Want to confirm which laptop notebook is better

[iwan66]

I can only reccomend to buy a refurbished (cos cheaper and same warranty) mac book pro - better than anything. Had myself asus, toshiba, acer and dell.

(or macbook if budget is tight).

Macbooks are much more time efficient and use the memory much better. Also tons of very good free apps for mac.

Deskopwise imac is cool but limited to 2Gig memory so eather a quadcore mac pro or a quad core intel (1/2 of a cost)....

Vista is not really good btw. : lot of problems with compatibility...

[giorgio]

Also, on this new Dual Processor (Intel) the machine boots up in 22 seconds. Yes, you read that right, 22 SECONDS! Start your Dell up (any pc with Windows XX), grab a beer, talk to the wife and maybe when you finish doing all of that your Dell, et al, MIGHT be fully booted.

The biggest problem with PC's boot time isn't Windows, but rather the bloatware they come shipped with. Try formatting a PC and installing only the OS. A lot of appz load themselves in startup unnecessarily so you have to figure out what they are and disable them (obviously not user friendly). I'll admit that even my PC doesn't boot in 22 seconds, but it's not 2 minutes either.

I can only reccomend to buy a refurbished (cos cheaper and same warranty) mac book pro - better than anything. Had myself asus, toshiba, acer and dell.

(or macbook if budget is tight).

Macbooks are much more time efficient and use the memory much better. Also tons of very good free apps for mac.

Deskopwise imac is cool but limited to 2Gig memory so eather a quadcore mac pro or a quad core intel (1/2 of a cost)....

Vista is not really good btw. : lot of problems with compatibility...

Although Vista does have its compatibility issues, it is actually an outstanding OS. The security features are great, as well as its memory utilization. The main problem is that it has evolved beyond the current hardware specs, so it will feel slow to anyone who has gotten used to running XP on anything over 2ghz - especially with multiple cores.

I always suggest to friends that they buy refurbished PC's because they can get a lot more system for less money, but only because components are very cheap, so if something fails it can quickly and easily be replaced (like lego). Laptops on the other hand scare me. Much more costly to fix, and not user serviceable. One has to keep in mind that refurbished means something failed out of the box. Manufacturers sometimes cheat and correct these issues by disabling features and lowering timings and operating specs.

[Pugwash]

Although Vista does have its compatibility issues, it is actually an outstanding OS. The security features are great, [...]

Woah. Hold it right there.

The security features are obtrusive and don't actually add any security. All they do is pop up and annoy you to make you think they're doing something.

There is no separation of userland and system space, so if you install some applications as the user, it'll install them without enough permission to be useful. You need to uninstall them and re-run the installer as Admin.

Secondly, the so-called security dialogues are merely warnings as opposed to a security feature. You run an installer, it'll ask you whether or not you want to install it, but it'll not actually verify your credentials (a simple yes/no dialogue is all that appears) and allow anyone at the keyboard to just click through to admin privs. You don't even need privilege escalation sploits.

Vista is no more secure than XP: it just pretends to be secure more often just so you think it's more secure.

Much like an Anti-virus that needs to pop up a warning every so often just to make you think it's earning its retail price, XP needs to offer a veneer of security to make you think it's better.

Oh, and the DRM 'features', even when not being used, use clock cycles to make sure you're not 'stealing' something. Even if you never intend to use your PC as a media centre, you can rest assured your PC isn't as fast as it could be simply because it's had DRM shoe-horned into the kernel. Twunts.

[Pugwash]

AND ANOTHER THING ...

Vista had three actually interesting features touted during development. WinFS, Monad (Windows Powershell) and the full DX10 GUI. None of those made it into the final version as advertised, although the GUI got feature-crippled and became Aero/Avalon, it didn't get anywhere near as good as it was in development.

WinFS and Monad got scrapped, with promises of eventually being released as a patch.

The three pillars of Vista (WinFS, Indigo and Avalon) were either scrapped or neutered to the point that when Vista was released, it was a slowed-down (due to constant DRM polling) XP with a GUI and nagware built-in. Even Dell, a usually compliant Windows reseller, eventually told Microsoft that they would need to offer XP as an opition. They switched 100% to Vista as their only install, but had to back down on this stance as the public voted against it with their wallets.

VISTA == TEH SUXX0RZ

[giorgio]

Preventing users without administrative authoritiy from installing software that requires administrative privilege (UAC) is a security feature. If you're browsing pr0n on the web and you get these prompts - you know something's up. It lowers risk factors. The prompts make you aware that something's happeening. This greatly reduces the chances of rogue appz (virus and trojans) from installing themselves on your system without permission.They may be obtrusive, but if you are the admin on your system and do everything correctly you shouldn't need to see them all the time - and won't.

The Phishing filters in IE work well (I tried resopnding to a "your Paypal account has been compromized" email, and was warned about the website when I clicked on it).

The big one is the Bitlocker volume encryption. This is what I was referring to as secure. It prevents people from modifying your data offline (i.e. using a boot disk to bypass the features made available by the operating system to access your data by encrypting the entire volume. It doesn't pretend to do this, it does.

I won't touch DRM because I am in agreement with you there.

[TwoTone]

I personally have found it best to disable MS's Security features...

I use F-Secure and have had no problems...

TT

[Pugwash]

The big one is the Bitlocker volume encryption. This is what I was referring to as secure. It prevents people from modifying your data offline (i.e. using a boot disk to bypass the features made available by the operating system to access your data by encrypting the entire volume. It doesn't pretend to do this, it does.

Yeah, I've had that on OSX for a few years.

http://www.apple.com/macosx/features/filevault/

[Everythingape]

Woah. Hold it right there.

The security features are obtrusive and don't actually add any security. All they do is pop up and annoy you to make you think they're doing something.

There is no separation of userland and system space, so if you install some applications as the user, it'll install them without enough permission to be useful. You need to uninstall them and re-run the installer as Admin.

I agree about the pop ups and the fading-the-screen-to-make-you-concentrate-on-THIS-message and it's importance.. It's annoying, but I suppose there are ways of turning all the confirmation prompts off..

As for the admin thing, I had some issues trying to play Battlefield 2, but found out it was as easy as right-clicking the game icon and choose "run as administrator" or using properties->compatibility and set it to always run as administrator. I see many people online chose to uninstall and re-install as admin.

..I don't know if you can do this to all programs though.

Anyway.. Even though I felt I knew XP very well, and it functioned good, I actually like Vista very much now, and will not go back to XP willingly.

PS: a LOT of the people whining about Win XP is really having trouble with Internet Explorer.. You know? Error messages, untimely shutdowns of the browser, having to install all kinds of crap.. The whole O/S takes the blame for a buggy browser..

To the people who come to me I always suggest downloading and using Opera. ..it takes 4 minutes to get used to, but most people never look back.

[Lyndonville]

It'll run it today.

http://www.vmware.com/products/fusion/

http://www.parallels.com/en/products/desktop/

http://www.apple.com/macosx/bootcamp/

Yes, but, not very fluidly.

[iwan66]

I had sofar only good experience with refurbished hardware. Mostly big companies (such apple) don't even repair the stuff, but just replace the whole mainboards,

or evene the whole device (it's cheaper for them, than to repair , timewise).

I am also working on both :pc and mac. I must say the next oppportunity will be to replace my desktop PC. The main reason ist that windows uses system.ini.

So at the beginning everything is cool, until to begin installing and deinstalling programms. The pc get's instable with time. Also it's really stupid that windos

doesn't use RAM above 4 GB, only if you are using NT or 64bit windows, which on the other hands are really nervwreking when it comes to finding the proper

drivers for certain haradware... I am not like "hardcore mac user" i think only that mac has more "clever" approach to user interface (expose f.e.).

And if you look at the weight and screen quality of a macbook pro (and features like keyboard light etc.) it's a fair price - a pc with similar features will cost

the same, but will not have the same quality feel to it...

but hey, i had also a 400 euro acer, it was working fine as well; )

[giorgio]

Also it's really stupid that windos doesn't use RAM above 4 GB, only if you are using NT or 64bit windows,

It's not a windows problem, it's an X86 issue.

32 bit bus. ₂³²=4 294 967 296

4 294 967 296 / (1024 x 1024 x 1024) = 4 GB

[Pugwash]

Yes, but, not very fluidly.

I have to disagree. I have 2GB RAM and assign 512MB to Windows XP. When I do that, I find that applications run at full-speed. Windows Media Player and IE sites run exactly as you'd hope, and the application windows integrate very well with my OSX windows. If you throw enough memory at it, over 1GB in your Mac, then you'll find it's as good as a slightly lesser PC. If you've got a decent graphics card in your Mac, you can play PC games.

[Pugwash]

It's not a windows problem, it's an X86 issue.

32 bit bus. ₂³²=4 294 967 296

4 294 967 296 / (1024 x 1024 x 1024) = 4 GB

Bzzzzt. The Pentium (from the Pentium Pro onwards) has a 36-bit memory bus. This is how Linux can address over 4GB on an i686 system.

Windows XP is hard-coded to 2GB of memory and uses pages to go over, but each application, can only uniquely access 2GB. Stupid, eh?

[giorgio]

Bzzzzt. The Pentium (from the Pentium Pro onwards) has a 36-bit memory bus. This is how Linux can address over 4GB on an i686 system.

Hmm, I forgot about the paging address extensions, so I stand corrected. But that means that you need an OS that supports PAE (such, as you pointed out, linux), and hardware that supports this also (not very many motherboards). But if you're motherboard supports more than 4 x 1GB ram, and you have more than 4 GB of ram, then you either already know this or have too much money.

[gioarmani]

Bleep bleep nyerp.

[slay]

Speaking about SLOW FEELING... Absolutely nothing feels slower than a Mac.

Sorry, but if it takes 2-3 seconds for a Firefox window to open on a BRAND NEW Mac, this is just SLOW. And Yes, I have enough RAM etc.

Windows XP has a MUCH MUCH MUCH faster feeling. I cant say about Vista, cause I havnt had it on MY iMac so far.

[giorgio]

Speaking about SLOW FEELING... Absolutely nothing feels slower than a Mac.

Sorry, but if it takes 2-3 seconds for a Firefox window to open on a BRAND NEW Mac, this is just SLOW. And Yes, I have enough RAM etc.

Windows XP has a MUCH MUCH MUCH faster feeling. I cant say about Vista, cause I havnt had it on MY iMac so far.

Funny thing, we did a little experiment in Psych about perception. I chose my area of (in)expertise, computers. We found that how long it took for the computer to complete a task had no bearing on the users' perception of speed. The determining factor, rather, was how long it took for something to happen. So if it takes 2 seconds for a window to fully load, but nothing happens in the interim, people perceive it as being slow. Whereas if after 0.75 seconds there is a splash screen that lasts for 0.75 seconds, and the window takes a full second after that to load fully, people reported that it "felt" faster than the first one. As long as it looked like the computer was doing something, people were less impatient.

[Pugwash]

Sorry, but if it takes 2-3 seconds for a Firefox window to open on a BRAND NEW Mac, this is just SLOW. And Yes, I have enough RAM etc.

So if it takes 2 seconds for a window to fully load, but nothing happens in the interim, people perceive it as being slow.

...and there's a way to get both of these working in your favour in Firefox. If you set nglayout.initialpaint.delay to 0, you'll get a faster-feeling Firefox. It starts rendering pages as soon as the HTML is available, much like IE on Windows.

There are a few other tweaks, but that'll do for a start. You can find the settings by typing about:config in the address bar.

[gioarmani]

...and there's a way to get both of these working in your favour in Firefox. If you set nglayout.initialpaint.delay to 0, you'll get a faster-feeling Firefox. It starts rendering pages as soon as the HTML is available, much like IE on Windows.

There are a few other tweaks, but that'll do for a start. You can find the settings by typing about:config in the address bar.

How is this performed? All I see is:

nglayout.events.dispatchLeftClickOnly and

nglayout.debug.enable_xbl_forms

[giorgio]

How is this performed? All I see is:

nglayout.events.dispatchLeftClickOnly and

nglayout.debug.enable_xbl_forms

Right click, new, integer.

nglayout.initialpaint.delay

set value to 0 (zero)

[gioarmani]

Rock on.

[slay]

...and there's a way to get both of these working in your favour in Firefox. If you set nglayout.initialpaint.delay to 0, you'll get a faster-feeling Firefox. It starts rendering pages as soon as the HTML is available, much like IE on Windows.

There are a few other tweaks, but that'll do for a start. You can find the settings by typing about:config in the address bar.

what I meant was more the program needs 2ish seconds to start, not the webpage

[gioarmani]

It's a sad statement for the virtues of patience in this day and age, in the midst of all the wonders of technology, that we can quibble over two seconds.

[Pugwash]

what I meant was more the program needs 2ish seconds to start, not the webpage

You close programs?

When a Mac is first installed, it's unfortunately very slow for the first few hours, which I think is bad planning. It's slow because it's pre-binding and running spotlight (the mdimport process) on the filesystem. The down side is people when they first get a Mac think it's slow and then it suddenly gets faster a few hours later for no apparent reason.

One advantage though, is once it's all stabilised, you can launch Firefox and just leave it running. Closing all the windows reduces it to a very, very low profile. Never quit applications unless they're MS Office or Photoshop.

[Lyndonville]

I have to disagree. I have 2GB RAM and assign 512MB to Windows XP. When I do that, I find that applications run at full-speed. Windows Media Player and IE sites run exactly as you'd hope, and the application windows integrate very well with my OSX windows. If you throw enough memory at it, over 1GB in your Mac, then you'll find it's as good as a slightly lesser PC. If you've got a decent graphics card in your Mac, you can play PC games.

Perhaps you're using a different program than I used. Mac offered "Parallels Desktop" and I tired it, but I was very unsatisfied with the results. Some programs loaded, while others would not. Also, the screen was small and difficult to navigate. I'll purchase the new OS simply because it "appears" as if it will load a Windows OS. I'll load 2000 with their 4th and final updates. The reason I'll use that OS is that it was about as crash proof as they get. I hope it works. I'm really not concerned over playing any games on this iMac, or, any Windows, other than Backgammon, so the gaming aspect of either one is moot on my side. Tim