Cheers for that. I would love for someone who genuinely understands what the registry does and how/why to explain why people hate it so much. ...
I haven't wrassled with the registry since Windows 95 days but a few answers to the question of "what's so bad about the registry" are as follows:
1) Its a database, so like Entourage, a single corrupt file can corrupt the whole database rendering the computer useless. A problem with a single programs access to the registry, can affect all the other programs just like a single bad email in Entourage can hose your entire mail/calendar/contacts system.
2) It has few if any rules. Programs can all read and write the registry, they *may* delete their references when they are uninstalled, they may not. They may overwrite preferences for other programs, they may not. Because almost no companies ever remove their info from the registry, (even on uninstall) it's a database that is always growing and growing.
3) The registry also contains crucial system information. This means that the user that goes into the registry trying to edit something can easily destroy parts of the base system. With OS-X and Unix computers, the system is kept mostly separate from the apps.
3) The registry contains crucial information for the running of programs, not "just plist stuff." On a Mac, like most Unix systems, the .plist's are just text files, they are individual to the program and they can be deleted at almost any time without problem or affect. With very few exceptions the plist can be safely deleted for any Mac application and the app will simply re-create it on startup with all the defaults. It's like a "reset" of the program. The registry on the other hand is a delicate business containing dozens of cryptic keys and other things that the program absolutely needs to run. Deleting the registry entry for a program in Windows will many times completely "break" the program, requiring a re-install.
Well, it appears Microsoft is doing its part to help the PC industry. It's simply cheaper to buy a new PC than it is to upgrade your existing hardware with Windows 7. Seriously, $400 (stand-alone) for Windows 7 Ultimate?
With that kind of money, you can buy the Mac Box Family Pack, which includes FIVE licenses each of Snow Leopard, iLife 09 and iWorks 09 for $229. That leaves $171 to purchase, well, memory upgrades for your older Intel based Macs or a 1TB drive to back up all your software.
Interestingly, Mossberg fails to mention that Windows 7 requires much more modern and powerful hardware to perform well. Whereas Snow Leopard runs as well (if not faster) on OLDER Intel based Macs. Furthermore, there is only one flavor of Snow Leopard for Mac PCs and laptops. The "Full Monty" version!
Sorry, in this economy, it's better to use what technology you already have than to buy new. And Windows 7 represents poor value-for-money compared to Apple hardware and software. So says I, a long-time Windows (circa Windows 3.1) user.
Now, more than ever...it seems the 'tablet' could be the future salvation of the Mac platform. Now more than ever, they must focus on it.
I think it's going to be part of the end game.
Vista, 7...copy, after copy...following, stalking the Mac OS X's footsteps...playing catch up. Innovation? Where? We've had Tiger and Leopard for years. Now they have 7? Wh-oo-p.
Where Apple goes next, M$ will not be able to follow.
Lemon Bon Bon.
Two things - One, I don't think you'll ever see an Apple tablet. I think you'll see a Macbook with a turn-around screen with multitouch, but I doubt you'll see a dedicated device.
Two - Microsoft isn't known for innovation, but they don't need to be. Why is BMW still making new car models every year? They haven't innovated anything knew in the designs, have they? The reason is because they figured out how to perfect an already-existing idea.
Microsoft is taking the existing ideas of how we operate a computer and working towards improving it and making it easier to use. Macs do the same thing. No one doubts that Apple has changed the technology industry, but that doesn't mean that others can't benefit from that work.
First of all, *most* people will get upgraded to Windows 7 when they buy a new PC, so they'll have to reinstall their applications anyway. And what about if you want to reformat your computer from scratch? Don't you have to reinstall all your applications as well?
These factors are true of *ANY* PC, whether its Windows or Mac. The amount of people who upgrade from a disk is a very minimal amount of Windows users, around 1%, and of those, only XP users will have to reinstall - Vista users can do an in-place upgrade even if its not recommended.
So its a moot argument.
If you buy a new mac, you can use migration assistant to transfer everything from your old computer over to your new one. Time machine makes installing programs after a reformat easy, depending on why you reformatted, you might just choose for it to restore your computer automatically.
I don't see how the argument is moot. Even when installing everything from scratch, you will be done quicker on a mac (most stuff is drag and drop, no installer, and you don't need a plethora of driver/codec updates... although win 7 is better with that).
Well, it appears Microsoft is doing its part to help the PC industry. It's simply cheaper to buy a new PC than it is to upgrade your existing hardware with Windows 7. Seriously, $400 (stand-alone) for Windows 7 Ultimate?
With that kind of money, you can buy the Mac Box Family Pack, which includes FIVE licenses each of Snow Leopard, iLife 09 and iWorks 09 for $229. That leaves $171 to purchase, well, memory upgrades for your older Intel based Macs or a 1TB drive to back up all your software.
Interestingly, Mossberg fails to mention that Windows 7 requires much more modern and powerful hardware to perform well. Whereas Snow Leopard runs as well (if not faster) on OLDER Intel based Macs. Furthermore, there is only one flavor of Snow Leopard for Mac PCs and laptops. The "Full Monty" version!
Sorry, in this economy, it's better to use what technology you already have than to buy new. And Windows 7 represents poor value-for-money compared to Apple hardware and software. So says I, a long-time Windows (circa Windows 3.1) user.
-YipYipYipee
Well done. Good arguments there.
I'll add to them.
Apple should really make deep price cuts to its desktops...in fact, much deeper ones than they have done to the laptop line and use the laptop/iphone profits to offset this.
Ergo: cheaper entry level consumer desktop macs (which they could be if they didn't have their head up their arse with laptop premium prices components...) and really give '7' purchasers the 'squeeze' when thinking..., 'I need a new PC...oh...look how competitive this Mac is...'
You know? While the mindshare Apple 'halo' is shining bright...?
Well, it appears Microsoft is doing its part to help the PC industry. It's simply cheaper to buy a new PC than it is to upgrade your existing hardware with Windows 7. Seriously, $400 (stand-alone) for Windows 7 Ultimate?
The article is WRONG! Windows 7 Ultimate will sell for $220 upgrade and $320 full, only $20 more than Professional.
Two things - One, I don't think you'll ever see an Apple tablet. I think you'll see a Macbook with a turn-around screen with multitouch, but I doubt you'll see a dedicated device.
Just look up the "Task Scheduler" in the Windows start menu. There are tutorials all over the internet on how to use it. Basically, you create a task that will start every time you log in, and just check the box that says "Use with Administrator Privileges" or something like that.
Interestingly, Mossberg fails to mention that Windows 7 requires much more modern and powerful hardware to perform well. Whereas Snow Leopard runs as well (if not faster) on OLDER Intel based Macs. Furthermore, there is only one flavor of Snow Leopard for Mac PCs and laptops. The "Full Monty" version!
You, however, failed to mention that "Intel" Macs only reach back three years, around the same time as Vista was released. Any computer that can run Vista will run Windows 7 just as beautifully, if not better. You *also* failed to mention that Windows 7 runs well on EXISTING Windows XP hardware. It runs fine on a 6-year-old Dell Dimension 2400, and with a mere $30 upgrade to the graphics processor, it has access to the entire Aero interface, along with all the preview and taskbar enhancements.
I guess you also failed to mention that Snow Leopard doesn't work on PowerPC Macs, so if yours is older than 3 years, you're out of luck and must buy a brand new Mac to upgrade, a much more costly decision than Windows 7.
Quote:
Sorry, in this economy, it's better to use what technology you already have than to buy new. And Windows 7 represents poor value-for-money compared to Apple hardware and software. So says I, a long-time Windows (circa Windows 3.1) user.
At this point, the "value" between the hardware and software is nearly even. For the Mac, you pay more for the hardware but make up for it in subsidized software (iLife, iWork, Final Cut Studio, etc). On Windows, you spend less money on hardware but more on the software. In the end, it becomes a wash.
I doubt very much that the Windows 1.01 UI or "taskbar" shown in the screenshot had any influence on the development of NeXTSTEP's Dock. However, if you can document that it did, please, post it here. I'm not sure of any connections between the OS/2 dock and the NeXT dock, but it would seem that the NeXT dock predates it. There have also been numerous add-ons for various operating systems that provided dock-like functionality.
But, the question is not who first had a dock/taskbar/app launcher, but did Apple steal it from the Windows Taskbar, an idea which I think can be rejected as utter nonsense. I'm not claiming anyone else stole it from NeXT/Apple. It may very well be several cases of convergent evolution.
Considering most people will do that anyway, the upgrade pricing doesn't mean much in the way of total sales. And most people will only upgrade to Home Premium, the sweet spot of the lineup, which brings the total cost to upgrade to a mere $110.
For fucks sake, Mossberg is one of Apple's biggest fans in print. Perhaps he gave Windows 7 a good review because its actually good? Posts like yours give websites like this a bad name.
For fucks sake I have RTM and it barely made any difference to me. It is still Windows, just acceptable to 2009 terms.
Well, it appears Microsoft is doing its part to help the PC industry. It's simply cheaper to buy a new PC than it is to upgrade your existing hardware with Windows 7. Seriously, $400 (stand-alone) for Windows 7 Ultimate?
With that kind of money, you can buy the Mac Box Family Pack, which includes FIVE licenses each of Snow Leopard, iLife 09 and iWorks 09 for $229. That leaves $171 to purchase, well, memory upgrades for your older Intel based Macs or a 1TB drive to back up all your software.
Interestingly, Mossberg fails to mention that Windows 7 requires much more modern and powerful hardware to perform well. Whereas Snow Leopard runs as well (if not faster) on OLDER Intel based Macs. Furthermore, there is only one flavor of Snow Leopard for Mac PCs and laptops. The "Full Monty" version!
Sorry, in this economy, it's better to use what technology you already have than to buy new. And Windows 7 represents poor value-for-money compared to Apple hardware and software. So says I, a long-time Windows (circa Windows 3.1) user.
-YipYipYipee
Snow Leopard has to run on old intel based Macs because God knows SJ isn't going to give anyone any up to date hardware. People are still begging for quad core systems when the rest of the world has had them for two years.
My school has Windows 7 Professional available right now for students under their student software program. I downloaded and installed the x64 version with VMWare Fusion 2 on my MacBook Pro. Honestly, I haven't had much time to play with the thing, but I don't find it very different than Vista. The start bar is redesigned, and they managed not to rename and re-hide administrative tools like network and display configuration (which is what pissed me off the most about the move from XP to Vista). But I just don't see how anyone can conclude that Windows 7 is a vast improvement over Vista, not to mention one that puts it almost shoulder to shoulder with OS X.
I put some screenshots up on my Flickr page. Those annoying warnings are still there. I got freaking stopped and asked if I was sure I wanted to trust Adobe when installing flash. I downloaded Packet Tracer from Cisco's website, and when I tried to install the program Windows 7, for some reason, won't recognized the .exe file as valid. If I can't run Packet Tracer, Windows 7 is freaking worthless. The only reason why I'm keeping it on my MacBook Pro is so that if someone I know calls me with an issue, I can research it on my end without having to drive to their house.
Mossberg says Snow Leopard wasn't a "must-have" upgrade, even at $30. Well Windows 7 isn't a "must-have" upgrade at over $100 for people who already have Vista. I could see paying full price and upgrading from XP, but not from Vista. It would be a waste of money. If my school didn't offer Windows 7 to students for free, and Windows wasn't running the $30 offer for students on win741.com, I wouldn't even think of buying that operating system.
How the hell is an .exe file "not a valid win32 application?"
Fewer security warnings? I'm not a child. I shouldn't have to hunt for settings to turn this kind of crap off.
Masta, you try to open partially downloaded file and celebrate even OSX gets error on such files, too. Are you sure you help people FIX their problems?
Windows 7 is really good for a Windows product, and I would say that it has closed a lot of the gap between it and OSX. On the other hand Snow Leopard hasn't really been able to show its strengths yet as most macs are still dual core and not many programs take advantage of Grand Central.
However, within two years, mac users can pretty much expect a new feature packed OS based on the solid foundation that Snow Leopard provides. Windows on the other hand, based on past history may not see an upgrade for a while and Windows 7 is already the feature packed update based on the foundation of Vista.
Windows 7 also has Grand Central type workings under the hood. It's better than vista, nuff said.
I think what most are missing from the article is the the talk of Virus's, Security flaws still present in Windows or the bad NTFS file system it's still stuck with. It's not WRETCHED like it was but it's still not up to snuff with OS X, BSD, and some flavors of Linux in those regards.
What people are going to care about the most, end users, is that it's faster than the crap they had before (vista), can run XP stuff (XP VM) and it comes on the new $399 quad core PC they just bought at the store (yes, you can buy a quad core pc right now with windows vista and 4gb of ram for $399).
When all you've had to eat for the last 4 years were plain crackers, I stick a cheeseburger in front of you it's gonna be the best thing in the world, right? But what about the table next to you that's been dining on Lobster and Fillet for the last 10 years? They just got a new recipe, nothing drastic.
Comments
Cheers for that. I would love for someone who genuinely understands what the registry does and how/why to explain why people hate it so much. ...
I haven't wrassled with the registry since Windows 95 days but a few answers to the question of "what's so bad about the registry" are as follows:
1) Its a database, so like Entourage, a single corrupt file can corrupt the whole database rendering the computer useless. A problem with a single programs access to the registry, can affect all the other programs just like a single bad email in Entourage can hose your entire mail/calendar/contacts system.
2) It has few if any rules. Programs can all read and write the registry, they *may* delete their references when they are uninstalled, they may not. They may overwrite preferences for other programs, they may not. Because almost no companies ever remove their info from the registry, (even on uninstall) it's a database that is always growing and growing.
3) The registry also contains crucial system information. This means that the user that goes into the registry trying to edit something can easily destroy parts of the base system. With OS-X and Unix computers, the system is kept mostly separate from the apps.
3) The registry contains crucial information for the running of programs, not "just plist stuff." On a Mac, like most Unix systems, the .plist's are just text files, they are individual to the program and they can be deleted at almost any time without problem or affect. With very few exceptions the plist can be safely deleted for any Mac application and the app will simply re-create it on startup with all the defaults. It's like a "reset" of the program. The registry on the other hand is a delicate business containing dozens of cryptic keys and other things that the program absolutely needs to run. Deleting the registry entry for a program in Windows will many times completely "break" the program, requiring a re-install.
Let's not go that far.
Let's. They're all 'Macs'...all 'Jobs' creatures...great and small.
All flavours of 'X' will be counted...tablet too...as, when, if it arrives. The numbers speak for themselves.
'Halo'.
Lemon Bon Bon.
With that kind of money, you can buy the Mac Box Family Pack, which includes FIVE licenses each of Snow Leopard, iLife 09 and iWorks 09 for $229. That leaves $171 to purchase, well, memory upgrades for your older Intel based Macs or a 1TB drive to back up all your software.
Interestingly, Mossberg fails to mention that Windows 7 requires much more modern and powerful hardware to perform well. Whereas Snow Leopard runs as well (if not faster) on OLDER Intel based Macs. Furthermore, there is only one flavor of Snow Leopard for Mac PCs and laptops. The "Full Monty" version!
Sorry, in this economy, it's better to use what technology you already have than to buy new. And Windows 7 represents poor value-for-money compared to Apple hardware and software. So says I, a long-time Windows (circa Windows 3.1) user.
-YipYipYipee
"just plist stuff."
Don't you mean, 'just piss stuff'?
Lemon Bon Bon.
Now, more than ever...it seems the 'tablet' could be the future salvation of the Mac platform. Now more than ever, they must focus on it.
I think it's going to be part of the end game.
Vista, 7...copy, after copy...following, stalking the Mac OS X's footsteps...playing catch up. Innovation? Where? We've had Tiger and Leopard for years. Now they have 7? Wh-oo-p.
Where Apple goes next, M$ will not be able to follow.
Lemon Bon Bon.
Two things - One, I don't think you'll ever see an Apple tablet. I think you'll see a Macbook with a turn-around screen with multitouch, but I doubt you'll see a dedicated device.
Two - Microsoft isn't known for innovation, but they don't need to be. Why is BMW still making new car models every year? They haven't innovated anything knew in the designs, have they? The reason is because they figured out how to perfect an already-existing idea.
Microsoft is taking the existing ideas of how we operate a computer and working towards improving it and making it easier to use. Macs do the same thing. No one doubts that Apple has changed the technology industry, but that doesn't mean that others can't benefit from that work.
Get out.
Struth!
First of all, *most* people will get upgraded to Windows 7 when they buy a new PC, so they'll have to reinstall their applications anyway. And what about if you want to reformat your computer from scratch? Don't you have to reinstall all your applications as well?
These factors are true of *ANY* PC, whether its Windows or Mac. The amount of people who upgrade from a disk is a very minimal amount of Windows users, around 1%, and of those, only XP users will have to reinstall - Vista users can do an in-place upgrade even if its not recommended.
So its a moot argument.
If you buy a new mac, you can use migration assistant to transfer everything from your old computer over to your new one. Time machine makes installing programs after a reformat easy, depending on why you reformatted, you might just choose for it to restore your computer automatically.
I don't see how the argument is moot. Even when installing everything from scratch, you will be done quicker on a mac (most stuff is drag and drop, no installer, and you don't need a plethora of driver/codec updates... although win 7 is better with that).
Value-for-Money?
Well, it appears Microsoft is doing its part to help the PC industry. It's simply cheaper to buy a new PC than it is to upgrade your existing hardware with Windows 7. Seriously, $400 (stand-alone) for Windows 7 Ultimate?
With that kind of money, you can buy the Mac Box Family Pack, which includes FIVE licenses each of Snow Leopard, iLife 09 and iWorks 09 for $229. That leaves $171 to purchase, well, memory upgrades for your older Intel based Macs or a 1TB drive to back up all your software.
Interestingly, Mossberg fails to mention that Windows 7 requires much more modern and powerful hardware to perform well. Whereas Snow Leopard runs as well (if not faster) on OLDER Intel based Macs. Furthermore, there is only one flavor of Snow Leopard for Mac PCs and laptops. The "Full Monty" version!
Sorry, in this economy, it's better to use what technology you already have than to buy new. And Windows 7 represents poor value-for-money compared to Apple hardware and software. So says I, a long-time Windows (circa Windows 3.1) user.
-YipYipYipee
Well done. Good arguments there.
I'll add to them.
Apple should really make deep price cuts to its desktops...in fact, much deeper ones than they have done to the laptop line and use the laptop/iphone profits to offset this.
Ergo: cheaper entry level consumer desktop macs (which they could be if they didn't have their head up their arse with laptop premium prices components...) and really give '7' purchasers the 'squeeze' when thinking..., 'I need a new PC...oh...look how competitive this Mac is...'
You know? While the mindshare Apple 'halo' is shining bright...?
Lemon Bon Bon.
Well, it appears Microsoft is doing its part to help the PC industry. It's simply cheaper to buy a new PC than it is to upgrade your existing hardware with Windows 7. Seriously, $400 (stand-alone) for Windows 7 Ultimate?
The article is WRONG! Windows 7 Ultimate will sell for $220 upgrade and $320 full, only $20 more than Professional.
Two things - One, I don't think you'll ever see an Apple tablet. I think you'll see a Macbook with a turn-around screen with multitouch, but I doubt you'll see a dedicated device.
Ireland?
Lemon Bon Bon.
Just look up the "Task Scheduler" in the Windows start menu. There are tutorials all over the internet on how to use it. Basically, you create a task that will start every time you log in, and just check the box that says "Use with Administrator Privileges" or something like that.
Thanks.
$320
Or just buy a new PC?
Lemon Bon Bon.
And he didn't mention Time Machine or whether there is a Windows equivalent or not.
Also sounds just as easy for Windows XP users to switch to a Mac than upgrade to Win7.
How much were Win7 install times improved by cutting Mail, Photos, etc software?
Interestingly, Mossberg fails to mention that Windows 7 requires much more modern and powerful hardware to perform well. Whereas Snow Leopard runs as well (if not faster) on OLDER Intel based Macs. Furthermore, there is only one flavor of Snow Leopard for Mac PCs and laptops. The "Full Monty" version!
You, however, failed to mention that "Intel" Macs only reach back three years, around the same time as Vista was released. Any computer that can run Vista will run Windows 7 just as beautifully, if not better. You *also* failed to mention that Windows 7 runs well on EXISTING Windows XP hardware. It runs fine on a 6-year-old Dell Dimension 2400, and with a mere $30 upgrade to the graphics processor, it has access to the entire Aero interface, along with all the preview and taskbar enhancements.
I guess you also failed to mention that Snow Leopard doesn't work on PowerPC Macs, so if yours is older than 3 years, you're out of luck and must buy a brand new Mac to upgrade, a much more costly decision than Windows 7.
Sorry, in this economy, it's better to use what technology you already have than to buy new. And Windows 7 represents poor value-for-money compared to Apple hardware and software. So says I, a long-time Windows (circa Windows 3.1) user.
At this point, the "value" between the hardware and software is nearly even. For the Mac, you pay more for the hardware but make up for it in subsidized software (iLife, iWork, Final Cut Studio, etc). On Windows, you spend less money on hardware but more on the software. In the end, it becomes a wash.
uh? [picture of what appears to be Windows 1.01 UI]
Actually next didn't invent the dock either. It was in OS/2 first back in 1992. And stardock has created one around the same time.
"In 1988, Steve Jobs' NeXT began demonstrating the new desktop of NeXTSTEP, which included the new Dock."
-- http://www.appleinsider.com/articles..._dock_1_6.html
I doubt very much that the Windows 1.01 UI or "taskbar" shown in the screenshot had any influence on the development of NeXTSTEP's Dock. However, if you can document that it did, please, post it here. I'm not sure of any connections between the OS/2 dock and the NeXT dock, but it would seem that the NeXT dock predates it. There have also been numerous add-ons for various operating systems that provided dock-like functionality.
But, the question is not who first had a dock/taskbar/app launcher, but did Apple steal it from the Windows Taskbar, an idea which I think can be rejected as utter nonsense. I'm not claiming anyone else stole it from NeXT/Apple. It may very well be several cases of convergent evolution.
Or just buy a new PC?
Lemon Bon Bon.
Considering most people will do that anyway, the upgrade pricing doesn't mean much in the way of total sales. And most people will only upgrade to Home Premium, the sweet spot of the lineup, which brings the total cost to upgrade to a mere $110.
Pretty cheap, considering what you're getting.
For fucks sake, Mossberg is one of Apple's biggest fans in print. Perhaps he gave Windows 7 a good review because its actually good? Posts like yours give websites like this a bad name.
For fucks sake I have RTM and it barely made any difference to me. It is still Windows, just acceptable to 2009 terms.
Well, it appears Microsoft is doing its part to help the PC industry. It's simply cheaper to buy a new PC than it is to upgrade your existing hardware with Windows 7. Seriously, $400 (stand-alone) for Windows 7 Ultimate?
With that kind of money, you can buy the Mac Box Family Pack, which includes FIVE licenses each of Snow Leopard, iLife 09 and iWorks 09 for $229. That leaves $171 to purchase, well, memory upgrades for your older Intel based Macs or a 1TB drive to back up all your software.
Interestingly, Mossberg fails to mention that Windows 7 requires much more modern and powerful hardware to perform well. Whereas Snow Leopard runs as well (if not faster) on OLDER Intel based Macs. Furthermore, there is only one flavor of Snow Leopard for Mac PCs and laptops. The "Full Monty" version!
Sorry, in this economy, it's better to use what technology you already have than to buy new. And Windows 7 represents poor value-for-money compared to Apple hardware and software. So says I, a long-time Windows (circa Windows 3.1) user.
-YipYipYipee
Snow Leopard has to run on old intel based Macs because God knows SJ isn't going to give anyone any up to date hardware. People are still begging for quad core systems when the rest of the world has had them for two years.
My school has Windows 7 Professional available right now for students under their student software program. I downloaded and installed the x64 version with VMWare Fusion 2 on my MacBook Pro. Honestly, I haven't had much time to play with the thing, but I don't find it very different than Vista. The start bar is redesigned, and they managed not to rename and re-hide administrative tools like network and display configuration (which is what pissed me off the most about the move from XP to Vista). But I just don't see how anyone can conclude that Windows 7 is a vast improvement over Vista, not to mention one that puts it almost shoulder to shoulder with OS X.
I put some screenshots up on my Flickr page. Those annoying warnings are still there. I got freaking stopped and asked if I was sure I wanted to trust Adobe when installing flash. I downloaded Packet Tracer from Cisco's website, and when I tried to install the program Windows 7, for some reason, won't recognized the .exe file as valid. If I can't run Packet Tracer, Windows 7 is freaking worthless. The only reason why I'm keeping it on my MacBook Pro is so that if someone I know calls me with an issue, I can research it on my end without having to drive to their house.
Mossberg says Snow Leopard wasn't a "must-have" upgrade, even at $30. Well Windows 7 isn't a "must-have" upgrade at over $100 for people who already have Vista. I could see paying full price and upgrading from XP, but not from Vista. It would be a waste of money. If my school didn't offer Windows 7 to students for free, and Windows wasn't running the $30 offer for students on win741.com, I wouldn't even think of buying that operating system.
How the hell is an .exe file "not a valid win32 application?"
Fewer security warnings? I'm not a child. I shouldn't have to hunt for settings to turn this kind of crap off.
Masta, you try to open partially downloaded file and celebrate even OSX gets error on such files, too. Are you sure you help people FIX their problems?
Windows 7 is really good for a Windows product, and I would say that it has closed a lot of the gap between it and OSX. On the other hand Snow Leopard hasn't really been able to show its strengths yet as most macs are still dual core and not many programs take advantage of Grand Central.
However, within two years, mac users can pretty much expect a new feature packed OS based on the solid foundation that Snow Leopard provides. Windows on the other hand, based on past history may not see an upgrade for a while and Windows 7 is already the feature packed update based on the foundation of Vista.
Windows 7 also has Grand Central type workings under the hood. It's better than vista, nuff said.
I think what most are missing from the article is the the talk of Virus's, Security flaws still present in Windows or the bad NTFS file system it's still stuck with. It's not WRETCHED like it was but it's still not up to snuff with OS X, BSD, and some flavors of Linux in those regards.
What people are going to care about the most, end users, is that it's faster than the crap they had before (vista), can run XP stuff (XP VM) and it comes on the new $399 quad core PC they just bought at the store (yes, you can buy a quad core pc right now with windows vista and 4gb of ram for $399).
When all you've had to eat for the last 4 years were plain crackers, I stick a cheeseburger in front of you it's gonna be the best thing in the world, right? But what about the table next to you that's been dining on Lobster and Fillet for the last 10 years? They just got a new recipe, nothing drastic.