vista

Vista vs. Leopard

Yesterday while at a ForArgyll.com training day we were using card readers and USB connections to transfer around 3GB of sound (.wav) and video files (.mp4) to a couple of laptops. One was a brand-spanking new Dell (I think) with Vista Home Premium (or Premium Home Vista … or Home Vista Premium … ??) and the other was a three-and-a-half year-old PowerBook G4 running Leopard 10.5. Don’t even know what RAM or processor speeds the PC had on board, but it was quick. The G4 was 1.67 Ghz and 1GB of RAM.

The G4 outperformed the PC not by virtue of having a quicker data-transfer, nor by having a brighter screen (in fact it is a bit grubby) but because the card reader (brought by an independent third party) plugged in and transferred the 500MB in a snap, and then as the next SD card was emptied, it played the contents of the first from a double-click within finder (both .mp4s and .wavs). The Vista machine, had to install a driver, install quicktime, install iTunes and was then able to play that which it downloaded. Where were the crowds standing to watch the rushes? In front of the Mac of course!

OK so the operator of the G4 might have been me, and the computer has been configured to my specs, but I was only using finder for this (well, and quicktime to play the files). I was just struck by the hoops Vista and PC users jump through, and wonder whether this offers an insight as to why Vista is (apparently) under-performing. Certainly there was plenty of support for the new OS on new PCs because it “just worked” and was “pretty”, but for those who were using it on their old PC, and there were two of them, they found the upgrade, confusing, frustrating and above all unnecessary. “Why did I get rid of that lovely XP, it just worked?” one asked.

Having used em all, give me Leopard everytime!