of music on iPods was purchased from the iTunes store, meaning that the 95-97% was ripped form CDs already owned. If iTunes was lfet on it's default settings these songs would have been ripped in....AAC format, an open standard. Further Steve Jobs stated in an interview in 2003 (just after it's release) that he'd rather there was no DRM on the iTunes store but that it was a condition of the deal with the labels. This was then of course followed up by his infamous open letter earlier this year.

they act like apple was always glad to open up its software and hardware.

This was true in the past but when Steve Jobs returned to the back in 97 he knew to turn it around Apple had to be open. I'm sorry but history simply does not support your arguments.

Numerous studies have shown that on 3-5% of music on iPods was purchased from the iTunes store, meaning that the 95-97% was ripped form CDs already owned.

Or purchased from other online sources, such as eMusic (where I buy most of my tunes.)

Because you keep stating as "fact" something that isn't a fact.

It's already been established that Apple is more open to "choice" in any number of important categories. You keep ignoring that and saying:

pc's have more of it, any way you want to cut it.

I've seen at least three people "cut it" another way, with examples, and yet you keep "cutting it" your way, without providing many concrete examples at all.

The reason you don't like the treatment you're receiving, is because you're arguing about something you don't use against people who do use the product.

That was my point all along, which I dont expect you guys to get.

Great way to win a debate. Call your opponents idiots. That's much smarter than investigating and seeing that most of the stated facts which dispute yours are correct.

Its about flexibility and choice: pc's have more of it, any way you want to cut it. And thats why certain things are simpler on macs -- its at the cost of choice. I dont know why this basic point seems so complicated to ya'll.

Because it's wrong. It's factually incorrect. The only extra choice you get with PCs is hardware, and that's barely relevant to the overall experience when a full spectrum of options is already available from Apple and peripheral vendors. Apple hardware can fill the needs of 95%+ of users.

As for software I also find this wrong, although it's more a matter of personal experience. Whenever I'm asked by a PC user what application they would need to match what they have on their computer, I've always found a comparable application for OS X. So from my perspective you definitely sound like someone who has had very little real Mac experience (and I've only had two years myself).

BTW, I was a hardcore Windows user for over 10 years, so I do have a real basis for comparison.

Plus the fact that Mac fans are a cult.

The Cult of Mac.

For the true Mac lover. Possibly the largest computing subculture on this planet. This book is about everything Mac in a fashion sense. The first coffee table book for Mac that I can think of.

There is nothing technical about this book. It's solely about the Mac life style. Shave a Mac apple into the back of your head. It's alright here. The Mac. It's not just the worlds best computer it's also an art form.

Why is this whole article about the Mac now? Not even mentioned in the article. Now who will step forward to defend the humble Tamagotchi which was so unfairly listed as one of the worst ten tech items ever.

Damn you Brian ! I had hoped I had forgotten those things forever.....

Tamagotchi

That's an interesting point. I'd like to know who first brought Macs into the debate.

A quick peak shows that TopJedi made a fairly offhand reference to "considering a switch" (this seems on topic, given the thrust of the seed) and then surprise, surprise it was Jak who began the "Mac v. PC" debate in comment #3.4:

its funny, i wouldnt personally move to macs even then, probably because i feel like i disagree with the 'core philosophies' of the apple corporate world, which are, as i see them: a) proprietaryness (in both hardware and software); b)extremely expensive c)fashion-cultishness; d)and most of all: a philosophy that the customer must be 'dumbed down and pandered to' (one button mouse, turns on and off for you, simple infantile language to describe things, etc). I personally believe a customer should be treated like an adult - ie, like someone who wants* to continue expanding their knowledge and use of technology - not limit it. so for these reasons which are really 'philosophical' differences between apple core philosophies and myself, i dont think i'd switch to macs even if the pc application dependencies were removed.

funny, aint it?

And, again -- what he's been criticized about is making statements which are debatable at the very least, and wrong at worst -- while trying to pretend that he's making observations which are based on opinion.

That's like me saying that it's my "opinion" that 2 + 2 = 3 and then getting all worked up when my Math teacher flunks me.

The best part is that this seed is from CNET -- arguably one of the more anti-Apple outfits on the internet. So, it seems to me that if anyone needs to be called out for being defensive, it's Jak, who felt the need to turn this into a debate about an OS that wasn't really mentioned in the article.

For what it's worth, I've never been a Leander Kahney fan.

I loved my son's Tamagotchi, I took care of it more then he did :P

I loved my son's Tamagotchi

My daughter would always hand hers to me just as she would give up and I would have to figure out how to save the darned thing. I was not the worlds best caretaker I am afraid to say !

I tried to figure out ways to torture the Tamagotchi.

Brian- I loved my Tamagotchi! It's way better then Vista!!
and I agree about the mac cult.

I'll just go back to worshiping the Flying Spaghetti Monster. the Mac lovers can have their white boxes.

Q: What do the flying spaghetti monster and the cult of mac have in common?

A: They're both made up!

Thanks, though for allowing me to have something. Believe it or not, I could care less if you want to use a Mac or not. For the life of me I'll never understand why it bothers people that someone is happy with the product they use on a daily basis.

I don't care if you love your mac. As the book I linked to shows, some people take it really really far.

It's not just the worlds best computer it's also an art form.

That was a comment from a reader, not part of the book :)

So what? Their are idiots praising everything to an odd degree.

Either way, the fact that this person has an extreme fondness for something, and exaggerates while discussing it -- how does that impact you? How does it say anything about your choice to use another product?

Mac users, by and large, talk amongst themselves or talk favorably about something they use. The "cult status" appears when someone who doesn't like Apple's products comes in to poop on the parade -- and more often than not, they don't get very many things right when they do so.

Perhaps it doesn't bother you but it does really bother some people, and those people always play the victim when their assessments aren't wanted -- usually because they're wrong.

I could care less

Brian, normally the grammar God, has let me down.

I'm ending it all.

Viva la Mac.

If you think I'm the grammar God, you've not spent much time reading my column.

So what? Their are idiots praising everything to an odd degree.

Tell me about it.

http://worsethanfailure.com/Comments/Who-Says-That-Size-Matters.aspx

Re: Who Says That Size Matters?
2007-11-27 18:32 • by rro (unregistered)

162888 in reply to 162886
Reply Quote
See ? These guys were being stuck with a buggy 3rd party proprietary library and they couldn't do anything to fix it. Proprietary software RESTRICTS your freedom because in case of bugs, even if you have a support contract, you are ENTIRELY dependent on the vendor to fix bugs.

Whereas with open source software, in addition to support contracts that you can buy from companies providing OSS support (if you want to), you have access to source code and can fix bugs yourself. Or you can hire a contractor specialized in OSS. Or you can request help from the OSS community. There are, literally, thousands, tens of thousands of developers on this planet who can fix any bug in OSS applications.

This is one of the reason of why I promote OSS and why my company heavily and successfully relies on OSS.

And it just so happens that open source programming zealots and Mac fans are the two groups I hear it from the most. I have nothing against either, but my job literally wouldn't allow me to run anything other than windows so maybe I don't like hearing how the grass is greener on the other side.

I have worked with Macs longer then Windows, only because I am old, I learned how to program in Basic, and Fortran on an Apple IIe. I like Macs, I have a owned a few, I own one now. But I talk to all kinds of people, and Mac customers can be particularly obnoxious. "What do mean I'm hosting a phishing site, I own a Mac". "I can't be spamming I own a Mac". Just today, I talked with a person who could not get over themselves, when it came to their knowledge of their Mac. I'm not talking a few here either, happens all the time. And it is tiresome.

But until I can figure out how to remotely shock people over the phone, I will have to listen it.

All Computers suck, Apple computers suck less. Someone will come along in 10 years or so with a better way of doing the same things, or just a totally new product of technology that changes how we work and play games all together. Then all this PC vs Mac brouhaha will all look as silly as boxers vs Briefs.

Mac users, by and large, talk amongst themselves or talk favorably about something they use. The "cult status" appears when someone who doesn't like Apple's products comes in to poop on the parade -- and more often than not, they don't get very many things right when they do so.

Brian Ford - I was told that I was not intelligent by a mac lover after I poked fun a leopard with a common name we use around here in interactive (Leotard). I make fun of an OS and was personally attacked as if I had insulted their mother. That's insanity. I use a mac computer and windows computer everyday so I know the pros and cons of both but I don't love either OS and I won't care if you make fun of either one.

There are those few mac users who get upset if you criticize the company in any way. That's where the idea of the cult comes from.

I make fun of an OS and was personally attacked as if I had insulted their mother.

Hrm. C'mon. By poking fun at something someone uses, in a crowd full of people who use it, you can't tell me that you weren't implying something more than "making fun of the OS..."

Jak:

What I find curious is how you say one thing, but behave totally different. Half way through saying it's 'all preference' you spend 3 comments making stupid comments that are clearly designed to inflame. It's baffling to me that you can't see (or, you can see and you just like pretending to be innocent) that the arguments you get into (here and with your coworker) are facilitating by your need to make dumb comments, many of which are inaccurate.

It was incredible, and incredibly obnoxious.

And also incredibly successful. I'm curious though -- what planet are you from where you think that companies don't actively try and woo customers away from their competition? It's called competition, and in a free market, it's pretty much a necessity.

Your last three comments were yet more unsupported rhetoric pulled out of thin air. Yes, I'm sure you can link me to a few articles about scratched iPods. And then I'll link you to data about how they retain something around 70% market share. Something tells me that can't be comprised of Mac Zealots. Yes, Apple was sold faulty batteries by Sony -- much like any number of other manufacturers who were bitten by the same problem. Repairs expensive, compared to what? I wouldn't really know, as I've never paid for a repair. It's either been covered under warranty, or I've simply not had to deal with a repair. Meanwhile, Apple regularly is rated higher than other companies for their customer service.

You may be one of the biggest hypocrites I've ever met. You spend your time bemoaning mac users who supposedly talk @!$%# about Windows all the while talking @!$%# about Apple. Yet the mac users on this column have (by and large) left windows alone to refute your made up statements, which is a lot of work, as you seem to get just about everything you say wrong.)

Clearly, if anyone is involved in a cult -- it's you.

even tho i have yet to actually meet a mac user who WASNT also a zealot

I've never met a Jak who wasn't a troll. I guess that makes us even.

Jesus, with comments like that, I'm shocked that people are coming in to defend you. You're not even trying to pretend like you're sensible.

Tom

Get a hammer.

It won't work with my new printer - I had to buy an even newer one. It may not work with my camera software or scanner. Most of my games won't work. They changed the Word format - now it's not compatible with the standard Word 97-03 format, unless you save it in a special way, and it still fritzes out. They ditched Outlook Express for some new infernal unworkable user-unfriendly mail manager.

Honestly, it's a disaster for users, but I'm sure it's making a lot of money for both software and hardware suppliers.

#$@*&!!

microsoft has nothing to do with the drivers for these products. Its the manufacturers of the products who are responsible to writing the driver software.

that's a point all the MS bashers seem to miss. Apple peripherals don't have this problem as much since most most extra hardware is made by Apple, but then you lose some variety and choice, which then again isn't such a big deal since apple tends to make such great products.

Anyways, my point is vista isn't so bad.

Apple peripherals don't have this problem as much since most most extra hardware is made by Apple, but then you lose some variety and choice, which then again isn't such a big deal since apple tends to make such great products.

Scwab I'm sorry but that is just not true. Apple users use a wide variety of third party peripherals but I agree with Jak68 when he says that it is the manufacturers of the products who are responsible for writing the driver software. However Microsoft does not make their job easy whereas Apple does.

Anyone who knows of software that can help me make some of my other computer accesories compatible with Vista, please let me know.

Sure Tom, that's easy. You just load your Vista into Parallels on any recent model Macintosh and it'll work with everything else you got without you configuring anything ...

Hi Jak68

You are in essence correct there are a more limited number of Mac peripherals than there are PC peripherals, but this is not what has caused the problem for people writing drivers. There are in essence two main differences:

1) PC's have many different configurations which can cause all sorts of driver conflicts and other issues whereas when people write drivers for Macs there are only a limited number of Mac models to write and test for.

2) Is kind of linked to one. Apple have provided much better developer kits for people wriiting drivers than Microsoft have. But then it's easier for Apple to do this because they have a limited number of hardware configurations.

Thats basically true.

Um. It's basically not true.

What kind of peripherals are you talking about?

Brian. I think had jak68's point been that there are many more peripherals for PC than Macs (note I did not say a wider range) that he would essentially be correct. For pretty much every PC peripheral there is a Mac equivalent however whereas there might be 100 different webcams (this is for example only obviously the numbers are only meant to be comparative between Mac and PC) for PC there might only be 5 for Mac. Of course this would make his friend's comments not true, unless his friend has a penchant for having 12 different webcams attached in one go. ;)

Jak68 is right to say that this is one of the core trade offs between Mac and PC and sums up why I think for the majority of consumers a Mac is the right choice. By limiting configuration possibilities Apple ensure that more things "just work". Apple didn't even seem to have as many issues moving from OS9 to OSX as Microsoft have from XP to Vista.

some people dont need all the choice that pc's offer, others do

I see this a lot, but I find it hard to believe except in a chicken and egg sort of way. Name me one peripheral that you have to have Windows for for any reason other than the only drivers that exist are for Windows, which is because there are a lot of Windows machines out there.

In other words, it isn't about choice: if the peripheral manufacturers were so into choice their would be Linux and Mac drivers for everything that was sold, or at least a reference implementation that would let the Linux guys figure it out on their own. There isn't, so I have to conclude this is mostly about lazy developers catering to a pre-existing market, not some mystical need for "choice" that Windows users have.

I used to use the C-pen nearly every day (an amazing little handheld OCR text reader/translator) for my research and school work. I know if I had owned a mac, that would not have even been an option.

Sorry Jak68, I use a portable scanner and Readiris Pro with my MacBook, try again.

Apple couldnt even put out a non-buggy version of Itunes for a very long time.

Because of course Windows Media player is just so inherently stable, please cut the BS. Have you actually ever used a Mac?

And I like, a lot, the fact that I have a surplus of neat perhipherals to choose from, even if that means 100 webcams rather than the handful of propriety (and expensive) models apple offers or the questionable mac drivers that companies like logitech put out for apples.

I've never owned an Apple webcam, only ever third party ones (including Logitech) and I've never had any problems and they were very reasonably priced. Unfortunately for the PC of those 100 webcams at least 25% are of such dubious quality with such badly written drivers that they cause half the problems that MS get blamed for. Further, that 25% tend to see a larger number of sales because people who are shopping for PCs are much more likely to be shopping based on price rather than quality.

Again, why are they Windows only? Only because the manufacturer only writes Windows drivers. Lazy developers, not more "choice."

but yes, its true: for someone like my mother who wants a simple machine that doesnt offer too many choices (only 1 buttton on the mouse, only a finite number of programs available, only a finite number of menu options, and it even turns itself on and off for you)

I wish this had been said at the beginning of the comment, rather than the end -- because it really sums up your ignorance about the mac platform very well.

Macs come with a multi-button mouse, and have for some time now. Before that, there was absolutely nothing stopping a person from buying and using a two button mouse. Anyone who actually cares enough to complain about a lack of a second mouse button isn't using the default mouse that comes with their Dell or brand PC, either -- so to turn around and complain about having to buy a third party mouse for an Apple product is lame.

To deny that the ability to do exists is naive.

As for your other arguments, I can actually use just about any program ever written, because if I wanted to, I could install XP or Vista via Bootcamp. This renders your "less software, less peripherals" argument moot.

Apple couldnt even put out a non-buggy version of Itunes for a very long time.

I'm assuming you're referencing their iTunes for Windows? If you're not, you don't know what you're talking about...

At any rate, your continued assertion that most peripherals don't work on a Mac is astoundingly uninformed.

Sorry.

I'm not sure why you would ever expect anyone to take what you say seriously, because most of your comments are demonstrably false which means that you're either 1) ignorant or 2) willfully misleading people.

The worst part is that you refuse to change your statements even after it's pointed out that they're inaccurate.

no need to try again bro. the c-pen is far and away the most accurate (near 98%) handheld ocr device on the market. Nothing else even comes close. If macs dont support it, i'm not interested in macs.

Go to c-pen's website. The software for Mac is available right on their website

http://www.cpen.com/Download/software_upgrades/m1

SOFTWARE FOR MACINTOSH » C-Pen 10 Software for Mac OS 8.6-9.2 (v. 1.00) [25 MB] » C-Pen 10 Software for Mac OS X 10.2 (v. 1.01) [34 MB] » C-Pen 10 Software for Mac OS X 10.3.2 (v. 1.02) [34 MB]

Brian is 100% correct about the multi-button mice. You're using very old arguments that haven't been true for a long time (and were never really true given that the Mac OS has supported multi-button mice for as long as there have been multi button mice.

As for the supposed lack of 3rd party devices...Again, see: C-pen above. Also, I can use any printer I can think of, scanners are no problem, etc. I have a hard time finding any common computing peripherals that don't work on a Mac. Better yet, most of them work much easier. When I bought my new Canon printer, I just plugged it in. That was it. No driver disc that had to be installed, followed by a reboot, etc.

Your total lack of understanding is frustrating, because it's false statements like yours that bring out the Mac "apologists" (otherwise known as those of us who don't let false and ridiculous statements go un-challenged,) but when we do try to correct false statements, we're called fanboys, cultists, etc.

jak68:

no need to try again bro. the c-pen is far and away the most accurate (near 98%) handheld ocr device on the market. Nothing else even comes close. If macs dont support it, i'm not interested in macs.

Would that be this cpen? http://www.cpen.com/Download/software_upgrades/m1

If so, it would seem that Macs as far back as OS 8.6 support cpen. Though of course it would be more accurate to say that cpen supports Macs, since hardware drivers are written by the hardware designers and not by the makers of the OS. Though admittedly cpen's manufacturers seem to have fallen behind in supporting the most recent updates to OS X and have only upgraded their drivers to OS X for one item in their line. Which again brings things back to lazy device manufacturers.

gecko:

Sorry for essentially duplicating your post, I had been writing my response during some spare time at work and didn't check to see if anyone else had already replied before I posted it.

Even leveldown implied this when he said above, "yes but for most consumers" thats why he recommends macs, because fewer options means more simplicity.

I did not imply that. My point was that by having fewer configurations of hardware Apple have made the jobs of third party manufacturers a lot easier when it comes to manufacturing drivers. This means that their drivers are much more likely to "just work" meaning the job for the average consumer to install something on there own is much easier. Please do not try to put words in my mouth.

As has been stated many times in these threads the options are there on a Mac for people that want to get more in depth it's just that they are better hidden from those that don't need t know abut them. Those that do need/want to know about them, know where to find them.

Jak,

but tom, microsoft has nothing to do with the drivers for these products. Its the manufacturers of the products who are responsible to writing the driver software.

It's not at all that simple. To use the Windows logo a hardware vendor's drivers are certified by Microsoft. Microsoft provides documentation, development tools, and testing tools. They then test and certify the drivers are good.

One of Windows' shortcomings is their driver APIs change drastically with every release. Hardware vendors are forced to continually rewrite and alter their drivers every few years. Vista, for example, altered its low-level security model, forcing some hardware manufacturers to deal with a new set of constraints and issues on a new OS. If the security model had been well built and stable in prior versions of Windows it wouldn't be as much trouble to upgrade drivers for Vista.

Linux and OS X are much more stable (in terms of driver APIs), and therefore far easier to support.

Tom, about Word - that's not Vista, that's the new Word format (which actually has some neat new features). The new format can be read on older versions of Word provided that you have Compatibility Pack installed.

I can't say I love Vista (since I do get occasional crashes), but, at the same time, I think that it isn't as bad a system as everyone makes it sound. Sure there are compatibility problems, but I don't think that's an indication of something being necessarily bad. MSFT I think is slowly getting their act together.

I gotta say, I don't like Macs though. On the surface, great design. But, at the same time, GUI is clunky (may be just a habit thing for me), tons of proprietary stuff, it crashes on me regularly, and the quality of software seems to be... well.. I don't see a significant improvement over PC software (if any). Although I wouldn't say they are evil - they are different. A lot of apps are better on a Mac. A lot are better on PC.

tons of proprietary stuff

Such as? This assertion has already been addressed once in this thread.

Normally, I'd agree with you -- but if someone persists in posting inaccurate comments about something even after being corrected, willful ignorance is about the only description fit for use.

Everyone has a right to their opinion, even bad ones. :)

I have no problems with opinions, even bad ones. But I do take issue with opinions based on ignorance. When someone says "Macs suck because they have a one-button mouse", that's more than just an opinion. It's factually incorrect. This one-button mouse assertion, as well as several other factual inaccuracies were pointed out and corrected, yet the poster continued repeating the falsehoods in later comments, then calls us "fanboys" for pointing out factually incorrect assertions.

Wait, first of all, the mac I got (PowerBook) had only one mouse button, which I found frustrating...

As far as proprietary stuff - ever try plugging a monitor into a PowerBook? ;)

I plug a Sharp 19" LCD monitor into my 15" PowerBook every day. It has a standard DVI input. My 12" did not, but Apple's is hardly the only tiny laptop that makes use of a dongle for some connections to conserve room in the actual laptop case.

manoman, the apple hipsters are absolutely ravenous on newsvine. You can't state your opinion without being accused of being "ignorant or wilfully misleading", as if whether you prefer a mac or a pc is life or death. This isn't war and peace, or feeding the homeless, or ending genocide, it's deciding what OS you like.

Take a deep breath, Brian. Jeez. While it's true that no one else has the sheer will to outlast your copious comment spam, it doesn't make you right, it just makes you a bully. Please don't make newsvine lame by playing king of the hill.

There's nothing wrong with simple ignorance. Everyone is ignorant about something (even me!). Willful ignorance is something else again. If something is being pointed out as incorrect, the proper response is not to keep posting the same incorrect information, but to incorporate it into your body of knowledge.

Everyone is ignorant about something (even me!).

Nah no way do I fall for that line spiffie. Reported as False advertising...

@ spiffie

What you're talking about is naivety. Ignorance is a choice, and has no excuse.

Wait, first of all, the mac I got (PowerBook) had only one mouse button, which I found frustrating...

As far as proprietary stuff - ever try plugging a monitor into a PowerBook? ;)

Er yeah my first Powerbook in 2003 had a standard DVI out as has every PowerBook I've owned.

Take a deep breath, Brian. Jeez. While it's true that no one else has the sheer will to outlast your copious comment spam, it doesn't make you right, it just makes you a bully. Please don't make newsvine lame by playing king of the hill.

As opposed to making it awesome by defending someone who is posting misleading information, even after being told it's not accurate?

Gotcha.

Please explain to me how that has anything to do with preference of mac vs. pc?

("no second button on the mouse, well then why dont you just ADAPT to it?" is the basic response; or, "yes, but macs ship with a second button NOW!" --> implicitly acknowleding that the criticism was in fact true and based on people's experiences with macs).

You've conveniently left out that we've argued (over and over) that Macs have always included support for 3rd party multi-button mice. Always. And we've pointed out that those who are really particular about mice on the PC side are not going to use the junk 2-button mouse that comes with their system -- they're going to buy a 3rd Party mouse.

So, how does it count against Apple that you might have to buy a 3rd Party mouse if you don't like the one that ships with their system?

You've done no such thing; every critique of macs in this thread has been valid and is based on people's experience; all you guys have done is respond with nitpicking and excuses and apologetics.

Again, you're just plain wrong. Every critique has NOT been valid, and that has been pointed out time and time again. You just refuse to accept the facts.

("no second button on the mouse, well then why dont you just ADAPT to it?" is the basic response; or, "yes, but macs ship with a second button NOW!" --> implicitly acknowleding that the criticism was in fact true and based on people's experiences with macs).

Again, you're just plain wrong. The argument has NOT been "well then why don't you just ADAPT to it?" Not at all. The simple fact is that Macs have shipped with multi button mice for QUITE SOME TIME, and that they've SUPPORTED multi button mice for MANY, MANY, MANY years. Your ignorance and stubbornness to acknowledge or comprehend the facts is truly amazine.

You guys are the ones being extremist. The windows users in this thread are perfectly happy to acknowledge windows past difficulties and things in the present that can be improved. But as far as you guys are concerned, macs never had any issues in the past, and dont have any issues in the present. IS THAT REASONABLE? Its downright religious.

Again, just plain wrong. The Mac users in this thread have, by and large, simply disputed your incorrect assertions (such as: Macs only come with a 1-button mouse, Macs don't have any peripherals available, Macs don't have any software available, Macs are infantile, Macs force you do do things 1-way only, etc.) Nobody has said Macs don't have any issues. You're just being dense.

It's funny. You, in particular, have made wildly inaccurate statements, and have responded to the simple corrections with charges of "fanboyism," "religiosity," etc. I guess at this point one must conclude you're nothing but a troll.

spiffie,

Perhaps, but this is, in all honesty, the first laptop where I had to start scratching my head with a "what's this?" expression when I couldn't plug my laptop in through either DVI or VGA... Sure it's not the only one I am sure, but that doesn't help the fact that I still don't have a dongle.

As far as other things, I don't really have that much experience. I know that with Mac every once in a while I run into completely unexpected problems, which is what annoys me to no end. But Mac does have its strong points... It's just that having used a Mac occasionally, I don't see a reason to switch unless I want something that just works for a limited (although large) set of things. So as a consumer, it's a good machine for chat, browsing, etc. It's also good, I hear for multimedia. But based on experience alone, I don't feel like there is anything to be gained from switching.

I stayed on Win98 as long as humanly possible for this very reason. I then bought a new computer with XP and cringed as I began to use it fearing a new WIN OS. I've always been a PC owner which means I've always feared new OS. It's never an easy process with WIN. When Vista came out I pretty much ignored it fearing what you are all telling me: It's a nightmare. I'll keep running the 4 year old OS I have and make updates until my software is obsolete. Best of luck people. Stay off the new OS bandwagon if you can - unless of course Microsoft shoves it down your throat with a new PC purchase as they do with all the other spyware. I swear Anti-virus software is more annoying than most viruses. Let's hear it for sys.restore! *volumes of empathy*

As soon as I can no longer run apps on XP pro, it's where I'm going.

Is there a way to run the two OS's parallel, or to emulate XP from Ubuntu?

XP Pro worked fine for me. Why oh why did Microsoft JUMP THE SHARK!?!?!?

Hmmm... I wonder if it's worth it for me to set up a dual boot. At this point in time, I think not, as most the applications I need for school (Word and Access) and want (games) are all Windows based. However much I would love to stick to the man, I think I'll have to wait.

XP Pro worked fine for me

Same here and when SP3 finally comes out, I will upgrade to that. Tried Vista once and that was a disaster.

Same here and when SP3 finally comes out, I will upgrade to that. Tried Vista once and that was a disaster.

We're going to test SP3 for a while before deciding whether to roll it out to our users. (Approx. 1,900 XP Pro users.) We're relatively happy with XP SP2, but if SP3 offers enough reason to upgrade then we'll probably do it. We have no plans to go to Vista any time soon. (In fact, 1,500 of the 1,900 computers were just purchased to replace some older machines. We specified XP Pro *only* in the bid...no Vista.)

We specified XP Pro *only* in the bid...no Vista.)

Very wise move.....

For once I have not even played with a beta. I was so wrapped up in the SP2 beta, that wore me out in beta's.... So I have hardly even looked at SP3 yet. Been to busy exploring Leopard :-)

You have your hands full with 1900 XP users...... I had about 400 when going from NT-->2000-->XP and that kept me somewhat busy......

dual 2 core Pentium Processors and 2meg of RAM

That probably has a lot to do with it. Also if it's new, I'm pretty sure you mean 2 Gigs of RAM.

Nice deal - Nice price - I know what you're getting me for X-mas.

All you PC, Mac, and Linux people disgust me. Only AmigaOS is the one true operating system.

;)

Atari 800 rules !

My dad actually still has our old Amiga 500 in his basement. He won't let my mom throw it out, still after all these years.

Jak, you just don't get it. (Which is odd, because you're ignoring the numerous times it's been explained.)

Your "peace offering" was followed up by a lot of misleading statements. When corrected, you repeat those misleading statements.

Pointing out that you're wrong is going to happen every time you make a misleading statement. It has nothing to do with religiosity. I suppose you can keep repeating that if you like, but it won't make it true. If you'd just stop making assertions about a platform you clearly know very little about, you'd probably find that people will stop correcting you.

Here's a thought: Do you own a Mac? What's your experience with actually using one you own?

If you say you do, I'm going to have a hard time believing you, based on the comments you've made up until now.

With that said, I do own a PC, and I use them at work every day.

So, no -- you don't own a Mac?

At any rate, to say that you've made nothing but accurate statements is yet another inaccurate statement.

And I still dont see why any of that is relevant.

It's very relevant, if you're going to post the sort of information that anyone who actually uses and owns a mac will know isn't correct. Which you've been doing.

You can criticize a muslim if you're not muslim. With that said, if you choose to do so and you get a lot of things about the muslim faith wrong -- you're not going to be taken seriously, and muslims shouldn't be labeled "fanatics" for correcting your assertions.

If you're going to criticize something you're not very familiar with -- you really need to get your criticisms right.

brian, you're the one who isnt getting it -- you guys corrected nothing. Every single thing I've said is accurate.

Wrong. Every inaccurate comment you've made has been corrected. You're just too dense and/or trollish to see it.

Second of all, I use macs every single day at work (whats more, I fix them).

It's very relevant, if you're going to post the sort of information that anyone who actually uses and owns a mac will know isn't correct. Which you've been doing.
...
If you're going to criticize something you're not very familiar with --

Things that make you go hmmm..... Perhaps jak68 just doesn't like them like you do Brian?

Perhaps jak68 just doesn't like them like you do Brian?

I do go "hmmmm" when he says something like that 30 comments into a debate. I question whether he's being honest. Looking through his comment history, he certainly doesn't seem to know much about Apple's products, and if he's "fixing" them, I feel bad for those who have to deal with his support.

Even assuming he's being honest about his experience, it doesn't change the fact that he's made several inaccurate statements, and that has nothing to do with "liking or not liking something" and everything to do with being wrong.

Now, it's very possible that he's being wrong intentionally, precisely because of the fact that he doesn't like something -- and judging by the number of times he's ignored corrections and reasserted misleading statements, I'm thinking that's very likely.

and if he's "fixing" them, I feel bad for those who have to deal with his support.

Judging from my past experience with PC techs, I see no reason to assume a Mac tech would necessarily be competent.

Mmhmm.

As has already been pointed out -- you're the person who initially brought Macs into this debate.

Now, once again, you're building a straw man to argue against, rather than accepting that your assertions are wrong.

When facts work against you, create a new debate from thin air. That's what I always say.

Oh, wait. No -- that's what you tend to do.

Judging from my past experience with PC techs, I see no reason to assume a Mac tech would necessarily be competent.

That's what I like to see. A nice irrelevant comment which doesn't address the topic at hand.

Clap, clap, clap.

I've seen mac techs trying to 'fix' pc's - its often just hilarious. Its also funny how quickly their "solution" becomes "just buy a mac".

I hate to break it to you jak, but when a Windows guy tries to fix a Mac, its the same resolution in reverse.

No one said Macs don't ever have technical problems. Humans use them, and humans tend to @!$%# things up. What has been said, is that (for someone with alleged experience) you sure seem to display a lot of ignorance regarding Apple's products.

Whether you like it or not, you've made comments which have been disproven, and that irks you enough to sound the desperate battle-cry of "mac zealots!"

I can't even count the number of times you've been wrong, and you just move right along as though it doesn't matter.

Good point - Buy what meets your needs, not simply what's new!

I didnt see the industry freak out about apple owners changing software, or jumping through hoops to make old software run on the new chip...

For what it's worth, this is likely due to the fact that they made the transition pretty seamless for the user through their "Universal" program.

Apple changed from the PowerPC to the Intel chip, I didnt see the industry freak out about apple owners changing software, or jumping through hoops to make old software run on the new chip...

You didn't see the industry freak out about it because it didn't happen. As Brian said, above, Apple took care of this through "universal." Any "hoops" that did have to be jumped were few and faaaaaar between.

Further to Brian and Darrell's comments above, Apple had their OS operating on the x86 (intel) architecture for several years before they even announced, let alone released it. It was a mature system when it was released whereas Vista even after six years was still rushed out the gate.

I disagree.. I truly believe it is a problem that you need to have such a high powered system just to run the OS. When Apple updates its system, traditionally, there is an increase in speed of the machine.. I can run Ubuntu, with music playing, webbrowsing and a newsreader on a plll 800 with 512 meg a ram and everything is fine.. Vista on the other hand negates all the benifits of a high powered machine with its bloat. The comparison of osx running on ppc chips or intel is nothing.. Macos which is based on BSD.. has counterparts like Open BSD that run on chips that you and I have never heard of.. The difference is ..they run efficiently.

Rosetta, also, was a big part of the transition success. It allowed even fairly hefty applications like non-Universal MS Office and Adobe CS3 to run on the Intel processors (with a significant, but not deal-breaking, performance hit).

No arguments with any of you, I agree with most of your points, but I do distinctly remember several Photoshop owners jumping through hoops, in my world, that's most of the mac owners,. So I wouldn't say it was seem less..

Vista has its issues, that's a gimme, we are talking Microsoft here, but for me, I wouldn't label it as "One of the Worst Products Ever".

Oh I remember when Windows 95 came out... the same crap happened. People needed to upgrade. the difference here is hat with Vista you only really NEED to upgrade the CPU and RAM. That's about it. With 95, you NEEDED to upgrade the video card, RAM, and God help you if you still ran SX / MX chips. Then of course there was teh whole Intel Pentium / AMD K-7 debacle that occurred in Windows.

XP came out and people cried "Windows 2000 was better, bring it back...." and then later discovered that Windows Xp WAS Windows 2000 with Fat32 capabilities and a Fisher Price color scheme (and close to a vinyl / plastic setup like Apple has now, just with happier primary colors)

mmmm... if you want Vixta's DX10 to run.. yo need the vidcard as well... so cpu..ram.. vidcard.. or .. just a new system. Why does yer average schmo need all that to do email..surf porn and write a few docs?? so he can experience Aero??

mmmm... if you want Vixta's DX10 to run.. yo need the vidcard as well... so cpu..ram.. vidcard.. or .. just a new system. Why does yer average schmo need all that to do email..surf porn and write a few docs?? so he can experience Aero??

You really don't need a NEW CPU unless you dont have a dual core (which I'd only suggest because Pentium D was a waste of time). New RAM? not really... I'm still using 533 DDR2 RAM (4GB) it's super cheap at 533MHz, and as far as video card goes - you'll get aero with a 6600GT. Aero isn't DX10 dependent, it is however DX9c dependent and MINIMUM shader model 2. If you absolutely MUST have DX10 so you can play the whopping 5 (exaggeration) titles out that fully support shader model 4, that's on you as a user.

The whole argument about needing to fully upgrade and get a whole new PC are people who run out and buy a Dell... or some half assed HP for really cheap and then scratch their heads wondering why in the hell it's slow - its because it comes with 1GB of ram or less, a small IDE HDD, and some low end 90nm Centrino - in a crappy case with poor cooling. There are aspects of hardware that strongly dictate what software does - ever seen a core 2 duo based computer fly with a core temp of 40 degrees C? Me neither.

mmmm... if you want Vixta's DX10 to run.. yo need the vidcard as well... so cpu..ram.. vidcard.. or .. just a new system. Why does yer average schmo need all that to do email..surf porn and write a few docs?? so he can experience Aero??

You seem to think Vista's Aero Glass needs Directx 10. Wrong on all counts.

I have Vista on 3 of my systems, and I havent had a single problem... I dont see what the big deal is?

Because you're not the only one using it? Do you really think problems are no big deal when they involve a large portion of the user base, but not yourself?

I don't use Windows at all any more, but I can understand why it's a big deal that there are so many problems.

Do you really think problems are no big deal when they involve a large portion of the user base, but not yourself?

Well yes, I do, personally.

Actually.. no, I wasn't implying that aero was related to DX10 in anyway. Shawn: 4 gig of ram...I know its cheep at 533.. but the only peeps I know with that much ram are sysadmins, video people, and serious game geeks.. that is in no way typical of joe sixpacks pc.

4 gig of ram...I know its cheep at 533.. but the only peeps I know with that much ram are sysadmins, video people, and serious game geeks.. that is in no way typical of joe sixpacks pc.

And they are the same people who want DX10.
DX9 games are still gorgeous. "Joe Sixpacks" still wets his pants over the latest DX9 games.

I have a few little niggles with the drivers for an ATI graphics card, but that's about it. And from what I've heard, its more of a shortfall with ATI than with Microsoft.

A lot of people complain about both Vista and Leopard, but I haven't had problems with either. I guess I'm just lucky. Or it may be a case of only the ones with problems complain, which is usually the case. People who have smooth transitions aren't normally as vocal.

We've never had significant problems. Our printer, for instance, made the switch just fine. It's the interface I'm having trouble getting used to; it's very pretty and user friendly for people new to computers, but I kind of like the XP format. I know where to find everything on XP, but with Vista I have a rough time finding even the bloody word count for Word documents.

I know where to find everything on XP, but with Vista I have a rough time finding even the bloody word count for Word documents.

A word count in MS Word is a function of Office, not the OS. I guess you've also upgraded to Office 2007? I agree that things are a lot harder to find, in both interface updates. But Office is a separate entity altogether.
On the Vista side, for the longest time I had a nightmare trying to find the equivalent of Network Connections in XP. Yes, its there. But it takes about 3 clicks extra to reach. On your way there you're presented with new screens designed for the less technically-inclined end-user.

Man, that's the truth. Everything seems ten times more complicated now.

I know where to find everything on XP, but with Vista I have a rough time finding even the bloody word count for Word documents.

A word count in MS Word is a function of Office, not the OS. I guess you've also upgraded to Office 2007? I agree that things are a lot harder to find, in both interface updates. But Office is a separate entity altogether.

I always thought that naming an office suite and an operating system the same was monumentally stupid. It's caused such heartache for support personnel, trying to figure out which "XP" the user was talking about...only to find out the user is so confused s/he isn't entirely sure of the distinction. It's just "XP".

Haha yeah true, I never realised that before. I only started doing support when everyone had moved to Office 2003.
I can just imagine the struggle.

Microsoft made a great flash reference for those people converting from (some of the) Office suite. Here is the link to the Word 2007 version: http://tinyurl.com/24654r

If you are trying to switch (or support people who are trying to switch) I think you will find this tool useful. The Excel and PowerPoint tools are out there as well.

Very similar, I believe. Not a good record, huh?

Yes, but not quite as bad. Now, Me was a different story. Worst Windows version ever, hands down.

Windows Me, was a bag of feces... it was like MS couldn't figure out where to go, but wanted to field test some stuff for profit. Fortunately it really only stuck around for a year.

That's a bold statement.
I don't think Vista is as crashy for everyone as ME was. ME was monumentally bad, and it was pretty unanimously sucky. It was also about as secure as a piece of fly wire. Vista's security is quite solid; I'd say the safest Windows desktop OS release to date.

ME was monumentally bad

Man you guys are brutal ! ME was only an infant was it was killed off. Have you no mercy ? :-)

Good luck. My brother made the switch to Mac (PowerBook) and is now making the switch back :\

You lost me @ ........ I've had 0 problems with Vista.

Add me to the 0 problems with Vista club. Running on 3 machines at my house, 1 since launch day, and so far I absolutely love it.

I don't have problems with Vista itself - IE7 doesn't play nice with plug-ins and my Lenovo doesn't shut down when it should... other than that, no problems. It is also slow, but it may be because I upgraded from XP rather than doing a clean install resulting in some old garbage sticking around...

Anyway, it was so mortally slow at first to power up.

Well duh... Laptops are not power systems. Vista is most definitely an OS that is slightly ahead of its time with requirements. If you look at what MS recommends for a system and what the average user has, they're far apart (when it first came out). In a year or so, those requirements will be "weak". 2GB DDR2 or DDR3 RAM will be common. nVidia 8800GTOC cards will be "old"... and no one will have much of an issue meeting the requirements. It makes no sense to make an OS with less power simply to make sure everyone and their mother can run it the day it comes out because with less requirements comes less actual power, and then what? Spend another 250 in two years to get a point release...

Now, I REALLY hate Word 2007. I think it flat out sucks. Why would they make you make more clicks to do the same thing? If I were trying to use this Vista/Word at my old job at the office, we would be virtually shut down because we could not possibly keep up with the incoming workload.

Thats new. Most people love the new layout of Office 2007. There are actually LESS clicks to do things, and anyone I've known who actually knows and understands how to do things in Office as it is designed, uses hotkeys and macros anyway.

Now, can someone tell me how to go back to a Windows XP program??? How do I do that reverse??

Format C: /S /U

Now, can someone tell me how to go back to a Windows XP program??? How do I do that reverse??

Of course you just finished bashing an OS that you've no idea how to use...

Quite frankly, most of your complaints aren't OS related at all...

I was an unwilling buyer of Vista Not true. You knew at hte point of sale, vista was on the system, yet chose to buy it.

It was a hassle to get the download from HP that worked.

There is your first problem. HP systems are horrible. I had an HP laptop and of any laptop I've owned, it was the worst. Typically, getting driver updates requires you go to the site of the peripheral manufacturer to get them, or from the Windows Update screen. Whyin Gods name you went to HP site to do that is beyond me. I know they say you can to get updates to your model of laptop, but it's a bad idea anyway.

but I STILL cannot upload any picture to use for an avatar or story on Newsvine.

That's far from a Vista issue. If you can upload to email and so on, and not to Newsvine, then There is something YOU aren't doing right.

Flash unit at OfficeMax etc that is usable on Vista.

Again, not a Vista issue. Thats a POS (point of sale) issue. There are plenty of them out there...

In short man, what I'm saying is that you need to do a lot more research on things before you go and just buy them. It sounds like you had some money, needed a laptop and bought whatever you thought looked nice from OfficeMAX. It pays to do a bit of research and forum crawling when you drop a grand or more on a laptop - something you can't really upgrade too much in contrast to a desktop. You're kind of stuck with those things once you get them. I sympathize with you, but honestly... most of the problem isn't Vista (from what you've said).

it was so mortally slow at first to power up

This is, and is not a Vista issue. I've got 4GB of RAM... Vista blazes for me. It ran fast for me with 2GB RAM. It barely runs with 1GB of RAM, and will slow down further the more items you have boot at start up or that try and hog resources... premade systems (Gateway, Dell, HP, Compaq (shudder), Sony (two shudders), etc...are notorious for having bloat ware on them... next time - build yourself a system. Its not hard, its cheaper and you know exactly what is in it and how it works.

This is, and is not a Vista issue. I've got 4GB of RAM... Vista blazes for me.

Shawn that is a Vista issue. I have Mac OSX Leopard running on my old G4 1GHz Powrbook with 1GB of RAM running like a dream. That is a four year old machine running the latest OS flawlessly. My gaming rig on the other hand almost fell over when Vista hit it. Now it has 4GB of RAM in it and it copes. 4GB just to cope????? Anyone else get the feeling Microsoft was payed off by RAM manufacturers??

you don't have one valid point unless you ran vista on the mac to compare using the same hardware (or OSX on the pc, which is impossible afaik).

Shwab Vista has been run on Macs and has been shown to be terribly slow in comparison to Leopard. Likewise Leopard has been hacked to run on generic x86 hardware and been shown to be quicker than Vista, even more remarkable considering the bodged coding required to do it. I'm sorry but Vista for all it's qualities and faults, there is one thing that hits you in the face about it - it's bloat and unnecessary requirement for pure power just to run in a stable manner. I really hope MS get this sorted by SP1, either that or games developers and Apple final start working together in a whole hearted way.

Allegedly, Vista is very fast on Apple (Intel) hardware. I don't know this first hand but this is what I've heard.

Allegedly, Vista is very fast on Apple (Intel) hardware. I don't know this first hand but this is what I've heard.

PC World recently benchmarked a slew of high end laptops, and the Macbook Pro running Vista via Bootcamp came out on top.

Shawn that is a Vista issue.

What you're attempting to do is an unbalanced analysis. The platform of Windows is independent of hte hardware. Microsoft only designs software not hardware. Even then, the Windows software isn't built to allow only certain configurations of hardware...

you don't have one valid point unless you ran vista on the mac to compare using the same hardware (or OSX on the pc, which is impossible afaik).

I've always found this kind of strange. OSX, allegedly the better OS, but you can't truly compare the OSes on a level field. Microsoft doesn't seem to give a rats hind quarter that people run Vista or XP on a Mac, but I can't seem to hear a valid reason behind why Apple won't sell their OS independent of the hardware. It would seem to me that if OSX were in fact the "@!$%#", Apple would take every opportunity to prove this on every level. They aren't and haven't, and until then I have no solid reason to really believe that it is.

Od still is that while, yes you ahve to use bootcamp or some other emulator kind of program to actually run Windows on the Mac, Windows still runs very fast - this seems to speak well for Windows and Apple Hardware configuration philosophy of "closed". And, even though I could run OSX on PC hardware, it's not a great idea.. for more than superficial reasons.

You can compare them on a level playing field, and you even said how. Install both on an Intel-based Mac. That's a level playing field.

As for why Apple doesn't offer the Mac OS broadly, it's because Apple is very concerned with the total user experience. They're a vertically integrated company and their product line reflects that. There's no mystery about this. There are many other vertically integrated companies (and one could certainly make the case that the XBox division within MS itself is vertically integrated).

But the broader point about OS X that was being made is that the newest, flashiest version of OS X will run on older hardware perfectly well. Can you imaging taking a seven year old Dell, even top of the line, and running Vista on it with all the Aero effects? Meanwhile taking a top of the line Apple model from seven years ago works fine.

It's not just Apple. I used to have a Gateway laptop from about 2002 with a Celeron M processor (what can I say, it was cheap and I needed a PC laptop). It had 64 MB of RAM and shared graphics memory (Intel 850, I believe). It ran Ubuntu with Bezel like a champ, with transparency and full graphics effects. Could it have run Aero with similar effects? Absolutely not. So what's the deal? Quite simply MS's implementations are simply crap, bloated, and require substantially better hardware to achieve similar results. That's a hallmark of poor software design, if you ask me.

4GB just to cope????? Anyone else get the feeling Microsoft was payed off by RAM manufacturers??

Well, no. 4GB on a 64 bit Vista OS isn't coping that's blazing. 4GB on a 32bit OS won't show up, you'll see 3 GB.

You can compare them on a level playing field, and you even said how. Install both on an Intel-based Mac. That's a level playing field.

YEs and No. You'd also have to install OS X on a non-Apple computer. It's level, not almost level. It's expected that OS X will run better on it's own hardware where as Windows will run, but not as well - or just as well, but what about bringing OSX outside of its home? I'd be interested in seeing that.

Why would you expect that? Apple hardware uses industry standard components, from the processor to the RAM to the extensible firmware interface to the graphics adapters. Why would you expect Windows to mysteriously run worse on Apple hardware? What component would hold it up?

...but I can't seem to hear a valid reason behind why Apple won't sell their OS independent of the hardware.

Simple. Drivers and support issues. With a known and relatively small number of hardware configurations, the ability to make the OS and 3rd party drivers work well together is monumentally easier to control.

But the broader point about OS X that was being made is that the newest, flashiest version of OS X will run on older hardware perfectly well.

It'll run (Leopard) on older Macs? it only goes back to PowerMac G4, which came out in 2004. XP came out in 2001. Vista can use hardware from 2001, AND 2004... and like Vista, Leopard only has limited functionality in comparison to what you get on a whole new system (which in't as bad as upgrading the entire box, but you may as well with both OSes). By limited functionality, most g$ third party apps that are compatible up TO G4 wont' work with Leopard. Concurrently G4 applications that are third party FROM G4 are flakey as well - since it's on a G4 system. CNET user review

Then you have the long list of incompatible programs (not that Vista didn't have that as well), but there are a couple of lists out that have issues and it's not just crappy third party apps...

and lets not forget hte extensive CS3 issues with Leopard. Vista worked fine with CS3.

When I upgraded from XP to Vista 64, I had a Pentium D Dual Core 3.2Ghz (ran hot, but not windows fault, intels fault), nVidia 6600, 19" CRT, SoundBlaster Audigy ZX2, Plextor Premium CDR and Plextor-712SA DVD RW, Seagate HDD 100GB.

http://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/windowsvista/aa905075.aspx

When you buy an Apple Mac, you get the OS and the hardware together. You're stuck with what hardware they give you (or you were back in the G4 days), so the minimum requirements of a G4 system are greater minimum requirements than those of Vista. Granted meeting minimum requirements of Vista means no AERO, and reduced performance, but reduced performance is something that happens to any system meeting only the minimum.

I needed to upgrade my hardware anyway, and it cost a LOT less to upgrade my Wintel box than it did to buy a whole new $4g Mac Pro (with lower specs), and less than a 1500 dollar macbook with lower specs).

Why would you expect that? Apple hardware uses industry standard components,

Sort of. It depends on the industry. On a general level - yes. On a specific level, no.

Simple. Drivers and support issues. With a known and relatively small number of hardware configurations, the ability to make the OS and 3rd party drivers work well together is monumentally easier to control.

Right, but all I'm aksing is that for a true side by side comparison, you need to take both OSes out of their element. Windows works fine on a Mac - true anough, but will OSX work fine on a non Apple configured system - say what happens if I put OSX on my rig (it'll choke OSX dry because of my hardware). OS X will run on less Apple configured system because as you say, of limited configurations. It all just seems to reek of "you can do as you like, as long as I like it"

What component would hold it up?

nothing... likeyou said, mac innards aren't proprietary (anymore). What I was arguing was OSX on any given Wintel box... and I can list you some of my hardware that would lock OSX dead in its trax - mainly for driver reasons, but... that's all it takes for any OS - same with Linux.

It'll run (Leopard) on older Macs? it only goes back to PowerMac G4, which came out in 2004. XP came out in 2001

This is an outright lie. My G4 1GHz Powerbook came out in 2003 and runs Leopard perfectly (excluding the translucent menu bar, shame). the 1 GHz G4 tower came out in 2002 and runs Leopard like my Powerbook. This is as far back as Apple supports but numerous people on the web have bodged leopard to get it running on machines as old as 2001 and 2000.

Then you have the long list of incompatible programs (not that Vista didn't have that as well), but there are a couple of lists out that have issues and it's not just crappy third party apps...

And how long was it before most of the programs on this list were up and running? I'm willing to wager at most it was a couple of weeks. This list was originally posted when Leopard was released. With regards to CS3 Adobe take full blame here. Apple have been trying to get Adobe to use the Cocoa APIs for years but Adobe just won't budge.

When you buy an Apple Mac, you get the OS and the hardware together. You're stuck with what hardware they give you (or you were back in the G4 days), so the minimum requirements of a G4 system are greater minimum requirements than those of Vista.

This makes absolutely no sense.

Granted meeting minimum requirements of Vista means no AERO, and reduced performance, but reduced performance is something that happens to any system meeting only the minimum.

And meeting the minimum requirements of Leopard takes a 5 year old machine and what does it lose? - The translucent menu bar. The same simply cannot be said for Vista.

How many times does it have to be said:

Right, but all I'm aksing is that for a true side by side comparison, you need to take both OSes out of their element. Windows works fine on a Mac - true anough, but will OSX work fine on a non Apple configured system

Leopard has been hacked to run on non Apple hardware - a generic x86 box, and has been shown to outperform Vista even without optimised drivers.

nothing... likeyou said, mac innards aren't proprietary (anymore). What I was arguing was OSX on any given Wintel box... and I can list you some of my hardware that would lock OSX dead in its trax - mainly for driver reasons, but... that's all it takes for any OS - same with Linux.

Well duh! There aren't any drivers written for OSX for that hardware it might just cause a problem!! The point is to do a side by side comparison on a system which they can both run on and on both Macs and generic X86 boxes that OSX has been hacked for OSX beats Vista and XP hands down.

It'll run (Leopard) on older Macs? it only goes back to PowerMac G4, which came out in 2004.

Au contrair, mon ami, this is just wrong. The first PowerPC G4 was released in 1999, not 2004. The general requirement for Leopard is a PowerPC G4 running at least at 867 MHz. This processor was released to desktops with the "Quicksilver" G4 tower, available mid-year 2001. That makes the Quicksilver G4 PowerMac the oldest Macintosh capable (with the recommended minimum specs) of running Leopard, and it is just a hair over seven years old.

Leopard only has limited functionality in comparison to what you get on a whole new system

True, technically, but the majority of applications that "won't" work on older systems won't "work" because of missing hardware, not older hardware. No IR port? No FrontRow. But you wouldn't expect FrontRow to work if your Mac didn't come with a remote in the first place. No iSight camera? No PhotoBooth. Etc.

But the graphics system, the "eye-candy," all of this works fine, and has for some time. With Vista you need a substantially beefier video card to take advantage of full Aero effects. Not so with OS X (this includes the application switcher, Expose, screen switching, animation effects, etc.).

This is an outright lie.

Ok sorry, I misread the wiki, G4 was released in 1999. Has anyone actually used Leopard on a PwwerMac G4 with minimum specs?

And meeting the minimum requirements of Leopard takes a 5 year old machine and what does it lose? - The translucent menu bar. The same simply cannot be said for Vista.

Right, we lost he transparent windows border. Aero runs on an nVidia 6600 which came out in 2004, any PS2.0 card (dating back to 1998) or DirectX 9 (2003). The functionality of Vista isn't based on Aero, those are interface features, not requirements.

And, when the next gen Mac comes out, it'll be expected that they'll implement new hardware features and so on. With that, they may create new features in the OS to accommodate the hardware features, however, to actually GET those new hardware features you have to what? buy a whole new damn system... and rebuy the OS - the SAME OS (version point and all).

Yeah, it 'comes with it', but.. nothing is free.

With Vista you need a substantially beefier video card to take advantage of full Aero effects.

Again, interface features, not requirements.

The point is to do a side by side comparison on a system which they can both run on and on both Macs and generic X86 boxes that OSX has been hacked for OSX beats Vista and XP hands down.

No, the point is that you have to hack the piss out of OSX to take it off of a Mac and put in on a Wintel box, and even then it's not "great" because if it was, more people would be doing it.

Leopard has been hacked to run on non Apple hardware - a generic x86 box, and has been shown to outperform Vista even without optimised drivers.

Where? By Whom?

Where? By Whom?

One, Two.

Just to clarify -- I went to HP to get the printer problem sorted out because the PRINTER was also an HP product.'
HP computer + HP printer/s should equal smooth sailing, wouldn't it? Not exactly. They work now, anyway.
And no I did not really have a choice. ALL the models of laptops were ALL preloaded with the Vista.
Thanks to those who actually had something to say.

Not all HP peripherals work with all HP computers. They can't preload a computer with drivers for a device (or more importantly, an OS) that doesn't exist yet, or has barely been released.

In regards to your earlier comment about the computer being slow to boot, that can probably be blamed squarely on HP. A base install of Windows (yes, ANY version) on hardware that it was designed for, will be very quick to boot. However hardware manufacturers such as HP, Dell and the like, have a habit of pre-installing tons of custom software. This is especially bad for the home-user targeted models (their business computer offerings aren't quite so bad, although they still frustrate me greatly).

One of the first things I do (and recommend to others) after setting up a brand new Dell, HP, etc., is to go straight into Add/Remove Programs and start nuking the useless bits. If you do it when the computer is brand new, even if you mess things up, its just a matter of reinstalling using the recovery discs and starting again.

Apple have been kind so far and not pre-loading OS X with dodgy, unnecessary software. I think they're reputation of "it just works" has a lot to do with it. That's a phrase that don't want to lose.

And no I did not really have a choice. ALL the models of laptops were ALL preloaded with the Vista.

HP have indeed (unfortunately) removed Windows XP from the options available. But you can't order a Mac with Tiger either. The Windows PC manufacturers do indeed need to get a move on with stable Vista drivers, but at the same time they can't linger in the past and continue to sell XP-loaded computers.

Comparing HP to Apple isn't really fair to HP, since they haven't designed the OS. All iterations of Windows are immensely complex compared to OS X. I don't envy hardware manufacturers who have to write drivers for Windows. It can't be easy. Having said that, the preloaded software is a deplorable practice.

ALL the models of laptops were ALL preloaded with the Vista.
Thanks to those who actually had something to say.

Where you were..

@ Spiffe...

okay so it can be done, and it is sort of (by sort of I mean totally) illegal. Not that I care about the last part. If I buy the OS then as far as I'm concerned I can do whatever with my one lisence outside of reverse engineer it.

You only answered HALF the question. Nothing in either one reports better performance in credible manner about the OSX on PC vs Vista on the PC. It just compared OSX on the PC vs OSX on a Mac - which it generally underperformed the macbook pro and out performed the macpro (which isn't hard to do anyway).

I haven't seen comparison benchmarks of the hacked system, which is why I only responded to the part of the question for which I had information (I also didn't make the original claim about performance).

(I also didn't make the original claim about performance).

I know, that's why I asked the person who did (indirectly - my fault), however I did appreciate the response with the link to hackintosh.

Well said Beon. The OS shouldn't be getting in the way of us getting the job done.

But the one that gets me is the ineveitable retort that someone doesn't know how to use this stuff correctly. We're talking about an operating system! We shouldn't have to "use" it at all. One would think that after decades of developing these things the OS would become less visible, not more.

I agree 100%.

It's not funny to me that people like the software they use, but it is funny to me when people argue against something they know very little about.

I don't see anything all that ignorant, though. Most Mac users do spend a lot of time using wintel PCs, for any number of reasons.

On the flip side, I'm betting that people who are making assertions about the Mac platform rarely use it, if ever.

Certainly, anyone silly enough to bring up the presence of a "single button mouse" doesn't know enough about Apple to express an opinion.

jak68: Well, you are certainly free to give any advice you see fit! I'll just mention two things:

1) I don't use Apple products.

2) As an independent contractor I have to be very careful about the kind of advice I give my clients.

I'm sure your advice is based on solid experience and is heartfelt. However, I don't think the consequences you would face in the aftermath of giving bum advice to a client would be quite the same as the consequences I would face.

Just a thought.

As a person that has been working in IT for a number of years, I have to tell you, I have seen this all before, I guess now 5x with Microsoft products...I am seeing less issues with this change than any other microsoft change. I don't know if any of you remember the 3 incarnations of the win 95, but that was an absolute nightmare to upgrade people from 3.11. win 98 had communications issues that would make an IT tech have to drag a customer OVER THE PHONE through the registry, as did XP, not to mention all of security issues of XP. I don't even want to talk about ME. I just don't agree that it's the worst product ever, perhaps the most bloated, certainly not the worst.

I guess when people call and ask about what they should be using, I ask what they are using it for, and we talk that over. If you need to get email and browse the net get a MAC, if you are like me and you play a lot of games, you are going to be upgrading your computer a lot anyway, so might as well use Windows, because with the exception of Blizzard, no one makes any decent games for Macintosh. But if you really want to explore what a computer can do then use Linux.
Or you could be out of control, like me, and use all three :)

"Its also funny how 'religious' these "mac vs pc" discussions get. I wonder why that is. People fight over this as if they are defending their respective gods or respective political ideologies."

Well, you certainly described yourself accurately, not so sure about many others, however.

Its also funny how 'religious' these "mac vs pc" discussions get. I wonder why that is. People fight over this as if they are defending their respective gods or respective political ideologies.

I think on the whole apple folk appear to me to be far more 'defensive' about admitting flaws in apple computers (as if they dont exist). I think again that apple advertising mythologies have a lot to do with inculcating that defensiveness.

The funny thing is, if you actually read back through this entire thread, you'll see it was YOU who started stating completely false information about Apple products, and when anyone tries to correct your incorrect statements, they're suddenly seen as "defensive" and slaves to advertising.

I guarantee I've been using Windows (and computers in general) a lot longer than you. Probably since before you were born. I've been supporting hundreds of Windows machines for years, and have built more computers by hand than I care to remember. I've also been using Macs for years, but didn't make the switch full time until a little over a year ago. I can tell by your false statements that you know nothing at all about Macs or OS X. Advertising has little affect on me at all when it comes to technology. I work in technology and my life has been immersed in technology for a very long time. The only reason I, or anyone else in this thread, are "defensive" is because we're trying to fight ignorance such as yours.

Gecko - you sure you're not getting your Fords mixed up? Nick's only just started commenting on this thread.

I don't think he's responding to either Ford. I'm pretty sure that was directed at Jak68.

I don't think he's responding to either Ford. I'm pretty sure that was directed at Jak68.

Correct...Responding to Jak68. Nick Ford had quoted Jak68, but without using the blockquote tags, so it may appear as if those were his statements at the beginning of comment 22.7.

Your seed was helpful for me as I am helping my Dad with Vista as for the most part he has had pretty good luck with it as it came pre-installed on a HP "package deal" with PC/Printer so everything plays along OK, but slow start ups. So the tips helped in that area as I just have not spent much time on Vista as my 2 year old Compaq Laptop (Windows XP Pro) and Vista did not seem to agree so well.
So thanks for the seed.

Thanks for the feedback Tedd. Glad it helped.

It helped by almost 2 min's in boot up time ! It was a real dog before that and now things look good.

I wish they looked at good as Microsoft once planned them however... :-)

LongHorn Concept

What hardware are you having trouble with? The only hardware I had to install software for was my older Samsung host-based laser printer (and I would have had to install software under Windows, too) and an older non-TWAIN compliant Canon scanner. Of the four or so digital cameras I've tried, all have worked instantly when I plugged them in with no software loaded. Even the Samsung printer automagically worked when I hooked it up to my Airport base station (that one still mystifies me a bit).

It isn't so much that I'm installing new hardware, but try popping in an nVidia 8800 GT OC Ultra on a MacPro, and tell me what happens - you can't. not enough PSU power and no drivers. That was my point. However, periphial devices I've never really had an issue with them on OSX or Vista

The same could be (and often is) true of any OEM manufacturer, though (especially as far as power requirements to video adapters goes on OEM motherboards). I worked for a few years for a major PC manufacturer in tech support. I got that call like ten times a week. That's not unique to Apple.

Brian brought up the 'weak' argument of the 'right click' argument. OSX doesn't need to have 'right click', and it's easy to use command click. There are also two button mice for Macs. And... you can set up a macro in Automator to do 'right click' - it's all easy to do, but not simple compared to simply 'right click' (which is still possible on a Mac, just not stock in the same manner you'd do in Windows). Brian is right, the argument is weak, and weakens daily... but its just an example of how easy and simple are different, especially between the two very different OSX and Windows user needs philosophies.

I don't understand what you are saying here. How is this an example of easy and simple being different? You just showed three ways you can "right click" something in OS X, including right clicking. So how is that not easy and simple? There is NO argument here. Even if you want to complain about Apple's offering, the Mighty Mouse has been out for 2 years now.

In your particular case, working with architectural programs, am I to believe you would use the stock mouse that would come with any system? And wouldn't any mouse you did use have two buttons?

is like arguing between a Peugeot and a Renault.

I love it! Tell me Linux isn't a Citroen.

am I to believe you would use the stock mouse that would come with any system? And wouldn't any mouse you did use have two buttons?

Actually no, I use a trackball and a wacom, but...

I don't understand what you are saying here. How is this an example of easy and simple being different? You just showed three ways you can "right click" something in OS X, including right clicking. So how is that not easy and simple? There is NO argument here. Even if you want to complain about Apple's offering, the Mighty Mouse has been out for 2 years now.

I'm saying that the stock mouse with a Mac has one button. That's fine as there are ways around it. Simply arguing that 'no right click' is possible is lame based on 'command+click' or the option ot have a two button mouse. However, with the command+click you use two hands for a one handed function - not simple, but easy. Not simple because a simple right click is more simple.

I wasn't complaining about the lack of stock right click, I don't' really care. I use a 5 button mouse, 5 button track ball, and a 8X11 Wacom. "right-click" is a non-existent concern... it was just a common example.

I love it! Tell me Linux isn't a Citroen.

no... they're more like Jeeps. Small, functional, and a @!$%# to work on unless you like torture. But if you know how to properly drive it, you can go damn near anywhere you want easily

The "stock" mouse that ships with Apple desktops is now, and has been for a while (over two years), the wired Mighty Mouse, which has two buttons (actually, it's a four function mouse). The touchpad on Apple portables allows a right-click to be registered by clicking the button with two fingers on the touchpad (it's easier than it sounds), or any of the "alternate" options listed earlier.

*Shrug* My previous Gateway and the Dell laptop I have through work both have touchpads, and neither is particularly easy to use. When they aren't responding to input that I don't want them to, they're constantly turning on tapping, a feature I repeatedly have to disable. Right clicking using a second mouse button is only about as easy as holding two fingers on the touchpad and clicking a single large button, especially since I usually have two fingers on the touchpad anyway to scroll.

Dell have a terrible touchpad. I find it responds poorly and very counter-intuitive. Of course that will be a matter of personal preference. I've never used a Gateway notebook.
HP, Toshiba and Lenovo notebooks have gorgeous touchpads that work fluently.
None of these really differ from each other in the way they work, other than their motion. (Toshiba and Lenovo have added little functions here and there, but nothing that sets them as far apart as the Mac's do).

This is partly what I believe Umberto Eco meant when he said Apple is like the catholic church.

Holy Christ. You're a real hypocrite. You've spent more time than anyone on this thread complaining about the way people are behaving and the whole time it's been you who's been posting misleading information, and you who's been saying things like:

You actually wind up with very 'bossy' computers, which macs are.

Why wouldn't people who disagree with you correct that statement?

You keep making assertions without knowing what you're talking about, and then lamenting the responses. Stop doing that, and you'll stop being correcting.

You actually wind up with very 'bossy' computers, which macs are. This is partly what I believe Umberto Eco meant when he said Apple is like the catholic church.

I don't know why, but that is just hilarious to me, so I suppose the "Lisa" might be like St Jerome, Apple IIe would be St Anthony...

jak68:

yes, and there's a larger point here -- that when confronted with a concrete example, the mac philosophical approach is basically that the user must conform to the machine rather than vice versa. This is what you get -- the downside -- from minimizing options in order to simplify the computing experience. You actually wind up with very 'bossy' computers, which macs are.

Yes, of course users are expected to conform to their hardware. It's very hard to right-click with a button that simply isn't there any more than you could type with a keyboard that isn't plugged in. That's a rather basic hardware limitation. Of course, as soon as you plug in a two-button mouse on a mac, right-clicking works automatically. Conversely, Windows users (as of XP, I'm not sure if Vista has changed this) are expected to conform to the behavior of right-clicking, and do not have the option to set up their machine to use control-click for right-click functionality. So, which computer is more "bossy", again?

But then of course we get the 2 or 3 mac-fiends in this threat who JUST CANT BELIEVE THAT ANYONE could not like macs, when macs represent the pinnacle of computing religion, and everything macs do is 'for the sake of the user's soul'.

Point to one person on this thread who has ever had something negative to say about someone who simply "doesn't like" Apple's products.

Please. I'll wait.

What you'll find are people who are correcting inaccurate statements. So, what you have is someone who doesn't like or use Apple's products (you) making factually inaccurate statements about something they're not really qualified to discuss. That's very different than saying:

"Apple's not for me..."

And then having me or anyone else saying:

"You're a @!$%#ing idiot. Learn how to use a real computer..."

You're insinuating that this is what's happening, but you won't be able to point to anything like that at all.

I'll be here when you've got your list prepared.

Yes, of course users are expected to conform to their hardware. It's very hard to right-click with a button that simply isn't there

Ok, now I must conclude that you're just a moron. You've been corrected on this time and time again, and yet you keep spreading your false assumptions and invalid arguments.

Maybe if I put it in caps, you'll understand it:

APPLE HAS SHIPPED A MULTI-BUTTON MOUSE WITH EVERY DESKTOP COMPUTER SINCE AUGUST OF 2005. THAT'S OVER 2 YEARS NOW.

Not to mention supported multi button mice since the 90's.

Your argument is wrong. Your argument will always be wrong. Yet, you keep repeating it. You even have the audacity to claim that pointing out that APPLE HAS SHIPPED A MULTI-BUTTON MOUSE WITH EVERY DESKTOP COMPUTER FOR OVER 2 YEARS is not a correction of your argument that Apple computers only have a 1 button mouse.

I can appreciate what you are trying to do Gecko, but I think you are pissing in the wind. Nothing is going to get through to him.

jak68:

I suppose I am arguing that the computer that allows more personal customization is less bossy. and i suppose I am arguing that -- with more choice and more customization, pc's are less bossy than macs which have their hardware tied to their software and both in turn are tied to one company which in turn offers far less third party software and hardware -- making it a more 'minimal' experience, and making it an experience where users have to conform to the machine's limitations in all these regards.

Unfortunately, your argument has a few flaws in it. First and most obvious is your example of the mouse. Clearly the Mac, allowing a user to use either control click OR a two button mouse, provides more personal customization than the Windows machine which demands the use of a two button mouse. Your argument would be far more valid if you made components such as the motherboard and CPU your examples, since Windows users have greater choices in such matters.

As for third-party peripherals, you're right that Mac users do have fewer choices in this regard as well. You blame the Mac philosophy for not supporting the third-party hardware, but I'm afraid you have things backwards. Hardware manufacturers create drivers (unless they're reverse-engineered by users). The manufacturers of these components, for the most part, have not chosen to support Macintosh, not the other way around. This may be because they have financial ties to Microsoft, are used to programming in a Windows environment, are simply going after the biggest market share, or a variety of other reasons. But it is not a failing of the OS itself, nor a result of Macintosh philosophy. It is a choice made by the hardware manufacturers, not by Apple.

This is, likewise, true of the game manufacturers you have mentioned elsewhere in this thread. They have not chosen to program games for the Macintosh. It is not, as Blizzard has certainly shown, that the Mac is unsuited to gaming. Its hardware and OS are more than capable of supporting games. I have even played a number of classic games (everything from Oddworld to the Quest for Glory series to Planescape:Torment) on Windows XP running inside a VMWare Fusion virtual machine on my Macbook Pro. With Safari, Mail.app, and Adium running in the background and taking no serious performance hit in either the game or OSX from it all.

The simple fact, however, is that the makers of games choose to focus more on Windows at this time. This is not a failing of the OS. It is not a technical inferiority. And it certainly has nothing to do with Apple's philosophy, since Apple has actually made it much easier to develop on the Mac than Microsoft has on Windows, by shipping a full integrated development environment, interface builder, a variety of developer tools for building and debugging, and of course a compiler completely for free with the OS.

Mac users can even, with the tools given to them by Apple, create their own drivers for devices whose manufacturers have chosen not to support OSX. It's not easy to do, but Apple has provided more than sufficient tools for it. So I, and other Mac users on this thread, have a very hard time accepting your arguments about Apple's philosophy causing these limitations. It should actually be easier for both game designers and third-party peripheral designers to support Apple since there are far fewer configurations of core hardware they would need to support.

I can appreciate what you are trying to do Gecko, but I think you are pissing in the wind. Nothing is going to get through to him.

Yeah, I know. It's frustrating. Sadly, this is very typical. There are people like him all over the place, on every site/board I've been on. They're the ones perpetuating the "Apple fanboy" myth because any time someone tries to correct their lies and mis-statements, they trot out the charge of "fanboy" or "Mac religion."

Yes, of course users are expected to conform to their hardware. It's very hard to right-click with a button that simply isn't there

Ok, now I must conclude that you're just a moron. You've been corrected on this time and time again, and yet you keep spreading your false assumptions and invalid arguments.

Gecko, you were quoting me in your comment, not jak68. And I went on to say "Of course, as soon as you plug in a two-button mouse on a mac, right-clicking works automatically."

You're right, of course, 2-button mice have shipped with Apple products for 2 years now. But I was focusing on the more basic problems with his statement, which you yourself mention: even before 2-button mice shipped with Macs, Macs fully supported them. I wanted to address his underlying assumption, that the lack of a second button on the original Apple mice meant that users had to conform to the machine rather than the machine to the user. Because if we had let that portion of the argument stand it would mean he could claim, as he has elsewhere, that Macs currently shipping with two button mice represent an implicit admission by Apple that their computers were not conforming to user expectations of being able to right-click if they wanted to.

Gecko, you were quoting me in your comment, not jak68. And I went on to say "Of course, as soon as you plug in a two-button mouse on a mac, right-clicking works automatically."

My bad. My apologies to you and to Jak68 (believe it or not.) I saw his name at the top of your post...Trying to multi-task. ;-) Besides, he's been repeating that mantra over and over and over, so I fully expected it to come from him (yet again.)

Jarandhel, do you think it matters if your comment was accurate? No, you have insulted the Mac's honor and you must be flogged.

I'm saying it is part of the explicit apple computing philosophy -- that less choice means a smoother computer experience.

Of course this is true. This is in fact the reason that OS X isn't available for every random box, because Apple wants to not have to deal with every cheap ass cobbled together system with all the driver problems attendant in that situation.

So, Apple narrows your hardware choices for their OS, and it's suddenly okay to infer that they offer "less choice" across the board? As has been pointed out on multiple occasions, that's a bad inference to make.

There's also a different in the way the hardware restriction is being pitched -- you (Brian White) discuss it in the light of being a good thing (it makes for a more stable OS) whereas Jak writes about it as though it's a negative for "limiting choice" (ignoring the stable OS issue) and again, he uses that wording very generally, as though Apple isn't open in any aspect of its business, which couldn't be farther from the truth.

Yay for you and your Devil's advocate stance, but you're defending someone who is posting incorrect information. I guess if that's what you're into...

At any rate, if telling someone they're wrong about something when it can be (and has been) proven that they're wrong makes me a cultist, or a fanboy -- so be it.

It also makes me right.

gecko, you keep repeating this as if it proves your point, when if fact it is proving your opponent's point. Read your sentence again: "SINCE AUGUST OF 2005" -- in other words, mac users HAVE had that frustrating experience with macs regarding the mouse. You dont deny that; that means we are in agreement about that.

Cluelessness knows now bounds, I guess. Shrug.

One more time:

This thread started out talking about Vista, Microsoft's latest OS and the problems some people have been having. Someone mentioned he was thinking of moving to Mac. You responded:

its funny, i wouldnt personally move to macs even then, probably because...

Then you went on to talk a bunch of rubbish including the point about Apple having a one-button mouse. So, again, we're talking about NOW, not pre-2005.

in other words, mac users HAVE had that frustrating experience with macs regarding the mouse.

No, in other words you ASSUME Mac users have had a frustrating experience. See, most Mac users did one of two things: either plugged in ANY USB MOUSE ON THE MARKET and went on their merry way, or they used Command+click to get the right-click functionality. I used Macs before the Mighty Mouse began shipping, and was never frustrated at all. Why? Because I was using a Logitech wireless mouse (and keyboard.)

You keep talking about these two different strategies, but your "ONE UNIVERSAL EXPERIENCE FOR ONE UNIVERSAL MARKET" strategy is a straw-man. It doesn't exist. That is no and has never been Apple's strategy. Believing so just shows your ignorance, which has been pointed out repeatedly. You're the one hanging on to a religious (but incorrect) belief.

You act like this is an original observation with me.

I think the spin is all you, yes.

You're all over the map. I never denied that Apple produces the whole widget when it comes to their computers and their OS. I think they have sound reasoning for doing so, and as a strategy it's paying off for them really well. (Monetarily.)

I don't agree that this supports your stance that Apple is a proprietary company in general because in almost EVERY OTHER aspect they are as open or more open than their competitors.

So, in this instance, yes -- I think you're applying a bit of creative spin to support an opinion that isn't supported by facts.

In other instances, I maintain that you're either ignoring evidence contrary to assertions you've made -- and if that's the case, you're pretty much lying. You've seen the truth, and you continue to state otherwise.

jak68:

But Jarandhel -- by moving to a two-button mouse, didnt the apple corporate world itself distance itself from this idea? By moving to a two button mouse, didnt apple corporation itself agree that the market was right to demand it? And thus after a multi-year fight to get its users to conform to ITS wishes (single button), finally threw in the towel and gave in and now offers a two button mouse -- THUS PROVING WHAT WE'RE SAYING HERE ABOUT APPLE PREFERING*** ITS CUSTOMERS TO DO THINGS ITS WAY? They only gave in after a fight with the market; they didnt simply look at what the market was ALREADY DOING WHICH WAS WORKING JUST FINE. Thats what I mean -- I'm talking about APPLE PHILOSOPHY.

Considering that the first mouse invented by Douglas Engelbart was one-button, and that Apple experimented with a four button mouse before returning to the one-button design in 1984 for efficiency reasons, no I don't think that it proves that they did not look at what the market was "already doing". Moreover, the market is not nearly as standardized on two button mice as you would like us to believe. Unix workstations have long used three-button mice, and OEM mice have always had between one and three buttons. After market mice frequently have five or more. Apple has been wise enough to realize that computer users are quite capable of purchasing their own mice if they find the built-in mice insufficient, as they always have. Moreover, the mouse now shipped by apple with two main buttons is not a simple two-button mouse. It has three main buttons (two standard buttons and a scroll wheel that can be clicked as a third button) plus the ability to squeeze the sides as a fourth button. It is also entirely programmable, so you can make any of the buttons perform as the "right click", or activate other functions of the OS. In a way, this is a return to apple's early prototype of a four button mouse. Only now they have the technology to make it really work, and be far more customizable than standard PC mice. So no, I don't think the matter is as simple as Apple "giving in" to the market after a fight. Especially since there was no real market pressure on Apple to change its mice, considering it easily supported third-party mice with two buttons already.

Admirable of you to keep responding, Gecko -- but you're wasting your time. Jak is clearly doing whatever it takes to get responses at this point.

Interestingly, once one of his comments is disproved, he simply moves on to make something else up.

Whatever.