Squeaky wheel gets grease: Vista out??

[tomd]

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/28/technology/business-computing/29soft.html?ref=technology

Windows 7, is on the way.:)

[Frank_Hollahan]

No more windoze for me, It's Apple all the way.

[Colorblinded]

There's been news about this for a while. I suspect that even if Vista were 100% perfect now (something no operating system can claim), MS would still want to replace it sooner rather than later due to its reputation.

[OdiN1701]

I don't understand how Vista has a bad reputation.

It works wonderfully for me with no issues at all.

[Colorblinded]

I don't understand how Vista has a bad reputation.

It works wonderfully for me with no issues at all.
Teething problems early on, stupid configurations and terrible third party and driver support initially, vendors installing it on inadequate systems (possibly with Microsofts approval I don't really know for certain) and really bad marketing on MS's part and very good marketing by Apple (however fallacious) I think are the biggest reasons for the reputation.

As it stands, I think it's a fine OS that will never overcome its reputation. Many people like to say it is similar to ME, however never worked and Vista is in reality quite fine.

Whether you like Windows or not is an entirely separate issue. Some people like or hate Windows, OSX or Linux for their own reasons.

[gjl711]

I don't understand how Vista has a bad reputation.

It works wonderfully for me with no issues at all.It's big, slow, takes a ton of resources, and gives me nothing new. But I know what MS’ problem is, they can’t count.
Windows 3.1
Windows 95
Windows 98
Windows CE
Windows ME
Windows for Workgroups
Windows NT
Windows 2000
Windows XP
Windows Vista
And thats just the major versions.

[OdiN1701]

Every release of Windows that was a really good step ahead had initial third party driver issues.

I ran into the same thing being an early adopter of Windows 2000, but that I think is one of the most stable OS's ever.

Third party drivers had to be re-written to support the new NT based kernel, which was fine for a lot of stuff that had NT4 drivers, but most consumer grade stuff didn't bother with drivers for NT4.

The move to XP 64-bit was the same way - but XP 64-bit never really caught on - it was an attempt to get third party companies to develop 64-bit drivers earlier since the move to 64-bit was a big push with Vista. But they still drug their feet.

Unless Windows 7 is heavily based on Vista, which likely it is, then I'd expect more driver issues.

But with Vista, the drivers had to operate a bit different from 2K/XP because of the security measures the MS put in.

I liked those commercials MS put on for a while about having people try a "new" windows version, and they liked it and they were like "this is actually Vista".

Apple should be sued for slander/libel/false advertising or whatever because they make so many false claims that it's ridiculous.

I really like their one about MS putting money into advertising like it's a bad thing....when Apple dumps a ton more money into ads than MS does.

[OdiN1701]

It's big, slow, takes a ton of resources, and gives me nothing new. But I know what MS’ problem is, they can’t count.
Windows 3.1
Windows 95
Windows 98
Windows CE
Windows ME
Windows for Workgroups
Windows NT
Windows 2000
Windows XP
Windows Vista
And thats just the major versions.

Vista is faster than XP on my system.

And you can't count :P

Windows CE - this is not really desktop windows. It's for embedded systems, and it's more related to PocketPC/Windows Mobile, and it's more customized for various industries as an embedded solution. It's not meant for desktops.

Windows 3.1 / Windows for Workgroups - #1 - WFW just had extra networking components.

Windows 95/98/ME - #2 - these are pretty much all the same core

Windows NT - #3

Windows 2000 - #4 - based on NT but updated significantly.

Windows XP - #5 - Close to 2000, but still more core changes, it's really a new version.

Windows Vista - #6 - Again large changes from XP.

Windows 7 - #7 - Yet to be seen how much they change from Vista.

[Colorblinded]

The numbering system actually has to do with the kernel version underneath, not whether it was the 7th Windows released.

[OdiN1701]

The numbering system actually has to do with the kernel version underneath, not whether it was the 7th Windows released.

Yup - based on major version number.

Win 3.x - Version is 3
Win9x/ME - Version 4
NT3 - Version 3
NT4 - Version 4
2000/XP - Version 5
Vista - Version 6

The server OS's fit in with those as well. The different products have different minor version numbers, product types, and down to identifying whether you're running 98 or 98SE, etc.

[Motley]

Windows 7 is more like Vista 1.5, they may add some features, but it will most likely be a small update from Vista.

BTW, I never had any issues with Vista, and I purchased it on launch day. Alot of 3rd party drivers like others said, was the issue.

And for people that say Vista brings nothing new than from XP, ah come on now, that's ridiculous. And if your bitching about having 4GB RAM when ram prices are dirt cheap, that's ridiculous as well.

Nobody is forcing anybody to move from XP to Vista, if you want to stay in 2002 then keep your XP, and quit bitching about Microsoft.

At least they are innovating, and coming up with new OS, new updates, new features that alot of people apprecitate.:p

[deercreek]

The numbering system actually has to do with the kernel version underneath, not whether it was the 7th Windows released.

That makes sense, especially since the lists above ignore that there was a Windows 1 and a Windows 2.0.

They do the same thing with Visual Studio. VS2008 is considered 9.0, but .NET 2002, .NET 2003, and .NET 2005 were released between 6.0 and 2008.

[cosworth]

Let's see, Vista has been out almost two years and they release a PRE-beta with no solid launch date.

Seems pretty normal for a software release. Nothing to see here, move along. My Vista 64 install SLAYS my Mandriva linux install for ease of use, simplicity, uptime and ability to function as a photographer.

[OdiN1701]

That makes sense, especially since the lists above ignore that there was a Windows 1 and a Windows 2.0.

They do the same thing with Visual Studio. VS2008 is considered 9.0, but .NET 2002, .NET 2003, and .NET 2005 were released between 6.0 and 2008.

Yeah and 1/2 were really more a shell extension on top of DOS than anything else.

1 and 2 were differnet major version numbers though.

[Moppie]

I also fail to see what all the fuss is about.

Microsoft is a software developer, if they stopped developing software they would go out of business.

[Motley]

I also fail to see what all the fuss is about.

Microsoft is a software developer, if they stopped developing software they would go out of business.

+1

Why is everyone so worried about MS making their OS's better with updates, new versions. And If you don't turn off UAC (user account control), then Vista is very secure.

Let's see here...

Vista: Great GUI, nice multimedia features, great for photographers, home-audio systems, and PC gaming.

Vista works just fine, and with another update, hey we're all winners.

[neil_g]

vista sp2 coming soon kids..

that list is missing:

server 2003
server 2008

[cosworth]

Both are built on NT architecture. KERNEL is the issue here.

[neil_g]

oops i did skim read a lot of the waffle..

[neil_g]

although apparently window 7 will be released with kernel version 6.1 according to some online sources/news/community sites

[OdiN1701]

although apparently window 7 will be released with kernel version 6.1 according to some online sources/news/community sites

Which would fit with the Vista refresh, not new kernel thing. Whatever is after 7 should have an updated kernel.

[Colorblinded]

although apparently window 7 will be released with kernel version 6.1 according to some online sources/news/community sites
I've heard that too. Who knows?

[neil_g]

ripped shamelessly..

Mike Nash, Corporate VP of Windows Product Management, chimed in again on the Windows Vista Team Blog with the official explanation:

So we decided to ship the Windows 7 code as Windows 6.1 - which is what you will see in the actual version of the product in cmd.exe or computer properties. There's been some fodder about whether using 6.1 in the code is an indicator of the relevance of Windows 7. It is not. Windows 7 is a significant and evolutionary advancement of the client operating system. It is in every way a major effort in design, engineering, and innovation. The only thing to read into the code versioning is that we are absolutely committed to making sure application compatibility is optimized for our customers.

[gjl711]

Maybe it will be Vista fixed. Win95 sucked, so did the first Win98. MS got it right in Win98SE. ME blew chunks, 2000 a few less chunks, the first XP sucked but they finally got it right. Vista blew more chunks, maybe this new one will blow less and when it finally comes out for real in 2~3 more years it will be decent.

[OdiN1701]

Maybe it will be Vista fixed. Win95 sucked, so did the first Win98. MS got it right in Win98SE. ME blew chunks, 2000 a few less chunks, the first XP sucked but they finally got it right. Vista blew more chunks, maybe this new one will blow less and when it finally comes out for real in 2~3 more years it will be decent.

What??

Windows 2000 is one of the best most stable OS's I've ever used.

It was just such a radical change at the time to move that tech over to the consumer end somewhat. Early adopters had driver issues, but the OS itself was, and still is, excellent.

[neil_g]

Windows 2000 is one of the best most stable OS's I've ever used.

agreed. in its time it was an excellent OS. also on the server front with the intro of AD.

[gjl711]

Win 2K had it's place and clearly it was miles above ME. I still run it at home on my server, but it didn't hit big like XP eventually did. XP is a easier to set up, manage, and is a bit more stable.

[neil_g]

quite a nice vid.. waffles a bit but goes through the kernels and a bit about minwin and win7

http://www.istartedsomething.com/20071019/eric-talk-demo-windows-7-minwin/

[OdiN1701]

Win 2K had it's place and clearly it was miles above ME. I still run it at home on my server, but it didn't hit big like XP eventually did. XP is a easier to set up, manage, and is a bit more stable.

Again, Win2K was more for business workstations - it paved the way for XP which was more consumer based so that developers had time to work with the new requirements and by the time XP came out, most had drivers.

And 2K Server still makes an excellent server OS.

Most consumers wouldn't get Win2k, but I did as I was more familiar with things. I knew what to expect. XP took 2K and put in the more user oriented stuff and spruced up the graphics look. Course I ran it with the old style anyway heh.

[Bobster]

i think i had 2K on my workstation for 4 years without a hickup (ran Litestep as a shell replacement) developers moved on and stopped supporting 2K with some apps so forced to move to XP which i ran with the same Litestep shell until moving to XP64 and now Vista SP1

[shannyD]

I don't understand how Vista has a bad reputation.

It works wonderfully for me with no issues at all.


same here.. i love vista.. everything is much easier to sift through, and it runs a lot smoother than other operating systems i have worked with on PC.

[MaxxuM]

Yup - based on major version number.

Win 3.x - Version is 3
Win9x/ME - Version 4
NT3 - Version 3
NT4 - Version 4
2000/XP - Version 5
Vista - Version 6

The server OS's fit in with those as well. The different products have different minor version numbers, product types, and down to identifying whether you're running 98 or 98SE, etc.

Odin, it is more like this (server/64bit OS's move on a different path):

Windows 1.01
Windows 2.03
Windows 3 (+)
Windows 95
Windows XP
Windows Vista
Windows 7

The other line is:

Windows NT 3
Windows NT 4
Windows 2000 (+Server)
Windows 2003 Server
Windows 2008 Server

[OdiN1701]

Odin, it is more like this (server/64bit OS's move on a different path):

Windows 1.01
Windows 2.03
Windows 3 (+)
Windows 95
Windows XP
Windows Vista
Windows 7

The other line is:

Windows NT 3
Windows NT 4
Windows 2000 (+Server)
Windows 2003 Server
Windows 2008 Server

I put in the actual version numbers MS assigned in that last post. They assigned them, not me.

[MaxxuM]

I put in the actual version numbers MS assigned in that last post. They assigned them, not me.

Yes, but they are not the same build - NT did not merge until XP64bit. This is according to Microsoft. What you stated is just the order in which they came out, which is not how they derived the name Windows 7. For instance, they do not call Windows 2008 Server Windows Vista Server (Enterprise or other types). That is why Microsoft confuses everyone. There are two completely different lines of products.

[OdiN1701]

Yes, but they are not the same build - NT did not merge until XP64bit. This is according to Microsoft. What you stated is just the order in which they came out, which is not how they derived the name Windows 7. For instance, they do not call Windows 2008 Server Windows Vista Server (Enterprise or other types). That is why Microsoft confuses everyone. There are two completely different lines of products.

I missed the part where I said they were the same build.

[stathunter]

No more windoze for me, It's Apple all the way.

Same here. After making the change to Vista......I had nothing but problems. Purchased a iMac and will not go back now. NEVER thought I would make the change to apple but I have......and I am happy!

[tomd]

I've got Vista 64 (Ultimate) and haven't had any problems. It will be interesting to see the new operating system and if it is "vista" like or more similar to XP or for that matter totally new.

[MaxxuM]

I missed the part where I said they were the same build.

You didn't but you did lump them in to the same line of products that Windows 7 follows. Windows NT 3 and Windows 3 are not the same version or the same build. They are from two different lines of code, two different OS's and two different builds. Windows 7 follows one but not the other in order.

[OdiN1701]

Here you go:

Windows 1.0 1.x
Windows 2.0 2.x
Windows 3.11 3.11.xxxx
Windows NT 3.5 3.51.1057
Windows 95 4.00.950
Windows 95 SP1 4.00.950 -> 4.00.1080
Windows 95 OSR2 4.00.1111
Windows 95 OSR2.1 4.03.1212 -> 4.03.1214
Windows 95 OSR2.5 4.03.1214
Windows NT 4.0 4.00.1381
Windows 98 4.10.1998
Windows 98 SP1 4.10.1998 -> 4.1.2183
Windows 98 SE 4.10.2222
Windows ME 4.90.3000
Windows 2000 5.00.2195
Windows XP SP1 5.10.2600
Windows XP SP2 5.10.2600
Windows XP MCE 2004 5.10.2600
Windows XP MCE 2005 5.10.2700
Windows XP 2003 5.2
Windows XP x64 5.2
Windows Vista 6.00.xxxx

Major version number is what I was referring to....

3.x and NT 3.51 ARE in fact the same major version.

[MaxxuM]

Here you go:

Windows 1.0 1.x
Windows 2.0 2.x
Windows 3.11 3.11.xxxx
Windows NT 3.5 3.51.1057
Windows 95 4.00.950
Windows 95 SP1 4.00.950 -> 4.00.1080
Windows 95 OSR2 4.00.1111
Windows 95 OSR2.1 4.03.1212 -> 4.03.1214
Windows 95 OSR2.5 4.03.1214
Windows NT 4.0 4.00.1381
Windows 98 4.10.1998
Windows 98 SP1 4.10.1998 -> 4.1.2183
Windows 98 SE 4.10.2222
Windows ME 4.90.3000
Windows 2000 5.00.2195
Windows XP SP1 5.10.2600
Windows XP SP2 5.10.2600
Windows XP MCE 2004 5.10.2600
Windows XP MCE 2005 5.10.2700
Windows XP 2003 5.2
Windows XP x64 5.2
Windows Vista 6.00.xxxx

Major version number is what I was referring to....

3.x and NT 3.51 ARE in fact the same major version.

Every OS you mentioned are consumer products except NT 3 and 4. Windows 7 is a consumer product not Server or Workstation. That's why people get confused, MS used the same stepping number for two completely different product lines.

[OdiN1701]

Every OS you mentioned are consumer products except NT 3 and 4. Windows 7 is a consumer product not Server or Workstation. That's why people get confused, MS used the same stepping number for two completely different product lines.

That has absolutely nothing to do with what I just posted.

[Radtech1]

Here you go:

Windows 1.0 1.x
Windows 2.0 2.x
Windows 3.11 3.11.xxxx
Windows NT 3.5 3.51.1057
Windows 95 4.00.950
Windows 95 SP1 4.00.950 -> 4.00.1080
Windows 95 OSR2 4.00.1111
Windows 95 OSR2.1 4.03.1212 -> 4.03.1214
Windows 95 OSR2.5 4.03.1214
Windows NT 4.0 4.00.1381
Windows 98 4.10.1998
Windows 98 SP1 4.10.1998 -> 4.1.2183
Windows 98 SE 4.10.2222
Windows ME 4.90.3000
Windows 2000 5.00.2195
Windows XP SP1 5.10.2600
Windows XP SP2 5.10.2600
Windows XP MCE 2004 5.10.2600
Windows XP MCE 2005 5.10.2700
Windows XP 2003 5.2
Windows XP x64 5.2
Windows Vista 6.00.xxxx

Major version number is what I was referring to....

3.x and NT 3.51 ARE in fact the same major version.

If you want something Visual (but not too abysmal), take in some old SCREENSHOTS of most of the above:

http://www.guidebookgallery.org/guis/windows

Fun site, by the way, and look around for a hx of the Photoshop GUI as well.

Rad

[gjl711]

If you want something Visual (but not too abysmal), take in some old SCREENSHOTS of most of the above:

http://www.guidebookgallery.org/guis/windows

Fun site, by the way, and look around for a hx of the Photoshop GUI as well.

Rad
Hey.. I remember reversi..

[davidcrebelxt]

Vista's actually fine for most people... (I like it, and with the way Apple's been behaving lately, I'm not likely to go that route any time soon.) Alot of hubub, and bad job by MS pushing it onto inadequate machines at the beginning... but after 6 months that was cleared up... its just tech reporters realized people gobbled those old stories up, so they kept rehashing them. BTW: most people who've been around computers for awhile know to wait a some time for new OS bugs to be worked out.

For those who think its *shocking* or *telling* that Windows is releasing a new version so soon, note this: Actually the length of time XP was on the market without a successor was the anamoly... part of which is the reason so many people "appear" to have problems with it; for many its the only OS they've ever used, they are set in their ways and resistant to change. With the release of Windows 7 so "soon", MS is just getting back with its original release timeline. It's as Moppie says above... they make new software... its what they do.

[MaxxuM]

Vista's actually fine for most people... (I like it, and with the way Apple's been behaving lately, I'm not likely to go that route any time soon.) Alot of hubub, and bad job by MS pushing it onto inadequate machines at the beginning... but after 6 months that was cleared up... its just tech reporters realized people gobbled those old stories up, so they kept rehashing them. BTW: most people who've been around computers for awhile know to wait a some time for new OS bugs to be worked out.

For those who think its *shocking* or *telling* that Windows is releasing a new version so soon, note this: Actually the length of time XP was on the market without a successor was the anamoly... part of which is the reason so many people "appear" to have problems with it; for many its the only OS they've ever used, they are set in their ways and resistant to change. With the release of Windows 7 so "soon", MS is just getting back with its original release timeline. It's as Moppie says above... they make new software... its what they do.

How has Apple been behaving lately?

[OdiN1701]

How has Apple been behaving lately?

Libel, slander and other forms of defamation as well as running a smear ad campaign on TV full of lies perhaps?

[MaxxuM]

Libel, slander and other forms of defamation as well as running a smear ad campaign on TV full of lies perhaps?

OK, how about a non-fanboy of Microsoft now chime in. Odin's gone total MS on me. :confused:

[OdiN1701]

OK, how about a non-fanboy of Microsoft now chime in. Odin's gone total MS on me. :confused:

Uhm...I am not a "fanboy". You asked how Apple has been behaving and I told you. It turns people off to them. It does, however, make the Mac zealots feel all warm and fuzzy. They are almost as bad as all the political ads. At least Microsoft hasn't stooped to their level.

[MaxxuM]

Libel, slander and other forms of defamation as well as running a smear ad campaign on TV full of lies perhaps?

Reread that Odin. Sounds darn fanboyish to me - you take it very personal.

These are 'companies' running 'ad campaigns' against each other. That is how 'businesses' are run. You take it WAY too serious. So forgive me if I would like someone a little more even tempered about it to chime in. Your emotional blast didn't answer my question nor was in the least bit helpful.

[Colorblinded]

OK, how about a non-fanboy of Microsoft now chime in. Odin's gone total MS on me. :confused:
I mostly ignore their ads, but I would say his opinions on them aren't too far from the truth.

[MaxxuM]

I mostly ignore their ads, but I would say his opinions on them aren't too far from the truth.

He said "behaving lately." The ad campaign has been going on for a very long time and is nothing new. I thought he meant something they might have been doing 'lately'. I know they just gave $100k to help gay marriage in Cali, but that's it. They also went Green with their new laptops - but I doubt he was speaking about that either. I was just curious and I agree about the ad's; their very elitist and I ignore them too, but they did spawn some darn funny imitations.

[OdiN1701]

Reread that Odin. Sounds darn fanboyish to me - you take it very personal.

These are 'companies' running 'ad campaigns' against each other. That is how 'businesses' are run. You take it WAY too serious. So forgive me if I would like someone a little more even tempered about it to chime in. Your emotional blast didn't answer my question nor was in the least bit helpful.

There's nothing emotional about it. It's a simple fact what they are doing. Maybe libel/slander are a bit extreme, but they certainly are running smear campagins full of lies.

[Motley]

Well I'm no MS fanboy either, and I'm sick of those apple ads. Worse than all the stupid political ads.

[John_B]

tomd,
Your title Squeaky wheel gets grease: Vista out??
Just sounds perfect! :lol:

[davidcrebelxt]

Yes, my lately comment was mainly in regard to the Apple ads... before them I was HEAVILY leaning toward getting a MAC... even if it were just a Mac Mini to have. I'm one of those people who enjoy tech, and like to have a good working knowledge of multiple OS's, etc. But those ads turned me off. Insulting people who are in the 'know' about technology doesn't make me want to switch. (Granted I may not be their target audience... but they effectively took somebody sitting on the fence, and kicked me squarely onto the PC side.)

Also, their software available for PC is nothing to be too proud of. (Itunes and Safari.) From what I understand, part of their strategy there is to get people used to using their apps, see how good they are, and that would help switch people also. However they are so buggy and slow they do nothing of the sort for me.

Then add to it the Iphone which can't run flash, their AppStore which they can't seem to decide what to do with. Their underpublicized MobileME(ss) [which got nothing more than 'a chuckle and 'it happens' from mac fans], removal of firewire from some of the new systems (Apple is supposed to be the bees-knees for graphics and video, right? Well, how do you get video from your firewire camcorder?)

None of those are reasons to switch FROM a mac, by any means, but that's not my goal. I still think its a quality OS from the little I've used it... but for me and my $ (especially the way things are now) Apple doesn't have the draw to me it did previously.

[MaxxuM]

Yes, my lately comment was mainly in regard to the Apple ads... before them I was HEAVILY leaning toward getting a MAC... even if it were just a Mac Mini to have. I'm one of those people who enjoy tech, and like to have a good working knowledge of multiple OS's, etc... didn't have anything against Apple. But those ads turned me off. Insulting people who are in the 'know' about technology is not a good strategy to get us to switch. (Granted I may not be their target audience... but they effectively took somebody sitting on the fence, and kicked me squarely onto the PC side.)

Totally agree about the ad... However, Microsoft hasn't been all that friendly. They've really done over many companies and their practices even today are sometimes questionable. Just to put things in a bit of prospective.

Also, their software available for PC is nothing to be too proud of. (Itunes and Safari... and stop trying to force that and some MobileMe frontend onto me already when I don't even have it, what's up with that?) From what I understand, part of their strategy there is to get people used to using their apps, see how good they are, and that would help switch people also. However they are so buggy and slow they do nothing of the sort for me.

Most companies force something on you either openly or behind the scenes. You would be surprised how many want to 'call home'. As far as iTunes it can be a little buggy, but that is usually because of other problems (like Vista permission issues). Windows Media Player isn't much different and to me isn't very attractive or efficient. I have multiple and separate libraries that can be switched to on the fly for example – can that be done in media player? Microsoft is getting better, but they are still behind the power curve.

Then add to it the Iphone which can't run flash, their AppStore which they can't seem to decide what to do with (they've made it more difficult to browse in recent weeks from Itunes store, they refuse to allow 3rd party navigation, strange restrictions about collaboration with other developers, and stringent approval process (which is fine) but not very well spelled out.) Their mess with MobileMe, removal of firewire from some of the new systems (Apple is supposed to be the bees-knees for graphics and video, right? Well, how do you get video from your firewire camcorder?)

Yep, Apple is confounding me too lately – they don't play well with others and the AppStore is just that, them trying to play well with others. Should be interesting, but I'm guessing once customers stary seeing more of these apps they want they will complain to Apple and one by one they will allow them. As for the firewire 800, it's Apple killing 400 just like they did the floppy drive. We'll see if it works.

None of those are reasons to switch FROM a mac, by any means, but that's not my goal. I still think its a quality OS from the little I've used it... but for me and my $ (especially the way things are now) Apple doesn't have the draw to me it did previously.

To each, their own.

[tomd]

tomd,
Your title Squeaky wheel gets grease: Vista out??
Just sounds perfect! :lol:

thanks. I'm not one to complain, in fact I've had mostly good luck with my Vista 64 bit.

But I know from POTN reading-many people don't care for the OS. I imagine that Windows 7 will have it's fair share of issues as well, hopefully not as many as Vista.
I don't look forward to the upgrade if I decide to do so. That is where I predict problems will happen, compatibility issues.

Most new computers sold in the big box stores seem to have 4 gigs of memory and some with 6+. Hope the new OS will take advantage of those of us with fast resources.

Tom

[incendy]

Vista is the best OS out today. I am able to Record All of my TV shows, play my Blu Ray movies, edit my photos, edit my movies, encrypt my important data, play games, write programs, make music, surf the web and communcate with other across the world and at home, connect to work, serve web pages, share files, be a router, be NAT for other comupters, backup data, choose any hardware I like whether it is MAC, HP, Dell, etc or even my own etc.. There is really no competition at this point outside of XP

[davidcrebelxt]

To each, their own.

Now that's what I like to hear. :)

Like I said, my statements above are only my opinions, since it was asked. You are obviously swayed by your own factors (not the least of which is already using a Mac... just as I am already using a windows PC.) and I will leave it at that. This thread bores me (but at least its civil)... I'm moving on.

[cosworth]

I run Vista 32, Vista 64. Mandriva. Kubuntu, Ubuntu and OSX. I try to get everything installed and config'd running smooth. eSATA working, broswers setup, mouse. Simple things. Get my software installed and setup. Interface setup...


I still go back to Vista 64. OSX is very dated now, Mandriva 2009 (gnome) looks and feels awesome but it doesn't do eSATA well nor does it run Lightroom yet. Unbuntu, Kubuntu is the same, can't get everything running just right and software just isn't there.

Windows 7 looks like a game changer too.