Vista Vrs. Tiger

[SamuiJens]

Having just bought a mac with the latest Tiger, I find it hard to think Vista is better. But surprise me, if possible.

I know price for mac is higher/but you get what you pay for.

[sjaak327]

Mac OSX 10.4.x aka Tiger is a great operating system, it was on par with XP. Vista visually is way better then both XP and Tiger.

[Firefoxx]

For the casual user, it's probably an easy choice. But for a lot of us, it's not so easy. I have way too many programs that I use on a regular basis that won't work at all on Tiger. Yes, there's boot camp, but if I need to continuously boot to use these programs it's not much fun. Or if I buy a mac just to run XP on it nearly all the time, that's also not fun because I'm paying a lot more for the hardware.

Yes, I've tried Tiger (it's on my sis's Mac, which she bought because, quote "it looks better to use a Mac at Starbucks"). To tell you the truth, I didn't like it. It was interesting for a while, but the novelty wore off, and I ended becoming quite tired of it. I wouldn't change even if my programs did work on it. I'm guessing that it's because I've used computers all my life, and I *know* how they work, vs the normal tech-challenged Joe. I don't have problems with spyware (and I don't use anti-spyware software, it's stupid) or virii or worms or program errors. But that's just me. I can appreciate why people like the Mac. But I don't, because for *me* you get much less than what you pay for.

[Guest Reimar]

The question at any time is: What you need it for? and how much you will or can pay?

We doing services for both PC and Mac and I working with both!

Ok the Mac is exelent for design works and most of the printer companies working with Mac!

An Atari is exelent for Music composing and many music freaks work with Atari even today!

A Commodore is exelent for Animation Graphics but how many user working with Animation Graphics?

On the Mac you have just as little ~ 5% of software availabvle as for the PC! And with the PC you can do all things the Mac can do or the Atari or the Commodore!

And the cost? The Mac cost 150% or more as an equivalent PC! Software for tyhe Mac is much more expensive as for the PC!

Most of the "normal" user do need to mind about their available money and beside of the money even about the avaibility of: 1. Spareparts; 2. AdOnm's; 3. Software; 4. Services!

I think just this 4 points are enough for most user to go with the PC! That don't mean the Mac isn't that good! He is!! But the PC is for most of us more relaible!

Edit:

Forgot the post ask about what I'll going for?

For me I've to go with both of them because of my work and company! Private? I woulg go for Vista and run Mac OS-X on the PC!!!!!

Edited February 3, 2007 by Reimar

[cdnvic]

Mac Tiger is a solid OS, and especially for inexperienced users its probably the best choice. However as Reimer says, it's limited. Most of the IT pros I know who are big Mac fanboys still have Windows running either in Paralells or Bootcamp Because there are just some programs they need that Mac doesn't have.

However, if you have teens that will download anything, or parents who are technophobes and just want to surf and use email without you having to go clean spyware out of their computer all the time, get them a Mac, or build them a Linux machine. Spyware is out there, and smart users can avoid it, but inexperienced users will still get it.

In short, use what makes you happy, and respect others when they make their choices. Nothing is more retarded than a "I use linux/macs/windows so I rock and you suck" user.

[Meerkat]

It's funny really. I've been a Windows user back from the days of 3.1, and was comfortable in the likes of DOS and CP/M before then. I'd always steered clear of Macs until last year with the advent of the Intel models with the promise of running Windows. I was on the lookout for a new PC so thought I'd give an iMac a try, knowing that I could always run XP on it if I didn't like the interface. I have to say I was blown away with what I could do. I've now got 2 iMacs - neither of which I've even bothered to install Bootcamp on - but I've still got a couple of XP machines too. Er...and three Linux boxes and an Atari ST that (with a bow to the earlier poster) I've used for ages for music production.

For everyday things like email, calendar and web browsing, the OS X apps beat the out-of-the-box Windows ones hands down. Photo manipulation is another app that Macs do extremely well - the installed iPhoto is good, but Apple's Aperture is better - and better than similar programmes I've used on XP. XP, of course, wins hands-down for the sheer volume of available apps, but nowadays I always check to see if I can find an OS X version before getting the XP one.

Many people (and I was one) seem to think that OS X is a "black box" OS - nice and friendly, but you can't tweak anything as easily as within XP. That simply isn't true - if you like tinkering, you can do so to your heart's content on the Mac. True, you'll be messing around with the delights of Unix (and probably at command-line level, although there is much you can play around with via the GUI), but that OS has been around for ages and so the development community is immense. The myth that OS X is only for beginners and that a real user will always go for XP is just that: a myth.

The issue of cost has arisen here, and whilst I haven't bought a new XP machine for a while, reviews I've read recently in the computing press seem to show that Macs now offer good vfm compared to similarly configured pre-built XP machines. Of course you can always build your own XP machine much cheaper, but that's not an option for everybody.

My favourite piece of hardware at the moment is still my trusty Dell X-1 running XP, just for its amazing portability and flexibility. When I'm rooted to the desk though, I'm happiest using OS X. Remember too that Leopard gets released this year - if it lives up to the previews, it's going to be one cracking OS.

Edited February 4, 2007 by Meerkat

[CobraSnakeNecktie]

It's funny really. I've been a Windows user back from the days of 3.1, and was comfortable in the likes of DOS and CP/M before then. I'd always steered clear of Macs until last year with the advent of the Intel models with the promise of running Windows. I was on the lookout for a new PC so thought I'd give an iMac a try, knowing that I could always run XP on it if I didn't like the interface. I have to say I was blown away with what I could do. I've now got 2 iMacs - neither of which I've even bothered to install Bootcamp on - but I've still got a couple of XP machines too. Er...and three Linux boxes and an Atari ST that (with a bow to the earlier poster) I've used for ages for music production.

For everyday things like email, calendar and web browsing, the OS X apps beat the out-of-the-box Windows ones hands down. Photo manipulation is another app that Macs do extremely well - the installed iPhoto is good, but Apple's Aperture is better - and better than similar programmes I've used on XP. XP, of course, wins hands-down for the sheer volume of available apps, but nowadays I always check to see if I can find an OS X version before getting the XP one.

Many people (and I was one) seem to think that OS X is a "black box" OS - nice and friendly, but you can't tweak anything as easily as within XP. That simply isn't true - if you like tinkering, you can do so to your heart's content on the Mac. True, you'll be messing around with the delights of Unix (and probably at command-line level, although there is much you can play around with via the GUI), but that OS has been around for ages and so the development community is immense. The myth that OS X is only for beginners and that a real user will always go for XP is just that: a myth.

The issue of cost has arisen here, and whilst I haven't bought a new XP machine for a while, reviews I've read recently in the computing press seem to show that Macs now offer good vfm compared to similarly configured pre-built XP machines. Of course you can always build your own XP machine much cheaper, but that's not an option for everybody.

My favourite piece of hardware at the moment is still my trusty Dell X-1 running XP, just for it's amazing portability and flexibility. When I'm rooted to the desk though, I'm happiest using OS X. Remember too that Leopard gets released this year - if it lives up to the previews, it's going to be one cracking OS.

yeah I would have to agree. Its funny to hear Windows weenies talking about the Mac being too simple. Ever hear of Unix and the command line? Most windows users shudder at the thought of actually writing shell or PERL scripts. You know UNIX the heavy duty OS that is the backbone of the Internet. I got away from Windows on my desktop a long time ago because I use a lot of command line both local and remotely. The beauty of the Mac is you don't have to use the command line but when you need to then its right there underneath.

I agree Vista is pretty nice. I run Vista on my OS X machine via of Parallels for the occasional application that does not run under OS X. BTW the arguments about SW availability being so much greater on Windows is overblown. Most of the stuff I want to run works natively on OS X then if not I fire up Parallels and run Vista. I would not be surprised if Leopard raises the bar again when its released in a few months.

Its nice to see competition in this arena and for the first time in quite awhile I think MS is rattled by Apple and Linux nibbling at its market share. Hopefully this competition will yield better and better choices for the consumer.

[cdnvic]

yeah I would have to agree. Its funny to hear Windows weenies talking about the Mac being too simple. Ever hear of Unix and the command line? Most windows users shudder at the thought of actually writing shell or PERL scripts.

This kind of immaturity belongs in the fourth grade. Name calling over what OS you use is pretty lame. Not to mention that many who use Windows are perfectly capable of coding, scripting, and using a command line.

The smug mentality displayed above is about on par with a mechanic rolling his eyes because he finds someone who can't rebuild an automatic transmission.

[CobraSnakeNecktie]

yeah I would have to agree. Its funny to hear Windows weenies talking about the Mac being too simple. Ever hear of Unix and the command line? Most windows users shudder at the thought of actually writing shell or PERL scripts.

This kind of immaturity belongs in the fourth grade. Name calling over what OS you use is pretty lame. Not to mention that many who use Windows are perfectly capable of coding, scripting, and using a command line.

The smug mentality displayed above is about on par with a mechanic rolling his eyes because he finds someone who can't rebuild an automatic transmission.

well I stand by my statement. Most windows users need a GUI and Unix users tend to be more skilled and sophisticated. I did sysadm at large organizations for a decade and Windows users tended to be display less depth at understanding computers. So I still find it funny that windows users think Apple is too simple. Can you see the irony? Its quite humorous.

[cdnvic]

yeah I would have to agree. Its funny to hear Windows weenies talking about the Mac being too simple. Ever hear of Unix and the command line? Most windows users shudder at the thought of actually writing shell or PERL scripts.

This kind of immaturity belongs in the fourth grade. Name calling over what OS you use is pretty lame. Not to mention that many who use Windows are perfectly capable of coding, scripting, and using a command line.

The smug mentality displayed above is about on par with a mechanic rolling his eyes because he finds someone who can't rebuild an automatic transmission.

well I stand by my statement. Most windows users need a GUI and Unix users tend to be more skilled and sophisticated. I did sysadm at large organizations for a decade and Windows users tended to be display less depth at understanding computers. So I still find it funny that windows users think Apple is too simple. Can you see the irony? Its quite humorous.

Actually, it's just kind of silly. This breast-beating that goes back and forth about who's OS is better.

[CobraSnakeNecktie]

yeah I would have to agree. Its funny to hear Windows weenies talking about the Mac being too simple. Ever hear of Unix and the command line? Most windows users shudder at the thought of actually writing shell or PERL scripts.

This kind of immaturity belongs in the fourth grade. Name calling over what OS you use is pretty lame. Not to mention that many who use Windows are perfectly capable of coding, scripting, and using a command line.

The smug mentality displayed above is about on par with a mechanic rolling his eyes because he finds someone who can't rebuild an automatic transmission.

well I stand by my statement. Most windows users need a GUI and Unix users tend to be more skilled and sophisticated. I did sysadm at large organizations for a decade and Windows users tended to be display less depth at understanding computers. So I still find it funny that windows users think Apple is too simple. Can you see the irony? Its quite humorous.

Actually, it's just kind of silly. This breast-beating that goes back and forth about who's OS is better.

did you bother the rest of my original post

"""""""""""""""""

I agree Vista is pretty nice. I run Vista on my OS X machine via of Parallels for the occasional application that does not run under OS X. BTW the arguments about SW availability being so much greater on Windows is overblown. Most of the stuff I want to run works natively on OS X then if not I fire up Parallels and run Vista. I would not be surprised if Leopard raises the bar again when its released in a few months.

Its nice to see competition in this arena and for the first time in quite awhile I think MS is rattled by Apple and Linux nibbling at its market share. Hopefully this competition will yield better and better choices for the consumer.

"""""""""""""

What's the big deal about comparing Operating systems. OS's are different and companies compete for our business. The relative merits of a OS are important because people choose and pay for them.

As for being offended by the term "weenie". Get over it. I have been called a Tech weenie or Unix weenie forever. Windows users snickered at me and said you don't need to do things on the command line because you can just use Windows. The appeal of that approach turned out to be very successful as many other users agreed. Now Apple is making things simpler and Windows users complain Apple is too simple. I think they are right.. Its too simple and probably more and more users will agree.

[Norrad]

I made the switch to apple just over a year ago, and I have never looked back. OS X is awesome. I don't dismiss windows though, as it is also quite decent. I just prefer mac for what I do. Oh, and almost all software for windows has a Mac alternative.

Oh, check out this great ad for mac

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BaNzb7hmtB4

Edited February 4, 2007 by Norrad

[Guest Reimar]

May I wasn't clear enough because I may forget to state more clearly that I mean the PC and NOT Windows!!

BTW the arguments about SW availability being so much greater on Windows is overblown.

The most available software special for business are for PC based computer! 98% of all computers connected to corporate networks are PC based computer. The reason is quite easy: The appilcation software running on the mainframes (server) need a PC for to work on a workstation.

Even for small networks and single computer, the avaibility of Business Software for PC is much much higher than for Mac!

I'm NOT against the Mac, I also like them! But my works is much more easy done on the PC than on the Mac, doesn't matter wich OS i using whic h must NOT Windows. I also have to work with SCO-Unix, Suse Linux or Fedora!

[CobraSnakeNecktie]

May I wasn't clear enough because I may forget to state more clearly that I mean the PC and NOT Windows!!

BTW the arguments about SW availability being so much greater on Windows is overblown.

The most available software special for business are for PC based computer! 98% of all computers connected to corporate networks are PC based computer. The reason is quite easy: The appilcation software running on the mainframes (server) need a PC for to work on a workstation.

Even for small networks and single computer, the avaibility of Business Software for PC is much much higher than for Mac!

I'm NOT against the Mac, I also like them! But my works is much more easy done on the PC than on the Mac, doesn't matter wich OS i using whic h must NOT Windows. I also have to work with SCO-Unix, Suse Linux or Fedora!

How are you defining PC? Intel based? Isn't the Mac intel based now? PC just means stand alone. Not many people folks contemplating buying server centric terminals these days.

There is no doubt by numbers Windows has more software but in reality Mac version software has most things covered today. I do use my Parallels software on Mac for stock trading programs.

I think in general we are seeing a trend of application environments being able to run across platforms with products like Java, VM Ware, Wine, Parallels etc.

Edited February 4, 2007 by CobraSnakeNecktie

[Khleerm]

This kind of immaturity belongs in the fourth grade. Name calling over what OS you use is pretty lame.

Not nearly so lame as your incessant proctoring of the IT forum. Why you must fit the same profile as a security guard with a badge fetish.

So he used the weenie word. Dear me... Was your innocence fractured? Did that call for you having to badger him with your twaddling thread spam? Say, here's novel idea- let readers interpret the commentary.

Was Cobrasnakenecktie' main point lost on you as the gasket blew? Allow me to the pleasure, he wrote " Its funny to hear Windows weenies talking about the Mac being too simple." And indeed this thread bears the fruit of that tree. The comments made by sjaak327 and Firefoxx both betray their complete ignorance on this topic. Did that stop them from commenting? No.

Mac OSX 10.4.x aka Tiger is a great operating system, it was on par with XP.

Yes, I've tried Tiger.....To tell you the truth, I didn't like it.

[jdinasia]

Just use both .. they both work

[nikster]

Having just bought a mac with the latest Tiger, I find it hard to think Vista is better. But surprise me, if possible.

I know price for mac is higher/but you get what you pay for.

No, Vista is not better. Vista is a slightly better and prettified XP.

Vista is a far cry from OS X from a usability standpoint and in some ways moved in the wrong direction from XP. Or maybe I have gotten used to XP to the point where I can work with it just fine. Vista has much improved graphics - they are now on par with OS X. I don't know why somebody would say they are "better" - I would say they are still worse.

I will take a tiny little example of Vista vs OS X and why the original is better than the copy:

Windows Vista now has "widgets", little apps that run on the desktop which OS X has had for a while. I don't want to go into who invented these, well, OK, I will briefly - they were introduces some time in the stone ages with Mac OS 6 or 7, then removed, then came back as Konfabulator app on OS X, and eventually as Widgets on OS X and Konfabulator was bought by Yahoo and moved to Windows. Google Gadgets are also the same thing.

So Vista has a "clock" widget which shows an analog clock. Surprise, OS X has had the exact same thing. Vista's clock is not as pretty, but there you go. In both implementations, you can open multiple clocks and set different world times on them, and as expected, they show the time zone and time. I find that very useful because I deal with people in different time zones a lot.

So Vista has the same thing, only 3 years late. But there's a snatch - in Vista, you don't know if it's 7am or 7pm. In OS X, you do because it will paint the face of the clock black at night time and white during day time. One thing they forgot to copy. I actually stopped using Vista's world clock for this reason - it's not useful. U.S. west coast is 14 hours behind Thailand so it's not very straigthforward to know if its am or pm there.

To be fair, many things in both OS X and Vista have been around much longer than these, so if we say Vista copied many of them from OS X that's just because, for one reason or another, Vista came out a few years after OS X Tiger.

The clock is a small example, but I think, symptomatic for the whole Windows XP/Vista vs OS X debate. OS X makes that bit of extra effort, and sometimes it can make a world of difference.

Edited February 4, 2007 by nikster

[Firefoxx]

OK, I'm a reader. This forum, as you should know, is not a name-calling troller's forum, as you should know from reading the rules. Stick to the rules, please. Inflammatory comments should be kept to PMs or better yet to your own mind.

Thanks for calling me ignorant. I've been in the IT business for way way too long, since the PC was doing only 4.7 MHz, harddisks were rare, and RAM was only 512k. I really love it when people show their wisdom and call me ignorant. Comments like yours are also very inflammatory. Man, the trolls are really coming out in this thread.

I'm an ignorant weenie. Great. The knowledgeable gods are really showing their wisdom and enlightening the unwashed masses.

Keep it civil, folks, or keep it to yourself. If you don't like the opinion (and yes, it's AN OPINION) of others, you don't resort to kindergarden name-calling. Go to another web board if you like that kind of thing.

Edited February 4, 2007 by Firefoxx

[Guest Reimar]

]quote]How are you defining PC? Intel based? Isn't the Mac intel based now? PC just means stand alone. Not many people folks contemplating buying server centric terminals these days.

If I talk about a PC I don't mean Intel!

PC means Personal Computer and if I remeber right the first PC CPU was an NEC 8088. Short time after implementing the 8088, a CPU with build in Floating Point Processor (mathematic CO-Processor), the splitt them in two different Processors: a 8086 and a 8087 while the 8087 is the mathematic Co-Processor! Because not much software was need a mathematic Co-Processor and who need should pay extra!!

Good old XT times!!

Cyrix or AMD isn't a Intel either!

All of this different Brand CPU's using a different arcitecture but all of this 4 here named: Intel, AMD, Cyrix and NEC was able to run the same OS.

Mac was using Motorola CPU's and as far as I know there was one Clone only, I forget the name was the name was starting with an U.. ??!

Anyway PC did NOT means STAND ALONE! Mostly used workstation in small to big Networks are PC's! Even the very special Westinghouse Workstations was based on PC arcitecture (most Airline office and Air Cargo office was using the Westinghouse for many years)!

Ok, it's right, not many people folks contemplating buying server centric terminals these days, but many companies buying server's and server's need Workstations connected! But the todays workstations are most often PC's running various Windows OS. The time of "independant" workstations are over but a server connected computer is still : A WORKSTATION! And most of this computers are: PC's!

A Mac is a nice machine and do something better than a PC. If you like the Mac, know how to use, get the outputs you want and so on, use the Mac it's may the best for YOU! And for those who get the things done from a PC, use the PC is the best for this Group.

The best thing for using for an individual is that which you know how to use.

It's like with food, some you like, some you don't! Some people you like and some you don't! And for me the things I like a different from the one you like or vice versa!

That's live and so it should be!

[SamuiJens]

"Can't we all just get along"...sh*t, it's like someone said here, it's up to ones own preference, BUT as I see it on the New OSX, you can have the best of both worlds, both mac and windows, with intel. In my 101 opinion, Im not as computer savvy as most on here, just wondering if installing vista, as a parallel, to Tiger would be a good move? Even though I'm happy with it as is, except there are some sites I can't get on Safari. That is another question?

Sorry Reimar, hadn't read you input, so sorry if I'm repeating somethings here:

Edited February 4, 2007 by SamuiJens

[sjaak327]

Boy some people here get overexcited. I myself use both Mac OSX and Vista (and also some Linux variants like Suse and Ubuntu). For me this discussion is pointless, but I cannot resist offering my thoughts and comments. My preferred OS is Vista, most of the applications I need to run do run there. Also in my line of work I need to administer Windows 2003 server (active directory) and Novell (6.5) This is very hard on Mac OSX, not on Vista. Also the number of applications available on the windows platform is staggering compared to the number of available applications on Mac OSX. I also like to run games, then Mac OSX isn't even an alternative.

Still I like Mac OSX. Since tiger and apple's move to intel processors I can run Mac OSX both natively and inside Vmware. I thank apple for this great move

[Grover]

i dont know much about macs, but tiger supports thai language properly, doesn't it ?

eg. keyboard input and font display,, etc

[CobraSnakeNecktie]

"Can't we all just get along"...sh*t, it's like someone said here, it's up to ones own preference, BUT as I see it on the New OSX, you can have the best of both worlds, both mac and windows, with intel. In my 101 opinion, Im not as computer savvy as most on here, just wondering if installing vista, as a parallel, to Tiger would be a good move? Even though I'm happy with it as is, except there are some sites I can't get on Safari. That is another question?

Sorry Reimar, hadn't read you input, so sorry if I'm repeating somethings here:

Yes I personally like using OS X and Parallels because its easy to setup and works quite well. Just opt for more RAM because its uses a fair amount. Basically you are booting the guest operating system(XP or Vista) on a virtual disk/memory partition. Keep in mind though you can do the same thing on Linux with Wine or VM Ware and this is a major trend of cross platform (Virtualization) application environment capability. Its definitely a nice development to be able to run the application without being forced to use the operating system as the base operating system.

Windows Vista can host other virtual operating systems with VMware although I haven't tried it.

http://www.parallels.com/

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wine_(software)

http://www.vmware.com/virtualization/

[Upcountry]

Mac/OS X (Tiger)is to Beta as PC/Windows (XP/Vista) is to VHS? ;-) Sadly, but the good news it OS X has a life of its own.

I use both in different ways. As mentioned earlier, software prices and choices affect what I do with each system. I wish OS X had as many freeware and lower-cost shareware apps as Windows, but such is life – smaller/vertical market. There are some things I can do for less money on XP. Vista won’t really be ready for prime time for a while yet (SP2?) so it’s hard to compare in any case. Of course, Leopard will change the mix all over again, though cost issues will remain.

I’m disappointed that Apple has moved away from affordable desktop machines (I don’t care for iMacs with built-in displays) I’m glad I can run Windows on a Mac now if I want to, but $2500 US is a lot. Yes, you do get a lot for your money, but I’d like to have the option of getting a more basic box and upgrading it myself over time. I suppose the next step (whether Apple approves it or not) is for a robust support for OS X on well-configured PC’s!

Edited February 4, 2007 by Upcountry

[SamuiJens]

Mac/OS X (Tiger)is to Beta as PC/Windows (XP/Vista) is to VHS? ;-) Sadly, but the good news it OS X has a life of its own.

I use both in different ways. As mentioned earlier, software prices and choices affect what I do with each system. I wish OS X had as many freeware and lower-cost shareware apps as Windows, but such is life – smaller/vertical market. There are some things I can do for less money on XP. Vista won’t really be ready for prime time for a while yet (SP2?) so it’s hard to compare in any case. Of course, Leopard will change the mix all over again, though cost issues will remain.

I’m disappointed that Apple has moved away from affordable desktop machines (I don’t care for iMacs with built-in displays) I’m glad I can run Windows on a Mac now if I want to, but $2500 US is a lot. Yes, you do get a lot for your money, but I’d like to have the option of getting a more basic box and upgrading it myself over time. I suppose the next step (whether Apple approves it or not) is for a robust support for OS X on well-configured PC’s!

I agree there upcountry. But hopefully thing will take a turn in the future.

[Phil Conners]

OSX sure looks nice but then again so does Visa. But that's just eye candy.

I like the Apple hardware as it is (or at least seems) very quiet - at least compared to most PC boxes I've seen and had. On the negative side, the Apple hardware cost nearly 3 times the equivalent PC hardware.

As for what is "best" that really has to be a matter of taste. I had a real eye opener when I bought a (Video) Ipod and was forced to install Itunes and Quicktime. It seems the Apple crowd thinks those two are the holy grail, but I personally find it the most clunky, functionality-challenged, backward and resource demanding software around. If that is representative for other Apple/XOS software I think I'll take a raincheck.

Most importantly - at least for me - is I use a few programs that does not exist for XOS - and I don't intend to start multiboot PC's to run different stuff.

Having said that, while Windows is ok for a PC/workstation I would NEVER EVER consider using Windows as a server OS - in that end I'd stay with Linux for a host of reasons - stability, performance, cost, just to mention 3.

Edited February 4, 2007 by Phil Conners

[cdnvic]

I’m disappointed that Apple has moved away from affordable desktop machines (I don’t care for iMacs with built-in displays)

You still have the Mac Mini which is on par in price with alot of PCs like Dell, HP or Acer. I see your point with the Apple "all in the monitor" approach, but I must admit it's a beautiful display and makes for alot less clutter. Still I like being able to take my tower apart and add ram, video cards, etc, in minutes so I guess there's a trade off to be made for everything.

[Khleerm]

Thanks for calling me ignorant. I've been in the IT business for way way too long, since the PC was doing only 4.7 MHz, harddisks were rare, and RAM was only 512k. I really love it when people show their wisdom and call me ignorant. Comments like yours are also very inflammatory. Man, the trolls are really coming out in this thread.

Uh-huh. And Rumsfeld lambasted the whole world by insisting there was a plan for executing a war and another for a peace. Coincidentally, he was also able to speak from having years and years of prior experience. As well, coincidentally, he suffered no challenges to his wise leadership either. So you go right ahead- apologise for him while you're at it- and tell me how cocksure you are of your Admin skills and we'll believe you because you insisted it is so. The only fly in your soup is you're pontificating on a platform that is alien to you.

ignorant (as in "ignorant") adj.: lacking basic knowledge; "how can someone that age be so ignorant?"; "inexperienced and new to the real world"

I remain just as cock sure you couldn't invoke Expose on your sisters computer were you asked to. And I'm just as sure you're unaware of Dashboard, or Fast User Switching, or navigating the Finder, of configuring Samba, or BonJour, or using the Airport Admin tool. Nor have you any knowledge of navigation via keyboard shortcuts of either the desktop or apps. running on the desktop. Until you do you are simply too ignorant to comment with authority, let alone prove you have so much as even a basic understanding of the two platforms.

Some time ago, I read a similar thread where this same challenge to your actual knowledge of that sisters computer occurred. And, just as now, you got defensive then but failed the debate. What you failed to see then and no doubt fail again to see is that, genuine awareness does not simply happen because you interacted on some foreign desktop for some miniscule days.

Mac OSX 10.4.x aka Tiger is a great operating system, it was on par with XP.[/i]

When first you say this ^ you've already lost the credibility that allows us to believe you're as knowledgeable as to do all of this \/ And that is all that needs to be said.

Boy some people here get overexcited. I myself use both Mac OSX and Vista (and also some Linux variants like Suse and Ubuntu). For me this discussion is pointless, but I cannot resist offering my thoughts and comments. My preferred OS is Vista, most of the applications I need to run do run there. Also in my line of work I need to administer Windows 2003 server (active directory) and Novell (6.5) This is very hard on Mac OSX, not on Vista.

Edited February 4, 2007 by Khleerm

[endure]

One warning only- if you can't be civil, be quiet. Personal insults will not be tolerated in this thread.

[Richard-BKK]

Apple "Tiger" OS-X is totally not comparable to Windows Vista, for a lonely person at home Windows Vista is probably the best choice. Apple’s Tiger OS-X with an additional “real” pet (like cat or dog) will be an actual comparison, in terms of keeping you busy and prevent you from doing actual work.