|
#25
November 5th, 2005, 06:28 AM
| ||||
| ||||
|
Not having a large amount of experience with browsing the net with Windows other than my office XP box, I can say, the experience is much better on my Mac. Perhaps on a tweak out PC, it may be faster. Overall a few seconds of performance verses enjoying web browsing keeps me happy with Safari.
 |
|
#26
November 11th, 2005, 05:44 PM
| ||||
| ||||
|
Surfing the web on a Mac is a lot more enjoyable for me — unless the site contains Flash or Java, which makes it suck. Still, at least I can surf the web without having adware and other crap unknowingly thrown into my browser cache folders. I think Safari needs some work, and I can see it getting a lot better in the future (so long as the metal goes).
__________________ 15" MacBook Pro: 2.33GHz Core 2 Duo / 2GB RAM / 120GB / Superdrive / Mac OS 10.5 9A581 Leopard |
|
#27
November 11th, 2005, 08:32 PM
| |||
| |||
|
How are you all comparing these Web Surfing, how fast of a connection are you running? IE runs great and fast on windows cause its not blocking anything, if u have it right outta the box with no upgrades or popup blockers on, it runs smooth...But ive never tried the mac one. Ill be gettin my mac when i get back from this military deployment.... But ther is a way, to change in IE's prefs to Load Page after all pictures are downloaded, or to load them one by one. for any connection i do the Load page after eveyhings downloaded...somehow pops up faster. Just my $.02 Ill compare my new ibook 1.33ghz to my 2.0ghz celeron in a few weeks when i get home. Ill record it and post it.
__________________ iPhone 3G 8GB Apple iPOD mini 4gb Apple iPOD nano 2gb MACBOOK 1.83ghz, 2gb ram, 320gb hdd Mac Mini G4, 1.42ghz 80gb, AP/BT (SOLD) |
|
#28
November 11th, 2005, 09:32 PM
| ||||
| ||||
|
IE on Windows (without taking into account the security issues with it) is definitely much faster and improved compared to IE on the Mac. I find it a chore to browse using IE on the Mac. Then again, I find it a chore to use IE at all since it doesn't support a lot of the stuff all the other "alternative" browsers already do. But the best way to find out what's best for you is to try it out yourself. Just a note: if you think you'll get the same benefits from the Mac IE that you had on the Windows IE, you'll be sorely disappointed. It's basically treated by those IE-only sites as the unwanted child (yeah, it's a hard analogy especially since I'm a parent myself, but it's the truth in this respect).
__________________ • Apple iMac G5 17" (2 GHz G5) - Mac OS X 10.4.11/Ubuntu 9.10 • Asus Eee PC 901 (1.6 GHz Atom N270) - Ubuntu Netbook Remix 9.04 • Apple Macintosh Quadra 650 (33 MHz MC68040) - Mac OS 8.1 • "JHVH-1" (2 GHz AMD Athlon XP 2400+) - Slackware 13 • "Kidbuntu" (2.8 GHz Celeron D 335) - Ubuntu 9.04 |
|
#30
November 15th, 2005, 09:11 PM
| ||||
| ||||
| Quote:
That's assuming the 95% is using XP, which they aren't. That 95% also includes much older versions of Windfows including NT4 and older, as well as Windows 95 and earlier. What good are those?  I guess we'll see what happens once the Intel Macs are out. It's only a matter of time, I guess.
__________________ • Apple iMac G5 17" (2 GHz G5) - Mac OS X 10.4.11/Ubuntu 9.10 • Asus Eee PC 901 (1.6 GHz Atom N270) - Ubuntu Netbook Remix 9.04 • Apple Macintosh Quadra 650 (33 MHz MC68040) - Mac OS 8.1 • "JHVH-1" (2 GHz AMD Athlon XP 2400+) - Slackware 13 • "Kidbuntu" (2.8 GHz Celeron D 335) - Ubuntu 9.04 |
|
#31
November 15th, 2005, 09:15 PM
| |||
| |||
| Quote:
Looking at this from a strictly business point of view-I believe-mac missed it shot-I firmly believed if apple took a similiar road like MS did (they owned the business comp market and in turn raised enough money to rule the desktop market too) we would be talking about how MS has 5% marketshare and apple is the big bad giant. overly simple but it drives the point home. Intel is a good shot at gaining marketshare though. Since macs will-finally-be cheap Even a mac fan has to admit where his favorite company might have gone wrong in the past. |
|
#32
November 15th, 2005, 09:35 PM
| ||||
| ||||
| Quote:
Remember they are a computer company like many others, and many others like Apple have had their fair share of bad decisions and bad hardware/software. And for the record, Apple DID try to do what MS did, but without being sleazy as MS had been in gaining that 95% market share (the killing off of DR-DOS and other tactics to make MSDOS and Windows take the market). Remember that Apple did decide to license out the Mac OS to clone makers in the mid-90s, and it was great for consumers in the short term. However, from a business standpoint the clone makers were cannibalizing Apple's sales. Had that kept on going, Apple would be history now. As much as people think Apple should be a software compabny like MS, it is inevitably a hardware company. Of course, now that might change since their main focus now is the iPod and now they are switching CPUs. Another thing about the Mac clone makers was that while their systems might have been cheaper, not all of them were very stable. Some Power Computing Mac clones and other Mac clones had huge stability problems that in a way was good for Apple since people knew that Apple's Macs were from Apple and would work without the instabilities of the clones. So as much as I hate to say it (because I did love the clones), Steve's killing of the clones was good for Apple, and it definitely shows now. And now with a robust system like Mac OS X, a lot of businesses are considering the Mac for teh corporate space. Here's some proof from not too long ago... http://www.macworld.com/news/2005/07/21/osx/index.php
__________________ • Apple iMac G5 17" (2 GHz G5) - Mac OS X 10.4.11/Ubuntu 9.10 • Asus Eee PC 901 (1.6 GHz Atom N270) - Ubuntu Netbook Remix 9.04 • Apple Macintosh Quadra 650 (33 MHz MC68040) - Mac OS 8.1 • "JHVH-1" (2 GHz AMD Athlon XP 2400+) - Slackware 13 • "Kidbuntu" (2.8 GHz Celeron D 335) - Ubuntu 9.04 |
 |
| Bookmarks |
| Thread Tools | |
|
|
All times are GMT -5. The time now is 11:39 PM.
