Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
No it doesn't.
Windows 7 runs just fine on a two year old Atom netbook that's about as weak a CPU as one can get.

Windows 7 runs just fine on my 2007 vintage HTPC that pumps out perfect Bluray and high-def video to my 1080p HDTV. Even back in 2007 when I first built the HTPC, it wasn't anywhere near the 'high end' even then because I wanted it silent/energy efficient.

PC users biased against Macs definitely have a tendency to spout total falsehoods about Macs and OSX, but it's only fair the point out the exact opposite is true of some Mac people constantly going on with total Windows falsehoods like none of us might happen to have used it anytime lately.


"lately" is the operative term in this case. We also haven't talked about the difference between optimal and acceptable performance- what do you expect out of your Atom box and will Win 7 work any better on a stronger machine?- I sure hope so.

Windows has "moods", it also is clumsy in general operation compared to Mac.

I admit I don't have firsthand experience owning Windows 7, but have firsthand experience from Windows 3.1 all the way thru Vista. I've been a Windows user literally that long. I STILL fix windows issues for friends, and those friends on windows still are trying to get their hands on Mac boxes. I don't expect some night and day difference between 7 and anything else they have done.

As a windows user, how often do you want to start from scratch and reinstall just to restore speed? How many BSOD's do you encounter, or just random bugginess? How many defrags do you do in hopes it speeds up your machine?

Like I said, unless you seriously have some heavy hardware it ain't gonna run right- because Windows is bloated.

It's basically ass-work to own and maintain a windows box unless you HAVE to have the software for work. It's because of all the bloat.

rjp
 
People say this all the time, but it really doesn't mean much. The reality is, there are only a small handful of chipsets and components used among most all PCs (specifically, the motherboard makers), and the combinations of them aren't really great enough the create this mythical 'Frankenstein hardware' problem. When talking laptops, the pool of actual component types shrinks even more.

As long as components have current, stable drivers for the platform, then there's no big deal about the so-called 'abundance' of PC hardware.

And most user-changeable parts are as varied between Macs as they are PCs- IE: the exact same brand choices of hard drives, RAM, input devices and peripherals, and in the case of the later, exactly the same reliance on adequate drivers for the OS.

Basically, it would be just as false an argument to say a Mac is handicapped by it's given combination of say, nVidia graphics, Intel Processor, Foxconn motherboard, Realtek audio, Crucial RAM, Seagate hard drive, Logitech mouse, Epson printer etc. etc. as any given PC with mostly the same components/perifs.

Maybe the cheapest/most off-market PC one can possibly find might stray so far off the pool of tried and true components that people will run into all these so called 'Frankenstein hardware' problems, but it's not anywhere near as common as people tend to trot out in these hardware debates.

The inverse of this is that Windows just doesn't work as well as Mac OS does.

rjp
 
"lately" is the operative term in this case. We also haven't talked about the difference between optimal and acceptable performance- what do you expect out of your Atom box and will Win 7 work any better on a stronger machine?- I sure hope so.

Windows has "moods", it also is clumsy in general operation compared to Mac.
I have no idea what you're talking about with most of this. Inanimate objects don't have 'moods'. People with tech biases certainly do though.

I've long noted the irony: the hardware and machines actually get along great, Macs and PCs. It's the users that are moody, illogical, inconsistent creatures that are sometimes difficult to work with.



As a windows user, how often do you want to start from scratch and reinstall just to restore speed?
Virtually never. This is just another tired old myth. It's not really all that hard to maintain most any modern computer, weather it runs OSX, Windows 7 or various flavors of Linux. Arguing all the time that one is infinitely superior to the others is largely just due to personal preference and bias, rarely hard facts.

Conversely to the old 'Windows needs to be reinstalled' all the time myth, I've seen Macs that run like total ****, and the owners too ignorant to even know how to reinstall them (which would restore the Mac to proper working order) because they believe in some ******** 'it just works!' rather than simply learn that virtually any computer can benefit from an OS refresh if it needs it. Again, it's not strictly a PC or Mac thing.

How many BSOD's do you encounter, or just random bugginess? How many defrags do you do in hopes it speeds up your machine?
None. BSODs are almost virtually always hardware problems, but using quality hardware I don't encounter them anymore than the average Mac user encounters Kernel Panics.

I probably should, but I virtually never defrag my hard drives on any platform. Haven't seen any performance difference really. Again, this probably used to be a bigger issue than it currently is.

Like I said, unless you seriously have some heavy hardware it ain't gonna run right- because Windows is bloated.
zzz!

Sorry, but that's just fanboi ignorance. Like I said, Windows 7 runs just fine on an old Atom netbook- that is, it's snappy, runs all applications just fine, and is enjoyable to use. If it were bloated, it wouldn't run well at all on such low end hardware. Of course things will be even faster on beefier hardware, but again, that's just common sense and true of either platform. It's like me claiming a MacBook is worthless because it won't crunch video as fast as a stacked MacPro.

Windows Vista WAS bloated, I'll give you that, and pretty much everyone with any computing knowledge hated it. But Win 7 is pretty damned good.

Once more, just repeating the same old falsehoods over and over and over doesn't make them true. You're the flip side of people that insist: MAC SUCKS! MACS R SLO!!! over and over, despite mountains of evidence to the contrary. Do you really think your 'arguments' are any more effective just because your particular bias is against Windows?
 
It's not really all that hard to maintain most any modern computer, weather it runs OSX, Windows 7 or various flavors of Linux.

Having used all 3, OSX is the easiest and Linux is certainly the hardest to maintain... patches/updates are easiest to apply in OSX, and hardest for Linux (due to the sheer number of packages that constantly needs updates). As good as Windows 7 is compared to Vis-crap, there's times I had to resort to manually applying certain KBs, to get Windows Update working again (this was with a bit of a lag between updates, so a larger number of updates needed to be applied and Windows Update wouldn't do it right).

There's also more overhead and security software required on Windows than on Linux/OSX, which is another additional maintenance issue. While none of these OS are totally bulletproof, running naked on Windows is something one simply does not do... though being smart, I haven't had issues in years either on Windows, but have had to rescue others infected Windows systems.

Sorry, but that's just fanboi ignorance. Like I said, Windows 7 runs just fine on an old Atom netbook- that is, it's snappy, runs all applications just fine, and is enjoyable to use.

Which version of Windows 7? Stripped down Windows, it runs pretty well on an Atom, but I find 7 Ultimate on my SU2300 a bit of a laggard. This is with an SSD added, its not bad, but it still feels a bit laggy... note no RAM issues either, 4GB installed.

But Win 7 is pretty damned good.

Don't disagree with that assessment, but its still not quite OSX. I'd say Windows 7 is the best Windows ever without a doubt, but its ugly duckling NT origins still plagues it somewhat... the registry is still something I wish MS never invented.
 
There's also more overhead and security software required on Windows than on Linux/OSX, which is another additional maintenance issue. While none of these OS are totally bulletproof, running naked on Windows is something one simply does not do... though being smart, I haven't had issues in years either on Windows, but have had to rescue others infected Windows systems.
I use Avast anti-virus and the built-in Windows defender on every one of my Windows based systems and that's it. Had no problems in years.



Which version of Windows 7? Stripped down Windows, it runs pretty well on an Atom, but I find 7 Ultimate on my SU2300 a bit of a laggard. This is with an SSD added, its not bad, but it still feels a bit laggy... note no RAM issues either, 4GB installed.
I'm suspecting something may be wrong with your system.

Note the Acer with C-SU2300 is the same vintage as my own netbook (released Jan. 2009) and note the user reviews. Every one of them says it's fast and responsive- this with no SSD upgrade, and most with 2GB of RAM, not 4.

Look up other models with the SU2300- same story. I won't post them all here, but I find none without the same pattern- most people reporting them to be snappy performers, majority of 5 star reviews.

I own a couple of netbooks. The oldest features WAY less of a processor than the SU2300 (single core Atom), no SSD, 2GB of RAM, and I'm running Windows 7 Ultimate on it. Like I said, it's perfectly snappy and is no problem to use. (Word, email, web, even light Photoshop). So I'm simply not sure what's going on with yours.



Don't disagree with that assessment, but its still not quite OSX. I'd say Windows 7 is the best Windows ever without a doubt, but its ugly duckling NT origins still plagues it somewhat... the registry is still something I wish MS never invented.
I'm one of those computer users that spends most of my time using applications, not dicking around with the OS. Most of the time I simply don't care what OS is running my apps.

I'm constantly in and out of either OS- I have Macs and PCs- and half the time I couldn't care less which of them. There have been many times when I've come out of say a web browser or Photoshop editing or whatever and went to open Final Cut... only to realize, Oh, wait, I'm in Windows 7. That's how LITTLE I gave a crap which OS it was. Also visa-versa with OSX and then going to open some Windows app. It's the apps, not the OS that are important to me. Both OSX and Windows have plenty of great apps, and both are stable and work well, so that's all tha matters to me.
 
As an Amazon Associate, MacRumors earns a commission from qualifying purchases made through links in this post.
I have no idea what you're talking about with most of this. Inanimate objects don't have 'moods'. People with tech biases certainly do though.

I've long noted the irony: the hardware and machines actually get along great, Macs and PCs. It's the users that are moody, illogical, inconsistent creatures that are sometimes difficult to work with.




Virtually never. This is just another tired old myth. It's not really all that hard to maintain most any modern computer, weather it runs OSX, Windows 7 or various flavors of Linux. Arguing all the time that one is infinitely superior to the others is largely just due to personal preference and bias, rarely hard facts.

Conversely to the old 'Windows needs to be reinstalled' all the time myth, I've seen Macs that run like total ****, and the owners too ignorant to even know how to reinstall them (which would restore the Mac to proper working order) because they believe in some ******** 'it just works!' rather than simply learn that virtually any computer can benefit from an OS refresh if it needs it. Again, it's not strictly a PC or Mac thing.


None. BSODs are almost virtually always hardware problems, but using quality hardware I don't encounter them anymore than the average Mac user encounters Kernel Panics.

I probably should, but I virtually never defrag my hard drives on any platform. Haven't seen any performance difference really. Again, this probably used to be a bigger issue than it currently is.


zzz!

Sorry, but that's just fanboi ignorance. Like I said, Windows 7 runs just fine on an old Atom netbook- that is, it's snappy, runs all applications just fine, and is enjoyable to use. If it were bloated, it wouldn't run well at all on such low end hardware. Of course things will be even faster on beefier hardware, but again, that's just common sense and true of either platform. It's like me claiming a MacBook is worthless because it won't crunch video as fast as a stacked MacPro.

Windows Vista WAS bloated, I'll give you that, and pretty much everyone with any computing knowledge hated it. But Win 7 is pretty damned good.

Once more, just repeating the same old falsehoods over and over and over doesn't make them true. You're the flip side of people that insist: MAC SUCKS! MACS R SLO!!! over and over, despite mountains of evidence to the contrary. Do you really think your 'arguments' are any more effective just because your particular bias is against Windows?

Ok, you win because you say so.

Happy now?

rjp
 
Having used all 3, OSX is the easiest and Linux is certainly the hardest to maintain... patches/updates are easiest to apply in OSX, and hardest for Linux (due to the sheer number of packages that constantly needs updates). As good as Windows 7 is compared to Vis-crap, there's times I had to resort to manually applying certain KBs, to get Windows Update working again (this was with a bit of a lag between updates, so a larger number of updates needed to be applied and Windows Update wouldn't do it right).

There's also more overhead and security software required on Windows than on Linux/OSX, which is another additional maintenance issue. While none of these OS are totally bulletproof, running naked on Windows is something one simply does not do... though being smart, I haven't had issues in years either on Windows, but have had to rescue others infected Windows systems.



Which version of Windows 7? Stripped down Windows, it runs pretty well on an Atom, but I find 7 Ultimate on my SU2300 a bit of a laggard. This is with an SSD added, its not bad, but it still feels a bit laggy... note no RAM issues either, 4GB installed.



Don't disagree with that assessment, but its still not quite OSX. I'd say Windows 7 is the best Windows ever without a doubt, but its ugly duckling NT origins still plagues it somewhat... the registry is still something I wish MS never invented.

Oh yes, windows Defender, another resource pig. The only way I've been able to escape viruses (only because I can't stand using all that intrusive antivirus bloatware on Windows so I don't run any) was setting my main account up as a user and admin only to install and update.

No more of that crap with OSX.

rjp

EDIT: Vista + McAffee antivirus + WIndows Defender= absolute pig nightmare.
 
I admit I don't have firsthand experience owning Windows 7, ..... I don't expect some night and day difference between 7 and anything else they have done.

This is the problem with your arguments. Outdated information.

Windows 7 is much improved over previous versions.

I was actually a bit surprised after using a Mac for 5 years.

In my experience so far, Windows 7 has a lot going for it just as OSX does.

The biggest downside so far for me is no iPhoto.
 
This is the problem with your arguments. Outdated information.

Windows 7 is much improved over previous versions.

I was actually a bit surprised after using a Mac for 5 years.

In my experience so far, Windows 7 has a lot going for it just as OSX does.

The biggest downside so far for me is no iPhoto.

I may represent a fair amount of consumers that MSFT burned the lot on with Vista- I'm no PHD in computer science, I'm just a regular Moe that used PC's extensively for the last 17 years- personal and work and is self taught with the ups and downs of maintaining a computer. After recent events (I ran XP pro on my last laptop and still have it on my desktop) I thought I could spend more money on yet another Windows box or just try something new.

I'm glad I made the switch.

As for the rest- for MSFT. It's about time they released something that was actually competent. Just too bad they couldn't catch a clue earlier.

rjp
 
I may represent a fair amount of consumers that MSFT burned the lot on with Vista- I'm no PHD in computer science, I'm just a regular Moe that used PC's extensively for the last 17 years- personal and work and is self taught with the ups and downs of maintaining a computer. After recent events (I ran XP pro on my last laptop and still have it on my desktop) I thought I could spend more money on yet another Windows box or just try something new.

I'm glad I made the switch.

As for the rest- for MSFT. It's about time they released something that was actually competent. Just too bad they couldn't catch a clue earlier.

rjp

Hey I switched too 5 years back.

Just wouldn't go around trumpeting how bad Windows is when you haven't used Windows 7.
 
Hey I switched too 5 years back.

Just wouldn't go around trumpeting how bad Windows is when you haven't used Windows 7.

I won't pay to own a new MSFT box after the last 6 years. Forget it.

You'll get over it, hopefully. This is a Mac forum if you haven't noticed.

2nd thing, besides being Windows being cheaper to initially obtain a new Mac box, what other advantages are there? Really, besides if you work for a company that demands Windows, what else do you have? You like to spend cash on antivirus software and all sorts of optimizers?

So it finally it's ALMOST as reliable as a Mac. You'll never get the service that Apple offers.

That's one thing some people just never, ever seem to get- service. You will never, ever get that as a MSFT user.

rjp
 
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.