Windows 7 Beta

Marty_J

DatabaseError wrote: »

does OS X mean...er...Operating System 10 (Roman numeral X=10) judging by 10.0 cheetah, 10.1 puma etc...it looks that way to me. Could it be argued, going by the numbering (10.0, 10.1 etc..) that each release since 2001 is a point release (or a big service pack), charged for by Apple (though losing support of older hardware along the way, and adding new functionality such as the iwork suite integration (hard to believe microsoft were fined for including a browser in an OS))?

In many ways, yes. Though Apple don't do "service packs".

Microsoft are constantly being fined for abusing their monopoly. Apple don't have a monopoly.

If this is the case, what is the issue with Win7 being a chargeable product?

No issue per se. They can charge whatever they like. But they're charging for this because they messed up Vista, and they want to get away from it as quickly as possible. They can hardly release a service pack and have its name change so *bang*.....Windows 7.

Any chance of everybody accepting that windows isn't right for everyone, nor is OS-X, or Linux, or DOS.

I really don't think there's any chance of that happening.

I would be prepared to believe it if every PC user had tried OS X or Linux, but they haven't.

So there's no real way of telling.

[Deleted User]

Marty_J wrote: »

Such as?

Support for connecting to Microsoft Exchange 2007
Faster installation times and smaller hard drive footprint. About 13 minutes versus an hour plus for 10.5.
Support for up to a theoretical 16TB RAM by further developing 64-bit kernel technologies.
Grand Central
OpenCL
A 64-bit kernel (almost)

That's taken from Wiki, but do add to it if it's slightly outdated. I wouldn't exactly say that it's worthy of the term "next major revision", but I can understand the principles behind doing so. Apple needing to cut backwards compatibility really shouldn't be at the consumers expensve.

energy80s wrote: »

It will be interesting to see how Windows 7 pans out in comparison with XP. I had the misfortune to use Vista on a Dual-Core Laptop the other night and it was worse than a Pentium 1 for speed! I would have happily thrown the lappy out the window if it had been mine!!!!!!

Well no, I would have just installed XP instead!!!

Must be something seriously wrong with the laptop or in the way that whoever owns it has it configured then.

DatabaseError

I've tried linux (we didn't get along), I've not tried os-x....I've considered the hackintosh route...on another partition....but as all my software runs on my current os (7) I'm struggling to see the point...(especially as it means buying an OS just to have a look) though I am looking for a reason to try.

FWIW I've never driven a robin reliant or an aston martin db5, though I'm prepared to accept that some people find they fit their needs perfectly, regardless of their differences.

[Deleted User]

DatabaseError wrote: »

I've tried linux (we didn't get along), I've not tried os-x....I've considered the hackintosh route...on another partition....but as all my software runs on my current os (7) I'm struggling to see the point...(especially as it means buying an OS just to have a look) though I am looking for a reason to try.

FWIW I've never driven a robin reliant or an aston martin db5, though I'm prepared to accept that some people find they fit their needs perfectly, regardless of their differences.

I'm not having the best of times either trying to get into Linux. I've been messing around with it in a VM, but I'm not getting as enthused over it as others have been. I shall persevere though!

Marty_J

anewhope wrote: »

Support for connecting to Microsoft Exchange 2007

Hardly surprising that Apple haven't had support for MS Exchange now is it?

Faster installation times and smaller hard drive footprint. About 13 minutes versus an hour plus for 10.5.

Windows has had faster setup times for years has it? I very much doubt it.

A clean install of Leopard takes about 20 minutes on my Mac.

Support for up to a theoretical 16TB RAM by further developing 64-bit kernel technologies.

How many years has Windows been able to access 16 TB of RAM for?

Grand Central

How many years has Windows contained technology which automatically handles multi threading for developers?

OpenCL

How many years has Windows contained technology which allows any application to use the computer's GPU as well as its CPU for calculations other than graphics?

A 64-bit kernel (almost)

OS X 10.6 will have a totally 64 bit kernel.

I wouldn't exactly say that it's worthy of the term "next major revision", but I can understand the principles behind doing so.

OpenCL alone would make it a major revision in my view.

But yeah, Apple is really playing catch-up.

DatabaseError

anewhope wrote: »

I'm not having the best of times either trying to get into Linux. I've been messing around with it in a VM, but I'm not getting as enthused over it as others have been. I shall persevere though!

I gave up fairly quickly....once I realised it would never do what I wanted. I suppose I can give up on OS-X for the same reason, though without even having a look

Marty_J

DatabaseError wrote: »

I've tried linux (we didn't get along), I've not tried os-x....I've considered the hackintosh route...on another partition....but as all my software runs on my current os (7) I'm struggling to see the point...(especially as it means buying an OS just to have a look) though I am looking for a reason to try.

As far as i know, if you want to go the hackintosh way, you need a specially compiled kernel. You can't just buy OS X from a store and install it.

I've never done it though, so I could be wrong.

FWIW I've never driven a robin reliant or an aston martin db5, though I'm prepared to accept that some people find they fit their needs perfectly, regardless of their differences.

And if someone had only ever driven a Ford, would you say they'd be qualified to judge which brand of car is best?

They wouldn't even know which brand is best for themselves, never mind anyone else.

Marty_J

DatabaseError wrote: »

I gave up fairly quickly....once I realised it would never do what I wanted. I suppose I can give up on OS-X for the same reason, though without even having a look

Well, then you'll never know if you prefer Windows or a Mac.

energy80s

I always look on the operating system as the "petrol" for the PC. It is required for the thing to operate, but isn't much use for anything else. I have real programmes for that! I have never understood why people blindly use Microsoft products when there are so many better alternatives out there. That is also the reason why I don't use Linux or a Mac as the software (and hardware) I need to run is designed for the Windows/PC platform. It's also another good reason not to touch Vista as very little legacy software wants to run on it. It'll be the same for Windows 7 no doubt, so I won't be rushing into that one either.

[Deleted User]

Marty_J wrote: »

Hardly surprising that Apple haven't had support for MS Exchange now is it?

I'm surprised it has taken this long.

Windows has had faster setup times for years has it? I very much doubt it.

I've not had one installation of Vista take more than 25 minutes. Infact, It's probably around that time because I did a fresh install on a machine only a few nights ago and I got two games on CoD5 done while it was doing it, and had to leave the third midway through. Not really much of a selling point though is it, how often do you have to reinstall a modern operating system?

How many years has Windows been able to access 16 TB of RAM for?

A decade

How many years has Windows contained technology which automatically handles multi threading for developers?

Do you mean multiprocessing (splitting operations over the processors available), rather than multithreading, because Windows has been able to multithread since NT4?

How many years has Windows contained technology which allows any application to use the computer's GPU as well as its CPU for calculations other than graphics?

2+ years

OS X 10.6 will have a totally 64 bit kernel.

How does it handle non 64bit Mac's? A compatibility mode?

OpenCL alone would make it a major revision in my view.

Depends on what real world benefits it's going to deliver.