Xmas PC Upgrading

ParielIsBack wrote: Stick staying in my ass. You've basically pulled out every uninformed hard core PC-user reason for not buying a Mac, and ignored my point entirely. And that's coming from someone who uses Windows 90% of the time.

Actually, he repeatedly owned you in an argument and you still haven't realized it.

You claim Mac OS is better than windows because it is more stable. On which hardware setup is this the case? Mac OS has a relatively small set of configurations it supports, as stated earlier, while Microsoft tries to support anything and everything. Apple's efforts are concentrated on a smaller set of hardware configurations so it is far less likely that you will encounter issues bound to the OS itself. However, I have yet to see a hardware configuration that was not supported by Windows out of the box. Obviously you don't want a gaming computer using the Windows graphics drivers but do they work well enough for you to use the system? In my experience, this has been the case every single time. I've never had XP or Vista tell me it didn't recognize my CPU or other critical components and prevent me from using the OS. For other devices (of which MS could not and should not try to natively support all of), you simply install drivers included with the product in order to help Windows talk to it. Pretty simple and allows you to use virtually anything with the OS. Any problems experienced are not the fault of Microsoft as they only determine/create the API's used by developers to make their devices work on the OS. It's up to those developers to make the drivers properly. Blaming Microsoft for crap drivers made by other companies is like blaming Ford for the poor driving of some random guy in an F-150.

I have had Windows machines running rock solid at my house for years (excluding the times I tinkered with things that were best not tinkered with). My first computer ran XP pretty flawlessly since SP1 and only blue-screened a handful of times which I quickly found out was due to Nvidia drivers, not Windows itself. A driver update or two solved that. That PC was retired roughly 4 years ago for my current desktop which started with XP SP2 and now runs SP3 and has yet to blue-screen on me. Also, I overclocked the snot out of it (1.8 GHz to 2.6 GHz) which often significantly increases the chances of making the OS unstable. Between those two computers, I've swapped tons of components in and out and connected all kinds of crap and never really had any major problems. My laptop came with Vista and has worked absolutely fine since I got it 2 years ago. I have never had a single problem with Vista itself. I had an issue with my DVD drive popping itself open occasionally but I fixed this with a firmware update. Again, nothing to do with Microsoft. I should also note that a lot of devices I hooked up to this Vista system were recognized by the OS and didn't require drivers to be installed. I simply plugged them in, let Vista set them up, and then used them. The system is still rock solid and I've been doing tons of schoolwork on it and installed all kinds of crap in the process.

All this nonsense about Vista sucking is largely due to Microsoft rushing Vista out before giving developers enough time to support it in their drivers and software. This led to tons of driver issues (again, these drivers are not made by Microsoft) which people wrongly blamed on the OS because they don't understand how a computer or the OS really works. If you want to call Vista a turd because it uses up more resources than an OS should and because UAC is extremely annoying and largely ineffective, then I'd say you have a point. However, this is not what you're saying. The point you have been trying to make was understood. The problem is that you're wrong and when you got called out on it, you failed to provide a convincing counter-point or any proof to back your claims. Instead you decided to be condescending and arrogant which made you look even more foolish. I too suggest removing the stick as foreign objects inside the body can lead to infections.

EDIT: Also, HV, congrats on the new system. Mine is still quite capable but I'm still itching to do some serious upgrading. I'm still running a dual-core opteron (Socket 939) and DDR400 RAM. I at least got an 8800 GTS a while back but I'm still a few generations behind. I have a copy of Windows 7 and I just got a new job so hopefully I'll be able to start the new year off with a snazzy Core i7/DDR3 system on W7. Until then, I envy you sir.


Edited by mod98commando - 19 December 2009 at 2:35am

Your analogies are horrid and often wrong or misplaced. I beg to differ with you about people never buying anything based solely on price. I've worked retail, I've seen lower priced items go much faster.

High Voltage wrote: Your analogies are horrid and often wrong or misplaced. I beg to differ with you about people never buying anything based solely on price. I've worked retail, I've seen lower priced items go much faster.

You're really arguing that Apple is not a luxury brand?

Your logic appears to be that because Apple sells more expensive computers, people should only buy PCs.  Do you really not see how that doesn't make any sense?


Edited by ParielIsBack - 19 December 2009 at 5:44pm

ParielIsBack wrote: High Voltage wrote: Your analogies are horrid and often wrong or misplaced. I beg to differ with you about people never buying anything based solely on price. I've worked retail, I've seen lower priced items go much faster. You're really arguing that Apple is not a luxury brand? Your logic appears to be that because Apple sells more expensive computers, people should only buy PCs.  Do you really not see how that doesn't make any sense?

Darur is spot on. Also, why is everything taken to extremes with you?

I have nothing against you personally Pariel but holy crap dude. Unless I'm missing something, you've used some pretty bizarre logic in this thread. I want to give you the benefit of the doubt and say you just aren't good at communicating your thoughts but I don't know.

Also, that better word you're looking for is "overrated".

I didn't really mean to start a Mac vs. PC war.

Darur wrote: Apple does not use better parts.  They do not have software that can do things PCs can't. They look prettier, perhaps, but beyond that the differences are mostly personal choice.

While I'm not a fan of fanboys one way or another, and I think that both have their perks, I do prefer Apple due to the stability they offer.

Granted, this is simply anecdotal, but in my experience, the Apple computers I have used have been less
prone to things like errors, restarts, malware, etc.

I know that Windows computers can work well and be stable now too. I say that because I don't want to ignite the rabid haters of either side (Darur/Choopie).

Darur wrote: A Mercedes, from my woefully limited understanding of cars, is a luxury car because it has nicer features, a more powerful engine, better handling, etc.  Clearly a Mercedes is "better" then the cars produced by, say, Ford.

This doesn't really work, because Ford doesn't let you come into the showroom, and put whatever engine you want in, with whatever alternator, spark plugs, etc. As previously stated I like Apple's hardware because they have control over the hardware from step one. The same is for cars obviously, and as I said if Ford let you put whatever components you want in it would be a bit more comparable.

So, much to my surprise, I received 4 more gigs of RAM this morning. 

High Voltage wrote: Hey benji, how's the new hardware working?

Sexy as hell. Still can't get over how smooth everything runs.