I'm really wanting a new iMac, but I'm broke, and rethinking building a PC. How bad is Vista when it comes to being a piece of bloated Microsoft sh!t? Say good things...please.
Vista. How reliable?
- Thread starter blue
- Start date
Nice things to say about Vista...
"It's better than Windows ME."
That's all I've got.
"It's better than Windows ME."
That's all I've got.
And now I question how much quicker the machine I just built on Newegg would be than the base iMac for .raw batch processing. 4gb RAM, Core 2 Quad...
depends what you're going to do with it.
we bought a laptop mainly for taking on the road for email/Internet and the occasional work document etc. For that it's great - I actually like it a lot.
I wouldn't trust it as a workhorse though.
Yeah. Heavy image processing. This is my concern...Maybe I should just stick with XP Lite if I were to go the PC route.
edit: Linux? Mmm. No. No photochop in Linux.
Three reasons for really wanting an iMac:
-I love OS X
-It's beautiful
-You don't have to **** with it
If you're building a PC, your copy of Vista is not going to be subsidized so I would say don't bother, for now. If you were getting it subsidized by Dell or something, I'd say you should definitely go for Vista since it is an inevitable upgrade, but give it until the first service pack before jumping in.
BTW, most applications are not going to take advantage of a quad core processor, research before you splurge for something like that. The speed increase will very likely not be worth the cash.
BTW, most applications are not going to take advantage of a quad core processor, research before you splurge for something like that. The speed increase will very likely not be worth the cash.
Yeah, I know, I just like running thirty million things at once...think Adobe Bridge, Dreamweaver, Photoshop, iTunes, Firefox, Word, Illustrator...
All while Bridge is leaching RAWs from the camera and Photoshop is batch processing some others.
Think it'll help me there?
Yes, quad cores do help when you're too stupid to close windows that you're finished with
I have a bad habit of running all of my my spaces windows with memory intensive apps and not closing them. Quad core macpro and 4gb of ram helps me here.
I normally have PSD, ILL, Safari, Parallels, Firefox Adium, Mail, Textmate and CSSedit all open at once.
PSD only recognizes 2 cores, btw.
Also, leopard makes tiger look like it needed a kick in the ass. So much faster, wow. And retail safari 3.0.4 is very nice.
I normally have PSD, ILL, Safari, Parallels, Firefox Adium, Mail, Textmate and CSSedit all open at once.
PSD only recognizes 2 cores, btw.
Also, leopard makes tiger look like it needed a kick in the ass. So much faster, wow. And retail safari 3.0.4 is very nice.
Short answer: No.
I'd wait until Christmas time, when they release SP1 to upgrade.
I'd wait until Christmas time, when they release SP1 to upgrade.
I wonder how the iMac would shape up against a PC built with the same cash...
Well, I have been running Vista for 8 months. Known issues:
1. Driver issues. Printer driver issues are sh!ty.
2. Video driver issues. Find one that works. And never trust the updated driver that many video manufacturers "release". Be careful in this regard because you'll be reformatting your hard drive to get it to work again. And thats a fact.
3. Handles memory real nice.
4. Indexing service enough to drive you to drink..............MORE.
5. The User safety crap, allow/disallow can be shut off, but has to be done on a few levels to really have it turned off.
I do not run the Aero crap simply because my notebook has two gigs of ram, and 128 of it is shared with the video, so they say.
Conclusions. I crashed twice, the last one was one week ago. I have all of my data on an external drive, and since Vista, back up my PST once a week. I'm going back to XP, more stable, more reliable. (I can't believe I said anything positive about MicroSh!t)
1. Driver issues. Printer driver issues are sh!ty.
2. Video driver issues. Find one that works. And never trust the updated driver that many video manufacturers "release". Be careful in this regard because you'll be reformatting your hard drive to get it to work again. And thats a fact.
3. Handles memory real nice.
4. Indexing service enough to drive you to drink..............MORE.
5. The User safety crap, allow/disallow can be shut off, but has to be done on a few levels to really have it turned off.
I do not run the Aero crap simply because my notebook has two gigs of ram, and 128 of it is shared with the video, so they say.
Conclusions. I crashed twice, the last one was one week ago. I have all of my data on an external drive, and since Vista, back up my PST once a week. I'm going back to XP, more stable, more reliable. (I can't believe I said anything positive about MicroSh!t)
Sorry, but an instance of one bizarre driver causing you problems doesn't make it a fact...
Indexing and UAC can both be totally disabled in less than 30 seconds. UAC does not have to be disabled on multiple "levels" you simply shut it off and it stops prompting you for system level access.
Not trying to rag on you, but easily correctable or extremely obscure problems are not reasons to dismiss an OS.
Naw dude, it's all good, but the instance of the video drive is recreate able...(albeit sadly). I called the good folks at gateway, and they said it was a hardware issue. So, I figured I'd just reformat anyway, and low and behold....fixed. Intel said they have know of these issue with Vista, however it is Vista's responsibility to remedy, not them.
The issue was tested on three other notebooks, with the same result. So while not obscure, still bizarre nonetheless!
The UAC for me had to be disabled in the security area and then finally in MSconfig. Finding that out then made a 30 second process.....prior to that knowledge however, factored in with how slow I am in the head, made a a day or two.....
(Still owe you beer, and might be used as an excuse for a road trip...well that and riding down your way... )
The issue was tested on three other notebooks, with the same result. So while not obscure, still bizarre nonetheless!
The UAC for me had to be disabled in the security area and then finally in MSconfig. Finding that out then made a 30 second process.....prior to that knowledge however, factored in with how slow I am in the head, made a a day or two.....
(Still owe you beer, and might be used as an excuse for a road trip...well that and riding down your way...
)Wow. Uhh, pass on Vista.
Leopard just came out. Now I'm at a crossroads...
Leopard just came out. Now I'm at a crossroads...
Generally pretty close. You can always find lopsided comparisons one way or the other if you try, but generally if you spend the same money on the a similar quality of hardware they'll be very close. I have an XPS 410 2.4g dual core 4gb memory and an Imac 2.1g dual core 3 GB of memory. They run at smilar speeds, the grapics card is faster on the xps410 but it cost more than the Imac.
My main concern would apps and licenses. If you have a bunch of heavy duty apps (legally) you could spend several times as much on software as hardware.
You'll generally get a much better deal on memory if you buy after market. Dall and Apple both have the habit of marking memory upgrades up tremendously.
EDIT: Vista is neither as bad as it's detractors say, nor as good as it's supporters say. If you have fairly new supported hardware, in a desktop, you probably won't have much in the way of trouble. If you have iffy or obscure hardware....buy a new system.
Hahahahahahahahahahaha.... *snort*
Anywho.
I threw together a PC in the 1000-1200$ range on Newegg:
-Core 2 Quad 2.4ghz (reviews are telling me the difference between Duo and Quad is HUGE, especially when you OC the Quad a touch)
-4gb Patriot RAM
-LG 20" display
-nVidia something something video card
-500gb hdd
For comparison, the iMac has (for the same price)...
-Core 2 Duo 2.0ghz
-1gb RAM
-20" display
-250gb HDD (plus a 160gb firewire I have that is mac-only)
-nVidia something something video card
-Incredible resale value
I'd like to overclock my system a bit. I know, I know, read the thread.
As far as obscure systems? Well lets see,
Intel Core2 CPU, Centrino Duo, T7200 @ 2 GHz w/ 2 gigs of RAM
As far as obscure systems? Well lets see,
Intel Core2 CPU, Centrino Duo, T7200 @ 2 GHz w/ 2 gigs of RAM
And the rest of the system? You could have a fairly normal system with one troublesome piece of hardware and be screwed. Laptops vendors are notorious for changing hardware every few months. Ask anyone who does support.
I thought so...
irate2:Another $50-100 or so will expand the mac to 3-4GB
Unless your apps are multi-threaded or you run several apps batch processing at the same time you won't see much difference between a duo and quad core. If you have the right apps you see almost double the performance.
The video is the 128 Intel 945 GM with 128 megs of shared video memory. 160 Gig HD with a DVD Dual layer burner; full keyboard,meaning I have number keypad. DDR2 644 MHz front side bus.
All it takes is one poorly supported chipset on the motherboard to potentially cause a problem. The Intel 945GM express chipset has had problems under Vista, and Linux. Especially with games on Vista. I've seen some posts where it looks like some people are having luck uninstalling their driver and reinstalling the newest drivers (15.6.1)
Bwahahahahaha. Seriously? You're buying a computer system for the resale value? So you can get, what, an extra hundred bucks in 3 years?
SK6; despite what the vendor is saying, it's on them to put out a driver that doesn't FUBAR the OS, it's not on Microsoft to make sure their OS plays nice with every driver that gets put out. Period. If they release a driver, they'd damn sure better make sure it works - and yes, that's even if there's a bug in the OS that's causing the problem. They still need to release a proper driver, or not release one at all.
Overclocking laptops is generally bad news - at least that's been my experience. They already straddle a fine line between heat and performance, and the heat they generate without an overclock already shortens the component lifespan. Add to that the fact that you can't get at the inside if your heatsink decides to come loose or something like that, and there's a lot that can go wrong.
I'm a little late replying, but the only issue that I've had with Vista is that it didn't automatically support the ten year old network card that was in my computer. IMO driver availability for a ten year old piece of hardware doesn't even count as an issue.
There have been zero reliability issues since February, so I'd say it's been at least as solid as XP. As long as you're running it on adequate hardware, it will be at least as fast as XP, and I hear that SP1 runs even better.
Unless you're using software that you know won't run on Vista I wouldn't have any qualms about using it.
There have been zero reliability issues since February, so I'd say it's been at least as solid as XP. As long as you're running it on adequate hardware, it will be at least as fast as XP, and I hear that SP1 runs even better.
Unless you're using software that you know won't run on Vista I wouldn't have any qualms about using it.
My Dell XPS 410, stock and up to date on patches; shows 8.72/10 on the system stability chart in the reliability monitor. The most common error is Iexplore.exe crashing. That's not very impressive considering I mostly use it for visual studio 2005, medevil total war and half-life. It only gets used a maybe 4 hours a week. I do have Norton internet suite (it's a pig) running too.
The system is a 2.4ghz core2-duo 4GB ram with an Nvidia 8600 GTS, and a Creative x-fi gamer sound card, Vista home premium.
been working fine for me, running vista pro business on the laptop and have every gadget known to man and has actually impressed me witht he reliability, as compared to my toughbook with XP.
Reactor, you realize that iexplore.exe errors are going to be mostly stability problems with IE and not with Vista, right? IE isn't particularly stable on XP either.
Ha, no, but put this in perspective: I sold a used G4 iMac (lamp style) base model with an 800mhz processor and a 60 gig HDD for $400 a few months ago on eBay (That I paid $150 for from university surplus a year priorBwahahahahaha. Seriously? You're buying a computer system for the resale value? So you can get, what, an extra hundred bucks in 3 years?
). I don't know that I could give away a PC that old.
Wow... I may have underestimated the idiocy of Apple zealots
Same...If I'd known at the time how much they went for on FleaBay, I would've bought the lot of 12 and sold them all at a ridiculous profit.Wow... I may have underestimated the idiocy of Apple zealots
Of course, but according to sworn federal court testimony by Microsoft IE is part of the OS and cannot be removed...
And Microsoft keeps track of it in their reliability monitor. There are of course other errors, like Visual Studio 2005 crashing, it does that a lot XP or Vista.P.S: I like the vista/aero interface, as long as you have a good monitor and snappy video card.
No doubt, just pointing out that the question was in regards to the Vista OS, and IE7 being unreliable isn't really that relevant since IE7 is also unstable in XP.
I really hate IE. What a P.O.S. browser. The only thing good about it is that it is totally slack about standards for page rendering which sucks 98% of the time, but those who are really lax with their coding still get their pages rendered reasonably well.
I really hate IE. What a P.O.S. browser. The only thing good about it is that it is totally slack about standards for page rendering which sucks 98% of the time, but those who are really lax with their coding still get their pages rendered reasonably well.
No sweat, I knew what you were getting at, and wasn't offended. It was a valid point.
In my limited Vista itself seems pretty reliable, and runs pretty well as long as you have a dual core, plenty of memory, and a good video card. Vista seems to be pretty intolerant of bad drivers, but many vendors have been getting away with slack coding practices for a long time and need to shape up. Bad drivers are an issue in any OS, not just Vista. Video drivers seem to be the worst offenders, but that's probably due to the short time to market.
http://www.ridemonkey.com/forums/search.php?searchid=1738979Wow... I may have underestimated the idiocy of Apple zealots
If that doesn't work..
Search for user "?????"
With the set up I have, and mostly due to the video, I wanted to run Areo. However, being an old AutoCad user, I have formed certain habits due to the nature of the software, and that is, DO NOT run any extraneous items that can eat RAM.
So, based on the system, mostly the video, I am REAL apprehensive about running Areo. Is the use of Areo negligible enough to try?
So, based on the system, mostly the video, I am REAL apprehensive about running Areo. Is the use of Areo negligible enough to try?
I have Vista running on my laptop for about 4 months now and had no problems at all. If you're planning on using Photoshop, it "looks"(haven't done any measures yet) to run faster on Vista.
I say, go for it. After a few tweaks works like a charm and you can get it running(with Aero) using about 300M of ram(no superfetch).
On the other hand, if you like OSX, i'd get a PC and have it run OSX. You can find lists of 100% compatible hardware at the insanemac foruns and end up with a much cheaper and fast "Mac".
I say, go for it. After a few tweaks works like a charm and you can get it running(with Aero) using about 300M of ram(no superfetch).
On the other hand, if you like OSX, i'd get a PC and have it run OSX. You can find lists of 100% compatible hardware at the insanemac foruns and end up with a much cheaper and fast "Mac".
Aero has been tested several times and all indications are that the system performance hit is virtually nothing, since Aero relies primarily on the video card for rendering.
Okay kiddies...these are its:
PC
-2.4ghz Core 2 Quad Q6600 CPU
-4gb Patriot RAM
-500gb 7200RPM HDD paired with 80gb Raptor 10,000RPM HDD
-nVidia 8600GT GPU
-20" LG display with 3000:1 contrast and 2ms response
-All other boring goodies not cheaped out on (Mobo, Case, PSU, etc)
Orrr...
iMac
-2.0ghz Core 2 Duo CPU
-4gb RAM (would upgrade the 1gb immediately)
-410GB storage total (OEM 250GB+160GB Firewire external drive)
-ATI XsomethingterriblesoweonlysellitOEM GPU
-20" Apple display
Will the Core 2 Duo running under OS X be able to shape up against the Core 2 Quad in XP? EPIC DEATHMATCH!
PC
-2.4ghz Core 2 Quad Q6600 CPU
-4gb Patriot RAM
-500gb 7200RPM HDD paired with 80gb Raptor 10,000RPM HDD
-nVidia 8600GT GPU
-20" LG display with 3000:1 contrast and 2ms response
-All other boring goodies not cheaped out on (Mobo, Case, PSU, etc)
Orrr...
iMac
-2.0ghz Core 2 Duo CPU
-4gb RAM (would upgrade the 1gb immediately)
-410GB storage total (OEM 250GB+160GB Firewire external drive)
-ATI XsomethingterriblesoweonlysellitOEM GPU
-20" Apple display
Will the Core 2 Duo running under OS X be able to shape up against the Core 2 Quad in XP? EPIC DEATHMATCH!
