Vista Vrs. Tiger

[Upcountry]

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.

Funny how opinions differ. To me, OS X stays out of the way for the most part. With almost daily patches from M$, and anti-virus/firewall issues, is seems like my XP environment is always often distracting me from my focus. Combine that wih more hardware issues in my PC boxes, the Mac really proves its superiority to me.

If I could get the apps I need (affordably) and do everything I want to do on the Mac, it might be my only platform. But the reality is that (for my work, etc.), XP and Linux also have their place.

I think a more useful topic might be what we can do better on each platform - what apps work best on OS X vs XP? What solutions are better on each platform? After all, the OS does exist to support the apps (killer and otherwise).

I wish Skype, for instance, would keep its OS X version up to par with the XP version.

Edited February 5, 2007 by Upcountry

[Grover]

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

eg. keyboard input and font display,, etc

bump. surely some OS X user knows the answer.

[Upcountry]

These links should answer the question.

http://www.apple.com/macosx/features/international/

http://www.alanwood.net/unicode/fonts_macosx.html#thai

From the Bangkok Post Database Mac writer’s web page:

http://www.extensions.in.th/post/fonts/fonts1.html

The last one should help you get set up. It's pretty straight forward.

UC

[Grover]

These links should answer the question.

http://www.apple.com/macosx/features/international/

http://www.alanwood.net/unicode/fonts_macosx.html#thai

From the Bangkok Post Database Mac writer’s web page:

http://www.extensions.in.th/post/fonts/fonts1.html

The last one should help you get set up. It's pretty straight forward.

UC

Thanks for that UC. Indeed it is supported. I just recall some users having trouble with thai language etc with their mac on the net, so maybe it is not 'fully supported'...

[baabaabobo]

From the BBC today:

"Apple has told iTunes users to "wait" before upgrading their computers to Microsoft Windows Vista, saying its music software may not work properly.

The company said it is aware of several issues including problems playing purchased files and synchronising data.

Apple's support website said a new version of iTunes for Vista should be ready "in the next few weeks".

iTunes allows computers to synch data with iPods. Vista, the newest version of Windows was launched 30 January.

Compatibility issues

Apple outlined the compatibility issues and suggested workarounds for those already using Vista in a support document on its website.

Some problems listed were: failure to play music and video purchased from the iTunes store; poor animation performance; and a failure to automatically synchronize media, contacts and calendars.

Apple has also offered Vista users a downloadable tool that will "repair permissions for important files," but does not specify the precise nature of the incompatibility.

According to Associated Press newswires, the company has sold more than 90 million iPods since October 2001.

Microsoft response

Microsoft has a team working with Apple to make iTunes fully functional on Windows Vista, Adam Anderson, a Microsoft Windows spokesman told AP.

He added that the company did not believe these issues were a reason stop using Vista.

When Vista launched, Microsoft said more than 5,000 hardware and software products were already compatible with the operating system.

Both Apple and Microsoft declined to comment on the issue further."

For me Vista is a poor imitation of OSX which has already been around a long time and is about to get even better with Leopard - but then I'm a Mac guy.

[z9999]

I recently helped a friend select and purchase his first computer, and recommended he give Linux a try. He did so and when the system arrived it had been loaded with Ubuntu Linux. We spent a few days testing everything out and had to download a few things related to playing videos and mp3 files, but had no difficulty doing so. I rounded up some free documentation from the internet related to Linux, OpenOffice, BASH, and spent a few days showing him how to navigate around the system. He is now happily and efficiently using his computer with few questions needed to be answered. And I am trying to clean my system of all important files so that I can format and install Ubuntu as well. Having retired from AT&T, and working with Bell Labs for 30 years I had forgotten how useful shell scripts were, and now am constantly borrowing my friends system to perform functions that would be too time consuming or impossible under Windows XP. The only problems thus far encountered are the Broadcom wireless which we haven't found a working driver for, and the non-working microphone which we haven't really tried to solve yet. My system has encountered numerous crashes, BSOD's, etc. since his system was purchased, and he has experienced no crashes at all. Since neither of us are gamers, XP or Vista is not a requirement, and best of all the kids using the system are learning valuable ways to use a computer, not playing games hours on end. I forgot to mention, you don't always get what you pay for, and in this case you get something without paying. Don't believe it when you hear that Linux is difficult to learn, it is much simpler than Windows, and even free support is readily available.

Finally, the choice is yours, and if you would like to sample Ubuntu, you can get the CDs for free, no postage even required from the following website:

https://shipit.ubuntu.com/login

[Richard-BKK]

Deep our hearts all computer users are Apple Mac lovers, it is only the cost for this love that we decline this love. Now that Microsoft with hardware cost go's one on one with Apple OS-X I want to see who people take home.

I think it is the biggest laugh to read Windows Vista reviews on the Internet and magazines, former Apple haters now seem to love everything what they hated in Apple's Tiger OS-X a few years ago.

Personal I love the simple but very strong foundation of X-windows, which is the graphical layer behind most Unix and Linux distributions. And of course the graphical backbone of Apple Tiger OS-X.

[SamuiJens]

Deep our hearts all computer users are Apple Mac lovers, it is only the cost for this love that we decline this love. Now that Microsoft with hardware cost go's one on one with Apple OS-X I want to see who people take home.

I think it is the biggest laugh to read Windows Vista reviews on the Internet and magazines, former Apple haters now seem to love everything what they hated in Apple's Tiger OS-X a few years ago.

Personal I love the simple but very strong foundation of X-windows, which is the graphical layer behind most Unix and Linux distributions. And of course the graphical backbone of Apple Tiger OS-X.

Ja, and as a newbie to computers, and at a late age, OSX Tiger is easier to learn.

And you know what they say about jealousy!

[nikster]

Deep our hearts all computer users are Apple Mac lovers, it is only the cost for this love that we decline this love. Now that Microsoft with hardware cost go's one on one with Apple OS-X I want to see who people take home.

I think it is the biggest laugh to read Windows Vista reviews on the Internet and magazines, former Apple haters now seem to love everything what they hated in Apple's Tiger OS-X a few years ago.

Personal I love the simple but very strong foundation of X-windows, which is the graphical layer behind most Unix and Linux distributions. And of course the graphical backbone of Apple Tiger OS-X.

I agree with your other comments, but technically, OS X Aqua is not based on X-Windows. OS X is based on FreeBSD and the kernel is open source (Darwin) but the graphical user interface is all home-grown...

[Upcountry]

but the graphical user interface is all home-grown...

and, as with the rest of OS X, world class as well!

[meatgrowler]

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.

its COOOOL to see that you do post sometimes jenstral!,and not just absorb other peoples posts.....regards

[cdnvic]

I agree with your other comments, but technically, OS X Aqua is not based on X-Windows. OS X is based on FreeBSD and the kernel is open source (Darwin) but the graphical user interface is all home-grown...

I think it's based on BSD, which unlike the free cousin, is not open source. In any case when Jobs came back, bringing NEXT's Unix underpinnings with it, that was what would eventually save Apple. Before that the OS had turned into a bit of a dog.

There's a rumour (more or less proven) that Microsoft did the same sort of thing by lifting BSD's IP stack and putting it into Windows 2000, explaining how that went on to become probably the most stable version of Windows ever.

Edited February 5, 2007 by cdnvic

[sjaak327]

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.

I find it strange that my first statement would mean I would loose credibility. For me personally XP was on par with Mac OSX, and I'm not a casual user. Trust me the second statement is very true. But of course you still believe I'm ignorant regarding Mac OSX. And I am certainly not going to convince you otherwise. But I would like you to at least remain civil. There is no need to call people ignorant.

[nikster]

I agree with your other comments, but technically, OS X Aqua is not based on X-Windows. OS X is based on FreeBSD and the kernel is open source (Darwin) but the graphical user interface is all home-grown...

I think it's based on BSD, which unlike the free cousin, is not open source. In any case when Jobs came back, bringing NEXT's Unix underpinnings with it, that was what would eventually save Apple. Before that the OS had turned into a bit of a dog.

There's a rumour (more or less proven) that Microsoft did the same sort of thing by lifting BSD's IP stack and putting it into Windows 2000, explaining how that went on to become probably the most stable version of Windows ever.

OS X has incorporated some parts of BSD (not FreeBSD, you are correct) but the relationship is complex. "Based on" would maybe be too strong a description. Look at the colorful picture here to see the architecture in detail:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Architecture_of_Mac_OS_X

The switch to NeXT was actually the reason Jobs came back - Amelio, then-CEO of Apple was searching for a replacement of the age-ing OS 9 and chose NeXT over BeOS. With NeXT came Steve Jobs and soon thereafter he was back as iCEO of Apple. Everyone knew that was going to happen some way or another even though Jobs was just a board member and not CEO when he came back.

Win2000 was so stable because it was basically Windows NT which was developed from scratch at Microsoft. MS had hired a guru of OS design from DEC, Dave Cutler, who had also done the VMS OS.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Windows_NT

I am not sure Win2000 was more stable than NT - I don't think it was. But it was much more stable that its successors Windows XP (== Windows NT 5.1) and Vista (== Windows NT 6.0).

Haven't heard about the IP stack but an IP stack doesn't make an OS. Since BSD is under the berkeley software license, it's imaginable - there would be no legal restrictions to using it in a closed source project.

Edited February 5, 2007 by nikster

[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.

its COOOOL to see that you do post sometimes jenstral!,and not just absorb other peoples posts.....regards

The more I use Vista the more I am convinced that it's the Emperor's New Clothes. Beyond the shiny user interface, which IMHO looks worse than OS X (any version), there's nothing left.

I used Vista Ultimate the way I normally use XP yesterday and this morning and...

- Things are like in XP except for some control panels which have inexplicably moved been around without providing any improvement

- Security restrictions which I am too lazy to resolve prevent Acrobat Reader for Vista from installing. Most likely Adobe's fault, but still annoying. How can they release a special Vista version that doesn't install?? The dialog says that I "may not have enough space on the drive" - 7GB should be enough, me thinks?

- I am still getting large dialog boxes despite having turned off all security crap I could find. Vista provides airport-security for operating systems: Lots of theatrics without being effective.

- Wireless networking dialog continues to annoy - why do I have to choose which kind of network I am connected to every time? The default without any questions asked should always be "public".

- excessive HD activity for no apparent reason

- Windows Mail basically unable to deal with my Exchange account. Stuck forever in downloading, fails to download messages and provides no option to recover. Thank God for Thunderbird which can even be configured to share mailboxes and settings with the XP side.

So I am really interested to hear: What does Vista do that XP doesn't do either as good or better?

With the exception of the graphics and sound effects, there seems to be nothing left ... and along with many teething and performance problems

Edited February 6, 2007 by nikster

[cdnvic]

Thanks for that. Interesting reading for sure.

Here's an excerpt from Steve Gibson talking about the MS/BSD thing;

interesting because there were rumors at the time of Windows 2000�s release about where did Microsoft get that stack. Because, you know, there was 95 and 98 and NT, and then Windows 2000. Well, Windows 2000 really did appear to be a different networking stack than Microsoft had. But it just � it was born fully mature. It was, I mean, it was a really good networking stack from day one. And you just don�t get that. I mean, all of the security problems that have been solved years and years ago were, like, already fixed in this stack. And there were rumors that Microsoft lifted it from one of the open source BSDs.

http://www.grc.com/sn/SN-051.htm

[Upcountry]

- Security restrictions which I am too lazy to resolve prevent Acrobat Reader for Vista from installing. Most likely Adobe's fault, but still annoying. How can they release a special Vista version that doesn't install?? The dialog says that I "may not have enough space on the drive"

Odd space message, but I think one big change in Vista is that you have to be the admin user to install apps. OS X is pretty good about prompting me for my admin password when I want to do admin things.

- excessive HD activity for no apparent reason

Could be indexing for the search feature (one way that Vista will be catching up with OS X)

With the exception of the graphics and sound effects, there seems to be nothing left ... and along with many teething and performance problems

Vista is really a public beta now, I’d say. I’ve heard many recommendations to wait till SP2. By then, more apps will have been upgraded too.

Edited February 6, 2007 by Upcountry

[cdnvic]

I think one big change in Vista is that you have to be the admin user to install apps.

It's the opposite actually. Xp/2000 requires you to be logged in as admin. Vista allows you to run in a user account and be prompted for an admin password like would happen in Linux or Mac.

Vista is really a public beta now, I’d say. I’ve heard many recommendations to wait till SP2. By then, more apps will have been upgraded too.

Vista was beta tested more extensively than all previous Windows releases put together. Where exactly are these many people saying to wait for service pack 2? I've read dozens of reviews by knowlagable people and none have said that as it could be years away.

Edited February 6, 2007 by cdnvic

[Upcountry]

Vista was beta tested more extensively than all previous Windows releases put together. Where exactly are these many people saying to wait for service pack 2? I've read dozens of reviews by knowlagable people and none have said that as it could be years away.

"Never buy version 1.0 of anything..." What I mean by Vista still being beta, is that the real world will be the big test, and many changes will inevitably come.

I know Vista is "NT6", but clearly the Vista release qualifies as a "roll out", meaning changes and upgrades will be delivered to the customer after the shrink wrapped product is installed (nothing new for any OS of course).

Given all the hardware and software upgrade issues, Vista is currently the "bleeding" edge, and the "evolutionary" change just doesn't justify the upgrade for most of us. Another concern I have is the many versions being offered. I know I can pay to upgrade (cute), but I wish I could just get the full professional version at a reasonable price.

I hope Vista security, with proper support from Zone Alarm, etc., will give me a reason to upgrade when I'm ready, but even then it'll probably be when I get a new Windows machine and convert the old one to Linux!

[nikster]

- Security restrictions which I am too lazy to resolve prevent Acrobat Reader for Vista from installing. Most likely Adobe's fault, but still annoying. How can they release a special Vista version that doesn't install?? The dialog says that I "may not have enough space on the drive"

Odd space message, but I think one big change in Vista is that you have to be the admin user to install apps. OS X is pretty good about prompting me for my admin password when I want to do admin things.

Correct except that Vista pops this dialog basically all the time. I have used OS X, the password thing never annoyed me because it doesn't happen often and if it happens, you know why.

Imagine it happened every 3 minutes, and you had no idea why... you will then sooner or later disable the dialogs completely. Better to lose some security than to go insane.

- excessive HD activity for no apparent reason

Could be indexing for the search feature (one way that Vista will be catching up with OS X)

Good point, that must be it. I remember OS X does that too in the beginning.

With the exception of the graphics and sound effects, there seems to be nothing left ... and along with many teething and performance problems

Vista is really a public beta now, I’d say. I’ve heard many recommendations to wait till SP2. By then, more apps will have been upgraded too.

Yeah, I know. I fully expect Vista to be way, way better even in SP1. Silly me for wanting to try it now.

I have yet another Vista experience to share - comparing a simple task on OS X, Win XP, and Win Vista:

Task: Connect to wireless network.

OS X:

1 - Click on the wireless symbol, select the network you want. Done.

Win XP:

1 - Double-click on the wireless symbol - a window appears

2 - Click on "View Wireless Networks" button - another window appears

3 - Select the network you want. Done.

Win Vista:

1 - Left click on the wireless symbol, a little window opens (this is not a menu!)

2 - Find the small blue hyperlink-like text that says "connect to network"

3 - In the window, look for wireless networks (you don't want dial-up)

4 - Choose the network you want

5 - Decide whether you want to save it and automatically connect to it in the future (mandatory, you are not connected yet)

6 - Decide whether this network is public, private, or something else (forgot the 3rd option - office?) - I don't know why, I refused to read the explaining text at that point.

Windows XP did a perfectly fine job here, close enough to OS X which has the perfect solution. Vista is a huge step backwards.

Sometimes less is more and that's something Vista does not get - you can see it everywhere, the Wireless is just a good example.

Edited February 6, 2007 by nikster

[SamuiJens]

Vista was beta tested more extensively than all previous Windows releases put together. Where exactly are these many people saying to wait for service pack 2? I've read dozens of reviews by knowlagable people and none have said that as it could be years away.

"Never buy version 1.0 of anything..." What I mean by Vista still being beta, is that the real world will be the big test, and many changes will inevitably come.

I know Vista is "NT6", but clearly the Vista release qualifies as a "roll out", meaning changes and upgrades will be delivered to the customer after the shrink wrapped product is installed (nothing new for any OS of course).

Given all the hardware and software upgrade issues, Vista is currently the "bleeding" edge, and the "evolutionary" change just doesn't justify the upgrade for most of us. Another concern I have is the many versions being offered. I know I can pay to upgrade (cute), but I wish I could just get the full professional version at a reasonable price.

I hope Vista security, with proper support from Zone Alarm, etc., will give me a reason to upgrade when I'm ready, but even then it'll probably be when I get a new Windows machine and convert the old one to Linux!

Having read the posts here and other sites, I'm only glad I chose to get a mac, no bragging, as someone in an earlier post said that mac user do. Just what users of vista/ Tiger have written. But informative reading I must say.

Thanks for all your posts.

Edited February 6, 2007 by SamuiJens

[Jimmy in Bangkok]

Thanks to everyone for giving their opinions on this. I was going to start a new thread asking the very same thing (certainly glad I didn't). I guess it's the same as asking "what's the best movie ever" or "what's the best car to buy" sort of thing. There's no answer really as it's up to each individual what they prefer to use. I have been using Vista since RC1 and I can say that it's a lot better now (thank g*d).

I do feel that Vista is bloated and overly complicated security wise this time around though, and MS have spent so much time and money stopping the user from doing anything that they seem to have missed the point and rather than enhance your experience they seem to want to degrade it. The eye candy though is impressive but that's pretty much all it is, eye candy. UAC in Vista is just an annoyance and has no safety value at all so it gets switched off immediately. Even MS admit it is hardly something to rely on and there's nothing worse than your computer telling you that you don't have permission to do something...<deleted>! Add to that the fact that every hacker on the face of the planet has aimed their skills directly at MS, and have for awhile now maybe it's time to look at other options if only from a security stand point.

This was supposedly the safest windows yet and virtually uncrackable yet it was cracked before it was released! I worry what they have in store for Vista users next? I will say that program wise there's really no problem with Vista as I'm running all the programs I ran in XP and I have quite a lot and the driver situation now is pretty much sorted out as well from my point of view anyway.

I do have VMware on my machine and I'm going to try running Tiger (now that they have intel support) in VM and see how it goes. I'm not much of a computer gamer (that's what XBox, Playstation, etc are for) so that area is of no concern to me and I would like to try out a different OS. Ubuntu still has some dramas with the graphics card I have, I just discovered, so Tiger may be the answer. Obviously this is only my opinion based on my experience and should be viewed as such as others will have completely different views.

Cheers