[waldojim]

OK, I won't go into any details on the 'But my mac is more secure than a windows box' or 'But my Windows box got a virus'. This is simple, don't do anything stupid. I can run a Windows box w/o antivirus for years, and until I do something stupid (downling crap, torrents, email attachments, etc) it will stay clean. Also, Mac OS X fell FIRST to hackers.

Windows 7 IS Vista, with a few patches. If you like your mac, stick with it.

Lastly, and this one allways gets me 'but my XBOX is for gaming, why would I game on a pc?' This one has an easy answer. two of them actually.

1. PC games LOOK better. there is something to be said for 2048x1536 VS 1920x1080.... the first looks a whole lot nicer. Then consider the RAW power of todays graphics cards... It takes Consoles YEARS to catch up to PC standards. With game writers taking advantage of these cards, they can do things that no console can do.

2. If it weren't for PC's the consoles would never have gotten to the point they are at. 3d accelerators FIRST appeared in PC's then migrated to the little boxes, MASSIVELY parrallel processors (in the video cards) hit PC's years before the consoles. etc. The bright side is, that most of the tech gets migrated, so that the kiddies can still enjoy last years graphics... in next years console.

and for those who seem to think they are more stable... blah blah blah. Lets look at the PS3's history - they couldn't get the damned thing to keep running on the display shelves, and was plauged with lockups. MS Xbox 360, Red Ring of Death. So, PLEASE tell me how a console is better at gaming.

One thing MS has going for them is Windows, and the DirectX platform. I game on my PC like no other box can. It will be at least two more years before MS or sony come up with a box to outperform that rig, and by that time, I will have bought a new monster, one that will keep me ahead of the game for several more years.

Sorry. Windows has the REAL gaming platform, and even I hate to admit that. I love my *nix boxes, I like having controll of my computer. BUT Linux is just not given the oportunity to game.... thus I keep one box in the house with Windows, and it runs Windows 7. Man Crysis Warhead looks good on thier too!

[TechieXP]

Oh come on man. A router isn't a platform. It is a device design to do one single thing...allow multiple computers to use one single connection for internet or to connect to a server. A DVR is not a platform it is a device designed to do one thing...record and play video. A phone is not a platform it is a device that is designed to make calls. And thanks to companies like Palm, Microsoft and Apple and so many others who have found ways to use software to enhance its capabilities. However you say Linux is on more phones? Name me a Linux based phone. iPhone uses Mac OSX which is a hybrid of Unix. Linux is a bad attempt of offering siilar capabilities for free. Another situation where free certainly isn't better. NAS is a specified device for network storage. On none of those devices other than the phone is Linux being used as an OS based on its standard definition. Can you run other softwrae on a router? NO! Can you run software ob a DVR? NO!...come on man..at least be reasonable.

Windows is avail on more platforms other than x86. I just don't understand what point you are making. Even with all Linux can do...it manage to claim 2 percent of a single market in 9 years? I rest my case on that one.
Even Mac's do better than that. In fact as bad as Windows ME was, it had more than a 1% marketshare when it was out. If a software can't get more share then that and its free...it must be crap. I don't mean bad as in bad. I mean bad as in useless to the masses.Linux is good for extreme technical situations. Not a typical user. Period.If it was, it being free, it would be everywhere and it would beat Windows by now. But it can't even beat OSX.

[TechieXP]

Whats wrong with gaming on a PC. I would never buy a console to game ever again unless the games I want to play only appear on a console. Back in the 80's gaming on a pc was stupid because they sucked. Developers were concentrating on business based software.
And since the gaming community was mostly kids, it is obvious a parent would spend $2000 on a PC just to play games. With Nintendo and Sega and a lower cost it is obvious that was a better option.

Now times have change. You don't have to have a high end system to play the majority of games on a PC. For $200 more then the cost of a PS# or Xbox 360 Elite, I can have a PC that will play more than 50% of the games on the market. And I still have a platform that isn't defined to one task. That's the whole point of why a computer is so great. It can do many things...

In my opinion consoles are so over-rated. They are simply a kids toy by design. For 1/2 teh cost of one of them I can buy a card that will out perform at least 3 generations of a console. I had a 128bit grahpics solution in my last PC. Consoles have only recently caught up...and I had the card for almost a decade now. And thanks to emulators I can enjoy many of y old favorite Nintendo, Sega, and early Sony games and even older Apple games on my PC. Try that on a console. In order to enjoy 80's games on 360, you need to pay...I don't.

PC's offer better frame rates and cpu's that make the ones in consoles nothing more then toys. But once upon a time...it was teh other way around. Why waste $400 on a console and buy that expensive software when teh same game cost less on a PC. And all you can do with it is play games...what happens whe you get tired of gameing and you want to do something else. Now you have to go to a PC. Lets do teh mathe

Console $400 games at average 49.99 accessories that cost 39.99 or ore for the better ones. You buy one console and 10 games you've already bought a computer. and in 3 years the MFR is already releasing a new one that isn't backwards compatible to your previous one..so you have to start over. My last PC lasted me from 1994 until 2007 before I decide to buy another. How many consoles have been released in that same time frame. For thew one PC I built myself for $800...I bet you paid more for games and consoles in the same amount of time.

My new PC again I built for $800...I built it in 2007...Since then I recall about 6 games consoles have been released. To have owned all 6 would cost me almost 4 times the cost of one PC just for the retail price of teh consoles alone...and then you have to add the games and accessories as extra. And every christmas the kids want new games...if you had just bought them a PC, gaming would be a hell of a lot cheaper.

The PC is the best platform ever made...the only technology that supercedes it is cars.
I dont put consoles down as I had y share of them. But I also remember how much money I wasn't on them...

With Nintendo, I own every system they ever rleased here until N64 and I stopped buying them.
Sony I had the orginal. I had 3D0, Saga Game Gear, Geneis/SegaCD, Saturn...at leat 25-50 games for each and accessories. For that cost I could have built a Silicon Graphiucs Workstation and did better.

There have been devices that have coe an gone...yet the PC has survived them all. And all of the devices that exist right now have gotten better because of what has been achieve with a PC. Software allows developers to build hardware that doesn't even exist yet and play with it as if it was teh real thing. Consoles have changed over and over and over again. And dumb ppl keep buying them and buying them.

I was so tempted to get a 360...but why...for the game si like they all appear on a pc right now accept 1. And thats Midnite Club which is teh only reason I wanted to get an Xbox. Why spend $500 for 1 single game? Now I have a 360 emulator...and on my quadcore system I make even teh 360 kneel.

[rgreen4]

I on the other hand while never having even laid a finger on a Mac machine of any description, have also NEVER had a Blue Screen in either XP or Vista. BSOD's are a symptom of a hardware problem not a software problem. The typical hardware problem is generally related to bad drivers except for the rare physical hardware failure. If the video card fails, you either get a bad image on the display or none. If the HD fails you either don't boot or get a Blue Screen.

Once the OS loads, and if you attempt to open an application, it will either open, not do anything, or you get an error message in a dialog box. Most of the recent problems posted here about getting a BSOD track back to a memory situation based on the error code posted in the Blue Screen.

While those who tout the Mac's lack of compatibility, fail to remember you are running an Apple OS on Apple Hardware which at the time the OS is released may have at most several hundred combinations of MB, Memory brand and video card. While at the same time when a MS OS is released, it may have to run on hundreds of million different combinations. This is the reason Apple defends so vigorously the EULA requiring their OS to only be installed on Apple hardware. Maybe you should try to install the Leopard OS of a non-Intel based Mac and see what the combination yields.

[hoosier1956]

A few months ago, I sold my five year old Dell Dimension 4600 Desktop PC W / XP, after I got my new Compaq SR1056f Desktop w / Vista Home Premium. I been around since Windows 98. I been using Windows 7 Ultimate Beta ( what it shows, when it starts), since it became available. It's a little fancier & faster but, Windows Updates, has added several updates, for it. Windows 7, will not allow some games or video play. I can't use McAfee Security Suite, that came with my ISP, which is www.comcast.net . Had to use a free version of AVG Anti Virus. After putting Windows 7 Beta, on a CD-R, it took 45 minutes & several restarts, for it to download. I should get a free full version of it, for going through all the trouble. It will take that long to put Vista, back on.

[TechieXP]

The fact that you wiped a perfectly good syste to install a BETA and made that your everyday usage is clueless. ITS A BETA. I also have Comcast and I installed McAfee just fine...what did you do wrong? The problem is the installer looks specifically at the version number of the OS. Vista is 6.0 while Windows 7 is 6.1. And installer that looks for this will fail. it doesn't mean it won't work. I even tested other older antivirus software I have around. I was able to install Norton 2007 and 2008 into Windows 7. I installed BitDefender and ZoneAlarm as well. For hardware 7 didn't have drivers for teh installer itself failed because it was looking by Windows version nunber. I extracted the packages and Windows 7 was able to use the inf/ini files with no problems. I even installed a few softwares that were Windows XP specific. To be more specific they were Soundforge 9.0c and Sony Vegas 9.

An based on changes MSFT made to Aero Glass, I was able to install Adobe CS2...it also installed in Vista, however Flash has a few hiccups that wouldn't work properly in Vista...works perfect in Windows 7. to bad i have CS3 and CS4 now...

All my other progras worked. I even got a game from Windows 98 to work in Windows 7 Beta that refused to work in Vista. But I figured out it was bec I use an x64 version of Vista and for Windows 7 I chose x32.

[jazzmsngr]

I think the reason why people are getting to be afraid of their PC's is because for YEARS the co. (Microsoft) has developed poorly secure OS's that continue to fail even in the most "normal" applications. also, they do a Poor Poor job of educating consumers on what they "need" to run their OS's.....for example (and keep in mind I am a PC user)....Apple does not ship ANY computers with less then required amount of RAM/Processor speed needed to run the OS properly.....Microsoft on the other wants to trick consumers into thinking they are purchasing a cheaper computer when in fact when they get it home its slow as molasses because it only has 1gb of RAM!!! THAT is why Vista blew up in their face! Had they told everyone you NEED to have 2gb of RAM just to run the system people would have been spared the headaches....they also would have had to pay 200 bucks more which would have put the cost of their new laptop right around (but still lower) then the cost of a MAC. I'm just glad to hear that they are actually listening to users when they are improving stuff, at least that is the what this article sounds like...Im sure people will still bash it though. Honestly if I had the money, I would but a mac AND have W7.

[WinTard]

jazzmsngr said:

I think the reason why people are getting to be afraid of their PC's is because for YEARS the co. (Microsoft) has developed poorly secure OS's that continue to fail even in the most "normal" applications. also, they do a Poor Poor job of educating consumers on what they "need" to run their OS's.....for example (and keep in mind I am a PC user)....Apple does not ship ANY computers with less then required amount of RAM/Processor speed needed to run the OS properly.....Microsoft on the other wants to trick consumers into thinking they are purchasing a cheaper computer when in fact when they get it home its slow as molasses because it only has 1gb of RAM!!! THAT is why Vista blew up in their face! Had they told everyone you NEED to have 2gb of RAM just to run the system people would have been spared the headaches....they also would have had to pay 200 bucks more which would have put the cost of their new laptop right around (but still lower) then the cost of a MAC. I'm just glad to hear that they are actually listening to users when they are improving stuff, at least that is the what this article sounds like...Im sure people will still bash it though. Honestly if I had the money, I would but a mac AND have W7.

Vista is perfectly fine, and has been for years. I've used Vista since the beginning, and must say that since SP1 (now SP2) Zero problems. NOT ONE! Not a single BSOD. No uknown drivers even in 64-bit.

So what you say is at best in error!

And for the record, Vista and thus Windows 7 are far superior in terms of security to OS X 10.5.7. And I can prove it!

So I won't give any credit to the disinformation you perpetuate. However I will agree with what you said about 1GB RAM being on the low side for Vista.

The FUD I refer to is Microsoft tricks...

If anybody tricks, it must be the vendor of the hardware. Nowadays (since 2008 towards the future) it is common to find inexpensive hardware equipped with 2 ~ 4GB RAM. Typically, one can find for as low as $399 at tigerdirect.com a quad-core AMD with 8GB barebones system. Please see: http://www.tigerdire...e=Barebone-Kits

If one doesn't want to put together their PC's out of fear for child's play, they can get completely built Gateways with 3 and 4GB RAM Core2 Duo, for about $400.

So whatever happened in the past, is water under the bridge. What matters most is the future.

Peace!
Message was edited by: smax013 - no personal attacks please

[W707]

Well said waldojim i agree with you %`100 i've had Vista from day one and its the slowest most contamptable OS that i have ever used.
I cant wait to upgrade to Windows 7 even if i have to buy a ton of new hardware i can say goodbye to Vista Premium.
Thayou for your post

[mykl6381]

Sounds to me that those who have Vista Ultimate are very warranted in being hacked off. Typical of Windows.

I had to have an old computer fixed and unbeknownst to me, the person who fixed it reinstalled all my stuff, upgrading me to XP Pro over the standard XP. Of course shortly later, the Windows Genuine Advantage "feature" comes out and accuses me of theft and refuses to do anything other than sell me a new OS, which I refused to do. Only after my contacting both the Washington State Attorney Generals office as well as the BBB, did Microsoft send me a letter of disgust disguised as an apology but an in the box XP Pro installation CD. In otherwords, I beat Microsoft.

The point being is that the only way to get through to Microsoft is to go after them through the legal process. Most of their business practices are either illegal or very close to it and not before something is done once and for all with Microsoft, they'll keep pulling their scams, period, end of story.