PO'd Windows user looking at buying a macbook pro but...

[Beta-guy]

Let's me tell the story why I'm upset and my problems with moving to Apple, first of all Microsoft has done some stupid things in the past (if Microsoft Bob was the worst of it I would be a happy Windows user) Microsoft Released Windows ME, it was a horrible failure and Microsoft learned from that, you see from what I can tell Windows 95 was based on 3.1 (that was subsequently based on Windows 3.0) Windows 95 became Windows 98 then became Windows ME. if that is the story then Windows ME is a horribly hacked up and bloated version of Windows 3.0 no wonder why it was the mess it was, but that's not the reason I'm upset just part of it, let's look at the other line of Windows Windows NT 3.1 -> 3.5 -> 4.0 -> 2000 -> XP -> Vista -> 7

it's ironic enough to think that Windows 7 is part of the NT line (NT meaning new technology) when it's based on a Windows version that was release in 1993 Vista Showed 1 thing the NT line is getting too hacked up and bloated just like Windows ME, Microsoft released Windows 7 pushing the NT line forward, clean up the problems Vista has but kept the counter intuitive interface of Vista as a statement saying Vista was the right way to go. I'm tired of fixing problems caused by Microsoft with their proprietary system.

Apple had alot of problem with Mac OS classic but they based OSX on UNIX and as of 10.5 it became UNIX. UNIX is known for security, stability, and networking things that every consumer demands today and Windows is increasingly becoming insecure (due to the bloated code) more unstable (Think Windows ME and Vista) I can't tolerate how such a poor system like windows maintains it's high user base because people fear the unknown or are afraid their programs won't work. Developers don't want to develop their software for a System like OSX if it only has 5% of the market. So OSX is going to have a hard time advancing.

here's my problems with moving to OSX 1. Apple Wants a 1:1 ratio of OSX and Apple computers this means no hackintoshes notice what I said in the last paragraph if OSX doesn't gain ground developers will continue to ignore it and continue to develop for Windows that has the vast majority of users, meaning more sale for them. Apple needs to open up, they can demand we all use the latest greatest intel CPU's have 4 GB ram and whatever video cards to maintain the 'apple quality' I build systems and I buy the best stuff I can get to build a monster system.

the second problem I have is Apple users have a cult mentality (generally speaking not all Apple users are like this) From my understanding Apple is about to release new models of their computers since I don't follow apple news or anything I thought I'd ask mac users on IRC they didn't know (even generally) when Apple would likely release the next gen computers but we got to talking and I mentioned how I'd like to see Blu-ray support in Apple computers this prompted a argument on IRC they holding to downloads as being the greatest I mention that physical media right now offers the best A/V quality and one called me a troll for that, anyways long story short, they were holding to downloading not Blu-ray being the future because Steve Jobs made that comment about Blu-ray being a bag of hurt. I don't want 1 man deciding for me how I'm going to use my computer by limiting my options especially if I'm paying $2100 for a laptop. I certainly don't like seeing apple cultists calling me a troll for having a contrary opinion.

In summery I have 2 choices stick with Windows and celebrate Windows Vista based OS's for however long MS makes them, or move to a system the limits my options because Apple wants to control how and where I use their product...

[Myrph]

Or you could turn into Paul!

[Tim]

So do you have practical issues with Windows, or just ideological issues?

[Beta-guy]

So do you have practical issues with Windows, or just ideological issues?

it's a mix of issues, I used to be a Microsoft fanboy but Microsoft have gone a very different direction, they are changing things that should be left alone.

When NT4 was released it was lean fast and capable, it was a stable, secure and very networkable OS, but Microsoft seem to think the only way to get more customer is add more stuff to the OS, and this causes bloat, the more code they add the more potential security holes and stability issue can arise.

I know there is no perfect system, but MS could be gearing Windows to be what NT4 was with support for newer technologies like USB Windows 2000 and XP was good examples but felt they too were a bit bloated but tolerable, Vista was Microsoft's over reaction to no release of an OS for 5 - 6 years and then Windows 7 is simply Vista done right, but still Vista, the personalize context menu when you right click on the desktop adds steps and does nothing to make the task of changing your background any easier. XP allowed the user to do things faster and easier because it had the same interface Windows 95 had and users knew it very easily.

so it's ideolgical as I'm expecting the interface to change very little unless it's a move for the better, but it's also practical because if Microsoft made a lean, secure, and stable system you'd get more performance out of you system, with greater uptime/fewer crashes/issues, and you could trust you computer with it's security.

[Hakaryu]

Dude just switch to Ubuntu. It's user friendly with very little bullshit.

[DRog]

I have a MacBook, and I think I can safely say that it is one of the worst computers I have ever had. It's just so poorly made, and can't do what a PC of the same price can. PCs also don't melt the logic board three times. That should never be a problem, and yet it is.

[Anatidaephobia]

So you didn't answer Tim's question. What specifically do you hate about Windows? And if you hate Windows so much, just switch to linux. I like centos myself, but then again I do lots of server stuff.

[Beta-guy]

So you didn't answer Tim's question. What specifically do you hate about Windows? And if you hate Windows so much, just switch to linux. I like centos myself, but then again I do lots of server stuff.

I did answer his question Windows have grown bloated and as a result is increasingly adding insecurities, and instabilities I also mentioned the interface issues that make Windows less convenient to use. as for Linux I've tried it on and off since 1998 but I'd never stuck with it, I even have Ubuntu installed on my PS3 but rarely do I ever boot into it... Linux isn't going to receive mainstream desktop use anytime soon, the only OS that I see being able to do so (if handled correctly) is OS X but for that to happen Apple needs to loosen up and stop restricting it's users (from installing OSX on non apple HW or allowing us to use Blu-ray on OSX) Apple does all these ad's showing how Windows fails to live up to what OSX can do but Apple never shows me why an Apple computer is better than something I build myself.

I know Linux is something I need to learn, but I won't be doing so right now. right now I want an alternative OS that's boot an go and since it's UNIX once I get settled I can start playing witht he command line and some day move to Linux and the learning curve won't be so big

[Lord Chrusher]

The reason why it is unlikely that Apple will release OS X for non Apple hardware is that Apple is a hardware company.

Ubuntu is fairly mature on computer hardware. It is rare that I have to do something on the command line.

[Arius]

I'm gonna have to suggest Fedora as a Linux distro.

I'm a fan of the Gnome desktop interface, but I don't mind having to command line every so often. It's pretty intuitive, though.

I dual boot with Vista.

To be honest, I don't get all the issues people have with Vista. The only issue I had was the user control panel. Though, I absolutely hate Windows Update. They should have included an option for "Leave me the fuck alone, I'll reboot when I'm ready." rather than forcing me to kill the service.

[Lord Chrusher]

Yeah why can not Windows Update wait to reboot? Windows reboots too often. Anything other than patching the kernel should not require a reboot. The default behavior in Linux is to merely tell you a reboot is required then let you decide when you want to reboot. I find the Linux package management system superior to the mess that is installing and updating things on Windows. Imagine you need program z. All you have to do is type sudo apt-get install z (or something similar) The is also a way to do this graphically. All programs use the same update system as the operating system.

[Arius]

The worst is when I'm in a game and Windows Update forces a reboot and I didn't even know it was going to. Though, there's been a couple times that I've lost a document because it rebooted and I was in the bathroom or taking care of something and hadn't saved.

You really can't go wrong with Linux. And Wine is pretty good now, so most programs can be run through it if there's no Linux alternative.

I also like Debian, though I use it purely through the command line because it's on a server I maintain.

[Anatidaephobia]

I hate Windows because of it's failings, but I can give two instances, just right off the top of my head, barring the old bsods I'd get all the time with 98. Vista updated and got caught into a reboot loop. Speaking with Microsoft customer service, they didn't talk to me like I was a computer idiot, which is the first time customer service has done that. We couldn't get it working, and I lost all my pictures. They sent me a free copy of Vista with a new cd key (both of which I haven't used yet) as a consolation prize. By the time it had gotten to me, I had downloaded Vista, and used my own COA on my lappy top. After THAT installation updated, I couldn't ever turn it off with out answering a bunch of questions about if I wanna close this program or that. So screw it. I don't use it anymore.

[Dutch guy]

Most people I know, and myself, agree that Vista is a big fail in the Windows line. One to rival ME. I've heard from more than one person that Windows 7 fixes a lot of the issues people had with Vista.

Also, the only way to get Windows secure is use a 3rd party Firewall. SO, turn off those pesky updates (They just create more holes anyways) and use something like Kaspersky Internet Security or somesuch. Also, I have my XP set to only update once I tell it to, I assume there is a similar setting in Vista. (I've hated vista since it came out and never used much)

[Beta-guy]

Anatidaephobia: I built a quad core with 2 GB RAM (when Vista was first released), and Vista was BSOD'ing on me constantly I update every time there was an update, grabbed the latest drivers etc... nothing worked it kept BSOD'ing the problem Microsoft couldn't make Vista play nice with my Nvidia chipset. plus these prompts asking if you really want to do whatever whenever you do anything in vista (I disable them the first thing I do in vista).

Dutch guy: Windows 7 does fix alot of things but the interface still uses the less convenient interface of Windows Vista, and it's because they did that that I'm realizing we as windows users are limited to what Microsoft wants for us, we have to play their game, if Microsoft soft wants to go in a new direction even if it's not something we want, we have 3 choices 1. upgrade 2. stay with the current version and hope MS get the message 3. switch to something else and hope that when real competition hit Microsoft that Microsoft will stop make blunders like Windows ME and Vista. I've had enough and I'm now going with option 3.

firewall adds some security but doesn't protect against issues like Windows media player has a security hole that allow a malicious user to infect my system with a trojan, and I have wait for Microsoft to a. find the problem and b. fix it and Microsoft fixes it on THEIR time as they generally only release updates once a month (patch Tuesday). Again I know there is no prefect system but I look at how big Windows has gotten over the years and the best thing Microsoft could do is make Windows go on a diet stop adding new useless features and look at the code get rid and whatever they can to make Windows 8 operate faster, with less bloated code means less unchecked security holes and with a simpler design means they can improve stability. and one thing I hope Microsoft does is go back to the XP interface I hate that 'personalize' option when you right click on the desktop it adds another step that isn't needed and doesn't make doing anything easier...

Lord Chrusher and Arius: disable automatic updates, problem solved

[iwashere33]

yeah, i am not sure why all the hate for vista, my biggest issues with it have been the fact it crashes every day, or just left on for over 24hours, and the internet explorer memory suck. open 10 tabs and the system almost become unsuable. it doens't even matter what is in the tabs either. could be all google homepage and the same thing happens.\

i was just more pissed off i can't buy windows xp anymore - legit license anyway.

[Myrph]

i was just more pissed off i can't buy windows xp anymore - legit license anyway.

Can't you get it with Vista Business using the downgrade rights?

[Tim]

yeah, i am not sure why all the hate for vista, my biggest issues with it have been the fact it crashes every day, or just left on for over 24hours, and the internet explorer memory suck. open 10 tabs and the system almost become unsuable. it doens't even matter what is in the tabs either. could be all google homepage and the same thing happens.\

i was just more pissed off i can't buy windows xp anymore - legit license anyway.

Try Chrome instead of IE.

I've never had any real issues with Vista, and Windows 7 was a big improvement. I don't find it cluttered or clunky at all. But I suppose it's a preference thing, to some extent.

[Metcarfre]

yeah, i am not sure why all the hate for vista, my biggest issues with it have been the fact it crashes every day,

crashes every day,

crashes every day,

crashes every day,

I, for one, would find that waaay beyond completely unacceptable.

[Arius]

I think he was being facetious about it not bothering him.

Vista has never crashed for me.

[Metcarfre]

I can never tell; I just assume Windows users accept these sorts of things.

[Master Gunner]

They generally don't. When something starts crashing every day, odds are it's a hardware issue and I start poking around inside (and formatting my hard-drive, obviously). Something interesting: Windows 7 yet to crash on me, and I've being using it since the Release Candidate came out. OSX/the macs I've tried have crashed.....oh, about a couple dozen times over the span of my trying to get my fucking Media Pro projects done (eventually, dispite repeated attempts to make the damn things work, I'd just take the stuff home and do it on my PC, in half the time and infinitely less aggravation, and this was across the iMac G3, G4, and G5 lines). In terms of crashes/usage, that's far worse than XP was, and about on par with what I remember from '95 (probably worse, actually).

Admittedly these were school comps, and I expect them to be crappy, but they were even worse and more frustrating than the windows machines in the same lab.

[epocalypse]

I always find it odd when people talk about the lack of software production for Macs, but then I remember 2 things:

A) I'm not and have never really been a PC gamer.

B) I'm an art and film user, meaning that much of the best software for what I do is either available on both systems or only Apple.

The blu-ray thing is an interesting issue, not because we shouldn't have them on mac (if you ask me, larger compact disc storage is always a great thing) but because the average user, especially the average laptop user, has neither the audio or visual capabilities on their main computer to justify the use of bluray over DVD on a computer. Apple, realizing this, and the vast number of laptop users they have, has put off adding standard bluray capabilities. Now, as I mentioned before, I'm a film and art user, both of which are facts that make bluray burning in particular a very cool notion to me (I would love to get a hard copy of my films at 1080p or even possibly full 2k on a single disc, that'd be sick). Don't let the user base notion get to you. One asshole fanatic does not the whole group make.

[Metcarfre]

I guess I just don't crash computers since I don't tax them very much. In the five years I've had this one, I've had to hard reboot, oh, once or twice. About the same on any of the XP-running work computers I've used. But the most taxing thing I might do is run a few programs at once, never any video editing or anything.

[epocalypse]

You know, I tax the HELL out of my Mac, always have, an actual system crash only about once/twice a year. Now, I experience software crashes more often, due to my overtaxing the machine and the individual programs. the programs I crash most often are:

Firefox (about once a week, cause apparently the computer can't handle ten or twenty windows with two to three tabs a piece)

Photoshop (If you have more than a 500 mb of images open, this'll happen. Also, forcing the program to do stuff in weird ways is probably not the best of ideas)

Final Cut (Not to often, maybe once every two months, but it's always the most critical when it does. HD footage is big, save often).

However, with the exception of rendering times, the ONLY program I have that gives me significant lag is Microsoft Word, which is probably cause I haven't upgraded it since 2004.