Windows 7: "The New Sexy" ?

[xxSpudxx]

Cant we all get a long? I have been using Windows for years. I am an MCSE. I mean I want a job that keeps me busy having to fix stuff right?

In all seriousness, Mac fell on hard times and just didnt produce the excellent visually and physical machines they do now. So Windows ruled the planet for a time.

I use Widows at work all day, and use my iMac at home and I am perfectly happy. Mac is coming back with a vengeance. I really think the iPhone brought a bunch of people over to give mac a try. Now folks realize the "it just works" attitude is correct.

As far as vista is concerned. Of course the windows fanboy's are happy with windows 7. The bought the equivalent of a Turd, while promised a better OS. Now they are givin a Brussels sprout. Now no one really likes brussel sprouts, but id rather eat that than a turd. At least brussel sprouts are healthy for you.

 

[eawmp1]

If Windows is the new sexy, I'm now celibate!

 

[tkermit]

I use Widows at work all day [...]

For what exactly ???

SCNR

 

[newcronos]

He has his neutral moments but I guess that's just to obscure his general bias.
I have to give it to him that his derision of Mac users can sometimes be pretty funny. I love the idea of coming up with a Switcher Guide (from Mac to Windows). It includes "Ending the smug".

From the above link:

"Hold on, hold on: I know what you're thinking. There goes Thurrott again, goading the all-too-easily-enraged ranks of Mac fanatics into a frothing anti-Windows frenzy. Relax, guys. Yes, you're fun to mess with, with your mock turtleneck sweaters and one-too-many leather hipster iPod cases. And yes, there's a certain schadenfreude-like pleasure in doing so..."

I think he got you all

 

[gilkisson]

Yeah, and this is the new sexy too...

View attachment 192003

I would say, "you ain't right" and let it go at that... except the same thought occurred to me. Yup, that little gal there is plain 'ol Windows Sexy. Yep.

 

[Rodimus Prime]

Seriously, I have 7 year old Apple laptops still working and in pretty good shape. I have PC's that are literally falling apart after 7 months.

To get comparable hardware that will last in a PC, you'll pay comparable dollars. That $ myth has been busted.

ummm I have a 5 year old PC sitting on my desk right now that is able to run windows 7 just fine. I paid 1500 for it when I built it. To get a mac at the time that match what my computer can do it would cost you over $3000. Also the macs from that time can not upgrade to snow leopord because it is all PPC.

This makes it worse because my PC is going to out last the macs from the same time. Sorry but that agrument is crap.

I just showed a case and point than you would have to pay over 2 times as much to get an apple that meets the same needs and requirements that I wanted.

 

[xxSpudxx]

For what exactly ???

SCNR

FAK yo typos!

 

[thequicksilver]

Windows 7 is a really nice looking OS. In some ways it rivals OSX, but simply because it has copied OSX and in some areas, improved. In terms of how easy it is to use, that's a different story. I still feel it lacks some of the polish that OSX does, but it definitely can stand on its own. Some things still feel very unintuitive and I'm still clicking too many times to get somewhere so it all feels very unnatural.

I'm not going to bother critiquing Thurrotts article, it's simply flame baiting. Any one who has used both will likely come to their own conclusions (perhaps that they're both very nice looking OSes, but the obvious difference is under the hood and in ease of use). While I will be bootcamping Windows 7, it's certainly not going to be my main OS and I don't see myself switching over to something that's merely becoming more like what I'm already using.

Great post. 100% agree as a Mac user who pre-ordered Windows 7.

 

[jav6454]

I forgot to say this in the last post.


> Implying Windows 7 is sexy

Does not compute...

 

[NT1440]

The Dock does waste a lot of space though. What are you doing with the pixels on the left and right of the dock? You could utilise them fully by making the dock bigger, but then it grows and cuts into the amount of free vertical space you have.

I like OS X far better than Windows, but I'm just saying that when people criticise the Dock in OS X, they do have a point. It would be better if they made the Dock elongated from edge to edge, just like the Windows taskbar. It could still be the Dock, but it would just be more efficient.



I really think Apple should just borrow elements of the Windows Taskbar (very few, mind you....), and MS should just borrow some elements from the Dock, and call that part of the OS a draw. It's one of the most important parts of the OS, and it really should be perfect, regardless of which OS you choose.

I keep dock on autohide, i lose 4 pixels.

 

[haravikk]

I've been using Windows 7 for a while now, mainly because it seems to be the only version of Windows I can actually get to run in a VM without destroying itself after a few weeks. So it's certainly improved stability somewhat.

The user interface is nice, but it's way back at OS X.0 nice, that is; it's all flash and bling, whereas OS X's interface has become less and less obtrusive and more toned down. As I understand Snow Leopard has maybe kicked up some dust on that statement with a load of extra animated stuff, I haven't installed my copy yet as I want to do a complete wipe but don't have a spare day to do that.

Anyway; I'd hardly call Windows 7 anything close to "sexy", aside from being, I dunno, human, and thereby never using that word to describe an operating system, it's IMO not that great an update. It's what Windows Vista should have been; it's more stable, faster, and easier to use, but it's ultimately still "good old" Windows 98 behind the scenes, and in many of its user-interface areas. They're still clinging onto the past for dear-life, and it really shows.

I'll grant that the touch-screen features are neat, but I've yet to see a device that really needs them, all I've seen is a demo which was nice but they're very "bleh". That is to say; they don't really do anything interesting, it's just like using a touch-screen from ten years ago, why do we need a new operating system for that? I certainly wouldn't pay $179 or whatever ridiculous price they want for a real version of it. If you ask me, Windows 7 is the OS that should be $29, I'd have paid more for Snow Leopard.

To conclude; if you have a netbook and have to have a modern version of Windows, or if you bought a laptop that came with Vista bundled, then Windows 7 is a worthy upgrade. But it's still miles behind OS X for the very simple reason that Microsoft are terrified of breaking compatibility to move forward, or changing any of the fundamentals of the GUI to make it truly easy to use/user-centric. They're just tacking on mostly irrelevant things that bring them a few steps closer to what OS X was several years ago.

 

[mbtalle]

I clicked on the posted link and read "WINDOWS SuperSite"... I then exited out of that window...

 

[windywoo]

I've been using Windows 7 for a while now, mainly because it seems to be the only version of Windows I can actually get to run in a VM without destroying itself after a few weeks. So it's certainly improved stability somewhat.

The user interface is nice, but it's way back at OS X.0 nice, that is; it's all flash and bling, whereas OS X's interface has become less and less obtrusive and more toned down. As I understand Snow Leopard has maybe kicked up some dust on that statement with a load of extra animated stuff, I haven't installed my copy yet as I want to do a complete wipe but don't have a spare day to do that.

Anyway; I'd hardly call Windows 7 anything close to "sexy", aside from being, I dunno, human, and thereby never using that word to describe an operating system, it's IMO not that great an update. It's what Windows Vista should have been; it's more stable, faster, and easier to use, but it's ultimately still "good old" Windows 98 behind the scenes, and in many of its user-interface areas. They're still clinging onto the past for dear-life, and it really shows.

I'll grant that the touch-screen features are neat, but I've yet to see a device that really needs them, all I've seen is a demo which was nice but they're very "bleh". That is to say; they don't really do anything interesting, it's just like using a touch-screen from ten years ago, why do we need a new operating system for that? I certainly wouldn't pay $179 or whatever ridiculous price they want for a real version of it. If you ask me, Windows 7 is the OS that should be $29, I'd have paid more for Snow Leopard.

To conclude; if you have a netbook and have to have a modern version of Windows, or if you bought a laptop that came with Vista bundled, then Windows 7 is a worthy upgrade. But it's still miles behind OS X for the very simple reason that Microsoft are terrified of breaking compatibility to move forward, or changing any of the fundamentals of the GUI to make it truly easy to use/user-centric. They're just tacking on mostly irrelevant things that bring them a few steps closer to what OS X was several years ago.

Quoted for fanboy ********. Saying Windows copies OSX is like saying car manufacturers copy each other by having 4 wheels. The taskbar is much easier to use than expose and the dock. I get frustrated constantly by OSX, not being able to see how many windows I have open at a glance. As someone else has said the Dock wastes space, not to mention the number of useless programs are on it by default. It defaults to a huge size as if its trying to cater to your Granny.

Here's some information that seems to be slipping by you. Your $29 Snow Leopard disc is subsidised by the hardware you paid a premium for. They can only afford to give you the software so cheaply because you have already paid extra for your Mac. MS doesn't sell hardware, it has to make its money on software, therefore the prices are higher. However, they did sell an initial batch at $49 (actually I don't remember the US price, the UK price was £49, usually the £/$ prices are the same) and there are pre-orders in Europe at £60.

As a gamer and therefore Windows user I find Thurrott fairly embarrassing, but no more embarrassing than the wankery these forums produce.

 

[NC MacGuy]

ummm I have a 5 year old PC sitting on my desk right now that is able to run windows 7 just fine. I paid 1500 for it when I built it. To get a mac at the time that match what my computer can do it would cost you over $3000. Also the macs from that time can not upgrade to snow leopord because it is all PPC.

This makes it worse because my PC is going to out last the macs from the same time. Sorry but that agrument is crap.

I just showed a case and point than you would have to pay over 2 times as much to get an apple that meets the same needs and requirements that I wanted.

a homebuilt desktop from 5 years ago???? Right. I bet its got a real spiffy $29 case with the left side duct taped shut, fans that sound like a lawnmower, and a power button you kind of have to wiggle a bit to catch. I know your type.

Not a valid comparison and your argument is utterly total crap. Historical comparisons aren't really valid since they were different platforms.

 

[317342]

Wait, what happened to the "Wow"?! I missed the Wow?

 

[Tom G.]

One thing I note he did not mention.

One thing I note that he did not mention in all his talk about how "Maclike" that Windows 7 is, is how much is it going to cost? I don't mean in dollars that is listed, but how much of your hard drive is it going to eat up.

As a long time Windows user before I came over from the dark side about a year ago, is the fact that every "upgrade" to Windows OS eats up more and more of your hard drive. I realize that previous upgrades of Leopard used more space, but Snow Leopard uses less. I once had the choice of purchasing a new hard drive to upgrade to XP because my computer at the time, which was supposed to be "XP Ready," turned out to not have enough hard drive, or not upgrading. I bought the hard drive.

Is Windows 7 going to do that, and when he talks about how easy it will load. All, and I do mean all, my experiences with upgrading Windows OS involved all day hair pulling finally going to the Geek Squad or some other IT types to get answers to problems that arose. With Snow Leopard I put the disk in and that was it.

I'm actually waiting to see the outcome when people start trying to load the program.

 

[steve2112]

Anyway; I'd hardly call Windows 7 anything close to "sexy", aside from being, I dunno, human, and thereby never using that word to describe an operating system, it's IMO not that great an update. It's what Windows Vista should have been; it's more stable, faster, and easier to use, but it's ultimately still "good old" Windows 98 behind the scenes, and in many of its user-interface areas. They're still clinging onto the past for dear-life, and it really shows.

I'll grant that the touch-screen features are neat, but I've yet to see a device that really needs them, all I've seen is a demo which was nice but they're very "bleh". That is to say; they don't really do anything interesting, it's just like using a touch-screen from ten years ago, why do we need a new operating system for that? I certainly wouldn't pay $179 or whatever ridiculous price they want for a real version of it. If you ask me, Windows 7 is the OS that should be $29, I'd have paid more for Snow Leopard.

Uh, no. Windows 7 does not use Windows 98. It's descended from the Windows NT family. I do agree that it is a cleanup of Vista, although the same could be said of Snow Leopard. The problem is Microsoft has to maintain backwards compatibility. They built their business model on corporate users, and those users would balk breaking compatibility. If they think they have problems getting corporate users to upgrade from XP, it would be even worse if the new version completely broke back compatibility. With that said, I would love to see them ditch the legacy stuff like the registry, but it just can't happen while they have such a huge market share. It's one of the things that delayed Vista for so long. Originally, it was going to have a completely new file system, but they had problems getting to work with older software.

As for cost: People forget that Apple is a hardware company that happens to have nice software. Microsoft is a pure software company (no, I'm not counting the XBox or their mice/keyboards). As windywoo pointed out, Apple has the luxury of subsidizing their software with hardware. The primary job of OSX is to sell hardware. The primary job of iTunes is to sell iPods. (At least, that's what Jobs said in the past.)

 

[djellison]

To get comparable hardware that will last in a PC, you'll pay comparable dollars. That $ myth has been busted.

No it hasn't. White Macbook - on it's second keyboard already, and THAt is actually shedding plastic.

Two PSU's on every mac laptop I've owned, they just don't last.

DL-DVI cable for UB-MB - doesn't work.

20+ Dell's, IBM's, HP's at work. No such problems. No such price-tag either.

 

[RedBarron]

I have been using Windows 7 for a few weeks now it's by far the best windows! I have it on my acer notebook and works very well. I would say usability and stability wise windows 7 and osx are very similar. As as for the price I got my for free though my university, they give us all sorts of software! I got Windows 7 professinal with a authentic cd key for free

One thing I would say for people that are expecting a huge UI change it's not that. It's more of a sleek and a lot better version of vista!

 

[NC MacGuy]

No it hasn't. White Macbook - on it's second keyboard already, and THAt is actually shedding plastic.

Two PSU's on every mac laptop I've owned, they just don't last.

DL-DVI cable for UB-MB - doesn't work.

20+ Dell's, IBM's, HP's at work. No such problems. No such price-tag either.

Zero replaced PSU's on 23 Apple laptops. Maybe it's something you're doing?

 

[Eraserhead]

It's better looking and more efficient than Mac, but it's also more Mac-like than any previous Windows version?

My brain hurts.

The same applied to Windows 95 .

It looks nice. Are they going to get this delivered before 2010?

Yes, its coming in October, its been gold master since July.

 

[RedBarron]

The RTM is already out

 

[duncyboy]

For what exactly ???

SCNR

LMAO!!!

I can't read anything that Thurrott guy posts. Not because he's anti-Mac or I'm anti-Windows but anyone with that zealous, self-righteous, blinkered, 'I'm-right-everyone-else-is-wrong' mentality about ANYTHING gets on my wick.

*Shudders*

 

[Melrose]

Seriously, I have 7 year old Apple laptops still working and in pretty good shape. I have PC's that are literally falling apart after 7 months.

Where I work we had an old Performa 250, and that thing ran like a horse. It was very basic, but ran faithfully day in and day out until they finally upgraded to new machines (Windows) that we've had trouble with. I take good care of my computers, so I can't say from experience that Windows stuff fall apart faster, but I find the Windows OS does 'fall apart' (or at least begin degenerating) within the first year or so.

 

[Cabbit]

Uh, no. Windows 7 does not use Windows 98. It's descended from the Windows NT family.

You missed that guys point there he/she never said it was built on the Windows 98 code base he/she stated that it was similar which from my reading of the post refers to the way the UI is laid out and how the buttons look which really have not changed much since Windows 98 though in contrast they changed drastically from OS9 to OSX and have been slowly changing on OSX since.