I'm a Windows Vista User

Your not alone Harry, I formatted my laptop over the weekend and took the plunge and installed Vista. After no more than an hour I knew I could never use XP again, it's as much a step back as going from XP to ME. It's stable it works and for once (so far) Microsoft seem to be getting it right.

where can i get the betta from?

Harry,
Is it the 32 or 64bit version you are running?

32-bit, on a Dell Dimension desktop that dates from early 2004 or so.

Ethan--if you're reading this, I'm curious what you've found in Vista so far that you like, vis-a-vis XP.

--Harry

I have a computer that dates from 2003 can i use Windows Vista on it?Someone says that WinVista is only for 64-bit.My computer doesnt have 64-bits so i ask You can i use Vista on it

Yeah windows vista supports 32bit and 64bit (to answer your question david)..
has anyone tested the 64bit version of vista? i am curious whether it has many performance improvements over 32bit xp... let me know..
-joel

So do icons really float, are they animated and are the graphics transparent? Share :)

If you send me a beta copy of the 64 bit version of Vista I will install it and post back what I get, I have a 64 bit system, runs linux great and windows xp 64 bit version also runs ok. have had problems with some of the games I run and my soundblaster Live 5.1 sound card drivers, always would expire. But I would love to test Vista. Please tell me how to get a copy!!

You have to have a msdn or it subscrition to get the beta

has anyone run the secure startup? Do you have a tpm 1.2 in your computer (cause if you don't your not getting the best of Vista). But if you have tell me how well that has worked, and who are you using to operate the TPM?

Thanks matt

I would be interested to know from anyone how it compairs to the most current version of the Mac OS X, and if it has some of the features like Dashboard or a powerful desktop search (that works) like Spotlight. Hopefully it works well so i won't have to waste my time with XP at my high school. LOL

Just came across the site, see you are just as interested. Joel, to answer your question YES the 64bit is running like nothing I have ever seen. I used to run XP 64 and I will never look back. I had only one problem with getting a driver for my graphics card.

Cheers

How u knwo if u ahev the 32 ro the 64 and how you egt the windows vista??? can someone help me out???

How can u tell if you have 64-bit or 32-bit??

I am a PC user, but I have grown to appreciate Mac OS' superiority having worked with my coworkers Powrebook. Mac fanaticism does seem strange, but I guess it is the psychology of the small group with superior tech going against the more widely accepted group with pretty good tech. Widely accepted does not mean better and the small group is simply being fanatical about it.

With Vista however, I wonder if the goofy Apple banners that were up last year have truly rang true. They said, before the revealing of the latest mac os, "Redmond, start your photocopiers". Now we have a Microsoft OS that looks a little more like and has features obviously borrowed from, the Mac OS.

On its own, Vista is not so bad. But it is not that great, either. It is more of a glorified XP, but with huge crayola style icons and hopefully better internet security.

Other than the security thing, I do not see any reason why I would want to upgrade. I will wait for the official version and read up on the benchmarks. If it is any slower than XP, then forget it. I would take it so long as all of these "improvements" are not just hogging more resources.

In ant case, I guess the computing landscape will be different in late 2006. Linux is pretty widely accepted now and firefox is a legend. Apple computer is gaining market share like crazy and all of the developers for Windows are going to have to rethink their strategies. Especially the ones who currently develop software that provides security for Windows.

I am all for an OS that is secure out of the box (as with MAc and Linux), but that has never been MS' game. They helped foster industries dealing with Antivirus and Antispyware and AntiAdware. Now are they in a predicament where they have to provide security or risk market decline while at teh same time, not scaring away developers that make up the Windows community.

Vista? I will wait and see. Besides, it aint even out for another year. by then there wil be new OS' from competitors to contend with. this is only better for the buyer. I can hardly wait.

I agree, windows has its strong points, like its ease of use and its compatability. But, after using windows since the 3.1 days, and every os microsoft made since, I've dual booted with ubuntu linux. I'm still on dial up, and linux dosnt play niceley with that, but other than that I am completely impressed. Linux is just an easier, more productive workplace for me. I use the GIMP for both windows and linux, and I can say I perform much better using it with linux. If I could get my internet working under linux, I would definently make it my main opperation system, but I also plan on trying out Vista when the commercial comes out (better start saving:)). I think that its good to have choices, and I'm happy to try them all until I find the one that works. For now, gnome desktop kicks butt, if in doubt, try linux. Its not hard to install anymore, ubuntu made it extremely painless for me, all you need is a brain.

I use a Windows PC w/XP for games, and a Macintosh w/OS X for everything else - especially 'secure' financial transactions. I prefer OS X to anything Microsoft has ever published as an operating system. It's just beautiful, stable & satisfying. I won't rehash any of the XP vs OS X wars - you can read that anywhere. I'm looking forward to "Vista" to improve my PC, but again, I already have OS X now. :) Apple's "Leopard" OS will most likely be released on or before "Vista", again, furthering the gap. By June-July of '06, (fingers crossed) I'll own an Apple Macintosh with Intel CPU that'll be able to somehow emulate/run Windows (for games) and OS X for everything else. Pure heaven!

Anyone know how to get aero running full force

I have to say Mark that yours is about the most informed and level headed post of a Mac/PC user of all that I have read on this thread. Congrats to you.
Im a Win XP owner and production Mac operator in design and pre-press. I use 10.3 which I prefer over XP. We haven't moved to 10.4 at work yet because for what we do we don't really need it. I will be interested to see how Vista (yay, exciting name...?) looks and performs when it is .........finally released to the public in .......2006. It will also be interesting to see how much further 10.5 (Leopard) is advanced than Vista ;)

Alright, it looks like not one person here can answer my question. You all live in some sort of air conditioned box.

Again I will ask, does any one, that actually has Windows Vista, run the secure startup. If so who are you using to operate and store your keys, for your TPM. As a matter of fact please tell me what PC your using. Then i'll know if your full of s**t. Thank you

Oh and if you think Vista's new security is a MSFT invention and is only going to be a new Windows thing, Apple has recently adopted the same architecture and the two OS will be run the same way. Looks like Apple ripped something off MSFT, oh wait they both "ripped" it off Intel/ AMD. or intel/amd told them what to do.

cheers

Mac fanatics are brand loyal for a reason. Their products are made well, designed well and intuitive. Their product line is 1-3 years ahead of the competition as exemplified by the years of thievery by mighty MS.

Market share is not an indicator of a superior product. Vista is just now incorporating the advances of the 10x line and won't roll out until late 2006 (if even). Where will the 10x version be then? Going by their track-record, inovating new features that will take Microsoft another 2 years to catch up to.

WAIT WAIT WAIT ! if apple is so far ahead y are they just swtiching to intel processor's now? and not three years ago ? and what was the name of the dual core apple ?

I'm just going to say that "inovation" comes easily when the use of your poduct is less varied and less used....there's much less for them to worry about than MS whose global coverage and wide use produces and wide range of challenges and areas of concern.
We all know MAC does do many thing as well as MS does, and that MAC does do many thing MS sucks at.
Put MAC in the same usage and wide ranging market as MS and see what that company could continue to produce.
I think MS is the evil empire also, but s**t people MS vs MAC you're talking two companies with two completely different sets of issues. Try comparing to similar things for once.
How long did Apple take to finally allow for developement of software from companies who also develop Windows software...? Looks like both play the catch up game.

oh...and the two button mouse! holy s**T! what an innovation! Good job apple way to lead the way. Who's catching up to who? They both are!! that's my point.
Good point Adam...with the dual core intel Apple. lol

i would like to know if 64bit is better than a 32 bit is it faster? i have a 64 bit computer. iam in need of some answers

d
Yes, 64bit would be faster. Given the OS and processor are both 64bit. I hear that a 64bit processor even has speed improvements on some 32bit software.

I'm so sorry for all you beta-testers ;)

Where and how can i get a copy of Windows Vista? I wont to test it pleas post or e-mail me.

So what I'm hearing is, everything good about Windows was "stolen" from MAC...

That's pure unadulterated hogwash! Apple tried claiming that rubbish too, and not a court in the land bought one bit of it.

If you prefer one OS over another, that YOUR preference and opinion. If everyone on either side were actually correct, then the other OS would be long gone. Face it, MAC lovers, Windows is here, and will be here, to stay. Windows users, you can gloat about MAC's small market share, but MAC will be around also, and will probably (but not certainly) always out-innovate Windows. Who copies who and who trumps who is all playground trashtalk.

The bottom line is, as computer users become more educated, they will gravitate, not to the "best" OS on the planet, but the the one (or ones) that best suit what they want out of their computing experience.

The reason that no matter what MS Vista is like, mac-heads will bash it is because Apple treats it's customers right. I bought an iMac two weeks before Tiger came out, and instead of making me buy Tiger for 129 bucks, they gave it to me for free! All i had to do was go to the store I bought it at and they gave me the OS and checked my name off the list. I'm sorry, but i can't see Microsoft doing that. Also Apple's customer support is fantastic, they work hard to keep customers satisfied because they can't afford to loose customers like Microsoft. I use Mac OS X because it works, but i know that if it doesn't, there are people out there who will actually work to solve my problem.

That's my take on it

Posted by d on Friday, August 05, 2005, 10:52 AM (PST)
i would like to know if 64bit is better than a 32 bit is it faster? i have a 64 bit computer. iam in need of some answers

Yes 64 bit is better than 32 bit However if you only have 32 bit apps on your machine then you wont notice any difference in speed. You need to have apps written for 64 bit processing to take advantage of a 64 bit system. Apps that would most likely benefit from being 64 bit would be games, Photoshop, Digital video, ArchiCAD, Mathimatical, and 3D Animation where the CPU has to do large scale number crunching and high end processing which is what the IBM PPC chip and AMD are very good at.

but if your using something like MS Word which is a 32 bit app then you won't notice an difference. (you probably wouldnt notice any difference if it was a 64 bit app because it doesnt require that sort of processing power)

For all those PC lovers out there it is Mac which is short for Macintosh. MAC is a 3 letter acronym.

The release of Mac OS X 10.4.2 marks the beginning, in earnest, of the Tiger update cycle. Because the development cycle for Mac OS X 10.4.1 started before 10.4 DVDs ever reached retail customers, 10.4.2 is the first Tiger update to address usability issues reported by non-simulated customers. The big themes seem to be networking and minor annoyances, with a secondary focus on iChat and Mail, which always seem to have problems in the first release of a major Mac OS X version.

It?s those changes?along with improvements to Tiger?s disk repair tools?that we?ll focus on during this inside look at Mac OS X 10.4.2. The update also includes fixes and changes to the Library, System Library, Core Services, and Unix folders, which are examined in greater depth in the July 31 issue of MWJ (as is the Mac OS X Server 10.4.2 update)

In response to this post: Posted by PCsRule on Thursday, August 04, 2005, 04:47 PM (PST)

Jared-------------------

I'm with you man. To these mac addicts, they swear that Mac OSX is the perfect operating system, but wait until it becomes 1/3 as populer as windows and then we'll see."

I thought Id post this useful little snippet of information -
"With its foundation deeply buried in UNIX, Mac OS X is incredibly secure. Even out of the box, this system comes to you in a very secure state.

The default features included in the Mac make it an excellent choice for users worried about hackers and viruses.

The following three best practices are the most common security recommendations within the overall UNIX community. You can accomplish all three tasks via the System Preferences dialog box.

* Create an additional non-administrative account for daily use: Remember: Admin or root accounts are for tasks ? not browsing the network and reading email.
* Use the OS X screensaver with a password: This habit ensures that your machine remains inaccessible whenever you're away from the keyboard.
* Turn on network time synchronisation: If you plan to maintain and use log files (and Macs log a lot of information), this step makes sure the timestamp in the system logs is accurate.

Final thoughts
While OS X is secure out of the box, you should still take some time and browse through its different features. Make sure to verify that the level of security is consistent with your needs."

In PCWorld.com, you adhere to follow the Terms Of Use.

So please stop using swear words.

Thank you.

To all of those people out there ragging on Windows security, chew on this for a minute...An instructor from the SANS institute took a Windows box and a Linux box with no protection and no patches (this was before SP2) and threw them on the internet. The Linux box was compromised 10 minutes before the Windows box (Both were compromised at around 60 mins). And the other thing...if you're trying to hit a target, which would you prefer to shoot at? A barn or a pop can? I'd shoot at the barn. That's what it's like with Windows security, everyone is shooting at the barn, cus there is a higher user population thus a higher propability you'll hit your mark. No one cares about Mac's pop can user population.

Guys please--- Windows is for someone the BEST OS but for someone the BEST is MAC.So please stop fooling which is the best.For me is WINDOWS

Pfoutz im with you!!! You'r RIGHT--Anyone will target at Windows.It's no way of 100% protection of the computer.The only 100% protetion is that the computer has no access to INTERNET

"That's what it's like with Windows security, everyone is shooting at the barn, cus there is a higher user population thus a higher propability you'll hit your mark. No one cares about Mac's pop can user population."

From the article in USA Today

"Each PC was connected to the Internet via a broadband DSL connection and monitored for two weeks in September. Break-in attempts began immediately and continued at a constant and high level: an average of 341 per hour against the Windows XP machine with no firewall or recent security patches, 339 per hour against the Apple Macintosh and 61 per hour against the Windows Small Business Server. Each was sold without an activated firewall."

Incidently the Macintosh was never compromised during the tests despite the high level of attacks.

"The machines tested were types popular with home users and small businesses. They included: four Dell desktop PCs running different configurations of the Window XP operating system, an Apple Macintosh and a Microtel Linspire, which uses the Linux operating system."

Incidently, when your a computer connected to the internet you are just an IP address which is not specific to Mac or Windows. So that blows the barn door theory out the window my anonymous friend.

Mad as Hell III -- Month 1 review
By Winn Schwartau
02 Jun 2005 | SearchSecurity.com
SOUND OFF! Post your comments

Winn Schwartau sums up his first experiences in his conversion from Windows to Mac.

Disgusted by security issues and poor performance, Winn Schwartau makes the switch from Windows to the Mac and details the bumps in the road along the way in his "Mad as Hell" series.

It's May 31 and I've had my Mac for one month. This is my report.

I have:

* 1. Upgraded OS X from 10.3 to 10.4. I slept thru it.
o Done no OS X configuration other than screen saver and wallpaper. Moved the 'Dock' or task bar.
o No security add ons.
o Upgraded to 10.4.1. Seamless. Painless. But, yes, it does require a reboot.
* 2. Installed a "legal copy" of MS Office for Mac.
o Macros in Office apps. From everything I have seen and heard from my new 108,745 close personal friends, OS X viruses in the wild are simply not a concern. But MS Word macro viruses are real, although there is some debate about how much damage they can do in the OS X environment. The MS app default is to advise me on opening docs with macros. I guess I have opened and received more than a thousand docs this month. No alerts. I double checked my settings and gave myself an infected Word doc just to check it was working. All is good.

WIN Vista installed on new DELL Dimension, error messages pop up every three minutes like: "graphics card not compatible with current system, core network files corrupted, re-install"

can I put Vista on an 800 Mhz old laptop?(Don't you dare laugh!)

I really hope that we won't have to buy a $500 Graphics card just to use Vista, there had better be a way to tone down the special effects and stuff that just makes it run slower.

P.S. my Mac actually got faster when i switched to Tiger.......

I'm both a Windows user and a Linux user. I've used every MS operating system since MS DOS. I have been playing around with Linux for 6 months.

Pfoutz, please don't downplay Windows' security problem. I disagree with you that the ONLY reason for Windows having more security problems it that it is more popular. I believe it is inherently less secure than either Linux and Mac.

Windows is a better desktop OS than Linux and it runs much more apps than both Linux and Mac OS, but it's security problems are glaring.

After almost giving up on Linux (it has its own share of problems), I reinstalled Windows. But I then had to install Norton Internet Security, Spy Sweeper, Spybot S&D, and Ad Aware. I then had to update all of these. I then had to update Windows itself. I then had to update MS Office using a different website.

After spending about an hour making my Windows system airtight, I had an eye opener about Windows' security. I decided to persist in learning Linux.

With Linux, all I had to do was set up the BUILT-IN firewall and click the update button and my system was secure. And it's actually harder (but not impossible) to create viruses and worms for Linux because the whole system is built on the concept of the "root user". It's hard for a virus to install itself because it will need to trick the user into entering the admin password.

But this is just security. There are other things make stay with Windows (I use a dual boot system). Things like games and applications that don't have a Linux equivalent (MS Money, Picasa, Hello, and Yahoo Messenger Beta).

Vista shows promise, alot of it. The final product will test that promise. But for gamers, and i am one. It's promises to give us a much better experience and be more aware of our power needs. XP was way better then anything b4 it, and it still lacked in basic features. I'm not talking about being able to play video or some stupid thing. I mean it lacked a power users needs. XP was designed for everyone, and everyone wasn't a gamer. So Vista gives us the hope that we will for once be able to control the bloat without haveing to shut down our virus scanner and firewall to clear memory for a video game. At least i have something to hope for with Vista.

Posted by Pfoutz on Friday, August 05, 2005, 10:25 PM (PST)

To all of those people out there ragging on Windows security, chew on this for a minute...An instructor from the SANS institute took a Windows box and a Linux box with no protection and no patches (this was before SP2) and threw them on the internet. The Linux box was compromised 10 minutes before the Windows box (Both were compromised at around 60 mins). And the other thing...if you're trying to hit a target, which would you prefer to shoot at? A barn or a pop can?

Just a couple of things about your last statement Pfoutz, Since OS X was released in mid 2001 there have been no viruses or trojans, XP was released a couple of months after OS X 10.0 and there are now about 70,000 viruses in the wild....

Also in that honey pot test an average of 341 per hour against the Windows XP machine with no firewall or recent security patches,

339 per hour against the Apple Macintosh and 61 per hour against the Windows Small Business Server. Each was sold without an activated firewall.

Now my math is pretty average but I would have to say that that works out at about 6 attacks a minute for both Windows and OS X and your saying that OS X is a "smaller" target....

The report also said that,
"By contrast, there were fewer than four attacks per hour against the Windows XP updated with a basic firewall and recent patches (Service Pack 2), the Linspire with basic firewall and the Windows XP with ZoneAlarm firewall."

If OS X is such a "small" target why was it attacked at a rate similar to Windows and still not compromised?

The report then says "While attempted break-ins never ceased, successful compromises were limited to nine instances on the minimally protected Windows XP computer and a single break-in of the Windows Small Business Server.

There were NO successful compromises of the Macintosh, the Linspire or the two Windows XPs using firewalls."

Now remember OS X was plugged in to the internet with out its firewall being turned on.

OS X comes with no antivirus software but does come with an industry standard firewall which can be configured by the user for extra security to keep out hackers.

"None of the attacks against the Mac amounted to anything, while the PC was successfully compromised nine times during the two-week experiment."

Now I am not trying to say that you can't hack or attack or write viruses for OS X, I am sure you can. How ever due to the way that the system is designed your virus or trojan would be very limited as to the damage it could do or how far it could spread or be spread UNLIKE Windows.

Hey - This discussion was supposed to be abt Vista. FOCUS !

Well let's say I also do what everyone reccommends against..cause thats just how i am..2 questions..SECURITY? Can I dual boot? I really don't want to wipe put XP for a beta that migh screw everything up.

I have used DOS, Windows 3.1, 95, 98, NT, 2K, Me, XP, and 2003. All are kewl ! Long live Windows! Long live Microshit!

Where can I download windows Vista? Thanks

i installed winvista also .....and the first difference (and maybe only ?:p) is the very nice UI ....

forum.winvistasecrets.com

I read somewhere (on a site dedicated to tracking the development of "Longhorn", actually) that it takes over an hour to install. Micronization is the trend of everything moving into the future except software. That bothers the *expletive* out of me.

To take an hour + to install it can't be written from scratch. At least that's my thinking. Can any Vista user tell me straight whether or not it appears to be more OS built on top of XP?

This thread is so internet. Requests for warez, OS X trolling, hearsay accounts and speculation passed off as fact. We got it all right here, folks.

Was Vista built from scratch?

I want to know what consists of an attack. Is a port scan an attack? I'm guessing in this study it was because you both say it yourself, there are no viruses that go after mac machines. Part of it is because their user base is so small and another reason is people want to go after Microsoft. As for Microsoft's innherit security flaws...they were bad a year ago. XP was a huge improvement, SP2 was a enormous improvement, now with Vist having the Unix like user privledges I'm sure you'll see attacks drop dramatically. The other thing with Windows is everyone logs in as an admin...that's not true with mac, linux or unix. Miucrosoft designs for what people want. People wanted something easy to use. By making something secure you make it harder to use and hinder the flow of information. Now people want things to be secure. Thus MS is making it secure. My ultimate point is if people were as tech savvy with windows as they where with linux and mac (ie don't be stupid on the internet and log in as a user not an admin, maybe disable some services) and people beat on macs and linux just as hard as they beat on MS, I think you'd see a lot more mac and linux attacks. The other thing you need to realize is stupid users use MS bc it's easy to use.

I have installed vista, wow I guest it took more than 2.5 hours to install. I started to install it on midnight then waited for 2.5 hours but still hasn't finish yet, then went to sleep. Wake up in the morning, Vista ready.
I hope final version will not take like this long time to install.

I have installed vista on my PC but I can only start it in safemode. If I start it normaly everything looks fine and after it checks the disks it reboots. Does anyone now why?

Well vista sounds okay but the funny thing is that if you put it on the main computer it's a big gamble. I myself own only one computer that is compatable with WINxp and there is NO WAY I will download vista... besides it only has a better looking GUI as far as I'm concern I would like Microsoft to create an GUI like Windows 98 now that would be better: Work on the programing (no SP1000s) and I would never switch to mac!

It only took around 30 mins to install here,

athlon64 2800+ with a gig of ram

did anybody know how can I use yahoo messenger on Vista? I've instaled the messenger 7 and it gives me an runtime error...something with yahoo pager...plz help :D

You are all crazy, silly promethean nerds w/ your outdated hardware jibber-jabber!

Mac OS X ruuuuuuules

where are some sited that have the windows vista dwnload other than msdn.com

where are some sited that have the windows vista dwnload other than msdn.com

where are some sited that have the windows vista dwnload other than msdn.com

NO NO NO. He does not mean hackers searching the internet for windows. These virus' and trojans are made for specific OS. So windows IS a BIGGER target. and to the one who said no viruses or trojans, you are full of crap. If you truly believe there is no trojans or viruses for OS X then you are living in a different internet world lol. That is the funniest thing I have ever heard. So what you are sayin is that if you have OS X then you need 0 protection b/c there is 0 viruses and trojans.

I really think the beta should ne free. you have to sign up for stupid MSDN just to get it! and its like over $100.00! they should make the beta free, but it could just expire or something. and then you could pay for the full version that does not expire.

where can i get the betta from? thank

I have internet cafe(that is actually a cafe too) and i have win xp pro en each of the machines, of course configured hard.

it runs the wonderfully lite kaspersky anti virus, the registry mechanic 4.0 and the ad.aware se pro and kaspersky anti-hacker for security.

the all brownse with firefox 1.0.6 by default. these are modded firefox that look exactly like internet explorer 6.5 but with all the power of firefox with 50 extentions running on it....that i instruct them to use as needed.

(like when some client tell me that for one reason they want to print something and i nuke out everything in the screen but the test without having to leave the brownser screen, just to mention one of a hundred examples)

(yeah, i fool my clients to use firefox....) and well i have been running them like that for a year, and guess what ZERO problems. and fast working machines that only have 512mb of ram with pentium III.

this is cybercafe the computers are used hard for 12hrs a day by not very experienced people. so i would say that windows can be a stable os all the way if your maintain them well adjusted.

i also repair computers and configure them the same way. all of them have worked fine since then (almost a 100 machines).

to me is all about having great ram, good software for the protection and a good configuration to make windows work good for a long long time.

you are all so damm naive no lik posted in the shit hole it not good to download ms-vista . it all crap the new win it just a new xp skin thet will eat all your resorce i so dam funy it will eat your hole memory guys it the worst os micro- it now making skins for xp not full operating sitems.....and you cant get

MAC'S RULE!!! I used a windoze box for years and got fed up with the unstable architecture and having to reboot 10 times a day!

Windows XP is an unproductive piece of junk, just like Windows ME! I look foward to Vista (which i think looks pretty cool, oh wait thats because microsoft copied Apple again) which will be the same as XP. I bought my iBook about 3 weeks ago. It's the best computer i've ever used. All my windoze user freinds think OSX is better than windoze too even though they use it lol. Read my next post for my theory about Apple/Intel.

Apple's decision to use Intel CPU's

The crowd this week in San Francisco at Apple's World Wide Developers Conference seemed mildly excited by the prospect of its favorite computer company turning to Intel processors. The CEO of Adobe asked why it had taken Apple so long to make the switch? Analysts on Wall Street were generally positive, with a couple exceptions. WHAT THE HECK IS GOING ON HERE!? Are these people drunk on Flav-r-Ade? Yes. It is the legendary Steve Jobs Reality Distortion Field at work. And this time, what's behind the announcement is so baffling and staggering that it isn't surprising that nobody has yet figured it out until now.
Apple and Intel are merging.
Let's take a revisionist look at the Apple news, asking a few key questions. The company has on its web site a video of the speech, itself, which is well worth watching. It's among this week's links.
Question 1: What happened to the PowerPC's supposed performance advantage over Intel?
This is the Altivec Factor -- PowerPC's dedicated vector processor in the G4 and G5 chips that make them so fast at running applications like Adobe Photoshop and doing that vaunted H.264 video compression. Apple loved to pull Phil Schiller onstage to do side-by-side speed tests showing how much faster in real life the G4s and G5s were than their Pentium equivalents. Was that so much BS? Did Apple not really mean it? And why was the question totally ignored in this week's presentation?
Question 2: What happened to Apple's 64-bit operating system?
OS X 10.4 -- Tiger -- is a 64-bit OS, remember, yet Intel's 64-bit chips -- Xeon and Itanium -- are high buck items aimed at servers, not iMacs. So is Intel going to do a cheaper Itanium for Apple or is Apple going to pretend that 64-bit never existed? Yes to both is my guess, which explains why the word "Pentium" was hardly used in the Jobs presentation. Certainly, he never said WHICH Intel chip they'd be using, just mentioning an unnamed 3.6-Ghz development system -- a system which apparently doesn't benchmark very well, either (it's in the links).
So is 64-bit really nothing to Apple? And why did they make such a big deal about it in their earlier marketing?
Question 3: Where the heck is AMD?
If Apple is willing to embrace the Intel architecture because of its performance and low power consumption, then why not go with AMD, which equals Intel's power specs, EXCEEDS Intel's performance specs AND does so at a lower price point across the board? Apple and AMD makes far more sense than Apple and Intel any day.
Question 4: Why announce this chip swap a year before it will even begin for customers?
This is the biggest question of all, suggesting Steve Jobs has completely forgotten about Adam Osborne. For those who don't remember him, Osborne was the charismatic founder of Osborne Computer, makers of the world's first luggable computer, the Osborne 1. The company failed in spectacular fashion when Adam pre-announced his next model, the Osborne Executive, several months before it would actually ship. People who would have bought Osborne 1s decided to wait for the Executive, which cost only $200 more and was twice the computer. Osborne sales crashed and the company folded. So why would Steve Jobs -- who knew Adam Osborne and even shared a hot tub with him (Steve's longtime girlfriend back in the day worked as an engineer for Osborne) -- pre-announce this chip change that undercuts not only his present product line but most of the machines he'll be introducing in the next 12 to 18 months?
Is the guy really going to stand up at some future MacWorld and tout a new Mac as being the world's most advanced obsolete computer?
This announcement has to cost Apple billions in lost sales as customers inevitably decide to wait for Intel boxes.
Apple's stated reason for pre-announcing the shift by a year is to allow third-party developers that amount of time to port their apps to Intel. But this makes no sense. For one thing, Apple went out of its way to show how easy the port could be with its Mathematica demonstration, so why give it a year? And companies typically make such announcements to their partners in private under NDA and get away with it. There was no need to make this a public announcement despite News.com's scoop, which only happened because of the approaching Jobs speech. Apple could have kept it quiet if they had chosen to, with the result that not so many sales would have been lost.
This means that there must have been some overriding reason why Apple HAD to make this public announcement, why it was worth the loss of billions in sales.
Question 5: Is this all really about Digital Rights Management?
People "in the know" love this idea, that Hollywood moguls are forcing Apple to switch to Intel because Intel processors have built-in DRM features that will keep us from pirating music and movies. Yes, Intel processors have such features, based primarily on the idea of a CPU ID that we all hated when it was announced years ago so Intel just stopped talking about it. The CPU ID is still in there, of course, and could be used to tie certain content to the specific chip in your computer.
But there are two problems with this argument. First, Apple is already in the music and video distribution businesses without this feature, which wouldn't be available across the whole product line for another two years and wouldn't be available across 90 percent of the installed base for probably another six years. Second, though nobody has ever mentioned it, I'm fairly sure that the PowerPC, too, has an individual CPU ID. Every high end microprocessor does, just as every network device has its unique MAC address.
So while DRM is nice, it probably isn't a driving force in this decision.
Then what is the driving force?
Microsoft.
Here is my analysis based on not much more than pondering the five questions, above, and speaking with a few old friends in the business. I won't say there is no insider information involved, but darned little.
The obvious questions about performance and 64-bit computing come down to marketing. At first, I thought that Steve Jobs was somehow taking up the challenge of making users believe war was peace and hate was love simply to show that he could do it. Steve is such a powerful communicator and so able to deceive people that for just a moment, I thought maybe he was doing this as a pure tour de force -- just because he could.
Nah. Not even Steve Jobs would try that.
The vaunted Intel roadmap is nice, but no nicer than the AMD roadmap, and nothing that IBM couldn't have matched. If Apple was willing to consider a processor switch, moving to the Cell Processor would have made much more sense than going to Intel or AMD, so I simply have to conclude that technology has nothing at all to do with this decision. This is simply about business -- BIG business.
Another clue comes from HP, where a rumor is going around that HP selling iPods could turn into HP becoming an Apple hardware partner for personal computers, too.
Microsoft comes into this because Intel hates Microsoft. It hasn't always been that way, but in recent years Microsoft has abused its relationship with Intel and used AMD as a cudgel against Intel. Even worse, from Intel's standpoint Microsoft doesn't work hard enough to challenge its hardware. For Intel to keep growing, people have to replace their PCs more often and Microsoft's bloat-ware strategy just isn't making that happen, especially if they keep delaying Longhorn.
Enter Apple. This isn't a story about Intel gaining another three percent market share at the expense of IBM, it is about Intel taking back control of the desktop from Microsoft.
Intel is fed up with Microsoft. Microsoft has no innovation that drives what Intel must have, which is a use for more processing power. And when they did have one with the Xbox, they went elsewhere.
So Intel buys Apple and works with their OEMs to get products out in the market. The OEMs would love to be able to offer a higher margin product with better reliability than Microsoft. Intel/Apple enters the market just as Microsoft announces yet another delay in their next generation OS. By the way, the new Apple OS for the Intel Architecture has a compatibility mode with Windows (I'm just guessing on this one).
This scenario works well for everyone except Microsoft. If Intel was able to own the Mac OS and make it available to all the OEMs, it could break the back of Microsoft. And if they tuned the OS to take advantage of unique features that only Intel had, they would put AMD back in the box, too. Apple could return Intel to its traditional role of being where all the value was in the PC world. And Apple/Intel could easily extend this to the consumer electronics world. How much would it cost Intel to buy Apple? Not much. And if they paid in stock it would cost nothing at all since investors would drive shares through the roof on a huge swell of user enthusiasm.
That's the story as I see it unfolding. Steve Jobs finally beats Bill Gates. And with the sale of Apple to Intel, Steve accepts the position of CEO of the Pixar/Disney/Sony Media Company.
Remember, you read it here first.

I find Unofficial Download page of Windows Vista Beta 1 here: http://windows.czweb.org/

hey, well im an 11 year oldand I LOVE COMPUTERS!!!!! well would it be possible to have a cross-platform pc with windows vista? and if i did try it out on my pc, i remember something like a pallet wich u can install mulitple OS's and switch between both(or more.) well as i was asking.... if the windows vista OS gets all screwed up and stuff, would i need to swipe my hardrive and lose all my information?

Nobody seems to have aswered this simple question, posted both by Viper on Thursday, August 04, 2005, 12:47 PM (PST) andby Kneeboy on Thursday, August 04, 2005, 05:09 PM (PST):

==== How can u tell if you have 64-bit or 32-bit???

I would take up on these questions too. Any answer? Thanks a lot.

To tell if you have a 32 or 64 bit cpu you have to go into mycomputer, on the left click system information and on that page it should tell you if it dosen't alberto then you should select start all programs accesories, system tools, and on that page you can navigate through all you computers information.

hi i also run on windows vista x64 but i have some problems with mij soundmax drivers anyone had that same problem