If I get it correctly they have used Vista drivers for this test. And because these drivers don't use the advantages of Windows 7 (like the new WDDM 1.1 graphic driver model that only uses half of the memory for the UI) it's a great result for Windows 7!
If they had used Windows 7 drivers and QuickTime X for Windows, then the Microsoft OS would be ahead.
Is there even a 64 bit version of iTunes and QuickTime available for Windows right now?
And in other words this "test" has shown that Windows 7 runs faster than Leopard on Apples own hardware (if you believe the advantages that Snow Leopard should have).
¿Safari, iTunes and Quicktime in Windows have the same performance and quality than in OS X?
Pretty close, & certainly Apple has tried to make the experience very similar as iTunes & iPod/iPhone are tools they use to steal away Windows users.
Keeping in mind that Outlook 2001 for OS 9 was more compatible with exchange than Entourage 2008 I think it is safe to say Microsoft hasn't put much into bringing back 100% cross platform functionality. Supposedly this is changing though & we are being promised this will be much different with Office for Mac 2010.
If I get it correctly they have used Vista drivers for this test. And because these drivers don't use the advantages of Windows 7 (like the new WDDM 1.1 graphic driver model that only uses half of the memory for the UI) it's a great result for Windows 7!
If they had used Windows 7 drivers and QuickTime X for Windows, then the Microsoft OS would be ahead.
Is there even a 64 bit version of iTunes and QuickTime available for Windows right now?
And in other words this "test" has shown that Windows 7 runs faster than Leopard on Apples own hardware (if you believe the advantages that Snow Leopard should have).
They used Win7 drivers. Vista drivers are Win7 drivers until the MFG releases updates.
1) Windows Update updates Windows, Office, other Microsoft programs, AND hardware device drivers -- just like Software Update and respective Apple software. So what's your problem?
2) Disk Defrag is built into Windows. Memory defrag? WTF? Mail and Contacts are built-in with Windows. IE8 is a sucky browser for power users, but it works just fine for everyday users. My parents use it just fine (they're 59 and 60). Malware detection is present natively in Windows 7 with Windows Defender.
I'll spot you the antivirus, but Microsoft provides their AV software for free:
It's interesting how you sugarcoat the reality of Windows maintenance. I do it everyday and my job requires setting up windows machines for corporate and personal use.
Here's what you "conveniently" failed to mention in your points:
1) Windows Update does update everything it can. Unfortunately, it requires multiple restarts, multiple updating, and then those updates after restart requires even more updates to the updates it just applied. Then, any 3rd party add-ons and plugins need to be updated. Depending on the release-date of the install, it takes literally hours to get a windows PC fully patched and updated. Hours of lost productivity.
2) The Disk Defragmenter included with Windows is a crippled version of Executive Software's Diskeeper. It is useless and does little to address the problem. On corporate and personal levels, I install the full-version of Diskeeper and recommend to personal users to also purchase and install it. There are freeware version that holds promise that I've been testing called Defraggler from Piriform: http://www.piriform.com/defraggler . In addtion, I use another freeware product from Piriform called CCleaner http://www.piriform.com/ccleaner to keep the registry in check and remove all wasted disk space. It also has an excellent program uninstaller which does a better job of removing unwanted programs compared to the regular windows-supplied add/remove programs option. The sad part is that I have to seek 3rd party solutions since Microsoft does not provide for it or includes a crippled version of it for whatever reason. It's a sad state when I have to clean up registries that are so easily corrupted again impeding performance. Microsoft fails big-time in this area.
AntiVirus is a necessity for Windows folks. I personally don't use it on my personal windows machines since the performance hit of every vendor (including Microsoft's new - and free - AV solution) is just too much to accept. Is it any wonder why a Window's machine requires twice the horsepower just to keep all the necessary maintenance systems running? It's a joke.
So the point of my response to you is that Windows requires a ridiculous amount of handholding just to keep the system humming. My machines run great as I have the knowledge and knowhow to do it. But for the 99% of regular folk, it is a lesson in futility. Even when I get someone's machine running perfectly, in a month it will be back to some level of problem as windows does not do a good job to fend for itself.
If you really think that what is provided within Windows is adequate to keep a system running smoothly, I recommend to you that you don't quit YOUR day job. You probably have a very low standard of how a PC should run. Productivity takes a back seat in that case soon enough.
On the Apple systems I work on they take care of themselves right out of the box. Within 15 minutes, they are ready to go and be put to use. And in most cases, I never have to touch them again.
This is from years of experience on BOTH systems and it is my day job.
An os designed for specific hardware starts up faster than one designed for anything what a shock that is.
And apple software works better on a mac rather than there ports to windows where it generally isn't as good as other windows software. Yet another shock! This article really was a waste of time. The only test that actually compared the os was the time it wakes up from sleep and they performed the same!
By your quote Win7 shouldn't run faster on anything then... Because Win7 is designed for PC's and all intel mac's are also PC's. Or did I miss something.
It's interesting how you sugarcoat the reality of Windows maintenance. I do it everyday and my job requires setting up windows machines for corporate and personal use.
Here's what you "conveniently" failed to mention in your points:
1) Windows Update does update everything it can. Unfortunately, it requires multiple restarts, multiple updating, and then those updates after restart requires even more updates to the updates it just applied. Then, any 3rd party add-ons and plugins need to be updated. Depending on the release-date of the install, it takes literally hours to get a windows PC fully patched and updated. Hours of lost productivity.
2) The Disk Defragmenter included with Windows is a crippled version of Executive Software's Diskeeper. It is useless and does little to address the problem. On corporate and personal levels, I install the full-version of Diskeeper and recommend to personal users to also purchase and install it. There are freeware version that holds promise that I've been testing called Defraggler from Piriform: http://www.piriform.com/defraggler . In addtion, I use another freeware product from Piriform called CCleaner http://www.piriform.com/ccleaner to keep the registry in check and remove all wasted disk space. It also has an excellent program uninstaller which does a better job of removing unwanted programs compared to the regular windows-supplied add/remove programs option. The sad part is that I have to seek 3rd party solutions since Microsoft does not provide for it or includes a crippled version of it for whatever reason. It's a sad state when I have to clean up registries that are so easily corrupted again impeding performance. Microsoft fails big-time in this area.
AntiVirus is a necessity for Windows folks. I personally don't use it on my personal windows machines since the performance hit of every vendor (including Microsoft's new - and free - AV solution) is just too much to accept. Is it any wonder why a Window's machine requires twice the horsepower just to keep all the necessary maintenance systems running? It's a joke.
So the point of my response to you is that Windows requires a ridiculous amount of handholding just to keep the system humming. My machines run great as I have the knowledge and knowhow to do it. But for the 99% of regular folk, it is a lesson in futility. Even when I get someone's machine running perfectly, in a month it will be back to some level of problem as windows does not do a good job to fend for itself.
If you really think that what is provided within Windows is adequate to keep a system running smoothly, I recommend to you that you don't quit YOUR day job. You probably have a very low standard of how a PC should run. Productivity takes a back seat in that case soon enough.
On the Apple systems I work on they take care of themselves right out of the box. Within 15 minutes, they are ready to go and be put to use. And in most cases, I never have to touch them again.
This is from years of experience on BOTH systems and it is my day job.
Windows is built for IT Job security, Apple's are built for People.
I'm in the same boat. I put 2 iMac's in a clients site for "testing" now they are the only machines I never touch and the first machines people run to when they need something done now.
1) Windows Update does update everything it can. Unfortunately, it requires multiple restarts, multiple updating, and then those updates after restart requires even more updates to the updates it just applied. Then, any 3rd party add-ons and plugins need to be updated. Depending on the release-date of the install, it takes literally hours to get a windows PC fully patched and updated. Hours of lost productivity.
You don't keep fully patched images of Windows around? Or even normal install disks where the updates have been integrated. No automated installation? I can see who's productivity is a problem here.
i'm a bit puzzled why windows is able to perform graphics operations significantly better.
Well, the tests performed by Cnet (especially for CoD4, but most likely the other app) would have been running using CrossOver which is a layer between normal operation on Windows. This means that there is something else which requires processing too.
So the tests aren't exactly flawless either.
To be honest, all those tests are pretty worthless.
It's interesting how you sugarcoat the reality of Windows maintenance. I do it everyday and my job requires setting up windows machines for corporate and personal use.
Here's what you "conveniently" failed to mention in your points:
1) Windows Update does update everything it can. Unfortunately, it requires multiple restarts, multiple updating, and then those updates after restart requires even more updates to the updates it just applied. Then, any 3rd party add-ons and plugins need to be updated. Depending on the release-date of the install, it takes literally hours to get a windows PC fully patched and updated. Hours of lost productivity.
2) The Disk Defragmenter included with Windows is a crippled version of Executive Software's Diskeeper. It is useless and does little to address the problem. On corporate and personal levels, I install the full-version of Diskeeper and recommend to personal users to also purchase and install it. There are freeware version that holds promise that I've been testing called Defraggler from Piriform: http://www.piriform.com/defraggler . In addtion, I use another freeware product from Piriform called CCleaner http://www.piriform.com/ccleaner to keep the registry in check and remove all wasted disk space. It also has an excellent program uninstaller which does a better job of removing unwanted programs compared to the regular windows-supplied add/remove programs option. The sad part is that I have to seek 3rd party solutions since Microsoft does not provide for it or includes a crippled version of it for whatever reason. It's a sad state when I have to clean up registries that are so easily corrupted again impeding performance. Microsoft fails big-time in this area.
AntiVirus is a necessity for Windows folks. I personally don't use it on my personal windows machines since the performance hit of every vendor (including Microsoft's new - and free - AV solution) is just too much to accept. Is it any wonder why a Window's machine requires twice the horsepower just to keep all the necessary maintenance systems running? It's a joke.
So the point of my response to you is that Windows requires a ridiculous amount of handholding just to keep the system humming. My machines run great as I have the knowledge and knowhow to do it. But for the 99% of regular folk, it is a lesson in futility. Even when I get someone's machine running perfectly, in a month it will be back to some level of problem as windows does not do a good job to fend for itself.
If you really think that what is provided within Windows is adequate to keep a system running smoothly, I recommend to you that you don't quit YOUR day job. You probably have a very low standard of how a PC should run. Productivity takes a back seat in that case soon enough.
On the Apple systems I work on they take care of themselves right out of the box. Within 15 minutes, they are ready to go and be put to use. And in most cases, I never have to touch them again.
This is from years of experience on BOTH systems and it is my day job.
You don't have to give me a history on the use of Windows PCs I've been an exclusive Windows users for the past 15+ years. It wasn't until the two months ago that I started using Macs when I bought my 13" MacBook Pro.
As for hours of productivity lost with Windows Updates. With Vista and Windows 7, updates are downloaded in the background and installed when you want them -- either right then and there are they are saved for when you shutdown. I see no problem with that.
Since I have had my MacBook Pro, I've had a few updates downloaded for the machine from Apple. And a few required a reboot. Did I bitch? Nope, I just did what it told me to.
As for the other stuff you mentioned regarding handholding, I'm not quite sure I agree with your assessment. I installed Microsoft Security Essentials on my parents' machine and it downloads updates automatically and keeps the systems in check. Same with Windows Defender.
My parents use their computer every single day and it's been running Windows Vista Basic since day one (they bought the Dell for Christmas 2007). They never call me concerning problems with Vista, they never get viruses, and they are generally happy. The only time I ever get calls from them regarding the computer is when the DSL modem starts acting funny and cuts off their internet.
If my 60-ish parents can handle it, I don't see what the big deal is. As I said, Windows Updates, virus/malware updates/scans, etc. are all done for them automatically. What more do you need?
Windows 7 and OS X are both great operating systems that go about different ways of getting things accomplished. I use both (VirtualBox installation of Windows 7 RC1 on my MacBook Pro) and I love them both. I don't understand the hate that gets thrown around from either side.
By your quote Win7 shouldn't run faster on anything then... Because Win7 is designed for PC's and all intel mac's are also PC's. Or did I miss something.
Newsflash: Macs are PCs with a different operating system and a better looking case.
As for the other stuff you mentioned regarding handholding, I'm not quite sure I agree with your assessment. I installed Microsoft Security Essentials on my parents' machine and it downloads updates automatically and keeps the systems in check. Same with Windows Defender.
But Windows uses "twice the horsepower"!!11 He didn't mention what he means by "maintenance system" (I doubt he himself knows) or when and under what circumstances but it must be true because he is a self-confessed professional.
Pretty close, & certainly Apple has tried to make the experience very similar as iTunes & iPod/iPhone are tools they use to steal away Windows users.
Of course they do. Apple couldn't probably care less if Windows people buy Macs as long as they are happily purchasing songs, applications and ringtones from the iTunes store for their brand new iPhone or iPod. If some switch to Apple the better. But they would never willingly cripple the Windows experience of their cash cow.
But Windows uses "twice the horsepower"!!11 He didn't mention what he means by "maintenance system" (I doubt he himself knows) or when and under what circumstances but it must be true because he is a self-confessed professional.
Yeah, my bull**** meter goes off when I hear "requires twice the horsepower to accomplish the same tasks" or other crap like that.
I've been ass-deep in Windows for a long time. My first job was working at a mom and pop PC repair shop in the mid-90s. I've dealt with horrible Windows/PC crap from IRQ/Com Port bullcrap in the Windows 95 days to general crapiness in the Windows 98 days to software incompatibilities with Windows 2000, etc. Believe me, I have plenty of reasons to hate Windows.
But with XP, and even Vista (which I didn't have much of a problem with), and now Windows 7, I'm quite happy with Microsoft's progress. Windows 7 is a good operating system. OS X is a good operating system.
Newsflash: Macs are PCs with a different operating system and a better looking case.
EFI, speed matched components, lastest tech when released... But yep, they are PC's and price for price they are also the same cost.
One question: Why is it in PC-Land if I want to get a lightweight 12-13" Laptop that's 1" thin or thinner I have to pay a premium? And it's the cheapest Mac that can not only run Windows but meets my requirements AND has a 1066 bus, better graphics than Intel GMA stuff and can take higher RAM?
No, you only missed the point. Wipe of that foam off your mouth first, think over the implications of my statement and in which context and it was made and maybe, just maybe I will grace you with serious answer.
No, you only missed the point. Wipe of that foam off your mouth first, think over the implications of my statement and in which context and it was made and maybe, just maybe I will grace you with serious answer.
Comments
If they had used Windows 7 drivers and QuickTime X for Windows, then the Microsoft OS would be ahead.
Is there even a 64 bit version of iTunes and QuickTime available for Windows right now?
And in other words this "test" has shown that Windows 7 runs faster than Leopard on Apples own hardware (if you believe the advantages that Snow Leopard should have).
¿Safari, iTunes and Quicktime in Windows have the same performance and quality than in OS X?
Pretty close, & certainly Apple has tried to make the experience very similar as iTunes & iPod/iPhone are tools they use to steal away Windows users.
Keeping in mind that Outlook 2001 for OS 9 was more compatible with exchange than Entourage 2008 I think it is safe to say Microsoft hasn't put much into bringing back 100% cross platform functionality. Supposedly this is changing though & we are being promised this will be much different with Office for Mac 2010.
If I get it correctly they have used Vista drivers for this test. And because these drivers don't use the advantages of Windows 7 (like the new WDDM 1.1 graphic driver model that only uses half of the memory for the UI) it's a great result for Windows 7!
If they had used Windows 7 drivers and QuickTime X for Windows, then the Microsoft OS would be ahead.
Is there even a 64 bit version of iTunes and QuickTime available for Windows right now?
And in other words this "test" has shown that Windows 7 runs faster than Leopard on Apples own hardware (if you believe the advantages that Snow Leopard should have).
They used Win7 drivers. Vista drivers are Win7 drivers until the MFG releases updates.
1) Windows Update updates Windows, Office, other Microsoft programs, AND hardware device drivers -- just like Software Update and respective Apple software. So what's your problem?
2) Disk Defrag is built into Windows. Memory defrag? WTF? Mail and Contacts are built-in with Windows. IE8 is a sucky browser for power users, but it works just fine for everyday users. My parents use it just fine (they're 59 and 60). Malware detection is present natively in Windows 7 with Windows Defender.
I'll spot you the antivirus, but Microsoft provides their AV software for free:
http://www.microsoft.com/security_Essentials/
Don't quit your day job
It's interesting how you sugarcoat the reality of Windows maintenance. I do it everyday and my job requires setting up windows machines for corporate and personal use.
Here's what you "conveniently" failed to mention in your points:
1) Windows Update does update everything it can. Unfortunately, it requires multiple restarts, multiple updating, and then those updates after restart requires even more updates to the updates it just applied. Then, any 3rd party add-ons and plugins need to be updated. Depending on the release-date of the install, it takes literally hours to get a windows PC fully patched and updated. Hours of lost productivity.
2) The Disk Defragmenter included with Windows is a crippled version of Executive Software's Diskeeper. It is useless and does little to address the problem. On corporate and personal levels, I install the full-version of Diskeeper and recommend to personal users to also purchase and install it. There are freeware version that holds promise that I've been testing called Defraggler from Piriform: http://www.piriform.com/defraggler . In addtion, I use another freeware product from Piriform called CCleaner http://www.piriform.com/ccleaner to keep the registry in check and remove all wasted disk space. It also has an excellent program uninstaller which does a better job of removing unwanted programs compared to the regular windows-supplied add/remove programs option. The sad part is that I have to seek 3rd party solutions since Microsoft does not provide for it or includes a crippled version of it for whatever reason. It's a sad state when I have to clean up registries that are so easily corrupted again impeding performance. Microsoft fails big-time in this area.
AntiVirus is a necessity for Windows folks. I personally don't use it on my personal windows machines since the performance hit of every vendor (including Microsoft's new - and free - AV solution) is just too much to accept. Is it any wonder why a Window's machine requires twice the horsepower just to keep all the necessary maintenance systems running? It's a joke.
So the point of my response to you is that Windows requires a ridiculous amount of handholding just to keep the system humming. My machines run great as I have the knowledge and knowhow to do it. But for the 99% of regular folk, it is a lesson in futility. Even when I get someone's machine running perfectly, in a month it will be back to some level of problem as windows does not do a good job to fend for itself.
If you really think that what is provided within Windows is adequate to keep a system running smoothly, I recommend to you that you don't quit YOUR day job. You probably have a very low standard of how a PC should run. Productivity takes a back seat in that case soon enough.
On the Apple systems I work on they take care of themselves right out of the box. Within 15 minutes, they are ready to go and be put to use. And in most cases, I never have to touch them again.
This is from years of experience on BOTH systems and it is my day job.
An os designed for specific hardware starts up faster than one designed for anything what a shock that is.
And apple software works better on a mac rather than there ports to windows where it generally isn't as good as other windows software. Yet another shock! This article really was a waste of time. The only test that actually compared the os was the time it wakes up from sleep and they performed the same!
By your quote Win7 shouldn't run faster on anything then... Because Win7 is designed for PC's and all intel mac's are also PC's. Or did I miss something.
It's interesting how you sugarcoat the reality of Windows maintenance. I do it everyday and my job requires setting up windows machines for corporate and personal use.
Here's what you "conveniently" failed to mention in your points:
1) Windows Update does update everything it can. Unfortunately, it requires multiple restarts, multiple updating, and then those updates after restart requires even more updates to the updates it just applied. Then, any 3rd party add-ons and plugins need to be updated. Depending on the release-date of the install, it takes literally hours to get a windows PC fully patched and updated. Hours of lost productivity.
2) The Disk Defragmenter included with Windows is a crippled version of Executive Software's Diskeeper. It is useless and does little to address the problem. On corporate and personal levels, I install the full-version of Diskeeper and recommend to personal users to also purchase and install it. There are freeware version that holds promise that I've been testing called Defraggler from Piriform: http://www.piriform.com/defraggler . In addtion, I use another freeware product from Piriform called CCleaner http://www.piriform.com/ccleaner to keep the registry in check and remove all wasted disk space. It also has an excellent program uninstaller which does a better job of removing unwanted programs compared to the regular windows-supplied add/remove programs option. The sad part is that I have to seek 3rd party solutions since Microsoft does not provide for it or includes a crippled version of it for whatever reason. It's a sad state when I have to clean up registries that are so easily corrupted again impeding performance. Microsoft fails big-time in this area.
AntiVirus is a necessity for Windows folks. I personally don't use it on my personal windows machines since the performance hit of every vendor (including Microsoft's new - and free - AV solution) is just too much to accept. Is it any wonder why a Window's machine requires twice the horsepower just to keep all the necessary maintenance systems running? It's a joke.
So the point of my response to you is that Windows requires a ridiculous amount of handholding just to keep the system humming. My machines run great as I have the knowledge and knowhow to do it. But for the 99% of regular folk, it is a lesson in futility. Even when I get someone's machine running perfectly, in a month it will be back to some level of problem as windows does not do a good job to fend for itself.
If you really think that what is provided within Windows is adequate to keep a system running smoothly, I recommend to you that you don't quit YOUR day job. You probably have a very low standard of how a PC should run. Productivity takes a back seat in that case soon enough.
On the Apple systems I work on they take care of themselves right out of the box. Within 15 minutes, they are ready to go and be put to use. And in most cases, I never have to touch them again.
This is from years of experience on BOTH systems and it is my day job.
Windows is built for IT Job security, Apple's are built for People.
I'm in the same boat. I put 2 iMac's in a clients site for "testing" now they are the only machines I never touch and the first machines people run to when they need something done now.
> file /Applications/iTunes.app/Contents/MacOS/iTunes
/Applications/iTunes.app/Contents/MacOS/iTunes: Mach-O universal binary with 2 architectures
/Applications/iTunes.app/Contents/MacOS/iTunes (for architecture ppc)
/Applications/iTunes.app/Contents/MacOS/iTunes (for architecture i386)
I wonder if iTunes and QuickTime for 64 bit Windows 7 are 64 bit?
1) Windows Update does update everything it can. Unfortunately, it requires multiple restarts, multiple updating, and then those updates after restart requires even more updates to the updates it just applied. Then, any 3rd party add-ons and plugins need to be updated. Depending on the release-date of the install, it takes literally hours to get a windows PC fully patched and updated. Hours of lost productivity.
You don't keep fully patched images of Windows around? Or even normal install disks where the updates have been integrated. No automated installation? I can see who's productivity is a problem here.
i'm a bit puzzled why windows is able to perform graphics operations significantly better.
Well, the tests performed by Cnet (especially for CoD4, but most likely the other app) would have been running using CrossOver which is a layer between normal operation on Windows. This means that there is something else which requires processing too.
So the tests aren't exactly flawless either.
To be honest, all those tests are pretty worthless.
It's interesting how you sugarcoat the reality of Windows maintenance. I do it everyday and my job requires setting up windows machines for corporate and personal use.
Here's what you "conveniently" failed to mention in your points:
1) Windows Update does update everything it can. Unfortunately, it requires multiple restarts, multiple updating, and then those updates after restart requires even more updates to the updates it just applied. Then, any 3rd party add-ons and plugins need to be updated. Depending on the release-date of the install, it takes literally hours to get a windows PC fully patched and updated. Hours of lost productivity.
2) The Disk Defragmenter included with Windows is a crippled version of Executive Software's Diskeeper. It is useless and does little to address the problem. On corporate and personal levels, I install the full-version of Diskeeper and recommend to personal users to also purchase and install it. There are freeware version that holds promise that I've been testing called Defraggler from Piriform: http://www.piriform.com/defraggler . In addtion, I use another freeware product from Piriform called CCleaner http://www.piriform.com/ccleaner to keep the registry in check and remove all wasted disk space. It also has an excellent program uninstaller which does a better job of removing unwanted programs compared to the regular windows-supplied add/remove programs option. The sad part is that I have to seek 3rd party solutions since Microsoft does not provide for it or includes a crippled version of it for whatever reason. It's a sad state when I have to clean up registries that are so easily corrupted again impeding performance. Microsoft fails big-time in this area.
AntiVirus is a necessity for Windows folks. I personally don't use it on my personal windows machines since the performance hit of every vendor (including Microsoft's new - and free - AV solution) is just too much to accept. Is it any wonder why a Window's machine requires twice the horsepower just to keep all the necessary maintenance systems running? It's a joke.
So the point of my response to you is that Windows requires a ridiculous amount of handholding just to keep the system humming. My machines run great as I have the knowledge and knowhow to do it. But for the 99% of regular folk, it is a lesson in futility. Even when I get someone's machine running perfectly, in a month it will be back to some level of problem as windows does not do a good job to fend for itself.
If you really think that what is provided within Windows is adequate to keep a system running smoothly, I recommend to you that you don't quit YOUR day job. You probably have a very low standard of how a PC should run. Productivity takes a back seat in that case soon enough.
On the Apple systems I work on they take care of themselves right out of the box. Within 15 minutes, they are ready to go and be put to use. And in most cases, I never have to touch them again.
This is from years of experience on BOTH systems and it is my day job.
You don't have to give me a history on the use of Windows PCs
As for hours of productivity lost with Windows Updates. With Vista and Windows 7, updates are downloaded in the background and installed when you want them -- either right then and there are they are saved for when you shutdown. I see no problem with that.
Since I have had my MacBook Pro, I've had a few updates downloaded for the machine from Apple. And a few required a reboot. Did I bitch? Nope, I just did what it told me to.
As for the other stuff you mentioned regarding handholding, I'm not quite sure I agree with your assessment. I installed Microsoft Security Essentials on my parents' machine and it downloads updates automatically and keeps the systems in check. Same with Windows Defender.
My parents use their computer every single day and it's been running Windows Vista Basic since day one (they bought the Dell for Christmas 2007). They never call me concerning problems with Vista, they never get viruses, and they are generally happy. The only time I ever get calls from them regarding the computer is when the DSL modem starts acting funny and cuts off their internet.
If my 60-ish parents can handle it, I don't see what the big deal is. As I said, Windows Updates, virus/malware updates/scans, etc. are all done for them automatically. What more do you need?
Windows 7 and OS X are both great operating systems that go about different ways of getting things accomplished. I use both (VirtualBox installation of Windows 7 RC1 on my MacBook Pro) and I love them both. I don't understand the hate that gets thrown around from either side.
By your quote Win7 shouldn't run faster on anything then... Because Win7 is designed for PC's and all intel mac's are also PC's. Or did I miss something.
Newsflash: Macs are PCs with a different operating system and a better looking case.
As for the other stuff you mentioned regarding handholding, I'm not quite sure I agree with your assessment. I installed Microsoft Security Essentials on my parents' machine and it downloads updates automatically and keeps the systems in check. Same with Windows Defender.
But Windows uses "twice the horsepower"!!11 He didn't mention what he means by "maintenance system" (I doubt he himself knows) or when and under what circumstances but it must be true because he is a self-confessed professional.
Pretty close, & certainly Apple has tried to make the experience very similar as iTunes & iPod/iPhone are tools they use to steal away Windows users.
Of course they do. Apple couldn't probably care less if Windows people buy Macs as long as they are happily purchasing songs, applications and ringtones from the iTunes store for their brand new iPhone or iPod. If some switch to Apple the better. But they would never willingly cripple the Windows experience of their cash cow.
But Windows uses "twice the horsepower"!!11 He didn't mention what he means by "maintenance system" (I doubt he himself knows) or when and under what circumstances but it must be true because he is a self-confessed professional.
Yeah, my bull**** meter goes off when I hear "requires twice the horsepower to accomplish the same tasks" or other crap like that.
I've been ass-deep in Windows for a long time. My first job was working at a mom and pop PC repair shop in the mid-90s. I've dealt with horrible Windows/PC crap from IRQ/Com Port bullcrap in the Windows 95 days to general crapiness in the Windows 98 days to software incompatibilities with Windows 2000, etc. Believe me, I have plenty of reasons to hate Windows.
But with XP, and even Vista (which I didn't have much of a problem with), and now Windows 7, I'm quite happy with Microsoft's progress. Windows 7 is a good operating system. OS X is a good operating system.
That's all there is to it.
Newsflash: Macs are PCs with a different operating system and a better looking case.
EFI, speed matched components, lastest tech when released... But yep, they are PC's and price for price they are also the same cost.
One question: Why is it in PC-Land if I want to get a lightweight 12-13" Laptop that's 1" thin or thinner I have to pay a premium? And it's the cheapest Mac that can not only run Windows but meets my requirements AND has a 1066 bus, better graphics than Intel GMA stuff and can take higher RAM?
Or did I miss (piss) on your statement.
Or did I miss (piss) on your statement.
No, you only missed the point. Wipe of that foam off your mouth first, think over the implications of my statement and in which context and it was made and maybe, just maybe I will grace you with serious answer.
No, you only missed the point. Wipe of that foam off your mouth first, think over the implications of my statement and in which context and it was made and maybe, just maybe I will grace you with serious answer.
Do grace.
My wife's Acer Aspire One AOD250 (just came in today... only $250 new) and my 13" MacBook Pro. They live together in harmony, why can't we?