the registry and dll's are still in win 7. guess that means its still a pos.
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.
Yes, they are so dominate with the 10% market share they've just recently earned after having spent over a decade with somewhere in the neighborhood of 4-6% market share.
Sorry, but until Apple is able to take over the enterprise market (which will probably never happen), they will never have any serious market share outside of a consumer market.
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!
So Avid is crapware? Adobe Photoshop, After Effects, and the rest of the CS4 suite is crapware? Hell, what about iTunes and Safari? They were written for the PC. Guess that makes them crapware too. (Actually, on Windows they are, but that's another argument xD)
Yes, one needs an anti-malware solution for their Windows box. There's no denying that the virus penetration for OS X is almost non-existent compared to Windows. But again, so what? Microsoft has released a (VERY GOOD) anti-malware tool that sits quietly in your taskbar and never bothers you unless there's a problem. I've had the thing running on all my machines since the beta was released months ago, and I've never so much as got a single popup or warning from it. It does not bog down my system in the slightest, and often times I forget its even there.
Time Machine? As I said, Microsoft has had automatic backup tools integrated with the system since Vista, which was released almost a year before Leopard. In Windows 7, they've expanded its capabilities to make it so incredibly simple and easy that a caveman could do it. Seriously, the only thing Windows does not have is the flashy "travel through space and time" animation that Time Machine does. Other than that, they're IDENTICAL.
As far as updates, again, Microsoft releases updates ONCE A MONTH. Anything else can't possibly be Microsoft's fault any more than Apple's fault when applications on Leopard want to update as well! Hell, its worse on the Mac, because they all use Sparkle, which never lets me bypass it.
Listen, I love the Mac, but I also love Windows 7. Both operating systems shine where the other fails. If you're more inclined to use a Mac, then use a Mac. If you want a low-cost PC that functions well, Windows 7 is the way to go. There's really nothing to argue about.
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.
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.
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).
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.
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).
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".
Adobe made windows its platform of choice years ago, and all of its apps are optimized for windows. The creative suite definitely doesn't "work better" on the mac.
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!
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.
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.
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.
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...
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.
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.
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.
I whole heartedly agree with your criticism. I know most of us here are rabid Mac fans but we all still need to appreciate the truth especially since it comes from such a reliable and creditable source as Walt Mossberg.
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?
Comments
the registry and dll's are still in win 7. guess that means its still a pos.
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.
Yes, they are so dominate with the 10% market share they've just recently earned after having spent over a decade with somewhere in the neighborhood of 4-6% market share.
Sorry, but until Apple is able to take over the enterprise market (which will probably never happen), they will never have any serious market share outside of a consumer market.
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!
So Avid is crapware? Adobe Photoshop, After Effects, and the rest of the CS4 suite is crapware? Hell, what about iTunes and Safari? They were written for the PC. Guess that makes them crapware too. (Actually, on Windows they are, but that's another argument xD)
Yes, one needs an anti-malware solution for their Windows box. There's no denying that the virus penetration for OS X is almost non-existent compared to Windows. But again, so what? Microsoft has released a (VERY GOOD) anti-malware tool that sits quietly in your taskbar and never bothers you unless there's a problem. I've had the thing running on all my machines since the beta was released months ago, and I've never so much as got a single popup or warning from it. It does not bog down my system in the slightest, and often times I forget its even there.
Time Machine? As I said, Microsoft has had automatic backup tools integrated with the system since Vista, which was released almost a year before Leopard. In Windows 7, they've expanded its capabilities to make it so incredibly simple and easy that a caveman could do it. Seriously, the only thing Windows does not have is the flashy "travel through space and time" animation that Time Machine does. Other than that, they're IDENTICAL.
As far as updates, again, Microsoft releases updates ONCE A MONTH. Anything else can't possibly be Microsoft's fault any more than Apple's fault when applications on Leopard want to update as well! Hell, its worse on the Mac, because they all use Sparkle, which never lets me bypass it.
Listen, I love the Mac, but I also love Windows 7. Both operating systems shine where the other fails. If you're more inclined to use a Mac, then use a Mac. If you want a low-cost PC that functions well, Windows 7 is the way to go. There's really nothing to argue about.
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).
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.
how does windows 7 handle running apps on multiple monitors?
Does it still work like this?
roflmao!
For me it comes down to is if Windows 7 is good enough.
That's how most people think about it. Not me personally, but most.
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.
You're not alone.
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).
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.
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).
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".
For me it comes down to is if Windows 7 is good enough.
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...
Adobe made windows its platform of choice years ago, and all of its apps are optimized for windows. The creative suite definitely doesn't "work better" on the mac.
Oh my GOD yes it does.
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!
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.
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.
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.
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...
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.
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.
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.
Windows 7 is getting rave reviews. Perhaps it's actually, you know, GOOD?
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".
Have you heard of the Zune HD and Xbox 360? I'd say Microsoft are on the right track.
That's gotta be a joke, right?
I whole heartedly agree with your criticism. I know most of us here are rabid Mac fans but we all still need to appreciate the truth especially since it comes from such a reliable and creditable source as Walt Mossberg.
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?
I mean what is original anymore? Really?
Certainly not any of your posts.
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?
Heh, I question Mossberg's credibility myself, but you know Microsoft has done *SOMETHING* right when known-Apple-fanboy David Pogue likes it.