| Forum Home | ||||
| PC World Chat | ||||
| Thread ID: 84012 | 2007-10-21 04:33:00 | Microsoft admits | winmacguy (3367) | PC World Chat |
| Post ID | Timestamp | Content | User | ||
| 603790 | 2007-10-22 04:30:00 | A middle of the range computer costs less now then it did 12 months ago, so why shouldn't a new OS cost less. You don't have to buy Vista - you can go ahead and install whatever flavour of Linux you want, for free. |
somebody (208) | ||
| 603791 | 2007-10-22 04:47:00 | You don't have to buy Vista - you can go ahead and install whatever flavour of Linux you want, for free.You don't have to buy Vista - you can go ahead and install whatever flavour of Linux you want, for free. Only problem with that is that as much as it is a great OS, Linux is still not really ready for mainstream adoption. I wonder how much Apple paid them to say that... Nothing considering it is a PC mag. I have the actual article here which is what prompted me to start this thread. The Editor is not that impressed with Vista after using it for most of the year and is comparing it with the better offer from Apple. Have a read of this comparison Leopard vs. Vista Why the latest version of Mac OS X will be the tipping point for Windows users on the fence. Apple is surging. The once-underdog computer manufacturer has seen a boom in popularity thanks to the halo effect of the iPod and iPhone, a switch to speedy Intel processors, and a reputation for crafting sturdy machines accompanied by the fun and complete iLife software--not to mention a secure operating system, Mac OS X. laptopmag.com |
winmacguy (3367) | ||
| 603792 | 2007-10-22 05:10:00 | Linux will never be ready for desktop, because it doesn't have drivers with a lot of hardware, hard to install, and doesn't run Windows programmes. Honestly? These seems more like Windows to me, every time I reinstall I have to first download the ethernet driver beforehand, install that after reinstall, look on the net with the horribly slow graphics, install graphics and chipset drivers, restart, switch to 1280x1024, install Firefox, Thunderbird, AV, Office, foobar, .Net, drivers for other stuff like printer and tablet and even the Microsoft Keyboard and Mouse etc. Linux (Ubuntu), on the other hand, works out of the box, at correct resolution, comes with office suites, good media players, supports my HP printer and Wacom tablet and sound card and ethernet out of the box, and it's on a LiveCD so I can browse the net while it installs in 30 minutes. The only reason Windows is "more ready for desktop" is because it comes pre-installed, and that's starting to change with Dell selling Ubuntu-equipped machines. |
gnail (6819) | ||
| 603793 | 2007-10-22 08:56:00 | Linux will never be ready for desktop, because it doesn't have drivers with a lot of hardware, hard to install, and doesn't run Windows programmes. Honestly? These seems more like Windows to me, every time I reinstall I have to first download the ethernet driver beforehand, install that after reinstall, look on the net with the horribly slow graphics, install graphics and chipset drivers, restart, switch to 1280x1024, install Firefox, Thunderbird, AV, Office, foobar, .Net, drivers for other stuff like printer and tablet and even the Microsoft Keyboard and Mouse etc. Linux (Ubuntu), on the other hand, works out of the box, at correct resolution, comes with office suites, good media players, supports my HP printer and Wacom tablet and sound card and ethernet out of the box, and it's on a LiveCD so I can browse the net while it installs in 30 minutes. The only reason Windows is "more ready for desktop" is because it comes pre-installed, and that's starting to change with Dell selling Ubuntu-equipped machines. You know you defeated your argument there, right? You say Windows isnt good because it takes too long to get started and then you say the only reason its "ready" is because its pre-installed, which is what most people get anyway. Not a problem for most. You dont have to use FF, you can use IE BUT if you want to use FF, you'll have to work for it. |
beeswax34 (63) | ||
| 603794 | 2007-10-22 09:23:00 | Well I'm comparing the two from a "start from scratch" install. Even if you discount my rant about Firefox and Thunderbird, I still have to install bazillions of software and updates after SP2 in order to have a reasonably secure desktop. The current major thing against Linux is its supposed hardware incompatibility, and I've outlined the Windows side of it, out of the box. Yes installing drivers in Linux can be very tricky, but then bad drivers had also caused quite a few BSODs on the Windows side. If Linux pre-installed on a computer, it would've been built using compatible hardware, and should have no hardware issues, and thus nullifies the whole "incompatibility" thing. |
gnail (6819) | ||
| 603795 | 2007-10-22 10:58:00 | You don't have to buy Vista - you can go ahead and install whatever flavour of Linux you want, for free. or for $220 you can get oem XP pro with the pc bits you're buying at the same time (teaching the old man vista was not something i wanted to undertake, especially as his work programs may not have run on it) I think a lot of the unnecessary weight that Windows is carrying is legacy code that would be more beneficial if it could be fazed out as Apple does with older Macs and code. the advantage apple has over microsoft is that they know what hardware they are running and need have only those drivers present, whereas windows has to account for any combination of any parts - including that 8mb SiS pci card i dug up when my video card failed (xp ran it, doubt vista would but you get my point) yet you still say windows has unnecessary weight, which begs the sofar unanswered question: "why does mac take more space than windows despite all this effort they're apparently putting in?" perhaps you should've checked the relative sizes before starting yet another attempt at a pc bashing, "look how much better mac is" thread |
motorbyclist (188) | ||
| 603796 | 2007-10-22 23:01:00 | yet you still say windows has unnecessary weight, which begs the sofar unanswered question: "why does mac take more space than windows despite all this effort they're apparently putting in?" perhaps you should've checked the relative sizes before starting yet another attempt at a pc bashing, "look how much better mac is" thread Judging by todays financial news Apple doesn't have too much to worry about ca.today.reuters.com |
winmacguy (3367) | ||
| 603797 | 2007-10-22 23:50:00 | yeah, change the subject, great answer:annoyed: | motorbyclist (188) | ||
| 603798 | 2007-10-22 23:53:00 | yeah, change the subject, great answer:annoyed: I'm just listening to the conference call at the moment ;) biz.yahoo.com |
winmacguy (3367) | ||
| 603799 | 2007-10-23 07:05:00 | Logic and facts don't work on him. And I know it doesn't fit your reasoning, But your better off just cutting to bare face insults when it comes to WMG, But even they only work for a day or two, Then he starts posting how 9GB of Apple OS isn't bloat but 6Gb of MS OS is... Just to point out WMG demise. Leopard needs 9GB of free space to install. Vista premium requires 15GB of free space to install. One would presume once installed the OS isn't going to take up that much room. WMG please check your facts |
plod (107) | ||
| 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 | |||||