![[H]ard|Forum](/styles/hardforum/xenforo/logo_dark.png){kind=logo}
-
Some users have recently had their accounts hijacked. It seems that the now defunct EVGA forums might have compromised your password there and seems many are using the same PW here. We would suggest you UPDATE YOUR PASSWORD and TURN ON 2FA for your account here to further secure it. None of the compromised accounts had 2FA turned on.
Once you have enabled 2FA, your account will be updated soon to show a badge, letting other members know that you use 2FA to protect your account. This should be beneficial for everyone that uses FSFT.
Vista vs. OSX
- Thread starter Rich Tate
- Start date
Rofl-Mic-Lofl
For Whom The Bell Trolls
- Joined
- Dec 29, 2005
- Messages
- 23,377
Just reading that sentence you quoted makes me not want to read his article. He sounds like an apple fan already =\
InorganicMatter
[H]F Junkie
- Joined
- Oct 19, 2004
- Messages
- 15,461
Fist off, the guy is basing his generalization that "OSX > Vista" on little tiny, pointless things. Since when the the "GUI Consistency" affect my productivity? The biggest productivity boost I got at work came from what I (as the system admin) disabled every pointless bell and whistle in Windows XP machines and reduced it to a plain, simple, mean, lean, fast, workstation operating system that is supposed to WORK and not look pretty. Do I really care that Vista's GUI is "less consistent" than OSX's when I'm going to disable it anyway? Then he criticizes the UAC for asking multiple times; this is a GOOD thing, and was done intentionally to make people think about it twice before just installing every little thing that pops up in their internet browser.
Finally, he forgot the most important factor: price, and cost of ownership. A new Vista workstation will cost me $600 for the hardware, $159 for an upgrade copy of Vista, and doesn't have any maintainence fees. A decent Mac system will cost me well over $1000, and although it comes with the OS for free, incremental upgrades (the equivalent of Windows service packs) will cost me $100 each. Not cool.
Is OSX better? Maybe. Is it a realistic alternative for 99% of the populus on cost and efficiency? Hell no.
Finally, he forgot the most important factor: price, and cost of ownership. A new Vista workstation will cost me $600 for the hardware, $159 for an upgrade copy of Vista, and doesn't have any maintainence fees. A decent Mac system will cost me well over $1000, and although it comes with the OS for free, incremental upgrades (the equivalent of Windows service packs) will cost me $100 each. Not cool.
Is OSX better? Maybe. Is it a realistic alternative for 99% of the populus on cost and efficiency? Hell no.
Team Obi Juan
Your Local Postmaster
- Joined
- Sep 28, 2005
- Messages
- 23,276
Vista wins for the sole fact that you can build your own PC and then install Vista on it.
Give that a whirl with OSX without hacking shit.
The two OS's aren't even comparable.
Give that a whirl with OSX without hacking shit.
The two OS's aren't even comparable.
InorganicMatter
[H]F Junkie
- Joined
- Oct 19, 2004
- Messages
- 15,461
Not true. Vista contains a completely redone networking and security suite, which XP cannot even begin to compete with.
The only "DRM" Vista has is that it has the ability to use HDCP. Would you rather they had simply left out HD-DVD/Blu-Ray playback?I can't understand how anyone would want to buy an OS that has DRM which will disable functionality from your legally owned hardware.
By the way, rolleyes abuse is now a punishable offense?
I'm sure OSX is just as good an operating system as Vista, BUT since I have less experience with Mac than I do with DOS, it will be a pain for me to use. For that simple reason, Vista is better than OSX for me.
However, if you sat my 80 old grandmother, who has never used any computer in her life, infront of each one of these, I doubt she would say either one is easy to use much less which is better. Hell, I bet she wouldn't even know they're different
However, if you sat my 80 old grandmother, who has never used any computer in her life, infront of each one of these, I doubt she would say either one is easy to use much less which is better. Hell, I bet she wouldn't even know they're different
Eh, one rolleye in approppriate position punishable? Better remove the whole emoticon then.
If the ability to use HDCP means I can't use S/PDIF in my HTPC anymore - it's not an ability it's crippleware. Not to mention the countless other restrictions introduced.
As what goes for networking / security suite, Vista can't have anything that I would need as XP fills its function 100% as it is. All it can do is bring annoyance of having to relearn everything and fight with system imposed restrictions.
Thats simply not true.
InorganicMatter
[H]F Junkie
- Joined
- Oct 19, 2004
- Messages
- 15,461
It simply is true. Mac Minis do not count as "decent." "Decent" means at least a 2GHz Core 2 Duo and 2GB of RAM.
I guess you will be using good old low-res DVDs for the rest of your life then. HDCP is inevidable, everything is going to have it. It is not a Windows PC specific thing. Standalone players, Linux PCs, and...*GASP!* Macs are eventually going to get it fully integrated. Blasting Windows for this function is simply not a valid arguing point; if anything, Macs should be being blasted for ignoring this technology, because Vista users will be enjoying HD content while the people sticking it out for Leopard are getting left in the dust. Without HDCP functionality, you are going to be constrained to the precious few movies that studios decide they aren't going to force HDCP using the ICT. Good luck with that.Eh, one rolleye in approppriate position punishable? Better remove the whole emoticon then.
If the ability to use HDCP means I can't use S/PDIF in my HTPC anymore - it's not an ability it's crippleware. Not to mention the countless other restrictions introduced.
Please stop trying to argue a point which you have shown you don't understand. At the very least, read [H]ardOCP's Vista articles on gaming performance and the new bulletproof network stack before trying to start a PC vs. Mac war.
I challenge valve to find such a Mac that is decent and as fully functional/modular as a PC for less than $1000.
And before you jump to it and ignore the above demand: I own two Mac Pro's, a Mac Mini (C2D) and four PC's.
Put your money where your mouth is now, Valve1138.
And before you jump to it and ignore the above demand: I own two Mac Pro's, a Mac Mini (C2D) and four PC's.
Put your money where your mouth is now, Valve1138.
Hey guys, lets not lose our tempers here, its the weekend.
I did also notice that the judging of the article seemed a little biased myself but I though it was a good read because the author took some perspective that you don't see a lot in his points.
Personally, can you argue which one is technically better anymore? We're in the midst of the month of bugs for Apple. Maybe "best" simply comes down to your preference of use.
I did also notice that the judging of the article seemed a little biased myself but I though it was a good read because the author took some perspective that you don't see a lot in his points.
Personally, can you argue which one is technically better anymore? We're in the midst of the month of bugs for Apple. Maybe "best" simply comes down to your preference of use.
When you are talking about comparing operating systems, it all comes down to what you do with your computer. Do you game? Then go with a PC. Do you work with home movies, pictures and other creative things of the sort, then it's questionable but I'll say Mac. It all depends on what you do.
For me, I've been working with PCs and Windows since the 3.11 days. Even though I've been close to pulling my hair out because of Windows, I've found that Mac OSX works 10x better for me.
For me, I've been working with PCs and Windows since the 3.11 days. Even though I've been close to pulling my hair out because of Windows, I've found that Mac OSX works 10x better for me.
InorganicMatter
[H]F Junkie
- Joined
- Oct 19, 2004
- Messages
- 15,461
Exactly my point. He picked out three completely obscure nitpicking points (that, quite frankly, no one will ever notice or care about), and based his assumption that OSX was still better on said obscure points.
nevermind the folly of holding OS X up as a model of "UI Consistency." How many different styles are there now? Aqua, "Textured" (brushed metal,) "Unified," and whatever they call the iTunes look.
Then, it's different behaviors- does closing the window exit the app or not? Will the "zoom" control (green button) maximize the window, or only zoom it to fit the contents?
And Expose- it doesn't help that the scaled windows frequently go to different places depending on what's open or where windows are on the screen.
wetware_interface
Weaksauce
- Joined
- Sep 30, 2005
- Messages
- 73
he completely missed the point on why the uac is there (sounds like a doom company to me)
it is there to prevent malware and trojans and worms from launching and executing code.
he assumes double click means that it can only be instantiated from the mouse and not remotly which is naive. also auto execute of cd/dvd content is another reason why you'd want to ask if you want to continue to install from the beginning point. further every component not signed under the same digital signature should definately be requested as a seperate authorization. prevents spyware laden app installs from automatically installing crap to get that "free" piece of software.you downloaded that the publisher negelcted to inform you "free" means we track everything you do and sell that info to everyone we can and also 14 other people paid us to include their tracking habit / ad competitive or hostage ware in our "free" software.
he does have a few valid points on renaming things and moving them just for the sake of moving them.
his other point on incremental updates in mac osx vs. win xp is pure crap. microsoft has updated it's operating system continously and nearly on a monthly basis for years. macs get a few updates every so often and a major release costs you $100. major release being whenever apple decides it needs a cash infusion. microsoft fixes issues and service packs (major releases) are free.
lastly nitpicking about the way the windows inform you which is the one yoru working on...
hello retard, the window your currently using is the one that is in front of the others. it's nice if you want to try to make a point but don't take screen captures of title bars and then try to say you cant tell what your working in currently based on only them. the whole window that is sitting in front of all the others is the one your working on. basically if you see a solid border that is the current window unless you see another solid border that is smaller, smallest being your current window. and besides it is simply a matter of clicking in the application's window you wish to work on in order to start using it. no need to be confused ever. want to work in word click the damn word window, want photoshop guess hwat to do...
it is there to prevent malware and trojans and worms from launching and executing code.
he assumes double click means that it can only be instantiated from the mouse and not remotly which is naive. also auto execute of cd/dvd content is another reason why you'd want to ask if you want to continue to install from the beginning point. further every component not signed under the same digital signature should definately be requested as a seperate authorization. prevents spyware laden app installs from automatically installing crap to get that "free" piece of software.you downloaded that the publisher negelcted to inform you "free" means we track everything you do and sell that info to everyone we can and also 14 other people paid us to include their tracking habit / ad competitive or hostage ware in our "free" software.
he does have a few valid points on renaming things and moving them just for the sake of moving them.
his other point on incremental updates in mac osx vs. win xp is pure crap. microsoft has updated it's operating system continously and nearly on a monthly basis for years. macs get a few updates every so often and a major release costs you $100. major release being whenever apple decides it needs a cash infusion. microsoft fixes issues and service packs (major releases) are free.
lastly nitpicking about the way the windows inform you which is the one yoru working on...
hello retard, the window your currently using is the one that is in front of the others. it's nice if you want to try to make a point but don't take screen captures of title bars and then try to say you cant tell what your working in currently based on only them. the whole window that is sitting in front of all the others is the one your working on. basically if you see a solid border that is the current window unless you see another solid border that is smaller, smallest being your current window. and besides it is simply a matter of clicking in the application's window you wish to work on in order to start using it. no need to be confused ever. want to work in word click the damn word window, want photoshop guess hwat to do...
oh, and one other thing in that article which raised my ire-
I think he's forgetting about the three versions of Windows Media Center Edition between XP's release and now.
Another thing is that OS X only became usable with 10.2; 10.0 and 10.1 were nigh-useless, slow, and buggy. Besides, if frequency of major releases is a desired trait, then Ubuntu has everyone beat
I think he's forgetting about the three versions of Windows Media Center Edition between XP's release and now.
Another thing is that OS X only became usable with 10.2; 10.0 and 10.1 were nigh-useless, slow, and buggy. Besides, if frequency of major releases is a desired trait, then Ubuntu has everyone beat
wetware_interface
Weaksauce
- Joined
- Sep 30, 2005
- Messages
- 73
oh and forgot the main difference between why an os should get the win over another one...
try playing doom3 or quake 4 under osx using the same hardware as under vista and you'll see which os is better underneath. vista is 1.5 times faster than osx using the exact same hardware. that is what an os does the most, and is the most critical function. operates the hardware and provides a means to utlize your hardware and configure it to function the best so applications run the most stable and fastest that they can.
try playing doom3 or quake 4 under osx using the same hardware as under vista and you'll see which os is better underneath. vista is 1.5 times faster than osx using the exact same hardware. that is what an os does the most, and is the most critical function. operates the hardware and provides a means to utlize your hardware and configure it to function the best so applications run the most stable and fastest that they can.
I think he got this part correct. If there's anything in RC2 that I found annoying it's UAC. I don't need to be asked do I want to install something one or two times every time I click on install. If they want to protect me from browser installs, that's a different story. Then again, I think I get asked that by both IE and Firefox, so from that perspective, I don't think UAC matters. I seem to recall that there's a way to turn it off. If I install Vista as my main OS, that will be among the first things that I do.
Forget about hardware costs (though I know every time I compare Macs to PCs, I can always find a comparable PC for less and often a more powerful machine is less), I don't want to upgrade my OS every year. I certainly don't want to pay almost a hundred bucks every year so that my OS is up to date.
IMO, the only reason that MS wants to put an OS out every 2 years is to increase revenue. I personally hope that that was just a lot of hot air. I'm perfectly happy with the current model.
You obviously don't even know what HDCP is or you would know it has absolutely no bearing on SPDIF for audio output.
Since HDCP is required (by the studios and the licensing bodies) in order to play HD-DVD and BLU-RAY over digital video connections not supporting it would have eliminated the PC as a platform for those formats. That is why MSFT chose to support it in Vista.
DRM-wise Vista and XP are pretty much the same: they support it. Don't like it? Then don't buy DRMed media. It's that simple.
One thing about UAC: it is not there to protect (most of) the folks who are reading this. It is there for your mom and grandma and your clueless accountant brother-in-law. You can turn it off.
But for my relatives for whom I provide support: I will turn it up and if the knob goes to 11 I will use it. Nothing sucks more that telling some little old lady that the reason her PCs going like a dog is becuase she clicked on some random email and now it's a farmsex pr0n and warez FTP server.
As to "use the mac if you do video." Why? I have Vegas 7. Plus Vista comes with a pretty decent video and DVD suite in the higher end versions that will suffice for 99% of the folks out there.
Macs have their appeal but not for me.
But for my relatives for whom I provide support: I will turn it up and if the knob goes to 11 I will use it. Nothing sucks more that telling some little old lady that the reason her PCs going like a dog is becuase she clicked on some random email and now it's a farmsex pr0n and warez FTP server.
As to "use the mac if you do video." Why? I have Vegas 7. Plus Vista comes with a pretty decent video and DVD suite in the higher end versions that will suffice for 99% of the folks out there.
Macs have their appeal but not for me.
Wow, I'm really wondering why I'm still reading this article right now when it's clear that it was written by a diehard Mac fan. I've never seen so much nitpicking and disregard for shortcuts in my life. 2 examples that really stand out in my mind, not being able to find what he was looking for in the control panel and locating his IP. Any XP/Vista user knows that these are two ridiculously easy things to do.
He goes to great lengths to explain how difficult it is to change his monitor resolution, among other things. Hmm...let's see, all you have to do is right-click the damn desktop and go to properties. You want to find stuff in the control panel easier? Switch to damn classic mode. It's there for a reason. You want to find your IP? Go to run, type cmd, then type ipconfig. Done in 3 seconds. Or right click your connection, go to status/details. Again, done in a whole 5 seconds. Seriously, does this guy even know how to use a Windows OS?
He goes to great lengths to explain how difficult it is to change his monitor resolution, among other things. Hmm...let's see, all you have to do is right-click the damn desktop and go to properties. You want to find stuff in the control panel easier? Switch to damn classic mode. It's there for a reason. You want to find your IP? Go to run, type cmd, then type ipconfig. Done in 3 seconds. Or right click your connection, go to status/details. Again, done in a whole 5 seconds. Seriously, does this guy even know how to use a Windows OS?
I haven't really read any replies in the thread, but the guy sounded like a Mac fan, straight up.
To be fair, I don't think Tiger should be compared to Vista. I think we should wait a few months for Leopard, and then do some solid comparisons.
As for OS vs OS vs specs needed to run an OS smoothly, I am positive OS X has the advantage there. I use both XP and Tiger extensively and will say first hand that you need no more than a 1.25ghz processor and 512mb RAM to run OS X smooth as butter, as compared to running XP on hardware of the same specs; you just won't get the same smoothness while running XP on those specs.
To be fair, I don't think Tiger should be compared to Vista. I think we should wait a few months for Leopard, and then do some solid comparisons.
As for OS vs OS vs specs needed to run an OS smoothly, I am positive OS X has the advantage there. I use both XP and Tiger extensively and will say first hand that you need no more than a 1.25ghz processor and 512mb RAM to run OS X smooth as butter, as compared to running XP on hardware of the same specs; you just won't get the same smoothness while running XP on those specs.
Team Obi Juan
Your Local Postmaster
- Joined
- Sep 28, 2005
- Messages
- 23,276
As I posted earlier. OSX could be Jesus of the OS world...
But that means shit. You can't install it on a computer you build. OSX isn't an option.
A squirrel is the best operating system. You also can't use it as your operating system.
/thread
But that means shit. You can't install it on a computer you build. OSX isn't an option.
A squirrel is the best operating system. You also can't use it as your operating system.
/thread
I think this thread is hilarious. Even though the article is written by just "somebody" that I've never even heard of, PC !!!!!!s all over the board are going insane because uh oh . . . somebody finds OSX more appealing than Vista (many people do, even myself). Whooptie doo, get over yourselves.
GO WITH WHAT WORKS FOR YOU!!!
GO WITH WHAT WORKS FOR YOU!!!
Mac Minis are not decent in the aspect that they use shitty integrated graphics, the processor is decent, however the graphics portion is pretty mediocre. So those who want a "serious" computer are left with either the iMac, Macbook Pro or Mac Pro..
oh, and one other thing in that article which raised my ire-
I think he's forgetting about the three versions of Windows Media Center Edition between XP's release and now.
Another thing is that OS X only became usable with 10.2; 10.0 and 10.1 were nigh-useless, slow, and buggy. Besides, if frequency of major releases is a desired trait, then Ubuntu has everyone beat
Windows MCE are all based on XP Pro with certain functionality turned off and the Media Center additions. In essence Microsoft has not released an essentially new OS since Windows XP which is I believe agreed by most.
As for the "nitpicks" whilst I can't say I am an expert on OS comparisons and certainly not well versed on Windows Vista I must say those "nitpicks" are in a ways what makes OS X that much more polished. An OS isn't just about getting things done. If getting things done were all we cared about, then really command line should be all we need. What I believe people look for in an OS is about getting things done intuitively and simply (ie Usability). In the field of HCI (Human Computer Interactions) this is all they care about. One reason why the iPod sells so well is because of usability.
To call his points invalid is naive and verging on !!!!!!ish although I agree that usability alone should not determine whether Vista or OS X is better but regardless market shares pretty much guarantee that Windows Vista will come up on top and the fact you can't build a PC and put OS X on it is by and large the biggest deterrent to people converting to OS X.
I love how these damn threads almost always go into childish arguments.
Use what you're happy with. Some prefer Macs (assuming OSX) and others prefer PCs. (be it Linux/Windows). I'll never understand why there's always dumb arguments that arise from these types of discussions.
Use what you're happy with. Some prefer Macs (assuming OSX) and others prefer PCs. (be it Linux/Windows). I'll never understand why there's always dumb arguments that arise from these types of discussions.
InorganicMatter
[H]F Junkie
- Joined
- Oct 19, 2004
- Messages
- 15,461
They arise from blanket statements from Microsoft-hate-bots, kind of like this one:
Blaming Microsoft for HDCP? Groping...I can't understand how anyone would want to buy an OS that has DRM which will disable functionality from your legally owned hardware.
odoe
[H]F Junkie
- Joined
- Oct 10, 2001
- Messages
- 9,796
If you can't be mature in this thread, don't post please.
CyberDeus-RagDoll
[H]ard|Gawd
- Joined
- Nov 1, 2006
- Messages
- 1,223
Takes about 30 seconds to do.
TCO on a mac is substantially greater than a PC.nilepez said:
Obviously, this guy didn't really try to make an objective comparison of the two OSs. Instead, he decided to exploit every tiny little flaw in Vista to convince himself that OSX was still the best.
That isn't a problem with the OS. In fact, to some people it may be helpful. But to most, like me, I don't really care if the OS tells me when things are working or not.
So, when he finally finds an area where Vista is better, he cripples it? First off, the majority of people upgrading to Vista will do it when the buy their next computer with Vista preinstalled, and any new computer can support DX9. Second, most of the people upgrading without purchasing a new comptuer, like us on this forum, don't keep their computers so outdated that they don't support DX9. So, that argument is moot.
Second, what's more obvious? Greying out a few menu items, or making the entire window transparent? His statement that window transparency isn't very obvious is simply made up. There is no way someone could honestly not notice that a window is transparent.
As soon as you design an interface for Word and Outlook that is anymore simillar to IE than that and still functional, let me know.
This is one of his few points that I agree on. Though "my computer' -> "computer" and smaller window buttons are nothing, "display" -> "personalization" and "add/remove programs" -> "programs and features" isn't necesasry.
Apparently, this guy doesn't understand that, for someone new to computers, they aren't going to recognize the function of anything[/b[ without being told by someone. Having the comptuer tell them what things do is a very good idea.
About the UAC, he completely misunderstands its purpose. The point of it (and, yes, it can be turned off) is to make sure people understand what they're about to do by double-clicking an icon, installing a program, or changing a setting. Though the dialogs could be a bit more descriptive, the UAC still performs its function well. OSX, on the other hand, is the annoyance. Would you want to have to enter a password every time you wanted to change a setting? Oh, and he also forgets that you can also do the same things in Vista and even XP by setting a password to the administrator account.
Basically he's saying "yeah, Vista has better secuirty and allows you to make your computer go faster, but since it required more mouse clicks to do things, OSX is still way better".
IMO, the core features of the OS, like the ones listed above, are more important that minor UI annoyances.
article said:
That isn't a problem with the OS. In fact, to some people it may be helpful. But to most, like me, I don't really care if the OS tells me when things are working or not.
article said:
So, when he finally finds an area where Vista is better, he cripples it? First off, the majority of people upgrading to Vista will do it when the buy their next computer with Vista preinstalled, and any new computer can support DX9. Second, most of the people upgrading without purchasing a new comptuer, like us on this forum, don't keep their computers so outdated that they don't support DX9. So, that argument is moot.
Second, what's more obvious? Greying out a few menu items, or making the entire window transparent? His statement that window transparency isn't very obvious is simply made up. There is no way someone could honestly not notice that a window is transparent.
article said:
As soon as you design an interface for Word and Outlook that is anymore simillar to IE than that and still functional, let me know.
article said:
This is one of his few points that I agree on. Though "my computer' -> "computer" and smaller window buttons are nothing, "display" -> "personalization" and "add/remove programs" -> "programs and features" isn't necesasry.
article said:
Apparently, this guy doesn't understand that, for someone new to computers, they aren't going to recognize the function of anything[/b[ without being told by someone. Having the comptuer tell them what things do is a very good idea.
article said:
About the UAC, he completely misunderstands its purpose. The point of it (and, yes, it can be turned off) is to make sure people understand what they're about to do by double-clicking an icon, installing a program, or changing a setting. Though the dialogs could be a bit more descriptive, the UAC still performs its function well. OSX, on the other hand, is the annoyance. Would you want to have to enter a password every time you wanted to change a setting? Oh, and he also forgets that you can also do the same things in Vista and even XP by setting a password to the administrator account.
article said:
Basically he's saying "yeah, Vista has better secuirty and allows you to make your computer go faster, but since it required more mouse clicks to do things, OSX is still way better".
IMO, the core features of the OS, like the ones listed above, are more important that minor UI annoyances.
I do agree that you want a useable package, but I think it's improper to call any of the things discussed in the article OS issues. They're interface issues. They're important, but IE, Outlook (or whatever the new mail program is called) and various tools are not part of the OS. Strip that stuff away, and the OS can still run applications.
Since we're talking about interfaces, I'll relay a rather old story from the days of Windows 3.x and DOS. A friend had a Mac and for whatever reason needed more memory allocated for apps, so he called me up to help (yup, the user of a Mac couldn't figure out how to do it). Long story short, while I could have fixed the problem in DOS/Windows (really the same thing back then) in 5 minutes (probably less), I spent 30 minutes trying to find that in the Mac, while struggling with the one button mouse and menus that closed on me whenever the mouse left the menu/sub menu, and finally gave up and spent an hour on hold to talk to Apple. It was easy once you knew where to look, but that's not any different than using windows. Finding an IP is easy...once you know where to look.
As for the iPod, it sold because it was pretty, generally easy to use and most importantly Apple marketed the hell out of them (their marketing was nothing short of brilliant).
Rio products were just as easy to use, had better audio quality and unlike the iPods, they could playback successive files gaplessly. Rio's Karma wasn't as pretty as the iPod and Rio couldn't market honey to bears. If you walked into a Best Buyand asked about the Karma, they couldn't tell you anything, because they didn't know anything....neither did most other sales people.
No, but some of his points were silly. As someone pointed out, he had trouble finding stuff in Control Panel, because he didn't switch it to classic view (which he must have done with XP, since it doesn't default to Classic view either). While I hate category view as well, it's not new to Vista and once you switch to classic view, your total clicks are Control Panel-> Network connections -> Double click on connection -> Details (one more than apple)
What's more, this is arguably, a simplification from XP (Control Panel->Network C. -> Double Click Connection -> Click on Support Tab (General has many buttons that the average user probably would have looked at first)....and if they needed more info than IP/Subnet/Gateway, they'd have to click on the details button on the support tab.
Personally, I'll continue to use ipconfig.
I don't know. I dont' think there are many people who build PCs (as a percentage all windows computers in homes) and I suspect the vast majority of home users do not install new versions of Windows....they buy a new PC and it comes with whatever OS is out at the time.
Like i said, I think UAC is a waste. If I was a normal user, I think I'd eventually just automatically click yes (kinda like when I click yes to delete a file). I think requiring a password makes sense and I think it should rarely pop up. This was one area where rightly berated the Vista UI.
InorganicMatter
[H]F Junkie
- Joined
- Oct 19, 2004
- Messages
- 15,461
Now if only Apple and their fanbase could see this, we would all be happy campers.
OS functionality & security > "Consistent" GUIs
Vista does an EXCELLENT job of balancing security versus annoyance (like not requiring a password for UAC), and functionality versus GUIs that belong in Candy Land.
It simply is true. Mac Minis do not count as "decent." "Decent" means at least a 2GHz Core 2 Duo and 2GB of RAM.
I guess you will be using good old low-res DVDs for the rest of your life then. HDCP is inevidable, everything is going to have it. It is not a Windows PC specific thing. Standalone players, Linux PCs, and...*GASP!* Macs are eventually going to get it fully integrated. Blasting Windows for this function is simply not a valid arguing point; if anything, Macs should be being blasted for ignoring this technology, because Vista users will be enjoying HD content while the people sticking it out for Leopard are getting left in the dust. Without HDCP functionality, you are going to be constrained to the precious few movies that studios decide they aren't going to force HDCP using the ICT. Good luck with that.
Please stop trying to argue a point which you have shown you don't understand. At the very least, read [H]ardOCP's Vista articles on gaming performance and the new bulletproof network stack before trying to start a PC vs. Mac war.
Heh heh just as any other artificial consumer limitation imposed, HDCP will get bypassed by every $100 chinese manufacturer. I will simply boycot the new tech untill I can get hardware that will let me use the content like I want it.