The ultimate shootout: Apple Mac OS X vs. Microsoft Windows Vista

[aryayush]

It doesn't matter how good an application looks like

It does. It matters a lot.

It did not use to matter to you how good an operating system looked like until Vista came along. Suddenly it is the most important feature of the operating system. It does not matter to you now how good the interfaces are of applications because almost every application on Windows looks like it has been designed in MS Paint - or worse, taken out of a trash can and shoved down the users' throats. But soon more and more applications will come along (like Yahoo! Messenger for Vista) that have refined user interfaces on Windows (because the developers aren't as stupid as you are) and you'll be boasting all over this very forum how cool the interfaces are. Then it will be the most important thing in the world for you. Of course, Mac OS X would have moved on to something better by then (with Core Animation in Leopard) and that will not matter to you.

Gist of the matter (pardon the pun) is, no one cares what matters to you so just STFU and mind your own business. I had prepared that list of screenshots a few days ago and had intended to post it but then I had decided I wouldn't. However, it had taken some time so I thought I should post it anyway (for the benefit of the about five objective and unbiased users on this forum, a list on which I do not include myself). I know it hurt your ego but I don't really give a damn.

 

[gxsaurav]

It did not use to matter to you how good an operating system looked like until Vista came along. Suddenly it is the most important feature of the operating system.

It does not matter to you now how good the interfaces are of applications because almost every application on Windows looks like it has been designed in MS Paint - or worse, taken out of a trash can and shoved down the users' throats. But soon more and more applications will come along (like Yahoo! Messenger for Vista) that have refined user interfaces on Windows (because the developers aren't as stupid as you are) and you'll be boasting all over this very forum how cool the interfaces are. Then it will be the most important thing in the world for you. Of course, Mac OS X would have moved on to something better by then (with Core Animation in Leopard) and that will not matter to you.

There was a reason I told you to take some history lessons about GX Icons & KoL's Vista theme moded for XP.

Do you know what feature Core Animation provides or are you just taking its name cos it is an Apple technology copied from WPF.

Gist of the matter (pardon the pun) is, no one cares what matters to you so just STFU and mind your own business. I had prepared that list of screenshots a few days ago and had intended to post it but then I had decided I wouldn't. However, it had taken some time so I thought I should post it anyway (for the benefit of the about five objective and unbiased users on this forum, a list on which I do not include myself). I know it hurt your ego but I don't really give a damn.

I guess you forgot the read the whole line & read just the first words.

It doesn't matter how good an application looks like (iPhoto or Finder) if it is not good enough for performance & functionality(acdsee or Explorer), it is as good as useless.(iTunes for Windows)

I ask the members here, does a good flashy UI matters for you if the program is low on features & is not good enough ?

And my ego, boy you are the one acting lame & frustrated. I am just giving my verdict which any membar is free to judge & give there proper responce which doesn't includes abuses. Arya, when was the last time you made UI for an application or some icons or some toolbar for something?

 

[QwertyManiac]

I ask the members here, does a good flashy UI matters for you if the program is low on features & is not good enough ?

What do you want us to say? Aren't you using Vista yourself? And I see it does matter a lot to you.

 

[gxsaurav]

So, I am using Vista myself, not just because of the UI but also the usability improvements it brings to my workflow.

In simple terms, does a nice GUI matters to you membars as said by arya, if the software is below functionality.

I have given examples too....like iPhoto & WPG

 

[iMav]

the poit is vista has both sexy UI and a lot of features no matter how u compare it vista also has a cut option where as mac has a decent ui and lacks in features ....

 

[gxsaurav]

When it comes to looks in UI, MacOS beats XP hands down. However with Vista things are different, Yup it did take MS 5 years to make the UI look better but now with WPF & .net 3.0 MS has given the developer complete control over whatever they want to do with Vista UI & so far this is just the begining.

Which again brings me to my old arguement line "Why buy a new Mac Computer when you can run Windows Vista on your existing PC & do whatever you want"

How good the UI of vista is to nevigate will be shown in the file manager comparision

 

[nepcker]

Sorry. My apologies. I commented on Seashore without even seeing the screenshot. I'll be doing my best to not repeat this kind of mistakes.

Now, about the iPhoto problem. I'll like to repeat what I had once said:

If you had to double-click on an installer to install a program, try re-running the installer first. In most cases, after you launch it, you’ll see an uninstall option that will automatically remove all the program’s files. Run this.

Is this that complicated? I don't think so.

Yup, a simple thing which has been there since 1998 in Windows. Flaw number 8 of Mac OS X

Now, a few years ago, I had to uninstall an application in Windows. No uninstaller was bundled with it, so I looked at "Add/Remove Programs". No mention about the program there. I guess there are a few programs that don't add to Add/Remove Programs too.

This means that some Windows programs cause you trouble when you want to uninstall them. The same for Mac OS X. You can't really blame either of the OS for this.

You can yourself read the system requirment for it, 1 GB is miminum recomended...lolz.

1GB RAM for Aperture. Hmm...... Pretty unreasonable, isn't it?
Hey, what's the RAM required for Vista? 1 GB I guess.

Aperture is an advanced application, and hence has high system recommended. Vista is just an OS, and I think Dell recommends 2GB RAM for smooth performance. Okay, the Starter edition will run on a 256MB RAM machine, but Vista without Aero is... umm... Windows XP!

Why buy a new Mac Computer when you can run Windows Vista on your existing PC & do whatever you want

Bwahahahahahahahahhahahaha! LOL! Literally rolling on the floor, laughing!
Do you even know the system requirements of Windows Vista (with Aero and all the eye-candy)? I don't think that old PCs (except the really high-end ones) are capable of running Vista without an upgrade while fairly old macs can run the latest version of Mac OS X with all the eye-candy and all.

why sud a user hav to check out so many folders just to make sure that an app is uninstalled in 2007??

Since the iLife suite (and hence iPhoto) comes pre-installed with Macs, I didn't know whether it had an installer or not. Re-running the installer will do all the jobs for you.

 

[assasin]

Do you even know the system requirements of Windows Vista (with Aero and all the eye-candy)? I don't think that old PCs (except the really high-end ones) are capable of running Vista without an upgrade while fairly old macs can run the latest version of Mac OS X with all the eye-candy and all.

And do u know the sys req of Windows Vista???i dont think u do cuz if u did then u wudnt hav made that statement.
Min req of Vista:
Proccy = 800MHz
RAM = 512MB
HDD = 40GB with 15GB space in installation prompt.
Gfx Card = 128MB with SM 2.0 support if u want Aero Enabled
Most 1-2 yr old pcs hav onboard gfx which r SM 2 capable and the most that they hav to do is inc their system ram if they already dont hav enough of it.

i dont that mac os X will run just fine with 256MB of system ram.it'll req 512MB.all intel based macs come with a 915 chipset based mobo which means that u already hav a SM 2 based onboard gfx.

so i cant see much diff bet system reqs of both the os.

Now tell me wat did u wanna prove with ur statements????

It doesn't matter how good an application looks like (iPhoto or Finder) if it is not good enough for performance & functionality(acdsee or Explorer), it is as good as useless.(iTunes for Windows)

UI of an app does matter cuz it creates a pleasant view for us.but an app is of no use if it only has a good UI and has crippled/poor functionality.for an app to be successfull it needs to hav both a good UI and sud do wats its meant to do,providin g full functionality to the end-user

 

[nepcker]

assasin,
I was talking about Windows Vista Premium Ready PCs, with Aero and all that. Here are the requirements for Vista from *www.microsoft.com/windows/products/windowsvista/buyorupgrade/capable.mspx :
* 1 GHz 32-bit (x86) or 64-bit (x64) processor¹).
* 1 GB of system memory.
* Support for DirectX 9 graphics with a WDDM driver, 128 MB of graphics memory (minimum)², Pixel Shader 2.0 and 32 bits per pixel.
* 40 GB of hard drive capacity with 15 GB free space.
* DVD-ROM Drive³.
* Audio output capability.
* Internet access capability.

The page clearly says that "Some features available in the premium editions of Windows Vista—like the new Windows Aero user experience—may require advanced or additional hardware."

And oh, Aero will most probably not run if the graphics are integrated.

Now don't say that the site is unreliable and is fake.

And before I had my Mac Pro, I ran Mac OS X Tiger on my 512 MB RAM Mac Mini. (Though 256 MB would have been sufficient.)

And here are the system requirements for the current version of Mac OS X from *www.apple.com/macosx/techspecs/ :
* Macintosh computer with a PowerPC G3, G4 or G5 processor
* Built-in FireWire
* DVD drive for installation
* 256MB of RAM
* 3GB of available hard disk space (4GB if you install the developer tools)

Actually, built-in firewire is not necessary, but it's better if you have it.

 

[gxsaurav]

Re-running the installer will do all the jobs for you.

Yup, i tried this. None of the applications which come with installers are providing this option. If you get this with some app then show me a screenshot. I will check that app too.

Now, a few years ago, I had to uninstall an application in Windows. No uninstaller was bundled with it, so I looked at "Add/Remove Programs". No mention about the program there. I guess there are a few programs that don't add to Add/Remove Programs too.

Few years ago....time has changed, but Mac still doesn't have a unified add/remove program or uninstaller . There are many applications such as 7-Zip or which do not require any installation. just unzip & run. To uninstall, delete it. That program also seems like the same, there was no need of an installer or uninstaller.

This means that some Windows programs cause you trouble when you want to uninstall them. The same for Mac OS X. You can't really blame either of the OS for this.

Windows has Add/Remove program since ages, Mac doesn't. Isn't this a flaw?

Bwahahahahahahahahhahahaha! LOL! Literally rolling on the floor, laughing!
Do you even know the system requirements of Windows Vista (with Aero and all the eye-candy)? I don't think that old PCs (except the really high-end ones) are capable of running Vista without an upgrade

Sigh...here we go again. I have myself installed & worked on Vista on a computer with 1 GB RAM, Pentium 4 2.4 GHz & Radeon 9600 Pro graphics card. This computer came 4 years ago, the same time when I bought my new computer on which I m working right now.

UI of an app does matter cuz it creates a pleasant view for us.but an app is of no use if it only has a good UI and has crippled/poor functionality.for an app to be successfull it needs to hav both a good UI and sud do wats its meant to do,providin g full functionality to the end-user

Bang on target.

nepcker, try running MacOS X on 256 MB . You will be amazed to see it's performance.

 

[eddie]

And do u know the sys req of Windows Vista???

There are two problems with figures mentioned by you:
a) They are not for Vista with Aero interface.
b) They are provided by Microsoft thus are not true under real life circumstances.

Here are the requirements for Windows XP Pro by Microsoft

• Pentium 233-megahertz (MHz) processor or faster
• At least 64 megabytes (MB) of RAM
• At least 1.5 gigabytes (GB) of available space on the hard disk

Now do you believe those figures? Have you ever seen a system with 233MHz processor with 64 RAM running Windows XP Pro in usable state???

 

[Choto Cheeta]

Sorry to poke my nose in,

@eddie

5 years back, just after Windows XP came, I used to run it with My P-II 266 and 128 MB RAM (64+64), now back then for some reason one of my 64MB stick wnet dead (dust on RAM), and as that time i was a noobe, didnt even noticed drop of RAM, what i felt is, XP taking long time to boot and load...

I worked fine with 64MB in windows xp with Offfice 2000 simple Office work and some printing ohh and yeah some Road Rash

P.S. Sorry, forgot to maintioned, back the i didnt know how to Turn off Vidual Graphics, so I just used the classic theme, but as u know by Default it will keep the Settings on

and now even with my C2D and 3GB DDR-II i feel my xp is running slow

but 5/5 and half years back, even that P-II i used to think its a gr8 computeing exp with WInXP

 

[shantanu]

There are two problems with figures mentioned by you:
a) They are not for Vista with Aero interface.
b) They are provided by Microsoft thus are not true under real life circumstances.

Here are the requirements for Windows XP Pro by Microsoft
Now do you believe those figures? Have you ever seen a system with 233MHz processor with 64 RAM running Windows XP Pro in usable state???

yup , i have seen a PC, with 333mhz CPU and 64 mb RAM running Windows Xp PRO.. and more of 433 and 633 mhz cpu with 64 and 128 mb ram..

System requirements for Windows XP operating systems
View products that this article applies to.
Article ID : 314865
Last Review : May 7, 2007
Revision : 4.2
This article was previously published under Q314865
For a Microsoft Windows 2000 version of this article, see 304297 (*support.microsoft.com/kb/304297/EN-US/).

SUMMARYThis article contains information about the minimum hardware requirements for Windows XP Home Edition and Windows XP Professional.
MORE INFORMATION

These are the minimum requirements for basic functionality. Actual requirements vary, depending on the system configuration and the programs and features that you choose to install. If you are installing Windows XP over a network, you may need additional available hard-disk space.

The minimum hardware requirements for Windows XP Home Edition are:

• Pentium 233-megahertz (MHz) processor or faster (300 MHz is recommended)
• At least 64 megabytes (MB) of RAM (128 MB is recommended)
• At least 1.5 gigabytes (GB) of available space on the hard disk
• CD-ROM or DVD-ROM drive
• Keyboard and a Microsoft Mouse or some other compatible pointing device
• Video adapter and monitor with Super VGA (800 x 600)or higher resolution
• Sound card
• Speakers or headphones

For more information about system requirements for Windows XP Home Edition, visit the following Microsoft Web site:
*www.microsoft.com/windowsxp/home/evaluation/sysreqs.mspx (*www.microsoft.com/windowsxp/home/evaluation/sysreqs.mspx)
For more information about Windows XP Home Edition, visit the following Microsoft Web site:
*www.microsoft.com/windowsxp/home/howtobuy/choosing2.mspx (*www.microsoft.com/windowsxp/home/howtobuy/choosing2.mspx)

The minimum hardware requirements for Windows XP Professional include:

• Pentium 233-megahertz (MHz) processor or faster (300 MHz is recommended)
• At least 64 megabytes (MB) of RAM (128 MB is recommended)
• At least 1.5 gigabytes (GB) of available space on the hard disk
• CD-ROM or DVD-ROM drive
• Keyboard and a Microsoft Mouse or some other compatible pointing device
• Video adapter and monitor with Super VGA (800 x 600) or higher resolution
• Sound card
• Speakers or headphones
For more information about system requirements for Windows XP Professional, visit the following Microsoft Web site:
*www.microsoft.com/windowsxp/pro/evaluation/sysreqs.mspx (*www.microsoft.com/windowsxp/pro/evaluation/sysreqs.mspx)
For more information about Windows XP Professional, visit the following Microsoft Web site:
*www.microsoft.com/windowsxp/pro/evaluation/whyupgrade/featurecomp.mspx (*www.microsoft.com/windowsxp/pro/evaluation/whyupgrade/featurecomp.mspx)

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

APPLIES TO
• Microsoft Windows XP Home Edition
• Microsoft Windows XP Professional

 

[QwertyManiac]

yup , i have seen a PC, with 333mhz CPU and 64 mb RAM running Windows Xp PRO.. and more of 433 and 633 mhz cpu with 64 and 128 mb ram..

You understand 'usable state' ? Oh right, I should have realized there were two who dont.

 

[nepcker]

I agree with eddie.

I used to run Mac OS X with just 256 MB RAM, and it worked fine.

The OS runs fine, but the apps don't. They act sluggish. 512 MB should be fine.

@gx_saurav:
I am yet to read your post, and when I will, I'll reply to it.

As for now, read the review of ACDSee 1.6 for mac here. It is as slow as hell, and the thumbnails look ugly. I'll use Aperture and GraphicConverter, thank you.

 

[shantanu]

You understand 'usable state' ? Oh right, I should have realized there were two who dont.

yeah sure i do understand usable state, i hope you understand and read my post carefully! i said i saw it running fine, means it was running fine.... no problems.. and in usable state..

i hope you use some common sense... and use the sys. req. for basic functionality.. and i have two systems with me in that config. one is 333hmz and the other is 633 mhz..

what to remind.. i thought you had some common sense.. you are a old member , should show some sense in your language..

and nepcker.. leave it buddy you wont understand... coz you are blind MAC follower...

 

[led_shankar]

Then I'd say that MS has grossly overestimated its capacility in the minimum specs. Running it on even 128 MB is hardly usable.

 

[nepcker]

and nepcker.. leave it buddy you wont understand... coz you are blind MAC follower...

"& Nokia makes breads while Coca Cola makes engine oil "

Then I'd say that MS has grossly overestimated its capacility in the minimum specs. Running it on even 128 MB is hardly usable.

+1

 

[kalpik]

Yup.. Before my current PC, i had a Pentium III 600 Mhz system, with 192 MB ram, and XP was FAR from usable on it..

IMHO, at least 512 MB ram is required for a comfortable experience with XP.

On the other hand, have a look here: *www.slackware.com/about/
Read "The Box" section. And mind you, that's a server running a popular site..

 

[gxsaurav]

Windows XP runs fine on a computer with 256 MB RAM. You guys are missing a big point here that Windows XP released 5 years ago. At that time the application which used to come for Win2K/XP were not that demanding on system RAM. Even high end games like Unreal tournament 2003 used to give maximum performance at 512 MB RAM & after that any increse in RAM did not result in siginificent performance increse in the game.

Same goes today, 5 years down the line the memory requirment of applications which run on XP has incresed, the OS itself still runs fine on 256 MB RAM, with 512 MB RAM being enough to run it & 1 GB RAM as an overkill for the XP OS.

If you look at the rate of memory requirment increse then don't you see Linux & Mac also requiring more RAM today compared to 5 years ago? How many features were in applications 5 years ago compared to today ? How many features iTunes 1 had compared to iTunes 7...think about it & you will yourself find out that to run an OS you do not require much RAM. But to run the applications you require more RAM as the application demands.

512 MB is common these days, everyone buys it. It costs Rs 1500 max in lucknow & those who want to run Vista will upgrade usually cos they know the benifits Vista will provide for there work.

Those who do not want to run vista, well.....Linux is there which doesn't provides many features compared to Vista (proved many times) resulting in low memory requirment for the OS & Applications which run on top of Linux.

Compare this statement to one given by the self proclaimed "Mac Genius".

"MacOS X runs fine on 10 years old Mac"

10 years ago Mac used to come with PowerPC G3 CPU with 64 MB System RAM & 8/16 MB nVidia RIVA TNT2 M64 or ATI Rage graphics card. Try running MacOS X on that computer & then come here & tell how "usable" it runs.