Mac vs Windows

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(CornBoy @ Sep 21 2007, 11:10 PM) [snapback]516066[/snapback]</div>

Why not just use sleep?

That only takes a few seconds.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(smithBYU @ Sep 21 2007, 08:36 PM) [snapback]516059[/snapback]</div>

On a computer it's not just the power consumption, but the environmental record of the company. Just like when some people buy a car (like a Prius) they are concerned with this whereas some people are more concerned with zero to sixty. But I think more and more people I think are becoming aware of what goes into the products they buy, what comes out of the factory when it's made, and where it ends up when its useful life is gone. I'm not saying this is important to everyone though.

As for my PC - I have about 50 processes running at startup so it takes about 3 - 4 minutes from "off" to being ready to use (I have Windows XP Pro). I've run programs probably similar to CCLEANER and SYSTERNALS (Norton One Button Checkup and Ashampoo WinOptimizer) but they don't seem to help much. In my experience you kind of have to know what you're doing - which I admittedly don't - in order to turn off some of the extra processes that are running. I haven't found any program that is much help here and using Google is a slow and painful process that often yields undesirable results, at least for me.

I've contemplated at some point doing an entire OS reinstall but that would take a lot more time and effort than sitting patiently through a few minutes of startup. Besides, I only shutdown/restart about 1X per week and use "standby" or "hibernate" otherwise.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(TimBikes @ Sep 22 2007, 12:46 AM) [snapback]516098[/snapback]</div>

Good point, I've never really considered that, thanks.


<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(TimBikes @ Sep 22 2007, 12:46 AM) [snapback]516098[/snapback]</div>

Yes, using Google is a slow way to learn what's running, but it's worth it. When I find tasks that I don't recognize, I search the process name. Take dwm.exe for example. I didn't know it's the engine for Windows Aero until I looked it up, that explains its RAM usage and CPU time. When I do a search, I look for results from processlibrary.com, they seem to be the best. In the words of my programming teacher this semester, "get to know your computer, know every process running on it." If you understand what those processes are, you can keep it clean and running smoothly. After cleaning several caches with CCLeaner, my laptop boots and logs-in VERY quickly, as if it were new.

Sometimes it is very helpful to reformat your harddrive and start new with the OS, but that's a drastic step in most cases. If you do, be SURE that you create a disc of the drivers currently loaded, that's in a backup tool in XP, somewhere in the system tools folder under accessories in the start menu.

I'm by no means a Windows expert, but I know enough to stay out of trouble and keep a Windows machine running. I have worked for about a year at a large company's help desk, so I've seen quite a few things and I've learned a lot.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(apriusfan @ Sep 21 2007, 10:12 PM) [snapback]516067[/snapback]</div>

Every watch your task manager when your PC is loading all startup items? I did, it was a SpySweeper process holding it all up by clocking the processor. Also, the SpySweeper splash screen kinda gives an indicaton of how long it's starting all of it's processes. Every watch your CPU performance when a scan is running from SpySweeper? It will clock your CPU and keep you from even browsing the internet. If I recall correctly, SpySweeper normally has 5-10 processes loaded on a normal basis too, more CPU time and more RAM. I hated it and didn't load it on my new laptop (the one I'm using now). To me, it wasn't worth it. I have other tools to protect me outside of protecting myself by being careful.

I'm sure Norton IS is a hog too, but I've never used it so I can't saying anything about it.

 

I thought I would point out, as a experiment, on my SONY VAIO Laptop, with Vista Home Premium, I am no longer running any security, and not one problem with it. Which means that something is up here... I thought that all PC's had to have security.

Anyway, just thought I would add that.

Still loving my Mac's, all of them.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(TJandGENESIS @ Sep 22 2007, 04:15 AM) [snapback]516127[/snapback]</div>

Vista has a built in firewall and spyware checker (Defender), no? I personally don't use any third party security software except the free version of avast. And of course I have a NAT router which helps too.

And over the years I found http://www.sysinfo.org/startuplist.php to be an invaluable resource in helping me free up resources by identifying what should start with windows and what shouldn't. Then it's just a matter of running msconfig.....to turn off the resource wasters.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Fibb222 @ Sep 22 2007, 09:39 AM) [snapback]516159[/snapback]</div>

Back when I got the beta version in June 2006, the upgrade to release canidate in Sept, all the way through the actual public available this year, I didn't have anti-virus software... since it wasn't available yet. Defender handled everything surprisingly well in the meantime. I was pleasantly delighted.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(smithBYU @ Sep 22 2007, 01:20 AM) [snapback]516105[/snapback]</div>

I am well-acquainted with Task Manager. Whenever I get annoyed at the slow response of my VAIO, I check out Task Manager and invariably the processes that are sucking up memory or CPU are the Norton ones. You are right that SpySweeper will suck resources when it is doing a scan. I manage the SpySweeper scans by doing a scan before I shut down the system. I know that a SpySweeper scan on the notebook takes about 20 minutes, so the last 20 minutes of use get allocated for SpySweeper. I don't have that option with Norton IS. There are so many processes that Norton does as background tasks (without telling you what it is doing); each of which vacuums memory/CPU resources.

I guess what I like most about the Mac environment is that you are not compelled to be on some manufacturer-dictated upgrade path. There are a bunch of other reasons to go down the Mac path (many of which have been touched on previously in this thread); I guess I am just getting tired of having my pocket picked by the thieves in Redmond every three years.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(barbaram @ Sep 22 2007, 01:23 AM) [snapback]516087[/snapback]</div>

Parallels lets you run windows and windows apps on your mac. It's only needed if you need to run windows apps. Of ocurse, you are running windows, so it will bring all of the windows headaches over to your mac. (But they will be contained within the parallels environment)

DarWINE is another soliution that will allow you to run many windows apps on the mac... WITHOUT WINDOWS!

I use parallels a lot for running specialty industry-specific software, so let me know if you have any other questions.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(TimBikes @ Sep 22 2007, 01:46 AM) [snapback]516098[/snapback]</div>

Lets not forget here that the poster of the original statement later retracted it. Apple did poorly on the Green Peace survey because they had not made public their internal policies. Since then Apple has given visibility into its internal time lines and programs and shown it is on par or better than most PC manufacturers. For several years Apple has been reducing the amount of packaging materials used for its products. They also do very well on power consumption as a general rule, as many of their non-laptop machines are based on laptop hardware (mini, imac) which as a general rule use much less power. They are on track to reduce and eliminate harmful materials from their products. Obviously they're not perfect, but I don't see them deserving being singled out for criticism either.

Rob

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Rob Smith @ Sep 22 2007, 02:49 PM) [snapback]516263[/snapback]</div>

They were single out because Apple gets disproportionately higher media attention than other PC and electronics manufacturers. I doubt Greenpeace attacking Alienware would have had the same results.

 

My wife has become a GNU-linux ubuntu fangurl
You could not pry my daughter's Mac away from here-- unless it is in exchage for a newer Mac
After 15 years I am hardwired to Macs, but like linux (and provide the tech support in the house for it).
My son loves the Mac, but loves video games even more. He would sell his Mac AND soul for an X-box or PS3.

Barbara, tell us what you use the computer for, what you like and dislike about it, and perhaps we can tailor our experiences for you.

Comment regarding environmentalism: I shudder when i read about 600 watt power supplies. I want to be carbon neutral, and try to spec my computer to around 20 watts running, a tad above 0 sleeping. Mac notebooks do fine in this regard.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(apriusfan @ Sep 21 2007, 06:24 PM) [snapback]515823[/snapback]</div>

That's amazing. I saw a VAIO with Vista (which is supposed to boot slower) last night, and it booted in less than a minute.


<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(skruse @ Sep 22 2007, 02:01 AM) [snapback]515988[/snapback]</div>

From my personal experience, this is not different on a PC. Why would it?

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(skruse @ Sep 22 2007, 02:01 AM) [snapback]515988[/snapback]</div>

At some point, you can expect someone to throw in that kind of statements. I am particularly interested why you claim that *Intel* imitates Mac.


<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Rob Smith @ Sep 22 2007, 02:24 AM) [snapback]515995[/snapback]</div>

They are certainly versatile and powerful, but the market for specialised hardware and software for PC's is much bigger than for Macs. If you don't need that, than this doesn't make any difference of course. But, if you need it, then Mac's are unfortunately often not even an option.


<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(CornBoy @ Sep 22 2007, 06:10 AM) [snapback]516066[/snapback]</div>

I think that sums it up pretty well. That is also my point of view. Strange enough, the vast majority of the market still has the other reflex.


<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(TJandGENESIS @ Sep 22 2007, 01:15 PM) [snapback]516127[/snapback]</div>

There is a deep shift in user privilege strategy between XP and Vista. Under XP, most non-professional users would always use an administrator login for daily use, because that is the easiest. As a consequence, any piece of software that they (un)intentionally download can run with full admin rights. From a security perspective, this is a nightmare. Under Vista, the normal login does not have admin rights, and you are prompted for an admin password each time you want to change something on the system (not unlike the "su" command in Unix). Under that model, it is much harder for malware to infiltrate the system, even in the absence of antivirus software. That, in combination with a firewall, should be sufficient.
The irony is that a good sysadmin used that setup already for many years on XP (or 2000) machines. Therefore, most PC's in a professional environment are configured much more secure than consumer ones.

Anyway, I predict that the importance of traditional viruses will decrease in the coming years. Part of the reason is the increased security of most PC's. But the main reason is that the attention of hackers will shift to other, very lucrative activities that are web-based, such as phishing. The problem is that the Internet itself and WWW is so horribly insecure. And, ironically, Mac's and PC's are equally vulnerable to this.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(vtie @ Sep 24 2007, 01:07 AM) [snapback]516784[/snapback]</div>

OP had a T series with XP Pro, which means an older model with a low areal density, 4500rpm 1.8" hard drive. Those systems are dogs (I have one that I still use when traveling for pleasure), and it's the slow hard drive that makes them a dog. You can see how slow the hard drive is when the system hibernates. Love the light weight though, it's about half the weight of my Lenovo T61, which itself is considered to be "thin and light" compared to a desktop replacement.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(priusenvy @ Sep 24 2007, 01:43 AM) [snapback]516785[/snapback]</div>

I think the problem is more focused on the mix of software that is on the system as well. Try checking the boot time with Norton IS (I think the Vista compatible product is Norton 360). Response will rival molasses flow on a cold winter day....

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(vtie @ Sep 24 2007, 03:07 AM) [snapback]516784[/snapback]</div>

Now that all Macs are Intel based they are 100% capable of running anything*. Under BootCamp an Intel mac IS a PC.

BootCamp is only required because Windows is not yet EFI (Extensible Firmware Interface) compatible - (except for a few 64bit and/or server versions).

And except for 3D accelerated games and a few esoteric USB devices, you can virtually anything under emulation at 90%+ speeds under OS X.



* If you need a hardware parallel port or PS2 port for some wacky (and OLD) peripherial, the intel Macs don't have these ports. But 99% of PCs don't either! And that 1% is soon to be extinct too.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(n8kwx @ 2007 09 24 16:16) [snapback]517121[/snapback]</div>

How long until the general business community figures this out and stops buying PCs?

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(n8kwx @ Sep 25 2007, 01:16 AM) [snapback]517121[/snapback]</div>

I was wrong and you are right. What I should have said is "the market for specialised hardware and software for MS Windows is much bigger than for OSX".
For several applications, I use a number of exotic PCI cards and USB devices, such as high-end software defined receivers and ultra fast AD/DA convertors. My personal experience is that the availability and community support for such things is much broader on Windows than on Macs. But of course, 99% of the market doesn't need those things.

The concept of a Mac as a "better PC" is very interesting. Their prices are currently very sharp, their design simply unbeatable and their products are of high quality. I can only hope that this will stir up the very lame PC market.

Just one week ago, I dismantled a 23" Cinema display for an embedded application (the screen had to be as flat as possible, and that was the flattest). I was very pleasantly surprised by the interior built quality.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(hyo silver @ Sep 25 2007, 01:27 AM) [snapback]517132[/snapback]</div>

I think that, before this will happen, Apple itself needs to make it more clear what direction they are heading towards. Do they intend to offer active support for MS Windows on their machines (e.g. towards upgrades etc...). Do they (or will they) offer e.g. Vista-certified hardware? Is their support for MS Windows really a long-term engagement? These (and other) are questions that most businesses want to address before they start switching to Macs to run Windows.

My personal impression is that Apple hasn't decided on this itself. Right now, they have a commercial dilemma. They have been claiming for a very long time that MS Windows is garbage, and OSX is so much better. So, it would mean quite a U-turn if they now actively start to promote running Windows on their hardware. From a marketing perspective, it is not easy to keep saying that Windows is garbage, while a complete branch of your company is engaged in convincing people to run it on your hardware.

On the other hand of course, there is a huge market of >90% of the PC users that are all potential buyers of Apple hardware, without the need of convincing them to learn a new OS. If they would offer an "Apple PC", with Apple design and quality, with Vista preloaded and properly preconfigured, and some Apple software added on top to make things more user friendly (maybe some kind of skin), boy those boxes would sell like cakes if they made the right publicity about that.
The only problem is that it will be hard to harmonize such a product with their current image.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(vtie @ Sep 25 2007, 03:13 AM) [snapback]517318[/snapback]</div>

Apple has done this sort of marketing 180 before... :lol:

We all remember three years ago, Apple was touting their G4-powered Macs as the "fastest computers in the world," running ads with benchmarketing numbers claiming it's much faster than Windows PCs with Intel chips (we all remember the Apple ads mocking the Intel "bunny-suit people"). Of course, two years later they did a 180 and started using Intel CPUs.

Those days were the lowest of the lows, when Apple barely had 4% of market share. These days with the Intel Macs, they are flying high, increasing their market share up to 10% and climbing.

Apple is comfortable with where they are I think. They have already relented to the Mac users who wanted to run Windows by releasing Bootcamp with official windows drivers (originally Apple was adamnant not to even allow this, prompting that $10,000 on-line contest for someone to develop a hack to run Windows on the intel mac). With their market share improving under their middle-of-the-road "we'll provide you with the means to run Windows even though we don't officially support it" policy, they probably see it as a good balance for now.

If they get greedy and want to rapidly increase their market share even more (which at this point they don't need to-- Just look at their stock prices), they can indeed easily resort to selling their Intel Macs with Windows pre-bundled.