MS Vista or XP

[Rakesh Malik]

I have had issues with updates spoiling some of my software and even hardware setups. But to that effect, I have noticed two things. First, I use some speciality software that is not always in the mainstream. Takes longer for the small companies to catch up.

They also seem to screw around and break the rules more often... Maxis is a case in point.

Secondly, and maybe it is just me and my natural sense of paranoia coupled with unrestricted conspiracy theroy syndrome, but it seems to me that any software product I use that has a direct MS compeditor

I've never had any problems with OpenOffice, which is the only MS competitor that I use. I don't use Office myself, and the only other MS software I have is development tools and games.

I see linux as the future for me.

I keep hoping, and although it's not there yet, it is getting closer... especially with the maturation of Mono.

[Rakesh Malik]

Yes, I would agree with that. But when users start delaying system updates to avoid all the problems those updates may cause to the point that they compromise security, I would say there's a really BIG problem with the OS itself or with its manufacturer. Or both.

So you'd blame user stupidity on the OS vendor just because the OS vendor happens to be MS?

Now, on the XP box, the downloads started being increasingly more frequent, more random and more time-consuming until the Genuine Notification came along. Then it became so slow, that I would start the computer up first in the morning and then went about my usual morning routines so I don't waste time waiting for GN to scan through everything.

I find that amusing, because I have yet to have such an experience. I've had the occassional overnight reboot, but when it installs a patch that requires a reboot while I'm on the machine, I get a dialog with a countdown before it reboots. Most of the updates don't require reboots.

This is actually one of the real strengths of OSX, as it will let you run whatever hardware you have as long as you find it fit. This significantly prolongs the useful life of equipment and stretches out the upgrade cycle.

That's also pretty funny, because of the number of complaints there were about how slow OSX was on the older macs

They don't really. Equally equipped PC will come up in the same ballpark as a Mac, provided that you use the same components. Real savings on a PC come from either omitting some options such as FireWire or BlueTooth and such that average users rarely use altogether or from using cheaper (read: lower quality) components instead.

That's the theory... but it didn't pan out in practice.

But in a serious corporate environment, the price of hardware is just one part of the overall cost of the system and a relatively minor part at that. The biggest portion of overall cost is software and support. The reason why most IT departments consider Macs more expensive is that most if not all of them hold some Microsoft certification or the other and in order to properly support a Mac they need to hire a separate person. And in really serious corporations that can't afford to have any downtime, it means at least two people for redundancy.

And Apple isn't even remotely prepared to handle corporate support, which makes things much worse for the IT staff.

OSX is basically a BSD UNIX with NeXT STEP kernel and modified NeXT GUI.

I know. But if if you're familiar with Linux, it's a very easy transition, and the OS is still pretty nice, in spite of some design decisions which violate Apple's own UI design guidelines. I much prefer the OSX command line partly because of its similarity to Linux over the WinXP command line. But then, I like Bash.

[Michael Graves]

So you'd blame user stupidity on the OS vendor just because the OS vendor happens to be MS?

Delaying an update because your engineers are testing it for flaws hardly constitutes stupidity. On the contrary, it is the one sign of intelligence I see from IT departments that idolize Microsoft. Anyone who went through Service Pack 1 for XP knows what I'm talking about.

And Apple isn't even remotely prepared to handle corporate support, which makes things much worse for the IT staff.

On the contrary. I have to deal with Apple and Microsoft support on a regular basis. Apple is faster, more responsive, FAR less rude and gets the solution right on the first try much more often than Microsoft. And, maybe it's because of where I work, but I've never had them ask for proof of ownership.

[Marko]

Yes, I would agree with that. But when users start delaying system updates to avoid all the problems those updates may cause to the point that they compromise security, I would say there's a really BIG problem with the OS itself or with its manufacturer. Or both.

So you'd blame user stupidity on the OS vendor just because the OS vendor happens to be MS?

I really don't care who the vendor is, as long as the system it sells lets me do my work efficiently and does not stand in my way. After all, I was a pretty happy PC user since before Windows first came out, Microsoft didn't bother me, at least not much, until using their OS became too tedious.

No, what I am saying is that normal human reaction to tedium will be either procrastination and/or avoidance. It may be part of the job description to IT professionals, but it certainly isn't for the average Joe. Therefore, OS vendor should do its best to make their OS as transparent, easy to use and safe at the same time as possible.

Microsoft is, in my opinion and apparently that of many others, increasingly failing on those criteria with each new, supposedly "more robust and safe" version of Windows it brings to market. It is this failure invites that natural human reaction I mentioned. Or to be fair, it is failing on those points much more than other OS vendors do.

Apple, on the other hand, increasingly delivers on those very points with each new version of the OSX it brings to market while making it even easier and more fun to use. And I am not saying that because I am tied to Apple in any way - I am not.

I have stopped using Windows for anything important and I have switched over to Mac precisely because of the differences I mentioned (OK, I like Apple's design too, but that was secondary). I am very well aware that those differences may indeed be more perceptual than real, but the onus is still on vendors to make or break that perception.

This is actually one of the real strengths of OSX, as it will let you run whatever hardware you have as long as you find it fit. This significantly prolongs the useful life of equipment and stretches out the upgrade cycle.

That's also pretty funny, because of the number of complaints there were about how slow OSX was on the older macs

I didn't say running the latest version of OSX on a 1999 G3 was fast, I said it was possible. Try running Vista on a 1999 Pentium III 500 MHz with a 128 MB of RAM. Hell, forget Vista, try running XP on that box...

And Apple isn't even remotely prepared to handle corporate support, which makes things much worse for the IT staff.

I've been working in some sort of publishing and/or media most of my working life and therefore in a mixed PC/Mac environment by definition, and I have never seen anything that would substantiate this statement. But then again, we've always had well qualified IT personnel in-house.

My point was that most IT people who make statements like this are Microsoft-certified and usually less than current on Macs. It is only natural that Mac would be a bigger problem for them because of that bias.

But my general point was that, at least in my experience Macs require less support and provide more stability and durability. I see most of that difference as due to the operating system and less to the hardware differences, but it sufficiently pronounced that it makes sense paying more for the hardware, because the combination will last longer and cost less in the long run than the alternative.

Even now that I am on my own and out of the corporate world, this notion still holds true. Actually, make that read: especially now.

I know. But if if you're familiar with Linux, it's a very easy transition, and the OS is still pretty nice, in spite of some design decisions which violate Apple's own UI design guidelines. I much prefer the OSX command line partly because of its similarity to Linux over the WinXP command line. But then, I like Bash.

We can argue the hardware and software ad nauseam, but when it comes to personal preferences and tastes, each of us is absolutely right, there is no discussion there.

[Dave Parker]

Actually as I remember it, this thread was asking questions about "Vista" or "XP" Mac or Linux was never part of the question, if you are choosing between Vista or XP, then go XP, more stable and more support at this time, let the Apple vs. Windows crowd go on with their my is better than yours! if these are the two systems to choose from, then XP is the winner at this point in time.

Dave

[Marko]

Actually as I remember it, this thread was asking questions about "Vista" or "XP" Mac or Linux was never part of the question, if you are choosing between Vista or XP, then go XP, more stable and more support at this time, let the Apple vs. Windows crowd go on with their my is better than yours! if these are the two systems to choose from, then XP is the winner at this point in time.

Dave

I agree, Dave, XP feels better than Vista at this point. However, thread originator also said this:

Any other suggestions for a photo based computer would be a big help

To which several of us responded by recommending Macs as the photo-oriented computer, not just because we consider the OSX better and more stable, but primarily for its RAM management and drivers. Which makes me realize that nobody has yet mentioned better Color management as well.

Once that conversation gets going, what follows is usually predictable.

[Dave Parker]

Once that conversation gets going, what follows is usually predictable.

Marko,

Not only predictable, but obligatory!!

LOL

Dave

[Rakesh Malik]

Delaying an update because your engineers are testing it for flaws hardly constitutes stupidity. On the contrary, it is the one sign of intelligence I see from IT departments that idolize Microsoft. Anyone who went through Service Pack 1 for XP knows what I'm talking about.

I went through it... it was among the most painless updates I've ever had to deal with from MS. From my experience, XP was a HUGE improvement over previous MS products. Then again, I also switched on the automatic updates, so it rarely interfered with my work, since it downloaded the updates in the background, and has lately require fewer updates than win2K and earlier OS versions did.

On the contrary. I have to deal with Apple and Microsoft support on a regular basis. Apple is faster, more responsive, FAR less rude and gets the solution right on the first try much more often than Microsoft. And, maybe it's because of where I work, but I've never had them ask for proof of ownership.

That's also funny, based on the number of times I read/hear about people having exactly the opposite experience. It just goes to show that there's no such thing as a perfect computer, and based on people's feedback, Apple's customer service is either the absolute best or the absolute worst in the industry, depending on who you talk to, so there's no perfect computer company, either.

[Rakesh Malik]

I really don't care who the vendor is, as long as the system it sells lets me do my work efficiently and does not stand in my way.

That sums up my experience with XP. I hated MS' products before that, because they were such a pain in the a$$.

No, what I am saying is that normal human reaction to tedium will be either procrastination and/or avoidance. It may be part of the job description to IT professionals, but it certainly isn't for the average Joe. Therefore, OS vendor should do its best to make their OS as transparent, easy to use and safe at the same time as possible.

Right....

Microsoft is, in my opinion and apparently that of many others, increasingly failing on those criteria with each new, supposedly "more robust and safe" version of Windows it brings to market. It is this failure invites that natural human reaction I mentioned. Or to be fair, it is failing on those points much more than other OS vendors do.

You're in the minority.

Apple, on the other hand, increasingly delivers on those very points with each new version of the OSX it brings to market while making it even easier and more fun to use. And I am not saying that because I am tied to Apple in any way - I am not.

Apple succeeded in delivering on most of those by staying small. Their "robust and safe" claims are predicated largely on not having a large enough presence to be a target for malware and hackers.

I am very well aware that those differences may indeed be more perceptual than real, but the onus is still on vendors to make or break that perception.

The design part is purely a matter of opinion (that I happen to agree with), but I also agree about that last part, particularly since it's clearly a perceptual, as the reality is so obviously the opposite.

I didn't say running the latest version of OSX on a 1999 G3 was fast, I said it was possible. Try running Vista on a 1999 Pentium III 500 MHz with a 128 MB of RAM. Hell, forget Vista, try running XP on that box...

I wouldn't even know where to FIND a machine that old and slow

My point was that most IT people who make statements like this are Microsoft-certified and usually less than current on Macs. It is only natural that Mac would be a bigger problem for them because of that bias.

I've heard that claim often myself. I haven't found any evidence to back it up, and quite a bit to refute it so far, particularly after working with several mac-savvy folks who themselves pointed out Apple's problems with corporate support...

But my general point was that, at least in my experience Macs require less support and provide more stability and durability. I see most of that difference as due to the operating system and less to the hardware differences, but it sufficiently pronounced that it makes sense paying more for the hardware, because the combination will last longer and cost less in the long run than the alternative.

It lasts longer because it takes longer for Apple to update it

We can argue the hardware and software ad nauseam, but when it comes to personal preferences and tastes, each of us is absolutely right, there is no discussion there.

True... but the main reason that I won't ever switch to macs is that I have software that I can't transfer. I might, however, ADD a mac to my setup eventually, because I do like the OS. And since they don't bother trying to market to corporate markets, their Xeon machines cost a lot less than Dell's. If you're going to buy 40 of them, getting a Dell makes sense for the support (Dell wouldn't be MY first choice, but most companies get special deals from them), Apple's support is fine for just one or two.

[Marko]

You know, I'm happy that you're happy with what you have. I'm even happier that I don't have to have that too...

But that's beside the point here, I'm afraid. We seem to differ so much that there's not much point keeping up with this. And besides, we've already gone way OT here anyway, so let's call it a day.