Will Windows 7 make you switch back?

[dotdotdot]

I've been using the Windows 7 beta and it's incredible. No random Vista slowdowns, User Account Control works just right, and everything worked out of the box. And I love the new task bar.

Since it's a new installation (on a better computer, too) it seems even faster than XP and even OS X.

So now that many of you have had experience with the beta, do you think the final product will be enough to make you switch back to Windows? And if you've been a Mac user all your life, will you cross to the "dark" side?

I'm definitely tempted.

[Trip.Tucker]

Pffffffffffffft. Next question.

[CLuv]

Zippy chance

[dual64bit]

hahahaha this topic made me laugh.

A windows user can switch back anytime, it's the fact that when they "switched" over to mac, they really didn't switch 100%.

[Theophany]

I have a fetish for viruses. I'm so going to let all of my Macs go to waste because Redmond's finest release more overpriced trash.

[chagla]

I have a fetish for viruses. I'm so going to let all of my Macs go to waste because Redmond's finest release more overpriced trash.

it's getting boring. just cuz steve allmighty says its trash, it's actually not.
overwhelming majority doesn't agree with him. ;) say over 90%?

[Mackan]

hahahaha this topic made me laugh.

A windows user can switch back anytime, it's the fact that when they "switched" over to mac, they really didn't switch 100%.

I don't know what twisted world some people live in, but what you just wrote screams dumbness to me. What is switching 100%? Selling your soul to Steve Jobs and Apple because of... what, exactly?

Switching to the OS that gives you the best experience includes switching back to Windows, if that is the case. Preferences, needs, logic.

[QueenZ]

I've been testing it and i don't like it at all.. :p

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3104/3195018684_5fde1f2b01_b.jpg

[thefunkymunky]

Windows 7 is shaping up to be a very worthwhile OS. It's what Vista should have been and I actually prefer being in W7 than OSX right now. I personally think OSX looks dated in comparison to the W7 interface which is more refined than Vista.

[bertpalmer]

I certainly like the look of W7 - the features are pretty hot too.

The problem is the ****** looking hardware, the driver issues, viruses and the whole user experience when things just tend NOT to work.

I like it - but I'm sticking with the Mac - SL should be worth the wait (I hope!)

[Sehnsucht]

I have a fetish for viruses. I'm so going to let all of my Macs go to waste because Redmond's finest release more overpriced trash.

Bwhahahahaha!!! :D

[thejadedmonkey]

Windows 7 is shaping up to be a very worthwhile OS. It's what Vista should have been and I actually prefer being in W7 than OSX right now. I personally think OSX looks dated in comparison to the W7 interface which is more refined than Vista.

QFT. Plus given my recent Applecare experience, I'll probably be buying a Windows 7 computer in a year or two.

I have a fetish for viruses. I'm so going to let all of my Macs go to waste because Redmond's finest release more overpriced trash.

You've been drinking too much Apple Kool-aid. I've used a windows computer for many years and have never once gotten a virus.

[megacrazy]

hahahaha this topic made me laugh.

A windows user can switch back anytime, it's the fact that when they "switched" over to mac, they really didn't switch 100%.

You should try concentrating more on using the best OS out there, instead of being a Windows or Apple fanboy/user.

Windows 7 is excellent so far. Like so many have said, it's what Vista should have been and what Leopard already is. So, the question is why switch to something you already have with Leopard? Plus, all the graphical candy, that is copied mostly copied from OSX, is not at the same level as OSX.

I think I'll stay with OSX for now but my XP partition will soon be a Windows 7 partition.

[gkarris]

No... :rolleyes:

[The Flashing Fi]

I've been testing it and i don't like it at all.. :p

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3104/3195018684_5fde1f2b01_b.jpg

No wonder, you've neutered it by using the classic theme.


Anyway. I never "switched" to begin with. Just because I own a Mac doesn't mean I "switched." It means I added Mac OS X to my arsenal of OS's to use at my disposal, for times when it can do what I want to do on a computer better than Windows (you get no Steve Jobs brownie points if you reply to the sentence that Mac OS X can do everything better than Windows).

[edesignuk]

For anyone to be making decisions based on an OS in beta, and one that doesn't even have a public beta seems pretty daft.

[Keebler]

i won't switch back b/c xp does what i need it to on my bootcamp partition (although it has crashed a few times so a crashless windows 7 might be tempting), but i won't leave mac.

too many computers for my business and they're all running stable and are workhorses. Even though win7 may be great, it's not worth the expense of switching.

[keekl]

Is "Windows 7" going to be the official name?

[gloss]

Windows 7 is shaping up to be a very worthwhile OS. It's what Vista should have been and I actually prefer being in W7 than OSX right now. I personally think OSX looks dated in comparison to the W7 interface which is more refined than Vista.

Despite being a devoted Mac user, I'm tending to agree with this assessment. Microsoft has done a really nice job of rooting out a lot of the user-unfriendliness that plagued XP. I'm liking 7. I don't think I'd switch back on a permanent basis, but if 7 proves to be stable, I would certainly consider a dual-OS environment.

Of course, this attitude partially stems from my Leopard install acting up. When Snow Leopard comes out I'll give it a fresh install and we'll see how they stack up.

[EmperorDarius]

I won't switch. I see no reason too, it's still windows after all. I don't wanna go back dealing with a popup for every single system change, or get infected instead. Plus that I will never even try to get back to windows as long as the registry exists. That infernal thing is just causing problems. No thanks.


Windows 7 is shaping up to be a very worthwhile OS. It's what Vista should have been and I actually prefer being in W7 than OSX right now. I personally think OSX looks dated in comparison to the W7 interface which is more refined than Vista.

Leopard's design seems much more advanced and detailed to me.


You've been drinking too much Apple Kool-aid. I've used a windows computer for many years and have never once gotten a virus.

Or so you think. How do you know it? How do you know that there's not a nasty rootkit somewhere in your computer? Many years of windows usage prove that you can't unless you use several system monitoring softwares, which gives tons of popups. An antivirus is never enough.

[dextertangocci]

Yes, I will be switching. I love the random crashes, viruses, spyware and the fact that you have to reinstall the operating system once a month to get rid of all the crap on your computer.

Microsoft will never be able to fix any of this, unless they use a completely different architecture for Windows, like Apple did with Mac OSX.

[NEiMac]

No, I won't switch back to windows, unless a job requires it or something. Not because I hate Microsoft or even the virus problems really, it's because I hate using there software and there update system. No I'm not a brain washed apple fan, and I may very well go back to using linux some day, but Mac os X is working fine for me at the moment.

[Jeremy81]

Definitely not. Installed on bootcamp and after 30 minutes was ready to boot back into OS X and never look back. For me Windows is just painful to use. It's as much about apps as the OS and most Windows apps are too bloated and ugly.

[mgclayton]

In a word, No.

I regularly use OS X, Linux and Windows (XP & Vista), but my OS X machine(s) are the ones I use day in day out. They're just more pleasant to use. Having said that, my Linux box is on 24/7 as a web and database server. Horses for courses and all that.
I have installed Windows 7 and I think it is an improvement over Vista, my benchmarks suggest a performance boost (about 5%), the UAC is better, and the taskbar looks more like the dock ( ;) ).

However, there's still no expose, spaces, time machine, etc and more importantly no UNIX underneath!
Also, it's likely that Snow Leopard will be out before Windows 7. My beta expires on Aug 1st, so I doubt 7 will be out before then.

[Les Kern]

I've been using the Windows 7 beta and it's incredible. No random Vista slowdowns, User Account Control works just right, and everything worked out of the box. And I love the new task bar.

Since it's a new installation (on a better computer, too) it seems even faster than XP and even OS X.

So now that many of you have had experience with the beta, do you think the final product will be enough to make you switch back to Windows? And if you've been a Mac user all your life, will you cross to the "dark" side?

I'm definitely tempted.

But it's Windows....
I did a few preliminary tests with 7 and I'll admit here right now I was impressed... compared to XP and Vista. I didn't want to mess up my Vista box since it took me months of tweaking to get that to run perfectly, so I loaded build 7000 in VMWare. That's where I test out code anyway.
That thing is snappy, and I love the minimalist approach. I hope Snow Leopard does something similar, and I hope MS doesn't add bloatware... that will destroy the concept.
Here are the first two tests I did. Both are running in the latest VM version, on a 8-core Mac Pro with 8GB ram and fast SATA drives. The second shows a comaprison with XP. While Win 7 is the beta, XP is a MINIMAL install to try to get as fast a response as possible.
Win7 has promise I think.
http://www.coachstat.com/Win7.mov

http://www.coachstat.com/Win7vsXP.mov

Sorry about the window size on the second movie... I was in a hurry.

[EmperorDarius]

If Microsoft itself uses Macs (http://tinyurl.com/9yoan5), why shouldn't we?:p

[thejadedmonkey]

Or so you think. How do you know it? How do you know that there's not a nasty rootkit somewhere in your computer? Many years of windows usage prove that you can't unless you use several system monitoring softwares, which gives tons of popups. An antivirus is never enough.

Because for the longest time, Rootkits didn't exist and anti-virus could detect viruses. Plus, I have yet to see a virus (trojan, etc) that doesn't make its precense known.

By the time rootkits were around, I was at college with an industrial strength anti-virus program. I'm pretty sure I never got one.

[EmperorDarius]

Because for the longest time, Rootkits didn't exist and anti-virus could detect viruses. Plus, I have yet to see a virus (trojan, etc) that doesn't make its precense known.

By the time rootkits were around, I was at college with an industrial strength anti-virus program. I'm pretty sure I never got one.

A thing that a rootkit sure doesn't do is getting noticed. You won't notice any slowdown, nor any process or strange file. It may just attach to the system files and do whatever it wants.

[SolRayz]

Windows over OSX!:confused:

This thread is a joke right?

[gkarris]

Windows over OSX!:confused:

This thread is a joke right?

People have the right to ask - for the sake of discussion.

Windows 7, imo, is just MS's next product - no big deal... :)

[Theophany]

You've been drinking too much Apple Kool-aid. I've used a windows computer for many years and have never once gotten a virus.

Not really. I've been using Windows day-in-day out since the days of Windows 3.0 and DOS and I've never *touch wood* had a virus. The difference is, on Windows I have to consciously make an effort to avoid getting a virus (AV installed or not), on my Mac, I don't have to.

Now my job, working as a small-scale systems admin and working in my free time as a freelance computer Mr. Fixit, I see viruses all the time and every time the entire process of cleaning out the crud is tedious.

it's getting boring. just cuz steve allmighty says its trash, it's actually not.
overwhelming majority doesn't agree with him. ;) say over 90%?

Who cares what Steve says? No, really, I don't :confused:

I don't buy or not buy things based on his outspoken opinions, that is unless he is willing to pay for all the stuff he thinks I should be using.

[mobilehaathi]

No. Although I left Windows long before I started using OSX.

[bunit]

Why switch when you can have both.

[sharp65]

Windows over OSX!:confused:

This thread is a joke right?

What? People actually don't agree with you :eek:

[chagla]

I've been testing it and i don't like it at all.. :p

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3104/3195018684_5fde1f2b01_b.jpg
you are using win vista, NOT win 7.

[Quillz]

you are using win vista, NOT win 7.
No, it's Windows 7. I can tell by the icon set and the fact that the Windows flag on the Start button is different from Vista. It a modified Windows 7 setup, as it's using the Windows Classic theme and all the watermarks and "Send Feedback" links have been removed.

[Quillz]

Windows over OSX!:confused:

This thread is a joke right?
No, it's called opinions and personal preference. Not everyone enjoys dreaming about Steve Jobs all night. Why is is it so difficult for you to understand that some simply prefer Windows? While it's cool to hate Microsoft and spread Windows FUD, always remember that Windows got to where it was not only because of smart business decisions made by Microsoft, but because it's a very good operating system. It was far better than Mac OS, and Apple really didn't catch up until Mac OS X.

[chagla]

No, it's Windows 7. I can tell by the icon set and the fact that the Windows flag on the Start button is different from Vista. It a modified Windows 7 setup, as it's using the Windows Classic theme and all the watermarks and "Send Feedback" links have been removed.
yes, you're right. :o

i was looking for the "windows 7 for testing and evaluation purpose only" notice on the bottom right hand corner. i was under the impression all win7 beta shows that notice. i was wrong then.

[Quillz]

If Microsoft itself uses Macs (http://tinyurl.com/9yoan5), why shouldn't we?:p
And what about Apple hosting Apple China on Windows 2000 servers? Clearly, Apple wants us to use Microsoft Windows.

I don't think Microsoft cares what you run their software on, whether it be an Apple, Dell, HP or Toshiba. Microsoft makes software to run on hardware. They don't make their own computers like Apple does.

[Quillz]

yes, you're right. :o

i was looking for the "windows 7 for testing and evaluation purpose only" notice on the bottom right hand corner. i was under the impression all win7 beta shows that notice. i was wrong then.
No, you're right. It does show that watermark in the bottom right. But there are tricks to remove it if you really want to.

[NoSmokingBandit]

If the rumored 'Marble' interface for 10.6 is indeed real and offers window management that doesnt suck it will be hard to make a decision. Win7's window management is just completely superb, much better than any other os i have used.


In response to someone up there^^
Why wouldnt MS use macs? They write software for osx. Im no programmer, but i would assume its rather difficult to write an office suite for an OS you have no access to. Just a thought.

[arkitect]

Will Windows 7 make you switch back?

Switch back?
No.

Why?
Probably because I never "switched" from MS in the first place.

It is not an either or choice.

Both environments have their strengths. Mac OS admittedly has a few more, but…
;)

[Quillz]

However, there's still no expose, spaces, time machine, etc and more importantly no UNIX underneath!

Expose isn't really necessary on Windows 7 due to Aero Peek, the taskbar being a window manager and Flip-3d. The reason Apple added Expose to Mac OS X in the first place is because the Dock is nothing more than an application launcher. But since Windows 95, you've always had a centralized location for window management.

Also, Aero Peek is in some ways better than Expose because it doesn't move or resize any of the windows. It shows you exactly where everything is, and it also turns everything to glass, except for the windows related to the application you're managing through the taskbar. It combines Expose's "Show all windows" and "Show all application windows" functions.

As for Spaces, well, that's true, but not everyone needs or uses it. Effective window management is a good skill to learn, regardless of how many virtual desktops you may have. And of course, there are third-party virtual desktops for Windows available. Microsoft even released a virtual desktops PowerToy back in the Windows XP days.

As for Time Machine... Windows Vista and beyond now includes shadow copies, which are somewhat similar in that they version all the documents on your computer. The main difference is that Time Machine requires an external disk, while shadow copies can be stored on a secure partition on the same drive.

And as for Unix, that's also true. But I still fail to see what exactly makes Unix so superior to NTFS. I think it's trendy to say this without doing much research. For everyday usage, there is very little that Unix does that NTFS can't. The Windows NT kernel was first developed in 1993 and has become extremely matured since then. End-users will likely never know or care about the differences between the two. They both work and are credible foundations for building operating systems.

[Quillz]

If the rumored 'Marble' interface for 10.6 is indeed real and offers window management that doesnt suck it will be hard to make a decision. Win7's window management is just completely superb, much better than any other os i have used.
Unfortunately, I feel that Steve Jobs is just too in love with Mac OS X how it is now that he sees no reason to make some necessary usability improvements. I don't think the Dock should go away, as it's become a staple of Mac OS X much like Windows' Start menu. Instead, there should be an "advanced" user interface or something that would combine the Dock with something like DragThing, which allows you to easily pin applications to the extreme corners and edges, use text labels, and lock everything down into a static size and shape. This would adhere to Fitts' Law, and DragThing (just for the sake of an example), is also rather good at window management.

[BlackLight]

i too switched to mac recently got the new alu macbook 2.4ghz but honestly i never really left windows... had xp via bootcamp and got windows 7 ..very impressed so far... will install over xp and if it gets better by august i will definately buy and install on my mac. but if not, will downgrade but honestly i will never leave windows cause there are alot fo stuff i love and still use there. :)

[PhilW]

A few years ago, I met a girl called XP. I wouldn't say we fell in love but we did become exceptionally fond of one another, and our relationship became very healthy and fulfilling. Over time though, I began to ask more and more of her but our relationship started to falter. She seemed to be getting tired and frequently lethargic, and the more baggage our relationship gathered the worse this would become. Sometimes we would pretend to start afresh but the old baggage would soon re-accumulate. Then, last summer, things became truly sour. I left her for another.

My new girl was called OS X, and this time it was love. So beautiful, lithe and easy to get along with. I never tired of looking at her, and she didn't have that deep underlying complexity that used to show itself when life with XP used to turn nasty.

When I heard that one of my friends had fallen for my old mistress I had pangs of jealousy, but it was soon clear that she had just tarted herself up like an old alcoholic. A load of heavy make up slapped onto the old girl wasn't fooling me. All fur coat and no knickers! She had taken on a new name too, Vista. The word on the street was that she was even more demanding than before, was still too slow and carried all the old baggage. From my cosy bed with OS X, all I could feel was pity.

Then one day I could a glimpse of my ex and it shocked me. She was certainly more pretty than I remembered, and lively too. The girl was now calling herself Seven and putting her self about for free. It seemed that she was pleasing all the boys. But when I looked deeper, I could still see the old hallmarks, the messy manners and scatter-brained logic that I used to loathe.

I'm happy with my new girl, OS X, and no amount of pricey makeovers are going to make me leave her.

[Eidorian]

Dear Apple,

Make something that I want a to buy.

Thanks

~Eidorian

[63dot]

I have my Mac mini and a Power Mac and they are fine for me. I will get a small PC netbook for internet only and word processing, running XP, but I don't see a need in getting a PC with Windows 7.

[Quillz]

i too switched to mac recently got the new alu macbook 2.4ghz but honestly i never really left windows... had xp via bootcamp and got windows 7 ..very impressed so far... will install over xp and if it gets better by august i will definately buy and install on my mac. but if not, will downgrade but honestly i will never leave windows cause there are alot fo stuff i love and still use there. :)
I highly, highly doubt that Windows 7 will get any worse on its way to RTM. Look at how (mostly) well-received Beta 1 is. It can only really get better, honestly. It looks like it's finally time to retire Windows XP for good and replace it with Windows 7.

From what I've read, Windows 7 actually uses so fewer resources than Windows Vista that it can easily be installed on netbooks. I believe Engadget wrote an article about installing Windows 7 on the new Sony Vaio P netbooks.

[Quillz]

I have my Mac mini and a Power Mac and they are fine for me. I will get a small PC netbook for internet only and word processing, running XP, but I don't see a need in getting a PC with Windows 7.
I would recommend you try running Windows 7 on the netbook. I've read that the OS works very well on Intel's Atom processors.

[akbc]

In my opinion, it's always the big PC manufacturers messing the OS up.

I personally enjoy using my Vista x64 bootcamp partition and my other machines.
But when PC companies like Dell, HP decides to load the damn OS with **** load of useless software and trial-wares. It just pisses me off...

*DING* YOU HAVE 90 DAYS TO ACTIVATE YOUR NORTON ANTI-VIRUS! OR YOUR COMPUTER WILL BE IN DANGER! *DING*

Honestly, all I run on my PC's are Avast! and Windows Defender and I really have no issues... so I'm already quite happy =_=... If only those damn PC makers stop loading their OEM OS's with *********!

[synth3tik]

There should be an entry for "HAHA WTF ROFL"

I never even gave it a though. Although this does not mean Apple can start breathing easier with their higher market share. Apple has been doing some really questionable and dumb things recently. Of course Apple's most complete product is OS X and that is really what matters.

I think Windows 7 does have a chance though at stealing some of the recent and soon to be switchers by giving them a new OS with less of the Windows annoyances, and without adding the new annoyances of a different OS.

[Eluzion]

The new task bar in Windows 7 is very dock-like in OS X, which is a good thing. I have been running Windows 7 through Fusion and it's great so far. There's a few features I absolutely love such as the ability to resize windows to half the screen by dragging it to the edge of the screen. The new task bar, like I mentioned is a lot better. "Smart" folders are great (viewing media files from multiple locations in one folder). Again, a lot of stuff is OS X like but for me, that's a good thing. ;) I'll definitely be using Windows 7 for my next desktop build. Not sure about my next laptop though, might stick with the MBP.

[NoSmokingBandit]

As for Time Machine... Windows Vista and beyond now includes shadow copies, which are somewhat similar in that they version all the documents on your computer. The main difference is that Time Machine requires an external disk, while shadow copies can be stored on a secure partition on the same drive.

That was actually available since XP SP2, long before Apple started using the feature.

The new task bar in Windows 7 is very dock-like in OS X, which is a good thing. I have been running Windows 7 through Fusion and it's great so far. There's a few features I absolutely love such as the ability to resize windows to half the screen by dragging it to the edge of the screen. The new task bar, like I mentioned is a lot better. "Smart" folders are great (viewing media files from multiple locations in one folder). Again, a lot of stuff is OS X like but for me, that's a good thing. ;) I'll definitely be using Windows 7 for my next desktop build. Not sure about my next laptop though, might stick with the MBP.

People keep saying the taskbar is like the dock, but i really dont get it. The taskbar has way more functionality on the bar itself, they just changed the way it looks. Big icons, no lables, and grouping on by default. The functionality is still 100% taskbar.
The window resizing is great though, isnt it? It makes it so much easier to look at two documents side-by-side without dragging crap all around.
The libraries are nice. I can add my music folder the the music library and WMP automatically picks it up. iTunes cant compare when it comes to managing music outside of the app.

In the end though, i will still use both os's. Both are designed to do different things so i will use them that way.

[SpEnCeR132]

no way. i put it on one of my xp machines and its worse than xp.slower, clunkier. ill stick to OSX. it just works better

[Quillz]

no way. i put it on one of my xp machines and its worse than xp.slower, clunkier. ill stick to OSX. it just works better
What were the specs of this XP box? Because Windows 7 isn't magic. It's not going to suddenly revive old hardware.

Did you check the minimal requirements? You need at least 1 GB of RAM, for example, to have a smooth installation. And even then, you'd need a processor likely no older than a Pentium 4 and some sort of integrated or dedicated GPU to run Aero Glass.

By all accounts, Windows 7 runs faster than both Windows XP and Windows Vista on the same hardware, but all of these tests were conducted on machines that were "Windows Vista Capable." So, again, what are the specs of this computer, and how old is it?

Also, Mac OS X would probably run horribly on that box, as well.

[Quillz]

There should be an entry for "HAHA WTF ROFL"

I never even gave it a though. Although this does not mean Apple can start breathing easier with their higher market share. Apple has been doing some really questionable and dumb things recently. Of course Apple's most complete product is OS X and that is really what matters.

I think Windows 7 does have a chance though at stealing some of the recent and soon to be switchers by giving them a new OS with less of the Windows annoyances, and without adding the new annoyances of a different OS.
HAHA WTF ROFL @ Apple's higher market share. You realize that even with all the hype, switchers and seemingly "superior" products, Mac OS X still barely has a 10% global market share right? By most estimates, there are no more than 25-30 million Mac users worldwide. Windows 3 back in 1990 sold close to 35 million copies. You can't even really compare the market share between the Macintosh and Windows because they are just far in opposite directions from one another.

As long as Apple continues to build overpriced, closed hardware and bundle it with their closed operating system, they will never even come close to respectable market share. Apple's strategy is not at all bad, it works, and I don't expect them to be more open. But, the open nature of Windows (at least compared to Mac OS X) is what led to Windows becoming the de facto standard for most end users and enterprise customers.

[Quillz]

In my opinion, it's always the big PC manufacturers messing the OS up.

I personally enjoy using my Vista x64 bootcamp partition and my other machines.
But when PC companies like Dell, HP decides to load the damn OS with **** load of useless software and trial-wares. It just pisses me off...

*DING* YOU HAVE 90 DAYS TO ACTIVATE YOUR NORTON ANTI-VIRUS! OR YOUR COMPUTER WILL BE IN DANGER! *DING*

Honestly, all I run on my PC's are Avast! and Windows Defender and I really have no issues... so I'm already quite happy =_=... If only those damn PC makers stop loading their OEM OS's with *********!
And this is why the first rule of buying computers from vendors like Dell is to always, ALWAYS, do a fresh, clean install of the OS. Most vendors now give you full Windows restore discs. If they didn't, call them up and demand it.

I remember when I got my most recent Dell notebook, the XPS M1330. It's great, but you should have seen how slow it was when I booted it up. It was Vista Home Premium, but bogged down with the "Dell Dock," multiple anti-virus trials, Microsoft Office 2007 trial, all sorts of mediocre "media creation" programs, etc. I did a fresh install of Windows Vista Home Premium 64-bit, and the speed and performace improvements were like night and day.

Now the notebook runs Windows 7 and it's even better.

[twoodcc]

i don't think it'll make me switch back, but i might use windows more than i do now though

[John Dillinger]

I think the more pertinent question is: will the new Windows 7 stop the rate of defects to the Mac platform? The way things are shaping up I'd say the answer is yes, and that is more important to Microsoft.

Windows 7 looks a very nice alternative to OSX, carrying the advantage that you have a massive choice of hardware to run it on, versus the need for all the anti-spyware etc.

It is definitely more Mac-like, and that, whilst pretty cheeky, is definitely a good thing. Things like the new device stage, which will minimise the need for so many of those crappy and inconsistent interfaces for printers, cameras phones etc. shows how they are trying to unify the whole experience. It is simply Much smoother and in some ways even smoother than Leopard, the new window management features are great, switching between windows is better than on osx, and its very fast.

If I hadnt been raised going on 4 years on Logic Pro as it stands I'd see no reason to use osx over windows 7 and thats massive, cause the majority of people arent going to more money for pretty much the same experience. Basically, MS have done a very good job, whilst they could still do a lot more.

[SolRayz]

No, it's called opinions and personal preference. Not everyone enjoys dreaming about Steve Jobs all night. Why is is it so difficult for you to understand that some simply prefer Windows? While it's cool to hate Microsoft and spread Windows FUD, always remember that Windows got to where it was not only because of smart business decisions made by Microsoft, but because it's a very good operating system. It was far better than Mac OS, and Apple really didn't catch up until Mac OS X.

Smart business decisions! Yeah, over 20 years of so called smart business decisions over stability and usability. I know that my company's network is slow because of XP bottlenecks and crashes. I'm not all that impressed with Microsoft in the first place, but considering how long Microsoft has been pushing Windows you would think that they could have finally developed a stable and user friendly platform by now. I am currently running Windows 7 (or Vista SP2) ;) on my bootcamp partition and so far it seems much more stable than anything since Windows 3.1, but its no OS X.

Case in point. They are the biggest software company specializing primarily on OS's and they are still dreaming about Apple OS stability.

[Quillz]

Case in point. They are the biggest software company specializing primarily on OS's and they are still dreaming about Apple OS stability.
Actually, Apple's attempt at making an OS was rather mediocre, as we saw with Mac OS from 1984-2002. Mac OS X wasn't Apple's operating system. It was essentially NeXTstep which was then covered by an Apple-designed graphical user interface.

Not to mention you clearly have never used any iteration of Windows NT. In both Mac OS X and Windows, stability is often caused by third-party drivers. Remember the infamous "blue screen" that plagued Leopard? It was later tracked down to Unsanity's APE drivers. Likewise, since the XP era, poorly coded drivers have caused BSOD.

Both Apple and Microsoft now have very stable operating systems. They didn't in the past, but times have clearly changed. Apple got the stability they needed when they acquired Mac OS X. And Microsoft got the stability it needed when it first released Windows NT in 1993.

[Consultant]

I would recommend you try running Windows 7 on the netbook. I've read that the OS works very well on Intel's Atom processors.

So does TinyXP, after removing most of the Microsoft bloatware code.

[Dmac77]

Yes, I just love BSOD's, and virus protection, and the updates that come in every second! In fact I'm going to buy Windows 7 the day it is released then run to the courthouse and marry Windows 7. Oh dear...

OS X just found out I typed this, it's going to leave me.

Don

[Quillz]

I think the more pertinent question is: will the new Windows 7 stop the rate of defects to the Mac platform?
Do you really think even a few hundred more switchers will do anything for either platform's market share? Windows has had close to a 90% market share since the Windows 3 days, and that's because Microsoft not only has the vast majority of end-users, but it's also essentially the only de facto standard for most enterprise solutions.

While I don't think Microsoft would like to lose customers to Mac OS X, the simple fact is that it won't matter. Mac OS X will never come anywhere close to Windows in terms of raw market share. Certainly not in Steve Jobs's lifetime, anyway.

[Quillz]

So does TinyXP, after removing most of the Microsoft bloatware code.
Eh, it probably does. I've never actually tried TinyXP, though I've heard that people who've tried it have really liked it. Although I'd love for you to provide examples of "Microsoft bloatware code."
Yes, I just love BSOD's, and virus protection, and the updates that come in every second! In fact I'm going to buy Windows 7 the day it is released then run to the courthouse and marry Windows 7. Oh dear...

OS X just found out I typed this, it's going to leave me.

Don
And I love the kernel panics, broken promises and the updates that come in every second on Mac OS X Leopard!

[Dmac77]

Eh, it probably does. I've never actually tried TinyXP, though I've heard that people who've tried it have really liked it. Although I'd love for you to provide examples of "Microsoft bloatware code."

And I love the kernel panics, broken promises and the updates that come in every second on Mac OS X Leopard!

I've never experienced a kernel panic in OS X. Whereas in Windows, I experience at least one BSOD per week.

Don

[Quillz]

I've never experienced a kernel panic in OS X. Whereas in Windows, I experience at least one BSOD per week.

Don
I've never experienced a BSOD on Windows since I last used Windows 98 in early 2001. Whereas in Mac OS X Leopard, I got two kernel panics in a week, when it was just released.

[Dmac77]

I've never experienced a BSOD on Windows since I last used Windows 98 in early 2001. Whereas in Mac OS X Leopard, I got two kernel panics in a week, when it was just released.

Then to each his own.

Don

[Quillz]

Then to each his own.

Don
Okay.

[viniciusc]

"Expose isn't really necessary on Windows 7 due to Aero Peek, the taskbar being a window manager and Flip-3d. The reason Apple added Expose to Mac OS X in the first place is because the Dock is nothing more than an application launcher. But since Windows 95, you've always had a centralized location for window management. "
The Dock has never been "nothing more than an application launcher". It is indeed one, but it does switch between applications as well, and you can pick an specific window by right-clicking the icon. Nevertheless, it displays information about the state of the program too and enables control of centain programs (as iTunes). In other words, it is a centralized location for application management, which Windows will never have. Since you still have to live with the mess of seeing icon shortcuts in the taskbar, in the start menu AND in the desktop - what is centralized about this?

"Also, Aero Peek is in some ways better than Expose because it doesn't move or resize any of the windows. It shows you exactly where everything is, and it also turns everything to glass, except for the windows related to the application you're managing through the taskbar. It combines Expose's "Show all windows" and "Show all application windows" functions."
Ok, does it show all windows at once? It seems not. That's what I'm looking for in exposé. I want to see all that's opened at once.

"As for Spaces, well, that's true, but not everyone needs or uses it. Effective window management is a good skill to learn, regardless of how many virtual desktops you may have. And of course, there are third-party virtual desktops for Windows available. Microsoft even released a virtual desktops PowerToy back in the Windows XP days."
The PowerToy only works in XP, if you can call that "to work", it is a mess. Virtual Desktops would be very welcome on Windows because I don't like my desktop to be all messed up with a ton of windows over each other. On the Mac, I can hide (command h, option command h - hide other) the application, what is the alternative on Windows? I know, I know, MAXIMIZE, as every Windows user does. But is that suitable for today's 20"+ displays? Don't think so.

"As for Time Machine... Windows Vista and beyond now includes shadow copies, which are somewhat similar in that they version all the documents on your computer. The main difference is that Time Machine requires an external disk, while shadow copies can be stored on a secure partition on the same drive."
That is wrong. Time Machine works with another partition on the same drive as well, it is just not any useful if you are protecting your data form a hard drive crash! Time Machine can back up an entire system, and if the drive fails, once I install a new drive with OS X, it can bring back *everything* just as they were in the previous drive. Is that possible on Windows? I don't think so, nor it is for Microsoft to come up with a UI that make users actually interested in back ups.

"And as for Unix, that's also true. But I still fail to see what exactly makes Unix so superior to NTFS. I think it's trendy to say this without doing much research. For everyday usage, there is very little that Unix does that NTFS can't. The Windows NT kernel was first developed in 1993 and has become extremely matured since then. End-users will likely never know or care about the differences between the two. They both work and are credible foundations for building operating systems."
What the hell? Unix and NTFS are completely different things. Unix is an operating system, from which Mac OS X's core components (Darwin) are based of (Unix-like). NTFS is a file system (old and crappy - bad enough to make people still need to defrag), like OS X's HFS+. Microsoft has been trying to come up with a better file system ever since Windows 95, they even promised WinFS for Vista, which never made it.
The NT kernel will never be as secure or stable as a Unix System. It doesn't rely on the same permission system security and memory management. It is also known that OS X's Darwin is open source, therefore any developer can spot a bug on the code or even send the patch. I wouldn't trust security from a system that is completely closed-source. We could never know if Microsoft has even changed something relevant in NT since it was released.

[Fast Shadow]

Put me in the "LOL, are you ***** crazy?" camp. I will always have a bootcamp install and/or Windows VMs for games or a few Win-only apps, but I will never, ever, ever use it as my primary desktop OS again. Not as long as OSX is out there. And even if OSX went away tomorrow I'd most likely move to Linux. Windows will always have a role but I will never "switch" back.

[Stridder44]

Oh God, here we go again. :rolleyes:


How about this: run both Windows 7 and Snow Leopard. Use either one whenever you need to, and stop spewing BS about either OS.

[Eidorian]

Oh God, here we go again. :rolleyes:


How about this: run both Windows 7 and Snow Leopard. Use either one whenever you need to, and stop spewing BS about either OS.Why would I want to do that? :rolleyes:

[Stridder44]

Why would I want to do that? :rolleyes:


Running Windows 7 or spewing BS? Hey if you don't need Windows 7 then don't bother at all of course.

[Eidorian]

Running Windows 7 or spewing BS? Hey if you don't need Windows 7 then don't bother at all of course.I suggest you take a look at my signature. :cool:

[hacksaw-C87]

i hope it doesn't as I just switched to Mac, so far the experience is more pleasant than any of my Windows experiences. Still, there's always room for any good operating system, we should give Windows 7 a chance and judge it on its full release.

[Stridder44]

I suggest you take a look at my signature. :cool:

Ah :rolleyes:

[thejadedmonkey]

Case in point. They are the biggest software company specializing primarily on OS's and they are still dreaming about Apple OS stability.

The beta I'm running hasn't given me 1 problem yet (sans IE8, but I thought I'd give it a shot)

Oh God, here we go again. :rolleyes:


How about this: run both Windows 7 and Snow Leopard. Use either one whenever you need to, and stop spewing BS about either OS.

Why would I want to do that? :rolleyes:

Yeah, where's the fun in that? :D

[NoSmokingBandit]

So does TinyXP, after removing most of the Microsoft bloatware code.

Im curious of what a 7-lited disc would run like. V-lite works somewhat, but it just makes more coasters than anything useful. A disc of win7 slimmed down to cd size would be awesome.

On a side note:
Anyone else getting a headache from the mindless windows bashing? It seems like quite a few people hate windows 7 just because it has the word "windows" in the title. Grow up fanboys, you are just making yourselves look stupid.

[Eidorian]

Yeah, where's the fun in that? :DThe fun is having a mobile Mac and a quad core desktop for gaming and heavy crunching. :D

Also, hackintosh one day?

[drgopoos]

On a side note:
Anyone else getting a headache from the mindless windows bashing? It seems like quite a few people hate windows 7 just because it has the word "windows" in the title. Grow up fanboys, you are just making yourselves look stupid.

Agree 100 %.

I 've been using mac for the last few months ( and i under stand why apple needs the boot camp so badly) ..... I often wonder why mac boys have to always shout and tell that it is the best.
I think mac and windows are at the same level now.
If mac does not bring things substantailly new , windows 7 might get the upper hand.

[63dot]

I would recommend you try running Windows 7 on the netbook. I've read that the OS works very well on Intel's Atom processors.

I don't mind XP so much and that's what I saw on the Lenovo and Acer netbooks. Sure, Microsoft XP ripped off the OS X look and it's just a knockoff imitation of OS X, but for my purposes of just internet online classes and Microsoft Word, it's plenty of firepower for that. I am not going to try and run Photoshop or games on it.

Steve Jobs hinted at the netbook to Macworld magazine, but only in watching the market "very carefully".

These recessionary times will call for cheaper computers for some users without the full funds for a Macbook Pro, or even a Macbook unibody. A $499 Mac netbook, with a netbook's limited features, would be far sexier than a $349 PC netbook with Windows XP. I would pay the extra money for that.

[bruinsrme]

I don't mind XP so much and that's what I saw on the Lenovo and Acer netbooks. Sure, Microsoft XP ripped off the OS X look and it's just a knockoff imitation of OS X, but for my purposes of just internet online classes and Microsoft Word, it's plenty of firepower for that. I am not going to try and run Photoshop or games on it.

Steve Jobs hinted at the netbook to Macworld magazine, but only in watching the market "very carefully".

These recessionary times will call for cheaper computers for some users without the full funds for a Macbook Pro, or even a Macbook unibody. A $499 Mac netbook, with a netbook's limited features, would be far sexier than a $349 PC netbook with Windows XP. I would pay the extra money for that.

XP looked like OSX?

[MacHappytjg]

All windows 7 is, Windows vista with a few service packs on it....

[chewietobbacca]

All windows 7 is, Windows vista with a few service packs on it....

The kernel and driver model might be the same, but there's quite a bit different about it

And all the fanboy talk in this thread is very :rolleyes:

[Aranince]

I tried Window 7.....I like OS X much better. OS X helps me get stuff done, instead of getting in my way.

[Stridder44]

All windows 7 is, Windows vista with a few service packs on it....


All Snow Leopard is is Leopard with a giant point release attached to it.

See what I did there?

[Quillz]

All windows 7 is, Windows vista with a few service packs on it....
No, it's not. It's the next evolutionary release of the Windows operating system. It's very similar to Windows 98, in that it builds upon its predecessor.

Clearly you don't know what you're talking about, otherwise you'd know that service packs are tied to the operating system they service. They are never released as standalone products.

[Dmac77]

No, it's not. It's the next evolutionary release of the Windows operating system. It's very similar to Windows 98, in that it builds upon its predecessor.

Clearly you don't know what you're talking about, otherwise you'd know that service packs are tied to the operating system they service. They are never released as standalone products.

Its obvious that he was being metaphorical.

On another note why is a Windows fanboy on a Mac forum?

Don

[Quillz]

Its obvious that he was being metaphorical.

On another note why is a Windows fanboy on a Mac forum?

Don
I actually don't consider myself a Windows fanboy. I use both Mac OS X and Windows on a daily basis. If FUD was being spread about Mac OS X, I'd be correcting those who spread it, as well.

[puckhead193]

can we add an option for never in a million years i'll switch back Besides the fact that i love final cut and that alone will keep for years to stay

[Dmac77]

I actually don't consider myself a Windows fanboy. I use both Mac OS X and Windows on a daily basis. If FUD was being spread about Mac OS X, I'd be correcting those who spread it, as well.

No, FUD about Windows here. Just the truth.

Don

[NoSmokingBandit]

All windows 7 is, Windows vista with a few service packs on it....

All Snow Leopard is is Leopard with a giant point release attached to it.

See what I did there?
Haha.
XP sp2 was a huge freaking upgrade. It was just as serious an update as a 10.x+1 update.

I tried Window 7.....I like OS X much better. OS X helps me get stuff done, instead of getting in my way.
Yeah, i love the fact that i cant adjust a window size by any edge. Those 2px borders suck, they get in my way all the time.
-_-
No, FUD about Windows here. Just the truth.

Don
*facepalm*
You really are delusional arent you?



Imo, Snow Leopard and Windows 7 is going to be the best dual-boot setup ever. Two great operating systems, both giving me everything i could ever want. If only apple would back off a bit and allow virtualization, then i could access osx without rebooting from windows. But alas, its more important to be locked out of my computer than to have a convenient feature.

[calsci]

im going to go with my macbook pro running snow leopard and boot camp with windows 7 just for that random occasion i need windows(one of the microsoft os first with a cool name "windows 7").

[HLdan]

TBH, Windows 7 looks great...BUT...looks don't get the job done. I'm tired of the Registry, that hasn't gone away. Installing programs still share bits and pieces of the program with other programs, then when you try to "uninstall" a program Windows threatens that other programs will be affected because files where shared on the almighty Registry and could damage other programs if you completely remove this program.
The Mac OS thankfully has no Registry so I'm rid of this nonsense.

Also the Device Manager which you nearly need a doctorate degree to master because it's so frustrating and those hair pulling .DLL files. Windows 7 could be a viable OS if MS got rid of the Registry and did something better with the Device Manager and rid the user of having to deal with those .DLL files crap.
So would I switch back to Windows, hell no. Microsoft breaks every promise they make.
A cleaned up Windows 7 still needs Windex. :p

[Quillz]

TBH, Windows 7 looks great...BUT...looks don't get the job done. I'm tired of the Registry, that hasn't gone away. Installing programs still share bits and pieces of the program with other programs, then when you try to "uninstall" a program Windows threatens that other programs will be affected because files where shared on the almighty Registry and could damage other programs if you completely remove this program.

I don't like the Registry much either, but it's also not as bad as you make it out to be. During the 9x era, "DLL hell" was very common and was the main cause of BSOD. But since XP and the widespread adoption of Windows NT, the Registry is far less vulnerable than it once was. There's far less corruption.

Also, Microsoft has long been pushing the .NET framework, which doesn't touch the Registry at all. And many developers are flocking to it. I think, in time, the Registry will disappear, but it has to be gradual. You can't just yank it out of Windows 7 suddenly and expect everything to work as it should.

Apple is doing the same thing with their PowerPC support. Slowly but surely, they are gradually moving away from the PowerPC, and it's now possible that Snow Leopard will be exclusive to the Intel platform.

[MacsBestFriend]

i am still buying a macbook, i just am probably going to wait now for it and put in a 500gb harddrive and partition it...

i can hold out for apples summer special!

[HLdan]

I don't like the Registry much either, but it's also not as bad as you make it out to be. During the 9x era, "DLL hell" was very common and was the main cause of BSOD. But since XP and the widespread adoption of Windows NT, the Registry is far less vulnerable than it once was. There's far less corruption.

Also, Microsoft has long been pushing the .NET framework, which doesn't touch the Registry at all. And many developers are flocking to it. I think, in time, the Registry will disappear, but it has to be gradual. You can't just yank it out of Windows 7 suddenly and expect everything to work as it should.

Apple is doing the same thing with their PowerPC support. Slowly but surely, they are gradually moving away from the PowerPC, and it's now possible that Snow Leopard will be exclusive to the Intel platform.

True, but I think you need to go back a bit further. Apple took the risk (for the better of their customers) that Microsoft refuses to do out of fear of losing customers. Going from PowerPC to Intel is not the big leap Apple took, it was when they went from OS 9 to OS X. Everything had to be completely re-written epecially software from the developers and the Mac customers (who remained faithful) had to get used to a new OS that didn't work with their current Mac software.
Microsoft has a big business in Windows (although mostly in XP) and is afraid of re-writing Windows to make it more revolutionary than evolutionary because they don't want to lose customers.
It's terrible of Microsoft to make customers feel that they got something really new and different in Windows 7 because it's really STILL Windows but with more makeup on.
Don't get me wrong, I'm typing this right now using W7 and the UI is very nice and the thumbnails are cool and very useful but under the hood is more important to me rather than prettiness.

[Quillz]

True, but I think you need to go back a bit further. Apple took the risk (for the better of their customers) that Microsoft refuses to do out of fear of losing customers. Going from PowerPC to Intel is not the big leap Apple took, it was when they went from OS 9 to OS X. Everything had to be completely re-written epecially software from the developers and the Mac customers (who remained faithful) had to get used to a new OS that didn't work with their current Mac software.
Microsoft has a big business in Windows (although mostly in XP) and is afraid of re-writing Windows to make it more revolutionary than evolutionary because they don't want to lose customers.
It's terrible of Microsoft to make customers feel that they got something really new and different in Windows 7 because it's really STILL Windows but with more makeup on.
Don't get me wrong, I'm typing this right now using W7 and the UI is very nice and the thumbnails are cool and very useful but under the hood is more important to me rather than prettiness.
Well, you're right about Windows 7. Because Windows Vista, the previous release, is the one that was revolutionary. The reason it had a lot of compatibility issues when it was first released is very similar to the issues that originally faced Mac OS X: because it was brand new, with a radically redesigned kernel. The fact that Microsoft also built in legacy compatibility modes only made Vista that much more difficult to work with initially.

The other problem is that Windows has infinitely more users, including enterprise users, who use very old software that simply has to rely on Windows' legacy support. If these enterprises would ever get around to deploying more modern solutions, then perhaps Microsoft really could truly rebuild Windows, even more so than they did with Vista. They could completely start over, like Apple did.

Anyway, I'm getting off-topic.

[SpEnCeR132]

What were the specs of this XP box? Because Windows 7 isn't magic. It's not going to suddenly revive old hardware.

Did you check the minimal requirements? You need at least 1 GB of RAM, for example, to have a smooth installation. And even then, you'd need a processor likely no older than a Pentium 4 and some sort of integrated or dedicated GPU to run Aero Glass.

By all accounts, Windows 7 runs faster than both Windows XP and Windows Vista on the same hardware, but all of these tests were conducted on machines that were "Windows Vista Capable." So, again, what are the specs of this computer, and how old is it?

Also, Mac OS X would probably run horribly on that box, as well.


3.2 ghz Pentium. 4 w/ 2 gb ram
vista practically killed it
and leopard runs fast on all the macs i have. including a 1.33ghz g4 powerbook

[Mad Mac]

I've never had a virus at work or at home. My computer at work stays on and maybe gets rebooted twice a year. No BSOD or random crashes. None of my coworkers get viruses or random crashes. All of these horror stories about Windows are so far fetched. If every company's computers were constantly crashing and getting viruses like people would want you to believe on macrumors then Windows and Microsoft would cease to exist. You have to be a total noob on the computer to bork Windows.

Use name brand hardware (not cheap crap) and the drivers will work out of the box and the stability will be there in spades. I've had no issues since NT 5.0 days.

On the flipside, my Mac's Finder is OSX is a JOKE compared to Windows Explorer. My wifi keeps dropping randomly on my MBP. 10.5.2 borked my graphics card on my Mac Pro and I had to wait until 10.5.3 to have it function normally again, with no option to change video drivers. Expose randomly throwing things up on the screen pales in comparison to the Windows' taskbar. It just looks cooler. OSX has it's virtues, but it's no utopia.

[digitard]

The only thing it will make me do is backup my applications on my gaming PC and install it there. I still game on the PC because the price on performance is great, and my gaming PC for a fraction of the price of my MBP destroys it. But thats really the ONLY thing I do on my Windows PC. The rest of my stuff (web, editing, work, etc) has been done on my MBP since I got it.

My gaming PC specs: Intel E8500 @ 3.7ghz (stock cooling), 4gb memory, 2.2TB HDD's, 512mb ATI HD 4850 video, 22" LCD @ 1680x1050 (my preferred resolution). All my games run max settings w/ no problems. So I'm happy there. Thats the only thing ti does outside my wifes normal PC usage.

[Trip.Tucker]

I don't know what twisted world some people live in, but what you just wrote screams dumbness to me. What is switching 100%? Selling your soul to Steve Jobs and Apple because of... what, exactly?

Switching to the OS that gives you the best experience includes switching back to Windows, if that is the case. Preferences, needs, logic.

Strong is the anger in this one, yesssss

[63dot]

XP looked like OSX?

When I saw Windows 2000, I thought, OK, just another Microsoft Product.

Then XP comes out looking very un-Microsoft. It's actually pretty by comparison to 2000 and 98/95. There are parts that reminded me of OS X. I never really thought MS came up with their own stuff, especially back then. :)

[NoSmokingBandit]

When I saw Windows 2000, I thought, OK, just another Microsoft Product.

Then XP comes out looking very un-Microsoft. It's actually pretty by comparison to 2000 and 98/95. There are parts that reminded me of OS X. I never really thought MS came up with their own stuff, especially back then. :)

http://www.mhvt.net/quicktime/eng/screenshots/mac_os_x_tiger/os_x_tiger_01_11.jpg

http://www.guidebookgallery.org/pics/gui/desktop/empty/winxppro.png
Obviously Ms copied apple here. Its almost exactly the same! :eek:

[mlemonds]

i think that windows 7 is a big step for microsoft, but not enough to make a serious impact on people switching from mac to pc. The best that they can hope for is to slow the masses of people switching from pc over to mac. People used to switch to mac, and still do, because they wanted an apple product or mac software. Some of my friends and friends of the family have been switching to a mac platform just to get away from windows.

Windows 7 should help build consumer's confidence in microsoft. My parents are in need of a new computer, but absolutely do not want vista. I have tried to show them that vista isnt that bad, but they have heard too much negative press on the software. I might actually be getting my father to switch to a mac.

7 should also be a big hit in the netbook arena, due to the lower system requirements.

The mac v. pc commercials that make fun of vista wouldn't be funny if they weren't true

[ayeying]

Right now, no. From what I've used on the beta, it is stable and better then Vista, but beyond that, it feels complicated to use. Maybe its just me, but I'd probably wait and do more testing in a Virtual Machine before deciding to upgrade.

[Quillz]

The mac v. pc commercials that make fun of vista wouldn't be funny if they weren't true
No, they're funny because they're so hilariously untrue and just shows Apple to be nothing more than an immature corporation.

[Dmac77]

No, they're funny because they're so hilariously untrue and just shows Apple to be nothing more than an immature corporation.

That is so untrue (what you said).

Vista is an unstable, unreliable OS. OS X runs circles around it and all other versions of Windows.

Don

[Quillz]

That is so untrue (what you said).

Vista is an unstable, unreliable OS. OS X runs circles around it and all other versions of Windows.

Don
I think Vista to be extremely stable and reliable, just like Mac OS X. It doesn't mean either is free of issues, however.

But I do agree that Mac OS X is far better than any previous iteration of Windows prior to Vista. Now I feel they are both on par. Different strokes for different folks, as they say. Some prefer Mac OS X and others prefer Windows. There isn't really a clear-cut "right" OS anymore. And this is what I should have been clearer on earlier.

[kockgunner]

it's getting boring. just cuz steve allmighty says its trash, it's actually not.
overwhelming majority doesn't agree with him. ;) say over 90%?

The majority of us don't get enough exercise either. People use Windows because that's what they grew up with. All they know is the status quo which is 'good enough'. Surprisingly, there's still this stigma from the 90s that Macs are slow and incompatible, and only have one mouse button. Most people I've come across don't even know Macs can run Windows even though all the iMacs at my university have Windows and the same people use those computers every day.

Also, people don't get swayed by advertising as much as people think. People don't switch because they see those 'Get a Mac' ads. The ads remind people that Macs exist and that there's an alternative, but ultimately, the user makes the active decision to switch.

Back on topic, I really like Windows 7 so far and that's through Parallels. I can't wait until the real thing comes out so I can run it natively on Bootcamp. It won't make me enough to use it as my primary OS, but it'll be nice to use it once in a while especially for games.

[Quillz]

Also, people don't get swayed by advertising as much as people think. People don't switch because they see those 'Get a Mac' ads. The ads remind people that Macs exist and that there's an alternative, but ultimately, the user makes the active decision to switch.

Actually, no. Advertising is extremely effective. You watch a commercial enough times and soon you'll remember its jingle and what it's selling. Advertising is an extremely lucrative business because people are very much swayed by advertising. Apple knows this, and their "Get a Mac" is very successful. They wouldn't have kept it around for as long as it's been around if it wasn't very effective, as "Switch" wasn't. There are many people who believe Vista is a bad OS because "they said so in the commercials." Don't underestimate the power of advertising.

[mcpryon2]

If it has Soundsmith I'm so there.

[Stridder44]

That is so untrue (what you said).

Vista is an unstable, unreliable OS. OS X runs circles around it and all other versions of Windows.

Don

http://img214.imageshack.us/img214/1382/facepalm2ly3.jpg

[KettyKrueger]

Plus that I will never even try to get back to windows as long as the registry exists.

Couldn't agree more. The registry is a pain and more often than not, the root of most problems. "A bag of hurt" some might say.

[yoyo5280]

havent read whole thread but:

Sure Windows 7 might have some kick ass features, but the oh look! Apple just released Snow Leopard! Thats already kicking waaaay more ass.

^^thats the future btw :p

[Macmel]

Guess what!!!
You don't have to switch!!. You can use BOTH Leopard and Windows 7 in the same or separate computers. I promise the computer police won't come to your house and arrest you for doing so.
I use Leopard at work because I think is faster and more reliable for what I do and I use Vista at home because I think is much more versatile for gaming, ripping, burning, playing movies/videos, connecting to other devices, etc.
And I will keep using Windows 7 and Snow Leopard once they're out. Remember: you use your money to buy a computer, they don't buy your soul.
It's that simple.

[proc]

Guess what!!!
You don't have to switch!!. You can use BOTH Leopard and Windows 7 in the same or separate computers. I promise the computer police won't come to your house and arrest you for doing so.
I use Leopard at work because I think is faster and more reliable for what I do and I use Vista at home because I think is much more versatile for gaming, ripping, burning, playing movies/videos, connecting to other devices, etc.
And I will keep using Windows 7 and Snow Leopard once they're out. Remember: you use your money to buy a computer, they don't buy your soul.
It's that simple.

^+1

[Stridder44]

Guess what!!!
You don't have to switch!!. You can use BOTH Leopard and Windows 7 in the same or separate computers. I promise the computer police won't come to your house and arrest you for doing so.
I use Leopard at work because I think is faster and more reliable for what I do and I use Vista at home because I think is much more versatile for gaming, ripping, burning, playing movies/videos, connecting to other devices, etc.
And I will keep using Windows 7 and Snow Leopard once they're out. Remember: you use your money to buy a computer, they don't buy your soul.
It's that simple.


We need to sticky this everywhere all over every sub-forum and to the beginning and ends of every post.

[dvince2]

No.
Even if it turns out to be waay better than OS X, i'd just put that on my macbook until the next (even better) version of OS X comes out.

[63dot]

http://www.mhvt.net/quicktime/eng/screenshots/mac_os_x_tiger/os_x_tiger_01_11.jpg

http://www.guidebookgallery.org/pics/gui/desktop/empty/winxppro.png
Obviously Ms copied apple here. Its almost exactly the same! :eek:

As you go through the old Windows 95/98 icons, they are very block like and boring. XP put some color and flair to their overall look through all the menus. What strikes me as suspicious is how XP and Vista started to get more "colorful" and "pleasing to the eye". To me the XP experience reeks of a bad attempt to rip off Apple's OS X. While not a bad operating system, XP and later versions of Windows are more pleasing to look at. I think they researched Apple and saw that user interface, especially with OS X, was one of our strong points.

Of course, MS didn't dare go to an exact copy of OS X, but when XP first came out, many of my customers mentioned some of the similarity to Apple's OS X.

Now look back to Windows 95 and 98 and compare it against XP and Vista. It doesn't even look like it came from the same company.

And finally, why not Windows 200x, instead of "X"P ... I just didn't like the use of the capital "X" in their product shortly after Apples OS "X".

Some say imitation, even a weak imitation, is flattery, but I say it's a potential lawsuit.

That being said, I am glad that MS Windows has grown up quite a bit, but I will stick to my OS X. :)

[wrldwzrd89]

I couldn't really answer honestly, so I picked the choice that matched my situation best: I'm not switching.

I've always been a Mac user (never did switch from Windows) - but I use Mac OS X, Windows, and Linux on at least a weekly basis (Mac OS X gets used daily). Since running Mac OS X on anything other than a Mac is unsupported, I will probably never switch.

[VSMacOne]

I'm loving mac OSX way too much to ever go back to windows. in the few months that i've used it, i've gotten very used to all the shortcuts and tricks and just the ease of use.

[NoSmokingBandit]

As you go through the old Windows 95/98 icons, they are very block like and boring. XP put some color and flair to their overall look through all the menus. What strikes me as suspicious is how XP and Vista started to get more "colorful" and "pleasing to the eye". To me the XP experience reeks of a bad attempt to rip off Apple's OS X. While not a bad operating system, XP and later versions of Windows are more pleasing to look at. I think they researched Apple and saw that user interface, especially with OS X, was one of our strong points.

I honestly dont even know what to say here. A company spends time redesigning the gui that they've used in 4 os's (95, 98, 2k, ME) and all of a sudden they are copying apple? Seriously? Its the natural evolution of an operating system to become more pleading to the eye instead of the old dull greys and cobalt blues. Just because apple got their aqua interface before ms introduced luna doesnt mean ms copied them. The fanboys need to realize that two companies can co-exist without one always copying the other. Apple seems to thrive on the delusion that they invented everything about computers and MS is just copying their ideas.

Of course, MS didn't dare go to an exact copy of OS X, but when XP first came out, many of my customers mentioned some of the similarity to Apple's OS X.

Whats the similarity? More color? Puh-leeze. Get over yourself, and apple for that matter.

Now look back to Windows 95 and 98 and compare it against XP and Vista. It doesn't even look like it came from the same company.

The os9 to osx transition is just as dramatic as the 2k to xp transition. Whats your point here? Just because one company got to an idea first doesnt always mean the rest of the competition is copying them.

And finally, why not Windows 200x, instead of "X"P ... I just didn't like the use of the capital "X" in their product shortly after Apples OS "X".

Forgive me, but are you effing serious! Are you so blinded by apple that you think ms sat around copying the letters from the product name?
In 2001, Microsoft introduced Windows XP (codenamed "Whistler"). The merging of the Windows NT/2000 and Windows 95/98/Me lines was finally achieved with Windows XP. Windows XP uses the Windows NT 5.1 kernel, marking the entrance of the Windows NT core to the consumer market, to replace the aging 16/32-bit branch.
Thus the have the windows 'eXPerience'.
What do you think about Vista? How do you rationalize some theory that MS stole that from apple too, since you clearly think that apple invented the home computer and everything thereafter.


Some say imitation, even a weak imitation, is flattery, but I say it's a potential lawsuit.

Ms put in some new icons and colored the taskbar blue. The gui is still 100% windows. It still functions like windows always has. You guys are absolutely ridiculous.

[Bakey]

No, they're funny because they're so hilariously untrue and just shows Apple to be nothing more than an immature corporation.

You again!!

Stop feeding the troll people.... It might go away!!

[63dot]

I honestly dont even know what to say here. A company spends time redesigning the gui that they've used in 4 os's (95, 98, 2k, ME) and all of a sudden they are copying apple? Seriously? Its the natural evolution of an operating system to become more pleading to the eye instead of the old dull greys and cobalt blues. Just because apple got their aqua interface before ms introduced luna doesnt mean ms copied them. The fanboys need to realize that two companies can co-exist without one always copying the other. Apple seems to thrive on the delusion that they invented everything about computers and MS is just copying their ideas.

Whats the similarity? More color? Puh-leeze. Get over yourself, and apple for that matter.

The os9 to osx transition is just as dramatic as the 2k to xp transition. Whats your point here? Just because one company got to an idea first doesnt always mean the rest of the competition is copying them.

Forgive me, but are you effing serious! Are you so blinded by apple that you think ms sat around copying the letters from the product name?

Thus the have the windows 'eXPerience'.
What do you think about Vista? How do you rationalize some theory that MS stole that from apple too, since you clearly think that apple invented the home computer and everything thereafter.


Ms put in some new icons and colored the taskbar blue. The gui is still 100% windows. It still functions like windows always has. You guys are absolutely ridiculous.

I guess we will have to agree to disagree.

I don't "hate" MS since for a decade, I got compensated very well from them. I don't bite the hand that feeds me. I also use Microsoft Office for Mac and it's a solid program. My older Mac has Internet Explorer and it's a good browser and the one I use on that machine exclusively.

Yes, I am a Mac fanboy. But at the same time, working as a Microsoft technician, being trained at the Microsoft school in Silicon Valley, allowed me to make far more money in dot.com madness (computer networking) than my mere business bachelor's degree ever would. Much of what I have was because I contracted with Microsoft, got certified by them, and received a lot of free software from them.

Do I think MS and Bill Gates ripped stuff off? Certainly.

But at the same time, Bill Gates may be the single most aggressive and competent business person in recent history. He outfoxed Apple. He outfoxed Sun. He outfoxed Netscape. And he beat the US Government. I would not make a good Bill Gates because I would have been losing sleep at night worrying about companies that may have, most likely had, legitimate claims against me. Gates had balls and I am sure we can agree on that. :)

[The Flashing Fi]

NoSmokingBandit made some great points, and I would like to add to them.

As you go through the old Windows 95/98 icons, they are very block like and boring. XP put some color and flair to their overall look through all the menus. What strikes me as suspicious is how XP and Vista started to get more "colorful" and "pleasing to the eye". To me the XP experience reeks of a bad attempt to rip off Apple's OS X. While not a bad operating system, XP and later versions of Windows are more pleasing to look at. I think they researched Apple and saw that user interface, especially with OS X, was one of our strong points.

Actually, I would say it has more to do with there being enough processing power to actually handle the graphics. Sure, any modern computer can easily handle the themes. But remember, back when XP was released, to some extent, even "modern" computers would struggle with the themes enabled. It was common practice at the time to disable themes and use the classic interface. It's much the same reason why Vista now uses the GPU to handle rendering, because there's now enough power to do so without impacting performance.

So I wouldn't say it was "stealing." Honestly, both companies were creating appealing interfaces at around the same time. Apple was a little ahead, but it was clear where MS was going with XP during development. Themes wasn't something that was tacked on at the last second. It was actually something that was present around the beginning of development in 2000.

I think it's more of an evolution, if anything.


Of course, MS didn't dare go to an exact copy of OS X, but when XP first came out, many of my customers mentioned some of the similarity to Apple's OS X.

What else is new? People always look for similarities. Personally, I think there are more similarities with Gnome and Aqua then Aero and Aqua interfaces (after all, those Linux folks are always trying to rip off of someone! ).

Now look back to Windows 95 and 98 and compare it against XP and Vista. It doesn't even look like it came from the same company.

Neither does Mac OS 9 and Mac OS X 10.0.

And finally, why not Windows 200x, instead of "X"P ... I just didn't like the use of the capital "X" in their product shortly after Apples OS "X".

I believe one of the names for XP being tossed around was Windows 2001. Then again, Windows 2000's "original" name was Windows NT 5.0.

Just because they have an "X" in the name doesn't mean a thing. You're really reaching there. Besides, the X in Mac OS X is a roman numeral 10.

Some say imitation, even a weak imitation, is flattery, but I say it's a potential lawsuit.

Not even close to a potential lawsuit. You can't copyright the ability to create an aesthetically pleasing interface, and as computers get more and more powerful, expect the interface to continue to look better. Just because Apple beat MS to the punchline by a few months, doesn't mean anyone really copied anyone. And Luna and Aqua look nothing a like. One looks like they copied fisher price and the other looks they threw water on a computer monitor and designed around that.

[Quillz]

Do I think MS and Bill Gates ripped stuff off? Certainly.

This is true, but they're certainly not the only ones. Apple and Steve Jobs have ripped stuff off, as well. So have just about every other corporation and their public face in the past. That's how this industry grows. Ideas are constantly thought up, copied and improved upon. Apple copied the "virtual desktops" idea from Unix workstations and improved upon it, giving us "Spaces." Microsoft largely copied CP/M to give us MS-DOS, the operating system that created eight billionaires. If the industry did not allow for ideas to ever be copied and improved, we'd never have half the things we have today. Competition is the driving force behind this businesses, and in the end, consumers win because we get better products at lower prices.

[Quillz]

Some say imitation, even a weak imitation, is flattery, but I say it's a potential lawsuit.
Apple has already sued Microsoft in the past for supposedly stealing their look and feel, and they lost. What does that tell you? It tells you that you can't patent a particular look and feel, you can only copyright it. There's a large difference the two. Had Apple won the lawsuit, then essentially every other corporation in the world that wants to build a GUI for their products would have to pay a royalty to Apple, as they'd hold a patent. But copyrightable simply means that Microsoft or anyone else can't use the same icons, images or even phrasing.

Apple sued Microsoft for just about every element of the GUI, even down to the trash can. They lost once, and they certainly aren't going to try again.

[FX120]

I never "switched", so I suppose there is nothing to switch back from.

So many people here are so polarized in their extreme feelings about their computers. For me and many other people, we continue to use what does the job, sometimes that is OS X, but most of the time that is Windows. I have had a mac on my desk since 1993 with the LC, but there has *always* been a Windows based machine on the desk right along side of it. I couldn't give a rats-ass about who copied who, both products have matured worlds since their introduction, and both have always continued to improve upon the previous version.

So Windows 7 won't change anything for me. Neither will Snow Leopard. Two machines will continue to sit on my desk because neither can do all the tasks of the other. I will be upgrading to both, and enjoying the new things that both bring.

[The Flashing Fi]

Apple has already sued Microsoft in the past for supposedly stealing their look and feel, and they lost. What does that tell you? It tells you that you can't patent a particular look and feel, you can only copyright it. There's a large difference the two. Had Apple won the lawsuit, then essentially every other corporation in the world that wants to build a GUI for their products would have to pay a royalty to Apple, as they'd hold a patent. But copyrightable simply means that Microsoft or anyone else can't use the same icons, images or even phrasing.

Apple sued Microsoft for just about every element of the GUI, even down to the trash can. They lost once, and they certainly aren't going to try again.

And Xerox tried to sue Apple for ripping thier Interface, but it got thrown out due to a 3 year statute of limitation.

[Quillz]

And Xerox tried to sue Apple for ripping thier Interface, but it got thrown out due to a 3 year statute of limitation.
Exactly. The same thing that happened to Xerox happened to Apple. You might be able to invent a concept, but you can't patent the concept, you can only copyright the specific way you've done yours.

There was a good interview with Steve Jobs in the "Triumph of the Nerds" documentary. He basically explained the whole process of how Apple was able to strategically copy Xerox, but do it in a legal manner. It's very interesting, and Jobs comments how Xerox could have owned the entire computer industry and been ten times their size if the corporate executives only saw the value in the GUI.

[shiseiryu1]

The new task bar in Windows 7 is very dock-like in OS X, which is a good thing. I have been running Windows 7 through Fusion and it's great so far. There's a few features I absolutely love such as the ability to resize windows to half the screen by dragging it to the edge of the screen. The new task bar, like I mentioned is a lot better. "Smart" folders are great (viewing media files from multiple locations in one folder). Again, a lot of stuff is OS X like but for me, that's a good thing. ;) I'll definitely be using Windows 7 for my next desktop build. Not sure about my next laptop though, might stick with the MBP.

I just installed on Parallels and I have to agree that the ability to resize windows to half screen by dragging to the edge is great. One of the things that I still haven't gotten used to with Mac is how all the windows just float around. Maybe I'm O.C.D but sometimes I really want my windows full screen or half screen. I waste too much time and energy moving/resizing windows on my Mac. :(

With that said, I still like OSX much much more. The OS is stable, beautiful, and overall works really well. I'm just hoping that one day I won't mind all the detached windows floating everywhere. :/

[Balty]

I never "switched", so I suppose there is nothing to switch back from.

So many people here are so polarized in their extreme feelings about their computers. For me and many other people, we continue to use what does the job, sometimes that is OS X, but most of the time that is Windows. I have had a mac on my desk since 1993 with the LC, but there has *always* been a Windows based machine on the desk right along side of it. I couldn't give a rats-ass about who copied who, both products have matured worlds since their introduction, and both have always continued to improve upon the previous version.

So Windows 7 won't change anything for me. Neither will Snow Leopard. Two machines will continue to sit on my desk because neither can do all the tasks of the other. I will be upgrading to both, and enjoying the new things that both bring.

I've got the same idea.
Sometimes you need two different operating systems, just to get the job done. I mainly use a Mac, but sometimes, I need to use a windows machine. They are both good operating systems, but they are not perfect. One can do things the other can't, and vice-versa. And they will continue to progress with time, as every revision gets better, but, I still will be using both, regardless what I'm doing (although I use a Mac daily, and a PC only when I need to :D).

[63dot]

Apple sued Microsoft for just about every element of the GUI, even down to the trash can. They lost once, and they certainly aren't going to try again.

I agree with you there. Suing Microsoft is not a successful endeavor. :)

[Quillz]

I agree with you there. Suing Microsoft is not a successful endeavor. :)
Well, it really wouldn't have mattered who Apple sued; the outcome would have been the same. Apple learned the hard way that software isn't patentable, only copyrightable. There was a good interview with John Sculley on "Triumph of the Nerds" where he talked about the lawsuit.

[Watabou]

I like Windows 7 and think that this is the OS that Microsoft should have made in the first place instead of the Vista fiasco.

But, as I use Windows 7, I just miss having the features I use in Leopard, most often. Not caring about defragmenting, viruses and stuff like that is really great.

So, no. I will buy Snow Leopard. :)
Plus I get it free through my University...I think.

[TuffLuffJimmy]

I'll probably end up spending an equal amount of time in Windows 7 as I do Snow Leopard, but really we'll just have to see.

[Skuman]

I've never experienced a kernel panic in OS X. Whereas in Windows, I experience at least one BSOD per week.

Don

This is almost certainly caused by buggy drivers. I had a desktop running XP from 2002-2006 24/7 (running seti at home) and it crashed twice. Everything was pretty standard. I also had a laptop running XP that would give me a BSOD about once a month on wake up from hibernation, I read that the video drivers were probably to blame.

[Quillz]

This is almost certainly caused by buggy drivers. I had a desktop running XP from 2002-2006 24/7 (running seti at home) and it crashed twice. Everything was pretty standard. I also had a laptop running XP that would give me a BSOD about once a month on wake up from hibernation, I read that the video drivers were probably to blame.
Buggy, third-party drivers are almost always responsible for kernel panics on Mac OS X and BSOD on Windows.

[Nermal]

After all the issues that I've had so far with the beta, nope!

[The Flashing Fi]

After all the issues that I've had so far with the beta, nope!

Honestly, I think it's really better to judge a finished OS, not an unfinished one.

You wouldn't try and persuade someone to get a Mac with a computer that had a Beta of Mac OS X on it, would you?

[TuffLuffJimmy]

Also, this thread is stupid because it makes the assumption that anyone considering Windows is a switcher.

[Quillz]

Also, this thread is stupid because it makes the assumption that anyone considering Windows is a switcher.
What? No it doesn't. Some people "consider" using Windows when they need to use applications that only run on Windows or have no viable alternative.

[HLdan]

While Windows 7 looks nice with the thumbnail previews and dock-like taskbar and some new GUI enhancements what most people tend to forget that the OS is just the vehicle, the software is where it counts.
Sorry, but nothing in Windows competes with the software made for Mac OS X. I love the Mac style features in lots of 3rd party software that Windows counterparts can't compete with.
Even Apple's own software I prefer such as Final Cut, Aperture, iLife and iWork are all AWESOME!
What I really love are the 3rd party companies that make "Mac Only" software, the GUI is great, the features are designed to work exclusively for the Macintosh and the support is top notch because we don't have to wait until the Windows version gets released first and tested before the OS X ported version gets put out and is SUBPAR because it was a port.

Again, Windows 7 looks great, but for me it's the software that counts and my work must be done with Mac software.

[Jshwon]

Not bad so far. I like how when you have multiple IE tabs open including a downloading file the IE icon in the task bar gradually fills showing the progress, then pulsates when done. Very unobtrusive.

[TuffLuffJimmy]

What? No it doesn't. Some people "consider" using Windows when they need to use applications that only run on Windows or have no viable alternative.

"Will Windows 7 make you switch back?"
Switch back, as in you were on Windows, then OS X, then maybe Windows 7 later. QED assumes people are switchers.

[Quillz]

Again, Windows 7 looks great, but for me it's the software that counts and my work must be done with Mac software.
But when you eventually go to work for a company who uses software that runs on Windows, will you be able to use it?

I agree fully that third-party software on Mac OS X is generally of much higher quality than what you can find on Windows. But, I'd never want to put myself into a situation where I feel I can only be productive on one operating system. This is why I like using both; to get familiar with the strengths and weaknesses of both.

[HLdan]

But when you eventually go to work for a company who uses software that runs on Windows, will you be able to use it?

I agree fully that third-party software on Mac OS X is generally of much higher quality than what you can find on Windows. But, I'd never want to put myself into a situation where I feel I can only be productive on one operating system. This is why I like using both; to get familiar with the strengths and weaknesses of both.

I gotcha about that however I don't think the situation is as bad as you might think theoretically. Most of today's software runs on both Mac OS X and Windows so Macs can easily fit in a corporate environment unless your talking about one or two softwares that a company has only made for Windows.

According to what you are talking about then there would be no reason for anyone to have left Windows to switch to a Mac in the first place. Remember, the thread is all about people who switched to a Mac but took a look at Windows 7 and decided to switch back based on Windows 7.
At any rate, it's nice to have a Macintosh because you don't have to buy a new PC to use Windows 7.

[jaw04005]

Not caring about defragmenting, viruses and stuff like that is really great.

Windows has had automatic defragmenting since at least XP (probably earlier). It was substantially improved with Vista. It's just that Microsoft includes a free user tool for additional "manual" defragmentation and Apple doesn't.

In reality, Apple should also include a tool as using the Boot Camp partitioner multiple times can easily fragment your drive. Not to mention, OS X only defragments files under 20MB. If you want real disk defragmentation you have to purchase a $30 program.

[beg_ne]

Windows 7 is good. For Windows. But its just Windows, nothing more. Ballmer is still a sweaty hyper-active ape, they still put out trash like SongSmith, I have zero faith in the company or their "technologies". Most of the developers as so behind the curve, even in using the tools that MS gives them its not even funny and they tend to put out some of the worst applications I've ever seen in my life.

Their user community doesn't seem to be very compelling either.

Been there, done that. Moved on to something infinitely better.

[Quillz]

Windows 7 is good. For Windows. But its just Windows, nothing more. Ballmer is still a sweaty hyper-active ape, they still put out trash like SongSmith, I have zero faith in the company or their "technologies". Most of the developers as so behind the curve, even in using the tools that MS gives them its not even funny and they tend to put out some of the worst applications I've ever seen in my life.

Their user community doesn't seem to be very compelling either.

Been there, done that. Moved on to something infinitely better.
It sounds like you have more of an issue with developers who make programs for Windows. Microsoft can't force developers to get with the curve and use their tools.

[Dejavu]

Windows 7 does not have Terminal.

I think I will stick with OS X. :cool:

[millar876]

im an origional switcher, we switched from os9 to osx, (10.0) and theres no way im going back to os9.

Havn't played with W7 yet, but i dont plan on being impressed, windows has never donee it for me, always seems behind the times (vs osx) or itll do the exact same thing, only in a realy complicated way. i.e. thea pathetic expose ripoff vista has thats overly resourse/gpu intensive and nowhere near as good.

Going to load both W7 and SL onto my mini and have a play. after i get back from my hollidays

[Quillz]

Windows 7 does not have Terminal.

I think I will stick with OS X. :cool:
No, but it has PowerShell, which is just as powerful as Terminal in terms of being able to execute system-level commands from a prompt.

[kockgunner]

Actually, no. Advertising is extremely effective. You watch a commercial enough times and soon you'll remember its jingle and what it's selling. Advertising is an extremely lucrative business because people are very much swayed by advertising. Apple knows this, and their "Get a Mac" is very successful. They wouldn't have kept it around for as long as it's been around if it wasn't very effective, as "Switch" wasn't. There are many people who believe Vista is a bad OS because "they said so in the commercials." Don't underestimate the power of advertising.

Sure, people will know the product exists and investigate on their own, but people don't buy products because it looks good on TV save for compulsive buyers. They still test out the product, see if they like it, then they buy it.

[TuffLuffJimmy]

No, but it has PowerShell, which is just as powerful as Terminal in terms of being able to execute system-level commands from a prompt.

But if you know terminal already...
anyway, I wish I had learned command prompt I just never really found the time to sit down and do it, and I felt unmotivated since I already knew terminal.

EDIT: and besides, there have been many times in OS X where I have needed the shell, but have yet to bump into a reason to use it in Windows. Other than one time I was having some networking problems and I had to have my mom help me with command prompt to get my network up.

[GeekOFComedy]

Am I going to switch

NO

My life style is Mac based. iTunes,Address book sync my iPhone unless Windows 7 has an address book App and Apple will help a bad software company in need by making iTunes Windows have their Address book support.
What about iCal I use that too. Switching from Mac to PC means having to get rid of my iPhone or using it properly.

Number 2: I would and will switch back once Apple makes a Full Mac version of Final Cut Studio,Aperture,etc

[Nermal]

Honestly, I think it's really better to judge a finished OS, not an unfinished one.

You wouldn't try and persuade someone to get a Mac with a computer that had a Beta of Mac OS X on it, would you?

Many of the issues that I've reported to Connect have been closed as "won't be resolved in 7".

[wrldwzrd89]

Windows has had automatic defragmenting since at least XP (probably earlier). It was substantially improved with Vista. It's just that Microsoft includes a free user tool for additional "manual" defragmentation and Apple doesn't.

In reality, Apple should also include a tool as using the Boot Camp partitioner multiple times can easily fragment your drive. Not to mention, OS X only defragments files under 20MB. If you want real disk defragmentation you have to purchase a $30 program.
You are completely correct on Mac OS X. However, I was under the impression that Windows XP does NOT automatically defragment anything, and in fact only allows scheduled defragmenting using the "manual" tool and Task Scheduler. The difference in Vista is that the scheduling part is done for you, a very welcome addition. There's still no automatic defragmenting going on at the file system level like in Mac OS X though.

[2Shae]

Depends on what you call "switching back"

If you mean from OS X --> Windows 7, well in that case the answer is maybe. I first want to see what Snow Leopard will deliver and what the final product of Windows 7 will bring.

But if you mean Mac --> PC, well in that case the answer is most likely not, unless there would be a good iMac replacement. All-in-Ones are da ***** :p

[MacRumorUser]

I voted no even though I will be using Windows 7 - for gaming (only).

[Kashchei]

I'm not sure Windows 7 would be enough to get me to switch on its own, but a combination of a final release Windows 7 that lives up to the promise of the beta, combined with the continued lack of a midrange desktop (or an atom-powered mini) might just do the job.

[kaly13]

it's getting boring. just cuz steve allmighty says its trash, it's actually not.
overwhelming majority doesn't agree with him. ;) say over 90%?


I STRONGLY disagree with you. 89% of the World uses Windows, because they ARE USED to them. The majority of them didn't even TRY to work with other Operating Systems. I am from Greece, and here in Greece, the Macs don't get promoted at all. We don't even have "Apple Greece"!! They only promote Windows PCs, because the World is USED to them. If they used Mac OS, they would DEFINITELY choose Mac OS instead of Window$.

All these, from a 16 year old boy from Greece!

[jaw04005]

You are completely correct on Mac OS X. However, I was under the impression that Windows XP does NOT automatically defragment anything, and in fact only allows scheduled defragmenting using the "manual" tool and Task Scheduler. The difference in Vista is that the scheduling part is done for you, a very welcome addition. There's still no automatic defragmenting going on at the file system level like in Mac OS X though.

Windows XP automatically defragments every three days via a system level process known as defrag.exe that's not present on your Task Scheduler. The "Disk Defragmenter" tool in Windows XP is actually a third-party product that was acquired by Microsoft. It's separate from the defrag.exe process, and cannot be scheduled using the Task Scheduler.

In Vista, it's basically all one system-level process that's present in the Task Scheduler as a default option. Microsoft has limited defragmentation to 64MB (Mac OS X limits it to 20MB) because they didn't see much benefit in defragmenting files over that size (free space vs. time vs. performance).

NTFS is inherently better at preventing fragmentation than FAT. However, HFS+ is inherently better than NTFS (even without it's optional journalling features).

Is it as good as Mac OS X? Probably not, but it's there and automatic. For the bulk of regular users, it's fine.

The point I was trying to make is the importance of defragmenting on Windows (particularly Vista) is completely over blown.

Both Windows and Mac OS X are smart enough to do defragmentation on their own. Unless your moving large chunks of data around or making substantial changes to your disks, you don't need to manually defrag on either operating system.

It's just nice that Microsoft gives you the tool if you want to. I wouldn't rank defragmentation up there with spyware or virus scanning.

[NoSmokingBandit]

I STRONGLY disagree with you. 89% of the World uses Windows, because they ARE USED to them. The majority of them didn't even TRY to work with other Operating Systems. I am from Greece, and here in Greece, the Macs don't get promoted at all. We don't even have "Apple Greece"!! They only promote Windows PCs, because the World is USED to them. If they used Mac OS, they would DEFINITELY choose Mac OS instead of Window$.

All these, from a 16 year old boy from Greece!

I have to completely disagree with you. About 75% of the world uses their computers just to get email, surf the internet, keep a music collection, and manage some pictures or home movies. Even if these people tried osx it would be hard to convince them to go buy a new computer that costs twice as much as they are used to paying just so they can keep doing the same tasks.
Windows and non-Apple PCs are much more cost effective for the average consumer. Early on Apple played the elitist card and took a good bit of the professional market which they seem to be abandoning anyway in order to get to the average consumer. The average joe doesnt look at a computer and see osx or windows 7, he sees an expensive but shiny way to accomplish the same task as a cheap but slightly uglier computer.

[wrldwzrd89]

Windows XP automatically defragments every three days via a system level process known as defrag.exe that's not present on your Task Scheduler. The "Disk Defragmenter" tool in Windows XP is actually a third-party product that was acquired by Microsoft. It's separate from the defrag.exe process, and cannot be scheduled using the Task Scheduler.

In Vista, it's basically all one system-level process that's present in the Task Scheduler as a default option. Microsoft has limited defragmentation to 64MB (Mac OS X limits it to 20MB) because they didn't see much benefit in defragmenting files over that size (free space vs. time vs. performance).

NTFS is inherently better at preventing fragmentation than FAT. However, HFS+ is inherently better than NTFS (even without it's optional journalling features).

Is it as good as Mac OS X? Probably not, but it's there and automatic. For the bulk of regular users, it's fine.

The point I was trying to make is the importance of defragmenting on Windows (particularly Vista) is completely over blown.

Both Windows and Mac OS X are smart enough to do defragmentation on their own. Unless your moving large chunks of data around or making substantial changes to your disks, you don't need to manually defrag on either operating system.

It's just nice that Microsoft gives you the tool if you want to. I wouldn't rank defragmentation up there with spyware or virus scanning.
Very interesting, thanks for the information!

[FX120]

At any rate, it's nice to have a Macintosh because you don't have to buy a new PC to use Windows 7.

<Is running Windows 7 on a 3 year old T60 with the original Core Duo and 1GB of ram>

Good luck running Snow Leopard on a Powerbook from 2005, that although it might be fully capable of running 10.6, won't because Apple is dropping PPC support. On the other hand numerous PCs from 2005 will be capable of running 7, as it scales VERY well on lower end hardware such as netbooks.

[smilinmonki666]

The whole thing about different Operating Systems your forgetting is that they appeal to a different user base.

Windows: Gaming & set software is the advantage & that its had an easier time getting to it's users.

Apple: Gaming & Set software is the advantage. Ok, not as much gaming on the Apple, but Windows is the main OS for gaming, The Dreamcast, Xbox 360 & I'm sure theres other machines that use Windows for gaming. The Apple's are made for photography & video editing.

I prefer to use Apple for day-to-day tasks. Even my girlfriend prefers OS X to windows. Mainly because it works, you've got no fear of virus's & you don't wait ages for it to load.

I'm really keen on Windows 7 when it's released, enjoying the beta. It does remind me on OS X in certain way's. But its good for gaming. But then there's only certain games I have for the PC. I mainly game on the 360.

So for me, I switch to what works best for the task in hand & thats how people should look at things. If somone prefers using Windows, let them & visa versa. I'm no fanboy, but Apple's Hardware & Software just works for me. No problems at all. Everything connects via wireless with no problems, streaming to my xbox, no problems, install & un-install, no problems, no hidden files left, they just go when I ask them. Touch wood, I've been using macs solidly for 2 years now & never experience as much as .01% of problems I had in XP & Vista. I'm still learning OS X more & more each day & love it more & more.

Dual booting OS X & Windows 7 will be a premanent thing for my machine when Windows 7 goes on sale. & remember, without competion, at least none of the OS's get boring or stale.

[NoSmokingBandit]

install & un-install, no problems, no hidden files left

There are hidden files unless you use a 3rd party app like AppZapper.

[Cheffy Dave]

I have a fetish for viruses. I'm so going to let all of my Macs go to waste because Redmond's finest release more overpriced trash.

good answer,what he said:rolleyes:

[HLdan]

<Is running Windows 7 on a 3 year old T60 with the original Core Duo and 1GB of ram>

Good luck running Snow Leopard on a Powerbook from 2005, that although it might be fully capable of running 10.6, won't because Apple is dropping PPC support. On the other hand numerous PCs from 2005 will be capable of running 7, as it scales VERY well on lower end hardware such as netbooks.

I'm certainly not sure why you brought up this whole Powerbook thing, I never mentioned I had an old Apple Powerbook, in fact all my Macs are Intel Macs. Did you mean to quote someone else? Um, I don't think many PC's from 2005 will run Windows 7 very well unless they are highly supped up.

[SwiftLives]

The OS X Advantage really shines through for those who need to use multiple software apps simultaneously. From what I've seen so far, Windows 7 has made some significant strides toward application switching and useability.

It's amazing what feeling some heat and losing 5% of your marketshare can do for innovation.

Let's just hope Apple doesn't become complacent.

[FX120]

I'm certainly not sure why you brought up this whole Powerbook thing, I never mentioned I had an old Apple Powerbook, in fact all my Macs are Intel Macs. Did you mean to quote someone else? Um, I don't think many PC's from 2005 will run Windows 7 very well unless they are highly supped up.

I am using the Powerbook as an example of a Apple computer from late 2005 that will be incapable of running 10.6 because of planned obsolescence.

Becuase there are Windows computers from 2005 that will run 7 without problems. I was using my 3 year old T60 as an example, although technically I bought it in January of 2006... Just for ***** and giggles I tossed 7 on my desktop computer that I built in late 2003, a AMD Athalon XP 2800+, 1GB of RAM, and a ATi 9800 Pro. It wasn't the most insane machine back in the day, I think I put it together for around $1200. Windows 7 installed in about 25 minutes, and so far is running just as fast as it is on my T60, perhaps with better graphics performance though...

[bruinsrme]

I am sitting at work reading this thread and a person behind me said.

Aint no way Windows 7 will make me swicth back, do you kno whow much the T@ts cost me.

I was afraid to turn around.

[MacHappytjg]

I am sitting at work reading this thread and a person behind me said.

Aint no way Windows 7 will make me swicth back, do you kno whow much the T@ts cost me.

I was afraid to turn around.

Windows 7 = Windows vista + some service packs

[theNEOone]

Time Machine can back up an entire system, and if the drive fails, once I install a new drive with OS X, it can bring back *everything* just as they were in the previous drive. Is that possible on Windows? I don't think so, nor it is for Microsoft to come up with a UI that make users actually interested in back ups.


Vista has an incremental backup utility (performs auto backups just like time machine) that can be used to restore a new computer. In this respect, it's exactly the same as Time Machine.

However, the reason I like Time Machine better, is because of the user interface and how I can "browse through time." It's a much cooler way to recover files. More useful? Eh...probably not. But it's definitely visually impressive.


=|

[NoSmokingBandit]

Windows 7 = Windows vista + some service packs

10.6 = 10.5 with some updates.

See what i did there?

[bruinsrme]

10.6 = 10.5 with some updates.

See what i did there?

Dam I missed it do it again please :p

[wrldwzrd89]

Vista has an incremental backup utility (performs auto backups just like time machine) that can be used to restore a new computer. In this respect, it's exactly the same as Time Machine.

However, the reason I like Time Machine better, is because of the user interface and how I can "browse through time." It's a much cooler way to recover files. More useful? Eh...probably not. But it's definitely visually impressive.


=|
Vista also has Volume Shadow Copy, which is what powers the Previous Versions feature. I don't know if this is the same as the backup utility you speak of, though. Volume Shadow Copy is extremely useful - I have to wonder why Microsoft chose to enable it only in Business, Ultimate, and Enterprise editions of Vista.

That said, I will definitely get Windows 7, but not until it's ready for release. I'm not willing to beta test, especially after all the trouble you guys seem to have had just getting your copy.

[Quillz]

That said, I will definitely get Windows 7, but not until it's ready for release. I'm not willing to beta test, especially after all the trouble you guys seem to have had just getting your copy.
It wasn't that it was hard to get a copy of the beta, but imagine what would happen to a web server that has literally millions of people accessing it every second. It got hammered. Now that the mad downloading rush has ended, the servers are loading much quicker, so you shouldn't have any troubles downloading it.

[FX120]

Windows 7 = Windows vista + some service packs

You sound like this douchebag:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JBP1lJA1yiQ&feature=channel_page

Do you really want to be like that douchebag?

[Quillz]

Windows 7 = Windows vista + some service packs
Mac OS X Leopard = Mac OS X Cheetah + plus some additional service packs

[Quillz]

I'm certainly not sure why you brought up this whole Powerbook thing, I never mentioned I had an old Apple Powerbook, in fact all my Macs are Intel Macs. Did you mean to quote someone else? Um, I don't think many PC's from 2005 will run Windows 7 very well unless they are highly supped up.
Well, I have two computers from 2004 that can run Windows Vista fine. Almost all professional reviews of the beta so far have stated that Windows 7 performs better than Windows Vista on the same hardware. Therefore, I have every reason to believe that my two computers from '04 that will eventually get upgraded to 7 will have few issues.

[jbernie]

In direct answer to the OP, unless you are actually looking at an upgrade/replacement of your current system I do not see people willing to just drop their Apple products and run over and get a Windows system. Some people with the Intel based Macs might just go back to Windows once 7 is released.

Ultimately I think it will come down to what is invested in your current setup. If you have many applications that are OS X compatible only or do not have the option for a cross platform license change then sticking with what you have is the better option. If you do not have (m)any applications or are not concerned about losing them then it is easier to switch.


Ultimately, anyone with a decent enough system may as well just run Windows 7 as a virtual machine and not worry about the full switch. I have Vista 64 and installed Windows 7 in a virtual pc to test it out. Havent done any serious testing but my virtual pc is 30gb HDD/2GB ram and it runs pretty well on first impressions.

[Yamcha]

Checking out the offical site Windows 7 videos..

After having a look, I can say that they are infact trying to be more like Apple, with the touch features, except its on ur screen instead of a tracking pad.. I think the interface is a bit better. One thing that impresses me is the Recommended requirements which is a 1 GHz, 1GB Memory, 128MB Vid Card, which to me means it'll be faster then Vista, because you def can't run Vista with only 1GB of ram, its sluggish.. According to Wiki boot time is meant to be faster on this, which is alright, I've never been picky about boot time, I don't see how someone can't wait a min for boot time, in my computer boots up in about 30seconds.. But i was hoping to see a significant change in the interface.. not disappointed, but not totally impressed either.. I guess i'll have to wait and use it..

[HLdan]

I am using the Powerbook as an example of a Apple computer from late 2005 that will be incapable of running 10.6 because of planned obsolescence.

Becuase there are Windows computers from 2005 that will run 7 without problems. I was using my 3 year old T60 as an example, although technically I bought it in January of 2006... Just for ***** and giggles I tossed 7 on my desktop computer that I built in late 2003, a AMD Athalon XP 2800+, 1GB of RAM, and a ATi 9800 Pro. It wasn't the most insane machine back in the day, I think I put it together for around $1200. Windows 7 installed in about 25 minutes, and so far is running just as fast as it is on my T60, perhaps with better graphics performance though...

You're example is NOT a good example. Firstly, it's not about Apple's previous machines not being capable of running 10.6 it's Apple's decision to stop creating the OS to work with the old PowerPC architecture. Don't get ahead of yourself, the current OS, 10.5 runs on Macs back from 2002 and Tiger, 10.4 runs beautifully on Macs over 10 years ago. You can't say any of the above in terms of Vista and XP don't run well (or at all) on any PC over 10 years ago.

[FX120]

You're example is NOT a good example. Firstly, it's not about Apple's previous machines not being capable of running 10.6 it's Apple's decision to stop creating the OS to work with the old PowerPC architecture. Don't get ahead of yourself, the current OS, 10.6 runs on Macs back from 2002 and Tiger, 10.4 runs beautifully on Macs over 10 years ago. You can't say any of the above in terms of Vista and XP don't run well (or at all) on any PC over 10 years ago.

Which I noted in my original post.

Good luck running Snow Leopard on a Powerbook from 2005, that although it might be fully capable of running 10.6, won't because Apple is dropping PPC support.

And I ran XP on a P2, thank you very much. And Tiger never ran well on my Pismo G3, but I don't know what you define as 'beautifully'...

Either way, your original post about "having to buy a new machine to run 7", is false.

[Yamcha]

I think obviously theres going to be more votes Pro Mac, since this is a Mac forum :P.. Ive used both.. I think the new Windows 7 is an improvement over Vista, i was hoping for more of a significant change in the interface though, but the recommended system requirements are so low, which means it's obviously going to run much faster. I like that they have those touch features, which is a lot like the features on the Macbook trackpad... and Im sure they did get the idea from Apple, but its a good one... But with all honesty i really love leopards look much more, mainly because of that dock they have... But i definitely will download Windows 7 on my PC machine.. and I can't really say if its better then OSX until i try it and see for myself..

[MacRohde]

I have a MacMini running Leopard and a HP laptop running Windows 7, and I like that setup. So I will use both ;)

Now about Windows 7 I must say that it is absolutely awesome. The new taskbar is so good it makes me cry (it is better than the dock; much better window management). That alone is worth the price.

The library feature is great as well.

Overall Windows 7 is really good. Just as good as OS X.

I'm not a "Windows guy", nor an "Apple guy". I'm a "computer guy" and I like to toy, play and work with both OSs.

Besides, for the hard-core Apple fanatics: you should only be glad Windows 7 is so good; it'll make Apple work harder at Snow Leopard.

[MacHappytjg]

10.6 = 10.5 with some updates.

See what i did there?

well my point is its not really a completely new os, besides the look staying the same

[Quillz]

well my point is its not really a completely new os, besides the look staying the same
There are very few "completely new" operating systems, as making something completely new time and time again isn't practical. Apple had the Mac OS from 1984 all the way to 2000, at which point they released Mac OS X, which was completely new. Until Apple makes an OS 11 or something similar, all future Mac OS X releases will be evolutionary.

The same with Windows. Windows has more or less been the same since its original introduction in 1985. The only real major revisions would have been Windows 3, Windows 95 and Windows Vista. Windows 7 is just an evolutionary release. And that's a good thing. Being evolutionary instead of revolutionary means that it won't have any major compatibility issues. Everything that works on Vista will continue to work on 7.

[Stridder44]

10.6 = 10.5 with some updates.

See what i did there?

Damnit I was going to do that. :p

well my point is its not really a completely new os, besides the look staying the same

Exactly, just like Snow Leopard. Right? Oh, no wait, that's Apple. And everything Apple does is perfect.

[NoSmokingBandit]

well my point is its not really a completely new os, besides the look staying the same

According to that theory apple hasnt released a 'new' OS since march 2001.

[MacHappytjg]

According to that theory apple hasnt released a 'new' OS since march 2001.

NEVERMIND JESUS MY POINT WAS WHY NOT JUST RELEASE A FEW MORE SERVICE PACKS FOR VISTA BUT NOO everyone has to be a dick about it. Just cause i said something completely wrong u have to call me a retard Not just the quote but everyone other fanboy.

[Eidorian]

NEVERMIND JESUS MY POINT WAS WHY NOT JUST RELEASE A FEW MORE SERVICE PACKS FOR VISTA BUT NOO everyone has to be a dick about it. Just cause i said something completely wrong u have to call me a retard Not just the quote but everyone other fanboy.Vista Service Pack 1 and even 2 aren't going to be that significant compared to Windows 7 though.

[MacHappytjg]

Vista Service Pack 1 and even 2 aren't going to be that significant compared to Windows 7 though.

In my opinion windows can go **** itself and everyone stop being a smart ass, im not going to switch back and even if i do, im not going to pay for it. :mad:

[zflauaus]

In my opinion windows can go **** itself and everyone stop being a smart ass, im not going to switch back and even if i do, im not going to pay for it. :mad:
No need for the hate. If you don't agree, don't say anything. Voila. Problem solved.

As to the actual switching question, it won't make me switch full time, but I've been running Windows 7 for the past day without switching back into OS X and yes, there are a few things that I miss (Expose and Spaces, namely), but it's a solid OS beta in my opinion. This may be the first copy of Windows I buy outside of getting it on a new computer.

[Stridder44]

NEVERMIND JESUS MY POINT WAS WHY NOT JUST RELEASE A FEW MORE SERVICE PACKS FOR VISTA BUT NOO everyone has to be a dick about it. Just cause i said something completely wrong u have to call me a retard Not just the quote but everyone other fanboy.

In my opinion windows can go **** itself and everyone stop being a smart ass, im not going to switch back and even if i do, im not going to pay for it. :mad:


Haha wow someone needs a nap. Instead of name-calling us (who exactly called you a "retard" again?) how about giving us valid reasons why Windows 7 is a "service pack" to you. I mean an actual argument, not "it's full of bloat" or another general sweeping term.

And no one is trying to get you to buy Windows, hell we could care less. But when you start saying things like you did, you have to expect to get responses. Don't put your toes out there if you don't want them to get stepped on.

[NoSmokingBandit]

In my opinion windows can go **** itself and everyone stop being a smart ass, im not going to switch back and even if i do, im not going to pay for it. :mad:

See, children, this is what happens when you desperately come up with a bullcrap theory to prove how smart you are and are proven wrong.

That being said, theres no hard feeling from me, MacHappytjg. If you want to get all pissy you go right ahead, but when you are willing to debate this like a mature adult i will welcome you back, no problem. Until then, enjoy bashing windows on baseless claims ;)

[Quillz]

See, children, this is what happens when you desperately come up with a bullcrap theory to prove how smart you are and are proven wrong.

That being said, theres no hard feeling from me, MacHappytjg. If you want to get all pissy you go right ahead, but when you are willing to debate this like a mature adult i will welcome you back, no problem. Until then, enjoy bashing windows on baseless claims ;)
Not to mention he plans to be a pirate, too.

It's people like him that give Mac users an unfair stereotype of being immature snobs.

[Quillz]

According to that theory apple hasnt released a 'new' OS since march 2001.
Well, it's more than a theory, it's pretty much a fact. Apple has used the same Darwin kernel in Mac OS X since it's release. Every new release since Cheetah has been evolutionary, merely improving Darwin and its other components. Very rarely is each incremental OS update a truly "new" one.

[Great Dave]

I certainly like the look of W7 - the features are pretty hot too.

The problem is the ****** looking hardware...

Actually, have you looked at some of the pcs lately. I hadn't until I was at Best Buy getting an install on my car. I had time to kill so wondered over to the computer department.

I actually felt kind of disappointed. Why? Because it seemed like my MacBook Pro, MacBook, etc. was altmodisch, out-of-date. Possibly, it was just me because I have owned powerbooks and iBooks and the style really hasn't changed since then.

But, man I remember pcs being big, bulky, cheap looking, etc. But, now...

Wow! They have so many different sleek designs, light weight. And the prices and features (what happened to the year of HD steve? Still waiting for Blu-ray!)are just better.

Now I haven't tried Windows 7, but all these positive reviews, make me think about it. That on top of the fact that it seems that Apple has become a phone/gadget company(also not to mention that Apple's corporate attitude has shifted through the years and they seem like any other greedy, monopolistic company out-there - makes me feel less loyal to them), really makes me think about it.

[NoSmokingBandit]

Imo, sony makes some of the sexiest computers:
http://www.itechnews.net/wp-content/uploads/2007/06/Sony-VAIO-CR-Notebook.jpg

Yeah, it looks like the white macbook, but i think the white macbook is one of the best designs ever.

[iMouse]

Because for the longest time, Rootkits didn't exist and anti-virus could detect viruses. Plus, I have yet to see a virus (trojan, etc) that doesn't make its precense known.

By the time rootkits were around, I was at college with an industrial strength anti-virus program. I'm pretty sure I never got one.


Anti-virus is useless anymore on any Windows platform. Period. I don't care how "industrial strength" you think it may be, it sucks. Take it from a malware specialist who spends nearly 40 hours a week doing nothing but manually removing this crap from compromised Windows-based systems and restoring whatever services it has removed or disabled. Automated software isn't going to do for you what you expect. While some fairly good anti-malware based apps like MalwareBytes Anti-Malware are out there, they aren't perfect. Perfect is what you need in the face of today's digital threats.

Malware is playing a whole new ballgame with the power to not only change registry entries, but to hide as threads in Windows critical processes such as Winlogon, lsass, svchost (yes, the actual thread, not a .dll generated svchost process), and many others. They are self-protecting, self-healing, and many Vundo-based Trojans are now crippling the system by restricting Windows Group Policies so that things like 9/10 of the items on your Start menu don't appear or are inaccessible due to permissions denial. Some variants have gone as far as to hook the Winlogon Authentication Package so that when the Trojan is removed, the user can no longer log in to their account unless the Trojan's registry string was deleted in the LSA registry key before the previous logoff or reboot.

Then there's DNSChanger. Ah, a lovely one that redirects all web traffic to advertisers sites before dumping you to the actual website that you requested. ...most of the time. Ever try removing this beast? You'll find that it is indeed a rootkit. You'll also find that is resides in /System32/Drivers. So, what's the catch? You can't see it there. It has designed itself to hide from Windows APIs. Removal requires some pretty fancy rootkit detection software (some anti-virus apps can find and delete pieces of this now), and a bootable device such as a BartPE Disc, Ubuntu Live CD, and a lot of nerve as you go into your drivers directory deleting the rootkit piece manually.

Who wants to do this?!

At this point, nearly all end-users give up and either buy a new PC, Mac, or restore their old one using a restore partition or discs. For those that chose to restore, many forget to patch their 1, 2, 3 year-old factory image and become once again a member of our unfriendly botnet environment in a matter of a few hours.

I believe you're going to see the next round of malware apps attack at a level as low as the interrupt handler. You invoke an interrupt, the malware does its thing, then goes back into a stealth-like "wait" period. At this point, you might as well call it quits...

[Stridder44]

Actually, have you looked at some of the pcs lately. I hadn't until I was at Best Buy getting an install on my car. I had time to kill so wondered over to the computer department.

I actually felt kind of disappointed. Why? Because it seemed like my MacBook Pro, MacBook, etc. was altmodisch, out-of-date. Possibly, it was just me because I have owned powerbooks and iBooks and the style really hasn't changed since then.

But, man I remember pcs being big, bulky, cheap looking, etc. But, now...

Wow! They have so many different sleek designs, light weight. And the prices and features (what happened to the year of HD steve? Still waiting for Blu-ray!)are just better.

Now I haven't tried Windows 7, but all these positive reviews, make me think about it. That on top of the fact that it seems that Apple has become a phone/gadget company(also not to mention that Apple's corporate attitude has shifted through the years and they seem like any other greedy, monopolistic company out-there - makes me feel less loyal to them), really makes me think about it.

Unfortunately I feel the same as you do. And that sucks too, because I love OS X. If only Apple could write better drivers, and maybe bring back that insane thinking they used to have (like the G4 iMac design) and stop focusing so damn much on the iPhone (yes, it's very cool, but come on). I will continue buying Apple computers though, if nothing else for OS X.

Anti-virus is useless anymore on any Windows platform.

I agree for the most part, but anti-virus apps have really come a long way since the old days of Norton, which is still a POS. Free apps like Avira work exteremly well (way better than AVG and the like) and have virtually no impact. Looking at the Task Manager, I can see that Avira is takes up around 10MB of RAM. I've been running if for the past few weeks on my MBP (in Vista 64, which I use for gaming) and it has zero impact on FPS. Whether or not anyone needs an antivirus app is up for debate (one that shouldn't take place here) but if you want a solid, free, antivirus app that is super low impact (read: doesn't take up any resources) then Avira is your man.

[pranavss11]

I'll be adding it on bootcamp.

[Stridder44]

Looks like MacHappytjg took his ball and went home. :rolleyes:

[NoSmokingBandit]

Have you guys checked out ThreatFire? Is an anti-malware app that is behavior based instead of signature based. Combine something like with suRun (http://translate.google.com/translate?u=http%3A%2F%2Fkay-bruns.de%2Fwp%2Fsoftware%2Fsurun%2F&langpair=de|en&hl=de&safe=active&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&prev=%2Flanguage_tools) and you will be as safe as anyone else.

[zap2]

I doubt it...although it will get a look if Apple refuses to come out with a netbook. I currently run XP on my EEE PC, but thats SSD is to small, CPU is slow, keyboard is small, battery is low(but hey its a 701 model!), I'd like to update but MS won't let OEMs update netbook specs to things like 2GB of RAM, 32+SSDs and still use XP. And Vista is a still a little "big" to use on them. I'm thinking about a Ubuntu Dell Mini

Hopefully Apple comes out with one, and I know where to buy!

[NoSmokingBandit]

^^^http://uneasysilence.com/archive/2007/11/12654/
There may be a newer, easier guide but this is what i found with a quick google.

[fa8362]

So now that many of you have had experience with the beta, do you think the final product will be enough to make you switch back to Windows? And if you've been a Mac user all your life, will you cross to the "dark" side?



Please, no more jokes. I almost laughed myself to death.

[nishishei]

I'm switching if OS X doesn't fix that goddamn Finder. The Win7 Explorer is night and day better than the Finder in just about everything you need to do to manage your files.

And why is it when I go to the previous page in the Finder, the Finder loses the folder's layout settings? It's so frustrating.

[Machappytg]

Looks like MacHappytjg took his ball and went home. :rolleyes:

as if there is a guy with the same name as me who looks like a really stupid guy :(. Reguardless im waiting for SnowLeopard im not too interested in windows 7. btw is there anyway how to change my name im new here...

[integrat.ethis]

I'm switching if OS X doesn't fix that goddamn Finder. The Win7 Explorer is night and day better than the Finder in just about everything you need to do to manage your files.

And why is it when I go to the previous page in the Finder, the Finder loses the folder's layout settings? It's so frustrating.
I agree! I like most things about OS X more than Windows, but the Finder is horrible! I really liked the "group by type" option in Vista, and there's nothing of the sort in OS X. Hopefully Snow Leopard will set things straight.

[BenEndeem]

If the price points are just about the same for the MacBook line when I come to replace my laptop then I won't hesitate to buy a Windows based laptop. I don't like the prices and I don't like the (extremely frustrating) intermittent Wi-Fi problems. Windows 7 looks like the Vista that I imagined when I made the fateful decision upgrade from XP, as others have said it is coming on to be what Vista should have been.

However I doubt I'll switch back to Windows for my desktops. The Apple desktops are, as far as I can see, much more competitively priced that the laptops, plus there's OS X which will probably be my favourite OS throughout the foreseeable future, if only by a little.

[HLdan]

I agree! I like most things about OS X more than Windows, but the Finder is horrible! I really liked the "group by type" option in Vista, and there's nothing of the sort in OS X. Hopefully Snow Leopard will set things straight.

I'm not really understanding what's so bad about the Finder and what's so great about Windows Explorer? Can someone explain rather than just say the Finder sux and Explorer is the best?

Also, the Finder does have a "Group by Type" option, unless you are talking about something else, it's in Show View Options.

[NoSmokingBandit]

I'm not really understanding what's so bad about the Finder and what's so great about Windows Explorer? Can someone explain rather than just say the Finder sux and Explorer is the best?

Also, the Finder does have a "Group by Type" option, unless you are talking about something else, it's in Show View Options.

Cut/Paste, multiple sidebars depending on what you like, an 'up' button as well as the back/forward ones, you can adjust icon size from the menu bar, folders have a little preview of what is inside them...
All of those things make it much more pleasant to use Explorer.

[Quillz]

I'm switching if OS X doesn't fix that goddamn Finder. The Win7 Explorer is night and day better than the Finder in just about everything you need to do to manage your files.

And why is it when I go to the previous page in the Finder, the Finder loses the folder's layout settings? It's so frustrating.
I agree. The Finder is terrible. I've moved full-time to ForkLift, which is what "the Finder should be." In fact, I think ForkLift is even better than Windows Explorer. It offers tabbed browsing, a dual-pane design and even builds in FTP. All of these should be in Windows Explorer. (There used to be FTP browsing, but it's been removed as of Vista.)

[FX120]

I agree. The Finder is terrible. I've moved full-time to ForkLift, which is what "the Finder should be." In fact, I think ForkLift is even better than Windows Explorer. It offers tabbed browsing, a dual-pane design and even builds in FTP. All of these should be in Windows Explorer. (There used to be FTP browsing, but it's been removed as of Vista.)

I use Explorer for FTP all the time on Vista...

[nishishei]

I agree. The Finder is terrible. I've moved full-time to ForkLift, which is what "the Finder should be." In fact, I think ForkLift is even better than Windows Explorer. It offers tabbed browsing, a dual-pane design and even builds in FTP. All of these should be in Windows Explorer. (There used to be FTP browsing, but it's been removed as of Vista.)

There is FTP in Vista's Explorer. You go to Tools (you might need to click Alt first to get the menubar) and then Map Network Drive.

[nishishei]

I'm not really understanding what's so bad about the Finder and what's so great about Windows Explorer? Can someone explain rather than just say the Finder sux and Explorer is the best?

Also, the Finder does have a "Group by Type" option, unless you are talking about something else, it's in Show View Options.

Well the Win7 Explorer has something called libraries which allow you to sort documents through multiple folders. For example, if you have a picture library, you can put multiple picture folders (from anywhere on your computer) in it and either sort by physical folders or sort by say the month and year you took your pictures (this is profoundly different from "Last Modified" sorting within a folder).

The Windows Explorer is just simply more powerful in switching between folders. Say I have a folder at "c:\users\username\desktop\work folder", in the Explorer, I can easily go to the \users folder or the \username folder by just clicking on "users" or "username" in the path address. I don't have to go back one by one. I can also select another subfolder in the \users folder just by clicking the \users folder and picking say \username2 all within the top path address. Whereas, you can't do jack squat with the path (besides copy it) in the Mac Finder.

[HLdan]

Well the Win7 Explorer has something called libraries which allow you to sort documents through multiple folders. For example, if you have a picture library, you can put multiple picture folders (from anywhere on your computer) in it and either sort by physical folders or sort by say the month and year you took your pictures (this is profoundly different from "Last Modified" sorting within a folder).

The Windows Explorer is just simply more powerful in switching between folders. Say I have a folder at "c:\users\username\desktop\work folder", in the Explorer, I can easily go to the \users folder or the \username folder by just clicking on "users" or "username" in the path address. I don't have to go back one by one. I can also select another subfolder in the \users folder just by clicking the \users folder and picking say \username2 all within the top path address. Whereas, you can't do jack squat with the path (besides copy it) in the Mac Finder.

The Finder does have a path bar that allows you to access subfolders inside the main folder. I'm not getting what you want to do outside of that. At any rate in Windows or OS X I never use the Finder or Explorer much more than storing files for quick access when needed. I don't have any need to do complicated tasks so the Finder is just fine and that's probably why I don't see the difference since I've used both basically the same way.
I agree, Apple needs to step up the Finder in Snow Leopard like they did from Tiger to Leopard but if you are looking for features that equal Explorer, forget it, Apple ain't gonna do it. Their idea is simplicity, not complex computing because most computer users don't get very extensive with the File browsers on their Mac or PC, only geeks here do that stuff.

[QuarterSwede]

The Finder does have a path bar that allows you to access subfolders inside the main folder. I'm not getting what you want to do outside of that. At any rate in Windows or OS X I never use the Finder or Explorer much more than storing files for quick access when needed. I don't have any need to do complicated tasks so the Finder is just fine and that's probably why I don't see the difference since I've used both basically the same way.
I agree, Apple needs to step up the Finder in Snow Leopard like they did from Tiger to Leopard but if you are looking for features that equal Explorer, forget it, Apple ain't gonna do it. Their idea is simplicity, not complex computing because most computer users don't get very extensive with the File browsers on their Mac or PC, only geeks here do that stuff.
Apple has a different philosophy when it comes to the file system. They'd rather have the apps access, sort, etc. files than have the user have to do all that work. Hence why iPhoto manages the library, iTunes does the same. They're basically frontends for your databases. Once I realized that (back when I got my Mac) it made my life a lot easier as I wasn't making folders and sorting everything myself. I just let the apps do all the dirty work.

[macmee]

The requirements for Windows 7 still suck. Why do newer versions of Windows always require so much more to preform well?

XP runs so much better on Fusion than Vista or 7, so why should I use either of those?

[FX120]

The requirements for Windows 7 still suck. Why do newer versions of Windows always require so much more to preform well?

XP runs so much better on Fusion than Vista or 7, so why should I use either of those?

Que?

[QuarterSwede]

The requirements for Windows 7 still suck. Why do newer versions of Windows always require so much more to preform well?

XP runs so much better on Fusion than Vista or 7, so why should I use either of those?
Have you actually used Vista before? It's MILES ahead of what XP can do. 7 is even better because Microsoft added things that should have been in Vista when it shipped (Home Groups, Federated Search, etc).

Just read Neowin's (http://neowin.net) Windows 7 Overview Series (http://www.neowin.net/news/main/09/01/13/windows-7-vista-upgrade--anytime-upgrade-overview) for why.

[macmee]

Have you actually used Vista before? It's MILES ahead of what XP can do. 7 is even better because Microsoft added things that should have been in Vista when it shipped (Home Groups, Federated Search, etc).

Just read Neowin's (http://neowin.net) Windows 7 Overview Series (http://www.neowin.net/news/main/09/01/13/windows-7-vista-upgrade--anytime-upgrade-overview) for why.

I used Vista for over a year for my main operating system on my Toshiba and Acer laptops. Comparing its performance to XP it was junk.

[kaks]

Microsoft/Windows 7 wont be the deciding factor why i would personaly change back, but the hardware.

I like the simplicity of GUI in OSX, kind of reminds of Gnome in Linux. I like the terminal and i use quicksilver for launching so it makes me multi-task quite easily(not just for launching).
But i still find the taskbar easier to handle 20+ applications/windows running(anyway besides the point).

I'm a developer(still nothing commercial yet), so .NET is very appealing plus most companies use that in my country anyway, or just java, and a few rare c++ position. Frankly if it wasn't for .NET i might not even consider moving back...BUT!!

Here comes the main point..the hardware! Sorry but an entry level desktop for my needs is essentially the mac pro, for its expandability and the ability to add a seperate screen. And no, the iMac is not enough, its slower than it should be, and reasonably dated by now, not to mention the shiny screens and no expandability.
The macbook pro you say(for external screen, and quite fast?) ? By the time i configure it with what i want ill be paying over £2000, if i get the 15'' one, otherwise the 17'' starts there.
Dont get me wrong they're not slow machines, neither the iMacs nor the MBP.
But they are expensive, and it doesnt get any cheaper with time going after the initial release. Plus now they are more expensive than ever.
Not to mention, that you are stuck with what apple wants you to use and thats it, and you have to wait for Apple to actually decide when they want to upgrade, otherwise you'll end up getting an outdated version of what you are buying. Just like all the people buying imacs now, when its time for the update.

Even the new mac pro is expected to be reasonably more expensive, and since it uses ECC ram and its even more expensive to end up with lots of ram and raid cards. Even the graphics cards you need to buy from apple.

I can handle proprietary hardware, for a reasonable price and reasonably priced options but not this.
The current core i7 range is nearly or as fast the current mac pro with the 2 cpus, which is more than enough considering the mac pro is/was blazing fast last year and should last anyone a couple of years.

Apple has a great great operating system, but i just feel like we are trapped in a box. You can only buy the hardware they have, at the price they want which is overpriced mostly, and sometimes the specs arent there. They are obviously taking advantage of the operating system.

Windows makes a lot more sense in the long run i think. As someone mentioned here, he uses itunes, ical, address book and has an iphone. Just like me :). So im afraid that this would be a complication when you need to switch over. They are not forcing you to use them, but once you do and you've got your whole set up running all 'mac-like' then you're kind of stuck.

What happens if tomorrow they raise prices on the hardware. I think most people are blinded with the whole anti-microsoft thing, and the 'i dont care about specs' when they should see how controlling apple has and will become. Thats what worries me. If you all you know are you're mac apps and eveything is set up around that, then any price apple asks you'll pay for the hardware.

And for what are you paying that price for? the ability to run osx. Which you still have to buy. They are locking you down(not by force obviously :P) to what they want you to use.

I think we'll find ourselves in a worse situation than we were before buying a mac. Now im not saying the every day consumer who checks their email and browses the web need anything more( so i still recommend them to friends), but i cant bare the thought that i kind of forced into buying whatever they have JUST so i can run osx.

Dont know what ill do, but depending on whether i get a mac pro, if i dont im going back to windows.

Either way the os is great, but i just dont like the hardware lock they have on you and windows 7 is shaping up...honestly :)

[Eidorian]

I used Vista for over a year for my main operating system on my Toshiba and Acer laptops. Comparing its performance to XP it was junk.Please do tell.

[Cassie]

I tried it out on my PC. Within 20 minutes, I was reinstalling XP. The way Explorer has changed really doesn't sit well with me. It's too cluttered and way too bloated compared to XP's simple interface which I really enjoy. Plus my wireless USB dongle software wouldn't install. And they made it harder to pick tools in Paint.

I like the look of it though, might download a theme for XP.

[FX120]

I used Vista for over a year for my main operating system on my Toshiba and Acer laptops. Comparing its performance to XP it was junk.

OK, well 7 offers performance on older machines comparable to XP, but with the increased stability, security, searching, data management features of Vista, plus a number of good UI tweaks.

So what isn't there to like about 7?

[kamiboy]

Oh, I see old Uncle Billy has once again squatted down and laid another brown odorous present for us computer users, goody! I can't wait to venture skipping back into the nightmarish zone projected by the abomination's surreal glow, which engulfs all in its perimeter in a suffocating cocoon of torturous mediocrity.

Wait, on second thought I think I'll stay where I am. Hell can wait till after I am dead.

[goldfronts]

Microsoft, in my opinion, still has a long way to go before I even consider switching back

[HLdan]

What happens if tomorrow they raise prices on the hardware. I think most people are blinded with the whole anti-microsoft thing, and the 'i dont care about specs' when they should see how controlling apple has and will become. Thats what worries me. If you all you know are you're mac apps and eveything is set up around that, then any price apple asks you'll pay for the hardware.

And for what are you paying that price for? the ability to run osx. Which you still have to buy. They are locking you down(not by force obviously :P) to what they want you to use.


Honestly, I think you are the one that's a bid blinded. You claim Apple is controlling and has expensive hardware? You say that people are just "anti Microsoft" for whatever reason? Have you conveniently forgotten that this entire world is a Microsoft controlled matrix? One of the main things (besides price) that stops people from CHOOSING to use Mac OS X as their EVERYTHING system is because their job refuses to go anywhere outside of the Windows world. Most people are chained to their Windows software and Microsoft knows this all very well. Windows doesn't come cheap either, Vista Ultimate was singing a tune of $400 U.S. Sure, you can get it a bit cheaper now but it's still more than twice the price of Mac OS X.
Microsoft pretends to cater to all price points by creating Vista Basic that has NO AERO UNLESS YOU PAY TO UPGRADE VISTA.

All companies gouge their customers, I wish people here would get their head out of the sand and understand that having a cheap Windows PC doesn't mean you got a good deal.
You pay for convenience when you buy a Mac just as you would pay for convenience when you buy a Dell or a Sony.
Next time you are visiting the Dell or Sony website, configure one of their PC's and notice how they charge you extra to get the "Mac Like" experience, example, a clean desktop with no crapware.

[iObama]

I'll let you know soon. I'm installing it on my laptop as we speak!

[elgrecomac]

1. Easy to install in Fusion.
2. Running single CPU and 1,500mb ram. Performance seem actually 'snappy' which, for an Windows OS, tends to be an oxymoron.
3. Buggy but for a beta, not bad.
4. The UI: after using the OSX UI for a year now and being a PC user for 25 years prior, Win 7 is evolutionary but not revolutionary. I'm still trying to see where the sex and sizzle is. Is it OS stability? I hope not.
5. A big question mark for me: will app developers continue to treat OSX as modest market and avoid developing NEW apps for OSX? Will app developers continue to flock to Win XP/Vista/7 as it represents 90% of the market? (BTW, I always laugh when the Mac boards scream about how the Mac is now 10% of the market ...up from 7% which was gained over 4 years. At this rate it will be a major player (20%) in the year 2040 and I won't care because I will be dead OR...
is it all going to the net/open-source and both Microsoft and Apple miss the boat entirely due to their proprietary ways?
6. Is Win7 going to replace my Mac? Nope but I must continue to use windows via Fusion because several key pieces of business and engineering software will never be ported to the Mac: Audocad, Visio and MS Project but to name a few. They are as entrenched in the business world as much as Excel and Word.

Just one man's opinion.

-----------------------
17" MBP 2.6 Ghz, 4GB Ram

[charliex5]

I have an Acer Aspire One netbook with XP and OSX on it. I downloaded Windows 7 beta and it has completely transformed how I am able to use this thing. I would never buy a full blown computer with windows on it and I'll never give up my Unibody MacBook Pro for a Windows machine, but 7 is definitely decent. It runs so much smoother than any of the other OSs I have installed.

[jlamb0]

I'm sticking with OSX, but I have to say I'm really enjoying the new taskbar-dock hybrid Windows7 has here...

[kaks]

...

[NoSmokingBandit]

One of the main things (besides price) that stops people from CHOOSING to use Mac OS X as their EVERYTHING system is because their job refuses to go anywhere outside of the Windows world.

Thats because businesses cant afford to dish out 2x as much cash to get a mac setup going when they can easily get something from toshiba or dell ata reasonable price. Businesses also greatly rely on legacy support, something apple doesnt give a crap about. When i upgraded to Leo about 1/2 of my programs were broken for anywhere from a week to a month until the developers patched it. When i upgraded to Vista all but 2 of my programs worked and the two that didnt were fixed by running them in compatibility mode.
The only OS dev with a business focus is MS, so obviously they are going to go with them.

[Auzburner]

It's a nice new OS. I think 7 will not make me hate new PC's. I really hated Vista, but like 7, so I may put a new PC in the house and upgrade from XP for gaming, but I still see myself as a Mac guy.

[macmee]

OK, well 7 offers performance on older machines comparable to XP, but with the increased stability, security, searching, data management features of Vista, plus a number of good UI tweaks.

So what isn't there to like about 7?

7 is more comparable to XP when it comes to performance, yes (it ran surprisingly well with 512MB ram on Fusion). It still doesn't beat XP though:D. I find XP stable enough, and I can make my own security. At the moment I'm running XP on Fusion so I can already search for which application I want. If this wasn't available to me I could use a tool called ViStart, which mimics the Vista start menu (including the startmenu search feature).

[gregorsamsa]

While Windows 7 looks nice with the thumbnail previews and dock-like taskbar and some new GUI enhancements what most people tend to forget that the OS is just the vehicle, the software is where it counts.
Sorry, but nothing in Windows competes with the software made for Mac OS X. I love the Mac style features in lots of 3rd party software that Windows counterparts can't compete with.
Even Apple's own software I prefer such as Final Cut, Aperture, iLife and iWork are all AWESOME!
What I really love are the 3rd party companies that make "Mac Only" software, the GUI is great, the features are designed to work exclusively for the Macintosh and the support is top notch because we don't have to wait until the Windows version gets released first and tested before the OS X ported version gets put out and is SUBPAR because it was a port.

Again, Windows 7 looks great, but for me it's the software that counts and my work must be done with Mac software.

Agree with most of that. Though what I've seen of WS 7 so far impresses me considerably & I'll probably (if not certainly) end up buying it mostly for gaming via Boot Camp (though I still buy OS X ports where available), there's just so much high-quality 3rd party OS X-only software out there, on top of Apple's excellent offerings, for me to even consider dropping Macs for PCs. I think each platform has its pros & cons, but for me the choice of software for Mac figures very highly in my decision.

For eg,. Scrivener (http://www.literatureandlatte.com/scrivener.html)

[dimme]

Microsoft/Windows 7 wont be the deciding factor why i would personaly change back, but the hardware.

I like the simplicity of GUI in OSX, kind of reminds of Gnome in Linux. I like the terminal and i use quicksilver for launching so it makes me multi-task quite easily(not just for launching).
But i still find the taskbar easier to handle 20+ applications/windows running(anyway besides the point).


Here comes the main point..the hardware! Sorry but an entry level desktop for my needs is essentially the mac pro, for its expandability and the ability to add a seperate screen. And no, the iMac is not enough, its slower than it should be, and reasonably dated by now, not to mention the shiny screens and no expandability.
)

Very well said and I agree 100%

[Stridder44]

The requirements for Windows 7 still suck. Why do newer versions of Windows always require so much more to preform well?

XP runs so much better on Fusion than Vista or 7, so why should I use either of those?

http://img100.imageshack.us/img100/5269/facepalm8bu0ph9.jpg

[Dagless]

I don't think anything is better for media playback and such as OSX. I can't imagine Windows 7 overtaking OSX for me, or even XP.

I still can't see myself leaving Windows XP. It's doing everything perfect for me, and I've never had a virus on it in the last 2 years I've had this iMac.
And since Win 7 can't run iPhoto, Logic, Garageband, iCal, Mail and Final Cut I'll be sticking with OSX too. Thanks.

[Eidorian]

I don't think anything is better for media playback and such as OSX. I can't imagine Windows 7 overtaking OSX for me, or even XP.

I still can't see myself leaving Windows XP. It's doing everything perfect for me, and I've never had a virus on it in the last 2 years I've had this iMac.
And since Win 7 can't run iPhoto, Logic, Garageband, iCal, Mail and Final Cut I'll be sticking with OSX too. Thanks.OS X still needs a Windows Media Center like backend for TV tuner support. I don't have to worry about EyeTV or the expense because of it.

[robanga]

I'm looking forward to Windows 7, but probably won't do the beta thing. (Although I am half interested in trying it out on an older Pentium 4 2.0 Ghz with 1.5GB ram and 256MB video card to see if/how it works)

I have become such a proponent of OS X though, I doubt Windows will ever have the same appeal to me. Still, very excited to use it when it is out.