Windows Vista Beta 2 Plagued by Bugs

[Turbo]

Isn't Windows Vista 64-bit?
Windows Vista supports 64-bit extensions, yes. It is fully functional, however, with older 32-bit limited CPUs.

If only it were as simple as that. Did you read post 20?


Here are a couple of articles that recommend that most home users run the 32-bit version of Vista because of all the headaches involved with the 64-bit version:

Vista: Should I Install 64-bit or 32-bit Version? (x64 vs x86)

32-bit Vs. 64-bit Systems: What's The Difference?​

But the 32-bit version won't even be able to play next-gen DVDs, an appealing feature to most home users.


Users who don't like the major tradeoffs involved in choosing a Vista platform ought to consider buying a Mac instead:

64-bit Leopard knocks spots off Vista

...

Windows Vista will come in a multitude of flavours: six at the last count. And it's said that all of these, bar the starter edition, will come with the added 64-bit support needed for modern CPUs - but the 64-bit versions will be completely different installable builds.

The 64-bit installation will come with a 32-bit emulation layer called WOW (Window on Windows, and nothing to do with orcs and elves) which will, as you can probably guess, allow you to run your old 32-bit apps on your shiny new 64-bit Vista, via emulation. 32-bit hardware drivers will not work.

...

There will be just one version of workstation-based Leopard (plus an accompanying server edition), and it will come with 64-bit and full non-emulated 32-bit support.

Starting with Xcode 2.4, the OSX Universal binary format has been extended to support 32-bit and 64-bit for both PPC and Intel processors inside the same file, giving OSX quad universal binaries. Users don't have to choose between processor architectures nor 32-bit or 64-bit processors, either at the OS or application layers, it's all abstracted away from them - as it should be.

Note that the non-emulated support in OSX is for applications and drivers. 32-bit programs on Vista 64 need to work on WOW emulation to run in Vista, and 32-bit drivers are a no-no. Lack of driver support is the main reason Windows XP x64 hasn't been widely adopted, and why the Vista fudge will ensure hardware incompatibilities between the two Windows versions remain for sometime to come.

This is quite a boon for OSX, and one that should be highlighted frequently and often.
​

 

[Carpaint]

:dizzy:

 

[hatsoff]

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?

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. Secondly, Macs don't have the full range of hardware support PCs do. Thirdly, I have yet to be convinced software like Parallels is bug-free or as speedy as a native Windows environment, and dual-boot systems are less than ideal. You see, just because a system is physically capable of doing something doesn't mean it is realistic or practical. If you're more comfortable with XP, how often do you think you'd boot up with OS X? And if you're rarely or never going to use it, why even bother with dual boot? Finally, and perhaps most importantly, the prices of Windows PCs simply cannot be matched by Apple products.

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.

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

Why?

When did you own a Mac?

I've never owned a Mac, thank God. 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. Nowadays it's no surprise nobody ever uses them.

I've also installed Tiger on my PC. It doesn't support my Audigy LS, but I once removed the card and just ran my integrated sound, which is supported. OS X is just too slow and clumsy for my taste. I find its operating environment to be less intuitive. There are tasks I regularly perform which cannot be done in OS X. XP is just much simpler and easier.

As for Vista, I did not know that about the 64 and 32-bit versions, nor about HD playback. I'm not really enthusiastic about betas, so I have to admit I'm not particularly knowledgable about this upcoming release. Personally, I'm just fine with XP. When Vista finally hits the streets, I doubt I'll be rushing to stores.

 

[Aimiel]

I don't just want a Mac because they're more reliable and capable than a PC, I'm planning on a career change, and want to go into graphics; and anyone entering the computer graphics industry needs to be able to work on a Mac, which is the industry standard for every newspaper and any other job in the graphics-related field.

 

[hatsoff]

I'm not sure about Macs being more reliable or capable. I love my Windows PC. It's fast--really fast--fun and does everything I want minus video capture (because I can't afford a capture card just yet). I can't imagine how I'd go about doing some of my favorite tasks if I only had a Mac. I don't think it would be possible, in some cases.

But, like I said, to each his own.

 

[Aimiel]

I can't imagine how I'd go about doing some of my favorite tasks if I only had a Mac. I don't think it would be possible, in some cases.

Anything a PC can do, a Mac can do, and do faster. :chuckle: (only had a Mac) That's funny.

 

[hatsoff]

Anything a PC can do, a Mac can do, and do faster. :chuckle: (only had a Mac) That's funny.

By installing Windows on it, maybe.

 

[Nathon Detroit]

I'm not sure about Macs being more reliable or capable. I love my Windows PC. It's fast--really fast--fun and does everything I want minus video capture (because I can't afford a capture card just yet). I can't imagine how I'd go about doing some of my favorite tasks if I only had a Mac. I don't think it would be possible, in some cases.

But, like I said, to each his own.

Hack ** Cough ** spits coffee onto monitor ***

In my industry I am forced to use both MacOS and Windows and trust me when I tell you a Mac is light years (and I mean thousands of light years) ahead of Windows.

There simply is no comparison! The things that come standard and function beautifully on a Mac (such as video capture) is a nightmare on a PC. A Mac is ultra reliable and secure while PC's are anything but reliable and far from secure.

My son recently switched colleges and the last college he attended was all Mac based. His biggest concern about his new campus wasn't how hot the babes were or how good the football team was but would they use Macs or PC's! :shocked: Thankfully when we went to check it out his classroom was filled with brand new Macs on every desk.

 

[hatsoff]

Hack ** Cough ** spits coffee onto monitor ***

In my industry I am forced to use both MacOS and Windows and trust me when I tell you a Mac is light years (and I mean thousands of light years) ahead of Windows.

There simply is no comparison! The things that come standard and function beautifully on a Mac (such as video capture) is a nightmare on a PC. A Mac is ultra reliable and secure while PC's are anything but reliable and far from secure.

My son recently switched colleges and the last college he attended was all Mac based. His biggest concern about his new campus wasn't how hot the babes were or how good the football team was but would they use Macs or PC's! :shocked: Thankfully when we went to check it out his classroom was filled with brand new Macs on every desk.

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. Well, I'd prefer to trust my own experiences. I encourage others to do the same. If you like Macs, great. Personally, I prefer Windows-based PCs. I find them easier to use and more reliable for my own purposes.

 

[Aimiel]

Hack ** Cough ** spits coffee onto monitor ***

I did the same thing. :chuckle:

Seriously though, have these people never been to the mall and kicked the tires on a Mac at an Apple store? I thought TOL had more intelligent people on it than most Christian websites. I guess it takes all kinds. :nono:

 

[Aimiel]

I find them easier to use and more reliable for my own purposes.

Macs are far easier to use and far more reliable. The most enjoyable feature I know of is the ease of software installation. You can drag and drop files and they are installed. An 'installation' isn't necessary, because the architecture is far simpler (open, by the way). The problems I've encountered with Windows' installation software alone would convince me that a Mac is far easier as well as more reliable; but that is just the tip of the iceberg. Security issues that exist in Windows never even come up on a Mac, it is just the best all-around computer, and Windows PC's just don't even come close.

 

[Nathon Detroit]

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.

Uh.... I beg to differ.

In this case we have both platforms and we can compare them in accurate and reliable ways and therefore we have far more than "anecdotal evidence".

hatsoff, doesn't it bother you just a bit that Windows hasn't updated their OS in years and there is no relief in sight? And doesn't it bother you that ALL the major improvements that are slated for Windows Vista are things that have already been incorporated into Mac OS and have been available for several years?

You really should expect more for your money.

 

[Nathon Detroit]

Macs are far easier to use and far more reliable. The most enjoyable feature I know of is the ease of software installation. You can drag and drop files and they are installed. An 'installation' isn't necessary, because the architecture is far simpler (open, by the way). The problems I've encountered with Windows' installation software alone would convince me that a Mac is far easier as well as more reliable; but that is just the tip of the iceberg. Security issues that exist in Windows never even come up on a Mac, it is just the best all-around computer, and Windows PC's just don't even come close.

The amount of money people could save on support alone by switching to a Mac is mind boggling.

 

[Aimiel]

hatsoff, doesn't it bother you just a bit that Windows hasn't updated their OS in years and there is no relief in sight? And doesn' it bother you that ALL the major improvements that are slated for Windows Vista are things that have already been incorporated into Mac OS and have been available for several years?

You really should expect more for your money.

The amount of money people could save on support alone by switching to a Mac is mind boggling.

:chuckle:

You are right. The boat anchor that Microsoft has become to PC owners doesn't bother people who run Linux, but the only people I know who use it are in the IT industry. My son always tells me I'm behind the times still using stone axes and bear skins (Windows MCE).

 

[Sharri]

out of curiousity, any programmers here on TOL?


Peace in Christ
Sharri

 

[Nathon Detroit]

out of curiousity, any programmers here on TOL?


Peace in Christ
Sharri

I wouldn't call myself a programmer although I do a bit of hacking. My expertise is in Graphics, web, print, video, GUI design etc.

 

[Nathon Detroit]

Windows Vista isn't going to be cheap. :shocked:

 

[Aimiel]

You have to get the $399 'ultimate' to get the 3D windows, among other enhancements, too.

 

[hatsoff]

Macs are far easier to use and far more reliable. The most enjoyable feature I know of is the ease of software installation. You can drag and drop files and they are installed. An 'installation' isn't necessary, because the architecture is far simpler (open, by the way). The problems I've encountered with Windows' installation software alone would convince me that a Mac is far easier as well as more reliable; but that is just the tip of the iceberg. Security issues that exist in Windows never even come up on a Mac, it is just the best all-around computer, and Windows PC's just don't even come close.

Again, for *my own purposes* I find Windows more intuitive, more reliable, more capable and of course much, much, much, much.....much, much less expensive. If you want to make sweeping claims about the overall state of things, you're welcome to do so, but I'm not buying them.

The amount of money people could save on support alone by switching to a Mac is mind boggling.

This is a common claim made by Mac lovers, but is it true? I have never seen reliable statistics on the matter. Again, though, in my case it is a non-issue. I've never spent a dime on PC support. Neither has anyone in my immediate family, unless you count my Dad's one-time purchase of Norton SystemWorks.

 

[badp]

8086 assembly language. Woo I love that. Beautiful.

Macs are not more secure, they just give that illusion because they are not as widely used. If Macs became the dominant platform tomorrow, all the exploits would soon be uncovered. I have to say, though, OS X with its Unix foundation was a very good move on Apple's part. Everything before that was total crap. And yes, all Windows versions before W2K were crap too The thing I find funny is how similar Macs and PCs have become over the years. I like them both.