Mac vs. PC

[jambo]

My sister's got a MacBook Pro, it's lovely and I'd be very happy to own and covet the shiney shiney. However, given the work I do I'm happy on most OS's going.

Windows 7 works very well, use it at work, it's been very stable and quick.

Ubuntu at home as XP's starting to get somewhat long in the tooth and I haven't felt like paying for vista/7. My machine was installed over 2 years ago and still runs very well, having had 3 or so distribution upgrades along the way The laptop's too old for gaming anyway, so for the web and stuff it's perfect.

Jambo

[hindle8907]

Im a PC, don't mind the odd splash of Linux but tend not to use it unless I have to use certain a Program.
The Macs are expensive they look nice but I would rather spend all money on a PC Rig. and stick 64bit Windows 7 on it.
On the other hand though some may disagree i love the i-devices the IOS runns really well the devices are slick and the content is what wins it over for me both from apple and 3rd parties. there not to everyone's taste and for the end users with no tech knowledge they are some really stupid restrictions.

EG you have to use itunes to sync music/photos ect instead of having a drag and drop.
No Flash,
Only use apple formats.
text Message tones FFS!


well I dont use itunes to put muisc/photos ect ect on my iphone4 or ipad. i just drag and drop as a mass storage device into the correct directory like any other media device.

I can run flash via some cracked code/software thanks to the Dev's. (allthough most sites are coveting to HTML5 now anyway)

I can play .avi's .MKV's MP3's ect ect ect

I can change any system sound on the device from lock sound to dial tones. I can create my own system sounds and import them into the os.

if you have the know how you can totally customise/optimize and remove all the daft restrictions within the iOS on the i-device range.

but yeah without jail breaking ect ect i don't think I would buy any of apples products as they are to restrictive but apple they know what they are doing and they are very clever.

normal end users pay out the arise for apps ect ect and all apple this and that.
but they also always leave a small exploit me thinks so us techy users still buy the devices as we know we can make them our own and run/customise/install what we want.

[flymo]

Originally Posted by andrewsmith

I know of IT technicians that recommend a reset every 6 to 12 months on windows.

These will be the ones that either cant be ar$ed explaining or dont know how to properly manage or troubleshoot performance problems. Macs and Linux boxes can suffer from exactly the same.

Vista was sh***, 7RC was good as it was using XP Pro as the backbone. The two window 7 machines I've used are actually worse than Vista

Vista wasn't great, I'll give you that, but it was a problem mainly attributed to low spec hardware, Vista simply needed more oomph to make it sing. On a decent hardware spec it worked just fine.

Windows 7 is excellent, if they are running worse than Vista have you considered why? It certainly isnt the OS.

[L3nny]

Originally Posted by andrewsmith

I changed to Mac after having to reset my XP laptop every 6 months for remove all the crap that can't be removed any other way.
I know of IT technicians that recommend a reset every 6 to 12 months on windows.

Vista was sh***, 7RC was good as it was using XP Pro as the backbone. The two window 7 machines I've used are actually worse than Vista

1. It is you that installs the sh*** in the first place. Turn off automatic updates and when that pop up appears saying you need to scan your system, just ignore it.

2. Re-installing windows is not the only way to remove it but it is the quickest.

We have XP workstations at work that are happily running as fast as the day they were first installed 8 years ago.

There will never be a winner in the MAC vs PC debate because some people like shiney shiney of a Mac and think it's worth the extra money

Arguing about it is like taking part in the special olympics.

[flymo]

Originally Posted by hindle8907

normal end users pay out....

you mean the honest ones that actually pay for the software? Nothing wrong with that in my view.

[flymo]

Originally Posted by L3nny

Arguing about it is like taking part in the special olympics.

I think a statement like that is out of order.

[SoulKiss]

Originally Posted by flymo

but it was a problem mainly attributed to low spec hardware,

total rubbish.

The problem with Vista is the Security model they originally came up with relied on WinFS (a new filesystem that had a database for the front end rather than looking up files).

What this meant was that they could then implement more strict checking on who/what was allowed to access files, as database lookups are fast.

MS then decided to ditch WinFS as they couldn't get it ready for Vista's launch date, so stuck with NTFS, but without the caching of file permission data in a database, file access becomes slow as the OS has to open the file to check that the user requesting the file has permissions to open the file, then open the file if the user is allowed access. (sounds barmy, but the 1st open is done by the System, which has permission to open any file.)

Its THIS that slows Vista down.

[flymo]

Originally Posted by SoulKiss

total rubbish.

The problem with Vista is the Security model they originally came up with relied on WinFS (a new filesystem that had a database for the front end rather than looking up files).

What this meant was that they could then implement more strict checking on who/what was allowed to access files, as database lookups are fast.

MS then decided to ditch WinFS as they couldn't get it ready for Vista's launch date, so stuck with NTFS, but without the caching of file permission data in a database, file access becomes slow as the OS has to open the file to check that the user requesting the file has permissions to open the file, then open the file if the user is allowed access. (sounds barmy, but the 1st open is done by the System, which has permission to open any file.)

Its THIS that slows Vista down.

well we somehow managed to run 10,000 of these without any bother. Also, we performance bench mark any new hardare OS combinations we introduce to our 150,000 client environment. Looking back at the Vista figures they were all marginally quicker than XP, not by a huge amount but they certainly were not poor.

So they sorted that for Windows 7?

[hindle8907]

Originally Posted by flymo

you mean the honest ones that actually pay for the software? Nothing wrong with that in my view.

no your rightthere is alot good content on the app store but there is all so a lot of crap on the app store too and there not cheap especially ipad apps,
If i download an app make use of it I will go and buy the app via itunes so I get all the updates and to support the developer.