Last week Microsoft announced the
official hardware requirements for Windows Vista and released an "Upgrade Advisor" tool to tell you how "Vista-ready" your computer is. Ina Fried at the CNet News blog has an interesting anecdote about
running the tool on her various machines. The Upgrade Advisor told her that her four-month-old Compaq with 512MB of RAM was not Vista-ready and her laptop would run Vista but not its fancy Aero interface, but the machine that scored the highest was-wait for it-a dual-booting Mac Mini. According to a Microsoft rep the report for the Compaq was likely incorrect (Upgrade Advisor is beta, after all), and the Mini did have twice the RAM, but there's a certain amount of sweet irony in a Mac being more Vista-ready than its PC brethren.
Tags: irony, mac, macintosh, mini, upgrade, upgradeadvisor, vista, windows
Tumblr 101: Tips And Tricks To Get Started
Sebastian Thrun: Google's Driverless Car
Comments
4
Subscribe to commentsrasbillMay 24th 2006 2:15PM
i think this is a little rediculas ok say what u want about macs and pcs, but if u take a mac thats better then the pc and run the test on it, i mean its not rocket surgery, ya its gonna pass the test and the less equiped computer probably wont pass,ya i wouldnt complain but i like my news stories unbiased thank u very much, if i wanna be the fanboy i will, i dont need my news from one
AdamMay 24th 2006 2:43PM
The Mac/PC distinction has always been pretty superficial and with the Intel switch, it's even more of a useless fanboy thing. So I buy a computer online that comes preinstalled with Ubuntu linux. Do I decide to call it an LC (for Linux Computer)? No, because that's just dumb. But god forbid you ever refer to a computer made by Apple as a PC. What is the difference between a Mac Mini running Ubuntu and Compaq Presario running Ubuntu? Nothing. Yet one is a "Mac" and the other is a "PC". Even more parodoxically, a Dell running OSX is still a PC and a Mac running XP is still a Mac. What does this mean?
"Mac" is *gasp* a brand for PCs! Saying that you were surprised that your mini is more capable than your compaq is pretty much the same as saying that you were surprised that your newer, more expensive Dell was more capable than your compaq. (Compaq is the budget brand to begin with, so it's hardly surprising that it isn't much of a performer, especially with only 512 RAM)
Nothing against apple pcs. They are perfectly capable computers, but there's nothing terribly special about them. It's a Vaio, or a Dimension, or a Paviliion or an ThinkPad or a Mac. That's the real distinction, not whether it's a Mac or a PC.
gonnaswitchMay 25th 2006 4:31AM
"Nothing against apple pcs. They are perfectly capable computers, but there's nothing terribly special about them."
I think your post is very true, and I would have agreed with you, but the Apple systems are the only ones which can fully legally triple boot Windows/OSX/Linux !
Running OSx86 on my 'PC' has convinced me to switch to Apple once OSX 10.5/Vista are out. (Unless Apple release OSX for generic non-Apple hardware ???)
CaramelzappaMay 25th 2006 2:16PM
The bickering about OSX and Windows is irrelevent. Apple makes great hardware, and compaq piles crappy hardware together so they can sel computers at low prices. Apple is one company, but a "PC" can be any computer from any company. So yea, compaq sucks, and apples hardware is much better. No shit. An Alienware is still going to do a better job of running Vista than a mac mini.