How is Windows Vista?

>> I can't change to Mac mainly because of misc other reasons.
Using iTune and ipod exclusively<<

Sorry, but there should be no real reason not to go for a Mac! It will run your windows stuff as well - as you might know (Parallels!). The team iTunes - iPod-Macintosh is unbeatable!

He flat out tells you he can't get a Mac and you advise him to get a Mac. Are you dense? Or just your typical Mac user attitude showing thru.

Yes, Windows Vista has far superior audio capabilities. Don't know about the K-mixer problem. I would recommend waiting for Microsoft to release their 1st Service Pack (SP1) for Vista before jumping in.

Here is a ton of reading for you:

http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?t=713073

Dave

Rlwainwright: thanx for that nice little compliment! No, I'm not dense as you pleased yourself to name it but there's sometimes a need for just a little push into some direction, esp. since Ejiliu posted he would use iTunes and iPod exclusively.

Doesn't SP1 comes out about 1 year after initial release? That means I have to wait almost until Christmas 07.

I actually had the first version of XP. It really was not that bad.

The reason for not switching is because
1) Job requirement
2) Large amount of application already purchased
3) My wife said so. (most important reason)

I have a RC1 upgraded to the final Vista version and it is compatible with Slimserver/Squeezebox/EAC/FLAC (copy flac.exe to the EAC folder)/Mp3tag. I have not tried the room correction yet, but my Chaintech sound card works well with Vista's own drivers and sounds better than in XP via my headphone system. Vista is also compatible with older hardware and software (see compatibility list).

Does vista allow you to do phase and time correction?

I recently read an article about Vista.

Anyone wishing to maintain their privacy AND quality playback of music and movies should read. The author works for the following companies:

Clients

And here is his article on Vista.

Vista

To be fair, the article was answered in a AVS Forum Vista thread about a month ago. This one is a more complete answer from Microsoft. Read both and derive your own conclusions.

I think forum responses by members at the end of the article (link you provided) This one addresses the Microsoft cover.

Wish I owned the stock, elated I have no need for the software.

FWIW, I'm a long time Mac user. I've always had to
have a Windows machine in my office, but only to deal
with files clients send me. My new Intel Macs run Windows
either from a direct boot to Windows, or virtually, using
Parallels software. ( about $80 ). Windows in a window, so to speak.
Both scenarios work flawlessly.
Windows XP runs as almost as fast in virtualization as it does solo.
I actually cannot tell the difference. That is not an exaggeration.

So, for the price of a Windows OS license,
you can have the best of both worlds ( not that I've ever found
anything even approaching 'good' with Windows ),
if you buy a Mac.

For another ~ $80 you can run both, simultaneously.

My Windows machine was donated to charity yesterday.

People say you can't have it both ways, but Michaelct proved them wrong :^).

If I worked in the hard core business world instead of advertising and photography, I too would have been a Windows guy.

At least now everyone has a choice, you can run Windows on a Mac and turn it over to Tiger when work is done and "play" on your own time.

My son is a Windows kid. He loves my Mac and plays on it every chance he gets, but he is also a big time gamer and games written for Windows are numerous, compared to the few for Mac.

Lately he has been wondering what might happen if he bought a Mac and set it up for Windows to play games. I think that would be a waste of time but it shows that people of all ages are at least considering a Mac, and for all kinds of reasons.

A few years ago it looked like Mac might be down for the count. I was a big supporter, but thank goodness there are a few others on board now.