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

Windows 7 is a threat to Apple's market share

Let's not forget that people will get bored of using Windows everyday from home to work... and some might want to explore different OS... I prefer to use Windows at work and when i come back home, using OS X & Linux for a change... Something different that will keep me productive... Using Windows at work and then come back home using Windows again makes me less productive and boring.

People are different... People have different choises... Microsoft cannot change that.

A world 100% Microsoft is like a world with BigBrother.

Apple & Linux will always be there.
 
Trinity said:
I hope Windows 7 will be a real alternative, I have just returned my new Mini to Apple because I'm unable to make it work well because of the bloody permissions, messed up by Migration Assistant and not fixed by Disk Utility.
http://discussions.apple.com/message.jspa?messageID=9229269#9229269
http://discussions.apple.com/thread.jspa?threadID=1955538&start=0&tstart=0
http://discussions.apple.com/message.jspa?messageID=9237812#9237812
I will try again when they launch Snow Leopard, but if they don't fix the permissions nightmare (useless in a personal computer and cause of recurrent and insolvable problems) I will have to switch to Windows 7.
Click to expand...

I have to say that I've never heard of a 'permissions nightmare' and it doesn't appear anyone who was trying to help you understands either. I didn't read through your threads in their entirety, but I suspect the problem was that you were moving your files from a PPC to an intel. That would be especially bad if you moved any programs from one computer to the other. When I upgraded from a G5 to intel I moved my files manually.

Anyway, as for the topic, I'm curious about Win7. The thing is, after many long years as a tortured windows user, I do fear using windows for anything important. I will have to wait for more reviews for Windows to earn back my trust.
 
Let's not forget the pirated copies of Windows 7 Ultimate that will be available via torrent after the release... which might slow down Microsoft's market share. :D

With Apple, you are forced to buy a Mac if you want OS X. Or spend your time and money at risk for an Hackintosh that gives you no support, no warranty, and if you try to get it fixed by a generic IT person they wont work with it.

At the end of the day it comes down to what your time is worth.
 
paul.opensource said:
Vista has DRM built into it's core because Microsoft is all about control of the user. I guess I am making the DRM assumption about Windows 7 since Vista embraces DRM so heavily, and Windows 7 grew from Vista, but I could be wrong. I can't see Microsoft giving the user anything in the way of freedom though, that's not their M.O.
Click to expand...

Vista/Win7 has SUPPORT for DRM, that doesn't mean that they have DRM that prevents you from doing things. I've used Vista and Win7 totally normally and have never been bothered by anything related to DRM other than games, which come with their own protection measures anyway.

I think Vista gets too much bad press. It had problems upon release but now i's a very solid system. It's more secure than XP and in my experience a bit more pleasant to use (as long as you turn off the UAC prompts). Sure, it has higher system requirements but on a good machine runs just as nicely as OSX apart from startup/shutdown times. Win7 seems to trump OSX in speed at the moment but Snow Leopard will surely level that field.

As for Windows and Spotlight, the Win7 start menu search works a lot like Spotlight but I still feel that Spotlight gives a more coherent view of the search results and also has a bit more features (like being able to do calculations for example).
 
Vista has DRM built into it's core because Microsoft is all about control of the user. I guess I am making the DRM assumption about Windows 7 since Vista embraces DRM so heavily, and Windows 7 grew from Vista, but I could be wrong. I can't see Microsoft giving the user anything in the way of freedom though, that's not their M.O.
Click to expand...
LOL, that is a very hilarious post. I'm sorry, but you don't know much about DRM. It's usually portrayed as something very bad, which is true, but it cannot exist as such in an operating system. Saying "Vista has DRM built-in because MS wants to control users" is absolutely wrong.

DRM can only be present in a file with some kind of copyrighted content like music, video, e-book. If you try to use such a file, your OS and/or the application you're using to open the file needs to support DRM. This only means your OS can handle files with this kind of protection. It absolutely doesn't mean Microsoft is controlling you. The ones who are really limiting and controlling you are the people who sell you content with DRM.

Oh and FYI - OS X has the absolute same kind of built-in DRM. Up until recently, all of the music in Apple's iTunes store was protected with DRM. Most still is, you need to pay more to get an unprotected file AFAIK. Also - playing protected content on unprotected devices is disabled - read more.
 
Matek said:
LOL, that is a very hilarious post. I'm sorry, but you don't know much about DRM. It's usually portrayed as something very bad, which is true, but it cannot exist as such in an operating system. Saying "Vista has DRM built-in because MS wants to control users" is absolutely wrong.

DRM can only be present in a file with some kind of copyrighted content like music, video, e-book. If you try to use such a file, your OS and/or the application you're using to open the file needs to support DRM. This only means your OS can handle files with this kind of protection. It absolutely doesn't mean Microsoft is controlling you. The ones who are really limiting and controlling you are the people who sell you content with DRM.

Oh and FYI - OS X has the absolute same kind of built-in DRM. Up until recently, all of the music in Apple's iTunes store was protected with DRM. Most still is, you need to pay more to get an unprotected file AFAIK. Also - playing protected content on unprotected devices is disabled - read more.
Click to expand...

A friend of mine who's got absolutely no interest in computers at all bought a cheap Laptop PC with Vista a few years ago to share with his girlfriend and started ripping his CD collection with Windows Media Player after both me and his brother couldn't convince him to install iTunes instead.

EVERYTHING was DRM protected when he'd ripped with the default settings.

I imagine that's where the idea of Windows DRM came from. Not some Mac fanboy nonsense. From an actual user of the OS itself and it's not very good for the average newbie computer user if that kind of thing happens by default is it? You couldn't play encoded files off a USB stick without it being plugged into the PC it was encoded on!
 
scan said:
Does Windows 7 have a Spotlight equivalent?
Click to expand...
Yes, sort of. The search box in the start menu can be used to locate files or programs by typing a part of the file name or shortcut title. It will also return documents that contain the text string you have searched for.
 
A friend of mine who's got absolutely no interest in computers at all bought a cheap Laptop PC with Vista a few years ago to share with his girlfriend and started ripping his CD collection with Windows Media Player after both me and his brother couldn't convince him to install iTunes instead.

EVERYTHING was DRM protected when he'd ripped with the default settings.

I imagine that's where the idea of Windows DRM came from. Not some Mac fanboy nonsense. From an actual user of the OS itself and it's not very good for the average newbie computer user if that kind of thing happens by default is it? You couldn't play encoded files off a USB stick without it being plugged into the PC it was encoded on!
Click to expand...
Well, as much as I agree it's bad that that kind of feature is on by default, it's still just an option. Turning it off doesn't require any workarounds, you simply uncheck "copy protect my music" in media player settings. Even a beginner should be capable of manipulating simple setting dialogs.

If you disagree with that, one could argue that if your friend was convinced by you and used iTunes instead, by default he would end up with .aac files. He could then very well complain about Apple forcing formats only they themselves support, because his music wouldn't work on most audio devices that only support mp3, although we both know it's just a default setting that can easily be changed.
 
Matek said:
LOL, that is a very hilarious post. I'm sorry, but you don't know much about DRM. It's usually portrayed as something very bad, which is true, but it cannot exist as such in an operating system. Saying "Vista has DRM built-in because MS wants to control users" is absolutely wrong.

DRM can only be present in a file with some kind of copyrighted content like music, video, e-book. If you try to use such a file, your OS and/or the application you're using to open the file needs to support DRM. This only means your OS can handle files with this kind of protection. It absolutely doesn't mean Microsoft is controlling you. The ones who are really limiting and controlling you are the people who sell you content with DRM.

Oh and FYI - OS X has the absolute same kind of built-in DRM. Up until recently, all of the music in Apple's iTunes store was protected with DRM. Most still is, you need to pay more to get an unprotected file AFAIK. Also - playing protected content on unprotected devices is disabled - read more.
Click to expand...

HDCP is DRM at the hardware level and Microsoft fully incorporates HDCP technology into Vista. DRM in any form, at the hardware or software level is in invasion of my rights as a legitimate media owner. Oh that's right, I don't actually own Windows even though I bought it - Microsoft is just letting me "use" it. I wonder if Toyota actually owns my car even though it's paid off...hmmm. Funny how this works for Microsoft but not in the world of tangible goods. That's not control?

DRM in any form is just plain wrong because it punishes legitimate users/owners of media by restricting their ability to do things. I am glad Apple finally lifted the DRM from the music in the iTunes store - I think that's a good move on their part.

I'm off topic already so I need to stop...
 
Matek said:
Well, as much as I agree it's bad that that kind of feature is on by default, it's still just an option. Turning it off doesn't require any workarounds, you simply uncheck "copy protect my music" in media player settings. Even a beginner should be capable of manipulating simple setting dialogs.

If you disagree with that, one could argue that if your friend was convinced by you and used iTunes instead, by default he would end up with .aac files. He could then very well complain about Apple forcing formats only they themselves support, because his music wouldn't work on most audio devices that only support mp3, although we both know it's just a default setting that can easily be changed.
Click to expand...

That's as incidental as the files his PC produced being .wmv format. It's the DRM that was attached to the encoded files that I found annoying.

The point I was making is that from a newbie point of view, DRM by default isn't really very friendly. At least there's a lot of devices that play unprotected AAC files, my 4 year old Nokia smart phone that can record video, multi-task and cut and paste for instance.

The only bit of messing around playing them back on other devices was I had to rename them to .aac or .mp4 once they were on the phone's memory card and it picked up the ID3 tags fine by itself. I got an iPod eventually because I wanted to start buying protected AAC files from the iTunes store and the 1st Generation Nano's were being sold off cheap on the Apple Store when the 2nd Generation Nano's came out.
 
Firefly2002 said:
Isn't Windows 7 just supposed to be an incremental update... kind of a stopgap?
Click to expand...
Nope, W7 is supposed to be everything that Vista was going to deliver and much more. Bearing in mind that W7 was supposed to come out 4 to 5 years after Vista I think there will be a gap between it and the next full Windows release.
 
I've used Windows ever since Windows '98, and recently switched at home to a MacBook and OS X after my Dell laptop kept giving me troubles. I love OS X and find it to be a fantastic piece of work, but I must say that Windows 7, even in beta form, is just as great an OS. It is indeed what Vista was supposed to be, and I have yet to experience a single problem with using it, and I've used it daily since the pre-beta build (6801) hit the internet. Microsoft has done a fine job of correcting their mistakes. I had it running in Parallels, but decided to do away with that and installed it using Boot Camp to take advantage of Aero. I still use OS X as my main OS, but I often go back to 7 just to play around. Point being, both are fine tools for doing what you need to do, and people shouldn't feel the need to bash one in order to prop up the other.
 
That's as incidental as the files his PC produced being .wmv format. It's the DRM that was attached to the encoded files that I found annoying.

The point I was making is that from a newbie point of view, DRM by default isn't really very friendly. At least there's a lot of devices that play unprotected AAC files, my 4 year old Nokia smart phone that can record video, multi-task and cut and paste for instance.

The only bit of messing around playing them back on other devices was I had to rename them to .aac or .mp4 once they were on the phone's memory card and it picked up the ID3 tags fine by itself. I got an iPod eventually because I wanted to start buying protected AAC files from the iTunes store and the 1st Generation Nano's were being sold off cheap on the Apple Store when the 2nd Generation Nano's came out.
Click to expand...
The amount of WMA playback capable devices is IMHO quite equal to the ones that support AAC, but even both numbers put together are still much smaller than the number of devices supporting MP3, so it's often inconvenient. But that wasn't my point - I was only trying to say that while this kind of a default setting deserves a slightly negative response, you shouldn't base the whole argument on it, because it's very easy to change and it's not something that's set in concrete so that it could be interpreted as something Microsoft wants to force you with. It's just a bit newbie-unfriendly.

If I use my iTunes argument again - the default format could be MP3 so that it would work on the largest amount of devices by default, but since it's really easy to change, most people don't really criticise it.

HDCP is DRM at the hardware level and Microsoft fully incorporates HDCP technology into Vista. DRM in any form, at the hardware or software level is in invasion of my rights as a legitimate media owner. Oh that's right, I don't actually own Windows even though I bought it - Microsoft is just letting me "use" it. I wonder if Toyota actually owns my car even though it's paid off...hmmm. Funny how this works for Microsoft but not in the world of tangible goods. That's not control?
Click to expand...
Microsoft only implements the support for DRM in Windows. Apple does the exact same thing, HDCP included, but they aren't the ones actually enforcing the DRM. They add the support to their operating systems, because it's needed for certain features. You need to be able to play WMA/AAC files with DRM, because it's difficult to convince record companies to sell you their music digitally in unprotected formats. You need a HDCP-capable graphics card, OS and monitor to play Blu-ray movies. Why isn't ANYONE saying "Evil Samsung, they're forcing us with DRM because their monitors have HDCP support"? By implementing DRM in the OS, Microsoft enables companies that sell content to control you, they don't control you themselves. If you buy your movies and music in online stores that sell files without DRM, Microsoft's DRM support won't kick in and you won't be limited in any way.

The second part of your post is an entirely different issue. You don't actually own OS X either, you just bought a certain license that lets you use it in certain ways. It's the same with most other software, music, movies, etc. Do you expect them to allow you to copy your OS, install it on numerous machines, disassemble it and such? That's silly...

DRM in any form is just plain wrong because it punishes legitimate users/owners of media by restricting their ability to do things. I am glad Apple finally lifted the DRM from the music in the iTunes store - I think that's a good move on their part.
Click to expand...
I absolutely agree with you here. Don't think I'm a DRM supporter. I think it's a terrible concept and I'm very happy if things are being done in the direction of removing it. I am only arguing because some people are claiming Microsoft is the most evil link in the DRM chain and practically the inventor and enforcer of DRM. The real bad guys are the record labels - if they reach an agreement amongst themselves, Apple and Microsoft can either implement what they request or tell their users they won't be able to play Blu-ray movies and music from major record labels.

I'm off topic already so I need to stop...
Click to expand...
You and me both, brother!
 
Matek said:
The amount of WMA playback capable devices is IMHO quite equal to the ones that support AAC, but even both numbers put together are still much smaller than the number of devices supporting MP3, so it's often inconvenient. But that wasn't my point - I was only trying to say that while this kind of a default setting deserves a slightly negative response, you shouldn't base the whole argument on it, because it's very easy to change and it's not something that's set in concrete so that it could be interpreted as something Microsoft wants to force you with. It's just a bit newbie-unfriendly.

If I use my iTunes argument again - the default format could be MP3 so that it would work on the largest amount of devices by default, but since it's really easy to change, most people don't really criticise it.

Microsoft only implements the support for DRM in Windows. Apple does the exact same thing, HDCP included, but they aren't the ones actually enforcing the DRM. They add the support to their operating systems, because it's needed for certain features. You need to be able to play WMA/AAC files with DRM, because it's difficult to convince record companies to sell you their music digitally in unprotected formats. You need a HDCP-capable graphics card, OS and monitor to play Blu-ray movies. Why isn't ANYONE saying "Evil Samsung, they're forcing us with DRM because their monitors have HDCP support"? By implementing DRM in the OS, Microsoft enables companies that sell content to control you, they don't control you themselves. If you buy your movies and music in online stores that sell files without DRM, Microsoft's DRM support won't kick in and you won't be limited in any way.

The second part of your post is an entirely different issue. You don't actually own OS X either, you just bought a certain license that lets you use it in certain ways. It's the same with most other software, music, movies, etc. Do you expect them to allow you to copy your OS, install it on numerous machines, disassemble it and such? That's silly...

I absolutely agree with you here. Don't think I'm a DRM supporter. I think it's a terrible concept and I'm very happy if things are being done in the direction of removing it. I am only arguing because some people are claiming Microsoft is the most evil link in the DRM chain and practically the inventor and enforcer of DRM. The real bad guys are the record labels - if they reach an agreement amongst themselves, Apple and Microsoft can either implement what they request or tell their users they won't be able to play Blu-ray movies and music from major record labels.

You and me both, brother!
Click to expand...

I agree! Your last line had me smiling :) I know it is the record/media company's doing this, but it just gets me all riled up because I OWN a legitimate copy of the music/software, etc and DRM is put in place to stop users who steal media, not me, yet it's me who has to deal with the consequences.

I shouldn't vent my anger/disgust at Microsoft in these posts because yes, it's silly getting into arguements on the Internet, but sometimes I let my radical side get the best of me. Coming from over a decade of Opensource experience has really soured me on the lack of freedom of the "proprietary side", but I am still impressed with OSX, even Tiger which my little G4 happily purrs along on.

To put this back on topic: Microsoft has actually, according to what I have read, tried to prune out a considerable amount of cruft in Windows 7 by attempting to modularize it more or less. This is a good design move on their part because it does a number of things, to include increasing efficiency and making Windows have a better footprint in terms of security: fewer components means fewer means for attackers to penetrate. At least in theory...

For their sake, I hope it does well for them. They still need to get a CEO with some tact and diplomacy though: Ballmer is such an arse...
 
To me, OSX and Windows (Linux too) are too different for a small thing like an upgrade to push me to the other side although I can understand if other people feel otherwise. I've been running Windows 7 in VMware but more out of curiosity than anything, I never plan to switch back to Windows, not within the near future anyway. I can't wait for Snow Leopard though.
 
Boneoh said:
Here is an interesting article. The gist of it is, the IT budgets are very constrained and most companies will be in no hurry to adopt Win7. Make sense, given the crappy economic situation we are in. Another tidbit was at the end, about how XP support is sunsetting.

http://tech.yahoo.com/blogs/null/13...of-businesses-wont-install-windows-7-in-2010/
Click to expand...
That survey statistic is a bit misleading (most headline grabbing surveys are) as the 83% refers to companies that wont install W7 within a year from now i.e. up to March 2010. Seeing as W7 isn't likely to be released before October/November and that date hasn't been announced yet it's no surprise that plans aren't being made to install it. I find it more interesting that 17% of companies are planning to install an OS that hasn't been released.
 
steveza said:
That survey statistic is a bit misleading (most headline grabbing surveys are) as the 83% refers to companies that wont install W7 within a year from now i.e. up to March 2010. Seeing as W7 isn't likely to be released before October/November and that date hasn't been announced yet it's no surprise that plans aren't being made to install it. I find it more interesting that 17% of companies are planning to install an OS that hasn't been released.
Click to expand...

Yes, you're right! It's still beta, so how can the IT folks really budget/plan for it without really testing for possible issues with h/w and s/w? Good point!

I guess that means 17% as early adopters is actually reasonable.
 
Boneoh said:
Yes, you're right! It's still beta, so how can the IT folks really budget/plan for it without really testing for possible issues with h/w and s/w? Good point!

I guess that means 17% as early adopters is actually reasonable.
Click to expand...

Quite frankly, I think that 17% is high for no other reason than it's a little irresponsible on an enterprise level to migrate to a new OS that early.

The RC's not even finalized yet. Let's say the RC is out in May. Let's say that Win7 goes gold some time in November. Six months to make sure everything works? Depending on how big the base is you're supporting, that could be not nearly enough time. Even a lot of big Mac shops won't move that fast.

Personally, I like Windows 7. I see no reason not to use it as a home OS.
 
As a few have said already, I think it would slightly slow down Apple's recent boom in sales because of Vista, BUT the majority of people who buy Mac's are loyal not only to the OS and the hardware, but other applications as well. I'm dependant on Final Cut Studio, Aperature 2 and iLife 09.....so I'll be with Mac regardless if I wanted to migrate back to Windows or not. Not to mention I've already migrated so far off of Windows that I don't ever see myself going back doing all the work to convert everything back.

And with Snow Leopard coming out soon, I'm pretty sure Apple will take stability to unthinkable levels. But we'll see.

But that's just me. ;)
 
petvas said:
I migrated from the PC world three years ago, disappointed from Microsoft and of course, Vista. (how original!)
I was impressed by Apple's products and Mac OS X. I bought all possible computers (Mac Pro, iMac, Macbook, Macbook Pro - you name it I had it).

Three years after I decided to test Windows 7 on my Mac Pro. I was very impressed. Everything works much more smoothly than any OS currently out. At first I thought that the new taskbar would be a copy of the dock, but I have to say that the new taskbar makes using the computer much easier. I am more productive, there is no windows clutter, the speed is amazing and the stability phenomenal for a beta OS.

I am a Microsoft IT Consultant, my work has always been around Exchange Server and Windows Server. I am used to using Outlook. I never found a suitable alternative for the Mac. Entourage isn't that good...

After a lot of thought I decided to go back to Microsoft. I changed my default OS to Windows 7 and have a dual boot system (Mac OS X - Windows 7).
The last 10 days I haven't gone back to Mac. I don't miss it....
I enjoy using all my favorite programs for Windows and the knowledge that for whatever I want there will be a Windows version, makes everything much easier for me. I migrated from Mac to Windows and I don't think I am going back...
I am a power user and I do not mind configuring everything to work for me..I do not like having someone dictating me what my computer should do...
My only fear in migrating back to Windows was finding an iPhoto equivalent. I found Adobe Photoshop Elements 7 which is by far the best Photo Management Software out there.
I enjoy using my Mac Pro in Windows! The speed is amazing...

I will install Snow Leopard when the time comes and if it is better then I will consider migrating back to Mac, but I have to say that the chances aren't that good. I came to the realization that the important thing when choosing an OS is using the applications I want to have or even need. Outlook is first on my list...
I do not want to start a war here. I like Apple and its products, I have two iPods, I had the iPhone and I am preparing for the new revision...
I am interested to see how others think about going back to Microsoft. I am sure there are many like me, having migrated to Mac because of Vista. Windows 7 is soon going to be a reality which we cannot ignore.
Click to expand...

What apps are you talking about? I don't see how you can bounce from one OS to the next without detailing what apps you are using. What do you use in replacement of the iLife apps; that has you so happy with Win7; which is still Vista at least according to Steve B.
 
flopticalcube said:
I disagree. Part of the appeal of the Mac over the last few years has been the poor reputation of Vista. If Windows 7 can mitigate that, it may well spell a swing in the other direction. Its early days still and we really haven't seen what SL is capable of so I'm hesitant to say it will be an exodus but W7 may well stop Apple's advancing market share. Shouldn't really matter as Apple has long had a much smaller market share and still managed to give us great software.
Click to expand...

How can Windows mitigate anything as long as viruses and such still run so bloody well on that environment? MS needs to come out with a Linux variant then we can talk mitigation.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.
Top Bottom
Back