Mac Ping!
If you want on or off the Mac Ping List, Freepmail me.
If you want on or off the Mac Ping List, Freepmail me.
Apple$ have fans, Micrsoft$ have critics
I can assure the author that Windows XP will not "happily" run on 64MB of RAM! You wouldn't want any less than 256MB and you really need a full gig to get it truly "happy."
The cult of Steve Jobs is beyond creepy. Mac wishes it had their sales.
Idiocy comes to mind in addition to being FUD.
A key difference between Microsoft (and by extension, the whole "PC" world) and Apple is that the latter actually has a minimum equipment list and enforces it. There comes a point where trying to maintain full compatibility with old hardware is of marginal benefit; if you're going to stop supporting it, then do so with clarity. This is more important when the old hardware is very different from the new, and costly to support with little benefit - in this case, non-Intel hardware.
There are so many WTF’s in this middle school term paper calling it such is almost too nice.
Yep.
Hey - the magazine has to have a new issue constantly - give the guy a break. Remember controversy sells issues.
And I don’t even have to read the comments to know what all the little fan girls on each side have to say!
I got tired of people complaining that it was too hard to use UNIX because the editor was too complicated. - Bill Joy
Umm, duhhhhh.
Leopard wouldn't run on the older G4s. Tiger wouldn't run on G3s.
This is not just FUD but really stupid FUD.
Whatever. Every software developing company will come out with a turkey at some point. Perhaps 10.6 is Apple’s.
But to compare the two companies’ mistakes is silly. They both make their own, new, unique, and differently debilitating mistakes - so why compare? ;-P
Oh, puleeze. This guy never heard of Millenium?
Hardware hog?
Vista required vastly more resources to run than XP, and despite that Microsoft gave the green light for hardware “compatibility” to hardware that wouldn’t properly run Vista (like Intel integrated video) in an effort to sell Vista on more low-end machines that couldn’t really handle it.
Contrast with Snow Leopard, which simply removed support for older hardware. Performance-wise a G4 is still perfectly capable of running SL. Apple just decided to cut backwards compatibility and not allocate the resources necessary to maintain an OS for two separate chip architectures.
Written just in time for 10.6.2 to take care of any anomalies people may have seen. SL is noticeably quicker than Leopard and is in no way, shape or form, slightly comparable to Vista.
More MS BS peddled by the companies they pay for this propaganda.
Like h*ll it does. Maybe notepad and calculator. Try running Outlook with that configuration. "Oh, you want mail?"
Horse Hockey. I run Photoshop, Bridge, Flash, and Dreamweaver, ALL CS3, with no problems in Snow Leopard. My daughter has Photoshop 7 on her laptop with Snow Leopard.
I got one quarter of the way through and felt like laughing hysterically. The author has no clue what he’s talking about.
Our family has one PPC G5, 1 PPC Mac Mini and one iBook G4 still running on Leopard. We have one Intel Mac Mini running on Leopard. All the other computers, 1 Macbook Mini, 3 Mac Minis, and 1 of last year’s model iMacs, all have been upgraded to Snow Leopard (Family Pack).
Snow Leopard is smaller, faster, and has taken our older Mac (Intel) machines upward in performance, and some of those Intel machines are from 2006.
Vista literally couldn’t be installed on most “stock” models of PC’s that were built the year Vista was released, let alone being installed on machines built in previous years. PC manufacturers had to “upgrade” their base specs to meet Vista’s demanding requirements, and it was a good many months before the first truly Vista ready machines were shipped.
I wonder what kind of pain killer the author takes for those bouts of painful-silly he must be prone to having.
Despite earning positive press reviews, we'd argue its teething problems are reminiscent of those of Vista. Since its launch, it's been riddled with software and hardware incompatibilities. There's a lack of Earth-shattering new features and an air of general mediocrity that was the hallmark of Microsoft's much-abused OS.It's the first-ever Intel-only OS, so naturally the paid FUD-spreaders will be out in force. There are fewer than there used to be, because so many of them have either died, or gone to prison, or used one of the payoffs of bribe money to quietly buy a Mac. ;')
Secondly, this, The applications affected are numerous and varied. Signature apps such as Parallels Desktop are on the blacklist,
..is completely wrong. Either a lie or a completely, albeit innocently erroneous statement. I've been able to run my Parallels Desktop since upgrading to Snow Leopard, and since getting the latest Parallels Desktop, it's run better than it has in a year (which is way before Snow Leopard came out).
Given this, I suspect every other claim in this review is bogus. Was there no fact checking prior to publishing this? Where did the author come up with this stuff?
Relatively low but 1GB is what the basic Mac Mini comes with. I got such a Mini as a gift last summer. Unfortunately, I can't just plug in more memory. Its either a rather delicate operation opening the Mini and moving stuff around or taking the machine to an Apple Store and sitting around for hours or leaving it.