AppleInsider › Forums › General › General Discussion › Microsoft issues Windows 7 RC on road to October launch
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Microsoft issues Windows 7 RC on road to October launch - Page 4

post #121 of 164
5/3/09 at 4:00pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tauron View Post

So according to you the $400 you spend on an el cheapo build will give you MORE not LESS quality than a $2000 mac. Also according to you your mac was overwhelmed with viruses while your windows was 100% protected with kaspersky.

Son, lay off the crack pipe.

I think you need to lay off the crack pipe since I didn't reference building a $400 machine. Mine cost $1000. The iMac that would come closest to it would cost me $3000 if I bought it from Apple and it would only be dual core.

I've thus far been protected by Kaspersky 100% of the time.

And in case you haven't noticed, Macs are now being attacked a bit more. The "no viruses" defense won't last for much longer and soon Mac users will need to have comprehensive virus protection.

But if you actually read what I said, my Macs had major hardware issues that were caused by poor engineering on Apple's part. Using a thinner cable was a major mistake. So was using cheap Chinese capacitor knock offs.

I'm not talking about a cheap PC. I'm talking about a good PC. It didn't take me days to figure out how good my Asus motherboard was. Nor did it take me hours to figure out that Kingston memory was the stuff to buy. How hard is it to select a Seagate HDD or a namebrand videocard?

I also bought just about everything retail box.

Anyone who spends 60 hours researching a computer build clearly is either over cautious or has no clue what he's doing.

My brother builds high end systems for various clients and doesn't spend 60 hours doing research. It takes him no greater than two hours to put together a quote for a build.

It's nice to try to imagine ways to rationalize how much of a "value" a Mac is even when it's not one. The rationalizations further prove that they are overpriced.

The simplest thing is to admit that they are overpriced but that you're okay with it. If you think they save you time then find.

I say they don't save as much time and effort as you might think, but then I know how to properly maintain a machine.

I switched for sever years. I bought an iBook back in 2002. I liked it. Bought a couple of iMacs too. But I wanted to do more and was very dissatisfied with my inability to upgrade anything save memory. I also am not willing to pay for the high end, so Apple has no interest in a Power User like me. They want the artists on the top and the simpletons on the bottom with no one in between.
Reply
Reply
post #122 of 164
5/4/09 at 12:45am
i can't understand how so many people are missing the big point. this should have been a service pack & distributed for free. MS put out a shitty product then instead of supporting it like they should & releasing SP2 or even SP3, to make it right, they just put together a package & called it Windows 7. Now they are going to charge another $200 for you to upgrade. I have customers that just bought Vista SB not even a year ago & now MS expects them to spend more money to replace one of the worse products in history, I Think Not. Until people get wise & protest these kind of business practices we can expect this to occur over & over again. Come On People, Wake Up...
Reply
Reply
post #123 of 164
5/4/09 at 12:52am
Quote:
Originally Posted by WPLJ42 View Post

I don't think so. I tried this out, using W7 Beta in Boot Camp. My eyes, as bad as they may be, noticed graphics became a little fuzzy. For example, the AppleInsider logo at the very top left of this page. Anything other than 100% (default) and it gets a little less clear. Sure it works, but not good enough for me to switch. I can do a CMD+ in Safari and it looks exactly the same as changing the DPI in Windows 7. I have reason to believe this is not an easy undertaking. If anyone is going to get it right, it will be Apple.

It may be a shock to you but the website logo of Appleinsider is not part of Windows 7! :P
It should be clear that when a website gets scaled bitmap graphics are becoming a little bit blurry. But the Windows UI itself generates almost all icons and elements that are not vector based if you change the dpi settings (that's why you have to restart Vista and to log off/on in 7).
If you would have taken a look at this image: http://www.istartedsomething.com/wp-...2/dpi192_l.jpg you wouldn't have said it is less clear. Sure it is not perfect in Vista but in 7 it almost is.
Reply
Reply
post #124 of 164
5/4/09 at 1:19am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lancelot9201 View Post

i can't understand how so many people are missing the big point. this should have been a service pack & distributed for free. MS put out a shitty product then instead of supporting it like they should & releasing SP2 or even SP3, to make it right, they just put together a package & called it Windows 7. Now they are going to charge another $200 for you to upgrade. I have customers that just bought Vista SB not even a year ago & now MS expects them to spend more money to replace one of the worse products in history, I Think Not. Until people get wise & protest these kind of business practices we can expect this to occur over & over again. Come On People, Wake Up...

Shitty product? Why don't you first test it yourself. Vista isn't buggy nor slow. It may be slower than XP on very low-end systems because of the new kernel and graphics sub-system.
And 7 is way more than a Service Pack. Just because they just updated the kernel from 6.0 to 6.1 does not mean it isn't a new version of the Windows OS. XP was 5.1 after Windows 2000 (5.0).
Why is it that Mac forum users are often so bad informed? May this be the reason for Apple's good image: misinformation and lack of knowledge? Well hopefully not...
Reply
Reply
post #125 of 164
5/4/09 at 4:34am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tauron View Post

Because you don't crash 3 times for every 4 attempts at installing 64-bit applications, and once installed applications do work.

Funny coz I am using Vista x64 Ultimate since November 2006 and never had anything close to that. I would say FUD, unless of course you can give us the name of these 64-bit apps which failed miserably and then explain why you are blaming an OS for some apps setup alleged failure.
Reply
Reply
post #126 of 164
5/4/09 at 12:41pm
"not unlike the Classic mode that has been available to run Mac OS 9 software in most versions of Mac OS X"

Not really like it either, XP had compatibility mode so did Vista and so does 7.
XP virtual is mostly for very old apps and devices used by scientists and machine vendors.

And once an app is installed in XP virtual it appears in 7 alongside your other apps so you don't have to keep launching "classic" like on a mac.

You do know virtualisation has been around for long time before classic don't you ?
Reply
Reply
post #127 of 164
5/4/09 at 12:43pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by TiAdiMundo View Post

Shitty product? Why don't you first test it yourself. Vista isn't buggy nor slow. It may be slower than XP on very low-end systems because of the new kernel and graphics sub-system.
And 7 is way more than a Service Pack. Just because they just updated the kernel from 6.0 to 6.1 does not mean it isn't a new version of the Windows OS. XP was 5.1 after Windows 2000 (5.0).
Why is it that Mac forum users are often so bad informed? May this be the reason for Apple's good image: misinformation and lack of knowledge? Well hopefully not...

Yes its a bit sad really some people give tech fans a bad name, I like it all white or black baby!

But then when it comes to rip off computer firms charging money for service packs me thinks the orchard does protest too much ;-)
Reply
Reply
post #128 of 164
5/4/09 at 5:48pm
A review from Oz:

http://www.smh.com.au/news/digital-l...289106407.html
Reply
Reply
post #129 of 164
5/4/09 at 10:30pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Madple View Post

I am sick and tired of all the limitations of XP (which I must use at work).

So what is so limited about XP that it makes you actually sick and tired?
Reply
Reply
post #130 of 164
5/4/09 at 10:52pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by guinness View Post

I'm looking forward to Win7 - it is what Vista should've been all along. And it runs about as fast as XP, but with better security and DX11 should be a boon for those that have DX10 cards.

I love OSX too, but I don't find either OS that far apart, even Ubuntu 9.04 has impressed me so far. Apple just seems too concerned with selling a pretty package, then actual computers ATM. It may be a wait and see thing with SL for me on my Mini, but I'm definitely getting Win7 when it comes out.

To be honest, after reading some of the drivel here, your sensibility has me taken aback. Ubuntu, Vista, XP, 7 and OS X are all ok operating systems. I use them all because each one of them is missing something the other one has.

The most annoying thing about Windows is the registry and the fact that Windows poos itself after prolonged use and therefore becomes slower. Well, worse is the fact my company laptop takes 20 minutes to boot and shutdown as the network is arranged in such a way that it wants to move half of my harddisk content across the network for some reason...

Biggest annoyance in OS X is the Finder and the fact my Java IDEA is slow as molasses... Ah, and the way Java is installed in OS X.

Though I think I'd stick to Ubuntu if they gave Gnome a more modern look and let me run commercial apps like Lightroom, which was the only reason that brought me back to Windows and OS X.

But all in all it's not a punishment to work with either of these OSes...
Reply
Reply
post #131 of 164
5/4/09 at 11:08pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tauron View Post

Dude it doesn't matter how more expensive you think apple is. The truth of the matter is that the efficiency of mac pays for itself in very little time. Compare that to the huge time sink that windows is and you could give me a windows machine for free and I still wouldn't touch it.

I'm a Java developer, please explain to me how much more efficient I'd be if I only developed my software on OS X...
Reply
Reply
post #132 of 164
5/5/09 at 12:50am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr. MacPhisto View Post

I think you need to lay off the crack pipe since I didn't reference building a $400 machine. Mine cost $1000. The iMac that would come closest to it would cost me $3000 if I bought it from Apple and it would only be dual core.

I've thus far been protected by Kaspersky 100% of the time.

And in case you haven't noticed, Macs are now being attacked a bit more. The "no viruses" defense won't last for much longer and soon Mac users will need to have comprehensive virus protection.

But if you actually read what I said, my Macs had major hardware issues that were caused by poor engineering on Apple's part. Using a thinner cable was a major mistake. So was using cheap Chinese capacitor knock offs.

I'm not talking about a cheap PC. I'm talking about a good PC. It didn't take me days to figure out how good my Asus motherboard was. Nor did it take me hours to figure out that Kingston memory was the stuff to buy. How hard is it to select a Seagate HDD or a namebrand videocard?

I also bought just about everything retail box.

Anyone who spends 60 hours researching a computer build clearly is either over cautious or has no clue what he's doing.

My brother builds high end systems for various clients and doesn't spend 60 hours doing research. It takes him no greater than two hours to put together a quote for a build.

It's nice to try to imagine ways to rationalize how much of a "value" a Mac is even when it's not one. The rationalizations further prove that they are overpriced.

The simplest thing is to admit that they are overpriced but that you're okay with it. If you think they save you time then find.

I say they don't save as much time and effort as you might think, but then I know how to properly maintain a machine.

I switched for sever years. I bought an iBook back in 2002. I liked it. Bought a couple of iMacs too. But I wanted to do more and was very dissatisfied with my inability to upgrade anything save memory. I also am not willing to pay for the high end, so Apple has no interest in a Power User like me. They want the artists on the top and the simpletons on the bottom with no one in between.

You are logically incoherent and I am done talking to you.
Reply
Reply
post #133 of 164
5/5/09 at 12:52am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sensi View Post

Funny coz I am using Vista x64 Ultimate since November 2006 and never had anything close to that. I would say FUD, unless of course you can give us the name of these 64-bit apps which failed miserably and then explain why you are blaming an OS for some apps setup alleged failure.

Just as a gentle reminder for you, the thread is about Windows 7 october launch and not 64-bit applications. Thank you for your attention.
Reply
Reply
post #134 of 164
5/5/09 at 12:53am
Quote:
Originally Posted by podiki View Post

I'm a Java developer, please explain to me how much more efficient I'd be if I only developed my software on OS X...

You would never ever have to deal with DLLs again.

/thread
Reply
Reply
post #135 of 164
5/5/09 at 12:55am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tauron View Post

You would never ever have to deal with DLLs again.

/thread

Priceless...
Reply
Reply
post #136 of 164
5/5/09 at 6:23am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tauron View Post

You are logically incoherent and I am done talking to you.

Translation: I'm taking my ball and going home.

If you don't want to continue talking then the best thing to do is just to quit replying instead of trying to get the last word in.
Reply
Reply
post #137 of 164
5/5/09 at 6:28am
Not that anyone here necessarily wants to know (well, a few might), but Windows 7 RC is a definite improvement. They've refined a lot of things and the new features are interesting.

And as for speed, it is much faster than Vista. Still playing with it, but the boots are faster (and Vista was already fairly fast for me). Everything loads faster. The interface is snappier. And going through all the processes running from Windows I can see a sizeable decrease in the memory being used. Host processes are using about 50MB less all together.
Reply
Reply
post #138 of 164
5/5/09 at 6:46am
I have been a windows user since the windows 3.0, only because I could not afford the Apple system and hardware. I understand why Apple wants to commit to their own hardware, but not everyone can afford it. Even today, I do not understand why Apple does not produce an Operating System for PC users, which are in the millions worldwide. Apple has converted some software to windows, for whatever reason, but fail to produce for pc users. Lets put it this way, if Apple produced OS for windows, I would buy it the next day.
Reply
Reply
post #139 of 164
5/5/09 at 9:39am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tauron View Post

You would never ever have to deal with DLLs again.

That's not just a bonus for developers - I so don't miss ever having to worry about DLLs cluttering my system32 folder, nor about ensuring I have the correct versions of DLLs. Microsoft should collectively be shot for introducing the concepts of DLLs and the registry.

Anyone remember Office 6.0 for Mac? Because of Microsoft's attempts at using a cross compiler to use a single code base for both Mac and Windows versions of the suite, they introduced the registry to the Macintosh. As someone in charge of hundreds of PowerMacs deployed within the local telco, it was a nightmare. Many users wanted to rename their hard drives, but could not--suddenly Office would stop working because it could no longer find the library files that were hard coded to be under "Macintosh HD:Applications:Microsoft Office". Nice.

Quote:
Originally Posted by podiki View Post

The most annoying thing about Windows is the registry and the fact that Windows poos itself after prolonged use and therefore becomes slower. Well, worse is the fact my company laptop takes 20 minutes to boot and shutdown as the network is arranged in such a way that it wants to move half of my harddisk content across the network for some reason...

Can hardly blame Windows for the way your corporate environment is set up. My company laptop also takes ages to boot, but mostly because of all the crap they put on there to ensure my machine doesn't propagate viruses. Thankfully the Mac Mini I bought for my desk doesn't require any of that crap. I can be productive while still waiting for my Windows machine to boot, scan, install new monitoring and scanning tools, update virus definitions, reboot, and scan again.

Quote:
Though I think I'd stick to Ubuntu if they gave Gnome a more modern look and let me run commercial apps like Lightroom, which was the only reason that brought me back to Windows and OS X.

I'm an Aperture guy myself, but Lightzone looks promising as an alternative post production tool, and is available for Linux. It also has more editing tools than either Aperture or Lightroom. I've not tried it (again, I'm quite happy with Aperture) so I don't know how its cataloging features compare, and (on a quick glance) it appears to be lacking such portfolio tools as web galleries...
Reply
Reply
post #140 of 164
5/5/09 at 10:28am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr. MacPhisto View Post

Not that anyone here necessarily wants to know (well, a few might), but Windows 7 RC is a definite improvement. They've refined a lot of things and the new features are interesting.

And as for speed, it is much faster than Vista. Still playing with it, but the boots are faster (and Vista was already fairly fast for me). Everything loads faster. The interface is snappier. And going through all the processes running from Windows I can see a sizeable decrease in the memory being used. Host processes are using about 50MB less all together.

Yawn!

The only people who care are the other Windows fanboys who think typing 30 paragraphs of devotion to Microsoft and bashing Apple is a good use of their time here.
Reply
Reply
post #141 of 164
5/5/09 at 10:42am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Trajectory View Post

Yawn!

The only people who care are the other Windows fanboys who think typing 30 paragraphs of devotion to Microsoft and bashing Apple is a good use of their time here.

I care, for several reasons...
As the resident PC tech for friends and family the better Seven is the better for me.
As a Mac user the better Seven is the effort Apple will have to put into Mac OS X.
As an Apple stockholder the worse Windows is the more likely there will be switchers.
Dick Applebaum on whether the iPad is a personal computer: "BTW, I am posting this from my iPad pc while sitting on the throne... personal enough for you?"
Reply
Dick Applebaum on whether the iPad is a personal computer: "BTW, I am posting this from my iPad pc while sitting on the throne... personal enough for you?"
Reply
post #142 of 164
5/5/09 at 10:59am
I plan to install the Win 7 RC on my home computer and see if it will actually fully support the chipset on my antiquated ASUS Socket A board.

If so, then it will make things a little more bearable while I save $ (I will never go into debt for anything EVER AGAIN) in anticipation of buying a new Mac Mini when OS X Snow Leopard debuts.

I love Win XP...but after 8 years...it's kinda blah.

Vista will go the way of Windows ME.

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply
post #143 of 164
5/5/09 at 11:26am
Microsoft better hurry and get Windows 7 finished. They've already started laying off 5,000 employees...

http://www.businessinsider.com/micro...s-today-2009-5
Reply
Reply
post #144 of 164
5/5/09 at 1:49pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr. MacPhisto View Post

Translation: I'm taking my ball and going home.

If you don't want to continue talking then the best thing to do is just to quit replying instead of trying to get the last word in.

Nope, it is more like this:

You are incoherent so having a conversation with you is as productive as trying to teach algebra to a lemur.

Oh and BTW you argue like a highschool kid.
Reply
Reply
post #145 of 164
5/5/09 at 1:54pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by djames42 View Post

Thankfully the Mac Mini I bought for my desk doesn't require any of that crap. I can be productive while still waiting for my Windows machine to boot, scan, install new monitoring and scanning tools, update virus definitions, reboot, and scan again.

Exactly.

Finally somebody who can grasp the concept that any mac (from a mini to a $2500 macbook pro) is a much much better value than any (yes, ANY) PC laptop.
Reply
Reply
post #146 of 164
5/5/09 at 3:37pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tauron View Post

Nope, it is more like this:

You are incoherent so having a conversation with you is as productive as trying to teach algebra to a lemur.

Oh and BTW you argue like a highschool kid.


I'm not the one who is trying to belittle the person I'm talking with. That's more akin to the high school argument.

Show me where I was incoherent and I'm willing to clarify if you can't understand. I try to provide examples for my argument.

My guess is that you didn't even read my full post. You just got frustrated with someone arguing against you. That's okay.

I'm sure everything I just typed is completely incoherent.
Reply
Reply
post #147 of 164
5/5/09 at 3:48pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by solipsism View Post

I care, for several reasons...
As the resident PC tech for friends and family the better Seven is the better for me.
As a Mac user the better Seven is the effort Apple will have to put into Mac OS X.
As an Apple stockholder the worse Windows is the more likely there will be switchers.

And ultimately the better Win7 is the worse it could be for Apple, especially in a down economy.

No one disagrees that Macs cost more, but we can disagree on the value of the Mac. For many, they have no problem paying the extra price. However, if MS delivers a good OS then it minimizes the advantages of the Mac and this diminishes the value of OSX in relation to Windows.

And that ultimately puts pressure on Apple, just as Apple puts pressure on MS.

If Windows 7 proves to be a very good release of the OS then MS can thank Apple for the pressure that has been put on Microsoft. MS has done well in the past when they couldn't afford to rest on their laurels. They've actually done some great things, though it has been awhile for much of it. For instance, DirectX really revolutionized computer gaming just as the Windows API revolutionized apps in putting more power in developers' hands.

Apple has also done great things. What they've done with portable media over the past decade is phenomenal, and they have used that to increase their marketshare int he PC market, bringing pressure to bear on MS.

I haven't used Windows 7 for long yet, but my impression thus far is that it is about as fast as 10.5, at least close to it. It doesn't boot quite as fast, though it is still fairly quick there. It looks good, is well organized, and is very stable.

I have no doubt that Snow Leopard and Win7 will be heavily compared this Fall. If Windows is perceived to have made gains on OSX then it could hurt Apple. They don't have to pass OSX and they're not going to, but Microsoft is going to benefit from low expectations. The Vista issues could come back to help them because Win7 will be fresh to a lot of people and the launch looks to be very smooth.

Apple, on the other hand, comes with high expectations. It's easier to be the one that doesn't have to aim for the high bar.
Reply
Reply
post #148 of 164
5/6/09 at 1:47pm
AnandTech has posted a nice first hands article comparing Win7 RC1 to Vista and XP.
http://www.anandtech.com/systems/showdoc.aspx?i=3557
Dick Applebaum on whether the iPad is a personal computer: "BTW, I am posting this from my iPad pc while sitting on the throne... personal enough for you?"
Reply
Dick Applebaum on whether the iPad is a personal computer: "BTW, I am posting this from my iPad pc while sitting on the throne... personal enough for you?"
Reply
post #149 of 164
5/6/09 at 2:37pm
having run all versions of windows since 3.1, and mac since os9, i cant honestly say that i like each respective os for different reasons. ive been running win7beta for a few months now, and its pretty good. installed rc1 two nights ago, and its even better than beta. however, on sunday i bought a macbook... i was gonna get a pc laptop with my own win7 install, but mac just beat it out.

the nice thing about win7 32bit is that it'll run fine on a 5-6 year old machine. actually, the computer i installed win 7 on runs better than with the os it was delivered (2005 win xp mce).
Reply
Reply
post #150 of 164
5/6/09 at 5:56pm
I am thinking about installing the Windows 7 RC on my MacBook. I have 1 gig of RAM, 1.83 ghz Core 2 Duo. So I believe since it's a Core 2 Duo it's a "real" 64-bit CPU. Should I install Windows 7 32-bit or 64-bit? What would be faster for day-to-day use, of Office, browsers, etc.? (No fancy high-end stuff that needs >4 gigs RAM or uses huge numbers). Wouldn't 32-bit be faster? And is the 64-bit version less stable, and does it have less drivers, sort of like XP and Vista 64-bit were pariahs? I heard they are keeping it more in tandem. So is 32-bit just faster or also more stable? Anyone else played with Win 7 in Boot Camp or VMWare Fusion?
"Overpopulation and climate change are serious shit." Gilsch
"I was really curious how they had managed such fine granularity of alienation." addabox
Reply
"Overpopulation and climate change are serious shit." Gilsch
"I was really curious how they had managed such fine granularity of alienation." addabox
Reply
post #151 of 164
5/6/09 at 6:30pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Aquatic View Post

I am thinking about installing the Windows 7 RC on my MacBook. I have 1 gig of RAM, 1.83 ghz Core 2 Duo. So I believe since it's a Core 2 Duo it's a "real" 64-bit CPU. Should I install Windows 7 32-bit or 64-bit? What would be faster for day-to-day use, of Office, browsers, etc.? (No fancy high-end stuff that needs >4 gigs RAM or uses huge numbers). Wouldn't 32-bit be faster? And is the 64-bit version less stable, and does it have less drivers, sort of like XP and Vista 64-bit were pariahs? I heard they are keeping it more in tandem. So is 32-bit just faster or also more stable? Anyone else played with Win 7 in Boot Camp or VMWare Fusion?

As long as you've got a 64-bit CPU, and less than 4 gigs of RAM, it really doesn't matter. Driver support should be identical between the two versions, as it was with Vista.
Reply
Reply
post #152 of 164
5/6/09 at 6:46pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by FuturePastNow View Post

As long as you've got a 64-bit CPU, and less than 4 gigs of RAM, it really doesn't matter. Driver support should be identical between the two versions, as it was with Vista.

Should be, but even Anand with his latest testing of Win7 found 64-bit driver issues and a poster here bought a Linksys NIC that didn't have 64-bit drivers.

32-bit all the way.
Dick Applebaum on whether the iPad is a personal computer: "BTW, I am posting this from my iPad pc while sitting on the throne... personal enough for you?"
Reply
Dick Applebaum on whether the iPad is a personal computer: "BTW, I am posting this from my iPad pc while sitting on the throne... personal enough for you?"
Reply
post #153 of 164
5/6/09 at 10:30pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by solipsism View Post

Should be, but even Anand with his latest testing of Win7 found 64-bit driver issues and a poster here bought a Linksys NIC that didn't have 64-bit drivers.

32-bit all the way.

Speak for yourself, I'm done with 32-bit. Of course, I paid for 4GB of RAM and want to be able to use it all.
Reply
Reply
post #154 of 164
5/6/09 at 10:35pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by FuturePastNow View Post

Speak for yourself, I'm done with 32-bit. Of course, I paid for 4GB of RAM and want to be able to use it all.

I was speaking for the person asking, not for you and not for me. They can't address 4GB of RAM on their MacBook, there are potential driver issues and the system may be slightly slower with a 64-bit kernel so what benefit do they get from it?

edit: Aquatic stated he is using a 1.83GHz MacBook. It is a C2D which means the CPU is 64-bit, but it was still a Merom chipset which means the memory address space is only 32-bits, which means the most RAM Aquatic can ever use on that Mac is ~3.2GB.
Dick Applebaum on whether the iPad is a personal computer: "BTW, I am posting this from my iPad pc while sitting on the throne... personal enough for you?"
Reply
Dick Applebaum on whether the iPad is a personal computer: "BTW, I am posting this from my iPad pc while sitting on the throne... personal enough for you?"
Reply
post #155 of 164
5/7/09 at 6:43pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by solipsism View Post

I was speaking for the person asking, not for you and not for me. They can't address 4GB of RAM on their MacBook, there are potential driver issues and the system may be slightly slower with a 64-bit kernel so what benefit do they get from it?

edit: Aquatic stated he is using a 1.83GHz MacBook. It is a C2D which means the CPU is 64-bit, but it was still a Merom chipset which means the memory address space is only 32-bits, which means the most RAM Aquatic can ever use on that Mac is ~3.2GB.

Ah well said sir, thanks...Alright I'm going to check out 32-bit Win 7. And I've never even used Vista!

Yes Futurepastnow I am excited to get another MacBook in a year or two, I'll totally load it up with >4 gigs of RAM! However as solipsism pointed out that is not currently possible on my C2D MB and I won't be upgrading for a while.
"Overpopulation and climate change are serious shit." Gilsch
"I was really curious how they had managed such fine granularity of alienation." addabox
Reply
"Overpopulation and climate change are serious shit." Gilsch
"I was really curious how they had managed such fine granularity of alienation." addabox
Reply
post #156 of 164
5/10/09 at 8:14pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tauron View Post

Exactly.

Finally somebody who can grasp the concept that any mac (from a mini to a $2500 macbook pro) is a much much better value than any (yes, ANY) PC laptop.

Finally someone as delusional..?

Funny how non of our clients - ranging from 5 to 300 users - has to endure 20 minutes boot time when logging to domain.

Yet they are all protected with managed SonicWall firewalls, Barracuda Anti-Spam appliances and centrally managed NOD32 or eTrust AV solutions.

It takes on average extra 5 to 10 seconds to apply domain login scripts and finish whole domain login procedure. Wasted time? Suuure, but problem with viruses/trojans/spyware is virtually non-existent.

It is amazing how much bad IT support can actually harm end users... \
Reply
Reply
post #157 of 164
5/11/09 at 2:51am
Quote:
Originally Posted by nikon133 View Post

Finally someone as delusional..?

Funny how non of our clients - ranging from 5 to 300 users - has to endure 20 minutes boot time when logging to domain.

Yet they are all protected with managed SonicWall firewalls, Barracuda Anti-Spam appliances and centrally managed NOD32 or eTrust AV solutions.

It takes on average extra 5 to 10 seconds to apply domain login scripts and finish whole domain login procedure. Wasted time? Suuure, but problem with viruses/trojans/spyware is virtually non-existent.

It is amazing how much bad IT support can actually harm end users... \

Compare that to a network with no antivirus and almost no IT, 30 second boot times and zero downtime in a year.

QED.
Reply
Reply
post #158 of 164
5/11/09 at 2:26pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tauron View Post

Compare that to a network with no antivirus and almost no IT, 30 second boot times and zero downtime in a year.

QED.

If there is issues with 20 minutes of boot time (which I doubt), then there is issues with DNS. AD is lightning fast in our network (maybe 40 seconds at most on our slowest machine from login window to the main screen), but then again we just have a Netgear FVX538 and a Barracuda on a class B network with no sub/supernetting. It''s also possible that the hardware is outdated or limited. Many WYSE terminals have issues with logging in fast because they're headless and have to login from a remote location. This could be a bunch of issues, slow CPUs, slow hard disks, lack of ram, DNS issues, low end networking equipment, issues with the firewalls slowing things down, slow WAN links (caused by limited budgets). Remember that download bandwidth is cheap, but upload bandwidth is expensive. T1's ain't cheap and they're SLOW, at 1.5 Mbit up and down for like $250-$500 a month. Imagine what a T3 costs per month. Saying Windows sucks just because the login time doesn't add up because there is allot more involved in a AD domain environment, like the items mentioned above.

This can be an issue with a Mac Open Directory Network as well. I had to solve an issue with slow Open Directory logins, which turned out to be a DNS error on our OSX Server. Creative pros that use macs on a large scale definitively have Sonicwalls, CISCO or Barracuda security as well, because you also have to protect from phishing attacks, dns attacks etc in addition to being responsible to prevent viruses from being prolifirated to their clients and other companies they work with.
Reply
Reply
post #159 of 164
5/11/09 at 3:28pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tauron View Post

Just as a gentle reminder for you, the thread is about Windows 7 october launch and not 64-bit applications. Thank you for your attention.

Muhahahahahaha, IMHO propagandists should go back under their rock.

Why after spreading FALSEHOODS over Vista x64 and 64-bit applications you can't now back your ludicrous claims, and desperately try such a pathetic diversion as your only reply?
Because now you are officially a LIAR writing fairy tales. Thank you for the laugh.
Reply
Reply
post #160 of 164
5/11/09 at 6:45pm
No need to care
Windows 7 will launch and will have more market share than all the mac computers by 6months to to 1 year
Mac marketshare is nothing for Microsoft to care about. Mac is better left for fat, latte sipping, tight shirt wearing designers with no real employment!
Reply
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: General Discussion
AppleInsider › Forums › General › General Discussion › Microsoft issues Windows 7 RC on road to October launch