THANK YOU. i'm an apple fanboy too, but i'm not an idiot. Windows 7 is good. my shares of AAPL are nervous that several switchers will switch back. MSFT will make a killing on win7 because every corporation in the world that's still on XP will upgrade, and that's a shit-ton of corporations.
In the gaming arena it is a toss up varying wildly depending on the game v and you still have to have a machine able to handle Vista to get the biggest gain out of Windows 7.
In the gaming arena it is a toss up varying wildly depending on the game v and you still have to have a machine able to handle Vista to get the biggest gain out of Windows 7.
I am not surprised. Would you really expect something good to come out from the company that produced nothing but crapware for the past 10 years? From MS Office "updates" to Winblows Vista it has been nothing but one fiasco after another.
In the gaming arena it is a toss up varying wildly depending on the game v and you still have to have a machine able to handle Vista to get the biggest gain out of Windows 7.
That "study" is FUD. If it weren't, why would they intentionally delay the full report for practically a week? The reason is link bait - put a shocking headline with no real context, then wait until after a weekend when everyone's forgotten to check the follow-up. The result is the headline "Windows 7 slower to boot than Vista" is stuck in your head forever.
As far as the comment that you have to have a machine that can run Vista to get the biggest gains from Windows 7, the opposite is true, actually. Windows 7's biggest gains in performance are on SLOWER hardware, where Vista could barely run at all. Netbooks are soon going to be loaded with Windows 7, loosely because of its lower hardware demands. If you have a PC that's capable of running Vista, Windows 7 will perform even better.
Update: Quoting a comment made on ComputerWorld:
'This test was conducted by iolo Technologies, which makes apps designed to "speed up your PC". Windows 7 boots much faster than Vista and XP on numerous laptops and desktop PCs that I've tried. I suspect Iolo wants to continue to have a reason to sell these "speed up your PC" apps."'
I am not surprised. Would you really expect something good to come out from the company that produced nothing but crapware for the past 10 years? From MS Office "updates" to Winblows Vista it has been nothing but one fiasco after another.
You still haven't commented at all about your post that's been completely debunked, yet you continue to believe all this false FUD?
This is to teckstud and all the others who participated in the rather heated debate over where Mac OS X's Dock and Windows' Task Bar originated.
Who cares which predates which? If a company is too proud to see that some other company's idea is too good not to use (you may call it copy), then said company is pretty blind and stupid, if you ask me. Sure, Microsoft took NextSTEP's Dock idea and made the Task Bar. And sure, Apple took a cue of both and made it into today's Dock. Just as there are countless other ideas that get carried over from one company's software offerings to that of another company. It's the way things work. Really, in this day and age, who cares which company first thought of the Dock idea? It's a proven concept and any software company writing and operating system that doesn't make use of the concept is missing the boat.
First of all, virus/malware isn't an issue in Windows 7 as long as you have good behavior. Even a Mac can get infected with a bad QT plugin or a keystroke logger if the user does something dumb. Plus, Microsoft has released their own anti-malware program called "Security Essentials," which fills the role of any PC user who isn't using a paid solution from say Eset or Norton.
Second, Windows updates are released ONCE PER MONTH on the second Tuesday of every month. The only updates that are released outside that schedule are deemed highly critical, and that doesn't happen often. With Windows 7's new patch engine, you *RARELY* need to restart after a Windows update. In fact, I don't believe I've ever had to restart after an update and have been using it since beta. Not even for video drivers!
Third, poor application design? Have you even looked at the Media Center functionality? Even the most hardcore Apple fans have said that a Media Center PC trounces anything the Apple TV is capable of. Not to mention the plethora of free software, like Zune and Live Essentials, that function just as well an elegantly as their Mac counterparts. They lack certain features, but they're 100% free.
Fourth, what are you talking about "viable backup solutions?" Microsoft has had decent backup software since Vista, and have improved it in Windows 7. You can make incremental snapshots, boot from virtual drives, and full disk images directly in the operating system. Not to mention the slew of third party backup software that comes bundled with nearly any hard drive you buy retail these days.
If you want to argue the merits of OS X, argue the things that make it work better for yourself: media applications, scripting and automation, virtual desktops, etc. But don't spew crap about something you know nothing about. I've USED both Leopard and Windows 7, and at this point, I have to concur with Mossberg (for once). Justifying the cost of a Mac is going to be a bit tougher once Windows 7 hits mainstream.
Even with good behavior everybody has to have antivirus and even then you are exposed. We all know this. Even if you don't get a virus you are doomed to the constant update cycles every few days. Windows may have an update every month but the other 50 third party software you need to achieve the same of functionality as a mac are all update-happy. The end result is that you will be updating something every day, restart or not. Some of these updates are bound to break something else since 50 applications can't live together for a long time if nobody follows software guidelines.
Etc, etc... Time machine puts everything Windows will ever come out with to shame. It is not even close. Every application written for PC is crapware because of the underlying OS structure.
You still haven't commented at all about your post that's been completely debunked, yet you continue to believe all this false FUD?
That's because they all comment without actually reading Mossberg. Here they need to Read the full article here in case they missed my earlier posting.
Good thing I never claimed otherwise.. Although I have to commend a person writing a PhD thesis on a word processor without bibliography support. It's good to know that there are still people on this planet who value the traditional way of creating academic papers (and yes, I know about endnoteweb). Whether services like Google Docs will ever really take off remains to be seen. Compared to Microsoft's office dominance Docs is a drop in the barrel at the moment and Google has yet to present a business model for all their services other than harvesting information.
I use Refworks myself (bizarrely enough I am 3 years into my thesis), which is almost entirely platform agnostic. I also use Scrivener, as it's the only writing tool I can stand for anything over 10,000 words or so. I knew very well the point you were making and was simply returning your flippant comment in kind. Of course suggesting that desktop ubiquity not being guaranteed does not mean people will have to write books or journals on a freaking phone - implying that was the logical conclusion of what I said was dishonest.
Quote:
My comment about the iPhone stems from the fact that at the moment Apple disciples are
Apple disciple? I am typing this using FireFox on an AMD Windows7 box I built myself. Sorry, carry on...
Quote:
projecting all their hopes into mobile devices which are supposed to accomplish all that OS X (the desktop system) has failed to do in the recent years: Kill Flash, kill Microsoft, finally bring Apple dominance to the world, etc.
Actually, just HTML 5, x264 and a full OS costing less than $200 would do me fine.
Quote:
And since OS X as it seems can't compete on the desktop the propaganda tactic have switched to marginalizing every market where Apple fails to conquer (e.g. mobile phones are the future, desktop don't matter anymore despite billions of people using them in addition to phones, et cetera pp.).
Can't compete? You mean in terms of numbers sold, or in terms of quality? Please explain? That's like saying Ferrari can't compete with Toyota... numbers don't mean anything, but what is for certain is that in terms of overall market success, the Personal desktop Computer is not the only battleground. Why do you think MS was willing to lose billions of dollars on the Xbox, and why will they now keep pushing Zune (with 1% market share)? Because they know that soon enough, smaller devices will drive content sales, and content sales will be where the real cash flow is.
And by the way, if you're trying to dilute my position with argumentum ad-hominem, that's fine (this is tEh interweBz after all), but at least try and address what is being said, rather than what you want me to be saying, that is easier to knock down.
The main problem with the Registry is that it's binary and mixes settings of everything together. Thus:
Corruption can be difficult or impossible to recover from, you can't simply edit or delete one app's/feature's settings separately from another.
--Yes you can! What makes you feel you cannot?
Finding the settings for a given app/feature can be very difficult at best because they are all mixed together and organized in unintuitive (to the average user) ways.
--To the average user yes! But it is logically organized to those that understand it. You really should not be in the Registry unless you have good reason to be in it.
The nature of the Registry makes it susceptible to malware attack and it can be difficult to identify and correct the problem.
--The nature of Windows but Vista and 7 improve on this tremendously. That's one of the reasons MS wants you to upgrade out of XP. Also, There are many programs out there that can sniff out malware on your system and in the Registry.
Those are a few problems of the registry relative to text-based, separate .plist files
--Programmatic-ally, the registry is actually easier to add/remove application settings per user than a .plist xml file.
I wrote a program that makes use of the Registry extensively and I find the Registry to be organized in a logical sense. All be it that it may look confusing and all jumbled together but it really does have logic to it.
True, it is not for the average user to be mucking around in the Registry but for what I do, it gives me the ability to add/remove app settings to the registry to many people quickly.
I don't feel one is better or worse than the other, there's just pluses and minus to how both MS and Apple implement personal settings.
On one aspect, I do like how Apple does the .plist files because when they do get corrupt, it's easy to delete it and watch it re-create a new one. That's nice.
But I like the fact of having a Registry because all the settings are contained in that database and are easily edited programmatic-ally.
Whew! Some of you have definitely had your coffee today!
Quote:
Originally Posted by Quillz
How exactly is this a "con?" It's called an opinion.
First off, the taskbar in Windows 7 is *NOT* trying to accomplish the same thing as Mac OS X's Dock. They have different design philosophies... the taskbar has always been about window management and the Dock has always been about application launching.
Well, I most certainly am giving my opinion - I never claimed otherwise. As the title of my post indicated, it was part of "my $.02", meaning that it's my opinion. I listed it as a "con" because - in my opinion - it's bad.
Also, I have to disagree with the idea that the Windows Taskbar isn't used for application launching - Windows 7 has clearly changed it to do so.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Quillz
Secondly, you're telling me that a little tiny white dot on the Mac OS X Dock is somehow easier to see than a large square that fills in with color on the mouseover on Window 7's taskbar? I get that obviously everyone sees screen widgets differently, but seriously, unless you're very blind, it's not hard at all to see which applications are actually running on the Windows 7 taskbar.
Yes, I am saying that a little white dot on the OSX Dock is clearer than tiny vertical lines next to a button on the Windows Taskbar. I made this observation as I am running Win7 in Classic mode, so it's possibly easier to see the difference when the eye candy is enabled, and I suppose that's what you're referring to.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Quillz
Also, "no drag/drop rearrange?" Have you used Windows 7 at all, or have you just claimed to? You didn't realize you just click and hold on the application icon and move it anywhere you want to on the taskbar, just like you can with the Mac OS X Dock? Did you not realize that you can drag/drop application icons directly from the Desktop and/or Start menu onto the taskbar? Have you never right-clicked on icons and seen the "pin to taskbar" option?
I stand corrected - I was working in a locked-down environment, so drag/drop wasn't working for me. This seems to have been a result of our group policy settings, not the default behavior of the OS. Thanks for pointing this out so that others aren't misinformed.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Quillz
Seriously, did you really use Windows 7 at all?
Okay, please give me a list of free plugins for Windows XP that will replicate the numerous new technologies and features that are in both Windows Vista and Windows 7. Specificially, show me free XP plugins that replicate Instant Search, BitLocker, UAC, the new kernel version, the hardware-accelerated GPU Aero desktop and sandboxed 64-bit IE8.
Here's where your comments start getting sort of silly. I am no troll, and I actually rarely post at all, but I wanted to share my actual experience with the actual Windows 7 software from my perspective. You and all that read here are free to take it or leave it.
FYI:
Instant Search - Replicated by the free Google Desktop
Aero - Replicated (without proper GPU support) by Windowblinds for years now
UAC - Haven't looked for a free solution since we turn it off, as it's cumbersome and not very useful for savvy users.
IE8 - Google Chrome, Safari, and Firefox are all free, and more compatible with Web standards.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Quillz
Also, you claim that no one will want to upgrade to Windows 7 when they cost over $100 (a half-truth), yet all the Apple worshipers here seem perfectly content having paid $129 for every single Mac OS X upgrade between 10.2 and 10.5.
First, I never said that "no one will want to upgrade", I said that "I don't see why anyone would upgrade", because I simply don't see why it's worth paying for. There is no half to the truth that upgrades will cost over $100. This article actually specifies the amounts - $120 for Home Premium upgrade, $200 for Professional, and $220 for Ultimate.
I can't answer why Apple "worshipers" as you call them (it should have two "p"s, by the way) are happy to pay for their OSX upgrades, but my best guess is that each upgrade is compelling enough to warrant a purchase. Personally, I only paid $10 for Snow Leopard (Up-To-Date program), and I've definitely gotten more than $10 out of it so far. I just can't say the same for Windows 7 and $120 or more.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Erunno
What? The icon changes quite obviously when more than one window is open for the same application by getting a "layered" look. I have to repeat Quillz' question: Are you positively sure that you have actually ever used Windows 7 personally? Screenshots, YouTube videos and looking over ones shoulder don't count.
You, my friend, are being hilarious. Of course I'm quite sure that I've used Windows 7, and I am in fact running two instances of it in my test lab at this moment, automating my test application. The confusion here seems to be the fact that my company's deployment of Windows 7 (Professional, in case you're interested) disables the Aero look by default. This means that the taskbar icons aren't changing obviously at all. Basically what you get is a little vertical line next to your taskbar "button" to indicate that there is an additional window within that application. The icon change becomes even more obscure when the application in question is selected - at this point, the little vertical bar that indicates a different window is indented along with the rest of the button, and you really need to look quite close to see how many windows might be associated.
Like I mentioned before, I guess I'm just spoiled with Snow Leopard. I now have higher expectations for a UI, and an OS in general. Windows 7 is much less broken than Vista, so it will probably see wider adoption - I just wouldn't pay for the upgrade, personally.
Even with good behavior everybody has to have antivirus and even then you are exposed. We all know this. Even if you don't get a virus you are doomed to the constant update cycles every few days. Windows may have an update every month but the other 50 third party software you need to achieve the same of functionality as a mac are all update-happy. The end result is that you will be updating something every day, restart or not. Some of these updates are bound to break something else since 50 applications can't live together for a long time if nobody follows software guidelines.
Etc, etc... Time machine puts everything Windows will ever come out with to shame. It is not even close. Every application written for PC is crapware because of the underlying OS structure.
So Avid is crapware? Adobe Photoshop, After Effects, and the rest of the CS4 suite is crapware? Hell, what about iTunes and Safari? They were written for the PC. Guess that makes them crapware too. (Actually, on Windows they are, but that's another argument xD)
Yes, one needs an anti-malware solution for their Windows box. There's no denying that the virus penetration for OS X is almost non-existent compared to Windows. But again, so what? Microsoft has released a (VERY GOOD) anti-malware tool that sits quietly in your taskbar and never bothers you unless there's a problem. I've had the thing running on all my machines since the beta was released months ago, and I've never so much as got a single popup or warning from it. It does not bog down my system in the slightest, and often times I forget its even there.
Time Machine? As I said, Microsoft has had automatic backup tools integrated with the system since Vista, which was released almost a year before Leopard. In Windows 7, they've expanded its capabilities to make it so incredibly simple and easy that a caveman could do it. Seriously, the only thing Windows does not have is the flashy "travel through space and time" animation that Time Machine does. Other than that, they're IDENTICAL.
As far as updates, again, Microsoft releases updates ONCE A MONTH. Anything else can't possibly be Microsoft's fault any more than Apple's fault when applications on Leopard want to update as well! Hell, its worse on the Mac, because they all use Sparkle, which never lets me bypass it.
Listen, I love the Mac, but I also love Windows 7. Both operating systems shine where the other fails. If you're more inclined to use a Mac, then use a Mac. If you want a low-cost PC that functions well, Windows 7 is the way to go. There's really nothing to argue about.
Amazing how people who talk about machines forget a factor that I and many Apple users deem essential : user comfort.
I had to deal a few times with M$oft for Office X, Office 2004 and Office 2008. The amount of crappy informations, time lost and fallacious deals M$oft proposed to me is simply overwhelming, after all those years. For example, when Office 2008 spellcheck has NEVER properly worked, M$oft proposed to reimburse the amount of the software. I said OK.
They sent me MAILS proposing me this and inviting me to contact their customer service to close the deal. When I did so, I never received any reply. When I insisted, after several weeks and a level 2 confused customer representative apologies for the behaviour of his on company, they proposed to me ONE support question free, value 75 $, to solve my problem.
I replied to them : it's a bug, you know it, everyone knows it, and instead of solving it, you propose some counselling which is nothong else than another couple of hours lost. You'd better make your homework and iron out your sad Office. My time is too precious.
Instead, using more than 20 Mac machines since 1992, each time I had a problem (3 in all), Apple
has been absolutely fair, repairing two Macs out of warranty, graciously extending the Apple care.
And it even offered to me an iPod Nano after a defective DVD problem.
That comfortable relationship with Apple Support is priceless and reliable.
No other IT company offers this in the industry (I could speak volumes about HP's strange ways too…).
This is saving you TIME.
Meanwhile, M$oft and some others invite you to pay twice : first by buying their products,
then by losing hours and buying crappy solutions to make them supposedly work.
This is to teckstud and all the others who participated in the rather heated debate over where Mac OS X's Dock and Windows' Task Bar originated.
Who cares which predates which? If a company is too proud to see that some other company's idea is too good not to use (you may call it copy), then said company is pretty blind and stupid, if you ask me. Sure, Microsoft took NextSTEP's Dock idea and made the Task Bar. And sure, Apple took a cue of both and made it into today's Dock. Just as there are countless other ideas that get carried over from one company's software offerings to that of another company. It's the way things work. Really, in this day and age, who cares which company first thought of the Dock idea? It's a proven concept and any software company writing and operating system that doesn't make use of the concept is missing the boat.
I totally agree with you and that was my point to begin. I was merely responding to someone who stated that MS copied Apple's whatever. To me it doesn't matter. Competition is great and if one improves upon the next- we're all better off for it.
Sorry to everyone if my writing was far from perfect, I was at work and extremely busy today.
You're upset by this? In the wake of Microsoft Office Web Applications and now, a FREE version of Office, why is this a bad thing? Google Docs is ad-supported, Gmail is ad-supported, Bing, Yahoo and Google ALL have ad-supported searches... doesn't bother me in the least.
Hell, this SITE is ad-supported. You have to pay the bills, somehow. And if you don't want it, guess what? You don't have to get it.
Meanwhile, M$oft and some others invite you to pay twice : first by buying their products,
then by losing hours and buying crappy solutions to make them supposedly work.
Windows 7 ? Not in a million years.
That has more to do with which OEM you do business with. In this case, Microsoft wouldn't be of any help to you regardless. The ones you'd have to compare to with Apple are the Dells and HPs of the world.
I do agree that Apple's technical support seems to be one of the best in the industry. As long as you're under warranty, they'll fix just about any issue you have with no questions asked. I love how they swapped out my original iPhone 3G last year after I complained about poor cellular reception. I didn't even need to turn the phone on to show them - they just replaced it on the spot! That's good customer service.
However, since I'm capable of building my own systems, I've found it more cost-effective to build the machine myself and service any replacements myself. I've saved money, but at the cost of me figuring out all my issues. That works for me. And what you do works for you.
In the end, its just a matter of who you're comfortable with. I'm personally more comfortable knowing the exact parts in all my machines and what to replace them with, while you're more comfortable not having to worry about it at all and pay the premium for that luxury.
Comments
THANK YOU. i'm an apple fanboy too, but i'm not an idiot. Windows 7 is good. my shares of AAPL are nervous that several switchers will switch back. MSFT will make a killing on win7 because every corporation in the world that's still on XP will upgrade, and that's a shit-ton of corporations.
As good as Windows 7 is is STILL has many of the problems Vista had evne in the begining.Under the Hood, Windows 7 Is Vista's Twin InfoWorld Nov 2008
Early reports of the soon to come out finished product are not good:
Windows 7 boots slower than Vista, says study: New OS starts up 42% slower than Vista, PC tune-up vendor claims Computerworld
A Windows to Help You Forget WSJ
In the gaming arena it is a toss up varying wildly depending on the game v and you still have to have a machine able to handle Vista to get the biggest gain out of Windows 7.
As good as Windows 7 is is STILL has many of the problems Vista had evne in the begining.Under the Hood, Windows 7 Is Vista's Twin InfoWorld Nov 2008
Early reports of the soon to come out finished product are not good:
Windows 7 boots slower than Vista, says study: New OS starts up 42% slower than Vista, PC tune-up vendor claims Computerworld
A Windows to Help You Forget WSJ
In the gaming arena it is a toss up varying wildly depending on the game v and you still have to have a machine able to handle Vista to get the biggest gain out of Windows 7.
I am not surprised. Would you really expect something good to come out from the company that produced nothing but crapware for the past 10 years? From MS Office "updates" to Winblows Vista it has been nothing but one fiasco after another.
As good as Windows 7 is is STILL has many of the problems Vista had evne in the begining.Under the Hood, Windows 7 Is Vista's Twin InfoWorld Nov 2008
Early reports of the soon to come out finished product are not good:
Windows 7 boots slower than Vista, says study: New OS starts up 42% slower than Vista, PC tune-up vendor claims Computerworld
A Windows to Help You Forget WSJ
In the gaming arena it is a toss up varying wildly depending on the game v and you still have to have a machine able to handle Vista to get the biggest gain out of Windows 7.
That "study" is FUD. If it weren't, why would they intentionally delay the full report for practically a week? The reason is link bait - put a shocking headline with no real context, then wait until after a weekend when everyone's forgotten to check the follow-up. The result is the headline "Windows 7 slower to boot than Vista" is stuck in your head forever.
As far as the comment that you have to have a machine that can run Vista to get the biggest gains from Windows 7, the opposite is true, actually. Windows 7's biggest gains in performance are on SLOWER hardware, where Vista could barely run at all. Netbooks are soon going to be loaded with Windows 7, loosely because of its lower hardware demands. If you have a PC that's capable of running Vista, Windows 7 will perform even better.
Update: Quoting a comment made on ComputerWorld:
'This test was conducted by iolo Technologies, which makes apps designed to "speed up your PC". Windows 7 boots much faster than Vista and XP on numerous laptops and desktop PCs that I've tried. I suspect Iolo wants to continue to have a reason to sell these "speed up your PC" apps."'
I am not surprised. Would you really expect something good to come out from the company that produced nothing but crapware for the past 10 years? From MS Office "updates" to Winblows Vista it has been nothing but one fiasco after another.
You still haven't commented at all about your post that's been completely debunked, yet you continue to believe all this false FUD?
Who cares which predates which? If a company is too proud to see that some other company's idea is too good not to use (you may call it copy), then said company is pretty blind and stupid, if you ask me. Sure, Microsoft took NextSTEP's Dock idea and made the Task Bar. And sure, Apple took a cue of both and made it into today's Dock. Just as there are countless other ideas that get carried over from one company's software offerings to that of another company. It's the way things work. Really, in this day and age, who cares which company first thought of the Dock idea? It's a proven concept and any software company writing and operating system that doesn't make use of the concept is missing the boat.
Calm down, have some dip...
First of all, virus/malware isn't an issue in Windows 7 as long as you have good behavior. Even a Mac can get infected with a bad QT plugin or a keystroke logger if the user does something dumb. Plus, Microsoft has released their own anti-malware program called "Security Essentials," which fills the role of any PC user who isn't using a paid solution from say Eset or Norton.
Second, Windows updates are released ONCE PER MONTH on the second Tuesday of every month. The only updates that are released outside that schedule are deemed highly critical, and that doesn't happen often. With Windows 7's new patch engine, you *RARELY* need to restart after a Windows update. In fact, I don't believe I've ever had to restart after an update and have been using it since beta. Not even for video drivers!
Third, poor application design? Have you even looked at the Media Center functionality? Even the most hardcore Apple fans have said that a Media Center PC trounces anything the Apple TV is capable of. Not to mention the plethora of free software, like Zune and Live Essentials, that function just as well an elegantly as their Mac counterparts. They lack certain features, but they're 100% free.
Fourth, what are you talking about "viable backup solutions?" Microsoft has had decent backup software since Vista, and have improved it in Windows 7. You can make incremental snapshots, boot from virtual drives, and full disk images directly in the operating system. Not to mention the slew of third party backup software that comes bundled with nearly any hard drive you buy retail these days.
If you want to argue the merits of OS X, argue the things that make it work better for yourself: media applications, scripting and automation, virtual desktops, etc. But don't spew crap about something you know nothing about. I've USED both Leopard and Windows 7, and at this point, I have to concur with Mossberg (for once). Justifying the cost of a Mac is going to be a bit tougher once Windows 7 hits mainstream.
Even with good behavior everybody has to have antivirus and even then you are exposed. We all know this. Even if you don't get a virus you are doomed to the constant update cycles every few days. Windows may have an update every month but the other 50 third party software you need to achieve the same of functionality as a mac are all update-happy. The end result is that you will be updating something every day, restart or not. Some of these updates are bound to break something else since 50 applications can't live together for a long time if nobody follows software guidelines.
Etc, etc... Time machine puts everything Windows will ever come out with to shame. It is not even close. Every application written for PC is crapware because of the underlying OS structure.
You still haven't commented at all about your post that's been completely debunked, yet you continue to believe all this false FUD?
That's because they all comment without actually reading Mossberg. Here they need to Read the full article here in case they missed my earlier posting.
http://ptech.allthingsd.com/20091007...lp-you-forget/
But be careful the WSJ uses flash!
Good thing I never claimed otherwise.. Although I have to commend a person writing a PhD thesis on a word processor without bibliography support. It's good to know that there are still people on this planet who value the traditional way of creating academic papers (and yes, I know about endnoteweb). Whether services like Google Docs will ever really take off remains to be seen. Compared to Microsoft's office dominance Docs is a drop in the barrel at the moment and Google has yet to present a business model for all their services other than harvesting information.
I use Refworks myself (bizarrely enough I am 3 years into my thesis), which is almost entirely platform agnostic. I also use Scrivener, as it's the only writing tool I can stand for anything over 10,000 words or so. I knew very well the point you were making and was simply returning your flippant comment in kind. Of course suggesting that desktop ubiquity not being guaranteed does not mean people will have to write books or journals on a freaking phone - implying that was the logical conclusion of what I said was dishonest.
My comment about the iPhone stems from the fact that at the moment Apple disciples are
Apple disciple? I am typing this using FireFox on an AMD Windows7 box I built myself. Sorry, carry on...
projecting all their hopes into mobile devices which are supposed to accomplish all that OS X (the desktop system) has failed to do in the recent years: Kill Flash, kill Microsoft, finally bring Apple dominance to the world, etc.
Actually, just HTML 5, x264 and a full OS costing less than $200 would do me fine.
And since OS X as it seems can't compete on the desktop the propaganda tactic have switched to marginalizing every market where Apple fails to conquer (e.g. mobile phones are the future, desktop don't matter anymore despite billions of people using them in addition to phones, et cetera pp.).
Can't compete? You mean in terms of numbers sold, or in terms of quality? Please explain? That's like saying Ferrari can't compete with Toyota... numbers don't mean anything, but what is for certain is that in terms of overall market success, the Personal desktop Computer is not the only battleground. Why do you think MS was willing to lose billions of dollars on the Xbox, and why will they now keep pushing Zune (with 1% market share)? Because they know that soon enough, smaller devices will drive content sales, and content sales will be where the real cash flow is.
And by the way, if you're trying to dilute my position with argumentum ad-hominem, that's fine (this is tEh interweBz after all), but at least try and address what is being said, rather than what you want me to be saying, that is easier to knock down.
Does it still work like this?
The main problem with the Registry is that it's binary and mixes settings of everything together. Thus:
- Corruption can be difficult or impossible to recover from, you can't simply edit or delete one app's/feature's settings separately from another.
- Finding the settings for a given app/feature can be very difficult at best because they are all mixed together and organized in unintuitive (to the average user) ways.
- The nature of the Registry makes it susceptible to malware attack and it can be difficult to identify and correct the problem.
Those are a few problems of the registry relative to text-based, separate .plist files--Yes you can! What makes you feel you cannot?
--To the average user yes! But it is logically organized to those that understand it. You really should not be in the Registry unless you have good reason to be in it.
--The nature of Windows but Vista and 7 improve on this tremendously. That's one of the reasons MS wants you to upgrade out of XP. Also, There are many programs out there that can sniff out malware on your system and in the Registry.
--Programmatic-ally, the registry is actually easier to add/remove application settings per user than a .plist xml file.
I wrote a program that makes use of the Registry extensively and I find the Registry to be organized in a logical sense. All be it that it may look confusing and all jumbled together but it really does have logic to it.
True, it is not for the average user to be mucking around in the Registry but for what I do, it gives me the ability to add/remove app settings to the registry to many people quickly.
I don't feel one is better or worse than the other, there's just pluses and minus to how both MS and Apple implement personal settings.
On one aspect, I do like how Apple does the .plist files because when they do get corrupt, it's easy to delete it and watch it re-create a new one. That's nice.
But I like the fact of having a Registry because all the settings are contained in that database and are easily edited programmatic-ally.
How exactly is this a "con?" It's called an opinion.
First off, the taskbar in Windows 7 is *NOT* trying to accomplish the same thing as Mac OS X's Dock. They have different design philosophies... the taskbar has always been about window management and the Dock has always been about application launching.
Well, I most certainly am giving my opinion - I never claimed otherwise. As the title of my post indicated, it was part of "my $.02", meaning that it's my opinion. I listed it as a "con" because - in my opinion - it's bad.
Also, I have to disagree with the idea that the Windows Taskbar isn't used for application launching - Windows 7 has clearly changed it to do so.
Secondly, you're telling me that a little tiny white dot on the Mac OS X Dock is somehow easier to see than a large square that fills in with color on the mouseover on Window 7's taskbar? I get that obviously everyone sees screen widgets differently, but seriously, unless you're very blind, it's not hard at all to see which applications are actually running on the Windows 7 taskbar.
Yes, I am saying that a little white dot on the OSX Dock is clearer than tiny vertical lines next to a button on the Windows Taskbar. I made this observation as I am running Win7 in Classic mode, so it's possibly easier to see the difference when the eye candy is enabled, and I suppose that's what you're referring to.
Also, "no drag/drop rearrange?" Have you used Windows 7 at all, or have you just claimed to? You didn't realize you just click and hold on the application icon and move it anywhere you want to on the taskbar, just like you can with the Mac OS X Dock? Did you not realize that you can drag/drop application icons directly from the Desktop and/or Start menu onto the taskbar? Have you never right-clicked on icons and seen the "pin to taskbar" option?
I stand corrected - I was working in a locked-down environment, so drag/drop wasn't working for me. This seems to have been a result of our group policy settings, not the default behavior of the OS. Thanks for pointing this out so that others aren't misinformed.
Seriously, did you really use Windows 7 at all?
Okay, please give me a list of free plugins for Windows XP that will replicate the numerous new technologies and features that are in both Windows Vista and Windows 7. Specificially, show me free XP plugins that replicate Instant Search, BitLocker, UAC, the new kernel version, the hardware-accelerated GPU Aero desktop and sandboxed 64-bit IE8.
Here's where your comments start getting sort of silly. I am no troll, and I actually rarely post at all, but I wanted to share my actual experience with the actual Windows 7 software from my perspective. You and all that read here are free to take it or leave it.
FYI:
Instant Search - Replicated by the free Google Desktop
Aero - Replicated (without proper GPU support) by Windowblinds for years now
UAC - Haven't looked for a free solution since we turn it off, as it's cumbersome and not very useful for savvy users.
IE8 - Google Chrome, Safari, and Firefox are all free, and more compatible with Web standards.
Also, you claim that no one will want to upgrade to Windows 7 when they cost over $100 (a half-truth), yet all the Apple worshipers here seem perfectly content having paid $129 for every single Mac OS X upgrade between 10.2 and 10.5.
First, I never said that "no one will want to upgrade", I said that "I don't see why anyone would upgrade", because I simply don't see why it's worth paying for. There is no half to the truth that upgrades will cost over $100. This article actually specifies the amounts - $120 for Home Premium upgrade, $200 for Professional, and $220 for Ultimate.
I can't answer why Apple "worshipers" as you call them (it should have two "p"s, by the way) are happy to pay for their OSX upgrades, but my best guess is that each upgrade is compelling enough to warrant a purchase. Personally, I only paid $10 for Snow Leopard (Up-To-Date program), and I've definitely gotten more than $10 out of it so far. I just can't say the same for Windows 7 and $120 or more.
What? The icon changes quite obviously when more than one window is open for the same application by getting a "layered" look. I have to repeat Quillz' question: Are you positively sure that you have actually ever used Windows 7 personally? Screenshots, YouTube videos and looking over ones shoulder don't count.
You, my friend, are being hilarious. Of course I'm quite sure that I've used Windows 7, and I am in fact running two instances of it in my test lab at this moment, automating my test application. The confusion here seems to be the fact that my company's deployment of Windows 7 (Professional, in case you're interested) disables the Aero look by default. This means that the taskbar icons aren't changing obviously at all. Basically what you get is a little vertical line next to your taskbar "button" to indicate that there is an additional window within that application. The icon change becomes even more obscure when the application in question is selected - at this point, the little vertical bar that indicates a different window is indented along with the rest of the button, and you really need to look quite close to see how many windows might be associated.
Like I mentioned before, I guess I'm just spoiled with Snow Leopard. I now have higher expectations for a UI, and an OS in general. Windows 7 is much less broken than Vista, so it will probably see wider adoption - I just wouldn't pay for the upgrade, personally.
Even with good behavior everybody has to have antivirus and even then you are exposed. We all know this. Even if you don't get a virus you are doomed to the constant update cycles every few days. Windows may have an update every month but the other 50 third party software you need to achieve the same of functionality as a mac are all update-happy. The end result is that you will be updating something every day, restart or not. Some of these updates are bound to break something else since 50 applications can't live together for a long time if nobody follows software guidelines.
Etc, etc... Time machine puts everything Windows will ever come out with to shame. It is not even close. Every application written for PC is crapware because of the underlying OS structure.
So Avid is crapware? Adobe Photoshop, After Effects, and the rest of the CS4 suite is crapware? Hell, what about iTunes and Safari? They were written for the PC. Guess that makes them crapware too. (Actually, on Windows they are, but that's another argument xD)
Yes, one needs an anti-malware solution for their Windows box. There's no denying that the virus penetration for OS X is almost non-existent compared to Windows. But again, so what? Microsoft has released a (VERY GOOD) anti-malware tool that sits quietly in your taskbar and never bothers you unless there's a problem. I've had the thing running on all my machines since the beta was released months ago, and I've never so much as got a single popup or warning from it. It does not bog down my system in the slightest, and often times I forget its even there.
Time Machine? As I said, Microsoft has had automatic backup tools integrated with the system since Vista, which was released almost a year before Leopard. In Windows 7, they've expanded its capabilities to make it so incredibly simple and easy that a caveman could do it. Seriously, the only thing Windows does not have is the flashy "travel through space and time" animation that Time Machine does. Other than that, they're IDENTICAL.
As far as updates, again, Microsoft releases updates ONCE A MONTH. Anything else can't possibly be Microsoft's fault any more than Apple's fault when applications on Leopard want to update as well! Hell, its worse on the Mac, because they all use Sparkle, which never lets me bypass it.
Listen, I love the Mac, but I also love Windows 7. Both operating systems shine where the other fails. If you're more inclined to use a Mac, then use a Mac. If you want a low-cost PC that functions well, Windows 7 is the way to go. There's really nothing to argue about.
I had to deal a few times with M$oft for Office X, Office 2004 and Office 2008. The amount of crappy informations, time lost and fallacious deals M$oft proposed to me is simply overwhelming, after all those years. For example, when Office 2008 spellcheck has NEVER properly worked, M$oft proposed to reimburse the amount of the software. I said OK.
They sent me MAILS proposing me this and inviting me to contact their customer service to close the deal. When I did so, I never received any reply. When I insisted, after several weeks and a level 2 confused customer representative apologies for the behaviour of his on company, they proposed to me ONE support question free, value 75 $, to solve my problem.
I replied to them : it's a bug, you know it, everyone knows it, and instead of solving it, you propose some counselling which is nothong else than another couple of hours lost. You'd better make your homework and iron out your sad Office. My time is too precious.
Instead, using more than 20 Mac machines since 1992, each time I had a problem (3 in all), Apple
has been absolutely fair, repairing two Macs out of warranty, graciously extending the Apple care.
And it even offered to me an iPod Nano after a defective DVD problem.
That comfortable relationship with Apple Support is priceless and reliable.
No other IT company offers this in the industry (I could speak volumes about HP's strange ways too…).
This is saving you TIME.
Meanwhile, M$oft and some others invite you to pay twice : first by buying their products,
then by losing hours and buying crappy solutions to make them supposedly work.
Windows 7 ? Not in a million years.
The screen grabs of the interface look strangely like OSX.
The screengrabs from Ubuntu look strangely like Windows. It doesn't mean its bad.
Apple wont miss me, but I will miss Apple.
http://gizmodo.com/5377481/bloatfest...ave-fcking-ads
Nice...
This is to teckstud and all the others who participated in the rather heated debate over where Mac OS X's Dock and Windows' Task Bar originated.
Who cares which predates which? If a company is too proud to see that some other company's idea is too good not to use (you may call it copy), then said company is pretty blind and stupid, if you ask me. Sure, Microsoft took NextSTEP's Dock idea and made the Task Bar. And sure, Apple took a cue of both and made it into today's Dock. Just as there are countless other ideas that get carried over from one company's software offerings to that of another company. It's the way things work. Really, in this day and age, who cares which company first thought of the Dock idea? It's a proven concept and any software company writing and operating system that doesn't make use of the concept is missing the boat.
I totally agree with you and that was my point to begin. I was merely responding to someone who stated that MS copied Apple's whatever. To me it doesn't matter. Competition is great and if one improves upon the next- we're all better off for it.
Sorry to everyone if my writing was far from perfect, I was at work and extremely busy today.
Well, seems MS are introducing low cost office, supported by ads:
http://gizmodo.com/5377481/bloatfest...ave-fcking-ads
Nice...
You're upset by this? In the wake of Microsoft Office Web Applications and now, a FREE version of Office, why is this a bad thing? Google Docs is ad-supported, Gmail is ad-supported, Bing, Yahoo and Google ALL have ad-supported searches... doesn't bother me in the least.
Hell, this SITE is ad-supported. You have to pay the bills, somehow. And if you don't want it, guess what? You don't have to get it.
Meanwhile, M$oft and some others invite you to pay twice : first by buying their products,
then by losing hours and buying crappy solutions to make them supposedly work.
Windows 7 ? Not in a million years.
That has more to do with which OEM you do business with. In this case, Microsoft wouldn't be of any help to you regardless. The ones you'd have to compare to with Apple are the Dells and HPs of the world.
I do agree that Apple's technical support seems to be one of the best in the industry. As long as you're under warranty, they'll fix just about any issue you have with no questions asked. I love how they swapped out my original iPhone 3G last year after I complained about poor cellular reception. I didn't even need to turn the phone on to show them - they just replaced it on the spot! That's good customer service.
However, since I'm capable of building my own systems, I've found it more cost-effective to build the machine myself and service any replacements myself. I've saved money, but at the cost of me figuring out all my issues. That works for me. And what you do works for you.
In the end, its just a matter of who you're comfortable with. I'm personally more comfortable knowing the exact parts in all my machines and what to replace them with, while you're more comfortable not having to worry about it at all and pay the premium for that luxury.