Windows 7 is good!

[fangpyre]

To be fair, the biggest point for Windows 7 is to do that.
The difference, of course, is Apple did it in a year, and OSX is already the bench mark they are trying to compete with.

[ultrablue662]

military intelligence
free society
fair trading
peaceful religion
smart republican
...
good windows.

You see where I was going. Nuff Said.

[hakka]

2 fangpyre

Windows Vista surpass OSX few years ago and with Windows 7 the gap grew even more. Yes OSX looks pretty flashy etc...but not ready for REAL work. I'm talking about outdated iWork which is barely comparable to Office 2007 (office for mac does not have many components from windows version), iLife is good for housewives maybe... ; technology wise windows 6,7 has so many improvements over OSX - in every aspect. For example, OSX is not scalable - take any Windows server - put more CPU, more memory = get more horsepower. Take Apple server - more memory (funny its up to limit of 32GB) - still same performance, more CPU- even more crazy - OSX does not know what to do with it. )) And I can continue you know...

Its not correct to compare even this two VERY different systems. Different market share, different markets even. Windows going towards perfect business system. OSX going toward perfect home system.

Home users dont ask too much - they dont need to know about Differntial compression, ActiveX signatures, and so on They need to run browser to spam on Facebook, check email and be able to run a few games. And this is what OSX can do for sure...

OSX is only good for desktop and for everyday home/fan use. And sales illustrates exactly that. Business still prefer buggy but very well supported Windows.

IMHO

[hakka]

2 Abbas

Since Windows 6 (Vista) family Microsoft introduces a lot of new API for programmers. I talking about people who do SYSTEM programming not about army of script-lovers in PHP/Perl/Python etc. Vista introduce .Net3 as part of standard platform, new model of drivers, levels of protection, virtualized registry and file system for each user. This is sandboxing concept that most antivirus programs rely on. It was very unique in OS design.

Vista even in SP1 still collect and send tons of reports to microsoft about everything and getting automatic scripts to self-improve. In Windows 7 this concept grow even further. So a lot of tools for windows become useless straight after that step - various registry cleaners, defragmentation and optimization tools...etc etc... Implementing internal antivirus and startup check make even more companies angry of Vista ))

And the war begin. War of Vista vs. PR and media. You know in modern world all of these "independent" reports on many forums/blogs/magazines are not REALY independent. Whoever is paying, have a right to publish THEIR version of reality. There are plenty of places where you can get such people to make reviews and submit articles and messages in forums relatively cheap.

Then started mass effect, when more and more people start to say the same thing, telling it to friends and share over internet. Microsoft loose that war. They were smart enough to try again - check the Mojave experiment (Windows Vista: Mojave Experiment) and you will see how much bad PR surrounds Vista.

Windows 7 is just another try for the same thing. Good luck then

[venky83]

OSX is only good for desktop and for everyday home/fan use. And sales illustrates exactly that. Business still prefer buggy but very well supported Windows.

IMHO

I disagree with you, we helped a client of ours transition from Windows to a Mac only environment with a Mac Pro running Leopard Server connected to 200 macs (90-10 split of iMacs & (MB+MBPs+MBAs))

The reason why businesses still buy Windows is they dont understand the true cost of running Windows. In fact, the cost of setting up Leopard Server which comes with unlimited client accesses + an easy to install mail server, calendar, wiki & chat server that if you compare with the cost of dealing with the complex licensing issues that Windows, Exchange (mail + calendar), SharePoint (wiki+chat) in addition to the cost of acquiring client access license for all.

Based on our study, we found that the entire transition to macs SAVED our client 20% in year 1 alone. Combined with less outages and less maintenance needed for Leopard server compared to Windows, the estimated ROI is 2.5 years which is pretty good.

[fangpyre]

Hakka,
You have your right to your opinion.
But look at the facts and numbers.
Google is the world's biggest Mac user.
Sun use a strong portion of Macs.
Do you think they use it for iLife to organize their pictures?

If Apple was targeting home users, they would have focused on games.
And there wouldn't be a server edition.

You complain about a maximum 32GB of RAM when all Windows Servers take a maximum of 32GB, with the exception of Data Center which takes 64GB.
But its typical of a Windows user to ask for more resources.
That's because Windows is so heavy and bulky.

However, Data Center doesn't make any sense really.
Since anybody who needs it will use Unix, probably Solaris, including Microsoft.
What?!!! Microsoft doesn't use Microsoft?!!
Yes, its true.
Because Microsoft knows the truth about its OS.

Scalable is a marketing term that really doesn't mean much anymore.
Its like when a car company is happy they have seatbelts in their cars.
Everybody does it.
OSX even has a "scalable UI"!!

You are happy that Vista got sandboxing.
A concept that is part of Unix since the early 70s, and has always been a part of OSX.
.Net doesn't offer anything that can't be done elsewhere, except for 1 thing, lock in users to Windows.

Microsoft constantly cries like a little baby that the media did this.
And its all the media's fault.
So why wasn't MS able to buy the media with all the money they have?
Why didn't the insane campaign that they did change the media's mind?
Why is that same media saying Windows 7 is good now?
Are they lying again, now?
Why is it that the Vista's success was mainly in homes?

I know what I am talking about Vista and Windows.
I am an MCSE.
I have built very large systems.
Windows has its benefits, I don't deny that.
But when it came to a mission critical data, it never went on a Windows machine.
Regardless of the customer.

I know nothing I say will change your opinion.
But I can promise you nobody here will willingly go to Windows.
I can tell you are the kind of person that loves tinkering around and fixing things.
I am sure you will have a long and happy relationship with Windows.

[Magnus]

I disagree with you, we helped a client of ours transition from Windows to a Mac only environment with a Mac Pro running Leopard Server connected to 200 macs (90-10 split of iMacs & (MB+MBPs+MBAs))

Would they want to be featured in Shufflegazine?

[ultrablue662]

LOL. I was wondering how many posts it would be till you asked that Magnus. But truthfully, THAT would be unlike any article ever featured in Shufflegazine (shudders at the name typed)

[dandantheitman]

Wow that was quick.
Talk about dedication

Most reviews of Windows 7 is that it is MUCH better than Vista.
Of course that doesn't say much
Vista is the best thing that happened to the Mac.
Apparently, this is the version Vista should have been.

So I how does it compare to OSX?
I haven't tried it.
But my impression from your post is that it is comparable.

I would like to see how it compares to Snow Leopard.
Word is SL is much faster than Leopard.
Taking advantage of a footprint that is 40-60% smaller, utilizing the GPU, better 64bit support.

I guess I should give 7 a try.

Anyone know whether Microsoft has given Windows a 'terminal' like application yet ?
Dan

[dandantheitman]

2 fangpyre

Windows Vista surpass OSX few years ago and with Windows 7 the gap grew even more. Yes OSX looks pretty flashy etc...but not ready for REAL work. I'm talking about outdated iWork which is barely comparable to Office 2007 (office for mac does not have many components from windows version), iLife is good for housewives maybe... ; technology wise windows 6,7 has so many improvements over OSX - in every aspect. For example, OSX is not scalable - take any Windows server - put more CPU, more memory = get more horsepower. Take Apple server - more memory (funny its up to limit of 32GB) - still same performance, more CPU- even more crazy - OSX does not know what to do with it. )) And I can continue you know...

Its not correct to compare even this two VERY different systems. Different market share, different markets even. Windows going towards perfect business system. OSX going toward perfect home system.

IMHO

Your first mistake is that you are not comparing apples to apples (pardon the pun). You are comparing operating systems yet you mention applications, comparing the two makes no sense.

Saying that OSX does not scale is your second mistake - the operating system is scalable, the hardware that Apple provides does not scale from a single hardware unit perspective and this is a matter of choice not software architecture. Why do we know that OSX scales ? because OSX is UNIX (and has been certified as such (Register of Open Branded Products)). So to say that OSX does not scale is to say that UNIX does not scale.

In 2003 Virginia polytechnic built the worlds third most powerful supercomputer, and it was built on OSX. (New blood joins supercomputer ranking - CNET News).

In 2004 The US army followed suit with another predominantly apple supper computer, and cited that the operating systems feature set and management tools as the reason by their choice of OSX. (Apple sells supercomputer sequel - CNET News).

Dan