Technology Review - Published By MIT
Log in to My.TechnologyReview.com | Register
Advertisement
« Back 1 2 [3]

Monday, January 01, 2007

Uninspiring Vista

Continued from page 2

By Erika Jonietz

smaller text tool iconmedium text tool iconlarger text tool icon

This may seem extraordinarily obvious; after all, Apple has built an entire advertising campaign around the concept. But I am obstinate, and I have loved Windows for a long time. Now, however, simplicity is increasingly important to me. I just want things to work, and with my Mac, they do. Though my Mac barely exceeds the processor and memory requirements for OS X Tiger, every bundled program runs perfectly. The five-year-old printer that doesn't work at all with Vista performs beautifully with OS X, not because the manufacturer bothered to write a new Mac driver for my aging standby, but because Apple included a third-party, open-source driver designed to support older printers in Tiger. Instead of facing the planned obsolescence of my printer, I can stick with it as long as I like.

And my deepest-seated reasons for preferring Windows PCs--more computing power for the money and greater software availability--have evaporated in the last year. Apple's decision to use the same Intel chips found in Windows machines has changed everything. Users can now run OS X and Windows on the same computer; with third-party software such as Parallels Desktop, you don't even need to reboot to switch back and forth. The chip swap also makes it possible to compare prices directly. I recently used the Apple and Dell websites to price comparable desktops and laptops; they were $100 apart or less in each case. The difference is that Apple doesn't offer any lower-end processors, so its cheapest computers cost quite a bit more than the least-expensive PCs. As Vista penetrates the market, however, the slower processors are likely to become obsolete--minimizing any cost differences between PCs and Macs.

I may need Windows for a long time to come; many electronic gadgets such as PDAs and MP3 players can only be synched with a computer running Windows, and some software is still not available for Macs. But the long-­predicted migration of software from the desktop to the Internet is finally happening. Organizations now routinely access crucial programs from commercial Web servers, and consumers use Google's services to compose, edit, and store their e-mail, calendars, and even documents and spreadsheets (see "Homo Conexus," July/August 2006). As this shift accelerates, finding software that works with a particular operating system will be less of a concern. People will be able to base decisions about which OS to use strictly on merit, and on personal preference. For me, if the choice is between struggling to configure every feature and being able to boot up and get to work, at long last I choose the Mac.

Erika Jonietz is a Technology Review senior ­editor.

WINDOWS VISTA operating system
$99.95-$399.00
www.microsoft.com/windowsvista

« Back 1 2 [3]
January/February 2007

Would you like to read more articles from the January/February 2007 issue?

This article is from the January/February 2007 Issue of Technology Review. To read other articles from this issue simply register for My.TechnologyReview.com. It's free.

Subscribe today and save up to 41% »

Comments

  • Apples ARE expensive!!!
    McMillan968 on 01/08/2007 at 8:42 PM
    Posts:
    38
    Avg Rating:
    2/5
    The author makes the example that because of VISTA that the lower priced PCs are  goin to become extinct!!Just because VISTA is so power hungry.
    How crazy to think EVERYONE is going to run VISTA!!
    There are OTHER OS!! Nevermind that people are cheap it will be at least 5 years before most people have VISTA or whatever is next.By then who knows where computers are goin to be at "DUAL QUAD 512 bit?? Aren't we getting close now to having the max power that will be required to do whatever the home user needs to do.
    I dont think the usefullness for medium powered machines is in jepardy anytime in the near future.
    Rate this comment: 12345
    • Apples, expensive?
      markroder on 01/17/2007 at 10:56 AM
      Posts:
      1
      Apples, expensive?

      http://www.linuxinsider.com/story/36120.html

      http://home.xnet.com/~cmaddox/mac/Of_Course_Macs_Are_More_Expensive_Arent_They.pdf

      http://www.roughlydrafted.com/RD/Home/660E746C-F388-4AC7-98F5-6CB951501472.html


      ..................
      mark
      Rate this comment: 12345
    • Re: Apples ARE expensive!!!
      kraylus on 01/17/2007 at 6:47 PM
      Posts:
      4
      Avg Rating:
      5/5
      apple WILL gain more market share because of vista. dell is going to lose a lot of money on their famous budget boxen, as they'll no longer be able to sell 500 dollar computers that run windows vista. apple will have much more cost effective solutions because of this, and we WILL see more people switching in the months to follow.
      Rate this comment: 12345
      • Re: Apples ARE expensive!!!
        timo on 01/17/2007 at 7:32 PM
        Posts:
        1
        Back to the topic header, and just adding on...Apples really aren't all that expensive.  They are more affordable then ever.  If you get a DELL XPS (the higher end one) it is the equivalent in price to the Mac Pro; which is Apple's finest model, furthermore, look at the DELL XPS, which is comprable to the MacBook Pro; the funny thing is, Apple is totally on the same priceline now, and if you think it is too much, look at APPLE CERTIFIED REFURBISHED computers.  They are the same as new, and any bad parts are replaced, and they come with the same 1 year warranty, at a FRACTION of the cost.  So in the end Apples are very close in price to many Windows computers, and offer better performance + by the way they can be two computers in one (Boot Camp or Parallel Desktop) and the windows runs JUST as SMOOTH with NO flaws.  I am talking from experience here, so thats all.
        Rate this comment: 12345
        • Re: Apples ARE expensive!!!
          ppgreat on 01/17/2007 at 7:42 PM
          Posts:
          2
          Avg Rating:
          5/5
          Feature for feature, Apples are extremely competitive.

          And if you don't think people are believing that, just check out their quarterly report and look at the record setting percentage of Macs year over year (not iPods, which were 50%) that were sold last quarter.

          Talk to someone who works at Google. What is the machine that people are requesting more than ever? Macs.

          Walk into an Apple Store, eavesdrop on a salesperson, and notice how many people are considering becoming first-time switchers.

          This is a trend that ain't going away.
          Rate this comment: 12345
          • Re: Apples ARE expensive!!!
            savanahrose on 01/18/2007 at 10:34 AM
            Posts:
            1
            I switched in November to macs.  I did a comparison, I went to the Apple stores and played with them and talked to the sales reps, and I went to forums designed for macs and I also tried to find forums for windows.  But didn't see any.
            I found that macs and mac users are the best all around.  I love my mac.  For what I paid for this computer I feel like I got my money's worth. 
            If I had gotten a windows I don't think that I would be just as happy with it.  After reading about Vista I am glad that I got the mac.
            And the Vista ready computers? That new computer you just bought?  Will it really take the os Vista?  I know for a fact that when Leopard comes out my computer will be able to handle it.
            Rate this comment: 12345
            • Re: Apples ARE expensive!!!
              eShinn on 01/18/2007 at 11:03 PM
              Posts:
              5
              Be able to handle OSX 10.5? No joke. I've got an old graphite iMac I bought in 2000. Seven years ago and it's running 10.4.8 quite nicely. The only thing is the mere 12 gig drive (i think), animations such as dashboard ripples don't take place, and its a little sluggish unless set to 32k colors. But hey what can you expect from a 400 mhz G3 processor? To compare, try running XP on a Pentium II with MMX Technology. Remember the hype around that?
              Rate this comment: 12345
              • Re: Apples ARE expensive!!!
                jdhouse4 on 01/21/2007 at 2:37 AM
                Posts:
                1
                That's a great story, but here's an even better example of how easy it is to run OS X on legacy hardware. I am running 10.4 Server on a...(drumroll, here)...Blue&White PowerMac G3, circa March 1999. That's an 8-year-old machine. What did I do to achieve this feat? Nada más than upping the memory to 512 Meg.

                I dare anyone in the Windows world to say they can run Vista Server on an 8-year-old Wintel box with only a simple memory upgrade.

                It probably is bad business for Apple to allow hardware and software to seemlessly work so well that really legacy hardware can still perform well as a server, but it does.
                Rate this comment: 12345
              • Re: Apples ARE expensive!!!
                ratty1 on 01/24/2007 at 4:04 PM
                Posts:
                1
                Upgrading the OS on an old Mac might be easy, but have you tried to upgrade your iLife application?  On an iBook with 20 or even 30 Gb drive, an upgrade to iLife 06 was really pushing it- I had to remove the iPhoto and iTunes libraries and move them off to an external drive.  iLife 07, if it is released, will likely break the bank, so to speak, if you have only a 20 Gb drive.  Trouble is, Apple does not support upgrading the internal drive on a portable.  Try asking a rep in any Apple store- the Apple store won't do it.  You'll have to try a third-party supplier.
                Rate this comment: 12345
              • Re: Apples ARE expensive!!!
                yves128 on 01/27/2007 at 4:25 AM
                Posts:
                1
                I  have unsuccessfully tried to install OSX 10.4 on my brother's computer which is the same as yours. He uses 10.1, which was not very easy to install either after OS9.2
                How did you do it?  Did you have to format the disk first?
                Thanks for tips.


                Rgds
                Rate this comment: 12345
                • Re: Apples ARE expensive!!!
                  fyreniyce on 02/14/2007 at 11:49 AM
                  Posts:
                  2
                  I have installed X.4.8 on an imac 350 from 2000, on a wallstreet powerbook from 1998, and a Mini from 2005. All of them run Tiger flawlessly even the powerbook that took some coaxing to install tiger runs it without any problems, sure the animations aren't as crisp but speed is seldom an issue.
                  Rate this comment: 12345
              • OS X on a G3
                mikesign on 01/29/2007 at 10:02 PM
                Posts:
                1
                I have always been a loyal PC user.  This past summer I stumbled into our local MAC store and noticed a stack of used iBooks taking back in from a school lease.  Laid down $400 and took it home thinking that it would be neat to poke around at it.  It is a 800mhz processor with 256mb of ram and is running OS X.4.8!!! I LOVE IT!! I installed Adobe CS2 suite and even though it is alittle slow on some things there is nothing I can't do on it.  I can't wait to get one of those new dual core intel mac.  What I love the most is surfing the internet with no virus protection and no worries!
                Rate this comment: 12345
                • Re: OS X on a G3
                  Pecos Bill on 01/30/2007 at 7:16 PM
                  Posts:
                  1
                  While the risk for malware on OS X is very low, it's not zero. I don't run any anti-viral or other malware detection but it's important to stay informed and on top of security updates.
                  Rate this comment: 12345
            • Re: Apples ARE expensive!!!
              nstewart on 01/23/2007 at 7:20 PM
              Posts:
              2
              I did the same review and switched in October 06. I could not be happier...especially with Windows! I was a little worried at first but when I got home with my new toy, it worked as advertised. No hunting down and installing drivers, no network config, just plug it in! When I read statements like this before buying, I thought it was a bunch of Apple hype and I hate sounding like a Applephile but for me, this is the answer. I don't need a over-bearing OS telling me everytime it lost the network connection, or worry about holes in security. I don't use computers for the sake of using them, I'd like to be productive. Gotta go XP is about to crash!
              Rate this comment: 12345
            • Re: Apples ARE expensive!!!
              lattedude on 01/24/2007 at 10:27 PM
              Posts:
              1
              Hey, I also made the switch to a Mac in November.  Bought a PowerBook G4 17" brand new in a box.  I did't even open the box until 2 days later as I was sure I had made a mistake and did't want to break the seal.  Boy, am I glad I did.  Macs just work.  I am sure as soon as I write this, something will happen to OS X.   I bought into the hype about Vista and bought a Dell with super specs. just to try out Vista.  Boy do I regret this move.  I was always aware that Macs were a superior os, but it took me forever to make the switch.   Live and learn. 
              Rate this comment: 12345
          • Re: Apples ARE expensive!!!
            architosh on 01/18/2007 at 7:06 PM
            Posts:
            4
            It isn't going away because fundamentally OS X is a better coded and more modern operating system than Windows Vista. Despite the new interface, at the end of the day, Windows is still Windows underneith and its complicated controls are a direct expression of its vulnerabilities. Just compare the System Preferences for OS X to Windows XP -- it's like night and day. Does Vista actually reduce this complexity at all?
            Rate this comment: 12345
          • You get what you pay for
            suburbanites on 01/19/2007 at 1:25 PM
            Posts:
            2
            Avg Rating:
            5/5
            I switched in 2004 after deciding not 6 months earlier to switch from my MP3 player (a Creative Zen, not a bad player by any means, just not an iPod) to an iPod.  After years of being a PC bigot, I simply got tired of having to reformat my machine(s) or upgrade constantly or ostensibly live for maintaining my PC, and for me by this time PC became short terminology for "Piece of Crud". 

            Since then, I've purchased 4 Macs, 2 notebooks and 2 iMacs, and could not be any happier with them.  Dollar for dollar against Dell or HP, I'm getting a much better unit with fewer problems, and much more robust support (which is still on the North American continent, by the way).  Like many posters here, I also priced a similar unit against a Dell and HP, and found out quickly that the iMac I have as equipped comes out slightly cheaper.   Bonus! 

            Knowing what I know now, I probably would not go back to Windows in whatever variant it has, and I know I'm not the only one just by virtue of walking into an Apple store and seeing the number of first-time buyers who grew tired of the problems with Windows.  Although I still chuckle when someone mentions Vista.
            Rate this comment: 12345
            • Re: You get what you pay for
              Jimmyijoe on 01/22/2007 at 5:46 PM
              Posts:
              2
              Wow !! Bought4 Macs in two years.Great stuff????
              Rate this comment: 12345
            • Re: You get what you pay for
              rogerw on 01/22/2007 at 11:20 PM
              Posts:
              6
              Avg Rating:
              2/5
              PC's aren't for the simpleton user.  Everyone I know who has to constantly reformat thier windows machine barely can turn the thing on.

              There is nothing wrong with Macs but I think most Mac users whether they have always owned one or converted are quite insecure in the choices they make.
              Rate this comment: 12345
              • Re: You get what you pay for
                Towerofjam on 01/23/2007 at 1:08 PM
                Posts:
                1
                Avg Rating:
                2/5
                I bought my first computer three years ago. I talked to a bunch of people and tried a lot of different machines. My stepdad wanted me to get a Linux based PC. I still don't know what that means. A Co-worker, we'll call him Sam, brought me to his house many times to show me his Windows based PC. It crashed a few of those times.Then, a friend of my sisters came over with a powerbook. I was sold. It has never crashed or caused any problems with my work (photoshop mostly).

                "PC's aren't for the simpleton user" seems to describe the joy many PC users feel in the superiority of their will to use such difficult machines, sounds good. I just want a computer that works... all the time.
                Rate this comment: 12345
                • Re: You get what you pay for
                  lupyonderboy on 01/25/2007 at 9:21 PM
                  Posts:
                  1
                  The whole comment that 'mac is for simpletons' really irks my hide.  As a creative professional that works under harsh deadlines, I need to devote my time doing my work, not trying to hunt down drivers or configuring my OS.  I am not a computer illiterate but it takes time to troubleshoot an operating system or to hunt down and install drivers. 

                  I have technogeek friends that are PC lovers and seem to thrive on the amount of minutiae knowledge they have in dealing with their PC's but unfortunately, I need to spend more time working rather than dealing with my machine.  A computer is ultimately a tool.  How would a carpenter like it if he had to reconfigure his hammer every time he had to nail something together?

                  The mac plug and play system for the OS allows me and other professionals that use macs to be more productive.
                  Rate this comment: 12345
                • Re: You get what you pay for
                  gfielding on 01/26/2007 at 10:17 AM
                  Posts:
                  2
                  Sounds like the way Jaguar owners felt before Ford aquired them and brought production efficiency and consistency to the brand. Masochists club.
                  Rate this comment: 12345
              • Re: You get what you pay for
                PlumbLunatic on 01/24/2007 at 4:15 AM
                Posts:
                1
                I really don't understand where this "macs are for simpletons" mentality has risen from. I've been a mac user for a decade or so and that sentiment has *never* been true. Yes, Mac OS's front end is a hell of a lot simpler than Windows, but just because the facade is picture of brevity, doesn't mean the engine that underpins it all is similarly endowed. It's a massively powerful OS and always has been.

                There's no doubt that Windows works perfectly if you know how to look after it; if you know where to get the third party apps that allow you to tweak your registry and clean out the system on a regular basis... The question is; should you have to?

                Case in point; I've lost track of the number of people who point out Mac OS's lack of a bundled defrag-app, saying that the system must be monumentally inefficient as a result. It's at that point that I take great joy in pointing out that Mac OS defrags any file under 200MB on the fly every time that file is opened. Do you notice it happening? Nope, to a bit. Mac OS just gets on and looks after its self.
                Rate this comment: 12345
                • Re: You get what you pay for
                  BwanaD on 01/24/2007 at 11:48 AM
                  Posts:
                  1
                  I have a team of IT support professionals working at my research center.  They have always hated Windows because they have spent soooo much time over the years helping users deal with the myriad problems inherent in Windows.  Searching for drivers, dealing with viruses and other security problems, helping researchers facing the "blue screen of death"...it can't be fun.  They are Linux folks. 

                  But with the advent of OSX and the arrival of the Intel-based Macs, they have become huge Mac fans.  Every one of them has a Mac, and they now 'strongly encourage' everyone in need of an upgrade to switch to Mac.

                  When I came in as director of the center I was the only Mac user out of 35 people.  Macs now sit on a majority of the desks, and within two years I expect Windows will only reside on a handful of Mac machines in the office.  Many of the Window users thought they'd just use Windows on a Mac, but every one has found they prefer working in the OSX environment, and many have simply deleted Windows.
                  Rate this comment: 12345
                  • Re: You get what you pay for
                    islandinthenet on 01/24/2007 at 10:32 PM
                    Posts:
                    3
                    I work in the information security office of a large pharmaceutical and if it were not for Windows we would have very little to do.

                    I am a big fan of Linux and use it heavily for server related computing (with Apache, MySQL and Perl/PHP) but hated it as a desktop.

                    I bought my first mac ( a mac mini ) to test the waters with OS-X and I am not a convert.  I have added a second mac ( MacBook ) and I am considering an iMac for the family.

                    I have found more and more security professionals switching to OS-X.
                    Rate this comment: 12345
              • Re: You get what you pay for
                zeusbheld on 01/24/2007 at 7:59 AM
                Posts:
                1
                "PC's aren't for the simpleton user. "

                problem #1: computer dweeb arrogance. they aren't, sure, but why shouldn't they be? you can sneer all you want at computer-simpletons, but they include business leaders, academicians, artists and other cultural and economic leaders. hardly fitting of the overall classification of "simpleton."

                so why SHOULDN'T any "simpleton" who has never used a computer be able to sit down, load photos from their digital camera, write a letter and email it, not to mention being able to do actual work on the thing without having to do a lot of work to learn to maintain it? seems to me, that should be the goal of both hardware and software designers, not the bane.


                "There is nothing wrong with Macs but I think most Mac users whether they have always owned one or converted are quite insecure in the choices they make."

                insecure? what does that sentence even mean? please clarify; here's some help from an archaic technology--the dictionary, adapted to the web via dictionary.com:

                INSECURE:
                1. subject to fears, doubts, etc.; not self-confident or assured: an insecure person.

                2. not confident or certain; uneasy; anxious: He was insecure about the examination.

                3 not secure; exposed or liable to risk, loss, or danger: an insecure stock portfolio.

                4. not firmly or reliably placed or fastened: an insecure ladder.

                insecure in the choices they make in general, as in not sure whether they should have a heineken or a budweiser, or watch football or 'desperate housewives?' or just insecure solely in spending their computing budget? and if so, how?

                your statement makes no sense; please revise. obviously you are not a simpleton, so you must not be a native speaker of English. please get help from a native speaker, and clarify.

                otherwise it looks like the usual windows-vs-mac nonsense that spews forth from advocates of both platforms--wild claims, often involving the character and intelligence of the user of the *other* platform, having nothing to do with any sort of reasoned approach to technology buying.
                Rate this comment: 12345
              • Re: You get what you pay for
                gfielding on 01/26/2007 at 10:15 AM
                Posts:
                2
                I would say in my experience as an IT person that it is PC users who are stubborn about trying Macs. That's all it would take for many of them to say "hey, this is gorgeous, fast, and just works with whatever gear I've already got". I began using computers as a Mac user in 1993 and have worked on Windows machines running NT, 98, 2K, and XP over the years as a tech. Nothing ever struck me as particularly cool or overly functional with Windows. It all seemed clunky-acting and primitive looking when compared with the MacOS. PCs are the right tool for some jobs like big-business accounting or production clent/server systems. But that niche is closing as more and more developers are figuring out how very doable it is to write gorgeous apps for OSX and its BSD UNIX kernel, not to mention that you can run OSX and Windows simultaneously on an Intel Mac without rebooting(see Parallels Desktop, etc). All that and virtually no virus or spyware threat...the bane for any Windows user.
                Rate this comment: 12345
              • Re: You get what you pay for
                Guelfling on 01/26/2007 at 3:59 PM
                Posts:
                1
                Interesting comment, about simpleton users..
                Another commenter said that he doesn't use a computer for the sake of using it (approximately quoted). Likewise, I'll say that the computer is a tool for me. I'm not a OS user, I'm an Application user. In this respect, I'm not a simpleton, but I prefer not to bother with the OS. And I don't have to: I always use a Mac ;)
                Rate this comment: 12345
        • Re: Apples ARE expensive!!!
          xtremeKenD on 01/31/2007 at 12:12 AM
          Posts:
          1
          Thanks to North Star (northstaraccess.net) I can run my entire company soley on macs and when I come across an app or site that won't work, I log into north star... easy! (so far in my industry there is only one app that I use from time to time where I can't use Safari or FireFox...thats it).

          I have tried the dual OS thing using Parallels and it works fine on my Pro but my employees using mac mini's weren't to happy with the speed loss... plus I'd rather not pay microsoft for a license to use their junk.

          KenD
          xtremeinvesting.net
          Rate this comment: 12345
      • Re: Apples ARE expensive!!!
        architosh on 01/18/2007 at 7:02 PM
        Posts:
        4
        Really interesting point! I just ordered a Dell Precision workstation yesterday for a new staff member and thinking about Vista migration in about a year or less, I naturally chose Vista-ready components. Ridiculously, Dell recommended a $400 Nvidia mid-level workstation graphics card in order to run Vista's premium features. That was Dell's recommend! The older $300 workstation cards are not recommended as powerful enough.

        How in the hell can Dell sell any $500 PCs for Vista if you need a $400 GPU just to render out the screen?
        Rate this comment: 12345
      • Re: Apples ARE expensive!!!
        techmama on 01/20/2007 at 8:24 PM
        Posts:
        1
        I am an instructional tv teacher at an elementary school. I, like the author was convinced that Windows was the only way until I bought my MacBook for working at home. All I can say is, I have never found a computer more easy to use. I have tried the video editing programs through windows, and they are, in my inexperienced, but thoughtful opinion, useless compared to the Final Cut Studio suite. My 15 year old, who's only exposure to Mac was through his uncle, has already imported, converted, and uploaded his band's first music video to the web! I have third graders who can create impresive graphics with LiveType's templates, and a fifth grader who has learned how to edit video like a champ! Windows just does not have the right stuff for my line of work, so I am now an Apple lover!
        Rate this comment: 12345
    • Re: Apples ARE expensive!!!
      vajroli on 01/17/2007 at 8:07 PM
      Posts:
      1
      It is a common and pervasive myth that Mac's are more expensive. Actually a *comparable* PC is often much more expensive. Even low end Mac's contain high-end features rarely seen on low-end PeeCees. See:

      http://www.macworld.com/2006/08/features/macproprice/index.php
      Rate this comment: 12345
      • Re: Apples ARE expensive!!!
        dinstpete on 01/17/2007 at 8:29 PM
        Posts:
        2
        Another point to remember in Apple's favor - they last!
        Apple builds them rugged and keeps them current
        I am a graphic designer, Photoshop, Illustrator, InDesign.. no light weight user, and in 15 years I've only had 3 Macs, "repairs" consisted of upgrading RAM and replacing batteries. Nothing else... nada.
        Disc maintanance consists of repairing permissions - 5 minutes, once a week tops.
        Bet I've spent less than you have.
        Rate this comment: 12345
        • Re: Apples ARE expensive!!!
          TeachONE on 01/17/2007 at 11:04 PM
          Posts:
          1
          For the most part I agree with everyone here... I've been a Mac user since I was forced to convert backin in 98 when I was a newspaper editor in college. I was lucky in that I came into enough cash to actually by the top of the line (the G3 Powerbook), and that was probably the BEST computer I've ever invested in by a mile. It never crashed, survived everything from drops to a stupid roommate spilling a big slam on the keyboard. (Had to repair it, but didn't lose a thing on the hard drive...) and It didn't die completely until 2004, nor did I feel like my computer was a dinosaur. Admittedly, I am happy about the price of the ibooks, and newer macbooks, being more price comparable to pc's simply because you can't use any Mac OS for long and hate the idea of going back to windows, BUT i have to say I have noticed a significant drop in the quality of my laptops. Again, I was lucky last year when my school actually gave (maybe loaned is a better wo