hi all-

I had benn recently reading that many ppl say that Mac OS X is better

please give your opinions and comments on this

thanks

well considering the mac market keeps getting smaller and smaller.....

well i have heard that macs softare is built better and is protected from viruses

well considering the mac market keeps getting smaller and smaller.....
Where did this come from?

these discussions / arguments are 'religious' in that each proponent is certain
that the other is 'innate evil' and usually come from blind faith without any factual background.

imo, asking 'what is the difference between X & Y' is far more reasonable than
asking 'which is best', unless you enjoy watching a cat and dog fight:)

Well put joebeard!

AMD...I've always thought that MAC OS was much better for graphics rendering and the such...I know many people who are graphic artists and illustrators that swear by the MAC OS.

Just my .02 cents.

yes, thank you jobeard for that

...I've always thought that MAC OS was much better for graphics rendering and the such...I know many people who are graphic artists and illustrators that swear by the MAC OS. This is reason we got a Mac back in '87 for the wife to learn desktop publishing. This is
the niche market where Macs excel. I needed to ensure that I didn't become
her 24/7 help desk, as I was very busy with programming Unix & Mainframes.
While the developers were kicking and screaming at the parochial
requirements to create Mac programs, the end result was a constant
Man/Machine interface that was easy to learn and once learned, that usage
was common amongst ALL Mac programs. Eg, no Mac programs used the
Function keys, keyboard shortcuts were also mandated. My big favorite was
the absence of the registry!!!:) There wasn't even a $PATH variable or disk
letters to futz with; just drag the program to some other named HD and you
were done(yes, imo, scsi is great).

Today, Mac has FreeBSD at the core and much has changed -- but a lot is also very similar and friendly.

macs are not any less vulnerable to viri.... there's just less viri out there because the mac is less popular......

considering that apple has steadly lost market share in the computing market for years, I'm surpised they're still in business.

I have no doubt that probably some of their software may be superior or easier to use or have other user friendly features, but when you factor in that the IBM compatible market is so vastly huge compared to apple and the fact that the variety and selection of software available to the PC market is so great - why bother with a mac?

Even apple is now running intel based motherboards.... they are having to concede defeat - even if only indirectly....

AMD...I've always thought that MAC OS was much better for graphics rendering and the such...

But for 3D, no...

In fact, it wasn't the OS. Mac was better for graphics because Adobe was apparently running faster on PowerPC. Or, maybe it was because back in the DOS days, Macs had an interface. I think that the "one better than the other" is just a thing from the past.

well i have heard that macs softare is built better and is protected from viruses

If more and more persons run Macs, there will be viruses. The thing here is that people make viruses only for Windows.

Better written?
With good hardware, does Windows crash? No. Does MacOS crash? No. Does Linux crash? No. Can very biased person's brain understand this? No.

Well, there might be ONE thing : There are less persons writing program themselves for Mac so it's harder to fall on a PoS. The problem is that you have no app choice.

Btw, I think I know why Mac isn't popular. It's a software reason. I've been told by a guy that he doesn't make Mac programs because Apple never gave them any interesting writing platforms.

Well, you can choose.

Why not to get Windows :
- Security
- Don't like giving money to "Uncle Bill"
- Every viruses, spyware, etc. are made for it
- Cheesy GUI
- A lot of protection bloaty features(Can disable them)

Why not to get MacOS
- You *have* to use it with Macintosh (Mac doesn't come with AMD processors tho. ;) Hardware choice small compared to PC)
- Gaming benchmarks show that it's slower with 3D games
- If you're cheap on RAM and often load big pictures, it uses 300-500MB of RAM at startup
- Software choice kinda limited
- Need to reinstall OS if an Apple-made app f*cks up.

Why not to use Linux :
- With the better looking interfaces, you suck around 250MBs of RAM at startup
- Almost only 3rd hardware drivers / can't always use hardware's full potential
- Popular Mac / Win soft not avail (But Wine and 3rd apps can fix most of the compatibility problems)
- If apps are not in RPM, etc. you have to compile them (Play in terminals)
- Dependencies for software sometimes get annoying. (That's a problem for users, but developers love to have choice)

Just the biggest differences. There are other difference too.

it's all about the $$$. The Wintel segment flew to dominance due to the
killer application, Ms Office. Commercial users needed compatibility for all the
documents, spreadsheets, and presentations they created. This effectively
eliminated both Macs and Unix/Linux platforms. When the OpenOffice suite
finally arrived, the horse was already out of the barn.

Even if Apple were to give away the hardware and software, no commercial users
would migrate --- the cost of deployment, new staff and training would still be the show stoppers.

Apple never gave them any interesting writing platforms
not so. Prior to OS X, Mac programming was much harder than
the average programmer wanted to tackle. Realtime coding techniques take
a different approach and the payoff was in both performance and reliability.
Heck, even the demo product Hypercard was Visual Programming of the
message passing paradigm (today implemented as OO, C++, and Java).

In a perfect world, the 'best product' (oh I hate to even use this here), would
always win the the market place, but we live here and not there.
Strange circumstances lead to unexpected results -- often times called success or
market dominance.

Se la Guare (apologizes to the French speaking audience).

is it true that the mac enviromwent is easier to learn and retain that knowledge to uise in everyday stuff, and that the interface is much nicer?????

is it true that the mac enviromwent is easier to learn and retain that knowledge to uise in everyday stuff, and that the interface is much nicer?????

In fact, it looks simple, but there are complicated things.

I personally find KDE and Win easier to use than OS X's UI. The reason is called Finder. If your app is not in the Dock, you have to go in the Finder, wait for it to load, click Applications, wait, then you've got your apps listed in a ± easy-to-use list. I have the impression to return back with Windows 3.1's Program Manager re-vamped...

I state that KDE is easier to use compared to Mac OS because I'm not talking about terminal in Linux. Just the interface.

is it true that the mac enviromwent is easier to learn and retain that knowledge to use in everyday stuff, and that the interface is much nicer?????Depends upon your prior experience
(and beauty is in the eye of the beholder:). There are those that are predicting the Apple desktop will be integrated into Linux.

I would recommend it for a first time user (like my wife) without requirements for
heavy compatibility with other users. Those with experience on other platforms
may wish to 'stay with what they know' (makes good sense).

btw: dbl-click on a document will always launch the application that created it,
regardless of the location of the program or the document itself. This will be true
even if the first save is performed as a SAVE AS some format other than the default.

The only 'feature' of OS X I dislike is the File Sharing.
Each user as a Profile (like Windows XP) and a Public/Drop_Box therein.
The Drop_Box can be shared easily, but getting access to other folders
is another story.

I would recommend it for a first time user (like my wife) without requirements for
heavy compatibility with other users. Those with experience on other platforms
may wish to 'stay with what they know' (makes good sense).

Yup, at the same time, I can tell you that when I switched to Win95, I was amazed with that Start Menu, which isn't present on OS X.

Well, it's sure that understanding drag&drop is easier than using a setup installer in Windows, but when you understand how the path / directory structure works, you find it much easier to click Next, Next, Yes, Next, Finish than Finder, Applications, open image file, drag&drop file(The hard part), close Finder, eject image.

I always hate Drag & Drop. I don't like to move the mouse while holding a button. (Maybe more a laziness reason)

There's one very convenient thing with Linux. When the app is coming with the OS, you just update it and the apps do at the same time! Yes, Windows Update updates WMP and IE, but that's about just it. MacOS updates Java, Safari, iTunes and QuickTime, but that's about just it. Linux, in my case, updates OpenOffice, Firefox, Thunderbird, Wine, all my media players('cause you've got LOTS of choice here), and everything! The only exception is for other packages that Fedora didn't include in the repositories (That's the not-so-simple part of Linux. As long as you stick with the apps you can get from the OS, it's a real pleasure).

There are pros and cons to every OSes in fact. Some OSes are very basic to learn, but maybe that you can be more productive with an other OS with a more complicated interface. In fact, it's like A/V components : The best performing home theater receiver is generally the most complicated to use. The lower-end models are the ones you know on which button you have to press to use them. At the same time, you might be more satisfied with the high-end one once it's setup and you understood how it works. Maybe you'll then find it even simpler for you to use it.

What are you looking for? You know how to use Windows to call yourself like this so you're not a starter.

An other example : I'm so used to Linux that I find it easier to do file manipulations in the terminal rather than the interface. Sometimes there are just too much clicks to do everywhere... Yes, clicking to copy is "simple", but when you have to browse between every directories in a graphical "explorer" rather than just using a "small"
"cp ~/doc.txt ~/Documents/doc.txt" is longer.

I love Linux for it's filename auto-completion. When you're in a terminal(Well, in bash), you just press Escape twice and it
-1 Completes the name
-2 Gives you the possibilities that start with these letters

Much easier than browsing in tons of files, no? (Similar features exist in graphical file managers, but you have to leave the mouse to go on the keyboard type the letters and then return to the mouse clicking it)

I was thinking of buying one of the new mac minis with the intel core duo but they are so darn expensive 699 for the duo, for that much I can buy a Dell E510 Media center desktop with a 17" LCD Windows XP media, and a 160GB HD with 1GB RAM, it makes no sense y they are more expensive, i know that apples have always been expensive, mainly do to powerpc, buteven woth the intel swicht, the price has gone up on the mini with PP they were 499 starting out, the intel solo is 599!!! and the duo is 699. y would someone pay that when you can get an AMD Athlon 64 3500 in am emachines for 549, or a P4 w/HT in an E510????

I was thinking of buying one of the new mac minis with the intel core duo but they are so darn expensive 699 for the duo, for that much I can buy a Dell E510 Media center desktop with a 17" LCD Windows XP media, and a 160GB HD with 1GB RAM, it makes no sense y they are more expensive, i know that apples have always been expensive, mainly do to powerpc, buteven woth the intel swicht, the price has gone up on the mini with PP they were 499 starting out, the intel solo is 599!!! and the duo is 699. y would someone pay that when you can get an AMD Athlon 64 3500 in am emachines for 549, or a P4 w/HT in an E510????

When we consider that Dells are expensive... (Get yourself a locally-built system, or build one, and $ave!)


I recently did an approximate calculation of what custom PC you can buy at NewEgg for the price of a MacMini, and EVERYTHING was double spec. Twice the RAM, twice the HDD space, dual core processor, ATi X300 video(Compared to Intel video -> If you get the cheapest Mac Mini, and you decide to put Windows on it, games are gonna be slow), 7.1 sound, ... Macintosh is not a cheap machine. (If you take the smallest Mini, the RAM is too small for the OS to stop runnning in the swap file)

Wait a few months for AM2 to be there, get a good dual graphic card mobo, put a small CPU and graphic card in there and you will be able to get AMD 45nm quad-cores in 2007-2008.
or
Wait for AM2 and get yourself 939 CPUs which will get cheaper and cheaper as well as DDR400.

I am new to this forum so if it "sounds" like I am interupting the previous "conversation" my appoligies.

Windows is very unstable... although it can use any program out there it is still just too unreliable and unstable. Mac is somewhat reliable/stable considering it uses a lot of ram to boot up. And Linux is cool its pretty reliable/stable considering it also uses a lot of ram to boot up and there are a limited amount of programs that can run on it.

These are the reasons I use VMWare. I can experiment with different OS's at once.

Thats just my two cents.

clcrow9705

Windows is very unstable... although it can use any program out there it is still just too unreliable and unstable.

I think it's mostly due to hardware. There are some computers that run Windows and Linux without ever crashing or whatever, while there are some where Linux runs fine but Windows like a PoC.

Mac is somewhat reliable/stable considering it uses a lot of ram to boot up.
MacOS is stable, but if something happens to the included software files, a reinstall (At least with OS X Darwin) of the complete OS is requiered.

And Linux is cool its pretty reliable/stable considering it also uses a lot of ram to boot up and there are a limited amount of programs that can run on it.
Linux depends on everything, since you can change between different interfaces, kernels, drivers, and all. Linux can as well run on a 8MB RAM 16MHz computer or the latest one. If you use the KDE graphical interface, at least 512MB of RAM are needed to be able to do something. (A Linux distribution with KDE uses 200-300MBs at boot) But there are different graphical interfaces and some run even on 64MB of RAM well. It's the most complex OS to learn for some things, while it's simpler for others. There are a limited amount of popular native programs for Linux(There's Adobe Reader, Real Player and Macromedia Flash tho) , but you can solve this partially with 3rd apps or Wine / Crossover.

I am new to this forum so if it "sounds" like I am interupting the previous "conversation" my appoligies.

Windows is very unstable... although it can use any program out there it is still just too unreliable and unstable

clcrow9705

Idont know what hardware or softwafre u r using, but my current windows amchines is aboiut 2 yeard old an windows has crashed on my 3-4 times maybe

I personally find KDE and Win easier to use than OS X's UI. The reason is called Finder. If your app is not in the Dock, you have to go in the Finder, wait for it to load, click Applications, wait, then you've got your apps listed in a ± easy-to-use list. I have the impression to return back with Windows 3.1's Program Manager re-vamped...
Eh? I don't know what hardware you were using when you expierenced this. I've got a pretty high end PowerPC Powerbook with 1.5 gigs of RAM and I never have to wait to open finder or the applications directory in there. But my sister has a G3 iBook 600mhz I think with something less than 768 megs of RAM and she has no wait times either.

If your app is not in the Dock, you have to go in the Finder, wait for it to load, click Applications, wait, then you've got your apps listed in a ± easy-to-use list. I have the impression to return back with Windows 3.1's Program Manager re-vamped...
I've seen this behaviour only when the computer has just been restarted, and these things aren't in memory yet.

MacOS updates Java, Safari, iTunes and QuickTime, but that's about just it.
Actually, Software Update checks updates for all applications in Applications folder.

And please, people (not just DragonMaster), educate yourself about OSX memory management. It's different from Windows.

Memory Management in OSX (http://developer.apple.com/documentation/Performance/Conceptual/ManagingMemory/Articles/AboutMemory.html)

An Overview of Memory Usage in Mac OSX (http://homepage.mac.com/simx/mughelp/English/overview.html)

Mac OS X: Reading system memory usage in Activity Monitor (http://docs.info.apple.com/article.html?artnum=107918)

The only time Free memory should be high is right after the computer starts up. As you use applications or services, memory is used and transitions to Inactive. Applications that need more memory will take from the Inactive, but the Inactive is there just in case you need it again.

Actually, Software Update checks updates for all applications in Applications folder.

But not 3rd apps : Firefox, Thunderbird, OpenOffice, OnyX, Monolingual, etc.

Read the sites. It's much like Windows /w a registry tweak except that it uses more memory.

I really do hate Windows because it eventually always crashes. You could have a computer running Windows not connected to the internet for years and it would eventually get the BSOD.

Theres alot of really stupid problems i've had with windows, such as: Integrated video, going to put in a new one. Turn the integrated video off in BIOS, put new card in. Won't boot because the integrated video driver is still there. Now if you turned it off wouldn't you think Windows being the high-tech OS it is would remove that driver? Nope, you have to remove it, turn off the integrated and then put the card in. And even after that Windows on a few occassions put that driver back.

One of the main downfalls of Windows is that it never changes priorities. You can load a full screen game where you can't even see the GUI and the priorities DO NOT CHANGE. It should decrease the priorities for the GUI, and turn off the services in the background that do things that are useless when your in a full screen game. Instead they stay the same and your game is left with what is left over.

I hate autodetecting to. It constantly monitors for new devices using RAM. Linux autodetects stuff like your monitor, mouse, keyboard on the install, everything you need to get into the GUI and set everything else up. Now you could make Windows like that and save RAM. And in Windows it would be easier to do. Add New Hardware, put in your driver disk, there ya go.

I have also heard people say that Windows BSODs eventually because it gets lost with in the mass amount of code and files it produces. Look at all the files windows builds up, icon cache, prefetcher, indexing, the MFT, System Caching (which can be changed in the registry) using all the available memory to cache by default. Think about that, having say 2GIG of memory and your systemcache using all the extra and your program loading slow. I have a batch file made to clear most of these though.

Then the crapload of useless services that run in the background on windows eating RAM as well.

Windows has the idea really, they just have stupid setting for most of these options (which really aren't options if you dont know what regedit is like half the people that use computers). Most of those options can be changed. Sadly prioities can't be. If it could i'm sure i could run games on Windows just as good as i do on Linux.

I have no opinions on Macs.... never used one. I've seen the GUI and it looks pretty sexy.

Speaking of GUI everyone talks about how KDE or GNOME or whatever are so customizable. Well if you've ever tried the Windows GUI is to, My desktop has a toolbar underneath the regular one with all of my drives, run, my documents, ect. on it. Then my quicklaunch has 17 icons in it(i just counted them) with all of the programs i use in it. They say the most common button clicked in windows is the start button, well not for me.

Windows is more customizable than you think, hell my start button says "Stop" i thought that was amusing.... Editing the explorer.exe :P.
Theres even a way to get rid of the recycling bin. I always hated that because XP almost offered a clean desktop with no icons but you always had the recycling bin. It can be done through regedit :P

The only thing windows really lacks is different sizes icons for toolbars and more color choices for the toolbars and transparency. Which probably eat RAM as well. I have my taskbar set to autohide so it looks like image preview when i dont have anything up.

But really you get my idea, if Windows made a new edition that was made for performance with all of the things i've stated changed that way and probably a hundred or more more than that it would be a great OS. I mean hey the computer illiterate might have a hard time getting used to it(or they could stay with XP) but i would get high FPS in my games :P

Ok i'm done blabbing.

First person who offers a basic bundle of browser, Email client, word processor and data base that is malware resistant for $49.95 is going to make LOTS of money.

Call me spoiled, but twice daily headlines like this are getting tiresome.
=================
Critical Word Vulnerability Uncovered
By Nate Mook, BetaNews
May 19, 2006, 5:47 PM
Security researchers have discovered a zero-day vulnerability in Microsoft Word, which is already being actively exploited by hackers in China and Taiwan. Microsoft's Security Response Center says it is working with antivirus vendors to prevent attacks and plans to release a security patch on June 13.
=================
Windows has certainly become THE target.

Mozilla is part way there.

They just need to add a W.P. and database that are bulletproof.

What is your idea of a RELIABLE alternate suite to Windows?

Billy Gates is doing his best to be nice to me, [the little guy], but he is too successful and thus a main target.

I need a low profile alternate so as not to waste so much time on cleaning malware.

I see a mess of unfinished possible alternates out there, Redhat, Ubuntu, Mac, Mozzilla, what would you choose? TG

I would probably go with Linspire. There are no alternatives to Windows that are as easy as Windows though, be prepared to learn some bash if you do go linux.

[QUOTE=DragonMaster]I think it's mostly due to hardware. There are some computers that run Windows and Linux without ever crashing or whatever, while there are some where Linux runs fine but Windows like a PoC.

So true I am a proud user of Windows XP SP2 I've had my HP 510N sence 2000 And have yet to have any problems out of it and if so it was my fault (A software Problem)which takes me less than 5 mins to address....Linux is ok but I dont really like the interface(Guess I've been using Windows to long) It's a very stabled OS (in my view) I just chose not to use it do to the fact that it's barley no software availabel compaired to Windows ..Linux also takes alot of memory and a strong cpu to run at optimal speed....I had no hardware problems when using Linux all of my hardware was sucessful detected without the use of 3rd party drivers (surprised) ...The Mac OS has always and will always be garbage to me ....just like a few ppl said above if i application crashes etc u have to re-install the entire OS which automatically eliminates this OS from my selection......

My PC Spechs....

1.2 Intel Celeron (overclocked @ 1.7 GHZ using Thrusmaster water cooling system) Very Stabled performance cosidering my cpu only reach a max heat tempature of 38 degrees (Yes I Actully place ice cubes in the compartment for additional cooling :-)
512 MB of system memory with ECC
128 MB Geforce MX4000 Overclocked using Coolbits Core 367MHZ Memory 512MHZ.....
Software encode Pixel Shader 2.0 (so I can play all of the latest games using the Geforce)
40 GB Seagate 7200 Rpm 8 mb cache hardrive
60 GB Maxtor 7200 Rpm 16 MB cache hardrive
Hi-speed on board realtek networking card
V92 56-k Voice/Data/Fax Modem
Logictec Driving Force Wheel And Pedal Set
12 Button Game Controller
Logitec Digital Camera/With Built In microphone
.............Windows Xp Tweaked out for performance still with all of the cool graphical effects..............

Pc runs quick as lightning & Have not updated anything Sence the Geforce MX4000 Came out.....

Windows is very unstable... although it can use any program out there it is still just too unreliable and unstable.

Ive had my Windows PC for over 6months now and it's on 24/7 and it's crashed once and that was due to hardware problems, not problems with windows.

[QUOTE=DragonMaster]The Mac OS has always and will always be garbage to me ....just like a few ppl said above if i application crashes etc u have to re-install the entire OS which automatically eliminates this OS from my selection....Hearsay. :( if it were true, I would agree, but it aint so:-) I've run Macs all the way from 6.0.5 and never had to reinstall the OS.

Linux is ok but I dont really like the interface(Guess I've been using Windows to long)

Which interface? There are tons of them. (KDE, Gnome, XDM, Xfce, iceWM, WindowMaker, Afterstep, Enlightenment, etc.)

[QUOTE=holiday112284]Hearsay. :( if it were true, I would agree, but it aint so:-) I've run Macs all the way from 6.0.5 and never had to reinstall the OS.
I was going to call him out on that too if you hadn't, well I guess I am goign to anyway.

I've ran 6.0.2? through 8.5.5 then started up again at 10.4 and have not had to reinstall the OS because a program crashed. Hell back in the classic (pre 10) if one crashed you just upped the memory usage set for it. Now in the new ones that is all automatic (dynamic). If a program starts crashing on me now, well I haven't had any do that except Adium, and each time its began crashing I've found there was an update for it, which eliminated the crashes (usually due to some chat network changing how things work which upsets how adium works).

The ONLY other program I've had crash itself in OSX is Opera9 beta. (for some reason the alpha I was running was stable, but these betas seem off). But Opera9 isn't even released officially so I can't expect it to be perfect.

yea because there arnt any viruses for the mac their all for the windows os because more people use windows.

I would say the only thing macs are used for and good for is Video editing thats just were all the good video editing software is I have know Idea why???

yea because there arnt any viruses for the mac their all for the windows os because more people use windows.sorry, urban legend but also not so. With the FreeBSD(Unix) at the core, OS X 10.* is now exposed
for Unix style bugs ... eg; the zlib buffer overrun.

I really do hate Windows because it eventually always crashes. You could have a computer running Windows not connected to the internet for years and it would eventually get the BSOD.



Then the crapload of useless services that run in the background on windows eating RAM as well.

umm dont know if windows just hates you or something like that b/c i have been using windows since 3.1 and well heres a rundown

3.1: not really to much to crash on this OS

95: fairly reliable, much nicer UI compared to 3.1 (also loved the "start" menu)

98 and 98SE: upped reliability even more when compared to 95, interface is pretty much the same except they added "active desktop"

Windows Me: i will admit this was the absolute worst OS ever created, upgraded from 98SE and within a week removed Me and re-installed 98SE

Windows 2000: used on my office computer, very reliable and stable never once had a crash on 2000

Windows XP SP2: this is by far the best OS ever that microsoft has created, extremely stable on my system, never crashed much nicer UI than previous versions

Base Specs:
AMD Athlon 64 3500+
1GB PC3200 RAM
160GB HD
Nvidia GEFORCE 6100SERIES


oh and by the way if u have many "backround" programs running then why dont u just end them???

ctrl alt delete, press "processes", then end the process you dont want

They are ended, permanently.

Go into the Windows forum and then tell me that windows is reliable.

On a new topic. VISTA! Sngx just installed it and tells me its slow as hell. Anyone have any feedback?

98 and 98SE: upped reliability even more when compared to 95, interface is pretty much the same except they added "active desktop"

Windows Explorer turned to Internet Explorer also.

I've only had problems with XP SP2 computers, but 98SE and Win2k machine with no hardware problems are very stable. The XP machine with problems seem to have trouble with hardware, but it was OK with 2k.

I've had the exact opposite experience with Vista - I find it to be very fast compared to XP. Will keep playing with it for a while and leave feedback.

Maybe SNGX has hardware or driver problems?

Audio driver doesn't work. Everything else should be fine with it.

CPU: A64 2800+ @1.98ghz
Ram: 1 gig of some Mushkin
Vid Card: EVGA 7800GS SC
HD: Main one is a 200gig SATA, then I have 1 other sata and 2 IDE drives, all 7200rpm.
Motherboard: Asus K8N-E Deluxe

So its not the fastest machine ever, but it should be running 64bit vista far better. Currently its acting like XP on a 400Mhz K6-2 with 128 megs of ram. (I would know, I ran XP on a system like that)

Currently its acting like XP on a 400Mhz K6-2 with 128 megs of ram. (I would know, I ran XP on a system like that)

I ran Win2k for years on the same machine ---> SLLLOOOOOWW! (I just upgraded the RAM since. Not as slow as Win2k on a Pentium 150 with 64MB of RAM, I did it too. 6 hours just to install it.)

Weak points seem like the CPU and amount of RAM. What does Vista say about your RAM, is it always full? As for a CPU... picking up an X2 4600 in August wouldn't do any bad!

About audio, if it's Realtek, they've got drivers for Vista. What about chipset, cool'n'quiet, sata drivers?

I guess I could look into all that mess, but I really don't feel like it - if it bothered me enough I'd make a new thread or post in the vista beta 2 thread. After I get home from work I want to use a system that just works without spending time troubleshooting. Troubleshooting is maybe something I'll do on the weekend.

Basically, I don't care enough about vista at this point to look into it during my evenings when I could be doing something more relaxing.

I want to use a system that just works without spending time troubleshooting.
this is a prime motivator for Mac users -- use the system, not manage it :giddy:

stmt of fact: My wife's Mac takes 1/10 the mangement time of Win/XP

Well, in fact, managment on OS X can be long(To get all it's performance). Like with Windows, they don't give every tools you need to manage it properly.

Instead of running Ad-Aware, chkdsk, etc. you run OnyX, disk utility, monolingual, and a lot others I forgot their name. (They are all used to clean everything and optimize your files. It can take more than an hour to run all this, and at least you see a performance difference.)

With Linux, all my apps are upgraded with the same utility, the file system needs no optimizations, and needs no checkup after an unclean shutdown (It will check everything in a few seconds and correct it if there's a problem, all the apps are always properly placed, there's a different partition for swap, programs, boot, system, and your own config/personal files.)

Ok, Vista's piss poor performance was on its first boot, I should have realized this as a potential problem before I spoke too harshly about it. But admitedly I was not the one that broke the news to TS about it being slow.

I've finally got a chance now to boot into it and install some stuff and actually get my sound to work. Everything appears to be working now except my SATA Raid (silicon something) but thats cool because I don't have anything connected to those 4 channels anyway. There are 2 other unknown devices in the device manager, I'm not sure what they are but I don't see it as a problem.. yet.

For the most part its much speedier now, but some things are incredibly slow still, like accessing the device manager, it thinks for a while (but doesn't even appear to be thinking, just feels like lag) then dims the displays to ask me if I for sure was the one that wanted to open device manager.

To answer your question earlier about how the ram looks - PF Usage is 1.09GB, Commit Charge is 1120/2311M (Peak was 1179596K). Avaiable Physical Memory is 558,548K. This is with mIRC, Trillian, 3 IE windows open, Device Manager, Task Manager, Control Panel -> Hardware and Sound, and 3 explorer windows open.

CPU usage isn't doing much staying pretty low, jumped to 17% for just a bit when alt tabbing (as it created the preview windows). So right now I think the lag I'm getting isn't so much hardware related as it is just a beta os.

except my SATA Raid (silicon something)

http://www.siliconimage.com/support/

why? other than to make the ! go away. I don't need it.