Win Xp Vs Osx - Page 2

Try running Windows 3.1 on that machine, for a bit of a retro-gui glow.
Or a non-gui linux, for geek chic.

also, i tend to just open the threads w/ new comments in them in tabs, in order from top to bottom. as such the other post in ANOTHER thread, wasn't noticed until after i had read this one. i'm well aware of abf's mac user experience, and the jest still stands. btw, the value i see in these kinds of forums is that owners of various systems can comment on their experiences with their various systems. formal reviews from tech sites are nice but don't give an ongoing user experience as test systems most often have to be returned. the exception i have seen is anandtech's reviews which talk about his experience in owning mac systems that he has reviewed. if i wanted a laptop review and advice that based on a limited snapshot user experience i would be doddling over at cnet or some such thing. as it is i enjoy these forums as they're based on owner's experience w/ their systems, something which abf has yet to claim with a mac. so yes, if abf says things that are constructive to the apple forums, great. if however, he offers criticism wholesale, which isn't uncommon imo in these parts of notebookforums with him, then i don't think it's unreasonable to clarify to other users, the nature of his experience with the systems he continues to criticize. yes he mentioned his experience in another thread, and has in the past. my initial response was meant playfully. if i had been trying to call himout on the carpet in detailed fashion, i would have done so.

well, to each their own, the toshiba notebook i use has 512MB of RAM and 64MB of it shared in video ram on a 2.4Ghz Celeron, and at times slows down dramatically in the UI w/ general use. a dell inspiron @ 1.8Ghz that i do work on regularly with 256MB of RAM is dog slow. then again, my older desktop celeronA 300 @ 450 w/ 768MB of RAM and a dedicated video card tinkers along nicely enough in windows to allow for basic using. low specs, plus a more recent windows version will bog down a system. low specs w/ a more recent windows version plus updated hardware by way of GPU and RAM will make things usable. i think the difference for me is that i don't think i'd bother to criticize an obviously underspec'd machine and try to pass it off as generalizable to other systems which handle the OS and whatnot, in fine fashion. and no, that's not in response specifically to abf's one post which u r referring to. it's in repsonse to the body of mac related posts he's bessed us all with.

ran mandrake 10 w/kde 3.3 on it for a while.... sexy

No. You are wrong. Those pcs are more than powerful enough to run xp perfectly, especially the toshiba. It is the way you have them setup, viruses or sometihng. Only if by "regular use" you mean huge image edits and massive files in memory could you be right that XP can't run on those.

abf's problem, I think, is that apple sells the "obviously underspecced" computers with OSX preinstalled.

for the most part thats true, except for the MBP...would like it to be a few $100 cheaper though.


also your laptops triadone should be PLENTY to run XP just fine and dandy for regular office and internet work, evne some light gaming.

um, no actually u r completely wrong. i'm quite sure u haven't been on the systems i'm referring to so please don't comment on specific machines u haven't worked with. that or u know the ppl, and that'd be just weird, especially if u were living w/ me and my fiancée and we didn't know it. i'm quite familiar w/ windows hardware installation and maintenance. don't let the iBook fool u. freshly installed systems have made the UI a bit smoother but, basic tasks like having multiple browser windows open, word, and 2 IM programs have created regular hiccups and slow downs where my desktop (discrete GPU) and iBook move along smoothly (mind u my desktop previously with 512MB of RAM would bog down moreso than my iBook would under similar loads, but that's also an issue w/ the 32-bit Athlon XPs as they're not the best multitaskers. feel free to research the multitasking limitations of the celeron, athlon XP, athlon64, Pentium 4 prior to HT, and the PM, as compared to P4 HT, P4 dual cores, and dual core AMD chips). It's doable and fine for most things, but to say that there isn't a noticable decrease in responsiveness would be a lie. for business uses where one needs to move seamlessly thru their apps this would be unacceptable. i could make some webcam demonstrations, but i'd hope u could simply trust the experience of an ongoing windows user of hmm, going on 12 years since i built my 1st system, and that's w/o a virus or spyware to speak of. once again, i'm no slouch when it comes to building, installing, maintaining, and selling windows systems.

the toshiba, yes, light java script gaming. lol ok, maybe some 3 generations old games. the inspiron? not w/o some more RAM. but doesn't that just validate the fact that most windows systems, the ones u never seem to criticize w/ the energy u denounce mac with, are as poorly spec'd to run xp? you're credibility sinks when u or anyone tries to comment on systems u don't work with directly and in an ongoing fashion. i would think u'd be aware of that by now. ever notice how i don't bother criticizing linux to any reasonable degree? i've toyed with it, but i don't think i have the experience to merit an opinion that i'd try to sell to others as some kind of truth.

i dont need to see your specific hardware to comment. i've been on similar systems in the past. i've been on PCs powered by all sorts of CPUs including P1 through 4HT, Celery, XP, Athlon 64, and Transmeta. I also know what to expect from windows with certain ram/gpu configurations with a given CPU.

my thinkpad has P3, 1gb ram, and a crappy 8mb (?) video card... i'll admit i can't game on it, i'll admit even editing pictures in gimp can be a chore, but for everyday office / internet work its flawless.

yeh, the scecret is largely RAM as i mentioned earlier. but, since xp is so user friendly @ 256 in your opinion, u'd be willing to swap your 1GB stick for a 256 i could send u? or would the 128 be more feasible?

Linux>Windows XP>FreeBSD>BeOS>Solaris>Windows 3.0>Windows 3.1>Windows 2000>Windows95>Windows98> Microsoft Bob>Windows ME>dirt>fesces>Symbian>lots of fesces>OSX

jkjk im a windows/linux guy who dabbles in OSX but refuses to load it on his machines.

i used to run Win2k for quite some time on 256mb. ran WinME on 128 for a while as well. not very difficult. hell, even ran linux in some shape or form on those amounts of ram with a full blown gnome or kde desktop. sure a gig helps, but its not crucial. currently running mandrake 2005 with kde on 512mb and nvidia fx5700le 128mb on my desktop....runs great.

I'm currently running it at 256, and have just been using photoshop, premiere and after effects, along with firefox and msn. Few problems, abit of slowdown now and again but nothing major.

yes, but u haven't said anything new. anyone who knows windows knows the basic thresholds of the different iterations. u can GET BY with 128MB in 98/Me, and 256 in 2000 and XP, if u stick to very basic usages. u can do even better in these scenarios w/ a dedicated GPU. but then again most stock cheapo windows systems come w/ integrated graphics and 256MB of memory. so to say that these are great systems to work on means u must have a knitting hobby to pass the time while the OS loads up and initializes the AV and firewall software as the HD churns away swapping out data as virtual RAM. and puh-lease, don't even begin to try and announce that this doesn't happen in windows w/ the marginal memory amounts we are talking about. after a fresh install, maybe. once u install basic necessities like Word, Acrobat, AV and firewall software and a handful of personal apps the bootup process has already been extended time-wise and the RAM footprint has likely expanded well beyond the stock 256, assuming we're talking about 2000 or XP. you're right about linux however, i don't doubt at all that it does peachy w/ the equipment u have, windows would too. you've basically qualified what i've been saying, that systems w/ basic specs, and boosted w/ RAM and a discrete GPU fair better than an entry level barebones system, that would undoubtedly stutter along under a basic yet reasonable workload. needless to say, the next generation of windows may not be so kind to your hardware, as one would assume that it will require greater hardwares specs. it would however be an unfair step for me to say that your hardware is inherently flawed or to blame the manufacturer because it may not handle a next-gen OS as handily as next gen hardware. it's just the way technology works, always progressing.

so, i'm guessing u'd be willing to lobby for animation, design, and architectural firms to go w/ 256 since it's so fun to work with? geez guys, its getting a bit ridiculous. at least abf aknowledges that while he makes his argument for the usability of these specs he ACTUALLY uses specs above and beyond
what's being discussed. suggesting that your baseline XP systems of 256 runs just as smoothly as a system w/ 1GB is just crap, no 2 ways about it. it's agreed u can get by with it, and that's about it. both of u, please qualify the hardware u are on. your scenario snafle seems somewhat feasible if u r running an HT P4 or dual core system. i.e.-the CPU takes up what slack it can in multitasking scenarios. ah video editing, sweet. since you're at it, pick a 30GB+ DV file and simply run a conversion to an mpeg4 file at say, 720x480, 30fps, and make it a dual pass while you're at it. before u start tho, open about 15 tabs or windows in firefox, start your email client, and open word to work on a document greater than 20 pages in length, as well as AIM and MSN (or trillian and the like if u prefer), and of course photoshop with 300+dpi images of at least 8.5x11 printable area and possible poster sized images applying filters as needed. oh yeah, and since we're talking about basic systems here, u can't convert the video to another drive. it has to be reading and writing the video files to the same drive. once all that's done, start the video conversion and attempt to tab readily to your task of choice. oh yeah, don't forget to use a system w/ an integrated GPU.

now, i know the mentioned scenario probbaly seems a bit ridiculous but u basically invoked pro level apps into the discussion. lemme guess, now it's gonna be "basic and limited use of pro apps w/ these kinds of specs" that just work like butter? is it really such a stretch to say that a baseline windows machine sucks as much as abf says a mac does? i know that said XP systems bog down quickly, and virtually every pro review of an entry level XP machine says as much too, along w/ all the system owners who come to me asking "how come my [256MB] system takes 3 minutes to load the OS? why is it so slow? why would they sell me the bare minimum to get by if it bogs down so quickly? i have AV and firewall, and i don't have viruses or spyware, so what gives?".

but, based on what's been discussed thus far, i'm guessing you're unaware of anyone who has had this kind of experience with an entry level windows machine right?

you've so totally missed the point.

ditto.

QFT.

i've said that parts of what u've argued have legitimacy and asked that u consider the points i was trying to make. QFT indeed.

No.
I accept that from your experience, windows XP doesnt run well (UI wise, I beleive, though since it has such as simple ui I gave the exmaple of photshop and premiere) on low spec machine. I have proven to my satisfaction that it does, and is perfectly useable for even fairly high level apps.

Apple, on the other hand, sells computers that can't process the UI in an acceptable way (try running osx on a slow g3) but where still sold with it installed. Add to this that apple bills their machines as "content creation" boxes, eg music, picturs and video (ever seen a low spec windows box being called that?), this is fairly dishonest.

That is basically what my point, and I think abf's, is.

yes, but the argument u r making doesn't exist in a vacuum. it's as if you're saying that no PC company has released poorly spec'd systems that have trouble running XP adequately. why do "how to make your entry level XP system faster" articles exist, and why do they recommend that u turn off the eye candy that is straining your system? because they're underspec'd for the OS. it just seems odd that there's a host of pro reviews and tweak articles which speak to this very thing and yet it seems absent in the windows experiences of u 2. a dedicated GPU will reduce many of the issues associated with shared system/video RAM and the UI in windows w/ marginal memory levels (i.e.-256 in XP), but to invoke those scenarios you're stepping out of the entry level system category and getting into BTO boxes, and in terms of laptops, the realm of discrete GPUs on board (of which apple seems alone in offering this in their entry level notebooks. <crossing fingers that the macbook doens't get intel graphics>). you're also leaving out the fact that the 1st entry level XP systems also shipped with only 128MB of RAM (do the research). like i said, to call out a G3 underspec'd system as being indicative of something wrong w/ apple as opposed to the tech department at abf's school is off base. i would expect the same criticism of windows machines or perhaps the tech department of said school in order to consider this a fair discussion. abf's comment basically only says that the IT ppl should have ordered more RAM for their systems and nothing more, but instead he blames apple for having shipped G3s w/ 128MB of RAM as did every other entry level windows box at the time when G3/OSX and XP were initially released. ironically, or perhaps not, this point is completely absent from your discussions (much less the tweaking articles which typically target 256MB and integrated graphics XP systems to streamline the UI and make it as responsive as it should be, at the expense of, yep, eye candy!).

now, u could make an argument that if the G3s are imacs or emacs that apple has made it a greater task for IT ppl to upgrade something as pedestrian as the RAM as compared to most windows boxes where u slide the side off. agreed. that would perhaps have some traction in the possibility that the windows boxes have been upgraded since their purchase as opposed to the macs, but it's just hypothetical on my part.