Microsoft admits Mac was Windows 7 muse Since the very beginning, Microsoft's been accused of copying the look, feel, and functionality of Apple's operating systems. Microsoft's addition of a trash can to Windows 95, for example, was particularly galling for fanboyz as the handy interface element arrived 10 years after Apple introduced its own trash can. Now …
"but it's built on that very stable core Vista technology, which is far more stable than the current Mac platform"
ahhhh hahahahahaha , hahahahahahahahahahaha.ahhhh hahahahahaha , hahahahahahahahahahaha.ahhhh hahahahahaha , hahahahahahahahahahaha.ahhhh hahahahahaha , hahahahahahahahahahaha.
oh god, i have been depressed for 10 years, but this cheered me right up....
Well apparently it is someone who works for MS - maybe the CEO?
And this is too funny "Aldous also described Windows 7 as "the next version" of Windows Vista" This is after denying that Windows 7 is the next service pack for Vista. (See here MS has learned something else from Apple. Major service packs cost $!)
I think in the context of this quote they mean stable in the way that Vista was Windows 6.0 and 7 is Windows 6.1 so yes, stable as in doesn't really change other than the marketing gimmick of upping the number. Of course, the fanbois will come out and say that Snow Leopard only went up by .1 too but it was always the intention of Apple to refine Leopard. Guess what, MS even copied that by refining Vista and releasing it as a whole new OS.
"...but it's built on that very stable core Vista technology, which is far more stable than the current Mac platform, for instance."
I hear of Mac machines having problems, and I definitely hear of (and personally experience) Windows Vista / 7 machines having problems, so this is certainly a pretty big claim from the fella!
Nope, Microsoft didn't say that they copied the Mac. Some bloke who didn't even work on the interface (who works for Microsoft) said so. So myth BUSTED. Bad luck.
"Redmond immediately issued a statement last night stating that Aldous' comments "were inaccurate and uninformed." In a post on the Windows Team blog, Microsoft blogger Brandon LeBlanc confirmed, "unfortunately this came from a Microsoft employee who was not involved in any aspect of designing Windows 7. I hate to say this about one of our own, but his comments were inaccurate and uninformed.""
http://www.neowin.net/news/main/09/11/12/microsoft-windows-7-was-inspired-by-mac-oh-no-it-wasnt
OS X: certainly not as stable as is reputed, could hang my macbook pretty much on demand. Left with an inoperable reboot cycling Macbook after a software update.
Vista: crud.
W7: Less crud, but still issues, permissions seem to be a bit messed up with administrators being told they need administrator rights to delete stuff, WMC is a joke when it 'shuts down' i.e. it don't. It is a lot more difficult to crash, though I still manage that sometimes. UAC, despite being less of a pain than in Vista, has been disabled by every W7 user I know.
Paris cos we all know she uses Slackware
"very stable core Vista technology, which is far more stable than the current Mac platform"
Does anyone know how to get coffee off my screen, keyboard, phone and the person sat opposite me, and the people sat behind and just to the right of them.
I'm no Mac fan but he needs to be seriously, seriously, SERIOUSLY, deluded making statements like that.
Well my mac does have problems but it took several months to get to a slow slothful state - and it still does not crash.
Wheras my work laptop was remimaged with Vista last week and it is already woefully slow and non repsonsive for about the first 10 minutes after I log an stuff loads....
Every time I shut it down it BSODs.
Stable as an, umm..... not very stable thing.
...may look like a pig after a particularly nasty incident with a bus, but I've never actually seen it BSOD as such. (Unlike my old XP-based PC. Though that was primarily caused by Creative Labs' famously poor software skills.)
@fred slack 1:
From a "core competence" standpoint, it's clear Microsoft are a developer tools and technologies company first and foremost. Windows is just a platform they maintain for their development technologies to run on. There's a good reason for Microsoft's success: their development tools are second to none. Make developing apps for your platform a piece of cake, and you'll not have to wait long before third party developers appear.
(Note: I'm a Mac user these days, and don't even own a Windows box any more, so I can hardly be accused of being a Windows fan, yet I still haven't found a development tool as good as MS' Visual Studio suite. Apple's Xcode isn't anywhere near as good, though it's a hell of a lot better than it used to be. And it's light years ahead of the old Metrowerks crud Apple developers had to use back in the pre-OS X days.)
Microsoft have genuinely innovated in the developer technologies front too. Their .NET framework really is what Java *should* have been. MS also realised games developers would need a single, unified set of technologies to target, so they created DirectX. (That took a while to catch on, but only a fool would build a PC game without it today.) And MS' XNA toolchain for their Xbox360 console is also leaps and bounds ahead of anything Sony or Nintendo offer.
I honestly don't get all this hatred between Microsoft, Apple and Linux users. Not one of these operating systems is directly competing with the others. Apple are primarily consumer-focused. (Clue: if you're reading this website, chances are you're NOT Apple's target market.) Microsoft are primarily corporate-focused (in the PC market; the Xbox360 is another beast); Linux is... a kernel which comes with a free political movement.
"but it's built on that very stable core Vista technology, which is far more stable than the current Mac platform"
MacOS is definitely not perfect, there are lots of things about it which annoy me daily, but stability is not one of them.
To be fair since XP windows has been much much more stable, but to put them in the same ballpark is a little disingenuous to me. I know, I know it's probably just dodgy drivers that cause most of the problems so maybe their 'core' claim is true... maybe...
All I know is that I can always go to any of the macs in our offices and there will be a usable machine with no hassle. Whereas if I sit down in front of one of the many PCs I can be sure there will be *some* problem.
I have only been running 7 for a few days now, so can't say anything about it yet really.
I would dearly like to find it is as stable as the Macs - as it would cut down on lots of hassles for everyone.
So basically they are going for the retards of the computer world for users. So yeah a better GUI is the right area. But lets see... a base off of a *nix os or a base off of vista. While i HATE macs. The base is better in the original setup. Not saying mac kept it safe and stable but a much stabler start at least.
Same point. Both systems are good for certain things. Windows if you wanna play games. Mac if you wanna play with crayons. and *nix if you wanna actually work.
I beg to recall and recount to the assembly that Microsoft originally disparaged the very idea of a GUI prior to the original release of Windows. They also discounted TCP/IP as an "uncontrolled" protocol with no future. The express need for something called "WIndows For WorkGroups" was to compete with Apple's peer-to-peer file sharing when their own "you have to buy and license a server" approach became untenable. I am not saying that Apple invented any of this from scratch. But they had the sense to use it. Microsoft in contrast has been instrumental in limiting real progress for the sake of their profits throughout their history.
*Sigh*, here we go again.
The OS X kernel isn't "BSD". It is XNU. XNU (both K32 & K64) is a combination of the Mach 3.0 microkernel (which provides tasks&scheduling), pieces of the FreeBSD kernel (which provide the block support, POSIX API, networking, etc), and the I/O Kit driver model.
The OSF/1 aka Digital UNIX aka Tru64 kernel is a similar hybrid of Mach 2.5 microkernel + BSD4.3 kernel. The mkLinux was also similar in that they used Mach 3.0 + the Linux kernel.
A lot of the "UNIX" pieces of the userland are also from FreeBSD.
The IP stack in pre-Vista Windows was from BSD. I don't go around claiming Windows is BSD just because it has some of their code in it! We all know the Windows kernel is just stolen/reworked/broken VMS, after all!
We're still talking about an OS which in it's commonly distributed version cannot access Microsoft Windows domains. Not even the biggest version of Windows 7 supports SSH logins.
So it's completely useless, no matter how many old features like "non overlapping windows" they rescue from the grave.
Windoze itself was "inspired" by the Gem and Apple Lisa interfaces, who in turn took the WIMP paradigm from Xerox's research place.
the '\' subdirectory separator was added to MSdos when subdirectories were added, in imitaiton of UNix's '/' rather than Digitals '[root.sub.subsub]' convention.
8.3 file names were snitched from CP/M, and the unique OS that was used for the first Intel development systems
Redmond is just an ideas hoover attached to a rather shoddy code factory and a very good marketing department.
Oh, and I agree that the idea that Vista is more stable than OSX is the most laughable case of pissing into the wind I have heard for a long time. Pull the other one, big boy, it has bells upon it.
Gosh, so difficult to have to face fanboism every time an OS is mentioned. It's become pathetic.
Let me try to (attempt to) explain:
What the MS person meant is that the kernel (also used in Windows Server) which powers all kinds of hardware including servers, is much more stable. Do you see a lot of OSX-powered server machines running anything else than ShoutCast?
I'm running Win 2008 file, intranet, etc. servers and have not rebooted once in almost 2 years. I don't see it needing any reboots in the coming years either. Now that for me is stability, so I accept his point totally.
Now obviously if you consider client machines for home users etc. there are issues with hardware, rogue software, etc. So of course the systems there are less stable.
But to be fair, I bet if OSX were to support all kinds of hardware, it would be much buggier than Windows 95 tbfh. Quality is directly proportional to dollars spent for testing. Supporting one base (and still getting it wrong sometimes) is one thing, supporting thousands is another.
So please try to keep a higher level, understand why things are where they are right now and don't be a fanboi.
I for one welcome that Win 7 is more Mac-like UI-wise.
But to be honest I'm very glad it's not anything like a Mac in everything else.
This post has been deleted by its author
"Name one thing MS innovated besides bad code ?" And deleting all the user's data when they login as a guest is good code? Copying the code (complete with known bugs) from a previous version of the OS is good coding?
Apple have slipped a long way down in the quality list over the past few years, the buggy updates are appalling and becoming a joke. Too much time spent on transferring their core business away from computing and into crap phones.
I own both Mac's & PC's and yes Windows 7 is far more stable than OS X.
going waay off-message. Looking at the original article, the interviewer responds to the "stable Vista" statement with the question
"So you’ve taken the style of the Mac platform and built it on the more solid foundations of Vista?"
Sadly there are no emoticons or other visual clues, but surely that was asked with either a grin or an utterly disbelieving face?
First, afaik there is no BSD KERNEL in OS X. It's a Mach based kernel, the same design the Windows NT kernel was designed to. BSD part are userland, not kernel.
And the core windows API, win32/64 is indeed very stable, dating back to Win 95 in large parts. Try running modern OS X binaries on OS X 10.0.... Try running 1995 binaries under Snow Leopard.
Of course the guy probably didn't mean that. It is probably just marketing gibberish
Oh God, let the retards commence . . . do you think the Mac has a good interface or not? Do other operating systems like LINUX try and mimic it ? Is it good, and is it therefore a good idea? Or should operating systems carry on using the command prompt, or some other strange unfamiliar user Interface?
When the steering wheel was invented on modern cars, should every subsequent car that used its design have been mocked, or should they have tried to come up with something strange and alien? Maybe a square.
If MS had introduced something thats a little odd, not popular . . . . . you would've mocked them for not being Apple.
They try and introduce what is universally acknowledged as a really well designed intuiative human interface. . . . and you mock them for not being Apple.
Grow up retards.
"Since the very beginning, Microsoft's been accused of copying the look, feel, and functionality of Apple's operating systems."
In an unrelated news: water is wet.
Since the very beginning _everybody_ and their dogs have been trying to copy the look and feel of the Mac. Hell, Apple dragged pigs+dogs in court about the fscking 'trashcan', look what happened to DR and Gem!
The question is not "are they trying to copy the mac", the question is "fscking WHY??"
With the same Human/Computer Interaction problems to solve, and similar enough architecture that you need a feeler gauge to get between them, OF COURSE interfaces are going to end up being similar... even on ostensibly different systems.
If Microsoft copies Apple's interface ideas, so what? Apple have some great interface ideas. I don't have the capacity to get angry over something so.... BANAL. I like using my computer. Whatever interface it uses.
Some people appear to be living in the past. Vista is big and slow but it IS a lot more stable than some of the earlier microsoft OS's. This assumption that because NT when it was released often had BSOD the same must be true of vista is just that, a bias assumption, based I suspect on peoples opinions of Microsoft and much less on hands on experience.
"it's built on that very stable core Vista technology, which is far more stable than the current Mac platform, for instance."
Seriously?
Also, even the eye candy runs worse. OS X Leopard on a GMA900 can run expose with a couple of videos and other windows open perfectly smoothly, while Aero chugs on lesser cards.
This is but a scratch of the surface. I use Windows as my main operating system, but we shouldn't be pretending it's perfect.
Even 7 lacks a lot of polish compared to OS X, even builds a few years old. The control panel is still an absolute mess, and so many of Microsoft's own apps seem to follow different UI guidelines (ah, who am I kidding? UI guidelines? They just make that up as they go along.)
Not to me, you understand, but MS are losing ground to a whole generation of "young people" who are (understandably in my view) favouring the Mac over the PC.
Microsoft are undoubtedly worried about this, so seek to close the perceived gap between OSX and Windows.
Vista was a dreadful OS for a lot of reasons, but in fairness it was probably the most stable version of Windows I've ever seen. However, saying it was inherently more secure or stable than any 'nix OS (like OSX) is sadly wide of the mark and just wishful thinking.
Annoying dialogue boxes, bloated by default, but by and large it is very stable. It has extremely robust recovery capabilities, especially compared to XP where even the most minor issues can stop it dead at boot. I can't speak for Macs, save my one experience with them where opening large text files caused the one I was using to restart every time.
Over the last few years I have 3 Vista laptops in the house and a big fat gaming machine that the eldest built and have had no problems. You do have to kick it around a bit first, ruthlessly remove any AV, turn off UAC, disable auto updates, stick in a hosts file, shut down more than a few services, etc., but nothing beyond the capabilities of the average Reg reader. A bit like moving the seats, mirrors and steering wheel of a new car, peeling the plastic sheet off a screen, just those things that you do.
This post has been deleted by its author
MS Flack Simon Aldous:
"What we've tried to do with Windows 7 - whether it's traditional format or in a touch format - is create a Mac look and feel in terms of graphics."
... which is actually an admission that it's only like a better environment in the most superficial way -- quote: "in terms of graphics".
It still gets the menus and the windows wrong because it hasn't got the "target-action paradigm":
http://rixstep.com/2/20050529,03.shtml
And of course, it's still Windows underneath anyway. The MS representative might boast about the "very stable core Vista technology" but does anybody believe this is any more than hot air?
It's also telling that that "very stable core Vista technology" is not used on mobile devices. Wince is a different thing (and, of course, not nearly as good as the iPhone's software.) OS X's "core technology" is flexible enough to run on anything from a server to a smartphone -- as are Linux and BSD. But that "very stable core Vista technology" can't even run well on a netbook.
Oh, and have fun with your Registry corruptions a year or two down the road, Mr. Aldous. THAT"S still there.
Always worth a good laugh when the redmondians try to sniff some of this "truth" stuff. And potent stuff it is, for it causes funny knee-jerk reactions in the come-down. I don't think they innovated bad code; I'm sure if they genuinely tried to productise such a thing they'd fail at it. Not that the product would be any good, mind. They'd just fail at getting what they wanted.
Give them credit, at least finally admitted it in public. When it comes down to it, can you really make that many radical changes to an O/S GUI? If it's too different, then people will simply avoid it. As a GUI designer, you only have so much scope to work in, so credit where it's due.
Me, I already paid my subs to the church of Jobs, so I couldn't give a monkey's really!
"...but it's built on that very stable core Vista technology, which is far more stable than the current Mac platform, for instance."
OK, and you have actual data to back this up? Thought not.
I've got a Mac and a PC and the only real difference I notice is that my Mac does what I ask it to and my PC does what it wants - normally running off to find out how many files I have beginning with 'G', or something, when I'm in the middle of something important.....
Stable - yes, useful - perhaps, convenient - er...
I wouldn't totally disagree. W7 is very stable and I've not had any trouble with its stability on old or new machines.
I don't particularly care that they've ripped off OS X - the new task bar screams "DOCK!" - but it's improved the UI, so kudos to them for admitting it. I believe it highlights a few flaws in the OS X interface, such as the fact that when switching between windows, you can easily switch between apps but switching windows within an app requires using the Window menu or right clicking the dock icon, and we all know that right clicks are an afterthought with Macs.
I will stick with W7 on my desktop machines and OS X on my laptops... works best for me, mainly because the trackpad I've used on my MacBook Pro is by far the best I've ever used, PC track pads just irritate me now. Conversely, plug my mouse into a Mac desktop and I hate the way it responds. Same mouse on a PC is fine.
Re: anon coward "stable core technology?"
OS X may well be a BSD core, but there's so much else in OS X that can add or detract from the OS's stability, that the fact it has a BSD core is irrelevant. In my personal experience I have no reason to believe that OS X is any more or less stable than W7.
This guy made a big mistake. I'm pretty sure he believed what he said, and I basically agree with the points he is making, or at least see where he's coming from.
But as a person with regular PR duties he should have known this is NOT stuff you should tell people, especially in a published interview. I don't think we will be hearing much from this person in the next five years. Apart from manufacturing reality, he at the same time achieves to ignore the company line.
Just bad bad bad.. And as for this stupid Mac vs Windows debate: It doesn't matter.
Is a bit of a misnomer now a days. Let's face it if you took operating systems from MS, Apple, *nix, did a clean install on good hardware and just left them there they'd all sit happily for ever in a day.
Stable as a lump of concrete. It's what you then do to those systems that changes the stability.
...analysis of crash dumps (admittedly done by MS) shows that most (over 95% IIRC) of them are caused by buggy 3rd party drivers - not an issue MacOS has to face.
Given that I've had about half a dozen BSODs in the 30 months I've had a Vista box, and I only reboot it after patching, and all the BSODs were indeed nVidia related, I would say that my experience of the Vista kernel is that it is very stable indeed.
How ungrateful! Microsoft gave you the email worm, the unremovable Media Player, the closed open document format and the privacy-invading anti-piracy tool! And never forget: they invented the slightly-different-web, including slightly different HTML, slightly different JavaScript, slightly different Java and slightly different Flash!
Not to mention their ingenious invention of a (patented) way to kludge normal length file names into their pathologically bad file system.
I can name one. A new dictionary term for complete and utter waste of time, money and effort. Vista. Actually you could add other innovations.
Overstuffed turkeys that need plucking and taking down a peg or four. Ballmer.
Economic stupidity, selling win7 for more during a global econonimc crisis.
The list goes on for their innovations and creations.
,,, it was built to replace an NT Server which kept going tits up when no-one was around. We run SAMBA so the rest of the office thinks that the old file-server and misc services are still there. Of course, we turn it off for an hour or so every couple of years to cull the dust bunnies.
M$ admitting copying from Mac, what a big deal. KDE copying Mac as well, and Gnome copying windows, and Mac copying KDE. Ford copies Toyota who copies Mercedes etc etc etc
Look and feel is always going to be copied to a certain extent. Which is good. If a design works, why not use it.
The worrying thing here is the claim that the Vista core is stable... Same as the San Andreas Fault being geologically stable...
Microsoft Windows 8 to feature the latest in technology: the fire and the wheel.
Latest developments: In an attempt to draw Linux fanbois, Microsoft will adopt the (utterly retarded) Ubuntu naming scheme. Microsoft Windows 8 to be named Miscarried Macheleon (you know ... attempt to mimic the Mac chameleon style + failure to deliver)
thank apple for pulling windows along with this thing called progress.
with no competitors, there is no innovation. with no innovation, there is no progression.
so thanks to Apple, and the icons from the ages past, novell, Ibm os/2, Be, and all the others who are lost and forgotten in the mists of time, for keeping windows uptodate.
lets be honest, if there wasn't anything else, we'd still probably all be on win3.x
just like firefox/mozilla/chrome gave us IE7/8 after how many years of IE6?
not too sure about the vista vs BSD kernals though.
will we be able to tell them apart?
Blue screen of Death?
Having moved from CRAPOS XP four years ago I am able to enjoy a machine capable of actually..
Doing more than one thing at a time
Actually being able to write to CD/DVD's
My only regret, I didn't do it earlier.
My only thing I miss, a free emulator to run Mech Warrior, but if I am desperate, I get SickNote (the PeeCee) and bash around for a while.
I would take a BSD kernel over MS NT kernel any day. Saying that the 3rd party drivers are the cause of all Windows problems is a joke too, after all it's only because of these 3rd party drivers and software that people even use Windows.
If all hardware and software / games were available to BSD/Linux then do you really think people would choose Windows because it's more stable? nope.
Oh does anyone remember when some of the win2k source code was leaked what the code actually looked like?
I remember comments suck as "HACK HACK HACK" in the code LOL, and do you think anything has really changed there?
Wow, lots of anti-Apple comments from people who clearly don't know how to use OS X but think they have a clue about it.
"I believe it highlights a few flaws in the OS X interface, such as the fact that when switching between windows, you can easily switch between apps but switching windows within an app requires using the Window menu or right clicking the dock icon"
Ahem, Expose? Press F10 to see the windows open for your app and then click on one. Or use cmd + ` to cycle windows within an app. (and cmd + shift + ` to cycle the opposite way)
"the fact it uses green, red and yellow buttons at the top of the window which are visually meaningles"
I guess you've never hovered over one of those buttons and seen them change into X, + and -. Those symbols "visually meaningful" enough for you?
"and we all know that right clicks are an afterthought with Macs."
Macs have supported multi button mice for over a decade but why let facts cloud your retarded opinion?
"now the gadgets either sit under all your windows on the desktop where they're never in view and hence worthless or they are set to always on top and obscure your workspace"
.. which is the reason OS X doesn't show widgets on the desktop and hides your apps when you press the dashboard key. Microsoft's poor imitation is no reflection on how useful widgets are in OS X.
...no-one banging on about how unstable the XP/W2K3/Vista/Win7 kernel is is actually posting any evidence or even anecdote that it is. I use both and IME they [i]are[/i] stable. There seems to be a flippant assumption that it isn't because of course it's teh eevil Micro$haft.
Most of my W2K3 servers only get rebooted when I have to patch them. The only exceptions are the terminal servers, but given the shite people insist on me installing on them, I'm not surprised.
I do remember when the W2K source code was leaked. Outside of a few people who were determined to see what they wanted to see, I seem to recall that the general response was favourable. MS coders are not idiots, but they're often constrained by stupidity further up the adminisphere at MS.
And I use Windows for a number of reasons, but not one of them is the availability of 3rd party drivers. AC at 11.17 is talking classic drivel.
hahahahahahahahahahahahaha... hahahahahahahahahahahahaha... hahahahahahahahahahahahaha... hahahahahahahahahahahahaha... hahahahahahahahahahahahaha... hahahahahahahahahahahahaha...
hahahahahahahahahahahahaha... hahahahahahahahahahahahaha... hahahahahahahahahahahahaha...
*gasp*
hahahahahahahahahahahahaha... hahahahahahahahahahahahaha... hahahahahahahahahahahahaha... hahahahahahahahahahahahaha... hahahahahahahahahahahahaha... hahahahahahahahahahahahaha...
hahahahahahahahahahahahaha... hahahahahahahahahahahahaha... hahahahahahahahahahahahaha...
*gasp**gasp*
hahahahahahahahahahahahaha... hahahahahahahahahahahahaha... hahahahahahahahahahahahaha... hahahahahahahahahahahahaha... hahahahahahahahahahahahaha... hahahahahahahahahahahahaha...
hahahahahahahahahahahahaha... hahahahahahahahahahahahaha... hahahahahahahahahahahahaha...
"Over the last few years I have 3 Vista laptops in the house and a big fat gaming machine that the eldest built and have had no problems. You do have to kick it around a bit first, ruthlessly remove any AV, turn off UAC, disable auto updates, stick in a hosts file, shut down more than a few services, etc., but nothing beyond the capabilities of the average Reg reader. A bit like moving the seats, mirrors and steering wheel of a new car, peeling the plastic sheet off a screen, just those things that you do."
Actually, funny you mention this, but even if doing all of the service on my cars alone, I've never moved the steering wheel. Just because I like it to work *all of the time* and dislike re-engineering a product (after all, if that was necessary, I could have built the product myself, without the flaws).
Vista is actually the only OS apart from WIN95 I've ever seen killing itself totally with no user action, just by auto-patching (remember, user nod is not important to patching, in MS land)
and f***ing itself entirely for good at next reboot, with BSOD. Worst than 95 since 95 would just lock up and any reboot would be successfull.
User was very baffled, OS was f***ed, user was lost to MS cause.
Great title, that. Looks like some form of shell humour. Thumbs up to /etc.
Just wanted to say that a posting in amongst this load of angst-driven warrior drivel which cited some basic GUI handling concepts and the handling differences between OSX and Windows to implement a GUI application was a breath of fresh air.
I'd heard of objective C and knew about NeXTSTEP's evolution (aren't we lucky Jobs came back and decided he'd get Apple to finally bite the bullet and throw away THEIR bloated legacy OS... taking any notes, Microsoft?), but not appreciated just how elegant the GUI handling is in OSX, programmatically.
I'm in transition between XP and OSX at the moment, gradually phasing out all the windows machines in the house as they're simply too much hassle to keep secure (have you stopwatched a Spybot Search and Destroy scan recently?) - easiest option is to stop using windows, no matter how bloody pretty they've decided to make it. I'll stick with an XP virtual machine running under virtualbox to do anything office-y and leave it at that.
I've been ruining Win 7 about 6 weeks. It's a clean install on good hardware (I did several hours of burn ins to prove it was fault free). Core duo, 4GB ram, 8800GT, and a couple of drives on an intel RAID controller. It's all relatively generic hardware running 100% Win 7 drivers (no legacy crap running). I have office 2007, and a few common apps (thanks nineite!) installed. It;s running pretty vanilla, with very few tweaks other than interface adjustments. It's pretty much a stock install.
I've had 8-10 BSODs in 6 weeks. 1 while burnign a DVD, several while playing a game, 1 while downloading ISOs from the microsoft Partner site using IE... and 2 while trying to install software. I have rechecked the hardware, re-installed the OS again (from a re-downloaded and reburned image), and performed every kind of scan I can. It's simply not stable... Funny thing is, Vista actually was relatively stable on the same hardware... Only went down when i rebooted for a patch for over a year.
My wife's Macbook Pro... Had it a few weeks now. Running 10.6 on a Core 2 w/ 4GB of RAM and the 9600GT graphics. Have Vista installed in a VM running in coherence mode. It's FAST. It's not crashed a single time. It even plays PC games in the VM with better frame rates than my PC does in some games! Running native from bootcamp Windows is faster at most tasks than my desktop rig. Granted the CPU in the laptop is a bit faster (2.5 vs 2.2), and the 9600GPU is really an 8800 mobile processor, but it;s a laptop, and should have heaty issues holding it back... It doesn't.
The other day she was playing DnD Online from the VM instance of Vista and I was streaming music off her notebook through an Airport Express at the same time, using my iPhone as the remote to controll it. She had left iChat logged in any my parents logged in and requested a video chat. A notification poped up while she was playing and she clicked on it, launging iChat over the game still running full screen behind it. She chatted with my mom in video chat for 3 or 4 minutes, then switched back to the game. She never noticed an issue in video performance of either the game while I was streaming music, or in iChat while it was trying to also render the game in the background (the game graphics did stutter while she was in iChat, but the music I was pumping into the other room never stuttered). Granted, load times in the game are somewhat impacted by all the activity, and no, she can't run the game with quite so many "high" settings runnign in a VM as she can running direct, but it's so much better than her previous PC she doesn't even care... The fact that the Mac OS can handle multipple apps while streaming, and balance a VM running a 3D game at the same time, i've never seen a PC able to handle that...
http://windowsteamblog.com/blogs/windows7/archive/2009/11/11/how-we-really-designed-the-look-and-feel-of-windows-7.aspx
This really is getting a little pathetic. Why keep trying to deny something that's patently obvious, especially now that one of your own has finally let the cat out of the bag?
"I honestly don't get all this hatred between Microsoft, Apple and Linux users. Not one of these operating systems is directly competing with the others. Apple are primarily consumer-focused. (Clue: if you're reading this website, chances are you're NOT Apple's target market.) Microsoft are primarily corporate-focused (in the PC market; the Xbox360 is another beast); Linux is... a kernel which comes with a free political movement."
Two thumbs up mate for probably the only really insightful thing said in this thread!!! And yes, I am writing this on my Ubuntu 9.10 box that dual-boots into Win 7 for when I need it to...with my iPhone on my desk...I am at war with no one.
Anyone want to know what we should be criticizing? Just how bad OSes USED to be, in all camps...we now have relatively stable multi-tasking (even on Windows), decent GUIs (even on Linux desktops), and enough applications and development tools so that we can actually find software we need (even on Apple). And, significantly, stuff KIND OF works the same on all three - i.e., a relatively competent person could move from a Win 7desktop and use a Mac, and even move to Linux and use that - and it would all kind of be the same. There was a time when that wasn't always the case...a Windows user would be lost on a Mac, and only the sturdy dare attempt to use Linux (Emacs or vi as a word processor, really???). The only tricky applications to use these days are highly specialized applications, like Blender 3D or Autocad, which have their own look and feel and don't follow the usual GUI conventions. But for the most part, we live in a pretty mature market with broad parity between the platforms...
Personally my Vista 64bit computer has never actually suffered a BSOD and I have only had to reboot it after patching. I have had it about 18 months now.
I also have a Vista laptop that is over 2 years old and it has crashed maybe 2 or three times.
Admittedly I don't install much shite on it and I did have to replace some peripherals. I will also admit I have no real data on Macs to compare with as I really hate the look and feel of the bloody things so I don't use them.
I suspect that those out there with "proof" that Windows is unstable are either still thinking of NT pre SP4, lying or - and I mean no disrespect - lacking in the skills necessary to install and configure an operating system.
OH, and in defense of Apple re the GUI His Jobbsness *paid* Xerox for the rights to use the GUI. He may not have invented it but he certainly didn't rip it off or steal it.
"very stable core Vista technology, which is far more stable than the current Mac platform, for instance"
I presume they mean stable in the way that Windows doesn't eat all your files like Snow Leopard did. And stable in the way that it isn't pwned first in every pwn to own competition. Macs suck. The only reason the fanbois think they are more stable is that Apple are able to control the hardware that Mac OSX runs on which means that they get less failures due to cheap unreliable hardware. The funny part about that though is that Microsoft is developing experience dealing with failures due to cheap unreliable hardware.
A kernel which comes with a free political movement is the best description of linux I've heard yet :)
And vi is the best word processor ever. full stop. :wq
Aside from that, I think I know why there is so much hatred.... its all nothing but retaliation. One day long ago one single person drew the line in the sand and said something insulting about another's preference in OS, and since then all thats been happening is people have been retaliating (indiscriminately).
I have to admit, I never really bashed winblowz until someone tried to tell me I was a scummy freetard gaylord who didn't know anything about directx and that I was a complete remtard for saying that linux can run games when I posted for help on the GFW:Live forums.
Then of course, I corrected him.... hard.
Infact, as a precautionary measure, incase anyone replies to tell me that linux doesnt do games:
http://www.codeweavers.com/
http://appdb.winehq.org/
http://www.linuxgamepublishing.com/
I'm quite happy not to snipe at windows most of the time.... except when one of their puppets falls over like this XD
and except when some windows fanboi spouts his malformed disinformative opinions about oses that hes never used....
</rant>
I suspect its not hatred, but perhaps as in my case, getting so fed up with waiting for the thing to boot, download all its patches etc, then to fail to work in a proper manner, lifes too short.
Now this may be as another poster says, due to bad hardware, which in Apples case may be true, ie more control over the hardware production, and this bears out from my experience that all the unix box's I have worked on where the vendor made hardware & OS, all worked a treat.
Regarding cheap unreliable hardware, my expensive Vaio crapped out in 3 yrs, the power book, still working.
> Request permission to use "species from the family Ursidae are likely to defecate in forested areas." as often as is possible in conversation
Granted. In fact, I may have to start using it myself.
I was going to go into detail about Apple's improvements over the Parc (overlapping windows, menu above instead of below, representing files as icons, etc) vs MSFT's offering (maximizing a window), but Sean Timarco Baggale's right. I'd rather be making obtuse geeky bear references.
All your post (rabid and flecked with angry spittle as it is) has convinced me of, is that YOU'RE a "fanboi". (Whatever TF that actually means).
There are different OSs available. Use the one on your own computer that you like using. Use the one at work you're told to use. Simple enough isn't it? I like W7 - it's faster on the same hardware than XP was. I tried Vista once and didn't try it again. I haven't used a modern Mac but I'm OK cos I'm happy where I am. I tried Ubuntu 7.10 and decided it wasn't "mature enough" as an OS for me - I haven't been back there yet.
If more people just used what they liked using and let others do the same the world would be a much nicer place.
"but it's built on that very stable core Vista technology, which is far more stable than the current Mac platform"
Is it true that every time a user says "Vista" a Mac Fanboi dies of apoplexy? Got to love Microsoft for seeing how many Jesus-freaks they can bring to a frothing at the mouth frenzy in one statement.
Jesus dude you just need to calm the hell down. Take some prozac or something eh? So you're not going to use Windows and don't like the interface which you feel is too simplistic for you. SO WHAT?! Your use or non-use of Windows doesn't affect me AT ALL. What does affect me is offensive language, confrontational posturing and aggressive online behaviour which you're too scared to put your name to.
Thank you and good night.
Excellent post Steve. Just brought all the back back and forth "my PC is better than your PC" [insert Mac or *nix word of your choice as appropriate] arguments into perspective, and of course made me laugh. I respectfully re-paste your words below for those who may have missed it and doff my cap in your general direction. But as various people have said in this discussion and others in the past. Use the software you like, stop arguing about it and get a life.
iMacs are not stable #
By SteveK Posted Thursday 12th November 2009 11:54 GMT
To be fair, iMacs are not particularly stable. I'd much rather a stack of beige slabs to stand on while clambering up to an out of reach network cabinet. iMacs are just the wrong shape and far too precarious.
Steve.
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2025
