"Regardless of widespread skepticism, I was confident that Vista would dazzle me, and I looked forward to saying so in print. Ironically, playing around with Vista for more than a month has done what years of experience and exhortations from Mac-loving friends could not: it has converted me into a Mac fan."
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Member since:2006-04-21
I guess I should reply that Linux and MacOS X's higher memory requirements, costs and learning curve requirements, are reasons enough not to use those OSes. Chmod? No thanks. Finder? Fix it.
Linux has higher memory requirements than Vista? It seems like you and sappyvcv are the ones pulling figures out of their asses. Who needs chmod these days, and what exactly do you find wrong with Finder?
Member since:2005-06-29
Member since:2005-07-06
Member since:2006-02-17
I guess I should reply that Linux and MacOS X's higher memory requirements, costs and learning curve requirements, are reasons enough not to use those OSes. Chmod? No thanks. Finder? Fix it.
I use Linux, Windows (XP and 2K), most of the time, and only recently had something at work where I've been using Mac OS X Tiger.
Linux is on par with XP as far as memory usage goes. The OS itself takes up <4M and X on top takes 40-60M, and a heavy desktop environment like KDE 3.4 takes another 30M on top -- granted, not all of that is actually loaded into memory (though it's mapped by the VM). What's nice about Linux is more than any other OS I've used to date, it properly uses the excess RAM for buffers and caches. Linux is free to download, the learning curve for general use is the same as Windows and OS/X (since you mentioned 'chmod', one can assume you're unaware of the Linux desktop as a user wouldn't need to use it any more than a Windows user needs to use 'ATTRIB.COM').
OS X uses noticeably more memory for the core OS, but applications tend to be fairly efficient in their memory usage. I agree that the Finder UI is quirky and could do with an overhaul. Windows Explorer seems a little more intuitive, and Linux/KDE's Konqueror better still.
VISTA (and I've only used RC1 so far) has the greatest requirements by far. It seems pretty solid and the UI is basically the same, but with new paint. It doesn't have all the whizbang glitz of Linux and is more like Mac OS/X in that regard, but still professional. The Explorer is basically like XP's with a little more polish, but without the featureset of the Linux equivalent and not quite as intuitive.
Member since:
2005-06-29
There there. Here's my shoulder to...
This is the real world: I run Vista on 1gig of RAM. It runs fine. And I am a gamer meaning I abuse the OS to a max. Vista probably runs fine on older rigs too. I have tried an old NVIDIA 5200 and GMA900 on Vista. They do fine. I bet ATI 7X00 class do too.
I guess I should reply that Linux and MacOS X's higher memory requirements, costs and learning curve requirements, are reasons enough not to use those OSes. Chmod? No thanks. Finder? Fix it.