But if Windows had that shit built-in, hello antitrust.
That's a bullshit argument and you know it. Also Windows does (or did) have that sort of thing built in, it's just that they suck. Outlook Express, Windows Movie Maker etc. But no sane human would ever use them for anything ever.
Movie Maker is easily as good as iMovie, and Photo Gallery is better than iPhoto, but nobody gives them a chance so you never hear about that.
Also black is white, 2 + 2 = 5 and we are at war with Eurasia. We have always been at war with Eurasia.
but because theres no installers, deleting an app leaves a trail of user settings files littered about my harddrive).
I never saw this as a bad point tbqh. The word "trail" is hyperbole since you'll at most get a file or two in ~/Library/Preferences or ~/Library/Application Support, it's not like it's wasting any space. The end result of it all is that last time I reformatted, I was just able to drag some files over and all my apps were back to the way I like them with zero effort.
Even if you don't want to retain your settings and don't feel like hunting down all the relevant files (which you can just delete thanks to no registry) I still think the Windows system has way more disadvantages.
That is an amazingly stupid position. If you knew anything at all about the subject you would not be making such asinine comments which says you me you know jack shit about computer security or programming and Jack just left town. As I pointed out long ago Windows XP had a number of horrible design decisions which led to it being easily compromised by malware. These vulnerabilities are germane to discussions of Windows 7 and Vista because the vulnerabilities weren't entirely the result of bugs but design decisions from Microsoft. When the architecture of a system is insecure you're fighting with one arm tied behind your back.
Vista's better security track record is the result of Microsoft learning from XP's problems and an active attempt to reduce the attack surface of the OS in general. One of the biggest changes they made was not making the default user synonymous with the administrator. Vista actually creates a real user account during the installation process where XP simply had you set a password for the system administrator account. This one change has eliminated an attack vector for a number of different worms that need administrator privileges to alter system files. Like XPSP1 it also shipped with the firewall enabled by default removing the opportunity for promiscuous network worms to infect systems. Neither of these two features resolved any underlying design issues, they are simply common sense security measures that Windows 2000 should have had when it was released. Instead it took six years and five Windows releases to figure out, much to the chagrin of millions of Windows users.
MacOS X since March 2001 has created a non-root user account during the initial setup. This user is in the administrator group and can install applications and mess with the /System folder but these sorts of things pop up an authentication dialog. This user is also not given full root access which means they can't run apps that open ports below 1024 and can't mess with system files without authorization. Also since March 2001 the system has shipped out of the box with no daemons listening on external network ports. Some systems listen on localhost but not on the public IP of the machine. This means even without a firewall enabled by default there's no services to connect to and exploit out of the box. Neither of these features have anything at all to do with the OS' popularity, they're design decisions that have been around since the NeXTStep days. Mail has never executed files sent in e-mail messages just by clicking on them. In Leopard Mail and Safari flag downloaded files with a file system attribute. When that file is opened that attribute is checked and if the file is executable or contains an executable a warning is generated telling you it came from the internet.
If you're going to keep banging the obscurity drum you need to know it makes you look like a complete buffoon.
I'm making my arguments with studies and statistics, not handwaving. Despite its "underlying design issues", Vista has had fewer vulnerabilities for less time than OSX. If you want to argue otherwise, bring up some real data or stop posting.
And yes, in the past Microsoft was not that great on security. But I really don't care how much more secure Macs were than a Windows ME machine back in the day; that is not what I am arguing. In the past years Microsoft has made a huge security push and it is really paying off.
RandomEngy on
Profile -> Signature Settings -> Hide signatures always. Then you don't have to read this worthless text anymore.
But if Windows had that shit built-in, hello antitrust.
That's a bullshit argument and you know it. Also Windows does (or did) have that sort of thing built in, it's just that they suck. Outlook Express, Windows Movie Maker etc. But no sane human would ever use them for anything ever.
Movie Maker is easily as good as iMovie, and Photo Gallery is better than iPhoto, but nobody gives them a chance so you never hear about that.
Also black is white, 2 + 2 = 5 and we are at war with Eurasia. We have always been at war with Eurasia.
Have you ever actually used either of those applications or are you just parroting Apple marketing bullshit?
The other day I was trying to get iPhoto to export all the image files for a particular slideshow, and it would get to 5% and then stop with no explanation or error message. Speaking of slideshows, every time I create one it forgets all my settings from the last 500 slideshows I made and enables the stupid Ken Burns Effect or whatever it's called. You have to click through a bunch of dialogs to turn it off. It's actually worse than iTunes. Photo Gallery is superior in virtually every way.
iMovie is alright but it's pretty light on the features. It gets the job done in a pinch. Movie Maker is admittedly a knock-off of iMovie but, again, it gets the job done in a pinch.
But if Windows had that shit built-in, hello antitrust.
It isn't "built in" It is a seperate application disk that comes pre-installed and is included in the price of the laptop. Wehn you get an upgrade cd for the next version of the os, it doesn't come with iLife.
According to the Apple website, no. However, you can buy iLife without a Mac.
So really, the entire iLife suite can't be considered as part of an OSX v. Vista argument, because it's not part of OSX.
It explains some of the cost thing. PCs would be 100+ more expensive too if you had to buy them with Office. And the the DoJ would bend MS over backwards and apply a 2x4 with rusty nails in it.
"Screen is decent" is a big step away from "screen is so unbelievably bright and vibrant that the highest setting causes melanomas."
There are areas in which said asus (oops on my part) skimps compared tot he MBP. It is an unfair comparison to go purely on stats.... just like it is to compare a 1080p hdtv at wal-mart and a pioneer elite 1080p set at advanced A/V. Sure, they both do 1920x1080 content, but there is a difference beyond that one metric.
edit: but of course, the Asus is a great product in its price range. Price needs to be a factor in any system you buy; weigh against your budget... but if you can afford one of the newer macbook pros and it won't put a hurt on you, get one. They are better machines.
Syndalis, macs use low quality LCDs in their notebooks. Basically if you buy a PC notebook, you'll get a display at least as good.
Also, very little irritates me more than someone who's never used a device coming around and telling people that some other alternative device is much better. If you haven't touched an N50, you've got no business going around telling anyone how well it stands up to an Apple. Period. What are you even thinking?
According to the Apple website, no. However, you can buy iLife without a Mac.
So really, the entire iLife suite can't be considered as part of an OSX v. Vista argument, because it's not part of OSX.
It explains some of the cost thing. PCs would be 100+ more expensive too if you had to buy them with Office. And the the DoJ would bend MS over backwards and apply a 2x4 with rusty nails in it.
Pretty much, though you do see that most manufacturers do give the option to include better bundled software, but at least they give you an option, rather than put it in there and you're stuck with it. But since Apple is it's own hardware, they skirt around the issues that would plague MS for trying to do the same with third party manufacturers.
According to the Apple website, no. However, you can buy iLife without a Mac.
So really, the entire iLife suite can't be considered as part of an OSX v. Vista argument, because it's not part of OSX.
It explains some of the cost thing. PCs would be 100+ more expensive too if you had to buy them with Office. And the the DoJ would bend MS over backwards and apply a 2x4 with rusty nails in it.
Pretty much, though you do see that most manufacturers do give the option to include better bundled software, but at least they give you an option, rather than put it in there and you're stuck with it. But since Apple is it's own hardware, they skirt around the issues that would plague MS for trying to do the same with third party manufacturers.
I don't think it's unfair in the least; monopoly + 3rd party hardware = completely different rules. But it might guide conversations about features bundled in OSes.
Morskittar on
0
Options
syndalisGetting ClassyOn the WallRegistered User, Loves Apple Productsregular
"Screen is decent" is a big step away from "screen is so unbelievably bright and vibrant that the highest setting causes melanomas."
There are areas in which said asus (oops on my part) skimps compared tot he MBP. It is an unfair comparison to go purely on stats.... just like it is to compare a 1080p hdtv at wal-mart and a pioneer elite 1080p set at advanced A/V. Sure, they both do 1920x1080 content, but there is a difference beyond that one metric.
edit: but of course, the Asus is a great product in its price range. Price needs to be a factor in any system you buy; weigh against your budget... but if you can afford one of the newer macbook pros and it won't put a hurt on you, get one. They are better machines.
Syndalis, macs use low quality LCDs in their notebooks. Basically if you buy a PC notebook, you'll get a display at least as good.
Also, very little irritates me more than someone who's never used a device coming around and telling people that some other alternative device is much better. If you haven't touched an N50, you've got no business going around telling anyone how well it stands up to an Apple. Period. What are you even thinking?
I am led to think you have not seen the screens on the recent macbook pros. Because they really are a huge step up from where apple was before. And typically speaking, they only used cheap-ish LCDs in their Macbook line, not the pro line. Most PC laptops do not offer LED backlighting, which is not only a boon to brightness and evenness of backlighting, but a reduction in battery use.
I also want to back this up by saying I used to be one of the biggest Microsoft supporters on the forum, upgraded my shit annually, still am an MSDN enterprise member, bashed the mac adverts and the zealousness of the community. I have gone through 10 windows laptops in the past ten years (a byproduct of constant traveling and honestly being a bit of a dick to my machines early on). I also do purchasing for a couple of medical practices running EMRs that sends physicians offsite with laptops, and a firm in NYC that sends its people international all the time, so I feel confident in being able to speak on durability /hardware quality and the MBP that released a few months back, and the 17" I still run with (late 07 model) are the nicest laptops I have ever worked with in terms of weight / performance, general durability, etc.
You might disagree with me. That's cool, and your right to do so. But I am not speaking out of my ass.
My assertions on the macbook being a better platform, while not based on the SPECIFIC 1100 dollar laptop linked, come from a significant amount of time spent supporting and deploying laptops.
syndalis on
SW-4158-3990-6116
Let's play Mario Kart or something...
I'm the mac guy for a school district, I like mac's quite a lot (and I've been a fan since the original,) I'm just saying that a rant on the build quality of a PC laptop you haven't actually used really isn't responsible.
I agree that there's a lot more trashy PC notebooks available on the market as compared to how many mac notebooks are bad (these days,) but there are a lot of really well built ones, too. Even ones in aluminum .
The mac LCD's really aren't high quality. LED lighting is one thing (and certainly good,) but the LCDs themselves are 6 bit low enders. Just no getting around it, really. Nothing wrong with that because it's on par with what's on the market in general, but if you actually want a high-quality LCD in a laptop, you want to look in the PC market for it. And it IS a bit surprising to see it from a company that usually sticks the best of everything in their high end machines.
I am led to think you have not seen the screens on the recent macbook pros. Because they really are a huge step up from where apple was before.
The previous MBP had LED backlighting. As far as I can tell the only difference is the glass, and as a result, you can't even choose a matte display anymore. How is that an improvement?
Azio on
0
Options
syndalisGetting ClassyOn the WallRegistered User, Loves Apple Productsregular
I am led to think you have not seen the screens on the recent macbook pros. Because they really are a huge step up from where apple was before.
The previous MBP had LED backlighting. As far as I can tell the only difference is the glass, and as a result, you can't even choose a matte display anymore. How is that an improvement?
Visually, they are brighter. If you put a 17" LED backlit from the older design and one of the new 15"s side by side, the 15" is much more vibrant.
The glass sucks for the few people who need the anti glare on the 15"... but they made matte a BTO option for the 17" new model, so I assume that it will trickle down to the 15s eventually.
syndalis on
SW-4158-3990-6116
Let's play Mario Kart or something...
"The laptop features a 1,920-by-1,200 LED-backlit display. It also sports a 140-degree height/120-degree width viewing angle, a 700:1 contrast ratio and features 60-percent greater color gamut than previous notebook display."
"The laptop features a 1,920-by-1,200 LED-backlit display. It also sports a 140-degree height/120-degree width viewing angle, a 700:1 contrast ratio and features 60-percent greater color gamut than previous notebook display."
For the sake of comparison could somebody point out a PC laptop that uses a panel that is better than TN?
60% better color gamut comes partly from using led over ccfl, but it sounds like it might be a true 8-bit tn panel. I doubt it is an 8-bit ips panel, or there would have been a higher improvement.
"The laptop features a 1,920-by-1,200 LED-backlit display. It also sports a 140-degree height/120-degree width viewing angle, a 700:1 contrast ratio and features 60-percent greater color gamut than previous notebook display."
For the sake of comparison could somebody point out a PC laptop that uses a panel that is better than TN?
60% better color gamut comes partly from using led over ccfl, but it sounds like it might be a true 8-bit tn panel. I doubt it is an 8-bit ips panel, or there would have been a higher improvement.
Yeah, I can't see them using anything other than TN... I think they have much higher power consumption, to a level that would be crippling for notebook battery life. I'm just basing this on reviews I've seen of PVA, MVA, and IPS-based monitors, though, so I could be wrong on the nature of the technology. (In other words, maybe the monitors themselves just didn't focus much on lowering power draw?)
OremLK on
My zombie survival life simulator They Don't Sleep is out now on Steam if you want to check it out.
The way Philip Schiller says it in the keynote "Displays the most amount of colors we have ever displayed on a notebook..." Its almost like he wants to say its 8 bit, but apple never gets into those details. I mean it might not be but it would only make sense that they would be using an 8 bit panel after all the fuss people made.
The other interesting thing is the viewing angles. They say 140 Height / 120 Width which is interesting because most LCD manufactures simply lie and claim 170 / 160 when it really isn't. I have a 22 inch Acer and they claim 170 / 160 but it obviously is not. I'm guessing they mean 140 / 120 without color distortion (comparable to my iMac's H-IPS) which would be awesome.
Really though, 90% of the market out there is using TN displays and don't care (laptops and desktops) so it really doesn't matter unless you use your computer for art / graphics or are just picky about how good your porn looks :P
"The laptop features a 1,920-by-1,200 LED-backlit display. It also sports a 140-degree height/120-degree width viewing angle, a 700:1 contrast ratio and features 60-percent greater color gamut than previous notebook display."
For the sake of comparison could somebody point out a PC laptop that uses a panel that is better than TN?
60% better color gamut comes partly from using led over ccfl, but it sounds like it might be a true 8-bit tn panel. I doubt it is an 8-bit ips panel, or there would have been a higher improvement.
Yeah, I can't see them using anything other than TN... I think they have much higher power consumption, to a level that would be crippling for notebook battery life. I'm just basing this on reviews I've seen of PVA, MVA, and IPS-based monitors, though, so I could be wrong on the nature of the technology. (In other words, maybe the monitors themselves just didn't focus much on lowering power draw?)
TN uses less power than IPS because IPS requires a much brighter backlight. This is why almost all PC and Mac laptops use TN
Wonder why they put so much focus on the battery....
Because in the 26 or so years lion batteries have existed, the tech has barely improved. If you can't increase the battery performance, reduce the requirements of the power consuming components.
Holy fuck, I've been eyeing one of these sexy, sexy things (preconfigured! Blasphemy!) but it's almost irresistable at $999. Does anyone have one?
Holy crap. A laptop that actually advertises that it will handle 8GB of RAM. And it comes with 4GB... that seems like a pretty good deal.
9300 512mb, 1066 fsb, 2 YEAR WARRANTY, 320gb HDD, a pile of extras and gadgets. I'd wipe for Vista retail or 7 beta, but it doesn't have preinstalled trials, either (except AV, which is easily killed).
I honestly can't see the downside, unless you don't like a machine that looks like it was created by aliens trapped in ancient Mesopotamia (and then you're wrong).
Posts
I never saw this as a bad point tbqh. The word "trail" is hyperbole since you'll at most get a file or two in ~/Library/Preferences or ~/Library/Application Support, it's not like it's wasting any space. The end result of it all is that last time I reformatted, I was just able to drag some files over and all my apps were back to the way I like them with zero effort.
Even if you don't want to retain your settings and don't feel like hunting down all the relevant files (which you can just delete thanks to no registry) I still think the Windows system has way more disadvantages.
oi..
I'm making my arguments with studies and statistics, not handwaving. Despite its "underlying design issues", Vista has had fewer vulnerabilities for less time than OSX. If you want to argue otherwise, bring up some real data or stop posting.
And yes, in the past Microsoft was not that great on security. But I really don't care how much more secure Macs were than a Windows ME machine back in the day; that is not what I am arguing. In the past years Microsoft has made a huge security push and it is really paying off.
The other day I was trying to get iPhoto to export all the image files for a particular slideshow, and it would get to 5% and then stop with no explanation or error message. Speaking of slideshows, every time I create one it forgets all my settings from the last 500 slideshows I made and enables the stupid Ken Burns Effect or whatever it's called. You have to click through a bunch of dialogs to turn it off. It's actually worse than iTunes. Photo Gallery is superior in virtually every way.
iMovie is alright but it's pretty light on the features. It gets the job done in a pinch. Movie Maker is admittedly a knock-off of iMovie but, again, it gets the job done in a pinch.
It isn't "built in" It is a seperate application disk that comes pre-installed and is included in the price of the laptop. Wehn you get an upgrade cd for the next version of the os, it doesn't come with iLife.
According to the Apple website, no. However, you can buy iLife without a Mac.
So really, the entire iLife suite can't be considered as part of an OSX v. Vista argument, because it's not part of OSX.
It explains some of the cost thing. PCs would be 100+ more expensive too if you had to buy them with Office. And the the DoJ would bend MS over backwards and apply a 2x4 with rusty nails in it.
Syndalis, macs use low quality LCDs in their notebooks. Basically if you buy a PC notebook, you'll get a display at least as good.
Also, very little irritates me more than someone who's never used a device coming around and telling people that some other alternative device is much better. If you haven't touched an N50, you've got no business going around telling anyone how well it stands up to an Apple. Period. What are you even thinking?
Pretty much, though you do see that most manufacturers do give the option to include better bundled software, but at least they give you an option, rather than put it in there and you're stuck with it. But since Apple is it's own hardware, they skirt around the issues that would plague MS for trying to do the same with third party manufacturers.
I don't think it's unfair in the least; monopoly + 3rd party hardware = completely different rules. But it might guide conversations about features bundled in OSes.
I also want to back this up by saying I used to be one of the biggest Microsoft supporters on the forum, upgraded my shit annually, still am an MSDN enterprise member, bashed the mac adverts and the zealousness of the community. I have gone through 10 windows laptops in the past ten years (a byproduct of constant traveling and honestly being a bit of a dick to my machines early on). I also do purchasing for a couple of medical practices running EMRs that sends physicians offsite with laptops, and a firm in NYC that sends its people international all the time, so I feel confident in being able to speak on durability /hardware quality and the MBP that released a few months back, and the 17" I still run with (late 07 model) are the nicest laptops I have ever worked with in terms of weight / performance, general durability, etc.
You might disagree with me. That's cool, and your right to do so. But I am not speaking out of my ass.
My assertions on the macbook being a better platform, while not based on the SPECIFIC 1100 dollar laptop linked, come from a significant amount of time spent supporting and deploying laptops.
Let's play Mario Kart or something...
I agree that there's a lot more trashy PC notebooks available on the market as compared to how many mac notebooks are bad (these days,) but there are a lot of really well built ones, too. Even ones in aluminum
The mac LCD's really aren't high quality. LED lighting is one thing (and certainly good,) but the LCDs themselves are 6 bit low enders. Just no getting around it, really. Nothing wrong with that because it's on par with what's on the market in general, but if you actually want a high-quality LCD in a laptop, you want to look in the PC market for it. And it IS a bit surprising to see it from a company that usually sticks the best of everything in their high end machines.
The glass sucks for the few people who need the anti glare on the 15"... but they made matte a BTO option for the 17" new model, so I assume that it will trickle down to the 15s eventually.
Let's play Mario Kart or something...
http://www.macworld.com/article/137947/2009/01/17inchmacbookpro.html
Doesn't sound like a TN panel to me...
For the sake of comparison could somebody point out a PC laptop that uses a panel that is better than TN?
60% better color gamut comes partly from using led over ccfl, but it sounds like it might be a true 8-bit tn panel. I doubt it is an 8-bit ips panel, or there would have been a higher improvement.
Yeah, I can't see them using anything other than TN... I think they have much higher power consumption, to a level that would be crippling for notebook battery life. I'm just basing this on reviews I've seen of PVA, MVA, and IPS-based monitors, though, so I could be wrong on the nature of the technology. (In other words, maybe the monitors themselves just didn't focus much on lowering power draw?)
The other interesting thing is the viewing angles. They say 140 Height / 120 Width which is interesting because most LCD manufactures simply lie and claim 170 / 160 when it really isn't. I have a 22 inch Acer and they claim 170 / 160 but it obviously is not. I'm guessing they mean 140 / 120 without color distortion (comparable to my iMac's H-IPS) which would be awesome.
Really though, 90% of the market out there is using TN displays and don't care (laptops and desktops) so it really doesn't matter unless you use your computer for art / graphics or are just picky about how good your porn looks :P
TN uses less power than IPS because IPS requires a much brighter backlight. This is why almost all PC and Mac laptops use TN
Wonder why they put so much focus on the battery....
9300 512mb, 1066 fsb, 2 YEAR WARRANTY, 320gb HDD, a pile of extras and gadgets. I'd wipe for Vista retail or 7 beta, but it doesn't have preinstalled trials, either (except AV, which is easily killed).
I honestly can't see the downside, unless you don't like a machine that looks like it was created by aliens trapped in ancient Mesopotamia (and then you're wrong).