The_Techie
Resident Techie
I wish they'd rather focus on stability instead of performance. I'd rather have a slower, stable machine than a fast, unstable one. As for ease of use, well that's completely subjective.
South Africa’s biggest forum. Discuss, discover, and connect with thousands of members.
I wish they'd rather focus on stability instead of performance. I'd rather have a slower, stable machine than a fast, unstable one. As for ease of use, well that's completely subjective.
Of course, what I meant with the least amount of money takes all factors into account (initial acquisition costs, maintenance costs, update costs, recovery costs, etc).
EDIT: The amount of time I spend monthly restoring crashed Windows machines...At least it's a regular source of income
Strangely enough mine doesn't give me any issues.
Correct. So stay with XP and Leopard for now on, until Win 7 SP1 and more SL updates.
You're correct but some Windows fanboys on MyBB don't understand your point. They just say OMG!!!!!ponies!!!!1 look Windows PC from Acer costs R3000 less!!!!!1 and they forget the rest.![]()
Currently running Windows 7 RC1 x64 on 3 machines, haven't had any problems.
Techie are you saying windows 7 is not stable?
Both operating systems were tested on a 2008 MacBook Pro machine by CNet, and each was given its own, separate, clean hard drive. The 64-bit version of each OS was included in the test, which measured a variety of speed and performance related tasks. Snow Leopard was given true, full 64-bit support with most of its native applications taking full advantage of modern processors.
Each OS had the same software installed: iTunes 9, QuickTime, Call of Duty 4: Modern Warfare, and Cinebench R10. In the test, Snow Leopard booted and shut down significantly faster than Windows 7.
"In time-based tests, Snow Leopard consistently outdid Windows 7," the study found. "It took only 36.4 seconds to boot up, while Windows took 42.7 seconds. In a shutdown test, Snow Leopard took only 6.6 seconds, while Windows needed twice the amount of time: 12.6 seconds. Both computers, however, took just about 1 second to return from sleeping. For this reason, I didn't actually test the wake-up time as it was too short in both operating systems to produce meaningful numbers or even allow me to measure the difference."
Peter, is that you?
'kinda.. just not used to anyone other than PeterCH posting this kind of article.
How about we get hackintosh to go against windows 7 and see the results?
Hmmm might not be fair.
Why do these 2 os's need to be tested? they are both rocked solid and i cannot think of a fair way to put them against each other.
ran a virtual hackintosh under Linux. Performed great, not as good as a PC but better at least beter than a Mac!. Snowleopard was a bit rubbish but the rest was well oK.