Will Windows 7 make you switch back?

[jaw04005]

Not caring about defragmenting, viruses and stuff like that is really great.

Windows has had automatic defragmenting since at least XP (probably earlier). It was substantially improved with Vista. It's just that Microsoft includes a free user tool for additional "manual" defragmentation and Apple doesn't.

In reality, Apple should also include a tool as using the Boot Camp partitioner multiple times can easily fragment your drive. Not to mention, OS X only defragments files under 20MB. If you want real disk defragmentation you have to purchase a $30 program.

 

[beg_ne]

Windows 7 is good. For Windows. But its just Windows, nothing more. Ballmer is still a sweaty hyper-active ape, they still put out trash like SongSmith, I have zero faith in the company or their "technologies". Most of the developers as so behind the curve, even in using the tools that MS gives them its not even funny and they tend to put out some of the worst applications I've ever seen in my life.

Their user community doesn't seem to be very compelling either.

Been there, done that. Moved on to something infinitely better.

 

[Quillz]

Windows 7 is good. For Windows. But its just Windows, nothing more. Ballmer is still a sweaty hyper-active ape, they still put out trash like SongSmith, I have zero faith in the company or their "technologies". Most of the developers as so behind the curve, even in using the tools that MS gives them its not even funny and they tend to put out some of the worst applications I've ever seen in my life.

Their user community doesn't seem to be very compelling either.

Been there, done that. Moved on to something infinitely better.

It sounds like you have more of an issue with developers who make programs for Windows. Microsoft can't force developers to get with the curve and use their tools.

 

[Dejavu]

Windows 7 does not have Terminal.

I think I will stick with OS X.

 

[millar876]

im an origional switcher, we switched from os9 to osx, (10.0) and theres no way im going back to os9.

Havn't played with W7 yet, but i dont plan on being impressed, windows has never donee it for me, always seems behind the times (vs osx) or itll do the exact same thing, only in a realy complicated way. i.e. thea pathetic expose ripoff vista has thats overly resourse/gpu intensive and nowhere near as good.

Going to load both W7 and SL onto my mini and have a play. after i get back from my hollidays

 

[Quillz]

Windows 7 does not have Terminal.

I think I will stick with OS X.

No, but it has PowerShell, which is just as powerful as Terminal in terms of being able to execute system-level commands from a prompt.

 

[kockgunner]

Actually, no. Advertising is extremely effective. You watch a commercial enough times and soon you'll remember its jingle and what it's selling. Advertising is an extremely lucrative business because people are very much swayed by advertising. Apple knows this, and their "Get a Mac" is very successful. They wouldn't have kept it around for as long as it's been around if it wasn't very effective, as "Switch" wasn't. There are many people who believe Vista is a bad OS because "they said so in the commercials." Don't underestimate the power of advertising.

Sure, people will know the product exists and investigate on their own, but people don't buy products because it looks good on TV save for compulsive buyers. They still test out the product, see if they like it, then they buy it.

 

[TuffLuffJimmy]

No, but it has PowerShell, which is just as powerful as Terminal in terms of being able to execute system-level commands from a prompt.

But if you know terminal already...
anyway, I wish I had learned command prompt I just never really found the time to sit down and do it, and I felt unmotivated since I already knew terminal.

EDIT: and besides, there have been many times in OS X where I have needed the shell, but have yet to bump into a reason to use it in Windows. Other than one time I was having some networking problems and I had to have my mom help me with command prompt to get my network up.

 

[InsightsIE]

Am I going to switch

NO

My life style is Mac based. iTunes,Address book sync my iPhone unless Windows 7 has an address book App and Apple will help a bad software company in need by making iTunes Windows have their Address book support.
What about iCal I use that too. Switching from Mac to PC means having to get rid of my iPhone or using it properly.

Number 2: I would and will switch back once Apple makes a Full Mac version of Final Cut Studio,Aperture,etc

 

[Nermal]

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?

Many of the issues that I've reported to Connect have been closed as "won't be resolved in 7".

 

[wrldwzrd89]

Windows has had automatic defragmenting since at least XP (probably earlier). It was substantially improved with Vista. It's just that Microsoft includes a free user tool for additional "manual" defragmentation and Apple doesn't.

In reality, Apple should also include a tool as using the Boot Camp partitioner multiple times can easily fragment your drive. Not to mention, OS X only defragments files under 20MB. If you want real disk defragmentation you have to purchase a $30 program.

You are completely correct on Mac OS X. However, I was under the impression that Windows XP does NOT automatically defragment anything, and in fact only allows scheduled defragmenting using the "manual" tool and Task Scheduler. The difference in Vista is that the scheduling part is done for you, a very welcome addition. There's still no automatic defragmenting going on at the file system level like in Mac OS X though.

 

[2Shae]

Depends on what you call "switching back"

If you mean from OS X --> Windows 7, well in that case the answer is maybe. I first want to see what Snow Leopard will deliver and what the final product of Windows 7 will bring.

But if you mean Mac --> PC, well in that case the answer is most likely not, unless there would be a good iMac replacement. All-in-Ones are da *****

 

[MRU]

I voted no even though I will be using Windows 7 - for gaming (only).

 

[Kashchei]

I'm not sure Windows 7 would be enough to get me to switch on its own, but a combination of a final release Windows 7 that lives up to the promise of the beta, combined with the continued lack of a midrange desktop (or an atom-powered mini) might just do the job.

 

[kaly13]

it's getting boring. just cuz steve allmighty says its trash, it's actually not.
overwhelming majority doesn't agree with him. say over 90%?

I STRONGLY disagree with you. 89% of the World uses Windows, because they ARE USED to them. The majority of them didn't even TRY to work with other Operating Systems. I am from Greece, and here in Greece, the Macs don't get promoted at all. We don't even have "Apple Greece"!! They only promote Windows PCs, because the World is USED to them. If they used Mac OS, they would DEFINITELY choose Mac OS instead of Window$.

All these, from a 16 year old boy from Greece!

 

[jaw04005]

You are completely correct on Mac OS X. However, I was under the impression that Windows XP does NOT automatically defragment anything, and in fact only allows scheduled defragmenting using the "manual" tool and Task Scheduler. The difference in Vista is that the scheduling part is done for you, a very welcome addition. There's still no automatic defragmenting going on at the file system level like in Mac OS X though.

Windows XP automatically defragments every three days via a system level process known as defrag.exe that's not present on your Task Scheduler. The "Disk Defragmenter" tool in Windows XP is actually a third-party product that was acquired by Microsoft. It's separate from the defrag.exe process, and cannot be scheduled using the Task Scheduler.

In Vista, it's basically all one system-level process that's present in the Task Scheduler as a default option. Microsoft has limited defragmentation to 64MB (Mac OS X limits it to 20MB) because they didn't see much benefit in defragmenting files over that size (free space vs. time vs. performance).

NTFS is inherently better at preventing fragmentation than FAT. However, HFS+ is inherently better than NTFS (even without it's optional journalling features).

Is it as good as Mac OS X? Probably not, but it's there and automatic. For the bulk of regular users, it's fine.

The point I was trying to make is the importance of defragmenting on Windows (particularly Vista) is completely over blown.

Both Windows and Mac OS X are smart enough to do defragmentation on their own. Unless your moving large chunks of data around or making substantial changes to your disks, you don't need to manually defrag on either operating system.

It's just nice that Microsoft gives you the tool if you want to. I wouldn't rank defragmentation up there with spyware or virus scanning.

 

[NoSmokingBandit]

I STRONGLY disagree with you. 89% of the World uses Windows, because they ARE USED to them. The majority of them didn't even TRY to work with other Operating Systems. I am from Greece, and here in Greece, the Macs don't get promoted at all. We don't even have "Apple Greece"!! They only promote Windows PCs, because the World is USED to them. If they used Mac OS, they would DEFINITELY choose Mac OS instead of Window$.

All these, from a 16 year old boy from Greece!

I have to completely disagree with you. About 75% of the world uses their computers just to get email, surf the internet, keep a music collection, and manage some pictures or home movies. Even if these people tried osx it would be hard to convince them to go buy a new computer that costs twice as much as they are used to paying just so they can keep doing the same tasks.
Windows and non-Apple PCs are much more cost effective for the average consumer. Early on Apple played the elitist card and took a good bit of the professional market which they seem to be abandoning anyway in order to get to the average consumer. The average joe doesnt look at a computer and see osx or windows 7, he sees an expensive but shiny way to accomplish the same task as a cheap but slightly uglier computer.

 

[wrldwzrd89]

Windows XP automatically defragments every three days via a system level process known as defrag.exe that's not present on your Task Scheduler. The "Disk Defragmenter" tool in Windows XP is actually a third-party product that was acquired by Microsoft. It's separate from the defrag.exe process, and cannot be scheduled using the Task Scheduler.

In Vista, it's basically all one system-level process that's present in the Task Scheduler as a default option. Microsoft has limited defragmentation to 64MB (Mac OS X limits it to 20MB) because they didn't see much benefit in defragmenting files over that size (free space vs. time vs. performance).

NTFS is inherently better at preventing fragmentation than FAT. However, HFS+ is inherently better than NTFS (even without it's optional journalling features).

Is it as good as Mac OS X? Probably not, but it's there and automatic. For the bulk of regular users, it's fine.

The point I was trying to make is the importance of defragmenting on Windows (particularly Vista) is completely over blown.

Both Windows and Mac OS X are smart enough to do defragmentation on their own. Unless your moving large chunks of data around or making substantial changes to your disks, you don't need to manually defrag on either operating system.

It's just nice that Microsoft gives you the tool if you want to. I wouldn't rank defragmentation up there with spyware or virus scanning.

Very interesting, thanks for the information!

 

[FX120]

At any rate, it's nice to have a Macintosh because you don't have to buy a new PC to use Windows 7.

<Is running Windows 7 on a 3 year old T60 with the original Core Duo and 1GB of ram>

Good luck running Snow Leopard on a Powerbook from 2005, that although it might be fully capable of running 10.6, won't because Apple is dropping PPC support. On the other hand numerous PCs from 2005 will be capable of running 7, as it scales VERY well on lower end hardware such as netbooks.

 

[smilinmonki666]

Your forgetting the user base...

The whole thing about different Operating Systems your forgetting is that they appeal to a different user base.

Windows: Gaming & set software is the advantage & that its had an easier time getting to it's users.

Apple: Gaming & Set software is the advantage. Ok, not as much gaming on the Apple, but Windows is the main OS for gaming, The Dreamcast, Xbox 360 & I'm sure theres other machines that use Windows for gaming. The Apple's are made for photography & video editing.

I prefer to use Apple for day-to-day tasks. Even my girlfriend prefers OS X to windows. Mainly because it works, you've got no fear of virus's & you don't wait ages for it to load.

I'm really keen on Windows 7 when it's released, enjoying the beta. It does remind me on OS X in certain way's. But its good for gaming. But then there's only certain games I have for the PC. I mainly game on the 360.

So for me, I switch to what works best for the task in hand & thats how people should look at things. If somone prefers using Windows, let them & visa versa. I'm no fanboy, but Apple's Hardware & Software just works for me. No problems at all. Everything connects via wireless with no problems, streaming to my xbox, no problems, install & un-install, no problems, no hidden files left, they just go when I ask them. Touch wood, I've been using macs solidly for 2 years now & never experience as much as .01% of problems I had in XP & Vista. I'm still learning OS X more & more each day & love it more & more.

Dual booting OS X & Windows 7 will be a premanent thing for my machine when Windows 7 goes on sale. & remember, without competion, at least none of the OS's get boring or stale.

 

[NoSmokingBandit]

install & un-install, no problems, no hidden files left

There are hidden files unless you use a 3rd party app like AppZapper.

 

[Cheffy Dave]

I have a fetish for viruses. I'm so going to let all of my Macs go to waste because Redmond's finest release more overpriced trash.

good answer,what he said

 

[HLdan]

<Is running Windows 7 on a 3 year old T60 with the original Core Duo and 1GB of ram>

Good luck running Snow Leopard on a Powerbook from 2005, that although it might be fully capable of running 10.6, won't because Apple is dropping PPC support. On the other hand numerous PCs from 2005 will be capable of running 7, as it scales VERY well on lower end hardware such as netbooks.

I'm certainly not sure why you brought up this whole Powerbook thing, I never mentioned I had an old Apple Powerbook, in fact all my Macs are Intel Macs. Did you mean to quote someone else? Um, I don't think many PC's from 2005 will run Windows 7 very well unless they are highly supped up.

 

[SwiftLives]

The OS X Advantage really shines through for those who need to use multiple software apps simultaneously. From what I've seen so far, Windows 7 has made some significant strides toward application switching and useability.

It's amazing what feeling some heat and losing 5% of your marketshare can do for innovation.

Let's just hope Apple doesn't become complacent.

 

[FX120]

I'm certainly not sure why you brought up this whole Powerbook thing, I never mentioned I had an old Apple Powerbook, in fact all my Macs are Intel Macs. Did you mean to quote someone else? Um, I don't think many PC's from 2005 will run Windows 7 very well unless they are highly supped up.

I am using the Powerbook as an example of a Apple computer from late 2005 that will be incapable of running 10.6 because of planned obsolescence.

Becuase there are Windows computers from 2005 that will run 7 without problems. I was using my 3 year old T60 as an example, although technically I bought it in January of 2006... Just for ***** and giggles I tossed 7 on my desktop computer that I built in late 2003, a AMD Athalon XP 2800+, 1GB of RAM, and a ATi 9800 Pro. It wasn't the most insane machine back in the day, I think I put it together for around $1200. Windows 7 installed in about 25 minutes, and so far is running just as fast as it is on my T60, perhaps with better graphics performance though...