Microsoft releases key Vista developer technologies

TalkBack 25 of 42:

Next »

« Previous

• Thread View
• Flat View

Get real!

>And Macs were way faster at times over the past 10 years or so
(and before you all even had even a fake GUI.)<


I wouldn?t call them way faster, yes they did perform certain functions faster but far from
?way?.

Fake GUI? Using the over hyped OS X is a chore (even for MAC users). IMHO the Windows interface is a lot faster to get around in and A WHOLE LOT MORE INTUITIVE. Yeah all you have to do is press ?Start? and you?re off. It?s funny getting tech calls from people using Macs who can?t even eject their CD (?Where?s the damn button!?) or install a printer (?what?s this dumb chooser??). I get a lot of ?how do I install this?? or ?will my Mac run this?? from Mac users who?ve used them for years. In the PC world I get similar questions too but they?re less frequent and they?re usually from complete newbies.


>Yeah, we've had
to eat a little crow with this move to Intel, but then again, this is
a new chip, it's not even out for PCs yet. (You know, things
move a lot slower as they have to copy apple first.)<

Hahaha, it?s statement like these that really show how brainwashed an Apple fanboy can be. The chips are based on Yonah , the same platform that?s already slated for release in many desktops and notebooks. It?s an INTEL chip not an Apple chip so what?s there to copy? Apple was falling behind (far far behind) and had no choice but adopt the x86 architecture. If anyone?s doing the copying it?s Apple. And BTW Acer and Dell among others have already built notebooks around the dual core centrinos.

http://www.pcworld.com/resource/article/0,aid,124282,pg,1,RSS,RSS,00.asp#

>IMHO, Windows sofware can't hold a candle to OS X, neither can
the do-it-all-yourself unix distributions) you all have for your
lowest-common-denominator hardware). Mac supports it all,
really. Windows is an OS unto itself, and leaves a LOT to be
desired if you have any real experience with Macs.<


Well that?s your opinion however IMHO OS X can?t hold a candle to Windows 98, much less Windows XP. With it?s often confusing, slow interface, and lack of support for many brands and types of hardware (i.e Many Hp Officejets, wireless USB NIC cards (yeah I know there?s Airport [but seriously Airport?s crap compared to the likes of Dlink, Linksys, Netgear, Netopia etc], Gaming hardware etc.), I?d be much happier running Windows 98.
As for it?s comparison to Windows XP (even the home edition), there?s NONE. Windows XP wins hands down for ease of use and compatiblity. Adware, Viruses, Trojans can all be taken of with the right hardware/ software. In fact I?ve never gotten any Viruses, Malware and hacks EVER! And I?ve been using XP on my box for past 4+ years. So the FUD only applies to the ignorant which unfortunately makes up quite a bit of home user population. Nevertheless an XP box can be Virus/ hacker free for years with the right care.

>Finally, hardware encompasses far more than just the chip, but
then, I can see how you could get anal about it being as all PCs
are really just as bad as the next one, and the chip is about all
you can really use to differentiate one from the other.<


Here?s another super-intelligent remark from an Apple fanboy. It really doesn?t deserve an answer so I won?t waste my time.

>Finally, hardly anyone buys a Mac for the looks. That is gravy.
They buy it because it's better, easier or more reliable than a PC
and they realize that.<

I know many people that have mentioned how good the screen and the case (referring to the sleek outer-case of a Mac G4 laptop) looked and that they would like to have one. These were mostly women who fell in love with the overall look BEFORE asking me about the specs or whether it will work for them. Some have even gone ahead and bought before finding out more about its suitability to their needs. So from my own experience, looks seem to play a very important role. This can also apply to PCs too but more so Macs.

As for a Mac being more reliable than a PC, maybe years ago but not now. For example Dells and Macs do very well with regards to reliability and they BOTH suffer from occasional hardware failures. A simple Google search will reveal tons of Apple hardware issues, failures etc. Even their IPODS had hardware issues at one time which they hastily rectified although many Apple IPOD owners had a very hard time getting replacements.
So Macs can be just as unreliable and in some cases worse than PCs. And I?ve seen too many failures to accept the FUD that many Apple fan boys like to spew.

Posted by: darreno1   Posted on: 01/19/06 You are currently: a Guest | Members login | Terms of Use

Alert moderator to an offensive message

Subscribe to this discussion via Email or RSS

SponsoredWhite Papers, Webcasts, and Downloads

• Reducing Server Total Cost of Ownership with VMware Virtualization Software VMware VMware virtualization enables customers to reduce their server TCO and ... Download Now
• Building the Virtualized Enterprise with VMware Infrastructure VMware VMware virtualization software has been adopted by over 120,000 enterprise ... Download Now
• Why Isn't Server Virtualization Saving Us More? A Few Small Changes May Dramatically Increase Your Efficiency VMware Companies have rapidly adopted server virtualization over the past few ... Download Now