OSNews

Ah yes, the very 'subjective' 'oooh, it loads xyz faster'. Dear god, tell me another one. I moved from Tiger to Leopard; I saw no speed loss what so ever, I had Pages load in in a couple of bounces, I have iTunes load immediately, I have Firefox load almost instantly.

Then his article goes into gushy crap such as:

"Vista a greater “depth” than OS X, which looks a little flat and well… old fashioned in comparison. I know this is because Vista’s new and novel, but it makes OS X look dated."

Please, that reminds me of the idiot who claim that the $7250 speaker cables he wasted his money on ( http://gizmodo.com/gadgets/speaker-cables/7250-speaker-cables-turn-... ) were:

"... way better than anything I have heard...Simply put these are very danceable cables. Music playing through them results in the proverbial foot-tapping scene with the need or desire to get up and move. Great swing and pace--these cables smack that right on the nose big time."

Edited 2007-11-24 12:32

+1.

Considering how Vista is running on a much faster rig than the Leopard laptop I saw the other day... There's no way, *no way* Vista runs faster than Leopard given the same HW specs.

(At least not until Apple bundles 3rd-gen DX10 video cards and DDR3 and whatnot. I'm talking about present day, present time (MWAHAHAHA!! (yeah, I'm a Serial Experiments Lain fan.))

And what the hell is Vista doing late at night when it fills up a 4GB+ file on the system-wide $TMP folder? Really makes my head scratch. And may I add, the I/O schedulers in Vista seem a little broken, because even given the promise of the I/O in background tasks not interfering with the I/O in foreground tasks, that doesn't match my experience at all.