| ActiveMac | Anonymous | Create a User | Reviews | News | Forums | Advertise |
|
|
|
User Controls |
|
New User |
|
Login |
|
Edit/View My Profile |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
ActiveMac |
|
Articles |
|
Forums |
|
Links |
|
News |
|
News Search |
|
Reviews |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
News Centers |
|
Windows/Microsoft |
|
DVD |
|
ActiveHardware |
|
Xbox |
|
MaINTosh |
|
News Search |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
ANet Chats |
|
The Lobby |
|
Special Events Room |
|
Developer's Lounge |
|
XBox Chat |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
FAQ's |
|
Windows 98/98 SE |
|
Windows 2000 |
|
Windows Me |
|
Windows "Whistler" XP |
|
Windows CE |
|
Internet Explorer 6 |
|
Internet Explorer 5 |
|
Xbox |
|
DirectX |
|
DVD's |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
TopTechTips |
|
Registry Tips |
|
Windows 95/98 |
|
Windows 2000 |
|
Internet Explorer 4 |
|
Internet Explorer 5 |
|
Windows NT Tips |
|
Program Tips |
|
Easter Eggs |
|
Hardware |
|
DVD |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Latest Reviews |
|
Applications |
|
Microsoft Windows XP Professional |
|
Norton SystemWorks 2002 |
|
|
|
Hardware |
|
Intel Personal Audio Player 3000 |
|
Microsoft Wireless IntelliMouse Explorer |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Site News/Info |
|
About This Site |
|
Affiliates |
|
ANet Forums |
|
Contact Us |
|
Default Home Page |
|
Link To Us |
|
Links |
|
Member Pages |
|
Site Search |
|
Awards |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Credits |
 |
Mac OS 10.3 or Windows XP? | |
|
||
| Time: 09:53 EST/14:53 GMT | News Source: ActiveMac | Posted By: Byron Hinson | ||
|
I’ll admit to being a little narrow-minded when it came to computers over the last 8 years or so. I was one of those people who thought that there was no other operating system other than that of Microsoft’s Windows. There was very little chance of me ever trying a Mac or Linux based machine no matter how many times I’d seen what other people had been using..... | ||
|
Write Comment
Return to News |
Displaying 1 through 25 of 684 Last | Next |
The time now is
1:20:40 PM
ET.
Any comment problems? E-mail us |
| #1 By Anonymous (82.40.95.204) at 11/2/2003 2:21:50 PM |
| Everyone I know would love a mac, but nobody I know owns one. Why?.........They are too expensive. I guess I'll have to continue using x86 under Linux :) |
| #2 By Anonymous (209.115.250.119) at 11/2/2003 2:37:10 PM |
|
The Mac OS is simply a joy to use (it's the sum of all the little things mentioned), while Windows is the opposite. I have a computer turned on in front of me most of my working life - why should I use something that doesn't make this as pleasant as possible?
Apple products sometimes cost more initally (although this tends to be an old wife's tale) - but they have a vastly longer productive life than a Wintel machine. I have a 14 year old Mac IIci that is still a joy to use. It is a 25 Mhz 68040 machine, yet it is still pleasantly responsive, runs WordPerfect or Word, Quicken, Excel, Eudora, Netscape and a host of other software perfectly adequately for office use. This machine is relegated to secondary use on the network, but the only thing that I truly miss on it is anti-aliased text. Any purported cost advantage of Wintel machines at time of purchase is invariable consumed by increased support costs. I am intimitately familiar with both operating systems, in all of their incarnations, and to so this isn't so is just not realistic. Microsoft has done a very good job of creating a 'union shop' environment that guarantees continued job security for technicians. Another point in favor of OS X not mentioned is the inherent ability to produce PDF documents from any program. No extra cost, just trouble free document exchange with other users, free of viruses. Cheers |
| #3 By wizelf (65 Posts) at 11/2/2003 3:20:17 PM |
|
Definetely Mac OS. I am a Windows user that hasn't completely switched for 1 big reason: Games. Everything else I can do with a Mac. Granted, there are plently games out there for Macs, but not Online Games like Asheron's Call. Until then, I'll have to stick with my Windows machine.
Price would help too. Everytime I go to CompUSA and see those G5's I feel like in Wayne's world when Wayne is staring at the guitar. W. |
| #4 By Anonymous (81.86.154.134) at 11/2/2003 3:56:40 PM |
|
I use Windows at home, but have used Macs at work in the past. I agree that the Macintosh Operating System has a more refined and polished feel to it than Windows. While Macs may be comparably priced to PCs in the US, here in the UK they are ridiculously overpriced. It's also rather pointless trying to shop around for a good deal as most resellers offer Macs at the same prices as the Apple UK store.
Anyway, I'm also using Windows for graphics work. I think one advantage the PC offers over the Mac is that there's a wide-range of low-cost (but good quality software) for those on a tighter budget. My impression of the Mac is that while you have the high-end apps like Photoshop, Flash MX, and Illustrator, affordable but well-featured alternatives are far fewer. And as I said low-cost doesn't mean poor quality. Yes, there's Photoshop Elements, but on the PC side you've also got Ulead Photoimpact, Corel/Micrografx Picture Publisher, Serif PhotoPlus, RealDraw, Paint Shop Pro + many others. I know I'm not going to use all of them, but I much prefer having the choice. For vector illustration, I use a program called Xara X which I personally think is vastly superior to Adobe Illustrator. This is the one program I really could not do without if I ever switched to a Mac. Again, for Flash, you've got a choice of alternatives (that are also affordably priced) - the excellent Swishmax, or others like KoolMoves for example. More recently, I've discovered some excellent "natural paint" programs (similar to Corel Painter) but very affordably priced and very feature-rich! |
| #5 By Anonymous (65.101.155.64) at 11/2/2003 8:38:51 PM |
| Too bad the author didn't take a degree in English. His writing is terrible. |
| #6 By Anonymous (24.125.14.165) at 11/2/2003 8:52:12 PM |
|
Windows and OS X are both great OS systems. I've used both in one work environment where they have been integrated. (Not smoothly but it work.)
Mac has been well known for it's graphical capabilities for years. For a long time a lot of companies have spent a lot of time and effort in this space in improving and developing new graphical applicaitons for the Mac while Microsoft spent a lot of it's efforts on developing business suites that included the Mac and did little, (until recent effort) to address some of the "ease of use" functionality that the Mac already posessed. Ultimately I think the preference of one over the other is based upon one's profession. The everyday type user that just want to read email and write letters may not enjoy Windows XP over OS X because of some of the things that are mentioned in the article. But for professional developers, I think the OS preference is based upon your occupation. Most web designers who enjoy graphical design proably would enjoy the Mac for it's rendering capabilities, but from my experience I've found that middleware and application developers really don't care about graphical interfaces and like everything from the command line compilers to Visual Studio.NET and web forms. Personally I use both in my house hold as well and have the Mac integrated into my Windows 2003 home domain. My wife, who is not Windows savy and don't use it in her everyday life uses the Mac. While I use Windows XP systems including tablet PC and Pocket PC phones. (My wife LOVES my tablet PC over her Mac laptop completely!) Just my two pennys of thought ;-) |
| #7 By getjeffery (3 Posts) at 11/2/2003 9:23:38 PM |
|
Whoooaaa! #3! You gotta start out with a G5? That's pretty ambitious of you. Put your eyeballs back in your head and buy what you can afford. If you go out and only look at BMW 7 Series', you may not realize that you might actually be able to afford a BMW 3 Series.
The base model eMac is $799, and it ain't no slouch. That includes a 17" Flat CRT display, 1Ghz G4 processor, Combo Drive, ATI Radeon 7500 w/32MB DDR VRAM, 2 Firewire ports, 5 USB ports, and built-in ethernet, VGA out, 40G drive and quite a lot more. As a test, I just went to Dell and Apple sites and compared the DP G5 with the Dell 8300, both pretty close to being topped out. And the Apple was generally about $400-500 more. The question you got to ask yourself is how much is YOUR time worth? Do you like to spend it dickin' (technical term) around with worms and viruses? Or would you prefer using Expose today and having the coolest, most advanced personal computer on the planet. Okay, enough of the lusting. I can't afford a G5 either...and I can't afford a Dell 8300. But I can afford an eMac or iMac, and if you haven't driven one lately, you get more performance than you might expect. |
| #8 By Anonymous (220.240.70.169) at 11/3/2003 12:33:00 AM |
|
cost in both instances isnt a problem.
i have 2 (desktops) pcs and 4 macs at home (all the macs are laptops, 3 ibooks, 1 powerbook) i use those macs because i enjoy the interface etc (i'm sure you guys know what i'm talking about! :) ) but i use the two pcs as workstations because they render my 3d animations faster, composite faster, etc. they essentially performed better than the dual g4s i could've bought. in one year, i will buy a new pc (i get a new one every two/three years). if the g5 very clearly outperform a pc i can build myself, then i will buy it. if it doesn't, i'll stay on a pc. the decision is purely performance for me. |
| #9 By Anonymous (162.84.18.241) at 11/3/2003 3:12:58 AM |
| I grew up on a Mac, but switch to the vastly superior PC after a few years. Macs were only superior than PCs in the mid 80's, and that was simply due to one thing... the mouse. 97% of the Computer world is Windows based. PDF files are the worst form of documentation I have ever used, they cannot be edited or altered by the recipient once created, so what is the point of sharing them? Anything a Mac can do can be done on a PC faster and cheaper. If you buy the right PC (not a Dell) you do not need to call tech support everyy 5 min. Like with any new purchase, read the manual. If you merely start using any new device without ever reading the instructions, you are a moron and should suffer the lost time spent with techs after you use it improperly. Macs are extremely overpriced, poorly designed (after working in a repaor department I can't even begin to list the numerous broken cases, keyboards, buttons, screens, etc...) and under powered. And one final note, Macs do indeed have viruses, they are not completely secure, and in using Windows based PC's for over 15 years, I have suffered 0 virus infections or worms attacks and only 1 system crash that was due to a dead hard drive. |
| #10 By Anonymous (62.166.50.212) at 11/3/2003 5:04:30 AM |
|
If a cronjob can start system defragmentation and deleting temp-files, so could a user off course. I guess Apple just didn't want to bother the user with this kind of system administration. Apple seems to focus on just using the system rather than administrating the stuff behind the pretty GUI. For normal users this is perfect imho. For the more experienced users (who prolly came from a unix-based platform) the config-files are still there to edit by hand.
Still, I wonder if a cronjob is the right solution. Some load-checking may be done I think, since you really don't want your mac to clean up when you are calculation a number-crunching task. |
| #11 By Anonymous (212.52.6.16) at 11/3/2003 8:03:00 AM |
|
Ok, I'm both a Mac (OSX 10.3) and XP (Home & Professional) user. A few of the points at the end of the article are imho a bit out of perspective, this could be due to a lack of understanding of the differences in underlying technology.
I'll try to comment on it as briefly as possible: - Responsiveness You say you feel XP is more sponsive: I think this will have to do a lot with what PC and graphics card you have. I have a PowerBook G4 with a Radeon and I can't complain about responsiveness. On a G3 however, its a different story. A Pentium III works also slower than a P4 so, I don't think this is a Mac or XP thing... - Sorting files XP seems to have more ways of sorting you write: I think they are actually equal: just use the right settings in the Finder... - Video Playback You say more options in XP; Media Player does support a lot of codecs etc, but you can use (free) 3rd party tools for that like VLC on a Mac... Btw: Media Player is also know for lots of ways to gain control over your PC for hackers!! Haven't had that problem with QT ! - Web Browsing: More websites are designed for IE than Safari – so there is better compatibility, IE also runs faster thanks to being part of the OS. Well, I hate to blow your bubble but Safari is much faster just because it is NOT part of the OS ;-) As far as compatibilty goes: yes there are a few things but lets put it this way: MSIE is actualy not compatible it self with a lot of standard HTML: they just invented their own standards so saying that Safari isn't compatible with that is a bit turning the world around ;-) - Chat: More chat options available than in OS X. Uhm, based on what? iChat isn't bad either? And also all mayor chat clients (including MSN) are available for OSX ? - System Restore: While OS X does have the Archive and Install funtion on OS X install CD’s – System Restore can create points where you can revert to later in the day if you mess up your machine. Heh, this is a nice one: XP really NEEDS this feature: OSX just doesn't mess up! And if it does, just delete some preference files or the apps causing weird behaviour and the problems are over! let's face it; UNIX based systems are just more stable since the don't rely on all those DLL's and - more important - a registry! I am 100% sure that 90% of all problems with windows are caused by the problems with the registry!! Also: UNIX based OS's suffer way less from fragmentation than NTFS or FAT(32). It even seems that in OSX 10.3 Panther they put in an extra: the system defragments itself on file access: it checks if the file is fragmented and corrects this! All in all its hard to pick a winner for me: I like the fact that most things you can dream up as in software, is already out there for Windows. This also goes for games: windows is still the platform to go for that I think! But from a technical point of view I am in love with OSX! it is so much more stable! As mentioned before, I have a Powerbook G4 and I just checked my uptime (I travel between work and home with it and never turn it off) and its been up for 21 days and 4 hours. Now try that with a laptop with XP on it! It will certainly DIE on you! regards, Henk |
| #12 By Anonymous (216.81.210.241) at 11/3/2003 10:38:38 AM |
| Im looking at a ibook but like a lot of people say price is the main reason i might not get one, im a 20 year old college student that buys things on his own. even with my edu. discount its still more than most windows ones with just as much options and some cases more. i think if they can maybe drop prices to be more competitive. they say they are expensive and its worth it cause you are getting a quality product well i can say that about something also. that dosent always sell to people. i think they need to maybe get a laptop going maybe on that dosent look as nice and save some money that way to compete with the others. |
| #13 By getjeffery (3 Posts) at 11/3/2003 11:06:59 AM |
| #9, you're such a liar. Please give me some evidence that Macs are "extremely" overpriced. And, contrary to what you say, Mac OS X has not had a single virus since its release almost 3 years ago. I don't know where you get your info, but I know where you pulled it out of. |
| #14 By Anonymous (66.61.79.40) at 11/3/2003 11:27:10 AM |
| Many of the "pros" for XP are available as shareware/freeware on sites such as VersionTracker/ MacUpdate. For example a fullscreen plug in for QuickTime is a free download and works very well. Why Apple chooses to include that with QTPro is beyond me. As to the reply claiming macs are expensive, I'll concede that the iMac is WAY overpriced. However the eMacs, iBooks, G5's and Powerbooks are dollar-for dollar right where they need to be. The eMac is a GREAT value for a home computer or basic office computer for around $800. With a student discount it comes in at $750. |
| #15 By Anonymous (217.20.47.66) at 11/3/2003 11:46:28 AM |
|
Hi All
Anyone who genuinely believes that the MAC has better mail client functionality than the PC wants to compare Outlook XP and 2003 to Entourgae. Entourage is a complete mess in an Exchange environment and Outlook 2001 for the MAC is well dated now. Granted the blame for this could be said to be Microsoft's for not providing a version of Outlook 2003 for the Mac could well have a point but at he end of the day no amount of excuses make up for the lack of a good product! Also try remotely managing MAC clients on an MS network. Quite frankly "The best of Birtish luck!!!!" Bye for now. |
| #16 By Anonymous (61.62.13.198) at 11/3/2003 1:21:44 PM |
|
<quote>- System Restore: While OS X does have the Archive and Install funtion on OS X install CD’s – System Restore can create points where you can revert to later in the day if you mess up your machine. </quote>
Actually, you may check 'Disk Utility' application on Panther and realise that you may create restore images at your pleasure. :-) |
| #17 By Anonymous (65.50.53.155) at 11/3/2003 1:29:20 PM |
|
Couple of thoughts, first to the author:
In finding Xp having "better in menu navigation via the keyboard than OS X and better dialogue navigation through the keyboard", you should know that many menu commands are accessible via key commands, and that you ca also turn on "Full Keyboard Access" to both the command menu and the Dock. As for dialogue windows, even tough Apple chose not to imply this by underlining letters in button choices, you can use letters to select dialogue window options via the keyboard. And, with Panther (which you are running), you can now assign key commands to ANY menu command in any application. This is an oft overlooked feature of Panther. Although there are 3rd party solutions for scheduling chron tasks, you're correct that OS X doesn't have the capability itself to allow the user to alter the schedule. I suppose I could point out that IE/Win hs to be the weakest web browser on any computer, what with no tabbed browsing, ad blocking and inferior bookmark handling when compared to Safari, but there are also 3rd party solutions (like the Avant Browser hack) to solve that. 3rd party solutions for shortcomings within EITHER OS is an entirely different can of worms -- and a column for another day, I suppose. As for CDRW burning, I find OS X's interface faster and more straight-ahead than the OEM options that are typically used in XP. Having said that, you have do boot OS X's Disk utility in order to do disk session burns. Panther's "Archive And Install" option makes it easy to preserve personal items and settings when updating. As for System Restore, you'll get no argument out of me that Windows sure needs that. But, OS X? I suppose it would be nice to know it if a System Restore was there, but in the over two years I have used OS X and installed TONS AND TONS of software and possess several different peripherals, OS X has stood up to all this with grace. Frankly, given the complexities of UNIX chugging underneath Apple's slick UI, it is amazing how they pulled off such smooth and seamless execution; something Microsoft has never been able to fully accomplish -- despite XP being their best effort, yet. Also, keep in mind that, as you inferred, you can easily populate the Dock to provide access to anything more easily than the Start Menu. Even though Apple doesn't put your Applications and Documents folders in the Dock by default, you easily can. And, video codecs? Is this a problem with Apple's operating system? Or, a problem with Microsoft not releasing OS X compatible codec updates? Just WHEN is WMP/Mac getting an update?? We're still at Version 1 of the OS X version. All the major IM services are accessible via a Mac. Don't isolate yourself for no good reason. And, if you tire of juggling the separate apps from different IM services, check out "Fire" and '"Proteus"; both apps that can handle all the popular IM services in one app. PS: nice screenshots in this article! :-) |
| #18 By Anonymous (155.101.21.39) at 11/3/2003 1:30:58 PM |
| This was a poorly written article. |
| #19 By Anonymous (65.50.53.155) at 11/3/2003 1:31:26 PM |
|
Poster #17 continues:
NOW, poster # 9 is a classic biased dude, and his criticism of PDF files only shows how blind he is. LMAO! Yeah, what use is a rich, graphically savvy, cross-platform document format, whose reader program is free and available for Mac OS, Windows, LINUX, PALM OS , POCKET PC, SOLARIS, IBM-AIX, HP-UX, AND EVEN OS2/WARP, that provides secure, virus-free read-only distribution of information. Like, just HOW did this lame file format ever survive?! Get a CLUE, will ya? Word documents and PDF documents are DIFFERENT for good reason, and should be used in DIFFERENT scenarios. I use Word in collaborative document exchange, but PDF for documents that I DO NOT WANT ALTERED, like... oh, I don't know... RATE CARDS, INVOICES, PROMOTIONAL MATERIAL. WOW! Call me a radical! :-O You can do anything on a Windows PC faster than on a Mac? LOL! here's just ONE example of how wrong you are: See that Windows shortcut on your desktop? I've got an OS X alias on my desktop. Let's see who can find the original item faster. Mac OS won't beat Windows' functionality every time, but neither will XP. Check out http://www.xvsxp.com to see DETAILED, EDUCATED and CURRENT comparison or the two OSes. And, if ultimate hardware speed is what you're talking about... well, the waters have been seriously muddied since the G5 came out. Hasn't it? Price? Yes, you can build your own PC that would be cheaper than a Mac -- and a Dell -- and a Gateway -- and an HP. So, how fair is this all too common oversight by critics of Apple? And, I will grant that Apple doesn't make cheap, feature-poor box of computer you can buy at Costco such as a Daiwoo. But, compared EQUALLY AND FAIRLY AND ACCURATELY with other makers of computers, Apple is quite competitive -- and, you don;t need a G5 to enjoy fast and efficient use of a Mac. Would you enjoy running XP on a 450 MHz processor? I know I do with OS X. And Panther actually runs faster than any previous version of OS X. So, life just got that much better. |
| #20 By Anonymous (65.50.53.155) at 11/3/2003 1:32:56 PM |
|
Poster #17 contuinues:
And finally, Poster #9, you destroy any integrity you may have had when you dismiss Windows' security issues. First off, I don't believe that you have never suffered a virus attack, because antivirus software can only protect you from what it knows of in its virus definitions, and a brand new virus will be unknown to Semantic etc. at first outbreak. Second, if you took the time to observe Posted By: Byron Hinson's screenshot of OS X's "Sharing" preferences http://www.activewin.com/mac/articles/2003/images/8/Picture%208.jpg you would have noticed that, by default, OS X ships with ALL PORTS OFF! Also, if you have ever used OS X (which i doubt you have), you would know that, by default, OS X demands an admin password ANY TIME software (like a virus, for example) is installed. So, out of the box, OS X is infinitely more secure than XP is. And no; there are NO viruses for OS X so far. NONE. It matters not that hackers choose to hit Windows because there are more of them; it would be a lot harder if they tried. In the grand scheme of things, it does not matter if you and others have trained yourselves to take up the slack that is the structural weaknesses of your chosen operating system, and dismissing these inherent problems within Windows on that account is convenient and shortsighted. Never before in Microsoft's history have they released such an irresponsible product as Windows XP. Despite PC geeks knowing what to do, The Masses out there do not, and it is a sad comment that people must be forced to learn such things, all on account of poor decisions by Microsoft when designing Windows. After all, they just want it to WORK (a comment I have heard from recent PC->Mac switchers, "Macs; they just work!"). Windows is in a crisis and definitely has taken the word once associated with Apple a long time ago and made it their own: BELEAGUERED. The financial impact of poor Windows security has topped the total insurance claims out of the 9/11 terrorist attacks ($55 to $70 billion for 911, versus $64.5 billion in Q3/03 ALONE), and even Steve Ballmer himself said that his company was "embarrassed" by the flaws. (INFO PULLED FROM THIS ARTICLE: http://www.entmag.com/news/article.asp?EditorialsID=5977 ) Given that there are all the mainstream creature comforts available for the Mac platform, such as MS Office, all web functions, accounting (both professional and home), media editing and management (the best there is, BTW), Windows network connectivity out of the box, and solid peripheral support, in addition to a clean, uncluttered and easy to use UI that is friendly (and not tripping over itself to interfere with your workflow in an effort to be "friendly and helpful" like Windows does) and is FUN TO USE AND an OS that is more secure by an order of magnitude, the choice for the mainstream user (certainly the mainstream consumer) has become an obvious one: Go Mac. The only challenge in the face of this fact is correcting the massive misguided and dated perception of Apple and their products. And, Windows (like McDonalds) provides an excellent example that ubiquity does not equal quality. Like, PLEASE don't tell me you think the Big Mac is the best burger in the world, just because it's the most popular. Ditto when comparing Mozart and Shania Twain. |
| #21 By Anonymous (198.3.8.1) at 11/3/2003 4:02:13 PM |
|
Good article, but you missed by a mile on one point:
<quote>Equally as good in both: Trash and the Recycle Bin: Say no more.</quote> Try this: move a folder containing files to the Trash (on Mac) and Recycle Bin (on Windows. Now open the Trash/Recycle Bin. Open the folder you just put in. On Mac you get a new window where you can see all the files and pull any of them back out of the trash. On Windows all you get is a Property display for the whole folder; you cannot see the individual files. Sounds trivial but sometimes it's important tio find out what was in that folder you threw away. Just one of the many small ways the Mac is more intuitive and user-friendly. |
| #22 By Anonymous (62.3.234.129) at 11/3/2003 4:58:29 PM |
|
I use both Windows & OS X on a daily basis and the only real argument I have with the author's conclusions is that I flat out prefer Windows Explorer to OS X Finder - even the revamped 10.3 version.
|
| #23 By Anonymous (134.58.253.114) at 11/4/2003 3:51:18 AM |
|
I prefer Windows for:
- availability of CAD & 3D-tools: e.g. AutoCAD & 3ds max (I do use ArchiCAD & Cinema4D, that are both cross-platform, but I need the other two as well, so I don't have a choice) - development: a lot of info & tutorials are available for Visual C++ - raw power - better support for the keyboard in most applications - native multi-button mice - price I prefer Macintosh for: - looks - smooth handling of mouse in Photoshop - easier program installation management I hate both for: - not being stable enough - forcing you in a lot of ways: software not being available or compatible with the current OS - still a lot of useless clicking, which can be avoided: usability of the interface can be improved a lot in both. |
| #24 By Krankerz (11 Posts) at 11/4/2003 10:52:16 AM |
|
What?! iTunes a Mac only product? I was starting to take this article seriously until I read that. Now anything else I read on it I will take with a grain of salt it says, ragardless of it being positive about PC or Mac. This guy obviously doesn't know what he's talking about.
Update: Got to the part about the "Dock" and its "high quality icons"...they're called PNG's. And as for the "next windows release"...that doesn't come out until 2006, not 2005. This guy needs to do some serious editing. This post was edited by Krankerz on Tuesday, November 04, 2003 at 10:57. |
| #25 By Byron_Hinson[AW] (2035 Posts) at 11/4/2003 12:08:45 PM |
|
#24 - itunes was a typo which was meant to say iPhoto - I'll change it later. As for the high quality icon saying - they are high quality are they not? so whether they are PNG, JPG or Gif they were and are high quality, I wasn't stating a name or extension for them.
Finally the release date of Longhorn is unknown - it could be late 2005 or sometime in 2006. |
|
Write Comment
Return to News |
Displaying 1 through 25 of 684 Last | Next |
The time now is
1:20:44 PM
ET.
Any comment problems? E-mail us |
