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...
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).
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...
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.
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 ;-)
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...
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...
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
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...
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.
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.
Comments
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.
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...
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.
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 ?
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 ;-)
http://www.smh.com.au/news/digital-l...289106407.html
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?
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...
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...
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.
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.
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
You would never ever have to deal with DLLs again.
/thread
Priceless...
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.
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.
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.
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.
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...
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.
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.