Let the hive mind of Engadget get that for you.
"We need a digital camera that can be switched on and fire off that first shot fast. It's not a commonly tracked statistic on any review site, and nobody seems to have this information for every camera. We were hoping other readers could inform us as to what small digital cameras can fire off their first pics in under a second (ideally under half a second). It needs to be small, but mostly, just really quick in operation. Thanks!"
This kind of result is the kind you just want to show to anyone who still uses either a Mac... or XP.
Mac: mostly good for doorstops, or "Converation pieces"
XP: was good then... but honestly, it's now.
@Pizzaboy192
yah mac users.. get win 7 on your bootcamps! You won't want to go back :-p
@allenade
Damn straight, your right there I installed Win7 on Bootcamp & haven't booted back into it since.!
@Pizzaboy192
I concur, I tried Vista, switched back to XP as soon as I could. Gave Windows 7 a try and fell in love with it instantly, its a great OS. XP served its purpose, but its time to move on now.
I was considering getting a Macbook Pro for University, but I'm not as sure as I used to be, after switching to Windows 7.
What do you think my fellow Engadget readers? Let's not start a flame war now, I know both Windows and Macs have their strengths and weaknesses.
I've never owned a Mac, but I use "creative" software for graphic and web design, and I hear that Macs work better with these applications, your views and experiences would be great.
@DangerRabbit
Personally, the only reason they "work better" on a Mac is because the people who try and use those applications don't always know what they're doing when it comes to a real computer.
I know for a fact that if you build your own system, instead of buying OEM (or if you buy from an OEM and format the moment you pull it out of the box) you'll have a system 4000% better (No bloatware, proper drivers, better stuff etc)
Apple doesn't really have that problem because they are the OEM, so you have nothing to compare to in terms of bloat, and uselessness.
That, combined with the time that the statement was fact, was when Apple was using the PowerPC platform. A QuadG5 will outperform any Xenon Mac Pro in any test, any day, and it'll blow away any PC that tries to run Adobe software too (CS4 is supposed to work on the PPC platform, and only a single app (lightroom IIRC) has a few issues which can be resolved easily)
Now... sadly... Apple's hardware doesn't work any better than a PC does (seeing as the hardware is identical) and so it's every man to their own there. If you've grown up on a Mac, enjoy your Adobe CS4 for Mac, if you're a PC, Congratulations! they've got it for PC too. you won't get any boost either way (Unless you happen to own a PC what uses any of the thousands of addons that will improve software like that which aren't available for a mac, but that's another discussion altogether).
@DangerRabbit
I'll be perfectly honest with you DangerRabbit. I was in the same boat a few months ago and I had been using the RC of windows 7 for a few months prior to that. I was impressed with the difference in performance between it and vista (it's huge on almost any machine) but I ultimately decided to go with the 15" Macbook Pro. I, in no way shape or form regret this decision. OSX really is noticeably more stable than any version of windows I have ever used. I've known and been using Windows since I was old enough to figure out how to use a mouse which is when 3.1 was pretty big lol. No, OSX isn't 100% perfect all the time (I've had safari go down twice in the 5 months I've owned it) but when something does crash it doesn't take everything else down with it, which is what happened with Windows most of the time, in my experience. I find that and the lack of viruses / spyware / trojans to be worth the switch. And to top it all off, with Boot Camp you can use your mac exactly like any PC. So in the end you get the best of both worlds. In terms of things like Photoshop and other media creators / editors I don't see much of a difference. The programs are made by the same 3rd party companies. They seem been pretty similar in OSX and Windows with only slight organizational differences imo. I hope this helps a little bit!
@DangerRabbit Get the Macbook and use the software that comes with it to dual-boot Win7. It doesn't have to be either/or. I use Win7, OSX and Linux all at least once per day. :) There CAN be harmony in difference.
@cherryboom I honestly have no idea where you got that idea from. Have you ever heard of a Mac Pro? You can do whatever you want to it. Not to mention, when you buy it, it already comes with very nice specs. You're also not considering the fact that Apple mostly offers laptops, which means that you obviously can't open it up. Just like any other laptop, you would void the warranty.
By drivers, I didn't mean the hardware that's already on the machine, that's a no brainer, what I meant was new hardware.
And I have used a PC before, and never upgraded anything in it. As far as SSD goes, the only difference between the SSD and HDD is just the bootup time. It is a fact that SSD is actually not as stable and can be slower. And you can get 1TB HDD for the price of maybe 200GB SSD. Right now I'm using a 27" iMac, and when I put it to sleep, and wake it up in the morning, there isn't any boot up whatsoever. It goes to exactly where I was before. I don't see why Windows still can't do that.
But anyway, this just proves that we both prefer different things. Does that mean that just because you don't like the way Macs are made, that makes them bad? No.
Or does it mean that just because I don't like Windows, that makes it bad? Of course not. All about personal preference.
@mtnDewFTW
Ever heard of Sleep (or Standby) on Windows..It does the same thing..above of all it consumes few watts less than the Macs!
@abhinavk
Actually, there is no difference between the sleep (or standby) function between Macs and PC's.
On a typical mid-range desktop today, standby will consume about 400mAh (less than half a watt) to actually keep the computer suspended, but there are other factors that may raise that number. On a laptop, its about half.
Standby is a hardware procedure, so a Mac that is on standby will require the same amount of power as a PC on standby (provided they have identical hardware)
I know I will get down ranked for saying this, but Macs just tend to sleep faster, even with the same hardware Win7 (RC1, 7100) sleeps slower than OS X on both my XPS and MBP. The resume, however, is no different.
@Pizzaboy192
i'm probably going to use xp as a primary until microsoft designs an os to be as fast as possible, not "fast enough". who cares if it's faster than vista when it can't match the speed of something that came out almost a decade previously? products are supposed to be faster in later versions, not more bloated and running slower on better hardware. i shouldn't have to wonder if any computer made in the last four years can't play a video because the OS is using too many resources and i can't see more than twenty processes out of 80 in the task manager by default.
@Scuba Steve
Exactly. You haven't even use it.
@DangerRabbit
Thanks for the information, truly appreciated :)