Microsoft's Windows 7 to bring Apple-tinged design changes

12346

Comments

  • Reply 101 of 122
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by bobborries View Post


    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.



    And what's wrong with people acknowledging the fact that Windows 7 is going to be a different product than Vista?



    Isn't Mac OS Puma different than Mac OS Jaguar?
  • Reply 102 of 122
    Vista Sucks, all the OSX cats don't suck.



    You can't build a house on faulty foundation.
  • Reply 103 of 122
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by lfmorrison View Post


    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.



    Yes, but it doesn't always work well and it still doesn't allow to specify order of the buttons.
  • Reply 104 of 122
    Wow.



    All you uninformed Windows-bashers make me embarrassed to be a Mac-user.



    I use OS X & Windows about 75 - 25. It's not as good as OS X, obviously, but it's certainly usable. Vista has been a struggle and I still prefer XP, but I'm very confident in Windows 7. I think it's akin to the Windows ME - Windows XP transition. ME was a failure, XP was/is the best version of Windows to date. Likewise, Win7 looks very similar to Vista, but I'm certain it will finally usurp XP.



    As for the rest of you who choose to continually beat the crap out of Windows without having used it on a regular basis, maybe you should keep your childish taunts out of it.



    -Clive
  • Reply 105 of 122
    adjeiadjei Posts: 738member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Clive At Five View Post


    Wow.



    All you uninformed Windows-bashers make me embarrassed to be a Mac-user.



    I use OS X & Windows about 75 - 25. It's not as good as OS X, obviously, but it's certainly usable. Vista has been a struggle and I still prefer XP, but I'm very confident in Windows 7. I think it's akin to the Windows ME - Windows XP transition. ME was a failure, XP was/is the best version of Windows to date. Likewise, Win7 looks very similar to Vista, but I'm certain it will finally usurp XP.



    As for the rest of you who choose to continually beat the crap out of Windows without having used it on a regular basis, maybe you should keep your childish taunts out of it.



    -Clive



    So go join the Windows users who bash Macs and how do you know we don't use Windows, I use it every single day son.
  • Reply 106 of 122
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Adjei View Post


    So go join the Windows users who bash Macs and how do you know we don't use Windows, I use it every single day son.



    Hah. "son."



    So, pop, what's your honest opinion of XP? No frequent XP user could possibly find it to be so utterly horrible that it's just unusable.



    How 'bout you and all the other hyperbole artists give it a rest. The Windows bashing IS old.
  • Reply 107 of 122
    I expected alittle better from a mac site. This is just plain sad.



    The task bar has always been able to do some of these things. HEck The doc in osx has been around as addons for windows even before windows xp. So most of this microsoft is copying apple garbage should just be stopped. Apple copies things also.



    Heck half of apples underlying os is beos(or unix)? Isnt that itself a copy?



    Also technically isn't osx also copying windows by running on x86 hardware?



    I am running vista x64 with no problems. The funny thing. The only time my machine crashed was from itunes. Which is from APPLE.





    So stop with this copying stuff . Apple does it too.
  • Reply 108 of 122
    adjeiadjei Posts: 738member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Clive At Five View Post


    Hah. "son."



    So, pop, what's your honest opinion of XP? No frequent XP user could possibly find it to be so utterly horrible that it's just unusable.



    How 'bout you and all the other hyperbole artists give it a rest. The Windows bashing IS old.



    XP was alright, better than Vista which was a disaster seeing as how Microsoft offered the downgrade option.



    We'll give it a rest when Microsoft and their other fans stop bringing up marketshare numbers to say Apple is irrelevant and bringing up crap like the Apple tax.
  • Reply 109 of 122
    Haha, then try explaining why MS is calling their next OS as Windows 7 where as Windows Vista is actually version 6, Windows 7 to me is more like Windows Vista SE rather then a whole new number.



    Silly MSoft.



    P.S: Notice that this version of Windows will follow its build number rather then naming it through years (95, 98, 2000) or some name (XP, Vista)?



    Yeah, we know Apple copies stuffs, but take note that Apple underlying OS unix is not a copy because Apple decide to use Unix architecture is because its much stable and is meant to multi-task. Erm Windows is a OS, it got nothing to do with the hardware.
  • Reply 110 of 122
    halvrihalvri Posts: 146member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by rADo View Post


    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



    Are you serious? OS X has been 64-bit since the start and XP 64-bit, and by extension, Vista 64, is not a true 64-bit platform. XP 64, for instance, is a 32-bit platform with an instruction set that doubles the available integers. Most programmers simply aren't writing 64-bit instructions yet. I might add, by the way, that the reason Flash is bad on a Mac is because Adobe and Apple are feuding over Apple's decision to directly compete with it product line by selling Aperture 2. Adobe has simply not made Apple a priority since then for entirely childish reasons.



    Also, your point about Time Machine is moot. Great functionality + great user interface = better. Just admit it, people care just as much about the design of something as they do the functionality. Take a friggin' architecture class if you want proof of that. And on that note, Aero is not beautiful, it's tacky as hell. Apple applies Aqua with restraint. Mixing metal accents and aqua bubbles works. Applying transparency simply for the sake of transparency is dumb. Overusing that effect makes the whole interface look cheap and you know it. That other poster hit it on the mark: Vista looks like a Fischer-Price toy.



    And are you really going to argue about the stability of Windows? Vista crashed on stage the day they unveiled it and Windows Media Center froze up on Bill Gates when he was showing it off on Conan O'Brien a few years back, just to throw a few off my head.



    Microsoft has no idea how to make an operating system. The entire basis for Windows 1.0 was stealing the GUI Apple licensed from Xerox after learning its coding developing Office. Intellectual Property law wasn't what one would call mature at the time.



    Today, Microsoft is nothing more than a platform bogged down by the sometimes unreasonable demands of its business clients. And as such a platform, it's consumer grade users get pushed to the back burner. After all, it can't make as much money selling to consumers as it can ripping of businesses with jacked up Exchange Server licensing fees. Apple isn't focused on silly things, it's just focused on the consumer. Resultantly, things such as user simplicity and design matter just as much to Apple as stability.



    If you're really gonna go off on such a tangent, then please refrain from trying to make your opinions into facts.
  • Reply 111 of 122
    halvrihalvri Posts: 146member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Halvri View Post


    Are you serious? OS X has been 64-bit since the start and XP 64-bit, and by extension, Vista 64, is not a true 64-bit platform. XP 64, for instance, is a 32-bit platform with an instruction set that doubles the available integers. Most programmers simply aren't writing 64-bit instructions yet. I might add, by the way, that the reason Flash is bad on a Mac is because Adobe and Apple are feuding over Apple's decision to directly compete with it product line by selling Aperture 2. Adobe has simply not made Apple a priority since then for entirely childish reasons.



    Also, your point about Time Machine is moot. Great functionality + great user interface = better. Just admit it, people care just as much about the design of something as they do the functionality. Take a friggin' architecture class if you want proof of that. And on that note, Aero is not beautiful, it's tacky as hell. Apple applies Aqua with restraint. Mixing metal accents and aqua bubbles works. Applying transparency simply for the sake of transparency is dumb. Overusing that effect makes the whole interface look cheap and you know it. That other poster hit it on the mark: Vista looks like a Fischer-Price toy.



    And are you really going to argue about the stability of Windows? Vista crashed on stage the day they unveiled it and Windows Media Center froze up on Bill Gates when he was showing it off on Conan O'Brien a few years back, just to throw a few off my head.



    Microsoft has no idea how to make an operating system. The entire basis for Windows 1.0 was stealing the GUI Apple licensed from Xerox after learning its coding developing Office. Intellectual Property law wasn't what one would call mature at the time.



    Today, Microsoft is nothing more than a platform bogged down by the sometimes unreasonable demands of its business clients. And as such a platform, it's consumer grade users get pushed to the back burner. After all, it can't make as much money selling to consumers as it can ripping of businesses with jacked up Exchange Server licensing fees. Apple isn't focused on silly things, it's just focused on the consumer. Resultantly, things such as user simplicity and design matter just as much to Apple as stability.



    If you're really gonna go off on such a tangent, then please refrain from trying to make your opinions into facts.



    One other thing: most IT guys prefer Vista because it keeps their jobs safe. Why would you like a stable operating system when it makes your job pointless?
  • Reply 112 of 122
    halvrihalvri Posts: 146member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by majortom1981 View Post


    I expected alittle better from a mac site. This is just plain sad.



    The task bar has always been able to do some of these things. HEck The doc in osx has been around as addons for windows even before windows xp. So most of this microsoft is copying apple garbage should just be stopped. Apple copies things also.



    Heck half of apples underlying os is beos(or unix)? Isnt that itself a copy?



    Also technically isn't osx also copying windows by running on x86 hardware?



    I am running vista x64 with no problems. The funny thing. The only time my machine crashed was from itunes. Which is from APPLE.





    So stop with this copying stuff . Apple does it too.



    Get a life please. Unix is an open source architecture, there is no way to copy a community created code base. Apple has made a hybrid of that and it's own coding (hence, the hybrid kernel). And get real, x86 is used on many other platforms than just Windows and Macs.



    When we complain about Microsoft copying Apple, we're talking about the fact that with every new Windows release, the GUI looks and functions more and more like OS X or the fact that every popular Apple product somehow finds a duplication on the Microsoft side of the fence (the Zune anyone?). Microsoft is nothing more than a creatively bankrupt business platform.



    As to your claim on iTunes: it's an obvious emotionally driven lie and everyone should just ignore it. Even when I used to run Windows, iTunes worked perfectly.
  • Reply 113 of 122
    Alrigt, alright, stop it!



    Here is a link to a YouTube by David Pogue at The New York Times of how Microsoft did not copy Apple:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MDNuq94Zg_8
  • Reply 114 of 122
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by iCarbon View Post


    I'm not gonna pretend that it doesn't suck, but there are a few minor improvements in there relative to OSX -- I wouldn't mind the feature where mousing over an app icon lets me pick between all the windows of that icon.



    I'm just saying, I hope Steve goes ahead and steals that one from Bill.





    It's already in the OS! On my Mac I press F10 and it will display all windows open for that app. Not sure what button you use, maybe you should read and research about what your computer can do before you make anymore blind statements. (don't worry though, I do it too)
  • Reply 115 of 122
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Halvri View Post


    Are you serious? OS X has been 64-bit since the start and XP 64-bit, and by extension,



    Now, now. That's not true. When OS X was first released, it publicly ran exclusively on G3's and G4's. It was inherently 32-bit, supporting 32-bit address spaces and 32-bit registers. The first hybrid 64-bit support was seen by select members of the public with the developer preview editions of Mac OS X 10.2 that accompanied the first prototype G5 systems - in that configuration, it only allowed the system to access a 64-bit physical address space; each individual process was still limited to its own 32-bit virtual address space.



    Quote:

    Vista 64, is not a true 64-bit platform. XP 64, for instance, is a 32-bit platform with an instruction set that doubles the available integers. Most programmers simply aren't writing 64-bit instructions yet.



    There are 3 different points being made here. Let's start with the second one:

    XP 64 is a 32-bit platform that doubles the available integers.

    What exactly does that mean? Do you deny that, if a piece of XP64 software wanted to, it would be able to use a virtual address space larger than 4 GB? Do you deny that, if a piece of XP software wanted to, it would be able to store a 64-bit integer in a CPU register and atomically manipulate it? No, you can't. Because the potential does exist to do those things with XP64.



    Vista 64, is not a true 64-bit platform.

    In what way, exactly? Does it restrict programs from accessing a virtual address space larger than 4 GB? Does it prevent programs from atomically manipulating a 64-bit integer within a single CPU register?



    Most programmers simply aren't writing 64-bit instructions yet.

    Here we get to the point you were trying to make, I think. This is, at least partially, the fault of the software developers choosing not to make use of the facilities that 64-bit Windows has made available to them.
  • Reply 116 of 122
    bigpicsbigpics Posts: 1,397member
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by bigpics

    (btw, try to count any reasonable list of Windows versions and come up with the number 7!)





    Quote:

    Originally Posted by lfmorrison

    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)



    One could disagree on the number of really functionality different releases (e.g., XP SP2 -- not on your list -- was arguably as big a move 98 to 98 SE or SE (downwards[?]) to ME) and 3.11 would likely have been called 3.1 SP1 or 2 today.



    But you've scooped both Leo Laporte and Paul Thurrott, the latter a long-time self-proclaimed expert and full-time reporter on Windows -- who found no rhyme or reason, which was the basis of my post. At least the latter should have been aware of MS's internal numbering system.



    So props for a most informative correction!
  • Reply 117 of 122
    halvrihalvri Posts: 146member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by lfmorrison View Post


    Now, now. That's not true. When OS X was first released, it publicly ran exclusively on G3's and G4's. It was inherently 32-bit, supporting 32-bit address spaces and 32-bit registers. The first hybrid 64-bit support was seen by select members of the public with the developer preview editions of Mac OS X 10.2 that accompanied the first prototype G5 systems - in that configuration, it only allowed the system to access a 64-bit physical address space; each individual process was still limited to its own 32-bit virtual address space.





    There are 3 different points being made here. Let's start with the second one:

    XP 64 is a 32-bit platform that doubles the available integers.

    What exactly does that mean? Do you deny that, if a piece of XP64 software wanted to, it would be able to use a virtual address space larger than 4 GB? Do you deny that, if a piece of XP software wanted to, it would be able to store a 64-bit integer in a CPU register and atomically manipulate it? No, you can't. Because the potential does exist to do those things with XP64.



    Vista 64, is not a true 64-bit platform.

    In what way, exactly? Does it restrict programs from accessing a virtual address space larger than 4 GB? Does it prevent programs from atomically manipulating a 64-bit integer within a single CPU register?



    Most programmers simply aren't writing 64-bit instructions yet.

    Here we get to the point you were trying to make, I think. This is, at least partially, the fault of the software developers choosing not to make use of the facilities that 64-bit Windows has made available to them.



    What I mean is that in both XP 64 and Vista 64, the API calls are not expressed in a full 64 bit value, but a pair of combined 32 bit values. So, let me rephrase, it's registry is inherently antiquated. Also, spend some time with the "system" file on Windows 64, you'll find the system calls mostly from 32-bit libraries. I misspoke, but the point remains that Windows 64, especially, has some seriously comical flaws. So, when I saw it isn't a true platform I do not mean it in the sense of functionality, but in the sense of simply why a 64-bit system needs to register functions in what amounts to a 32-bit process.



    As to the rest, I simply disagree about the registers, but its 3am and I really don't care to attempt to prove otherwise at the moment. Suffice it to say, though, the difference between 10.0 and 10.2 was less than a full year. So, if that minor span constitutes an inherent, though entirely momentary, 32-bit basis to you, then so be it. To me, it simply serves to foreshadow the eventual exodus to x86 because the software was more advanced than the hardware.



    But you're really skirting my other points and I'd appreciate it if you'd reply to them as well. And you will have to excuse me if some of these points were made by other posters, but I'm not entirely conscious enough right now to check. So, if it applies to you, please respond.



    So, when we talk about Microsoft copying Apple, we're, again, referring to the fact that, even down to its internal memos, it has consistently sought to copy Apple, and in some cases, Linux. I mean, sure, competitors are always going to have similar functionality by the nature of their products, but when Company A puts out a product which includes several things Company B has yet to integrate and over the next several releases, Company B's product begins to look more and more like Company A's, while Company A has moved forward in terms of its own originality, does that not, in your mind constitute a colossal lack of originality?



    And as to all of this talk of Apple does it too. I simply disagree and don't see it. I mean, just down to a very basic level, has OS X begun to mimmic the core design of Windows over the last decade? No. But every single design cue Apple has instituted in its GUI has been copied and pasted onto the Windows platform. Apples does Aqua, Micro does Aero. Apple does the dock, Micro does the dock. Apple does the iPod, Micro does the Zune. Hell, even the New Xbox Experience GUI that launches next month is basically a modified CoverFlow. Blatantly ripping off a competitor is an entirely different concept than sharing certain similar functionality. I mean seriously, as similar as the Google Android G1 phone is in functionality to the iPhone, the coding isn't replicant and the GUI isn't a rip-off.



    Thing is, Microsoft is better at ripping off others than it is at making its own original properties. That kind of charade can only go on for so long before people realize you're the Wizard of Oz. So, when you say that Apple is good at fooling consumers with silly things, do you not realize that these silly things are what the consumers themselves want? As a consumer oriented company, you have to be just as much about functionality and flair as stability.



    None of us are jealous of Windows. We're, quite frankly, insulted that so many Windows users both under appreciate OS X and prop their OS up on a pedestal built by several other companies. And if that's not enough, they then defend Steve Ballmer, a man who has absolutely no appreciation for healthy competition (probably why MS hired him to begin with) call Steve Jobs a snake oil salesman. The Mac/PC debate goes much farther than just what hardware and/or software you prefer, it really is almost a cultural and ethical viewpoint.



    When it comes straight down to it, PC users are simply pissed that Apple is a closed architecture and they refuse to see the inherent benefits of that philosophy. Whereas, as Mac users, we have come to love it and having, many of us, come from the PC world, we also acutely understand just how flawed the idea of a generic OS is. Problem is, this superiority complex of PC users is very frustrating.
  • Reply 118 of 122
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Halvri View Post


    As to the rest, I simply disagree about the registers, but its 3am and I really don't care to attempt to prove otherwise at the moment. Suffice it to say, though, the difference between 10.0 and 10.2 was less than a full year.



    The difference from 10.0 to 10.2 was 17 months (March 24, 2001 to August 23, 2002).



    The first G5 Macs were shippped in conjunction with 10.2.7, released on September 22, 2003, about a month before 10.3.0's release.



    In 10.2.7, and in Mac OS 10.3, all of the OS's APIs were exclusively 32-bit, however, the OS was able to manage the physical memory beyond 4GB and allocate it to processes. Individual programs were still stuck with a totally 32-bit API (and thus 32-bit per-program memory map).



    Only with 10.4, released on April 29, 2005, did any APIs start shipping with 64-bit equivalents (starting with Core Foundation). None of the GUI APIs, however, were 64-bit.



    64-bit GUI APIs were only available starting with 10.5, released on October 26, 2007.



    Quote:

    So, if that minor span constitutes an inherent, though entirely momentary, 32-bit basis to you, then so be it.



    The "minor span" seems to be a period of either 2.5 years (from the initial release of OS X until 64-bit physical memory became available), 4.5 years (from the initial release of OS X until 64-bit headless processes were possible), or 6 years (from the initial release of OS X until 64-bit GUI applications were possible).



    Quote:

    But you're really skirting my other points and I'd appreciate it if you'd reply to them as well.



    I don't necessarily disagree with your other points. I just took issue with your timeline.
  • Reply 119 of 122
    ssassa Posts: 47member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by bobborries View Post


    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.



    Well actually if you look back at some older screenshots from the early betas and even alphas of past versions of Windows(XP and Vista) it isn't unusual to see some Mac concepts in the betas that don't make it into the final version. There are also sometimes some radical ideas that they play with that end up disappearing or at least become far more conservative. For example the Start Menu in XP was supposed to be dramatically more radical, but with time they made the changes less radical and offering users the ability to still use the classic start menu.
  • Reply 120 of 122
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Clive At Five View Post


    All you uninformed Windows-bashers make me embarrassed to be a Mac-user.



    Quote:

    Why do I come here... because I own Apple products and like to be kept up to date on new products and other rumors. But I do think the attacks on Microsoft and Windows are childish.



    Agreed on both.



    Desktop operating systems only need to compete on performance, support for open standards and integration. It is about convergence and integration. The iPhone is a start in the right direction. Microsoft's surface has an advantage, but it wont be fun leaving thumbprints on the screen and eating up screen real estate with virtual keyboards. It wont be fun switching between the screen and the real keyboard either.
Sign In or Register to comment.