# Rob Wright from The Star: Macs more expensive than PCs



## madhatress (Jul 22, 2007)

TheStar.com - living - Prestigious or pragmatic, choice of computer not about cost

These few paragraphs caught my eye:


> From where I stand, it boils down to this: Macs are still about twice the price of a hardware-comparable PC, and the number and sheer variety of software applications available for PC users far exceed that on the Mac side.
> 
> Also the price of applications is usually substantially lower on the PC side, due simply to the size of the market and the number of developers involved.
> 
> ...


Opinions?


----------



## Paradime (Jan 24, 2006)

madhatress said:


> Opinions?


Isn't Dell a major advertising client of TorStar?  

Actually, I find many of the article published in The Star a complete waste of time. He's really not saying anything that's of value to the average reader. It's like he's making an argument but his points are irrelevant to supporting his argument. Many of his point are either wrong or play into 10 year old stereotypes.

And this was written by an editor?!?  If he can't get a simple Mac vs. PC article right, how can he write about more complex business topics?


----------



## ender78 (Jan 23, 2005)

Cheaper Applications ! What world is he living in? Show me a suite of apps that does what iLife does, let alone for $80. iWork is $80, how much is Office? I'd like Rob to try to give some examples of software that is more expensive on the Mac where the features are equivalent versus a competitive app on the PC.

The freeware/shareware angle is also flawed. Almost half of the apps on my machine are shareware/freeware. I don't care that there are 6758 FTP apps for the PC. 

Here are some rough numbers from download.com

FTP APPS = 1177 Applications
Shareware = 892
Free = 285

The 3 most popular ones for the Mac are all right for me.

He contradicts himself at least one in the article "Two other savvy recent moves got the company back in the game: OSX and the adoption of Intel processors." 

I hate to break it to him but the transition to OS X and the Intel transition are spaced almost 5 years apart.

*"But with each iteration of Windows, the gap narrowed until finally, with Windows NT and XP, Microsoft had equalled, if not surpassed, Macintosh. "*

Windows NT and XP ? How far back does he want to go. Microsoft has NEVER brought anything new to the table. Its operating systems have trailed Apple in features for quite a while.

*"Apple regained the lead with OSX, and Microsoft's latest operation system, Vista, still has a way to go before it can close the gap. "*

So how is the PC better? 

I have sent the author an email inviting him here to the forum.


----------



## IronMac (Sep 22, 2003)

He equates a Mac to a Mercedes and a Windows machine to a Toyota? What level of THC is he ingesting?! :lmao: 

A Mac should be equated to a Japanese-built car whereas a Windows machine should be more on the level of a GM or Ford! :lmao:


----------



## jmlachance (Nov 6, 2005)

*2 Cents*

He may be right, depending if he's aiming his talk to the techy segment of the pc users who have put in thousands of hours learning how to repair and trouble shoot pc's. 
For the average comp user, I can't see how he comes up with these results. Just the frustration and lost time/productivity alone of using a pc adds up to the cost to the point that there's no comparison the Mac is cheaper in the short/long run.

My personal experience is that regular (myself included at the time) pc users will seek the advice of a pc tech about Macs and it's always the same: "you can't do anything with them" and "you're paying for the name".

i gave a guy at work an old Imac G4 because his kids couldn't get the pc running. They love it he tells me BUT, the Macs are more expensive than pc's, he says one day while we're all talking about computers. Obviously he's checked them out and gotten some "advice". So, he'll buy another pc and start all over again. 

Another guy bragged months ago that he got a new pc for $500 with windows vista installed. Now he mentions that he just got his sound card to work with Vista. This happens to be one of the many who scoff when I talk about Macs. 
I don't bother any more: I'm the one who can scoff.


----------



## ehMax (Feb 17, 2000)

madhatress said:


> TheStar.com - living - Prestigious or pragmatic, choice of computer not about cost
> 
> These few paragraphs caught my eye:
> 
> ...


:yawn: 

Arguments from the 90's. Moving on.


----------



## satchmo (May 26, 2005)

About 10 years ago, a buddy of mine used to call Macs, "crapintosh". Today he doesn't see it the same way. While he still uses a PC, he now sees how cool Macs are and considered buying a Mac Mini recently.

It's all about opening your eyes and minds to new things. Somehow I think this editor has blinders on. His argument is to use the old tired excuse about cost.


----------



## Mississauga (Oct 27, 2001)

Wright = Wrong


----------



## singingcrow (May 6, 2005)

Price Comparison:

time + virus software + repairs + frustrations + 1 computer + speakers = 10 Macs


----------



## BlueMax (Aug 8, 2005)

singingcrow said:


> Price Comparison:
> 
> time + virus software + repairs + frustrations + 1 computer + speakers = 10 Macs


From a LONG time of PC use, I'd have to agree - though I'd peg it at more like 2-4 Macs.


----------



## singingcrow (May 6, 2005)

BlueMax said:


> From a LONG time of PC use, I'd have to agree - though I'd peg it at more like 2-4 Macs.


Would you switch already !!!!


----------



## BlueMax (Aug 8, 2005)

singingcrow said:


> Would you switch already !!!!


Right on the verge, guv'nor! As soon as my stuff is sold, I'm making the move.

...or the guy with the 17" G5 iMac gets back to me on a straight trade. 

Sure I'll be moving from 19" to a 17" widescreen - but I'll be gaining a machine free of headaches and will also retain that ~$600+ value for another 6-12 months! My PC equipment will be near-worthless by then!


----------



## singingcrow (May 6, 2005)

BlueMax said:


> Right on the verge, guv'nor! As soon as my stuff is sold, I'm making the move.
> 
> ...or the guy with the 17" G5 iMac gets back to me on a straight trade.
> 
> Sure I'll be moving from 19" to a 17" widescreen - but I'll be gaining a machine free of headaches and will also retain that ~$600+ value for another 6-12 months! My PC equipment will be near-worthless by then!


Yay!!!! :clap:


----------



## jmlachance (Nov 6, 2005)

*PC's*

As an average comp user who spent 8 frustrating years as a pc owner, I wouldn't have another pc if I won it in a raffle!!


----------



## madhatress (Jul 22, 2007)

I don't blame you! When I finally switched (May of this year), I had to reinstall Windows on my old PC laptop I was selling to my brother. Almost tore my hair out! It took me almost 6 hours to reinstall windows XP, update to SP2, install antivirus and firefox, install MS Office, then update, update, update.....

Argh!


----------



## madhatress (Jul 22, 2007)

jmlachance said:


> i gave a guy at work an old Imac G4 because his kids couldn't get the pc running. They love it he tells me BUT, the Macs are more expensive than pc's, he says one day while we're all talking about computers. Obviously he's checked them out and gotten some "advice". So, he'll buy another pc and start all over again.


That kinda funny. I wonder how old that non-working PC was? You should point him to this forum. There seems to be a lot of people here with old macs that still work great! Except for my current PC (which I don't upgrade anymore because I only watch TV on it), I have never had a PC that has lasted more than 2 years in the same configuration! 



> Another guy bragged months ago that he got a new pc for $500 with windows vista installed.


I remember seeing a well-written article some time ago online about the price of Macs vs. PCs. I can't remember where I saw it or who wrote it  . Anyway, one of the first things he said was that if you are looking for an el-cheapo, emachine type $300 Mac then forget it. What most people don't understand is that Apple doesn't compete in the bargain basement computer market. And when it comes to computers you definitely get what you pay for!


----------



## Paradime (Jan 24, 2006)

madhatress said:


> It took me almost 6 hours to reinstall windows XP, update to SP2, install antivirus and firefox, install MS Office, then update, update, update.....


Funny...that's the exact same experience I had when selling my Mac Mini...nuking the hard drive, reinstalling the OS, iLife apps, Firefox, NeoOffice, Little Snitch, and then all those huge updates from Apple, optimizing, etc...took hours and hours.


----------



## madhatress (Jul 22, 2007)

Paradime said:


> Funny...that's the exact same experience I had when selling my Mac Mini...nuking the hard drive, reinstalling the OS, iLife apps, Firefox, NeoOffice, Little Snitch, and then all those huge updates from Apple, optimizing, etc...took hours and hours.


Haha! I'm a selling a Powerbook G4 and all I did was reinstall Tiger. I'm gonna leave it up to the buyer to update and install their own apps. Does that make me a big ol' meanie?


----------



## Guest (Aug 12, 2007)

I used to work with this guy, and he _hates_ macs, plain and simple. He's spent a long time booing them and, at least when I knew him, he never even gave them a chance, even when working in a Mac only environment. He would run around to everyone's desk and call them "play toys" and laugh at everyone.

It's also worth noting that he didn't work there very long either


----------



## EvanPitts (Mar 9, 2007)

I hate reading articles written by clueless morons...

PC's are far more expensive to run than Mac's simply because of the requirement of software to do simple tasks. For instance, Windoze can not handle PDF files while OSX can; without purchasing a thousand dollars of software from Adobe. Same with networking - Apple uses all of the modern protocols for networking, Windoze is stuck in the NetBEUI mindset, what, with all of those special Winsock drivers one needs just to log onto the Internet. And nothing is more inane than the Install Wizards Micro$oft recycled from BOB...

With a Mac, you just set it up and to does the tasks. With Windoze, I'd be pretty much forced to upgrade things like the video card on a fairly regular basis. 

However - I am completely happy with my own PC, and it has served me well for 14 years! Sure, DOS is a kludge with little software left - but WordPerfect is still superior to QBasic /Editor... sorry... Word; and Lotus 1-2-3 is still superior to MultiPlan, sorry... Excel... And to think the 486 Overdrive is probably the best processor that Intel ever did market! That is before they decided to compete in the home comfort industry with their 500 Gigawatt Pentium defects and rejects...

So I guess the author of the article can return to the cave where he runs, what, Windoze NT v4.5 Service Pack One Billion, where he can attempt to log onto the internet with his special Dialers, Agents, Winsocks, and other junk. Don't want those people infesting the Mac world already - don't want them ruining a good thing!


----------



## kloan (Feb 22, 2002)

Yeah.. he's a douche, and the voice of many disillusioned people who still believe that crap.


----------



## dtaylor (Apr 4, 2005)

Ah well. Hopefully anyone looking at a new computer purchase will properly research their options, and make an *educated* decision.

This made me laugh, though:

> A near-cutting-edge PC, that would have set you back
> about $3,000 in 1994, today will cost you about $500.

Either he's got the bar set pretty low when it comes to "cutting-edge", or his idea of "near" is way off.


----------



## madhatress (Jul 22, 2007)

Well it was buried pretty deep in the Saturday paper, and it took a while to find on the website itself. Hopefully, not many people will see it.


----------



## IronMac (Sep 22, 2003)

EvanPitts said:


> I hate reading articles written by clueless morons...
> 
> PC's are far more expensive to run than Mac's simply because of the requirement of software to do simple tasks. For instance, Windoze can not handle PDF files while OSX can; without purchasing a thousand dollars of software from Adobe.


Hrmmm...no. I am assuming you're talking about "creating" PDF files.

Adobe Acrobat Professional is US$450. Cheaper alternatives include services and programs such as:

deskPDF
Create Adobe PDF Online
CutePDF


----------



## Starkicker (Jun 12, 2007)

IronMac said:


> Hrmmm...no. I am assuming you're talking about "creating" PDF files.
> 
> Adobe Acrobat Professional is US$450. Cheaper alternatives include services and programs such as:
> 
> ...


You can get a free PDF creater (PrimoPDF).


----------



## hUssain (Aug 10, 2007)

I did a price comparison when buying my macbook, I found that other than the screen size and hard drive size, I was getting a more powerfull computer, with less bottlenecks for $200 less, though that includes the educational discount. I compared a few Dells, HPs, and Toshibas, and most had either a 1.6Ghz, or 1.8Ghz, processor which meant 2MB L2 cache, I'd rather sacrafice the screen space and HDD space for a computer that will last longer. I didn't factor in OS X at the time (it's my first mac), I find that if I would have payed more for an apple, I would not regret it. OS X is put together much better than Vista, and XP. On top of that, there are a lot of extra costs associated with windows, time and ram is one of those. (my vista PC running the needed apps takes up 1GB, the macbook less than 512MB)

The only laptop's I found that were cheaper than apple's were Asus's, but they are UGLY, and I found them after I purchased.


----------



## dalethompson (Sep 12, 2006)

I'm a former journalist (sports only) and I find that journalists are biased at best. So, take this guy's words and opinions with a grain of salt only... it's just his own opinion. Yes, we're all granted our own opinions and that's cool but it doesn't mean to take it for gospel.

I equate owning a mac to being part of a group that seriously knows their computers and software. Granted, mac only makes up 20% of the market now (but a huge jump from roughly 8% a few years ago) but those 20% of computer owners are pretty much educated and well-read people. Not saying everyone who owns a mac has a genius IQ or that every PC owner is dumb but I'd have to say that mac owners are usually more in tune (or should that be itune?) with what they're working with as far as hardware and applications.

I've owned more than a few pc's in my day (starting off with a 386 AST notebook, a compaq and a couple of Dell's) and I must say my mac 15" powerbook blows them all away. I love my mac and my only regret is not switching over years ago to Apple. Maybe this guy hates mac because his ex-g/f or b/f had one or that he just doesn't like them period, doesn't matter, he's biased for sure. That's one person out of millions who doesn't like them... i'd say that's a pretty good ratio in apple's favour.

I should send this "journalist" a receipt though from the new laptop I just bought my parents (an HP with Windows Vista). The final tally was around $1400 (and that's with rebates galore from Future Shop too) and that's not even high end. Well, my parents hate it because while the screen is sharp, Windows Vista is a nightmare for beginners and so user-unfriendly it's not even funny. How I wish I could go back in time and give them my powerbook and for me to get the new macbook pro  

Until Rob Wright wins a Pulitzer prize for writing or investigative work, I'd consider his opinion to be something like a piece of paper blowing in the wind... inconsequential.


----------



## Elemenopee (Apr 20, 2004)

Whenever I see a journalist/reporter discussing the PC vs Mac debate, more often than not, their facts are plain wrong or they are heavily biased.

On the flip-side, the only pro-Mac person I've ever seen is Amber MacArthur at CityTV. Yay, Amber!


----------



## hUssain (Aug 10, 2007)

Isn't she on G4TechTV (or at least was, it's good too see the remains of TechTV are still sorta around) Leo Laporte and his crew are all mac people for the most part.


----------



## Zen Masta J (May 28, 2007)

Wow, I'm shocked that they'd print something full of erroneous opinions presented as fact.

No wonder I don't read the Star.


----------



## Paradime (Jan 24, 2006)

Zen Masta J said:


> No wonder I don't read the Star.


My thinking exactly! Except, I took a step futher...I don't read anything that comes out of TorStar or Metroland. That useless free newspaper that arrives at my door every week? It took a few phone calls but I finally convinced them to stop delivering it to me. tptptptp It's amazing how it's cut down on my recycling.


----------



## EvanPitts (Mar 9, 2007)

IronMac said:


> Hrmmm...no. I am assuming you're talking about "creating" PDF files.
> 
> Adobe Acrobat Professional is US$450. Cheaper alternatives include services and programs such as: deskPDF, Create Adobe PDF Online, CutePDF


Perhaps I was not clear in my statement, so I shall rephrase it: Windoze is incapable of handling, viewing or printing PDF files; while OSX can. Of course there are extra external programs to do such thing, like Foxit (and a million others), but Windoze itself CAN NOT DEAL WITH PDF FILES. In my opinion, a PDF is a basic, just like support for OpenType fonts, which again, Windoze can not deal with. Nor can Windoze deal with any scalable fonts, you get what you buy...

I am sure there are many programs available for the Mac do do different things with PDF's, but my point is that, the PDF being such a common format, and is entirely supported by OSX - is entirely not supported by Micro$loth.

And too bad Adobe scrapped Acrobat Reader - because I have many such files on the system, and thus, I keep a legacy copy of it on my system. Not that the lack of support for PDF files is the only crutch presented by Windoze - just one of the million I plucked out of the hat...

I could also go on about the lack of a Web Browser! Sure, I could download Firefox, that is, if Windoze had any practical method of logging on to Mozilla and downloading it. At least OSX comes with Safari. Naysayers will say Windoze comes with Internet Exploder - but that that is exactly my point - Windoze does not even come with a Web Browser!

Even DOS had more utility crammed onto two or three floppies - while Windoze looks pretty (BLEEEECH!)... Windoze has a GUI of sorts, but there is no practical application for it because it lacks all of the basics needed by a true OS.


----------



## milhaus (Jun 1, 2004)

EvanPitts said:


> I could also go on about the lack of a Web Browser! Sure, I could download Firefox, that is, if Windoze had any practical method of logging on to Mozilla and downloading it. At least OSX comes with Safari. Naysayers will say Windoze comes with Internet Exploder - but that that is exactly my point - Windoze does not even come with a Web Browser!


You mean, like, opening IE, typing in www.mozilla.org, and then clicking download, and installing? C'mon, I hate Windows as much as the next guy, but puhleeze . . . BTW, there's nothing functionally wrong with IE7.


----------



## HowEver (Jan 11, 2005)

milhaus said:


> You mean, like, opening IE, typing in Mozilla.org - Home of the Mozilla Project, and then clicking download, and installing? C'mon, I hate Windows as much as the next guy, but puhleeze . . . BTW, there's nothing functionally wrong with IE7.


Of course it's that easy.

But remember that Microsoft was forced to unbundle Internet Explorer from Windows.

Criticism of Microsoft - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia




wiki said:


> Government anti-trust suits
> 
> In the 1990s, Microsoft adopted exclusionary licensing under which PC manufacturers were required to pay for an MS-DOS license even when the system shipped with an alternative operating system. Critics allege that it also used predatory tactics to price its competitors out of the market and that Microsoft erected technical barriers to make it appear that competing products did not work on its operating system.[47] In a consent decree issued on July 15, 1994, Microsoft agreed to a deal in which, among other things, that the company would not make the sale of its operating systems conditional on the purchase of any other Microsoft product. A Microsoft purchase of Inuit was also scuttled in 1994 due to antitrust concerns that Microsoft would be purchasing a major competitor.[48]
> 
> ...


There is more about European anti-trust government lawsuits, also lost by Microsoft.


----------



## hUssain (Aug 10, 2007)

Saying that windows doesn't come with a browser is worst than saying that macs are more expensive then PCs. Personally I find IE 7 to be better than Firefox, firefox has lost it's direction, whereas IE gained direction with IE7. And although I love Safari, I can't say the same for the windows version.

Back when the suit against MS was brough up in the US, a browser was not a vital part of the windows ecosystem, Win200, XP, Vista all include IE. Though in EU terroritory that is different


----------



## Paddy (Jul 13, 2004)

Oh, this is hilarious - I should have checked this forum before I wasted my time sending a long and detailed email to that clown at the Star!!

While I won't bother putting my entire email to him here, here is some of what I wrote to him:

"I was disappointed that your August 11 article on the choice of computer
platform once again promulgated the myth that Macs are more expensive than
PCs with the statement “Macs are still about twice the price of a
hardware-comparable PC.” HUH? Have you actually gone to Dell’s site (for
instance) and configured a Dell to match as closely as possible to any Mac?
I’ve done it – many times over – in order to show friends who are intrigued
by the Mac but still laboring under the delusion that they’re way more
expensive. Generally, there is less than $150 difference in the price – and
if I recall, last time I did it, similarly configured Dell laptops came out
more expensive than the MacBook Pros. For simplicity’s sake, I also
generally ignored some of the things that Apple includes as standard items
(iSight, iLife suite, wireless capability already installed in desktops
etc.). Apple does not sell cheap, bargain basement PCs. Neither does Dell or
HP or any other reputable, reasonably reliable company. We’re not talking
about e-Machines here – please be fair in your comparisons."

(okay - maybe I was giving Dell and the others a little more credit - they do indeed sell some cheapos, but they can't fairly be compared to Apple's offerings)

Guess I should have also provided links to Mac vs. PC System Shootouts - $1,100 Laptops 05/15/07 and perhaps even more convincing: Mac vs. PC cost analysis: How does it all add up?

I then went on to point out the following:
2. Lack of viruses and other nasties on Macs (never mentioned in his article) and that after 7 years of OS X it would be a bit of a stretch to claim that this was entirely due to "low market share" (figured I'd head that particular popular argument off at the pass, noting that the script kiddies are still trying)
3. Software - yes, there is lots of it on the PC side. But how much of it is actually GOOD software? Quantity does not equal quality in all cases.
4. No mention of ability to run Windows on the Mac, if the user has any utterly necessary Windows-only apps but still wants to use a Mac.
5. Shareware & freeware...see #3 - and there is no shortage of it for OS X, last time I checked.
6. Have a hubby who plays in the command line - he's a UNIX geek and he's happy. Difference with Macs is that you don't generally HAVE to do it. 

Meanwhile, I was laboring under the delusion that he was actually going to think about the things I'd taken the time to write. Silly me. His response:



> hi paddy: i've been using Macs since 1984, when i bought a Mac II. i currently have a PC and a G5 at my workstation. i respectfully disagree with most of your observations.
> rob


I decided at this point that it was hardly worth my time to continue with this idiot. He's not interested in anyone else's opinions or even the facts. 

And I really should know better - I've worked at a newspaper and know that the first order of business is SELLING NEWSPAPERS, which means getting people to read them. If you keep trying to disturb people's world view too much, they get all uncomfortable and stop reading. (Yes...the editorial policies of the EagleTribune in MA would make a cynic out of anyone, believe me!) Sigh.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

> hi paddy: i've been using Macs since 1984, when i bought a Mac II. i currently have a PC and a G5 at my workstation. i respectfully disagree with most of your observations.
> rob


Someone should point out to him that MacIIs didn't come out in 1984. 



> n 1987 Apple took advantage of the new Motorola technology and introduced the Macintosh II, which used a 16 MHz Motorola 68020 processor.


What a ditz.

Hey paddy - fire it back at him - if he can't even get his dates straight .............what else is he wrong about.


----------



## IronMac (Sep 22, 2003)

EvanPitts said:


> Perhaps I was not clear in my statement, so I shall rephrase it: Windoze is incapable of handling, viewing or printing PDF files; while OSX can. Of course there are extra external programs to do such thing, like Foxit (and a million others), but Windoze itself CAN NOT DEAL WITH PDF FILES. In my opinion, a PDF is a basic, just like support for OpenType fonts, which again, Windoze can not deal with. Nor can Windoze deal with any scalable fonts, you get what you buy...





Adobe said:


> Windows
> 
> * Intel® Pentium® III or equivalent processor
> * Microsoft® Windows® Vista; Windows XP Professional, Home Edition, or Tablet PC Edition with Service Pack 2; Microsoft Windows 2000 with Service Pack 4; Windows 2003 Server
> ...


If you're talking natively, then, you're right. Otherwise, *shrug*



EvanPitts said:


> And too bad Adobe scrapped Acrobat Reader - because I have many such files on the system, and thus, I keep a legacy copy of it on my system. Not that the lack of support for PDF files is the only crutch presented by Windoze - just one of the million I plucked out of the hat...


Adobe - Reader

This is fanboism at its worst I think.


----------



## Paddy (Jul 13, 2004)

Ok, MacDoc, I sent him the following:

"Hi Rob,

Well, saying you “respectfully disagree” doesn’t indicate a lot of respect when you can’t be bothered to even say which of my observations you disagree with. I wasn’t aware that your column was essentially an opinion piece – my mistake.

For the record, I’m hardly the only one making those observations:

Mac vs. PC cost analysis: How does it all add up?
Mac vs. PC System Shootouts - $1,100 Laptops 05/15/07

Ding! Mac vs. PC cost analysis, Round II

And on and on...

And there is nothing “cutting edge” about a $500 PC the last time I checked. Unless you were comparing it to something you bought in 1994.

Paddy

PS – I find it fascinating that you bought a Mac II three years before Apple released it."

I'm pretty sure I won't hear anything further from him - he's not likely to rise to the challenge of actually trying to defend himself point by point. This sort rarely do. If anything, he'll just brand me an Apple fanatic who's been sucked into Steve's reality distortion field. You know, like Scot Finnie. Or...John Dvorak:lmao:


----------



## Elemenopee (Apr 20, 2004)

> hi paddy: i've been using Macs since 1984, when i bought a Mac II. i currently have a PC and a G5 at my workstation. i respectfully disagree with most of your observations.
> rob


OMG!

[ clue ] <------ Rob Wright...none

Paddy, hopefully he DOES respond to your second email to further show us how ignorant and biased a reporter he is. Too funny!


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

he's probably pi$$ed since the PC arrived on his desk for free and he probably paid for his G5 imac...


----------



## hUssain (Aug 10, 2007)

You can tell he was forced to write the article, if he actually cared about it, he would have defended it, but he replied with such a weak answer. You can always dream that the computer illeterate would actually know anything. (word processing doesn't make you an expert)


----------



## Paddy (Jul 13, 2004)

Many newspapers use Macs & Quark for layout & design - some, like the NYT have migrated to InDesign. Our SP 1.8GHz G5 was actually originally owned by the NYT! (discovered this when tracing its registration with Apple). 

A lot of papers have their reporters using PCs though, so I would be willing to bet that the only reason _he_ has the G5 is because he's the technology reporter. It would appear to be wasted on him.  

Further confirmation...from the TansaSystems web site:



> The reporters and editors at the Toronto Star use Tansa from within Microsoft Word 2003 (Windows), as part of the CCI Newsdesk 5 editorial workflow solution from CCI-Europe. Tansa was installed in Toronto in the first quarter of 2006.


Er...Tansa is a text-proofing system. And if the Star is typical of the results obtained using it, I can't say I'm impressed! The EagleTribune in MA (where I worked part-time doing layout) for all it's flaws, had fewer spelling, grammatical and utterly idiotic errors than I've seen in the past 4 months reading the Star since moving back to T.O.!


----------



## dalethompson (Sep 12, 2006)

Nice work Paddy!

Hope he replies back to your second email to him (but something tells me you put him in his place).

I totally agree too... yes, I can get a $500 desktop computer from some place on College street here in Toronto but I guarantee it wouldn't touch a mac in terms of performance, quality or style.

I paid $900 for a used Dell Inspiron 5100 back in 2005 and as nice as it looked, it doesn't even come close to my 15" powerbook. Windows is bloated with software (just like the apple commercial) and most of it isn't things you'd even use. When I set up my parent's new HP laptop, I swear 80% of the software on there (a lot of it being HP's own crap) is stuff my parents would never even look at, let alone use). I think I took off like 6 GB of software that was pre-bundled and there's even more that could come off too I suppose.

One category Rob should've used is the "Time is Money" factor when using a mac vs. PC. Starting with the load-up time between the two systems (fyi Vista is painfully slow to load up), to the time it takes to navigate through folders, to the time it takes to complete tasks like email, Photoshop, build a webpage or even surf the net... guaranteed that mac saves you time. And, if time is indeed money, shouldn't that be a factor somehow?

People are biased in whatever they are loyal to. Some people like Ford, some like GM. Some baseball fans love the National League, others like the American etc. The debate between Mac and PC will forever be an issue as long as the two are still around. Having used both systems, at least I'm non-biased (mostly anyway) and I know what I personally prefer. Maybe Mr. Wright is one of those non-conformists when it comes to mac... refuses to believe it's a better system because he's sick of seeing it on TV or people telling him firsthand. His loss I guess in the long run but as I'm also trying to be objective with my opinions too, I'll just say that he's happy with his PC and I guess that's what matters to him :lmao:


----------



## kps (May 4, 2003)

Yeah Paddy, nice work. 

Also, nice to see you here, welcome aboard. DB is kicking around too, but hasn't posted in a while.


----------



## Paddy (Jul 13, 2004)

Thanks, Karl. I've been lurking off and on for 3 years and now that I'm back in T.O., it just seems right somehow!! (And a little livelier than good ole TS, I might add!)


----------



## EvanPitts (Mar 9, 2007)

I love just mixing it all up, and I admit that I rarely look forward to new versions of software. This is based on my quarter century of experience with such matters. For instance, one of the first word processors was Word Perfect. There were many things I disliked, but it did do the job. The newer versions just became bloated, so I just kept using the older version until it was entirely dain bramaged. Then I got a Mac and never really looked back, once I found software I liked. (And I may be a fanbo, because I did pick up Adobe Acrobat Professional simply because they do not have Acrobat Reader anymore, and their Reader product they peddle now is so loathsome and slow. _And why does a PDF viewer need to handle movies? _ What, and I going to print out a movie on my laser printer? If I want a movie, I'll use VLC because it is for _watching movies_!)

But I do think that newspapers do a disservice by having columnists that know little about the machines, with little or no practical experience in the bowels of an OS core (or for that matter, practical experience writing programs in Assember or Machine Code). So this guy spouts off against the Mac; saying that it is far too expensive compared to a flimsy eMachine that will last perhaps a year (or less). Then he says there is little or no software for the Mac; but then again, when I ran a Windoze machine, I couldn't even view JPG files without special extra software.

Really, thig guy should take a Computer Systems course and find out the real facts, that NTFS is not really New Technology but just a regurgitation of the antique FAT system that, though useful on a low density floppy disk or 20 MB HD, is entirely lacking in performance when compared to any real file system (E2FS, HFS+, UFS, ZFS). When I did a cost comparison years ago, I could buy a used Mac that would accomplish all of the tasks for about $600. To do the same thing with Windoze, I'd need three machines (Win98SE, Win2000 and WinXP), and I'd have to buy at least twenty software packages. The only way a Windoze system is more affordable is to pirate all of the software and run it on a crummy used Aptiva. I actually had an Aptiva for a while; with an oddball keyboard and two expansion slots, one with a modem and the other with a serial board to run the mouse because the system had no provision to connect a mouse to it - and it was 'Recommended for Windows 98'?!?!

Newspapers are full of that kind of trite opintionation based on a lack of thought process or practical clues, and it not just restricted to one guy spouting off against Macs; but _clueless morons_ spouting off against any conceivable good idea or notion of progress...


----------



## Paradime (Jan 24, 2006)

EvanPitts said:


> but then again, when I ran a Windoze machine, I couldn't even view JPG files without special extra software.


While I'm sure everyone here appreciates your zeal, I think it's just as important for Mac users to be accurate in their statements. Every version of Windows dating back to 95 could quite easily view jpg files, at least, through Internet Explorer.



EvanPitts said:


> To do the same thing with Windoze, I'd need three machines (Win98SE, Win2000 and WinXP)


Not true at all. Actually, it's nonsense.

You know, if we're going to shot people for spreading disinformation and bending the truth, we need to be careful not to fall into the same trap.



EvanPitts said:


> with an oddball keyboard and two expansion slots, one with a modem and the other with a serial board to run the mouse


And when was this? 10 Years ago?


----------



## BlueMax (Aug 8, 2005)

Paradime said:


> And when was this? 10 Years ago?


More like 15-20.


----------



## Guest (Aug 20, 2007)

milhaus said:


> You mean, like, opening IE, typing in www.mozilla.org, and then clicking download, and installing? C'mon, I hate Windows as much as the next guy, but puhleeze . . . BTW, there's nothing functionally wrong with IE7.


*cough* LOL ... sorry just spit coffee all over my desk there. You might want to retract that statement about IE7 having nothing functionally wrong ... do some googling if you want details ...


----------



## EvanPitts (Mar 9, 2007)

Paradime said:


> While I'm sure everyone here appreciates your zeal, I think it's just as important for Mac users to be accurate in their statements. Every version of Windows dating back to 95 could quite easily view jpg files, at least, through Internet Explorer.
> Not true at all. Actually, it's nonsense.
> You know, if we're going to shot people for spreading disinformation and bending the truth, we need to be careful not to fall into the same trap.
> And when was this? 10 Years ago?


I shall explain again. _Windoze has no graphic viewer capability_, therefore a person needs to have one of the hundreds of special programs, just to view a JPG file. I am not going to connect to the Internet just to view a JPG that is on a CD. I ended up with some program called ACDSee, which was quite retrograde but kind of worked, sometimes. I also ended up needing Adobe Acrobat Distiller, but that's another story.

For the software I was forced to use - I would indeed need three distinct systems because the software would only work within distinct versions. These were not generic application but specifically written for their tasks, and as such, I would need three machines because you can not triple boot Windoze. It is entirely not disinformation but the truth about the ancient monolithic kernel that lurks below the hundreds of layers of flimflam that compose the Windoze system.

And it is also a fact that one manufacturer chose to write software that required 5 networked PC's running Windoze Millenium and a server running Windoze NT 4.5 SP 10. (Yes, SP 11 would break it!) A law suit in the US solved that and the company figured it was better to just send PDFs. Especially when they had sent out a CD that had so many virues in it, it cracked Norton and yielded to the BSOD. (I couldn't run that CD on mine because it was some odd format that the CD reader couldn't handle, or perhaps the disk was damaged, I didn't bother investigating because it wasn't worth my time.)

_This was only three years ago_, just about the time I bought my current iMac that I am using. The PC was an Aptiva, and it is no wonder why IBM left the industry. It was quite a poor machine, almost as dain bramaged as the Nova-IV I used to have to maintain. The graphics were limited to 640x400, 800 line mode would make the monitor freak out, and 1024 line mode would yield the BSOD.

It had one serial port for the mouse, so after putting a modem and a serial card in it, there were no slots left, barring two funny slots that would not accept any standard cards that I could think of. PCI cards almost fit, but they would have to be upside down to fit the slot, so they wouldn't work electrically. It was also a very difficult machine to take apart because I did add a second hard drive, but again, even the hard drive had an oddball connection scheme and I spent the best part of an evening trying to cobble something together to work. It would not work with a standard keyboard because even that had an oddball connector. So much for a $50 IBM.

It did the job (sort of) for a while, but I tired of having to install Windoze every single month because of viruses or BSOD. At one point, when my Mac was down because of a hard drive failure (infant mortality, but I did not even loose one file, way to go OSX!), I used the Windoze machine for a week, and ended up with something like 80-100 viruses on it. Oh, and Windoze does not have a mail reader, but I used Webmail so that ok. I had to use Interblech Exploder... So if I was online and saw a graphic or picture I liked, I had to wade through these special directories looking at literally thousands of pictures to find the one I wanted. On the Mac, well, a push and drag of the mouse does it all.

So again, this was three years ago; and the situation had not improved much. I have been forced to run Windoze ever since version 1.1; and I have never seen even one feature that I would say was 'cool'. There was always a better system like GEM, or MacOS, or whatever; but for some reason, people gravitated to the worst OS ever designed.


----------



## hUssain (Aug 10, 2007)

EvanPitts said:


> _Windoze has no graphic viewer capability_, therefore a person needs to have one of the hundreds of special programs, just to view a JPG file. I am not going to connect to the Internet just to view a JPG that is on a CD.


Vista has Windows Gallery, XP something similar (no name though), this was also the point that windows started showing it inside explorer (not IE), and 98 through a browser, no you didn't need to connect to the internet. 
Also Paint, yes paint, it's been around for a while. 



> I would need three machines because you can not triple boot Windoze.


Wrong, I've had 98, XP, and Longhorn (yea, that unstable piece of abandoned junk), if I count right, that's _3_.


> And it is also a fact that *one manufacturer chose to write software* that required 5 networked PC's running Windoze Millenium and a server running Windoze NT 4.5 SP 10. (Yes, SP 11 would break it!)


Did MS make the software? If not, it's not because of Windows. Any geek would start laughing at though of ME, that was a rushed money cow.



> _This was only three years ago_, just about the time I bought my current iMac that I am using. The PC was an Aptiva, and it is no wonder why IBM left the industry. It was quite a poor machine, almost as dain bramaged as the Nova-IV I used to have to maintain. The graphics were limited to 640x400, 800 line mode would make the monitor freak out, and 1024 line mode would yield the BSOD.
> 
> It had one serial port for the mouse, so after putting a modem and a serial card in it, there were no slots left, barring two funny slots that would not accept any standard cards that I could think of. PCI cards almost fit, but they would have to be upside down to fit the slot, so they wouldn't work electrically. It was also a very difficult machine to take apart because I did add a second hard drive, but again, even the hard drive had an oddball connection scheme and I spent the best part of an evening trying to cobble something together to work. It would not work with a standard keyboard because even that had an oddball connector. So much for a $50 IBM.


Did you get it at a junk yard? I would say that is more than 7 years old, my PC which was at least 4 years old could play Half-Life 2 at 1280x1024 with all the settings at max with almost no problem.



> It did the job (sort of) for a while, but I tired of having to install Windoze every single month because of viruses or BSOD. At one point, when my Mac was down because of a hard drive failure (infant mortality, but I did not even loose one file, way to go OSX!), I used the Windoze machine for a week, and ended up with something like 80-100 viruses on it. Oh, and Windoze does not have a mail reader, but I used Webmail so that ok. I had to use Interblech Exploder... So if I was online and saw a graphic or picture I liked, I had to wade through these special directories looking at literally thousands of pictures to find the one I wanted. On the Mac, well, a push and drag of the mouse does it all.


I do not even understand how any one could get so many viruses, I've been running without an antivirus for over a year, no viruses. Technically savvy people should know how to avoid viruses. I've never had a virus, with or without an antivirus.
But you are quite right with the saving of images.


> So again, this was three years ago; and the situation had not improved much. I have been forced to run Windoze ever since version 1.1; and I have never seen even one feature that I would say was 'cool'. There was always a better system like GEM, or MacOS, or whatever; but for some reason, people gravitated to the worst OS ever designed.


Your entire post is full of 14 year old fanboy ranting, it doesn't sound like you've actually used windows, my computer teacher in high school, who never used a windows machine, knew more about windows then you have demonstrated.

Obvious Proof of fanboy: "Windoze" and "Interblech Exploder"

Fanboys give any brand a bad name, and you are doing exactly that. Stop it. I don't like defending windows.


----------



## Kiddo (May 4, 2007)

@Hussain: Off Topic: You're from Ottawa too, eh? Nepean, here.


----------



## Paradime (Jan 24, 2006)

EvanPitts said:


> _Windoze has no graphic viewer capability_, therefore a person needs to have one of the hundreds of special programs, just to view a JPG file. I am not going to connect to the Internet just to view a JPG that is on a CD.


Like I said, every version of Windows starting with at least Windows 95 can easily and natively view jpg images. At the very least, you can drag the image into Internet Explorer and it will display the image. There is NO NEED to connect to the Internet.



EvanPitts said:


> The graphics were limited to 640x400, 800 line mode would make the monitor freak out, and 1024 line mode would yield the BSOD.


Right...you talking about a machine that's 10-15 years old at best. Maybe you had a crappy monitor.

Whatever the case, some of the issue you had with your Aptiva would have been the same if you bought a Mac LC with OS 7.1.

You also mention Windows ME. You know that OS came out 10 years ago, right? Apple didn't release OS X until a year after.



EvanPitts said:


> It did the job (sort of) for a while, but I tired of having to install Windoze every single month because of viruses or BSOD.


Funny, I've had many, many Windows PCs from Win3.1 all the way upto Vista just about every thing in between. I've never had any of my systems infected with a virus because I've always used anti-virus programs. In the old days, I used McAfee, which was quite good. Recently, I've been very pleased with AVG. That's not to say I didn't download or receive a file with a virus, it's just that my anti-virus program caught it and nuked it.



EvanPitts said:


> There was always a better system like GEM


GEM?!?  You've got to be kidding me! Man, you're credibility has just gone right out the window (no pun intended). :yikes:


----------



## EvanPitts (Mar 9, 2007)

Paradime said:


> every version of Windows starting with at least Windows 95 can easily and natively view jpg images.


I have never seen a viewer in Windoze; but since I have never used, and never plan on using Vista, (and it may have something that functions somewhat like a graphics viewer), I can say that any of the versions of Windoze I have used are incapable of viewing graphics. Any time I got stuck using IE, it would automatically dial out and connect to the Internet, and if it couldn't connect, it would crash and either lock up or give the BSOD.



> .you talking about a machine that's 10-15 years old at best. Maybe you had a crappy monitor.


The monitor was great, a Trinitron, and works perfectly under Knoppix and Ubuntu Linux, even at high line rates. The machine was fairly recent, as it was "Recommended For Windows 2000". But it was a pretty odd machine in my opinion, perhaps because it was surplus from a banking institution. I was not (or ever shall be) inclined to spend any money on a Windoze box simply because it really serves no purpose to me.



> Whatever the case, some of the issue you had with your Aptiva would have been the same if you bought a Mac LC with OS 7.1.


The Mac LC was a nice little machine, and had the coolest audio editing software when we used one on the mixing board at a radio station. I wish I could remember what the software was called, but if I was doing that kind of audio work these days, I'd buy an LC just for the job.



> You also mention Windows ME. You know that OS came out 10 years ago, right? Apple didn't release OS X until a year after.


It actually came out 7 years ago, 98 came out in 99, and 98SE came out just before ME. OS X may be 'later', but since it is derived from UNIX, and UNIX came out in 72... All that mattered at the time is that the software required ME, so I had to put it on the system.



> I've never had any of my systems infected with a virus because I've always used anti-virus programs.


I never bothered because, being a Windoze box that just needed to run a few proprietary programs, I didn't care. It is a matter of time. I am sure that if I spent enough time and effort, I could put together a fairly secure system; but that would detract me from those purposes I use computers for. It is sad that a system can acquire so many viruses so quickly; and some of them are quite difficult to get rid of. I was bored during a snowstorm and actually attempted to learn something about Windoze, but I ended up with a number of BSOD experiences and gave up. Then a dude offered me $75 for the system I spent $50 for - and gave all of the 'Windoze' kind of work to a guy that, though he doesn't actually know how to use Windoze, can get the tasks done well enough.



> GEM?!?  You've got to be kidding me! Man, you're credibility has just gone right out the window (no pun intended). :yikes:


Kidding? You started with Windoze 3.1 - _you're a newbie!_ You'd LOVE GEM if you were forced to deal with setting up a data acquisition system under Windoze 2. Really, GEM was so much better...

However, we have moved somewhat from the path of the current discussion so I think it is prudent to just say that the article in the paper was entirely a waste of time to read... Wait, the whole Star is a waste of time to read! Even The Sun is better, if only because it has 3 SUDOKU puzzles every day.


----------



## madhatress (Jul 22, 2007)

*the sun*



> Even The Sun is better


If you're reading the Sun, you might as well read the weekly world news! Same difference. That little tidbit really doesn't help your credibility.


----------



## hUssain (Aug 10, 2007)

EvanPitts said:


> I have never seen a viewer in Windoze;











Similar to the one in XP.


> It actually came out 7 years ago, 98 came out in 99, and 98SE came out just before ME. OS X may be 'later', but since it is derived from UNIX, and UNIX came out in 72... All that mattered at the time is that the software required ME, so I had to put it on the system.


I never once encountered an application that *needed * ME, ME was considered a bad version of 98 (and it was built on top of 98). XP was OS X competition, not 98/ME. Any company that was offering mission critical software would have used NT/2000, why? because NT/2000 was business OS.

Ohh btw, 98 was released in 1998, June 25th. in 1999 was 98SE. 2000 in 2000, and to usher in the new Millennium, ME in 2000 (a little late but it was still in 2000). 


> I never bothered because, being a Windoze box that just needed to run a few proprietary programs, I didn't care.


I don't blame you for this, but if your going to make an anti-windows statement *try* to fix the issue, once you've tried then complain. It's like saying "my video card drivers are not installed, I need a new video card"

I have 3 windows machines (current), and I can tell you that the Mac is much better, both in terms of software and integration, and a host of different reasons. Windows works unlike what you are saying. And as this article says, Macs are unlike what the newspaper editor(or writer) is saying.


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

*IE (any version) is a web developer's pain in the rump*



milhaus said:


> You mean, like, opening IE, typing in Mozilla.org - Home of the Mozilla Project, and then clicking download, and installing? C'mon, I hate Windows as much as the next guy, but puhleeze . . . BTW, there's nothing functionally wrong with IE7.


From a users perspective what you say maybe true. To be honest I only use IE7 when testing websites that I have developed. But from a developers point of view all versions of IE are a pain in the rump. Until IE becomes truly W3C compliant (which they probably never will) I will continue to "diss" it. It is a pain to continually have to write hacks into code (CSS) so that a website will look the same on IE as it does on Safari, Firefox, Opera (latest versions) or any other W3C compliant browser.

I think the real problem with Microsoft is that because IE constitutes such a large share of the browser market space (which they obtained basically through monopolistic practises) they think they own the internet or at least have the right to develop a browser that is non-standards compliant. For their arrogance alone, I can't find myself endorsing IE anytime soon.


----------



## Paradime (Jan 24, 2006)

EvanPitts said:


> I have never seen a viewer in Windoze;


Doesn't mean it doesn't exist.



EvanPitts said:


> _you're a newbie!_ You'd LOVE GEM if you were forced to deal with setting up a data acquisition system under Windoze 2. Really, GEM was so much better...


Hehe...you make a lot of assumptions. My first computer was a Commodore Vic-20 the year it was released. I've also owned a C-64, C-128, Apple IIc, just about every Commodore Amiga model made (I was also a VAR Amiga dealer). Plus, I've owned a 386, 486, Pentium I, Pro, III, P4, and on and on including a bunch of Macs like a IIci, an LC475, Quadra 660av, Quadra 950, PowerMac 9600, eMac, Mac Mini, iMac C2D, and a few month old Mac Pro.

So, sorry Evan, I'm not a newbie but I suspect you are since you couldn't figure out how to view jpgs in Windows 95. 

...and GEM was a joke.


----------



## Paradime (Jan 24, 2006)

hUssain said:


> ME was considered a bad version of 98 (and it was built on top of 98).


I actually liked Windows ME. It seem to boot super-fast on my Pentium III system vs. Windows 98SE. I'm talking 15-20 seconds! I think MS did a bunch of optimizations with ME so I'm not sure why it got such a bad rap. The only thing I didn't like about it was the inclusion of that completely useless Movie Maker app.


----------



## hUssain (Aug 10, 2007)

Paradime said:


> I actually liked Windows ME. It seem to boot super-fast on my Pentium III system vs. Windows 98SE. I'm talking 15-20 seconds! I think MS did a bunch of optimizations with ME so I'm not sure why it got such a bad rap. The only thing I didn't like about it was the inclusion of that completely useless Movie Maker app.


They did do some optimization, but they also broke alot of things, which comprimised stability. It was less stable than 98SE, and that is where the problem lied, and why it gets a bad rep.

The only reason Vista is actually stable is because they dumped building on top of XP, and went with Windows Server 2003. It seemed that Windows prior to the change was just getting more and more unstable. This is why it took so long.

Windows will never be able to compete with OS X, if they keep building on top of old OSs. They need to rebuilt the entirety of the OS (kernels included) for them to even start to have a change. I know this means they break compatibility.

Windows Movie Maker, it's still around, and as useless as ever.


----------



## BlueMax (Aug 8, 2005)

WindowsME had a huge memory leak issue.... it would get slower and slower with every app you ran until you finally rebooted.


----------



## hUssain (Aug 10, 2007)

BlueMax said:


> WindowsME had a huge memory leak issue.... it would get slower and slower with every app you ran until you finally rebooted.


That reminds me of a name people gave it "Mistake Edition"


----------



## EvanPitts (Mar 9, 2007)

Paradime said:


> Doesn't mean it doesn't exist.


I even went out of my way to find a Windoze machine, and I still can not view a JPG file. Nor could I find a way of viewing a PDF file. So if it does exist, I simply can not find it anywhere in the file system.



> Hehe...you make a lot of assumptions. My first computer was a Commodore Vic-20 the year it was released... and a few month old Mac Pro.
> So, sorry Evan, I'm not a newbie but I suspect you are since you couldn't figure out how to view jpgs in Windows 95.


We have similar experiences, except that I refused to ever purchase any of the Pentium series. I figure that once they get around to recalling every defective processor, and give people a processor that can actually do math, and not overheat the house too badly, and get Andy Grove into the Betty Ford; then the product would be worthy. Of course, the Pentium has gone the way of the Dodo... And I was never a dealer or anything, though I was a consultant and programmer for a number of years. I got out of that deal once people started to want Windoze. How could I set up a system for someone when I can't get one of my own to run properly?

As for Windoze, it is the one system that I have terrible impatience for. I have spent many, many, many hours over the years trying to get it to run, to get it to do something useful - but I still can not figure it out. I have a far easier time on any other operating system, whether it is UNIX, VMS, OSX or whatever. For instance, how does one get rid of all the cruddy graphics that clutter up the screen? And how does one shut down the system without having to go repeatedly to the Start button thing over and over again? Certainly I for one can not figure it out, and if someone is not there to help me with pretty much everything, I get muddled, lost and end up with the BSOD. And how does one turn off the Blue on that screen? Can one change it to Black so it looks better?

So if I sound like a newbie, so be it, but I still can not figure our how to view a JPG on a stock Windoze system without any kind of external program. You could point out one flaw in my logic, that in the days of DOS, it couldn't view JPGs, and you would be correct. However, DOS came out before JPGs; and even though I'd have to have an external program to do such a thing, DOS would run off a floppy quite merrily - while Windoze can barely be crammed on a number of CDs...

I had to run GEM for some program, but I can't remember what it was called. It was a desktop publisher deal from Xerox, but it was not as good as Lotus Manuscript... And that was go good that I soon fled in terror to a VAXen version of LaTeX, and to GeoWorks on the PC... Egads - there has been a lot of terrible software unleashed upon the people!!!


----------



## Paradime (Jan 24, 2006)

BlueMax said:


> WindowsME had a huge memory leak issue.... it would get slower and slower with every app you ran until you finally rebooted.


Ah...I think I remember that now. Actually, it didn't really bother me because I pretty much rebooted my system all the time.  I remember using some little utility that would free memory and deal with memory leaks. I think it was called RAM idle or something like that.


----------



## hUssain (Aug 10, 2007)

hUssain said:


>


No extra apps. Same with XP, and in 98/ME I just doubled click the jpg and BOOM IE opens up.

BSOD are almost non-existant in XP and beyond (issues with hardware drivers will show up in BSOD type screen)


----------



## BlueMax (Aug 8, 2005)

hUssain said:


> BSOD are almost non-existant in XP and beyond (issues with hardware drivers will show up in BSOD type screen)


Someone tell that to my flaky XP system....  XX)


----------



## hUssain (Aug 10, 2007)

BlueMax said:


> Someone tell that to my flaky XP system....  XX)


So it gives you the "Press any key[...]", technically that is a BSOD. the ones in XP are blue and bring death, but these are related to hardware issues, generally video card drivers failing, and memory issues. I use to have those constantly, it turned out it was a memory issue, the RAM was going bad, I've seen them with my video card drivers also, never elsewhere.


----------



## EvanPitts (Mar 9, 2007)

hUssain said:


> No extra apps. Same with XP, and in 98/ME I just doubled click the jpg and BOOM IE opens up.
> BSOD are almost non-existant in XP and beyond (issues with hardware drivers will show up in BSOD type screen)


Again... You are refering to Internet Exploder; when my point is that if I want to look at a JPG, I do not want to connect to the Internet. On the system I had, if IE opened up, it had to connect to the Internet. Perhaps there is some setting that can be changed, or whatever. But as I said, Windoze does not come with a Viewer of any sort, so it is useless to me, or anyone else that wants to look at a JPG.

You have a picture posted, but I can not tell what it is, or what it is doing. And it certainly does not look like Windoze. Perhaps it is a system that has been entirely hacked over. Of course, with enough downloaded software, any system could be hacked over; but that is not my point. I was relating the fact that Windoze lacks, without external programs, even the most basic functionality that most other OSes have.

And this relates to the article. Sure, I could go out and buy a cheap eMachines system with a nasty cheapened version of Vista - but then I'd have to make significant upgrades. So by the time I end up with a machine that can actualy run Windoze Vista Uplimate Premium Professional whatever, then add all of the software I'd need to do the basics - I would easily be able to purchase a top line Macintosh, which would be far too powerful for my actual needs. So a Mac is indeed less expensive, in the long run, because I'd need less machine etc... Even my iMac, which is a few generations old, can out perform Windoze at all of the tasks I throw at it, and many of the tasks given to it come with OSX.

I have never seen a 'multi-boot' Windoze system, and I would think that it can not actually be done since Windoze can only handle one primary partition on a hard drive. If it can be done, it should be posted as a How-To for those people that need such functionality, especially when having to deal with quirky proprietary software.

BSODs "practically nonexistent"? I'd hate to Google such a thing, it would probably be in the millions of hits... And to think, I am right now sitting at a Windoze box typing this message, and Nortan has only come up three times with alerts that 'viruses are attacking'. Perhaps if they got rid of their fixation on NetBeui, and built in some real networking? I am sure a company the size of Micro$loth could afford to hire a programmer that understands TCP/IP...


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

EvanPitts said:


> Again...
> I have never seen a 'multi-boot' Windoze system, and I would think that it can not actually be done since Windoze can only handle one primary partition on a hard drive. If it can be done, it should be posted as a How-To for those people that need such functionality, especially when having to deal with quirky proprietary software.
> TCP/IP...


Just to wade into this debate on this specific matter. You actually can have two versions of Windows on the same hard drive and choose which to boot into, the option is presented to you after you get past the initial BIOS loadup. I have in the past had a system that was dual bootable with a choice between Windows 2000 and Windows XP Pro.

I no longer own a PC and wouldn't want one, have been a Mac diehard for about 10 years (while owning a PC for web development testing purposes, with Bootcamp, Parallels, VMware goodbye PC) so I am not trying to endorse Windows, just clarifying a technical point.


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

EvanPitts said:


> I shall explain again. _Windoze has no graphic viewer capability_, therefore a person needs to have one of the hundreds of special programs, just to view a JPG file.


Once again in no way am I trying to endorse Windows, but at least in Windows XP Pro you can view a JPG directly through the OS. In any directory where a a JPG resides just double click on it and it opens "Windows Picture and Fax Viewer" you can alternatively right click on the file to get your menu and choose preview which opens up the JPG in the aforementioned "Windows Picture and Fax Viewer".


----------



## hUssain (Aug 10, 2007)

EvanPitts said:


> You have a picture posted, but I can not tell what it is, or what it is doing. And it certainly does not look like Windoze.


Full size, there is more than one way to view pictuers in this one shot.. To view an image in 98/ME you don't need the internet, I had a machine with pictures that I would view often back in the day, it had no internet connection and I didn't have to connect and it didn't ask. Why do you go on about hacking, a clean install of Vista has the features in the pic.


> And this relates to the article. Sure, I could go out and buy a cheap eMachines system with a nasty cheapened version of Vista - but then I'd have to make significant upgrades. So by the time I end up with a machine that can actualy run Windoze Vista Uplimate Premium Professional whatever, then add all of the software I'd need to do the basics - I would easily be able to purchase a top line Macintosh, which would be far too powerful for my actual needs. So a Mac is indeed less expensive, in the long run, because I'd need less machine etc... Even my iMac, which is a few generations old, can out perform Windoze at all of the tasks I throw at it, and many of the tasks given to it come with OSX.


Your right here, bundled machines by companies are usually a rip-off.



> I have never seen a 'multi-boot' Windoze system, and I would think that it can not actually be done since Windoze can only handle one primary partition on a hard drive. If it can be done, it should be posted as a How-To for those people that need such functionality, especially when having to deal with quirky proprietary software.


You can have up to *4* primary partitions on a drive.
Dual-booting for NT based OSs and 9x based OSs


> BSODs "practically nonexistent"? I'd hate to Google such a thing, it would probably be in the millions of hits...


Guess you didn't read this part "in XP and beyond" 

From wikipedia: 


> This type of blue screen is no longer seen in Windows NT, 2000, and XP. In the case of these less serious software errors, the program may still crash, but it will not take down the entire operating system with it due to better memory management and decreased legacy support. In these systems, the "true" BSOD is seen only in cases where the entire operating system crashes.


9x based systems (95/98/ME) would bring the whole OS down if any issue arrised, if your system is NT based (NT/2000/XP/etc.) the application will not bring the whole OS down, therefore less BSODs. ME is not like 2000/XP, ME is unstable.



> And to think, I am right now sitting at a Windoze box typing this message, and Nortan has only come up three times with alerts that 'viruses are attacking'. Perhaps if they got rid of their fixation on NetBeui, and built in some real networking? I am sure a company the size of Micro$loth could afford to hire a programmer that understands TCP/IP...


Norton is junk, viruses do not "attack" they infect. I guess you missed the news, I'll fill you in NetBIOS Frames (what you seem to think is NetBeui) was supported until windows 2000, so no support in ME either.

Stop using ME.


----------



## milhaus (Jun 1, 2004)

Can we just stop this thread and conclude that EvanPitts doesn't know jack about Windows, and is clearly not very computer saavy, given that he can't find ways to open .jpgs natively in Windows ?


----------



## dona83 (Jun 26, 2005)

milhaus said:


> Can we just stop this thread and conclude that EvanPitts doesn't know jack about Windows, and is clearly not very computer saavy, given that he can't find ways to open .jpgs natively in Windows ?


Agreed. As much as I love my Mac, Windows isn't that stupid.


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

dona83 said:


> Agreed. As much as I love my Mac, Windows isn't that stupid.


let's just say that Windoze is "high maintenance"


----------



## EvanPitts (Mar 9, 2007)

milhaus said:


> Can we just stop this thread and conclude that EvanPitts doesn't know jack about Windows, and is clearly not very computer saavy, given that he can't find ways to open .jpgs natively in Windows ?


I agree 100% - I know nothing about Windoze. It is completely obvious that on every point I made, Windoze is absolutely perfect and without flaw. Out of the box, Windoze can do everything imaginable, like opeing JPG files with a web browser, and editing PDF files, and everything else. Just because I can not figure out how to use Windoze, well, it is completely and utterly obvious that one can only be 'computer savvy' if they are in turn a Windoze Apologist.

I had made my points based on my experiences with Windoze for the past fifteen or twenty years; and as so many people pointed out, I am both completely wrong, and that the article in The Star is so completely correct. So I shall return to using my Macs and working on those projects that are powered by OS X; now knowing full well that every piece of software that I run on the Mac is even more perfectly implemented on Windoze, at much less fuss and cost than on the Mac. As it has been pointed out, using a Mac is an utter waste of time since Windoze is, in and of itself, so perfect and flawless in all regards.

The past twenty-five years of computing experience has taught me nothing, simply because no amount of time running running any system other than Windoze does not constitute real or practical experience. I admit that I am not 'computer savvy' simply because I find Windoze to be completely useless and virtually impossible to run. So I now change my stated opinion, The Star should be commended for writing such a truthful article that is filled to the brim with facts. Now, back to my little things I do with the non-'Doze systems I own, and in fact, Ithink I will buy a Windoze box so I can view my JPGs with a web browser and edit my PDF files with NotePad...


----------



## hUssain (Aug 10, 2007)

I love the sarcasm, cause we would all tell you a mac is cheaper. Also you can't edit PDF out of the box.

Also I worked for a guy at a computer repair place, he's been using computers since the days of punch cards, he knew nothing about computers but ran a computer repair place. Time does not equal experience


----------

