Page 10 of 11

Re: Windows Vista vs Mac OS X

Posted: Mon May 21, 2007 3:22 am
by SAK `
I do know one thing by heart. Vista was completely different than XP, so even on a slight change, it took me about a week or two to fully adjust from XP to Vista. It will take even more time for me to adjust from Vista to OSX.

Re: Windows Vista vs Mac OS X

Posted: Tue May 22, 2007 12:51 am
by Lawofthesnake
Well I know that myself and many other arent going over to Vista any time soon because of DRM

Re: Windows Vista vs Mac OS X

Posted: Wed May 23, 2007 6:22 pm
by Blueracer66
lol Hey guys watch the New York Times' "NYT's David Pogue on Window" video on YouTube! It shows how Microsoft "did not copy Mac OS X".
JonB2004 wrote: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

Re: Windows Vista vs Mac OS X

Posted: Thu May 24, 2007 12:28 am
by SAK `
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
Then how come I once did a minimal install of 10.4/B 8A428 requiring 2.2GB of HDD? I'm no Mac user, but I am still demonstrating its works on PearPC for Windows. Hmm...

$.@.K.

Re: Windows Vista vs Mac OS X

Posted: Tue May 29, 2007 12:24 pm
by imac600
OS X will install on a disk as small as 1.5gb apparently, but it's not recommended due to the lack of swap space. You could technically do it, but you would need a lot of RAM to back it up.

Re: Windows Vista vs Mac OS X

Posted: Wed May 30, 2007 1:53 pm
by william987
what about if you start with a mac or vista
vista is cheaper,faster
mac has good looks

Re: Windows Vista vs Mac OS X

Posted: Wed May 30, 2007 2:43 pm
by Lawofthesnake
It all really depends on what kind of system you want to get whats cheaper. the mac mini costs $599. Now for the minimum Vista specs, I'm not sure what they are but It's high.

Re: Windows Vista vs Mac OS X

Posted: Wed May 30, 2007 8:14 pm
by AdamR
Lawofthesnake wrote:It all really depends on what kind of system you want to get whats cheaper. the mac mini costs $599. Now for the minimum Vista specs, I'm not sure what they are but It's high.
Price isn't really an issue anymore. I custom built my desktop (C2D E6400, 1GB RAM, X1600 GPU, 200GB HDD) for around $599 which is running Vista perfectly.

Overall, if you upgrade to every version of OS X (Panther, Jaguar, Tiger, Leopard, etc), Windows actually turns out to be cheaper in the long run.

- Adam

Re: Windows Vista vs Mac OS X

Posted: Wed May 30, 2007 9:41 pm
by Lawofthesnake
True ;)

However, Price really isnt much of an issue between the two these days. I think that they should sell Mac os X on a disk, silly apple ><

Re: Windows Vista vs Mac OS X

Posted: Thu May 31, 2007 12:04 am
by Heimidal
AdamR wrote:Price isn't really an issue anymore. I custom built my desktop (C2D E6400, 1GB RAM, X1600 GPU, 200GB HDD) for around $599 which is running Vista perfectly.

Overall, if you upgrade to every version of OS X (Panther, Jaguar, Tiger, Leopard, etc), Windows actually turns out to be cheaper in the long run.

- Adam
While true, most technophiles who will upgrade to every version will also upgrade their hardware more often than every five years.

It's also worth stating that comparing Apple products to homebrew products isn't fair; most users never consider building their own machine. It's only reasonable to compare Apple prices to Dell and others, in which case Apple comes out more expensive. In my opinion, that's the cost of having a computer that's halfway usable. :P

Re: Windows Vista vs Mac OS X

Posted: Thu May 31, 2007 6:50 am
by Techie-Micheal
IMO, Apple can do a lot to lower the cost of buying and owning a Mac. I remember playing on Apple II machines. Those were the days. But comparing a comparably specced Mac machine to a Windows machine, the Windows machine wins hands down, custom built or not. My own machine is custom built for around 800-900 dollars, buying Vista, and I'm still under the price of a Mac of the same specs. Then you have the upgrades that AdamR mentioned, and the cost goes up for the Mac. You can get Dell/HP/insert brand name here cheaper and of slightly lower specs than what I got mine, and you are under the cost of a Mac even more.

Nevermind the fact that I'm pretty much convinced that this will be the last time I purchase Windows. I'm going to Linux only a few years down the road. ^_^

Re: Windows Vista vs Mac OS X

Posted: Thu May 31, 2007 2:39 pm
by SAK `
For some reason, I have to totally agree with the Mac systems that are on sale. To say the least, it could be better to go somewhere and custom-build your own Mac and your own version of OSX to try to save some money. It may be ridiculous to buy a pre-built computer from apple.com or any other Apple retailer where customers have limited options of custom-building.
techie-micheal wrote:IMO, Apple can do a lot to lower the cost of buying and owning a Mac.
Yeah, I was about 8 or 9 years old when I first got my hands on an Apple II and even an early Mac.
techie-micheal wrote:I remember playing on Apple II machines. Those were the days.
In my words here, why can't we just take a 3.2 GHz Celeron D/Cedar Mill or P4/Northwood and just throw that chip itself into an Intel Mac? Core 2 (Duo) is fine, but... ehh, I dunno. Plus, I would bleed through my eyes if Apple ever created the first AMD Mac.

$.@.K.

Re: Windows Vista vs Mac OS X

Posted: Thu May 31, 2007 8:28 pm
by AdamR
SAK ` wrote:In my words here, why can't we just take a 3.2 GHz Celeron D/Cedar Mill or P4/Northwood and just throw that chip itself into an Intel Mac? Core 2 (Duo) is fine, but... ehh, I dunno.
Because both corporations benefit. Intel would make crap for money if they just used P4s. Both sides win. The P4 was a durable beast but it didn't have much growing potential. Hence "Yohan" and ultimately Core 2. Also, since Apple also tries to cater to the A/V industry, the Core 2 is far more advanced and powerful for media creation than anything IBM had up their sleeves in the PowerPC line.

Intel gets a hefty sales boost and marketshare increase, and Apple gets to claim that hardware is no longer an issue in terms of performance (where in the past the PC generally won ... G5 "megahertz myth" anyone?).

- Adam

Re: Windows Vista vs Mac OS X

Posted: Thu May 31, 2007 10:12 pm
by Lawofthesnake
the g5's were slow and did not proccess as fast as our current line of pro macs with intel for video editing and such. Glad they switched to Intel but ive heard AMD was better and a much smaller comptetior :/

Re: Windows Vista vs Mac OS X

Posted: Tue Oct 09, 2007 6:24 pm
by Blueracer66
Lawofthesnake wrote:the g5's were slow and did not proccess as fast as our current line of pro macs with intel for video editing and such. Glad they switched to Intel but ive heard AMD was better and a much smaller comptetior :/
I remember when Apple announced they will change to Intel Core Duo. Mac users were reluctant with the announcement. Even I was like "I don't know..." but Steve Jobs did the job again and the processor transition went smoothly.