Will Windows 7 make you switch back?

[Bakey]

No, they're funny because they're so hilariously untrue and just shows Apple to be nothing more than an immature corporation.

You again!!

Stop feeding the troll people.... It might go away!!

 

[63dot]

I honestly dont even know what to say here. A company spends time redesigning the gui that they've used in 4 os's (95, 98, 2k, ME) and all of a sudden they are copying apple? Seriously? Its the natural evolution of an operating system to become more pleading to the eye instead of the old dull greys and cobalt blues. Just because apple got their aqua interface before ms introduced luna doesnt mean ms copied them. The fanboys need to realize that two companies can co-exist without one always copying the other. Apple seems to thrive on the delusion that they invented everything about computers and MS is just copying their ideas.

Whats the similarity? More color? Puh-leeze. Get over yourself, and apple for that matter.

The os9 to osx transition is just as dramatic as the 2k to xp transition. Whats your point here? Just because one company got to an idea first doesnt always mean the rest of the competition is copying them.

Forgive me, but are you effing serious! Are you so blinded by apple that you think ms sat around copying the letters from the product name?

Thus the have the windows 'eXPerience'.
What do you think about Vista? How do you rationalize some theory that MS stole that from apple too, since you clearly think that apple invented the home computer and everything thereafter.


Ms put in some new icons and colored the taskbar blue. The gui is still 100% windows. It still functions like windows always has. You guys are absolutely ridiculous.

I guess we will have to agree to disagree.

I don't "hate" MS since for a decade, I got compensated very well from them. I don't bite the hand that feeds me. I also use Microsoft Office for Mac and it's a solid program. My older Mac has Internet Explorer and it's a good browser and the one I use on that machine exclusively.

Yes, I am a Mac fanboy. But at the same time, working as a Microsoft technician, being trained at the Microsoft school in Silicon Valley, allowed me to make far more money in dot.com madness (computer networking) than my mere business bachelor's degree ever would. Much of what I have was because I contracted with Microsoft, got certified by them, and received a lot of free software from them.

Do I think MS and Bill Gates ripped stuff off? Certainly.

But at the same time, Bill Gates may be the single most aggressive and competent business person in recent history. He outfoxed Apple. He outfoxed Sun. He outfoxed Netscape. And he beat the US Government. I would not make a good Bill Gates because I would have been losing sleep at night worrying about companies that may have, most likely had, legitimate claims against me. Gates had balls and I am sure we can agree on that.

 

[The Flashing Fi]

NoSmokingBandit made some great points, and I would like to add to them.

As you go through the old Windows 95/98 icons, they are very block like and boring. XP put some color and flair to their overall look through all the menus. What strikes me as suspicious is how XP and Vista started to get more "colorful" and "pleasing to the eye". To me the XP experience reeks of a bad attempt to rip off Apple's OS X. While not a bad operating system, XP and later versions of Windows are more pleasing to look at. I think they researched Apple and saw that user interface, especially with OS X, was one of our strong points.

Actually, I would say it has more to do with there being enough processing power to actually handle the graphics. Sure, any modern computer can easily handle the themes. But remember, back when XP was released, to some extent, even "modern" computers would struggle with the themes enabled. It was common practice at the time to disable themes and use the classic interface. It's much the same reason why Vista now uses the GPU to handle rendering, because there's now enough power to do so without impacting performance.

So I wouldn't say it was "stealing." Honestly, both companies were creating appealing interfaces at around the same time. Apple was a little ahead, but it was clear where MS was going with XP during development. Themes wasn't something that was tacked on at the last second. It was actually something that was present around the beginning of development in 2000.

I think it's more of an evolution, if anything.

Of course, MS didn't dare go to an exact copy of OS X, but when XP first came out, many of my customers mentioned some of the similarity to Apple's OS X.

What else is new? People always look for similarities. Personally, I think there are more similarities with Gnome and Aqua then Aero and Aqua interfaces (after all, those Linux folks are always trying to rip off of someone! ).

Now look back to Windows 95 and 98 and compare it against XP and Vista. It doesn't even look like it came from the same company.

Neither does Mac OS 9 and Mac OS X 10.0.

And finally, why not Windows 200x, instead of "X"P ... I just didn't like the use of the capital "X" in their product shortly after Apples OS "X".

I believe one of the names for XP being tossed around was Windows 2001. Then again, Windows 2000's "original" name was Windows NT 5.0.

Just because they have an "X" in the name doesn't mean a thing. You're really reaching there. Besides, the X in Mac OS X is a roman numeral 10.

Some say imitation, even a weak imitation, is flattery, but I say it's a potential lawsuit.

Not even close to a potential lawsuit. You can't copyright the ability to create an aesthetically pleasing interface, and as computers get more and more powerful, expect the interface to continue to look better. Just because Apple beat MS to the punchline by a few months, doesn't mean anyone really copied anyone. And Luna and Aqua look nothing a like. One looks like they copied fisher price and the other looks they threw water on a computer monitor and designed around that.

 

[Quillz]

Do I think MS and Bill Gates ripped stuff off? Certainly.

This is true, but they're certainly not the only ones. Apple and Steve Jobs have ripped stuff off, as well. So have just about every other corporation and their public face in the past. That's how this industry grows. Ideas are constantly thought up, copied and improved upon. Apple copied the "virtual desktops" idea from Unix workstations and improved upon it, giving us "Spaces." Microsoft largely copied CP/M to give us MS-DOS, the operating system that created eight billionaires. If the industry did not allow for ideas to ever be copied and improved, we'd never have half the things we have today. Competition is the driving force behind this businesses, and in the end, consumers win because we get better products at lower prices.

 

[Quillz]

Some say imitation, even a weak imitation, is flattery, but I say it's a potential lawsuit.

Apple has already sued Microsoft in the past for supposedly stealing their look and feel, and they lost. What does that tell you? It tells you that you can't patent a particular look and feel, you can only copyright it. There's a large difference the two. Had Apple won the lawsuit, then essentially every other corporation in the world that wants to build a GUI for their products would have to pay a royalty to Apple, as they'd hold a patent. But copyrightable simply means that Microsoft or anyone else can't use the same icons, images or even phrasing.

Apple sued Microsoft for just about every element of the GUI, even down to the trash can. They lost once, and they certainly aren't going to try again.

 

[FX120]

I never "switched", so I suppose there is nothing to switch back from.

So many people here are so polarized in their extreme feelings about their computers. For me and many other people, we continue to use what does the job, sometimes that is OS X, but most of the time that is Windows. I have had a mac on my desk since 1993 with the LC, but there has *always* been a Windows based machine on the desk right along side of it. I couldn't give a rats-ass about who copied who, both products have matured worlds since their introduction, and both have always continued to improve upon the previous version.

So Windows 7 won't change anything for me. Neither will Snow Leopard. Two machines will continue to sit on my desk because neither can do all the tasks of the other. I will be upgrading to both, and enjoying the new things that both bring.

 

[The Flashing Fi]

Apple has already sued Microsoft in the past for supposedly stealing their look and feel, and they lost. What does that tell you? It tells you that you can't patent a particular look and feel, you can only copyright it. There's a large difference the two. Had Apple won the lawsuit, then essentially every other corporation in the world that wants to build a GUI for their products would have to pay a royalty to Apple, as they'd hold a patent. But copyrightable simply means that Microsoft or anyone else can't use the same icons, images or even phrasing.

Apple sued Microsoft for just about every element of the GUI, even down to the trash can. They lost once, and they certainly aren't going to try again.

And Xerox tried to sue Apple for ripping thier Interface, but it got thrown out due to a 3 year statute of limitation.

 

[Quillz]

And Xerox tried to sue Apple for ripping thier Interface, but it got thrown out due to a 3 year statute of limitation.

Exactly. The same thing that happened to Xerox happened to Apple. You might be able to invent a concept, but you can't patent the concept, you can only copyright the specific way you've done yours.

There was a good interview with Steve Jobs in the "Triumph of the Nerds" documentary. He basically explained the whole process of how Apple was able to strategically copy Xerox, but do it in a legal manner. It's very interesting, and Jobs comments how Xerox could have owned the entire computer industry and been ten times their size if the corporate executives only saw the value in the GUI.

 

[shiseiryu1]

Resizing Windows in Windows 7 is Superior...I agree.

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.

I just installed on Parallels and I have to agree that the ability to resize windows to half screen by dragging to the edge is great. One of the things that I still haven't gotten used to with Mac is how all the windows just float around. Maybe I'm O.C.D but sometimes I really want my windows full screen or half screen. I waste too much time and energy moving/resizing windows on my Mac.

With that said, I still like OSX much much more. The OS is stable, beautiful, and overall works really well. I'm just hoping that one day I won't mind all the detached windows floating everywhere. :/

 

[Balty]

I never "switched", so I suppose there is nothing to switch back from.

So many people here are so polarized in their extreme feelings about their computers. For me and many other people, we continue to use what does the job, sometimes that is OS X, but most of the time that is Windows. I have had a mac on my desk since 1993 with the LC, but there has *always* been a Windows based machine on the desk right along side of it. I couldn't give a rats-ass about who copied who, both products have matured worlds since their introduction, and both have always continued to improve upon the previous version.

So Windows 7 won't change anything for me. Neither will Snow Leopard. Two machines will continue to sit on my desk because neither can do all the tasks of the other. I will be upgrading to both, and enjoying the new things that both bring.

I've got the same idea.
Sometimes you need two different operating systems, just to get the job done. I mainly use a Mac, but sometimes, I need to use a windows machine. They are both good operating systems, but they are not perfect. One can do things the other can't, and vice-versa. And they will continue to progress with time, as every revision gets better, but, I still will be using both, regardless what I'm doing (although I use a Mac daily, and a PC only when I need to ).

 

[63dot]

Apple sued Microsoft for just about every element of the GUI, even down to the trash can. They lost once, and they certainly aren't going to try again.

I agree with you there. Suing Microsoft is not a successful endeavor.

 

[Quillz]

I agree with you there. Suing Microsoft is not a successful endeavor.

Well, it really wouldn't have mattered who Apple sued; the outcome would have been the same. Apple learned the hard way that software isn't patentable, only copyrightable. There was a good interview with John Sculley on "Triumph of the Nerds" where he talked about the lawsuit.

 

[Watabou]

I like Windows 7 and think that this is the OS that Microsoft should have made in the first place instead of the Vista fiasco.

But, as I use Windows 7, I just miss having the features I use in Leopard, most often. Not caring about defragmenting, viruses and stuff like that is really great.

So, no. I will buy Snow Leopard.
Plus I get it free through my University...I think.

 

[TuffLuffJimmy]

I'll probably end up spending an equal amount of time in Windows 7 as I do Snow Leopard, but really we'll just have to see.

 

[Skuman]

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

Don

This is almost certainly caused by buggy drivers. I had a desktop running XP from 2002-2006 24/7 (running seti at home) and it crashed twice. Everything was pretty standard. I also had a laptop running XP that would give me a BSOD about once a month on wake up from hibernation, I read that the video drivers were probably to blame.

 

[Quillz]

This is almost certainly caused by buggy drivers. I had a desktop running XP from 2002-2006 24/7 (running seti at home) and it crashed twice. Everything was pretty standard. I also had a laptop running XP that would give me a BSOD about once a month on wake up from hibernation, I read that the video drivers were probably to blame.

Buggy, third-party drivers are almost always responsible for kernel panics on Mac OS X and BSOD on Windows.

 

[Nermal]

After all the issues that I've had so far with the beta, nope!

 

[The Flashing Fi]

After all the issues that I've had so far with the beta, nope!

Honestly, I think it's really better to judge a finished OS, not an unfinished one.

You wouldn't try and persuade someone to get a Mac with a computer that had a Beta of Mac OS X on it, would you?

 

[TuffLuffJimmy]

Also, this thread is stupid because it makes the assumption that anyone considering Windows is a switcher.

 

[Quillz]

Also, this thread is stupid because it makes the assumption that anyone considering Windows is a switcher.

What? No it doesn't. Some people "consider" using Windows when they need to use applications that only run on Windows or have no viable alternative.

 

[HLdan]

It's the SOFTWARE THAT COUNTS!

While Windows 7 looks nice with the thumbnail previews and dock-like taskbar and some new GUI enhancements what most people tend to forget that the OS is just the vehicle, the software is where it counts.
Sorry, but nothing in Windows competes with the software made for Mac OS X. I love the Mac style features in lots of 3rd party software that Windows counterparts can't compete with.
Even Apple's own software I prefer such as Final Cut, Aperture, iLife and iWork are all AWESOME!
What I really love are the 3rd party companies that make "Mac Only" software, the GUI is great, the features are designed to work exclusively for the Macintosh and the support is top notch because we don't have to wait until the Windows version gets released first and tested before the OS X ported version gets put out and is SUBPAR because it was a port.

Again, Windows 7 looks great, but for me it's the software that counts and my work must be done with Mac software.

 

[Jshwon]

Not bad so far. I like how when you have multiple IE tabs open including a downloading file the IE icon in the task bar gradually fills showing the progress, then pulsates when done. Very unobtrusive.

 

[TuffLuffJimmy]

What? No it doesn't. Some people "consider" using Windows when they need to use applications that only run on Windows or have no viable alternative.

"Will Windows 7 make you switch back?"
Switch back, as in you were on Windows, then OS X, then maybe Windows 7 later. QED assumes people are switchers.

 

[Quillz]

Again, Windows 7 looks great, but for me it's the software that counts and my work must be done with Mac software.

But when you eventually go to work for a company who uses software that runs on Windows, will you be able to use it?

I agree fully that third-party software on Mac OS X is generally of much higher quality than what you can find on Windows. But, I'd never want to put myself into a situation where I feel I can only be productive on one operating system. This is why I like using both; to get familiar with the strengths and weaknesses of both.

 

[HLdan]

But when you eventually go to work for a company who uses software that runs on Windows, will you be able to use it?

I agree fully that third-party software on Mac OS X is generally of much higher quality than what you can find on Windows. But, I'd never want to put myself into a situation where I feel I can only be productive on one operating system. This is why I like using both; to get familiar with the strengths and weaknesses of both.

I gotcha about that however I don't think the situation is as bad as you might think theoretically. Most of today's software runs on both Mac OS X and Windows so Macs can easily fit in a corporate environment unless your talking about one or two softwares that a company has only made for Windows.

According to what you are talking about then there would be no reason for anyone to have left Windows to switch to a Mac in the first place. Remember, the thread is all about people who switched to a Mac but took a look at Windows 7 and decided to switch back based on Windows 7.
At any rate, it's nice to have a Macintosh because you don't have to buy a new PC to use Windows 7.