Enter Apotheosis Posted December 3, 2007 Share Posted December 3, 2007 we learned that vista wasn't as bad as aol made it out to be. Vista really does get a bad rap largely from terrible software support by developers. Windows 2000 and XP (post-SP2) were so rock solid and well-supported in comparison that people have gotten awfully spoiled. The situation is also made a bit worse by the fact that Apple has never had to support the same volume and variety of hardware as Windows and that expectations for hardware support in a Linux or Unix environment are a bit more lax, particularly given that you aren't paying for the operating system and come in fully expecting some kinks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Enter Apotheosis Posted December 3, 2007 Share Posted December 3, 2007 32 bit. What software were you using for DVD playback? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BG Posted December 3, 2007 Share Posted December 3, 2007 In all fairness, you didn't post specifics on the mac's graphics card which compared to a pc Nvidia card will be more expensive/ THey are usually ATI. There is no OSX home, preimium, busines, etc. U get what you pay for, everything out of the box except for microsoft office which you have to pay extra buying any machine brand new. Take into account the overall mac OS environment, standard user interface, bells and whistles like magnetic power cords, remotes built in web cams, then you get what you pay for and you get a great machine. I use PC's and Macs. To each his own, but the mac is far and away more user friendly, renders graphics and text as only a mac can and has more capabilities interacting with networks and other platforms. In my opinion it is a better machine, but yes, I can get by and do almost as much with the same specs as a PC running Vista. HOwever, I'll likely be trading advice as to how long it took me to get drivers to work, troubleshoot network issues and how pissed I was that I didn't start off with XP pro. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Enter Apotheosis Posted December 3, 2007 Share Posted December 3, 2007 In all fairness, you didn't post specifics on the mac's graphics card which compared to a pc Nvidia card will be more expensive/ THey are usually ATI. Actually, at the moment ATI is a bit behind Nvidia from a performance perspective and is competing by offering their product at a lower price. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PokerPacker Posted December 3, 2007 Share Posted December 3, 2007 In all fairness, you didn't post specifics on the mac's graphics card which compared to a pc Nvidia card will be more expensive/ THey are usually ATI. There is no OSX home, preimium, busines, etc. U get what you pay for, everything out of the box except for microsoft office which you have to pay extra buying any machine brand new.Take into account the overall mac OS environment, standard user interface, bells and whistles like magnetic power cords, remotes built in web cams, then you get what you pay for and you get a great machine. I use PC's and Macs. To each his own, but the mac is far and away more user friendly, renders graphics and text as only a mac can and has more capabilities interacting with networks and other platforms. In my opinion it is a better machine, but yes, I can get by and do almost as much with the same specs as a PC running Vista. HOwever, I'll likely be trading advice as to how long it took me to get drivers to work, troubleshoot network issues and how pissed I was that I didn't start off with XP pro. the mac graphics card was the Intel 3100 card, that would be the standard card in my laptop, but i upgraded to the geforce 8400 gs. i think the difference in price between the two options was $125. also, as i said, i could have gotten a built-in webcam for $30, but i opted not to. also remember that i am not a microsoft fan-boy. i sincerely dislike microsoft, i just dislike apple as well. I am not here to compare the macOS to windows, i actually compared it to Linux and BSD, which is where mac got most of their OS from. so again, why pay 150-200% (i compared prices for the mac book pro which is closer in the video card department than the mac book and a comprable machine to the one i have is over $2000. granted, the macbook pro does have a little bit better of a video card, but certainly not $1000 better) for a machine when i can get the same specs in a non-mac and just run linux? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bobisimo Posted December 3, 2007 Share Posted December 3, 2007 Everyone says that Macs are twice as much (and I know that isn't what this thread is about, but... the topic was raised) but I bought mine (1st gen MacBook, base model) for about $1000 and, at the time, I couldn't find anything comparable within $400 or $500. Under 5 pounds? A gig of RAM? Four to five hours of battery life (I think it's rated at 5.5 or 6 hours, but I usually got around 4 to 5)? Outstanding wireless capabilities? A DVD burner? I admit to being pretty happy. And I like the Mac OS a lot. I'm not bashing on Vista, either (you have all of Slashdot to do that - http://yro.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=07/11/30/0443256). To be honest, I'd try out Vista and I wouldn't complain. I'm just saying that it's nice not to have to worry about defrag, scan disk, crashing, rebooting, antivirus, etc. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hardcoreskinsfan Posted December 8, 2007 Share Posted December 8, 2007 get a mac theyre 10x better than pc's yes, because Macs are NOT pc's they are .... p...c.....'s? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bobisimo Posted December 8, 2007 Share Posted December 8, 2007 Hahaha. That always makes me laugh, too. But thanks to the long tradition, now being hammered home by the Apple commercials, "PC" is now code for "Windows-based computers". :\ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mad Mike Posted December 9, 2007 Share Posted December 9, 2007 PC World - Fastest Vista Machine: Apple MacBook Pro The fastest Windows Vista notebook we've tested this year (through 10/25/07) is a Mac. Try that again: The fastest Windows Vista notebook we've tested this year--or for that matter, ever--is a Mac. Not a Dell, not a Toshiba, not even an Alienware. The $2419 (plus the price of a copy of Windows Vista, of course) MacBook Pro's PC WorldBench 6 Beta 2 score of 88 beats Gateway's E-265M by a single point, but the MacBook's score is far more impressive simply because Apple couldn't care less whether you run Windows. Full Review http://www.pcworld.com/article/id,135062-page,1-c,notebooks/article.html :laugh: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hardcoreskinsfan Posted December 9, 2007 Share Posted December 9, 2007 Hahaha. That always makes me laugh, too. But thanks to the long tradition, now being hammered home by the Apple commercials, "PC" is now code for "Windows-based computers". :\ Well unfortunately this is true. I find those commercials hilarious. My favorite is when they act like Macs can't get a virus. I had to LOL when I saw that one. To be perfectly honest, their dishonest adds kinda scare me about their product. I know they appear to be faster and such but can I really trust what they say about their performance? If they are willing to lie so indiscretely to those who don't know any better? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
No_Pressure Posted December 9, 2007 Share Posted December 9, 2007 There are plenty of issues with Vista but honestly a laptop that you are using for MS Office programs won't really encounter them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.