Snow Leopard vs. Windows 7

[tubbymac]

With the market share that Microsoft has, they simply don't have the luxury of dropping 32-bit OS on the dot.

However, most laptops and PC from OEM such as Dell and HP today come with Vista 64-bit, if it makes any difference.

They don't have to just drop it though. Remember Microsoft already has their own virtual machine technology called Virtual PC. They could simply include that in Windows 7 and throw in the 32 bit edition of Windows 7 or Vista or XP or whatnot as a virtual machine image. Then they could sell only 64 bit versions of Windows 7 and almost everybody would be happy. Legacy and corporate users would still have everything working. Tech savvy users could have the latest tech in a clean OS without the weight of 32 bit baggage. It's been done before in OSX.

Eventually the switch will occur. As you've stated most vendors ship any system with 4 gigs of ram or more with 64 bit editions of Windows. It's just that the switch could have been made a lot sooner if virtual machine technology had been used years ago.

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>

Hell yeah! BeOS was an incredible OS way ahead of it's time. So was the Amiga OS now that we've gotten sidetracked.

Some Linux guys have squeezed a 5 second bootup time from a modified Linux install - and that was on a hard drive and not even a solid state drive. The technology is already here. It's just OSX and Windows have become so incredibly bloated that they spend ridiculous amounts of time in their bootups.

 

[mmulin]

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.

Well ok, but be elegant. Virtualize it, sandbox it. If you have a multi-core 64bit with gigs of RAM, you just don't want to live in the other world. M$'s problem is that they hide/ integrate their legacy support at the expense of any progress. You need to guide people and not make them comfy in their dim little world. Otherwise, one day they wake up and get that new OS all their friends have which can listen to your commands and count twice as fast on the same hardware.

 

[KevinN206]

They don't have to just drop it though. Remember Microsoft already has their own virtual machine technology called Virtual PC. They could simply include that in Windows 7 and throw in the 32 bit edition of Windows 7 or Vista or XP or whatnot as a virtual machine image. Then they could sell only 64 bit versions of Windows 7 and almost everybody would be happy. Legacy and corporate users would still have everything working. Tech savvy users could have the latest tech in a clean OS without the weight of 32 bit baggage. It's been done before in OSX.

Well ok, but be elegant. Virtualize it, sandbox it. If you have a multi-core 64bit with gigs of RAM, you just don't want to live in the other world.

This solves to certain extents the software aspects. My point is that Microsoft wants to have Windows installed on as many PC as possible, which is why Windows 7 32-bit will still be released. The situation is that 32-bit CPU cannot run 64-bit Windows - Microsoft essentially went fully 64-bit since XP 64-bit. As a results, the kernel, drivers, and subsystems are all 64-bits.

I know Microsoft has many different virtualization technologies including Virtual PC, App-V, MED-V, and the server hypervisor, but these are software solutions. So releasing 64-bit only Windows NOW means many 32-bit PC that are still capable of running Windows 7 (for example), cannot be upgraded. Remember that Windows 7 is supposed to be as fast or faster than XP.

 

[tubbymac]

So releasing 64-bit only Windows NOW means many 32-bit PC that are still capable of running Windows 7 (for example), cannot be upgraded.

Ah, now I understand your point. Good point.

Came across a funny screenshot relating to the Fisher Price design style Anuba was talking about before. It made me laugh because it really fit into the toy motif. During the design process the Windows 7 team actually considered and tested a "bat signal" feature to the UI. Thank goodness this never made it to beta. Not sure how long I could have tolerated a batman style show light on a taskbar hover before I'd want to throw my machine out the window.

 

[FX120]

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.

DOS has been gone from Windows for almost 10 years now.

And it's not like legacy support is a *bad* thing, hell OS X still has RS-232 support, because even modern USB devices actually have USB->Serial adapters inside of them, that still require the use of a serial port mapped by the OS.

Keep in mind that floppy drives, serial and parallel ports, SCSI, and various other "legacy" hardware devices and protocols are still supported in OS X.

There is really no good reason to drop the support, at least I haven't heard any good reasons suggesting that it would in any way improve the OS. So why bother going through the effort of removing features that are of use to many people, just for the sake of doing it?

Oh, and what about all of those people that bought first generation Core Duo Macbooks, Macbook Pro's, iMacs, and Mac Mini's that don't support a 64-bit instruction set? Are they going to be able to upgrade to 10.6? I guess they're going to be SOL with upgrading their computers to the latest OS, even though in many cases their computer would otherwise be fully capable of doing so.

They don't have to just drop it though. Remember Microsoft already has their own virtual machine technology called Virtual PC. They could simply include that in Windows 7 and throw in the 32 bit edition of Windows 7 or Vista or XP or whatnot as a virtual machine image. Then they could sell only 64 bit versions of Windows 7 and almost everybody would be happy. Legacy and corporate users would still have everything working. Tech savvy users could have the latest tech in a clean OS without the weight of 32 bit baggage. It's been done before in OSX.

They already do this, and have since XP x64, which was from the get go capable of running 32-bit applications, that isn't the problem. As has already been explained, the problem is all those people out there with 32-bit computers that would be unable to upgrade their computer to the latest OS, even if it the processor and other components meet the requirements.

 

[chewietobbacca]

Thank god this thread went from trolling to a smart and civilized conversation!

DOS has been gone from Windows for almost 10 years now.

And it's not like legacy support is a *bad* thing, hell OS X still has RS-232 support, because even modern USB devices actually have USB->Serial adapters inside of them, that still require the use of a serial port mapped by the OS.

Keep in mind that floppy drives, serial and parallel ports, SCSI, and various other "legacy" hardware devices and protocols are still supported in OS X.

There is really no good reason to drop the support, at least I haven't heard any good reasons suggesting that it would in any way improve the OS. So why bother going through the effort of removing features that are of use to many people, just for the sake of doing it?

Oh, and what about all of those people that bought first generation Core Duo Macbooks, Macbook Pro's, iMacs, and Mac Mini's that don't support a 64-bit instruction set? Are they going to be able to upgrade to 10.6? I guess they're going to be SOL with upgrading their computers to the latest OS, even though in many cases their computer would otherwise be fully capable of doing so.

Yep, it's not like Windows is the only one with legacy support - Mac's still have it built in, often as a "just in case" situation.

Anywho, believe it or not, but hardware drives the development of software in a lot more ways than we'd like to admit. It's easy to blame Windows for not advancing software, but the truth is, Apple (especially since their move to Intel) and MS are software companies first, hardware companies second.

There's no way they go out and adopt 64-bit in 1992 when the hardware limitations of 32-bit were far off in the future. Remember when 8MB of RAM were the norm?

Keep in mind that the 16->32 bit transition occured so quick compared to the 32->64 bit transition for two major reasons: The 16->32 bit transition was still during the infant stages of widespread PC's, and because of the fact that 16-bit, 32-bit, and 64-bit aren't linear: they're exponential.

It was far easier to reach the 2^16 (65536) limit in computing, but 2^32 (4,294,967,296) was way far off at the time. Now that we're reaching the 4GB limit of 32-bit since the hardware for it has become the norm, we've seen the rapid introduction of 64-bit (2^64 = 1.84467441 × 10^19), or something like 16 exabytes of RAM.

It might be decades before we even get close to that limit.

(Add in the fact that it wasn't until the 90's that AMD came out with the 64-bit instruction set for x86 processors, which is another hardware limitation). So honestly, you can't blame them for not advancing hardware - it's simply not worth the resources to prepare for something that at the time was a decade off. And in our case, 128-bit isn't worth worrying about for many decades.

Anywho, I really look forward to Win7 as it's proven to be far more stable and snappier than even XP in its beta form. Plus, the fact that they've seemingly heeded a lot of the criticisms as shown in this blog about windows touch features is very encouraging to say the least.

 

[mmulin]

This solves to certain extents the software aspects. My point is that Microsoft wants to have Windows installed on as many PC as possible, which is why Windows 7 32-bit will still be released. The situation is that 32-bit CPU cannot run 64-bit Windows - Microsoft essentially went fully 64-bit since XP 64-bit. As a results, the kernel, drivers, and subsystems are all 64-bits.

I know Microsoft has many different virtualization technologies including Virtual PC, App-V, MED-V, and the server hypervisor, but these are software solutions. So releasing 64-bit only Windows NOW means many 32-bit PC that are still capable of running Windows 7 (for example), cannot be upgraded. Remember that Windows 7 is supposed to be as fast or faster than XP.

I get your point but M$ is still releasing 32 bit OS and charges 64 bit tax. But 64 bit HW is predominant by now. For progress sakes just sell 64 bit and have a 32 bit options as well. Better even do it like it was done in OSX 10.5. It still runs on 32 bit CPUs and end users don't need to be knowledgeable about. Of course, the M$ marketing machine will start sighing hearing this. Right now they make money selling an inferior version and charging extra for actually trying to use the performance of your hardware.

 

[kevin j]

People are forgetting the best selling PCs now are 32-bit (netbooks).

Always drivers is the main thing holding everything back. All legacy drivers have to be rewritten and that takes time.

Both MS and apple delivered a 64 bit capable OS around the same time.While this is so most macs are 64-bit capable yet most software is still 32-bit only and it would be difficult to say that they are ahead in the race to be fully 64-bit. These things take time.

 

[Infrared]

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.

One of the first things I do is reduce border padding. I wouldn't mind
knowing if there's some permanent fix so it will be like that by default
for every new account.

 

[Infrared]

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.

I don't know about the MBP setup. On a Mac Pro you can select a different
keyboard driver in Device Manager. The function keys then become normal
function keys, IIRC. msconfig can be used to stop the filter driver loading at
startup. A registry tweak will map some function keys of your choice to
volume up/down/mute. I imagine there are various workarounds for the
other stuff. E.g., as I wrote elsewhere, I have a small program to open and
close the DVD tray. That leaves monitor brightness, but on a Mac Pro it's not
much of an issue as you can set it at the monitor itself.

 

[Anuba]

One of the first things I do is reduce border padding. I wouldn't mind
knowing if there's some permanent fix so it will be like that by default
for every new account.

I reduced it from 4 to 2 with Ultimate Vista Tweaks and it was a major improvement. Probably has to be done manually for each account though.

This is one of the more ridiculous looking ones I've found in Win7... there may be even smaller ones hidden somewhere.

 

[Infrared]

I reduced it from 4 to 2 with Ultimate Vista Tweaks and it was a major improvement. Probably has to be done manually for each account though.

Thanks!

Actually, I quite like the Windows Classic theme. I know it's not
refined or elegant, and can rightly be criticized as being dated.
However, it is clear and consistent and somewhat minimalist,
and those are qualities I appreciate.

And I do think the jump lists in Windows 7 look rather odd from
a design perspective. Like the Vista sidebar, they don't feel as
though they belong where they are.

 

[Stridder44]

I reduced it from 4 to 2 with Ultimate Vista Tweaks and it was a major improvement. Probably has to be done manually for each account though.

This is one of the more ridiculous looking ones I've found in Win7... there may be even smaller ones hidden somewhere.

I hope all of you with any issues (even cosmetic ones) about Windows 7 are sending feedback.

 

[ChrisA]

Based on the beta versions, which one is superior in which area? How they will compare?

Windows 7 is a total failure when it comes to running Aperture and Logic Express. I don't care what feature the OS has if it can't run the software I use.

 

[FX120]

Windows 7 is a total failure when it comes to running Aperture and Logic Express. I don't care what feature the OS has if it can't run the software I use.

Is that a failure of the OS, or the software?

 

[tubbymac]

Oh, and what about all of those people that bought first generation Core Duo Macbooks, Macbook Pro's, iMacs, and Mac Mini's that don't support a 64-bit instruction set? Are they going to be able to upgrade to 10.6? I guess they're going to be SOL with upgrading their computers to the latest OS, even though in many cases their computer would otherwise be fully capable of doing so.

Most likely yes. I don't think Snow Leopard will support 32 bit machines at all.

Keep in mind that the 16->32 bit transition occured so quick compared to the 32->64 bit transition for two major reasons: The 16->32 bit transition was still during the infant stages of widespread PC's, and because of the fact that 16-bit, 32-bit, and 64-bit aren't linear: they're exponential.

blog about windows touch features

Good point about the exponential difference. I still don't think Microsoft "gets it" when it comes to touch gestures. The single finger swipe they use for scrolling is awkward compared to the two finger scroll OSX uses. You can't easily horizontal scroll with the microsoft gesture.

 

[TSE]

Personally I am not a fan of the new Windows 7 UI, and I seem to be the only one. Looks like I am going to stick with Windows XP until 2014 when support fades, or do you think a Windows XP identical UI is going to be available for download?

 

[Anuba]

I hope all of you with any issues (even cosmetic ones) about Windows 7 are sending feedback.

I sent tons of it, before I read on Thurrott's SuperSite for Windows that M$ doesn't bother reading it. They have a different beta program than they had for Vista, where feedback from early testers was incorporated in the system... this time they have a single beta and a single release candidate going out, and everything was already set in stone long before the public beta was released. But I still send feedback sometimes anyway, it's a good way to vent frustration even if it's going straight into a black hole.

 

[Anuba]

Personally I am not a fan of the new Windows 7 UI, and I seem to be the only one. Looks like I am going to stick with Windows XP until 2014 when support fades, or do you think a Windows XP identical UI is going to be available for download?

Which one of the XP interfaces? You cannot possibly mean the blue one, an uglier UI never existed. The silver one I put up with for a few years, but eventually replaced it with a custom UI out of pure boredom.

My biggest gripe with Vista's (and Win7's) UI is that if you use a dark theme, the weird white goo behind the title bar text becomes more visible, and if you use a bright theme to drown out the white goo, the taskbar becomes so bright that the white text is barely visible. This leaves the user with 3 alternatives...

1) Bright theme: No visible white goo on the title bar, but invisible text on the taskbar

2) Dark theme: Clear, legible text on the taskbar, but title bars that look like someone puked a bucket of milk over them

3) Medium bright theme: worst of both worlds.

 

[cathyy]

Which one of the XP interfaces? You cannot possibly mean the blue one, an uglier UI never existed. The silver one I put up with for a few years, but eventually replaced it with a custom UI out of pure boredom.

My biggest gripe with Vista's (and Win7's) UI is that if you use a dark theme, the weird white goo behind the title bar text becomes more visible, and if you use a bright theme to drown out the white goo, the taskbar becomes so bright that the white text is barely visible. This leaves the user with 3 alternatives...

1) Bright theme: No visible white goo on the title bar, but invisible text on the taskbar

2) Dark theme: Clear, legible text on the taskbar, but title bars that look like someone puked a bucket of milk over them

3) Medium bright theme: worst of both worlds.

I stuck with the Classic theme. It was the only one that didn't look hideous.

 

[tubbymac]

Ug, the bevels in the classic theme aren't that pretty either. It's all kinda ugly on Windows.

The new Marble theme in Snow Leopard from the front page is a bit disconcerting. Some of the shots so far have that ugly black-Vista look to it that I've seen on some HP machines. I'm hoping those were just bad shots.

 

[tubbymac]

Just saw a new Microsoft commercial on engadget and for the first time I think Microsoft's advertising is on to something. You can see the article and the video here:

http://www.engadget.com/2009/03/27/microsofts-new-ad-shows-how-people-shop-for-computers-in-the-re/

This was the first one I didn't cringe watching. The previous attempts at fighting back against Apple were incredibly stupid. Stuff with Gates/Seinfeld, and other "I'm a PC" attempts were laughable.

This one sticks a snarky anti Apple comment in it without going over the top. If Microsoft runs with this line of advertising and doesn't completely botch up Windows 7, they have a good chance of actually competing.

The laptop the chick ends up buying is a piece of junk I wouldn't touch with a ten foot pole but the commercial otherwise is decent

 

[elppa]

Some Linux guys have squeezed a 5 second bootup time from a modified Linux install - and that was on a hard drive and not even a solid state drive. The technology is already here. It's just OSX and Windows have become so incredibly bloated that they spend ridiculous amounts of time in their bootups.

That's probably because they are loading useful stuff, rather than being stripped down to bare bones like the Linux install probably was.

Typical new Macs boot in around 30 seconds (even notebooks with 5400rpm drives). That's more than acceptable. For notebooks you can sleep/resume very easily to, something which other operating systems seem to, ahem, struggle with.

 

[EmperorDarius]

Just saw a new Microsoft commercial on engadget and for the first time I think Microsoft's advertising is on to something. You can see the article and the video here:

http://www.engadget.com/2009/03/27/microsofts-new-ad-shows-how-people-shop-for-computers-in-the-re/

This was the first one I didn't cringe watching. The previous attempts at fighting back against Apple were incredibly stupid. Stuff with Gates/Seinfeld, and other "I'm a PC" attempts were laughable.

This one sticks a snarky anti Apple comment in it without going over the top. If Microsoft runs with this line of advertising and doesn't completely botch up Windows 7, they have a good chance of actually competing.

The laptop the chick ends up buying is a piece of junk I wouldn't touch with a ten foot pole but the commercial otherwise is decent

http://macdailynews.com/index.php/weblog/comments/20589/
http://macdailynews.com/index.php/weblog/comments/20602/

If you consider that piece of junk faster (and better) than the cheapest MacBook, you're a fool.

 

[Stridder44]

I sent tons of it, before I read on Thurrott's SuperSite for Windows that M$ doesn't bother reading it. They have a different beta program than they had for Vista, where feedback from early testers was incorporated in the system... this time they have a single beta and a single release candidate going out, and everything was already set in stone long before the public beta was released. But I still send feedback sometimes anyway, it's a good way to vent frustration even if it's going straight into a black hole.

Link to that?