switcher@winaddict.com

Originally posted by designer
I didn't switch to PC but I use PC at work.

I tell you what everybody wants to compare PC and Mac.

Why don't we compare btw 3 yrs old PC and Mac. I know Mac will beat PC in 3 sec. Why, because PC will crash and freeze at least 5 times a day.

Don't agree since you have new PC then wait. You will see what I mean.

Since the advent of win2k and XP things have gotten quite a bit better on the PC side. If you have that many freezes per day on a modern computer you have some sort of a hardware conflict you really need to take care of. The last XP box I built did have serious problems. But I soon found that was due to motherboard components and a video card issue.

That said OS 9 and below wasn't quite as crash free as one would want. OS X, on the other hand, is one of the most stable OS's I've used.
 
to reply to the win2k coments posted by winaddict:

ask any profesional pc user what operation system they use what will they say.... if they know what they are doing they will say win2k. xp is nice and all but... its so intrusive with its registration methods and from what ive been told from many hard core pc users win2k was the definate way to go.

secondly i use a power mac tower.

not the devil of all computer known as the imac.
the logic of every having a computer that is not upgradable is far beyond me.

right now i could get a dual ghz g4 upgrade i could put 1.5 gigs of ram or i could add ... 10 more hard drives or so... it has BUILD IN FIREWIRE.
 
i'm not going to argue with you about win2k. plenty of people will go back even further and insist on using NT for stability. their choice. however, plenty of people use and trust XP, millions in fact, and it's not fair for you to compare win2k to macosx because you chose to limit yourself that way. if you want to compare go ahead.

i agree with you on the closed boxes. i had a newer subsystem and faster memory, etc. my machine is three years old, and i hope i can make it last a while longer before i get a new one. as for firewire, the pc audience is more diverse and less artistically concentrated. pc makers will leave it out to save a few bucks in a very competitive market. as devices using firewire saturate the market, we'll see firewire BUILT into PCs. anyway, are you a sissy? what's wrong going down to Best Buy finding a firewire card and installing it? i installed a USB 2.0 card recently. piece of cake. did i wish it had USB 2.0 BUILT IN? you bet. i'm not buying a whole new machine or moving to the mac just to get firewire.

Rhino, yeah, your points are well taken. i've bombed my share of pre-MacOSXs and i'm not pointing out those cases. i wouldn't kick OSX out of bed. that said, XP with SP1 rocks.
 
Hey Minger!

I remember good ole' WinAddict.com! I remember a few of us signed up over at winaddict.com a few months ago. We posted more [Mac biased] content in the forums and had more members than true "Windows Addicts"! :D :D

Dude, you're the only person in the world addicted to Windows.
 
Originally posted by WinAddict

i wouldn't kick OSX out of bed. that said, XP with SP1 rocks.

Yea, I must admit. I have had serious thoughts of installing XP just to play around with it. Microsoft did do quite a bit more right in XP than ever before... even if they did steal the smooth, colorful interface from the mac :D
 
MDLarson, good to see you again. i was too busy to take good care of the previous site. I hope the forums model proves more welcoming.

Rhino, don't make me bring up the Xerox Parc. ;-)

If you do install XP, try to do a clean install if at all possible. If you have driver problems or some other hidden conflict, the upgrade could toast you.
 
Originally posted by WinAddict
If you switched from the Mac to the PC, please email or share your story in our forums. When did you switch? What MacOS and hardware were you using before, and what are you using now? What made you change, and how do you like the new experience?

Sorry about you luck...er is there another word to describe the "backwards" switch.....

ytidiputs
 
Originally posted by WinAddict
dude, you wanna compare MacOSX to Windows 2000?! that's like comparing compare Windows XP to MacOS 7.

why don't you upgrade your dad's computer to XP with Service Pack 1 and come back and report the results. or put linux on it or something, but don't gripe about an operating system that's two generations old.

and slap in a firewire card. if i needed one i'd slap one into my frankenbox tomorrow. my three year old dell frankenbox will have a longer useful life then your closed iMac.

I concur with the others, he was comparing the actual computers, not just the OS on each.

Two generations old? Try 1. Besides, common knowledge knows (and I'm being nice here) that 2000 Professional is the only OS Microsoft has produced that is stable. I'd take 2000 over XP any day.

XP is a royal pain unless you have top of the line computer with exactly the right combination of components running it. 2000 Professional is stable (for the most part), but slow. ME is the most unstable version of Windows ever, and the rest don't deserve me wasting my time to complain about. Suck basically describes them.

Since this thread is about Mac OS rumors & discussion, I say it is out of topic an should get closed. Go cry about your shortcomings somewhere else.
 
Troll that is... Hi, there WincrashAdicct!

Compare Win2k vs X? Let's do it!

X is better than any Wincrash out there... Let's do yourself a favor and give you an advantage:
We will compare X versus Win2004-5...

X is better... Why? It's simple: it runs ONLY on Macs!

We DO NOT want any Wintel stuff out there... So, you see X kicks even Win2004-5 behind too!

Now, bite the dust that X leaves in front of your ANY Wintel config you possible know or will know and log out of this Mac News & Rumors forum and if you feel like staying here (I know that Macs rule so it's logical for you feeling envy about Macs and X --so I know that you will hang around) go to Opinions side of www.macosx.com and leave the Mac News & Rumors out of your Mac & X-lust that you AND all Wintel users have, out of here...

See Ya around,
WincrashAddict...
 
Originally posted by designer
I didn't switch to PC but I use PC at work.

I tell you what everybody wants to compare PC and Mac.

Why don't we compare btw 3 yrs old PC and Mac. I know Mac will beat PC in 3 sec. Why, because PC will crash and freeze at least 5 times a day.

Don't agree since you have new PC then wait. You will see what I mean.

I agree totally, I'm stuck using PCs at work and have nothing but problems. But, my little 5 year old 300mhz G3 runs OS X jut fine, esp. when compared to the PIII's on 98 & ME, the 1.6 P4 on me, and the 1.4 P4 on XP. My dad's 1.6 P4 runs XP and is SLOW. IE6 takes forever to load, and it was one of the top of the line Dells last x-mass when her bought it. Couldn't even make it 2 years, not to mention it only was snappy for the first 2-3 months. That's sad.
 
Originally posted by WinAddict
If you do install XP, try to do a clean install if at all possible. If you have driver problems or some other hidden conflict, the upgrade could toast you.

Wasn't 98 supposed to be plug and play? But even today, 4 years and 2-3 generations of systems after win98, this feature still screws up.

Everybody join me in giving MicroSUCK engineers and developers a big round of applause for their continued improvement in creating inferior products which STILL don't work correctly. (Isn't that the defination of junk?) <applause or boos, you choose>

Does it surprise us? NOT AT ALL!
 
::Sigh:: Another Mac vs. PC war.

WinAddict: I have used Windows 2000 Prof. on my school computers. Let me just say that it's not my bag, m'kay? I like my Mac.
 
Originally posted by Ricky
::Sigh:: Another Mac vs. PC war.

Yea... I was hoping it wasn't going to come down to that. Good natured banter is one thing but unsubstantiated claims and computer bashing is another. Sadly to say the majority of it has come from us Mac users. :(

Winaddict, I'll give you the Xerox PARC arguement but there was a difference. We had permission! :p

Also, there's no way that I could do an upgrade... I don't have a microsoft OS on any of my computers here at home. It's all based off of different flavors of unix/ linux
 
Comparing MacOS X to winXP is nothing like comparing to Mac OS 7 or 8 or whatever. It is a valid comparison because XP is basically Window 2000 in new clothers. Most companies stilll use Windows 2000. Plus I must confess I much prefer Windows 2000 to XP. Of all the version of Windows it is the most useful, partly because it is the lease obtrusive. I don't feel like I have some one behind me constantly saying. "Are you sure you want to do?", "You must do that?". Jeesh it's like having your mother and a back street driver all rolled into one! This is how it feels in 95 or XP. I don't speak of 98 or ME that was like a product down-grade compared to 95. ME was just a stability night-mare! My web-site used to crash my girl-friends ME machine.

Not a problem now as I have switched her to an iBook. She loves it. She has her disks on the desktop, she understands that. She loves that she a picture of her cat (full colour) rather than a square disk for her. She says it feels much more personal to her than her old windows box.

I use Windows, UNIX and mac when I can. I'm a free-lance Java Integration Specialist. With MACOS X it's more and more the case that I can develop and test using my Mac because of it's BSD heart. That rocks!
 
Rhino,

What's the story behind the "permission?" I haven't heard that part of the lore.

How about you tell me how to upgrade KDE from 2 to 3 on Linux... There seems to be hell of a lot of dependencies when I try to upgrade any KDE related file. It becomes a whack-a-mole problem that expands to having to upgrade 30+ files and counting.
 
jcart12, i'm not particularly interested in defending MS or slamming AAPL software.

i will say that since most mac users here trumpet the versatility and stability of OSX, presumably v10.2.2, I will do the same for XP w/ SP1. IMHO, XP+SP1 is much more stable than Win2K, and annoying problems with a sluggish IE and Explorer have been fixed.
 
Originally posted by WinAddict
dude, you wanna compare MacOSX to Windows 2000?! that's like comparing compare Windows XP to MacOS 7.
More like comparing WinXP to Mac OS X 10.1.x, rather than Jaguar. XP is basically Win2k with eye candy. They run on the same kernel, after all.
Well, I guess I shouldn't have expected you to know anything about Macs. :rolleyes:
 
Originally posted by genghiscohen
More like comparing WinXP to Mac OS X 10.1.x, rather than Jaguar. XP is basically Win2k with eye candy. They run on the same kernel, after all.
Well, I guess I shouldn't have expected you to know anything about Macs. :rolleyes:

And how does or 10.0.x or 10.1.x compare to 10.2.2? Are you still running 10.0.x or 10.1.x or did you upgrade yesterday to 10.2.2?

As quick as Mac Users are upgrade to the lastest OSX, how come you are all so eager to pick your version of Windows to compare against?

10.2.2 may have the same kernel as 10.0.x or 10.1.x but surely they ain't the same. Which version are *you* running?

Likewise, Win2K-5 is not WinXP-1. WinXP-0 is not WinXP-1. WinXP-1 surely ain't 98, ME, etc.
 
Where do you get your (mis)information? 10.2.2 is not yet released, although there are some developer seeds out there. I'm running 10.2.1, which has a different kernal from 10.1.x, which had a different kernel from 10.0.x.
I've run both Win2k and WinXP on VPC, with all the Windoze updates applied.
And you are the fool who equated Win2k with Mac OS 7, which BTW came out more than 3 years earlier.
Oh wait, I guess they are comparable, then! :p
 
Originally posted by genghiscohen
Where do you get your (mis)information? 10.2.2 is not yet released, although there are some developer seeds out there. I'm running 10.2.1, which has a different kernal from 10.1.x, which had a different kernel from 10.0.x.
I've run both Win2k and WinXP on VPC, with all the Windoze updates applied.
And you are the fool who equated Win2k with Mac OS 7, which BTW came out more than 3 years earlier.
Oh wait, I guess they are comparable, then! :p

Uh huh. So 10.2.1 and 10.1.X and 10.1.X have different kernels, yet XP and 2K have the same kernels. Ok.
 
Back
Top