<p>Vista's spectacular when you have the hardware to back it up with. On the note of software costs of MS products, personally I buy my software through a parent's faculty software licensing program - and a significant proportion of workplaces, companies, schools etc. have something like this. It makes it cheaper.</p>
<p>Finally, as UCLAri pointed out, MacOS is not cheap itself - it's just that it comes with the computers (as does Vista, may I remind you), so people don't notice as much.</p>
<p>In the long-run PCs are cheaper because you can upgrade rather than buy an entirely new system (which is what Apple wants you to do).</p>
<p>I like macs. I'm not sure about you but I'd rather work WITH my computer rather than working ON my computer all the time. And um I don't know how to install hardware on my computer so I'll leave that to the pros. </p>
<p>And I have a problem with Microsoft's business model. QUALITY, NOT QUANTITY PEOPLE!!!!!!</p>
<p>all right two the both of you. i persoonally hate both OSes i run Ubuntu, a distribution of linux. it is completely free and it's Highly Graphical, but better yet i'm running on a 64bit platform and both Mac and Windows can't seem to come up with a stable 64 bit OS that can intigrate with everything. Doesn't it seem like a marketing scam to require more power for Windows when it already hoged system performance in XP? Mac released OSX in 2001 oddly Microsoft released Vista in Early 2007, but they both look VERy similar and feel similar. therefore Windows copied Mac. here is what the main 3 OSes are used for:
1. Windows - Games
2. Mac - Image, Video and Audio Editing
3. Linux - internet, Programming, Managing File Systems and Servers
Each has qualities that the others do not have. So far Windows has had an excellent ride, but to demand More from an already heavy OS is insanity. with the ammount of power a Vista Ultimate computer has you could run a VERY fast linux machine. I was a hardcore Windows user until Vista came along. I have Followed Vista From Beta1 to RC1 (yes i did Beta test VIsta and it didn't please me) and all i could say was nice look but can it be useful?. i run budget because i have NO money so i need as much performance as i can get. My vote, both thumbs down.</p>
<p>@lfeqlbrm</p>
<p>Oh, so this MS Windows XP pro X64 edition must be from some other company then. I haven't had a single crash. Much more stable than any computer I've ever used.</p>
<p>
[QUOTE]
In the long-run PCs are cheaper because you can upgrade rather than buy an entirely new system (which is what Apple wants you to do).
[/QUOTE]
</p>
<p>Other than the RAM and HDD [both of which you can with Macs], what do you want to upgrade? By the time you need to bump up the processor, you probably need a new computer. For grahpics and such, the Macs already come with decent grahpics [x1600]. And if you're into gaming, you're probably building the PC yourself rather than buying any prebuilt.</p>
<p>X1600 is nowhere near decent graphics for even 1 year old games.</p>
<p>Yes, but remember that you mac people keep saying that Mac has the best of both worlds with dual-boot. With the abysmal graphics, then you really are limiting yourself with a Mac. They can't do everything a PC does.</p>
<p>Mac people buy a computer about every few years, while PC people just upgrade parts. Over a period of time (~12 eyars), you'll be saving thousands.</p>
<p>Every mac comes with a premium price, while PC's do not. Hmm, should I pay a premium price 4 times in a decade or just relatively small upgrade costs?</p>
<p>Ubuntu Linux is the most stable 64bit OS on the net it supplies you with a package intaller which you can download programs fitted for 64 and 32 bit imagine a 64bit media player, guess what windows still is stuck on 32bit software. Windows has little to no effort toward the advancement of 64bit technology. Ubuntu is in it full time and the great part is its free and can never get a virus. also Linux is completely tailored to the way you want to use it and make it look like. i will admit that it takes some knowledge. it isn't that hard to learn. my system is minimal 1 120GB HD 1 80GB HD a AMD Sempron 2800+ 754 and 512MB of PC2700 RAM yet this system runs like a champ.</p>
<p>Oh great. And I suppose Ubuntu has all the windows apps I use? WMP is 64-bit. Currently, 64-bit doesn't make much difference as far as performance. You won't notice a 64-bit media player running better than a 32-bit one.</p>
<p>I'm no hater of linux, but it's still a long way before many people switch to linux. They don't have my photoshop, fireworks, and games.</p>
<p>Vista ultimate also costs $600. Um and when my PC laptop broke, I bought a new one and sent the old one to Apple so they can deal with it. Most of us don't know how to upgrade parts or don't intend to invest the time to learn or both. Or they know how to do it, but they choose not to do it. Don't make it sound like ALL PC people upgrade their own computer parts. Most of us just buy new ones.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Yes, but remember that you mac people keep saying that Mac has the best of both worlds with dual-boot. With the abysmal graphics, then you really are limiting yourself with a Mac. They can't do everything a PC does.</p>
<p>Mac people buy a computer about every few years, while PC people just upgrade parts. Over a period of time (~12 eyars), you'll be saving thousands.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>You're comparing a laptop to a desktop. That's not a fair comparison. </p>
<p>A Mac Pro can have the video card upgraded.</p>
<p>Oh, and I play Oblivion on my MBP just fine.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Vista ultimate also costs $600.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>That's...not right. The upgrade is [url=<a href="http://www.amazon.com/Microsoft-Windows-Vista-Ultimate-UPGRADE/dp/B000HCTYTO%5D$250.%5B/url">http://www.amazon.com/Microsoft-Windows-Vista-Ultimate-UPGRADE/dp/B000HCTYTO]$250.[/url</a>] The full version is [url=<a href="http://www.amazon.com/Microsoft-Windows-Vista-Ultimate-VERSION/dp/B000HCTYTE/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1/104-3951759-0095923?ie=UTF8&s=software&qid=1176877350&sr=1-1%5D$350.%5B/url">http://www.amazon.com/Microsoft-Windows-Vista-Ultimate-VERSION/dp/B000HCTYTE/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1/104-3951759-0095923?ie=UTF8&s=software&qid=1176877350&sr=1-1]$350.[/url</a>]</p>
<p>it's all personal preference. Ive had windows all my life so i'm biased, lol.</p>
<p>This is among the worst places to ask opinions on buying hardware/software. First, the majority of posts are highly opinionated and subjective. Second, very few of the posters have a significant understandings of computers (by which I mean the technical details of the operating systems, different hardware, etc etc). I suggest you google around and compare maybe 4-5 different reviews. Best bet? Ask a few different people in the field you want to go in (audio development and processing it seems like) and see what they say.</p>
<p>IMO, if you want to get good at something, you should understand how your tools work inside and out. That means having extensive knowledge of how your computer works, along with the software you use. You would expect a pianist to know how a piano works.</p>
<p>
[quote]
This is among the worst places to ask opinions on buying hardware/software. First, the majority of posts are highly opinionated and subjective.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Actually, this is a great place to ask, since you're not at a tech site with an established bias. You're going to get all kinds of different answers, instead of getting "slashdotted."</p>
<p>
[quote]
Second, very few of the posters have a significant understandings of computers (by which I mean the technical details of the operating systems, different hardware, etc etc).
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Agreed. But this might be good too! A lot of the tech-types get so caught up in specs that they ignore non-spec related bonuses with computers like Lenovos. I know that when I used to read Toms Hardware a lot I'd get overly crazy about really small tech things that probably would have never mattered.</p>
<p>
[quote]
IMO, if you want to get good at something, you should understand how your tools work inside and out. That means having extensive knowledge of how your computer works, along with the software you use. You would expect a pianist to know how a piano works.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Sorry to pick apart your post...but anyway...</p>
<p>I don't know how much I agree with this. Not everyone has time to learn the intricacies of their computer. I mean, most people just want to log on, do their thing in Word, and log out. It doesn't require an overly technical understanding of how hardware interacts.</p>
<p>
[QUOTE]
X1600 is nowhere near decent graphics for even 1 year old games.
[/QUOTE]
</p>
<p>All my games play fine with pretty high settings on my desktop with a x1600...</p>
<p>What's your newest game?</p>
<p>The Mac Pro's high end graphics option is the only gamer solution for mac people but that thing costs an arm and a leg!!</p>
<p>A PC with similar stats is easily $500 less (or possibly an even greater difference than $500).</p>
<p>"play Oblivion on my MBP"</p>
<p>A mac with an X1600 would run about 9 fps. Pitiful. <a href="http://www23.tomshardware.com/graphics.html?modelx=33&model1=556&model2=547&chart=204%5B/url%5D">http://www23.tomshardware.com/graphics.html?modelx=33&model1=556&model2=547&chart=204</a></p>
<p>afruff23,</p>
<p>9 fps? I ran it at a pretty brisk 20-30 fps, actually. I just turned down some details.</p>
<p>"Pitiful" is subjective, and based on what you want out of the game. I don't play games just for bells and whistles, even if they are nice.</p>
<p>Besides, there's hardly a Wintel notebook out there that's going to blow away an MBP in terms of gaming. For those of us who need to have a notebook for space and business concerns, we aren't exactly able to do much about this.</p>
<p>20-30 fps is by no means decent. Decent starts at AT LEAST 40.</p>
<p>afruff23,</p>
<p>I had no problem playing the game and enjoying it. Yes, I agree that 40 is a good baseline, but remember that I need to have a notebook. Either way, my options are limited.</p>