Mac, or Dell with Windows 10 for work?

[rowdy]

I don't know if serious or not, but I was offered the chance to get a new Mac at work.  I'm currently using a 4 or so year old Dell with Windows 7.

We do mostly Windows-based development using various Windows-based tools, but are gradually moving towards Java-based development using cross-platform tools.  At the moment I'd need to setup a Windows VM to continue the Windows support on a Mac.  Bootcamp obviates the point in getting a Mac in the first place.

One guy already has a Mac, but he doesn't do much Windows support.  I do mostly Windows support, but gradually moving into Java stuff (which I currently do in a VM under Linux at the moment, running as a guest on my Windows 7 host).

So what does GH think - Mac now(ish) (probably a 27" iMac), or wait until Windows 10 is released and get a probably roughly equivalent desktop Dell?

[tp4tissue]

Well if it's BUY NEW, and by "price", obviously the Dell is going to totally BEAST the iMac..

So you gotta get the details to really make this decision..

More specifically, do you have a say on the "specs"


Mac MAY be good for programmers that need linux on the same machine,  but if you just got a ton of application controlled crap at work,  and you just drop simple scripts,  then it really doesn't matter what you use.

Of  course the uber Pr0z  got multiple computers in front of them..  so they know exactly what they need.

[rowdy]

Yes, I have say on the specs.  As part of teh same upgrade, I'm supposed to be speccing a couple of new servers and one or two other workstations too.  Mr Boss just asked out of the blue if I'd like a Mac instead of a Delldows box.

My biggest difficulty will be if emails and everything is natively on the Mac, Java stuff (which is pretty isolated and stand-alone atm) is in a VM under Linux, and our legacy software support would need to be in another VM running Windows.  Then I will be copy/pasting stuff between the host and mainly the Windows VM.  I'd also probably need to install some Windows-only apps in the VM.

I was wondering if anyone else had worked for a while in a Window VM hosted on Mac (or even hosted on Linux for that matter), and could offer insight into any difficulties or inconveniences they had experienced.

[daerid]

The VM story on Mac is pretty damn good. My desktop is Windows 8.1 Pro, my laptop is OSX Yosemite with a Windows 8.1 VM running under Parallels. I also have a Ubuntu 15.04 server that also hosts a Windows Server 2012 VM, and on my desktop I have a couple other Ubuntu VMs I use whenever I feel like dipping in the Linux world. At one point about a year ago I had both Windows and Ubuntu running on separate VMs on my MacBook Pro, and was working with all three roughly at the same time. As long as you configure your VM host (Parallels in my case) to share clipboards between guests it's not too bad at all.

If you're going to end up predominantly Java, you could do much worse than a Mac running a Windows VM. The other option would be to spec out a Dell workstation and run Linux on that natively, and then run Windows on a VM on that box.

[rowdy]

We use VirtualBox, and got a couple of dozen VMs for various purposes.

I already use VirtualBox at home on my Mac, and have imported some of the work VMs, so I know that works.

But most of my VMs guests are Linux, I haven't had much experience working for a while in a Windows guest VM (on any host).

[osi]

My main workstation is a linux box with Win 8.1 VM via virtualbox. I am 99% ok with this setup but there are some minor limitations such as passing particular peripherals to the guest OS. I have an old Windows 7 physical box that I keep around just in case I can't pass what I need to the guest Windows OS.

The best part about running windows virtually? -- I feel that I have 2 systems at my fingertips at all times, freeing up resources to multitask. You can kick off your app compile on your windows OS then pop back over to MAC and browse geekhack while you wait.

[rowdy]

My main workstation is a linux box with Win 8.1 VM via virtualbox. I am 99% ok with this setup but there are some minor limitations such as passing particular peripherals to the guest OS. I have an old Windows 7 physical box that I keep around just in case I can't pass what I need to the guest Windows OS.

The best part about running windows virtually? -- I feel that I have 2 systems at my fingertips at all times, freeing up resources to multitask. You can kick off your app compile on your windows OS then pop back over to MAC and browse geekhack while you wait.

Don't worry about that - I have a GH tab open inside my VM guest and on the host most days

[osi]

My main workstation is a linux box with Win 8.1 VM via virtualbox. I am 99% ok with this setup but there are some minor limitations such as passing particular peripherals to the guest OS. I have an old Windows 7 physical box that I keep around just in case I can't pass what I need to the guest Windows OS.

The best part about running windows virtually? -- I feel that I have 2 systems at my fingertips at all times, freeing up resources to multitask. You can kick off your app compile on your windows OS then pop back over to MAC and browse geekhack while you wait.

Don't worry about that - I have a GH tab open inside my VM guest and on the host most days

One advantage that a dell box MAY have over the iMac is storage expansion. Currently I'm not sure how flexible an iMac would be for adding additional components. I mention this because I have a dedicated SSD for my Windows VM. Not a VHD or VDI from my main OS but direct raw access to its own storage.

iMac has that crispy screen though. Tough choice :x

[mdmcaf]

My main workstation is a linux box with Win 8.1 VM via virtualbox. I am 99% ok with this setup but there are some minor limitations such as passing particular peripherals to the guest OS. I have an old Windows 7 physical box that I keep around just in case I can't pass what I need to the guest Windows OS.

The best part about running windows virtually? -- I feel that I have 2 systems at my fingertips at all times, freeing up resources to multitask. You can kick off your app compile on your windows OS then pop back over to MAC and browse geekhack while you wait.

I second this. I tried using a Vbox VM to scan hard drives for malware a while ago and getting the VM to recognize the HDD (connected to a dock via USB 3.0) was a bear. It's also important to note that I don't think VBox supports USB 3.0 pass through yet. It's been in perpetual beta since I started using it a number of years ago. This was using VBox on a Linux machine, I'm not sure if it's any better in OS X.

I use VMware Fusion on my iMac and it works wonderfully. I don't do too many advanced things on it aside from using data recovery programs on broken HDDs - but VMware Fusion was well worth the money I paid for it. It handles USB pass through much more elegantly. Can't remember if it's USB 3.0 speeds or not, I usually just let it do its thing over night.

VMware Fusion also has a mode, Unity I think it's called, that allows you to run virtualized applications in a window of its own instead of relegating it to the actual VM window itself. I imagine that would come in handy for stuff like email, where you don't necessarily want to be confined to the OS window.

It's actually on sale right now for $48.99, with a 30 day trial if you want to check it out: http://store.vmware.com/store/vmware/en_US/pd/productID.304322400?src=WWW_eBIZ_productpage_Fusion_Buy_US

[tp4tissue]

My main workstation is a linux box with Win 8.1 VM via virtualbox. I am 99% ok with this setup but there are some minor limitations such as passing particular peripherals to the guest OS. I have an old Windows 7 physical box that I keep around just in case I can't pass what I need to the guest Windows OS.

The best part about running windows virtually? -- I feel that I have 2 systems at my fingertips at all times, freeing up resources to multitask. You can kick off your app compile on your windows OS then pop back over to MAC and browse geekhack while you wait.

Don't worry about that - I have a GH tab open inside my VM guest and on the host most days

One advantage that a dell box MAY have over the iMac is storage expansion. Currently I'm not sure how flexible an iMac would be for adding additional components. I mention this because I have a dedicated SSD for my Windows VM. Not a VHD or VDI from my main OS but direct raw access to its own storage.

iMac has that crispy screen though. Tough choice :x

The screen's no good,  it gets interference from having all the other components so nearby.

It also has shifting contrast as the result of hot spots influencing response of the crystals.

[jdcarpe]

Windows 10 is nice. It has all the improvements of Win8 over Win7, without the annoying Metro interface.

At least Microsoft is consistent. Every other Windows release is a dud.


Like others have said, I would recommend a PC over a Mac for the same price. You can spec out a more powerful PC for the same cost, and it will be upgradeable in the future.

[tp4tissue]

Windows 10 is nice. It has all the improvements of Win8 over Win7, without the annoying Metro interface.

At least Microsoft is consistent. Every other Windows release is a dud.


Like others have said, I would recommend a PC over a Mac for the same price. You can spec out a more powerful PC for the same cost, and it will be upgradeable in the future.

Assuming they don't charge an arm and a leg..

[tufty]

At least Microsoft is consistent. Every other Windows release is a dud.

As I recall it, in reverse chrono. ordering errors are, of course, my own.  I haven't included the embedded and "phone" OS's because they're all ****.

Win 8.1     : More or less right
Win8         : Thurrott cries like a baby edition
Win7         : Like Apple in 1998, but with more viruses.
Fister        : "Vista ready" who could forget
Win ME     : mostly excrement
XP            : Tinkertoy interface.  Finally made usable by SP2, 3 years after release
Win98 SE  : What 98 should have been
2000         : OK but crashy
Win98       : Crashy
Win95       : Crappy
NT 4.0      : Sparc?  What Sparc?
NT 3.5.1   : Almost usable.
NT 3.5      : Usable Dos Shell
NT 3.1      : Killin' your OS/2s
Win 3.1     : Better than 3.0 by 0.1

[tbc]

thurrott is an idiot....

those win10 changes are freaking horrible for the tablet interface.  obviously people will adapt without 5 years lost and 10million dead, but bad changes are just bad....

i guess people are happier with the desktop part?  even though win8 desktop is effectively identical to win7?

[rowdy]

I second this. I tried using a Vbox VM to scan hard drives for malware a while ago and getting the VM to recognize the HDD (connected to a dock via USB 3.0) was a bear. It's also important to note that I don't think VBox supports USB 3.0 pass through yet. It's been in perpetual beta since I started using it a number of years ago. This was using VBox on a Linux machine, I'm not sure if it's any better in OS X.

I use VMware Fusion on my iMac and it works wonderfully. I don't do too many advanced things on it aside from using data recovery programs on broken HDDs - but VMware Fusion was well worth the money I paid for it. It handles USB pass through much more elegantly. Can't remember if it's USB 3.0 speeds or not, I usually just let it do its thing over night.

VMware Fusion also has a mode, Unity I think it's called, that allows you to run virtualized applications in a window of its own instead of relegating it to the actual VM window itself. I imagine that would come in handy for stuff like email, where you don't necessarily want to be confined to the OS window.

It's actually on sale right now for $48.99, with a 30 day trial if you want to check it out: http://store.vmware.com/store/vmware/en_US/pd/productID.304322400?src=WWW_eBIZ_productpage_Fusion_Buy_US

I have a couple of dozen VBox VMs lying around for various purposes, migrating to another VM software is not really an option.  Besides I wouldn't need hardware passthrough much, if at all.

The screen's no good,  it gets interference from having all the other components so nearby.

It also has shifting contrast as the result of hot spots influencing response of the crystals.

I haven't heard of this before.  Link please?

Windows 10 is nice. It has all the improvements of Win8 over Win7, without the annoying Metro interface.

At least Microsoft is consistent. Every other Windows release is a dud.

Like others have said, I would recommend a PC over a Mac for the same price. You can spec out a more powerful PC for the same cost, and it will be upgradeable in the future.

Most workstations here don't get upgraded - they get used well beyond their life span (usually 5 to 8 years), and either handed down to someone with less stringent requirements, or "retired" into a storage room for a few more years until we have a clear out, then they get chucked out.

[Altis]

It sounds like OS X is going to be more of a hinderance than useful to your workflow. If you're running OS X and working mostly between two VMS (Windows and Linux) on top of that, then I'm not sure why you wouldn't just use a Windows or Linux host and run the other in VM.

I'm a big fan of the spaces/desktops in OS X, but that's coming to Windows and already on Linux, so a bit of a wash. It makes working with VMs feel more natural, in my opinion. Even better is to have a set of matching IPS monitors (I like the high-end Dell monitors, personally). Then you're cookin'!

In our office, we've moved to decent spec'd Dell laptops and a docking station at work. That way you can take your whole computer anywhere, yet it's exactly like working at a desktop when you get there (just plunk it on the dock). The gap in CPU power between desktop boxes and laptops has narrowed to the point of being unnoticeable for most people where I work, and the mobility is a huge plus. Just food for thought!

[rowdy]

A notebook would significantly increase the price, and I'll need to be careful what I ask for in any case.  Something with a core i7 CPU and 16GB RAM and 1TB HDD should suffice.  Apple and Dell have offerings that match that.

SSD?  Not really, I still don't trust them enough, and I don't want to come in one morning to find a dead SSD and everything lost (needs to be restored from backup, loss of a day or two - that would not be a good reflection on hardware I have specified).

I should be able to do most of the Java stuff natively on OS X - I just setup a Linux VM to match the setup our Java guys have been using for a while, rather than trying to squeeze everything into Windows.  Email and other productivity stuff could also run natively on the Mac.

Pretty much just the Windows-based development IDE would be in a Windows VM.

[osi]

I would at least consider an SSD for your main OS. The newer generation SSDs are quite reliable.

[rowdy]

I would at least consider an SSD for your main OS. The newer generation SSDs are quite reliable.

Unfortunately going Apple that adds a fairly significant amount to the price.

Looking at a 27" iMac with 16GB RAM and 1TH HDD, a similarly specced Dell (albeit without a monitor) is about half the price.

[tufty]

The screen's no good,  it gets interference from having all the other components so nearby.

It also has shifting contrast as the result of hot spots influencing response of the crystals.

I haven't heard of this before.  Link please?

I've not heard about this either; with a little googling it seems the 2009 model 27" imac had some display issues (to the point of Apple actually doing something about it).  I would suggest that our friend Mr Tissue is most likely blowing smoke.

And while the iMacs are very nice bits of kit, despite the (usually bogus) fear of ungradeability, I'm not sure it's the right tool for the job if you're doing Java development, despite all of the usual tools running happily on OSX (once you've installed Java, Apple don't install it by default any more).  That said, it wouldn't be any worse than using Windows, but Java app UIs clash with the way operating systems in general work*.

For the Windows dev side of things, I'm not sure where .net is at on OSX - CoreCLR was up (albeit buggy) last time I looked.  Virtualisation software is pretty damn good, though, I use VirtualBox for the one piece of Windows software I have to work on, and it's fine.

On the other hand, usability be ****ed.  It they're paying for it, iMac 27" with 5K retina screen.  Lush.

* some more than others, eclipse in particular is ****-awful.
 

[baldgye]

I would at least consider an SSD for your main OS. The newer generation SSDs are quite reliable.

Unfortunately going Apple that adds a fairly significant amount to the price.

Looking at a 27" iMac with 16GB RAM and 1TH HDD, a similarly specced Dell (albeit without a monitor) is about half the price.

Is price an issue if work is buying it though? (assuming I read right)

[rowdy]

I've not heard about this either; with a little googling it seems the 2009 model 27" imac had some display issues (to the point of Apple actually doing something about it).  I would suggest that our friend Mr Tissue is most likely blowing smoke.

And while the iMacs are very nice bits of kit, despite the (usually bogus) fear of ungradeability, I'm not sure it's the right tool for the job if you're doing Java development, despite all of the usual tools running happily on OSX (once you've installed Java, Apple don't install it by default any more).  That said, it wouldn't be any worse than using Windows, but Java app UIs clash with the way operating systems in general work*.

For the Windows dev side of things, I'm not sure where .net is at on OSX - CoreCLR was up (albeit buggy) last time I looked.  Virtualisation software is pretty damn good, though, I use VirtualBox for the one piece of Windows software I have to work on, and it's fine.

On the other hand, usability be ****ed.  It they're paying for it, iMac 27" with 5K retina screen.  Lush.

* some more than others, eclipse in particular is ****-awful.

The Java app has a web UI

And unfortunately Eclipse is the IDE of choice, but at least Oracle provide native Mac Java installers.

Is price an issue if work is buying it though? (assuming I read right)

Price will be an issue if I try to push for a $4000 workstation when a 1500 workstation will suffice.

[tp4tissue]

I would at least consider an SSD for your main OS. The newer generation SSDs are quite reliable.

Unfortunately going Apple that adds a fairly significant amount to the price.

Looking at a 27" iMac with 16GB RAM and 1TH HDD, a similarly specced Dell (albeit without a monitor) is about half the price.

Yea Mac is raping people hard core with those SSD pricing..

Especially since those SSDS are NOT actually much faster for what most people use them for.

those 1.5GB/s speeds are meaningless..   it's like the GHz warz.

[Altis]

I say you should still go for an SSD. That will help your performance much more than something like a minor CPU bump (which often costs the same). Keep your data on HDD but the OS, VMs, and applications on the SSD.

It's easy enough to back up a VM anyways, and you can take a snapshot of your SSD every month or two if you'd like.

My fairly powerful work laptop right now has a heavily encrypted 5400RPM HDD, but it makes me want to set it on fire and throw it out the window.  My 7 year old crappy laptop is so much faster than it because it has the SSD.

[tp4tissue]

I'm sure he already haz SSD..

if not..  the only solution is suicide..

[rowdy]

Apple doesn't seem to offer the option of two hard drives.  iMac configuration can include 1TB or 3TB SATA HDD, xor it can include 1TB or 3TB Fusion drive, xor it can include 256GB, 512GB or 1TB SSD.

I need at least 1TB, so it's either the standard 1TB SATA HDD, or the 3TB HDD  (extra $120), or the 1TB SSD (extra $1400).

Although the company is buying, if the price gets too high I'll just be told to get a much cheaper Dell.

[slip84]

$1400 for a 1TB SSD?

Must be the gold-plated version.

[user 18]

Get the Dell. Put OS on a 256GB SSD, put storage on a 1-2 TB HDD.

Either run it with linux host and Windows VM or Windows host and linux VM. No point throwing a third OS into the mix if you don't need it. A better solution still (IMO) would be to keep the current Windows box and throw linux on either the new system. As you move away from Windows, you can move away from the old box too. That means you need to convince people you need two machines though.

As you've stated, the primary reason one gets a mac is for the OS. If you don't need the OS, why spend the extra money?

[tp4tissue]

Get the Dell. Put OS on a 256GB SSD, put storage on a 1-2 TB HDD.

Either run it with linux host and Windows VM or Windows host and linux VM. No point throwing a third OS into the mix if you don't need it. A better solution still (IMO) would be to keep the current Windows box and throw linux on either the new system. As you move away from Windows, you can move away from the old box too. That means you need to convince people you need two machines though.

As you've stated, the primary reason one gets a mac is for the OS. If you don't need the OS, why spend the extra money?

All the other peasant-class employees will look upon thee with envy, vowing vengeance against the inequality that is the cause of their malaise.

[rowdy]

The original plan was to get a Dell workstation with Windows 10 when it becomes available (me being the first user here to have Windows 10).

Then out of the blue Mr Boss asked if I'd like a new Mac instead.

So it's not really an option to run Linux natively on a Dell, as much as I might prefer that over Windows.

If I end up with the Dell, it will be running Windows 10 and I'll be doing the Windows development natively, and probably continue using a Linux VM for the Java stuff (simply because it is already setup and working).

If I end up with a Mac, I can migrate the Java stuff to the Mac natively (one less VM to run), and do the Windows development in a VM.

Some good comments here, keep them coming

[tp4tissue]

See if your boss will let you DIY..   If this thing is going to be $2000-3000

You might as well get x99 and the Octo-core, 8core-16threads  overclock that puppy to 4.4ghz on air cooling (limit), water goes higher..

And get gtx980.. 2x 500gb 850pro, one os, 1 scratch,

Also you can put in 64GB of DDR4

[rowdy]

See if your boss will let you DIY..   If this thing is going to be $2000-3000

You might as well get x99 and the Octo-core, 8core-16threads  overclock that puppy to 4.4ghz on air cooling (limit), water goes higher..

And get gtx980.. 2x 500gb 850pro, one os, 1 scratch,

Also you can put in 64GB of DDR4

That would be ... a little overkill what what I need.

[tp4tissue]

See if your boss will let you DIY..   If this thing is going to be $2000-3000

You might as well get x99 and the Octo-core, 8core-16threads  overclock that puppy to 4.4ghz on air cooling (limit), water goes higher..

And get gtx980.. 2x 500gb 850pro, one os, 1 scratch,

Also you can put in 64GB of DDR4

That would be ... a little overkill what what I need.

but you get WAY m0re for $3000

[Altis]

$1400 for a 1TB SSD?

Must be the gold-plated version.

I believe the $1400 SSD upgrade in the iMac comes with, strangely enough, an entire Dell Workstation.

[rowdy]

$1400 for a 1TB SSD?

Must be the gold-plated version.

I believe the $1400 SSD upgrade in the iMac comes with, strangely enough, an entire Dell Workstation.

)

[tufty]

but you get WAY m0re for $3000

Don't forget to factor in the extra money for an equivalent screen.  A 27" 5K screen from dell costs more than the 5K 27" iMac, and that's got a computer thrown in.  Not only that, it's not a Dell

The other major "pro" point for the iMac (although it's probably less important in an office environment) is that it runs near-silent except under heavy load.  In normal use (development tasks, I'm not a video editor), the only thing you can hear on my 2008 model is the hard disk seeking.

Apple will rape you on memory and SSDs.  The 27" has 2 spare memory slots, bunging in a couple of extra 4GB sticks from crucial will cost you 60 bucks rather than the 200 Apple want to hit you up for for 16GB.

The "fusion drive" option gets you a hard disk with SSD onboard.

[rowdy]

but you get WAY m0re for $3000

Don't forget to factor in the extra money for an equivalent screen.  A 27" 5K screen from dell costs more than the 5K 27" iMac, and that's got a computer thrown in.  Not only that, it's not a Dell

The other major "pro" point for the iMac (although it's probably less important in an office environment) is that it runs near-silent except under heavy load.  In normal use (development tasks, I'm not a video editor), the only thing you can hear on my 2008 model is the hard disk seeking.

Apple will rape you on memory and SSDs.  The 27" has 2 spare memory slots, bunging in a couple of extra 4GB sticks from crucial will cost you 60 bucks rather than the 200 Apple want to hit you up for for 16GB.

The "fusion drive" option gets you a hard disk with SSD onboard.

I have a Dell 23" monitor atm (and a second 18" Dell monitor) which I would probably keep should I end up with the new Dell workstation.

And yes, the iMac has a bigger ,better screen

[tp4tissue]

If they no let you buy a new monitor,  You might consider the Imac.


But This is assuming you won't need a BEAST CPU, because the Imac is slow in that respect.

[rowdy]

If they no let you buy a new monitor,  You might consider the Imac.


But This is assuming you won't need a BEAST CPU, because the Imac is slow in that respect.

I've looked at a bunch of Dell desktop machines, and most of them seem to max out at 8GB RAM.  The few that have a configuration option more than 8GB do not include monitor.  I would imagine I would be keeping this monitor.

[osi]

If they no let you buy a new monitor,  You might consider the Imac.


But This is assuming you won't need a BEAST CPU, because the Imac is slow in that respect.

I've looked at a bunch of Dell desktop machines, and most of them seem to max out at 8GB RAM.

wat!

[rowdy]

If they no let you buy a new monitor,  You might consider the Imac.


But This is assuming you won't need a BEAST CPU, because the Imac is slow in that respect.

I've looked at a bunch of Dell desktop machines, and most of them seem to max out at 8GB RAM.

wat!

At least they do not have configuration options for anything more than 8GB.  In fact there is only one Dell computer at work work > 8GB and that is a relatively recent notebook.  My current desktop machine has 6GB.

[Oobly]

Maybe iMac with Win7 in BootCamp?

Great build quality, awesome display. Of course the Dell would be better in terms of performance and upgradability, so it all depends which is more important to you.

At least Microsoft is consistent. Every other Windows release is a dud.

As I recall it, in reverse chrono. ordering errors are, of course, my own.  I haven't included the embedded and "phone" OS's because they're all ****.

Win 8.1     : More or less right
Win8         : Thurrott cries like a baby edition
Win7         : Like Apple in 1998, but with more viruses.
Fister        : "Vista ready" who could forget
Win ME     : mostly excrement
XP            : Tinkertoy interface.  Finally made usable by SP2, 3 years after release
Win98 SE  : What 98 should have been
2000         : OK but crashy
Win98       : Crashy
Win95       : Crappy
NT 4.0      : Sparc?  What Sparc?
NT 3.5.1   : Almost usable.
NT 3.5      : Usable Dos Shell
NT 3.1      : Killin' your OS/2s
Win 3.1     : Better than 3.0 by 0.1

Keeping workstation / server OS's out of the list (like NT and 2000) and going by major releases:

3.0: bad
3.11 for workgroups: good
95: bad
98: okay, made great by the SE release = good
ME: bad
XP: okay, made great by SP2 and SP3 release = good
Vista: bad
Win7: great, right out the gate = good
Win8: sucked - mostly due to forcing a mobile interface on desktop users. 8.1 minor improvement, still needs tweaking to make usable = bad

Win10: should be decent.

So, IMO, it really does go by every 2nd major non-workstation release alternating.

[baldgye]

Maybe iMac with Win7 in BootCamp?

Great build quality, awesome display. Of course the Dell would be better in terms of performance and upgradability, so it all depends which is more important to you.

At least Microsoft is consistent. Every other Windows release is a dud.

As I recall it, in reverse chrono. ordering errors are, of course, my own.  I haven't included the embedded and "phone" OS's because they're all ****.

Win 8.1     : More or less right
Win8         : Thurrott cries like a baby edition
Win7         : Like Apple in 1998, but with more viruses.
Fister        : "Vista ready" who could forget
Win ME     : mostly excrement
XP            : Tinkertoy interface.  Finally made usable by SP2, 3 years after release
Win98 SE  : What 98 should have been
2000         : OK but crashy
Win98       : Crashy
Win95       : Crappy
NT 4.0      : Sparc?  What Sparc?
NT 3.5.1   : Almost usable.
NT 3.5      : Usable Dos Shell
NT 3.1      : Killin' your OS/2s
Win 3.1     : Better than 3.0 by 0.1

Keeping workstation / server OS's out of the list (like NT and 2000) and going by major releases:

3.0: bad
3.11 for workgroups: good
95: bad
98: okay, made great by the SE release = good
ME: bad
XP: okay, made great by SP2 and SP3 release = good
Vista: bad
Win7: great, right out the gate = good
Win8: sucked - mostly due to forcing a mobile interface on desktop users. 8.1 minor improvement, still needs tweaking to make usable = bad

Win10: should be decent.

So, IMO, it really does go by every 2nd major non-workstation release alternating.

Vista is mostly fine, I'd rather use it over XP thats for sure

[jdcarpe]

Vista is mostly fine, I'd rather use it over XP thats for sure

Usually, toward the end of a product's life cycle, they have fixed it well enough with service packs to make it virtually indistinguishable from the next release version. Vista with the latest service pack should function about as well as Win7.

It's funny that Vista (NT 6.0) has the same code base as Win 7 (NT 6.1), Win 8 (NT 6.2), and Win 8.1 (NT 6.3).

Windows 10 is another point zero release, but this time they are calling it NT 10.0. In reality, it should be named Windows 9 (NT 7.0). Reminds me of when Slackware jumped from version 4 to 7, for marketing purposes.

[baldgye]

Vista is mostly fine, I'd rather use it over XP thats for sure

Usually, toward the end of a product's life cycle, they have fixed it well enough with service packs to make it virtually indistinguishable from the next release version. Vista with the latest service pack should function about as well as Win7.

It's funny that Vista (NT 6.0) has the same code base as Win 7 (NT 6.1), Win 8 (NT 6.2), and Win 8.1 (NT 6.3).

Windows 10 is another point zero release, but this time they are calling it NT 10.0. In reality, it should be named Windows 9 (NT 7.0). Reminds me of when Slackware jumped from version 4 to 7, for marketing purposes.

tbh the only issues anyone I knew had with vista (when it came out) was it used more ram than xp and some old as **** printers didnt have working drivers...

[jdcarpe]

some old as **** printers didnt have working drivers...

Speaking of that...

I'm currently supporting exactly one XP machine in our office. Reason? Laser engravers we have (which would cost tens of thousands to replace) have no drivers beyond XP. My CAD workstation is limited to using 32-bit Win 7, because I couldn't make the 32-bit driver for those machines (which appear as printers) work in any way on 64-bit Win 7 in order to spool the jobs to the host XP machine. So yeah, 4GB RAM max on my CAD station that included 16GB.

[baldgye]

some old as **** printers didnt have working drivers...

Speaking of that...

I'm currently supporting exactly one XP machine in our office. Reason? Laser engravers we have (which would cost tens of thousands to replace) have no drivers beyond XP. My CAD workstation is limited to using 32-bit Win 7, because I couldn't make the 32-bit driver for those machines (which appear as printers) work in any way on 64-bit Win 7 in order to spool the jobs to the host XP machine. So yeah, 4GB RAM max on my CAD station that included 16GB.

yet MS got all the **** for that kind of stuff, when really it was the 3rd parties that should have been getting it... all well such is life


sucks for your work station though

[tufty]

So, IMO, it really does go by every 2nd major non-workstation release alternating.

Only if you diddle the list to not include the operating systems you don't want to consider, but then you really have to consider OSs from XP onwards based on the deliberately crippled "home" editions...  You also have to conveniently forget how awful XP was until SP2.. Remember how badly XP was slated in the press at the time? Hell, it was just barely better than ME until SP1, and that was only because it crashed marginally less.

[Hypersphere]

It depends on what you will be doing with the machine and what your work environment and collaborations are like.

My preference is to use OS X or linux (I use Linux Mint 17.1 64-bit with the Xfce desktop), but I need Windows for some applications and to ensure compatibility with collaborative files.

Although I would rather use Mac or Linux exclusively, I have been frustrated by the lack of software development and support for these platforms. By comparison, most of the software packages that I need to use are easier to install and use on Windows than on Mac or Linux. I have installed Win 8.1 on one of my machines, and by using the third-party classic start menu, it has the look and feel of Win 7, but it is faster.

I have also successfully run Windows and Linux on a new Mac Pro using VMs. I've compared VirtualBox, VMware Fusion, and Parallels. They all work, but VirtualBox does not have the graphics capability for graphics-intensive applications. VMware Fusion and Parallels are close, but Parallels works better for me, especially with graphics-intensive applications.

Whereas I really enjoy my Mac, if I were to do things over again, I think a smarter choice would have been to go with PCs instead of Macs. Almost all of the software that I use is available for Windows or Linux, and these OSs can be run natively on a PC.

BTW, my latest PC is a custom build from Puget Systems. It is the best and quietest PC I have ever owned. I can highly recommend this company.

Good luck with your decision.

[Oobly]

Vista was as expensive, unstable as all get out, had VERY poor driver support, especially in 64 bit, had that awful UAC with popups in your face ALL THE TIME, super-restrictive DRM, resource-heavy "aero" interface, settings were hard to find or even removed, the "dynamic" start menu, ribbon UI here and there, etc... It was crap.

The "skip every 2nd release" thing is really just an amusing "trend". I did stay with Win98 SE until XP SP2, but by that point XP was markedly better. Went from XP SP3 to Win7 64-bit. Have not seen any reason yet to "upgrade" and probably won't even install Win10 unless it's MUCH better. If it aint broke and all that.