User account control can't be set with exceptions (ie. don't ask me when I open this program) as far as I know. It is basically on or off, which in my opinion, isn't good for a security solution as some users will get annoyed and turn it off completely. BUT you can choose whether or not the screen goes grey when the user account control dialog box pops up.
User account control is the thing I hate the most with Windows Vista/7.
Why is it any more annoying that what happens in OS X where you have to enter your User/password to install certains programs or even make some system changes?
It's very easy in Windows to set yourself up as an non-admin user, disable UAC and have an OS X-like experience (enter your admin username/password to install stuff).
Windows is intrisically more prone to virus issues than OS X, so this is the trade-off. Kinds like having to dual boot a Mac if you want (decent) games...
While at work, you don't use any of the features of the OS, you are only running the software programs to do your work. Companies don't risk incompatibilities just because a new OS came out.
I'd agree with that, and add something to it as well. Corporate would also have a hell of a time with tech support for all of the relocated things in Win7's (Vista, too) interface. Add to that XP is entirely good enough to run Office. You really only have the required business software on your machine at work, VPN's etc.
There is no reason to, for example, have your digital camera "just work" when you plug it in to your office PC. You would probably get reprimanded for trying to add a USB device to your tower XP is just plain good enough to do work on. No matter what eye candy M$ plows into 7 or Vista for that matter will get a company to abandon a proven platform. They will have to be upgraded by force, which I think support runs out in 2012?
Apple's OS is aimed squarely at the home user, and while the GUI is seamless, it would be nice to have other options. For example, TV doesn't have nearly the codec support out of the box that it should, iTunes included. Apple wants to own the home, IMO, but they fall short there by being pseudo-open. I am definitely under the impression they want a TV, maybe a printer, a tablet, etc etc. I wish they would get the stuff they have now to support added file types or hardware. It seems to me that Apple almost learned from Job's absence, but not quite enough.
Microsoft, on the other hand, is working to appeal to the home user, while still maintaining a firm grasp on the business clientele. They let do all the R+D, copy the most desired features, and add it to their OS to appeal to people in the home. Not dumb, just late.
Who stole the task bar from Microsoft and named it a DOCK?
I guess you have never heard of NeXTStep, which existed years before the task bar appeared in Windows 95. Mac OS X is a re-write of NeXTStep, which included the Dock.
It starts at cripling the software for you to pay more.
1-A Home Premium upgrade will cost $120 ($200 standalone); \
2-Professional upgrade will cost $200 ($300 standalone); and
3-Windows 7 Ultimate upgrade will run $320 ($400 standalone).
What are you paying for? Upgrade from some stuff that didn't work properly and you paid for (Vista)
Greedy and dishonest; as usual...
These companies didn't learn the crisis' lesson and deserve to fail.
No, Thank you
Win 7 ultimate is not like Vista ultimate. It's just a single license enterprise edition and won't be sold on store shelves.
So you just have home premium and professional on store shelves. No different than xp really. Microsoft has been selling pre-order upgrade copies of these for $50. And you are eligible for an upgrade copy if you own xp. An almost 9 year old OS. Apple won't even allow that.
Students get a $30 copy. Most people get a copy when they get a new computer. System builders can get themselves cheap OEM copies.
You forget apple only supports the home user. Microsoft supports the home user, small business and enterprise. Why pay more for features that you don't need? Thus the home version at a lower price point.
User account control can't be set with exceptions (ie. don't ask me when I open this program) as far as I know. It is basically on or off, which in my opinion, isn't good for a security solution as some users will get annoyed and turn it off completely. BUT you can choose whether or not the screen goes grey when the user account control dialog box pops up.
User account control is the thing I hate the most with Windows Vista/7.
Having exceptions is exactly what would break all security measures brought on by UAC. What's to stop a virus from infecting any executable that you've put on your list and hook itself to it?
That's actually the part I love MOST about Windows 7. First of all, the recommended defaults only show UAC when either installing an application or running an application as an administrator. Common windows tasks that used to trigger an alert no longer do so, meaning it only appears when you (or other software) deliberately tries to modify your system.
The fact is UAC is only intrusive if you're trying to run an application that is poorly written. Mac developers have learned that they cannot assume administrator rights, and prompt for your password before proceeding. UAC is similar, in that if a developer wrote his software correctly (which they've had almost three years to do now), you should *NEVER* see a UAC alert until those rights are actually necessary.
If there are certain applications you would like at startup that require administrator access, you can always set a task that will launch the application with any parameters as an administrator WITHOUT triggering UAC.
The compelling reason will be MS withdrawing support for XP.
I worked for a major insurance company that just switched from Windows 2000 to XP last year. So dropping support won't really make a company upgrade. If the OS runs, they don't really need continued support.
This is good news for Windows coming from Walt. I've tested it and it's good, for Windows, but just can't compare to Mac OS X on many different levels. That said, that will likely not change so long as Apple and MS maintain their disparate business models. Windows could be less confusing to navigate and more intuitive, but the legacy support that Apple is so quick to do away with simply can't be achieved in the same way with Windows.
I think Windows 7 will find it's way into businesses faster and Mac marketshare may bevdone a little despite selling more units YoY. That is fine by me. I also think this means that WWDC 2010 will demo a visually impressive 10.7. By its release GCD and OpenCL will be taken full advantage of and the rest of Apple's apps will be Cocoa.
Quote:
Originally Posted by GQB
OS X doesn't have a Flash problem, FLASH has a Flash problem. Apple is just trying to leverage its position to promote HTML 5 as opposed to a bloated proprietary format.
They may fail, but I applaud the effort. I can live without the ads and porn on my iPhone.
Like the old joke.... I don't have a drinking problem. I drink, I fall down, no problem.
Don't encourage him when he's purposely trying to derail a thread.
yes i do think they're paying for good reviews, don't you know what kind of corporation they are?
have you used windows 7? it's pathetic, slow, bloated, still has a registry, no spaces-like feature (which they'll steal from apple in their next version)...
What? Have you used 7? I'm running the 64-bit version and that thing is as smooth as butter.
Spaces stolen from Apple... LMAO Virtual desktops predate Apple by quite a few years. They'd be stealing a Xerox/*nix idea, not Apple. And to be honest, I've yet to use spaces consistently. It's a useless feature with Exposé, IMHO. Same goes for Windows, and I have used 3rd party VDMs only to return to alt-tab.
I will concede that the registry needs to make an exit, but don't hold your breath. Windows is all about backward compatibility.
For fucks sake, Mossberg is one of Apple's biggest fans in print. ...
I know this is the "common wisdom" (that Mossberg is pro-Apple), but I personally have never seen evidence of it.
I think a lot of pro-Apple pundits take him as one of their own, because he doesn't actively pan Apple products and reviews them all fairly, but he has always done the same thing for Windows as well. His review of Vista was probably the least damning of all the Vista reviews I have read. He correctly pointed out it's many flaws, but found good things to say about it as well. If you read all his stuff you'll find he rarely says anything really bad about anything, so it's not surprising at all that he likes Windows 7. He is typically all about the positive, and always allows when he doesn't like something, that "other views may differ."
A more correct interpretation of Mossberg is that he strives to be an "even-handed" reviewer who goes out of his way to be fair (at least as he sees it). That gets a lot closer to his actual psychology than saying he is "pro-Apple."
Both Mossberg and David Pogue are called "pro-Apple" to the point that their reviews are often ignored as biased, but giving mostly good reviews to Apple products is not evidence of a pro-apple bias if those products are actually good. A "fair" reviewer would report favourably on Apple more than half the time if Apples products are actually better more than half the time. Both Mossberg and Pogue are also among the tiny minority of reviewers that has given Apple reasonably well-informed, critical reviews of their products and both have praised Windows products equally, yet they are "pro-Apple"? I don't get it.
I know most won't agree with me on this but IMO it's just not fair to refer to these guys as biased when they are among the few that are going out of their way not to be.
Mossberg's positive take on Windows 7 is a big change from Windows XP and Vista, both of which the columnist felt were vastly inferior to Mac OS X.
Whenever someone says "7 is a big change from Vista; I hated Vista but I love 7" I call bullshit. They are not that different. The big difference was between Vista and XP.
By the way, I think Vista was OK once you spent time setting it up a bit, and getting rid if the 'cancel or allow' madness.
So, 7 closer to OSX than Vista? only in the hype-machine.
I worked for a major insurance company that just switched from Windows 2000 to XP last year. So dropping support won't really make a company upgrade. If the OS runs, they don't really need continued support.
That's true of any business, though. The path to upgrading is always a slow one. In time, however, enterprise will see the cost-saving benefits of switching to Windows 7.
Less problems, higher standard of security, better group policy and power management tools.... the upgrade really does pay for itself over time.
Whenever someone says "7 is a big change from Vista; I hated Vista but I love 7" I call bullshit. They are not that different. The big difference was between Vista and XP.
By the way, I think Vista was OK once you spent time setting it up a bit, and getting rid if the crazy 'cancel or allow' madness.
So, 7 closer to OSX than Vista? only in the hype-machine.
As someone who bounces between XP, Vista and my personal Windows 7 machine on a daily basis can tell you that Windows 7 is *FAR* better than Vista ever has been. Even fully updated, Vista continues to grind on modern hardware. Its menu system is still cluttered, performance is still sub-par, and you don't have all the taskbar and preview options that are found in Windows 7. Not to mention the security tweaks, including the revamped UAC which is much less annoying and just as protective.
Its more than hype, and if you sat down and compared the two over a period of time, you'd notice the difference.
Your "problem" here has nothing to do with Windows7 and everything to do with how Firefox works and your failure to understand this.
Exactly. it is so obvious the file is still downloading and the .EXE is 0kb in size.
Quote:
The Dock came from NeXT, and predates the Taskbar by several years.
uh?
Quote:
EDIT: I assume you are taking CCNA or similar, and ironically, the webpage for Cisco's packet tracer has an image for the trivia game that says "Do you really know how the internet works?"
of course, he don't know. and he going to be a future CCNA tech. hahahaha.
I worked for a major insurance company that just switched from Windows 2000 to XP last year. So dropping support won't really make a company upgrade. If the OS runs, they don't really need continued support.
I find that rather odd. I work for a bank that employs 85,000 people worldwide, and we'd be very concerned if there was no support for the primary dekstop OS. Security patches, compatibility with the latest Sharepoint/Office/WindowsServer software etc are all important.
Now I don't expect support would drop anytime soon, maybe 2012 or so for Corporate customers, but upgrading to a new Windows would take 2 - 3 years, so it's likely to start soon and start putting money in MS's pockets.
I thought the article was actually pretty accurate. I use Windows at work, and on an HTPC at home. The interface isn't awe inspiring. It's a bit too much like Vista to be evolutionary, but it's workable and gets the job done. Performance is WAY better than Vista, and easily comparable with XP. I would even go beyond 'It doesn't suck" and also say that it's good.
Would I consider switching to Windows 7? No. I use it for work only because I have to, or for gaming on those few Windows games I can't get on a Mac, but calling it shitty for no reason other than the fact that it's Windows is disingenuous. As MS products go, it's not bad.
Comments
User account control can't be set with exceptions (ie. don't ask me when I open this program) as far as I know. It is basically on or off, which in my opinion, isn't good for a security solution as some users will get annoyed and turn it off completely. BUT you can choose whether or not the screen goes grey when the user account control dialog box pops up.
User account control is the thing I hate the most with Windows Vista/7.
Why is it any more annoying that what happens in OS X where you have to enter your User/password to install certains programs or even make some system changes?
It's very easy in Windows to set yourself up as an non-admin user, disable UAC and have an OS X-like experience (enter your admin username/password to install stuff).
Windows is intrisically more prone to virus issues than OS X, so this is the trade-off. Kinds like having to dual boot a Mac if you want (decent) games...
While at work, you don't use any of the features of the OS, you are only running the software programs to do your work. Companies don't risk incompatibilities just because a new OS came out.
I'd agree with that, and add something to it as well. Corporate would also have a hell of a time with tech support for all of the relocated things in Win7's (Vista, too) interface. Add to that XP is entirely good enough to run Office. You really only have the required business software on your machine at work, VPN's etc.
There is no reason to, for example, have your digital camera "just work" when you plug it in to your office PC. You would probably get reprimanded for trying to add a USB device to your tower
Apple's OS is aimed squarely at the home user, and while the GUI is seamless, it would be nice to have other options. For example, TV doesn't have nearly the codec support out of the box that it should, iTunes included. Apple wants to own the home, IMO, but they fall short there by being pseudo-open. I am definitely under the impression they want a TV, maybe a printer, a tablet, etc etc. I wish they would get the stuff they have now to support added file types or hardware. It seems to me that Apple almost learned from Job's absence, but not quite enough.
Microsoft, on the other hand, is working to appeal to the home user, while still maintaining a firm grasp on the business clientele. They let do all the R+D, copy the most desired features, and add it to their OS to appeal to people in the home. Not dumb, just late.
Who stole the task bar from Microsoft and named it a DOCK?
I guess you have never heard of NeXTStep, which existed years before the task bar appeared in Windows 95. Mac OS X is a re-write of NeXTStep, which included the Dock.
1-A Home Premium upgrade will cost $120 ($200 standalone);
2-Professional upgrade will cost $200 ($300 standalone);
3-Windows 7 Ultimate upgrade will run $320 ($400 standalone).
What are you paying for? Upgrade from some stuff that didn't work properly and you paid for (Vista)
Greedy and dishonest; as usual...
These companies didn't learn the crisis' lesson and deserve to fail.
No, Thank you
It starts at cripling the software for you to pay more.
1-A Home Premium upgrade will cost $120 ($200 standalone);
2-Professional upgrade will cost $200 ($300 standalone);
3-Windows 7 Ultimate upgrade will run $320 ($400 standalone).
What are you paying for? Upgrade from some stuff that didn't work properly and you paid for (Vista)
Greedy and dishonest; as usual...
These companies didn't learn the crisis' lesson and deserve to fail.
No, Thank you
Win 7 ultimate is not like Vista ultimate. It's just a single license enterprise edition and won't be sold on store shelves.
So you just have home premium and professional on store shelves. No different than xp really. Microsoft has been selling pre-order upgrade copies of these for $50. And you are eligible for an upgrade copy if you own xp. An almost 9 year old OS. Apple won't even allow that.
Students get a $30 copy. Most people get a copy when they get a new computer. System builders can get themselves cheap OEM copies.
You forget apple only supports the home user. Microsoft supports the home user, small business and enterprise. Why pay more for features that you don't need? Thus the home version at a lower price point.
What are you paying for? Upgrade from some stuff that didn't work properly and you paid for (Vista)
You mean like upgrading from the iPhone to the iPhone 3G, or 3G to the 3G(s)? Yes, it's annoying when that happens, isn't it.
User account control can't be set with exceptions (ie. don't ask me when I open this program) as far as I know. It is basically on or off, which in my opinion, isn't good for a security solution as some users will get annoyed and turn it off completely. BUT you can choose whether or not the screen goes grey when the user account control dialog box pops up.
User account control is the thing I hate the most with Windows Vista/7.
Having exceptions is exactly what would break all security measures brought on by UAC. What's to stop a virus from infecting any executable that you've put on your list and hook itself to it?
That's actually the part I love MOST about Windows 7. First of all, the recommended defaults only show UAC when either installing an application or running an application as an administrator. Common windows tasks that used to trigger an alert no longer do so, meaning it only appears when you (or other software) deliberately tries to modify your system.
The fact is UAC is only intrusive if you're trying to run an application that is poorly written. Mac developers have learned that they cannot assume administrator rights, and prompt for your password before proceeding. UAC is similar, in that if a developer wrote his software correctly (which they've had almost three years to do now), you should *NEVER* see a UAC alert until those rights are actually necessary.
If there are certain applications you would like at startup that require administrator access, you can always set a task that will launch the application with any parameters as an administrator WITHOUT triggering UAC.
If they send me a free copy of windows 7 I will use it as freesby!
winzozzzzzz never as mac osx!
buuuullshit!
The compelling reason will be MS withdrawing support for XP.
I worked for a major insurance company that just switched from Windows 2000 to XP last year. So dropping support won't really make a company upgrade. If the OS runs, they don't really need continued support.
amazing to know that!!!!
If they send me a free copy of windows 7 I will use it as freesby!
winzozzzzzz never as mac osx!
buuuullshit!
How articulate of it.
Defensive Mac users are worse than defensive Windows users.
I think Windows 7 will find it's way into businesses faster and Mac marketshare may bevdone a little despite selling more units YoY. That is fine by me. I also think this means that WWDC 2010 will demo a visually impressive 10.7. By its release GCD and OpenCL will be taken full advantage of and the rest of Apple's apps will be Cocoa.
OS X doesn't have a Flash problem, FLASH has a Flash problem. Apple is just trying to leverage its position to promote HTML 5 as opposed to a bloated proprietary format.
They may fail, but I applaud the effort. I can live without the ads and porn on my iPhone.
Like the old joke.... I don't have a drinking problem. I drink, I fall down, no problem.
Don't encourage him when he's purposely trying to derail a thread.
yes i do think they're paying for good reviews, don't you know what kind of corporation they are?
have you used windows 7? it's pathetic, slow, bloated, still has a registry, no spaces-like feature (which they'll steal from apple in their next version)...
What? Have you used 7? I'm running the 64-bit version and that thing is as smooth as butter.
Spaces stolen from Apple... LMAO Virtual desktops predate Apple by quite a few years. They'd be stealing a Xerox/*nix idea, not Apple. And to be honest, I've yet to use spaces consistently. It's a useless feature with Exposé, IMHO. Same goes for Windows, and I have used 3rd party VDMs only to return to alt-tab.
I will concede that the registry needs to make an exit, but don't hold your breath. Windows is all about backward compatibility.
For fucks sake, Mossberg is one of Apple's biggest fans in print. ...
I know this is the "common wisdom" (that Mossberg is pro-Apple), but I personally have never seen evidence of it.
I think a lot of pro-Apple pundits take him as one of their own, because he doesn't actively pan Apple products and reviews them all fairly, but he has always done the same thing for Windows as well. His review of Vista was probably the least damning of all the Vista reviews I have read. He correctly pointed out it's many flaws, but found good things to say about it as well. If you read all his stuff you'll find he rarely says anything really bad about anything, so it's not surprising at all that he likes Windows 7. He is typically all about the positive, and always allows when he doesn't like something, that "other views may differ."
A more correct interpretation of Mossberg is that he strives to be an "even-handed" reviewer who goes out of his way to be fair (at least as he sees it). That gets a lot closer to his actual psychology than saying he is "pro-Apple."
Both Mossberg and David Pogue are called "pro-Apple" to the point that their reviews are often ignored as biased, but giving mostly good reviews to Apple products is not evidence of a pro-apple bias if those products are actually good. A "fair" reviewer would report favourably on Apple more than half the time if Apples products are actually better more than half the time. Both Mossberg and Pogue are also among the tiny minority of reviewers that has given Apple reasonably well-informed, critical reviews of their products and both have praised Windows products equally, yet they are "pro-Apple"? I don't get it.
I know most won't agree with me on this but IMO it's just not fair to refer to these guys as biased when they are among the few that are going out of their way not to be.
Mossberg's positive take on Windows 7 is a big change from Windows XP and Vista, both of which the columnist felt were vastly inferior to Mac OS X.
Whenever someone says "7 is a big change from Vista; I hated Vista but I love 7" I call bullshit. They are not that different. The big difference was between Vista and XP.
By the way, I think Vista was OK once you spent time setting it up a bit, and getting rid if the 'cancel or allow' madness.
So, 7 closer to OSX than Vista? only in the hype-machine.
I worked for a major insurance company that just switched from Windows 2000 to XP last year. So dropping support won't really make a company upgrade. If the OS runs, they don't really need continued support.
That's true of any business, though. The path to upgrading is always a slow one. In time, however, enterprise will see the cost-saving benefits of switching to Windows 7.
Less problems, higher standard of security, better group policy and power management tools.... the upgrade really does pay for itself over time.
Whenever someone says "7 is a big change from Vista; I hated Vista but I love 7" I call bullshit. They are not that different. The big difference was between Vista and XP.
By the way, I think Vista was OK once you spent time setting it up a bit, and getting rid if the crazy 'cancel or allow' madness.
So, 7 closer to OSX than Vista? only in the hype-machine.
As someone who bounces between XP, Vista and my personal Windows 7 machine on a daily basis can tell you that Windows 7 is *FAR* better than Vista ever has been. Even fully updated, Vista continues to grind on modern hardware. Its menu system is still cluttered, performance is still sub-par, and you don't have all the taskbar and preview options that are found in Windows 7. Not to mention the security tweaks, including the revamped UAC which is much less annoying and just as protective.
Its more than hype, and if you sat down and compared the two over a period of time, you'd notice the difference.
Your "problem" here has nothing to do with Windows7 and everything to do with how Firefox works and your failure to understand this.
Exactly. it is so obvious the file is still downloading and the .EXE is 0kb in size.
The Dock came from NeXT, and predates the Taskbar by several years.
uh?
EDIT: I assume you are taking CCNA or similar, and ironically, the webpage for Cisco's packet tracer has an image for the trivia game that says "Do you really know how the internet works?"
of course, he don't know. and he going to be a future CCNA tech. hahahaha.
I worked for a major insurance company that just switched from Windows 2000 to XP last year. So dropping support won't really make a company upgrade. If the OS runs, they don't really need continued support.
I find that rather odd. I work for a bank that employs 85,000 people worldwide, and we'd be very concerned if there was no support for the primary dekstop OS. Security patches, compatibility with the latest Sharepoint/Office/WindowsServer software etc are all important.
Now I don't expect support would drop anytime soon, maybe 2012 or so for Corporate customers, but upgrading to a new Windows would take 2 - 3 years, so it's likely to start soon and start putting money in MS's pockets.
Would I consider switching to Windows 7? No. I use it for work only because I have to, or for gaming on those few Windows games I can't get on a Mac, but calling it shitty for no reason other than the fact that it's Windows is disingenuous. As MS products go, it's not bad.