Fuck Microsoft and bundleware. I AM GLAD I SWITCHED. I'm loving my new black macbook.

My Mac however has had to be re-installed...

-------
Anyone who isn't confused really doesn't understand the situation
http://craigk.org/pictures/
Can you work out the code?

---

Yeah yeah, another pointless fanboy.

---

---

Quote: from pleaseremove at 7:13 am on July 23, 2008

---

Yeah yeah, another pointless fanboy.

---

How can I be a fanboy if I had used Windows all my life and had just now switched over and absolutely loving the experience? Fanboy isn't applicable here, I don't think...

---

You talk about Windows without any real knowledge, talk about all Apple products in the same light. You even admit your getting on the bandwaggon. You say Vista sucks, and say same old shit but flashier, but there is no depth or explanation to that. As someone who has been using it as my main OS i would not even consider moving to OSX permanently, i find the OS far too restrictive and as for moving back to Xp, not a chance, just the file handling alone in Vista is enough to keep me on it.

As for the Zune, i would say its a much better product in a lot of ways than the iPod, for starters, it's not locked into iTunes which i can't stand.

I find it so funny when people talk about how the iPod was the first device to have a usable menu, when really, it's just a tree menu, like the standard menu .system...

-------
Anyone who isn't confused really doesn't understand the situation
http://craigk.org/pictures/
Can you work out the code?

---

i find the OS far too restrictive and as for moving back to Xp

---

---

for starters, it's not locked into iTunes which i can't stand.

---

The iPod is? No. It's not.

You sound like you're the same exact type of person as this "fanboy" OP you describe.

You're just simply on the other wagon.

From an IT perspective, you've got no idea (based off of your argument) how much Vista sucks. Especially in a business environment.

Quit being so hypocritical.

OS X is not restricted at all. It's based off of a fucking open source OS - Unix.

If you can't get more unrestricted than that, I'd say that you're quite wrong.

Maybe you're just speaking from a newbie point of view as in - it's easier to customize your OS in Windows than OS X. Sure, I agree - to a point.

Use google for 10 minutes and you'll learn OS X is quite a bit more flexible than you could imagine.

-------
smd

"I can stop peeing I gots skillzthatkillz"

---

Quote: from pleaseremove at 7:26 am on July 23, 2008

---

i find the OS far too restrictive and as for moving back to Xp

---

That it is, but the average user like myself isn't concerned with coding in binary, or whatever the fuck you do, so its really just a device of convenience. I check e-mail in style, motherfucker. :)

---

So do I, from a Windows mobile 6 phone.
And using MS Outlook on Vista
And using MS Entourage on my powerbook  

-------
Anyone who isn't confused really doesn't understand the situation
http://craigk.org/pictures/
Can you work out the code?

---

Quote: from pleaseremove at 10:26 am on July 23, 2008

---

for starters, it's not locked into iTunes which i can't stand.

---

OS X is not restricted at all. It's based off of a fucking open source OS - Unix.

---

Based off =/= being; not to mention it is closer to the UNIX based BSD than just plain UNIX.

Can't even become root without changing things yourself, but is possible.

And why would I want to pay $129 for an operating system that is based off of free code? Pretty looks? There are add-ons that can do that for me.

Go use the "google" you claimed needed to be used and learn something.

-------
We do what we must because we can.
Guess who just got a red bar, finally!
"ur wrong again.. damn u can't do any thing wright"
               ---aGIRLunknown

---

Quote: from pleaseremove at 10:26 am on July 23, 2008

---

for starters, it's not locked into iTunes which i can't stand.

---

The iPod is? No. It's not.

You sound like you're the same exact type of person as this "fanboy" OP you describe.

You're just simply on the other wagon.

From an IT perspective, you've got no idea (based off of your argument) how much Vista sucks. Especially in a business environment.

Quit being so hypocritical.

OS X is not restricted at all. It's based off of a fucking open source OS - Unix.

If you can't get more unrestricted than that, I'd say that you're quite wrong.

Maybe you're just speaking from a newbie point of view as in - it's easier to customize your OS in Windows than OS X. Sure, I agree - to a point.

Use google for 10 minutes and you'll learn OS X is quite a bit more flexible than you could imagine.

---

OK, they don't lock it down as such, but it doesn't work out the box as a mass storage device like every other mp3 player around. You need third party software.

Hell, google it, one of the top results:
http://www.jakeludington.com/ask_jake/20050816_sync_ipod_with_windows_media_player_10.html
http://www.mgtek.com/dopisp/

You can call me a fanboy if you would like, however, in my experience fanboys aren't interested in the truth, just their views. Hell, i Own a Mac and use it all the time, when it was broken i spent an age working to bring it back to working. It's my only laptop so i have little choice but to use it a lot of the time, i travel a fair bit.

From an IT perspective... oh you have got to be kidding me... It's been my main OS for the last year, i worked with the team who was doing the new company build for it for one of the largest banks in the world, my dev server is currently running windows server 2003 and i have a copy of 2008 sitting next to it. I have worked with exchange servers, sql servers, have a fair old experience with both running and setting up large networks. I'm fully aware of the re-written network stack, and the new bluetooth stack, and the new way it deals with memory, and all the packets it lobs out onto the network. I'm aware what a strain this can put on some slower or already overloaded networks. I'm also aware of the new features in AD, group policy etc (especially when paired with 2008. I'm bored of typing this bit.. suffice to say, I'm maybe one of 3 or 4 people on this site who actually know a fair bit on this subject.

Oh, and actually, for a business environment it offers a lot more than for the home. If anything Vista mainly sufferers from being too focused on the business environment.

As someone has said, it is based off, which is not the same thing by a long shot. We all know about the joys of not having root access. I also find it to be one of those OS's that has one way of letting you do something and thats it. I find it far too restrictive. I mean hell, look at the system preferences, then compare that to Vista's control panel. The difference is quite staggering. If you want another example, just compare finder to explorer. Explorer is streets ahead in terms of features and different ways of achieving the same task.

Nope, not new to OSX, had my laptop for just over 2 years now and a year before that i did an introductory train course in it and then a training course on setting up OSX based networks as well as getting them to speak to Windows machines and networks.

So in short, this is not the blind complains of a Windows Fanboy, this is the comments of someone who is fed up of everyone going on about how great some "OK" products are.

-------
Anyone who isn't confused really doesn't understand the situation
http://craigk.org/pictures/
Can you work out the code?

Just because you can throw around terms such as group policy, exchange server and windows 2003 server - doesn't mean you know how to use them.

They're completely different subject matters that can, and should, be discussed somewhere else. We're talking about Vista compared to OS X, at the root of it - aren't we?

See, I guess you can look at it multiple ways. OS X seems more restrictive, when comparing the System Prefs and its panels to the Vista Control Panel. Sure, there's more shit in Vista...BUT - OS X makes it easier to use. Not only is is backed by the Unix BSD but it's completely user friendly.  

Look at Explorer versus the Finder. Do it, please. What are you getting at? The Finder has built in CD/DVD burning support, as does Explorer. It has built in archiving support, so does Vista. It has Automator, which - if used correctly - can perform tasks in one click, that can take 5-10 clicks in Vista. Again, it all comes down to being easier and more simple to use. Not more simple of an OS and what it CAN do, but simpler to use.

I admit, I don't have a lot of Vista experience but I've got a lot of knowledge on the subject and I'd say that it's completely useless for a business application.

As you said yourself, there are different network stacks - this involves time spent and money spent to train your IT team on these changes that have been the SAME for the last, what, 3 generations of Windows (XP Pro, 2000 and 98SE)?

Edit: Another note on the network thing with Vista - Look at Server 2003 and Server 2008. They're both based off the XP/NT engine. NOT Vista. I wonder why? Answer me that, and I'll give you a cookie.

What I'm getting at is not how Vista or OS X is better than the other, but how speaking by specs, OS X will own Vista. Not even just OS X, XP Pro owns Vista.

Vista is NOT fit for market and never was. Who comes out with 37 versions of an operating system? I thought XP Pro and Home was stupid, then they threw in Media Center Edition. Multiple versions of an OS are simply not needed. Hence why OS X is a good example - it's ONE OS that you add or remove features as you see fit.

As far as the root user is concerned - this is for idiots who read how to do something in CLI from macosxhints.com don't fuck up their computer with some command. You have to do one thing, which takes a total of 2 minutes, to enable root. Then you're done. Are you REALLY complaining about this?

And, an iPod is, in fact, able to be recognized as a MSD. Any iPod I've ever plugged into a computer (Mac or PC) out of the box shows up as a MSD.

Forgot to mention, you were speaking about Vista slowing down networks. This is the one thing people try to AVOID when building and maintaining a network. You wrote as if you were able to just write it off like it was no big deal. Maybe on a Cat-6 network but surely not on a Cat-5 network. A Cat-5 network would be so overloaded with bullshit packets that the network would crash or a router would malfunction. Use your head, Vista isn't only too much for the average home user, it's too much for everything.

XP Pro is dominant in the business environment these days and will remain that way until Windows 7 comes out. Who knows, W7 might not even be the answer and Microsoft will realize its mistake with discontinuing XP.

Post edited at 4:22 pm on July 23, 2008 by JeremyM

-------
smd

"I can stop peeing I gots skillzthatkillz"

---

Well...aren't we the smarty pants?

Just because you can throw around terms such as group policy, exchange server and windows 2003 server - doesn't mean you know how to use them.

They're completely different subject matters that can, and should, be discussed somewhere else. We're talking about Vista compared to OS X, at the root of it - aren't we?

---

Yes, thats what we are talking about, but as i was explaining, one of the core things about Vista is that they have built in a lot more support for larger networks. We are talking about enterprise level here, hence the huge changes to the way the OS uses the network are important, as are things like the changes to group policy

---

See, I guess you can look at it multiple ways. OS X seems more restrictive, when comparing the System Prefs and its panels to the Vista Control Panel. Sure, there's more shit in Vista...BUT - OS X makes it easier to use. Not only is is backed by the Unix BSD but it's completely user friendly.

---

to say something is completely user friendly is a qualitative statement and as such is no use here. I find Vista easier to use, you find OSX simpler. There is no right or wrong here. And as you admit, there is more in Vista. So if i think it's easier to use doesnt that make me much better off on Vista, not only is it easier to use, but i have more to work with.

---

Look at Explorer versus the Finder. Do it, please. What are you getting at? The Finder has built in CD/DVD burning support, as does Explorer. It has built in archiving support, so does Vista. It has Automator, which - if used correctly - can perform tasks in one click, that can take 5-10 clicks in Vista. Again, it all comes down to being easier and more simple to use. Not more simple of an OS and what it CAN do, but simpler to use.

---

Here i was actually talking more about a finder and explorer window. If you look at the options and where you can go and the tasks you can perform from each you will see that Vista is streets ahead. And again, i believe Vista to be much simpler to use. There are a lot of buttons i find all over OSX (iTunes is the worst) where i don't know what they do from their icon, so i hover over them and they don't tell me so i actually have to click on them to find out, and then remember for next time. I don't call this usable. As for Automator, well, yes, it is simpler, although to be honest, i hardly use this trick in either OS. I can't think of that many tasks i want to automate.

---

I admit, I don't have a lot of Vista experience but I've got a lot of knowledge on the subject and I'd say that it's completely useless for a business application.

---

Based on what? You admit you havent used it much, and your willing to pass judgement on it. Please do tell me how you came to this conclusion

---

As you said yourself, there are different network stacks - this involves time spent and money spent to train your IT team on these changes that have been the SAME for the last, what, 3 generations of Windows (XP Pro, 2000 and 98SE)?

Edit: Another note on the network thing with Vista - Look at Server 2003 and Server 2008. They're both based off the XP/NT engine. NOT Vista. I wonder why? Answer me that, and I'll give you a cookie.

---

Umm, i said network stack, there is nothing really here to train your IT staff with. This is about how the machine interacts with the network at a packet level. And no, it hasn't been the same for the last 3 generations, its been completely different for all 3.

Oh, and yes, about my cookie... I will agree server 2003 is not based on Vistas, after all, it wasnt around then, so i can let it off on that one, but server 2008 is...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Windows_Server_2008#Features

"Windows Server 2008 is built from the same code base as Windows Vista"

---

What I'm getting at is not how Vista or OS X is better than the other, but how speaking by specs, OS X will own Vista. Not even just OS X, XP Pro owns Vista.

---

I assume what your trying to get to is Vista has a higher set of system requirements. Not going to argue that, it does. However, it uses those to give it better performance to be honest, this machine is just fine and im pretty picky about my machine running nice and fast.

---

Vista is NOT fit for market and never was. Who comes out with 37 versions of an operating system? I thought XP Pro and Home was stupid, then they threw in Media Center Edition. Multiple versions of an OS are simply not needed. Hence why OS X is a good example - it's ONE OS that you add or remove features as you see fit.

---

The versions really aren't that complicated, for starters, two of them don't count for home users as they are for businesses. So that leaves you basic, premium and ultimate. And given most people buy their PC's pre-built with an OS on it, this is again a bit of a non-issue. I'm sure people will get over this at some point.

---

As far as the root user is concerned - this is for idiots who read how to do something in CLI from macosxhints.com don't fuck up their computer with some command. You have to do one thing, which takes a total of 2 minutes, to enable root. Then you're done. Are you REALLY complaining about this?

---

It's more another example of the OS being locked down to stop you doing any damage to it, and at the same time, limiting the power of it and the ability to change it to suit your own needs.

---

And, an iPod is, in fact, able to be recognized as a MSD. Any iPod I've ever plugged into a computer (Mac or PC) out of the box shows up as a MSD.

---

I will admit i didnt word my point here very well. Yes, i know it comes up as a mass storage device (if you enable it on the device i believe). However, if you then just write files to it like any other device on the market, it wont read them. It needs library files on the device to be updated etc. Hence to use an iPod you either need to use iTunes or install a plug-in or use a third party bit of software to do this. Everything else just gets opened up and you drop the files in. Ooooo, except my Mac which refused to open up my mp3 player (which is a MSD) because it has a card reader built in and Apple seem to have forgotten to fully implement the multi-device standard for this... Everyone else manages this, even BSD... clearly being built on it isnt everything...

---

Forgot to mention, you were speaking about Vista slowing down networks. This is the one thing people try to AVOID when building and maintaining a network. You wrote as if you were able to just write it off like it was no big deal. Maybe on a Cat-6 network but surely not on a Cat-5 network. A Cat-5 network would be so overloaded with bullshit packets that the network would crash or a router would malfunction. Use your head, Vista isn't only too much for the average home user, it's too much for everything.

---

OK, firstly, the slow down isnt that bad... calm down, you make it sound like its doubled or something. its like 2% more or something. Secondly, almost no-one is on Cat5, they are all on Cat5e, which if you want to get picky and look at the standard (and yes, i have, i was installing a new network only last week and thought i would double check a few things) it is perfectly capable of run up as high as gigabit. Oh, and there is no way to crash anything semi decent when it comes to networking kit. If the device is rated upto MB or GB then i expect it running at 100% capacity to do bugger all to it, otherwise if it does crash i would be expecting my money back.

---

XP Pro is dominant in the business environment these days and will remain that way until Windows 7 comes out. Who knows, W7 might not even be the answer and Microsoft will realize its mistake with discontinuing XP.

---

It is indeed, in the same way it took years to roll out XP when it came out. The only reason for this is there is a lot of legacy going on (think how many scanners and printers XP killed) and businesses need time to assemble their builds and test them. That is all.

-------
Anyone who isn't confused really doesn't understand the situation
http://craigk.org/pictures/
Can you work out the code?

The only "facts" you showed me is that Server 2008 is built on Vista. And those "facts" came from wikipedia...come on, now.  

Secondly, everything you stated was purely based on opinion, like you said about the fanboy thing. So, obviously we can sit here for years discussing this, but it all comes down to opinion.

Cat 5e does NOT and will NOT handle a gigabit. You go do some more research on that, it's 100 base-t. Simple. If Cat 5e went up to a gigabit, why would "they" have invented Cat 6? Cat 6 is meant for 1000 base-t/gigabit networks. The only advantage of Cat 6 is that of its speed due to less noise levels on the conductors. Sure, Cat 5e "claims" 1000 base-t, but due to proper wiring of a building, you'll probably get some heavy noise on that cable and therefore, it will greatly reduce speeds.

In labs, sure they can achieve 1000 base-t. That's with the "perfect" network setup. I'm talking real-world here. We, my company, never pulls Cat 5e for LAN. We only do Cat 6. Why? Like I said, the noise. You'd be suprised as to how much a data cable is prone to outside noise, especially ethernet.

Here's specs for you, too:
Cat 5: 100 mhz; 10/100 base-t
Cat 5e: 100mhz; 10/100/"1000" base-t
Cat 6: 250mhz; 10/100/1000 base-t  

As you were talking about the control panel versus OS X's System Prefs panes, that is all opinion. There is no PROVEN fact that one or the other is easier to use. I use Windows on a daily basis - so don't think I'm a Windows hater. Everyone hates Windows in their own little ways. Everyone.

My main point though, was that Vista was just brought to market quite too soon. There was not nearly enough preparation for the OS.

As you mentioned about people buying their computers prebuilt with a preinstalled image of Vista, this is the problem. Vista SUCKS on the hardware that it's installed on usually. Come on, 512MB of ram, even a gig of ram...for an OS that clearly requires much more than that? You've got to admit, Vista is ruined by its need to consume so much system resource. It's a huge turnoff.

I went from Windows 2000 Pro to Windows XP Pro without a hitch. Sure I threw in another gig or ram or whatever down the road, but it was pretty much simple and didn't require a huge hardware jump. XP to Vista requires at least a solid 2 (at the VERY least) gigs of ram. Period. Also, try running it on a P4 - which a lot of people still have. You'll want to shoot yourself. C2D's and up are what you need.  

The bottom line is this: functionality is all based on opinion, to an extent. Nothing we've discussed really differs factually. It's all opinion. Vista requires much more system resource than its older brothers. OS 9 to OS X doesn't and didn't require nearly the hardware jump that XP to Vista did.

You claim Explorer is "streets ahead" of the Finder. That's, again, opinion. What, exactly, is better about Explorer? Name some features of the Explorer window versus the Finder window. I'd really like to know what you use that is so much more powerful than an OS X Finder window.

I await your reply and I appreciate the civility of this conversation. Been a while since I've had the almighty debate of OS' in a civil manor.

Post edited at 6:14 am on July 24, 2008 by JeremyM

-------
smd

"I can stop peeing I gots skillzthatkillz"