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.
www.teamhcn.com
Registered User
Posts: 34
Joined: Fri Dec 23, 2005 2:34 am

Re: Windows Vista vs Mac OS X

Post by www.teamhcn.com »

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


This only reaffirms what I've thought for many years now: Apple's Mac OS is light years ahead of MS Windows. I'm no Mac evangelist, I own both PCs and Macs and use both for work, and after working with computers for nearly a decade I still find very few redeeming qualities with the Windows OS.

I've tried the Windows Vista beta, it is no quantum leap (ahead of XP), and doesn't even come close to Tiger. Fair enough, Vista is still only in beta. On the other hand, I did try OSX 10.4 when it was in beta, and even in its early stages it was far more impressive than Vista is now.

Rather than attempt to innovate for a change, Microsoft has stuck to its (so far) successful strategy of copying features from other software programs. There's nothing wrong with this, in fact Microsoft has often improved on software features its reappropriated. However, this strategy doesn't always work. Just look at Vista's answer to Spotlight: it's sluggish and thoroughly disappointing.

11 GB to install an OS? That's ridiculous no matter how you look at it.
Site | Forums
=HCN= Team Cyanide
"After one taste of us, you're already dead."
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 ` »

11 GB?! Good God! Woo, S.O.F.B.! Geeze, they need to make it more simpler than that, maybe lower it down to 8GB or something, geeze... :roll:

I also use Windows and Mac OS at times, too. Since I don't own a real Mac but have a 2GHz chipped PC, I emulate Mac OS when I want to switch.

$.@.K.
The Serial AD Killa trademark is no more. 2003-2007
User avatar
Cardcaptor Stacey
Registered User
Posts: 89
Joined: Thu Jan 12, 2006 12:04 pm
Location: England
Name: Stacey
Contact:

Re: Windows Vista vs Mac OS X

Post by Cardcaptor Stacey »

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


11GB?!! Ha! I don't think so! What the hell are they putting on it to be that much. :?
Call me Stacey.
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 ` »

stacey, maybe the new 64-bit world is to blame. and only the rich folks can stop living in the past, of course to at least make/provide enough money to break out of it. It all depends on the situations that keeps this world turning.

~hugs stacey~ :wink:
The Serial AD Killa trademark is no more. 2003-2007
p0wn
Registered User
Posts: 230
Joined: Sat Jul 01, 2006 1:55 pm

Post by p0wn »

Here's my opinion: Mac OS X. Look, u got bootcamp. You can have Windoze and mac. With Windows, you've got...Windows :wink: . And Vista looks O.K. but I'm sticking with XP. ALso, Macs are good for your soul.
MarkTheDaemon
Former Team Member
Posts: 2770
Joined: Thu Oct 20, 2005 2:42 am
Location: United Kingdom
Name: Mark Barnes

Re: Windows Vista vs Mac OS X

Post by MarkTheDaemon »

JonB2004 wrote: 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.


Did you say "boots up fast on any computer". Since when did Mac OSX start running on PC boxes? Do you know more than the rest of us?


Mark
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 ` »

Think about the behavior of any means of hardware specs, whether top-notch or prehistoric, that has OSX installed. THEN, tell me if OSX still boots up fast... :roll: Until I see some visual proof, I do not believe you at the moment.

$.@.K.
jonb2004 wrote: 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.


And mark, the man was thinking that after Apple started Intel iMacs and developed OSX for the X86 compatible PC's, maybe that's what he was talking about. But to me, there is no telling.
The Serial AD Killa trademark is no more. 2003-2007
darkassasin93
Registered User
Posts: 414
Joined: Sun Nov 28, 2004 3:45 pm

Re: Windows Vista vs Mac OS X

Post by darkassasin93 »

Cardcaptor Stacey 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


11GB?!! Ha! I don't think so! What the hell are they putting on it to be that much. :?

Hello,

Sorry if this is a bit up the thread...

To have a Windows Vista Premium Computer (or part of one), you must have a 40GB harddrive with 15GB free space...

The fact is, if you don't have a 60GB harddrive or more, than you really should be looking into getting a better computer that was built in 2006.

And to answer your question, they're puttting 6 years of work into the Harddrive. I mean 6 years...

darkassasin93 8)
MarkTheDaemon
Former Team Member
Posts: 2770
Joined: Thu Oct 20, 2005 2:42 am
Location: United Kingdom
Name: Mark Barnes

Post by MarkTheDaemon »

SAK ` wrote: And mark, the man was thinking that after Apple started Intel iMacs and developed OSX for the X86 compatible PC's, maybe that's what he was talking about. But to me, there is no telling.


Macs used to use a boot ROM onboard the motherboard that meant you couldnt take the OS and load it on a PC system. Now im guessing that system is still being used, even with intel chips, so in fact if joe bloggs wanted to install OSX instead of windows he couldn't do it.


Mark
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 ` »

I see that. But overall, if at anytime the consumer wants to run an operating system on an incompatible computer, the consumer has to least emulate it. Right now, I have Mac OS 7.5, 7.6.1, 8.1, 8.6, 9.0.4, 10-3 Panther, and 10-4 Tiger that I can run on a computer that doesn't take any of those Mac OS versions. For that, they have to be on an emulator for Windows, using the best CPU chips possible. I thought of emulating a Linux distro, but I feel no sense of doing that.

$.@.K.
The Serial AD Killa trademark is no more. 2003-2007
User avatar
Quillz
Registered User
Posts: 44
Joined: Sun Oct 17, 2004 1:47 pm
Location: Los Angeles, CA
Name: Joseph
Contact:

Post by Quillz »

Personally, I think that Vista will be on par with Tiger. (I can't make a fair comparison regarding Leopard at this point.) WinVI is looking like a major change from XP, almost as major as 3.1 -> Win95.
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 ` »

What I did not realize until now is that I been seeing the skin of Windows Media Player 10, and I even tried out a beta of Office 2007. I guess those told me that a possible new OS was coming out which was Vista.
The Serial AD Killa trademark is no more. 2003-2007
imac600
Registered User
Posts: 54
Joined: Wed Dec 28, 2005 1:20 pm
Location: Adelaide, SA

Post by imac600 »

I think when you look at the comparisons between Mac OS X Tiger and
Windows Vista, a lot seems to be similar. However Tiger's release is 2
years before Vista.

But as a result, to remain ahead of Microsoft, Apple releases Mac OS X
Leopard, which takes them 1 step ahead of Microsoft.

Finally, to stay on top, Apple releases regular updates, like 10.5.1,
10.5.2... etc. That strategy is better than MS's offering, where Windows
Update would require you pull down "USB Fixes", "64bit Fixes", etc which
are commonly confusing to many Windows users (this leads to the
neglect to update).

I think Mac OS X Leopard will be a step ahead of Vista again.
User avatar
leon2ky
Registered User
Posts: 93
Joined: Mon Mar 03, 2003 9:13 pm

Re: Windows Vista vs Mac OS X

Post by leon2ky »

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


You can get Linux to run on your iPod, they both lose :p.

Different OS's have different purposes, I'll stick to my Ubuntu and WinXP dual boot myself :).
User avatar
adventure_of_link
Registered User
Posts: 10
Joined: Sat Jul 22, 2006 8:30 am

Post by adventure_of_link »

A couple points I forgot to mention in the other Vista thread:

First, I believe I got my Vista installed in like 10 GB. I'm guessing the extra 5GB would probably dedicated to your swapfile.

Also, Windows Vista has a 32-bit bulid, that's what I've been using all this time..

Personally atm I'm staying away from 64-bit OS'es. For one, I won't be able to take advantage of the more RAM thing, as well as compatability.
Post Reply

Return to “General Discussion”