Dead-da-dead-dead...

[Jamie-Jamie]

Actually he is right. I find Vista to be garbage. But XP and W7 are in their own rights nice software to a point.

But that is really offtopic. And anyways JJ I think you're lucky you owned a Mac that died and not a PC. Do you think any PC company would give you the level of customer service that Apple gave you? And that is one of the reasons I and most of us here buy Apple.

And if anyone says Apple has lousy customer service I personally give you JJ permission to shove your story right up their nose and twist into their brains.

No, they wouldn't. And this is the second time that Apple has come through for me like this. The first time was waaay back in 1999.

But off-topic yeah... but still, Windows Vista SP2 and Windows 7 are identical. They really are. I've now used them both on the same hardware. They're identical. Same CPU load, same RAM utilization in the very same situations.

But 7 has a huge taskbar, so that makes it good like XP. Since XP is soooooooo good with its great security, awesome built-in self-maintenance, easy-to-use update system, and... oh wait...

WINDOWS XP SUCKS!

 

[6string]

Hey Jamie.... isn't today the big day?
I'm listening out for the screams of joy....
I'm hoping that you post the pics of the new setup including all the added goodies

 

[dtravis7]

Jamie, the strange thing is here in my tests on both desktop, Laptop and Netbook systems, although the basic ram usage seems the same with W7 and Vista, W7 is night and day faster and snappier here. On my Netbook with 1.5GB RAM where Vista was so slow it was unusable for me, Windows 7 flies. It's very noticeable. If you give Vista plenty of RAM and CPU its quite nice but 7 is even nicer in my tests. I was shocked in fact to look in the task manager and notice what you are reporting, because it works so much smoother and faster especially on slower systems like that 1.6Ghz Acer Netbook with 1.5GB RAM.

 

[Jamie-Jamie]

I haven't found a lick of difference. Each one got a fresh install. It wasn't an upgrade over Vista, just to be sure.

BTW, an update. My replacement Mac Pro arrived and... umm...

It was DOA.

So it's back on its way to Cupertino. I love what the guy on the phone said...

"Miss, we'll get this fixed if we have to go all the way to Steve."

 

[6string]

D.O.A ...... that sucks! Sorry to hear that you have to sit tight for a while longer, but I do really love the "Miss, we'll get this fixed if we have to go all the way to Steve" line.
Keep us posted

 

[cwa107]

I haven't found a lick of difference. Each one got a fresh install. It wasn't an upgrade over Vista, just to be sure.

BTW, an update. My replacement Mac Pro arrived and... umm...

It was DOA.

So it's back on its way to Cupertino. I love what the guy on the phone said...

"Miss, we'll get this fixed if we have to go all the way to Steve."

Unbelievable. What is it with you and electronics?

 

[blackmac11]

Really, that's just terrible luck.

 

[DarkestRitual]

Ooooh that's a tough call. The new iMac... is it the i5 or i7? Even the i5's bench marks compared very favorably to the quad core 2.66GHz mac pro... and then you'd have a dual display quad core system, since you could use your current display with the iMac... I'd go for the iMac.

 

[DarkestRitual]

I'm sorry, Jamie, but Vista is GARBAGE IMHO. I can never get over all the wasted memory usage I see in it. Looking at the leaked code of NT4 years ago, I remember seeing a set of code that made it so programs didn't use all physical RAM, they used a fraction of swap at all times. So, I tested this on an early XP Box, I monitored MS Office '03. The computer had 1GB of RAM, 2.5GB static swap and there was ~400mb of ram free. After starting MS Office, it used only 156mb of physical but hogged a whopping .9GB of swap. just my humble opinion, and vista's visual effects, do remember, have been around in OS X at least since OS X Jaguar way back in the day.


But congrats on the Mac Pro, hope it lasts longer, such an expensive machine I'd hate to see my $2500 go down the drain (Main reason I won't get an Intel Mac, they are of poor quality compared to PPC days.

Cheers

Sorry, bud. I've been using Mac OS and Macs since 1990, the SE. Got my MacBook aluminum a year after my G5 died. I had my doubts when we moved to X86 also. The thing handled Leopard pretty well. No complaints. With Snow Leopard though? This thing makes my old dual 2GHz power mac G5 look like a no legged tortoise trying to run a race against Usain Bolt.

2ghz core 2 duo. Destroys it.


WOW DOA?! REALLY?! You are gonna get soooo much more free stuff! Haha. I mean, yea, terrible luck in the short term, but wow!

 

[Slydude]

I had the Explorer go down once right after I started using it, but it's been perfection ever since. At this point I don't dare let my husband Jeff touch it for fear that he'll spew icons all over my nice, clean desktop and install 20 or 30 system monitors that cover ever available UI surface with enough tickers and counters to baffle a stockbroker.

I can see this and understand why people stick by it...

... But I can't look at what he does and find it the least bit attractive.

If my name were Jeff I would think we had gotten married. I tend to do the same thing sometimes lol.

Hope you get this resolved soon.

 

[6string]

BTW, an update. My replacement Mac Pro arrived and... umm...

It was DOA.

So it's back on its way to Cupertino. I love what the guy on the phone said...

"Miss, we'll get this fixed if we have to go all the way to Steve."

Hi Jamie
Any news yet since the DOA debacle?

 

[EndlessMac]

So this is why JJ hasn't been that active lately. Hopefully Apple fixes the problem.