I've been using Macs for a while now and when I started part of the reason was just wanting something new, an operating system that looked different to what I'd been using for years. Now though I've been using a Mac for years and am feeling like a change again. With Snow Leopard not really having any new features (not to mention out of Leopards 300 new feature I think I use 3) its kinda disappointing.
Im also not really sure how you see an operating system that just has changes under the hood. Most users wont be able to see what there buying. How do you say it will be faster etc without saying that the last release wasn't programmed that well.
Saying that I think Windows 7 interface doesn't look anywhere near as nice as Vista so I think I'll be staying on that to.
Can't make everyone happy. At least MS is not trying to limit who can use their OS; you don't have to purchase MS hardware bundled. Apple and MS have different approach, both with up and downsides... however only one of them is considered monopoly, thus different rules apply.
Well you sounded like you didn't understand why MS was getting hassled for bundling IE and other apps while Apple wasn't.
Apple doesn't really give a crap about people who hack OS X to run on their non-Mac hardware; obviously, if they cared, they'd make it harder and seriously crack down on them. They only care when companies like Psystar sell Mac clones and make money off Apple's OS.
Quote:
Originally Posted by nikon133
Can't say, never used iLife. Looking forward to... but from what I could read, Windows Backup Centre (in Vista) has more options than TimeMachine, though it is not so friendly. Don't know if same works for Windows Movie Maker and Photo Gallery. Hopefully someone who uses both OSX and Vista can shed some light on that topic.
Can the user go back in time to restore individual files? Is it as drop dead simple? Who cares if it has more features if those features are too unintuitive to use, or are hidden under menus.
Quote:
Originally Posted by nikon133
Anyway, my point was - I would not like scenario where me, and all my mates, have exactly same video editing software (for example)... so in general, I'm happier to save some money on computer in order to spend it on software of my choice, not software that is forced on me in the bundle... Again, input from someone using both iMovies and comparable Windows home video editing software - say Pinnacle Studio - is welcome.
First, why do you care what your friends are using? Do you think the average consumer cares?
Second, Apple isn't forcing iMovie (or any of their other apps bundled apps) on you because...Apple isn't forcing you to get a Mac. It's your choice. This is in contrast to Windows, which is the de facto operating system on every new PC whether you want Windows or not.
Quote:
Originally Posted by nikon133
That was discussed in other tread here on AppleInsider; Media Player comes with better format and plugin support, according to people using both. Some went that far in saying that only thing they use Windows computer for is as HTPC, and only because of Media Centre advantage over Front Row. Not being included in every version of Vista is definitely downside.
I was mainly noting that distinction: Front Row comes with every new Mac. Media Center doesn't.
Quote:
Originally Posted by nikon133
That still doesn't sound any different from Windows Messenger, ICQ, Yahoo Messenger, Skype... which are all free. Same as Miranda IM which supports multiple formats (ICQ, Yahoo, IRC, MSN...). I'm pretty sure there are more out there, but I'm not heavy user of any of them save Skype, and I never used iChat. Again, input from both platforms user would be nice.
User Halvri above noted some of iChat's major advantages above. You can also read about most of them here:
I've been running Win7 beta on my machine since the public release now and I'm very impressed with it. Note that I was one of the people who actually liked Vista. It ran just as fast as XP after some tweaks (XP required more tweaks to get it running smoothly) but Win7 is definitely a much more polished, user friendly and faster package.
In fact I like Win7 so much that I decided that I won't buy a Macbook at this point. OSX's benefits have become less important to me now. While I would love the OSX program installation paradigm for Windows as well, I can live with the next-next-next-finish crap for now. OSX also has the benefit of a better file system (everything doesn't break if you move files around a bit) and more coherent system file structure, not that you have to mess with it that much. I also the quick look and Preview in OSX, it's amazing that Windows doesn't have anything similar.
Now that Win7 has adopted a dock-ish taskbar it's much more comfortable to use. I still think OSX's Dock is better but in different ways. The window previews are a nice feature in Win7. Where Win7 totally triumphs over OSX is window handling. OSX has always been clunky in this department. Resizing windows from only one corner, maximize button doesn't quite work as expected and so on. Win7's resizing features are great and the peek thing is also useful.
The file browser is also superior to Finder. For years I've been a Directory Opus user in Windows because Explorer didn't work as expected but now it's quite solid and as DOpus is not quite compatible with Win7 I've been using Explorer happily. I wouldn't mind a dual pane view in it though.
What also sold me is something as simple as the Win+P shortcut that allows me to switch which monitor is the primary and also clone or extend the desktops. I used to use UltraMon for this but no longer have to. This feature is important to me because many games don't understand fullscreen in anything but the primary monitor so playing on my HDTV requires swapping which monitor is primary.
It's really all the little things that make Win7 a very nice OS. Hopefully MS listens to people's feedback and by the time it's released it'll be even better.
I think for Snow Leopard to do well it should incorporate improvements to the UI and looks as well. I agree that the grey look could use some work.
What's great for us as consumers is that now we'll have two solid desktop operating systems (IMO most Linux distros are still too techy-oriented and quirky).
Im also not really sure how you see an operating system that just has changes under the hood. Most users wont be able to see what there buying. How do you say it will be faster etc without saying that the last release wasn't programmed that well.
Saying that I think Windows 7 interface doesn't look anywhere near as nice as Vista so I think I'll be staying on that to.
Consumers won't understand nor care about the "under the hood" changes in Snow Leopard but if Apple has done a bang up job removing cruft and sanding the ragged edge of API then the performance should speak for itself. It's come to a point where there are few features that I "must" have that are missing and more features that are %80 there and just need attention and polishing.
We've come to a point where the typical computer is more capable than the typical person's ability to utilize the features. We behind the keyboard are the slowest piece in the chain. I really don't have time nor the energy to keep bouncing around from OS to OS never fully mastering either.
Eventually computers stop being a plaything and start becoming important devices for data management and manipulation. I think i'm going to enjoy this new era.
Can the user go back in time to restore individual files? Is it as drop dead simple? Who cares if it has more features if those features are too unintuitive to use, or are hidden under menus.
You can restore individual files from any of your backups. I'm personally using ShadowProtect as my company is offering it to our clients so I'm not strong with Windows Backup, but at a glance interface looks as simple as they go - 3 buttons, each starting simple wizard.
Quote:
Originally Posted by wobegon
First, why do you care what your friends are using? Do you think the average consumer cares?
Second, Apple isn't forcing iMovie (or any of their other apps bundled apps) on you because...Apple isn't forcing you to get a Mac. It's your choice. This is in contrast to Windows, which is the de facto operating system on every new PC whether you want Windows or not.
That was not my point. What my point was - I prefer getting cheaper computer and OS so that I can use rest of my budget for choosing my applications. One of arguments I hear often is - Mac is more expensive but you get more software with it; well I don't want that. I'd prefer to get stripped Mac cheaper and choose for myself if I want to purchase iLife or different suite/individual programs... so from my point of view, Apple is forcing iLife on me by saying "If you want Mac, you'll have to get iLife as well".
This is just my personal opinion... which is, accidentally, the only one that matters when I am deciding what my next computer will be
Quote:
Originally Posted by wobegon
I was mainly noting that distinction: Front Row comes with every new Mac. Media Center doesn't.
True, that. Maybe 7 will improve.
Quote:
Originally Posted by wobegon
User Halvri above noted some of iChat's major advantages above. You can also read about most of them here:
Doesn't look bad. Still no idea if and how much better it is than, say, latest Windows Messenger - hardly use any except Skype. Can it communicate with different clients (even with limited features), or is it iChat - iChat only..? Odds are every Mac user has friends on other platforms...
I was mainly noting that distinction: Front Row comes with every new Mac. Media Center doesn't.
While not all Vista versions come with Media Center, the versions that do matter. What versions are available for the home user?
Includes Media Center
Home Premium (almost available on every home pc)
Ultimate (if you want)
No Media Center
Basic (Vista Capable debacle, should have never existed)
Business (for business and domain-join capabilities)
Not Available for Home Users
Enterprise (not available for retail purchase, only for enterprise contracts)
I would say 80-90% (sorry, just speculation) that home users will always get new computers with the Home Version. Many features in the Ultimate are not needed for their purposes. You can be pretty close enough to every current PC.
The window previews are a nice feature in Win7. Where Win7 totally triumphs over OSX is window handling. OSX has always been clunky in this department. Resizing windows from only one corner, maximize button doesn't quite work as expected and so on. Win7's resizing features are great and the peek thing is also useful.
I absolutely think you have a point about the zoom button in OS X. It's behaving quite inconsistent in many apps. I don't really think it's that important to be able to resize a window from all edges though. It's not like I go ”oh no, why can't I resize a window from all edges” when in OS X. Also, the brain ”always knows ”where to go to find the resize spot in OS X (lower right corner comes by itself). In Windows it can be quite tricky to on the sides ”find the right spot” for resizing and I sometimes even find it irritating that it can be resized from the upper edge. This is when quickly wanting to move a window by grabbing the ”naming-strip” and instead Windows thinks I want to resize the window instead of moving it...
You can restore individual files from any of your backups. I'm personally using ShadowProtect as my company is offering it to our clients so I'm not strong with Windows Backup, but at a glance interface looks as simple as they go - 3 buttons, each starting simple wizard.
That sounds a bit different from TimeMachine, where you go into whichever app you accidentally lost a file, for instance, then click the TimeMachine icon, which brings up a timeline and previous states of the app (i.e., previous iPhoto library, previous Finder, etc.). From there you either go back to when you lost it and drag and drop the file to the Restore button, or if you don't remember when you lost it, just type in the given application's built-in search field. You can also use QuickLook to see differences in past iterations of your files without having to restore them.
Quote:
Originally Posted by nikon133
That was not my point. What my point was - I prefer getting cheaper computer and OS so that I can use rest of my budget for choosing my applications. One of arguments I hear often is - Mac is more expensive but you get more software with it; well I don't want that. I'd prefer to get stripped Mac cheaper and choose for myself if I want to purchase iLife or different suite/individual programs... so from my point of view, Apple is forcing iLife on me by saying "If you want Mac, you'll have to get iLife as well".
iLife is bundled free on all new Macs. It only costs money to upgrade to new versions, which of course is optional.
Quote:
Originally Posted by nikon133
Doesn't look bad. Still no idea if and how much better it is than, say, latest Windows Messenger - hardly use any except Skype. Can it communicate with different clients (even with limited features), or is it iChat - iChat only..? Odds are every Mac user has friends on other platforms...
I don't know of any chat clients that allow for screen sharing with friends nor providing anything comparable to iChat Theater.
As for cross-client and cross-platform support:
Quote:
iChat works with AIM, the largest instant messaging community in the U.S. You and your buddies can be either AIM or .Mac users. Text, audio, and video chat whether your buddies use a Mac or a PC. Sign in with your AIM account, and all your buddies appear in your iChat buddy list.
iChat (formerly iChat AV) is an AOL Instant Messenger (AIM), MobileMe, ICQ and XMPP client by Apple Inc. for their Mac OS X operating system. Using a Jabber-like protocol and Bonjour for user discovery, it also allows for LAN communication. iChat's AIM support is fully endorsed by AOL, and uses their official implementation of the AIM OSCAR protocol. Using a Jabber transport, iChat users may also integrate their MSN, Yahoo! and Google Talk contacts into the Jabber pane.
While not all Vista versions come with Media Center, the versions that do matter. What versions are available for the home user?
Includes Media Center
Home Premium (almost available on every home pc)
Ultimate (if you want)
No Media Center
Basic (Vista Capable debacle, should have never existed)
Business (for business and domain-join capabilities)
Not Available for Home Users
Enterprise (not available for retail purchase, only for enterprise contracts)
I would say 80-90% (sorry, just speculation) that home users will always get new computers with the Home Version. Many features in the Ultimate are not needed for their purposes. You can be pretty close enough to every current PC.
What about users who've been opting for XP? Or users with older PCs (there are a ton of them) that can't handle Vista's Aero and so buy Vista Basic? It's good that Media Center is pretty much a given with all new consumer PCs though.
The real issue is 32bit OS and Applications Vs. 64bit OS and Applications.
In Microsoft's world it's either 32bit or it's 64bit. Hence two versions of Vista and Win7. If you install 64bit Windows you can access more then 3.8GB's of RAM but you need to run 64bit applications. Some 32 bit applications will run but many will not. Basically, Microsoft has a serious problem. Much of the software that runs in Windows is 32bit. You cannot address more then 3.8GB's of RAM unless you install 64bit Windows. You will have no end of trouble with legacy business applications if you run 64bit Windows. There is no easy 64bit migration path for developers. There is also no multi-core migration path. i.e. Microsoft does not make it easy for developers to deal with multiple threads and multiple cores. They are on their own to make it work within their own application.
Snow Leopard changes the game... OS X is 64bit and 32bit at the same time. Heck, you can address more RAM then 32bit Windows under Leopard because it's 64bit capable. Snow Leopard will be fully 64bit in the OS and it will not hobble 32bit applications! Snow Leopard adds a lot of multi-core multi-threading improvements that will speed things up considerably. Developers will not have to change their applications to get them to run in Snow Leopard. They will have the ability to optimize for 64bit and multi-cores but even without any changes, their applications will perform better on Snow Leopard. If they make appropriate changes from 32bit to 64bit it will have an even bigger impact on their applications performance. XCode Cocoa libraries will likely provide 64bit optimization checkboxes as well as threading libraries to allow developers to simply check a few boxes and include a few library calls and their application magically receives Grand Central support optimization during the compilation of the application. They already demo'd some early 64bit and threading concepts pre-Grand Central when they ran the last Developers Conference for Leopard. I look forward to what's getting improved in Snow Leopard to take it to the next level.
Expect major improvements to Core i7 Xeon processors in still to be announced for MacPro's. Expect Core i7 Quad processors for iMac's and maybe even laptops (if we're lucky). When Snow Leopard ships!
Time to see what developers can do with 8 CPU's and 16GB's of RAM when the OS let's the application take full advantage of all that power. We're just scratching the surface of what's possible. Microsoft has not been keeping up where it counts. When the Memory situation hits and people need more then 4GB's of RAM it will be a serious problem on the PC side of things.
What about users who've been opting for XP? Or users with older PCs (there are a ton of them) that can't handle Vista's Aero and so buy Vista Basic? It's good that Media Center is pretty much a given with all new consumer PCs though.
Well, XP is - after all - 7 years old piece of code; Both Home and Pro edition don't have MC included. XP Media Center Edition was originally published in 2002 but could not be purchased separately, as retail product.
I don't think that too many users purchased Vista Basic for an upgrade; Aero is working fine on my laptop with integrated Intel graphics (though it is the latest one from Montevina platform, but still crappy) and should work with any DX9 card, going back to nVidia FX (2003), Radeon 95xx (2002) and Intel GMA950 (not sure how old that is).
Putting Vista on hardware from before 2002, without upgrading computer, is hardly going to produce any respectable results anyway, Aero or not
The real issue is 32bit OS and Applications Vs. 64bit OS and Applications.
In Microsoft's world it's either 32bit or it's 64bit. Hence two versions of Vista and Win7. If you install 64bit Windows you can access more then 3.8GB's of RAM but you need to run 64bit applications. Some 32 bit applications will run but many will not. Basically, Microsoft has a serious problem. Much of the software that runs in Windows is 32bit. You cannot address more then 3.8GB's of RAM unless you install 64bit Windows. You will have no end of trouble with legacy business applications if you run 64bit Windows. There is no easy 64bit migration path for developers. There is also no multi-core migration path. i.e. Microsoft does not make it easy for developers to deal with multiple threads and multiple cores. They are on their own to make it work within their own application.
Snow Leopard changes the game... OS X is 64bit and 32bit at the same time. Heck, you can address more RAM then 32bit Windows under Leopard because it's 64bit capable. Snow Leopard will be fully 64bit in the OS and it will not hobble 32bit applications! Snow Leopard adds a lot of multi-core multi-threading improvements that will speed things up considerably. Developers will not have to change their applications to get them to run in Snow Leopard. They will have the ability to optimize for 64bit and multi-cores but even without any changes, their applications will perform better on Snow Leopard. If they make appropriate changes from 32bit to 64bit it will have an even bigger impact on their applications performance. XCode Cocoa libraries will likely provide 64bit optimization checkboxes as well as threading libraries to allow developers to simply check a few boxes and include a few library calls and their application magically receives Grand Central support optimization during the compilation of the application. They already demo'd some early 64bit and threading concepts pre-Grand Central when they ran the last Developers Conference for Leopard. I look forward to what's getting improved in Snow Leopard to take it to the next level.
Expect major improvements to Core i7 Xeon processors in still to be announced for MacPro's. Expect Core i7 Quad processors for iMac's and maybe even laptops (if we're lucky). When Snow Leopard ships!
Time to see what developers can do with 8 CPU's and 16GB's of RAM when the OS let's the application take full advantage of all that power. We're just scratching the surface of what's possible. Microsoft has not been keeping up where it counts. When the Memory situation hits and people need more then 4GB's of RAM it will be a serious problem on the PC side of things.
Nah, Vista x64 software compatibility is pretty much non-issue any more. I can tell you that from experience people around me have (I'm still on 32-bit Vista), but you can also check following and many other links:
Nah, Vista x64 software compatibility is pretty much non-issue any more. I can tell you that from experience people around me have (I'm still on 32-bit Vista), but you can also check following and many other links:
How is it a non-issue when there are only a few 64bit Vista apps and 32bit apps (which make up the vast majority of Windows apps) either don't work or run in a slower "Compatibility Mode"?
How is it a non-issue when there are only a few 64bit Vista apps and 32bit apps (which make up the vast majority of Windows apps) either don't work or run in a slower "Compatibility Mode"?
Well, I believe original poster stated most 32-bit applications will not work at all. That is not true - most 32-bit applications will work. From tests I could find and my friends/colleagues experience, some of them will be a bit faster, some a bit slower (with glorious handful being much slower) but on average, most users will not notice performance hit while running 32-bit applications on Vista 64.
Mind you, last results I have found were published on April 2008, almost a year old. I would expect situation is a bit better today.
Well, I believe original poster stated most 32-bit applications will not work at all. That is not true - most 32-bit applications will work. From tests I could find and my friends/colleagues experience, some of them will be a bit faster, some a bit slower (with glorious handful being much slower) but on average, most users will not notice performance hit while running 32-bit applications on Vista 64.
Mind you, last results I have found were published on April 2008, almost a year old. I would expect situation is a bit better today.
So then it's not a "non-issue." When 32bit apps on 64bit Vista have to run in a compatibility mode that results in slower performance when compared to running them on 32bit Vista, that's an issue (and if it's not a major one now, it will be down the road).
So then it's not a "non-issue." When 32bit apps on 64bit Vista have to run in a compatibility mode that results in slower performance when compared to running them on 32bit Vista, that's an issue (and if it's not a major one now, it will be down the road).
Are these slowdowns noticeable at all to the user?
So then it's not a "non-issue." When 32bit apps on 64bit Vista have to run in a compatibility mode that results in slower performance when compared to running them on 32bit Vista, that's an issue (and if it's not a major one now, it will be down the road).
It's more of a translation and emulation rather than "compatibility mode." The systems that allow 32-bit programs to run on 64-bit Windows is called WoW64. It's best explained as:
The answer is that, on a 64-bit operating system, 32-bit applications run on top of an emulation of a 32-bit operating system that is called Windows on Windows 64, or WOW64 for short. WoW64 intercepts system calls to the operating system made by a 32-bit application. It formulates native 64-bit system calls, converting 32-bit data structures into 64-bit aligned structures.
Then it issues the native 64-bit system call, and translates any output data from the 64-bit system call into 32-bit data structures.
Now, for non-technical folk in the audience, software applications quite typically use the facilities provided by other software components, called libraries, and they usually do so in the most efficient manner possible, which is by having the operating system load libraries into memory, and then accessing the facilities that they need by referring directly to the locations of those facilities in memory. Later, when we talk about developing applications for 64-bit Windows, we are going to emphasize that 32-bit applications cannot directly access the facilities of 64-bit libraries, and vice-versa. So, it would be quite disastrous for a 32-bit application running on a 64-bit operating system to attempt to directly access the facilities of a familiar library if that library were to turn out to be 64-bit. So, for 32-bit applications to work properly on 64-bit operating systems, they need to have 32-bit versions of their libraries available, while 64-bit applications need to have 64-bit versions of their libraries. So, in many cases, 32-bit and 64-bit versions of the same library need to exist side-by-side. Furthermore, if a 32-bit version of an application is installed, it should not overwrite a 64-bit version and vice-versa, so 32-bit and 64-bit versions of applications need to co-exist side-by-side, too.
They have to use this method because 32-bit applications require 32-bit libraries, which cannot safely access 64-bit libraries. There's little to no performance loss at all. Any performance loss is not noticeable to the user. Heck, a lot of 32-bit games (quite computationally intensive), run perfectly fine with Vista 64-bit.
Essentially, this is one of the issues that Snow Leopard will inherit once the kext, drivers, and kernel are ALL fully 64-bit --> they will need 64-bit drivers. I am not an OS engineer, so how will 32-bit applications in Snow Leopard (when it's 100% 64-bit) access 64-bit libraries without some form of translation?
So then it's not a "non-issue." When 32bit apps on 64bit Vista have to run in a compatibility mode that results in slower performance when compared to running them on 32bit Vista, that's an issue (and if it's not a major one now, it will be down the road).
Wrong.
Some are a bit slower, some are a bit faster. For most, difference is just measurable but hardly noticeable in everyday use.
For me, that sounds like non-issue. For people around me, running Vista 64, it is non-issue.
For people not using Vista 64, it should also be non-issue
It's more of a translation and emulation rather than "compatibility mode." The systems that allow 32-bit programs to run on 64-bit Windows is called WoW64. It's best explained as:
They have to use this method because 32-bit applications require 32-bit libraries, which cannot safely access 64-bit libraries. There's little to no performance loss at all. Any performance loss is not noticeable to the user. Heck, a lot of 32-bit games (quite computationally intensive), run perfectly fine with Vista 64-bit.
Essentially, this is one of the issues that Snow Leopard will inherit once the kext, drivers, and kernel are ALL fully 64-bit --> they will need 64-bit drivers. I am not an OS engineer, so how will 32-bit applications in Snow Leopard (when it's 100% 64-bit) access 64-bit libraries without some form of translation?
Thank you.
Now that you mentioned games... for whatever reason, all Real-Time Strategies I have seen compared (on the same system running 32 and 64 Vista) were actually a bit faster on Vista 64. Same phenomenon didn't happen on First Person Shooters and other games which were not as uniform - some were a bit slower, some a bit faster, but in general difference was not noticeable outside of stopwatch domain.
Some are a bit slower, some are a bit faster. For most, difference is just measurable but hardly noticeable in everyday use.
For me, that sounds like non-issue. For people around me, running Vista 64, it is non-issue.
For people not using Vista 64, it should also be non-issue
It's apparent you misunderstood the structure of my sentence. I did not say all apps that run in compatibility mode are slower, I said when 32bit apps run slower in compatibility mode, that's a problem.
That is an issue. Maybe it's not a major issue (at least for now), but it is an issue that affects both consumers and developers who have to deal with unpredictable performance in 64bit Vista when writing apps for the far more prevalent 32bit Vista.
Comments
Im also not really sure how you see an operating system that just has changes under the hood. Most users wont be able to see what there buying. How do you say it will be faster etc without saying that the last release wasn't programmed that well.
Saying that I think Windows 7 interface doesn't look anywhere near as nice as Vista so I think I'll be staying on that to.
Can't make everyone happy. At least MS is not trying to limit who can use their OS; you don't have to purchase MS hardware bundled. Apple and MS have different approach, both with up and downsides... however only one of them is considered monopoly, thus different rules apply.
Well you sounded like you didn't understand why MS was getting hassled for bundling IE and other apps while Apple wasn't.
Apple doesn't really give a crap about people who hack OS X to run on their non-Mac hardware; obviously, if they cared, they'd make it harder and seriously crack down on them. They only care when companies like Psystar sell Mac clones and make money off Apple's OS.
Can't say, never used iLife. Looking forward to... but from what I could read, Windows Backup Centre (in Vista) has more options than TimeMachine, though it is not so friendly. Don't know if same works for Windows Movie Maker and Photo Gallery. Hopefully someone who uses both OSX and Vista can shed some light on that topic.
Can the user go back in time to restore individual files? Is it as drop dead simple? Who cares if it has more features if those features are too unintuitive to use, or are hidden under menus.
Anyway, my point was - I would not like scenario where me, and all my mates, have exactly same video editing software (for example)... so in general, I'm happier to save some money on computer in order to spend it on software of my choice, not software that is forced on me in the bundle... Again, input from someone using both iMovies and comparable Windows home video editing software - say Pinnacle Studio - is welcome.
First, why do you care what your friends are using? Do you think the average consumer cares?
Second, Apple isn't forcing iMovie (or any of their other apps bundled apps) on you because...Apple isn't forcing you to get a Mac. It's your choice. This is in contrast to Windows, which is the de facto operating system on every new PC whether you want Windows or not.
That was discussed in other tread here on AppleInsider; Media Player comes with better format and plugin support, according to people using both. Some went that far in saying that only thing they use Windows computer for is as HTPC, and only because of Media Centre advantage over Front Row. Not being included in every version of Vista is definitely downside.
I was mainly noting that distinction: Front Row comes with every new Mac. Media Center doesn't.
That still doesn't sound any different from Windows Messenger, ICQ, Yahoo Messenger, Skype... which are all free. Same as Miranda IM which supports multiple formats (ICQ, Yahoo, IRC, MSN...). I'm pretty sure there are more out there, but I'm not heavy user of any of them save Skype, and I never used iChat. Again, input from both platforms user would be nice.
User Halvri above noted some of iChat's major advantages above. You can also read about most of them here:
http://www.apple.com/macosx/features/ichat.html
In fact I like Win7 so much that I decided that I won't buy a Macbook at this point. OSX's benefits have become less important to me now. While I would love the OSX program installation paradigm for Windows as well, I can live with the next-next-next-finish crap for now. OSX also has the benefit of a better file system (everything doesn't break if you move files around a bit) and more coherent system file structure, not that you have to mess with it that much. I also the quick look and Preview in OSX, it's amazing that Windows doesn't have anything similar.
Now that Win7 has adopted a dock-ish taskbar it's much more comfortable to use. I still think OSX's Dock is better but in different ways. The window previews are a nice feature in Win7. Where Win7 totally triumphs over OSX is window handling. OSX has always been clunky in this department. Resizing windows from only one corner, maximize button doesn't quite work as expected and so on. Win7's resizing features are great and the peek thing is also useful.
The file browser is also superior to Finder. For years I've been a Directory Opus user in Windows because Explorer didn't work as expected but now it's quite solid and as DOpus is not quite compatible with Win7 I've been using Explorer happily. I wouldn't mind a dual pane view in it though.
What also sold me is something as simple as the Win+P shortcut that allows me to switch which monitor is the primary and also clone or extend the desktops. I used to use UltraMon for this but no longer have to. This feature is important to me because many games don't understand fullscreen in anything but the primary monitor so playing on my HDTV requires swapping which monitor is primary.
It's really all the little things that make Win7 a very nice OS. Hopefully MS listens to people's feedback and by the time it's released it'll be even better.
I think for Snow Leopard to do well it should incorporate improvements to the UI and looks as well. I agree that the grey look could use some work.
What's great for us as consumers is that now we'll have two solid desktop operating systems (IMO most Linux distros are still too techy-oriented and quirky).
Im also not really sure how you see an operating system that just has changes under the hood. Most users wont be able to see what there buying. How do you say it will be faster etc without saying that the last release wasn't programmed that well.
Saying that I think Windows 7 interface doesn't look anywhere near as nice as Vista so I think I'll be staying on that to.
Consumers won't understand nor care about the "under the hood" changes in Snow Leopard but if Apple has done a bang up job removing cruft and sanding the ragged edge of API then the performance should speak for itself. It's come to a point where there are few features that I "must" have that are missing and more features that are %80 there and just need attention and polishing.
We've come to a point where the typical computer is more capable than the typical person's ability to utilize the features. We behind the keyboard are the slowest piece in the chain. I really don't have time nor the energy to keep bouncing around from OS to OS never fully mastering either.
Eventually computers stop being a plaything and start becoming important devices for data management and manipulation. I think i'm going to enjoy this new era.
Can the user go back in time to restore individual files? Is it as drop dead simple? Who cares if it has more features if those features are too unintuitive to use, or are hidden under menus.
You can restore individual files from any of your backups. I'm personally using ShadowProtect as my company is offering it to our clients so I'm not strong with Windows Backup, but at a glance interface looks as simple as they go - 3 buttons, each starting simple wizard.
First, why do you care what your friends are using? Do you think the average consumer cares?
Second, Apple isn't forcing iMovie (or any of their other apps bundled apps) on you because...Apple isn't forcing you to get a Mac. It's your choice. This is in contrast to Windows, which is the de facto operating system on every new PC whether you want Windows or not.
That was not my point. What my point was - I prefer getting cheaper computer and OS so that I can use rest of my budget for choosing my applications. One of arguments I hear often is - Mac is more expensive but you get more software with it; well I don't want that. I'd prefer to get stripped Mac cheaper and choose for myself if I want to purchase iLife or different suite/individual programs... so from my point of view, Apple is forcing iLife on me by saying "If you want Mac, you'll have to get iLife as well".
This is just my personal opinion... which is, accidentally, the only one that matters when I am deciding what my next computer will be
I was mainly noting that distinction: Front Row comes with every new Mac. Media Center doesn't.
True, that. Maybe 7 will improve.
User Halvri above noted some of iChat's major advantages above. You can also read about most of them here:
http://www.apple.com/macosx/features/ichat.html
Doesn't look bad. Still no idea if and how much better it is than, say, latest Windows Messenger - hardly use any except Skype. Can it communicate with different clients (even with limited features), or is it iChat - iChat only..? Odds are every Mac user has friends on other platforms...
I was mainly noting that distinction: Front Row comes with every new Mac. Media Center doesn't.
While not all Vista versions come with Media Center, the versions that do matter. What versions are available for the home user?
Includes Media Center
Home Premium (almost available on every home pc)
Ultimate (if you want)
No Media Center
Basic (Vista Capable debacle, should have never existed)
Business (for business and domain-join capabilities)
Not Available for Home Users
Enterprise (not available for retail purchase, only for enterprise contracts)
I would say 80-90% (sorry, just speculation) that home users will always get new computers with the Home Version. Many features in the Ultimate are not needed for their purposes. You can be pretty close enough to every current PC.
The window previews are a nice feature in Win7. Where Win7 totally triumphs over OSX is window handling. OSX has always been clunky in this department. Resizing windows from only one corner, maximize button doesn't quite work as expected and so on. Win7's resizing features are great and the peek thing is also useful.
I absolutely think you have a point about the zoom button in OS X. It's behaving quite inconsistent in many apps. I don't really think it's that important to be able to resize a window from all edges though. It's not like I go ”oh no, why can't I resize a window from all edges” when in OS X. Also, the brain ”always knows ”where to go to find the resize spot in OS X (lower right corner comes by itself). In Windows it can be quite tricky to on the sides ”find the right spot” for resizing and I sometimes even find it irritating that it can be resized from the upper edge. This is when quickly wanting to move a window by grabbing the ”naming-strip” and instead Windows thinks I want to resize the window instead of moving it...
You can restore individual files from any of your backups. I'm personally using ShadowProtect as my company is offering it to our clients so I'm not strong with Windows Backup, but at a glance interface looks as simple as they go - 3 buttons, each starting simple wizard.
That sounds a bit different from TimeMachine, where you go into whichever app you accidentally lost a file, for instance, then click the TimeMachine icon, which brings up a timeline and previous states of the app (i.e., previous iPhoto library, previous Finder, etc.). From there you either go back to when you lost it and drag and drop the file to the Restore button, or if you don't remember when you lost it, just type in the given application's built-in search field. You can also use QuickLook to see differences in past iterations of your files without having to restore them.
That was not my point. What my point was - I prefer getting cheaper computer and OS so that I can use rest of my budget for choosing my applications. One of arguments I hear often is - Mac is more expensive but you get more software with it; well I don't want that. I'd prefer to get stripped Mac cheaper and choose for myself if I want to purchase iLife or different suite/individual programs... so from my point of view, Apple is forcing iLife on me by saying "If you want Mac, you'll have to get iLife as well".
iLife is bundled free on all new Macs. It only costs money to upgrade to new versions, which of course is optional.
Doesn't look bad. Still no idea if and how much better it is than, say, latest Windows Messenger - hardly use any except Skype. Can it communicate with different clients (even with limited features), or is it iChat - iChat only..? Odds are every Mac user has friends on other platforms...
I don't know of any chat clients that allow for screen sharing with friends nor providing anything comparable to iChat Theater.
As for cross-client and cross-platform support:
iChat works with AIM, the largest instant messaging community in the U.S. You and your buddies can be either AIM or .Mac users. Text, audio, and video chat whether your buddies use a Mac or a PC. Sign in with your AIM account, and all your buddies appear in your iChat buddy list.
http://www.apple.com/macosx/features/ichat.html
and
iChat (formerly iChat AV) is an AOL Instant Messenger (AIM), MobileMe, ICQ and XMPP client by Apple Inc. for their Mac OS X operating system. Using a Jabber-like protocol and Bonjour for user discovery, it also allows for LAN communication. iChat's AIM support is fully endorsed by AOL, and uses their official implementation of the AIM OSCAR protocol. Using a Jabber transport, iChat users may also integrate their MSN, Yahoo! and Google Talk contacts into the Jabber pane.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/iChat
While not all Vista versions come with Media Center, the versions that do matter. What versions are available for the home user?
Includes Media Center
Home Premium (almost available on every home pc)
Ultimate (if you want)
No Media Center
Basic (Vista Capable debacle, should have never existed)
Business (for business and domain-join capabilities)
Not Available for Home Users
Enterprise (not available for retail purchase, only for enterprise contracts)
I would say 80-90% (sorry, just speculation) that home users will always get new computers with the Home Version. Many features in the Ultimate are not needed for their purposes. You can be pretty close enough to every current PC.
What about users who've been opting for XP? Or users with older PCs (there are a ton of them) that can't handle Vista's Aero and so buy Vista Basic? It's good that Media Center is pretty much a given with all new consumer PCs though.
In Microsoft's world it's either 32bit or it's 64bit. Hence two versions of Vista and Win7. If you install 64bit Windows you can access more then 3.8GB's of RAM but you need to run 64bit applications. Some 32 bit applications will run but many will not. Basically, Microsoft has a serious problem. Much of the software that runs in Windows is 32bit. You cannot address more then 3.8GB's of RAM unless you install 64bit Windows. You will have no end of trouble with legacy business applications if you run 64bit Windows. There is no easy 64bit migration path for developers. There is also no multi-core migration path. i.e. Microsoft does not make it easy for developers to deal with multiple threads and multiple cores. They are on their own to make it work within their own application.
Snow Leopard changes the game... OS X is 64bit and 32bit at the same time. Heck, you can address more RAM then 32bit Windows under Leopard because it's 64bit capable. Snow Leopard will be fully 64bit in the OS and it will not hobble 32bit applications! Snow Leopard adds a lot of multi-core multi-threading improvements that will speed things up considerably. Developers will not have to change their applications to get them to run in Snow Leopard. They will have the ability to optimize for 64bit and multi-cores but even without any changes, their applications will perform better on Snow Leopard. If they make appropriate changes from 32bit to 64bit it will have an even bigger impact on their applications performance. XCode Cocoa libraries will likely provide 64bit optimization checkboxes as well as threading libraries to allow developers to simply check a few boxes and include a few library calls and their application magically receives Grand Central support optimization during the compilation of the application. They already demo'd some early 64bit and threading concepts pre-Grand Central when they ran the last Developers Conference for Leopard. I look forward to what's getting improved in Snow Leopard to take it to the next level.
Expect major improvements to Core i7 Xeon processors in still to be announced for MacPro's. Expect Core i7 Quad processors for iMac's and maybe even laptops (if we're lucky). When Snow Leopard ships!
Time to see what developers can do with 8 CPU's and 16GB's of RAM when the OS let's the application take full advantage of all that power. We're just scratching the surface of what's possible. Microsoft has not been keeping up where it counts. When the Memory situation hits and people need more then 4GB's of RAM it will be a serious problem on the PC side of things.
What about users who've been opting for XP? Or users with older PCs (there are a ton of them) that can't handle Vista's Aero and so buy Vista Basic? It's good that Media Center is pretty much a given with all new consumer PCs though.
Well, XP is - after all - 7 years old piece of code; Both Home and Pro edition don't have MC included. XP Media Center Edition was originally published in 2002 but could not be purchased separately, as retail product.
I don't think that too many users purchased Vista Basic for an upgrade; Aero is working fine on my laptop with integrated Intel graphics (though it is the latest one from Montevina platform, but still crappy) and should work with any DX9 card, going back to nVidia FX (2003), Radeon 95xx (2002) and Intel GMA950 (not sure how old that is).
Putting Vista on hardware from before 2002, without upgrading computer, is hardly going to produce any respectable results anyway, Aero or not
The real issue is 32bit OS and Applications Vs. 64bit OS and Applications.
In Microsoft's world it's either 32bit or it's 64bit. Hence two versions of Vista and Win7. If you install 64bit Windows you can access more then 3.8GB's of RAM but you need to run 64bit applications. Some 32 bit applications will run but many will not. Basically, Microsoft has a serious problem. Much of the software that runs in Windows is 32bit. You cannot address more then 3.8GB's of RAM unless you install 64bit Windows. You will have no end of trouble with legacy business applications if you run 64bit Windows. There is no easy 64bit migration path for developers. There is also no multi-core migration path. i.e. Microsoft does not make it easy for developers to deal with multiple threads and multiple cores. They are on their own to make it work within their own application.
Snow Leopard changes the game... OS X is 64bit and 32bit at the same time. Heck, you can address more RAM then 32bit Windows under Leopard because it's 64bit capable. Snow Leopard will be fully 64bit in the OS and it will not hobble 32bit applications! Snow Leopard adds a lot of multi-core multi-threading improvements that will speed things up considerably. Developers will not have to change their applications to get them to run in Snow Leopard. They will have the ability to optimize for 64bit and multi-cores but even without any changes, their applications will perform better on Snow Leopard. If they make appropriate changes from 32bit to 64bit it will have an even bigger impact on their applications performance. XCode Cocoa libraries will likely provide 64bit optimization checkboxes as well as threading libraries to allow developers to simply check a few boxes and include a few library calls and their application magically receives Grand Central support optimization during the compilation of the application. They already demo'd some early 64bit and threading concepts pre-Grand Central when they ran the last Developers Conference for Leopard. I look forward to what's getting improved in Snow Leopard to take it to the next level.
Expect major improvements to Core i7 Xeon processors in still to be announced for MacPro's. Expect Core i7 Quad processors for iMac's and maybe even laptops (if we're lucky). When Snow Leopard ships!
Time to see what developers can do with 8 CPU's and 16GB's of RAM when the OS let's the application take full advantage of all that power. We're just scratching the surface of what's possible. Microsoft has not been keeping up where it counts. When the Memory situation hits and people need more then 4GB's of RAM it will be a serious problem on the PC side of things.
Nah, Vista x64 software compatibility is pretty much non-issue any more. I can tell you that from experience people around me have (I'm still on 32-bit Vista), but you can also check following and many other links:
http://4sysops.com/archives/vista-x6...till-an-issue/
Nah, Vista x64 software compatibility is pretty much non-issue any more. I can tell you that from experience people around me have (I'm still on 32-bit Vista), but you can also check following and many other links:
http://4sysops.com/archives/vista-x6...till-an-issue/
How is it a non-issue when there are only a few 64bit Vista apps and 32bit apps (which make up the vast majority of Windows apps) either don't work or run in a slower "Compatibility Mode"?
How is it a non-issue when there are only a few 64bit Vista apps and 32bit apps (which make up the vast majority of Windows apps) either don't work or run in a slower "Compatibility Mode"?
Well, I believe original poster stated most 32-bit applications will not work at all. That is not true - most 32-bit applications will work. From tests I could find and my friends/colleagues experience, some of them will be a bit faster, some a bit slower (with glorious handful being much slower) but on average, most users will not notice performance hit while running 32-bit applications on Vista 64.
Mind you, last results I have found were published on April 2008, almost a year old. I would expect situation is a bit better today.
Well, I believe original poster stated most 32-bit applications will not work at all. That is not true - most 32-bit applications will work. From tests I could find and my friends/colleagues experience, some of them will be a bit faster, some a bit slower (with glorious handful being much slower) but on average, most users will not notice performance hit while running 32-bit applications on Vista 64.
Mind you, last results I have found were published on April 2008, almost a year old. I would expect situation is a bit better today.
So then it's not a "non-issue." When 32bit apps on 64bit Vista have to run in a compatibility mode that results in slower performance when compared to running them on 32bit Vista, that's an issue (and if it's not a major one now, it will be down the road).
So then it's not a "non-issue." When 32bit apps on 64bit Vista have to run in a compatibility mode that results in slower performance when compared to running them on 32bit Vista, that's an issue (and if it's not a major one now, it will be down the road).
Are these slowdowns noticeable at all to the user?
So then it's not a "non-issue." When 32bit apps on 64bit Vista have to run in a compatibility mode that results in slower performance when compared to running them on 32bit Vista, that's an issue (and if it's not a major one now, it will be down the road).
It's more of a translation and emulation rather than "compatibility mode." The systems that allow 32-bit programs to run on 64-bit Windows is called WoW64. It's best explained as:
http://blogs.msdn.com/craigmcmurtry/...14/301155.aspx
The answer is that, on a 64-bit operating system, 32-bit applications run on top of an emulation of a 32-bit operating system that is called Windows on Windows 64, or WOW64 for short. WoW64 intercepts system calls to the operating system made by a 32-bit application. It formulates native 64-bit system calls, converting 32-bit data structures into 64-bit aligned structures.
Then it issues the native 64-bit system call, and translates any output data from the 64-bit system call into 32-bit data structures.
Now, for non-technical folk in the audience, software applications quite typically use the facilities provided by other software components, called libraries, and they usually do so in the most efficient manner possible, which is by having the operating system load libraries into memory, and then accessing the facilities that they need by referring directly to the locations of those facilities in memory. Later, when we talk about developing applications for 64-bit Windows, we are going to emphasize that 32-bit applications cannot directly access the facilities of 64-bit libraries, and vice-versa. So, it would be quite disastrous for a 32-bit application running on a 64-bit operating system to attempt to directly access the facilities of a familiar library if that library were to turn out to be 64-bit. So, for 32-bit applications to work properly on 64-bit operating systems, they need to have 32-bit versions of their libraries available, while 64-bit applications need to have 64-bit versions of their libraries. So, in many cases, 32-bit and 64-bit versions of the same library need to exist side-by-side. Furthermore, if a 32-bit version of an application is installed, it should not overwrite a 64-bit version and vice-versa, so 32-bit and 64-bit versions of applications need to co-exist side-by-side, too.
They have to use this method because 32-bit applications require 32-bit libraries, which cannot safely access 64-bit libraries. There's little to no performance loss at all. Any performance loss is not noticeable to the user. Heck, a lot of 32-bit games (quite computationally intensive), run perfectly fine with Vista 64-bit.
Essentially, this is one of the issues that Snow Leopard will inherit once the kext, drivers, and kernel are ALL fully 64-bit --> they will need 64-bit drivers. I am not an OS engineer, so how will 32-bit applications in Snow Leopard (when it's 100% 64-bit) access 64-bit libraries without some form of translation?
So then it's not a "non-issue." When 32bit apps on 64bit Vista have to run in a compatibility mode that results in slower performance when compared to running them on 32bit Vista, that's an issue (and if it's not a major one now, it will be down the road).
Wrong.
Some are a bit slower, some are a bit faster. For most, difference is just measurable but hardly noticeable in everyday use.
For me, that sounds like non-issue. For people around me, running Vista 64, it is non-issue.
For people not using Vista 64, it should also be non-issue
It's more of a translation and emulation rather than "compatibility mode." The systems that allow 32-bit programs to run on 64-bit Windows is called WoW64. It's best explained as:
They have to use this method because 32-bit applications require 32-bit libraries, which cannot safely access 64-bit libraries. There's little to no performance loss at all. Any performance loss is not noticeable to the user. Heck, a lot of 32-bit games (quite computationally intensive), run perfectly fine with Vista 64-bit.
Essentially, this is one of the issues that Snow Leopard will inherit once the kext, drivers, and kernel are ALL fully 64-bit --> they will need 64-bit drivers. I am not an OS engineer, so how will 32-bit applications in Snow Leopard (when it's 100% 64-bit) access 64-bit libraries without some form of translation?
Thank you.
Now that you mentioned games... for whatever reason, all Real-Time Strategies I have seen compared (on the same system running 32 and 64 Vista) were actually a bit faster on Vista 64. Same phenomenon didn't happen on First Person Shooters and other games which were not as uniform - some were a bit slower, some a bit faster, but in general difference was not noticeable outside of stopwatch domain.
Wrong.
Some are a bit slower, some are a bit faster. For most, difference is just measurable but hardly noticeable in everyday use.
For me, that sounds like non-issue. For people around me, running Vista 64, it is non-issue.
For people not using Vista 64, it should also be non-issue
It's apparent you misunderstood the structure of my sentence. I did not say all apps that run in compatibility mode are slower, I said when 32bit apps run slower in compatibility mode, that's a problem.
That is an issue. Maybe it's not a major issue (at least for now), but it is an issue that affects both consumers and developers who have to deal with unpredictable performance in 64bit Vista when writing apps for the far more prevalent 32bit Vista.