Windows 7 is actually pretty nice, now worried about Mac

[thatrandomguy]

Loved your thoughtful posts above!

Thanks!

However, the converse is also true here. Since Mac OS X is Unix, it runs a buttload of great open source stuff that often has no equivalent in Windows. Depends on your needs I guess.

I wish Adium was on Windows. Pidgin's interface is so relatively spartan...resource usage is the same, and Adium uses the libpurple libraries from Pidgin anyways, so same service compatibility...

I'm sure there are other great programs on the Mac. But the reality is that Windows, in my experience, has programs I need and works well. I'm very comfortable around the OS.

And that's the cool part about capitalism, right? You can buy what you like and I can buy what I like.

Or I could be a filthy pirate. YARRRRRR!

(Just kidding, Macrumors. I license my software properly ) )

 

[Fraaaa]

Let's say that Microsoft stated tomorrow that only Microsoft PCs will run Windows. Yeah, they'll be a bit more expensive, and there won't be many models. But they'll run well. In other words, MS pulls an Apple in the regard we're talknig about.

I think that actually they should even if I will not buy their products.

If MS would stop producing Windows ALL the PC industry would get stucked.
And people should have go find other PC OSes which are definitely not confident with.

Also they could deliver Windows OS and Windows PCs.

This is the one thing that Apple doesn't do and also one of the reason why MS took the "whole" PC market. If would say Apple introduced they're OS to PC market probably MS wouldn't have been that big now, mostly for the different user experience that they can give. On the other and probably would have had buggy OSes like MS had during these years.

Anyway having your own PC company and make your OS available also influences your company too much giving yourself too much competition and probably get scarred and have a business flaw.

 

[MisterMe]

... Apple made a profit on that boxed copy of Snow Leopard ....

You are simply wrong about that. Apple subsidizes its operation systems via hardware sales. Most people who purchased Snow Leopard separately paid $29 US for it. Have you priced an operating system lately? Do you honestly believe that Snow Leopard is cheaper to produce than Windows 7? Price-out OpenSTEP. Compare it to any version of MacOS X. The difference is that OpenSTEP did not have Apple's hardware subsidy.

 

[MadeTheSwitch]

.

It just gets slower and slower to a point of being crap.

Meanwhile, my Win 7 machine is still snappy after 5 months , my XP netbook is crisp and awesome after 18 months.

Of course, I'm often told (within a paragraph of being told the Registry on Windows is pure evil) to 'repair my permissions'. Done it. Done it a dozen times. No change.

Stop pretending OSX is some magical cure-all for computing. It really really really isn't.

Stop pretending that your experience is common. Just because OSX is giving you a problem on YOUR machine, doesn't mean that everyone else has this issue. In fact, quite the contrary. Your experience is the exception rather then the norm if you read up on what people say.

Here's yet another example for you: After a year and a half, my mac-mini is as fast as the day if came home.

 

[djellison]

Your experience is the exception rather then the norm if you read up on what people say.

Here's yet another example for you: After a year and a half, my mac-mini is as fast as the day if came home.

Not Machine. Machines. Three separate machines over three years. One has been given to someone else...guess what, 12 months down the line, they're saying the same thing as me.

My experience, without fail, across the board, has been that Mac's slow down over time as much if not more than Win PC's do.

 

[*LTD*]

Not Machine. Machines. Three separate machines over three years. One has been given to someone else...guess what, 12 months down the line, they're saying the same thing as me.

My experience, without fail, across the board, has been that Mac's slow down over time as much if not more than Win PC's do.

Your experience is certainly not the norm, not to mention that your story stretches the seams of plausibility a little too much.

Unix cron maintenance scripts cannot run when the machine is asleep. These scripts do a lot of important maintenance work, from cleaning out junk files, to preventing disk and file fragmentation, etc. If these scripts are allowed to run regularly there is no reason whatsoever for OS X to slow down over time.

 

[Melrose]

My experience, without fail, across the board, has been that Mac's slow down over time as much if not more than Win PC's do.

I've found completely the opposite. My Macintoshes are running very smoothly three years later, whereas (all) my Windows machines were like a beached whale within 8 months.. Someone told me it was "the way I used Windows" but, while I'm not a technician, I certainly knew my way around using them appropriately and keeping up with (at times advanced) maintenance. It's too bad you've had bad experiences with Macs, for whatever reason.

 

[thatrandomguy]

You are simply wrong about that. Apple subsidizes its operation systems via hardware sales. Most people who purchased Snow Leopard separately paid $29 US for it. Have you priced an operating system lately? Do you honestly believe that Snow Leopard is cheaper to produce than Windows 7? Price-out OpenSTEP. Compare it to any version of MacOS X. The difference is that OpenSTEP did not have Apple's hardware subsidy.

I'll keep it brief

Under the technical definition of profit, the CD costs about ~$2 to make. Even if you are pretty generous and assume he uses ~$5 in bandwidth over the years, that's still $23.

Obviously there are other costs distributed among every copy. The economy of scale is millions of dollars of investment into the OS X codebase.

Now, on that individual copy, they made a profit on the balance sheet.

If people stop buying macs and hackintosh...they lose money because they cannot sell enough copies to distribute the investment on the codebase.

My argument is, that despite his violation of the EULA (which, if you read the judgment, is why Psystar lost on so many infringement counts), and despite whatever ethical position you may take, he bought a system that Apple had no alternative for, and would have given up Mac OS before he gave up the netbook (He dual boots with an MSDNAA copy of Windows 7.) Therefore, on that one copy - where it did not affect the sale of a mac- buying the boxed copy certainly made Apple money, while not buying would have given them nothing.

Now, you may argue, if he didn't buy a netbook, he may have bought a Macbook.

But he owned a Macbook, he owned a Mac Mini, and an iMac. He wanted the netbook for the size.

Again, this ONLY holds true in cases where it would not have affected the sale of a Mac- which I'm sure Psystar and hackintoshing in general has affected. If it weren't such a pain in the ass (especially with hardware compatibility), Apple would be in trouble.

 

[MisterMe]

I'll keep it brief

Under the technical definition of profit, the CD costs about ~$2 to make. Even if you are pretty generous and assume he uses ~$5 in bandwidth over the years, that's still $23.

Obviously there are other costs distributed among every copy. The economy of scale is millions of dollars of investment into the OS X codebase.

Now, on that individual copy, they made a profit on the balance sheet.

...

You are making no sense at all. The cost of production for MacOS X is a lot more than the few cents for the plastic, cardboard, and ink required to produce the shrinkwrap box. You can't just wave your hand and make those cost disappear.

 

[mac2x]

I'll keep it brief

Under the technical definition of profit, the CD costs about ~$2 to make. Even if you are pretty generous and assume he uses ~$5 in bandwidth over the years, that's still $23.

Obviously there are other costs distributed among every copy. The economy of scale is millions of dollars of investment into the OS X codebase.

Now, on that individual copy, they made a profit on the balance sheet.

[,,,]

What about all the dev work? It's more than just the packaging.

 

[thatrandomguy]

You are making no sense at all. The cost of production for MacOS X is a lot more than the few cents for the plastic, cardboard, and ink required to produce the shrinkwrap box. You can't just wave your hand and make those cost disappear.

I'm going to repeat myself. In bold.
Again, this ONLY holds true in cases where it would not have affected the sale of a Mac- which I'm sure Psystar and hackintoshing in general has affected. If it weren't such a pain in the ass (especially with hardware compatibility), Apple would be in trouble.

The guy owns several Macs, including a Macbook. He wanted a very small, very portable, cheap machine. Between Mac OS and the netbook (a field Apple has chosen not to compete in), he would have given up Mac OS first to get the netbook (but he had no qualms about hackintoshing).

His choices are:

• He buys a netbook, buys OS X, and installs it.
  Result: Apple does not gain the substantial portion of the money from a Mac, but the boxed copy is not sold at a loss for the materials. He cannot get support for the OS by phone or in store. He uses some bandwidth, which Apple buys in bucketloads from Akamai for cheap.
• He buys a netbook, pirates OS X, and installs it.
  Result: Apple does not make any profit whatsoever and loses some bandwidth (some $) on updates.
• He buys a netbook and installs Windows, some other OS, etc. on it.
  Result: Apple is completely unaffected

Other than bandwidth (which he paid for with the boxed copy- those costs aren't going to eliminate all profit), he doesn't cost Apple money.

However, this doesn't hold true in cases where the purchase of a Mac was not made as a result of hackintoshing, in which case Apple is less able to distribute the static, large cost of developing the codebase over many people.

 

[thatrandomguy]

What about all the dev work? It's more than just the packaging.

This is the problem I get. No one ever reads my posts in full.

I acknowledged this fully, since the purchase of the machine did not prevent the sale of a Mac (he would have run Windows 7 instead of not using a netbook, and owns several macs) and it doesn't work if everyone hackintoshes either

 

[mac2x]

This is the problem I get. No one ever reads my posts in full.

[...]

Hehehe, that's the downside of such voluminous writing, particularly on the 'net. I'll re-read.

 

[thatrandomguy]

Hehehe, that's the downside of such voluminous writing, particularly on the 'net. I'll re-read.

Thanks

Believe me, I know about the Economies of Scale in Software. There's more to software than the packaging - somebody has to develop all that crap, and I've never seen a dev on an imaginary computer, nor have I found support staff that work for free, etc.

However, since he wanted to use a netbook, he could have bought OS X, pirated OS X, or not used OS X at all. The latter makes Apple some money but does little for those larger costs, while the latter two make Apple no money (with pirating OS X costing some bandwidth in updates) and do nothing to the dev costs either.

If he had chosen to hackintosh over buying a Mac- say, he hackintoshed a midtower instead of buying a Mac Pro - he would have impaired Apple's ability to spread those development costs among their customers, and if enough people did it, OS X would be unsustainable.

Luckily Apple has many satisfied users who want to use OS X and are willing to pay a premium for hardware that runs it well, without hassle, and legally.

EDIT: I'm rambling again, I have a tendency for diatribes...

 

[Dooger]

You are making no sense at all. The cost of production for MacOS X is a lot more than the few cents for the plastic, cardboard, and ink required to produce the shrinkwrap box. You can't just wave your hand and make those cost disappear.

What about all the dev work? It's more than just the packaging.

How can you two not grasp randomguy's argument? It's crystal clear to me, did you even read his post?

Nice piece about the development of vista by the way. I'll stick with OSX myself but it's good to get another perspective.

 

[MisterMe]

How can you two not grasp randomguy's argument? It's crystal clear to me, did you even read his post?

...

Indeed his argument is crystal clear. Its clarity, however, does nothing to diminish its stupidity.

 

[Dooger]

Indeed his argument is crystal clear. Its clarity, however, does nothing to diminish its stupidity.

I'm neither condemning nor condoning. I simply don't care. Maybe you should adopt my approach, it helps keep the blood pressure down.

 

[johnhw]

Well, I had XP and totally inlove with it, bashing Mac OS X all the time, well, when I tried Leopard, I was amazed, left XP.

Windows 7 is nice tho, I agree.

 

[macinside]

What's funny with me is that now that I'm used to the Mac User eXperience, including their hardware, I can't even use Windows 7 on an actual PC without major frustration.

Using it on my MAC, though, the lovely trackpad makes it a lot easier! Even kinda nice, ha! Thus, I'm sort of locked out of buying an actual PC to run Windows. No $ savings or extreme graphics card for me, unfortunately, until the PC world leans how to make simple stuff like workable trackpads!

All that said, Windows 7 has certainly sped up.

What's kind of gross, is that MS is still kinda tasteless in the looks department. The little icons always on the bottom, for instance, are absolutely hideous. What are they thinking when they release mainstream software where major UI components were drawn by a random accountant, or taken from a clipart disc made in 1981.

For something that 100 million users see constantly, every single day of their lives, you figure MS could've hired Iconfactory or some other skilled shop to actually make beautiful, congruent buttons for the thing. The way MS leaves their products with an unfinished amateur look really baffles me, when it would only take maybe $10k to $20k of work to take the entire OS to the next level of consistency of interface.

If shareware authors can invest in making make elegant user interfaces, so can MS for the love of god.

Regardless of the that issue, at least there's no real performance issues like there was with Vista. Windows 7 is pretty snappy on my macbooks and Mac Pro. Not so much, ironically, on the beefy (on paper) Sony FW notebook that MS themselves were advertising on TV heavily in 2009! (and, of course, the trackpad and keyboard are crap on it, and the notebook literally began falling to pieces within about a week -- starting at the power junction... whilst my macbooks, even my old 15" with the real keyboard, look just about like new!)

Again, it's Windows 7 on Mac hardware for me. Strange, and not the way I'd like it, but true!

 

[Bytor65]

This laptop is my first real experience with Windows 7 and I have to say that I am mighty impressed so far. Its pretty simple to use, non-intrusive, stable. The laptop is not even comparable to anything in Apple's lineup but im sure the Mac equivalent would cost at least $300 more.

All of this has made me wonder if Apple is in trouble with their computer lineup. Vista was a big opportunity for Apple and they capitalized with increased market share. Is this going to continue if Windows 7 impresses? I am questioning my own need to spend the premium on a Mac now that I have found Windows 7 comparable for less money.

Does anyone else feel this way? I have been such a fan of my Mac that I this is actually bothering me.

As an outsider(to Apple), I don't get the big worry about Win7 (which I am using).

I find it more intrusive and annoying (UAC) than XP which I came from. I don't find it any more stable, because XP was extremely stable for me.

The big Hail Mary for Win7 seems to be that it isn't the huge screwup that Vista was.

IMO Apple success is about the SW/HW integration. Not just about OSX.

I come from an extensive UNIX background (SW dev in UNIX), so I would love to use a good UNIX based OS at home (Linux is just too Flakey).

It isn't OSX that stops me from buying a Mac, it is the HW choices. I don't want to All-in-one computer. I want a separate Box and Monitors.

The Apple Options: Mini or Pro. WTF??? That is no choice at all. So I built a PC more powerful than a Pro for a Mini like price. This is what will forever hamper desktop growth, not a decent new Microsoft OS.

If Apple were actually interested in mac desktop market share, they could plug this Mac Truck size hole. But I don't think Apple cares about Desktop market share. Jobs likely sees the future as mobile and will concentrate resources on Laptops/phones/pads. In Laptops I think Apple is at least competitive, there is a a premium, but it isn't huge when you compare like to like.

 

[lordlemon]

This is a great place for me to visit as I need to understand more of this. Thanks for the tips.

 

[maflynn]

I find it more intrusive and annoying (UAC) than XP which I came from. I don't find it any more stable, because XP was extremely stable for me.

I'm finding the UAC less intrusive in win7 then in vista, so MS certainly did tone it down.

IMO Apple success is about the SW/HW integration. Not just about OSX.

Agreed, and its ease of use. Just compare how you setup an airport base station to a linksys router.

I come from an extensive UNIX background (SW dev in UNIX), so I would love to use a good UNIX based OS at home (Linux is just too Flakey).

When I using win7, I missed the unix terminal, but I don't find linux too flakey. Ubuntu is stable and fairly polished, fedora is more cutting edge and you get to learn a lot.

It isn't OSX that stops me from buying a Mac, it is the HW choices. I don't want to All-in-one computer. I want a separate Box and Monitors.

The Apple Options: Mini or Pro. WTF??? That is no choice at all. So I built a PC more powerful than a Pro for a Mini like price. This is what will forever hamper desktop growth, not a decent new Microsoft OS.

Same here, at one point MBPs were on par albeit expensive with other laptop makers. I think their GPU selections have not been the best. They finally used desktop parts for iMac, so if you wish you can get an i5/i7 but their macpro line is long in the tooth, they update this line infrequently and its too expensive. I can build out a i7 desktop machine that rivals the MacPro for under a thousand bucks, the MP is 2,500, a difference of 1,500 bucks.

If Apple were actually interested in mac desktop market share

You've hit the nail on the head. Apple has long dropped interest in the desktop market. First they focused a lot of time and attention on the laptops, then with the iPod/iPhone/iPad they seem to be losing interest in the laptop line as well. Just look at how long it took to update the MBP and lack of features they failed to update. iPad = IPS panel, MBP = TN panel.

They've been calling themselves a mobile device company, so you can see the word computer has been shoved in the background

 

[Oblivian92]

Some people on the boards are such die-hards! Windows isn't "taking down" Apple. Windows has almost 90% of the market share for OS's! If anything, Apple is the one who needs to "take back". I like to think I'm neutral in the whole Microsoft v. Apple thing so believe me when I say Apple really isn't trying too hard in the PC market. Apple is very far behind in the market and don't see it worth fighting over now that they have such a strong hold over the phone and mp3 player market. I think not trying to catch up right now and focusing on their strengths is a good idea, but other companies are not taking the same approach. Windows will be releasing Windows Phone 7 which could very well be on par with the iPhone OS if they actually try and put out something great (like they did with Windows 7). Many new OS's are emerging for phones with App Stores in order to try to match Apple's success with it. I think competition is a good thing and may very well help change Apple's policies that were put in place while they monopolized the market. Android has tons of great apps, and may very well catch up to the app store. The future of WebOS (personally, I think it's the best OS, but the hardware needs some serious work) is looking much brighter after the buyout. I think we all need to calm down and open our minds to possibilities other than what we already know. Stop crying when someone disagrees with you about which is the superior OS, and don't use childish tactics to get your way. You just end up looking pathetic. Apple is picking up in the market, but it is just normal increase that should happen over time for any good OS. Windows doesn't need to take over, it has been king for a while. Whether they deserve it is your opinion, but I believe Windows 7 is superior to Snow Leopard is a lot of ways.

 

[Gomff]

Windows 7 is OK....It's certainly better than Microsoft's previous VMWare plugin....Vista I think it was called.

 

[neiltc13]

I've been using Windows 7 on my 2009 Mac Pro since the RC went live last year. I upgraded to the full version of Home Premium when it became available and I'm very happy with where it is.

The thing that it makes me wonder is that with such a great operating system available to install on any hardware, what reason is there to spend the huge premium buying a Mac any more?

The reason I moved from Windows XP to OS X in 2005 was because Windows was a mess and OS X Tiger was incredible (still the best OS ever released IMO). Now it seems to be the opposite that is true - Windows has sorted out ALL of the problems I had with it before (it's now completely secure and far, far more stable than Snow Leopard in my experience) and Apple has been making steps backwards with the two releases of OS X since I switched.

At the same time as all this was happening, hardware makers like Dell, Lenovo and HP were improving and improving and improving. I'm very impressed with the build quality of modern Dell machines and I'm fortunate enough to use a Lenovo system on a daily basis which is equally impressive.

The only reason I can see that anyone would still buy a Mac is for the build quality and materials. They're still ahead of everyone here IMO, but is this REALLY worth paying so much extra for?

Example (I tried to match the specifications of the systems as closely as possible):

MacBook Pro 15"
2.4GHz Intel Core i5
4GB RAM
500GB HDD
NVIDIA GeForce GT 330M with 256MB

$1899

Dell Inspiron 15
2.23GHz Intel Core i5
4GB RAM
500GB HDD
512MB ATI Mobility Radeon HD 4330

$829

Apple's system is $1070 more expensive. Is a fancy metal case really worth that much more?