Grassroots Motorsports

Register Log in to GRM
- Community

Birthdays
Recently on the Classic Motorsports forums

Subscribe get a full year for only $23.95 Sample Free Test Drive—no strings attached

Login to post Forums » Off-topic discussion » Windows 7 versus Mac

1 2

Nov. 2, 2009 6:26 p.m. Toyman01 HalfDork

carguy123 wrote:

Toyman01 you're showing your ignorance when you say they don't make the programs for the Mac. What they don't make for the Mac and don't need are all those pocketbook draining little programs to do things the Windoze operating system won't do on it's own, but are standard on the Mac.

Mac people don't need to spend thousands on all those little necessities and also don't have to spend nearly as much of their time making sure things work right. I've worked with both for decades, why do you think I've grown to love the Macs?

The ONLY reason I have to run the Windoze is one proprietary, governmental business program that no one is allowed to work around.

Not sure what pocket draining programs you're talking about. The only software I have bought for a computer in the last 10 years is Quick Books which someone on here just stated won't run multi user on a Mac. That's enough reason right there for me to not buy one. My info comes from all the Mac guys on here that complain about having to run Windows because no one offers some piece of software for Mac. Oh yeah, you would be one of them.
Nov. 2, 2009 8:19 p.m. JetMech New Reader

ReverendDexter wrote:

JetMech wrote:

That's Microsoft for ya: fix what ain't broke, only to find that the "fix" did indeed break something! What was wrong with XP?

The same thing that was wrong with Windows 98 when it was replaced by XP, and DOS/Win 3.1 when it was replaced by Win95; it doesn't support the new hardware, specifically the large amounts of hard disk space and RAM that we have these days.

Oh, that. Not really an issue for me, since my PC is a laptop. XP has always worked great for me, but then again, said laptop is five years or so old.

ME, on the other hand, was a nightmare. Inopportune lock-ups and data loss were the rule rather than the exception.
Nov. 2, 2009 9:08 p.m. JThw8 SuperDork

My wife fell for all the hype a few years ago with Mac about no more viruses and spyware so I got her one. Well they are right, since she got her Mac I have had zero viruses or spyware on my PC.

Either system is good. I don't have a preference at home but for home use I need little more than an internet toaster and something to run my vinyl cutter.

At work I still use PC because like it or not the business world still runs on PC. There's more Mac than before but not much.
Nov. 2, 2009 9:37 p.m. JeepinMatt Reader

Bah, I always wait until the OS has been out awhile. I never upgraded from XP SP2. I'm skipping Vista and when I buy a new computer next year, it'll have Office 2010 and Windows 7. No rush until then.
Nov. 2, 2009 9:47 p.m. Giant Purple Snorklewacker Dork

Buzz Killington wrote:

Giant Purple Snorklewacker wrote: I was hoping for less of a marketing gap - $1k+ is a big tag diff for a pretty case...

and higher-quality components. a 1975 toyota and a 1975 mercedes would both get you where you were going when they were new, but only one of those hasn't been reduced to rust and salvage parts by now.

Nonsense - the Lenovo hardware is of the same quality and they are the same processor. This is more like Buick and Cadillac... same berkeleying car, different price. Drink the kool-aid if you like - its your money but seriously - are you thinking long term for any computer product? Really? How many 15yr old computers do you have now? (and 1/2 of the 3rd world is ruled by those Toyotas with 50 cal machine guns turret mounted on top).

Everything I buy runs Linux. This was for the mrs or I'd never have even entertained the idea of paying for an OS, or any product from a company that spent more on marketing than payroll.
Nov. 2, 2009 9:54 p.m. mndsm New Reader

All I gotta say is I don't trust Apple for the proprietary format they apply to EVERYTHING. Last thing I want is my laptop with a glowing red apple saying, "I'm sorry I can't let you do that Tom."

That being said, to each their own.
Nov. 2, 2009 10:03 p.m. EricM HalfDork

Buzz Killington wrote:

does your Linux DVR let you record TV shows?

Yes, two tuner cards, one for over the air and one for cable. :)

writes everything across the GigE to the server in an open format, every computer in the house can watch recorded shows off the server. I can even have live t.v. follow me from room to room.
Nov. 2, 2009 10:37 p.m. confuZion3 SuperDork

Wait, were they only kidding when they introduced Vista? I've been hearing that Vista was like a Windows 7 beta. Is that Microsoft's way of making it look like Vista wasn't a major flop, but instead just a test bed? Perhaps I heard incorrectly.

The only thing I didn't like about it was how much of a computer's resources it demanded... but then again, it could be detuned to run quite efficiently. And with the rate at which hardware capabilities are expanding, it leaves room for Vista (or 7) to grow. My experience with it was always quite good. 7 will be on my next machine.
Nov. 2, 2009 11:11 p.m. RedS13Coupe Reader

JetMech wrote:

That's Microsoft for ya: fix what ain't broke, only

It wasn't designed to take advantage of more modern multi-core processors and didn't handle networking as well....

But hey, what was wrong with 3.1?
Nov. 2, 2009 11:41 p.m. MitchellC HalfDork

Why do people like Macs? It's the sum of the little things. Think about it as being the tactile feedback in car materials. They may not improve speed, handling, or any other measurable criteria, but they make for a much more comfortable environment. That's the feeling I get whenever I sit down in front of a Mac.
Nov. 2, 2009 11:54 p.m. Salanis UberDork

MitchellC wrote:

Why do people like Macs?

Because they're more differenter. Just ask them.

I have a theory that, the more some company goes out of their way to tell you how different/better their product is from their direct competitors the more similar they actually are. I figure this is as true for Macs as it is for Bud/Miller/Coors or Coke/Pepsi.

I now work with Macs at work. They're okay. They have different issues from PCs. I see their advantage for larger networks adapting to multiple users. For a single user, I find I have to fight with any of my PCs less.
Nov. 2, 2009 11:57 p.m. blaze86vic Reader

Yes, MAC has more reliable systems.
No, PC's are not inherently unstable.
Yes, most MAC's outperform PC's.
No, PC's are not inherently slower than MAC's.

For the last 15 years, Windows has run over 90% of all the worlds computers. Is it really any wonder that all the computer failures you hear of are PC's???? I mean really, that's like saying "Toyota's suck and Rolls Royce's are way better."

There is also a critical reason Windows has stability issues on some systems. Windows (unlike MAC) works on almost any system in the world. MAC's OS, works on only MAC computers. So if you designed a transmission to work with only 1st gen Miatas, with F20C engine swaps, that were lowered 4", and painted white......it darn well better work perfect. Microsoft has done a rather impressive job of supporting BILLIONS of different computer configurations and parts. MAC has also done a great job supporting their 15 configurations.

As for the performance difference, spend $2500 building a PC and you'll make every nerd in a 10 mile radius get a hard on.

The answer is PC, but not because it's a better system, or better OS, but because it's what the rest of the world uses. You can go against the flow in a lot of things, but when the flow is the size of the Pacific ocean, you are just going to get swallowed in the sea.
Nov. 3, 2009 12:51 a.m. GlennS HalfDork

carguy123 wrote:

Toyman01 you're showing your ignorance when you say they don't make the programs for the Mac. What they don't make for the Mac and don't need are all those pocketbook draining little programs to do things the Windoze operating system won't do on it's own, but are standard on the Mac.

what programs are you refering to?
Nov. 3, 2009 9:25 a.m. joey48442 SuperDork

It's funny how much like the dem-republican arguements the whole mac-pc thing is. If you say one is good and the other sucks you sound like a douchebag. My cheapo cobbled together PCs that I built run fine, and i don't know anything about computers. One runs vista, the other xp. I have an iPhone. It works pretty well, and does alot of stuff that my friends don't think is nearly as cool as I do, and are getting sick of me showing them. I wouldn't mind a mac if I could afford them, but right now my lifetime spending on pcs totals less than 2000, and that's 1 used laptop, 1 new, and 2 desktops I built from kits. Maybe we need to add computers to politics and religion to the "not in polite company" list.

Joey
Nov. 3, 2009 9:33 a.m. GameboyRMH UltraDork

If you have to move everything anyway, why not move to Linux?
Nov. 3, 2009 4:05 p.m. JetMech New Reader

RedS13Coupe wrote:

But hey, what was wrong with 3.1?

Really, nothing. Seems to me it was a victim of planned obsolescence.
Nov. 4, 2009 10:26 a.m. Keith PowerDork

blaze86vic wrote:

As for the performance difference, spend $2500 building a PC and you'll make every nerd in a 10 mile radius get a hard on.

Seems to me that's an argument for a Mac right there Thousands of engorged nerds converging on my house like the next zombie uprising - no thanks.
Nov. 4, 2009 10:34 a.m. bam2002 Reader

I will stick to the PC the MAC games are alway 6 to 8 months behind. And I need to have the latest versions on Command and Conquer and Starcraft.

Yea I could dual boot, but I dont need to worry about rebuying all my PC hardware for the Mac.
Nov. 4, 2009 1:43 p.m. jstein77 HalfDork

Here at work we still run XP. No plans to "upgrade" to Vista or 7 that I know of. That said, the 64 bit Vista on my new home machine rocks. But I still haven't completely figured out their new version of Explorer.
Nov. 4, 2009 1:59 p.m. Salanis UberDork

JetMech wrote:

RedS13Coupe wrote:

But hey, what was wrong with 3.1?

Really, nothing. Seems to me it was a victim of planned obsolescence.

3.1 wasn't a true OS. It was a graphical interface that sat atop DOS.

I still run 2000 on most of my machines. That is actually the best OS I've ever used. It lacks some peripheral functionality, but it's more solid, simple, and reliable than any other OS I've used. I use XP on my primary gaming and multimedia machine though.
Nov. 4, 2009 2:10 p.m. pinchvalve UltraDork

Well, I was hesitant to move to Win7 because I never went to Vista, and therefore things that I am used to since 3.1...like My Documents, Shut Down...are now called something else and I have to relearn stuff. (Not a big deal, but I am an old dog)

But it is a moot point because my Laptop does not have a graphics card that supports Win7 and it cannot be upgraded. My company will buy a Mac or PC when I need to upgrade, but not until then. So I will be on WinXP for a while longer and then I will be taking some test drives!
Nov. 4, 2009 4:28 p.m. skruffy Dork

If you use the built in Windows Easy Transfer software doing a clean install of 7 is easy.

My Documents is called "Documents" in vista and 7. Shutdown is still, uh, shutdown. The only one I've found that seems to mess people up is that Add/Remove Programs became Programs and Features.

One of the coolest features of vista and 7 is the integrated search in the start menu. Need to find the task scheduler but don't remember where it is? Start typing "task" in the search and it'll probably bring up what you wanted before you finish the word.
Nov. 5, 2009 12:57 p.m. scardeal New Reader

I think it really depends on what you're doing with the computer.

I use my home computer for the following:
Web browsing (including netflix)
email
music
watching DVDs
skype
MS Office occasionally
VPN/Remote desktop into MS systems

That is pretty much all I've used it for in the past year. I use a Mac and it works very well. I only care about racing games and that's covered by my Xbox (Forza 3 is soon...)

Yes, I could do the same on a PC. However, I like the Mac's complete integration that's really only available to a company that makes the whole widget. I almost always get the impression that, in having to support anything, there's a level of fit-and-finish that is lacking in Windows because of that one-size-fits-all nature of it. It's like the difference between an OEM system and aftermarket stereo.

I could do the same with Linux. With Linux, I'd have headaches trying to get WINE to run for MS Office (I don't trust openOffice and my wife would not accept it, either.) I'd have to deal with setting up DeCSS and making sure everything plays nice with one another.

1 2

You'll need to log in to post.