Windows Vista vs Mac OS X

Discussion of non-phpBB related topics with other phpBB.com users.
Forum rules
General Discussion is a bonus forum for discussion of non-phpBB related topics with other phpBB.com users. All site rules apply.
Post Reply
JonB2004
Registered User
Posts: 25
Joined: Thu Jun 22, 2006 9:15 pm
Contact:

Windows Vista vs Mac OS X

Post by JonB2004 » Mon Jun 26, 2006 5:20 pm

Microsoft has designed Windows Vista. Its got a nice interface... :? and I can't really think of anything good.

Apple has designed Mac OS X. Mac OS X has a better looking interface than Windows Vista, it has super-low system requirements, it boots up fast on any computer and its extremely stable. Plus, most Windows applications are now designed to work on a Mac.

Now which one sounds better. Its pretty easy to see.

These are the Windows Vista minimum system requirements.

-A 800 Mhz processor
-512 MB RAM
-A 32 MB GPU
-11 GB of free hard disk space for installation

These are the Mac OS X minimum system requirements.

-A 300 Mhz G3 processor
-256 MB RAM
-A GPU
-4 GB of free hard disk space for installation
Come on everyone! Join Paradox Parliament!

http://z4.invisionfree.com/Paradox_Parliament

User avatar
MHobbit
Former Team Member
Posts: 4761
Joined: Thu Mar 18, 2004 5:32 pm
Location: There and Back Again

Post by MHobbit » Mon Jun 26, 2006 5:33 pm

Ah, amazing... you can fairly judge operating systems (one of which isn't even in stable released form yet) by their minimum requirements. Amazing indeed.

IMHO you should've kept your anti-Windows Vista agenda in the Windows Vista thread.
Former phpBB MOD Team member
No private support is offered.
"There’s too many things to get done, and I’m running out of days..."

Newfie
Registered User
Posts: 221
Joined: Mon Feb 20, 2006 12:08 am
Location: A Canadian Province - guess which one?

Post by Newfie » Mon Jun 26, 2006 5:59 pm

Lower system requirements usually mean that the OS is more efficient with system resources, so it is a valid judgement criteria if you want to get the most out of your RAM and CPU power.

MarkTheDaemon
Former Team Member
Posts: 2770
Joined: Thu Oct 20, 2005 2:42 am
Location: United Kingdom
Name: Mark Barnes

Post by MarkTheDaemon » Mon Jun 26, 2006 6:12 pm

Lets also factor into this the cost of the system and then re-evaluate... :roll:

Mark

User avatar
MHobbit
Former Team Member
Posts: 4761
Joined: Thu Mar 18, 2004 5:32 pm
Location: There and Back Again

Post by MHobbit » Mon Jun 26, 2006 6:12 pm

Newfie wrote: Lower system requirements usually mean that the OS is more efficient with system resources, so it is a valid judgement criteria if you want to get the most out of your RAM and CPU power.


It's interesting to note the amount of users who would fail the requirements once Windows Vista computers start shipping (I'm aware that those who wish to upgrade are in a different category). Moreover, getting more out of your system resources is what Vista would offer, apparently. Those requirements may be required but it'd be interesting to see exactly how much of those requirements Vista uses on a normal basis through normal use.

Besides, JonB2004 was suggesting that system requirements solely determines which OS is better than another, which is quite simply stupid, thus my original reply.
Former phpBB MOD Team member
No private support is offered.
"There’s too many things to get done, and I’m running out of days..."

Bison911
Registered User
Posts: 17
Joined: Sun Jun 18, 2006 10:27 pm

Post by Bison911 » Mon Jun 26, 2006 6:27 pm

I disagree. I think Vista is going to be extremely slow, and much less efficient.

Mac OSX is based on BSD, which is known for stability, speed, and security. I'd be surprised to see Vista present something new besides graphics and cosmetic stuff.

Newfie
Registered User
Posts: 221
Joined: Mon Feb 20, 2006 12:08 am
Location: A Canadian Province - guess which one?

Post by Newfie » Mon Jun 26, 2006 6:32 pm

Bison911 wrote: I disagree. I think Vista is going to be extremely slow, and much less efficient.


It already is. Unless a miracle happens in Microsoft, Vista might be the slowest and most inefficient OS ever made.

Bison911
Registered User
Posts: 17
Joined: Sun Jun 18, 2006 10:27 pm

Post by Bison911 » Mon Jun 26, 2006 6:52 pm

Newfie wrote:
Bison911 wrote:I disagree. I think Vista is going to be extremely slow, and much less efficient.


It already is. Unless a miracle happens in Microsoft, Vista might be the slowest and most inefficient OS ever made.


The fact that they are putting so much stress on their graphics tells me that it isn't going to be worth my time alone. The other thing is that every data access from the harddrive will result in a database query tells me everything else.

I'll never touch it unless I'm forced to at work. For now, I'm just going to stick to linux, which [despite what gates says] is much cheaper than any version of windows.

MarkTheDaemon
Former Team Member
Posts: 2770
Joined: Thu Oct 20, 2005 2:42 am
Location: United Kingdom
Name: Mark Barnes

Post by MarkTheDaemon » Mon Jun 26, 2006 7:06 pm

Bison911 wrote: I disagree. I think Vista is going to be extremely slow, and much less efficient.

Mac OSX is based on BSD, which is known for stability, speed, and security. I'd be surprised to see Vista present something new besides graphics and cosmetic stuff.


I really don't want to get into a mac rant here, but the only reason that OSX is based on Darwin is because they needed a kernal :roll:
Newfie wrote: It already is. Unless a miracle happens in Microsoft, Vista might be the slowest and most inefficient OS ever made.


FYI: It actually runs as fast, if not faster than XP on my box, so i'm not sure where your information is coming from, but mine is coming from personal experience.


Mark

Bison911
Registered User
Posts: 17
Joined: Sun Jun 18, 2006 10:27 pm

Post by Bison911 » Mon Jun 26, 2006 7:25 pm

MarkTheDaemon wrote:
Bison911 wrote:I disagree. I think Vista is going to be extremely slow, and much less efficient.

Mac OSX is based on BSD, which is known for stability, speed, and security. I'd be surprised to see Vista present something new besides graphics and cosmetic stuff.


I really don't want to get into a mac rant here, but the only reason that OSX is based on Darwin is because they needed a kernal :roll:
Newfie wrote: It already is. Unless a miracle happens in Microsoft, Vista might be the slowest and most inefficient OS ever made.


FYI: It actually runs as fast, if not faster than XP on my box, so i'm not sure where your information is coming from, but mine is coming from personal experience.


Mark


Yes, but the performance and security are often derived from the kernel

Newfie
Registered User
Posts: 221
Joined: Mon Feb 20, 2006 12:08 am
Location: A Canadian Province - guess which one?

Post by Newfie » Mon Jun 26, 2006 7:26 pm

MarkTheDaemon wrote: FYI: It actually runs as fast, if not faster than XP on my box, so i'm not sure where your information is coming from, but mine is coming from personal experience.


Mark


I used Vista Beta 2 myself too. It was about 33 to 75% slower than XP on my AMD dual-core system.

I even tried disabling some of Vista's services, but it only helped a little.

Not sure how you did it, unless your computer is amazingly fast or something.

MarkTheDaemon
Former Team Member
Posts: 2770
Joined: Thu Oct 20, 2005 2:42 am
Location: United Kingdom
Name: Mark Barnes

Post by MarkTheDaemon » Mon Jun 26, 2006 7:34 pm

Newfie wrote:
MarkTheDaemon wrote: FYI: It actually runs as fast, if not faster than XP on my box, so i'm not sure where your information is coming from, but mine is coming from personal experience.


Mark


I used Vista Beta 2 myself too. It was about 33 to 75% slower than XP on my AMD dual-core system.

I even tried disabling some of Vista's services, but it only helped a little.

Not sure how you did it, unless your computer is amazingly fast or something.


Intel 3.4Ghz Dual Core, with a gig of RAM.
Bison911 wrote: Yes, but the performance and security are often derived from the kernel


That's exactly my point. Mac OSX already had a stable and secure kernal to build on.

Mark

Bison911
Registered User
Posts: 17
Joined: Sun Jun 18, 2006 10:27 pm

Post by Bison911 » Mon Jun 26, 2006 7:49 pm

MarkTheDaemon wrote: That's exactly my point. Mac OSX already had a stable and secure kernal to build on.


Are you saying that Apple was at an advantage there? Microsoft has been making kernels for a long time too...

JonB2004
Registered User
Posts: 25
Joined: Thu Jun 22, 2006 9:15 pm
Contact:

Post by JonB2004 » Mon Jun 26, 2006 8:23 pm

MennoniteHobbit, I wasn't comparing Windows Vista and Mac OS X by only system requirements. I was also comparing them by stability, speed, and compatibility. Obvisously, you didn't read my entire post.
Come on everyone! Join Paradox Parliament!

http://z4.invisionfree.com/Paradox_Parliament

SAK `
Registered User
Posts: 958
Joined: Wed Oct 26, 2005 12:01 pm
Location: Places where authorities can't see me.
Contact:

Post by SAK ` » Mon Jun 26, 2006 10:56 pm

There is no telling if a Windows emulator for Mac would stand up to a Windows.
The Serial AD Killa trademark is no more. 2003-2007

Post Reply

Return to “General Discussion”