I am sitting at work reading this thread and a person behind me said.
Aint no way Windows 7 will make me swicth back, do you kno whow much the T@ts cost me.
I was afraid to turn around.
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.
Windows 7 = Windows vista + some service packs
10.6 = 10.5 with some updates.
See what i did there?
Vista also has Volume Shadow Copy, which is what powers the Previous Versions feature. I don't know if this is the same as the backup utility you speak of, though. Volume Shadow Copy is extremely useful - I have to wonder why Microsoft chose to enable it only in Business, Ultimate, and Enterprise editions of Vista.Vista has an incremental backup utility (performs auto backups just like time machine) that can be used to restore a new computer. In this respect, it's exactly the same as Time Machine.
However, the reason I like Time Machine better, is because of the user interface and how I can "browse through time." It's a much cooler way to recover files. More useful? Eh...probably not. But it's definitely visually impressive.
=|
It wasn't that it was hard to get a copy of the beta, but imagine what would happen to a web server that has literally millions of people accessing it every second. It got hammered. Now that the mad downloading rush has ended, the servers are loading much quicker, so you shouldn't have any troubles downloading it.That said, I will definitely get Windows 7, but not until it's ready for release. I'm not willing to beta test, especially after all the trouble you guys seem to have had just getting your copy.
Windows 7 = Windows vista + some service packs
Mac OS X Leopard = Mac OS X Cheetah + plus some additional service packsWindows 7 = Windows vista + some service packs
Well, I have two computers from 2004 that can run Windows Vista fine. Almost all professional reviews of the beta so far have stated that Windows 7 performs better than Windows Vista on the same hardware. Therefore, I have every reason to believe that my two computers from '04 that will eventually get upgraded to 7 will have few issues.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...
You're example is NOT a good example. Firstly, it's not about Apple's previous machines not being capable of running 10.6 it's Apple's decision to stop creating the OS to work with the old PowerPC architecture. Don't get ahead of yourself, the current OS, 10.6 runs on Macs back from 2002 and Tiger, 10.4 runs beautifully on Macs over 10 years ago. You can't say any of the above in terms of Vista and XP don't run well (or at all) on any PC over 10 years ago.
FX120 said: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.
10.6 = 10.5 with some updates.
See what i did there?
There are very few "completely new" operating systems, as making something completely new time and time again isn't practical. Apple had the Mac OS from 1984 all the way to 2000, at which point they released Mac OS X, which was completely new. Until Apple makes an OS 11 or something similar, all future Mac OS X releases will be evolutionary.well my point is its not really a completely new os, besides the look staying the same
10.6 = 10.5 with some updates.
See what i did there?
well my point is its not really a completely new os, besides the look staying the same
well my point is its not really a completely new os, besides the look staying the same
According to that theory apple hasnt released a 'new' OS since march 2001.
Vista Service Pack 1 and even 2 aren't going to be that significant compared to Windows 7 though.NEVERMIND JESUS MY POINT WAS WHY NOT JUST RELEASE A FEW MORE SERVICE PACKS FOR VISTA BUT NOO everyone has to be a dick about it. Just cause i said something completely wrong u have to call me a retard Not just the quote but everyone other fanboy.
Vista Service Pack 1 and even 2 aren't going to be that significant compared to Windows 7 though.
No need for the hate. If you don't agree, don't say anything. Voila. Problem solved.In my opinion windows can go **** itself and everyone stop being a smart ass, im not going to switch back and even if i do, im not going to pay for it.
NEVERMIND JESUS MY POINT WAS WHY NOT JUST RELEASE A FEW MORE SERVICE PACKS FOR VISTA BUT NOO everyone has to be a dick about it. Just cause i said something completely wrong u have to call me a retard Not just the quote but everyone other fanboy.
In my opinion windows can go **** itself and everyone stop being a smart ass, im not going to switch back and even if i do, im not going to pay for it.