Window 7 already bigger than Snow Leopard and Linux combined

There is another take on this.

MS is too big and its run by business men who play it save.
They see something that is safe to use in MacOS, that worked, and use it.

They have no innovation because for the business men its not a safe bet.

NickCat11: WTF! :mad:
 
There is another take on this.

MS is too big and its run by business men who play it save.
They see something that is safe to use in MacOS, that worked, and use it.

They have no innovation because for the business men its not a safe bet.

NickCat11: WTF! :mad:

They have over 90% of the market share, they must be doing something right...
 
MS is too big and its run by business men who play it save.

Let's boil that down....

MS is too big and its run by business men who play it safe.
its run by business men who play it safe.
business men who play it safe.
play it safe.
safe.

Yeah, why should a company take risk if they don't have to? Also, who said they never innovated? You don't get to be the best by simply copying.
 
Let's boil that down....

MS is too big and its run by business men who play it safe.
its run by business men who play it safe.
business men who play it safe.
play it safe.
safe.

Yeah, why should a company take risk if they don't have to? Also, who said they never innovated? You don't get to be the best by simply copying.
Usually you are right, but MS is not winning because they are the best.
They are winning only because they are the biggest.
 
Usually you are right, but MS is not winning because they are the best.
They are winning only because they are the biggest.

Well that's just getting semantic now, isn't it ;)
Fine, let me change my word to "biggest".

You don't get to be the biggest by simply copying.
 
And how did they become the biggest?

Well- that's because they had a monopoly in the early days. You know that saying "The early bird catches the worm"...well, there you go. In terms of overall quality of the product, I would say that Windows and OSX are tied. In terms of service- Mac wins, in terms of devices supported, Windows wins...in terms of gaming- Windows wins with Linux as a distant second and Mac barely on the scale. In terms of Media creation- I put them on the same level since Mac is better for Audio & Video, but Windows is better for Graphics and Web.

All in all there is no "better" os. Like BMW and Audi- neither is better than the other, but they are rival brands who compete for the superficial "best" place.

Although- in overall distribution Windows wins hands down.
 
If 7 is a service pack then Snow Leopard is a bug fix. plain and simple.

Sorry I was late to the party, but are you sure you want to go there? How could 10.6 be a bug fix if there were no bugs to fix in 10.5? If you can point out some bugs that 10.5 had that 10.6 has addressed I'm all eyes? 10.6 is having its own compatibility issues and growing pains since they broke away from the PPC code and are going all Intel, but still very few crashes.
 
Sorry I was late to the party, but are you sure you want to go there? How could 10.6 be a bug fix if there were no bugs to fix in 10.5? If you can point out some bugs that 10.5 had that 10.6 has addressed I'm all eyes? 10.6 is having its own compatibility issues and growing pains since they broke away from the PPC code and are going all Intel, but still very few crashes.

No bugs in OSX? Who programmed it- Jesus?

I'm sorry, but it's almost impossible for there to be not a single bug in a piece of software as big as on OS.

Also, if OS/X was so perfect- then kindly explain why Apple felt the impulse to create Snow Leopard? That little guest account bug is a little annoying, don't you think? Sorry- but Mac isn't as great as you think it is and it's not even worth arguing over because I don't really care what OS anyone uses, just so long as they like it. That PPC thing isn't exactly a good excuse- they should have tested it much more before releasing Snow Leopard.

Me personally? I like Windows 7 > Windows Vista > Mac Leopard > Linux (any) > Windows XP > Mac Snow Leopard.



Oops, forgot to mention. I mean Windows 7 is a service pack == Snow Leopard is a bugfix as an illustration as far as new introduced features.
 
Last edited:
No bugs in OSX? Who programmed it- Jesus?

I'm sorry, but it's almost impossible for there to be not a single bug in a piece of software as big as on OS.

Also, if OS/X was so perfect- then kindly explain why Apple felt the impulse to create Snow Leopard? That little guest account bug is a little annoying, don't you think? Sorry- but Mac isn't as great as you think it is and it's not even worth arguing over because I don't really care what OS anyone uses, just so long as they like it. That PPC thing isn't exactly a good excuse- they should have tested it much more before releasing Snow Leopard.

Me personally? I like Windows 7 > Windows Vista > Mac Leopard > Linux (any) > Windows XP > Mac Snow Leopard.


Oops, forgot to mention. I mean Windows 7 is a service pack == Snow Leopard is a bugfix as an illustration as far as new introduced features.



To start with he never said Leopard was perfect neither did I. What he said was can you point out some bugs that 10.5 had that 10.6 has addressed. Also he never said OS X was perfect. Snow Leopard just made a great OS even better While 7 made Vista functional.
 
To start with he never said Leopard was perfect neither did I. What he said was can you point out some bugs that 10.5 had that 10.6 has addressed. Also he never said OS X was perfect. Snow Leopard just made a great OS even better While 7 made Vista functional.

>.> What have I been using for 3 years now then? I've literally never had a single driver issue and only 1 hardware crash. Most of the complaints I hear is because people want to run Vista on a machine that barely ran XP properly.

I can't point out any bugs in OSX 10.5 because I use it only maybe once a week. But if I googled around I can guarantee you I will have a list for you. But I don't really have the time- or even the slightest urge to do so.
 
I can't point out any bugs in OSX 10.5 because I use it only maybe once a week. But if I googled around I can guarantee you I will have a list for you. But I don't really have the time- or even the slightest urge to do so.

I could google Windows 7 bugs and come up with a list several times larger than the list you could come up with for OSX based partially on larger market share and mostly because any idiot with a internet connection can post whatever they want about anything and have a few simple minds believe it, BUT, for both scenarios I'm not one of the types like perhaps you are that believes everything they read on the internet. You substitute google for your very limited professional experience? WTF?

By the way the Guest account thing only affected maybe 1% of machines running Snow Leopard that are out there. Also the guest account is never enabled on OSX by default and on top of that it only happened if not booted into the main user account first. So how annoying is the little guest account bug? I've never seen it personally and can gaurantee you never have.
 
I could google Windows 7 bugs and come up with a list several times larger than the list you could come up with for OSX based partially on larger market share and mostly because any idiot with a internet connection can post whatever they want about anything and have a few simple minds believe it, BUT, for both scenarios I'm not one of the types like perhaps you are that believes everything they read on the internet. You substitute google for your very limited professional experience? WTF?

By the way the Guest account thing only affected maybe 1% of machines running Snow Leopard that are out there. Also the guest account is never enabled on OSX by default and on top of that it only happened if not booted into the main user account first. So how annoying is the little guest account bug? I've never seen it personally and can gaurantee you never have.

I don't use Google as an index. I rarely trust internet resources. My preference is a good old fashion library or book store's computer/technology section.

The only time I really use Google is when I need some rudimentary information on a spots notice and try to decipher whether it's good enough or not.

Also, the fact that there are so many Windows bugs is because of the wide variety of supported hardware and backwards compatibility. Although the backwards compatibility thing is a double edges sword since we're stuck with file fragmentation and a registry.

Anyway, I submit and I withdraw my previous comments from this post.
 
Most of the complaints I hear is because people want to run Vista on a machine that barely ran XP properly.

Thats not the complaints I hear. The complaints I hear are that they upgraded every machine in the office to top of the line and got a buggy half assed OS. Or built a custom top of the line gaming rig and Vista slowed it down to a crawl.


Can you honestly get on a Windows 7 machine and then go back to a Vista crippled PC and tell me their is no difference? If there are differences what are they? Your control panel actually opens right up on the 7 machine while Vista takes 10 seconds to do so? Oh, how about the 15 minutes it takes Vista to copy a small file from one local drive to another? You mean that new Windows 7 box will actually see the home network?


I could go on for 10-15 pages and I have done so in this very forum. If you had no issues what so ever with Vista you either never been on a vista machine or your idea of an issue is far different from mine.
 
I like Windows 7

Hey, I installed Windows 7 Home Premium 64-Bit on my main machine and it works beautifully to tell you the truth. Vista gave me issues with debugging errors when it came to programming in Visual Studio 2008. But ever since I installed Windows 7, those errors have disappeared. Of course, I did a fresh new install of the OS, because it's always good to do that instead of upgrading on top of the other.

But for me, I'm sold on Windows 7. It's Great, Its what Windows Vista should have been to begin with. :)

I think MS has finally got it right.
 
Thats not the complaints I hear. The complaints I hear are that they upgraded every machine in the office to top of the line and got a buggy half assed OS. Or built a custom top of the line gaming rig and Vista slowed it down to a crawl.


Can you honestly get on a Windows 7 machine and then go back to a Vista crippled PC and tell me their is no difference? If there are differences what are they? Your control panel actually opens right up on the 7 machine while Vista takes 10 seconds to do so? Oh, how about the 15 minutes it takes Vista to copy a small file from one local drive to another? You mean that new Windows 7 box will actually see the home network?


I could go on for 10-15 pages and I have done so in this very forum. If you had no issues what so ever with Vista you either never been on a vista machine or your idea of an issue is far different from mine.


I've never experienced those issues to begin with. If I have I would of complained about Vista just like the lot of everyone else. I guess I was just very lucky...along with the other 40 or 50 family members that I have setup a Windows Vista computer (So I guess I have in fact been on Vista a couple times...

By all means, yes I know that windows Vista is much slower than 7 but it's not really all that slow in general. If the speed limit is 65 and I'm going 50 then I am not going slow- but I am certainly not going my top legal speed either. I'm still going to get to where I am going, just not as fast.

And yes, I've upgraded my system from Vista to 7. It's much better looking and faster. But I seriously never had any hardware issues with Windows Vista- ever. My idea of an issue is if something isn't working as expected. If something takes me a second or two longer I won't really care too much.

Oh and those high end gaming rigs...did they happen to have slow hard drives? overclocked memory? maybe buggy video drivers? none of that is Vista's fault. Put a 10K or even a 7200RPM hard drive (let alone SSD), Un-overclocked memory and mature drivers in a Vista computer and watch it fly.

And about the control panel...why does mine open up almost instantaneously (within 2 seconds) in Vista? And why can I copy a large collection of PHP files (all in the 1kb to 10kb range with a total of about 5,000 files) from my laptops SUPER slow 5200RPM hard drive to an external hard drive in under 5 minutes? Is my dinosaur of a laptop some sort of special case- or is it that you yourself have never used Vista.

And the office upgrade- how long ago was that? Was SP1 out? Vista shipped as a buggy half-fast OS, I will grant you that. SP1 fixed 90% of those problems....SP2 covered the rest. Everything else is Hardware and Software manufacturers fault- not Microsoft's. Also, on my laptop with a $5 off-brand network adapter I am actually picking up networks from across the block- my wireless network connection is getting the full 15MBit/second down and 2.5MBit/Sec up and all I had to do was install the drivers for it.


HOWEVER, I will grant you that Windows 7 is superior to Vista. But only on the grounds because it is a newer model. But I do also agree it is what Windows Vista should have been, back when it was called Longhorn.
 
I've never experienced those issues to begin with. If I have I would of complained about Vista just like the lot of everyone else. I guess I was just very lucky...along with the other 40 or 50 family members that I have setup a Windows Vista computer (So I guess I have in fact been on Vista a couple times...


Wow, 40 or 50. Well lets see, without pulling my records I would estimate I have had maybe 300-400 Vista machines pass through my hands in the past two years. All but maybe 5-6 systems were slow ( compared to XP machines or Windows 7 machines ) buggy and suffered some kind of issue that could be traced back to the OS.


I have friends who are techs in major school systems and have worked on far more vista machines than I have and they will sing a similar song.


By all means, yes I know that windows Vista is much slower than 7 but it's not really all that slow in general. If the speed limit is 65 and I'm going 50 then I am not going slow- but I am certainly not going my top legal speed either. I'm still going to get to where I am going, just not as fast.


So are you saying that its ok that Vista was slower than the OS it replaced?


Oh and those high end gaming rigs...did they happen to have slow hard drives? overclocked memory? maybe buggy video drivers?


Nope, they had 7,200 and 10,000 RPM drives. The memory was not OC ed at the time, and I think two of them had Nvidia driver issues.


Even after 2 service packs Vista is still not as good as XP. I think that alone says a lot about it.
 
Last edited:
Wow, 40 or 50. Well lets see, without pulling my records I would estimate I have had maybe 300-400 Vista machines pass through my hands in the past two years. All but maybe 5-6 systems were slow ( compared to XP machines or Windows 7 machines ) buggy and suffered some kind of issue that could be traced back to the OS.

I have friends who are techs in major school systems and have worked on far more vista machines than I have and they will sing a similar song.

I guess I was lucky then ;)





So are you saying that its ok that Vista was slower than the OS it replaced?

It's a new software. Of course it will run slower if it's not optimized from the get-go... Are you saying that it's ok that Crysis 2 will run slower than Crysis on my ATi HD 3870?





Nope, they had 7,200 and 10,000 RPM drives. The memory was not OC ed at the time, and I think two of them had Nvidia driver issues.

I see- well sorry to hear that :(




Even after 2 service packs Vista is still not as good as XP. I think that alone says a lot about it.

Hmm- better in what way? Speed yes...but visually appealing No. Compatibility? Yes, but Feature wise? No.
 
It's a new software. Of course it will run slower if it's not optimized from the get-go... Are you saying that it's ok that Crysis 2 will run slower than Crysis on my ATi HD 3870?


Windows 7 is newer than Vista and has more features and still runs much faster, explain that.



Hmm- better in what way? Speed yes...but visually appealing No. Compatibility? Yes, but Feature wise? No.


As for the visuals there are many 3rd party free apps that can be used to make XP look better if that a big concern. In fact there is a "pack" out that makes it look almost exactly like Windows 7. All the features you speak of? I'm sure most people will never use or even know they exist and even then I'm pretty sure its nothing you could not do with some free software.


By the way I do recommend people upgrade from XP to 7.
 
Windows 7 is newer than Vista and has more features and still runs much faster, explain that.

Well, you got me there. But I guess that's a new trend with OS's.
7 > Vista, Snow Leopard > Leopard. Same even applies to Ubuntu.


As for the visuals there are many 3rd party free apps that can be used to make XP look better if that a big concern. In fact there is a "pack" out that makes it look almost exactly like Windows 7. All the features you speak of? I'm sure most people will never use or even know they exist and even then I'm pretty sure its nothing you could not do with some free software.

Yes, but the OOBE is what matters for most people. There are programs out there to make your computer look like Mac- or a Sci-Fi like GUI.

And sure, there are features that no one would use. But I'm glad that they're there. because I use a lot of them.





By the way I do recommend people upgrade from XP to 7.

As do I. I personally will never reccomend Vista to anyone. I'm just saying it's not as bad as everyone made it out to be. At least, from my perspective.
 
Back
Top