[Simon]

Originally posted by Robster1958:
booting up takes forever too for OS X.

1.) Not true. My iMac takes 40 seconds. My Sun server at the lab takes an hour. That is forever.

2.) There is no need to boot OS X more than a couple of times a year (system updates). It runs fine for months. If you boot, you are wasting time, not OS X.

3.) Windows needs reboots to stay "stable", to stuff memory leaks, and to regain speed. None of these apply to OS X. It is stable, mem leeks can be dealt with by using a kill -9 and speed doesn't change by booting. Urban legends.

4.) OS X should be run like a Mac. Running it like Win on a PC will make it worse. However, that's the user's fault, not the OS'.

[Lebensm�de]

Originally posted by Robster1958:
booting up takes forever too for OS X

I had the same problem until I changed my network connection (to DHCP via router). Since then Mac OS X boots very quickly.

[stew]

Originally posted by Simon:
1.) Not true. My iMac takes 40 seconds. My Sun server at the lab takes an hour. That is forever.

BeOS boots in 10 seconds, that's what I consider fast.
[quote]2.) There is no need to boot OS X more than a couple of times a year (system updates). It runs fine for months. If you boot, you are wasting time, not OS X.[/qoute]
Except when you're a musician that has to reboot into OS 9 every now and then...

3.) Windows needs reboots to stay "stable", to stuff memory leaks, and to regain speed.

Windows 9x maybe, but there's no problem with 2k or XP having long uptimes.

None of these apply to OS X. It is stable, mem leeks can be dealt with by using a kill -9 and speed doesn't change by booting. Urban legends.

I recommend you take a look at the maxvnodes issue.

[StiZeven]

Originally posted by Simon:

1.) Not true. My iMac takes 40 seconds. My Sun server at the lab takes an hour. That is forever.

That might be true for you, but it's a well known issue that many current Macs (maybe it's just PowerBooks) running even the latest version of OS X take way too long to boot up. Just search the forums and you'll see loads of threads about this. So you probably meant to say, 'well that's not true for me'. I may be getting the new iMac, so if it's 30-40 seconds, then that is fine for me (hopefully Panther will bring faster boot times).

2.) There is no need to boot OS X more than a couple of times a year (system updates). It runs fine for months. If you boot, you are wasting time, not OS X.

While I agree that OS X doesn't need to be re-booted every day, that is certainly no excuse why it shouldn't boot up in about 30 seconds. If the user decides to reboot for whatever reason, however long it takes is indeed the OS's fault, not the user's. Personally, after a few days I find the OS X gets a bit sticky as well and doesn't handle memory all that well, so a re-boot usually saves the day (hopefully Panther will correct this as well). Which is why I find your next comment a bit ironic:

3.) Windows needs reboots to stay "stable", to stuff memory leaks, and to regain speed. None of these apply to OS X. It is stable, mem leeks can be dealt with by using a kill -9 and speed doesn't change by booting. Urban legends.

Again, speaking of memory I find the opposite to be true. On my PC before any programs are loaded I have 79% system resources free. If I open say 5-6 programs, it goes down to about 55% free. When I close them all, XP releases the memory and I have 77% free again. On my PowerBook, the same process would leave OS X with about 60% of the memory still being used even though all apps have been exited. The only way to get it back would be to run Mac-Janitor, or to re-boot. I am sure that if I needed more memory OS X will eventually release it, but it gets a bit unnerving when you see you have 112 out of 640MB free when nothing is running. This has shown to be true on both my iMac and my PowerBook. I guess some will argue that OS X keeps apps in memory longer for faster boot-up the next time you launch it, which is fine and so does XP, but that much?

4.) OS X should be run like a Mac. Running it like Win on a PC will make it worse. However, that's the user's fault, not the OS'.

I am curious to know how rebooting OS X once per day or a few times per week will 'make it worse'. If so, please tell me if it's normal for an OS to 'get worse' after rebooting a few time. I will agree with you that the user is mostly the problem when using an OS they are not familiar with or that they just don't 'get'. For example, when I read all these 'XP SUCKS!!1!!' stories by Mac users I know that what they really mean is, 'I don't know what I am doing! And I am fcuking up my ugly computer!'

[StiZeven]

Originally posted by goMac:
I wouldn't buy that simply because it ran Windows. Windows is the worst mobile operating system ever. I have my PC laptop with Windows XP Pro, and it likes to crash when I open it up (system process climbs to %99 cpu). Thats very hard to deal with when you pull the laptop out and it crashes, forcing you to hard restart. Windows XP also acts really funny on my 802.11 networks (like dropping, and creating its own for no apparent reason).

You forgot to say, 'IMHO�' and if any of this is true, you've got a big problem on your hands. However, this is not the norm for XP so your situation is definitely unique if not exaggerated. XP shouldn't crash daily, or even monthly so if it does, you've got something funky going on there, just like some Mac OS X users get a lemon here and there as well. XP handles my wireless flawlessly, zero config and instant recognition with great signal.

Windows XP is a pain. Mac OS X hardly ever crashes on my powerbook. The only kernal panic I've ever had has been in Panther (fixed with a new seed). I had to use my PC laptop for a week while my Mac was in repair, and the most stable thing on it was running Mac OS 8 under an emulator (using CyberDog to browse the web ). I was glad when I got my Powerbook yet, and I have been convinced never to buy a PC laptop.

My friend told me it was time to reinstall windows. Having to install windows again after 2 weeks is absurd.

Again, you're taking your experiences which sound very extreme and applying them to everyone using windows. Regardless, I question these 'XP horror stories' from die-hard Mac fans to begin with. There is always this massive problem with tons of crashes per day. Like Simon mentioned above, it's usually the user who doesn't know what he's doing that's the culprit. My copy of XP Pro has been on my PC since 11/02. If these extreme problems are really happening to your machine after two weeks of a clean XP install, then you just might have a POS computer, or you just don�t know what you're doing.

[StiZeven]

I should also add that the 'but it doesn't run OS X' argument is not valid in a thread like this. Some of us like both XP and OS X and happily and willingly use both. If that's the case, your personal loath for XP and how inferior you think it is doesn't really matter. That's irrelevant to a user who realizes that both are both good and bad in their own ways and each user's experiences, likes and needs will vary. So to someone like me, who likes and uses both, the fact that it 'doesn't run OS X' doesn't mean anything, since I have a cool Mac that 'runs OS X' and a cool PC that runs 'XP'. I prefer the best from both worlds rather than either or. Sort of like getting both an XBox and a PS2 if you're a gamer.

[jbartone]

What I think you have to remember is that Windows has to able to run on hundreds, or even thousands of different cofigurations, while Mac OS X only has to run on Apple's hardware.

[sniffer]

Originally posted by jbartone:
What I think you have to remember is that Windows has to able to run on hundreds, or even thousands of different cofigurations, while Mac OS X only has to run on Apple's hardware.

And hundreds even thousands - millions of lines with old crappy code and black boxes.

[Simon]

Originally posted by StiZeven:
That might be true for you, but it's a well known issue that many current Macs (maybe it's just PowerBooks) running even the latest version of OS X take way too long to boot up.

Baloney. I own or work with many Macs including current models and I use every version of Mac OS since 8.6. I can have them all boot very quickly.

I challenge anybody to show me their Mac (excluding server/special environment) and I'll get it to boot in less than 60 seconds. There are no bugs or routines that prevent this. It's just that many people don't know diddly-squat about computers. People saying their Macs need 30 minutes to boot, but then admit that they have half a dozen network connections activated even though there are no cables or wireless connections running to their Macs are just plain incompetent - it's definitely not the Mac's fault.

Originally posted by StiZeven:
Again, speaking of memory I find the opposite to be true. On my PC before any programs are loaded I have 79% system resources free. If I open say 5-6 programs, it goes down to about 55% free. When I close them all, XP releases the memory and I have 77% free again. On my PowerBook, the same process would leave OS X with about 60% of the memory still being used even though all apps have been exited. The only way to get it back would be to run Mac-Janitor, or to re-boot.

You see? Exactly what I mean. Excuse me, but obviously (as your statement just demonstrated) you don't understand how a Mac (or other UNIX systems) handle memory. The reason you don't get the memory back is that the OS will not release it until it really really really needs that space for something else. Just because you quit Mail.app doesn't mean the system will drop it out of mem completely, because maybe in 5 minutes you'll start it again and then you'll enjoy that it will be back up and running faster than the first time. The mem handling in OS X (and most other UNIX systems btw) only releases memory when it runs out of physical memory. As long as you just quit a process the memory is mostly left occupied. After all, why shouldn't it? Empty RAM is incefficient and it used to be also very expensive. The important fact is that once mem is requested the system will always find a way to get it. And it does that very efficiently and quickly. It's the best mem handler you can find. Better than Classic Mac OS', better than Win 9x's, better than the NT/2000/XP kernel's.

Therefore, repeat after me:

1.) I will not reboot my Mac to regain mem as if it was a stupid Win PC because I do not have to think for the system. It can think itself. And it does it right.

2.) I do not need to run MacJanitor to regain mem as if it was a stupid Win PC because I do not have to think for the system. It can think itself. And it does it right.

3.) I will stop looking at memory numbers to check percentage of "free" memory as if it was a stupid Win PC because I do not have to think for the system. It can think itself. And it does it right.

4.) I will buy enough RAM for my needs and then I will not force the system into using the RAM the way I want as if it was a stupid Win PC because I do not have to think for the system. It can think itself. And it does it right.

5.) I will forget memory and let the system do its work. I will stop worrying about "free" memory as if it was a stupid Win PC because I do not have to think for the system. It can think itself. And it does it right.

Originally posted by StiZeven:
I am sure that if I needed more memory OS X will eventually release it, but it gets a bit unnerving when you see you have 112 out of 640MB free when nothing is running. This has shown to be true on both my iMac and my PowerBook. I guess some will argue that OS X keeps apps in memory longer for faster boot-up the next time you launch it, which is fine and so does XP, but that much?

There is no need to release any more. XP is stupid for doing so even if it is not requested. See the five points above again to cure yourself from this disease of mind...

Originally posted by StiZeven:
I am curious to know how rebooting OS X once per day or a few times per week will 'make it worse'. If so, please tell me if it's normal for an OS to 'get worse' after rebooting a few time.

Oh, yes! It is worse. It costs time and nerve and is entirely unnecessary. Run a Mac like a Mac for christ sake. Buy a ton of RAM, don't worry about memory, let the system do its work and don't boot it every couple of hours. It's entirely unnecesary, it's a waste of time, and it's about as stupid as if I would tell you to stop driving and pull over on the highway every 50 miles for the motor to cool down and regain strength. It's plain W-R-O-N-G. Thanks.

And, if you chose to debate these rules of thumb, please first think: Why should I get a Mac if I want to treat it like a PC? PCs are cheap, you get more power per buck and they are everywhere. Why the hell would you not buy one if you want to use your Mac like a PC anyhow?

And then, think about this: Why do I handle the Mac like I handle the PC? Is it just because I know the PC better? Why do I not listen to people who have been using Macs since 1984 and know every version of Mac system software since 1984? Why do I believe more in my PC methods on a Mac than in the advice experienced Mac users give me?

Good luck. Enjoy the Mac for the full 100%, not just a mere 90%.

[radarbob]

Talk about missing the forest for the trees!

Again, big picture. After using everying from IBM 360 OS (a 60's era mainframe), Xerox Star (AWESOME system (alas, very slow) and the progenitor of Macintosh), C/PM, Apple DOS, PC DOS invarious versions, Windows 2.0 - 98 & some XP, Macintosh since 1988 ....

The Macintosh is more fun. It's easier to use, easier to modify, easier to fix, easier to upgrade, et cetera, et cetera et cetera; and et cetera. Y'all can argue about a few seconds of boot time till the cows come home. It's irrelevant.

P.S. Note that I did not say Macintosh was flawless.

[dcolton]

-Simon

I want to live in your world, because my OSX sure as heck doesnt run as flawlessly as yours. I am serious here, what am I doing wrong? I have to reboot my iBook at least once a day because it will eventully begin to run super sluggish. I have been required to do a reinstall on almost a monthly basis, and OSX crashes on a regular basis.

(I could give a damn about this XP OSX debate, I like them both...I just want my iBook to run like your macs...{near}flawless).

[Simon]

Originally posted by dcolton:
I want to live in your world, because my OSX sure as heck doesnt run as flawlessly as yours. I am serious here, what am I doing wrong? I have to reboot my iBook at least once a day because it will eventully begin to run super sluggish. I have been required to do a reinstall on almost a monthly basis, and OSX crashes on a regular basis.

We live in the same world, so we can solve this problem and get your iBook to run as fine as my Macs all do.

But, your post leaves many unanswered questions in order to solve your problems:

- When you reboot to regain speed as you say, does a log-out&log-in do the same, i.e. does booting do more towards speed than logging out and back in again?

- After the re-install you do every month, does it run OK or does it start to crash right after the re-install again? What apps do you install and run after the re-install of the OS? I would like to know if after a clean re-install the machine starts crashing or if it takes certain apps.

- What do you mean when you say OS X crashes on a regular basis? The whole OS freezes? An app suddenly quits? Does it do this with third-party hardware attached?

You need to be more specific. The way you talk it sounds so bad that I'd expect bad hardware (RAM maybe?) or very bad software.

I claim: A Mac that gets a fresh OS from CD or DVD on top of a completely wiped disk runs w/o any crash almost forever. Crashes that happen thereafter are due to faulty hardware (internal like board or RAM, but also external like FireWire or USB peripherals) or really crappy third-party software.

If you can rule out the latter it has to be the former which can be fixed at any Apple dealer.

[dcolton]

I'll start a new thread so I don't hijack this discussion.

(Optimizing Mac OSX)

[dcolton]

I'll start a new thread so I don't hijack this discussion.

[Jalu]

Originally posted by StiZeven:
I should also add that the 'but it doesn't run OS X' argument is not valid in a thread like this. Some of us like both XP and OS X and happily and willingly use both. If that's the case, your personal loath for XP and how inferior you think it is doesn't really matter. That's irrelevant to a user who realizes that both are both good and bad in their own ways and each user's experiences, likes and needs will vary. So to someone like me, who likes and uses both, the fact that it 'doesn't run OS X' doesn't mean anything, since I have a cool Mac that 'runs OS X' and a cool PC that runs 'XP'. I prefer the best from both worlds rather than either or. Sort of like getting both an XBox and a PS2 if you're a gamer.

There is one mistake in your tellings. As certified MCSE, I can tell you for a fact that even Windows XP suffers from the classical Windows problems which ultimately force you to reboot once in a while. Heck, many companies reboot there Windows 2000 servers at least once a week, just as a precaution...

This problem really does not exist in OSX. A MacOSX box only needs to be rebooted for critical system updates, period. Technically, Windows has advanced a lot since Windows 95/98, but OSX really has quite a few technological advantages over Windows XP. And worrying over free RAM in OSX is, as someone else already pointed out, totally pointless and proof of a Windows-like approach to a simply more advanced operating system.

It's fine that you are a happy user of both MacOSX and Windows XP, as I am myself, but you should keep your facts straight, and facts show that OSX it actually, as young as it is, is a more mature and stable (desktop) OS than any given Windows. And the fact that OSX only needs to run on a relatively small amount of different hardware configurations is a great contributor to that, and hence the beforementioned idea of a modular BTO laptop would not necessarily be a good idea...

[Jalu]

Originally posted by StiZeven:
Originally posted by goMac:
I wouldn't buy that simply because it ran Windows. Windows is the worst mobile operating system ever. I have my PC laptop with Windows XP Pro, and it likes to crash when I open it up (system process climbs to %99 cpu). Thats very hard to deal with when you pull the laptop out and it crashes, forcing you to hard restart. Windows XP also acts really funny on my 802.11 networks (like dropping, and creating its own for no apparent reason).

You forgot to say, 'IMHO�' and if any of this is true, you've got a big problem on your hands. However, this is not the norm for XP so your situation is definitely unique if not exaggerated. XP shouldn't crash daily, or even monthly so if it does, you've got something funky going on there, just like some Mac OS X users get a lemon here and there as well. XP handles my wireless flawlessly, zero config and instant recognition with great signal.

Windows XP is a pain. Mac OS X hardly ever crashes on my powerbook. The only kernal panic I've ever had has been in Panther (fixed with a new seed). I had to use my PC laptop for a week while my Mac was in repair, and the most stable thing on it was running Mac OS 8 under an emulator (using CyberDog to browse the web ). I was glad when I got my Powerbook yet, and I have been convinced never to buy a PC laptop.

My friend told me it was time to reinstall windows. Having to install windows again after 2 weeks is absurd.

Again, you're taking your experiences which sound very extreme and applying them to everyone using windows. Regardless, I question these 'XP horror stories' from die-hard Mac fans to begin with. There is always this massive problem with tons of crashes per day. Like Simon mentioned above, it's usually the user who doesn't know what he's doing that's the culprit. My copy of XP Pro has been on my PC since 11/02. If these extreme problems are really happening to your machine after two weeks of a clean XP install, then you just might have a POS computer, or you just don�t know what you're doing.

Maybe you should ease your language a bit on these people. Windows in fact is notorious for problems with it's energy managemant, and it fails to work correctly on many many systems...
And mind you, I also could tell you a lot of these horror stories, and again, I am a Microsoft Certified Systems Engineer. So I can tell you that I know quite well what I am doing on any given Windows machine, and I recognize a lot of these horror stories, because, since I administer a lot of Windows boxes, I have seen many of these "horror-like" problems myself. The fact that you're lucky with your XP-system is not representative for the entire XP using world, you know.

I also used to work for an AASP in the past. There is in my experience a great difference between typical Windows problems and typical Mac problems: Windows problems are many times caused simply by flaws in the OS, while problems on Macs are mainly caused by either hardware problems or by user-errors.

[Simon]

Originally posted by dcolton:
I'll start a new thread so I don't hijack this discussion.
(Optimizing Mac OSX)

I'm heading over there right now...

[ryaxnb]

Originally posted by Robster1958:
[BThe widescreen (10.5" diag.) resolution is 1280 x 768.[/b]

Hmm... The hardware is better then your iBook because it's a pro machine
*3.1lbs vs. 4.9lbs
*10.5" vs. 12"
*over $2000 vs. $1300
A slightly better machine to compare is the 12" G4:
4.6lbs vs. 3.1lbs
* 10.5" vs 12"
* SuperDrive
*Under $1800 vs. over $2000

[Robster1958]

well..."Pro" machine is pushing it!

although keep in mind that the Sony has 512 MB ram included as well as wi-fi, and camera.

for about the fourth time, i will reiterate a significant performance advantage of the new Vaio: its screen! you gotta use it to believe it. for video it looks like a glass picture tube, for text it is so readable.

Also...the overall form factor is exceptional: smaller lighter with very good battery life. As one who has directly compared/used the two, i gotta say that the smaller footprint in a huge advantage in meetings and the lighter weight is material.

As to why this post in the first place...not to start the unstoppable windows vs. mac, but rather because many people use this forum when considering what to buy/ upgrade, etc... and i felt it would be useful. why this forum instead of powerbook? cause i own the iBook..and felt i would be trespassing!

[klinux]

Originally posted by Simon:
1.) Not true. My iMac takes 40 seconds. My Sun server at the lab takes an hour. That is forever.

2.) There is no need to boot OS X more than a couple of times a year (system updates). It runs fine for months. If you boot, you are wasting time, not OS X.

3.) Windows needs reboots to stay "stable", to stuff memory leaks, and to regain speed. None of these apply to OS X. It is stable, mem leeks can be dealt with by using a kill -9 and speed doesn't change by booting. Urban legends.

4.) OS X should be run like a Mac. Running it like Win on a PC will make it worse. However, that's the user's fault, not the OS'.

1. Comparing an iMac to a Sun server. Oh yeah, that's really comparable there.

2. Couple of times a year? Dream on. How many updates have Apple release in the last month that requires a reboot? Yes, a couple right there. I like Mac too but you need to stop living in your fantasy world that Mac defies gravity, levitatesa few inch above your desk, and glows with a halo.

3. Windows does not need to reboot to stay stable. My servers at work (billion dollar Fortune 500 company) and multiple PCs at home statys up just fine. In fact, I boot my PCs and Macs about the same frequency and mostly due to updates.

Memory leaks are usually caused by poorly written 3rd party software as opposed to the OS. A poorly written program can do that just as easily in Windows as it can in Linux or OS X. It is you who are spouting urban legends.

People, let Simon rant. Take your advice from someone else more reputable.

[Simon]

klinux, when did I take a hit at you? Some personal thing here? Or is it just because I attacked WinPC's? Ha!

Originally posted by klinux:
1. Comparing an iMac to a Sun server. Oh yeah, that's really comparable there.

Well time is time. I just tried to show him what a really long boot is.

Originally posted by klinux:
Couple of times a year? Dream on. How many updates have Apple release in the last month that requires a reboot? Yes, a couple right there.

One word for you: Bundle.

Originally posted by klinux:
I like Mac too but you need to stop living in your fantasy world that Mac defies gravity, levitatesa few inch above your desk, and glows with a halo.

As a physicist I don't think I need you to lecture me on gravity.

Originally posted by klinux:
Windows does not need to reboot to stay stable. My servers at work (billion dollar Fortune 500 company) and multiple PCs at home statys up just fine. In fact, I boot my PCs and Macs about the same frequency and mostly due to updates.

I'd love to live in your world. My lab and my university have several NT "server" machines they boot daily for "stability".

Originally posted by klinux:
Memory leaks are usually caused by poorly written 3rd party software as opposed to the OS. A poorly written program can do that just as easily in Windows as it can in Linux or OS X. It is you who are spouting urban legends.

No, but I know that a kill -9 fixes mem leaks opposed to a lengthy reboot. Unfortunately kill -9 doesn't exist under Win or Classic. To make matters worse, their analogues don't work well.

Originally posted by klinux:
People, let Simon rant. Take your advice from someone else more reputable.

Yes, do so if necessary. Just show me how this person works with OS 9, OS X, Debian Linux, RedHat Linux, SunOS/Solaris, NT and XP daily and I'll have found a decent match.

klinux, for a rather new guy you sure are trying hard to be a big agitator. I'd like to see a similar effort when it comes to problem-solving.

[sniffer]

Robster1958:
Do you ever listen to what other people are saying? The Sony is a upper marked pro machine. And it don't run OS X. You are comparing a sports car with a economical all round car. And your arguments haven't changed one inch since you started this thread. This is what I call trolling, no less. Could you just please drop it? Use what ever fits you best. We all agree the Sony is a nice machine, but it doesn't mean the rest of us are in a marked for one as you obviously are.

And:

[dcolton]

I can't believe this thread is still alive.

[klinux]

Of course this is nothing personal - but when you sprout misinformation, well, someone has to acknowledge it. Boot time is not just boot time. I can compare an iMac to a Sun server to a 386 machine just for the sake of comparison but the results would be meaningless.

And for bundling, sure if I wanted to wait for all the roll ups to take place, I could. I could have just not reboot Windows XP until SP-1 is released six month later and claim that I only need to reboot once. Face it, people can (but of course do not have to) reboot Macs just as often as PCs due to the frequency of updates.

If you have to reboot your NT server daily it is because you are not setting it up right and have poor admins. I have very high uptime (months) on my Windows server cluster and see the same around the company. I know a primary reason is because we have an excellent Win admin team. So, you are more than welcome to live in my world. Hire better admins. Blaming Microsoft is always a cheap (but fun) execuse.

You have worked on a bunch of OS but that does that make you an expert in any of them. Say if you are a genious on OS X or Debian, go ahead and tell people what you think about them and prove your salt. However, it is clear in your posts, you are hardly a SME in Windows.

[DanielPritchard]

Originally posted by StiZeven:
a PC Card slot into the 12" PowerBook

Here's why a PCMCIA slot isn't necessary.

Your standard PC laptop: Doesn't come with WiFi built in. Has a PCMCIA slot. Insert WiFi Card. Now you have a computer with no open PCMCIA slots, with WiFi.

Same as my PowerBook. Except WiFi cards have an ugly protuberance for the antenna. My PowerBook doesn't.

The 12" PowerBook doesn't need a PC card slot. Only PC's need them because PC vendors are too stupid to build-in a separate WiFi card.

[ryaxnb]

I've had my own set of (probably unique) problems with XP:
1. Every now and then when I click on a Internet connection icon, I get the preferences window instead. I cannot seem to fix this without restarting. And the computer hasn't even crashed!
2. Once when I hit 'Hibernate,' the computer wouldn't boot again. I did the usual troubleshooting rigamarole, but it wouldn't work. Eventually we got it to work (with a friends help,) but it took a day or two. Such a delay is unacceptable.
3. One of the icons in the System Tray is annoying. It's one about how no network device is connected. I tell it to hide in the preferences, but it keeps coming back again anyway.
4. I've had the computer about two years. I've had to reinstall the OS 3 or 4 times, and reformat the HD once. And on XP, reinstalling means reinstalling almost all your programs too, and resetting all your settings. Not on Mac OS X.

[ryaxnb]

Originally posted by Robster1958:
well..."Pro" machine is pushing it!

although keep in mind that the Sony has 512 MB ram included as well as wi-fi, and camera.

for about the fourth time, i will reiterate a significant performance advantage of the new Vaio: its screen! you gotta use it to believe it. for video it looks like a glass picture tube, for text it is so readable.

Also...the overall form factor is exceptional: smaller lighter with very good battery life. As one who has directly compared/used the two, i gotta say that the smaller footprint in a huge advantage in meetings and the lighter weight is material.

As to why this post in the first place...not to start the unstoppable windows vs. mac, but rather because many people use this forum when considering what to buy/ upgrade, etc... and i felt it would be useful. why this forum instead of powerbook? cause i own the iBook..and felt i would be trespassing!

Hmm... I understand about iBook vs. PB. I would have thought that a super-high-res 10.5" screen (what's next, 3" PDAs with 1280x1024) would be hard to read, but I'll take your word for it.

[Robertk2012]

Noone metioned this with all the camparison between the sony and the 12"pb. 2300 vs. 1599 or 1399 for us students. Yes its a little over a pound heavier but its also thinner with a larger screen. Id like to see the 12" at 1" thick but where its at is just fine. When you start comparing take everything into account. itunes, imovie, style, just start putting a value on all those things and then compare. I bet you will get much more value for almost $1000 cheaper.