Windows Vista Beta 2 Plagued by Bugs

[Turbo]

Several reasons. Firstly, most users aren't going to bother with a dual boot system. They're either going to buy a Mac, equipped with OS X, or a PC, with XP Home.

I agree that many users who will now buy a Mac based on its ability to run Windows will never bother to run Windows on it. They think they might need to run Windows and they like the peace of mind knowing that they can if they do need to, but in reality there are so few circumstances that actually necessitate Windows so they won't bother. It's similar to how some folks buy computers with lots of expansion slots but never actually use them.

Secondly, Macs don't have the full range of hardware support PCs do.

What do you mean by that?

Thirdly, I have yet to be convinced software like Parallels is bug-free or as speedy as a native Windows environment,

Parallels doesn't claim to run as a native Windows environment; it runs at "near-native" speeds. In other words, Windows doesn't quite run as quickly as it would on a dual boot system, but it's a heck of a lot faster than VirtualPC emulation from the PowerPC days.

and dual-boot systems are less than ideal.

What, running a system that is incapable of (legally) running OS X is ideal?

If you're more comfortable with XP, how often do you think you'd boot up with OS X?

I was more comfortable with XP but I bought a Mac a year and a half ago and looked forward to using Mac OS X every day even while I was totally new to it. It was two feet away from my wife's XP system. I used and still use 2000 and XP every day at work but I never wanted to use the XP system next to the Mac at home.

By the way, that HP is now in our upstairs closet. We rarely want to use the computer at the same time since our daughter was born, so I set up an account for her on the Mac. Her monitor now serves as a secondary monitor for the Mac, which is really great for playing DVDs while I'm using the computer.

And if you're rarely or never going to use it, why even bother with dual boot?

That's exactly why even most new Mac users won't bother installing Windows. If a handful of people buy a Mac only to run Windows full time, so be it. But most people who want a Mac don't just want pretty hardware; they've heard that Mac OS doesn't have the problems that plague Windows. But they've also heard misinformation about how there's hardly any software available for Macs or that Macs are incompatible with PCs, or they might be concerned about committing to an unfamiliar OS that they might end up hating. So for them it's nice to know they can go back to Windows if they want to without buying another computer.

Finally, and perhaps most importantly, the prices of Windows PCs simply cannot be matched by Apple products.

I take it you didn't see the headlines about how the new Mac Pro costs several hundreds less than a Dell with similar hardware.

Apple does not offer low-end underequipped systems with getcha-in-the-door pricing like Dell and other do. Also, Apple has a simple product line with models at specific price points that seldom change, whereas Dell has a wildly complex line of products with constantly fluctuating prices. When Apple updates their products, they usually bump the specs on their base configurations while leaving the prices the same. So in the month prior to an update, the Apple system might cost more than a Dell. But after an update, the Apple system is often priced equal to or even less than a Dell. (Case in point: the new Mac Pro.)

Maybe you like to save a few bucks and find enjoyment in building your own computers. That's fine, but the vast majority of computer buyers want nothing to do with that.

Quite true. This further inhibits migration to OS X by imposing a steep learning curve for many users.

No, there is only the perception of a steep learning curve. It really doesn't take that long for a Windows user to feel at home on a Mac. There are a few things in different places or with different names, but since Windows has always been an attempt to emulate Mac OS, the transition is usually smooth. Often the difficulty is to stop trying to do things the hard way. (Ex: Want to email a photo to someone? Just drag the photo from iPhoto to the Mail app's icon, and Mail is launched, a new email is opened with the picture is attached.)

My 60-year-old mom just switched to a Mac a month ago after a decade of suffering with Windows and she's loving it. She's not struggling with a "steep learning curve." And it will be nice not having to "fix" her computer when I visit from now on.

I've never owned a Mac...

:chuckle: I didn't think so. Thank you for illustrating my point that those who "prefer Windows" have never used Mac OS X for any significant period of time.

I know them primarily from my school. The computer lab there is mostly populated with Gateway PCs, but there are three lonely PowerMac G5s which caught my attention last year.

So you fiddled with a Mac a few times in a school computer lab, and somehow you think this qualifies you to compare OS X to Windows?

I've also installed Tiger on my PC. It doesn't support my Audigy LS

No surprise there. It is illegal to install OS X on non-Apple hardware, so of course Apple isn't going to support hardware that they don't use.

OS X is just too slow and clumsy for my taste. I find its operating environment to be less intuitive.

:rotfl: That's because you're used to Windows, and you didn't take the time to get familiar with OS X.

But apparently, Microsoft doesn't agree with you because most of Vista's new features ape those that have been present for years in OS X.

There are tasks I regularly perform which cannot be done in OS X.

Like what?

XP is just much simpler and easier.

You say this based on your dabbling on OS X a few times. But when Knight and I, who use both Windows and OS X every day say otherwise, you reply with this:

This is really what it all comes to: "trust me." There's no way determine which platform is "better" or "worse," and we're just left with anecdotal testimonials.​

I really am curious as to what it is that you regularly do on your Windows PC that you think OS X is incapable of.

 

[Aimiel]

The thing I find funny is how similar Macs and PCs have become over the years.

It's not at all surprising, though. Mac stole the GUI from an idea that Xerox nixed (WIMP), Microsoft stole it from Mac (Windows), and it's been tweaked over and over by both.

 

[hatsoff]

What do you mean by that?

Exactly what I said: Macs don't support all the hardware PCs do. The reverse is true, as well, of course, but not nearly to the same degree, I bet.

What, running a system that is incapable of (legally) running OS X is ideal?

Not exactly, but in my case it is the best option.

I was more comfortable with XP but I bought a Mac a year and a half ago and looked forward to using Mac OS X every day even while I was totally new to it. It was two feet away from my wife's XP system. I used and still use 2000 and XP every day at work but I never wanted to use the XP system next to the Mac at home.

By the way, that HP is now in our upstairs closet. We rarely want to use the computer at the same time since our daughter was born, so I set up an account for her on the Mac. Her monitor now serves as a secondary monitor for the Mac, which is really great for playing DVDs while I'm using the computer.

Great story. A lot of other people would tell it in reverse.

I take it you didn't see the headlines about how the new Mac Pro costs several hundreds less than a Dell with similar hardware.

Price is a difficult thing to compare. It is technically true that Dell costs more for a similar configuration, but most people don't need or want the Apple bundles. And of course you can always build your own for considerably cheaper.

:chuckle: I didn't think so. Thank you for illustrating my point that those who "prefer Windows" have never used Mac OS X for any significant period of time.

So you fiddled with a Mac a few times in a school computer lab, and somehow you think this qualifies you to compare OS X to Windows?

Not an in-depth review, no; I would never claim otherwise. It does, however, qualify me to make decisions about my own usage patterns, and which platform is best suited to them.

However, you can find plenty of literature on the net comparing the two. Here's one, for example.

No surprise there. It is illegal to install OS X on non-Apple hardware, so of course Apple isn't going to support hardware that they don't use.

The Audigy LS isn't supported on native Macs, either. It has nothing to do with legality.

 

[hatsoff]

continued...

I agree that many users who will now buy a Mac based on its ability to run Windows will never bother to run Windows on it. They think they might need to run Windows and they like the peace of mind knowing that they can if they do need to, but in reality there are so few circumstances that actually necessitate Windows so they won't bother. It's similar to how some folks buy computers with lots of expansion slots but never actually use them.

Agreed. The same is true with Windows users who can run free operating systems like Linux, or hacked OSes like OS X.

Parallels doesn't claim to run as a native Windows environment; it runs at "near-native" speeds. In other words, Windows doesn't quite run as quickly as it would on a dual boot system, but it's a heck of a lot faster than VirtualPC emulation from the PowerPC days.

I doubt it's anywhere near a native Windows installation--which, by the way, I hear can be done without Boot Camp or any other Mac software.

That's exactly why even most new Mac users won't bother installing Windows. If a handful of people buy a Mac only to run Windows full time, so be it. But most people who want a Mac don't just want pretty hardware; they've heard that Mac OS doesn't have the problems that plague Windows. But they've also heard misinformation about how there's hardly any software available for Macs or that Macs are incompatible with PCs, or they might be concerned about committing to an unfamiliar OS that they might end up hating. So for them it's nice to know they can go back to Windows if they want to without buying another computer.

Sure, and that's part of what makes a Mac a good choice for so many users. It is not the best choice for *all* users, though, by any stretch of the imagination. In my estimation, it is best only for a small minority, though as you pointed out I am not exactly in a position to make such decisions for other people.

Apple does not offer low-end underequipped systems with getcha-in-the-door pricing like Dell and other do. Also, Apple has a simple product line with models at specific price points that seldom change, whereas Dell has a wildly complex line of products with constantly fluctuating prices. When Apple updates their products, they usually bump the specs on their base configurations while leaving the prices the same. So in the month prior to an update, the Apple system might cost more than a Dell. But after an update, the Apple system is often priced equal to or even less than a Dell. (Case in point: the new Mac Pro.)

Fluctuating prices aren't a bad thing, as they allow you to find helpful bargains. The price difference between Apple and Dell is interesting to behold: on the low end, Dell reigns, while on the high end, Apple has an edge. However, Dell isn't the end-all-be-all of the PC marketplace. HP/Compaq and eMachines both offer great deals, too.

What all this means to consumers is dependent on the price point. At the low end, one can get a lot more features, and sometimes some more speed, too, than one could with Apple. At the high end, you can go faster--usually much faster--than a similarly priced Mac.

Maybe you like to save a few bucks and find enjoyment in building your own computers. That's fine, but the vast majority of computer buyers want nothing to do with that.

Sure, but again that just goes to show how individual preference punches holes in blanket claims.

No, there is only the perception of a steep learning curve. It really doesn't take that long for a Windows user to feel at home on a Mac. There are a few things in different places or with different names, but since Windows has always been an attempt to emulate Mac OS, the transition is usually smooth. Often the difficulty is to stop trying to do things the hard way. (Ex: Want to email a photo to someone? Just drag the photo from iPhoto to the Mail app's icon, and Mail is launched, a new email is opened with the picture is attached.)

My 60-year-old mom just switched to a Mac a month ago after a decade of suffering with Windows and she's loving it. She's not struggling with a "steep learning curve." And it will be nice not having to "fix" her computer when I visit from now on.

For many users there is no learning curve, often because they haven't even bothered to learn Windows in the first place. But when there is, it usually takes the form of specialized tasks. Emailing photos is one thing, but what about, say, resizing videos or remastering karaoke discs, for instance?

:rotfl: That's because you're used to Windows, and you didn't take the time to get familiar with OS X.

No, that's because Macs run slower and have an interface unsuited to my usage.

But apparently, Microsoft doesn't agree with you because most of Vista's new features ape those that have been present for years in OS X.

I've tested Vista very briefly. There are some new features arguably adapted from OS X, sure, but the computing experience itself is still very Windows-esque.

Like what?

I really am curious as to what it is that you regularly do on your Windows PC that you think OS X is incapable of.

Lots of things, I'm sure. One that immediately comes to mind is my audio collection, which I listen to through WinAmp. That software dynamically normalizes the audio as it plays, and supports all six formats I use the most: mp3, flac, shn, wav, wma and ogg. There is no Mac alternative. I'd either have to sacrifice dynamic normalization, which is unacceptable, or I'd have to pre-decode all my flac and shn files (and possibly my wmas and oggs, too)--and that's assuming I could find a Mac player with the normalization feature at all.

You say this based on your dabbling on OS X a few times. But when Knight and I, who use both Windows and OS X every day say otherwise, you reply with this:

This is really what it all comes to: "trust me." There's no way determine which platform is "better" or "worse," and we're just left with anecdotal testimonials.​

And I stand by what I said. If you think people who have owned and used both platforms for a long time, yet prefer Windows, are somehow rare or don't exist at all, you're badly mistaken. Just search Google.