Getting into web design and related stuff

Originally Posted by The Gentleman

Sounds good. Another question: I'm thinking of buying a new laptop and am seriously considering one of the new macbook pros. Is either windows or mac a better platform for web design, or does it not matter? (I'm talking about once I move on to more advanced things like Java or something.)

That depends what you want to do. If you want to use .NET, I believe there are no IDEs available for Mac (correct me if I am wrong here) so that's one downside. Oh I just found one, but it looks like it sucks (a program called "Mono") - buggy and no debugger.

I can never recommend to someone they should get a Mac. I can do everything on my PC that a Mac can do, but I can't do everything on a Mac that my PC can do. It's that simple, you pay more and get less. It doesn't make sense.

Originally Posted by MLNick

That depends what you want to do. If you want to use .NET, I believe there are no IDEs available for Mac (correct me if I am wrong here) so that's one downside. Oh I just found one, but it looks like it sucks (a program called "Mono") - buggy and no debugger.

I can never recommend to someone they should get a Mac. I can do everything on my PC that a Mac can do, but I can't do everything on a Mac that my PC can do. It's that simple, you pay more and get less. It doesn't make sense.

Apple provides a native IDE called XCode that supports plenty of coding languages and is free (unlike Visual Studio). I used it to get me through my computer science courses. It's a hell of a better tool than Dev-C++... as for coding specifically for .NET, I'm not sure, but I do know that Microsoft is including .NET components in the next version of Office for Mac, so I'd have to assume they're developing those components somehow.

At any rate, I said everything I said as a person who has done development on all machines, and use all operating systems pretty regularly. I boot camp Windows 7 currently for various tasks (like CAD modeling and DX10 gaming), but I would never boot camp for web development.

DreamWeaver is different than the tools I use in that DreamWeaver has the capacity to produce code for you. The tools I use still force you to hand-write your own code, which I feel produces a cleaner, better performing website. It just happens to show you the changes as you make them.'

Needless to say, the reason I call fratey a moron is not because his points are entirely invalid, but for the fact that he is ignorant enough to call all Apple-made computers expensive piles of aluminum. If all I wanted was something shiny, I'd buy an HP. You have to think that there's something that will make a reasonable person decide to pay more.

Now, I'm one to denounce paying solely for a "brand name" every chance I get - like clothing. Clothing is just a stamp on some fabric. When you buy clothing, you pay for the stamp. When you buy a Mac, you're not just paying for a shiny apple on your computer.

I, personally, pay for the OS (and all the software that comes with it) and for the slim form factor that fits nicely in my dorm - and it's not too much of a premium over other manufacturers, anyway. And if he's ignorant enough to shout stuff about OSx86 even after this paragraph (I run one OSx86 computer already, and have two "real" Macs), then I'd just call him a lost cause

And even then, running OS X on an unsupported computer is NOT the user experience you want with that operating system. It's seriously unstable - it kernel panics all the time and I've had to wipe the HDD and reinstall Leopard at least twenty times over the last month. That machine is not a production machine, and if you ask the folks in the OSx86 community (which I'm a member of) they will tell you that one should only use these computers for fun, not for actual work.


And to respond to fratey's off-topic thing: http://www.getsongbird.com/ - Songbird is an excellent open-source media player. I use it on Linux in lieu of iTunes. On a Mac, iTunes doesn't use up so much memory as its Windows counterpart, but there is both a Mac and Windows version of Songbird.

Originally Posted by Jason

DreamWeaver is different than the tools I use in that DreamWeaver has the capacity to produce code for you. The tools I use still force you to hand-write your own code, which I feel produces a cleaner, better performing website. It just happens to show you the changes as you make them.'

1. You can still hand-write your own code
2. Or, you could let it produce the code and clean it up

Originally Posted by Jason

Needless to say, the reason I call fratey a moron is not because his points are entirely invalid

I'm not the one saying that number of applications = automatically better.

Originally Posted by Jason

but for the fact that he is ignorant enough to call all Apple-made computers expensive piles of aluminum.

You're right - the Macbook is made of polycarbonate.

Originally Posted by Jason

If all I wanted was something shiny, I'd buy an HP.

Wait, they make shiny stuff nowadays?

Originally Posted by Jason

You have to think that there's something that will make a reasonable person decide to pay more.

I wonder.

Originally Posted by Jason

Now, I'm one to denounce paying solely for a "brand name" every chance I get - like clothing. Clothing is just a stamp on some fabric. When you buy clothing, you pay for the stamp. When you buy a Mac, you're not just paying for a shiny apple on your computer.

What are you paying for, then? The legal right to use OS X in the US?

Originally Posted by Jason

I, personally, pay for the OS (and all the software that comes with it) and for the slim form factor that fits nicely in my dorm

Right. Design and OS.

Originally Posted by Jason

and it's not too much of a premium over other manufacturers, anyway.

There's the Sony Vaio FW series, 16" Laptop. While it is slightly larger, at $1169 customized (in the US... lucky bastards), you currently get the same processor frequency, 70GB more storage, a Blu-Ray drive, the same amount of RAM, and a 1080p display. Additionally, the hard disk in the Sony Vaio FW is 7200RPM, , which translates into better performance for you. For $500 less than the MBP, this seems like a good deal to me. Especially since all Sony Vaio laptops include 100 free song downloads. The DDR2 vs DDR3 performance is negligible (a couple percent at best). They also look good.

There's also the Dell Studio XPS 16 is Dell's professional 16" laptop, and after some customization, you get a pretty nice MacBook Pro alternative at $1,524. The Studio XPS 16's display can display the full color gamut (according to Anandtech, and unlike the MBP which can only display 6-bit), has a 1080p resolution (full HD etc), the same 2.53 Ghz Core 2 Duo, 4GB of DDR3 RAM at the same frequency and twice the storage space. Unfortunately the hard disk in this one is also 5400 RPM, but, of course, pick your poison. With better warranty options than Apple, and a higher native resolution by far, I'd ultimately recommend this laptop for that work (especially design, due to the better color gamut and display)

Originally Posted by Jason

And even then, running OS X on an unsupported computer is NOT the user experience you want with that operating system.

Really now?

Originally Posted by Jason

It's seriously unstable - it kernel panics all the time and I've had to wipe the HDD and reinstall Leopard at least twenty times over the last month.

How about you get some compatible hardware then? I've seen OSX86 PC's that run more stable than Macs.

Originally Posted by Jason

That machine is not a production machine, and if you ask the folks in the OSx86 community (which I'm a member of) they will tell you that one should only use these computers for fun, not for actual work.

Indeed. Then there's also people who do use them for work. ;D

Originally Posted by Jason

And to respond to fratey's off-topic thing: http://www.getsongbird.com/ - Songbird is an excellent open-source media player. I use it on Linux in lieu of iTunes. On a Mac, iTunes doesn't use up so much memory as its Windows counterpart, but there is both a Mac and Windows version of Songbird.

I'm sorry to be such a runt and picky about this, but I don't have good experiences of Songbird either. It uses just about as much RAM, and was extremely slow and unstable at large (16k+) libraries. Do you have any other program in mind, or should I try iTunes with some flac addon or perhaps Winamp with crossover?

Uh, I'm running an iMac. These things are cheap as hell ... why're you talking to me about LAPTOPS? Who uses a little notebook for serious work? I've got a 24" iMac in front of me with totally boosted specs.

And if price is your only talking point: I don't give a darn about the price so long as it's reasonable. And you know what? This iMac cost less than my previous PC (that I built myself), and it's more powerful. And it all comes inside of one little case, with a 24" monitor. However much I paid for it, as if I give a crap - so long as it isn't over three grand it's worth the money.

Design means a lot. I'm an engineer and designer. But I'm not fooled by shiny things, or things made of aluminum. I realize the amount of work and effort put into the form factor of the iMac, and it's brilliant what they've done. Their new MacBook Pros are also feats of design and engineering. And I think that and the stellar operating system is worth my money. And even saying that, they're still comparable - you think $500 is a lot of money? When I'm investing in a workspace I'll have for *years*, I am not shopping on a budget.

If someone is going to shop on a budget, tell them to get a netbook for a few hundred bucks, and tell them to "get by" on whatever OS is on there. I'm sure they can. But if someone's looking for a serious workstation that will last them for years - a potentially invaluable workstation, why does it always seem that price is the main talking point when comparing different manufacturers? I have said nothing about price in any of my arguments up until this point (except one comment in passing about it being relatively close to competitor prices, but competitors still don't have OS X), but if you want me to address a breakdown in the intrisic value of any computer (not just a Mac), here we go:

• Stores all important documents (each of my documents is an asset with real value, so I factor that into the value of the computer)
• Form factor (it needs to fit in a relatively small area)
• Software availability and quality (Indie dev software on Windows is largely ♥♥♥♥ from people with no sense of user interface design; on my Hackintosh I learned that there was more high-quality Mac software from more indie developers worth supporting that helped me get more work done faster, and this was before I even CONSIDERED paying for a Mac. The ability to use this software to make new assets, or documents, is a huge contributing factor to the "value" of the computer)
• Ports, processor speed, components, etc. (these make up the "cost" that people think of as the traditional cost of a computer)
• Screen size and quality (I wanted a massive screen for graphic design work; my old CRT didn't have great color and new monitors are expensive no matter where you go)

I don't know if I'm forgetting anything. Either way, when it boils down to it, a computer that allows me to store my assets is worth the price of the components plus the value of all the assets that will be on that computer. When you think of it that way, shopping for computers feels like you're in a bargain bin all the time! And that's why computers can't, and shouldn't, be sold on their price alone - specs a computer does not make.

I couldn't give a rat's ass about a marginally faster processor if I don't find the OS as productive. That means I'm making less new assets. And those assets will eventually land me a better computer in the long run to make more assets to buy more computers. So price is really all irrelevant, since I'm using the computer to make money. I find the computer that lets me get the most ♥♥♥♥ done in the best way possible. And OS X is that, and the Mac's all-in-one package is that.

Imagine that you have two machines, both that print money. The cheaper machine prints the money slightly slower for, say, $1000 less (although this is arbitrary. The more expensive machine prints money twice as fast. You tell your friend to save money and buy the cheaper printer. Remember, although I'm talking about money printers, it's much more than specs that determine how "fast" a computer is - real productivity means something beyond stupid benchmarks.

What I don't understand is: Why would you buy a less expensive money printer when you're going to use it to print money? It's basically what you do with computers. You use them to do your job, to do your schoolwork, to perform almost every facet of your life. You'd probably go into withdrawal without one. So why would you not buy the best one you can, the one that lets you maximize your experience? Why would you decide solely on price that something is or is not worth your attention? It's going to pay for itself in its own necessity anyway. No matter what purchase you make, you will NEVER regret it.


Also, why not just use AIFF or something instead of FLAC? The conversion should be simple, and everything will still support it. I say this because then you don't have to find a plugin for iTunes, but you'll still have it in a small, lossless format.

wow...my one little comment started this whole thing? I was just saying that I was considering buying a macbook pro because a have the money to spend, i love the way it looks and i love the OS. I don't plan to run several memory consuming applications on it all at once...unless that's something common in web design (i hope not), so I should be fine.

Though I will look into that vaio.

Originally Posted by Jason

Apple provides a native IDE called XCode that supports plenty of coding languages and is free (unlike Visual Studio). I used it to get me through my computer science courses. It's a hell of a better tool than Dev-C++... as for coding specifically for .NET, I'm not sure, but I do know that Microsoft is including .NET components in the next version of Office for Mac, so I'd have to assume they're developing those components somehow.

Unless they're planning on releasing a .NET IDE for Mac my point still stands (Not to mention there is a free version of Visual Studio and there are other freeware IDEs for .NET on PC). Granted for some that's not a huge deal, but there are jobs out there just for .net web developers.

And just for your point about OSx86 - I ran that for a couple months because I wanted to play around with a Mac and didn't want to buy one. It ran stable and there were no kernel panics. It really depends on your hardware, so long as you get something compatible, you're fine.

I don't hate Macs, I just don't see any logic in buying one. They cost more and provide less functionality.

Uh, I'm running an iMac. These things are cheap as hell ... why're you talking to me about LAPTOPS? Who uses a little notebook for serious work? I've got a 24" iMac in front of me with totally boosted specs.

Umm I'm pretty sure the op mentioned he wanted a new laptop, so that's probably why he's talking about them

Originally Posted by Jason

(Indie dev software on Windows is largely ♥♥♥♥ from people with no sense of user interface design; on my Hackintosh I learned that there was more high-quality Mac software from more indie developers worth supporting that helped me get more work done faster, and this was before I even CONSIDERED paying for a Mac. The ability to use this software to make new assets, or documents, is a huge contributing factor to the "value" of the computer)

I'm sorry you feel that way, Jason. I was jealous of the Mac album art widget, and searched for a Windows alternative. Guess what I found?
http://i45.photobucket.com/albums/f100/Frate/desky.png
I was amazed that it was both prettier by default, and a thousand times more configurable.

It works both ways, really. And since you took this subject up, how come there's so much trouble for me if I want to do something simple as playing FLAC without 250 mb RAM usage on OS X? Foobar eats like, five megs and still retains quality of audio (I heard the iTunes mp3 decoder isn't that good), and looks (with Columns UI)

Again, nothing that should impact it, as it goes both ways.

Originally Posted by Jason

Uh, I'm running an iMac. These things are cheap as hell ...

Nice joke.
http://store.apple.com/se/configure/...mco=NDE4NDI4MQ (16495 kr / 2316$)
https://www.inet.se/?p=6909446&a=dat...aetaggregat&d= (16 427 kr / 2306$) and better warranty. And on these parts, I barely did research on what's worth the price, I just exaggerated and took the more expensive counterparts on the things I were blind on (DVD burner etc)
This .357 magnum blows your iMac waterpistol to bits.
Oh, and sorry that I forgot a keyboard... let's pretend I had one.

Originally Posted by Jason

why're you talking to me about LAPTOPS? Who uses a little notebook for serious work?

Eh, the Vaio and the Sony have virtually the same resolution as your iMac (1920x1200 vs 1920x1080, unless we're talking about the 20" iMac where it's 1680x1050 vs 1920x1080). And he clearly was thinking about a laptop.

Originally Posted by Jason

I've got a 24" iMac in front of me with totally boosted specs.

"Totally boosted"? I'd consider it 'totally boosted' if you gave it 8 GB RAM, and that costs like what, 1000$?

Originally Posted by Jason

And if price is your only talking point:

No, it's a main point.

Originally Posted by Jason

And you know what? This iMac cost less than my previous PC (that I built myself), and it's more powerful.

Er
1. Your PC is old
2. You paid too much for your PC
3. You picked the wrong parts
4. Again, the Mac is newer
5. You picked top-of-the-range parts which don't have good performance/cost ratio
Pick one, several, or all above alternatives.
of course, even the iMac can outperform an old PC - but my i5 rig will cost about half as much as the lowest-range 24" iMac and yeah, you can guess which will allow me to work faster in ambidextrous subjects (I do more than web design, as does The Gentleman, most likely.)

Originally Posted by Jason

Design means a lot. I'm an engineer and designer.

That makes the two of us, although I wouldn't call myself one until I actually graduated.

Originally Posted by Jason

I realize the amount of work and effort put into the form factor of the iMac

Don't worry, I'll get an Apple keyboard. There's the form factor I need, because my monitor looks about as aesthetically nice, and if not, I'll buy a new one.

Originally Posted by Jason

and it's brilliant what they've done.

What did they do? Laptop on a stick?

Originally Posted by Jason

Their new MacBook Pros are also feats of design and engineering.

I'm still trying to figure out the amazing engineering here except for the aluminum case and multitouch pad.

Originally Posted by Jason

And I think that and the stellar operating system is worth my money. And even saying that, they're still comparable - you think $500 is a lot of money?

I didn't realize you were talking about the iMac, because there we are talking about a bigger difference in prices.

Originally Posted by Jason

I'm investing in a workspace I'll have for *years*, I am not shopping on a budget.

Unless you run baby applications, a 3.06 ghz dual core PC with 4 gb RAM for 3369$ won't last you 'years'. After a couple of years, it won't be used for actual things that require computing power. If you need computing power, I'd rather have an i7 rig with three times the RAM for about half the cost...

Originally Posted by Jason

But if someone's looking for a serious workstation that will last them for years

Performance of an iMac will last about... a couple of years, depending on how much you shell out on it. The 20" will be obsolete in like what, two years? Remember, Apple sold Powermac G5's even in 2006, and three years later, they are barely supported. Adobe's dropping support too. I wouldn't call that a serious workstation that will last for years...

Originally Posted by Jason

So price is really all irrelevant, since I'm using the computer to make money. I find the computer that lets me get the most ♥♥♥♥ done in the best way possible. And OS X is that, and the Mac's all-in-one package is that.

And why do you try to apply it to the thread creator? You're talking about what you like

Originally Posted by Jason

Imagine that you have two machines, both that print money. The cheaper machine prints the money slightly slower for, say, $1000 less (although this is arbitrary. The more expensive machine prints money twice as fast. You tell your friend to save money and buy the cheaper printer. Remember, although I'm talking about money printers, it's much more than specs that determine how "fast" a computer is - real productivity means something beyond stupid benchmarks.

'Stupid benchmarks'? How much longer would it take me render something in vray+3ds on an iMac compared to a quality i7 computer? Editing 30mpx photos in CS4? Twenty PSD's of site layouts? Music production with tons of VST's/AU's? Well, yeah, I'd definitely get time to cash in, get a cup of coffee, and move on to the next project two or three projects in the meantime.

Originally Posted by Jason

What I don't understand is: Why would you buy a less expensive money printer when you're going to use it to print money? It's basically what you do with computers. You use them to do your job, to do your schoolwork, to perform almost every facet of your life. You'd probably go into withdrawal without one. So why would you not buy the best one you can, the one that lets you maximize your experience? Why would you decide solely on price that something is or is not worth your attention? It's going to pay for itself in its own necessity anyway. No matter what purchase you make, you will NEVER regret it.

Prove that the iMac for 3369$ (with lower warranty, btw) makes more money than the i7 box for 2306$ for either of these things:
* Design/Architecture (CAD/CAM etc, you know the drill)
* Web Design
* Photography
* Design outside web design (logos etc)
* Music Production
* Rendering workhorse

And again, you're the one assuming I base it only on price. It's not lower quality lower price vs higher quality higher price, it's a lower price different brand vs b higher price which is a with a different name and OS. Comparing PC to Mac shouldn't really be done, it should be comparing brand vs brand. I just gave you Sony Vaio vs Apple Macbook, and Dell Notebook vs Apple Macbook. You started talking about iMacs, which is pretty much an unportable notebook.

And if you're complaining about the iMac not costing that much, be aware that I used Swedish prices on the i7 rig too... it'd be lower in the US, both of them.

Originally Posted by Jason

Also, why not just use AIFF or something instead of FLAC?
The conversion should be simple, and everything will still support it. I say this because then you don't have to find a plugin for iTunes, but you'll still have it in a small, lossless format.

Because then I'll have to spend like a couple of hours converting a thousand or so songs, slightly contradicting 'it just works'... meh, I'll just use a plugin.

Originally Posted by The Gentleman

wow...my one little comment started this whole thing? I was just saying that I was considering buying a macbook pro because a have the money to spend, i love the way it looks and i love the OS. I don't plan to run several memory consuming applications on it all at once...unless that's something common in web design (i hope not), so I should be fine.

Though I will look into that vaio.

I love the OS too, and I love its looks. I really wanted one, then I looked around and found an actual alternative that looks just as good.

Originally Posted by Fratey

I love the OS too, and I love its looks. I really wanted one, then I looked around and found an actual alternative that looks just as good.

Details, please, and in plain English for the layman. Also, is that your desktop in the picture you posted? It's pretty nice. How did you get it to look like that (I don't mean the wallpaper, I mean the taskbar)?

Also, I looked into that Vaio but it got sucky reviews...said it's meant more for entertainment than working.

I remember hearing that before Apple switched to Intel from PowerPC, a Mac with lower specs on paper than a PC still performed better because the OS was optimized for the hardware. Is this no longer true, since both platforms now use Intel (most of the time)?

Originally Posted by The Gentleman

Details, please, and in plain English for the layman.

I like OS X, and I really considered getting a Mac. I didn't, though, because I felt I could get better quality and better warranty for a lower price.

Originally Posted by The Gentleman

Also, is that your desktop in the picture you posted?

Yes

Originally Posted by The Gentleman

It's pretty nice. How did you get it to look like that (I don't mean the wallpaper, I mean the taskbar)?

Oh, it's a simple theme patch, then you can download themes.

Originally Posted by The Gentleman

Also, I looked into that Vaio but it got sucky reviews...said it's meant more for entertainment than working.

I personally think it would be a great workhorse under the condition that you swap the OS - most people don't like Vista that much, that could probably be it. Windows 7 is around the corner, so...
I'm fine with Vista, it's not optimal for me, but...

Originally Posted by The Gentleman

I remember hearing that before Apple switched to Intel from PowerPC, a Mac with lower specs on paper than a PC still performed better because the OS was optimized for the hardware. Is this no longer true, since both platforms now use Intel (most of the time)?

1. A powerPC performed better clock for clock better vs an Intel processor, definitely - and it wasn't due to the OS, it was due to the processor generally performing better. Against an AMD processor (at that time), things got a bit worse.
2. It's no longer true, really, as powerPC isn't used, and programs running powerPC code might run slow on a Mac.
3. Right now, it's the opposite situation, really, with the i5 (an Intel processor) around the corner - it performs better at lower clock speeds, which is why I'm getting one.

Ok, but what was the alternative OS that was better? Surely not vista? Vista sucks.

Originally Posted by The Gentleman

Ok, but what was the alternative OS that was better? Surely not vista? Vista sucks.

While that's a matter of opinion, you can always try Linux. :3

Originally Posted by The Gentleman

Ok, but what was the alternative OS that was better? Surely not vista? Vista sucks.

That is indeed a matter of opinion. You can argue all you want for any operating system out there, but what it really comes down to is what your personal opinion is. If you don't like Vista, then you can wait for 7 or get OSX.

Originally Posted by The Gentleman

Ok, but what was the alternative OS that was better? Surely not vista? Vista sucks.

Vista is, while not that good, definitely underrated - most of the reason why people hate it is because they ran it on "vista compatible" hardware which was actually ♥♥♥♥. The alternatives for the average user would be XP or Win7.

Vista's problems run much deeper. The bottom line is that Vista offers nothing more than a shiny interface. It was a solution in search of a problem. It was Microsoft's method of pleasing Hollywood with extra layers of DRM.

Originally Posted by TheBuzzSaw

Vista's problems run much deeper. The bottom line is that Vista offers nothing more than a shiny interface. It was a solution in search of a problem. It was Microsoft's method of pleasing Hollywood with extra layers of DRM.

BS you just hopped on the Vista hating bandwagon. I haven't encountered any problems with it other than an old gravis controller not working on it (and since gravis is no longer around, there haven't been driver updates)

Originally Posted by MLNick

BS you just hopped on the Vista hating bandwagon. I haven't encountered any problems with it other than an old gravis controller not working on it (and since gravis is no longer around, there haven't been driver updates)

Enlighten me. How did Vista improve your life beyond what XP was capable of? What did you need fixed in XP? Why does Vista require a full gig of RAM to be useful at all? Why can I not turn off any the memory sucking programs? Also, why is the best thing about it "I haven't encountered problems"? That says nothing about its quality. What did it give you that was new?

My wife had Vista here for a while. We gave it a fair shot. It started freezing and crashing randomly while running Photoshop (on top of just performing poorly all the time). We dumped it and installed XP. We haven't had a problem since. Typically, in the software universe, the later version is supposed to superior. Curious, that in Microsoft's case, that is simply not the case.

I did not jump onto Vista-hating bandwagon. In fact, I probably helped create it. I researched Vista long before it ever came out. I actually had high hopes for it (WinFS, thorough 64-bit support, better interface, better install methods, etc.), but it tripped on everything.

It was rushed out the door. It implemented features strictly to satisfy Hollywood. That is fact, not bandwagon hate. Sorry, but I want my OS to obey me, not some guys in an office in another land.

Also, care to explain why so many businesses skipped the upgrade opportunities with Vista? It is common practice today to purchase a computer, wipe Vista off, and throw XP onto it.

Originally Posted by TheBuzzSaw

Enlighten me. How did Vista improve your life beyond what XP was capable of? What did you need fixed in XP? Why does Vista require a full gig of RAM to be useful at all? Why can I not turn off any the memory sucking programs? Also, why is the best thing about it "I haven't encountered problems"? That says nothing about its quality. What did it give you that was new?

So your argument is "It isn't better than XP"? Hardly makes it crap. Sure, I don't like Vista, and I wouldn't ever use it, but it's not horrible anymore since SP1.

Originally Posted by TheBuzzSaw

My wife had Vista here for a while. We gave it a fair shot. It started freezing and crashing randomly while running Photoshop (on top of just performing poorly all the time). We dumped it and installed XP. We haven't had a problem since. Typically, in the software universe, the later version is supposed to superior. Curious, that in Microsoft's case, that is simply not the case.

Anecdotal evidence is not evidence

Since when hasn't Microsoft rushed out development on an OS? I remember when XP came out and everyone *****ed about it then, now its the top OS out there. Since Service Pack 1 most of Vistas problems have been fixed.

Originally Posted by fratey

So your argument is "It isn't better than XP"? Hardly makes it crap. Sure, I don't like Vista, and I wouldn't ever use it, but it's not horrible anymore since SP1.

That's all you gathered from my post? Was I dreaming when I typed the rest?

Originally Posted by fratey

Anecdotal evidence is not evidence

And whenever I post statistical evidence from the world, someone criticizes me for supposedly having never used it myself. I just can't win. I was simply pointing out that I have firsthand experience. I don't sit at home and just read stuff on the Internet.

Originally Posted by Dark Wyrm

Since when hasn't Microsoft rushed out development on an OS? I remember when XP came out and everyone *****ed about it then, now its the top OS out there. Since Service Pack 1 most of Vistas problems have been fixed.

Microsoft debated making Service Pack 2 into its own Windows release because it was that good. The decision ended up being that it would stay a mere SP release. Based on that, I would not even consider the first XP the same as the XP we all know and love.

Originally Posted by TheBuzzSaw

That's all you gathered from my post? Was I dreaming when I typed the rest?

And whenever I post statistical evidence from the world, someone criticizes me for supposedly having never used it myself. I just can't win. I was simply pointing out that I have firsthand experience. I don't sit at home and just read stuff on the Internet.

Microsoft debated making Service Pack 2 into its own Windows release because it was that good. The decision ended up being that it would stay a mere SP release. Based on that, I would not even consider the first XP the same as the XP we all know and love.

I have experience with vista too, and its not as bad as it is really made out to be. I knew when it came out that it wouldn't be worth a damn until the first service pack came out, at least. A friend of mine had huge problems on a relatively powerful machine running the 64 bit Ultimate edition, we just ended up taking it off and we put it back on after the service pack came out and haven't had a problem since.

I think that the lesson here is that an early adopter of any Microsoft OS is going to get screwed over, maybe Windows 7 is the exception. I really hope to god that it is.