For off Windows XP machines offer several options - including hibernate, stand by and shut down. However, many users don't know the difference. What's worse, however, is that applications and drivers can veto a user's decision to hibernate or similar. In Vista however, applications will be warned that a computer is entering sleep and have a second or two to save what ever they need to, but the programs won't get a say in whether the machine slumbers.
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Member since:2005-07-06
Member since:Why not? You are going to have to buy a new machine for Vista anyway, or lose a bunch of the cool new features.
OS X's sleep state though not as far reaching as hibernation responds better, with less hassles.
I have seen hibernate crash so hard that I had to unplug the power cord and then plug it back in on my dell to get the machine to restart. Also there is no visible difference to a machine in hibernation vs powered off. as such. As such someone could pull the plug and due system upgrades and when the machine comes back on be very confused.
Member since:You're suggesting someone dump their PC, regardless of how much they've invested into it, and invest more money into a new Mac?
Investment? Is Windows a bank? ;-}
On a serious note...and a bit preachy...it's never a good idea to throw good money after bad.
The investment angle falsely focuses on potential loss...yet the 'investment' is already lost; the money and time has already been spent and isn't going to be refunded.
If future losses will be higher, it might be worth time to consider other options. The only question is what are those future losses and is there a way to avoid them and still gain any positive benifits?
Member since:2005-06-29
I disagree completely. Unix is an excellent design and culture. Mac is an excellent design, culture, and idea. Although, the fan culture is the worst, but I mean the technical culture.
OS X is a horrible merge of Unix and Mac which merely shows off the incredible flexibility of Unix and the utter technical shallowness of GUI shells.
I wouldn't call OS X as a whole well designed. I would call its two main components excellent in their own scope while calling the glue that binds them weak as glue layers tend to be 
.
People worship OS X too much. It's getting quite annoying.
Member since:
Your point being? I was merely saying that Mac OS X is more fitting for your average computer user, mostly because, in my opinion, it's better designed and more usable than Windows XP. Reading back on my response now, I realize the person I was responding to said PC, but this is irrelevant to my statement.
-bytecoder