A moment of fun III
- Published October 31st, 2007 in Rant
I’m terribly sorry for rushing to my blog and don’t wait until the end of the article for summing up all the non-sense that Paul writes about.
If Apple is seriously about slowing that growth, it needs to offer an OS that is obviously better than Vista. Leopard is not that system.
Although it’s definitely arguable whether one OS is better than the other, just the fact that you have 0 viruses on OS X, it’s faster than the previous version and doesn’t require megalomanic to run on (yes, it can run on a G4 867Mhz!) it’s definitely something that pends to the OS X side. What exactly has Vista to offer to balance the scaler.
Now, let’s get back to work. Enough of this foolishness.
P.S. - Just before I was preparing myself to publish this article, I actually finished reading the article. Paul ends it by complaining about the price! $129 against.. err.. $399 for Windows Vista?
A inveja e uma coisa muito feia.
;)
Just thought I’d point out that Vista Home Premium (the one for most home users) is between $111 and $219 depending on where you shop. None of this $400 nonsense. I would also like to point out that Vista can run (depends on your value of run, which I suspect that the Apple requirement depends as well) on an 800Mhz processor as well. That is all.
phantomdata,
Leopard does not have a half-cut, half-baked version. It has one single version with everything. The version that corresponds to that is Vista Ultimate, which costs $399. So my argument holds.
For instance, I do use FrontRow that comes with Leopard. Home Premium does not come with Windows Media Center. I also use remote desktop, which also comes with Leopard. Home Premium does not come with remote desktop. Amongst other examples.
So, if I were to buy Windows Vista (I actually got a copy of Vista Business through MSDN Academic Alliance), I’d have to buy the Ultimate and, hence, $399.
Finally, as for running Vista on a 800Mhz processor.. yeah, right. You might be able to run the OS on that processor, but you’ll be running nothing but the OS. As for Mac OS X, I know a lot of people running Tiger and now Leopard on 867Mhz G4 and they actually can run other applications besides the OS.
Weird… I’ve got Home Premium and it includes both Media Center and Remote Desktop (both server and client). Maybe I got lucky and got a special version? I see that I can’t use “remote applications” with Windows Vista Home Premium, is that perhaps what you’re talking about? Frankly, I never saw anything interesting in Ultimate anyway so I never gave it a second thought.
I also recognize that the 800Mhz minimum requirement is a joke, I even pointed that out. That is pretty impressive to hear that Leopard and applications is running well on an 867Mhz machine. I can’t even imagine the smarts necessary to write code that’s performant enough to run a full featured modern operating system with such extreme constraints while still allowing for applications to run. Have these people turned a lot of things off, or are they running a stock install?
phantomdate,
I compared Home Premium and Ultimate based on Microsoft’s website. You can check it out for yourself here.
As for running it on a G4, of course you can’t expect Spotlight to be instantaneous or Safari to open in a glimpse, but it’s definitely usable, at least compared to Vista on a similar machine.
mlopes; Ya. I double checked against MS’ website. It doesn’t say anything about no remote desktop (like I said, it doesn’t have ‘remote application’ support which seems to be a Citrix-alike) and it definitely confirms that Media Center is available for Home Premium. Home Premium really is the best comparison of features. The only thing that you could argue about would be AD integration warranting a Business upgrade - but OSX has never played well with AD anyway. 10.3 still doesn’t like our Win2k3 PDC.
wrt performance; Do you have access to any of these machines? I’d love to see some videos of it. I’ve heard about mac users using ancient hardware w/ newer operating systems but I’ve always found it hard to believe. I know that there would be some slow-down and all, but to have a usable machine with modern features like that… it sounds too good to be true.
Also, in the interest of being fair… have you tried running Vista on an 867Mhz machine? :)
phantomdata,
I’ll try to post a video of a friend of mine using Leopard on his anciente iBook with a 867Mhz G4 CPU.
As for using Vista on a 867Mhz CPU, I actually used it on an Athlon 1400 and it was barely usable. It was too slow too boot, IE7 or Firefox took ages to load and you could notice a huge delay just using the OS.
mlopes; Sweet! I’m excited to see the iBook.
Have you tried Vista since release? I noticed that a lot of performance issues were fixed a few months after release. I had the same reaction, but since some recent patches performance has gone way up. We just got in a new 2.0Ghz single core w/ 1Gb or RAM here @ the office w/ Vista Business on it and it runs quite nicely. I also found that disabling the auto indexer and superfetcher improve performance vastly (if you’re ever forced to use Vista).
phantomdata,
Yes, I have Vista installed on my iMac 24″ along with Ubuntu 7.10 and Leopard. It’s not slow on this machine, but OS X feels definitely snappier.
I have heard people saying that Vista feels pokier on their Apple hardware. If it’s any consolation, I’ve also heard people saying that OSX feels pokier on their high end standardized PCs than Vista. I dunno if that’s an issue with hacked in drivers, lack of system updates or what - but I have seen it first-hand. Oh the day when people can legitimately buy OSX for standardized PCs… I can only imagine what that would do to the OS market. Either way, I do wonder why Vista seems pokier on Apple hardware. I kind of wish that I could see it first-hand to poke at it a bit.
What are the specs on that particular iMac?