Windows 7.....(better than sliced bread)

[UCF w00t]

I know you guys are just baiting us but I'll bite anyways.

Originally Posted by The_Blur

You know I'm just joking. Windows has definitely made strides recently. I haven't had much experience, however, finding Windows-based systems that use adequate hardware. The programing is probably fine. The big failure for the brand is that it is installed on inferior products. If the hardware were more centrally controlled by Microsoft, I think we'd see better Windows-based systems. Instead, we've got Dell, HP, and seemingly everyone else offering highly modern Windows operating systems with antiquated or otherwise inferior technology. If you have a high-tech* OS, then you should also have a high-tech computer.

*High-tech—technology that is new or superior to any alternative for a given function. High-tech does not necessarily denote high-function or high-feature. For example, two cars have car head units that push 50W to the speakers, have aux inputs, can take CDs, can read MP3s, and has separate treble and bass controls in addition to volume. One was made by JL while the other was made by Jensen. The JL unit is obvious built with superior components, making it high-tech. The Jensen unit is inferior because its technology is of inferior quality. In the case of my Apple-Microsoft discussion, Apple builds the Macintosh computer with superior components to what tends to be used on same-level Dell, HP, or most other Windows-based platforms. You could argue this, but you'd be wrong, as justified by the traditionally longer-lasting Macs.

So you're saying if Microsoft behaved more like a monopoly? It's funny because they've tried and failed to do this. They got sued (and lost) over this very topic. And I would love to see some statistics to your whole "Macs last longer" thing. Here's a hint... you won't find them. I can, however see why you would think this. Apples tend to be much more upscale in cost as compared to off-the-shelf PCs. Also, Apples tend to be used longer and PCs thrown by the wayside while still working as most Apple machines are used for basic web/email and not much else. Yea, there's all the graphics folks that swear by their Macs and upgrade more often but they're the minority.

Using your analogy, for the same money as that JL unit you could've gotten another unit that has intergrated LCD screen with nav & DVD playback with just as good of quality without the "JL" logo on it. Yea this doesn't hold up in the car audio world but it really shouldn't hold up in the computer world either. But Apple has managed to convince people otherwise. Point is, for the same price as your apple hardware, I could've gotten a MUCH better PC.

And I hate to break it to you, that Apple hardware is all being made by the same exact companies that make stuff for Dell and everybody else. I guess you missed that whole Apple switching to x86 (Intel) a few years ago. It's funny how they bashed the crap out of x86 just prior to switching to it. Apple may design (even that is limited by the chipsets made by the same companies that everyone else uses) stuff like their motherboards but they're still made by someone like Foxconn or Asus who also make boards for themselves as well as the OEMs.

Originally Posted by Xmicro_SS

Are you serious, WIndows is STILL trying to catch up, get real. Windows is more widely used because it is cheaper and used at the "OFFICE" ............BOOOOOOORRRRRRIIIIIINNNNNGGGGG!

I have been a MAC user since day 1. I am in Printing, we use nothing but.

Remember who sets the bench mark every year, not Windows.

I have yet to have a Virus, I never need to reboot, Never lock up, there is nothing like running through a rock solid Unix base. REAL PROGRAMMERS USE LINUS AND UNIX!

Of course you use Apple products in printing... all of the graphics people seem to. I don't know why. It doesn't make sense anymore. Yea, it used to but these days it just doesn't. I guess it's just habit. And maybe you guys like to feel cool and hip and artsy and fight the man by buying such trendy products.

I haven't gotten a virus in years. Probably at least 6. I don't even know the last time I did. And no, I don't run any virus scan other than COMMON SENSE. Don't do stupid crap and you won't get a virus. It's all about numbers... why would malware authors go after 8% of the market when you can go after 90%? It would be stupid for them to go after such a small audience. Most malware doesn't use flaws in Windows as attack vectors but flaws in people's intelligence. And stability? Come on... my Vista box at work hasn't been rebooted in at least a month.

And I guess I'm not a real programmer. I better go tell my boss at work tomorrow that half of the work I've done doesn't exist. Oh and that VIN database? I guess I better just turn off that Dell laptop (yes, it's my old laptop) that is running Windows Server 2008 and Microsoft SQL Server that happens to be hosting it. Since, of course, no real programmer wrote that site or anything. It's all just make believe.

If Mac OSX is so great, why won't Apple let people run it on any hardware? There's no technical reason they don't. It would just shatter your notion that it's so great when you realize that OSX driver support is deplorable. That and Apple would actually have to compete for their hardware sales.

[The_Blur]

Originally Posted by UCF w00t

I know you guys are just baiting us but I'll bite anyways.


So you're saying if Microsoft behaved more like a monopoly? It's funny because they've tried and failed to do this. They got sued (and lost) over this very topic. And I would love to see some statistics to your whole "Macs last longer" thing. Here's a hint... you won't find them. I can, however see why you would think this. Apples tend to be much more upscale in cost as compared to off-the-shelf PCs. Also, Apples tend to be used longer and PCs thrown by the wayside while still working as most Apple machines are used for basic web/email and not much else. Yea, there's all the graphics folks that swear by their Macs and upgrade more often but they're the minority.

Using your analogy, for the same money as that JL unit you could've gotten another unit that has intergrated LCD screen with nav & DVD playback with just as good of quality without the "JL" logo on it. Yea this doesn't hold up in the car audio world but it really shouldn't hold up in the computer world either. But Apple has managed to convince people otherwise. Point is, for the same price as your apple hardware, I could've gotten a MUCH better PC.

And I hate to break it to you, that Apple hardware is all being made by the same exact companies that make stuff for Dell and everybody else. I guess you missed that whole Apple switching to x86 (Intel) a few years ago. It's funny how they bashed the crap out of x86 just prior to switching to it. Apple may design (even that is limited by the chipsets made by the same companies that everyone else uses) stuff like their motherboards but they're still made by someone like Foxconn or Asus who also make boards for themselves as well as the OEMs.


Of course you use Apple products in printing... all of the graphics people seem to. I don't know why. It doesn't make sense anymore. Yea, it used to but these days it just doesn't. I guess it's just habit. And maybe you guys like to feel cool and hip and artsy and fight the man by buying such trendy products.

I haven't gotten a virus in years. Probably at least 6. I don't even know the last time I did. And no, I don't run any virus scan other than COMMON SENSE. Don't do stupid crap and you won't get a virus. It's all about numbers... why would malware authors go after 8% of the market when you can go after 90%? It would be stupid for them to go after such a small audience. Most malware doesn't use flaws in Windows as attack vectors but flaws in people's intelligence. And stability? Come on... my Vista box at work hasn't been rebooted in at least a month.

And I guess I'm not a real programmer. I better go tell my boss at work tomorrow that half of the work I've done doesn't exist. Oh and that VIN database? I guess I better just turn off that Dell laptop (yes, it's my old laptop) that is running Windows Server 2008 and Microsoft SQL Server that happens to be hosting it. Since, of course, no real programmer wrote that site or anything. It's all just make believe.

If Mac OSX is so great, why won't Apple let people run it on any hardware? There's no technical reason they don't. It would just shatter your notion that it's so great when you realize that OSX driver support is deplorable. That and Apple would actually have to compete for their hardware sales.

Basically, my big argument is that you will always be your own best advocate. Apple will support Apple products better than non-Apple companies. Inasmuch, Microsoft ignored this when it allowed for Windows to be placed on non-Microsoft products.

Think about it in another way. GM makes cars using a lot of parts. No steering wheel manufacturer is complaining that GM doesn't use their steering wheel or offer it as an option because they have no right to do so. GM never let them have a role in building steering wheels. If GM had done so in the past, GM would have given those companies a precedent and a dependency on GM.

Microsoft has created companies that are dependent on their products. For example, Dell cannot sell PCs without the Windows operating system. Apple, however, has never allowed its operating system to sell on non-Apple products. As a result, Apple has a legal monopoly on its operating system. Apple also maintains very carefully placed controls on its products being sold by retailers. Microsoft has not protected its product by forcing it to be sold with specific hardware. As a result, Microsoft has doomed its product to mediocrity while Apple controls the standard of its product and its brand by carefully controlling its sales.

That sounds like a monopoly. It's not because you don't have to buy Apple products. In fact, a lot of people don't, and they are happy people, even though their computers are inferior. No one complains that many of the products at Wal-Mart are oftentimes only sold at Wal-Mart or that the Camaro is only sold at GM sales locations. Without the type of control that Apple has, its products will not have good quality.

That is why Apple will not let anyone run its operating system on anything else. Apple works to make its prices competitive, but people consistently know that Apples cost more. If the Apple OS were suddenly available in a cheap format, Apple would no longer be responsible for the quality of the product that effectively represents Apple.

In other words, Microsoft has allowed some crappy brands to slap a good system in a bad product. Having witnessed this, why would Apple do the same thing? It would be incredibly stupid to make that business decision because Apple will then have to try to build an operating system to operate under conditions that Apple no longer controls. If Apple can take responsibility for making sure that the hard drive is big enough, that the motherboard lasts long enough, that the camera works, that the speakers are loud enough, that the battery lasts long enough, and that the computer is attractive enough, then Apple can sell its products. If Apple loses that advantage, then someone will cheapen the Apple name.

Apple is using a business strategy to sell its products. That strategy works. This is evident in the obvious fact that Apple still exists and makes money. Why should it change?

[UCF w00t]

Originally Posted by The_Blur

My dad is a creative in advertising, so he tends to prefer Macs for their superior editing capabilities when it comes to multimedia. The account guys always preferred PCs. They tend to be using the new Intel Macs now, though.

I started using PCs when I was in middle school because the school district was so dependent on them that my family got one so I could do my homework. Until then, I was using a 1995 Macintosh Performa operating on an early Mac OS. To this day, that computer still operates. Since then, I've had an HP fail due to virus vulnerabilities despite having paid antivirus protection, a Dell fail due to faulty hard drive components, and my roommate's Toshiba fail due to faulty hardware. I'm currently using my MacBook. My iBook is at my parents' house, still working without fail for its 3rd year.

In my experience, the Mac is superior. I have found it very functional for regular use and not nearly as prone to failure due to software issues, including security vulnerabilities. If Microsoft were nearly as protective as Apple when it comes to software issues, I'm sure viruses would be less prevalent in PCs, but that would not fix the fact that PCs tend to have inferior hardware.

Computers don't fail because of Viruses, well at least extremely rarely. Maybe your computer needed to be reformatted but that doesn't mean your computer "failed". I can't argue with anecdotal evidence other than to offer my own where an old roommate had to repeatedly send his Macbook back to apple (even after they instructed him to reformat it) to get repaired. They eventually had to send him a whole new laptop.

And I'm sorry to say but Apple is pathetic when it comes to patching vulnerabilties. And they've got more vulnerabilities in the first place. Here's a recent example where Apple was far behind the pack in fixing a publicly known vulnerability. Here's an overall comparison of the two companies. I've seen many others (usually by way of Slashdot) but that's what came up in a google.

If the market share were swapped between Apple and Microsoft, Apple would be having the same "problems" that Windows has and Microsoft would be basking in the sunshine as Apple has been able to do. Like I said before, why would a malware author go after 7% of the market when he can go after 90%? It's much more efficient to go after that one massive block.

Originally Posted by The_Blur

Basically, my big argument is that you will always be your own best advocate. Apple will support Apple products better than non-Apple companies. Inasmuch, Microsoft ignored this when it allowed for Windows to be placed on non-Microsoft products.

Think about it in another way. GM makes cars using a lot of parts. No steering wheel manufacturer is complaining that GM doesn't use their steering wheel or offer it as an option because they have no right to do so. GM never let them have a role in building steering wheels. If GM had done so in the past, GM would have given those companies a precedent and a dependency on GM.

Microsoft has created companies that are dependent on their products. For example, Dell cannot sell PCs without the Windows operating system. Apple, however, has never allowed its operating system to sell on non-Apple products. As a result, Apple has a legal monopoly on its operating system. Apple also maintains very carefully placed controls on its products being sold by retailers. Microsoft has not protected its product by forcing it to be sold with specific hardware. As a result, Microsoft has doomed its product to mediocrity while Apple controls the standard of its product and its brand by carefully controlling its sales.

That sounds like a monopoly. It's not because you don't have to buy Apple products. In fact, a lot of people don't, and they are happy people, even though their computers are inferior. No one complains that many of the products at Wal-Mart are oftentimes only sold at Wal-Mart or that the Camaro is only sold at GM sales locations. Without the type of control that Apple has, its products will not have good quality.

That is why Apple will not let anyone run its operating system on anything else. Apple works to make its prices competitive, but people consistently know that Apples cost more. If the Apple OS were suddenly available in a cheap format, Apple would no longer be responsible for the quality of the product that effectively represents Apple.

In other words, Microsoft has allowed some crappy brands to slap a good system in a bad product. Having witnessed this, why would Apple do the same thing? It would be incredibly stupid to make that business decision because Apple will then have to try to build an operating system to operate under conditions that Apple no longer controls. If Apple can take responsibility for making sure that the hard drive is big enough, that the motherboard lasts long enough, that the camera works, that the speakers are loud enough, that the battery lasts long enough, and that the computer is attractive enough, then Apple can sell its products. If Apple loses that advantage, then someone will cheapen the Apple name.

Apple is using a business strategy to sell its products. That strategy works. This is evident in the obvious fact that Apple still exists and makes money. Why should it change?

The GM analogy doesn't work. Sorry, it's just not at all similar. Your steering wheel is more like an embedded USB controller than it is the OS. GM doesn't bother advertising who makes the steering wheel just as noone gives a crap who makes the USB controller in a Dell PC. And in this analogy, Dell = your dealer. And as we've seen, dealers can give GM a bad name even though it's not GMs fault just like OEMs can do the same to MS.

I completely understand why Apple does what it does. BUT they and their fanboys continue to sling mud about things that just don't make sense like saying other hardware is inferior. It's just not. And making fun of driver support is just absurd considering the lack of driver support in OSX. Microsoft certainly recognizes some of the problems they have with branding and support. That's why they created the whole "Vista Ready"/"Vista Capable" thing (which is a mess in itself because of Intel).

And Apple did at one point allow other companies to make clones. They just killed the licensing for them and got away with it. This relationship is much like GM and their dealers. Apple was able to can the contracts much like Chrysler and GM are doing now (although Apple wasn't under bankruptcy protection).

I'm not really questioning these decisions that Apple has done but just the arguments people make. If OSX was such a great OS, it wouldn't matter what hardware was running on it. It should be able to compete with windows on an even playing field. But it can't. Shoot, it can't even compete with Windows now (90% vs 7%)..

[Xmicro_SS]

Originally Posted by hb-rocks

Go pound on your chest in some other thread please! We're all very happy for you!

Pounding on my chest............No, Stating Facts...........Yes. And I will post where I see fit, Thank You. It is not OK to me when people rip what I know is a superior product. I am simply stating my view point. You do not need to read it.

Windows is and always will be a poor copy of what Apple started in the 80's.

[Xmicro_SS]

Originally Posted by UCF w00t

Of course you use Apple products in printing... all of the graphics people seem to. I don't know why. It doesn't make sense anymore. Yea, it used to but these days it just doesn't. I guess it's just habit. And maybe you guys like to feel cool and hip and artsy and fight the man by buying such trendy products.

I haven't gotten a virus in years. Probably at least 6. I don't even know the last time I did. And no, I don't run any virus scan other than COMMON SENSE. Don't do stupid crap and you won't get a virus. It's all about numbers... why would malware authors go after 8% of the market when you can go after 90%? It would be stupid for them to go after such a small audience. Most malware doesn't use flaws in Windows as attack vectors but flaws in people's intelligence. And stability? Come on... my Vista box at work hasn't been rebooted in at least a month.

And I guess I'm not a real programmer. I better go tell my boss at work tomorrow that half of the work I've done doesn't exist. Oh and that VIN database? I guess I better just turn off that Dell laptop (yes, it's my old laptop) that is running Windows Server 2008 and Microsoft SQL Server that happens to be hosting it. Since, of course, no real programmer wrote that site or anything. It's all just make believe.

If Mac OSX is so great, why won't Apple let people run it on any hardware? There's no technical reason they don't. It would just shatter your notion that it's so great when you realize that OSX driver support is deplorable. That and Apple would actually have to compete for their hardware sales.

I do not know you or what you do, and it does not matter to me. So do not take it personal. There is no way you can compare Windows with Mac OSX. Unix/Linux is the most stable, solid Computer language ever designed. It is FAR MORE secure and has many other advantages. Why do you think government based servers are all Unix based.

As far as Mac OSX and why it is still in printing and advertising, because it is much more user friendly, stable, more creatively designed, makes more sense in the way it works, and for years had superior color calibration tools. It is not a habit.

Don't know how old you are, but I am 39 and have worked on Apple's since 1984 back in school. My generation was the first generation to grow up with computers in school, so I was introduced there. Before that I was working on a Tandy TRS-80 and a Texas Instruments computer. Apple came along with a visual unique way of looking at a computer to make it far more usable. As far as why they won't let others run the OS, If you know anything about Apple's history, they tried to let others run there OS back in the 90's, and it was a disaster, other companies failures was making them look bad. Thank God for Steve Jobs. They build superior Hardware and support it. They are the Mercedes of the Computer world.

So maybe we are both forced to our own platform, due to work. But when you put the two next to each other, you cannot compare them. Apple is leaps and bounds ahead as far as OS Features, if you looked with a truly open mind, you would not be denying it. And why would creative graphics people switch, Apple was more creative then and supported graphics, even if the PC can handle it now, where were they back years ago.

Apple has turned the table on the PC market and pound for pound is grabbing more and more market share. They have changed the way the world listens to music, looks at graphics, and they have brought people who just got confused dealing with all the drivers and crap to get a printer running, into today where things are plug and play. Nothing on the PC was ever plug and play, until they started to copy apple...............Driver, what the hell is a driver. There were so many companies creating what they wanted for the PC and none of it was ever tested for compatibility with each other. So you load one thing and it conflicts with other things. It was, and still is to some extent, a large free for all to create product for PC users. Software created for the Mac is much more consistent and under UNIX more independent from each other. Apple engineers check this stuff before it hits the market.

I could go on for days...................Windows

And by the way, I do use both. Many rips, front ends on equipment, and office machines are PC's. And I am setting machines up and doing intense operation on them, hence my very strong loathing. So I am commenting as a person that uses BOTH EVERYDAY. How many of you PC guys that are commenting work on MACS and are comparing from an educated perspective?......................That is what I thought.

[Xmicro_SS]

Originally Posted by UCF w00t

Computers don't fail because of Viruses, well at least extremely rarely. Maybe your computer needed to be reformatted but that doesn't mean your computer "failed". I can't argue with anecdotal evidence other than to offer my own where an old roommate had to repeatedly send his Macbook back to apple (even after they instructed him to reformat it) to get repaired. They eventually had to send him a whole new laptop.

And I'm sorry to say but Apple is pathetic when it comes to patching vulnerabilties. And they've got more vulnerabilities in the first place. Here's a recent example where Apple was far behind the pack in fixing a publicly known vulnerability. Here's an overall comparison of the two companies. I've seen many others (usually by way of Slashdot) but that's what came up in a google.

If the market share were swapped between Apple and Microsoft, Apple would be having the same "problems" that Windows has and Microsoft would be basking in the sunshine as Apple has been able to do. Like I said before, why would a malware author go after 7% of the market when he can go after 90%? It's much more efficient to go after that one massive block.


The GM analogy doesn't work. Sorry, it's just not at all similar. Your steering wheel is more like an embedded USB controller than it is the OS. GM doesn't bother advertising who makes the steering wheel just as noone gives a crap who makes the USB controller in a Dell PC. And in this analogy, Dell = your dealer. And as we've seen, dealers can give GM a bad name even though it's not GMs fault just like OEMs can do the same to MS.

I completely understand why Apple does what it does. BUT they and their fanboys continue to sling mud about things that just don't make sense like saying other hardware is inferior. It's just not. And making fun of driver support is just absurd considering the lack of driver support in OSX. Microsoft certainly recognizes some of the problems they have with branding and support. That's why they created the whole "Vista Ready"/"Vista Capable" thing (which is a mess in itself because of Intel).

And Apple did at one point allow other companies to make clones. They just killed the licensing for them and got away with it. This relationship is much like GM and their dealers. Apple was able to can the contracts much like Chrysler and GM are doing now (although Apple wasn't under bankruptcy protection).

I'm not really questioning these decisions that Apple has done but just the arguments people make. If OSX was such a great OS, it wouldn't matter what hardware was running on it. It should be able to compete with windows on an even playing field. But it can't. Shoot, it can't even compete with Windows now (90% vs 7%)..

I needed to comment on some of what you said. I do not believe PC fanboy articles either. MAC OS does not need patches fast becuas eit is better designed to begin with. You cannot argue the fact that it never has had virus issues, and is a cleaner running OS.....period. And they do not need to produce mass numbers to have a better product. There are less Ferrari's produced than most other sports car, but they build a superior product.

Apple killed the clones because of all the issues they were having, and we had issues with the ones we bought at the shop I worked for then and the support was horrible from that vendor.

As far as Malware people targeting the larger market, you are right about that, even more reason to buy a MAC.

We can argue all day, and in the end it will change nothing. You will continue to like your PC and I will continue to love my MAC, isn't America Great. But you cannot rip APPLE, it is a better product.

[Camaro_Corvette]

[CurtG]

Windows 7 is what Vista should have been. Still love Macs more though for everyday use.

[UCF w00t]

• I do not know you or what you do, and it does not matter to me.
o I have a job that requires that I understand this stuff. Unlike yourself, apparently.
• Unix/Linux is the most stable, solid Computer language ever designed.
o Unix/Linux is NOT a language.
• It is FAR MORE secure and has many other advantages.
o The “more secure” debate has been going on for decades and will continue to go on. The severity and number of vulnerabilities and how quickly they are patched is the only way to judge the security of an operating system. Windows and most Linux flavors fare pretty well in this. OSX lags behind. Yes, they all have some advantages over each other but they all have tradeoffs. To say they don't need to update as quickly because it is more secure is the most absurd thing I've heard in a while. It is automatically less secure BECAUSE there are issues going unpatched.
• Why do you think government based servers are all Unix based.
o Government based servers are NOT all Unix based. Trust me. I know. PM me if you would like some credentials.
• If you know anything about Apple's history
o I already pointed this exact history out
• They build superior Hardware and support it.
o Apple hardware is manufactured by the same companies and uses the same components as every other PC manufacturer.
• They are the Mercedes of the Computer world.
o Mercedes has below average quality ratings.
• Apple was more creative then and supported graphics, even if the PC can handle it now
o Photoshop is 64bit on Windows but not Mac
• Apple has turned the table on the PC market and pound for pound is grabbing more and more market share.
o Apple has lost market share recently
• Driver, what the hell is a driver.
o Drivers exist in EVERY operating system. Have you tried to get OSX running on non-Apple hardware? The driver support is non-existent. But of course they mock Windows for this… It’s just not a “problem” for them since they control the hardware.
• It was, and still is to some extent, a large free for all to create product for PC users.
o Yes, it is a free for all. It’s called an open society. I don’t want Jobs dictating my usage habits and software to me.
• Software created for the Mac is much more consistent and under UNIX more independent from each other.
o What does that even mean?
• How many of you PC guys that are commenting work on MACS and are comparing from an educated perspective?
o I don’t work on Macs because they can’t be used to do my job but I have used them a good amount in the past. I had OSX running on my laptop for a while.
• I do not believe PC fanboy articles either.
o Fanboy articles? LOL. Slashdot HATES Microsoft (not for the quality of their products but for their history on open source).
• You cannot argue the fact that it never has had virus issues, and is a cleaner running OS.....period.
o Virus issues… I don’t have Virus issues. And my machines run “clean” so I don’t even know what you’re talking about.
• There are less Ferrari's produced than most other sports car, but they build a superior product.
o Yea but Ferrari’s aren’t made with the same exact parts as Ford and Hyundai.
• As far as Malware people targeting the larger market, you are right about that, even more reason to buy a MAC.
o Ummm ok.

We can argue all day, and in the end it will change nothing. You will continue to love your Mac I will continue to use Windows with an open mind, isn't America Great. But you cannot rip Windows, it is a better product.

[moto-camaro]

well... i see this turned into the infamous Mac vs PC topic.
i'll post this here rather than start a new thread. i'm having Mac Problems
my Vista machine is my primary computer, but i still keep the mac around (i decided i'd give apple a try a year ago, didn't fall in love at all)

any of you ever have trouble with a mac refusing to spit out a cd? i'm pretty computer knowledgeable, but this one has me baffled. XP Pro install disc is in there. i guess apple doesn't want me to have it back i've even gone to terminal and executed the eject command, and it's being stubborn.

and everyone knows this is a pointless argument, the Apple Zealots will never back down and not support Lord Jobs, and the windows guys won't budge either.
I use 3 different editions of windows on a regular basis, and OS X. Vista is my favorite. and i've got a personal rule that i won't judge Beta operating systems too harshly, i don't expect full compatability on an operating system that is still a beta. there's one thing i like about my macbook pro over "MY" Dell XPS M1330, and that's the touchpad, that's something apple got right.
and the "apple doesn't get virus'" argument is

[GTAHVIT]

[moto-camaro]

i know... i know... :( thought maybe someone of the forums would know something.

[Xanthos]

Originally Posted by moto-camaro

well... i see this turned into the infamous Mac vs PC topic.
i'll post this here rather than start a new thread. i'm having Mac Problems
my Vista machine is my primary computer, but i still keep the mac around (i decided i'd give apple a try a year ago, didn't fall in love at all)

any of you ever have trouble with a mac refusing to spit out a cd? i'm pretty computer knowledgeable, but this one has me baffled. XP Pro install disc is in there. i guess apple doesn't want me to have it back i've even gone to terminal and executed the eject command, and it's being stubborn.

and everyone knows this is a pointless argument, the Apple Zealots will never back down and not support Lord Jobs, and the windows guys won't budge either.
I use 3 different editions of windows on a regular basis, and OS X. Vista is my favorite. and i've got a personal rule that i won't judge Beta operating systems too harshly, i don't expect full compatability on an operating system that is still a beta. there's one thing i like about my macbook pro over "MY" Dell XPS M1330, and that's the touchpad, that's something apple got right.
and the "apple doesn't get virus'" argument is

Do macs have manual CD drive openers (is there an official term for that?) - A.K.A. the little hole you put a paper clip into to force the drive to open?

Also - 7 has no compatibility issues that I've found. Not only is it fully back compatible to Vista/XP/Etc, but its fully compatible from 64 bit to 32 bit modes.

Like I said, I love it and won't be switching back to XP. Just waiting on pricing so I know how much I need to save for when the beta edition is no longer usable.
- Xanthos

[hb-rocks]

yes....please try an stay on topic!

For me...I will definately be upgrading to win 7 when the RC is over.
My PS3 even recognized win 7 home network so now any movies on my HD I can stream to my PS3.....
I use to burn DVD's then I was just copying to a thumb drive but now I can just stream.
Pretty nice!