In MS? defense, their business model commands support for legacy code and antiquated HW. They also have to spend a lot more on R&D to make sure their OS works with a much larger HW base. Their model doesn?t fit my needs as a consumer, and looking at Longhorn they surely have wasted a great deal of money, but Windows 7 (aka, Vista 2.0) is a very solid OS from the Redmond-based Zune-maker.
Yes, legacy support, and the Windows code base, is like an anchor around Microsoft's neck, unfortunately for them, as is the hardware support issue. Apple's strategy of dropping legacy support for older hardware and technologies (Carbon is likely next) is a necessary pain that the Mac user community has to go through, and fortunately they are in a position to be able to do it.
and looking at Longhorn they surely have wasted a great deal of money, but Windows 7 (aka, Vista 2.0) is a very solid OS from the Redmond-based Zune-maker.
Actually, even Microsoft admitted publicly that the Longhorn development got out of hand. They changed both the development model as well as the management for Windows 7. Especially for the latter people with proven track records were placed in key positions and Microsoft was far more careful revealing scope and features of 7 until it was absolutely sure that they would land. Looking at 7 now it seems that their internal restructuring paid off. And people here can stop calling 7 "Vista 2.0" like OS X isn't based on half a dozen iterations.
And people here can stop calling 7 "Vista 2.0" like OS X isn't based on half a dozen iterations.
Why is that? Should Vista SP1 be 2.0 and Win7 be Vista 3.0, since Vista SP2 was so close to the Win7 RC release.
Seriously, it’s very similar to Vista in many core aspects. In many ways SL over Leopard is much bigger change than Win7 over Vista. You can’t tell by looking at the desktop, but the core changes in SL are worlds apart from Leopard. Win7 is mostly a rebranding of Vista. When your product gets a bad rep it’s not easy to fix, sometimes dropping the name is the only way to go, despite Vista being solid since SP1. The damage was done.They made some good changes in the UI, but they had to alter the veneer enough to separate from Vista.
BTW, here is a fairly competent listing of features removed from Win7 and from Vista. The Vista list is huge.
And people here can stop calling 7 "Vista 2.0" like OS X isn't based on half a dozen iterations.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but hasn't Microsoft referred to 7 as "a better Vista" (or something very similar to that)? And they are, by all accounts, very similar internally, as well as being similar visually. So why wouldn't it be thought of as "Vista 2.0"?
Correct me if I'm wrong, but hasn't Microsoft referred to 7 as "a better Vista" (or something very similar to that)? And they are, by all accounts, very similar internally, as well as being similar visually. So why wouldn't it be thought of as "Vista 2.0"?
We call the current Mac OS X version 10.6.
Ballmer said "Wndows 7 is Windows Vista, with cleanup in user interface [and] improvements in performance."
Actually, even Microsoft admitted publicly that the Longhorn development got out of hand. They changed both the development model as well as the management for Windows 7. Especially for the latter people with proven track records were placed in key positions and Microsoft was far more careful revealing scope and features of 7 until it was absolutely sure that they would land. Looking at 7 now it seems that their internal restructuring paid off. And people here can stop calling 7 "Vista 2.0" like OS X isn't based on half a dozen iterations.
Well, there's a reason Apple calls 10.6, "Snow Leopard"...
I really haven't seen much, if any difference with it over Leopard, on my older Mini, but that's because many of the big features of SL, requires a new-ish Mac, and like with my PC's, I have no desire to get any new computers, because the SW doesn't even take advantage of what I have now.
Having said, that, 7 is what Vista should've been. I like it a lot, put 7 Pro 64-bit on my laptop, and 7 Pro 32-bit on my netbook. I've even typing this post on Chrome, XP Mode, and it all runs pretty damn well, in fact I like 7 so much, I think I've only turned my Mini on once in the past couple of weeks. (I got 7 early)
If I do get a new Mac in the next year or so, likely a MBP, and if the SW actually comes out that really takes advantage of SL, I might be more impressed with it, but then again, there will also be more SW that will take advantage of DX11 and .NET 4.0, that it could all just be a wash.
For me, the more I use either Windows or OSX, the less advantages/disadvantages I see with either of them, other than choice of SW.
What? The standard user account on OS X is some kind of hybrid between root and a user which is allowed to install applications into globally accessible places like /Applications and freely make changes to system settings. Things also a malicious application can do should it ever manage to run with user rights. Vista was far more paranoid in this regard and strictly asked for confirmation for everything which could potentially affect the system. It's regrettable that Microsoft toned down UAC for 7 due to pressure by customers but at least it's really only setting the slider back to the highest level to get back Vista's security.
I also don't get all the complaints about UAC. It usually stays out of the way unless you need to access system resources (folders for installation/copying, system settings, etc.). OS X will also ask for confirmation if an application tries to install things outside the user or application directory.
And that's the thing. In order to install, an app requires user password or the active participation of the user. There are no self-installing .exe files as in Windows. Vista did fix a lot this, but few are using Vista. I haven't seen how Win 7 handles this. I can only hope it is better locked down than XP. The question is: can Win 7 do it without Vista's incessant and seemingly indiscriminate nag windows?
In my experience, any app that deals with settings HAS to ask for an admin PW, at least in Leopard. I'm not sure about SL because I haven't installed it yet. Also, any app downloaded from the net brings up a nag window on first run (so apps don't run without user participation the first time). This occurs even for App updates (or PW is required). After the first nag, OS X leaves you alone. In Vista, every time I run Boot Camp to change the boot disk, Vista continues to nag.
Well, there's a reason Apple calls 10.6, "Snow Leopard"...
Yeah, they were running out of cats.
Quote:
Originally Posted by guinness
I really haven't seen much, if any difference with it over Leopard, on my older Mini, but that's because many of the big features of SL, requires a new-ish Mac
Actually, it's because most of the "big features" of SL are under the hood and not visible to the user, but potentially much more game changing than anything in or coming to 7.
Actually, it's because most of the "big features" of SL are under the hood and not visible to the user, but potentially much more game changing than anything in or coming to 7.
Yeah, someday we might not even have to hold down the 6 and the 4 to run in 64bit!!!!!! \
Yeah, someday we might not even have to hold down the 6 and the 4 to run in 64bit!!!!!! \
You only need to hold down the ?6? and ?4? to boot into the 64-bit KERNEL of the consumer versions of SL. This is done to ensure driver compatibility, but if you want 64-bit you can do so WITHOUT HAVING TO BUY A SEPARATE OS AND COMPLETE A SEPARATE INSTALL OF THE OS
64-bit and 32-bit apps will run natively next to each other regardless of what kernel you are using. You can also have more than 4GB RAM for an app in a 64-bit app while running a 32-bit kernel so can be sure any antiquated or obscure 3rd-party peripheral works without question. This is by far better method than other OSes.
Just wondering if anyone has seen stuff like this....
"...Todays news has been dominated by Windows 7 related articles, the software has proven to be so successful that according to Amazon Windows 7 was the “biggest grossing pre-order product of all time”.
Prior to this two of the biggest grossing products were the Nintendo Wii and also Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows, also according to a spokes-person for DSGi (who own PC World, Currys and Dixons) they “have sold more copies of Windows 7 in three weeks on pre-order than Vista sold in its first year.”
As with many large releases queues formed outside many stores across the world, one area which makes the upgrade awkward is for netbook owners, this is due to the fact that a lot of netbooks do not have optical drives, it is thought that many retailers will be stocking up on USB optical drives for this purpose...."
And that's without the major I.T. firms upgrading from XP which we all know will happen.
This is the kind of success I want to see as well as things like the COURIER, especially if it's a MSFT device as this would me 100% control over the machine, the same as Apple which all translates to better devices for us, the consumer, the ProSumer, and the Pro.
I really think Apple ought to rethink it's strategy regarding CONSUMER and PRO devices.
Sure the new iMac has QUAD core, but still, it lacks express slots used by many musicians to plug in cards that take a load off the CPU and gives them a LOT of REVERB, COMPRESSION, and so on, as all the power is on the card. Or you could use an eSata card to boot a iMAC to RAID, better yet would be to have express slots and eSata outputs.
Is the Windows success that I hope someday drives Apple to deliver a MID RANGE HEADLESS mini tower, 4/8 cores and can see that happening when the Mac Pro goes to 16 cores.
I mean, c'mon Apple, gamers alone out sell video and music sales combined and Avid saw that writing on the wall and saw that their Pro Tools TDM machines were no longer selling so they purchased MAudio and now are making a killing in the PRO SUMER MARKETS.
Apple needs to realize, they will make MORE money, not LESS, people will still by Mac Pros but then instead of buying PC servers like I've seen as the price to performance is better, they would buy these newer APPLE MACHINES!
Comments
In MS? defense, their business model commands support for legacy code and antiquated HW. They also have to spend a lot more on R&D to make sure their OS works with a much larger HW base. Their model doesn?t fit my needs as a consumer, and looking at Longhorn they surely have wasted a great deal of money, but Windows 7 (aka, Vista 2.0) is a very solid OS from the Redmond-based Zune-maker.
Yes, legacy support, and the Windows code base, is like an anchor around Microsoft's neck, unfortunately for them, as is the hardware support issue. Apple's strategy of dropping legacy support for older hardware and technologies (Carbon is likely next) is a necessary pain that the Mac user community has to go through, and fortunately they are in a position to be able to do it.
and looking at Longhorn they surely have wasted a great deal of money, but Windows 7 (aka, Vista 2.0) is a very solid OS from the Redmond-based Zune-maker.
Actually, even Microsoft admitted publicly that the Longhorn development got out of hand. They changed both the development model as well as the management for Windows 7. Especially for the latter people with proven track records were placed in key positions and Microsoft was far more careful revealing scope and features of 7 until it was absolutely sure that they would land. Looking at 7 now it seems that their internal restructuring paid off. And people here can stop calling 7 "Vista 2.0" like OS X isn't based on half a dozen iterations.
And people here can stop calling 7 "Vista 2.0" like OS X isn't based on half a dozen iterations.
Why is that? Should Vista SP1 be 2.0 and Win7 be Vista 3.0, since Vista SP2 was so close to the Win7 RC release.
Seriously, it’s very similar to Vista in many core aspects. In many ways SL over Leopard is much bigger change than Win7 over Vista. You can’t tell by looking at the desktop, but the core changes in SL are worlds apart from Leopard. Win7 is mostly a rebranding of Vista. When your product gets a bad rep it’s not easy to fix, sometimes dropping the name is the only way to go, despite Vista being solid since SP1. The damage was done.They made some good changes in the UI, but they had to alter the veneer enough to separate from Vista.
BTW, here is a fairly competent listing of features removed from Win7 and from Vista. The Vista list is huge.
And people here can stop calling 7 "Vista 2.0" like OS X isn't based on half a dozen iterations.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but hasn't Microsoft referred to 7 as "a better Vista" (or something very similar to that)? And they are, by all accounts, very similar internally, as well as being similar visually. So why wouldn't it be thought of as "Vista 2.0"?
We call the current Mac OS X version 10.6.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but hasn't Microsoft referred to 7 as "a better Vista" (or something very similar to that)? And they are, by all accounts, very similar internally, as well as being similar visually. So why wouldn't it be thought of as "Vista 2.0"?
We call the current Mac OS X version 10.6.
Ballmer said "Wndows 7 is Windows Vista, with cleanup in user interface [and] improvements in performance."
http://www.computerworld.com/s/artic..._a_lot_better_
Actually, even Microsoft admitted publicly that the Longhorn development got out of hand. They changed both the development model as well as the management for Windows 7. Especially for the latter people with proven track records were placed in key positions and Microsoft was far more careful revealing scope and features of 7 until it was absolutely sure that they would land. Looking at 7 now it seems that their internal restructuring paid off. And people here can stop calling 7 "Vista 2.0" like OS X isn't based on half a dozen iterations.
Well, there's a reason Apple calls 10.6, "Snow Leopard"...
I really haven't seen much, if any difference with it over Leopard, on my older Mini, but that's because many of the big features of SL, requires a new-ish Mac, and like with my PC's, I have no desire to get any new computers, because the SW doesn't even take advantage of what I have now.
Having said, that, 7 is what Vista should've been. I like it a lot, put 7 Pro 64-bit on my laptop, and 7 Pro 32-bit on my netbook. I've even typing this post on Chrome, XP Mode, and it all runs pretty damn well, in fact I like 7 so much, I think I've only turned my Mini on once in the past couple of weeks. (I got 7 early)
If I do get a new Mac in the next year or so, likely a MBP, and if the SW actually comes out that really takes advantage of SL, I might be more impressed with it, but then again, there will also be more SW that will take advantage of DX11 and .NET 4.0, that it could all just be a wash.
For me, the more I use either Windows or OSX, the less advantages/disadvantages I see with either of them, other than choice of SW.
What? The standard user account on OS X is some kind of hybrid between root and a user which is allowed to install applications into globally accessible places like /Applications and freely make changes to system settings. Things also a malicious application can do should it ever manage to run with user rights. Vista was far more paranoid in this regard and strictly asked for confirmation for everything which could potentially affect the system. It's regrettable that Microsoft toned down UAC for 7 due to pressure by customers but at least it's really only setting the slider back to the highest level to get back Vista's security.
I also don't get all the complaints about UAC. It usually stays out of the way unless you need to access system resources (folders for installation/copying, system settings, etc.). OS X will also ask for confirmation if an application tries to install things outside the user or application directory.
And that's the thing. In order to install, an app requires user password or the active participation of the user. There are no self-installing .exe files as in Windows. Vista did fix a lot this, but few are using Vista. I haven't seen how Win 7 handles this. I can only hope it is better locked down than XP. The question is: can Win 7 do it without Vista's incessant and seemingly indiscriminate nag windows?
In my experience, any app that deals with settings HAS to ask for an admin PW, at least in Leopard. I'm not sure about SL because I haven't installed it yet. Also, any app downloaded from the net brings up a nag window on first run (so apps don't run without user participation the first time). This occurs even for App updates (or PW is required). After the first nag, OS X leaves you alone. In Vista, every time I run Boot Camp to change the boot disk, Vista continues to nag.
Well, there's a reason Apple calls 10.6, "Snow Leopard"...
Yeah, they were running out of cats.
I really haven't seen much, if any difference with it over Leopard, on my older Mini, but that's because many of the big features of SL, requires a new-ish Mac
Actually, it's because most of the "big features" of SL are under the hood and not visible to the user, but potentially much more game changing than anything in or coming to 7.
Actually, it's because most of the "big features" of SL are under the hood and not visible to the user, but potentially much more game changing than anything in or coming to 7.
Yeah, someday we might not even have to hold down the 6 and the 4 to run in 64bit!!!!!!
Yeah, someday we might not even have to hold down the 6 and the 4 to run in 64bit!!!!!!
You only need to hold down the ?6? and ?4? to boot into the 64-bit KERNEL of the consumer versions of SL. This is done to ensure driver compatibility, but if you want 64-bit you can do so WITHOUT HAVING TO BUY A SEPARATE OS AND COMPLETE A SEPARATE INSTALL OF THE OS
64-bit and 32-bit apps will run natively next to each other regardless of what kernel you are using. You can also have more than 4GB RAM for an app in a 64-bit app while running a 32-bit kernel so can be sure any antiquated or obscure 3rd-party peripheral works without question. This is by far better method than other OSes.
If you need to make 64-bit permanent, then do so.
"...Todays news has been dominated by Windows 7 related articles, the software has proven to be so successful that according to Amazon Windows 7 was the “biggest grossing pre-order product of all time”.
Prior to this two of the biggest grossing products were the Nintendo Wii and also Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows, also according to a spokes-person for DSGi (who own PC World, Currys and Dixons) they “have sold more copies of Windows 7 in three weeks on pre-order than Vista sold in its first year.”
As with many large releases queues formed outside many stores across the world, one area which makes the upgrade awkward is for netbook owners, this is due to the fact that a lot of netbooks do not have optical drives, it is thought that many retailers will be stocking up on USB optical drives for this purpose...."
And that's without the major I.T. firms upgrading from XP which we all know will happen.
This is the kind of success I want to see as well as things like the COURIER, especially if it's a MSFT device as this would me 100% control over the machine, the same as Apple which all translates to better devices for us, the consumer, the ProSumer, and the Pro.
I really think Apple ought to rethink it's strategy regarding CONSUMER and PRO devices.
Sure the new iMac has QUAD core, but still, it lacks express slots used by many musicians to plug in cards that take a load off the CPU and gives them a LOT of REVERB, COMPRESSION, and so on, as all the power is on the card. Or you could use an eSata card to boot a iMAC to RAID, better yet would be to have express slots and eSata outputs.
Is the Windows success that I hope someday drives Apple to deliver a MID RANGE HEADLESS mini tower, 4/8 cores and can see that happening when the Mac Pro goes to 16 cores.
I mean, c'mon Apple, gamers alone out sell video and music sales combined and Avid saw that writing on the wall and saw that their Pro Tools TDM machines were no longer selling so they purchased MAudio and now are making a killing in the PRO SUMER MARKETS.
Apple needs to realize, they will make MORE money, not LESS, people will still by Mac Pros but then instead of buying PC servers like I've seen as the price to performance is better, they would buy these newer APPLE MACHINES!