Phoenix Gold Phorum

You know, I haven't even seen a computer running Vista yet. Honestly. Not one. I work in an office with over 100 PCs running Windows, and not one person has upgraded yet.

In fact I think the only people I have ever heard of running Vista had it bundled with their computers.

well, since de-railing is inevitable

stipud wrote:You know, I haven't even seen a computer running Vista yet. Honestly. Not one. I work in an office with over 100 PCs running Windows, and not one person has upgraded yet.

In fact I think the only people I have ever heard of running Vista had it bundled with their computers.

my roomate installed vista on his own free will....and is not impressed. it wastes so much memory...its rediculous. dont even try and run it with under 1g of ram

Bfowler wrote:my roomate installed vista on his own free will....and is not impressed. it wastes so much memory...its rediculous. dont even try and run it with under 1g of ram

A friend at work tried to get it configured on his mom's new laptop. Vista alone ate a gig of ram out of the 2GB she had on a completely fresh boot (new OS on a new computer). Even the dual core 64 bit processors sat at a constant 10-25% load when the computer was IDLE.

I just installed Leopard last week. My old computers are now running FASTER, AND I get more features. For me, there was no reason to NOT upgrade.

hmmm, that almost sounds like what i would expect/want from a "upgrade" those crazy apple guys

Bfowler wrote:hmmm, that almost sounds like what i would expect/want from a "upgrade" those crazy apple guys

What a novel concept... giving the people what they want? Who would have thought that was a good idea.

good commercial, I run vista and am entirely satisfied. with the exception of an initial problem with syncing my smartphone, everything works exceptionally. It is a bit of a ram hog, once you kill all the random services it chooses to run for no reason, its pretty reasonable. my current usage (as I type this) is ~611mb, with several applications running (most notably firefox.exe using over 60mb, steam.exe floating around 20mb, etc)

DWM.exe is easily the biggest issue, it controls the "aero" effects, and uses right near 100mb on its own.

I'm sure leopard is great for writing poetry and blogging.. anyone who uses their computer as a gaming device.........

The sad truth -- MS still has the market, and using anything else is about like cutting off your arms to run faster.

I've heard it both ways. However, I think that people initially thought Vista was going to be just like XP with everything in the same spot. Its not, and I dont think they really give it a chance. I work on a Mac for illustrator, and it irritates the hell out of me because things are different. Does that make it worse?? No, I just need to take the time to learn it.

What I dont understand is the cost of a mac. How can they charge over $600 more than a PC, even though they are running on the same hardware now? We all know that the OS isnt worth that much. Guess its the hype that cost you so much.

I have to to switch to Vista Ultimate soon so I can use Quad core and 8 gig ram. This rendering on single cores is killing me.

joyride wrote:What I dont understand is the cost of a mac. How can they charge over $600 more than a PC, even though they are running on the same hardware now? We all know that the OS isnt worth that much. Guess its the hype that cost you so much.

Sure, Macs use a lot of the same brands of hardware as PCs but that doesn't means it's all configured the same or performs equally well. Configure a PC on Dell's website to match a mac and you'll find the difference is not $600.

iMac - $1649
===
20" Display
2.4GHz Intel Core 2 Duo
2GB memory
320GB hard drive
8x double-layer SuperDrive
ATI Radeon HD 2400 XT with 128MB memory
Remote Control
Built-in Speakers
iSight (webcam)

Dell Dimension - $1459 / $1259 with $200 sale running right now
=========
Vista Ultimate
2.4GHz Intel Core 2 Duo
2GB RAM
320GB HDD
DVD +/- RW
ATI Radeon X1300 128MB
Remote
Webcam
20" Display
Speakers

So the difference he is $200 at normal pricing and $400 at sale pricing. The PC in this case has an inferior optical drive and graphics card. You can "downgrade" the PC significantly to get it to be even more than $600 less but it's not an equivalent machine at that point so it's not worth a comparison such as this.

The illusion that Macs are somehow very expensive comes from two places that I can obviously see:

1. Ultra cheap PCs
2. People who build their own systems and constantly scour for deals

If you're into either if those things then clearly PCs are a good option for you. If you aren't into those things or don't need/want those things, Macs are very competitive option for what you get.

joyride wrote:I have to to switch to Vista Ultimate soon so I can use Quad core and 8 gig ram. This rendering on single cores is killing me.

Hold on... you have to buy a different version of Vista just to be able to use your computer on multiple cores? The only reason I can think of to split up versions of your consumer OS for different levels of hardware would be gouging the consumer.

There is only one version of consumer OSX, and it is fully-featured right out of the box. Multiple cores, file sharing, permissions... whatever. You can use the same version that you have on your Mac Mini on a Mac Pro with 8 cores, no problem.

Which version of Vista are you??

http://www.winsupersite.com/showcase/winvista_which.asp

Paul Thurrott sucks

I am running Vista on my LapTop, and it works fine.

Buy hey, I do not know more about PCs in general that I can say mine's a Dual Core Intel pentium (1.73 GHz, 533 MHz), with 2GB DDR2. So my word here in really not the best to listen to...

fuzzysnuggleduck wrote:Paul Thurrott sucks

Really? I've found his articles pretty informative over the years. But everyone has their opinions.

Francious70 wrote:

fuzzysnuggleduck wrote:Paul Thurrott sucks

Really? I've found his articles pretty informative over the years. But everyone has their opinions.

Well, I don't like him or his articles but that's personal opinion. I believe he's a Microsoft shill who passes sales pitches and lying off as articles.

Edit: http://www.roughlydrafted.com/RD/RDM.Te ... 749CA.html

Yes, it' an Apple-centric blog that hates on MS shills and even contains some unnecessary personal attacks but it does contain some truths.

Pretty good read. While I don't think he's quite as bad as that article makes him out to be I will definitely agree that he does push MS products. But if you need info on an MS product, www.winsupersite.com is a good place to start, or the MS knowledge base.

See this article for a fairly unbiased review of OS-X "Leopard"

http://www.winsupersite.com/reviews/macosx_leopard.asp

Francious70 wrote:Pretty good read. While I don't think he's quite as bad as that article makes him out to be I will definitely agree that he does push MS products. But if you need info on an MS product, www.winsupersite.com is a good place to start, or the MS knowledge base.

See this article for a fairly unbiased review of OS-X "Leopard"

http://www.winsupersite.com/reviews/macosx_leopard.asp

While he's definitely not going out of his way to be a dork in that article, he does give "false" praise (that is, it's not genuine) to make it seem like he likes it but then concludes all that praise with a paragraph about how you should just use Vista instead.

I find there's a difference between a review and a comparison, and Mr. Thurrott does a good job of starting off as a review and ending as a comparison, which I find defeating the point.

He also plays up a feature, then turns around and summarizes it with something supposedly "bad" about it:

For all its niceties, Time Machine has a very basic problem. If you've unplugged the drive that's storing all those backups, you're out of luck: You'll simply get an error dialog if you try to run Time Machine. That will be disheartening to anyone anyway from the home office or on the road, and there's nothing like not having the correct file version available at 30,000 feet when you've got a few hours to kill. Not to belabor the point, but this is a problem Vista users won't face: Previous Versions is on by default and uses the same disk on which the original file is stored. (And no, it doesn't kill storage space, thanks to its ability to store only parts of files that have changed.

Well, no duh. How is requiring backup media a basic problem of backup software? The backup software I want to buy at work is $20k+ but it doesn't work without backup media... is that now a "problem" of the software itself?

Here he also quickly (and covertly) compares a Vista feature to Time Machine that doesn't even come close to the same functionality, boasting it's main appeal to put down Time Machine. Shadow Copy != Time Machine.

Another problem with Leopard is the unmet expectations. Apple, like Microsoft with Windows Vista, promised more than it delivered with Leopard, and even went so far as to promise secret new features that never materialized. It's one thing to explain, as Microsoft did repeatedly with Vista, why certain features are being dropped; that's just disappointing. It's quite another thing, however, to brazenly promise secret features to a giggling crowd and then not deliver them and pretend the promise was never made. That's pathologically dishonest and disillusioning.

Here he says Apple promised secret features that it did not deliver. Which features, exactly? He's basically accusing Apple of not delivering features it never said it would deliver.

These are the subtle things that make me dislike Mr. Thurrott. I'm not saying other people should dislike him or not read his articles or even not take his advice, though. Everyone has the right to read his stuff and make their own conclusions, and mine are that he uses false praise to bring Leopard up just so he can put it down.

All that said, Leopard is by no means perfect and some of what he praises and/or puts down has merit.

Well, you pretty much caught me. I build my PC, as there are some things I need, and some I don't. Its just easier and more cost efficient for me to build.

Currently I am running XP 32 bit, which wont support the quad core and will only go to 4 gig of ram. I believe all Vista versions support any core, and up to 8 gig ram. I am going to ultimate because as a student I can get it for $89 instead of basic for $79.

While all versions of Vista support 64 bit processors, I think there are different versions of Vista like 32 bit and 64 bit.

Memory limits for current/future Windows versions
http://msdn2.microsoft.com/en-gb/library/aa366778.aspx

AMD Processor driver update to address Windows XP/2003 32bit and 64bit for dual and quad core procs
http://www.amd.com/us-en/Processors/Tec ... 18,00.html

Update for Intel processors
http://support.microsoft.com/kb/936357/en-us

Windows XP 32bit does support quad-core however memory is still limited to 4GB. You should however be able to "turn-in" your XP 32 bit license for an XP 64 bit license at no cost. The XP 64 bit will get you the additonal memory capabilities. Also, XP 64 bit is based on the Windows 2003 64 bit codebase.

Vista does support quad core procs without having to go to Ultimate.

http://video.yahoo.com/video/play?vid=678136

if unavailable...

http://nildesperandum777.vodpod.com/vid ... -mac-vs-pc

ROFL

it gets better! play the ad on Cnet

http://www.cnet.com/windows-vista.html