• TalkBass has been independent since 1998. Add your voice.
    Create a free account to reply to discussions, view embedded media, and browse with fewer display ads.
    Join free Log in
    Want zero display ads or expanded classifieds tools? Compare plans.

Why does apple have to be so arrogant?

#102
Wow. All I have to do is mention mac and windows in the same post, and the next day I've just started a 6-page thread. I should start taking notes. Seriously though, how did it get into a discussion about which OS is better?

I know Macs are easier to use. I know Windows is really buggy. And I know Linux... starts with "L".

I just like Windows because I can customize it the way I want. Technically I won't ever have to get a new PC. As long as I upgrade the parts seperately I'll never have to spend all that money at one time, where as on a mac once a new one comes out you basically have a paper weight. But if you don't know how to upgrade things on your PC, a Mac would probably be a lot better. And why do so many people think that PC users have to go out and buy new parts every month or something? I can use the same graphics card for a year and still be fine. Unless I want to play Half-Life 2 on full specs. Its not like I'm always having to update it.

Damnit there I go. I think People love arguing about this stuff way to much...
 
#105
duo8675309 said:
They just blatantly said how vista required too much for most PC's.
Click to expand...

I hate to say it, we have had Vista installed for a few months on a few machines here at work and you DO need more memory, faster disk, faster CPU :hmm:

The business pages of the Boston Globe wrote that for every $1.00 spent on the OS itself, the average Vista buyer will spend almost $10.00 upgrading hardware and $4.00 upgrading other software.

The MSP I saw for Vista was close to $200, that means $2000 on hardware (i.e. a new machine!) and $800 upgrading other software!!!??? I sure hope that's a very pessimistic estimate :help:
 
#106
Poop-Loops said:
Linux is definately the wave of the future. Once more games become viable on Linux (because by that time hardware will be a non-issue), I'm switching over permanently. Screw Vista. Last version I tried was I think Red Hat, and the interface wasn't much different than Windows. It was pretty good in general, just that it didn't have much support for games. That will change eventually, though.
Click to expand...

I don't see alot of companies releasing games for linux. It could happen, but think about how much money MS would lose if it lost the gaming niche? As it stands right now, if you're a PC gamer you pretty much have to use a windows based PC, because so few games are released for any other platform (not talking about consoles here, obviously). I think MS has the money and clout to keep it that way.

That said, if more games were published for linux or at least released a linux client like NWN, I would probably make the switch. I liked Ubuntu when I was dual-booting. It was a perfectly decent OS. And, while I don't mind paying for the products I use, I like the innovation of the open-source community.

But I'd say I'm gonna be sticking with Windows until I decide to stop gaming. I just don't see there being a plethora of games released for linux.
 
#109
Poop-Loops said:
That's bound to change in the future, seeing as how a lot of "hardcore" gamers are also Linux users, so they'll want to appeal to them.

Hopefully.
Click to expand...

Yeah, that's true, there's alot of overlap of linux users and hardcore gamers. I think the biggest problem would be the publishers. There are probably alot of developers out there that would be willing to try a working with Linux, but the publishers are going to want to go with an "established" platform. That's where the money's at. It would be nice though. I give alot of credit to the people who do release linux clients for their games, such as Blizzard. It's a nice touch and it shows that they're listening to their fanbase.
 
#110
brianrost said:
The MSP I saw for Vista was close to $200, that means $2000 on hardware (i.e. a new machine!) and $800 upgrading other software!!!??? I sure hope that's a very pessimistic estimate :help:
Click to expand...

Is the Boston Globe on Apple's payroll, or what? I've never spent $800 on software in any 3 given years, and I've never, ever, paid more than $400 at once to upgrade a machine, and I've done some pretty serious upgrades. Those figures are patently ridiculous. And yes, I'm running a Vista-ready machine. It eagerly awaits the arrival of its new OS.

Sounds like either bad research or marketing hype. You don't have to pay $2000 for a brand new machine capable of running Vista, never mind upgrades. Maybe they meant over the life of the OS?

As far as OP, Apple is arrogant because their bottom line shows that an arrogant approach to marketing is working. That's the only real reason I can think of.
 
#111
WalterBush said:
Is the Boston Globe on Apple's payroll, or what?
Click to expand...
I'd say yes.

I'm dual booting Windows XP Pro SP1, and Vista. Other than the video card driver not compatible (ATI is working on a driver upgrade (which of course is free for download)... Actually, maybe it's out, I haven't checked in a few weeks). Both OS's are on different hard drives (identical drives). My system runs, as far as I can tell, exactly the same with either OS running. My sound card, Ethernet card, etc. worked just fine without any tweaking at all.

Talking of upgrades that extensive and expensive is just ridiculous. :rollno:
 
#115
Eric618 said:
I'd say yes.

I'm dual booting Windows XP Pro SP1, and Vista. Other than the video card driver not compatible (ATI is working on a driver upgrade (which of course is free for download)... Actually, maybe it's out, I haven't checked in a few weeks). Both OS's are on different hard drives (identical drives). My system runs, as far as I can tell, exactly the same with either OS running. My sound card, Ethernet card, etc. worked just fine without any tweaking at all.

Talking of upgrades that extensive and expensive is just ridiculous. :rollno:
Click to expand...

Consider yourself fortunate, I guess.

I recently installed Vista Business edition and I like it. It is very taxing on processing power and memory, and the sound card drivers provided by Creative cause quite a bit of slowdown. My machine is far from being top of the line, but it's not that bad either (Athlon 64 3400+, 2GB of RAM, nVidia GeForce 6800GT...)

For what it is worth, I like the aspects Microsoft integrated (read: stole) from Mac OS X. The implementation could have been a little better, especially with the User Account management that is really picky about what installs where, and sends what to the desktop. I can imagine a lot of confused individuals after the upgrade/fresh install. A lot of the Microsoft staples are gone, so rummaging through the HD got a little trickier.
 
#116
Marcus Alan said:
I recently installed Vista Business edition and I like it. It is very taxing on processing power and memory, and the sound card drivers provided by Creative cause quite a bit of slowdown. My machine is far from being top of the line, but it's not that bad either (Athlon 64 3400+, 2GB of RAM, nVidia GeForce 6800GT...)
Click to expand...
On those system specs, I'd *think* it should run fine. Are there any conflicts that could be causing the problems?

Marcus Alan said:
...The implementation could have been a little better, especially with the User Account management that is really picky about what installs where, and sends what to the desktop. I can imagine a lot of confused individuals after the upgrade/fresh install. A lot of the Microsoft staples are gone, so rummaging through the HD got a little trickier.
Click to expand...
I do agree with all of this, however. :hmm:
 

Latest posts

Top Bottom
Back