Welcome to the MacNN Forums.

utw-Mephisto · Jan 30, 2007, 11:39 PM

Well, kinda ...

Parvez · Jan 31, 2007, 12:03 AM

LOLL!! ahaha

MAC OS X pwnz!

keekeeree · Jan 31, 2007, 12:15 AM

turtle777 · Jan 31, 2007, 02:02 AM

*smirk*

-t

Buckaroo · Jan 31, 2007, 02:28 AM

My daughter works at Fry's. She told me that the store tried to install Vista on many of the computers in the store. They had problems with all of them except 3, including driver problems with their top of the line Sony. It's a total disaster.

Seattle · Jan 31, 2007, 02:32 AM

Thanks for sharing.

utw-Mephisto · Jan 31, 2007, 02:32 AM

So I assume they did not run the readiness test from the CD / DVD

driven · Jan 31, 2007, 02:33 AM

My friend from work stopped at the midnight launch last night. (I had it wrong and thought it was tonight ... if they made it 11:55pm I would have gotten the day right ... but anyway I digress.)

He got there and there were only *3* people in line. This is a major city!

He asked two of the guys in front of him "Are you buying Vista?" They replied "Nope. We are just here for the free stuff." The third guy looked frozen apparently. He might be a left-over from the wii launch.

Paco500 · Jan 31, 2007, 06:10 AM

I have installed Vista Ultimate on Parallels and it is working fine. A bit slow, and none of the fancy Areo Glass interface.

It is a pain to work with. It may be more intuituve than XP, I don't know. But Windows worked pretty much the same way since 95 and they have changed some of the basics and so I am having to relearn how to use it. Perhaps it would be easier for a brand new user to figure out than XP was.

I certianly looks better than XP did, even without the Aero Glass stuff. As far as all the other bits and pieces, Media Centre, Sidebar, Media Player, etc, I have no idea. I just have it for Visio, Outlook and ocassionally IE for windows. So why ultimate edition? That's what my company gave me.

zerostar · Jan 31, 2007, 08:15 AM

So, uh what are the differences between all of these versions and what are the costs?

Eug · Jan 31, 2007, 09:29 AM

Originally Posted by Paco500

I have installed Vista Ultimate on Parallels and it is working fine. A bit slow, and none of the fancy Areo Glass interface.

It is a pain to work with. It may be more intuituve than XP, I don't know. But Windows worked pretty much the same way since 95 and they have changed some of the basics and so I am having to relearn how to use it. Perhaps it would be easier for a brand new user to figure out than XP was.

I certianly looks better than XP did, even without the Aero Glass stuff. As far as all the other bits and pieces, Media Centre, Sidebar, Media Player, etc, I have no idea. I just have it for Visio, Outlook and ocassionally IE for windows. So why ultimate edition? That's what my company gave me.

Yeah, it's too bad Aero won't work under Parallels.

Vista beta's Aero ran fine on my MacBook with GMA 950 with BootCamp. Quite snappy actually. However, I had to install a different video driver. The default one wouldn't give me Aero.

driven · Jan 31, 2007, 09:46 AM

Originally Posted by Eug

Yeah, it's too bad Aero won't work under Parallels.

Vista beta's Aero ran fine on my MacBook with GMA 950 with BootCamp. Quite snappy actually. However, I had to install a different video driver. The default one wouldn't give me Aero.

Yeah ... I turned it off anyway. (Went to classic mode) It was fun for about a day. Then it was a waste of resources. (And it was slower ... so it was also a waste of my time.)

christ · Jan 31, 2007, 09:52 AM

Originally Posted by utw-Mephisto

So I assume they did not run the readiness test from the CD / DVD

Buying Vista? Get a Guarantee?

Eug · Jan 31, 2007, 10:38 AM

Originally Posted by driven

Yeah ... I turned it off anyway. (Went to classic mode) It was fun for about a day. Then it was a waste of resources. (And it was slower ... so it was also a waste of my time.)

When using older machines, I wish I had that option in OS X. Luckily, all the machines I own now are 4-digit MHz G4s or better.

I'd hate to regularly run OS X on a G3 though without a Radeon or whatever.

driven · Jan 31, 2007, 11:41 AM

Originally Posted by Eug

When using older machines, I wish I had that option in OS X. Luckily, all the machines I own now are 4-digit MHz G4s or better.

I'd hate to regularly run OS X on a G3 though without a Radeon or whatever.

I run the latest OSX on a 500Mhz iMac G3 with no issues at all. What machines do you experience slugishness on?

Eug · Jan 31, 2007, 11:50 AM

Originally Posted by driven

I run the latest OSX on a 500Mhz iMac G3 with no issues at all. What machines do you experience slugishness on?

You tolerate slowness better than I do.

A 600 MHz G3 iBook is painful to me to use now, even with 640 MB RAM.

However, I own four Macs, and my slowest machine now is a 1.7 GHz G4 Cube, so I have a different frame of reference I guess.

Gossamer · Jan 31, 2007, 01:56 PM

My ex-gf got a Toshiba laptop from her dad for Christmas, replacing the 400MHz G4 I had given her a year ago. She said the only reason she uses the laptop is due to portability, and if she had a choice she'd stick with the Mac. She misses iPhoto, GarageBand, Safari, and the general ease of use. Good one dad.

ajprice · Jan 31, 2007, 05:06 PM

Sky News was on while in the pub lastnight, as part of the report over the news hour, they tried to install a Vista upgrade over an XP installation (apparently it was the news reporters own computer??!!?!). They had trouble, wouldn't go at first because it had a non Microsoft CD burner software installed. Eventually they got it installing, with a message box on the screen, at the bottom it said something like "This installation may take several hours" Hours!!! Didn't see the end of the report (they kept going to it for a few minutes through the hour), but I'm takin a wild guess that it wasn't installed and running before the end of the programme!

kick52 · Jan 31, 2007, 05:35 PM

Originally Posted by ajprice

Sky News was on while in the pub lastnight, as part of the report over the news hour, they tried to install a Vista upgrade over an XP installation (apparently it was the news reporters own computer??!!?!). They had trouble, wouldn't go at first because it had a non Microsoft CD burner software installed. Eventually they got it installing, with a message box on the screen, at the bottom it said something like "This installation may take several hours" Hours!!! Didn't see the end of the report (they kept going to it for a few minutes through the hour), but I'm takin a wild guess that it wasn't installed and running before the end of the programme!

yeah..pwnage!
2 hours on another guys laptop.

30mins for panther on my beige g3.

Peter · Jan 31, 2007, 05:39 PM

its so so difficult to support all hardware configurations.

Microsoft.

Can't say I've had any issues upgrading on my computers.

::maroma:: · Jan 31, 2007, 05:52 PM

Originally Posted by Peter

its so so difficult to support all hardware configurations.

It sure is. Pretty much the main reason Apple's products are so closed. And Windows advocates bitch and moan about the closed architecture of the Mac, yet when they experience the exact reason why they do that they wonder why MS is so bad at supporting everything. The short term memories of some people baffle me.

utw-Mephisto · Feb 1, 2007, 06:20 PM

Another one

::maroma:: · Feb 1, 2007, 06:41 PM

^^

C.A.T.S. CEO · Feb 2, 2007, 11:04 PM

Originally Posted by utw-Mephisto

Another one

Originally Posted by utw-Mephisto

Well, kinda ...

utw-Mephisto · Feb 3, 2007, 06:36 AM

And here an upgrade chart :

Buckaroo · Feb 3, 2007, 09:39 PM

Windows Vista: The 'Huh?' starts now

Windows Vista: The 'Huh?' starts now

February 02, 2007 (Computerworld) -- Microsoft is losing consumer operating system market share to Apple for many reasons, but most of those reasons can be oversimplified thus: Mac OS is simple, and Windows is complicated.

That's why it may be such a costly error for Microsoft to make the Vista upgrade such a confusing mess.

driven · Feb 3, 2007, 09:42 PM

Nice.

C.A.T.S. CEO · Feb 3, 2007, 09:52 PM

Originally Posted by Buckaroo

Windows Vista: The 'Huh?' starts now

Windows Vista: The 'Huh?' starts now

February 02, 2007 (Computerworld) -- Microsoft is losing consumer operating system market share to Apple for many reasons, but most of those reasons can be oversimplified thus: Mac OS is simple, and Windows is complicated.

That's why it may be such a costly error for Microsoft to make the Vista upgrade such a confusing mess.

Buckaroo · Feb 3, 2007, 09:58 PM

Meanwhile, the Upgrade versions are poison:

Windows power users know that if you want Windows to work well over the long haul, it helps to reformat and perform a clean install once in a while. The Upgrade version requires you to install both XP/2000 and Vista every time, doubling the already massive amount of time it takes to do a reformat/reinstall.

The Upgrade versions require you to keep track of your original Windows XP/2000 disks. Most people have these in the form of "recovery CDs" from the PC vendor, which can include multiple disks full of junk applications.

vmarks · Feb 3, 2007, 10:25 PM

Originally Posted by Peter

its so so difficult to support all hardware configurations.

Microsoft.

Can't say I've had any issues upgrading on my computers.

I hear this argument, and I shake my head.

Microsoft doesn't support hardware configurations, not really.

They get just enough done so that they have basic Human Interface Devices working and mass storage working, along with a fair sampling of printers. Video cards, they do basic support.

Just enough to install and then install the MFR provided drivers.

So MS does the basics and then you use the disc that came with your motherboard/graphics card/OEM(Dell/Gateway/Lenovo) computer.

MS doesn't do the work to support those. The MFRs write the drivers, submit them to WHQL (windows hardware quality labs) for certification, pay to have them submitted and certified, and you're giving MS the credit for it.

MS screws the hardware MFRs, especially in Vista with the built in DRM meaning graphics card MFRs can no longer make one reference design and remove or add chips to fill out their product range, MS passes the costs on to the hardware MFRs and customers, and you give them credit for this.

But this isn't new: MS screwed hardware MFRs and customers back in the win95 days. Win95 revA came out, with a driver model spec and hardware MFRs wrote in compliance with it. Win95 revB came out and broke that model, changed the spec. MS' official response to consumers and to hardware MFRs was, "contact your hardware MFR and ask them to write a new driver."

The same thing happened again with Win98 and Win98 SE. SE introduced a new WDM (windows driver model.)

So let's not pretend for one minute that MS does a great job supporting all that hardware.

mitchell_pgh · Feb 3, 2007, 11:40 PM

I have some PC users at work that have been comparing Vista to Tiger, and I keep telling them that I've had Tiger for almost a year, also, Leopard is just around the corner.

I'm not saying OS X is better (well, most of us already know that) I just haven't been waiting five years for it.