[ChuckEtheridge]

Hi,
Anyone running OneCare v.2 and considering the upgrade to Vista SP1-RC should be aware that when I installed the service pack OneCare would no longer start or even install. After I tried many times and then OneCare support staff tried to correct things with Easy Assist with no luck, a OneCare tech told me that there is a conflict between SP1-RC and OneCare that prevents OneCare from working. As soon as I uninstalled the SP1-RC OneCare started right up and has been working fine since. The Vista people tell me that this problem will be resolved by the time that the full version is released but I think it would be well to wait to hear from Microsoft that the problem has been resolved before installing SP1-RC. The Vista people went so far as to urge me not to say anything to the OneCare staff about the difficulty, which is strange since I thought that they all worked for the same company.

[rtfire1]

I have done the upgreade to pack 1r I have had no problems and my system is faster and runs hd movies better (gateway p-6825 laptop). I also like the faster boot time. I do have xp64 installed for my programs that do not run on vista yet or I don't have the money for the vista ones.

[JEmlay]

Wow, there sure is a lot of BS in this discussion. Here's a fresh new look:

1. NO ONE forced IE7 on anyone. I have over 300 machines with IE6 and I refuse to install IE7. Having used IE7 on many machines I have found it crashes too often and mostly from malformed site code and third party extensions (for example, Google video ads). The biggest offender being Adobe. IE7 itself works great if never actually use it to do anything other then going to basic sites. Anyway, with IE8 right around the corner there is no reason to install IE7. The inside info so far is that IE8 has push forward by leaps and bounds in regards to stability and CSS standards. However, even the "inside info" claims that Firefox will still leads the path in certain ways. Yeah, that part BLEW ME AWAY. My insider has NEVER thrown the "other guy" a bone.

2. Vista runs great on proper hardware. If someone installs Vista on incompatible hardware then shame on them. The said part is some vendors such as Dell, Gateway.... did just that. They put Vista on hardware that had crap driver support. That was in the beginning though and since then they have gotten MUCH better. Yet, people still install unsupported software like their MOST BESTEST virus software only to watch Vista take a total dump. Again, shame on them.

3. I have over 300 PC machines and 21 Macs. Take a second to put those numbers into perspective. I have MORE trouble tickets for Mac then I do for PC. Another interesting note is that over 90% of my PC trouble tickets are hardware related while 99% of my Mac tickets are software related. Usually when a PC goes down I have to replace a PSU. No big deal. When a Mac goes down it's because it can't print or it can't print duplex but only from adobe, then a week later, it's adobe and excel....crap problems that can't be fixed and result in reloading the OS.

4. Yes, a PC can do everything a Mac can do and not the other way around but only from lack of support (for example no game support). However, even though it can do it, that doesn't mean it can do it better or even as well. Take a 200MB Photoshop file from a Mac and give it to a PC. On the PC open the file and resave it. Hum, the file is now 400MB+. The final size depends on layers and so forth. I've seen a 180MB file explode to 650MB. That is just plain ridiculous.

5. Leopard? What a joke! Vista takes me about 16 minutes to install. I've upgraded three machines and performed one fresh install with Leopard and the whole process took about 1.5 hours EACH! Even the fresh install. The "checking install DVD" alone takes 28 minutes. WTH is it doing!?!?!?

In the end, for us, there is no reason to install Vista with Windows 7 being right around the corner. I have Vista installed on those machine I've deemed worthy and that will be the end of it. I have no reason to upgrade a machine for the sole purpose of putting Vista on it and wont be installing vista on any new machines as we've reach the end of our licensing (seats) for it.

On the personal side, I love Vista! The new start menu alone is worth it for me. winkey->not->enter - up comes notepad. I NEVER have to browse the menu for anything. Simply awesome! It takes 1 second or less to launch any app.

[SCOOPNJ78]

Someone said that IE8 was to be more stable than IE7. HUMMMMMMMMMMM heard that about Vista too. WIll believe it when I see it!!!!!!

[McDaveH]

A harsh accusation of selective interpretation. Maybe if you read my response you'd realise the point I'm making is; forget the detail of whether Windows could do the same things and look at the outcomes i.e. whether people actually do them. I too have used both systems since inception and my experience (and the dawning realisation of friends) is that they don't, they achieve very little and there's an obvious reason. These tasks are not impossible - they're just improbable.

And why do Windows users always talk about Photoshop? It took ages to port across and it only put the PC where the Mac was years before, move on from Photoshop it's ancient history. Next you'll be talking about Premiere Pro and other obscure, legacy software.

As for OSX's technical heritage - who cares? It could be based on a hamster in a wheel. Again, the outcomes show that XP and Vista just copy MacOS features a few years late the oldest of which has to be a structured UI to give software consistency - 23 years late! metadata search, windows organisation - expose & spaces, 'gadgets' vs 'widgets'. The question should be what hasn't been ripped off?

You're right that OSX's design makes it the best consumer machine out there but one of it's biggest emerging professional markets is as the CIOs choice of notebook. Now let me guess, that's because they're 'bad for business' right?

McD

[McDaveH]

Unsupported hardware & software - and they slate Macs for being 'proprietary'

Sledging aside - why do you have the Macs at all? Why not just replace them with PCs?

McD

[joe620]

McD,
Your tone leads me to believe that you think I am bashing you. I am not. I am simply saying there is nothing you can do on a Mac that can't be done just as easily on a PC. Who are these people that talk about PCs but don't actually accomplish the tasks they talk about? What are those tasks. You haven't mentioned anything that cannot be done easily on a PC. Also, I have never heard of PC people using photoshop in a discussion about Mac Vs PC other than to point out to Mac people that they are identical. Also, Photoshop ancient history? ummm I guess you just outed yourself as not knowing about design. It is still industry standard for the verious things it was designed for.

What you are saying is damn MS for not having features that Mac has and then turning around and crying copy cat when they do add them. Maybe they can add some cute U-Tube upload tool to Windows and then Apple can start their crying about how MS is taking unfair advantage of their monopoly on the OS market. Lets see, IE is unfair, but yet Apple has safari installed on every OSX. Media Player is unfair but sure enough Quicktime is just fine on Mac OS.

Another point you try to make on your posts is poor design of software running on Windows. MS doesn't make all of that software you know. I can develop an app that looks identical on Mac or Windows. You act like developers who can't design a UI for Windows are suddenly enlightened when developing on a MAC. Please show me an application that runs on Mac and Windows that does not look identical .. other than the subtle rounded courners or whatever that Mac OS vs Windows may have. Again, Please tell me all these things you can't do on WIndows. That is all I am asking.

[JEmlay]

"Unsupported hardware & software - and they slate Macs for being 'proprietary'"
It's called "having choice". Apple hardware is MUCH TOO expensive. Remember all those PSU's I replace? Yeah, I'm still ahead BIG TIME.

"why do you have the Macs at all? Why not just replace them with PCs?"

I already explained that. Go back and read.

All companies copy off each other. Thank goodness for that! Technology would be much further back or behind if that wasn't the case. The sooner you realize that both (all) companies copy off each other the more informed your responses will be.

Having been in countless conversations such as this my guess will be that you'll demand an example. Ok, here's ONE:

Time Machine? No, it's called Shadow Copy and it's been around for Windows users for a LONG TIME. All Apple did was put a really cool graphic interface on it then ruined it by having it require an external device. Or did that requirement change?

There's advantages to both sides. Uses for both sides. It seems you deny even that. Could my company replace all it's Macs with PCs? Sure, but they would be less productive. Could my company replace all it's PCs with Macs? HELL NO! That's an absolute impossibility. Our entire ERP system would not function and that's just the client side. Server side, there is absolutely NO Mac solution for a decent or even half-decent ERP system. In fact I think there's only one solution out there and it's so slimmed down it MIGHT be ok for a small business.

[McDaveH]

It's called "having choice". - wrong, if it doesn't work, you don't have that choice. You do have the fallacy of choice, it's what sales people use to outsmart techs and relieve them of cash. This is one of many contradictions in IT - we have the choice of systems/vendors to negotiate better prices but then spend thousands on standardising the DT builds & kit to assist support - negating the whole arguement!

I already explained that. Go back and read. - No, up to this point no you haven't but I'll take the next point as your reason.

Could my company replace all it's Macs with PCs? Sure, but they would be less productive. - Ah, there it is, productivity. From a business perspective there is no other point in having systems. So what you're saying is your PCs cost you less but your Macs make you more implying the PC is (as most people already know) a false economy. You'd probably find if your Macs also didn't do much, as opposed to being your real IT workhorses, you probably wouldn't get that many faults from them either.

Server side, there is absolutely NO Mac solution for a decent or even half-decent ERP system. In fact I think there's only one solution out there and it's so slimmed down it MIGHT be ok for a small business. - Oracle not good/big enough for your 300 users? You can even Xgrid Oracle (any local HPC environment will explain how). Most reports I have of UNIX application ports have been that it's a snap even under 10.4 I'm sure that's only improved with the True UNIX status of 10.5 & how many of your 300 users need ERP access anyway? Why not virtualise the client software until you've installed the web client that most ERP systems now have. And what about the benefits of OSX - no need to virtualise to improve server stability or security, cheaper OS licensing, if many users need only to review documents they can do it free from Quicklook reducing MS-Office licenses.

All companies copy off each other. Thank goodness for that! Technology would be much further back or behind if that wasn't the case. The sooner you realize that both (all) companies copy off each other the more informed your responses will be. But not all copies are good copies. Many incremental backup systems predate Time Machine but who on earth actually uses them? especially in the consumer space. Time machine puts emphasis on how you use it an incredibly significant point which permeates throughout Mac systems. Before criticising my points as uninformed you might not wish to miss more significant points yourself.

Of course there are uses for both sides but there are so many myths standing in the way which smacks of the real barriers to entry for Macs into corporate IT; job preservation in the technical community & management to weak to change the model to something useful. Consumers will drive that change, having to battle with largely useless systems at work when those at home are slick and productive is a great driver for change.

McD

[rccoffee]

I am a long-time Windows user. I still use Win XP/Home (I just did a clean install and it works great now) but I bought a Mac running OS X Panther 3 years ago and just changed the OS to OS X Leopard.

I had a nice lunch while the Mac was installing Leopard and loved using it right away. Then, I spent 3 days doing a clean install of XP/Home and returned everything where it belonged. My hair is a little grayer now but I am so glad that I am so good with Windows...I have to be.

Leopard is so far ahead of Vista in any flavor it is embarassing to MS (Do they know?). Besides this, Leopard WORKS! After being available for 3 months, I have no problems with it. Vista has been out for 12 months and...let's not talk about it.

If anyone wants to call me a Macfan, I'll take that as a compliment. I am also a WinXPfan, too. But, I am not a Vistafan at all.

The bottom line is this! Should customers wait until SP2 or SP3 to buy Vista?

[JEmlay]

"wrong, if it doesn't work, you don't have that choice"
You have a real hard time understanding don't you? What part of, COST WISE, I'm still ahead did you not understand? An office full of PC's runs at a MUCH lower cost then an office full of Macs.


"No, up to this point no you haven't but I'll take the next point as your reason."
Yup, a "real hard time". I'll quote myself:


"However, even though it can do it, that doesn't mean it can do it better or even as well. Take a 200MB Photoshop file from a Mac and give it to a PC. On the PC open the file and resave it. Hum, the file is now 400MB+. The final size depends on layers and so forth. I've seen a 180MB file explode to 650MB. That is just plain ridiculous."


Do you see how you failed? It's all right there in black and white. So maybe, just maybe, you might care to explain to us how exactly it is you feel you read and understand these posts when I just made it painfully clear that you are unable to properly comprehend plain English. You just got done telling me how I haven't done something and there's the proof that I did. Think before you post please.


"So what you're saying is your PCs cost you less but your Macs make you more implying the PC is (as most people already know) a false economy."


When it comes to our graphic designers? Yes. I already mentioned that. Just because YOU state it after me doesn't change anything. However for the REST OF MY BUSINESS your statement is FALSE as the PCs are MUCH MORE productive in all other aspects on my company. Are you starting to understand yet? Maybe you failed to understand that I have more trouble tickets with 21 Macs then I do with over 300 PCs? This is one of things I'll be mentioning that you danced around. You also danced around that fact that most all of my Mac tickets are software based. Which means OSX is "10 fold" more problematic then Windows. Instead of addressing that, you dance around it by mentioning PC hardware not being proprietary. Quit pussy-footing around what people say. Actually address what was said.


"Oracle not good/big enough for your 300 users?"
Oracle is not an ERP system. Again you fail. Oracle can be the backend of an ERP system but it's not an ERP system in itself.


"how many of your 300 users need ERP access anyway?"
If they have a PC, they need access. I can probably scrape up a good handful of people that use it rarely but they still use it.


"Most reports I have of UNIX application ports have been that it's a snap even under 10.4"
Too funny, you guys are a dime a dozen. UNIX? Now you're opening a whole new can of worms. I could go on and on with all the reasons we chose SQL over Oracle, NT over Unix, NT over Linux.....but that would have absolutely nothing to do with the Mac client.


"Why not virtualise the client software"
You haven't even given me a decent ERP system for Mac yet!


"until you've installed the web client that most ERP systems now have."
Do you have any clue as to what you are talking about? Web versions do not offer full support. Some might, but not all. Either way, the web backend would ONCE AGAIN not be a Mac.


"And what about the benefits of OSX"
What about them? Give me a Mac ERP system first.


"cheaper OS licensing"
How do you figure? Do you have any clue what Windows cost through volume licensing? Plus you still fail to address your SUPER EXPENSIVE hardware. Oh, here's something to shove down your throat. I've have 4 logic boards go bad on me in the past 5 years. That alone cost me more then any PSU's I've purchased collectively. As well as one bad PSU and one bad Video card. Yup, you guessed it! Not even Apple hardware is perfect.


"if many users need only to review documents they can do it free from Quicklook reducing MS-Office licenses"
None of my users "need only to review". Now address all the other apps they need to use.


"But not all copies are good copies"
That has nothing to do with the conversation.


"Many incremental backup systems predate Time Machine but who on earth actually uses them?"
COUNTLESS individuals and business. But I have a feeling you'll correct me.


"Time machine puts emphasis on how you use it an incredibly....."
What the hell is your point? Quit dancing! Apple stole this from MS. Period! That's the point. I already explained one good and one bad thing they did to it. It's called a non-biased explanation. Something you are clearly not capable of, nor understanding.


"Before criticising my points as uninformed you might not wish to miss more significant points yourself."
My comments stand on their own. You lack a great amount of significant points. You THINK you have significant things to say but the more you say, the more people have to ask of you. In fact not only have you not answered my questions, you've dances around many issues, failed to address issues and you continue to not answer Joe620's questions.


"Of course there are uses for both sides but there are so many myths standing in the way"
Nothing I've said is myth. More of your dancing.


"standing in the way which smacks of the real barriers to entry for Macs into corporate IT"
What? Are you getting tired?


"management to weak to change the model to something useful"
Management can only model with what is available. Apple does NOT have enterprise level solutions. They have a basic server and a client. There is NOTHING on the same level as AD. There is NOTHING on the same level as Exchange. I can go on and on.... Look bud, when I add a user to my system a namespace automatically gets created, a mailspace automatically gets created, an account in our ERP system automatically gets created, a queue gets created to create a machine for this user and all this happens and syncs over many locations. An email gets created and sent to the user with all the required docs he/she needs to read and sign to hand into Accounting. There is NOTHING from Apple that can replace our system and the way it works. In fact Apple has NEVER been able to provide a total solution. Case in point, if Macs where so friggen great then why doesn't anyone use OSX for appliances? I doubt there's a single appliance on the market that uses OSX. But guess what? A vast majority of RIP SERVERS in which Macs print to are based on.......drum roll please........ WINDOWS!!!....and Linux. All but one RIP Server we have is based on Windows Embedded the other RIP? Windows XP.


Now let me say this again and maybe you'll comprehend it a second time around:


I can replace my Macs with PCs. But we use those Macs for a reason. Those PCs would not be as productive. Now, can I replace all my PC with Macs? HELL NO! That is an IMPOSSIBILITY!


Do you understand the word IMPOSSIBILITY? Nothing in your rambling post addresses this nor does it address much of anything else.


We'll see how well you "address" this post or if you just dance around again bringing up many other points that have NOTHING to do with the conversation. Oh, and while your at it, get off your rear and properly address Joe620. I'm waiting to see what you'll come up with when you actually answer his questions.







Edited by MPHEnterprises - No Personal Attacks

[mphenterprises]

Hi All. As a reminder, it is great to have a heated discussion but please do not resort to name-calling and personal attacks. Posts of that nature will be edited or removed and continued attacks will result in your User ID being banned.

Also, please keep the discussion to the topic of the News Discussion article, Closer Look: Beta Windows Vista Service Pack 1.

[JEmlay]

"The bottom line is this! Should customers wait until SP2 or SP3 to buy Vista?"

That's going to depend on each persons needs. If by waiting you are implying the need for greater stability then no. Vista runs stable on hardware with appropriate drivers. As I mentioned before my company is running as many Vista machines as we are based on how many seats we purchased and that number is 25. That's 25 machines running Vista with absolutely no problems. Obviously neither SP2 or SP3 or even SP1 for that matter is needed. There are two key updates that help a LOT in terms of "quirks" and those are applied on my machines. In addition to this I of course have Vista running on my home machine as well as my laptop and my wife's laptop. All running smoothly with no SP1. However, with that said, a friend of mine got stuck with the horrible "copying issue". It boggles my mind that not a single one of my machines has this issue yet other people do. Not sure what to say about that other then the machines I built and the machines I already put Vista on all have Vista approved drivers. My friends machine is an Lenovo laptop that did not come with Vista and only has Vista beta drivers. Hopefully SP1 will help him out. If it doesn't then can only mean one thing. Poor drivers. The two updates I mentioned supposedly fixed that issue.

Do I recommend you upgrade an existing/older machine with Vista? No. Neither SP1 or SP2 or SP3 or SP4..... is going to help you unless you have STABLE DRIVERS for your hardware.

If by waiting you are implying that users should wait until a year or two down the road then simply waiting will allow for more Vista compatible software to reach the market. That will certainly give consumers more "to do" with their Vista machine. However with Windows 7 being released in 2009 I see no point in ever installing Vista if someone is going to wait that long.

Honestly, when SP1 is released I will not be installing it on my machines. I simply do not have the time to start that project especially when I'm not experiencing any problems. I already experimented with SP1 beta and it caused nothing but problems for me.

[BMB395]

PC World, I enjoy you guys allot and have followed your magazine for many years and have enjoyed many of your opinions and facts, BUT you gotta lighten up on this Vista bashing, it's so tiring. I've found Microsoft's changes to be interesting and refreshing to a technology that should change often. It's your business to review and compare PC software and such but you gotta admit, the changes eventually turn out for the best.