Mossberg: Windows 7 narrows the gap with Apple's Mac OS X - Page 10

http://news.cnet.com/8301-13860_3-10370369-56.html

"As is often the case with Windows, Iolo found that things only get worse over time. It found that a three-month-old machine can take up to a minute longer to boot, or 2 minutes and 34 seconds. Windows 7 did outperform Vista at the three-month and six-month marks, Iolo said, but it generally "trailed the older version significantly" in its boot-up tests."

Looks like Windows 7 users will still be thinking about a clean install every few months... and wondering why they didn't switch to Mac.

I can't help but be quite sceptical, given this report was done by a PC tune up company.

It's quite funny though!

This is very true. Businesses tend to be very conservative regarding OS upgrades making them as little as possible mainly due to cost as upgrading the OS generally means upgrading the apps that run on it.

When I did my thesis on museum computerization back in 1989 I found machines as old as 286 (and even a 8086) still in use largely because of this. And it wasn't just old museums either. A recently completed museum used an old piece of software because the best climate monitoring system of the time ran on DOS and AFAIK they still do as the company that wrote it never upgraded to Windows.

On the Mac Firefox puts .part after a file in the process of downloading. If you stop downloading the file the .part file and the result "proper" file both disappear. BUT if something else interrupts the download (your connection goes south long enough) Firefox will go stupid and say the file has completed the download.

That said I have messed with .exe files that should run on Windows 95 and 98 on Windows 98 and watch as some of them have problems. it could be programmer was an idiot as well as Firefox flubbing it.

The only thing I'm afraid of is that you'll keep on posting.

As someone who has to use Windows at work, I'm glad that it is improving. Competition is a good thing. Diehard Windows users should appreciate that even if they don't like Apple or its products, the competition has been good for the industry as a whole.

The taskbar in Win 7 is much closer in functionality to the dock in OS X, so that will be nice. I am wondering though when Microsoft will ever get around to figuring out how to let Windows be installed on, and boot from a USB drive. What is so hard about this? OS X has been able to boot from a USB drive for a long time. Also when is Windows going to ditch the archaic drive letter nonsense, and the awful registry. I'd say that Windows still has a ways to go in several areas before catching OS X.

You did, in fact, read the part about how difficult it was to go from XP to win7, didn't you. I'm not so sure about world wide corporate acceptance just yet .... we'll see.

Yea, you wish ... where would Apple be today without SJ ?

TeckDud ..... Take your meds man, you're starting to lose it ... pathetic.

They need to improve on ergonometric and usability, too. Last time I checked, if you want to turn computer off, you still need to hit "start" button first. That's ridiculous.

If what you're saying is true (it's not btw) then why do used Macs retain a bigger value than a comparably priced PC on ebay or craigslist. hint: all computer parts are NOT created equal.

Don't feel bad ... there's a lot of things TeckDud has never heard of.

Your wrong on almost every account.

First, my point was that Apple is on the forefront of software development. Webkit, HTML5 and LLVM are both examples of heavy involvement from Apple. GCD and OpenCL are at the core of Mac OS X and for a large part developed and designed by Apple.
Apples state of the art software is the reason for future success. And with Snow Leopard Apple user don't have to wait for a new release to see some rendering applications (in some situations) accelerate a 20 times.

Contrary to your claim, LLVM, GCD and OpenCL have everything to do with the OS. GCD uses the (new) concept of virtual threads and sequential and parallel thread queues to schedule real (OS) threads. This is all part of the kernel. And because of that realtime load balancing can be done.

As a result all cores of the system including GPUs (via OpenCL) can be scheduled by virtual threads and can contribute in all kinds of calculations.
This is a big (I would say brilliant) achievement, especially if you know that with Apples C extension of 'closures' (also brilliant) existing code can be 'plugged in' GCD. So application developers can port there code to GCD with relative ease.

Another important difference between Apple an MS is support for open source and open standards. MS is against HTML5 because this conflicts with its proprietary silverlight. Thats the reason it isn't included in IE8. (As you probably know HTML5 can be used with a plugin, but thats Googles effort.)

And finally, your wrong on 64 bit support. Apples OS is fully 64 bit, kernel, drivers and applications (The 64 bit kernel is not on by default (it is for Mac OS X server), but can be turned on easily.) . But MS 64 bit support is crippled because it has limited support for 64 bit drivers.

J.

Hmm, yes I was a bit carried away when I used 'dominate'. I guess I had the iPhone in mind.

The enterprise market is a 'problem' for Apple because of the legacy windows hardware. But thats a problem for MS too, because no one wants to upgrade if the application runs ok and the hardware still works.

J.

You were the one who suggested the dock was stolen from the taskbar ... now you have been called on it so just man up and eat it.

You would have an answer to your question if you looked at Apples keynote presentations, instead of SB face.

J.

It doesn't matter to me that Microsoft has narrowed the gap. I don't care; I'm a Mac user.
The problem with Windows 7 is that it's still Windows. People who use it will still have the same problems they've always had with Windows - junky, clunky, cumbersome, etc.

Ok from the sidechair expert, thats really tells me a lot about Windows 7

MS has been "narrowing the gap" for years now. Maybe it counts for something that their current OS "sucks less" than the previous one. Problem is, it's still Windows. A fixed Vista does not an OS X make.

As long as the current management is running MS, any product with the MS logo on it will be suspect by default and assumed crap until proven innocent. And I'll be interested to see how Joe Average will do the proving over the course of the next year. It might be fun to start taking bets on how divergent Windows 7 will be from the pre-release reviews and testing. Vista was a complete 180.

Mossberg liked Vista too, when it debuted, including calling it “the best version of Windows Microsoft has produced.”

There’s no question 7 is better than Vista (I mean, that should be a given. Windows sufferers haven't had a decent OS since 2001, and XP was a virus-ridden dog of an OS.) The question is whether 7 is going to get the majority that’s still on XP to upgrade. Probably. But I wouldn’t bet too much on it.

Wow, most of you people are completely blind

I mean, it'd be one thing if you were making arguments on objective empirical observations, but really the lot of you just come off as brutish as your MS counterparts.

What I can handle is 'I just prefer the GUI on the Mac', or something along those lines. But 98% of the stuff I've read here make it sound like you haven't used Win7 for any length of time. And you guys are tearing down a great OS armed with nothing but opinions and red herrings.

I've worked on, developed for, and supported both platforms for many, many years (typing this on an iMac now), and I think the current iteration of both are just fantastic. I'm hearing the *nix crowd are happy where they're at, so right now it's the best time in history to be a computer fanboy. So please, stop dragging your knuckles and grunting whenever Windows dares to look you in the eyes

A lot of people do seem to be quite blind in this matter. How can anyone emphatically state that OSX is better than Windows 7 if they have never used Windows 7? Given that the beta releases were free, no one has any excuse for not trying it. If you haven't tried it, don't bash it. Now if you are happy with OSX and have no need for Windows, that is fine, but state that and not that Windows 7 sucks since you have no way of knowing if it actually does.

Mac fanboys, don't be like Windows fanboys (completely ignorant of the other OS). It just doesn't look good.

The Windows registry is nothing more than the equivalent of a database of .plist files. You could argue it's a better approach to having all this config info in a central database than scattered all over your hard disk as they are in OS X.

Windows DLLs are just the equivalent of OS X dylibs.

The ignorance about Windows displayed by many here is just as bad as the ignorance about OS X shown by many Windows users in other forums.

If you think that what makes OS X so much better than Windows has anything to do with Windows having the registry or using DLLs then you clearly don't understand anything about what makes OS X great.

Seriously, are you windoze guys ever going to "get it" ? The business models of Apple and M$ are entirely different, ON PURPOSE ! Bill Gates decided from the beginning to be on every computer going, hence the licensing formula they use. The problem with that is you then have to work on even the most pathetic of all computers as well as the good ones. This almost guarantees that M$ will always have multiple versions of the same OS and/or be a POS !

Steve Jobs decided from the beginning that he wanted to make insanely great computing experiences for ALL Mac users, and not worry about market share. This guarantees that mac will always have a smaller market share but also will always be a better user experience. It also explains why we have one OS version only, since Mac controls the computers the Mac OS goes on.

Both Apple and MS are achieving their goals and all you have to do, as a consumer, is choose which camp you'll be happier in.

What really pisses me off is the windoze crowd who voluntarily choose M$ and then spend all their time trying to justify a POS choice instead of just getting on with it. If you're happy with M$, good for you. All I know is that I'm VERY happy with my choice to be a Mac user since the beginning and I have had more of my friends switch to Mac when they see and use my setup but I have ZERO knowledge of ANYBODY switching from Mac to Windoze!

It's also interesting to see that Apple, even with their smaller market share, makes a boatload of money. Market share is NOT the only guideline to success!

You are talking about two applications. One is not needed in the Mac and believe it or not will sap resources. The other seems to be working but we all know that when push comes to shove the Windows backup will crap out. All other applications are either crapware (if supported by a small house) or work better in the mac (Photoshop, Illustrator, etc).

For me it comes down to is if Windows 7 is good enough.

I never minded paying a bit more for my Macs. The OS always made up for the higher cost or slightly lower raw performance.

I also don't mind paying $42K for a BMW over a $30K Mustang that offer similar raw performance.
But if I had to pay $90K I wouldn't purchase BMW's anymore and they are not 3X better.

It is now the same for me with Mac/PC's. In order to get the raw performance of a i7 based PC which are in the $800 range the only choice for new is a $2500 Mac. The Mac isn't 3X better...

If Apple doesn't close THAT gap soon, like in the next month, I just can't justify going with a Mac as my desktop anymore. This is coming from a user who has owned over 20 different Macs over the past 23 years or so.

roflmao!

That's how most people think about it. Not me personally, but most.

You're not alone.

What's the point of arguing with a little troll like you? First off, Photoshop actually does perform better on Windows simply due to the fact that its 64-bit on Windows but only 32-bit on the Mac. If you're equipped with an 8GB machine and working with large images with many effects, you're going to have a slowdown on the Mac.

But besides all that, software is just software. There's great software on Windows and there's crap software on the Mac. The opposite is equally true. Just because you're not familiar with various Windows programs doesn't mean there aren't some that are excellent. And about the Windows backup? Um, have you ever even tried it? XP's built-in backup solution wasn't great, but it was written back in the late 90s, over ten years ago. Modern backup solutions like Vista and Windows 7 are absolutely excellent and work just as well as any Linux or Mac solution. Hell, a single drag-and-drop is all you need to do to archive files if you want.

Listen, you've chosen the Mac. That's fine, be happy with it. I happen to love the Mac and use it in areas where Windows falls short. But just because it falls short in some ways doesn't make it bad - its EXCELLENT! Its quiet, its stable, and it gets the job done. It has its place, just like the Mac does.

Adobe made windows its platform of choice years ago, and all of its apps are optimized for windows. The creative suite works fine on the mac, but it definitely doesn't "work better".

Exactly... if you are content with crappiness but livable then buy a Wintel plastic box.

If you are the kind of person who is intelligent enough to appreciate a BMW and would never dare comparing it to a POS Mustang then buy a mac.

There are levels of class, you know...

Oh my GOD yes it does.

No one said it was. The Mac is doing exceptionally well and continues to outpace its other direct competitors (HP, Dell...) year after year. The profit margins on a Mac are so high that Apple is just racking in all the money, while other manufacturers are passing off major decreases in sales as a "good thing," saying they haven't lost as much money as they thought they would.

Still, you can't use the word "dominate" when describing the Macintosh.

Incorrect again.
1. Software is everything here because both windows boxes and mac computer use roughly the same hardware.
2. Software is worse on PC for several reasons: no adherence to guidelines, DLLs, antiquated file system, bad memory management, corruption, no integration with other service applications, etc... not to mention (since Snow Leopard) no smart tread scheduling, no true 64-bit, no smart use of GPU resources, no nothing really... just more updates, virus, crash and 4-minute reboots.

Actually, many of my machines are AMD, not Intel xD. Although the new Core i7s released last money are pretty tempting...

If you want to use your rather flawed analogy, then put it in this perspective - I love Lexus. They are amazing machines, sleek, luxurious, and sexy. Its one of my ultimate dream cars.... but I don't have anywhere NEAR the money to be able to afford one. Sure, they purr like kittens, but they cost just too much to come anywhere close to justifiable.

Instead, I look at my lower budget and think to myself, "What exactly do I need a car for?" All I really need is something that will be reliable, last a long time, and simply get me to where I want to go. That is when I look at the Fords, Hondas, and Toyotas of the world... the Windows 7 PCs.

They're not my dream machines, but they get the job done well and I'm happy with them.

Jeez, where's your evidence of any of this? I'm at least speaking from the perspective of having used both for quite a long time, and have to say that both machines have their flaws as well as their strong points. Since you apparently like playing this game:

1. You made my point quite clear - Macs are really just PCs in nice enclosures. When you get to the crux of it, Macs really don't differentiate between PCs much anymore. Artificial differences, like the use of EFI as opposed to BIOS, are really the only things, and that's because Apple likes to be stubborn about that.

2. This opinion, I can promise you, was pulled directly out of your butt and slapped onto the keyboard. Of course there are adherent application guidelines - why do you think Safari 3 on Windows failed so miserably? Apple thought it would be smart to port over with Mac guidelines, and everyone rejected it, even Mac users that use Windows. iTunes gets a lot of heat because of its Carbon-based origins and Apples refusal to build a native application. There's obviously less enforcement about this rule only because there's so much more software available for Windows, but ever since Vista and now Windows 7, developers have been strict about following UAC and UI interface guidelines in order to make their application blend well with the operating system.

DLLs? They're just the plist equivilant on a Mac. Management could be better, but under Windows 7, its not the issue it used to be. Haven't had a single problem in almost a year since using the beta.

Antiquated file system? Let me ask you, what exactly is the advantage of HFS+ over NTFS? Wow, now I can put quotation marks in my file names. Hurrah. If Apple decided to implement something like ZFS into its operating systems, you might have an argument there. But alas, they continue to use their own choice that doesn't operate nicely with Windows or other Unix-based operating systems like BSD or Linux.

Bad memory management, corruption, no integration with other service applications, blah blah blah. Explain what you mean by "bad memory management." Have you used a PC since Windows 98? I've got a hint for you - its gotten better xD. And "no integration with other service applications" I don't understand in the least. You just made that term up, didn't you? Media Center integrates with Home Server, allowing you to stream recorded TV shows to any computer you own. Libraries integrates with Home Group, allowing you to find any file on any networked PC, similar to Mac's spotlight integration with network PCs first introduced in Snow Leopard. Windows Live Movie Maker lets you create videos and upload them directly to YouTube. Windows Live Essentials integrates with your Live account, allowing you to post your photos for all to see and sync them back with your PC, ala iLife.

You're chasing a red haring, my friend. No matter how you look at it, Windows 7 is a very comparable operating system. Its obviously not going to change your mind, but in the minds of anyone who's actually tried it, its a fairly decent offering.

Yea, that's kinda like, when you're dating a really ugly girl (vista) almost anything that comes along is an improvement and will get "rave reviews".

That's gotta be a joke, right?

Is this the same "reliable and creditable source as Walt Mossberg" that said Vista was the best M$ OS ever when it was first released?

Certainly not any of your posts.