A halloween challenge: Windows 7 vs MacOS X

A halloween challenge: Windows 7 vs MacOS X

Summary: I've been reviewing what other people say and show about WIndows 7 - and it looks stunningly familiar - almost like I've used this stuff before: on a Mac, say.

SHARE:

Ok, if you're hiding from kids suffering from sugar candy hangovers I have a challenge for you - and, especially for those who like and use Microsoft Windows on a regular basis.

The challenge is this: offer a list of anything new in the Microsoft Windows 7 M3 pre-beta release for desktop use sometime in 2010 that doesn't work on a Mac laptop now.

From personal libraries and gadgets to gesture support, it looks stunningly familiar - and if, like me, you don't have personal access and have to go by third party reports, here's a whole bunch of google hits on stuff by my fellow zdnet bloggers - everything from leg tingles to comments from Microsoft technologists and all with lots of helpful screenshots.

Good Luck - oh, and if you can't find anything that's exactly compelling? well, then there's probably something you should be asking yourself, isn't there?

Topics: Software, Apple, Microsoft, Operating Systems, Windows

Kick off your day with ZDNet's daily email newsletter. It's the freshest tech news and opinion, served hot. Get it.

Talkback

179 comments
Log in or register to join the discussion
  • There is only one advantage of Windows over Mac OS X

    DirectX.
    cruggeld
    • Yep, I have to agree... gaming is the only thing

      That Windows has a lead on Mac over, and I am a Microsoft fanboy who tried OSX and didn't like it, mainly because of that reason.
      Lerianis
    • Not true

      Nobody writes software for Mac.
      Comnenus
      • Nobody

        As in Ulysses and Cyclops? As in the only people walking in Los
        Angeles are nobodies? As in Adobe, Omni, Rogue Amoeba,
        and, and, and MICROSOFT, to name but a few, now just
        evaporated?

        If you want to assert that the Windows advantage is that the
        software you use is there at the feature count and cost point
        you prefer, then that is a practical point. It's off point to
        today's question, which has to do with interface uniqueness in
        Windows 7 vis a vis OS X, but it is a practical point.

        My comment would be that I have no interest in looking at
        Windows 7, or any software, in pre-release state if I am not
        going to engage it as a tester. I've come to the point of view
        that better interfaces will migrate from platform to platform
        and rightly so. In fact, one reason I dislike software patents is
        that it impedes the migration and we customers have to make
        further compromised choices. Who has what first is a lot less
        important than who has what now and less important than the
        more subtle who has what now that promotes usage. (Now and
        not in the next release.) For example, user switching was in
        Windows first, I'm glad it's in OS X now.
        DannyO_0x98
    • PC gaming is becoming a niche market these days.

      PC gaming is dying out. Everyone either wants the Wii or the
      360, with a few wanting a PS3.

      And besides, the majority of the best selling PC games are available for OS X.

      http://www.gamedb.com/ss
      ashdude
      • Not true...

        PC gaming tends to be THE place for gaming still. The console market is somewhat stale. And the more they rely on FPS games the more PC gaming has to gain as its the better platform for this type of game.
        storm14k
        • Wrong. The sales say other wise.

          PC gaming made up only 14% of 2007 sales. Consoles are
          taking over. Get used to it.

          http://www.1up.com/do/newsStory?cId=3165631
          ashdude
          • Actually You're Wrong!

            Sales figures for retail gaming do not include things like WoW and the vast majority of Korean kids who apparently spend their waking lives online gaming.

            Also, PC Games hit a rough patch cyclically last year as developers made decisions three years back to move to platforms and those generations of games are now on the market.

            Games like Fallout 3 and FarCry 2, while ported to the consoles are in fact PC Games first and foremost, it is where the experience is best.
            SuperSean
    • Truth

      Not really. See this: http://talkback.zdnet.com/5208-11202-0.html?forumID=1&threadID=53777&messageID=1017653

      I totally agree with him. That's why Windows is the most dominant OS in the world not Mac OS X. Even I don't use Mac anymore!! Waste of money
      shellcodes_coder
      • You're quoting NonZealot? Give me a break...

        You're quoting NonZealot? Give me a break. That troll
        spews endless half-truths and outright lies.

        [i]"1. True 64 bit support. Sorry, a 32 bit kernel with a 64
        bit compatibility shim doesn't count."[/i]

        Irrelevant. Few applications will see the benefits of 64-bit
        memory addressing. The advantage to having a 32-bit
        kernel with 64-bit memory support is that you can run 32-
        bit & 64-bit applications and device drivers on either 32-
        bit or 64-bit machines. You don't have to worry about
        custom 64-bit only drivers, software, or hardware.

        Snow Leopard will have a 64-bit kernel.

        [i]"2. Time Machine done 3 years before Time Machine (tm)
        was "invented"...[/i]

        Time Machine is just a front-end for rsync. Rsync has
        been apart of OS X (and UNIX) since the 1990s, back when
        Windows was just a fancy shell for DOS.

        Rsync can be interfaced by damn near anything. Lots of
        shareware and commercial software interfaces are out
        there. [i]Anyone[/i] can write software that implements
        rsycn.

        [i]"4. Better support for Exchange clients than OS X and if
        you suggest that isn't important, why don't you ask Apple
        why they paid Microsoft for the ability to sync the iPhone
        with Exchange."[/i]

        I would hope that Microsoft could write a better Exchange
        client since they wrote Exchange. [i]Everyone[/i] has to pay
        Microsoft for the ability to sync with an Exchange server.
        Obviously Apple wouldn't be an exception.

        Incidentally, OS X is free to interface with.

        [i]"6. Tablet support. Awwww, none for OS X!!! And you
        guys keep asking for it every year"[/i]

        OS X works fine with Tablets, even if Apple doesn't have a
        tablet PC.

        [i]"7. As mentioned before, games suck on OS X. Is this
        important to all? Of course not."[/i]

        Games are only as good as the people who create them.
        Microsoft refused to license DirectX and uses incentives to
        keep software developers from using OpenGL.

        [i]"8. Hand and glove support for Windows server
        technologies like Active Directory. You know, the thing the
        EU said gave Microsoft an unfair advantage over the
        competition."[/i]

        Apple has Open Directory, an Open Source version of
        Active Directory. It will even interface and integrate into
        an Active Directory environment.

        EU and Murphy are both correct since Open Directory was
        only made possible by reverse engineering proprietary
        software that Microsoft refused to open up to competing
        companies.

        [i]"9. Virtualization. OS X can't be virtualized as a guest OS.
        "[/i]

        OS X can be virtualized so long as it's on Apple hardware.
        olePigeon
        • Speaking of half-truths...

          1. [i]Irrelevant. Few applications will see the benefits of 64-bit memory addressing. The advantage to having a 32-bit kernel with 64-bit memory support is that you can run 32-bit & 64-bit applications and device drivers on either 32-bit or 64-bit machines. You don't have to worry about custom 64-bit only drivers, software, or hardware.

          Snow Leopard will have a 64-bit kernel.[/i]

          So it's irrelevant, worthless and trouble prone.

          Except that Snow Leopard will finally bring OS X a 64-bit kernel, at which point it'll become relevant, worthwhile and trouble free, right?

          If your first paragraph is true, your last sentence says Apple is pointlessly copying a worthless Windows "feature".


          "6. [i]OS X works fine with Tablets, even if Apple doesn't have a tablet PC.[/i]
          and
          "9. [i]OS X can be virtualized so long as it's on Apple hardware.[/i]

          If Apple doesn't have a tablet PC, then OS X can't be installed on this PC per Apple's own EULA. If you're willing to break the EULA on actual hardware, why the strict adherence to the EULA when virtualized?

          The Axiotron Modbook is not ethically or legally different than the Psystar Open PC, and I think we know pretty well how Jobs feels about their existence.
          rtk
          • No...

            [i]"So it's irrelevant, worthless and trouble prone."[/i]

            No. It's a great implementation for migrating between two
            architectures.

            [i]"Except that Snow Leopard will finally bring OS X a 64-
            bit kernel, at which point it'll become relevant, worthwhile
            and trouble free, right?"[/i]

            Not really. I stand by my statement retarding 64-bit. Even
            when OS X adopts a 64-bit kernel, users won't see any
            real difference. Some applications will actually run slower.

            Apple will, by the way, include [i]both[/i] 32-bit and 64-bit
            versions of the OS all in one, single package. It will install
            on either 32-bit or 64-bit systems and use the same
            software. That's something Microsoft doesn't do.

            [i]"If your first paragraph is true, your last sentence says
            Apple is pointlessly copying a worthless Windows
            'feature'."[/i]

            My first statement [i]is[/i] true. I didn't say no applications
            would see a benefit, I said only a few would benefit from
            64-bit memory addressing. Apple makes machines for
            digital professionals, that would include graphic design,
            audio, and video editing. All three of those areas
            [i]would[/i] see a significant improvement by utilizing 64-
            bit memory addressing.

            [i]"The Axiotron Modbook is not ethically or legally
            different than the Psystar Open PC, and I think we know
            pretty well how Jobs feels about their existence."[/i]

            Yes, it is ethically [i]and[/i] legally different than the
            Psystar. The Axiotron Modbook is a MacBook with a
            touchscreen added to it, it is still Apple branded original
            equipment.
            olePigeon
        • LOL

          Am talking about the present not the future. Vista x64 already has a 64-bit kernel

          What about drive encryption, shadow copy?

          some interesting features coming in Windows 7:
          What about VHD, drive encryption for flash drives, and def. multi-touch?

          The list goes on and on...

          Anyway Windows is much better in all those areas than crap OS X is. Windows 7 is even more promising!! So clearly Windows is the winner
          shellcodes_coder
          • OK...

            [i]"What about drive encryption, shadow copy?"[/i]

            FileVault and rsync. There are also numerous free,
            shareware, and commercial options.

            [i]"What about VHD, drive encryption for flash drives, and
            def. multi-touch?"[/i]

            Apple's had VHDs since System 7 in 1991, it was called
            Disk Copy. OS X now uses Disk Utility to manage VHDs of
            various formats. .img was the staple of System 7 through
            9, and .dmg is used in OS X. You can boot off of an OS
            installed onto a .dmg (including Windows) via NetBoot on
            OS X Server.

            Many of the Flash Drive manufacturers offer
            complementary encryption for their flash devices. It's
            almost irrelevant.

            There are 3rd party solutions for multi-touch on the
            computer. Admittedly, Windows currently has multitouch
            better implemented.

            [i]"Anyway Windows is much better in all those areas than
            crap OS X is."[/i]

            No.
            olePigeon
    • OpenGL is a perfectly viable alternative to DirectX...

      OpenGL is a perfectly viable alternative to DirectX. It
      supports most (if not all) of DirectX's major features, [i]and[/i]
      it's cross platform.

      The problem is that Microsoft can offer exclusivity deals with
      software vendors where the open source community can not
      compete. Companies will write software only using DirectX.
      olePigeon
      • Too bad

        Too bad OpenGL in MacOS X is crap. I've for a X3100 Intel
        integrated card; it can do OpenGL 2.x but it is stuck using
        OpenGL 1.x.
        Kaiwai
        • Yes, that is true...

          Yes, that is true, I've been disenchanted with Apple's OpenGL
          drivers. It'd be nice if there was an incentive for Apple to
          update them, but Microsoft has done a good job at cornering
          the PC gaming market.
          olePigeon
  • RE: A halloween challenge: Windows 7 vs MacOS X

    The challenge should be: what can you do on an exorbitantly expensive Mac that you can't do right now in Windows for a fraction of the cost?
    BR999
    • Exactly

      nt
      eMJayy
    • 64-bit Unix core with native Office support.

      [i]The challenge should be: what can you do on an
      exorbitantly expensive Mac that you can't do right now in
      Windows for a fraction of the cost?[/i]

      Have a 64-bit Unix core with native Office support? That's
      what sold me.
      ashdude