I like Leopard and do plan on getting Snow Leopard, but isn't that like the pot calling the kettle black. (I do understand how it came from MS).
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Google Announces Google Chrome Operating System
- Thread starter ipodtoucher
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Well the main reason for not visiting American sites is because not everybody speaks English. Then there is the fact that American sites will put American issues to the fore, which will not appeal to all nationalities. Thirdly there is the fact that most of the world does not give a crap about American sports. And telling me over and over to provide another source is not going to make your own source any more valid. It presents browsing statistics, not OS share so they should stop presenting it as such.
Aren't the costs of Windows 7 upgrades similar to Leopard? I thought it was $49.99 to upgrade to Windows 7 Home and if you have even used Windows 7 you will know there are plenty of difference that immediately distinguish it from Vista.
Again, because Microsoft is charging full price for 7 ($199->$199) while Snow Leopard is charged at partial price... $29 instead of $129
Then why does my friend visits NBA's site even though he's neither fluent in English nor is he an American... And my mom checking NYTimes for international news?
And no, it doesn't make my source any more valid. But it's the best I can find out there. And because someone quantified that fact in a bloody comparison (someone said Windows remained over 90% even after Vista) I found the best source out there that holds enough to prove it wrong. I don't think there's anything to add to this other than just that apparently he wasn't reading news that week or so...
Full versions, Vista-199 to 7-199, USD. Upgrade price 119, changed to 49. Can't seem to find original official upgrade prices for Vista though...
(Well, for the "crippled" versions there's a discount... just read the store pricing.)
PS. Vista's Home Basic is equiv. to 7's Home Premium because 7's Basic is offered for emerging markets like Vista's Starter.
PPS. Vista Business/7 Professional editions pricing remains the same (well, more or less, actually rose by 4 cents)
PPS. Ultimate—same.
SL has significant under-the-hood improvements (huge, actually) . . . Grand Central, OpenCL, etc. Make of that what you will. How significant CAN Snow Leopard be when Leopard was already so strong to begin with? We never had to wait 6 years for a modern OS, then another 3 to fix it. Mac users have been kept current for years now.
I only addressed Windows 7, really. It's just what Ballmer said at the time, and what I take as their official position on the matter.
Windows Home? Nope, you must compare it to Ultimate. Full featured with Full Featured.
And besides, apart from the performance which is just slightly better than Xp and the new design, there's nothing.
Because you live in Hong Kong which is one of the more "Westernised" countries. If you go to Germany, or Spain or France or anywhere they have a strong national identity they have their own sites and sports.
http://store.microsoft.com/microsoft/Windows-Windows-7/category/102?WT.mc_id=msccomhpfeature_win7
there are the upgrade prices for Windows 7 so I can see you are quoting prices before the discount but thats hardly fair.
So of all the Taiwan, Chinese, Japanese (some of us know a bit of Japanese), British (former British colony) sites, they chose American? humph. Well anyways people visit American sites more than you think. But then again arguing small points like this one doesnt really change the validity of my source much... It's just a figure... to counter that one provided off the top of someone's head..
(just nitpicking, but HK's not a country—it's a part of China... well, a SAR that officially belongs to China..)
Official. Full Featured. No comparison. Still 219.99.
Because Mac OS X's $29 is also fully featured, no "cripple" versions for comparisons...
This could get me off the internet for good! Browsers are already the stupidest, most resource hungry applications to run, precisely because they are trying to be an operating system on top of an operating system. I just don't want that!
Give me an HTML browser that connects me to the world of information and that's effing it! I don't want a media player (I've got more than enough of them already), I don't want office apps (I've got more than enough of them already, too), and I sure don't want a s-l-o-w-e-r operating system (virtual machine on top of Mac OS on top of Unix). I've got real work to do, not just email and word processing - that's iPhone work, not browser work. And I sure don't want Google shoving ads up my workflow.
How can I avoid this OS(and apps)-in-a-browser BS? Hopefully, Google will build it in Flash and Apple will eliminate Flash from the desktop too & we'll all get some peace!
Google should stick to the cloud - service and info portability - and stay off my desktop. Google just officially became the IBM of the 21st century - I can haz all your computer.
Hopefully, Apple will make one browser for this Google-is-evil nonsense and a lightweight one for the rest of us that just want info off the world wide web and I can avoid the new-evil.
And I sure don't want to be running a virtual machine on top of Linux on top of browser on top of Mac OS on top of Unix. Will Mac users get some kind of short cut from the virtual machine straight to our Unix?
I think not. It will all be written to be most efficient on Windows DLLs and drivers and Mac OS users will be stuck with virtual machine on top of Windows browser on top of Windows DLLs, drivers and OS, on top of Mac browser on top of you know what I mean. Windows ports are bad enough now, I don't want all that nonsense shoved into my already resource hungry browser!
The OS in a browser is a myth, perpetrated by dot com conmen, like the Java virtual machine - sure it'll run, just nobody wants emulation on top of emulation other than a special case, to save buying hardware and OSs they don't want, but have to run (for some reason) - not for day to day use!
This sucks and my browser is going to end up bigger than my OS just in case I want to use this crap. We all knew it - Google is about to make us all bots to their new world order - peace, love and OS democracy. Be afraid, be very afraid.
Give me an HTML browser that connects me to the world of information and that's effing it! I don't want a media player (I've got more than enough of them already), I don't want office apps (I've got more than enough of them already, too), and I sure don't want a s-l-o-w-e-r operating system (virtual machine on top of Mac OS on top of Unix). I've got real work to do, not just email and word processing - that's iPhone work, not browser work. And I sure don't want Google shoving ads up my workflow.
How can I avoid this OS(and apps)-in-a-browser BS? Hopefully, Google will build it in Flash and Apple will eliminate Flash from the desktop too & we'll all get some peace!
Google should stick to the cloud - service and info portability - and stay off my desktop. Google just officially became the IBM of the 21st century - I can haz all your computer.
Hopefully, Apple will make one browser for this Google-is-evil nonsense and a lightweight one for the rest of us that just want info off the world wide web and I can avoid the new-evil.
And I sure don't want to be running a virtual machine on top of Linux on top of browser on top of Mac OS on top of Unix. Will Mac users get some kind of short cut from the virtual machine straight to our Unix?
I think not. It will all be written to be most efficient on Windows DLLs and drivers and Mac OS users will be stuck with virtual machine on top of Windows browser on top of Windows DLLs, drivers and OS, on top of Mac browser on top of you know what I mean. Windows ports are bad enough now, I don't want all that nonsense shoved into my already resource hungry browser!
The OS in a browser is a myth, perpetrated by dot com conmen, like the Java virtual machine - sure it'll run, just nobody wants emulation on top of emulation other than a special case, to save buying hardware and OSs they don't want, but have to run (for some reason) - not for day to day use!
This sucks and my browser is going to end up bigger than my OS just in case I want to use this crap. We all knew it - Google is about to make us all bots to their new world order - peace, love and OS democracy. Be afraid, be very afraid.
There are studies done that track the number of OEM machines with Windows sold and so on, but they are rare, that is why I haven't stated one. And even these aren't entirely accurate, but still I would trust them more than Net Applications statistics.
I don't get why you think Upgrade versions aren't full featured. You can even do a clean install, they just require that you already own a copy of Vista, just like the Snow Leopard prices require a copy of Leopard. Oh wait I get it, you think that Ultimate is the only version worth getting? Please, a small minority need all the features, that is why MS offer different versions.
I don't get why you think Upgrade versions aren't full featured. You can even do a clean install, they just require that you already own a copy of Vista, just like the Snow Leopard prices require a copy of Leopard. Oh wait I get it, you think that Ultimate is the only version worth getting? Please, a small minority need all the features, that is why MS offer different versions.
You're confusing browser with Flash player. Flash is the problem. If we got rid of Flash and Sliverlight the web would be much faster and browsers would stop eating memory and slurping battery.
Anyway, hopefully Google does a better job with the UI because it would be nice if a Linux distro didn't look like garbage for once. If not it will just be a web only Windows XP wannabe on netbooks instead of the iPod Touch.
No matter what the subject of the article...
The Windows vs. Mac debate continues... ad nauseam.
The Windows vs. Mac debate continues... ad nauseam.
My browser is only using 5mb of ram. http://img5.imageshack.us/img5/2459/screenshot0807200912493.png
Did I mention "active" machines? One that is being used? How do you know when a computer is thrown out and a new one bought? How do you know if I have a PC sitting idle when I am using a Mac or vice versa? What about machines built by the consumer him/herself? OEM sales can also be misleading.
Yes, Net Applications is not really much of a source, but it's the best indicator out there.
1. Mac OS X DVDs are not "upgrade" versions of the product. As long as you have a machine that can boot to, Mac OS X you can install from a clean slate. (as demonstrated by EFI emulation Hackint0shes. You can try EFI-X for an easy solution)
2. "Cripple" versions are precisely that. Versions with certain features disabled/missing. If you need those features, you'll have to "upgrade". Features such as UI Languages (MUI), Backup, Encrypted file system, etc; make the user buy upgrades if they need them—precisely the reason for the differences.
3. OS X has everything in the package. As you have noticed out there Windows is one of the lone OS's who does this "different editions" thing...
4. Besides, Windows' upgrade is the one whose cost needs to be justified—consumers have no previous good experience/good publicity to rely on to make the choice...
5. OS X's kernel is 64-bit rewritten, Grand Central, OpenCL, as another post mentioned, in addition to most of what 7 changed (incl. refinements/performance improvements), and they're offering a full version at $29; and Microsoft, with all their money, weight, and R&D dollars... can only come up with desktop changes, UI rebrand, and input support? Geez. Ain't worth the 49 (note: nearly double) for an "upgrade" disc if you ask me.
6. OS X isn't bad to begin with. Vista is known for the bad backwards compatibility, UAC, Memory & CPU usage, bloat, and overhype (removed Ultimate features?) as well as the whole "vista capable" scandal... sigh.
What about apps like Adobe, etc. I use for business Adobe InDesign, Photoshop, Illustrator, Acrobat, my accounting software, my website authoring software, my fax software just about every day. If I want a browser that is always on and the ability to quickly check my e-mail, I'd just not shut down my Apple and leave Safari and Mail app open! Huh?!
Could you please explain your problem with Windows drivers? I don't have any issues with them, even on x64. The only driver problem I've had is that HP isn't making Vista drivers for my 9 year old inkjet printer.
Back up your claims, please.
I'll bet that reverse-switching will become more and more common. Not as much people being drawn back to Windows 7 per se, but professionals will be driven away from Apple's increasingly un-professional computers.
When people look at Apple's laptops (thin and anemic) and desktops (a toy, an all-in-one, and humonguous expensive tower), and then look at the choice of Windows systems.... Windows 7 isn't such a bad thing after all.
LOL.
The fact is that many businesses are waiting for Win7 so that they can replace old XP systems - old systems that are starting to break down more often and which are "off the books" as far as finance accounting.
And all my mum does is check her email for specials sent from travel companies (she has signed up for newsletters, thinking that it's email rather than spam
That's it. Two tasks, and occasionally three. A simple OS would be just fine. If they made different modes such as a "simple" mode, where the desktop an internet browser, even better.
This is what I find amusing.
1. You say she checks email.
2. Then you said she checks the internet.
"Internet" is not one thing. You meant she checks the World-Wide Web. Leave it up to Microsoft to create that confusion by labeling their browser "Internet" on Windows computers.
Do you want me to rubbish about how HP's bulky plastic and the glassy, slimy Aero intrudes and may distract corporate users and thus "un-professional", and how Aqua as well as machine's sleek design blends in with the office environment and encourages productivity?
Well I don't. I've had one too many Mac vs. PC debates where arguments are based on qualitative judgements. If you want people to "back up [their] claims" you better back up yours. Consumer satisfaction is a good place to start.
I'm sure somebody already posted this on here, but it sounds like they are either speaking of "cloud os", a product from good os; buying it out, or building something exactly like it.
Yeah, and if we took all the pretty pictures off all the text would be faster.
CSS, Javascript animation is, and will always be faster. Flash et al should be used sparingly.