D
Dale
At first, I thought this was a multiple-choice test and I marked D.
Dale
Dale
Bill Marriott said:
C
Chris
Obviously, you have not used Win95 recently 
.
But anyway, if all you are doing is clicking on the start menu and then an
icon, I suppose there is no difference.
.But anyway, if all you are doing is clicking on the start menu and then an
icon, I suppose there is no difference.
Dale said:
L
Lang Murphy
LOL... good one!
Lang
Lang
Kerry Brown said:
B
Bobby
The he forget "E":
E - No-one uses OS X and therefore can compare it with Vista.
Bobby
E - No-one uses OS X and therefore can compare it with Vista.
Bobby
Dale said:
T
Tom Porterfield
Bill said:
Comparing Vista to OSX is almost pointless as OSX has such a small
percentage of the market that it still cannot be considered major
competition for Vista. Right now, Vista's biggest competition is XP. An
unbiased comparison to XP would be more beneficial. Comparisons against
other things such as OSX or any of the myriad different Linux distributions
is interesting in a long-term perspective, but not that interesting to 90%
of the computer owners today.
J
Jeff Gaines
On the face of it that seems correct. But (a) Vista is about 20% slower
than XP on the same hardware and (b) I am faced with a cost of around
£500- £1000 to upgrade my software to run on Vista.
I am an MSDN subscriber and have used Windows since version 3 but buying a
Mac looks a good option at the moment (there's some decent software
bundled with them). It's important that MS doesn't get complacent, if they
can't find me the 20% speed they've lost me pretty soon then a Mac could
make a good Easter present.
Oh, and I've just copied 2.6GB of files over my 1Gbps LAN from a NAS to
the Vista box. It took 8 minutes, that looks a tad slow to me as well.
B
Bill Marriott
Well, OS X has a wee bit more market share than Vista *at the moment* It
also surpassed Windows 2000 last December, making it the #2 operating system
behind XP. Granted, a very distant #2.
As I alluded to in other posts, a very interesting scenario is the consumer
who buys MacIntel hardware, like the MacBooks, that offer great
bang-for-buck and also run Windows (XP or Vista, natively or virtually).
That buyer will indeed be able to do "apples to apples" comparisons of how
the two operating systems perform on the same hardware, and they may well
end up liking Mac OS X more.
It's competition for Vista in the sense that people are going to presented
with an operating system migration over the next couple years, as they
replace aging hardware or want to run new software. Given the costs
associated with migrating from XP to Vista, it becomes reasonable to
question whether Vista is really the best choice, or whether going to Mac
(and running your old apps with full compatibility) is more rational.
My scanner, USB fax modem, digital camera, and printer all have drivers that
work on the Mac right now, no waiting. They do not have Vista drivers. Maybe
that will change, maybe it won't. Adobe will give me a "cost of shipping"
crossgrade from my current Windows CS2 to the Mac version; CS2 doesn't work
well on Vista currently. My anti-virus, defragmenter, image backup, and
registry maintenance utilities don't work on Vista. Those will require
upgrades or replacement. Music from iTunes works on both platforms, while
"PlaysForSure" has all but been abandoned. There are Mac versions or close
analogues to just about every other program I use on Windows.
It's just sooo nice using a Mac and the barriers to switching are getting
lower every day.
And even if you scoff at the market share disparity, Mac OS X offers
intellectual and creative competition for Microsoft. And that counts for
something, too.
But you offer excellent advice for Microsoft! Ignore comparisons between
Vista and OS X, until it's too late
p.s.: Just remember this is from a guy who has used Windows *exclusively*
since about 1996, and just started using a Mac in November.
Italso surpassed Windows 2000 last December, making it the #2 operating system
behind XP. Granted, a very distant #2.
As I alluded to in other posts, a very interesting scenario is the consumer
who buys MacIntel hardware, like the MacBooks, that offer great
bang-for-buck and also run Windows (XP or Vista, natively or virtually).
That buyer will indeed be able to do "apples to apples" comparisons of how
the two operating systems perform on the same hardware, and they may well
end up liking Mac OS X more.
It's competition for Vista in the sense that people are going to presented
with an operating system migration over the next couple years, as they
replace aging hardware or want to run new software. Given the costs
associated with migrating from XP to Vista, it becomes reasonable to
question whether Vista is really the best choice, or whether going to Mac
(and running your old apps with full compatibility) is more rational.
My scanner, USB fax modem, digital camera, and printer all have drivers that
work on the Mac right now, no waiting. They do not have Vista drivers. Maybe
that will change, maybe it won't. Adobe will give me a "cost of shipping"
crossgrade from my current Windows CS2 to the Mac version; CS2 doesn't work
well on Vista currently. My anti-virus, defragmenter, image backup, and
registry maintenance utilities don't work on Vista. Those will require
upgrades or replacement. Music from iTunes works on both platforms, while
"PlaysForSure" has all but been abandoned. There are Mac versions or close
analogues to just about every other program I use on Windows.
It's just sooo nice using a Mac and the barriers to switching are getting
lower every day.
And even if you scoff at the market share disparity, Mac OS X offers
intellectual and creative competition for Microsoft. And that counts for
something, too.
But you offer excellent advice for Microsoft! Ignore comparisons between
Vista and OS X, until it's too late
p.s.: Just remember this is from a guy who has used Windows *exclusively*
since about 1996, and just started using a Mac in November.
T
Tom Porterfield
Bill said:
You're forgetting one extremely important part in the above. That is that
you can only by a PC running OSX from Apple. As the large OEM's start
including Vista on every PC they sell, the cost of upgrading from XP to
Vista will drop dramatically as those PC's will come with software, drivers,
utilities, etc that are supported by Vista.
And while Adobe may be offering an almost free swap to Mac versions of some
of their products, for any vendor not doing that it will be cheaper to
upgrade to a Vista ready version of their application than it will be to
switch to a Mac capable version of a similar product.