Windows 7 high on system resources

[*LTD*]

Moron
Have you even used Ubuntu or Fedora Core? Brilliant free Distro's.
PC-BSD is also rather good.

Ubuntu breaks something critical with each upgrade. Like wireless. If you're using Ubuntu with an Acer notebook you're in for a wild ride. Fedora is fun if you've got plenty of patience and are ready to get into the command line to get things working. Trying to get basic things to work does not a good OS make. But that's Linux.

Linux is too much hassle for too little payoff. This has always been its problem. Then again, it's free. So you get what you pay for. It's fun if you want to tinker and play around with something different. There's no actual reason for the average consumer to use it, however, unless it's about money. But if you've already shelled out for hardware you might as well get a solid, consumer-centric and well-supported OS. Yes, that also means Windows.

I used Linux exclusively for about a year from March 2005 to April 2006. First Mandrake (back when it was called Mandrake), then PCLinuxOS (which was a very decent implementation of KDE - I went through two upgrades of it), and then Ubuntu along with various minimal distros like DamnSmallLinux, and Window managers like Fluxbox, etc. It was fun at first because it wasn't Windows. Then after a while you realize that the software available for these distros is just so BAD. Like, horrible. Hell, it made Windows look good!

in any event, I even got into customization. Check out my Fluxbox theme:

http://customize.org/fluxbox/themes/37856

I have no idea how it got that grey. Seems my CRT was messed up back then and I got the colour values all wrong.

My other Linux desktops (and some Winblows ones too):

http://customize.org/LTD/gallery

I've got a family member using Ubuntu Karmic at the moment. And they'll stay on that until they can get a Mac. Letting them touch Windows at their skill level is just asking for it. But Ubuntu has not been much better. Updating from Intrepid to Karmic was great. Was lots of fun trying to figure out how to get wireless working again by hunting down the backports and then reading through pages upon pages of possible "solutions", each more confusing than the other, and then finally by sheer accident (a week later) finding information on how to install those stupid backports via the command line and then pray it'll work. I found it on some obscure blog, about 20 pages into another painful Google search. Screw that bull**it. Who's got time for headaches like that? At least now I have a definite working version of Ubuntu for them to use, with backport installation instructions printed out and saved for future reference and a possible easy downgrade back to Karmic should Canonical **** the bed once again.

All in all that year I played around with Linux was a fun experience, but I could have gotten a Mac from the very start and avoided all the time-wasting. It was actually a relief to get back to using Windows for about a month until I finally got smart and bought a Mac again after a four-year hiatus. Now, everything else seems like absolute junk. The difference is astonishing.

 

[ArrowSmith]

I posted the story because I thought some would find it interesting - I have no opinions, negative or positive - other than what I originally posted.

( btw - I have never been impressed with any version of windows - I have always found the whole windows experience clunky and rather unpleasant. Unfortunately, my work dictates I have to use the crap day in, day out. )

I find the whole Mac OS X GUI experience rather clunky and unpleasant. So let's not mistake your opinion for FACTS.

 

[*LTD*]

I find the whole Mac OS X GUI experience rather clunky and unpleasant. So let's not mistake your opinion for FACTS.

OS X is generally regarded in the industry as the Gold Standard of operating systems. Apple interfaces are the envy of the industry. Everyone strives to make their interfaces more "Mac-like", including, of course, Microsoft.

Those are FACTS.

http://www.osnews.com/story/22480/Microsoft_Manager_We_Copied_the_Mac_OS_X_Look-and-Feel

http://thenextweb.com/2009/11/11/microsoft-admit-copied-apple/

http://www.maximumpc.com/article/news/microsoft_manager_we_copied_max_os_x

 

[roadbloc]

OS X is generally regarded in the industry as the Gold Standard of operating systems. Apple interfaces are the envy of the industry. Everyone strives to make their interfaces more "Mac-like", including, of course, Microsoft.

Those are FACTS.

No mate, those are OPINIONS! To a hardcore gamer, OS X isn't worth sh*t. I actually don't like the way I can't change the appearance of my Mac, to make it look a little but more Ubuntuish (I like orange). And I certainly do not apply Mac themes on my Windows machines. True- Microsoft may have copied OS X's GUI to an extent, but that does not alter people's opinions.

All opinions. Neither right, neither wrong, just personal preference. And I can tell, sir, certainly like your Macs.

I fear you may be living in the past in the terms of Linux. It has come a long way since 2005/06. We are now in 2010, and out of all the OS's, I'd say Ubuntu is the real winner. A huge collection a free and useful apps, simple and attractive GUI and stability in any situation. Of coarse, it cannot do my music production for me, but it is suitable for anything from a netbook to a top end PC, because of it's low footprint on system resources. Of coarse, DamnSmallLinux hasn't changed much, but it's amazing what you can do in just 50mb.

Cool themes btw, I may use some.

 

[*LTD*]

No mate, those are OPINIONS! To a hardcore gamer, OS X isn't worth sh*t. I actually don't like the way I can't change the appearance of my Mac, to make it look a little but more Ubuntuish (I like orange). And I certainly do not apply Mac themes on my Windows machines. True- Microsoft may have copied OS X's GUI to an extent, but that does not alter people's opinions.

All opinions. Neither right, neither wrong, just personal preference. And I can tell, sir, certainly like your Macs.

I fear you may be living in the past in the terms of Linux. It has come a long way since 2005/06. We are now in 2010, and out of all the OS's, I'd say Ubuntu is the real winner. A huge collection a free and useful apps, simple and attractive GUI and stability in any situation. Of coarse, it cannot do my music production for me, but it is suitable for anything from a netbook to a top end PC, because of it's low footprint on system resources. Of coarse, DamnSmallLinux hasn't changed much, but it's amazing what you can do in just 50mb.

Cool themes btw, I may use some.

Glad you like them, but I don't recommend using the Fluxbox one I've got there. Unless you want to change the colour values yourself to black and white, like I originally intended for it. Wow, I was way off on the colours there. I'm not sure whether that theme is still compatible with current versions of Fluxbox, but the graphics are are all there and they can probably be adapted.

The other ones are just desktops, but I made note of all the customizations. Some of the Windows XP themes are particularly interesting. The custo community grew a lot around 2002-2004, in terms of XP skinning. Some stuff you can't find around the web anymore (like the Exidge theme), but members there might have it in their personal collections.

 

[IntelliUser]

I actually don't like the way I can't change the appearance of my Mac...

Too bad you can.

A huge collection a free and useful apps

Free yes, useful no. They're just generally terribly ugly...

...too complicated and do everything clunkily. I mean just look at Cinelerra, the only real attempt at a professional video editing app. It looks like it was made in MS Paint. Definitely not at the level of a paid OS, as if they were in-your-face-ing the fact that you get what you pay for.

simple and attractive GUI

Lol, All I've seen are bad Windows-Mac OS X hybrids, or lame OS X wannabes. Nothing really original or attractive.

and stability in any situation.

You don't get more stability on Linux than you do on OS X.

Of coarse, it cannot do my music production for me, but it is suitable for anything from a netbook to a top end PC, because of it's low footprint on system resources.

Yeah, if you're really determined to use a high-end PC just for simple things like web browsing.

 

[roadbloc]

Too bad you can.

Erm... please explain how I can. I see no way of applying any themes in the system preferences. When I do a google search for Mac OS X themes and all I get is Mac OS X style themes for Windows.

 

[Soulstorm]

Responding to the original question, I should say this:

As much as I would love to badmouth Windows 7 (and I can do that, I have many things to say) I must defend it on this one.

I have seen that even in virtualization (Parallels and Fusion) windows 7 run much smoother than vista. In most cases, they are better than XP.

As much as memory consumption is concerned, let's compare it to OS X. We all know that OS X reserves physical RAM even if it doesn't use it all. When allocated but unused physical RAM is needed, it is allocated elsewhere, where it is needed. That's the way OS X works for many years now. Maybe windows has also converted to this memory management model as well.

But that does not mean necessarily that performance is affected. For me, in order to have a clear conclusion to the matter, I would like to see actual benchmarks for speed and usability on the same hardware, when doing common tasks like internet browsing, browsing a folder with many images, etc.

We should also see what windows 7 is doing with the allocated memory. Is all allocated memory needed at the same time for all programs? I would like to see a more in-depth memory management model review than the one the op gave us (no offense, and thanks to the op for the heads up).

 

[IntelliUser]

Erm... please explain how I can. I see no way of applying any themes in the system preferences. When I do a google search for Mac OS X themes and all I get is Mac OS X style themes for Windows.

http://is.gd/8O5Hu

You can change the dock, the icons, the menu bar (with ThemePark), the login background etc.

 

[MisterMe]

... True- Microsoft may have copied OS X's GUI to an extent, but that does not alter people's opinions.

All opinions. Neither right, neither wrong, just personal preference. And I can tell, sir, certainly like your Macs.

...

You post is an example of a growing problem--certainly in the USA and, I would guess, the World. Your assertion to the contrary notwithstanding, all opinions are not equal. Some opinions--many, in fact--are absolutely wrong. Others are just plain foolish. There is an old saying:

If 60,000 Frenchman say a foolish thing, then it is still a foolish thing.

IMHO, it is fine to to a Windows fan. It is fine to be a Linux fan. It is fine to be a Mac fan. However, it is foolish to ignore the strong points and weak points of each OS. None are perfect. Whichever OS we use on whichever hardware, we must choose and understand the limitations [and strength] of our choice. That's called being a grownup.

One of the strengths of the Mac is that it is a computer, not a hobby. Buy it, take it out of the box, make the necessary connections, and get to work. No worries about malware, maintenance, or fear of updates and upgrades.

Unfortunately, it appears that a few childish Windows fans can't find enough excitement on sites devoted to their favorite OS. I growing hoard are now invading this and other Mac fansites in futile attempts to slow the momentum of the Mac and other Apple products. It would be funny if it weren't so annoying.

 

[djellison]

It would be funny if it weren't so annoying.

It would be funny if it it were TRUE - but you'll find most of those who have criticism of OSX, and are left trying to bust some of the myths spread about Windows, are using BOTH platforms REGULARLY.

I am. Macbook, plus Windows Workstation.

I'm utterly utterly ambivolent about which I'm using. But it irks me when someone says something about Windows that I know not to be true. It also irks me when people say something about OSX that's clearly a fabrication.

 

[mac2x]

@ IntelliUser: Please use "timg" tags so your image doesn't stretch the page horizontally.

 

[roadbloc]

Unfortunately, it appears that a few childish Windows fans can't find enough excitement on sites devoted to their favorite OS. I growing hoard are now invading this and other Mac fansites in futile attempts to slow the momentum of the Mac and other Apple products. It would be funny if it weren't so annoying.

1. I do not have any Windows machine in my house. I have XP installed over VirtualBox just incase. I have a MacBook and a lovely pentium 4 tower with Ubuntu on it.

2. Just look at this. Windows Forums vs OS X forums. Way more forums about Windows.

3.

It would be funny if it it were TRUE

QFT.

 

[Eidorian]

I'd still like to know how they're defining memory usage. I usually don't have a lot of free RAM under Windows 7. It doesn't mean that I don't have available RAM though.

 

[IntelliUser]

It would be funny if it it were TRUE - but you'll find most of those who have criticism of OSX, and are left trying to bust some of the myths spread about Windows, are using BOTH platforms REGULARLY.

I find way more myths about Windows (And sometimes OS X) from Windows fans than from Mac ones. Yes, often Mac fans tend to exaggerate Windows facts, but they're still facts.

@ IntelliUser: Please use "timg" tags so your image doesn't stretch the page horizontally.

Thanks for the tip. Hope I can remember it in the future.

 

[djellison]

Yes, often Mac fans tend to exaggerate Windows facts, but they're still facts.
.

No - sorry - Mac fans have had a long held tradition of telling outright lies about Windows. I know, I've seen it. I know people who refuse, REFUSE, to use OS X because they see the outright lies told my Mac fanboys about the Windows platform they're used to and the only conclusion they can come to is 'If they're telling all these lies about Windows, there must be something fundamentally wrong with OS X'

I'm not joking - the single biggest barrier to entry for OS X for a HUGE number of people, is the revolting nature of the mac user community. I'd say it comes second only tt the price of the hardware.

 

[Winni]

Linux?? It's barely passable as a desktop OS, when it actually works. There isn't even any comparison between Linux and the OS X Experience.

Maybe folks like you should actually FIRST use Linux and Windows themselves for a while BEFORE making such completely unsubstantiated statements.

Ubuntu is at least on par with Windows 7 when it comes to user experience, and except for Quick Look it's also as good as Snow Leopard.

The availability of applications is a different story, and it actually is a story in which Mac OS X also doesn't shine as well you would like -- or nevertheless pretend. Mac OS X is a complete failure as a business or corporate platform, it has ZERO relevance as a server platform and especially for software development it is years behind the competition. Actually, writing code on a Mac is like going 20 years back in time.

When you leave Apple's own applications out of the loop, you will quickly ask yourself why you are using a Mac in the first place. To use the half-hearted Adobe ports of their Windows applications?

Download Ubuntu 9.10 64-Bit, run the live CD on your Mac and just focus on the platform itself. It won't take you long to realize that everything that makes OS X attractive as a software platform also is in Ubuntu. Only that Ubuntu is so much faster than Snow Leopard (and also Windows).

The development of Linux is so fast that you have to check almost daily if your statement from yesterday is still true. Ubuntu 10.4 is around the corner, and so are the next releases of openSuSE and Fedora Core. They are going to push the bar even higher and the way I see it, both Microsoft and Apple should begin to worry. Especially since desktop operating systems are becoming more and more irrelevant every day - and most of the alternatives out there are actually based on Linux (for example Android and Chrome OS). And big enterprise players like IBM and Oracle also have huge investments in Linux.

Apple has run out of innovations. Their latest releases didn't bring anything really now, and they have allowed the competition to catch up with them. From a technological perspective, I'd even say that even Microsoft is way ahead of them. 7 is a much more mature 64-Bit platform than OS X is, and that already begins with the fact that Windows can run a 64-Bit kernel on Apple hardware when Apple's own operating system cannot (like on my Mac Pro). Windows also is a much more capable network platform than OS X is, and it's also a leading server platform.

And I don't think I have to mention Linux here anymore: It was -born- on the Internet. If Linux is anything, then a full blown network platform.

Mac OS X just looks aesthetically nice and Apple's marketing department still manages to put all those fancy ideas about their "magical" products into the heads of their customers. But when you just focus on measurable facts, OS X very quickly doesn't look that good anymore.

 

[IntelliUser]

No - sorry - Mac fans have had a long held tradition of telling outright lies about Windows. I know, I've seen it. I know people who refuse, REFUSE, to use OS X because they see the outright lies told my Mac fanboys about the Windows platform they're used to and the only conclusion they can come to is 'If they're telling all these lies about Windows, there must be something fundamentally wrong with OS X'

I'm not joking - the single biggest barrier to entry for OS X for a HUGE number of people, is the revolting nature of the mac user community. I'd say it comes second only tt the price of the hardware.

Could you tell me some of those "outright lies"?

 

[Winni]

Ubuntu breaks something critical with each upgrade.

In my experience, that is something that OS X and Ubuntu have in common. So far, every "major" Mac OS X upgrade has been a disaster and it took them at least two subreleases to get it at least half-way right again.

And after every "major" upgrade, I've been asking myself: And where is all the great new stuff that made the upgrade worthwhile? Just like Microsoft, Apple is mostly just selling the same old stuff with a slightly different painting on it.

So you think Linux isn't worth all the efforts? From a desktop user perspective, this might indeed be the case. On the server, it's a completely different game. Linux gives you the one thing that only Open Source platforms can give you: Full and unconditional control over everything. And for the kind of servers that I set up in my company, this is as business critical as it gets. We cannot use off-the-shelf software and only run highly customized solutions - to the point where it would have been almost impossible to realize them without having a fully open platform.

Linux and other Open Source platforms are the reasons why companies like Yahoo (a FreeBSD shop) and Google could get into business. Heck, without BSD, there wouldn't even be a Mac OS X.

So, obviously, for many those platforms that you all condemn so quickly were well worth the efforts they put into them.

 

[IntelliUser]

The availability of applications is a different story, and it actually is a story in which Mac OS X also doesn't shine as well you would like -- or nevertheless pretend.

Really? Because at least Mac applications, 95% of the time are well written, beautifully designed and easy to use. Linux applications, 95% are a pile of stinking ****. Terribly designed and terribly difficult to use. I don't care how often they're updated, if they can't even provide a decent GUI.

Actually, writing code on a Mac is like going 20 years back in time.

This is utter BS.

When you leave Apple's own applications out of the loop, you will quickly ask yourself why you are using a Mac in the first place. To use the half-hearted Adobe ports of their Windows applications?

To get the security and stability of a UNIX OS without sacrificing compatibility?
To run applications which are actually a pleasure to use?
To run those "half-hearted Adobe ports" which actually run better on Mac OS X?
To enjoy using your OS? Yeah, why is it so strange? I don't like to consider a computer just a machine, I wanna enjoy using it. And neither Windows nor Linux do that.

It won't take you long to realize that everything that makes OS X attractive as a software platform also is in Ubuntu.

Not as long as I have to go through driver issues, lack of decent software and a decent UI. Sorry, that's everything but an OS X-like experience.

Only that Ubuntu is so much faster than Snow Leopard (and also Windows).

I agree on that, not that it is relevant to the final situation.

...both Microsoft and Apple should begin to worry. Especially since desktop operating systems are becoming more and more irrelevant every day - and most of the alternatives out there are actually based on Linux (for example Android and Chrome OS). And big enterprise players like IBM and Oracle also have huge investments in Linux.

With such little effort into making the OS itself and the applications user-friendly, I don't see Linux really getting some real market share in the consumer market
anytime soon.

From a technological perspective, I'd even say that even Microsoft is way ahead of them. 7 is a much more mature 64-Bit platform than OS X is, and that already begins with the fact that Windows can run a 64-Bit kernel on Apple hardware when Apple's own operating system cannot (like on my Mac Pro).

I'd say it's the reverse thing, considering that Mac OS X can run 64-bit apps even on the 32-bit kernel, best ratio compatibility-performance. Recent Apple hardware can run 64 bit.

Mac OS X just looks aesthetically nice and Apple's marketing department still manages to put all those fancy ideas about their "magical" products into the heads of their customers. But when you just focus on measurable facts, OS X very quickly doesn't look that good anymore.

You don't realize that being aesthetically nice and easy to use is very important for a desktop OS. See, OS X is between the ease of use and instability of Windows and the difficulty of use and stability of Linux. It's in the sweet spot.



One thing I'll agree with: Linux is great for servers. Actually, considering it's free and very capable, it's arguably the best OS for that. But when it comes to desktop computing, it's simply not good enough for most of the people.

 

[mac2x]

[...]



Thanks for the tip. Hope I can remember it in the future.

No problem, mate! Saves a lot of grief with the moderators if the board supports the tag.

Really? Because at least Mac applications, 95% of the time are well written, beautifully designed and easy to use. Linux applications, 95% are a pile of stinking ****. Terribly designed and terribly difficult to use. I don't care how often they're updated, if they can't even provide a decent GUI.



This is utter BS.



To get the security and stability of a UNIX OS without sacrificing compatibility?
To run applications which are actually a pleasure to use?
To run those "half-hearted Adobe ports" which actually run better on Mac OS X?
To enjoy using your OS? Yeah, why is it so strange? I don't like to consider a computer just a machine, I wanna enjoy using it. And neither Windows nor Linux do that.



Not as long as I have to go through driver issues, lack of decent software and a decent UI. Sorry, that's everything but an OS X-like experience.


I agree on that, not that it is relevant to the final situation.


With such little effort into making the OS itself and the applications user-friendly, I don't see Linux really getting some real market share in the consumer market
anytime soon.


I'd say it's the reverse thing, considering that Mac OS X can run 64-bit apps even on the 32-bit kernel, best ratio compatibility-performance. Recent Apple hardware can run 64 bit.




You don't realize that being aesthetically nice and easy to use is very important for a desktop OS. See, OS X is between the ease of use and instability of Windows and the difficulty of use and stability of Linux. It's in the sweet spot.



One thing I'll agree with: Linux is great for servers. Actually, considering it's free and very capable, it's arguably the best OS for that. But when it comes to desktop computing, it's simply not good enough for most of the people.

These are my thoughts exactly.

 

[*LTD*]

OS X upgrades DO NOT break basic functionality across the board and leave everyone hanging for months on end. If you have an Acer notebook and you upgraded to Karmic from an earlier version of Ubuntu, you were screwed. Guaranteed. Broken wireless. For everyone. And developers could happily sit around and do nothing because no one is really accountable.

This kind of incompetence is most certainly not characteristic of Apple. When it does happen, it's so outside the norm that the tech news is all over it the next day and everyone stands around in complete shock. The exception proves the rule. You can spout away to the contrary all you want, but prevailing industry opinion, Microsoft's extreme Apple envy, and #1 in Customer Satisfaction ratings for Macs several years running say otherwise.

Maybe Germany exists in some parallel universe, but in North America Apple's reputation is solid. For around a decade now. When all those satisfaction numbers, record sales in a recession, and swooning industry opinion change, I guess *then* we can take a long hard look at OS X's professed strengths.

Until then, anyone who thinks a free OS can ever trump a for-pay solution in the consumer market needs to get their head examined. Linux technologies are nice, but only really work for the consumer when an actual, financially-accountable organization with some leadership brings it all together. One vision. One clear plan, uniform and accountable. With a paid workforce, fer crissakes, and clear rules about who can and cannot play with the code.

You get what you pay for.

 

[AppleMatt]

Fight fight fight!

AppleMatt (being helpful)

 

[MisterMe]

No - sorry - Mac fans have had a long held tradition of telling outright lies about Windows. I know, I've seen it. I know people who refuse, REFUSE, to use OS X because they see the outright lies told my Mac fanboys about the Windows platform they're used to and the only conclusion they can come to is 'If they're telling all these lies about Windows, there must be something fundamentally wrong with OS X'

I'm not joking - the single biggest barrier to entry for OS X for a HUGE number of people, is the revolting nature of the mac user community. I'd say it comes second only tt the price of the hardware.

On which planet does this happen? Certainly not on Earth.

I have been a Mac user for 21 years and an owner for the last 20. I know other Mac users and owners. I know a lot more Windows users. I also know what happens in the computer section of retail stores.

Your feelings are hurt by the the occasional Mac user who teases you? Flip it around and multiply by 1000. You people run IT. I'm old enough to remember when you had to be smart to work in IT. Microsoft changed that. Now idiots run IT. The idiots in IT are just like idiots in every other department.

They promulgate idiotic IT policies. They say idiotic things. If a Mac is on the network and the network has a problem, then these idiots assume that the Mac is the source of all of their problems. Of course, the wage slaves who run Windows call IT for help every two minutes. Everywhere that I have worked, the Mac users support ourselves and each other in the rare events that support is needed.

What of our co-workers? When those who run Windows see a Mac user on his/her computer, they try to force us to justify our choice. If 90% of the enterprise is running Windows, then many of them try to coerce the other 10% to convert to Windows. "Different! Bad! Ugh!"

Then there are the retail stores. I have only ever purchased one Mac from a retail store. The store specialized in Macs. Walk into many retail stores with Macs for sale and the ask the salesperson about buying a Mac. If the store does not have a section dedicated to Macs, then the salesperson will like try to pawn-off a Windows PC instead.

The reason is simple. Mac buyers walk out the front door and are never seen again. Windows PC buyers walk out the front door, but soon return for help or additional hardware. Not all Windows users return for help or additional hardware. However, enough of them return for it to make a substantial difference on the salespeople's commissions.

You Windows users keep telling yourself that it is we Mac users who are the problem. If it makes you feel better about yourselves, then I am willing to let it go.

 

[*LTD*]

^^^^

I don't see how Mac users are the problem when it's Mac users that are saving the industry.