How can you even compare windows 7 with snow leopard? when most people that get snow leopard was happy with leopard or tiger. And when most people hated vista and was stuck on xp. So of course windows 7 will seem like it is a good os. But it just the fact That it is better then vista and newer then xp. A lot of people will claim that windows 7 is better then snow leopard just because they are use to how crappy windows has been.
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.
snow leopard Vs windows 7(you can't compare)
- Thread starter flyguy206
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
I'm not really sure that you had a point or that this forum is the right place to go preaching...
By using them both on a day to day basis.
I have - and Win 7 is no better or worse than SL.
Next question?
But if windows 7 is just as good as SL then think about how much better it is to windows users.
I'm beginning to wonder why you're a member of a Macintosh-loving community in the first place...?
Windows 7 is very nice...been using the release candidate for some time now. That being said, I still prefer OSX. The whole "It just works" thing really applies when the whole household is Mac-centric, lots of nice little touches in the way networking works (screen sharing, media center, iTunes, data sharing, etc).
I AM a Windows users. AND an OSX user.
I use both, every day. OSX on my laptop. XP64 (And recently the Win7 RC) on my desktop workstation at home and workstations at work.
Win7 is a nice improvement over Vista. SL is not an improvement over L in any tangible way. So I'd say yes, there has been an element of 'catching up'. But to be honest, I don't think that's the right way to describe it. As I said above, I still use XP - and find it just as quick to use, and I can infact get more pure productivity done with XP64 than OSX. Much of that is because of the software choices I make - and the price of the hardware I use to get the processing grunt I want given the budget I have. But on equal hardware, I still have no ultimate preference between XP or SL, and Win7 is the same.
exactly. i'm running vista 64 home premium on one of my windows machines. have so for about a year now (and thus i missed the initial turmoil on its first release) it runs beautifully! its too bad vista is now generally regarded as a bad OS because it does do a good job.
windows 7 now does it even better and i'm glad for that. on my macbook i actually boot into win7 more often than snow leopard now.
win7 is better then vista, but its not better then SL, because OSX is better then windows.
Does it compare, sure, especially by those folks who use both. I've so far been able to avoid using windows at home, just OSX and for my work stuff ubuntu. That may change, as I support win7 machines at work, but for now, I've avoided polluting my Mac with microsoft products
Does it compare, sure, especially by those folks who use both. I've so far been able to avoid using windows at home, just OSX and for my work stuff ubuntu. That may change, as I support win7 machines at work, but for now, I've avoided polluting my Mac with microsoft products
I'm always confused when people say that SL (or L) and Win7 are comparable. In what way? In terms of stability, speed, resource usage perhaps. But the real clear winner is OSX (any version) because of its better ergonomics and human factors engineering. The whole OSX experience is more user-centered and intuitive. Apple seems to have spent a lot of time and money designing a user-experience that is still not matched by Win7.
So when people say they are comparable, what "metrics" are you using? (I use the terms metrics loosely here).
So when people say they are comparable, what "metrics" are you using? (I use the terms metrics loosely here).
They're comparable because both are operating systems.
OSX is even more comparable now, since apple has gone over to the intel platform. To say they're not comparable is to ignore the basic tenet of an operating system. To facilitate i/o with the user and run programs, both do that. OSX has some things over windows and windows does somethings better then OSX.
It really comes down to personal preference. While windows, due to its design has some inherent security problems, is extremely capable at fulfilling a users need to use the computer.
OSX is even more comparable now, since apple has gone over to the intel platform. To say they're not comparable is to ignore the basic tenet of an operating system. To facilitate i/o with the user and run programs, both do that. OSX has some things over windows and windows does somethings better then OSX.
It really comes down to personal preference. While windows, due to its design has some inherent security problems, is extremely capable at fulfilling a users need to use the computer.
You're absolutely correct, and I understand that. My question is really what criteria are people evaluating? All that people seem to post is: "OSX is better." or "Win7 is better" or "They are the same."
I'm just curious how people come to this conclusion. I haven't used Win7, so I'm genuinely curious. Is it technical operating system criteria? Or are they comparing the graphical desktop environment (which is a different question)? Or are they comparing gaming performance? Or general productivity?
I'm just making an open call for more specifics in peoples' assessments.
in large part, better is subjective.
OSX has an excellent virtual memory manager, yet its a resource hog. Ubuntu, uses less resources so its "better" but yet people prefer OSX over that.
Likewise with windows, there are many points that people argue on, which are subjective. Yet there are metrics that are not subjective but quantifiable.
Performance - you can measure which app handles applications, including multi-threading and memory utilization
Stability - how easy is it to crash or compromise the system.
Application installation/uninstall - How easy is it to add and remove applications
Device drivers - depth of drivers available, quality of the drivers and stability.
security - how easy/hard is it to compromise the system.
subjective metrics, are the theme, ui, interactions, altering the look and feel and behavior of the OS All of these leads to one's opinion on which OS provides best environment.
Personally, I think the Mac does for most of the non-subjective reasons.
Stability, application installation, memory utilization (even though its a hog) etc etc
OSX has an excellent virtual memory manager, yet its a resource hog. Ubuntu, uses less resources so its "better" but yet people prefer OSX over that.
Likewise with windows, there are many points that people argue on, which are subjective. Yet there are metrics that are not subjective but quantifiable.
Performance - you can measure which app handles applications, including multi-threading and memory utilization
Stability - how easy is it to crash or compromise the system.
Application installation/uninstall - How easy is it to add and remove applications
Device drivers - depth of drivers available, quality of the drivers and stability.
security - how easy/hard is it to compromise the system.
subjective metrics, are the theme, ui, interactions, altering the look and feel and behavior of the OS All of these leads to one's opinion on which OS provides best environment.
Personally, I think the Mac does for most of the non-subjective reasons.
Stability, application installation, memory utilization (even though its a hog) etc etc
Official Windows 7 upgrade chart is ridiculous
http://www.engadget.com/2009/08/06/official-windows-7-upgrade-chart-is-ridiculous/
Looks like "Legal Copy"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UvBKTSaNng0
http://www.engadget.com/2009/08/06/official-windows-7-upgrade-chart-is-ridiculous/
Looks like "Legal Copy"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UvBKTSaNng0
Attachments
You can compare them, if you think you can't then you are a fanboy and are not really capable of forming a coherent argument, of which there are several for both sides.
Yes. To all of those. I can't say one or the other is 'better'. There are things I can do with XP that I can't with OSX, and vice versa. Some things are faster on one, etc. Some are easier. Some are more reliable.
If I could have Win7 + Keynote, to be honest, I'd switch BACK to a WinTel solution simply to get better value hardware.
I saw that as well, you really have to wonder what really makes up M$'s marketing dept. This is truly absurd.
I don't see what's wrong with it. Honestly. There were 4 versions of Vista, there are 3 versions of Win 7. Each with 32 and 64bit. This table shows what can and can't be upgraded. I really don't see a problem with it.
Give that to the average person who walks into BestBuy. It's VERY confusing for end-users to have multiple versions of OSes along with two different versions of those multiple versions.
If Microsoft could just make TWO versions of their OS, not 3 with 32Bit/64Bit options, then it wouldn't confuse end-users as much.
In a world where making computers simple is ideal, Apple makes it easy for the end-user YET allows Pros to do what they need to.
I'm not sure where a Business/Home/Ultimate version is very confusing. Anyone confused by something that simple has no business performing an OS installation.
Consider the fact that worst case scenario you could be updating to Windows 7 in as little as 21 Hours, best case 50 minutes.
why is that chart ridiculous?
Seems MS has taken the time to address sceanrios that the user would run into.
remember all the Can I upgrade to SL threads here jsut a few weeks ago?