Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Texas wants to ban Vista
- Thread starter winterdude010
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Well said it's funny these guys want to blame Apple for the bad rap of Vista, I guess it was Apple who made Vista cause all those problems on peoples computers and get bad review after review. Funny Microsoff says Apple is irrelevant to them but yet they attack them in ads. Now we are hearing that Windows 7 will lead them to the promise land, yeah just like Vista did.
well, you do know that apple did pre-installed viruses on iTunes for windows users previously, right
anyway, no need to get too worked up over this, vista, last time I checked, holds 23.42% market share in US. compare to 8.66% of OSX.
+1
As a recent switcher. I have to agree. Vista was bad, and even after a Service Pack it's still got a long way to go to be called 'good', let alone 'great'.
Well since most of Texas does not believe in evolution it would make sense they would want to ban the product that evolved from XP? Unintelligent design anyone?
Yes. Vista is a great OS. If I didn't have so much money invested in software for OS X I wouldn't mind using Vista as my primary operating system.
This article was on Macenstein April 3: http://macenstein.com/default/archives/3637
This particular quote from a Microsoft employee particularly caught my attention:
Which is exactly what Microsoft, the big bully that would like to think of itself as the only game in town, has been doing for years.
This particular quote from a Microsoft employee particularly caught my attention:
Which is exactly what Microsoft, the big bully that would like to think of itself as the only game in town, has been doing for years.
well, you do know that apple did pre-installed viruses on iTunes for windows users previously, right
When did this happen? Sounds a lot like a false rumor. Can anybody provide a reliable source that says this actually happened?
PS-Why are there so many people arguing in favor of windows on a mac forum!?!?!
Because we're not a bunch of brainwashed mac zealots. We can weigh the pros and cons of each OS.
Vista is a great operating system. I have yet to find any major drawbacks. Pretty much any modern OS can do whatever you ask of it. It really is a matter of preference which you decide to use.
Hmm I guess so. Mac is better in the audio/video and easy UI department and Windows is better in the boring work department lol.
Ignoring the inaccuracy in your post, how many PCs that cost more than $1000 come with less than 2GB of RAM?
Besides the UI comment, which is really a personal preference for the most part. Macs and PCs are pretty even in the creative audio/video department. They both run the same adobe products (the PC Photoshop has 64bit support) and they both can do the same video/audio editing. Apple's creative professional products are falling behind. When was the last time there was a Logic, Final Cut, or Aperture update? As for boring work, I think that they are both pretty evenly matched in the Office suite department, but Windows and Linux definitely have the edge in full featured system admin programs.
It is a mystery, isn't it? Perhaps, they find MacRumors a nicer forum than those fan forums dedicated to their dreadful favorite OS.
I'd go as far now as saying that apple only giving you 2gb on most of their systems is unacceptable. Almost every pc manufacturer is giving out 4gb standard now and for the price range mac are in you should be getting atleast 4 if not 8gb. And DDR3 is a waste in a notebook with a 1066 front side bus. That front side bus reaches its bandwidth limit at like ddr2 533. However even with ddr3, which has gotten a lot cheaper, it should have more standard because OEM's like apple get stuff several times cheaper than we do because they buy in volume.
He's got a point.
Actually, he's got several of them.
Large organizations really don't need Vista, whether you like its pinball-machine visual effects or not. Functionally, Vista doesn't do anything for most enterprises that XP doesn't do, and Vista does require a lot of resources.
XP was not a bad operating system, very stable functional OS. It is even fairly secure with the right protection in place. What I've often wondered about Vista is why the extreme departure from the basic framework of XP?
I use OS X, and have for many years, but I have no hatred of Windows to each his own.
I use OS X, and have for many years, but I have no hatred of Windows to each his own.
The majority of corporate machines cost in excess of $1,000 and are typically spec'd with an Intel c2d & 1GB RAM as a general IT user doesn't need any more than this, lower hardware means less battery use which is better for a corporate machine.
They're made with customized features for the corporate market-- biometrics, ultra-portable design, custom keyboards (for extra performance on word based tasks rather than on general computer use), compact designs, shipped with custom variants of XP, lightly weighted & with extra-long life batteries installed.
The company I work for equips its employees with a line of HP laptops and tablet PCs with the above specification for business and mobile users, these cost us approx. $1.5k per machine.
Given that the business share of PCs sold is quite large, I'd say a high majority of them do actually.
There's been a few mentions of the "Mojave experiment" in the thread, I think that you all should go back and watch that video again & re-consider what's going on.
Microsoft is portraying the average (dumb) computer user using an unknown OS and getting paid to say it's pretty good. You can't possibly expect this to be counted as a valid point for the debate of Vistas functionality.
I truly and genuinely do believe that if everyone understood why the poor opinion of Vista has come about that people would have a different opinion of it. What goes on under the hood is a very consumer only thing-- most machines are shipped with tons of 3rd party software and Norton which slows down the machine greatly, this bundled with Vistas love for background paging & caching means that a lot of consumer computers, out of the gate are slow.
That said however, it's nothing a well-rounded IT professional can't tune-up in an hour- the problem being that for the first time in 10 years an OS is really being targeted at the consumer market and it leads to this "its slow, I don't understand it, so let's just complain about it" situation, which gives negative rep to the OS itself, when in-fact it's pushed leaps and bounds from XP under the hood, just as Win7 will do again when it goes live.
I'm trying not to go ad'hominem here, but it seems like a lot of the opinions in this thread are very arrogant, I suspect the posters don't truly understand what goes on under the hood & are simply fighting with stereotypical arrogance in what is a boring and un-witty farce of a reply.
If you've managed to reach this far without scrolling down and just posting a reply out of the idiots retaliation book I commend you.