Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

Tesselator

macrumors 601
Jan 9, 2008
4,601
6
Japan
Windows 7 is not gonna do a damn against malware for sure. And if you'll want to use more than 3 GB of RAM you'll have to buy the 64-bit version, and there are still a lot of drivers which have problems or are incompatible at all with that version.

I think that's true. I think W7 is mostly just more stolen eye-candy. Hehehe... Sorry.
 

jmpage2

macrumors 68040
Original poster
Sep 14, 2007
3,223
548
Windows 7 is not gonna do a damn against malware for sure. And if you'll want to use more than 3 GB of RAM you'll have to buy the 64-bit version, and there are still a lot of drivers which have problems or are incompatible at all with that version.

I am very well aware of Windows numerous issues. I've been using and dealing with Windows for years and probably would have made the move to a Mac prior to this if they weren't so much more expensive for similar hardware performance.
 

EmperorDarius

macrumors 6502a
Jan 2, 2009
687
0
I am very well aware of Windows numerous issues. I've been using and dealing with Windows for years and probably would have made the move to a Mac prior to this if they weren't so much more expensive for similar hardware performance.

For similar/same hardware yes, but for better performance ;)
 

SnowLeopard2008

macrumors 604
Jul 4, 2008
6,772
17
Silicon Valley
I highly recommend against the Mac Pro route simply because you need to buy a display and speakers. Speakers may not be much of an issue, but a good display is. My advice would be to get an iMac. Mac Prop processors are not for gaming, it's a workstation class processor good for 3D modeling, video render, photoshop, etc. The 24" iMac with discrete graphics is pretty good for games, especially the custom GT 120/130 with either 256MB/512MB VRAM.
 

jmpage2

macrumors 68040
Original poster
Sep 14, 2007
3,223
548
I agree. But careful with the subjective terms. "Better"? Better at what?

Macs are better because:
They are more stable as you say,
They're just as sophisticated as Windows but without the extra complexity,
The OS X design is by far more elegant!
The company and the men directly behind the company are not Nazi eugenicists (Bill Gates is! No question! - No, I mean really! He is. Actually.)
The Product is priced more appropriately and not crippled like Windows.
OS X is faster. Vista and Windows7 are fast too but they do NOT stay that way for long if you use the OS much. (W7 untested)
Apple is innovative and willing to step up with it's hardware designs and machine specs.

Macs currently suck because:
Apple was too daft to incorporate the Corei7 processor in a system like the Mac Mini or top iMac
Because the top of the line Mac Pro isn't a multi-processor 6 core x7460 xeon machine even though it's priced like one. :D
The new single proc Mac Pro machines benchmark and spec like a Core17 system but cost as much as THREE TIMES MORE!!
They purposely design their machines as to dissuade end users from upgrading them. :mad:
And because there's only one Steven Jobs! We need 3 or 4 more of him!
Lastly, because game developers too often do not develop for mac as their primary target platform. :(

.

This seems like a pretty good summary. I know that the Mac Pro is making use of Xeon versions of the i7 which will sell at a higher cost than the desktop versions currently available for Wintel platforms. Realistically though I doubt there is much performance difference between the two versions for 99% of application usage.

I'm going to try to find out where my buddy got his rumor of a non "i" Mac that would be specced below the Pro.

I'm willing to wait if there's the possibility of seeing an i7 based Mac with upgradeable video sometime in the next six months that carries something along the lines of a $1500 price tag.
 

kastenbrust

macrumors 68030
Dec 26, 2008
2,890
0
North Korea
Windows 7 is not gonna do a damn against malware for sure. And if you'll want to use more than 3 GB of RAM you'll have to buy the 64-bit version, and there are still a lot of drivers which have problems or are incompatible at all with that version.

Thats right, most 64bit Windows versions suck, because hardly any of my external hardware work on them anyway, but Windows 7 is something else, its the biggest piece of Windows S**T i've seen in my life, not only is it a nightmare for coders, but its the worst O/S i've used in my life, even Ubuntu is better and more user friendly, the workflow in Windows 7 completely sucks, if Microsoft's expects this is the O/S to be getting businesses to upgrade from XP they can think again, yes its slightly faster, but its so unnecessarily complex, and will be difficult for non geeks to learn, simply switching between two browser windows becomes a massive effort, and requires you to waste 5 seconds at least, such a stupid O/S.
 

belvdr

macrumors 603
Aug 15, 2005
5,945
1,372
Thats right, most 64bit Windows versions suck, because hardly any of my external hardware work on them anyway, but Windows 7 is something else, its the biggest piece of Windows S**T i've seen in my life, not only is it a nightmare for coders, but its the worst O/S i've used in my life, even Ubuntu is better and more user friendly, the workflow in Windows 7 completely sucks, if Microsoft's expects this is the O/S to be getting businesses to upgrade from XP they can think again, yes its slightly faster, but its so unnecessarily complex, and will be difficult for non geeks to learn, simply switching between two browser windows becomes a massive effort, and requires you to waste 5 seconds at least, such a stupid O/S.

I never noticed any of that using the beta. I never had much trouble with any hardware either using Vista 64. My issue with Win7 is the breaking of the UAC. Maybe you just had an under-spec machine?
 

EmperorDarius

macrumors 6502a
Jan 2, 2009
687
0
I never noticed any of that using the beta. I never had much trouble with any hardware either using Vista 64. My issue with Win7 is the breaking of the UAC. Maybe you just had an under-spec machine?

Lmao UAC has always been "broken". Actually, it's better if they remove that useless "sense of security"-giving crap at all.
 

belvdr

macrumors 603
Aug 15, 2005
5,945
1,372
Lmao UAC has always been "broken". Actually, it's better if they remove that useless "sense of security"-giving crap at all.

Not sure what you mean. In Win7, they have added rules to allow certain DLLs and EXEs to bypass the UAC entirely. One included is rundll32.exe. D'oh!
 

EmperorDarius

macrumors 6502a
Jan 2, 2009
687
0
Not sure what you mean. In Win7, they have added rules to allow certain DLLs and EXEs to bypass the UAC entirely. One included is rundll32.exe. D'oh!

I mean that even Vista's UAC is useless and does not give any additional protection at all. They're trying to make something like a HIPS but easier to use, and are clearly failing. At least with Windows 7 there will be less popups. Most of the users would have turned off UAC anyway, and would have got a real HIPS/Behaviour Blocker.
 

kastenbrust

macrumors 68030
Dec 26, 2008
2,890
0
North Korea
I never noticed any of that using the beta. I never had much trouble with any hardware either using Vista 64. My issue with Win7 is the breaking of the UAC. Maybe you just had an under-spec machine?

Yeah because an octi core 2008 Mac Pro, with 16GB of RAM and 256 SSD drive running the Windows 7 O/S with 3TB of 7200 Data Drives is under spec, and so is a 2009 2.93 Unibody Macbook Pro. Or not :rolleyes:
 

belvdr

macrumors 603
Aug 15, 2005
5,945
1,372
Yeah because an octi core Mac Pro is under spec, and so is a 2009 2.93 Unibody Macbook Pro. Or not :rolleyes:

It was a simple question; I had no idea what you were running it on, so there's no need to get uppity.

I've never heard anyone testing Win7 on Apple equipment, so not sure if firmware could be an issue. At any rate, my older Dell Inspiron 531 desktop ran it fine, and so did my Mini 9.

EDIT: Saw you edited your specs. Who cares how much hard drive space you have once you get about 10GB and RAM above 2GB? It doesn't matter. Once you have enough space for the OS and 2GB of RAM, the rest is overkill and doesn't do anything for performance. You could have an EMC array on the backend for data and it wouldn't solve the problems you describe.
 

kastenbrust

macrumors 68030
Dec 26, 2008
2,890
0
North Korea
It was a simple question; I had no idea what you were running it on, so there's no need to get uppity.

I've never heard anyone testing Win7 on Apple equipment, so not sure if firmware could be an issue. At any rate, my older Dell Inspiron 531 desktop ran it fine, and so did my Mini 9.

Oh my mac runs it just fine, both of them do, as i said, its fast, but as i said again, the workflow sucks so bad its like sucking a sour lemon, you have to click on the taskbar then wait, while it loads Windows of whats open, then click on which Window you want, nooo you cant just have each Window of each program dedicated to its own task bar space. Microsoft had to make things more complicated so it looked 'new'.

Windows-Taskbar-Previews.png


Then theres the fact it doesn't support Visual Studio 2005, which means any apps i make cant be backwards compatible because i have to make them in Visual Studio 2008, its just complete and utter BS.
 

belvdr

macrumors 603
Aug 15, 2005
5,945
1,372
Oh my mac runs it just fine, both of them do, as i said, its fast, but as i said again, the workflow sucks so bad its like sucking a sour lemon, you have to click on the taskbar then wait, while it loads Windows of whats open, then click on which Window you want, nooo you cant just have each Window of each program dedicated to its own task bar space. Microsoft had to make things more complicated so it looked 'new'.

Windows-Taskbar-Previews.png


Then theres the fact it doesn't support Visual Studio 2005, which means any apps i make cant be backwards compatible because i have to make them in Visual Studio 2008, its just complete and utter BS.

I see. I'm so used to Alt+Tab, that I never noticed. Also, never knew that about VS. I'm not a developer by any stretch of the imagination.
 

kastenbrust

macrumors 68030
Dec 26, 2008
2,890
0
North Korea
EDIT: Saw you edited your specs. Who cares how much hard drive space you have once you get about 10GB and RAM above 2GB? It doesn't matter. Once you have enough space for the OS and 2GB of RAM, the rest is overkill and doesn't do anything for performance. You could have an EMC array on the backend for data and it wouldn't solve the problems you describe.

exactly so why did you say my specs could be the issue? :rolleyes:

Windows 7 is nippy and will run on a '98 machine great. Its the way its made that sucks, its honestly worse than Vista (with Vista SP1 + SP2 Obviously).
 

jmpage2

macrumors 68040
Original poster
Sep 14, 2007
3,223
548
I'd prefer it if the discussion didn't derail into an OS X vs. Win7 debate. I already know what the benefits and drawbacks of Win7 are versus other versions of Windows. I do believe it will be an improvement over Vista as I have used the Beta of Win 7 extensively and it's absolutely better.

I'm still trying to convince myself that the OS X experience is better enough over Windows to justify spending more than double for comparable hardware.
 

belvdr

macrumors 603
Aug 15, 2005
5,945
1,372
exactly so why did you say my specs could be the issue? :rolleyes:

Windows 7 is nippy and will run on a '98 machine great. Its the way its made that sucks, its honestly worse than Vista (with Vista SP1 + SP2 Obviously).

Because I didn't know what you were running it on at first. You just said you ran it, not on what system. Had you said that, I wouldn't have stated specs in the first place. :rolleyes:
 

belvdr

macrumors 603
Aug 15, 2005
5,945
1,372
I'd prefer it if the discussion didn't derail into an OS X vs. Win7 debate. I already know what the benefits and drawbacks of Win7 are versus other versions of Windows. I do believe it will be an improvement over Vista as I have used the Beta of Win 7 extensively and it's absolutely better.

I'm still trying to convince myself that the OS X experience is better enough over Windows to justify spending more than double for comparable hardware.

Don't think we're debating one or the other, just discussing Win7 in general.
 

jmpage2

macrumors 68040
Original poster
Sep 14, 2007
3,223
548
Don't think we're debating one or the other, just discussing Win7 in general.

Maybe there are better threads for it. I started this thread seeking input from other OS X users on what their experience is with running the odd Windows game under boot camp on the current/previous crop of Mac machines.
 

belvdr

macrumors 603
Aug 15, 2005
5,945
1,372
Maybe there are better threads for it. I started this thread seeking input from other OS X users on what their experience is with running the odd Windows game under boot camp on the current/previous crop of Mac machines.

You're right. My apologies.
 

Tesselator

macrumors 601
Jan 9, 2008
4,601
6
Japan
Yeah, sorry about that. I just had to comment on what I thought was a completely insane design idea - just seeing it for the 1st time.

Sorry.
 

PurrBall

macrumors 65816
Oct 25, 2007
1,015
54
Indianapolis
The 24" iMac with the faster graphics card is an option. With my discount pricing from Apple the 24" iMac with upgraded Radeon 4850 graphics card would cost me $1879 shipped. That's expensive but at this point I'm willing to suffer some limitations in the gaming area to get off of Winblowz.

That's one heck of a discount. If Windows is the only reason you want a Mac, then I'm not so sure a Mac would be the thing for you if you're happy with your current hardware. If you have not tried out the beta of Windows 7, I would try that before making any decisions. I'll be running 7 on its own monitor inside a VM when I get my iMac because I like Windows and have a couple things that I need it for. I'm switching to a Mac because of the awesome free third-party apps available for OS X.
Maybe you should try Linux as your day-to-day OS and boot into Windows for gaming.
 

jmpage2

macrumors 68040
Original poster
Sep 14, 2007
3,223
548
That's one heck of a discount. If Windows is the only reason you want a Mac, then I'm not so sure a Mac would be the thing for you if you're happy with your current hardware. If you have not tried out the beta of Windows 7, I would try that before making any decisions. I'll be running 7 on its own monitor inside a VM when I get my iMac because I like Windows and have a couple things that I need it for. I'm switching to a Mac because of the awesome free third-party apps available for OS X.
Maybe you should try Linux as your day-to-day OS and boot into Windows for gaming.

That pricing would be for the 24" iMac with 2.93ghz Dual Core processor and Radeon 4850 graphics upgrade. That Mac normally goes for $2000 so it's really only about a $130 discount, but it's still a discount.

I have run the Windows 7 Beta and it's definitely an improvement over Vista in my opinion. It still has many of the same Vista annoyances though and I'm not happy about having to crush the computers performance with malware/spyware/virus-scan crapware just to get a machine that will function correctly without corrupting my data. I am thinking of several reasons for switching to a Mac, one of them is Windows annoyances, other reasons include the elegance of Apple designed hardware.

Linux is an option but not one I'm really interested in. I ran a Linux Samba server for years (recently replaced with a WHS box that I think is great) for my home storage needs. The big problem with Linux is that support for 3rd party peripherals is even worse than for Mac, not to mention the lack of commercial quality software.

Maybe I don't need/want a Mac. I don't know. A buddy told me that if I buy the Mac Mini and run it for a while he would be more than happy to buy it from me if/when I want to sell it to upgrade to a "real" Mac or to just give up on Mac completely and go back into the Windows realm.
 
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.