[waldojim]

smax013, on 10 February 2011 - 06:20 AM, said:

waldojim, on 09 February 2011 - 05:28 PM, said:

Remember, it is just in how you view things... If I take that MBP, and day one install Windows 7, isn't it just another PC?

I know there are plenty of Mac people here that don't approve of that, but I don't want OS-X. It holds nothing I want to have. But I DO want a nice machine. Is it really THAT bad?

Nothing wrong with getting a MBP and only using Windows 7 on it. Computers are just tools...find the best one that fits your requirements and use it how you see fit. If some Mac "purists" don't like it, who cares?

One thing that I will note is that if you are going to do that by way of using BootCamp, then I do not believe you can completely remove the Mac OS. I believe that using BootCamp to run Windows on a Mac would still require you to have a small partition with the Mac OS on it...but I could be wrong. If that is the case, then the only "downside" is that you would be wasting some disk space for a Mac OS partition that you would likely never use.

I suppose if I must leave it there... I might at least find time to try it out from time to time... it can never hurt to learn something new.

[LiveBrianD]

waldojim, on 09 February 2011 - 10:09 PM, said:

LiveBrianD, on 09 February 2011 - 09:09 PM, said:

True, OS X doesn't need as much RAM. Still, at the amount you pay for a base mac, couldn't they at least include a little more RAM than 2GB? The hardware's expensive enough!

Remember, you can get a PC with great NVidia (or ati ) graphics and a modern Intel (or amd!) CPU, like Core iX, while with Macs there isn't even an AMD option...

Also, as for a sub-netbook machine like the x100e, what do you need more power for if all you want to do is email and web surfing? With Macs, there's no cheap option (though it likely has more power than you need). Why pay for a powerful system if you don't need all the power?

I want you to understand, for many years, I would fight as you are now to protect PC's. Shoot, that is why Smax asked who took over typing for me! I was as ANTI-Apple as it came. I refuse to defend them for merits they didn't earn, and have a hard enough time accepting what I DO credit them.

Yes, I can get PC's with Nvidia and or ATI graphics cards. They come at a price. First, is size and weight. How many PC's with decent graphics drop under 6lbs? How about 5? Lets go crazy and say 3?! Apple has all those covered. Weights that others cannot manage. Is that very significant? In some cases yes, others no. Would you call an Alienware M11x at 4.5lbs a competitor to the 2.3 lb MBA 11"? I know I don't. Is the Nvidia 335 more powerful? yes, so is the i5 in there. But at what cost? The thing is a MONSTER by comparison.

Then I have to ask, what about screen types. MOST PC's don't have Matte displays. Shoot, even among the Macs, it is a costly add on. But at least the choices are there. Yes Apple is going to cost more, but if I pay a little more to get what I want, isn't that WORTH more to me than paying for something I DON'T want?

Also, quick note... what I really want is a lightweight powerhouse with at least 5 hour battery life, and a matte display. The Lenovo certainly nailed 2 of the 3 down. At first, I thought I would be comfortable with the power of the machine, but it just doesn't quite do it... I like to occasionally play games while I am out, and don't really want to carry a monster machine for that.

Would you call the power of the Alienware comperable to that of the MBA?

techie4fun, on 10 February 2011 - 07:46 AM, said:

@ LiveBrian,

I like the stability in OS X. My current mac, with 192 megabytes of memory, boots up in less time than it takes for my machine that runs Windows XP, with more memory and faster hardware, to boot. That's incredible. That tells me that if I'm in a hurry and I want to use the computer quickly, I'm immediately going to boot up my iMac and run that because it boots up faster.

Remember this: If a program in Windows decides to lock up, I might have to click "end task" repeatedly in order for the program to be terminated, and some times a reboot is required. With OS X the non responsive program is usually terminated immediately. No hassles.

Quote

Remember, you can get a PC with great NVidia (or ati ) graphics and a modern Intel (or amd!) CPU, like Core iX, while with Macs there isn't even an AMD option...

I'm not much of a gamer, and most of the games I play don't require a lot of power, so purchasing a mac with an average graphics card and processor would suit me just fine.

Yeah, but how often do programs crash? On my Windows 7 x64 system, I can't even remember the last time a program crashed! (though I'll admit, I haven't seen Mac programs crash much either)

[LiveBrianD]

waldojim, on 10 February 2011 - 12:29 PM, said:

smax013, on 10 February 2011 - 06:20 AM, said:

waldojim, on 09 February 2011 - 05:28 PM, said:

Remember, it is just in how you view things... If I take that MBP, and day one install Windows 7, isn't it just another PC?

I know there are plenty of Mac people here that don't approve of that, but I don't want OS-X. It holds nothing I want to have. But I DO want a nice machine. Is it really THAT bad?

Nothing wrong with getting a MBP and only using Windows 7 on it. Computers are just tools...find the best one that fits your requirements and use it how you see fit. If some Mac "purists" don't like it, who cares?

One thing that I will note is that if you are going to do that by way of using BootCamp, then I do not believe you can completely remove the Mac OS. I believe that using BootCamp to run Windows on a Mac would still require you to have a small partition with the Mac OS on it...but I could be wrong. If that is the case, then the only "downside" is that you would be wasting some disk space for a Mac OS partition that you would likely never use.

I suppose if I must leave it there... I might at least find time to try it out from time to time... it can never hurt to learn something new.

And don't you have to manually push a key upon bootup to load Windows? Or can you make Windows the default?

[waldojim]

LiveBrianD, on 10 February 2011 - 03:24 PM, said:

Would you call the power of the Alienware comperable to that of the MBA?

Very close. The Alienware has more powerful video card (slightly), but the CPU speeds are going to be extremely close.

Quote

Yeah, but how often do programs crash? On my Windows 7 x64 system, I can't even remember the last time a program crashed! (though I'll admit, I haven't seen Mac programs crash much either)

Well, to be fair, most programs shouldn't crash. If they are written well, I just don't see that as a problem on any OS.

The OS itself is another question. In order of stability, I would rate Linux/Unix/Etc far above Windows. But that is just me. I still use Windows, though admittedly only for the games.

[waldojim]

LiveBrianD, on 10 February 2011 - 03:25 PM, said:

And don't you have to manually push a key upon bootup to load Windows? Or can you make Windows the default?

I think you can, but you are asking the wrong person.

[LiveBrianD]

waldojim, on 10 February 2011 - 03:32 PM, said:

LiveBrianD, on 10 February 2011 - 03:24 PM, said:

Would you call the power of the Alienware comperable to that of the MBA?

Very close. The Alienware has more powerful video card (slightly), but the CPU speeds are going to be extremely close.

How does the pricing compare?

[waldojim]

LiveBrianD, on 10 February 2011 - 03:35 PM, said:

waldojim, on 10 February 2011 - 03:32 PM, said:

LiveBrianD, on 10 February 2011 - 03:24 PM, said:

Would you call the power of the Alienware comperable to that of the MBA?

Very close. The Alienware has more powerful video card (slightly), but the CPU speeds are going to be extremely close.

How does the pricing compare?

depends on what you want... if you get the C2D, the Alienware works out cheap - stupidly cheap (about $600), opt for an i3/i5, and the price jumps to about $1,000. Though I am not sure I would want an i3@ 1.06Ghz. The MBA has a 1.4Ghz C2D for $1000.

So it pretty much is a toss up. Though with the MBA you get a solid state drive (a $600 add on with Alienware), there are some big differences though, and they are very hard to compare. 2.3lb machine VS 4.5 (double the weight), 64GB SSD VS 320GB 7200RPM spinner, 1.4C2D vs 1.06 i3, 2GB vs 4GB ram, nvidia 320 vs 335....

On the one hand, you have the MBA which is a comparatively fast machine for every day tasks, while the Alienware has a slight advantage in video games. See what I mean? It is hard to get a good feel for things, and call a black and white X is better than Y.

[LiveBrianD]

Let's say you want a basic email machine (laptop). What would apple offer?
I've been considering something like that, and the HP dm1z fits the bill (see my post on screen sizes in the laptop section). It's cheap and has a decent amount of power. Apple doesn't have anything close. I don't need a ton of power, and maybe the mba has a bit much (well idk actually, the low-end core 2 duo ulv has similar power to the fusion dual-core I think).

[smax013]

waldojim, on 10 February 2011 - 03:33 PM, said:

LiveBrianD, on 10 February 2011 - 03:25 PM, said:

And don't you have to manually push a key upon bootup to load Windows? Or can you make Windows the default?

I think you can, but you are asking the wrong person.

Yep...you can make either OS the default.

http://docs.info.app...5/en/11892.html

[smax013]

waldojim, on 10 February 2011 - 12:29 PM, said:

I suppose if I must leave it there... I might at least find time to try it out from time to time... it can never hurt to learn something new.

And you might find that you like how the Mac OS does somethings compared to Windows.

I have been using both for years. There are somethings that Windows does better and some that the Mac OS does better.

Personally, I like the Mac OS better by a small amount, but then that is likely some biased by the fact that I "started out" on the Mac OS, so I am more used to how the Mac OS works in general...so when Windows does it differently, it tends to annoy me. I fully suspect that if I had "started out" in Windows, I might be more inclined to Windows than the Mac OS.

[waldojim]

LiveBrianD, on 10 February 2011 - 04:23 PM, said:

Let's say you want a basic email machine (laptop). What would apple offer?
I've been considering something like that, and the HP dm1z fits the bill (see my post on screen sizes in the laptop section). It's cheap and has a decent amount of power. Apple doesn't have anything close. I don't need a ton of power, and maybe the mba has a bit much (well idk actually, the low-end core 2 duo ulv has similar power to the fusion dual-core I think).

The closest would be the White Mac Book. That said, and this is important - Apple doesn't sell CHEAP machines. Cheap machines are cheap for a reason. Up until the X100, Lenovo didn't sell a inexpensive ThinkPad either. The X100 retains a lot of what Lenovo is known for (quality keyboard for example), and gave up quite a bit to hit that price - like the magnesium alloy frame. Even though they gave that up, the quality is still leaps and bounds nicer than the Idea Pad line of machines.

That is actually one of the things I find most disturbing lately. It is nearly impossible to find a quality, well built machine without spending $1500 or more. My Compaq Notebook 100 was a quality machine from the AMD k6-2 days, and was $900 new. That darned thing lasted for about 8 years before I finally threw it out because I got tired of looking at it! I want to know what is wrong with manufacturers! Why can't we have machines that are built well? I don't need the fanciest styling, I don't really care about that. I want a machine that is built well, and will last. At least make it a year after the warranty...

[LiveBrianD]

True, I started out with Windows. The first OS I remember using a lot was Windows 2000. Whenever I use a Mac, I HATE the pointing curve. Also, you can't make the cursor go very fast. That drives me nuts. Also, I like how with Windows, there are lots of ways to navigate the interface with only a keyboard - Mac is far worse there. And again, switching from one window in a program to another? It's much clearer in Windows 7, or even XP. Sure, the w7 taskbar might be copying mac's dock a bit, but they implemented it in a far better way.

[waldojim]

smax013, on 10 February 2011 - 05:13 PM, said:

And you might find that you like how the Mac OS does somethings compared to Windows.

I have been using both for years. There are somethings that Windows does better and some that the Mac OS does better.

Personally, I like the Mac OS better by a small amount, but then that is likely some biased by the fact that I "started out" on the Mac OS, so I am more used to how the Mac OS works in general...so when Windows does it differently, it tends to annoy me. I fully suspect that if I had "started out" in Windows, I might be more inclined to Windows than the Mac OS.

I think this may be an issue I have as well, though very different in its own way.

I started out with Dos. I learned to create my own shortcuts, and use keyboard shortcuts that software then offered. I don't like being forced to use a mouse for everything, I don't like having to dig through menus to find options that were once easily available from the command line, and I don't like that the OS has more control over what my machine does than I do.

Once Dos was running, the control was MINE. If I wanted it online, I took it there. If I wanted to watch a movie, I made it watch that movie. Lately, all you need is a rouge website to start popping up movies on you, and all 300 applications you have hop online whenever they feel like it. Then I have to buy software to actually try to regain control over my machines.

Sure the newer OSes are pretty... but I cannot stand the lack of control the user has over the PC.

But that is also based on what I started off with, and the control I used to enjoy having.

[LiveBrianD]

Newer software has, in some ways, lost customizability. Want to change the menu in Office 2003 (and earlier), IE6 (and earlier), or XP's windows explorer (and earlier)? Sure. Want to do that in Office 2007 (and later), IE7/8, Vista or 7 windows explorer? You have far fewer options.

Also, you don't need to buy software to keep your PC yours. Get some free av, like avast. It's true though, that back in the days of dos malware was much less of an issue. Also, sure the flashy interface is a waste of resources. I keep aero and some of the effects like fading menus disabled on this machine simply because they're useless. Dos didn't have those. But could it multitask? No. How easy is it to web surf in dos compared to Windows? A lot harder and slower.

[waldojim]

LiveBrianD, on 10 February 2011 - 06:48 PM, said:

Newer software has, in some ways, lost customizability. Want to change the menu in Office 2003 (and earlier), IE6 (and earlier), or XP's windows explorer (and earlier)? Sure. Want to do that in Office 2007 (and later), IE7/8, Vista or 7 windows explorer? You have far fewer options.

Also, you don't need to buy software to keep your PC yours. Get some free av, like avast. It's true though, that back in the days of dos malware was much less of an issue. Also, sure the flashy interface is a waste of resources. I keep aero and some of the effects like fading menus disabled on this machine simply because they're useless. Dos didn't have those. But could it multitask? No. How easy is it to web surf in dos compared to Windows? A lot harder and slower.

I am not talking about viruses - though that is an important note. I am talking about control over applications. Lets say I don't WANT Nero calling home every time I start it. How can I stop that for free? I can't. In order to do that, I have to buy a proper firewall. Lets say I want to change an image in explorer, how can I change it? Buy a resource editor that will let me open the executable and modify the image it contains. How about if I want to install a custom written driver to support hardware that neither Windows, nor the manufacturer decided to support? I have to REMOVE all of the Windows Anti-Piracy countermeasures, and effectively flag my copy as pirated. These are all freedoms I used to enjoy in Dos. Change an image? Over-write the jpg/bmp that the file resources for it. Write my own driver? Add it to the config.sys, reboot and go!

[smax013]

waldojim, on 10 February 2011 - 06:38 PM, said:

smax013, on 10 February 2011 - 05:13 PM, said:

And you might find that you like how the Mac OS does somethings compared to Windows.

I have been using both for years. There are somethings that Windows does better and some that the Mac OS does better.

Personally, I like the Mac OS better by a small amount, but then that is likely some biased by the fact that I "started out" on the Mac OS, so I am more used to how the Mac OS works in general...so when Windows does it differently, it tends to annoy me. I fully suspect that if I had "started out" in Windows, I might be more inclined to Windows than the Mac OS.

I think this may be an issue I have as well, though very different in its own way.

I started out with Dos. I learned to create my own shortcuts, and use keyboard shortcuts that software then offered. I don't like being forced to use a mouse for everything, I don't like having to dig through menus to find options that were once easily available from the command line, and I don't like that the OS has more control over what my machine does than I do.

Once Dos was running, the control was MINE. If I wanted it online, I took it there. If I wanted to watch a movie, I made it watch that movie. Lately, all you need is a rouge website to start popping up movies on you, and all 300 applications you have hop online whenever they feel like it. Then I have to buy software to actually try to regain control over my machines.

Sure the newer OSes are pretty... but I cannot stand the lack of control the user has over the PC.

But that is also based on what I started off with, and the control I used to enjoy having.

The one definite thing that Windows does better than the Mac OS is keyboard control. While the Mac OS does have keyboard strokes to do a lot of stuff (I have been doing Command V, C, X for paste, copy and cut for about two decades...or Control V, C, X on Windows), it is not as good as Windows.

Now, if you like "DOS" like commands, you can fire up the Terminal in the Mac OS and use a command line interface to your hearts content. While you may not be able to do everything, you can do an awful lot with the command line interface in the Terminal. And it is actually, the only way that you can do some changes that are not available through the GUI interface.

[techie4fun]

Quote

Smax013:
Yeah, but how often do programs crash? On my Windows 7 x64 system, I can't even remember the last time a program crashed! (though I'll admit, I haven't seen Mac programs crash much either)

I've actually had more programs crash in XP and Windows Vista than I've ever encountered in OS X.

[LiveBrianD]

techie4fun, on 11 February 2011 - 02:27 PM, said:

Quote

Smax013:
Yeah, but how often do programs crash? On my Windows 7 x64 system, I can't even remember the last time a program crashed! (though I'll admit, I haven't seen Mac programs crash much either)

I've actually had more programs crash in XP and Windows Vista than I've ever encountered in OS X.

Same here, but I rarely use OS X.

[crazy4laptops]

Yes, Mac apps crash, you just have to know where to look I've crashed iMovie '09 while creating a new project without a name.

Or KisMAC when loading/using a wordlist file.

And when you least expect it, a Kernel Panic because of a failed graphics chipset.

[LiveBrianD]

I crashed iTunes once. I think I was ripping a CD while playing it (directly, not from HD), then I tried to switch to something on the HD, and it crashed. This was in an Apple store btw.