If this has been discussed, sorry. I’m new.
Removing all the marketing claims and, to the extent possible, bias’
and bigotry, how do Vista and the current Mac OS 10.4, Tiger, stack
up? Let’s assume both are running on adequate, solid platforms and
that Vista is in a good flavor for a specified group of users. and thus
try and keep the comparison as much apple to …. ah, make that an
oranges to oranges as possible.
I’d be interested in any area of comparison, but some examples of
obviously related, overlapping areas that come immediately to mind
include:
1. Amount of IT support required for 5, 50, or 200 machines.
Personally, I’m more interested in smaller workgroups – say 20
machines – that is, number of hours of dedicated IT support, apart
from the hardware – I’ll suggest per month, and assume the system
is installed and running well as the year begins.
2. Stability (crashes and ease of preventing and fixing)
3. Security, resistance to hackers & virus’, especially data security.
When you lock her up, how truly safe are your data. When you move
data, how safe.
4. Features – what can Vista do that Tiger cannot, or vice-versa. Or
do more easily. What fundametal or important tasks can one OS
perform that the better than the other?
5. End user experience/ease of use. Which machine creates a more
pleasant environment for the user.
6. Efficency. E.G. Taking 100% of the users time, what percent, on
average, is devoted to external tasks and what % is spent dealing
with any aspect of the machine, apart from the tasks for which the
machine is used.
7. Can Vista really run on Intel Macs, I mean run fast and smoothly.
Also, Mac OS 10.5, Leopard, now scheduled for a fall release, is
touted as a substantial leap forward from Tiger (e.g. Time Machine).
To the extent we can anticipate it, how does Leopard compare to
Vista, if it changes the comparison much at all.
Many thanks.
