I plan to install the Win 7 RC on my home computer and see if it will actually fully support the chipset on my antiquated ASUS Socket A board.
If so, then it will make things a little more bearable while I save $ (I will never go into debt for anything EVER AGAIN) in anticipation of buying a new Mac Mini when OS X Snow Leopard debuts.
I love Win XP...but after 8 years...it's kinda blah.
Thankfully the Mac Mini I bought for my desk doesn't require any of that crap. I can be productive while still waiting for my Windows machine to boot, scan, install new monitoring and scanning tools, update virus definitions, reboot, and scan again.
Exactly.
Finally somebody who can grasp the concept that any mac (from a mini to a $2500 macbook pro) is a much much better value than any (yes, ANY) PC laptop.
As the resident PC tech for friends and family the better Seven is the better for me.
As a Mac user the better Seven is the effort Apple will have to put into Mac OS X.
As an Apple stockholder the worse Windows is the more likely there will be switchers.
And ultimately the better Win7 is the worse it could be for Apple, especially in a down economy.
No one disagrees that Macs cost more, but we can disagree on the value of the Mac. For many, they have no problem paying the extra price. However, if MS delivers a good OS then it minimizes the advantages of the Mac and this diminishes the value of OSX in relation to Windows.
And that ultimately puts pressure on Apple, just as Apple puts pressure on MS.
If Windows 7 proves to be a very good release of the OS then MS can thank Apple for the pressure that has been put on Microsoft. MS has done well in the past when they couldn't afford to rest on their laurels. They've actually done some great things, though it has been awhile for much of it. For instance, DirectX really revolutionized computer gaming just as the Windows API revolutionized apps in putting more power in developers' hands.
Apple has also done great things. What they've done with portable media over the past decade is phenomenal, and they have used that to increase their marketshare int he PC market, bringing pressure to bear on MS.
I haven't used Windows 7 for long yet, but my impression thus far is that it is about as fast as 10.5, at least close to it. It doesn't boot quite as fast, though it is still fairly quick there. It looks good, is well organized, and is very stable.
I have no doubt that Snow Leopard and Win7 will be heavily compared this Fall. If Windows is perceived to have made gains on OSX then it could hurt Apple. They don't have to pass OSX and they're not going to, but Microsoft is going to benefit from low expectations. The Vista issues could come back to help them because Win7 will be fresh to a lot of people and the launch looks to be very smooth.
Apple, on the other hand, comes with high expectations. It's easier to be the one that doesn't have to aim for the high bar.
having run all versions of windows since 3.1, and mac since os9, i cant honestly say that i like each respective os for different reasons. ive been running win7beta for a few months now, and its pretty good. installed rc1 two nights ago, and its even better than beta. however, on sunday i bought a macbook... i was gonna get a pc laptop with my own win7 install, but mac just beat it out.
the nice thing about win7 32bit is that it'll run fine on a 5-6 year old machine. actually, the computer i installed win 7 on runs better than with the os it was delivered (2005 win xp mce).
I am thinking about installing the Windows 7 RC on my MacBook. I have 1 gig of RAM, 1.83 ghz Core 2 Duo. So I believe since it's a Core 2 Duo it's a "real" 64-bit CPU. Should I install Windows 7 32-bit or 64-bit? What would be faster for day-to-day use, of Office, browsers, etc.? (No fancy high-end stuff that needs >4 gigs RAM or uses huge numbers). Wouldn't 32-bit be faster? And is the 64-bit version less stable, and does it have less drivers, sort of like XP and Vista 64-bit were pariahs? I heard they are keeping it more in tandem. So is 32-bit just faster or also more stable? Anyone else played with Win 7 in Boot Camp or VMWare Fusion?
I am thinking about installing the Windows 7 RC on my MacBook. I have 1 gig of RAM, 1.83 ghz Core 2 Duo. So I believe since it's a Core 2 Duo it's a "real" 64-bit CPU. Should I install Windows 7 32-bit or 64-bit? What would be faster for day-to-day use, of Office, browsers, etc.? (No fancy high-end stuff that needs >4 gigs RAM or uses huge numbers). Wouldn't 32-bit be faster? And is the 64-bit version less stable, and does it have less drivers, sort of like XP and Vista 64-bit were pariahs? I heard they are keeping it more in tandem. So is 32-bit just faster or also more stable? Anyone else played with Win 7 in Boot Camp or VMWare Fusion?
As long as you've got a 64-bit CPU, and less than 4 gigs of RAM, it really doesn't matter. Driver support should be identical between the two versions, as it was with Vista.
As long as you've got a 64-bit CPU, and less than 4 gigs of RAM, it really doesn't matter. Driver support should be identical between the two versions, as it was with Vista.
Should be, but even Anand with his latest testing of Win7 found 64-bit driver issues and a poster here bought a Linksys NIC that didn't have 64-bit drivers.
Should be, but even Anand with his latest testing of Win7 found 64-bit driver issues and a poster here bought a Linksys NIC that didn't have 64-bit drivers.
32-bit all the way.
Speak for yourself, I'm done with 32-bit. Of course, I paid for 4GB of RAM and want to be able to use it all.
Speak for yourself, I'm done with 32-bit. Of course, I paid for 4GB of RAM and want to be able to use it all.
I was speaking for the person asking, not for you and not for me. They can't address 4GB of RAM on their MacBook, there are potential driver issues and the system may be slightly slower with a 64-bit kernel so what benefit do they get from it?
edit: Aquatic stated he is using a 1.83GHz MacBook. It is a C2D which means the CPU is 64-bit, but it was still a Merom chipset which means the memory address space is only 32-bits, which means the most RAM Aquatic can ever use on that Mac is ~3.2GB.
I was speaking for the person asking, not for you and not for me. They can't address 4GB of RAM on their MacBook, there are potential driver issues and the system may be slightly slower with a 64-bit kernel so what benefit do they get from it?
edit: Aquatic stated he is using a 1.83GHz MacBook. It is a C2D which means the CPU is 64-bit, but it was still a Merom chipset which means the memory address space is only 32-bits, which means the most RAM Aquatic can ever use on that Mac is ~3.2GB.
Ah well said sir, thanks...Alright I'm going to check out 32-bit Win 7. And I've never even used Vista!
Yes Futurepastnow I am excited to get another MacBook in a year or two, I'll totally load it up with >4 gigs of RAM! However as solipsism pointed out that is not currently possible on my C2D MB and I won't be upgrading for a while.
Finally somebody who can grasp the concept that any mac (from a mini to a $2500 macbook pro) is a much much better value than any (yes, ANY) PC laptop.
Finally someone as delusional..?
Funny how non of our clients - ranging from 5 to 300 users - has to endure 20 minutes boot time when logging to domain.
Yet they are all protected with managed SonicWall firewalls, Barracuda Anti-Spam appliances and centrally managed NOD32 or eTrust AV solutions.
It takes on average extra 5 to 10 seconds to apply domain login scripts and finish whole domain login procedure. Wasted time? Suuure, but problem with viruses/trojans/spyware is virtually non-existent.
It is amazing how much bad IT support can actually harm end users... \
Funny how non of our clients - ranging from 5 to 300 users - has to endure 20 minutes boot time when logging to domain.
Yet they are all protected with managed SonicWall firewalls, Barracuda Anti-Spam appliances and centrally managed NOD32 or eTrust AV solutions.
It takes on average extra 5 to 10 seconds to apply domain login scripts and finish whole domain login procedure. Wasted time? Suuure, but problem with viruses/trojans/spyware is virtually non-existent.
It is amazing how much bad IT support can actually harm end users... \
Compare that to a network with no antivirus and almost no IT, 30 second boot times and zero downtime in a year.
Compare that to a network with no antivirus and almost no IT, 30 second boot times and zero downtime in a year.
QED.
If there is issues with 20 minutes of boot time (which I doubt), then there is issues with DNS. AD is lightning fast in our network (maybe 40 seconds at most on our slowest machine from login window to the main screen), but then again we just have a Netgear FVX538 and a Barracuda on a class B network with no sub/supernetting. It''s also possible that the hardware is outdated or limited. Many WYSE terminals have issues with logging in fast because they're headless and have to login from a remote location. This could be a bunch of issues, slow CPUs, slow hard disks, lack of ram, DNS issues, low end networking equipment, issues with the firewalls slowing things down, slow WAN links (caused by limited budgets). Remember that download bandwidth is cheap, but upload bandwidth is expensive. T1's ain't cheap and they're SLOW, at 1.5 Mbit up and down for like $250-$500 a month. Imagine what a T3 costs per month. Saying Windows sucks just because the login time doesn't add up because there is allot more involved in a AD domain environment, like the items mentioned above.
This can be an issue with a Mac Open Directory Network as well. I had to solve an issue with slow Open Directory logins, which turned out to be a DNS error on our OSX Server. Creative pros that use macs on a large scale definitively have Sonicwalls, CISCO or Barracuda security as well, because you also have to protect from phishing attacks, dns attacks etc in addition to being responsible to prevent viruses from being prolifirated to their clients and other companies they work with.
Just as a gentle reminder for you, the thread is about Windows 7 october launch and not 64-bit applications. Thank you for your attention.
Muhahahahahaha, IMHO propagandists should go back under their rock.
Why after spreading FALSEHOODS over Vista x64 and 64-bit applications you can't now back your ludicrous claims, and desperately try such a pathetic diversion as your only reply?
Because now you are officially a LIAR writing fairy tales. Thank you for the laugh.
Windows 7 will launch and will have more market share than all the mac computers by 6months to to 1 year
Mac marketshare is nothing for Microsoft to care about. Mac is better left for fat, latte sipping, tight shirt wearing designers with no real employment!
Windows 7 will launch and will have more market share than all the mac computers by 6months to to 1 year
Mac marketshare is nothing for Microsoft to care about. Mac is better left for fat, latte sipping, tight shirt wearing designers with no real employment!
Seeing as you've nothing better to do than troll an Apple forum, I'd say you're the one without a job. And clearly without a clue. Or any sense of tact. As for the tight-shirt wearing fat dude, that may well be true as well.
Comments
If so, then it will make things a little more bearable while I save $ (I will never go into debt for anything EVER AGAIN) in anticipation of buying a new Mac Mini when OS X Snow Leopard debuts.
I love Win XP...but after 8 years...it's kinda blah.
Vista will go the way of Windows ME.
http://www.businessinsider.com/micro...s-today-2009-5
Translation: I'm taking my ball and going home.
If you don't want to continue talking then the best thing to do is just to quit replying instead of trying to get the last word in.
Nope, it is more like this:
You are incoherent so having a conversation with you is as productive as trying to teach algebra to a lemur.
Oh and BTW you argue like a highschool kid.
Thankfully the Mac Mini I bought for my desk doesn't require any of that crap. I can be productive while still waiting for my Windows machine to boot, scan, install new monitoring and scanning tools, update virus definitions, reboot, and scan again.
Exactly.
Finally somebody who can grasp the concept that any mac (from a mini to a $2500 macbook pro) is a much much better value than any (yes, ANY) PC laptop.
Nope, it is more like this:
You are incoherent so having a conversation with you is as productive as trying to teach algebra to a lemur.
Oh and BTW you argue like a highschool kid.
I'm not the one who is trying to belittle the person I'm talking with. That's more akin to the high school argument.
Show me where I was incoherent and I'm willing to clarify if you can't understand. I try to provide examples for my argument.
My guess is that you didn't even read my full post. You just got frustrated with someone arguing against you. That's okay.
I'm sure everything I just typed is completely incoherent.
I care, for several reasons...
As the resident PC tech for friends and family the better Seven is the better for me.
As a Mac user the better Seven is the effort Apple will have to put into Mac OS X.
As an Apple stockholder the worse Windows is the more likely there will be switchers.
And ultimately the better Win7 is the worse it could be for Apple, especially in a down economy.
No one disagrees that Macs cost more, but we can disagree on the value of the Mac. For many, they have no problem paying the extra price. However, if MS delivers a good OS then it minimizes the advantages of the Mac and this diminishes the value of OSX in relation to Windows.
And that ultimately puts pressure on Apple, just as Apple puts pressure on MS.
If Windows 7 proves to be a very good release of the OS then MS can thank Apple for the pressure that has been put on Microsoft. MS has done well in the past when they couldn't afford to rest on their laurels. They've actually done some great things, though it has been awhile for much of it. For instance, DirectX really revolutionized computer gaming just as the Windows API revolutionized apps in putting more power in developers' hands.
Apple has also done great things. What they've done with portable media over the past decade is phenomenal, and they have used that to increase their marketshare int he PC market, bringing pressure to bear on MS.
I haven't used Windows 7 for long yet, but my impression thus far is that it is about as fast as 10.5, at least close to it. It doesn't boot quite as fast, though it is still fairly quick there. It looks good, is well organized, and is very stable.
I have no doubt that Snow Leopard and Win7 will be heavily compared this Fall. If Windows is perceived to have made gains on OSX then it could hurt Apple. They don't have to pass OSX and they're not going to, but Microsoft is going to benefit from low expectations. The Vista issues could come back to help them because Win7 will be fresh to a lot of people and the launch looks to be very smooth.
Apple, on the other hand, comes with high expectations. It's easier to be the one that doesn't have to aim for the high bar.
the nice thing about win7 32bit is that it'll run fine on a 5-6 year old machine. actually, the computer i installed win 7 on runs better than with the os it was delivered (2005 win xp mce).
I am thinking about installing the Windows 7 RC on my MacBook. I have 1 gig of RAM, 1.83 ghz Core 2 Duo. So I believe since it's a Core 2 Duo it's a "real" 64-bit CPU. Should I install Windows 7 32-bit or 64-bit? What would be faster for day-to-day use, of Office, browsers, etc.? (No fancy high-end stuff that needs >4 gigs RAM or uses huge numbers). Wouldn't 32-bit be faster? And is the 64-bit version less stable, and does it have less drivers, sort of like XP and Vista 64-bit were pariahs? I heard they are keeping it more in tandem. So is 32-bit just faster or also more stable? Anyone else played with Win 7 in Boot Camp or VMWare Fusion?
As long as you've got a 64-bit CPU, and less than 4 gigs of RAM, it really doesn't matter. Driver support should be identical between the two versions, as it was with Vista.
As long as you've got a 64-bit CPU, and less than 4 gigs of RAM, it really doesn't matter. Driver support should be identical between the two versions, as it was with Vista.
Should be, but even Anand with his latest testing of Win7 found 64-bit driver issues and a poster here bought a Linksys NIC that didn't have 64-bit drivers.
32-bit all the way.
Should be, but even Anand with his latest testing of Win7 found 64-bit driver issues and a poster here bought a Linksys NIC that didn't have 64-bit drivers.
32-bit all the way.
Speak for yourself, I'm done with 32-bit. Of course, I paid for 4GB of RAM and want to be able to use it all.
Speak for yourself, I'm done with 32-bit. Of course, I paid for 4GB of RAM and want to be able to use it all.
I was speaking for the person asking, not for you and not for me. They can't address 4GB of RAM on their MacBook, there are potential driver issues and the system may be slightly slower with a 64-bit kernel so what benefit do they get from it?
edit: Aquatic stated he is using a 1.83GHz MacBook. It is a C2D which means the CPU is 64-bit, but it was still a Merom chipset which means the memory address space is only 32-bits, which means the most RAM Aquatic can ever use on that Mac is ~3.2GB.
I was speaking for the person asking, not for you and not for me. They can't address 4GB of RAM on their MacBook, there are potential driver issues and the system may be slightly slower with a 64-bit kernel so what benefit do they get from it?
edit: Aquatic stated he is using a 1.83GHz MacBook. It is a C2D which means the CPU is 64-bit, but it was still a Merom chipset which means the memory address space is only 32-bits, which means the most RAM Aquatic can ever use on that Mac is ~3.2GB.
Ah well said sir, thanks...Alright I'm going to check out 32-bit Win 7. And I've never even used Vista!
Yes Futurepastnow I am excited to get another MacBook in a year or two, I'll totally load it up with >4 gigs of RAM! However as solipsism pointed out that is not currently possible on my C2D MB and I won't be upgrading for a while.
Exactly.
Finally somebody who can grasp the concept that any mac (from a mini to a $2500 macbook pro) is a much much better value than any (yes, ANY) PC laptop.
Finally someone as delusional..?
Funny how non of our clients - ranging from 5 to 300 users - has to endure 20 minutes boot time when logging to domain.
Yet they are all protected with managed SonicWall firewalls, Barracuda Anti-Spam appliances and centrally managed NOD32 or eTrust AV solutions.
It takes on average extra 5 to 10 seconds to apply domain login scripts and finish whole domain login procedure. Wasted time? Suuure, but problem with viruses/trojans/spyware is virtually non-existent.
It is amazing how much bad IT support can actually harm end users...
Finally someone as delusional..?
Funny how non of our clients - ranging from 5 to 300 users - has to endure 20 minutes boot time when logging to domain.
Yet they are all protected with managed SonicWall firewalls, Barracuda Anti-Spam appliances and centrally managed NOD32 or eTrust AV solutions.
It takes on average extra 5 to 10 seconds to apply domain login scripts and finish whole domain login procedure. Wasted time? Suuure, but problem with viruses/trojans/spyware is virtually non-existent.
It is amazing how much bad IT support can actually harm end users...
Compare that to a network with no antivirus and almost no IT, 30 second boot times and zero downtime in a year.
QED.
Compare that to a network with no antivirus and almost no IT, 30 second boot times and zero downtime in a year.
QED.
If there is issues with 20 minutes of boot time (which I doubt), then there is issues with DNS. AD is lightning fast in our network (maybe 40 seconds at most on our slowest machine from login window to the main screen), but then again we just have a Netgear FVX538 and a Barracuda on a class B network with no sub/supernetting. It''s also possible that the hardware is outdated or limited. Many WYSE terminals have issues with logging in fast because they're headless and have to login from a remote location. This could be a bunch of issues, slow CPUs, slow hard disks, lack of ram, DNS issues, low end networking equipment, issues with the firewalls slowing things down, slow WAN links (caused by limited budgets). Remember that download bandwidth is cheap, but upload bandwidth is expensive. T1's ain't cheap and they're SLOW, at 1.5 Mbit up and down for like $250-$500 a month. Imagine what a T3 costs per month. Saying Windows sucks just because the login time doesn't add up because there is allot more involved in a AD domain environment, like the items mentioned above.
This can be an issue with a Mac Open Directory Network as well. I had to solve an issue with slow Open Directory logins, which turned out to be a DNS error on our OSX Server. Creative pros that use macs on a large scale definitively have Sonicwalls, CISCO or Barracuda security as well, because you also have to protect from phishing attacks, dns attacks etc in addition to being responsible to prevent viruses from being prolifirated to their clients and other companies they work with.
Just as a gentle reminder for you, the thread is about Windows 7 october launch and not 64-bit applications. Thank you for your attention.
Muhahahahahaha, IMHO propagandists should go back under their rock.
Why after spreading FALSEHOODS over Vista x64 and 64-bit applications you can't now back your ludicrous claims, and desperately try such a pathetic diversion as your only reply?
Because now you are officially a LIAR writing fairy tales. Thank you for the laugh.
Windows 7 will launch and will have more market share than all the mac computers by 6months to to 1 year
Mac marketshare is nothing for Microsoft to care about. Mac is better left for fat, latte sipping, tight shirt wearing designers with no real employment!
No need to care
Windows 7 will launch and will have more market share than all the mac computers by 6months to to 1 year
Mac marketshare is nothing for Microsoft to care about. Mac is better left for fat, latte sipping, tight shirt wearing designers with no real employment!
Seeing as you've nothing better to do than troll an Apple forum, I'd say you're the one without a job. And clearly without a clue. Or any sense of tact. As for the tight-shirt wearing fat dude, that may well be true as well.