It was NOT Mac OS X that failed the challenge earlier this year. It was Safari. The hacker exploited a bug in Safari. A separate Apple product, but as there exists plenty of alternatives - including the one I'm employing to yell at you, it is unfair and intellectually unjust to suggest it was Mac OS X's fault.
By that logic I should blame Windows if someone brings down a machine running Opera or Chrome through Opera or Chrome, or I should blame a Linux distribution if Firefox is brought down through Firefox. It's nonsense, pure nonsense.
If an app allows an operating system to be taken over or brought down, then the operating system is at fault. Faulty apps should crash of their own accord or should be prevented from running. They should blow away the security and allow malicious apps a way in.
The same rule applies to Windows and Linux. Of course, it would be impossible to test for every scenario, but what was surprising about the Apple case, was that it was brought down by a bug in their own application.
Here's the thing - Vista, Windows 7, DreamLinux, whatever. They're all rather obviously going for the aqua look these days. So I can only assume they think this is what their users want.
Now if the users want everything to look like Mac OS X, then just go buy a Mac. Seriously.
This lie has been dealt with ad infinitum here. Let's not start that up again.
By "stable" I assume you mean you have to hit ctl-alt-del every 10 minutes instead of every five? And by "secure" I assume you mean half-a-million Windows viruses vs. exactly zero OS X viruses?
That makes one of you.
P. S.: Using the word "fanboy" just makes you look like an idiot.
And saying that Windows users have to hit 'Ctr-Alt-Del' every ten minutes, somehow makes you look smarter ...
Vista x64 is far more advanced OS than Leopard. Launched in late 2006, it offered (first) true 64bit desktop platform for masses (64bit memory access, 64bit device drivers, etc.), while Leopard is 32bit mess with PAE.
Professional apps, alike Adobe CS4, run (much) better and faster on Vista x64, every test shows that. OS X Leopard is a toy, not a professional OS.
Apple is trying to catch Microsoft with "Snow Leopard", finally offering 64bit memory access and 64bit device drivers, ie. something Microsoft had on desktop since Windows XP x64 (launched 4/2005).
Apple is 3-5 years behind Microsoft.
They focus on trendy items, like MP3 players, music and video distribution, but obsolete OS X is less and less welcomed as a choice for professionals. Apple R&D focuses on stupid little things like stars in Time Machine (btw, Vista had that before as well, called Shadow Files / Folders and Complete PC Backup app, Apple copied that and added stars, great innovation!), which are easy to market to IT uneducated masses.
Microsoft focuses not only on looks (Aero is beautiful), but also on "invisible" things - kernel, memory management, stability.
Btw, this is humiliating, Flash on OS X being 2-4x slower than on Vista (tested on Mac Pro):
I know apple fanboys really believe the marketing but it's simply not true. Vista is both fast, stable and secure. As the driver models have changed(and they needed to) it took alittle while to get some quality drivers out there for the hardware. But once that was done it's been solid. My system had quality drivers on day 1 though so it's always been fast and stable for me.
I do really enjoy OSX but c'mon, the uneducated Vista bashing has gotten old. As has insisting that microsoft has copied everything from apple. It goes both ways. I just wish apple copied alittle bit more.
I would have to disagree, purely from a perspective in working in an Apple reseller, in an electrical department that sells both Windows-based and Apple computers.
I'd say a majority of my customers are 'switchers' from, invariably Vista, but also from XP. The common thread in these customers is that they are sick of Vista/XP. They're sick of the clunkiness, the security flaws and the instability. I have many a customer that has a Vista laptop or desktop, and are amazed at how slow and clunky the operating system is.
Then they look at an Apple computer, and they see a breath of fresh air. No real virus/spyware threats, a much more stable operating system, and a much easier and intuitive user experience.
So, its not just marketing. Its actual customer experience. You may have a different experience, but my customers have much different experiences. We also sell Windows-based computers, and a common question is "Does it have XP" or "Can I install XP on it?"
And the irony is, the fact that Microsoft has consistently copied aspects of the Mac operating system from Windows 3.1 days is actually a bonus when I'm selling to a switcher. It means they have less to learn
No matter how many times you say this, it won't make it any more true. Processes running on Intel Macs with Leopard have access to a full gamut of 64-bit wide CPU registers. They each have their own 64-bit virtual address space in which to reside. PAE alone would not provide either of these properties. Rather, the CPU must be running fully in 64-bit mode to provide these properties.
Quote:
Originally Posted by bigpics
(btw, try to count any reasonable list of Windows versions and come up with the number 7!)
Code:
Windows 1.0
Windows 2.0
Windows 2.1/286, Windows 2.1/386
Windows 3.0
Windows 3.1, Windows NT 3.1 (This was the first release of the NT line)
Windows 3.11, Windows NT 3.51
Windows 95 (4.0.950), Windows NT 4.0
Windows 98 (4.10.1998)
Windows 98 SE (4.10.2222A)
Windows ME (4.90.9000), Windows 2000 (NT 5.0)
Windows XP (NT 5.1)
Windows Server 2003 (NT 5.2)
Windows Vista (NT 6.0)
Windows 7 (NT 7.0)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mac-sochist
By "stable" I assume you mean you have to hit ctl-alt-del every 10 minutes instead of every five?
Really? Really??
You actually have experience or reliable testimony of consistently having to press ctl-alt-del every five minutes on XP? I suppose it probably depends to some extent on the 3rd party software you've chosen to run, but this has not been my experience.
My home computers are a Mac and a Linux box as a matter of personal preference. But I have no stability or usability problems with my XP computer at work, or with my previous home XP machine.
Vista x64 is far more advanced OS than Leopard. Launched in late 2006, it offered (first) true 64bit desktop platform for masses (64bit memory access, 64bit device drivers, etc.), while Leopard is 32bit mess with PAE.
But there are still fewer drivers for 64bit Windows. It's just a headache for people to keep track of 32 and 64bit versions. Apple seem to be taking an incremental approach to avoid giving customers headaches. And why is it that a can by a 64bit computer from an OEM but still have a 32bit OS installed.
Quote:
Professional apps, alike Adobe CS4, run (much) better and faster on Vista x64, every test shows that. OS X Leopard is a toy, not a professional OS.
This is because of Adobe not Leopard.
Quote:
Apple is trying to catch Microsoft with "Snow Leopard", finally offering 64bit memory access and 64bit device drivers, ie. something Microsoft had on desktop since Windows XP x64 (launched 4/2005).
Apple is 3-5 years behind Microsoft.
From memory didn't Vista introduce a new audio stack architecture and Media foundation to catch up with OS X.
Quote:
They focus on trendy items, like MP3 players, music and video distribution, but obsolete OS X is less and less welcomed as a choice for professionals. Apple R&D focuses on stupid little things like stars in Time Machine (btw, Vista had that before as well, called Shadow Files / Folders and Complete PC Backup app, Apple copied that and added stars, great innovation!), which are easy to market to IT uneducated masses.
But can't I only get Windows Shadow copy on Vista Business and Ultimate. So the home users don't have this feature at all.
Quote:
Microsoft focuses not only on looks (Aero is beautiful), but also on "invisible" things - kernel, memory management, stability.
I think Aero is ugly. It looks amateurish. I find Leopard runs much more smoothly than Vista.
Quote:
Btw, this is humiliating, Flash on OS X being 2-4x slower than on Vista (tested on Mac Pro):
Vista x64 is far more advanced OS than Leopard. Launched in late 2006, it offered (first) true 64bit desktop platform for masses (64bit memory access, 64bit device drivers, etc.), while Leopard is 32bit mess with PAE.
Professional apps, alike Adobe CS4, run (much) better and faster on Vista x64, every test shows that. OS X Leopard is a toy, not a professional OS.
Apple is trying to catch Microsoft with "Snow Leopard", finally offering 64bit memory access and 64bit device drivers, ie. something Microsoft had on desktop since Windows XP x64 (launched 4/2005).
Apple is 3-5 years behind Microsoft.
They focus on trendy items, like MP3 players, music and video distribution, but obsolete OS X is less and less welcomed as a choice for professionals. Apple R&D focuses on stupid little things like stars in Time Machine (btw, Vista had that before as well, called Shadow Files / Folders and Complete PC Backup app, Apple copied that and added stars, great innovation!), which are easy to market to IT uneducated masses.
Microsoft focuses not only on looks (Aero is beautiful), but also on "invisible" things - kernel, memory management, stability.
Btw, this is humiliating, Flash on OS X being 2-4x slower than on Vista (tested on Mac Pro):
Most IT pros I know migrated their OS X machines to Vista x64. Couldnt be happier
I have a few problems with these comments, and bare in mind, I'm no IT professional.
1. Aero beautiful? Most Vista users I know turn all that crap off, because all it does is waste memory!
2. How many real users are there of Windows 64?
3. Apple is to be commended in their approach in moving towards 64-bit. It has been an (almost) completely seamless process.
Are there two versions of Apple operating system, one 32-bit, one 64-bit? No.
Are there multiple driver issues because of the move to 64-bit? No.
Is there DLL-hell in Apple? No.
Are Apple users, such as myself, enjoying the benefits of 64-bit, without any of the fuss and hassle that 64-bit Windows XP and Vista has? Yes.
Apple's focus is on the user experience. If that means a slower roll-out of 64-bit for the sake of having customers not go through the hassles, then so be it.
4. How is Leopard a mess, and Vista not? Leopard can run 32-bit and 64 bit applications. Vista cannot. Leopard can use 32-bit and 64-bit drivers, Vista cannot. Leopard can run on a relatively low-end machine with a small amount of RAM and still run well, Vista cannot. Vista is the very definition of a mess!
I love how people are saying "they can't copy the dock or other elements....Apple has PATENTED it!"
As if that ever stopped Microsoft from copying Apple. Vista was a TOTAL rip of OS X (windows flip, gadgets?). Now, as we expected, they've copied it better than ever. The last really close copy was Windows 95. Maybe we can hope that Windows 7 is as functional as that POS.
This guy is a well known troll, it's best to just ignore him. Still, for the sake of argument.
Quote:
Originally Posted by rADo
Vista x64 is far more advanced OS than Leopard. Launched in late 2006, it offered (first) true 64bit desktop platform for masses (64bit memory access, 64bit device drivers, etc.), while Leopard is 32bit mess with PAE.
Leopard is not a 32bit mess. Yes, parts for kernel are 32bit and device drivers are 32 bit. But that makes very little difference for actual applications. Leopard can run 32 and 64 bit applications side by side.
64bit drivers is the major annoyance with Vista. I have a computer with 64bit vista right next to me and it was a big mistake. If you want to run 64bit programs on Vista be prepared for a major headache. If you need to use Cisco IPSec VPN client you are basically screwed. You don't have that problem with leopard.
I know very few people being able to use 64bit Vista, because of those incompatibility issues.)
Needless to say that for Windows you need to distribute 2 binaries (32 and 64 bit) while for OSX you can cover all platforms with just one binary.
Quote:
Originally Posted by rADo
Professional apps, alike Adobe CS4, run (much) better and faster on Vista x64, every test shows that. OS X Leopard is a toy, not a professional OS.
Heh, right, sure. Normally 64bit code is about 12% faster because of enhanced registers that it can use. Unless you are editing really *huge* images in photoshop - so that you need more than 4 gigabytes memory for the photoshop process - you are unlikely to notice any difference.
Quote:
Originally Posted by rADo
Apple is trying to catch Microsoft with "Snow Leopard", finally offering 64bit memory access and 64bit device drivers, ie. something Microsoft had on desktop since Windows XP x64 (launched 4/2005).
It doesn't matter when it lauched it if noone except you is really using it. The all or nothing approach of microsoft turned to be much worse than the iterative process of apple migration to 64bit.
Quote:
Originally Posted by rADo
Apple is 3-5 years behind Microsoft.
They focus on trendy items, like MP3 players, music and video distribution, but obsolete OS X is less and less welcomed as a choice for professionals. Apple R&D focuses on stupid little things like stars in Time Machine (btw, Vista had that before as well, called Shadow Files / Folders and Complete PC Backup app, Apple copied that and added stars, great innovation!), which are easy to market to IT uneducated masses.
Microsoft focuses not only on looks (Aero is beautiful), but also on "invisible" things - kernel, memory management, stability.
Aero is nothing but a visual mess with lot of distraction and noise. Obviously the people at microsoft do not know the first thing about design. The only thing aero can give you is a headache. With all those bright, saturated colors and total overuse of transparency. It looks like someone playing with photoshop trying to apply as many effects as possible.
Quote:
Originally Posted by rADo
Btw, this is humiliating, Flash on OS X being 2-4x slower than on Vista (tested on Mac Pro):
It indeed is humiliating, but for Adobe, not Apple.
Quote:
Originally Posted by rADo
Most IT pros I know migrated their OS X machines to Vista x64. Couldnt be happier
You must know a lot of it pros then Last time I was on ApacheCon, more than half of the attendance were having MacBook Pros and guess what, i haven't seen a single vista installation on it.
I can't believe it! Steve Jobs, was right. Microsoft does have their copy machines fired up. It still must be in the beta stage, it doesn't completely look like OSX yet. I'm sure a few years from now they'll be claiming they invented the dock.
I don't get what they've copied. The taskbar looks the same as its done since 95 but without the text. I doubt thats going to be its final look. More likely its the basics of what it will be.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mac-sochist
Is it going to be as stable and secure as OS X? Yeah, I didn't think so!
I hope not Vista's currently more stable and secure than the current buggy OS X.
Quote:
Originally Posted by iVlad
You need to admit that Windows copied Apple, that's all. No one cares with these nitpicking details. Broad picture is that Windows will always copy someone else. Yeah, and your Windows Media Center came right after Front Row was a new feature in Tiger.
I don't see how. Mentioned in the article is the task bar that is essentially the same but scrolls. The dock magnify's not scrolls. Gadgets can go on the desktop which isn't really anything new. Anyone who thinks Apple invented widgets needs there head examined, you could get them and put them on the desktop since Windows 95!
As for Media Center I can't remember which came first but I do remember Steve holding up a media center remote for either Apple TV or Front Row. If it was the later then it was Apple doing the copying. Other companies pre-date both though.
Vista is a joke, the general public, the media have all decided it's a mess, which is why Microsoft decided to offer the downgrade to XP option, no ones wants to deal with that mess. Thankfully OSX is 200 times better than Windows and is currently rated higher in satisfaction ratings.
I don't get what they've copied. The taskbar looks the same as its done since 95 but without the text. I doubt thats going to be its final look. More likely its the basics of what it will be.
Yeah, you obviously don't get that windows are grouped by application (just like they are in OS X). So it's much more than just removing the labels. The entire paradigm has been shifted. It's no longer about separate windows, it is about applications that windows belong to. But maybe you're just too superficial to notice that
Quote:
Originally Posted by timgriff84
I hope not Vista's currently more stable and secure than the current buggy OS X.
Definitely not according to my experience, although it is possible that the stability issues were caused by device drivers.
I don't get what they've copied. The taskbar looks the same as its done since 95 but without the text. I doubt thats going to be its final look. More likely its the basics of what it will be.
I hope not Vista's currently more stable and secure than the current buggy OS X.
I don't see how. Mentioned in the article is the task bar that is essentially the same but scrolls. The dock magnify's not scrolls. Gadgets can go on the desktop which isn't really anything new. Anyone who thinks Apple invented widgets needs there head examined, you could get them and put them on the desktop since Windows 95!
As for Media Center I can't remember which came first but I do remember Steve holding up a media center remote for either Apple TV or Front Row. If it was the later then it was Apple doing the copying. Other companies pre-date both though.
Apple had desktop widgets in System 7 - which predated Winblows 95.
Microsoft fooled people into believing Vista is a new Navaho operating system, now they're trying to fool people into believing that Windows 7 is not Vista.
Vista's 64-bit OS is a separate install, from the 32-bit version. I have a friend who accidently installed it and none of his programs worked, even Office didn't work, it was a complete and utter epic failure. Programs have to be written in 64-bit, so the only programs that work right now are Adobe's CS4 programs.
Yeah, you obviously don't get that windows are grouped by application (just like they are in OS X). So it's much more than just removing the labels. The entire paradigm has been shifted.
Windows XP's taskbar (and presumably Vista's) already does that, when there are too many program windows open to comfortably fit in the task bar otherwise.
Comments
It was NOT Mac OS X that failed the challenge earlier this year. It was Safari. The hacker exploited a bug in Safari. A separate Apple product, but as there exists plenty of alternatives - including the one I'm employing to yell at you, it is unfair and intellectually unjust to suggest it was Mac OS X's fault.
By that logic I should blame Windows if someone brings down a machine running Opera or Chrome through Opera or Chrome, or I should blame a Linux distribution if Firefox is brought down through Firefox. It's nonsense, pure nonsense.
If an app allows an operating system to be taken over or brought down, then the operating system is at fault. Faulty apps should crash of their own accord or should be prevented from running. They should blow away the security and allow malicious apps a way in.
The same rule applies to Windows and Linux. Of course, it would be impossible to test for every scenario, but what was surprising about the Apple case, was that it was brought down by a bug in their own application.
Now if the users want everything to look like Mac OS X, then just go buy a Mac. Seriously.
This lie has been dealt with ad infinitum here. Let's not start that up again.
By "stable" I assume you mean you have to hit ctl-alt-del every 10 minutes instead of every five? And by "secure" I assume you mean half-a-million Windows viruses vs. exactly zero OS X viruses?
That makes one of you.
P. S.: Using the word "fanboy" just makes you look like an idiot.
And saying that Windows users have to hit 'Ctr-Alt-Del' every ten minutes, somehow makes you look smarter ...
Vista x64 is far more advanced OS than Leopard. Launched in late 2006, it offered (first) true 64bit desktop platform for masses (64bit memory access, 64bit device drivers, etc.), while Leopard is 32bit mess with PAE.
Professional apps, alike Adobe CS4, run (much) better and faster on Vista x64, every test shows that. OS X Leopard is a toy, not a professional OS.
Apple is trying to catch Microsoft with "Snow Leopard", finally offering 64bit memory access and 64bit device drivers, ie. something Microsoft had on desktop since Windows XP x64 (launched 4/2005).
Apple is 3-5 years behind Microsoft.
They focus on trendy items, like MP3 players, music and video distribution, but obsolete OS X is less and less welcomed as a choice for professionals. Apple R&D focuses on stupid little things like stars in Time Machine (btw, Vista had that before as well, called Shadow Files / Folders and Complete PC Backup app, Apple copied that and added stars, great innovation!), which are easy to market to IT uneducated masses.
Microsoft focuses not only on looks (Aero is beautiful), but also on "invisible" things - kernel, memory management, stability.
Btw, this is humiliating, Flash on OS X being 2-4x slower than on Vista (tested on Mac Pro):
http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post...player-10.html
Most IT pros I know migrated their OS X machines to Vista x64. Couldnt be happier
This is garbage.
I know apple fanboys really believe the marketing but it's simply not true. Vista is both fast, stable and secure. As the driver models have changed(and they needed to) it took alittle while to get some quality drivers out there for the hardware. But once that was done it's been solid. My system had quality drivers on day 1 though so it's always been fast and stable for me.
I do really enjoy OSX but c'mon, the uneducated Vista bashing has gotten old. As has insisting that microsoft has copied everything from apple. It goes both ways. I just wish apple copied alittle bit more.
I would have to disagree, purely from a perspective in working in an Apple reseller, in an electrical department that sells both Windows-based and Apple computers.
I'd say a majority of my customers are 'switchers' from, invariably Vista, but also from XP. The common thread in these customers is that they are sick of Vista/XP. They're sick of the clunkiness, the security flaws and the instability. I have many a customer that has a Vista laptop or desktop, and are amazed at how slow and clunky the operating system is.
Then they look at an Apple computer, and they see a breath of fresh air. No real virus/spyware threats, a much more stable operating system, and a much easier and intuitive user experience.
So, its not just marketing. Its actual customer experience. You may have a different experience, but my customers have much different experiences. We also sell Windows-based computers, and a common question is "Does it have XP" or "Can I install XP on it?"
And the irony is, the fact that Microsoft has consistently copied aspects of the Mac operating system from Windows 3.1 days is actually a bonus when I'm selling to a switcher. It means they have less to learn
while Leopard is 32bit mess with PAE.
No matter how many times you say this, it won't make it any more true. Processes running on Intel Macs with Leopard have access to a full gamut of 64-bit wide CPU registers. They each have their own 64-bit virtual address space in which to reside. PAE alone would not provide either of these properties. Rather, the CPU must be running fully in 64-bit mode to provide these properties.
(btw, try to count any reasonable list of Windows versions and come up with the number 7!)
Windows 1.0
Windows 2.0
Windows 2.1/286, Windows 2.1/386
Windows 3.0
Windows 3.1, Windows NT 3.1 (This was the first release of the NT line)
Windows 3.11, Windows NT 3.51
Windows 95 (4.0.950), Windows NT 4.0
Windows 98 (4.10.1998)
Windows 98 SE (4.10.2222A)
Windows ME (4.90.9000), Windows 2000 (NT 5.0)
Windows XP (NT 5.1)
Windows Server 2003 (NT 5.2)
Windows Vista (NT 6.0)
Windows 7 (NT 7.0)
By "stable" I assume you mean you have to hit ctl-alt-del every 10 minutes instead of every five?
Really? Really??
You actually have experience or reliable testimony of consistently having to press ctl-alt-del every five minutes on XP? I suppose it probably depends to some extent on the 3rd party software you've chosen to run, but this has not been my experience.
My home computers are a Mac and a Linux box as a matter of personal preference. But I have no stability or usability problems with my XP computer at work, or with my previous home XP machine.
Vista x64 is far more advanced OS than Leopard. Launched in late 2006, it offered (first) true 64bit desktop platform for masses (64bit memory access, 64bit device drivers, etc.), while Leopard is 32bit mess with PAE.
But there are still fewer drivers for 64bit Windows. It's just a headache for people to keep track of 32 and 64bit versions. Apple seem to be taking an incremental approach to avoid giving customers headaches. And why is it that a can by a 64bit computer from an OEM but still have a 32bit OS installed.
Professional apps, alike Adobe CS4, run (much) better and faster on Vista x64, every test shows that. OS X Leopard is a toy, not a professional OS.
This is because of Adobe not Leopard.
Apple is trying to catch Microsoft with "Snow Leopard", finally offering 64bit memory access and 64bit device drivers, ie. something Microsoft had on desktop since Windows XP x64 (launched 4/2005).
Apple is 3-5 years behind Microsoft.
From memory didn't Vista introduce a new audio stack architecture and Media foundation to catch up with OS X.
They focus on trendy items, like MP3 players, music and video distribution, but obsolete OS X is less and less welcomed as a choice for professionals. Apple R&D focuses on stupid little things like stars in Time Machine (btw, Vista had that before as well, called Shadow Files / Folders and Complete PC Backup app, Apple copied that and added stars, great innovation!), which are easy to market to IT uneducated masses.
But can't I only get Windows Shadow copy on Vista Business and Ultimate. So the home users don't have this feature at all.
Microsoft focuses not only on looks (Aero is beautiful), but also on "invisible" things - kernel, memory management, stability.
I think Aero is ugly. It looks amateurish. I find Leopard runs much more smoothly than Vista.
Btw, this is humiliating, Flash on OS X being 2-4x slower than on Vista (tested on Mac Pro):
http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post...player-10.html
Flash is the cancer of the internet. It's not Leopards fault it runs slower, it's Adobe's
Most IT pros I know migrated their OS X machines to Vista x64. Couldnt be happier
Most IT pros must be clueless then.
Vista x64 is far more advanced OS than Leopard. Launched in late 2006, it offered (first) true 64bit desktop platform for masses (64bit memory access, 64bit device drivers, etc.), while Leopard is 32bit mess with PAE.
Professional apps, alike Adobe CS4, run (much) better and faster on Vista x64, every test shows that. OS X Leopard is a toy, not a professional OS.
Apple is trying to catch Microsoft with "Snow Leopard", finally offering 64bit memory access and 64bit device drivers, ie. something Microsoft had on desktop since Windows XP x64 (launched 4/2005).
Apple is 3-5 years behind Microsoft.
They focus on trendy items, like MP3 players, music and video distribution, but obsolete OS X is less and less welcomed as a choice for professionals. Apple R&D focuses on stupid little things like stars in Time Machine (btw, Vista had that before as well, called Shadow Files / Folders and Complete PC Backup app, Apple copied that and added stars, great innovation!), which are easy to market to IT uneducated masses.
Microsoft focuses not only on looks (Aero is beautiful), but also on "invisible" things - kernel, memory management, stability.
Btw, this is humiliating, Flash on OS X being 2-4x slower than on Vista (tested on Mac Pro):
http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post...player-10.html
Most IT pros I know migrated their OS X machines to Vista x64. Couldnt be happier
I have a few problems with these comments, and bare in mind, I'm no IT professional.
1. Aero beautiful? Most Vista users I know turn all that crap off, because all it does is waste memory!
2. How many real users are there of Windows 64?
3. Apple is to be commended in their approach in moving towards 64-bit. It has been an (almost) completely seamless process.
Are there two versions of Apple operating system, one 32-bit, one 64-bit? No.
Are there multiple driver issues because of the move to 64-bit? No.
Is there DLL-hell in Apple? No.
Are Apple users, such as myself, enjoying the benefits of 64-bit, without any of the fuss and hassle that 64-bit Windows XP and Vista has? Yes.
Apple's focus is on the user experience. If that means a slower roll-out of 64-bit for the sake of having customers not go through the hassles, then so be it.
4. How is Leopard a mess, and Vista not? Leopard can run 32-bit and 64 bit applications. Vista cannot. Leopard can use 32-bit and 64-bit drivers, Vista cannot. Leopard can run on a relatively low-end machine with a small amount of RAM and still run well, Vista cannot. Vista is the very definition of a mess!
As if that ever stopped Microsoft from copying Apple. Vista was a TOTAL rip of OS X (windows flip, gadgets?). Now, as we expected, they've copied it better than ever. The last really close copy was Windows 95. Maybe we can hope that Windows 7 is as functional as that POS.
The need to run virus protection..... hasn't changed a bit.
Because of THAT...... it's useless.
It can mimic other systems as much as it wants, the problem with Vista is NOT how it LOOKS.
It's how it WORKS.
And how it gets trojened, virused, spoofed, and just all around hacked.
The best thing they could do with a new version of Windows, is fix it so the reinstall takes 5 minutes.
You're going to need to do it so often, might as well make it a feature......
Vista x64 is far more advanced OS than Leopard. Launched in late 2006, it offered (first) true 64bit desktop platform for masses (64bit memory access, 64bit device drivers, etc.), while Leopard is 32bit mess with PAE.
Leopard is not a 32bit mess. Yes, parts for kernel are 32bit and device drivers are 32 bit. But that makes very little difference for actual applications. Leopard can run 32 and 64 bit applications side by side.
64bit drivers is the major annoyance with Vista. I have a computer with 64bit vista right next to me and it was a big mistake. If you want to run 64bit programs on Vista be prepared for a major headache. If you need to use Cisco IPSec VPN client you are basically screwed. You don't have that problem with leopard.
I know very few people being able to use 64bit Vista, because of those incompatibility issues.)
Needless to say that for Windows you need to distribute 2 binaries (32 and 64 bit) while for OSX you can cover all platforms with just one binary.
Professional apps, alike Adobe CS4, run (much) better and faster on Vista x64, every test shows that. OS X Leopard is a toy, not a professional OS.
Heh, right, sure. Normally 64bit code is about 12% faster because of enhanced registers that it can use. Unless you are editing really *huge* images in photoshop - so that you need more than 4 gigabytes memory for the photoshop process - you are unlikely to notice any difference.
Apple is trying to catch Microsoft with "Snow Leopard", finally offering 64bit memory access and 64bit device drivers, ie. something Microsoft had on desktop since Windows XP x64 (launched 4/2005).
It doesn't matter when it lauched it if noone except you is really using it. The all or nothing approach of microsoft turned to be much worse than the iterative process of apple migration to 64bit.
Apple is 3-5 years behind Microsoft.
They focus on trendy items, like MP3 players, music and video distribution, but obsolete OS X is less and less welcomed as a choice for professionals. Apple R&D focuses on stupid little things like stars in Time Machine (btw, Vista had that before as well, called Shadow Files / Folders and Complete PC Backup app, Apple copied that and added stars, great innovation!), which are easy to market to IT uneducated masses.
Microsoft focuses not only on looks (Aero is beautiful), but also on "invisible" things - kernel, memory management, stability.
Aero is nothing but a visual mess with lot of distraction and noise. Obviously the people at microsoft do not know the first thing about design. The only thing aero can give you is a headache. With all those bright, saturated colors and total overuse of transparency. It looks like someone playing with photoshop trying to apply as many effects as possible.
Btw, this is humiliating, Flash on OS X being 2-4x slower than on Vista (tested on Mac Pro):
http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post...player-10.html
It indeed is humiliating, but for Adobe, not Apple.
Most IT pros I know migrated their OS X machines to Vista x64. Couldnt be happier
You must know a lot of it pros then
I can't believe it! Steve Jobs, was right. Microsoft does have their copy machines fired up. It still must be in the beta stage, it doesn't completely look like OSX yet. I'm sure a few years from now they'll be claiming they invented the dock.
I don't get what they've copied. The taskbar looks the same as its done since 95 but without the text. I doubt thats going to be its final look. More likely its the basics of what it will be.
Is it going to be as stable and secure as OS X? Yeah, I didn't think so!
I hope not Vista's currently more stable and secure than the current buggy OS X.
You need to admit that Windows copied Apple, that's all. No one cares with these nitpicking details. Broad picture is that Windows will always copy someone else. Yeah, and your Windows Media Center came right after Front Row was a new feature in Tiger.
I don't see how. Mentioned in the article is the task bar that is essentially the same but scrolls. The dock magnify's not scrolls. Gadgets can go on the desktop which isn't really anything new. Anyone who thinks Apple invented widgets needs there head examined, you could get them and put them on the desktop since Windows 95!
As for Media Center I can't remember which came first but I do remember Steve holding up a media center remote for either Apple TV or Front Row. If it was the later then it was Apple doing the copying. Other companies pre-date both though.
I don't get what they've copied. The taskbar looks the same as its done since 95 but without the text. I doubt thats going to be its final look. More likely its the basics of what it will be.
Yeah, you obviously don't get that windows are grouped by application (just like they are in OS X). So it's much more than just removing the labels. The entire paradigm has been shifted. It's no longer about separate windows, it is about applications that windows belong to. But maybe you're just too superficial to notice that
I hope not Vista's currently more stable and secure than the current buggy OS X.
Definitely not according to my experience, although it is possible that the stability issues were caused by device drivers.
Btw, this is humiliating, Flash on OS X being 2-4x slower than on Vista (tested on Mac Pro):
http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post...player-10.html
Yes...and it's also totally irrelevant to the conversation.
They are still using the floppy disk icon for "save"!
I don't get what they've copied. The taskbar looks the same as its done since 95 but without the text. I doubt thats going to be its final look. More likely its the basics of what it will be.
I hope not Vista's currently more stable and secure than the current buggy OS X.
I don't see how. Mentioned in the article is the task bar that is essentially the same but scrolls. The dock magnify's not scrolls. Gadgets can go on the desktop which isn't really anything new. Anyone who thinks Apple invented widgets needs there head examined, you could get them and put them on the desktop since Windows 95!
As for Media Center I can't remember which came first but I do remember Steve holding up a media center remote for either Apple TV or Front Row. If it was the later then it was Apple doing the copying. Other companies pre-date both though.
Apple had desktop widgets in System 7 - which predated Winblows 95.
Vista's 64-bit OS is a separate install, from the 32-bit version. I have a friend who accidently installed it and none of his programs worked, even Office didn't work, it was a complete and utter epic failure. Programs have to be written in 64-bit, so the only programs that work right now are Adobe's CS4 programs.
Yeah, you obviously don't get that windows are grouped by application (just like they are in OS X). So it's much more than just removing the labels. The entire paradigm has been shifted.
Windows XP's taskbar (and presumably Vista's) already does that, when there are too many program windows open to comfortably fit in the task bar otherwise.