Windows, Mac, Or Linux?

Your OS

  • Microsoft Windows

    Votes: 102 75.0%

  • Apple Mac OSX

    Votes: 33 24.3%

  • Linux

    Votes: 35 25.7%
  • Total voters
    136
keep.QUIET said:
No.
[PokeCommunity.com] Windows, Mac, Or Linux?

[PokeCommunity.com] Windows, Mac, Or Linux?


Now, given there is both "Minimum" and "Recommended" requirements posted for Vista; and only "Minimum" for Windows 7; we must compare the first columns in both cases.

Vista: 800Mhz
7: 1Ghz
Vista: 512MB
7: 1GB
Vista: 15GB Free
7: 16GB Free

Where do people get the idea that Windows 7 requires LESS system resources than Vista? XD
Click to expand...
Because it does?

You can't even count the "Vista Capable" column, because they're full of it (not to mention the "minimum" specs don't actually represent the performance of each). Vista refuses to run smoothly on less than 1GB. Whereas I personally had the 7RC running quite smoothly on an old dinosaur PC with ~400MB RAM.

At the end of the day, Seven's and Vista's quoted specs are the same (again, Vista Capable is a joke) but were release years apart. That says enough on its own.
 
Shalon Rainsworth said:


first of all, it's "censor" since "senor" is completely different and you need 15 posts to post urls
Click to expand...

hmmm... didn't notice that until you pointed it out. i know how it's spelled, not sure how that happened, except that the keys are somewhat near eachother...

and, yes, i know i need 15 posts to post a url. i think that's absolutely stupid. did you even read down to the bottom?
 
Archer said:
At the end of the day, Seven's and Vista's quoted specs are the same (again, Vista Capable is a joke) but were release years apart. That says enough on its own.
Click to expand...
Yes. It says that 7 == Vista.
Making no advancement in the intervening years proves only that people are stupid and needed to see Vista called something else before realizing how GOOD it is.
 
keep.QUIET said:
Yes. It says that 7 == Vista.
Making no advancement in the intervening years proves only that people are stupid and needed to see Vista called something else before realizing how GOOD it is.
Click to expand...

Have you run 7? I think ms over-exaggerated the specs. It runs much "snappier" on the same hardware as vista. It also runs well on hardware that's weaker than the spec.

You're definitely right, though, about people needing to see it with a name other than vista, due to the connotations of that title. It's pretty ridiculous, really.
 
Bond697 said:
Have you run 7? I think ms over-exaggerated the specs. It runs much "snappier" on the same hardware as vista. It also runs well on hardware that's weaker than the spec.

You're definitely right, though, about people needing to see it with a name other than vista, due to the connotations of that title. It's pretty ridiculous, really.
Click to expand...
Quoted for truth. Just because the minimum specs are the same does NOT mean that there is no advances. That just says it's not a bloated. By your logic, the quality of console games does not improve until the console has a sequel, because the maximum specs of the system stays the same.

That said, it's true that the release under a new name really killed off the Vista hate, which was very important for Microsoft. Vista SP2 or whatever's out now might be great, but the fact is that the initial release was such a flop, they needed to dodge the bad impressions.
 
Last edited:
it really is a matter of opinion but personly out of mac and windows ( cause i havent used linux ^^') i prefer windows
 
I run
Windows XP
Mac OSX (I forgot which one)
OpenSolaris (by the Sun company).

(all of these are linux distro's)
Linux Mint 6 + 7, Fedora (leonidas), Ubuntu (Jaunty Jackal on CD), and I have a Backtrack 3 on live-disk from when I used to have a laptop.

Hah, I have linux mint 7, fedora, and windows XP on my normal machine, each one in a seperate partition. The other OS's are either live disk format on a disk or flashdrive, like Backtrack. Or there installed virtually with Windows XP. (Virtualization for the win)

Also, I only have so many because I'm trying to learn to use Linux and Solaris more to there full potential. Mac just to say I have it, and windows because, as much as I'd love to ditch it for Linux, I'm bound to it due to Wine not supporting all the programs I need in Windows :(
 
I use Windows, the majority of applications run on windows with no third party apps to make them work.
Mac is the preferred computer for visual art people. For making movies or photo albums. It looks great but costs more and it's harder to get service for once it breaks.
 
This is a very tough topic. I have experience in all of the following in the poll. The two that I believe to be the best and use are windows and Linux.
 
I have Windows Seven on my tower and Mac Os 10.4 on my Apple iBook G4.
 
I say Windows most thingw these days asre on windows like zsnes for example and most pc games are windws based and dont support mach and windows visual shell is a lot better and i do think mac style is a copy of xp when they started the beta in 2001 i have used linux it okay but i like windows a atmosphere i know
 
My main OS is MacOS 10.5.08 (I know, I know, I need to update). As somebody who has used Windows since she was 6 years old, I can't even being to describe how amazing it is having an OS that doesn't crash every five minutes. The program compatibility is a bit balls at times, but that's what Parallels and Boot Camp is for. (Safari is the only thing wrong with the Mac. I'm using Firefox at the moment and waiting on tenterhooks for Google Chrome; Firfox hasn't been any good since the 3.0 update :/)

I will be buying an XP laptop in January, though. No way am I getting Vista, and double no way am I shelling out £109 for Windows 7. (Single installation, what? If I pay for the software, I ought to be able to install it as many times as possible, you arses.) You can still get a decent XP laptop for ~£200, and that's what I plan to do.
 
the only time i had windows crashed if a virus bypassed my firewall and av softeware and done damage before being caught doing what it was doing or harddrive failure another cvause of my BSODs other than that no problems with windows one time back in02 i had a old 1996 macbook or was it power book i am not sure the os on it made me feel as if i was using windows 3.1 again iit lasted only 6 months before dying i also wasplay with a windows laptop that was relesed in either 95 or 96 and it remained running mac is stilll trying to improve there stuff crm crashing abnd burning after around 6-7 years of use
 
Don't even ask..... MAC OS X 10.6 SNOW LEOPARD.

LOL
Go to https://www.apple.com/getamac/ads

Moriarty said:
My main OS is MacOS 10.5.08 (I know, I know, I need to update). As somebody who has used Windows since she was 6 years old, I can't even being to describe how amazing it is having an OS that doesn't crash every five minutes. The program compatibility is a bit balls at times, but that's what Parallels and Boot Camp is for. (Safari is the only thing wrong with the Mac. I'm using Firefox at the moment and waiting on tenterhooks for Google Chrome; Firfox hasn't been any good since the 3.0 update :/)

I will be buying an XP laptop in January, though. No way am I getting Vista, and double no way am I shelling out £109 for Windows 7. (Single installation, what? If I pay for the software, I ought to be able to install it as many times as possible, you arses.) You can still get a decent XP laptop for ~£200, and that's what I plan to do.
Click to expand...

Are you kidding! I love Safari! That's what I use now. All I use Firefox for is to test Firefox 3.6 public beta. GO SAFARI! To test firefox 3.6b4 (Beta Release 4) : https://www.mozilla.com/en-US/products/download.html?product=firefox-3.6b4&os=osx&lang=en-US
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top