I've used Win7 on a handful of occasions via VMWare for a couple months.....and I have to say I'm a bit underwhelmed. Maybe I'm missing something. I mean if you are using XP or Vista, I could see how it's a step up. Although, honestly I can't see much difference from the Vista VM. I know they have refined the code and made a couple improvements to the Aero interface, but there is nothing that I've seen to make me switch back. I was once a hardcore MS person going back to DOS and Win 3.01, but the advent of bootcamp and then VM apps, I've made the switch and I'm in OSX 99% of the time now. I'd consider Ubuntu (have that as a VM too) if Adobe would support linux with their suite of products, but yet they still don't.
BTW, netbooks may be supposedly all the rage, but in walking through Denver International Airport the other day noting which computers people were using and was surprised to see a majority of people using Macs and very few netbooks.
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.
Good point, but previous to that was a great Andy Hertfield System 7 add-on. Previous to that was a dock on the Lisa. If we get our history straight, Allen and Gates heisted the code from Mac from the beginning-basing their entire business on borrowed software! To be fair, they did pay the guy in Seattle who wrote DOS=$50k for a few billion dollars worth of profit!
... And for the Acorn Archimedes having it before NeXT - totally possible, I think the question here was whether Apple 'stole' the Dock from Microsoft. Or at least that seemed to be the original question.
it wasn't a question actually.
teckstud made the bold assertion that Apple stole the dock from Microsoft. That's what started it.
He is wrong about five times over, but now he is claiming he didn't say that all along, and that he is right that it didn't happen that way, or some such convoluted BS. It's really hard to keep track of the thoughts of a person with such a poorly organised mental state.
The real story in a nutshell is that the dock and the taskbar are not really the same thing at all either visually or technically (based on their method of operation). Acorn used the dock first, NeXT used a slightly different version which then migrated to OS-X and changed yet again.
Microsoft has not had a dock until recently. It's taskbar is a (functionally), different thing from a dock although it has "dock-like" elements. Microsoft's taskbar has now evolved (with Windows 7) to be very very similar to the OS-X dock indeed. By virtue of the fact that you can now "pin" things to the taskbar and the fact that it shows status changes and does context and window management, the taskbar in Windows 7 can probably, for the first time, rightly be called a "dock."
There are many long articles on the Internet about the history of these changes that I have read, (one is referenced in this very thread). This is all common knowledge. None of this is in question, and it never has been except perhaps in teckstuds mind.
Well, one advantage OpenCL has over either CUDA or Stream is its not based on proprietary hardware. That means you write it once to OpenCL, and it will apply to either an ATI or nVidia card. Currently, the other two technologies only work on their respective cards, making adoption of either next to nil.
OpenCL is definitely an edge over Windows 7, but again, only theoretically. Nothing takes advantage of it, yet.
MS has DirectX which will see version 11 released soon. first came out in the 1990's and promised the same thing. write once and it will run on any graphics hardware. in reality it never worked out ideally. i've read the release notes on game patches and graphics drivers and they are always making custom changes because some card at some driver version has a problem with a game due to how it was coded or the dev kit used. same thing will happen to any other app that uses the "graphics" card
At least you can switch graphic cards on the fly without the need to log out first on Vista and 7, something which is very useful on a new MacBook Pro which comes with 2 graphic cards. I was hoping Apple would redesign/extend their graphic stack to support this too but, alas, it seems that Microsoft is ahead of the game at least in this area.
I've been using 7 on my MacBook Pro for several weeks now (mostly for work) for free. Students here had early access to Windows 7 Professional from the end of August. Some quick impressions:
* It sometimes feels slow. I'm not sure if it is really slow or perceived slowness due to an overuse of fade in/out animations but since I don't notice any performance degradation on any application I used it's probably the latter.
* Aero Peek is a nice addition. Internet Explorer uses it to preview all open tabs and windows and I got used to it rather quickly to specifically select a tab when bringing IE back from the background.
* The active borders, especially the ones which makes 2 windows use 50 percent of available space side by side, is a boon to me who has to read a lot of PDFs and other documentation while writing.
* Progress on the dock icon is also a small but fine addition, especially when downloading large files. It helped me to cope with my compulsive behaviour to check the download progress every few minutes.
* Games like Lord of the Rings Online run fine under DirectX 10. Something I was really not expecting.
* RAM usage is noticeably higher when using the 64 bit version compared to Windows XP. If you use memory intensive applications or games 4 GB of RAM is recommended. Some of these applications and games never encountered noticeable memory bottlenecks on XP.
* Don't care much about jump lists on 7 the same I don't care about the OS X equivalent.
* Shutdown time is noticeably slower than on OS X. On the other hand stand-bye mode is quicker (probably because OS X always saves memory contents to the hard disk first) and waking up is almost instant.
* Boot time is comparable to OS X (maybe a tad longer but not much).
* The file explorer now has most of the good features of the Finder (and some unique ones) without the retarded stuff. Using 7 I reminded me again of how I much miss a good default file manager on OS X. Thank god for Path Finder.
There's probably more stuff which would deserve further comments. Maybe at a later time.
EDIT: Something I remembered:
* Windows Media Player 12 now has the same retarded interface as QTX where the controls overlay the content even when not in fullscreen mode. Makes watching anything with subtitles a chore. On a positive note: It now supports H.264 and AAC natively. Here's still hoping that QuickTime will support WMV/VC-1 out of the box one day.
any time you use native x64 it uses more RAM than native x86. it's part of going to 64 bit. even the file sizes for service packs are much larger for the 64 bit version and the 32 bit
teckstud made the bold assertion that Apple stole the dock from Microsoft. That's what started it.
He is wrong about five times over, but now he is claiming he didn't say that all along, and that he is right that it didn't happen that way, or some such convoluted BS. It's really hard to keep track of the thoughts of a person with such a poorly organised mental state.
The real story in a nutshell is that the dock and the taskbar are not really the same thing at all either visually or technically (based on their method of operation). Acorn used the dock first, NeXT used a slightly different version which then migrated to OS-X and changed yet again.
Microsoft has not had a dock until recently. It's taskbar is a (functionally), different thing from a dock although it has "dock-like" elements. Microsoft's taskbar has now evolved (with Windows 7) to be very very similar to the OS-X dock indeed. By virtue of the fact that you can now "pin" things to the taskbar and the fact that it shows status changes and does context and window management, the taskbar in Windows 7 can probably, for the first time, rightly be called a "dock."
There are many long articles on the Internet about the history of these changes that I have read, (one is referenced in this very thread). This is all common knowledge. None of this is in question, and it never has been except perhaps in teckstuds mind.
I've been using Win7 for almost all of this year and while it won't convince me to sell my Mac, I'm very happy it's pretty good.
Yes there is. Although you will have to do a clean install (sounds like that doesn't matter, you're already running it) you get the upgrade price if you have a valid version of XP.
Good point. Clean install is not prefered, read elsewhere that I can upgrade with a copy of Vista, then goto 7. Will probably bring along some baggage, but the boys won't have to install all of their games.
dude, you said Apple stole the dock from Microsoft.
Just admit you are wrong. It won't hurt that much. It will make you a better person and save a lot of space on the forum.
Do you realise that if you take your crappy one-liners out of the thread, it's like a page and a half shorter? Don't you ever get tired of complaining about everything and everyone?
WRONG- Apple has not had a dock since 1988 in its OS. No more wasting my time.
Are you kidding me? NeXT, owned by Steve Jobs, was bought by Apple. NeXTStep, had the dock, and it's NeXTStep that became updated, gained features from OS 9, and was renamed OS X. Therefore, by chain of ownership, Apple owns the software that originated the Dock, and thus never copied it from anyone at all.
I've been working with the final version of Win 7 for a little while at work now (we're testing with it for a future software release), and it's been nothing but an annoyance to us so far.
It's quite possible that it's good when compared to Vista (which my company skipped), but upgrading from XP to Windows 7 doesn't seem to gain very much for a user. Off the top of my head, here are the pros and cons I've witnessed so far:
Pros:
- Find function finally uses a modern search engine, like Google Desktop
- The Dock-like taskbar is an improvement. However, see Cons below.
- Nice new background pictures
- Aero provides nice eye candy (although we disable this by default in our systems, so the OS resembles XP Classic)
Cons:
- Control Panels have been randomly renamed and are usually not accessible using previous methods. The end result doesn't seem to have any logic to it - it's just different for difference sake. This caused us a lot of annoyance as we were trying to learn how to configure and troubleshoot the new OS.
- Windows Explorer has changed for the worse in many respects, such as resetting the scroll bar to the top when you've selected a folder farther down, hiding what you selected.
- You can no longer set the Start menu to "Classic Start Menu" view.
- Startup and shutdown are much slower than XP.
- Can't get to System 32 folder unless you start browsing at c: root. If you start browsing elsewhere, you will be redirected (using virtual folders) to a Windows folder that contains nothing useful.
- Dock-like taskbar pales in comparison to the real Dock in OSX. (Hard to tell when an app is running or not, no drag/drop rearrange, hard to tell when more than one window is open for an item without clicking, etc.)
- Lots of little annoying omissions like the lack of an Explore menu option when right-clicking My Computer.
That's all I can think of right now. Overall, many areas that have changed are simply different, and we haven't yet found any that seem better. Win 7 will get out there, as I'm sure lots of new computers will ship with it, but from an upgrade perspective, I don't see why anyone would upgrade at all (especially at over $100 for an upgrade) since most of the new features can be added to XP for free using plugins.
This is a fascinating thread... and I, for one, am glad that (by the looks of it) Windows users might be getting something better, after years of pain.
My question is this. I'm a Mac user (doing a lot of multimedia development), and my wife is a Windows user (doing tons of data processing for medical research). In both cases, we find ourselves running up against the 32-bit RAM ceiling (which I believe is 4Gb per application space). When we're both crunching big numbers, both current O/S's (XP and SL) have real problems from a RAM allocation standpoint.
I know that SL is now 64-bit ready, but I'm still waiting for the app devs to catch up to the ridiculous capabilities of the MacPro, including its big RAM capacity. Same for her, over in Windows land.
So the question is -- which O/S is best positioned (with its dev community) to get over this 64-bit hump once and for all, and release all of the power our hardware has, but can't use?
... or am I missing something obvious?
Hold down the "6" and "4" keys on your MacPro and press the power button, hold them down till it comes to the login. That should answer your question.
In terms of database's and number crunching, OS X has won for years. I can migrate 1mil records in less than 2 mins on a MacMini Intel where as running windows (same system in bootcamp) takes over 30mins. It's not the hardware, it's the software.
The Home version is a feature crippled version with many pre-installed trial software which sometimes is impossible to un-install if you don't have the exact know how, one example of that is McAfee.
What the hell are you talking about? Windows doesn't include any kind of trialware whatsoever. That's all added in by third-party OEMs.
And what do you mean by "impossible to uninstall?" Because it's so hard to go into Control Panel and uninstall any software you don't want... Or do a clean install.
I would agree that *SOME* extremely elementary computer users might not know how to do either, but c'mon... anyone who has used Windows for more than a month knows how to uninstall "impossible to uninstall" software or just do a quick and easy clean install.
HTML5 can be had in any internet browser that supports it. i have 5 installed now. IE, firefox, chrome, safari and opera
GCD is nothing but thread scheduling and MS has the same thing, minus the catchy marketing name. on SL it's useless without appication support.
OpenCL is also on windows as well as CUDA and Stream. and it has nothing to do with the OS
two things Vista and 7 have that SL doesn't is full native 64 bit support and randomizing the memory space for security reasons. my laptop runs native x64 Windows 7 and any "legacy" crap i have a virtual XP machine. MS rewrote virtual PC for WIndows 7 Ultimate where it takes advantage of VT on the CPU and it runs almost as fast as on the bare hardware.
itunes works just fine on Windows 7 x64
Snow Leopard is also full 64 bit top to bottom, just not for all current machines and single DVD of Snow Leopard contains OS that is capable of running both 32 bit and 64 bit kernels without any hacks. WOW64 is a hack on the other hand I can run both 64 and 32 bit apps on Snow Leopard no matter what kernel is currently loaded 32 or 64 bit.
dude, you said Apple stole the dock from Microsoft.
Just admit you are wrong. It won't hurt that much. It will make you a better person and save a lot of space on the forum.
Do you realise that if you take your crappy one-liners out of the thread, it's like a page and a half shorter? Don't you ever get tired of complaining about everything and everyone?
Stop beating a dead horse- this has been answered long ago and correctly, unlike your posts.
Finally - the answer and answered with a sense a humor. thank you , thank you.
(to answer your question- it was both- one begat the other)
Microsoft had it first, but Job's (who most associate with Apple) had it before that. OS 7 introduced the Dock-Like structure first but it wasn't the "Dock" as we know it today. OS 8 and 9 perfected it which was about the time of Win95. What would be interesting, and maybe I'll do it tonight, is to re-visit the Xerox footage of the GUI they showed to Apple back in 1979??? Was a DOCK in that?
Does it really matter who had it first? Which one works better?
You know one cool feature from Next (yes I was a user and DAMN PROUD OF IT) that I miss? The audio notations built into everything, more exactly the ability to add them and make it part of the system and then share with others. Corny by today's standards but when used in email it was like the worlds first voicemail system.
nice to read reviews from people which are probably in microsoft's payroll
also how is this apple news?
people that compare snow leopard to windows 7 are angry pc users which have never owned / operated a mac and have no idea of what they're talking about, and were paid big amounts of money to write good reviews, like this mossberg character
Mossberg is an iconic journalist and an export consumer reviewer, he absolutely does not have a any biases if you have ever read his writing in the past 30 years
Comments
BTW, netbooks may be supposedly all the rage, but in walking through Denver International Airport the other day noting which computers people were using and was surprised to see a majority of people using Macs and very few netbooks.
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.
Good point, but previous to that was a great Andy Hertfield System 7 add-on. Previous to that was a dock on the Lisa. If we get our history straight, Allen and Gates heisted the code from Mac from the beginning-basing their entire business on borrowed software! To be fair, they did pay the guy in Seattle who wrote DOS=$50k for a few billion dollars worth of profit!
... And for the Acorn Archimedes having it before NeXT - totally possible, I think the question here was whether Apple 'stole' the Dock from Microsoft. Or at least that seemed to be the original question.
it wasn't a question actually.
teckstud made the bold assertion that Apple stole the dock from Microsoft. That's what started it.
He is wrong about five times over, but now he is claiming he didn't say that all along, and that he is right that it didn't happen that way, or some such convoluted BS. It's really hard to keep track of the thoughts of a person with such a poorly organised mental state.
The real story in a nutshell is that the dock and the taskbar are not really the same thing at all either visually or technically (based on their method of operation). Acorn used the dock first, NeXT used a slightly different version which then migrated to OS-X and changed yet again.
Microsoft has not had a dock until recently. It's taskbar is a (functionally), different thing from a dock although it has "dock-like" elements. Microsoft's taskbar has now evolved (with Windows 7) to be very very similar to the OS-X dock indeed. By virtue of the fact that you can now "pin" things to the taskbar and the fact that it shows status changes and does context and window management, the taskbar in Windows 7 can probably, for the first time, rightly be called a "dock."
There are many long articles on the Internet about the history of these changes that I have read, (one is referenced in this very thread). This is all common knowledge. None of this is in question, and it never has been except perhaps in teckstuds mind.
Me no make things up (not like anoymouse and his buddy gazoowee):
Allow me to quote you master:
Permission granted.
And that was you praising Windows 7?
Yes subject, now go to bed.
Well, one advantage OpenCL has over either CUDA or Stream is its not based on proprietary hardware. That means you write it once to OpenCL, and it will apply to either an ATI or nVidia card. Currently, the other two technologies only work on their respective cards, making adoption of either next to nil.
OpenCL is definitely an edge over Windows 7, but again, only theoretically. Nothing takes advantage of it, yet.
MS has DirectX which will see version 11 released soon. first came out in the 1990's and promised the same thing. write once and it will run on any graphics hardware. in reality it never worked out ideally. i've read the release notes on game patches and graphics drivers and they are always making custom changes because some card at some driver version has a problem with a game due to how it was coded or the dev kit used. same thing will happen to any other app that uses the "graphics" card
Vista
Home Premium / Business / Ultimate
* 1 GHz 32-bit (x86) or 64-bit (x64) processor
* 1 GB of system memory
* 40 GB hard drive with at least 15 GB of available space
Windows 7
If you want to run Windows 7 on your PC, here's what it takes:
* 1 gigahertz (GHz) or faster 32-bit (x86) or 64-bit (x64) processor
* 1 gigabyte (GB) RAM (32-bit) or 2 GB RAM (64-bit)
* 16 GB available hard disk space (32-bit) or 20 GB (64-bit)
At least you can switch graphic cards on the fly without the need to log out first on Vista and 7, something which is very useful on a new MacBook Pro which comes with 2 graphic cards. I was hoping Apple would redesign/extend their graphic stack to support this too but, alas, it seems that Microsoft is ahead of the game at least in this area.
I've been using 7 on my MacBook Pro for several weeks now (mostly for work) for free. Students here had early access to Windows 7 Professional from the end of August. Some quick impressions:
* It sometimes feels slow. I'm not sure if it is really slow or perceived slowness due to an overuse of fade in/out animations but since I don't notice any performance degradation on any application I used it's probably the latter.
* Aero Peek is a nice addition. Internet Explorer uses it to preview all open tabs and windows and I got used to it rather quickly to specifically select a tab when bringing IE back from the background.
* The active borders, especially the ones which makes 2 windows use 50 percent of available space side by side, is a boon to me who has to read a lot of PDFs and other documentation while writing.
* Progress on the dock icon is also a small but fine addition, especially when downloading large files. It helped me to cope with my compulsive behaviour to check the download progress every few minutes.
* Games like Lord of the Rings Online run fine under DirectX 10. Something I was really not expecting.
* RAM usage is noticeably higher when using the 64 bit version compared to Windows XP. If you use memory intensive applications or games 4 GB of RAM is recommended. Some of these applications and games never encountered noticeable memory bottlenecks on XP.
* Don't care much about jump lists on 7 the same I don't care about the OS X equivalent.
* Shutdown time is noticeably slower than on OS X. On the other hand stand-bye mode is quicker (probably because OS X always saves memory contents to the hard disk first) and waking up is almost instant.
* Boot time is comparable to OS X (maybe a tad longer but not much).
* The file explorer now has most of the good features of the Finder (and some unique ones) without the retarded stuff. Using 7 I reminded me again of how I much miss a good default file manager on OS X. Thank god for Path Finder.
There's probably more stuff which would deserve further comments. Maybe at a later time.
EDIT: Something I remembered:
* Windows Media Player 12 now has the same retarded interface as QTX where the controls overlay the content even when not in fullscreen mode. Makes watching anything with subtitles a chore. On a positive note: It now supports H.264 and AAC natively. Here's still hoping that QuickTime will support WMV/VC-1 out of the box one day.
any time you use native x64 it uses more RAM than native x86. it's part of going to 64 bit. even the file sizes for service packs are much larger for the 64 bit version and the 32 bit
From the horse's mouth. The basics
Vista
Windows 7
one nice feature is that it puts all the OS install files on the hard disk so if you add a feature you don't need the original DVD
it wasn't a question actually.
teckstud made the bold assertion that Apple stole the dock from Microsoft. That's what started it.
He is wrong about five times over, but now he is claiming he didn't say that all along, and that he is right that it didn't happen that way, or some such convoluted BS. It's really hard to keep track of the thoughts of a person with such a poorly organised mental state.
The real story in a nutshell is that the dock and the taskbar are not really the same thing at all either visually or technically (based on their method of operation). Acorn used the dock first, NeXT used a slightly different version which then migrated to OS-X and changed yet again.
Microsoft has not had a dock until recently. It's taskbar is a (functionally), different thing from a dock although it has "dock-like" elements. Microsoft's taskbar has now evolved (with Windows 7) to be very very similar to the OS-X dock indeed. By virtue of the fact that you can now "pin" things to the taskbar and the fact that it shows status changes and does context and window management, the taskbar in Windows 7 can probably, for the first time, rightly be called a "dock."
There are many long articles on the Internet about the history of these changes that I have read, (one is referenced in this very thread). This is all common knowledge. None of this is in question, and it never has been except perhaps in teckstuds mind.
Please don't even try explaining your lunacy.
I've been using Win7 for almost all of this year and while it won't convince me to sell my Mac, I'm very happy it's pretty good.
Yes there is. Although you will have to do a clean install (sounds like that doesn't matter, you're already running it) you get the upgrade price if you have a valid version of XP.
Good point. Clean install is not prefered, read elsewhere that I can upgrade with a copy of Vista, then goto 7. Will probably bring along some baggage, but the boys won't have to install all of their games.
L-WTF?
Apple didn't- NEXTSTEP did.
Cannot you READ?
dude, you said Apple stole the dock from Microsoft.
Just admit you are wrong. It won't hurt that much. It will make you a better person and save a lot of space on the forum.
Do you realise that if you take your crappy one-liners out of the thread, it's like a page and a half shorter? Don't you ever get tired of complaining about everything and everyone?
WRONG- Apple has not had a dock since 1988 in its OS. No more wasting my time.
Are you kidding me? NeXT, owned by Steve Jobs, was bought by Apple. NeXTStep, had the dock, and it's NeXTStep that became updated, gained features from OS 9, and was renamed OS X. Therefore, by chain of ownership, Apple owns the software that originated the Dock, and thus never copied it from anyone at all.
A brief history:
http://lowendmac.com/orchard/05/next...r-history.html
It's quite possible that it's good when compared to Vista (which my company skipped), but upgrading from XP to Windows 7 doesn't seem to gain very much for a user. Off the top of my head, here are the pros and cons I've witnessed so far:
Pros:
- Find function finally uses a modern search engine, like Google Desktop
- The Dock-like taskbar is an improvement. However, see Cons below.
- Nice new background pictures
- Aero provides nice eye candy (although we disable this by default in our systems, so the OS resembles XP Classic)
Cons:
- Control Panels have been randomly renamed and are usually not accessible using previous methods. The end result doesn't seem to have any logic to it - it's just different for difference sake. This caused us a lot of annoyance as we were trying to learn how to configure and troubleshoot the new OS.
- Windows Explorer has changed for the worse in many respects, such as resetting the scroll bar to the top when you've selected a folder farther down, hiding what you selected.
- You can no longer set the Start menu to "Classic Start Menu" view.
- Startup and shutdown are much slower than XP.
- Can't get to System 32 folder unless you start browsing at c: root. If you start browsing elsewhere, you will be redirected (using virtual folders) to a Windows folder that contains nothing useful.
- Dock-like taskbar pales in comparison to the real Dock in OSX. (Hard to tell when an app is running or not, no drag/drop rearrange, hard to tell when more than one window is open for an item without clicking, etc.)
- Lots of little annoying omissions like the lack of an Explore menu option when right-clicking My Computer.
That's all I can think of right now. Overall, many areas that have changed are simply different, and we haven't yet found any that seem better. Win 7 will get out there, as I'm sure lots of new computers will ship with it, but from an upgrade perspective, I don't see why anyone would upgrade at all (especially at over $100 for an upgrade) since most of the new features can be added to XP for free using plugins.
I guess I'm just spoiled with Snow Leopard.
This is a fascinating thread... and I, for one, am glad that (by the looks of it) Windows users might be getting something better, after years of pain.
My question is this. I'm a Mac user (doing a lot of multimedia development), and my wife is a Windows user (doing tons of data processing for medical research). In both cases, we find ourselves running up against the 32-bit RAM ceiling (which I believe is 4Gb per application space). When we're both crunching big numbers, both current O/S's (XP and SL) have real problems from a RAM allocation standpoint.
I know that SL is now 64-bit ready, but I'm still waiting for the app devs to catch up to the ridiculous capabilities of the MacPro, including its big RAM capacity. Same for her, over in Windows land.
So the question is -- which O/S is best positioned (with its dev community) to get over this 64-bit hump once and for all, and release all of the power our hardware has, but can't use?
... or am I missing something obvious?
Hold down the "6" and "4" keys on your MacPro and press the power button, hold them down till it comes to the login. That should answer your question.
In terms of database's and number crunching, OS X has won for years. I can migrate 1mil records in less than 2 mins on a MacMini Intel where as running windows (same system in bootcamp) takes over 30mins. It's not the hardware, it's the software.
The Home version is a feature crippled version with many pre-installed trial software which sometimes is impossible to un-install if you don't have the exact know how, one example of that is McAfee.
What the hell are you talking about? Windows doesn't include any kind of trialware whatsoever. That's all added in by third-party OEMs.
And what do you mean by "impossible to uninstall?" Because it's so hard to go into Control Panel and uninstall any software you don't want... Or do a clean install.
I would agree that *SOME* extremely elementary computer users might not know how to do either, but c'mon... anyone who has used Windows for more than a month knows how to uninstall "impossible to uninstall" software or just do a quick and easy clean install.
Yes subject, now go to bed.
ZZZZZZzzzzzzzzzzzz........
most of these have nothing to do with the OS
webkit is on windows
HTML5 can be had in any internet browser that supports it. i have 5 installed now. IE, firefox, chrome, safari and opera
GCD is nothing but thread scheduling and MS has the same thing, minus the catchy marketing name. on SL it's useless without appication support.
OpenCL is also on windows as well as CUDA and Stream. and it has nothing to do with the OS
two things Vista and 7 have that SL doesn't is full native 64 bit support and randomizing the memory space for security reasons. my laptop runs native x64 Windows 7 and any "legacy" crap i have a virtual XP machine. MS rewrote virtual PC for WIndows 7 Ultimate where it takes advantage of VT on the CPU and it runs almost as fast as on the bare hardware.
itunes works just fine on Windows 7 x64
Snow Leopard is also full 64 bit top to bottom, just not for all current machines and single DVD of Snow Leopard contains OS that is capable of running both 32 bit and 64 bit kernels without any hacks. WOW64 is a hack on the other hand I can run both 64 and 32 bit apps on Snow Leopard no matter what kernel is currently loaded 32 or 64 bit.
dude, you said Apple stole the dock from Microsoft.
Just admit you are wrong. It won't hurt that much. It will make you a better person and save a lot of space on the forum.
Do you realise that if you take your crappy one-liners out of the thread, it's like a page and a half shorter? Don't you ever get tired of complaining about everything and everyone?
Stop beating a dead horse- this has been answered long ago and correctly, unlike your posts.
Finally - the answer and answered with a sense a humor. thank you , thank you.
(to answer your question- it was both- one begat the other)
Microsoft had it first, but Job's (who most associate with Apple) had it before that. OS 7 introduced the Dock-Like structure first but it wasn't the "Dock" as we know it today. OS 8 and 9 perfected it which was about the time of Win95. What would be interesting, and maybe I'll do it tonight, is to re-visit the Xerox footage of the GUI they showed to Apple back in 1979??? Was a DOCK in that?
Does it really matter who had it first? Which one works better?
You know one cool feature from Next (yes I was a user and DAMN PROUD OF IT) that I miss? The audio notations built into everything, more exactly the ability to add them and make it part of the system and then share with others. Corny by today's standards but when used in email it was like the worlds first voicemail system.
nice to read reviews from people which are probably in microsoft's payroll
also how is this apple news?
people that compare snow leopard to windows 7 are angry pc users which have never owned / operated a mac and have no idea of what they're talking about, and were paid big amounts of money to write good reviews, like this mossberg character
Mossberg is an iconic journalist and an export consumer reviewer, he absolutely does not have a any biases if you have ever read his writing in the past 30 years
he holds everyone on the same playing field