Snow Leopard vs. Windows 7

[iJawn108]

I've used windows 7 beta is very cool in respect too it being windows. I hate vistas interface but 7 is pretty decent!

Now as far as snow Leopard... it could be very cool especially if they get the kinks worked out for zfs.

isn't windows 7 still working with uhh ntfs? where's windows new file system?

 

[iJawn108]

my next computer will likely be a pc with opensolaris so... or a mac mini that will duel boot ;P

 

[Anuba]

I've steered clear of Apple's keyboard driver when using Windows on a
Mac Pro. I wonder, is it possible to not use the Apple driver on a MBP?
Or does that mean one would lose trackpad functionality (not a problem
on a Mac Pro, obviously)?

Allegedly the trackpad support sucks in BootCamp anyway, so I don't think you'd be missing anything if the drivers were disabled, but I wouldn't know... as for the keyboard, I'd assume you get basic keyboard functionality, just not the remapping of some of the keys.

I've used windows 7 beta is very cool in respect too it being windows. I hate vistas interface but 7 is pretty decent!

It's definitely better, but it's still a lot of Vista in there... they've replaced the greenish "cyber-snot" drapes that were on the Vista logon screen (and other places) with some sort of stylized underwater scenery, which is a minor improvement but still quite tacky. The default desktop theme with the fish is ugly beyound belief. The window title still has the ugly white glow/cloud/blob that has to sit behind the text because otherwise the background might make the text unreadable (just one reason why transparent window frames were a stupid idea to begin with. There's still a few unpleasant combinations of green and blue in places, such as the Control Panel. It seems that the same blithering, colorblind idiots who made the XP Fisher-Price interface, also designed Vista and Win7, I don't understand why they haven't fired these morons already. Ever since XP, the first thing you have to do in order to stay sane is to dive head first into all the Personalize settings (or Display Settings on XP) and change single parameter, color and image. IMO they should have distanced themselves much, much more from Vista, given its reputation, and delivered a more classy interface with less "look ma, I can do transparency" effects and less Teletubbies-inspired shapes and color schemes. They can move the Vista interface to some special version for children aged 3-8 and make a new interface for adults.

Also, in Win7, like in Vista, there's a lot of inconsistency going on with the use of system fonts. They're using Segoe UI for the most part, but as soon as you go one level beneath the surface you'll find dialogs with MS Sans, the kind which were designed for Win95 and haven't changed since. Apparently you can also find Tahoma and Verdana in places. If they release one more version after Win7 without consolidating all that stuff and cleaning out the last remnants of Win95-style graphics... gaaaah.

And yet I prefer it over Leopard.

 

[MAG.]

I hate vistas interface but 7 is pretty decent!

But they're pretty much the same! Well, only a different taskbar with a jump list I have to say Windows Aero is nice!

 

[Anuba]

But they're pretty much the same! Well, only a different taskbar with a jump list I have to say Windows Aero is nice!

The new taskbar in Win7 is really cool, but a lot of the ugliness of Vista lives on, unfortunately. Like the window borders, which are incredibly fat, about twice the width of window borders in XP. The only conceivable reason why they're so fat is to show off the transparency. It wastes a lot of screen space and looks ridiculous on very small popup windows, like the Power settings in the system tray, where the window border itself makes up 15% of the window area. It looks even more ridiculous in Win7 when you click to open the window where your hidden tray icons are, there the window border is probably 40-50% of the window size. I have to award the point to OS X in that round (it has no window borders, since they are pointless).

 

[kevin j]

There's still a few unpleasant combinations of green and blue in places, such as the Control Panel.

I think this was changed in the lastest build of 7

 

[nplima]

The new taskbar in Win7 is really cool, but a lot of the ugliness of Vista lives on, unfortunately. Like the window borders, which are incredibly fat, about twice the width of window borders in XP. [...].

Hi,

good news: Ultimate Vista Tweaker allows you to choose the size of these windows components, like it used to be possible with windows "classic" look.

http://www.winvistaclub.com/Ultimate_Windows_Tweaker.html

 

[tubbymac]

I've steered clear of Apple's keyboard driver when using Windows on a
Mac Pro. I wonder, is it possible to not use the Apple driver on a MBP?
Or does that mean one would lose trackpad functionality (not a problem
on a Mac Pro, obviously)?

Yes it is possible. I've done it a few times. All you lose are the convenience keys at the top. So you can't change brightness, can't change volume, have no media shortcut keys, and no eject button.

Fn+keys still work. So you can still hit Fn+delete to get a forward delete instead of a backspace.

The only thing is, there's no way through bootcamp to turn it off. You have to manually either delete the keyboard driver file itself or rename it so that it doesn't get loaded on startup. Or you kill the task in task manager after it starts.

 

[tubbymac]

It seems that the same blithering, colorblind idiots who made the XP Fisher-Price interface, also designed Vista and Win7, I don't understand why they haven't fired these morons already.

Words of truth. I go back and forth between OSX Leopard and Windows 7 quite often (Dell is my desktop replacement while my Apple machines are my portables). Each time it's like switching to a Toy's R Us store after having been in an upscale fashion store. OSX is beautiful, consistent, and the icons are well done. Windows 7 is ugly in comparison, inconsistent all over the place, and the icons look 10 years old.

But going more than skin deep, both operating systems have their share of annoyances.

Windows 7:
- No expose and no spaces by default (I miss these a LOT from OSX)
- Control panel is a complete mess compared to OSX System Preferences
- Scrolling at the side of the trackpad is ghetto compared to OSX multitouch

OSX:
- Close and quit distinction is retarded. Windows close system is more elegant.
- Menu always on top is retarded. Ever use OSX on two 30 inch monitors? You have to move your mouse all the way across one monitor to the other just to use the menu if you can't remember the shortcut key or there isn't one for the option you want. The idea doesn't scale well to big multimonitors.
- Resizing only from the bottom right corner is dumb.

I also can't stand that Apple notebook keyboards (and the wireless one I have) put the Fn key in the lower left corner. That's borderline retarded and designed for chimps. I much prefer the PC mentality here of putting the CTRL key in the lower left and the Fn key to the right of it. But it seems only Dell really sticks to this. Some of the other PC vendors have taken the braindead Apple approach. The Apple keyboards also have the smallest arrow keys on the planet. I prefer the larger, offset arrow keys from the PC world. I also prefer having actual page up, down, home, end keys. On the Apple it requires two fingers (Fn+arrow) and that just slows me down when editing text at hyperspeeds.

On the other side of the fence I can't stand the redundant hardware on the PC side. Looking at my PC notebook keyboard I see 5 mouse buttons. That just takes up space and half of the buttons do the same thing as the other half. There's also a VGA port on this thing in the off chance I get teleported a decade into the past and need to hook it up to a legacy display.

So really, both Windows and OSX have their share of annoyances. If you took the best features from both and eliminated the annoyances from both, you'd end up with a killer OS. But that won't ever happen because both companies are too stubborn in their ways. And THAT people, is why some of us are forced or compelled to use both.

 

[Anuba]

Windows 7:
- No expose and no spaces by default (I miss these a LOT from OSX)
- Control panel is a complete mess compared to OSX System Preferences
- Scrolling at the side of the trackpad is ghetto compared to OSX multitouch

Yup. Then again, Exposé and Spaces are symptoms as much as they are features. They are products of the inevitable desktop clutter on OS X. I prefer using apps full screen on PC and hide the desktop completely, whereas on Mac there is no multi-document interface in apps, all the parts are just floating around on the desktop -- I can't tell you how many times I've had Photoshop on top of Flash and accidentally tried to select tools from the wrong app... Exposé and Spaces were created to keep people from going insane, rather than addressing the root of the problem, i.e. that the Mac desktop paradigm is a clutter magnet.

OSX:
- Close and quit distinction is retarded. Windows close system is more elegant.
- Menu always on top is retarded. Ever use OSX on two 30 inch monitors? You have to move your mouse all the way across one monitor to the other just to use the menu if you can't remember the shortcut key or there isn't one for the option you want. The idea doesn't scale well to big multimonitors.
- Resizing only from the bottom right corner is dumb.

Word. These are some of my biggest reservations about OS X. I heard, many years ago, that Apple originally planned to ditch the menu-on-top concept for OS X and move the menus to where they're supposed to be, but then the OS 9 luddites went ballistic and threatened to kill themselves if someone took their precious menu bar away. It does perhaps save a little workspace, but on the other hand the menu bar takes up as much space as the Windows taskbar, with most of the menu bar empty (everything between the Help menu and the AirPort icons + clock), and then you have the Dock in addition to that.

I also can't stand that Apple notebook keyboards (and the wireless one I have) put the Fn key in the lower left corner. That's borderline retarded and designed for chimps.

I much prefer the PC mentality here of putting the CTRL key in the lower left and the Fn key to the right of it. But it seems only Dell really sticks to this. Some of the other PC vendors have taken the braindead Apple approach. The Apple keyboards also have the smallest arrow keys on the planet. I prefer the larger, offset arrow keys from the PC world. I also prefer having actual page up, down, home, end keys. On the Apple it requires two fingers (Fn+arrow) and that just slows me down when editing text at hyperspeeds.

Totally. On the wireless alu keyboard I press the Fn key by accident all the time. I'm left handed and I never, ever use the CTRL+Shift+Alt keys on the right side, but I do use the cursor keys a lot, so it really bugs me that Apple made the cursor keys microscopic, and right above them is a gargantuan Shift key that's as big as all 4 cursor keys put together. Also, they shrunk the Return key which might be OK for a U.S. keyboard, but here in Scandinavia we have a vertically oriented return key (to make room for Å, Ä and Ö) and it ended up being crazy narrow on the new Mac layout. Not just on the mini-keyboards, but the full-sized one has the same anorexic Return key. Here's a comparison between the Return and cursor keys on a regular Scandinavian compact keyboard (Dell M65 15") and the munchkin keys on a wireless Apple keyboard or a MB/MBP/MBA:

On the other side of the fence I can't stand the redundant hardware on the PC side. Looking at my PC notebook keyboard I see 5 mouse buttons. That just takes up space and half of the buttons do the same thing as the other half. There's also a VGA port on this thing in the off chance I get teleported a decade into the past and need to hook it up to a legacy display.

Yeah, there's a lot of that going around on Dell and HP machines. I once asked why they're still putting all these 1990's crap on brand new machines, and apparently there's still a huge demand for it among PC professionals (only the pro machines like Precision and Latitude have it, the Inspiron and XPS machines aren't bogged down with legacy ports). For example, there are people who use these machines to interface with industrial robots that are programmed via 9-pin serial. And a new robot costs $3 million and they have 50 of them, so the old ones will serve for another 15 years or so, by which time the rest of us will be on USB 6.0 or whatever.

I wish Dell/HP would split their professional lines in two, one stone age line for users in the industrial sector and others who need legacy connectivity, and another for print/media/video/audio professionals who want sleek-looking machines with cutting edge connectivity, where they replace the VGA-, PS/2, 9-pin Serial and 25-pin Parallel with USB, DisplayPort, DVI and Firewire.

 

[MAG.]

The new taskbar in Win7 is really cool, but a lot of the ugliness of Vista lives on, unfortunately. Like the window borders, which are incredibly fat, about twice the width of window borders in XP. The only conceivable reason why they're so fat is to show off the transparency. It wastes a lot of screen space and looks ridiculous on very small popup windows, like the Power settings in the system tray, where the window border itself makes up 15% of the window area. It looks even more ridiculous in Win7 when you click to open the window where your hidden tray icons are, there the window border is probably 40-50% of the window size. I have to award the point to OS X in that round (it has no window borders, since they are pointless).

I never noticed that probably because I am using a 1920x1200 screen but when I turned the resolution down I kinda noticed what you're talking about it's not that bad through. (Maybe, I just got used to it.)

 

[Anuba]

I never noticed that probably because I am using a 1920x1200 screen but when I turned the resolution down I kinda noticed what you're talking about it's not that bad through. (Maybe, I just got used to it.)

I'm using it on a 1200x1600 + 2560x1600 + 1200x1600 = 4960x1600 setup, and it bugs me to no end. It's not that the window borders are taking up space, it's more that it's ugly. It has that oversized Flintstones-feel like some toys for toddlers have, or like the keys on this phone:

or the legs on this Ikea chair:

Now why on earth, you may ask, would anyone have a 4960x1600 setup? Well it's simple really. I had two 1600x1200 20" screens in 4:3 format, and I bought a 30" screen to replace them. Then I realized that if you pivot the smaller screens to portrait format, they match the height of the 30" screen perfectly. It looks like this (not my picture, just someone who apparently stumbled across the same solution):

 

[steveza]

For example, there are people who use these machines to interface with industrial robots that are programmed via 9-pin serial. And a new robot costs $3 million and they have 50 of them, so the old ones will serve for another 15 years or so, by which time the rest of us will be on USB 6.0 or whatever.

I used to work for a large vehicle manufacturing company who had robots and engine building machines running on Windows 3.11 and NT4. We were trying to get everything upgraded to XP at those factories and seeing as I knew nothing about manufacturing before visiting there I couldn't believe it when they said they could only upgrade those in 5 to 10 years time.

 

[tubbymac]

Here's a comparison between the Return and cursor keys on a regular Scandinavian compact keyboard (Dell M65 15") and the munchkin keys on a wireless Apple keyboard or a MB/MBP/MBA:

Wow both of those tiny return keys would drive me bonkers. The french keyboards over here are like that too, although not quite as cramped. You know after all these years you'd think somebody out there would make a decent keyboard. But the industry is half comatose and still wastes a tremendous amount of space on stuff like the CAPS LOCK key - one of the most unused keys takes up almost the most space on all the keyboards even after all this time. If they made CAPS LOCK into a Fn key combo and used that space to reorganize everything else, think of how much better both Apple and PC keyboards could be.

I used to work for a large vehicle manufacturing company who had robots and engine building machines running on Windows 3.11 and NT4. We were trying to get everything upgraded to XP at those factories and seeing as I knew nothing about manufacturing before visiting there I couldn't believe it when they said they could only upgrade those in 5 to 10 years time.

That's why we need companies like Apple around. If it were up to the PC industry we'd still have floppy drives and would be switching over to 64 bit computing in 20 years. Microsoft quite frankly doesn't have the balls to cut the cord on legacy software and hardware.

The thing I love about Snow Leopard is it will drag Apple users (that upgrade) kicking and screaming into the 64 bit multicore age of computing whether they want to or not. There's no ifs, ands, or buts about it. Sometimes to move forward you have to cut free from the past. Apple is the one that can do it first. Eventually it will force the other companies to catch up or perish.

 

[FX120]

I used to work for a large vehicle manufacturing company who had robots and engine building machines running on Windows 3.11 and NT4. We were trying to get everything upgraded to XP at those factories and seeing as I knew nothing about manufacturing before visiting there I couldn't believe it when they said they could only upgrade those in 5 to 10 years time.

It's pretty logicial if you think about it. Just because it is old, doesn't mean that it is bad and needs to be upgraded.

In industry aplications the computer systems are only part of the overall machine and it's function. The function requirements of the machine as a whole dictate the computer requirements, and honestly a NT4 and 3.11 on 486-66's is more than enough computing power.

Hell the computers you saw were probably only for communication with the machines internal PLC's, for updating, changing, and monitoring programs. Even the most state-of-the-art PLC's of today can still be programmed and debugged on a Pentium 3 from the late 90's, and use RS-232 for PC communication.

The only reason to upgrade would be if the rest of the machine was being limited by the computer and it's abilities, which isn't the case of older equipment. It's only logital to upgrade the computer systems if the rest of the machine is upgraded as well, to a more capable system.

 

[tubbymac]

It's pretty logicial if you think about it. Just because it is old, doesn't mean that it is bad and needs to be upgraded.

True. I remember reading about how NASA still uses relatively ancient chips in their space shuttles. The reasoning was that the older chips have been tried and tested for years. Reliability and the ability to debug the simpler designs was more important than using the latest and greatest stuff.

 

[SnowLeopard2008]

This entire thread is pointless. My biology teacher taught us something, no two species have the same niche. Simply put, Windows serves a certain niche market and Macs serve a certain niche. But generally, Windows machines are cheaper but are made from cheaper/less powerful hardware. You don't see Apple cutting their costs as much as Dell is. Why can't be accept the fact that there is a yin-yang in this world? Like male/female?

 

[tubbymac]

Why can't be accept the fact that there is a yin-yang in this world? Like male/female?

It's because human nature in general, and I don't mean all of us, but most of us, have to find something to hate in order to like something else. It's retarded, yes, but true.

Apple users hating windows.
Windows users hating Apple.
Xbox users hating PS3.
PS3 users hating Xbox.
BMW drivers hating Lexus.
Import cars versus domestic cars.
Alternative music fans hating pop music fans.

The list goes on and on. People in general need to wake up and realize you can like more than one type of thing without hating everything else. You can also like something and be critical of it's faults too. The world doesn't have to be full of dumb fanboys and fangirls. There is room for balance.

 

[Stridder44]

Why can't be accept the fact that there is a yin-yang in this world? Like male/female?

I try to. I use both OS's. They're both fantastic for different reasons.

 

[Anuba]

Wow both of those tiny return keys would drive me bonkers. The french keyboards over here are like that too, although not quite as cramped. You know after all these years you'd think somebody out there would make a decent keyboard. But the industry is half comatose and still wastes a tremendous amount of space on stuff like the CAPS LOCK key - one of the most unused keys takes up almost the most space on all the keyboards even after all this time. If they made CAPS LOCK into a Fn key combo and used that space to reorganize everything else, think of how much better both Apple and PC keyboards could be.

It's Ye Olde Typewriter Standard that dates back to 1873, nobody dares touch this sacred layout. And then there's the damn SysRq, Scroll Lock and Break keys from the DOS age... everybody wants to remove them but nobody wants to go first.

Logitech likes putting the Fn key between the right Alt and Ctrl keys on PC keyboards, which makes sense. Unfortunately that's a no-go on PC notebook keyboards because they have no space between right Ctrl and right Alt - instead it's between left Ctrl and the Win key, which must be a good spot because I've never hit it by accident. My brain is hardwired to having Ctrl on the far left and Alt immediately to the left of the Space key. Macbook keyboards now have Fn and Cmd there, and two wrongs don't make a right.

That's why we need companies like Apple around. If it were up to the PC industry we'd still have floppy drives and would be switching over to 64 bit computing in 20 years. Microsoft quite frankly doesn't have the balls to cut the cord on legacy software and hardware.

I don't understand why they can't just make the legacy crap a subset rather than the foundation of the system. They have a "business" edition anyway, toss all the legacy crap there for the RS-232 and DOS huggers and spare the rest of us.

Apple users hating windows.
Windows users hating Apple.

Well, the climate of bitter rivalry is happily perpetuated by Apple themselves, they've been mocking Windows ever since the "Pentium Toaster" campaign back in 1999... so of course the users are going to echo that. Jobs is about as mature as a teacher who's watching a schoolyard fight, and instead of breaking it up he starts chanting "Blood! Blood!".

The climate has changed a little since Apple's Intel switch and the introduction of BootCamp, though. First, there were the Intel haters... they obviously turned very quiet after Apple's big switch. People who insisted that a PowerBook G4 ran circles around any Wintel machine had some trouble explaining why Apple's own charts showed that the 1st gen MacBooks were 4x faster than their G4 predecessors.

But then there were also a certain type of Apple evangelists who based all their Windows FUD babble on hearsay, myths, rumors and conjecture, they all repeated the same mantras and you could just smell the BS from miles away -- they had no XP experience, but were talking about some fictional version of Windows that was like Windows ME on crack. Windows users supposedly never got any work done because they spent 8 hours a day fighting off viruses that were buzzing around their heads like biplanes around King Kong. If the machine didn't bluescreen on them before the viruses hit it, that is.

Those "malware mantra" types are very rare these days. The atmosphere is much more pleasant now, the Scientology-type cult vibe is almost gone. It doesn't mean that all Mac users suddenly like Windows of course, they may hate it even more than before after using it, but I'd much rather have honest Windows haters than the old school brainwashed fanboy windbags.

 

[The Flashing Fi]

That's why we need companies like Apple around. If it were up to the PC industry we'd still have floppy drives and would be switching over to 64 bit computing in 20 years. Microsoft quite frankly doesn't have the balls to cut the cord on legacy software and hardware.

You know, Microsoft had a full 64-bit kernel before Apple did. Apple is just now moving their OS to be fully 64-bit. Apple hasn't pushed anyone to 64-bit, nor has Microsoft to be honest. It's a gradual transition to move to 64-bit. Not out of want, but out of necessity. We've reached the limit of 32-bit.

 

[tubbymac]

I don't understand why they can't just make the legacy crap a subset rather than the foundation of the system. They have a "business" edition anyway, toss all the legacy crap there for the RS-232 and DOS huggers and spare the rest of us.

Because that would make too much sense. A similar great idea I came across along those lines was to put all the 32 bit and legacy junk into a virtual machine. The OS could then be purely 64 bit and free to evolve without carrying around all the baggage. Something similar to what OSX did with the Rosetta PowerPC emulation layer.

You know, Microsoft had a full 64-bit kernel before Apple did. Apple is just now moving their OS to be fully 64-bit. Apple hasn't pushed anyone to 64-bit, nor has Microsoft to be honest. It's a gradual transition to move to 64-bit. Not out of want, but out of necessity. We've reached the limit of 32-bit.

Yeah but that's the point. Microsoft had it a long time ago and still to this day we're still running more 32 bit Windows systems than 64 bit ones. The speed with which Microsoft moves on a technology can sometimes be measured in glacial ages because they are constantly carrying around the baggage. It's both their strongest asset and their weakest Achilles's heel. With Microsoft you're pretty guaranteed that most of your stuff will still work decades into the future. But you're also guaranteed that other companies will be able to react faster to technology - companies with less baggage to carry around.

The difference with the way Microsoft and Apple introduce a new technology is Microsoft makes it an optional part of their OS. It's like, hey, we have this new cool 64 bit stuff but it'll be an option. So the hardware manufacturers take the path of least resistance and don't use the option. Developers see more 32 bit Windows installations than 64 bit ones and continue writing 32 bit stuff. So the adoption of the new technology keeps getting delayed.

Apple on the other hand draws a clear line in the sand. With Snow Leopard, it'll be 64 bit. There's no 32 bit option. Developers are safe in the knowledge that they can write purely 64 bit stuff from that point on. The adoption is quicker.

 

[Anuba]

You know, Microsoft had a full 64-bit kernel before Apple did. Apple is just now moving their OS to be fully 64-bit. Apple hasn't pushed anyone to 64-bit, nor has Microsoft to be honest. It's a gradual transition to move to 64-bit. Not out of want, but out of necessity. We've reached the limit of 32-bit.

It's taking forever though. The transition from 16 to 32 bit happened at lightspeed compared to 32>64. I always assumed that the evolution of technology would just keep going faster and faster, but if anything it seems to be slowing down.

10 years ago we wouldn't have touched a 9 year old OS with a 40-foot pole, but today a lot of people are clinging to Win XP which is the equivalent of using Windows 3.0 in 1999. The predominant audio format, the 44.1 k/16-bit CD, still rules even though we could've had DVD-A with 96k/24-bit long ago, and the alternative to audio CDs (mp3/AAC etc) is a downtrade in quality, and rendered from the crappy 44.1/16 CD-audio masters. On cellphones, people are texting like crazy even though it's an ancient, awful format that wasn't even intended for two-way communication. And whatever happened to "Internet II" and IPv6?

 

[KevinN206]

Yeah but that's the point. Microsoft had it a long time ago and still to this day we're still running more 32 bit Windows systems than 64 bit ones. The speed with which Microsoft moves on a technology can sometimes be measured in glacial ages because they are constantly carrying around the baggage. It's both their strongest asset and their weakest Achilles's heel. With Microsoft you're pretty guaranteed that most of your stuff will still work decades into the future. But you're also guaranteed that other companies will be able to react faster to technology - companies with less baggage to carry around.

With the market share that Microsoft has, they simply don't have the luxury of dropping 32-bit OS on the dot. It has everything to do with maximizing profit from systems that capable or even semi-capable. It's also one Windows 7 is still available in 32-bit. However, most laptops and PC from OEM such as Dell and HP today come with Vista 64-bit, if it makes any difference.

 

[mmulin]

Will Snow Leopard beat Windows 7 in boot times?

This is all acceptable differences we are talking. Anyone missing BeOS's <10 seconds boot times? As long we are not there, I don't believe there was an evolution of OSes <sigh>