Will Windows 7 make you switch back?

[akbc]

In my opinion, it's always the big PC manufacturers messing the OS up.

I personally enjoy using my Vista x64 bootcamp partition and my other machines.
But when PC companies like Dell, HP decides to load the damn OS with **** load of useless software and trial-wares. It just pisses me off...

*DING* YOU HAVE 90 DAYS TO ACTIVATE YOUR NORTON ANTI-VIRUS! OR YOUR COMPUTER WILL BE IN DANGER! *DING*

Honestly, all I run on my PC's are Avast! and Windows Defender and I really have no issues... so I'm already quite happy =_=... If only those damn PC makers stop loading their OEM OS's with bullsh*t!

 

[synth3tik]

There should be an entry for "HAHA WTF ROFL"

I never even gave it a though. Although this does not mean Apple can start breathing easier with their higher market share. Apple has been doing some really questionable and dumb things recently. Of course Apple's most complete product is OS X and that is really what matters.

I think Windows 7 does have a chance though at stealing some of the recent and soon to be switchers by giving them a new OS with less of the Windows annoyances, and without adding the new annoyances of a different OS.

 

[Eluzion]

The new task bar in Windows 7 is very dock-like in OS X, which is a good thing. I have been running Windows 7 through Fusion and it's great so far. There's a few features I absolutely love such as the ability to resize windows to half the screen by dragging it to the edge of the screen. The new task bar, like I mentioned is a lot better. "Smart" folders are great (viewing media files from multiple locations in one folder). Again, a lot of stuff is OS X like but for me, that's a good thing. I'll definitely be using Windows 7 for my next desktop build. Not sure about my next laptop though, might stick with the MBP.

 

[NoSmokingBandit]

As for Time Machine... Windows Vista and beyond now includes shadow copies, which are somewhat similar in that they version all the documents on your computer. The main difference is that Time Machine requires an external disk, while shadow copies can be stored on a secure partition on the same drive.

That was actually available since XP SP2, long before Apple started using the feature.

The new task bar in Windows 7 is very dock-like in OS X, which is a good thing. I have been running Windows 7 through Fusion and it's great so far. There's a few features I absolutely love such as the ability to resize windows to half the screen by dragging it to the edge of the screen. The new task bar, like I mentioned is a lot better. "Smart" folders are great (viewing media files from multiple locations in one folder). Again, a lot of stuff is OS X like but for me, that's a good thing. I'll definitely be using Windows 7 for my next desktop build. Not sure about my next laptop though, might stick with the MBP.

People keep saying the taskbar is like the dock, but i really dont get it. The taskbar has way more functionality on the bar itself, they just changed the way it looks. Big icons, no lables, and grouping on by default. The functionality is still 100% taskbar.
The window resizing is great though, isnt it? It makes it so much easier to look at two documents side-by-side without dragging crap all around.
The libraries are nice. I can add my music folder the the music library and WMP automatically picks it up. iTunes cant compare when it comes to managing music outside of the app.

In the end though, i will still use both os's. Both are designed to do different things so i will use them that way.

 

[SpEnCeR132]

yeah right

no way. i put it on one of my xp machines and its worse than xp.slower, clunkier. ill stick to OSX. it just works better

 

[Quillz]

no way. i put it on one of my xp machines and its worse than xp.slower, clunkier. ill stick to OSX. it just works better

What were the specs of this XP box? Because Windows 7 isn't magic. It's not going to suddenly revive old hardware.

Did you check the minimal requirements? You need at least 1 GB of RAM, for example, to have a smooth installation. And even then, you'd need a processor likely no older than a Pentium 4 and some sort of integrated or dedicated GPU to run Aero Glass.

By all accounts, Windows 7 runs faster than both Windows XP and Windows Vista on the same hardware, but all of these tests were conducted on machines that were "Windows Vista Capable." So, again, what are the specs of this computer, and how old is it?

Also, Mac OS X would probably run horribly on that box, as well.

 

[Quillz]

There should be an entry for "HAHA WTF ROFL"

I never even gave it a though. Although this does not mean Apple can start breathing easier with their higher market share. Apple has been doing some really questionable and dumb things recently. Of course Apple's most complete product is OS X and that is really what matters.

I think Windows 7 does have a chance though at stealing some of the recent and soon to be switchers by giving them a new OS with less of the Windows annoyances, and without adding the new annoyances of a different OS.

HAHA WTF ROFL @ Apple's higher market share. You realize that even with all the hype, switchers and seemingly "superior" products, Mac OS X still barely has a 10% global market share right? By most estimates, there are no more than 25-30 million Mac users worldwide. Windows 3 back in 1990 sold close to 35 million copies. You can't even really compare the market share between the Macintosh and Windows because they are just far in opposite directions from one another.

As long as Apple continues to build overpriced, closed hardware and bundle it with their closed operating system, they will never even come close to respectable market share. Apple's strategy is not at all bad, it works, and I don't expect them to be more open. But, the open nature of Windows (at least compared to Mac OS X) is what led to Windows becoming the de facto standard for most end users and enterprise customers.

 

[Quillz]

In my opinion, it's always the big PC manufacturers messing the OS up.

I personally enjoy using my Vista x64 bootcamp partition and my other machines.
But when PC companies like Dell, HP decides to load the damn OS with **** load of useless software and trial-wares. It just pisses me off...

*DING* YOU HAVE 90 DAYS TO ACTIVATE YOUR NORTON ANTI-VIRUS! OR YOUR COMPUTER WILL BE IN DANGER! *DING*

Honestly, all I run on my PC's are Avast! and Windows Defender and I really have no issues... so I'm already quite happy =_=... If only those damn PC makers stop loading their OEM OS's with bullsh*t!

And this is why the first rule of buying computers from vendors like Dell is to always, ALWAYS, do a fresh, clean install of the OS. Most vendors now give you full Windows restore discs. If they didn't, call them up and demand it.

I remember when I got my most recent Dell notebook, the XPS M1330. It's great, but you should have seen how slow it was when I booted it up. It was Vista Home Premium, but bogged down with the "Dell Dock," multiple anti-virus trials, Microsoft Office 2007 trial, all sorts of mediocre "media creation" programs, etc. I did a fresh install of Windows Vista Home Premium 64-bit, and the speed and performace improvements were like night and day.

Now the notebook runs Windows 7 and it's even better.

 

[twoodcc]

i don't think it'll make me switch back, but i might use windows more than i do now though

 

[John Dillinger]

Hmmm

I think the more pertinent question is: will the new Windows 7 stop the rate of defects to the Mac platform? The way things are shaping up I'd say the answer is yes, and that is more important to Microsoft.

Windows 7 looks a very nice alternative to OSX, carrying the advantage that you have a massive choice of hardware to run it on, versus the need for all the anti-spyware etc.

It is definitely more Mac-like, and that, whilst pretty cheeky, is definitely a good thing. Things like the new device stage, which will minimise the need for so many of those crappy and inconsistent interfaces for printers, cameras phones etc. shows how they are trying to unify the whole experience. It is simply Much smoother and in some ways even smoother than Leopard, the new window management features are great, switching between windows is better than on osx, and its very fast.

If I hadnt been raised going on 4 years on Logic Pro as it stands I'd see no reason to use osx over windows 7 and thats massive, cause the majority of people arent going to more money for pretty much the same experience. Basically, MS have done a very good job, whilst they could still do a lot more.

 

[SolRayz]

No, it's called opinions and personal preference. Not everyone enjoys dreaming about Steve Jobs all night. Why is is it so difficult for you to understand that some simply prefer Windows? While it's cool to hate Microsoft and spread Windows FUD, always remember that Windows got to where it was not only because of smart business decisions made by Microsoft, but because it's a very good operating system. It was far better than Mac OS, and Apple really didn't catch up until Mac OS X.

Smart business decisions! Yeah, over 20 years of so called smart business decisions over stability and usability. I know that my company's network is slow because of XP bottlenecks and crashes. I'm not all that impressed with Microsoft in the first place, but considering how long Microsoft has been pushing Windows you would think that they could have finally developed a stable and user friendly platform by now. I am currently running Windows 7 (or Vista SP2) on my bootcamp partition and so far it seems much more stable than anything since Windows 3.1, but its no OS X.

Case in point. They are the biggest software company specializing primarily on OS's and they are still dreaming about Apple OS stability.

 

[Quillz]

Case in point. They are the biggest software company specializing primarily on OS's and they are still dreaming about Apple OS stability.

Actually, Apple's attempt at making an OS was rather mediocre, as we saw with Mac OS from 1984-2002. Mac OS X wasn't Apple's operating system. It was essentially NeXTstep which was then covered by an Apple-designed graphical user interface.

Not to mention you clearly have never used any iteration of Windows NT. In both Mac OS X and Windows, stability is often caused by third-party drivers. Remember the infamous "blue screen" that plagued Leopard? It was later tracked down to Unsanity's APE drivers. Likewise, since the XP era, poorly coded drivers have caused BSOD.

Both Apple and Microsoft now have very stable operating systems. They didn't in the past, but times have clearly changed. Apple got the stability they needed when they acquired Mac OS X. And Microsoft got the stability it needed when it first released Windows NT in 1993.

 

[Consultant]

I would recommend you try running Windows 7 on the netbook. I've read that the OS works very well on Intel's Atom processors.

So does TinyXP, after removing most of the Microsoft bloatware code.

 

[Dmac77]

Yes, I just love BSOD's, and virus protection, and the updates that come in every second! In fact I'm going to buy Windows 7 the day it is released then run to the courthouse and marry Windows 7. Oh dear...

OS X just found out I typed this, it's going to leave me.

Don

 

[Quillz]

I think the more pertinent question is: will the new Windows 7 stop the rate of defects to the Mac platform?

Do you really think even a few hundred more switchers will do anything for either platform's market share? Windows has had close to a 90% market share since the Windows 3 days, and that's because Microsoft not only has the vast majority of end-users, but it's also essentially the only de facto standard for most enterprise solutions.

While I don't think Microsoft would like to lose customers to Mac OS X, the simple fact is that it won't matter. Mac OS X will never come anywhere close to Windows in terms of raw market share. Certainly not in Steve Jobs's lifetime, anyway.

 

[Quillz]

So does TinyXP, after removing most of the Microsoft bloatware code.

Eh, it probably does. I've never actually tried TinyXP, though I've heard that people who've tried it have really liked it. Although I'd love for you to provide examples of "Microsoft bloatware code."

Yes, I just love BSOD's, and virus protection, and the updates that come in every second! In fact I'm going to buy Windows 7 the day it is released then run to the courthouse and marry Windows 7. Oh dear...

OS X just found out I typed this, it's going to leave me.

Don

And I love the kernel panics, broken promises and the updates that come in every second on Mac OS X Leopard!

 

[Dmac77]

Eh, it probably does. I've never actually tried TinyXP, though I've heard that people who've tried it have really liked it. Although I'd love for you to provide examples of "Microsoft bloatware code."

And I love the kernel panics, broken promises and the updates that come in every second on Mac OS X Leopard!

I've never experienced a kernel panic in OS X. Whereas in Windows, I experience at least one BSOD per week.

Don

 

[Quillz]

I've never experienced a kernel panic in OS X. Whereas in Windows, I experience at least one BSOD per week.

Don

I've never experienced a BSOD on Windows since I last used Windows 98 in early 2001. Whereas in Mac OS X Leopard, I got two kernel panics in a week, when it was just released.

 

[Dmac77]

I've never experienced a BSOD on Windows since I last used Windows 98 in early 2001. Whereas in Mac OS X Leopard, I got two kernel panics in a week, when it was just released.

Then to each his own.

Don

 

[Quillz]

Then to each his own.

Don

Okay.

 

[viniciusc]

"Expose isn't really necessary on Windows 7 due to Aero Peek, the taskbar being a window manager and Flip-3d. The reason Apple added Expose to Mac OS X in the first place is because the Dock is nothing more than an application launcher. But since Windows 95, you've always had a centralized location for window management. "
The Dock has never been "nothing more than an application launcher". It is indeed one, but it does switch between applications as well, and you can pick an specific window by right-clicking the icon. Nevertheless, it displays information about the state of the program too and enables control of centain programs (as iTunes). In other words, it is a centralized location for application management, which Windows will never have. Since you still have to live with the mess of seeing icon shortcuts in the taskbar, in the start menu AND in the desktop - what is centralized about this?

"Also, Aero Peek is in some ways better than Expose because it doesn't move or resize any of the windows. It shows you exactly where everything is, and it also turns everything to glass, except for the windows related to the application you're managing through the taskbar. It combines Expose's "Show all windows" and "Show all application windows" functions."
Ok, does it show all windows at once? It seems not. That's what I'm looking for in exposé. I want to see all that's opened at once.

"As for Spaces, well, that's true, but not everyone needs or uses it. Effective window management is a good skill to learn, regardless of how many virtual desktops you may have. And of course, there are third-party virtual desktops for Windows available. Microsoft even released a virtual desktops PowerToy back in the Windows XP days."
The PowerToy only works in XP, if you can call that "to work", it is a mess. Virtual Desktops would be very welcome on Windows because I don't like my desktop to be all messed up with a ton of windows over each other. On the Mac, I can hide (command h, option command h - hide other) the application, what is the alternative on Windows? I know, I know, MAXIMIZE, as every Windows user does. But is that suitable for today's 20"+ displays? Don't think so.

"As for Time Machine... Windows Vista and beyond now includes shadow copies, which are somewhat similar in that they version all the documents on your computer. The main difference is that Time Machine requires an external disk, while shadow copies can be stored on a secure partition on the same drive."
That is wrong. Time Machine works with another partition on the same drive as well, it is just not any useful if you are protecting your data form a hard drive crash! Time Machine can back up an entire system, and if the drive fails, once I install a new drive with OS X, it can bring back *everything* just as they were in the previous drive. Is that possible on Windows? I don't think so, nor it is for Microsoft to come up with a UI that make users actually interested in back ups.

"And as for Unix, that's also true. But I still fail to see what exactly makes Unix so superior to NTFS. I think it's trendy to say this without doing much research. For everyday usage, there is very little that Unix does that NTFS can't. The Windows NT kernel was first developed in 1993 and has become extremely matured since then. End-users will likely never know or care about the differences between the two. They both work and are credible foundations for building operating systems."
What the hell? Unix and NTFS are completely different things. Unix is an operating system, from which Mac OS X's core components (Darwin) are based of (Unix-like). NTFS is a file system (old and crappy - bad enough to make people still need to defrag), like OS X's HFS+. Microsoft has been trying to come up with a better file system ever since Windows 95, they even promised WinFS for Vista, which never made it.
The NT kernel will never be as secure or stable as a Unix System. It doesn't rely on the same permission system security and memory management. It is also known that OS X's Darwin is open source, therefore any developer can spot a bug on the code or even send the patch. I wouldn't trust security from a system that is completely closed-source. We could never know if Microsoft has even changed something relevant in NT since it was released.

 

[Fast Shadow]

Put me in the "LOL, are you ***** crazy?" camp. I will always have a bootcamp install and/or Windows VMs for games or a few Win-only apps, but I will never, ever, ever use it as my primary desktop OS again. Not as long as OSX is out there. And even if OSX went away tomorrow I'd most likely move to Linux. Windows will always have a role but I will never "switch" back.

 

[Stridder44]

Oh God, here we go again.


How about this: run both Windows 7 and Snow Leopard. Use either one whenever you need to, and stop spewing BS about either OS.

 

[Eidorian]

Oh God, here we go again.


How about this: run both Windows 7 and Snow Leopard. Use either one whenever you need to, and stop spewing BS about either OS.

Why would I want to do that?

 

[Stridder44]

Why would I want to do that?

Running Windows 7 or spewing BS? Hey if you don't need Windows 7 then don't bother at all of course.