26 Jan 08
Originally posted by kyueNeither. Tiger if you like things that just work, XP if you like to be mucking about with anti-virus software and all that security muck. Why? Both Vista and Leopard have issues, require considerably more resources than their predecessors and will cost more. I find that Tiger works well for me and the rest of my family manage to get along with XP without swearing too much.
Which do you think is better?
Your vote with specific reasons will be appreciated.
26 Jan 08
Originally posted by KeplerI wholeheartedly support this position.
Neither. Tiger if you like things that just work, XP if you like to be mucking about with anti-virus software and all that security muck. Why? Both Vista and Leopard have issues, require considerably more resources than their predecessors and will cost more. I find that Tiger works well for me and the rest of my family manage to get along with XP without swearing too much.
26 Jan 08
Originally posted by duecerI have both 32bit, and 64bit vista.I bought the 32 bit version, and you can then get the 64bit for €10 posted out to you. The 32bit is fine, and i decided not to install the 64bit version. I've been told that if you use the 64bit version, it's impossible to get non microsoft authorised programs to work.
I still have xp, but on a dual core 64 bit, and it is more than sufficient , I have heard that if you want vista, you will need dual core 64 bit, and lots of memory
26 Jan 08
Originally posted by KeplerFair enough. I'm interested in hearing the issues bit.. what sort of technical problems are there if any?
Neither. Tiger if you like things that just work, XP if you like to be mucking about with anti-virus software and all that security muck. Why? Both Vista and Leopard have issues, require considerably more resources than their predecessors and will cost more. I find that Tiger works well for me and the rest of my family manage to get along with XP without swearing too much.
I think Tiger and Leopard are nicer names than XP or Vista.