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.
User avatar
Marshalrusty
Project Manager
Project Manager
Posts: 29295
Joined: Mon Nov 22, 2004 10:45 pm
Location: New York City
Name: Yuriy Rusko
Contact:

Post by Marshalrusty »

www.teamhcn.com wrote: OSX has had such graphical effects for at least 2 versions now, it's obvious that Microsoft only introduced this feature to play catch-up to OSX and Linux.

Wait, Microsoft is trying to catch up to OSX and Linux? You do of course realize that significantly less than 10 percent of users are on Macs, right? So first you bash Windows because it's not as pretty as your Mac and then when Microsoft takes a step toward making it more aesthetically pleasing, you bash them for trying to be more like Apple?

I'm with Adam on this, there's just no pleasing you.
Have comments/praise/complaints/suggestions? Please feel free to PM me.

Need private help? Hire me for all your phpBB and web development needs
User avatar
cbrain
Registered User
Posts: 244
Joined: Tue Aug 01, 2006 11:39 am
Location: UK

Post by cbrain »

Im getting a nice iMac soon.... :D

So ill be going with osx.
sempai
Registered User
Posts: 58
Joined: Tue May 20, 2003 3:15 am
Contact:

Re: Windows Vista vs Mac OS X

Post by sempai »

JonB2004 wrote: 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


Wow, my hardisk is only about 10GB. Very hard on the resources. 8O
Dual! Parallel Trouble Adventure Fan Site
http://dualfans.host.sk
User avatar
Anon
Former Team Member
Posts: 7019
Joined: Fri Jan 02, 2004 7:33 am
Location: Christchurch, New Zealand

Re: Windows Vista vs Mac OS X

Post by Anon »

sempai wrote:
JonB2004 wrote: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


Wow, my hardisk is only about 10GB. Very hard on the resources. 8O


Not really, considering the time it's taken to go from XP -> Vista, computer hardware has taken a phenomenal leap in speed. Yes, that means that older computers can't run it, but if it can't, it might be time for an upgrade ;)
User avatar
Marshalrusty
Project Manager
Project Manager
Posts: 29295
Joined: Mon Nov 22, 2004 10:45 pm
Location: New York City
Name: Yuriy Rusko
Contact:

Post by Marshalrusty »

I'm not sure where 11GB came from, but Vista Ultimate (extra large edition :)) is 7GB, not 11. Considering there are games that take up 3+ GB, 7 isn't all that much.
Have comments/praise/complaints/suggestions? Please feel free to PM me.

Need private help? Hire me for all your phpBB and web development needs
User avatar
AdamR
Former Team Member
Posts: 9731
Joined: Tue Mar 02, 2004 5:40 pm
Location: Tampa, Florida
Name: Adam Reyher
Contact:

Post by AdamR »

Marshalrusty wrote: I'm not sure where 11GB came from, but Vista Ultimate (extra large edition :)) is 7GB, not 11. Considering there are games that take up 3+ GB, 7 isn't all that much.


I'd also wager that Microsoft has taken pagefiles into account. :)

- Adam
phpBB Support: Welcome | Userguide | Knowledge Base | Search
Honored supporter of the phpBB Group!
"If I have seen a little further it is by standing on the shoulders of Giants." - Isaac Newton
User avatar
RMcGirr83
Former Team Member
Posts: 21608
Joined: Wed Jun 22, 2005 4:33 pm
Location: Your display
Name: Rich McGirr

Post by RMcGirr83 »

Well I tried the Vista Ultimate Upgrade on my comp (AMD 2800+, 2 gigs ram, 256 md video card) and can say that it suxors to the max.

It royally borked my comp eventhough it passed the "compatibility test" :(

...and M$ tech support was great for the 2.5 hours I was on the phone with them :roll:. Suggested I do a clean install (ie no upgrade from XP).

Then what the fark is the purpose of having an Upgrade path? :?

Spent the better part of 36 (yep 36) hours installing, reinstalling, formatting, reinstalling, etc....etc.

Think I would be better off with Ubuntu (another Linux variant) and it seems to be getting good reviews for user friendliness...plus it's free.

So what to do with the Upgrade I bought? Stow it, I have a friend at M$ and it only cost me $40 anyway. Seems to be more eye candy than anything else.

Just my .02
User avatar
AdamR
Former Team Member
Posts: 9731
Joined: Tue Mar 02, 2004 5:40 pm
Location: Tampa, Florida
Name: Adam Reyher
Contact:

Post by AdamR »

RMcGirr83 wrote: Well I tried the Vista Ultimate Upgrade on my comp (AMD 2800+, 2 gigs ram, 256 md video card) and can say that it suxors to the max.


I don't know what happened in your situation, but I can thoroughly say the upgrade path works phenomenally better than previous versions of Windows upgrades, and almost perfectly (at least, in all of the upgrades I've performed). Before the upgrade, did you uninstall the programs the upgrade adviser told you to and did you update every piece of hardware in your machine to the latest driver?

Again, I can only speak from my experience, but I've upgraded 2 XP Professional SP2 systems to RC1 with zero problems, 2 XP Home systems to RC2 with no problem, and now my laptop's XP MCE 2005 to Vista Ultimate RTM (build 6000). All of these systems were relatively "well used," ie, they had a lot of customization. ;)

Oh, and by the way, as soon as a tech support rep tells you that reformatting and reinstalling is the solution, immediately ask for someone more experienced. Trust me. Re-installation should never be the solution. I got into a big debate once with a Toshiba rep for suggesting to do a full manufacturer's restore.

- Adam
phpBB Support: Welcome | Userguide | Knowledge Base | Search
Honored supporter of the phpBB Group!
"If I have seen a little further it is by standing on the shoulders of Giants." - Isaac Newton
User avatar
RMcGirr83
Former Team Member
Posts: 21608
Joined: Wed Jun 22, 2005 4:33 pm
Location: Your display
Name: Rich McGirr

Post by RMcGirr83 »

AdamR wrote: I don't know what happened in your situation, but I can thoroughly say the upgrade path works phenomenally better than previous versions of Windows upgrades, and almost perfectly (at least, in all of the upgrades I've performed). Before the upgrade, did you uninstall the programs the upgrade adviser told you to and did you update every piece of hardware in your machine to the latest driver?


Can't update a piece of hardware in my comp to the Vista driver if I'm using XP. ;)

...and yeah I did uninstall every piece of software (all three of them) that Vista told me to.

I'm pretty sure it had to do with my vid card though cuz as soon as the comp would try and load Vista I would get a blank screen. No flashing cursors, no "Windows is loading" (or whatever it says).

What's really quite annoying is the way the upgrade works. In previous windows upgrades, you were given the opportunity to input the product key from a previous version (ie going from 3.1 to 98 ). With Vista you have to have windows (whatever version) already installed for the upgrade to work (must install the upgrade from within Windows).

So trying the upgrade mulitiple times, required me to reinstall XP multiple times...hence the 36 hours thing.

FWIW, the XBox 360, when it originally came out, was also very prone to issues (three red rings of death, overheating on the "intercooler", etc.)

Seems to me QC at M$ is going into the toilet and they would prefer to rush a product to market before fully testing it.

But again that's just my .02 on the matter.

BTW, I also installed Office 2007 and had no problems with the install (got that one for $20 from mi amigo). ;)

as always YMMV.
User avatar
AdamR
Former Team Member
Posts: 9731
Joined: Tue Mar 02, 2004 5:40 pm
Location: Tampa, Florida
Name: Adam Reyher
Contact:

Post by AdamR »

RMcGirr83 wrote: Can't update a piece of hardware in my comp to the Vista driver if I'm using XP. ;)


I didn't mean that. I meant updating your XP drivers to the latest version, then upgrading to Vista. :D
I'm pretty sure it had to do with my vid card though cuz as soon as the comp would try and load Vista I would get a blank screen. No flashing cursors, no "Windows is loading" (or whatever it says).


Then why are you blaming Vista because your card manufacturer didn't release the proper and working drivers for Vista? ;)

Hey, my Intel 945GM onboard chipset and graphics card in my laptop was an absolute nightmare on 5728 (RC2). Intel released an updated version just prior to Vista's launch. I still experienced a few problems (like the GUI locking up when I was running Aero), but Intel quickly addressed the issue and released another driver.
What's really quite annoying is the way the upgrade works. In previous windows upgrades, you were given the opportunity to input the product key from a previous version (ie going from 3.1 to 98 ). With Vista you have to have windows (whatever version) already installed for the upgrade to work (must install the upgrade from within Windows).


As far as I'm aware, this has been the case since anything past Windows 98. Also, upgrading from 3.1 to 98 is a much much larger jump in ratio than from XP to Vista. ;)
Seems to me QC at M$ is going into the toilet and they would prefer to rush a product to market before fully testing it.


Vista is by far the most tested operating system release they have ever had. Over 5 million people tested the RCs ... and almost every report that I heard of said it was extremely stable and a quality product, much moreso than build 5112->5308->5384, etc. Indeed, I experienced this myself. I was even moreso impressed with the stability and speed of build 6000 even over 5600 and 5728.

Like I said, I've had exactly 0 problems with upgrades (minus a few driver issues which were cleared up the moment I installed the updates from the manufacturer), and I've upgraded a fair number of machines.

But again, I can only speak from my experience. What I'm getting at is you're calling Vista a piece of junk when 1) You've actually never gotten to use it fully on your machine because of a hardware issue, and 2) You're blaming Vista for said hardware compatibility. Microsoft released the technical aspects of Vista to hardware manufactures well before (ie, over a year) it was released. Many refused to release drivers (ie, HP for most of their printers) in a timely manner. How exactly is this Microsoft's fault?

- Adam
phpBB Support: Welcome | Userguide | Knowledge Base | Search
Honored supporter of the phpBB Group!
"If I have seen a little further it is by standing on the shoulders of Giants." - Isaac Newton
User avatar
RMcGirr83
Former Team Member
Posts: 21608
Joined: Wed Jun 22, 2005 4:33 pm
Location: Your display
Name: Rich McGirr

Post by RMcGirr83 »

AdamR wrote:
RMcGirr83 wrote:Can't update a piece of hardware in my comp to the Vista driver if I'm using XP. ;)


I didn't mean that. I meant updating your XP drivers to the latest version, then upgrading to Vista. :D


Did that. :roll: I may be a php nOOb, but I have built and maintained not only computers but entire networks (win NT server, Linux, Novell)/VPN's so sort of know a tad of what I am doing.
I'm pretty sure it had to do with my vid card though cuz as soon as the comp would try and load Vista I would get a blank screen. No flashing cursors, no "Windows is loading" (or whatever it says).


Then why are you blaming Vista because your card manufacturer didn't release the proper and working drivers for Vista? ;)


they did release the proper and working drivers for Vista...you can't use them unless you are in Vista.
Hey, my Intel 945GM onboard chipset and graphics card in my laptop was an absolute nightmare on 5728 (RC2). Intel released an updated version just prior to Vista's launch. I still experienced a few problems (like the GUI locking up when I was running Aero), but Intel quickly addressed the issue and released another driver.


Well at least you could see the GUI. ;)
Like I said, I've had exactly 0 problems with upgrades (minus a few driver issues which were cleared up the moment I installed the updates from the manufacturer), and I've upgraded a fair number of machines.


Then aren't you the lucky one. I know several peeps that have had issues with the upgrade and that is on more than one machine. One installed no problem on two machines, the other two not a chance.
But again, I can only speak from my experience. What I'm getting at is you're calling Vista a piece of junk when 1) You've actually never gotten to use it fully on your machine because of a hardware issue, and 2) You're blaming Vista for said hardware compatibility. Microsoft released the technical aspects of Vista to hardware manufactures well before (ie, over a year) it was released. Many refused to release drivers (ie, HP for most of their printers) in a timely manner. How exactly is this Microsoft's fault?

- Adam


It's M$ fault for stating that the software performs a seamless upgrade when in fact that may not be the case. Should everyone that is having problems go out and buy a new comp/vid card/Ram chip/mobo/etc? After spending ~$250 for the upgrade and ~$400 for the full install?

Perhaps it is the vendors fault for not releasing drivers timely....still does not excuse Vista from giving me a passing grade on the compatibility test then having the upgrade/install fail due to a faulty driver. If the driver of the hardware is at fault then, IMHO, the compatibility test (online or on disk) should pick that up and report it as such. I got no such report and was told that my comp passed the compatibility test....and that is the beef I have with this upgrade. I was misled, plain and simple.

I understand that M$ doesn't have a leash on vendor hardware but I also understand that they do on the compatibility test part and should be held accountable for such.

FWIW, tech support suggested that I take my comp into a comp shop to have them fix it. I then asked them who was going to pay for that. Guess what the answer was.

Vista is not ready for prime time and shouldn't be sold as being ready for prime time...doesn't matter if 15 million peeps beta tested it. If the compatibility test doesn't show a problem then peeps automatically believe that there is no problem....when in fact there may be.

I would have no issue if the compatibility test had told me that I needed to upgrade a whatever...it didn't and that is the issue I am having with the OS. BTW, searching the internet it would appear I am not the only one. ;)

- Rich
User avatar
RMcGirr83
Former Team Member
Posts: 21608
Joined: Wed Jun 22, 2005 4:33 pm
Location: Your display
Name: Rich McGirr

Post by RMcGirr83 »

BTW, I find it absolutely unfathomable that they include a 64 bit disk for the OS yet you can't use it unless you already have a 64 bit OS installed.
User avatar
AdamR
Former Team Member
Posts: 9731
Joined: Tue Mar 02, 2004 5:40 pm
Location: Tampa, Florida
Name: Adam Reyher
Contact:

Post by AdamR »

RMcGirr83 wrote: I may be a php nOOb, but I have built and maintained not only computers but entire networks (win NT server, Linux, Novell)/VPN's so sort of know a tad of what I am doing.


I never claimed you didn't.
they did release the proper and working drivers for Vista...you can't use them unless you are in Vista.


There are ways of installing drivers manually. ;)
It's M$ fault for stating that the software performs a seamless upgrade when in fact that may not be the case. ... Perhaps it is the vendors fault for not releasing drivers timely....still does not excuse Vista from giving me a passing grade on the compatibility test then having the upgrade/install fail due to a faulty driver. If the driver of the hardware is at fault then, IMHO, the compatibility test (online or on disk) should pick that up and report it as such. I got no such report and was told that my comp passed the compatibility test....and that is the beef I have with this upgrade. I was misled, plain and simple.


Do you seriously expect Microsoft to test every single piece of hardware that is in existence? There's a bit of a trust code in software/hardware development. Considering your background experience, you of all people should know that you, at times, have to take the word of other manufacturers. Microsoft released the product out to a huge testing base. A majority of that testing base reported back seamlessness in upgrading. Also, many manufacturers reported that, indeed, their drivers had been tested and working, which may or may not have truly been the case.
I understand that M$ doesn't have a leash on vendor hardware but I also understand that they do on the compatibility test part and should be held accountable for such.


Which is why there have been multiple versions of said compatibility test. ;)
FWIW, tech support suggested that I take my comp into a comp shop to have them fix it. I then asked them who was going to pay for that. Guess what the answer was.


I'm going to go out on a limb and say this was a Tier 1 support rep. If it wasn't, they should be fired. Plain and simple.
Vista is not ready for prime time and shouldn't be sold as being ready for prime time...doesn't matter if 15 million peeps beta tested it. If the compatibility test doesn't show a problem then peeps automatically believe that there is no problem....when in fact there may be.


See above. It's virtually impossible to test every piece of hardware that manufactures have claimed as Vista compatible, let alone every possible combination of hardware. Heck, I've seen PCI ethernet cards that have messed up onboard graphics cards. Turned out to be a rather interesting BIOS issue. I didn't think it was possible until I saw it happen right in front of me.

There will always be incompatibilities with hardware. I repeat, there will always be incompatibilities with hardware. How long is Microsoft supposed to wait exactly for said issues to pop their heads up?
BTW, I find it absolutely unfathomable that they include a 64 bit disk for the OS yet you can't use it unless you already have a 64 bit OS installed.


You're kidding, right? You do realize how many angry people would be calling in because 75% of their applications stopped working, don't you? WOW64 works pretty darn well, but again, drivers are another issue.

Also, I hate to bring this up, but it's a pet peeve of mine when people refer to Microsoft as "M$." They have a name. Please use it. ;)

- Adam
phpBB Support: Welcome | Userguide | Knowledge Base | Search
Honored supporter of the phpBB Group!
"If I have seen a little further it is by standing on the shoulders of Giants." - Isaac Newton
User avatar
RMcGirr83
Former Team Member
Posts: 21608
Joined: Wed Jun 22, 2005 4:33 pm
Location: Your display
Name: Rich McGirr

Post by RMcGirr83 »

Just so you don't think I'm blowing smoke....not that you were thinking that. ;)

Image

So, looks to me like Microsoft states I should have no problem installing Vista.

FWIW, the "tier 1 support" was a "supervisor" but I have no idea what level of support they were.

BTW, I am digging this debate but remain firm on my initial impressions!! Guess I am tainted. :(
imac600
Registered User
Posts: 54
Joined: Wed Dec 28, 2005 1:20 pm
Location: Adelaide, SA

Post by imac600 »

Vista is having it's ups and downs at the moment. One report case from a radio station here says that "Vista failed to install on a brand new 3.2ghz PC with supposed Vista compatible hardware".

They backed down to XP.

Vista looks nice and has a lot of potential, but i'm on Mac OS X Tiger right now, it flies, it does Aero-style effects on a 1999 video card without slowdown and it works on every bit of hardware I throw at it. I just like it.
Post Reply

Return to “General Discussion”