# switcher@winaddict.com



## WinAddict (Oct 8, 2002)

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?


----------



## jcart12 (Oct 8, 2002)

Cheeky git


----------



## wdw_ (Oct 8, 2002)

WinAddict: You just walked into the lion's den waving a steak. Also, if sombody switched from mac to windows, what would they be doing here? This is like putting a beer commercial on Nickelodeon in the morning.


----------



## Solaris (Oct 8, 2002)

Just had a look at their site:

"Our users have posted a total of 2 articles
We have 1 registered user"

Ha Ha.


----------



## Rhino_G3 (Oct 8, 2002)

> _Originally posted by wdw_ _
> * if sombody switched from mac to windows, what would they be doing here? This is like putting a beer commercial on Nickelodeon in the morning. *



you hit the nail on the head with that one.... I switched to the mac 3 years ago and since then I think I've visited ONE windows based site for a friend with PC problems.

I guess some people just aren't inteligent enough to figure that out.


----------



## wdw_ (Oct 8, 2002)

1 memeber! hahaha! Everybody laugh with me! hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha...aha...*wipe tear from eye*...*small chuckle*.


----------



## WinAddict (Oct 8, 2002)

wdw_

Waving a steak in a den of lions is more likely to draw a meaningful result than waving a steak in a meeting of WeightWatchers or at a vegetarian potluck.  I think it's more like offering white wine at a tasting of red wines.


----------



## wdw_ (Oct 8, 2002)

Seems to me like you brought a box of wine and dixie cups while we're all drinking fine wine from nice beautiful, curvy, sexy glasses.


----------



## WinAddict (Oct 8, 2002)

wdw_

Did people laugh when you first came out of your mother's womb?

The site was started a few hours ago.  How many members do you expect when a board first gets launched?  Last time I checked, phpBB doesn't provide members in the installation process.


----------



## wdw_ (Oct 8, 2002)

Ok, ok. I do admit it's silly for me to think you would have a lot of members right out of the gate, but why do you think you're gonna find people who switched from Mac to Windows here?!


----------



## WinAddict (Oct 8, 2002)

wdw_

Have you ever been approached by a born again Christian who tried to convert you?  Since this is a bastion of Mac users, it stands to reason that there might be some born again Windows users here trying to convert you.  Those are the ones I'm trying to reach.


----------



## wdw_ (Oct 8, 2002)

So you're like Darth Vader asking us to come to the dark side of the CompUSA?


----------



## WinAddict (Oct 8, 2002)

No, I'm the Emperor looking for Darth.  The whole of CompUSA is the dark side!


----------



## Rhino_G3 (Oct 8, 2002)

> _Originally posted by WinAddict _
> *No, I'm the Emperor looking for Darth.  The whole of CompUSA is the dark side! *



huh,  that's strange. The monitor that I'm using now has an apple on it.  I think I bought it at CompUSA too


----------



## Rhino_G3 (Oct 8, 2002)

I've done windows... for some people it works.  For me it doesn't.  I've long given up on trying to argue why I like my mac, trying to convert PC users.  It doesn't pay off.  If they get tired of the windows world they will switch.  It has slowly happened to many of my friends,  both Windows and Linux users.

The windows users are looking for something new,  the linux users are looking for a fluent, unix based OS that has mainstream apps by large companies  such as Adobe and Microsoft.

After working on customers computers all day I really like comming home to something that works.  The problems that I have had on my mac have resulted in extremely short downtime.  The longest was 30 minutes.  I can't say the same for every store bought PC or PC I ever built.

I can tell you that you won't find your darth here, anybody fanatical enough to frequent a site specific to a particular OS is not likely to be switching from one to the next readily


----------



## satanicpoptart (Oct 8, 2002)

i recently switched from mac to pc... sortof half of the time (at my dads house) i use a compaq 5100 

pc stats 
1.4 ghz athlon
512 sdram
win2k
40 gig hd
cd dvd
raedon 7000

and at home i use the signature macintosh... now 

notice that the combined clock of my mac is less then the pc and my mac has a significantly lower gpu.

the pc is basicaly the bane of my existance... it runs photoshop like suyrup on a cold day.
it has no firewire ports... so no digital media editing... although i couldnt anyway because of the lack of  free products such as imovie.  

bastardly.

that is how i can put it i think... the pc c onstantly gets in my face and in my way.  all i want to do is install drivers for this feking modem! should it take an hour? should it??????!
now when i come home to my mac..... i push the power a few seconds later i have jaguar.  a few seconds later i have photoshop that runs soooo much faster, and gosh i have a firewire! and imovie! and iphoto! and itunes! ical! isync! sherlock! ect... all for free.


oh did i mention that the pc... welll...... plays games better then my mac... what a surprise


----------



## WinAddict (Oct 8, 2002)

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.


----------



## Rhino_G3 (Oct 8, 2002)

I believe the comparison was between his mac and PC experiences.  He didn't give any comparisons between the OS's themselves.

Besides, even if he did it would be no different than the majority of PC users.  The last version of Mac OS they had ever used was a 10 year old copy of 7 on a school computer vs. their brand spankin new computer with the latest MS itteration at the time.  

They say that the mac completely sucks without giving the Mac a fair comparison.


----------



## Rhino_G3 (Oct 8, 2002)

> _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.
> ...



many PC's are just as closed as the iMac... Look at the recent gateway attack on the iMac.
if you're looking for fair comparisons compare your Frankenbox to a Powermac. 

My G3 is 3 years old, alive and kicking.  the only peice that's stock anymore is the video card.  CD replaced with DVD, internal Zip added, RAM added, 2nd Vid card added, 3 hd's set up in raid, 2nd NIC added, motherboard replacement last year....  the list goes on and on.  The Mac is just as easily upgradable as your Dell

I still have PCI slots open too.


----------



## designer (Oct 8, 2002)

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.


----------



## Rhino_G3 (Oct 8, 2002)

> _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.
> ...



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.


----------



## satanicpoptart (Oct 8, 2002)

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.


----------



## WinAddict (Oct 8, 2002)

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.


----------



## MDLarson (Oct 8, 2002)

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"!   

Dude, you're the only person in the world addicted to Windows.


----------



## Rhino_G3 (Oct 9, 2002)

> _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


----------



## WinAddict (Oct 9, 2002)

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.


----------



## mdnky (Oct 9, 2002)

> _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


----------



## mdnky (Oct 9, 2002)

> _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.
> ...



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.


----------



## hulkaros (Oct 9, 2002)

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...


----------



## mdnky (Oct 9, 2002)

> _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.
> ...



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.


----------



## mdnky (Oct 9, 2002)

> _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!*


----------



## Ricky (Oct 9, 2002)

::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.


----------



## Rhino_G3 (Oct 9, 2002)

> _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! 

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


----------



## jcart12 (Oct 9, 2002)

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!


----------



## WinAddict (Oct 9, 2002)

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.


----------



## WinAddict (Oct 9, 2002)

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.


----------



## genghiscohen (Oct 9, 2002)

> _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.


----------



## WinAddict (Oct 9, 2002)

> _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.   *



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.


----------



## genghiscohen (Oct 9, 2002)

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!


----------



## WinAddict (Oct 9, 2002)

> _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!   *



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.


----------



## Rhino_G3 (Oct 9, 2002)

> _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.   *



The kernel is a major component of the OS but not the end all and be all of everything.  Remember,  We're running the same kernal as Darwin, which it partialy shares with FreeBSD.  You can't honestly say that the computing experience is the same on all the machines.

All distro's of Linux run on the same kernel (with minor versioning differences) but due to window manager and configuration differences many things are different on each.



> _Originally posted by Winaddict_
> *Rhino,
> 
> What's the story behind the "permission?" I haven't heard that part of the lore.
> ...



As far as I understand it Xerox wasn't going to actively develop the interface anymore and the top dogs opened up the doors to apple.  Much to the dismay of all the lower ranking project managers.

I used to be die hard microsoft. I have a friend that works for them and I got to try out a few releases of whistler.  The interface of the early copies were  "normal".  Once OS X Public Beta was released the next builds became candy colored with the "luna" interface.  Earlier than that MS did something similar with win95. It was pretty much a combination of System 7 and NeXt.

Of course a lot can be said about stealing small portions of an interface and making it your own.  There can only be so much innovation before you start to overlap with other OS's

As far as your KDE question, I have to say that it's an interesting upgrade for some.  I did it when 3.0 just came out.  There were upgrade instructions on KDE.org.  It went smooth for me, but many of my friends have had to end up reinstalling after completely hosing Xwin.

I'll have to check back through my documentation to find the procedure I went through.


----------



## designer (Oct 9, 2002)

Hi all,

I would like to response to Rhino_G3

You are right.

"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. "

I am using W2K at work and Mac OSX at home. I also have PPC 8500/120 - Yes it is slow and I am still using this baby.

Here is my point my 7 yrs old PPC 8500 dosen' t have any hardware problem then why 3 yers old PC has hardware problem. Yes, I didn't have chance to play with XP, I am sure that XP rocks for 3 yrs too.

I think that PC people should understand how much money they have to spend to do something with PC.


----------



## MDLarson (Oct 9, 2002)

THE ONLY "WINDOWS ADDICTS" HERE ARE TROLLS!!!
Minger, please go away and spend more money on Micro$oft.


----------



## Rhino_G3 (Oct 9, 2002)

> _Originally posted by MDLarson _
> *THE ONLY "WINDOWS ADDICTS" HERE ARE TROLLS!!!
> Minger, please go away and spend more money on Micro$oft. *



Not to sound harsh... but to each his own.  If you don't like it don't read it. 
I do like to hear the other side's opinion now and again.  Especialy if we have a common interest such as Linux.  

I assume you wouldn't be calling me a troll but I don't see too many other people going against the blatent bashing, which has no basis.

One thing I agree about... this subject does tend to bring people out of the woodwork.


----------



## kommakazi (Oct 9, 2002)

I believe Mac OS X came out in 2000. nuff said.


----------



## satanicpoptart (Oct 9, 2002)

i remember public beta... gosh.... i loved it. oh and off subject i know, but genghiscohen, for gods feking sake! fix your icon!!!!!!


----------



## Sogni (Oct 9, 2002)

With PCs, I needed to have more than one because I needed to have Linux - because I needed a decent server.
I worked in Windows because I couldn't get anything decent to run on Linux, and I ended up with 4 PCs...

Then I got my Mac and got OSX... I dont need a bunch of computers any more, and now I only turn one of the PCs on for games (the rest have been distributed to other locations I need a computer at where my only other option is not having a computer at those locations) - but damn that's an expensive "game system", so I got a Sony Playstation 2 for my games

My biggest beef with XP is that - I HAD to upgrade my Video Card (nVidia GeForce 4 Ti) because XP rendered my video card obsolete while it worked flawlessly under 2K  while I still have the same Video Card that came with my Mac working great with the newest OS  from Apple (both the PC and Mac had the same video card before I upgraded the PCs to the Ti)

Windows vs Macs?
I only have 1 thing to say: UNIX! (that works on the Desktop!)

This is my story almost to the point :
http://www.apple.com/switch/ads/giannijacklone.html
http://www.apple.com/switch/stories/giannijacklone.html

You are DEFENATLY in the WRONG place WinAddict!


----------



## Rhino_G3 (Oct 9, 2002)

> _Originally posted by Tormente _
> *With PCs, I needed to have more than one because I needed to have Linux because I needed a decent server, I worked in Windows because I couldn't get anything decent to run on Linux, and I ended up with 4 PCs...
> 
> Then I got my Mac and got OSX...
> ...



I know exactly how that feels... of course I still keep my PC's around to play with and to use for file servers.

While we're on the subject HERE his my exact story.  

I think me and Mr. Jeremiah Cohick would get along just fine


----------



## satanicpoptart (Oct 9, 2002)

rhino youu are in lyons?? where is that?? im in lawrence! your the first kansan ive met here at macosx.com

id like to finslize this discution by saying that most all of us here would rather use a pc for games.  
and for everything else we like osx.
so  winaddict sure, pcs are great... for games...


----------



## MDLarson (Oct 9, 2002)

> _Originally posted by Rhino_G3 _
> *Not to sound harsh... but to each his own.  If you don't like it don't read it.
> I do like to hear the other side's opinion now and again.  Especialy if we have a common interest such as Linux.*


Yeah, I know I don't have to read it, but I just keep subscribing to this thread!  

Anyhöö, I'm annoyed with Minger because he's got his own little forum over at the un-aptly named winaddict.com, and he's spending his time in this thread annoying people over here.  (I think I just used circular reasoning.)

Maybe I'm just getting too worked up.  I'll calm down.


----------



## Rhino_G3 (Oct 9, 2002)

> _Originally posted by satanicpoptart _
> *rhino youu are in lyons?? where is that?? im in lawrence! your the first kansan ive met here at macosx.com
> 
> id like to finslize this discution by saying that most all of us here would rather use a pc for games.
> ...



 Actualy, right now I'm in salina.  (Finishing up the last year of college)

Lyons is my hometown.  It's about 30 miles west of Mcpherson if you know where that is.  Right smack dab in the middle of the state.


----------



## WinAddict (Oct 9, 2002)

> _Originally posted by Rhino_G3 _
> *The kernel is a major component of the OS but not the end all and be all of everything.  Remember,  We're running the same kernal as Darwin, which it partialy shares with FreeBSD.  You can't honestly say that the computing experience is the same on all the machines.
> 
> All distro's of Linux run on the same kernel (with minor versioning differences) but due to window manager and configuration differences many things are different on each.
> *



The splintering of Linux with all the distros is testament to the diversity of its user base yet a hassle with a cost; i like to install programs on Linux through RPMs, and if you're trying to install a relatively unpopular program, chances are if you're using one of the less popular distros, a binary RPM doesn't exist for it.  Luckily, my distro is one of the more popular ones.

Last week, Lindows released a sub-$200 PC running Lindows 2.0.  Yet another Linux distro.  I wonder how much appeal it have would over the other distros if it didn't also trumpet Windows compatibility, which from the review I read on ExtremeTech doesn't even allow it to install Office 2K.  Of course, trying to install Office 2K, which is relatively expensive for a $200 PC, is besides the point.  You'd run StarOffice.  Since it is besides the point, it's really just another Linux distro.  Though it's now one sold by Wal-Mart online.  When we can put it in our Costco shopping carts, we know we really have something here.  I think this product is a good test of the value of the Microsoft premium to the budget conscious end of the consumer base.



> *
> As far as I understand it Xerox wasn't going to actively develop the interface anymore and the top dogs opened up the doors to apple.  Much to the dismay of all the lower ranking project managers.
> 
> I used to be die hard microsoft. I have a friend that works for them and I got to try out a few releases of whistler.  The interface of the early copies were  "normal".  Once OS X Public Beta was released the next builds became candy colored with the "luna" interface.  Earlier than that MS did something similar with win95. It was pretty much a combination of System 7 and NeXt.
> ...



Apple obviously has a smaller and more artistic user base.  That gives it mobility and more freedom to innovate the aesthetics.  With Windows in places like stodgy law firms or investment banks and a huge user base, Microsoft has most less freedom.  Once you recognize this, I don't see why there is such hatred of Microsoft stodgy design or its propensity to lag.  Borrowing metaphor of "Crossing the Chasm," by Geoffrey A Moore,  Windows represents big fat Main Street.  Apple represents the advanced edge of the curve when it comes to design aesthetics.  This relationship is fundamental.  The evolution the big ideas and aesthetics in Windows will come much more slowly.  Microsoft has a big ship to steer.  David GeLernter, who designed his own timestream file system, seems to understand this if you read his interview in American Spectator not too long back.

If you read the interview with Bill Gates in Fortune, we see that Long Horn promises to radically alter the way we think of and manipulate files.  Perhaps not radical for some like GeLernter and others at the edge, but surely radical for Main Street, and perhaps even for Apple users.  We'll see.

I like the look of Luna though the white and the gamma adjustment on Apple monitors is a too bright for me.  I like blue candy.  If Microsoft took the lead from Apple, so be it.  Steve Jobs wears black but can't claim credit for originating it, and he shouldn't avoid it because he didn't.  Apple is a great design hare.



> *
> As far as your KDE question, I have to say that it's an interesting upgrade for some.  I did it when 3.0 just came out.  There were upgrade instructions on KDE.org.  It went smooth for me, but many of my friends have had to end up reinstalling after completely hosing Xwin.
> 
> I'll have to check back through my documentation to find the procedure I went through. *



I tried again and have given up for good.  Trying to upgrade KDE requires the upgrading of a nest of dependencies, including rpm programs, perl, etc.  I can't get to the root of these dependencies.   I can make do with the KDE I have now, though if I need to update perl, I have to deal with the hassle.


----------



## verlorenengel (Oct 9, 2002)

I have XP at work on a brand new Athlon machine, it crashes twice a day.... I previously had win2k on it, it never crashed.
XP is a virus.
Windows 2000 is superb.
Mac OSX is the best in the world of unix.

Windows is a vastly superior operating system in terms of it's capabilities, when combining a Windows 2000 Server with Pro desktops you have awesome capabilities that really can't be matched with even OSX Server and OSX, without heavy reliance on opensource and third party additions.

That being said, Windows is a much better business platform for your average business user.


That being said, Mac OSX is a much better desktop platform for your average desktop user.


My 2cents.


----------



## WinAddict (Oct 10, 2002)

> _Originally posted by verlorenengel _
> *I have XP at work on a brand new Athlon machine, it crashes twice a day.... I previously had win2k on it, it never crashed.
> XP is a virus.
> Windows 2000 is superb.
> *



Using Win2K up to SP4?  I had problems with a sluggish IE.  And some firewall product would often crash the OS.  Perhaps now with SP5 and IE6 SP2, Win2K is finally a rock stable OS.  I don't know since I'm not using it.  Corporations are by nature conservative and I can see why they put off the move to XP before issues get ironed out.  In a similar way, buying a Mac is a conservative -- safe, trouble-free expectation-- move since the subset of components are expected to work together.  The wide choice of the Windows ecosystem introduces intrinsic chaos.



> *
> Mac OSX is the best in the world of unix.
> *



For those already administering linux boxes remotely, and thus can't avail themselves of the slick shell, and administering cheap commodity boxes at that, OSX will require additional expenditure in hardware cost.  For those with expensive software licences, as pointed out by the XScale literature, the move may prove to be a savings.

For those running unix desktops or laptops, osx = heaven?


----------



## verlorenengel (Oct 10, 2002)

Agreed.

Everything has its place.


----------



## hulkaros (Oct 10, 2002)

> _Originally posted by WinAddict _
> *Using Win2K up to SP4?  I had problems with a sluggish IE.  And some firewall product would often crash the OS.  Perhaps now with SP5 and IE6 SP2, Win2K is finally a rock stable OS.  I don't know since I'm not using it.  Corporations are by nature conservative and I can see why they put off the move to XP before issues get ironed out.  In a similar way, buying a Mac is a conservative -- safe, trouble-free expectation-- move since the subset of components are expected to work together.  The wide choice of the Windows ecosystem introduces intrinsic chaos.
> 
> For those already administering linux boxes remotely, and thus can't avail themselves of the slick shell, and administering cheap commodity boxes at that, OSX will require additional expenditure in hardware cost.  For those with expensive software licences, as pointed out by the XScale literature, the move may prove to be a savings.
> ...



Windows 2K DOES NOT have SP4 or 5!!! Only SP3 and it released a month ago or so...

And yes while it solved many problems it raised some new ones! How typical of M$ 

As for all other things: Simply BS! Yes I can have here and there WHEN and IF I need Win(any version) or Linux or (insert ANY OS here) but why select the Wintel platform and especially the Windows XP (eXtra Pain) when I can DO my work better with less in general by selecting OS X? We told the whole world that they NEED computers and then told them that they NEED Wintel ones! How dumb is this? And if any Wintel user really KNOWS that Wintel may NOT be the best solution for everything out there, why the majority of Windows users continues to push THAT solution?

I know for sure that 90% (or even more) of computer companies do not care for their customers and that's why they continue to push the Wintel platform up to their customers behinds... Why? The answer is SO simple: Because IF they start pushing the Apple side they will NOT have THAT much of income because:
-A Mac lasts longer than ANY Wintel box
-A Mac is easier to use (so the user will not call or pay a visit for tech stuff)
-A Mac works!
The above and MANY other things SCARE the computer companies because they simply exist by blood-sucking  their customers because of the problems of Wintel platform... And they know that by each new Wintel product, NEW blood will come: Always does and always will...

As for the WinAddicts of this world: Enjoy the blood sucking of Wintel but watch out for the Vampire Hunters of this world (OS X, Linux, et al) cause when they strike YOU the same vampires ENVY them because of the swift and graceful way of taking you down...

Yes, I know WinAddict that it hurts you SO much for NOT having that sweet Dual G4/1.25 with X.2 and instead you MUST use that old boring Xtra Pain...

I know that it hurts you for NOT being able to burn a DVD, listen to an MP3, browse the Internet, copy those files from the CD-ROM, import your new digital pictures of your last trip to that AWESOME island while exporting that new playlist of your favorite MP3s on you iPod and sharing your Office documents across your company network with your colleaques AT THE SAME TIME without worrying of crashing the system or your apps or your workflow or your NERVES!!!

Oh, I guess is just me: I prefer the airplane over train or I prefer the remote control instead of walking on the TV for changing stations...  Yes, it must be me for not liking the Wintel aka Dark Side of the Force 

Think Different! Or should Apple have said in the first place to their possible customers just: THINK!


----------



## genghiscohen (Oct 10, 2002)

> _Originally posted by satanicpoptart _
> *oh and off subject i know, but genghiscohen, for gods feking sake! fix your icon!!!!!! *


Hehehe!  It looks *fine* in the Classic mode.


----------



## mdnky (Oct 10, 2002)

> _Originally posted by verlorenengel _
> *I have XP at work on a brand new Athlon machine, it crashes twice a day.... I previously had win2k on it, it never crashed.
> XP is a virus.*



Didn't McAfee or Norton AV warn users Windows 98 was a virus after they had just upgraded from 95 to 98 (when 98 was first released)?  Damn those programs were good, wondered what happened with them not reconginizing ME or XP.


----------



## verlorenengel (Oct 11, 2002)

What utter bullsh*t.
I love my mac as much as the next guy but to be honest the above couple of posts are just examples of typical mac zealots.

Yes, whilst iPhoto, iDVD, iMovie and all the other iApps are easy to use and generally one-click with a consistent interface..
The same can be accomplished on a PC, the only difference is it requires a few more clicks and less standard interface to the apps.

I would never use a windows machine at home, but at work - my windows machine is simply economically more viable and works just as well.


----------



## hulkaros (Oct 11, 2002)

> _Originally posted by verlorenengel _
> *What utter bullsh*t.
> I love my mac as much as the next guy but to be honest the above couple of posts are just examples of typical mac zealots.
> 
> ...



NO you CANNOT accomplish the same things on the PC... NOT even with MANY extra clicks... Your statement is ALL WRONG... Are you sure you use a PC at work? Or even a Mac at home? Maybe you use one of the two just ALL wrong!

And if the couple replies above your reply were from Mac zealots that makes you a PC zealot? As for your PC being economically more viable than the Mac maybe you meant the other way around, huh? Or that Mac is viable ANY way while the PC isn't viable in ANY way...


----------



## xaqintosh (Oct 11, 2002)

In my opinion:
if you think macs are great, fine. I do too. If you think windows is great, that's fine also. Can we stop arguing and trying to get these diehard fans to switch? It'll never work. I know, I would never switch to a PC. I have to admit, windows XP is much better than Mac OS X at some things, while mac os x is much better than windows at others. And they both accomplish pretty much the same stuff, just using different methods, and some may be more elegant than others...

PS. Hulkaros: calm down. you're not helping the cause at all, no offense.


----------



## verlorenengel (Oct 11, 2002)

Haha hulkaros


You can do the same on a PC, you just need to be smart enough to work out how 
Sure, it will take a lot more fiddling around and the average user won't bother unless it's already set up for them - but it can be done.

They're both tools that can be used exactly the same way 

I don't see why you're so uptight about it - I've agreed macs are much better for desktop/home environment, but for a large business/corporation - Windows, in my opinion is the way to go.


----------



## davidbrit2 (Oct 11, 2002)

Rather than just repeat the typical platform bashing comments, how about I crush the opposition with the merits of OS X?

UNIX foundation - POSIX compliance, preemptive multitasking, protected memory, piles of included GNU software, etc...
Superior multiuser capabilities (not that sissy user profile sectioning; you can have multiple users at the _same time_)
Source code level compatibility with _tons_ of popular UNIX programs
Highly intuitive GUI designed for the average user
Excellent system configuration centralized in System Preferences (but much more can be configured for those brave enough)
Packaged Internet and multimedia applications designed to "just work"
Cocoa API that works with Objective C or Java to provide developers with a visual, fairly rapid application development process.
Carbon API to allow fairly easy porting of older Mac software while retaining compatibility with OS 9
Software that is tightly married to the hardware, greatly reducing maddening driver problems
Rapid adaptation of new networking technologies - Bluetooth (yuck,) 802.11b, ipv6 (okay, it's not new, but you wouldn't guess from looking at the current Internet,) Rendezvous...

I'm sure I've forgotten some great things that my fellow Mac users will fill in, particularly in the area of OS X Server, since I've never used it (unfortunately.)

So, what does Windows have going for it? And I can't resist; I have to point out one shortcoming: type "dir c:\winnt\command\" sometime. The little pile of utilities you get is pathetic compared to /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin, /usr/sbin...

And I find it pointless to try and convert hardcore addicts, too. I just try to demoralize them enough so that they don't make bad recommendations to new users.


----------



## boi (Oct 12, 2002)

it's a computer, not a religion. i think it's funny how PC people climb onto Mac fora and try and convert the masses. same goes with mac users. to each his own... most everyone knows the benefits and downsides of each, even though some may be too stubborn to admit either one.

...round and round we go.


----------



## Tigger (Oct 12, 2002)

I am just now "switching" to the PC side. Okay, it is more something like having a second computer beside my Mac, though that PC will kick the ass of my Mac, but my Mac is 3 years old, so this is only fair.

I thought the current Macs are just too expensive for what they deliver, so I am buying a PC right now, and I will see what Apple will deliver the next year or so.

I cannot say anything about crashes right now, cause the box isn't quite running now (That's because I haven't gotten all components yet).
But I doubt it will crash.

People often buy cheap PCs and wonder why they crash. That is why they got a fast CPU in there as the only selling point, and all other things are really crap to get the cost down. Often it is some minor part like a crap powersupply that brings the computer down, and nobody thinks about these things.

When comparing PCs and Macs crashwise, than you should compare with a PC made out of high quality components.
But don't think this PC will be *that* much cheaper like some PC guys thell you the price difference between Macs and PCs is...  

You get what you pay for...


----------



## hulkaros (Oct 12, 2002)

> _Originally posted by verlorenengel _
> *Haha hulkaros
> 
> 
> ...



I can agree with someone saying things like:
-Windows 2000 Server and above are AWESOME for serving clients
-Windows has MANY and GREAT games

But I CANNOT agree that the average or even the so-called power user needs to dig they way one has to dig with Windows in order to just do basic stuff... No, way!

Did you EVER teach or support a friend, a customer, a family person about Windows ANY version and Mac OS ANY version? Can you reply without residing on BS that the PC side of teaching/supporting on PC was easier? I think we all know the answer...

Also, reading your answer, I think you like going in front of the TV in order to change stations, aren't you? If NOT, why? After all it can be done this way too, can't it?

Oh, I forgot: It's different with computers... With PCs you can EAT loads of money from your customers while with Macs you will exit selling/supporting computer business...

I said it before and I will say it again: If one thinks that PCs are better than Macs and wants opinions GO to the Opinions forum and if you see Hulkaros replying to your so-called truth about PCs let me know... Cause believe me I reply here JUST to see how REALLY goofy one PC user can be by posting to News & Rumors and if this was not enough he continues to reply there because he thinks that's the correct forum... Oh, I got it... It's like Windows: You have SO MANY options that they confuse you!!! That's it! They are confused! They think that this News & Rumors forum works like a PC... It's another option for posting your Opinions... Ha, ha!

Yes, I am fool and dumb and they (the PC and even some Mac users) are wise and all-knowing creatures! How, they lose their way from Opinions to News & Rumors forums is beyond me... I am fool you see    and they are smart


----------



## verlorenengel (Oct 12, 2002)

Yes.

You have confused me.. your post makes you sound like you're 12.


----------



## davidbrit2 (Oct 12, 2002)

> _Originally posted by verlorenengel _
> *Yes.
> 
> You have confused me.. your post makes you sound like you're 12. *



And I suppose flaming someone places you in a higher age bracket? I think it is time to invoke one of the priceless quotations from Larry Wall, creator of Perl:



> There ain't nothin' in this world that's worth being a snot over.
> -- Larry Wall in <1992Aug19.041614.6963@netlabs.com>


----------



## hulkaros (Oct 12, 2002)

> _Originally posted by verlorenengel _
> *Yes.
> 
> You have confused me.. your post makes you sound like you're 12. *



I knew it... I knew it...

You REALLY are a PC user! You are always confused... No matter what others tell you or trying to tell you, you just WANT to feel like it: Confused!

Also, a lesson you may understand:
From drunken people and kids you learn the truth...

Now, if you are NOT drunk and somehow you STILL make me 12 or even smaller, hmmmm...  

Oh, did I mention that you continue to reply in News & Rumors forum? Yes... You are a PC user if you cannot recongize an Opinion forum from a News forum!

Go to the Opinions forum and see if I'll take my time to visit there EVEN for 1 reply to your useless posts here... Go and see me coming!


----------



## Rhino_G3 (Oct 12, 2002)

Uhhh....  You sure told him, didn't you?  

After reading that last post I can tell that this topic is dead.  This is probably the last time I will even attempt to make sense of it.


----------



## davidbrit2 (Oct 12, 2002)

Indeed. Hoist the lifeboats and rally the survivors.


----------



## verlorenengel (Oct 13, 2002)

lol - so true.


----------



## Annihilatus (Oct 13, 2002)

I just have to add my two cents here.

I've been a PC user from day 1 and I build every one of my PC's from scratch. I do so because it allows me to keep  old components I like in the new computer and upgrade one by one when need be.  It's also easier on the wallet. What I find absolutely disgusting is the way people will say that XP is better than Mac OS X or Mac OS X is better than XP. There's no such thing as 'better' ... there's only 'better for your needs.' In my case, Windows is the only PC os that has everything I want. Linux is slow and fragmented, BeOS albeit incredible is not supported and Windows plays all games and programs fluidly... and I emphasize the word fluidly.

I have XP installed on my girlfriend's 533 MHZ p3 (I gave it to her) and it runs GREAT. With 256 megs ram, IE loads in a second, OE in around 2 and Office takes 3-4 at most. On my computer, a 1667 MHz Athlon XP, I can play every game and use every program and just about everything - except Diskeeper that views my 80 gig hard drive - loads in one second or less. However, there are problems.

For one, no matter how you cut it, making IE and OE a part of Windows that cannot be removed was a bad idea. Service Pack 1 somewhat clears up these issues but doesn't completely remove both programs. I like IE and OE, but I would like to have the choice to remove. Service Pack 1 also clears up a lot of issues, but it is inevitable for Microsoft to run up bugs when dealing with so many different pieces of hardware. It can slow down your system and with mine, it seems to have issues shutting down (even though I think it might be a faulty power button since I never press the power button all the way in, it might've screwed it up).

On the Mac side, there's no denying that Mac OS X is way more beautiful than anything Windows offers. You can use Object Desktop and Window FX and have it animate everything for you like Mac OS X, but it's never truly authentic even though it is quite beautiful. However, just like XP with Window FX, Mac OS X is slow. No matter what people here say, no matter ho miraculous people here say Jaguar is for their systems, the truth is Mac OS X is dead slow. It's a reality that Apple users will simply have to deal with. I can't recall any fully-featured Unix-based operating system being fast, as such neither is Mac OS X. The only true advantage that Mac OS X has over Windows aside from beauty is security. But who really cares about security to be honest? Most of the security issues Windows patched are exploits that nobody would have thought of anyway and could have affected at most 0.1% of the Windows population.

In the end though, Apple and Microsoft are both humongous corporation that will try to outdo each other. Whether you take XP or OS X, you'll get a good OS. With XP, you have better support and there's NO DENYING THAT because every company makes software primarily for Windows and secondly for Mac. Drivers as well are constantly updated and are available for just about every piece of hardware, not just a few like Mac. However, using Windows always leaves you open to something unexpected like a blue screen or a random crash of a program which is something Apple really has over Mac. Let's face it, Apple makes its own computers and only releases hardware it can support. Apple does not go as far as or even try to go as far as Windows does to support hardware. As a result, buying a Mac computer ensures that each piece of hardware works fluidly within that computer unless you upgrade, whereas there's no such guarantee with Windows.

To summarize:
Windows 2000+XP -> fast (do not try to deny this because it DOES run fast even on a 350 mhz machine) good hardware support, games aplenty, security risk and open to random crashes.

Mac OS X -> few games, slow but very fluid and seamless functionality between hardware in a machine that hasn't been upgraded. Secure, less prone to viruses, stable.

I should mention that I ONLY condone the use of 2000+XP on PC's. I despise Linux because of the fragmented development society it has become and I think that all support for ME, 98 and 95 should be disintegrated by support centers.


----------



## Tigger (Oct 13, 2002)

> _Originally posted by Annihilatus _
> *
> To summarize:
> Windows 2000+XP -> fast (do not try to deny this because it DOES run fast even on a 350 mhz machine) good hardware support, games aplenty, security risk and open to random crashes.*


I think random crashes will only occur if there is a hardwareproblem.
I worked on PCs at work for hours and I never had any crash, only some apps that might crash (Same thing that also happens in Mac OS X), but the system itself was stable.



> _Originally posted by Annihilatus _
> *Mac OS X -> few games, slow but very fluid and seamless functionality between hardware in a machine that hasn't been upgraded. Secure, less prone to viruses, stable.
> *


I wouldn't say OS X is slow. 
Just like you said Windows XP with Windows FX is slow, OS X would be much faster on slower machines if some of the iCandy would be optional for them.

Steve Jobs said: "...and we like to have options". Maybe he should think about that his customers also would like to have options!


----------



## ApeintheShell (Oct 13, 2002)

I thnk the persistant problem is people don't have experience with our platform. 
They assume we should switch because of browsing, processor, user base, and protocol. Windows is good for gaming until your video card is no longer supported.
Yeah, i admit mac os x crashes.  ISP's have poor support for mac's. I can't even file transfer on an im. But ya know what, 
I just reinstalled 10.1.5 on two hard drives, didn't even erase my data. 
While a majority of people using mac os x have glanced at the terminal my relatives who own pcs won't even go near the command line. 
If you use a computer for 3-5 years you can justify the price of a mac.
It's not like mac os x is Virtual PC 5 with windows loaded on it.
Well i don't know if that explained my view but i just wanted to point out
the hulk in marvel vs. capcom wasn't the best character to fight with.


----------



## Ricky (Oct 13, 2002)

> _Originally posted by verlorenengel _
> *Yes.
> 
> You have confused me.. your post makes you sound like you're 12. *


Lay off, English probably isn't his native tongue.


----------



## mdnky (Oct 13, 2002)

> _Originally posted by Tigger _
> *I thought the current Macs are just too expensive for what they deliver, so I am buying a PC right now, and I will see what Apple will deliver the next year or so.....................People often buy cheap PCs and wonder why they crash. That is why they got a fast CPU in there as the only selling point, and all other things are really crap to get the cost down. Often it is some minor part like a crap powersupply that brings the computer down, and nobody thinks about these things.......................When comparing PCs and Macs crashwise, than you should compare with a PC made out of high quality components.
> But don't think this PC will be *that* much cheaper like some PC guys thell you the price difference between Macs and PCs is...
> 
> You get what you pay for... *



The stability is well worth the cost.  In the end of your message you hit the point of the higher end PCs being costing as much as Macs, as they are.

The WinTel computers we use at work are high end Dell systems.  They crash.  My brothers AMD Gateway, top of the line 1 year ago, crashes.  I agree with some problems arising from the use of low quality "junk", err..I mean parts, in computers, but the OS plays a major role too.


----------



## mdnky (Oct 13, 2002)

> _Originally posted by Annihilatus _
> *To summarize:
> Windows 2000+XP -> fast (do not try to deny this because it DOES run fast even on a 350 mhz machine) good hardware support, games aplenty, security risk and open to random crashes.
> 
> ...



Xp runs fast on a 350mhz computer?  You've got to be kidding, it runs like sh|t on our 1.4ghz P4...runs slow on an AMD 1.2ghz Gateway.  It has since the second the computers came out of the box.  It runs ok on our 2.66ghz P4, but the darn thing is brand new (72 hours).  I give it 3 months max before it starts to slow down.


----------



## Hypernate (Oct 13, 2002)

> _Originally posted by WinAddict _
> *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.
> ...



Well, if you want to compare XP to OS X, here's one for you.

My PC
Pentium II 333mhz Hewlett Packard
288mb RAM
Windows XP Professional SP1
52x CD Rom
GeForce2 32mb

my iMac
G3 333mhz
96mb RAM
mac OS X.2 (not even X.2.1)
24x CD Rom
6mb video RAM.

It takes my PC 5 minutes to get to a useable desktop when i boot it.
It takes my iMac 2 minutes to get to a useable desktop.
On my PC, half the time, Word XP won't open right. I have to Ctrl+Alt+Del it and try again.
On my iMac, Word v.X opens every time. And works.
Windows Media Player on XP is unuseably slow on the PC.
I can have iTunes and Quicktime running at the same time on my iMac.
The PC has to be restarted every hour or so, either due to crash or total slooooow doooooown. 
The iMac has been running for 2 weeks so far, still running as fast, and still without a crash.

As you can see here, the lower spec iMac has beaten the higer spec PC. I think that was a fair operating system comparison don't you? Especially condisdering XP had more then double it's required RAM, whereas Mac OS X was running with LESS than required.


----------



## hulkaros (Oct 14, 2002)

Did ANYONE (including me  ) mentioned that Windows ANY version needs a nice format now and then because after some time they lose ALL their so-called performance and start crashing every day (YES, even XP)?

When was the last time that one formatted his Mac? We use at work (and so are our customers) Macs who NEVER got formatted or even defragmented and you know what? They still work with 90% of their speed if not 100%... While our Windows machines:
DO
-Defrag
-Check&Fix disk errors
-Download the 100th patch for that hole of IE, OE, Windows, Office, etc.
-Format
-Re-install
LOOP

Well, if time is money then how much money people lose with Windows, I don't know! But I know for sure that it's got to be LOADS of it...  

Yeah, I see it again: I MUST switch to Windows!

Now, if M$ had a www.microsoft.com/switch/ to help me switch, hmmm...


----------



## mdnky (Oct 14, 2002)

> _Originally posted by hulkaros _
> *Did ANYONE (including me  ) mentioned that Windows ANY version needs a nice format now and then because after some time they lose ALL their so-called performance and start crashing every day (YES, even XP)?
> 
> When was the last time that one formatted his Mac? We use at work (and so are our customers) Macs who NEVER got formatted or even defragmented and you know what? They still work with 90% of their speed if not 100%... While our Windows machines:
> ...



I agree.  We have to reformat every 3 months to keep our work computers (Wintel) somewhat usable in terms of speed, and in reality it seems like every month would be a better schedule for this.

I've run X on my Mac since the begining...never reformated, no disk utilities used.  Works just like day one.


----------



## BlingBling 3k12 (Oct 15, 2002)

Good! It's not just me! I re-formatted 3 times in one year, from XP to 2000 just for speed! 2000 ruled in terms of speed! XP worked for a few months, then it was time for a format! Oh well, now that I have my PowerMac (see specs below), I've completely ditched PC's.. I do use a Dell Inspiron 4000 (700 Celeron, 256MB RAM) at work, with Windows 2000, and it's definitely usable... but it's getting replaced with a PowerBook soon (G3.. no Ti for me), to complete my transition to Macs... PC's work, yes, but Macs are just better for me!


----------

