Windows Vista Beta 2 Plagued by Bugs
- Thread starter Nathon Detroit
- Start date
patman
Active member
Before, i wasn't very interested in Vista because I assumed a brand new ground up Windows might be good, maybe more original. Why did I think this? Because they had years to think of stuff. I didn't think there would be a whole lot to make fun of anymore. Turns out I was wrong.
I am sad for PC users who refuse to switch that have to be victims, But who do they come to it doesn't work? ME.. A mac guy no less. So since I have to fix their PC with my MAC, I get some right to poke fun at VISTA, and lament the fact it still sucks. :rotfl:
Here are some videos I found.
Speech Feature needs work
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-1123221217782777472&q=vista&hl=en
Windows Vista Demo with MAX OS X edited in, showing how VISTA is a TIGER wannabe
part 1
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=2674791799339834706&q=vista&hl=en
part 2
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=7919991136779006253&q=vista&hl=en
I am sad for PC users who refuse to switch that have to be victims, But who do they come to it doesn't work? ME.. A mac guy no less. So since I have to fix their PC with my MAC, I get some right to poke fun at VISTA, and lament the fact it still sucks. :rotfl:
Here are some videos I found.
Speech Feature needs work
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-1123221217782777472&q=vista&hl=en
Windows Vista Demo with MAX OS X edited in, showing how VISTA is a TIGER wannabe
part 1
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=2674791799339834706&q=vista&hl=en
part 2
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=7919991136779006253&q=vista&hl=en
patman
Active member
That one was pretty gooooood.Turbo said:
You gotta love these too. There are three new ones!
Mac and PC ads.
Did Vista fix the spyware problem? Or is it more "soap box programs"? Get dirty and clean it up later.... er,,, every hour... :juggle:
Click on the FULL STORY link in my opening post.patman said:
hatsoff
New member
I'm a little surprised at the misinformation in this thread. In an internet forum populated by people who love to bicker about the smallest issues, I'd expect more technical insights than this.
Does Windows XP cost $199?
Yes and no. If you go to a place like Best Buy or CompUSA, you'll have to spend about that much, yes. That's because retail outlet prices are badly inflated, and don't offer the full range of XP releases to begin with. I usually buy computer components from newegg.com, who gives the following prices (with shipping included):
$89.99 -- Windows XP Home
$114.98 -- Windows XP Media Center
$142.98 -- Windows XP Professional
$144.98 -- Windows XP Professional x64
Meanwhile, upgrading to Tiger is $137.06 with tax (from the Apple website).
OS pricing, however, is largely unimportant, as it is only a small part of the equasion. In fact, the OS is usually included in the price of a PC or Mac, leaving price a non-issue in most cases.
Isn't Windows Vista 64-bit?
Windows Vista supports 64-bit extensions, yes. It is fully functional, however, with older 32-bit limited CPUs.
Macs are better than PCs
This is an opinion. The truth of the matter is that each platform has its strengths and weaknesses. If you like OS X best, by all means use it. Most people prefer Windows XP, which is fine, too. And don't forget Linux! Personally, I can't stand OS X. I am thinking about setting up Ubuntu on my secondary system, however (I can't use it on my primary system due to incomplete ALSA compatibility with my Audigy LS).
Does Windows XP cost $199?
Yes and no. If you go to a place like Best Buy or CompUSA, you'll have to spend about that much, yes. That's because retail outlet prices are badly inflated, and don't offer the full range of XP releases to begin with. I usually buy computer components from newegg.com, who gives the following prices (with shipping included):
$89.99 -- Windows XP Home
$114.98 -- Windows XP Media Center
$142.98 -- Windows XP Professional
$144.98 -- Windows XP Professional x64
Meanwhile, upgrading to Tiger is $137.06 with tax (from the Apple website).
OS pricing, however, is largely unimportant, as it is only a small part of the equasion. In fact, the OS is usually included in the price of a PC or Mac, leaving price a non-issue in most cases.
Isn't Windows Vista 64-bit?
Windows Vista supports 64-bit extensions, yes. It is fully functional, however, with older 32-bit limited CPUs.
Macs are better than PCs
This is an opinion. The truth of the matter is that each platform has its strengths and weaknesses. If you like OS X best, by all means use it. Most people prefer Windows XP, which is fine, too. And don't forget Linux! Personally, I can't stand OS X. I am thinking about setting up Ubuntu on my secondary system, however (I can't use it on my primary system due to incomplete ALSA compatibility with my Audigy LS).
Aimiel
Well-known member
I tried the Vista Beta and found it buggy. My computer is 'Vista Capable' according to HP, and Microsoft's pre-installation testing software. Even with a 3.2gHz processor, 2Gb of memory, an nVida GEForce 7800GTX graphics card, I couldn't use the 3D windows function. I guess you need a supercomputer to have Vista recognize that your computer will handle it. I've never spoken with anyone who was able to use that function, either. There's a lot more that doesn't work than does. It really stinks. I had it for less than two weeks and decided to give up, after trying many suggestions from Microsoft's technical gurus. It definitely needs at least an RC1, if not RC 12, to make it pass as user-proof. It is far more of a bother than it is worth. My next computer will be a Mac. :thumb:
Actually it is you who is giving misinformation.hatsoff said:
You are comparing WINDOWS OEM versions of their OS to Mac's retail version of their OS.
As you know (or maybe you don't) an OEM version is not supposed to be sold separately and installed on a machine (not that it's a big deal) but truth be told it isn't the retail version of software and shouldn't be compared to a retail version of another similar software.
Windows NON-OEM XP retails for $199. If you are going to make comparisons please make them accurately.
Your flawed comparison....
hitek357
New member
Actually, Most people just USE Windows, and the reason is ... uh, ... well, no one knows exactly why, but it may be for the same reason that most people drive on the right side of the road in the US. Don't you think this reason is closer to the truth?hatsoff said:
:thumb:hatsoff said:
hatsoff
New member
Knight said:
Not so. See below.
That's right. To my knowledge, you cannot buy OS X OEM without buying a Mac, though I could possibly be wrong about that. Meanwhile, there's little or no reason to spend extra for the retail version of XP. This is, by the way, what I meant by retail outlets not selling "the full range" of XP releases.
There is no difference between the actual software of OEM and retail releases. Newegg ships out their OEM products with power splitters, last I heard, which allows them to do so legally.
So is it a flawed comparison? Well, of course, and for a variety of reasons, which is exactly why I said that OS prices don't much matter.
The one place where it might matter is upgrading. How much does it cost to upgrade your computer from OS 9 to OS X? As far as I can tell, you'd have to buy the full retail release of OS X to do so, which costs about $109. To upgrade from Windows 98 or ME to XP, you could get the OEM version for $90. If for whatever reason you wanted retail product support, you could get the special "Upgrade Version" for $105. The problem is, as noted above, OS prices are just a small part of the big picture. Considering everything else, they're a *very* small part.
EDIT: I didn't notice Newegg also offers OS X, for significantly cheaper than Apple.com, at $109. I didn't find it at first because they had it hiding in "Mac Operating Systems," a separate category from simply "Operating Systems."
Last edited:
patman
Active member
I know you caught this, ac OS X Tiger id for sale. But Mac has two versions, The regular everyday version, and then there is a server version with extra server tools.hatsoff said:
Windows you gotta get the blue-screen-ridden(or is it green screen now? dont' know, Don't ever get them!) home addition that is half baked and virtually useless, may as well Get Win 2000 instead.. for a similar price, if not cheaper to Home?
To compare home to Tiger..... There is no comparison. The developmental and built in server tools and command features make Home look like 3.1 in comparison..... suuure, after running a billion wizards and getting some illegal software, you COULD get that... but out of the box, the development software alone is worth hundreds.
In my humble opinion at least
hatsoff
New member
patman said:I know you caught this, ac OS X Tiger id for sale. But Mac has two versions, The regular everyday version, and then there is a server version with extra server tools.
Windows you gotta get the blue-screen-ridden(or is it green screen now? dont' know, Don't ever get them!) home addition that is half baked and virtually useless, may as well Get Win 2000 instead.. for a similar price, if not cheaper to Home?
To compare home to Tiger..... There is no comparison. The developmental and built in server tools and command features make Home look like 3.1 in comparison..... suuure, after running a billion wizards and getting some illegal software, you COULD get that... but out of the box, the development software alone is worth hundreds.
In my humble opinion at least
The vast majority of people not only don't require developmental and server tools, but they would probably never use them even if provided. For the minority of folks who do need such features, you've got Server 2003.
By the way, Windows XP Home and Professional are almost exactly the same. The latter has some advanced networking features and a few other bells and whistles lacking in the former, but other than that they're practically twins. Windows 2000 is nice, but the XP kernel is slightly more reliable, as far as I can tell.
patman
Active member
I guess it is smeting no one can say with certianty.hatsoff said:
I have a pro windows anti mac friend who hates home. Well I have a lot of other friends who disown home too.
It is my cornor of the world who say home sucks and crashes way more than 2K and Pro. So who knows. If you think the value of home is better than the value of Mac, even after considering the shear cost of the tools you get (even if you don't use them), that is your opinion...
Just to add on to my opinion:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Windows_Server_2003#Pricing
It is over $600 and no Dev software mentioned
Mac os X Tiger $169
Dev software, free, server software, free, email server built in...
I just t hink the value is in a mac and the potential for productive work is there for less money too...
But anyway,,,, how about that buggy vista?
Macs can run OS X, Windows, and Linux. Other PCs are limited in that they can't run OS X or any Mac software. How can anyone argue that PCs are better than Macs if Macs can do everything other PCs can do and more?hatsoff said:
Most Windows XP users have never used a non-Windows operating system, and most have never even seen Mac OS X, let alone used it for any significant period of time. They use Windows because "everyone else" does. It's not based on a decision or comparison, it's just the default.
Why?
When did you own a Mac?