[WinTard]

asiafish said:

Snow leopard is LIGHTER than Leopard, smaller, faster and more efficient.

I see a parallel with Windows 7 being more optimized than its predecessors, just like Snow Leopard is 'smaller' faster and more efficient than Leopard.

It is nice to see progress on all sides...

[WinTard]

All the Windows systems I personally optimize, are completely crash free as well. That is the pure truth. No bull. No BS. If ever they crash, it is due to hardware failure and also of course the major problem being whatever sits between the chair and keyboard.

I believe user problems are generic to all types of computing platforms...

Truthfully and Sincerely.

[pnosko]

WinTard said:

I see a parallel with Windows 7 being more optimized than its predecessors, just like Snow Leopard is 'smaller' faster and more efficient than Leopard.

It is nice to see progress on all sides...

Forgive me if I believe these sources more than I believe you.

http://www.tomshardw...nts-hardware-rc,7701.html

Quote

{quote:title=Tom says:}{quote}

>Windows 7 does carry with it slightly heftier system requirements than Vista does, despite it being a better performer. From one generation to the next ? and three years later ? Windows 7?s system demands does seem positively modest."

Contrasted with Apple...

http://www.apple.com...sx/refinements/

[quote]{quote:title=Apple says:}{quote}
Snow Leopard takes up less than half the disk space of the previous version, freeing about 6GB

[quackadilly]

I've always taken Tomshardware info with a grain of salt.


As for "Windows 7 does carry
with it slightly heftier system requirements than Vista does, despite
it being a better performer. From one generation to the next – and
three years later – Windows 7’s system demands does seem positively
modest."



This statement makes no sense. First they say the system requirements are "hefty". Then they say the system requirements are "positively modest"......







7 runs faster than Vista on the same hardware. My laptop shows it.

[WinTard]

[quote name='pnosko']
>

WinTard said:

> I see a parallel with Windows 7 being more optimized than its predecessors, just like Snow Leopard is 'smaller' faster and more efficient than Leopard.
>
> It is nice to see progress on all sides...

Forgive me if I believe these sources more than I believe you.

http://www.tomshardw...nts-hardware-rc,7701.html

> {quote:title=Tom says:}{quote}
>Windows 7 does carry with it slightly heftier system requirements than Vista does, despite it being a better performer. From one generation to the next ? and three years later ? Windows 7?s system demands does seem positively modest."

Contrasted with Apple...

http://www.apple.com...sx/refinements/

> {quote:title=Apple says:}{quote}
> Snow Leopard takes up less than half the disk space of the previous version, freeing about 6GB

You are forgiven! You state your beliefs. I simply state mine. We don't have to agree?

All I know is Windows 7 uses less HDD and RAM space than Vista. I've successfully loaded Windows 7 onto old hardware with only 1GB RAM and it runs lightning quick. On the same (1 year old) decent hardware Core2 Duo, 4GB RAM, I've ran Windows 7 x64 about 3 times as fast as XP-SP3 x86.

Also other PCWorld members evaluating Windows 7 reported:

limeimac97776 Wrote:
100. Apr 13, 2009 11:51 PM in response to: PCWorld
Re: The PC World Challenge: 72 Hours of Windows 7!

I have been using the windows 7 beta foralmost 2 months now. And i LOVEit!!! It is a major improvement from vista in my book. I like the new GUI and the fact that you can have so many browser windows open at one time and only see 1 icon. ALL my programs and drivers work with windows 7. And i notice a massiveimprovement in gaming performance from XP. The system reqiurements say 1gb of RAM but you can actually run it on 512mb. I have installd it on ALL my computers and it runs amazinglyon ALL of them. With 512mb of RAM windows 7 disables even more unnecesary startup processes so you only use 256mb of RAM. As a former Die Hard XP supporter i can say that i will be running windows 7 as soon as it comes out. (as long as they dont change it too much.) One earlier comment said that they liked thre somewhat ugly. I likedthe 3d start menu and icons in XP. I liked the 3d look of the startbar and windows too. But xp's themes were rather childish looking. If only they could make it both transparent and 3d.

What is less resources? Today you can get a quad processor with 8GB RAM for $399... And dual i7 socket motherboards are available supporting 48GB RAM...

Anyone paying more than that for the complete hardware system isn't wise or showing respect to the value of money...

As for Windows 7 Ultimate x86 or x64, currently it is free until June 30th 2010...

Whereas saving 6GB of OS HDD space is irrelevant IMHO. When one can purchase 1.5TB for $130 or less...
Seagate Barracuda 1.5TB Hard Drive ST31500341AS - 7200RPM, 32MB Cache, SATA-3G


Where's the beef?

~~~~~~~~~~~~
Penny wise; Pound foolish.
{British Proverb}

[rgreen4]

asiafish said:

PCs with WIndows can be there too, but to do so requires either A LOT of trial and error with homebrew desktops, or machines in the sweet spot of mature technology with fairly modern performance. Bleeding edge video cards with the latest drivers are great for games, but also great for crashing Windows.

Absolutely Not True. All that is required is to build a machine that meets the specifications and do a clean install. In fact a manufactured machine will actually run better if you download the drivers and do a clean install. Of course it will cost you a bit more that way. A good cleaning of the bloatware that comes on manufactured machines will also help.

For your information I have 5 machines that I use in various situations. One XP Laptop (5 years old), one XP desktop (6 years old), one Vista laptop (1 1/2 years old) and two Vista desktops (2 1/2 and 1 1/2 years old) and have experienced 0 crashes on these machines in the time that I have had them. The newer Vista desktop is actually a quad boot machine - Vista (primary), Win7 (experimental), XP Pro and Win2000 (the latter two to research answers for members questions).

In fact, I have never had a crash on any of these machines. The last time I had a computer crash was sometime in the last century.

[WinTard]

Sorry I couldn't resist...

Did anyone look at www.pcworld.com/article/166992/windows[u7[/u]hitsanew_low.html]

Quote

Like a stuntperson who just keeps tempting death by pushing the landing ramp farther and farther back, hackerman1 didn't just stop with that meager system loadout. He continued to alter the memory amount, achieving success with two of three setups: 128 MB and 96 MB. Unfortunately, Windows 7 didn't seem to enjoy only having 64 megabytes of memory to work with, marking hackerman's stopping point with that version of the experiment.

(!) Now who has the crappy sub-standard OS? Hmmm? Requiring too much resources? ?? ????? X-( ?:| B-) :8} ; :) :D :^0 :x ;)

I said it all along, since I joined PCWorld forums on Jan 16 2009.... Windows 7 is simply the BEST OS bar none! More functionality, more sophistication, more simplicity, more original new technology, faster, more efficient than anything else currently available on the market today: Yes, OS X, Snow Leopard, and all Linuxes/BSD/Unix. PERIOD!

Hear! Hear!

h2. Windows 7 is the State-Of-The-Art in terms of OSes!

YAY!

PS: That's it, I'm loading Windows 7 onto ALL my computers now! 32-bit dinosaurs included!

~~~~~~~~~~~
Truth is generally the best vindication against slander.
~ Abraham Lincoln (1809 - 1865)

Simplicity is the ultimate sophistication.
~ Leonardo da Vinci, 1452-1519, Italian Painter and Sculptor

[asiafish]

WinTard said:

Sorry I couldn't resist...

Did anyone look at www.pcworld.com/article/166992/windows[u7[/u]hitsanew_low.html]

> Like a stuntperson who just keeps tempting death by pushing the landing ramp farther and farther back, hackerman1 didn't just stop with that meager system loadout. He continued to alter the memory amount, achieving success with two of three setups: 128 MB and 96 MB. Unfortunately, Windows 7 didn't seem to enjoy only having 64 megabytes of memory to work with, marking hackerman's stopping point with that version of the experiment.
>
>

(!) Now who has the crappy sub-standard OS? Hmmm? Requiring too much resources? ?? ????? X-( ?:| B-) :8} ; :) :D :^0 :x ;)

I said it all along, since I joined PCWorld forums on Jan 16 2009.... Windows 7 is simply the BEST OS bar none! More functionality, more sophistication, more simplicity, more original new technology, faster, more efficient than anything else currently available on the market today: Yes, OS X, Snow Leopard, and all Linuxes/BSD/Unix. PERIOD!

Hear! Hear!

h2. Windows 7 is the State-Of-The-Art in terms of OSes!

YAY!

PS: That's it, I'm loading Windows 7 onto ALL my computers now! 32-bit dinosaurs included!

~~~~~~~~~~~

PERIOD? I think not. Windows 7 is a terrific OS, but like every other OS out there, it has strengths and yes, it has weaknesses too.

I have Windows 7 on my extra hard drive for my ThinkPad T400, a modern system that really takes advantage of the new OS. Of course, that new OS remains a beta and not everything is fully sorted out yet in terms of drivers. For that reason, RIGHT NOW, Vista is a better OS than 7 on that machine for my needs.

Will the final version of Windows 7 be even better? I'm sure. Is it better than Snow Leopard? Is beef better than fish? They are different, each has advantages, and each has disadvantages.

Sorry WinTard, you do not have the authority to declare one better than the other for anyone's use except your own.

[mistoffolees]

asiafish said:

Sorry WinTard, you do not have the authority to declare one better than the other for anyone's use except your own.

I'm not sure he's in a position to even do that. In order to declare one better, you have to openly consider both. He has made it clear that he has no experience with OS X, much less Snow Leopard, and he's so brazenly biased that he is incapable of comparing the two OSs.

All he can do is declare that his own bigotry makes Windows his choice - not that it's better.

[rgreen4]

The biggest criticism of Vista was that it would not run on older hardware. Now the tables are turned, and the latest MS OS will run on hardware with lower specifications than will Vista and even XP. It will use most (but not all) drivers written for Vista. This is written on an HP dv9500t that came with Vista HP 32 bit, but is currently using Windows 7 64bit and Foxfire 3.0.11. After installation, it was apparent that the correct driver for the Nvidia graphics card did not load. Going to the HP website and downloading a recent driver for Vista 64bit did not work. It would go so far and realize that the OS was not Vista and halt. Apparently a protection to keep the Vista driver from being installed on XP.

Going to the Nvidia site, and going through their selection of the correct driver for the 8600M GS, one was listed for Windows 7. So device manufacturers have already identifying and providing drivers for Windows 7. Most likely it is the same driver as is used for Vista. It actually works better on this laptop than the driver for Vista does when adjusting the resolution.

Setting up the wireless was a piece of cake. Had to change the default workgroup name, provide the password for the router, and it was up and running in 5 minutes. So far, I have not found a single program I use in Vista that will not run properly in Windows 7.

So, lets look at the case for Windows 7 - runs the mainstream Windows programs of which there are hundreds of thousands, runs on most of the PC's available, including the Mac, is fast and stable.

The case for Mac OS/X Snow Leopard - runs only on Mac Intel machines made in the last three years. Reputed to run most of the Mac based applications. Uses only drivers for the Mac - maybe dozens of various machines. Requires high priced Mac hardware.

The case for Linux. Should run on all of the machines that Windows 7 does. Will not run Windows programs natively. Runs open source programs that are mostly compatible with Windows applications, but have some short falls. Can run some, but not all Windows programs running Wine. Has incomplete driver coverage for periphials that are covered in recent Windows systems. Noted and documented problems with wireless networks on older Broadcom adapters on laptops.

From my experiences, it has taken Vista's strengths and added to them. Maybe it is just an RC, but I like many others who have tried it can hardly wait for the RTM version. From my experience, it is the best OS. No I have never used Mac OS/X and have no need to. I have experimented with Ubuntu and Puppy Linux and had driver and compatibility issues with both. So since Windows meets all of my needs, easily, completely and securely, why change?

[mistoffolees]

rgreen4 said:

The biggest criticism of Vista was that it would not run on older hardware.

No, the biggest criticism of Vista was that it was a stinking heap of raw sewage.

It runs badly even on hardware that was supported. It is annoying with the endless "do you really want to do this" prompts. It still has endless security problems. It is still unintuitive. Much of the Windows software doesn't run on it. And so on.

Don't worry - by Windows 10 or 11, you'll catch up to Mac OS 7.

[rgreen4]

mistoffolees said:

No, the biggest criticism of Vista was that it was a stinking heap of raw sewage.

It runs badly even on hardware that was supported. It is annoying with the endless "do you really want to do this" prompts. It still has endless security problems. It is still unintuitive. Much of the Windows software doesn't run on it. And so on.

Don't worry - by Windows 10 or 11, you'll catch up to Mac OS 7.

No, that is the FUD spread by anti-MS zealots. It has been proven to be more secure against the threats because of the UAC as well as other features. You can turn the UAC off, but it is not advised. I have never found it to be that objectionable.
On the hardware that meets it's specifications, it runs fine. Many consumers who have bought machines with Vista, use it and say what was all the fuss and misinformation about?

Snide comments about the versions only let everyone know your true intentions. And of course I'm sure that you have used Vista extensively to be such a fount of knowledge.

[mistoffolees]

[quote name='rgreen4']
>

mistoffolees said:

>
> No, the biggest criticism of Vista was that it was a stinking heap of raw sewage.
>
No, that is the FUD spread by anti-MS zealots.

Nice attempt at revisionism.

In reality, Vista customer satisfaction rates were in the single digits:
http://www.pcworld.c.../143960/leopardbeatsvistaforcorporate_satisfaction.html

How about if we rely on facts rather than a raving Windows fanboy who apparently has so much emotional baggage wrapped up in Windows that he can't see its flaws?

[rgreen4]

I would check the dates of your article if I were you. That was a February, 2008 article when the anti-Vista media hype was at it's zenith. Computer World being one of the most agregious. Than you have the fact that few corporate clients had converted to Vista in it first year, as is normal with a new OS. Combine that with the "53%" of corporate clients satisfied with the Mac OS, one wonders since the Mac market share in the corporate world in in the low single digits, did they interveiew both clients? While in February, 2008 when Vista was celebrating it's first birthday and it's first 100 million licenses issued (based on public surveys at the time), Leopard was celebrating it's second birthday and probably it's first 12 million licenses issued. (Based on Apple's sales of about 6M machines a year).

Fact is, the vast majority of people who have "issues" with Vista in reality have "issues" with an application or the particular installation on a manufactured machine. There was a post recently here complaining about "Vista" when in fact it was the Office 2007 Ribbon they didn't like. When Vista was released and well into the first year there were legacy periphial driver issues, especially with the 64bit system that a large percentage opted for. Today, almost 2 1/2 years after release, the 64bit version is mainstream with almost every driver that is available in 32bit also available in 64bit.

Despite the slams, the Anti MS crowd just cannot accept the reality - Windows Vista is the second most used OS in Microsoft history. It had the misfortune of following the most used (XP). But anyone I have ever met that has used a clean install of Vista on a reasonable machine for more than a few minutes, never wants to go back to XP.

Windows 7 will take the next step forward. It's more advanced, yet more compatible with older and less powerful hardware. As one who has liked Vista ever since installing the upgrade after exasperation with the XP Media Center Edition that came on my Media Center PC, figuring Vista could be no worse, I looked at Windows 7 as unnecessary. However, when I installed the RC evaluation copy, I changed my mind. I now have it on a second drive on two of my Vista machines. I may try it shortly on a 5 1/2 year old P4 machine.

[mistoffolees]

ROTFLMAO.

The article surveyed thousands of users and only 8% were very satisfied with Vista. Instead of believing the people who actually participated, we're supposed to believe all your rationalizations?

It has nothing to do with anti-Vista people. Or Mac users. Or any other crazy conspiracy you might dream up. EVERY survey of Vista users shows extremely high levels of dis-satisfaction -- which explains why so many reverted back to XP.

[rgreen4]

In February, 2008 there were not thousands of IT managers who had installed Vista on corporate systems.

[quackadilly]

"No, the biggest criticism of Vista was that it was a stinking heap of raw sewage.
It runs badly even on hardware that was supported. It is annoying with the endless "do you really want to do this" prompts. It still has endless security problems. It is still unintuitive. Much of the Windows software doesn't run on it. And so on.
Don't worry - by Windows 10 or 11, you'll catch up to Mac OS 7."



And we should believe an anti-windows person why? I hated Vista until I did a clean install just last week. Now I'm finding out that it's actually quite nice. Vista and 7 work great on my $550 laptop from 2008. I bought it as a CHEAP portable.



You Macheads can spread this FUD all you want, Windows 7 is not behind OSX by any means. Maybe in the next Mac OS, you'll be able to run the same applications as Windows customers can right now without having to use parallels or whatever you use. Maybe you'll be able to use whatever hardware you want instead of being one of Apple's slaves. Maybe you'll pay reasonable prices for a computer.

[quackadilly]

"The article surveyed thousands of users and only 8% were very satisfied with Vista. Instead of believing the people who actually participated, we're supposed to believe all your rationalizations?"


You can get that number with 12 people.


-----
2204 people surveyed.



At the time 7% was the buying rate for Mac computers. Thats 154 corporate users. Half of those responses probably came from Apple's corporate offices. ;)

Vista was around 12%. Thats 264 corporate users.

XP was somewhere around 73%. 1608 users.



You want to base the world's opinion of these OSs by these small numbers? Especially when the numbers come from corporate users? What percent of the world is a corporate employee?



This survey means nothing in terms of real world numbers. These numbers represent corporate satisfaction, not the rest of the world.

[mistoffolees]

quackadilly said:

And we should believe an anti-windows person why? I hated Vista until I did a clean install just last week. Now I'm finding out that it's actually quite nice. Vista and 7 work great on my $550 laptop from 2008. I bought it as a CHEAP portable.





You Macheads can spread this FUD all you want, Windows 7 is not behind OSX by any means. Maybe in the next Mac OS, you'll be able to run the same applications as Windows customers can right now without having to use parallels or whatever you use. Maybe you'll be able to use whatever hardware you want instead of being one of Apple's slaves. Maybe you'll pay reasonable prices for a computer.

I'm not anti-Windows, I use it nearly every day. I'm pro-'anything that works'. Unfortunately for those of you who have your entire lives wrapped up in supporting Microsoft at all costs, that's rarely Windows.

But don't believe me - believe any of the surveys which show Windows Vista satisfaction rates to be anywhere from the single digits to the 20% range.

[mistoffolees]

Quote

At the time 7% was the buying rate for Mac computers. Thats 154 corporate users. Half of those responses probably came from Apple's corporate offices. ;)

Vista was around 12%. Thats 264 corporate users.

XP was somewhere around 73%. 1608 users.

You want to base the world's opinion of these OSs by these small numbers? Especially when the numbers come from corporate users? What percent of the world is a corporate employee?

This survey means nothing in terms of real world numbers. These numbers represent corporate satisfaction, not the rest of the world.

So you've proven that you never read the article. But have it your way - only 40% of XP users were very satisfied vs 53% of OS X users.

Or maybe try any of the other studies that have shown the same thing. Like this one:
http://visualstudiom...far-behind.aspx

Why don't you show a single study that shows Vista to be superior to OS X (not mindless Windows troll raving, real factual information)? Just one.

When one study shows Vista to be crap, you might be able to question it. But when endless studies all show the same result, maybe you should be beating up on Microsoft to spend some of their billions in creating a good OS.