Mossberg: Windows 7 narrows the gap with Apple's Mac OS X - Page 11

Originally Posted by newbee

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?

Originally Posted by Bloodshotrollin'red

Been an Apple user since lle, (very nearly a Lisa owner) also one of the very first UK Mac owners in 1984. Now I think my time with Apple is over.

Apple wont miss me, but I will miss Apple.

Originally Posted by teckstud

I mean what is original anymore? Really?

Originally Posted by teckstud

Sorry to everyone if my writing was far from perfect, I was at work and extremely busy today.

Originally Posted by yuusharo

In the end, its just a matter of who you're comfortable with. I'm personally more comfortable knowing the exact parts in all my machines and what to replace them with, while you're more comfortable not having to worry about it at all and pay the premium for that luxury.

Originally Posted by yuusharo

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.

Originally Posted by yuusharo

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.

Originally Posted by buceta

Spoken by the person who holds a Lexus as his dream car.

Nuff said.

Originally Posted by buceta

Looked from a far away distance, everything looks the same. It takes a sharper mind than yours to see the, quite significant difference, I am afraid.

Originally Posted by azentropy


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. .

Originally Posted by yuusharo

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.

Originally Posted by newbee

Show me, with links, the exact specs you get with $800 for PC. Include everything, monitor, etc. ... then maybe I'll have to rethink my position. Until then it's all just opinions, not facts.

Originally Posted by newbee

Show me, with links, the exact specs you get with $800 for PC. Include everything, monitor, etc. ... then maybe I'll have to rethink my position. Until then it's all just opinions, not facts.

Originally Posted by yuusharo

Why does he have to include a monitor? What if he's just replacing or re-purposing an old computer, and wants to use the same peripherals? That's not something you can overlook - that's an advantage PCs have over Macs. In short, you only have to buy the parts you actually need, rather than the package as a whole.

Originally Posted by newbee

I would have thought that would be obvious, but not to you , I guess. If you're going to compare prices between two items, it MIGHT be fair to point out everything you get with both choices, no?

Originally Posted by yuusharo

BWM, Fierro, Ferrari, Bugati, substitute with whatever one you'd like. It was your flawed analogy to begin with, mind you.

I look at it simply - say I wanted to build a render farm of Core i7 machines. I could buy several Mac Pros at $2400+ each, or Xserves at $2999+ each, and run something like Compressor ($800). *OR* I could buy several Windows 7 machines for $1200 with the same specs and run Pro Coder 3 ($400) and achieve the same net effect.

That's one cost-saving advantage Apple doesn't have.

Originally Posted by yuusharo

That has more to do with which OEM you do business with. In this case, Microsoft wouldn't be of any help to you regardless. The ones you'd have to compare to with Apple are the Dells and HPs of the world.

I do agree that Apple's technical support seems to be one of the best in the industry. As long as you're under warranty, they'll fix just about any issue you have with no questions asked. I love how they swapped out my original iPhone 3G last year after I complained about poor cellular reception. I didn't even need to turn the phone on to show them - they just replaced it on the spot! That's good customer service.

However, since I'm capable of building my own systems, I've found it more cost-effective to build the machine myself and service any replacements myself. I've saved money, but at the cost of me figuring out all my issues. That works for me. And what you do works for you.

In the end, its just a matter of who you're comfortable with. I'm personally more comfortable knowing the exact parts in all my machines and what to replace them with, while you're more comfortable not having to worry about it at all and pay the premium for that luxury.

Originally Posted by yuusharo

But it is fair, my friend. Its indeed fair to compare the fact that you can build a Windows 7 PC with comparable, if not equal, specs to a Mac Pro tower for far less money.

Originally Posted by yuusharo

Why should I spend extra money for an All-In-One, and essentially buy a new monitor that is permanently tied to that single computer, when I can just use what I already own and save $$$?

Originally Posted by buceta

Even if your prices are correct your conclusion is wrong, especially when developers start taking advantage of grand central dispatch and OpenCL for leveraging multiple cores. By then you will be able to achieve with one Mac Pro the same performance as multiple PC machines.

Originally Posted by Quantz

Exactly. I don't have time to do what you do, and Apple does it very well with (for) me.
M$oft, HP and others, not so.

Originally Posted by solipsism

Show me a high-end workstation from any major PC vendor that is cheaper than off the shelf cheap components? You are paying for many thing when you buy a pre-made PC. If a PC vendor doesn't offer the machine you want you go to the next one or build your own.

Originally Posted by buceta

Because you won't be saving a lot of money but you will lose software-hardware integration, support and reliability.

Originally Posted by yuusharo

But it is fair, my friend. Its indeed fair to compare the fact that you can build a Windows 7 PC with comparable, if not equal, specs to a Mac Pro tower for far less money. Its also fair to point out the fact that Apple only sells three "headless" devices: the Mac Pro ($2700), the Xserve ($3000), or the Mac Mini ($600), none of which hit the sweet spot of a mid-range Mac, something people have been begging for for years.

Originally Posted by buceta

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...

Originally Posted by newbee

If you read my earlier post you will note it was in response to an earlier poster who claimed : "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".

All I continue to ask for is to give me specific info, with links , instead of your opinion. Is that too much to ask for? "Just the facts, ma'am, just the facts.

Originally Posted by azentropy

Do they match every spec of a Mac Pro - heck no - but in terms of raw processing power they sure do and even offer features the Mac Pro doesn't

Originally Posted by cmf2

Macs are almost always behind in $/processing power. There several reasons for it. For one the Mac Pros are using more expensive CPU's even if the performance difference isn't that large. Two, as much as people laugh at it the Mac pro case would cost a lot more than the cases in those systems. Then you have the custom designed and built in limited quantity motherboards, the special hard drive mounts, etc, etc. Another major factor is Apples long refresh cycles and the fact that they used fixed price points (if you want best value, buy early). Also, there are so many more PC manufacturers, that it is inevitable that some will have lower prices than what Apple has, and competition will drive prices further down. Those aspects combine to create the "Apple tax".

PC manufacturers tend to sell specs because that is how they differentiate themselves from each other. Apple sells the Mac experience, and specs are only a portion of that. Some people find value in that experience , and some don't. Personally I do (at least for their laptops) and include it in my value calculations for a computer.

I don't remember when the Mac Pro was last updated, but I'm guessing it was around the time that the i7 computers cost $2000 plus (ie. when I built mine), and they wouldn't have dropped the price since.

Originally Posted by ilogic

If Mossburg compares windows to Apple,as the bottom line, then I hope to see an ad soon where PC has his private reviewer, saying things like "Windows is an extra step closer to being as good as the Mac!"

Originally Posted by AppleInsider


But there are a few key areas where Windows 7 falls behind Snow Leopard, Mossberg said. For one, Microsoft's OS "still isn't quite as natural" as it is on Mac, though it's an improvement from Vista.

And though Windows 7 is faster, his MacBook Pro still started and restarted faster than most of the PCs he tested. "But the speed gap has narrowed considerably," he said.

Originally Posted by s.metcalf

Windows 7 is lipstick on a pitbull.

Originally Posted by yuusharo

there's no reason to spend $1200+ on a computer for her, when her old $600 does just a good of a job even 5 years later.

Originally Posted by yuusharo

Eh, I've seen what similar technologies, like CUDA and Stream, can do, and at the moment I'm not impressed. The most it does is offload some of the work off the CPU, allowing you to maybe push a few more tasks simultaneously. It will be useful going forward, but with CPUs as powerful as they are these days, the difference is marginal. Besides, OpenCL is just that - an open standard. There's nothing preventing Microsoft from integrating it in the future.

You're computer will be more efficient, but it won't have the same performance as "multiple PC machines" in a single Mac Pro. That's just silly.
.

Originally Posted by iMat

Instead of spending time on the tablet, Apple should:

1) make sure all major software producers release their software to take advantage of GCD and OpenCL
2) release some updates to their professional line of software (Aperture) so that they still have an edge in this regard
3) Apple should help more some specialized software houses to make their software better for Mac (ArchiCAD Cocoa rewrite) or to port it to Mac (AutoCAD).

Then, after that, they should release some new MacPros and iMacs.

After all these steps are completed they can create the iTablet, keeping one thing in mind:
- NO CONTENT = NO SALES
So, for instance, if you don't have a movie and video store in 99% of the countries you shouldn't be surprised that the Apple TV is still in some sort of beta limbo...

Microsoft Windows 7 getting better? This is a piece of news that should affect every Mac enthusiast who doesn't wear blindfolds.
Apple has an edge, in my opinion, in a combination of factors, OSX being only one of them. But it is true that Snow Leopard brought only under the hood changes, which is a good idea in my opinion, but it is also true that if nobody (software) profits from these changes they are as good as useless. iCal and Mail have never been the most resource intensive tasks my MBP performs.. Happy to see they are faster, but ArchiCAD and Aperture in my case are the two that might benefit MUCH more from being 64bit and GCD compatible. So that is something Apple has to fix next.

Originally Posted by jnjnjn

$599 would suffice, if you wait a few days is will be as low as $499.

Originally Posted by a_greer

OK, this calls all of his credibility into question, let me explain...

Speed: I have a 1.6ghz single core netbook with 1.6ghz single core cpu, and 2gb ram: it boots 7 Ultimate with all fancy features enabled in less time than my 2.0ghz core 2 duo macbook with 4gb ram loads snow leopard, ditto for a handfull of 3-5 year old old laptops I have tried at work. Is Mr Mossburg testing Windows 7 as a clean install that he preformed? or using Dell or HPs crappware infested implementation thereof? if he is using an OEM install, he isnt evaluating windows 7, he is evaluating that OEMs vision thereof.

"not quite as natural" Give me a break. he is a mac user, no windows is gonig to feel as "natural" just like any long time windows user might find the Mac to be unnatural at first.

Note, I have been using 7 RTM via my university, who made it availible 4 weeks ago, and via my job where I have MVLS.

Originally Posted by yuusharo

Second, Windows updates are released ONCE PER MONTH on the second Tuesday of every month. The only updates that are released outside that schedule are deemed highly critical, and that doesn't happen often. With Windows 7's new patch engine, you *RARELY* need to restart after a Windows update. In fact, I don't believe I've ever had to restart after an update and have been using it since beta. Not even for video drivers!

Originally Posted by yuusharo

But you do get Windows Live Essentials, which is a pretty competent suite. And its free

Originally Posted by Zoolook

As much as I like Win7, I can't agree with this. Live Mail is terrible compared to Mac Mail. Searches are awful, IMAP is slow, rules and filters are cumbersome and it messes up formatting from virtually every client. Ugh...

Keep email, photos and music (especially composing music) on Macs - PCs can keep gaming, Office stuff and finance apps.

That's why I, and almost everyone else with a Mac, has both.

Originally Posted by doyourownthing

nice to read reviews from people which are probably in microsoft's payroll

also how is this apple news?

people that compare snow leopard to windows 7 are angry pc users which have never owned / operated a mac and have no idea of what they're talking about, and were paid big amounts of money to write good reviews, like this mossberg character

Originally Posted by a_greer

Please do not insult Windows like that, as bad ad many people may find that OS, it is still much preferable to Sarah Palin.