Discussion on:
Much like running Windows XP Home on my laptop, Windows 7 Home Premium seems to be enough for most people. Who encrypts their files? The RAM limit is much because by the time that amount becomes standard you will have a new laptop with more memory anyway. Presentation mode won't be needed for home users or joining a domain. A lot of people will get by with Windows 7 Home Premium, those that can't will know to upgrade so its really not a problem at all.
Which was available in which version of Windows or OS X. Nearly
everything he said wasn't available on OS X ... is. For the same low price.
everything he said wasn't available on OS X ... is. For the same low price.
The title of his blog is about win 7 and no mention of Apple, The blog would have been great had he not showed his bias and tried to compare windows to OSX.
Whole heartedly. He should have left the Mac out, but he wanted all the
hits he's getting because of it.
hits he's getting because of it.
That's not really a fair criticism, I think it's fine to compare the capabilities of the two OSes when asked if a particular version of Windows is enough. The title implies that Home Editions of Windows may not be enough. Therefore, wouldn't inclusion of OSX in comparison be implied?
Nowhere is it said that Ed is limited to comparing Windows editions solely to other Windows editions.
Nowhere is it said that Ed is limited to comparing Windows editions solely to other Windows editions.
People compare OSs all the time, what was wrong with Ed responding to Win7 criticisms and OS X comparisons and using it as a benchmark to show its similarity is more with Home Premium than with Ultimate, his story was very fact based and nailed it for me anyway. How many times have I seen the Linux nuts and Macboys coming on here ripping into Windows compared with X feature on their OS of choice.
... if he had included features of OSX that Win 7 does not include such as Quicklook, Preview or Spaces?
Frankly I tend to ignore the Mac vs Win gibberish, as, ultimately, it comes down to personal preference and large scale computing trends. But, this is a supposed light-weight article on the viability of Win7 Home Premium.
The bias is blazingly apparent by the use of "Limited" and "Limited by Hardware" in the OSX listings. In fact most of the OSX list says "Limited". So, under memory, by simply shouting "Yes! 192GB!" that means Win7 is magically able to break hardware barriers?
Quite frankly, for years OSX has not only had core 64bit memory support, but, the MacPro desktop line has historically had more memory slots and larger max ram ability than the vast offerings in the Windows OEM world, and, still does today. Outside of server-specific hardware, even -most- high end windows pcs have motherboards with only 2-4 ram slots, with maximum "limitations" of 4-8g. Anyone with any common hardware experience in PCs knows this, but I do suppose it is easy to ignore the MacPro as it is only 20-30% of their product line, with it's 8 memory slots and 8-core design (yet another feature the vast majority of Win PCs do not offer.)
Granted, perhaps the new Win7Home isn't as strangulating as the old XPhome or, hopefully, as marketing crippled as the Vista insanity. But that doesn't mean you can line Apples and oranges up for a checklist, especially if you put in blazingly obvious bias or omit things having different names.
The bias is blazingly apparent by the use of "Limited" and "Limited by Hardware" in the OSX listings. In fact most of the OSX list says "Limited". So, under memory, by simply shouting "Yes! 192GB!" that means Win7 is magically able to break hardware barriers?
Quite frankly, for years OSX has not only had core 64bit memory support, but, the MacPro desktop line has historically had more memory slots and larger max ram ability than the vast offerings in the Windows OEM world, and, still does today. Outside of server-specific hardware, even -most- high end windows pcs have motherboards with only 2-4 ram slots, with maximum "limitations" of 4-8g. Anyone with any common hardware experience in PCs knows this, but I do suppose it is easy to ignore the MacPro as it is only 20-30% of their product line, with it's 8 memory slots and 8-core design (yet another feature the vast majority of Win PCs do not offer.)
Granted, perhaps the new Win7Home isn't as strangulating as the old XPhome or, hopefully, as marketing crippled as the Vista insanity. But that doesn't mean you can line Apples and oranges up for a checklist, especially if you put in blazingly obvious bias or omit things having different names.
You know, the ones you guys have bashed for the last 25 years???
Ouch! To twist the knife a little more...
To wolftalamasca:
You must not actually be talking about high end PCs. All the major PC vendors sell models that have limitations well beyond 4-8GB. In fact, my PC at home has a limitation of 16GB, and on a relatively inexpensive motherboard at that (sub $150).
Your argument has quite a few holes in it. Firstly, might I point out that you can only buy a Mac from Apple. You can build a Hacintosh yourself, but that is generally frowned on by Apple and totally unsupported. And for those building a Hacintosh (or equivelant PC, since at that point you're no longer using "Mac" hardware), they can get well beyond the 4-8GB barrier whether they go PC, Mac, Linux, or dual/multi boot.
Secondly, the Mac Pro costs $2,500 for the single Quad-core version (which use the Intel Xeon processor which has long been available for PCs), with 3GB of memory, a 640GB hard drive, 8x DL drive, and 512Mb memory card (current price/specs). As has always been the case, a similar PC can be built or purchased for cheaper. PCs have supported dual processors for a LONG long time, so that argument, and the argument regarding the '8-core design' is just plain ridiculous. Not to mention the fact that the old G5 processors were never actually all that 'superior' to Intel/AMD as Apple touted, and Apple finally dropped them because they were heat/energy hogs that had lived well beyond their usefulness.
Third, the Mac Pro only offers the NVidia Geforce GT 120 (rebranded Geforce 9500GT) or ATI Radeon HD 4870 card. They don't offer any of the professional Nvidia Quadro or ATI FireGL series cards which are standard on similar professional workstation class PCs from HP/Dell, and pretty standard for CAD, Video Editing, VFX, and other graphics applications. The GT120 is NOT a professional series card, although it is powerful.
Fourth, while it is nice to know that the Mac has had 64-bit support for quite some time, please, tell me, how many applications available for the Mac actually supported it in that time apart from the OS? Even now that Intel and Windows have much better support for 64-bit, companies are FINALLY making the switch. Apple had little to do with that movement - the switch to 64-bit has come naturally as a result of bigger, bulkier applications requiring more memory. Apple may have moved to 64-bit first, but I would call their move premature.
Additionally:
You can't buy a blu-ray player/burner standard.
You can't actually play blu-ray movies even if you buy a reader\burner.
The Mac Pro only has 4 HDD bays.
The Mac Pro only supports 32GB Max memory (Dell/HP come with up to 192GB Memory).
Quite frankly, if you buy a Mac, you should be presented with a list of everything you CAN'T do with it.
-Want to put in a different video card? Like a REAL professional video card? Tough luck.
-Want to build it with custom 3rd party parts? We won't support you.
-Want to play most games? Oh... well, we do have Parallels... But don't expect us to build you a sweet-looking gaming rig like Alienware.
-You can buy the Mac pro in silver... and silver... and silver... and...
This isn't to say that Macs don't work well or do what they say they can do. They do what they say they can and, generally speaking, do it well, but they have issues just like any other OS (*cough* Vista). I have some respect for Apple in sticking to their guns and promoting good, well tested hardware/software combinations, but when it comes to choice they are simply lacking in both features and selection, and that is never going to change unless Apple allows competition within their brand (i.e. other computer vendors selling their own hardware with the Mac OS).
Please, prove to us that the Mac is NOT limited by its hardware. You can't. Please, tell me you've actually bothered to look at what a modern PC is capable of (YES, 192GB is possible in a single PC - but NOT with a Mac). Prove that it's not limited by available software, or the OS itself. You can't.
To wolftalamasca:
You must not actually be talking about high end PCs. All the major PC vendors sell models that have limitations well beyond 4-8GB. In fact, my PC at home has a limitation of 16GB, and on a relatively inexpensive motherboard at that (sub $150).
Your argument has quite a few holes in it. Firstly, might I point out that you can only buy a Mac from Apple. You can build a Hacintosh yourself, but that is generally frowned on by Apple and totally unsupported. And for those building a Hacintosh (or equivelant PC, since at that point you're no longer using "Mac" hardware), they can get well beyond the 4-8GB barrier whether they go PC, Mac, Linux, or dual/multi boot.
Secondly, the Mac Pro costs $2,500 for the single Quad-core version (which use the Intel Xeon processor which has long been available for PCs), with 3GB of memory, a 640GB hard drive, 8x DL drive, and 512Mb memory card (current price/specs). As has always been the case, a similar PC can be built or purchased for cheaper. PCs have supported dual processors for a LONG long time, so that argument, and the argument regarding the '8-core design' is just plain ridiculous. Not to mention the fact that the old G5 processors were never actually all that 'superior' to Intel/AMD as Apple touted, and Apple finally dropped them because they were heat/energy hogs that had lived well beyond their usefulness.
Third, the Mac Pro only offers the NVidia Geforce GT 120 (rebranded Geforce 9500GT) or ATI Radeon HD 4870 card. They don't offer any of the professional Nvidia Quadro or ATI FireGL series cards which are standard on similar professional workstation class PCs from HP/Dell, and pretty standard for CAD, Video Editing, VFX, and other graphics applications. The GT120 is NOT a professional series card, although it is powerful.
Fourth, while it is nice to know that the Mac has had 64-bit support for quite some time, please, tell me, how many applications available for the Mac actually supported it in that time apart from the OS? Even now that Intel and Windows have much better support for 64-bit, companies are FINALLY making the switch. Apple had little to do with that movement - the switch to 64-bit has come naturally as a result of bigger, bulkier applications requiring more memory. Apple may have moved to 64-bit first, but I would call their move premature.
Additionally:
You can't buy a blu-ray player/burner standard.
You can't actually play blu-ray movies even if you buy a reader\burner.
The Mac Pro only has 4 HDD bays.
The Mac Pro only supports 32GB Max memory (Dell/HP come with up to 192GB Memory).
Quite frankly, if you buy a Mac, you should be presented with a list of everything you CAN'T do with it.
-Want to put in a different video card? Like a REAL professional video card? Tough luck.
-Want to build it with custom 3rd party parts? We won't support you.
-Want to play most games? Oh... well, we do have Parallels... But don't expect us to build you a sweet-looking gaming rig like Alienware.
-You can buy the Mac pro in silver... and silver... and silver... and...
This isn't to say that Macs don't work well or do what they say they can do. They do what they say they can and, generally speaking, do it well, but they have issues just like any other OS (*cough* Vista). I have some respect for Apple in sticking to their guns and promoting good, well tested hardware/software combinations, but when it comes to choice they are simply lacking in both features and selection, and that is never going to change unless Apple allows competition within their brand (i.e. other computer vendors selling their own hardware with the Mac OS).
Please, prove to us that the Mac is NOT limited by its hardware. You can't. Please, tell me you've actually bothered to look at what a modern PC is capable of (YES, 192GB is possible in a single PC - but NOT with a Mac). Prove that it's not limited by available software, or the OS itself. You can't.
you can yield invoice after hidden invoice to your customers, and then more invoices for the endless support overcoming Microsoft's shortcomings.
Show us a home user and more then 10% of the people out there that use a PC based OS that needs 192 GB of RAM installed. Also Proove how many hardware configurations actualyl provide the same hardware performance.
With these big facts laid out, we can safely say that Apples marketing and business models with there line of comptuers, is infact noteworthy. There is a reason that a MAC user will not be so intot he PC except, being able to customize there PC for a specific use. Yay, PC has that on the side. But really who is really going to buy and install 192GB of RAM. Most home users have little use to use more then 8GB, but can bennefit a little buying more, not to mention most home users are good with 4 GB. Yes Gaming systems will bennefit with 8GB, but the vast end user in PC doesn't game on there computers as a main reason for having them. It is nothing more then a yeah I can plag games on it, but, that isn't why I have a PC. the only users that have a use for insain amounts of RAM as listed above are editors of extreme, and I mean EXTREME editing and modeling, Network Administrators with a huge application load and possibly traffic. Administrators know that the individual computer has no need fo rthat amount of ram. I like Windows 7 and itis Microsofts first OS that deserves bragging rights, and all others are garbage, and are in use only because Windows Based PC is cheap. Now look at the mac when placed side by side as listed in this BLOG. Macs have what the home user needs, they don't uave to sell off all these other almost useless extentions that the Windwos OS implements. Yes those features are usefull to the home user that Windows puts into there OS, but really find a poll that makes it a important attribute, which states even just a number of people seriously thinking of useing everyone of them. Then find a poll of the users that are using them. Finish it up on finding a poll that expresses the end user that usees 100% even after they reload the PC. If it was really that important of a home users demands, don't you think that the PS OEM world as a whole, would have them preconfigured out of the BOX. Probably!!!
With these big facts laid out, we can safely say that Apples marketing and business models with there line of comptuers, is infact noteworthy. There is a reason that a MAC user will not be so intot he PC except, being able to customize there PC for a specific use. Yay, PC has that on the side. But really who is really going to buy and install 192GB of RAM. Most home users have little use to use more then 8GB, but can bennefit a little buying more, not to mention most home users are good with 4 GB. Yes Gaming systems will bennefit with 8GB, but the vast end user in PC doesn't game on there computers as a main reason for having them. It is nothing more then a yeah I can plag games on it, but, that isn't why I have a PC. the only users that have a use for insain amounts of RAM as listed above are editors of extreme, and I mean EXTREME editing and modeling, Network Administrators with a huge application load and possibly traffic. Administrators know that the individual computer has no need fo rthat amount of ram. I like Windows 7 and itis Microsofts first OS that deserves bragging rights, and all others are garbage, and are in use only because Windows Based PC is cheap. Now look at the mac when placed side by side as listed in this BLOG. Macs have what the home user needs, they don't uave to sell off all these other almost useless extentions that the Windwos OS implements. Yes those features are usefull to the home user that Windows puts into there OS, but really find a poll that makes it a important attribute, which states even just a number of people seriously thinking of useing everyone of them. Then find a poll of the users that are using them. Finish it up on finding a poll that expresses the end user that usees 100% even after they reload the PC. If it was really that important of a home users demands, don't you think that the PS OEM world as a whole, would have them preconfigured out of the BOX. Probably!!!
That the OS supports that amount of RAM, someone then said that it was wrong to say OSX is limited by hardware because PCs are too, they were proven wrong, the whole point is, for the few who may need that huge amount of RAM, it is available on the PC platform and supported by Windows 7 Ultimate. OSX and 7 Home Premium support less, as they should, because their market doesn't need that as you point out, OSX is particularly limited by hardware not programming in this case according to Ed.
If anything saying "limited by hardware" shows pro Mac bias because, to me at least, that suggest there is no limit on the amount of memory OSX can support as long as the hardware is up to it. In other words, The better versions of Win 7 are limited to 192GB while OSX has no such limits. Your interpretation suggests you have an anti Windows bias.
That can run these high amounts of RAM. Please, I am waiting for you to show me what model of their limited selection can run all that ram. Seeing if you configure a Mac Pro today the maximum Ram they allow you to configure is 8GB and they only have 4 memory slots so even assuming that it can accept 4GB Ram chips that is still 16GB.
Forgive me if I misinterpreted your message. I think I took your comments backwards. Stupid dyslexia. But my comment still stands for anyone that wants to argue about Windows Memory limitations. To keep things fair find me a consumer PC or Motherboard that supports more than 16GB that a home user would be limited on. I have seen a few boards support 24 - 32GB and those are expensive and if you can afford a $250 motherboard (and all that Ram) you can afford Windows Pro.
Forgive me if I misinterpreted your message. I think I took your comments backwards. Stupid dyslexia. But my comment still stands for anyone that wants to argue about Windows Memory limitations. To keep things fair find me a consumer PC or Motherboard that supports more than 16GB that a home user would be limited on. I have seen a few boards support 24 - 32GB and those are expensive and if you can afford a $250 motherboard (and all that Ram) you can afford Windows Pro.
The Mac Pro with dual 4-core "Nehalem" Xeons, can be configured with
and supports 32 GB of RAM. The Xserve with dual 4-core "Nehalem"
Xeons can be configured with 24 GB of RAM. All there at the Apple Store
online.
and supports 32 GB of RAM. The Xserve with dual 4-core "Nehalem"
Xeons can be configured with 24 GB of RAM. All there at the Apple Store
online.
Well I stand corrected as I did not dig deep enough on Apple.com and did not see that. The Mac pro I selected from their build page only had options up to 8GB. But still their professional workstations and their servers only support 24 - 32Gb of ram. Those can only compete with other brand Pro Workstations and Servers most of which can support considerably more than that. All of which will have a server OS or a Pro OS that supports way more than 16GB of ram.
I am writing this message to you from a Mac Pro with 32 GB of RAM installed.
You could have figured out this was possible by a short visit to crucial.com before posting.
You could have figured out this was possible by a short visit to crucial.com before posting.
No everyday Windows User is gonna be able to use that much RAM. No logical Windows end-user is gonna be able to multitask that much, and no Software for the next decade will be abel to really use that much RAM. Big Deal the OS is able to accomidate insain amounts, while the lager part of the market will not spend more then $100 on just a motherboard. Shoot most the PC world will only spend about 70 on the motherboard upgrade. Why? BECAUSE WE DON"T REALLY CARE ABOUT IT, IT'S NOTHING MORE THEN BRAGGING RIGHTS!! I do like though the note you mention about the limited to hardware. The story doesn't list an amount of RAM the OS can handle, and it doesn't specify even hardware configurations that are using it. Apple just has a high minimum standard that has to be met, and each enabler is designed for a specific hardware confiruation. IT doesn't mean that the OS can't access this or that.
Props to you man
Props to you man
NT.
Have you bothered to look at the maximum specs for Mac products? No Mac, including the XServe, supports more than 32GB of RAM. The most I've seen on PCs thus far is 192GB. See my post above on only a few of the wonderful hardware/software limitations of the Mac.
In any case, if anyone needs more than 192GB of memory, they are certainly not going to be using a desktop operating system for whatever it is they're doing. And speaking of memory limits, 64-bit architectures support up to 16 exabytes of RAM. Just because M$ chooses to limit maximum memory usage in their OS doesn't mean higher amounts of RAM aren't possible. And please, explain to me why it even matters when probably 0.00000001% of standalone desktop computers in the world are using that amount of memory (if that). At that point you're probably looking at a business which is going to more likely be using some kind of cluster for whatever it is they're doing. Not a desktop OS.
Have you bothered to look at the maximum specs for Mac products? No Mac, including the XServe, supports more than 32GB of RAM. The most I've seen on PCs thus far is 192GB. See my post above on only a few of the wonderful hardware/software limitations of the Mac.
In any case, if anyone needs more than 192GB of memory, they are certainly not going to be using a desktop operating system for whatever it is they're doing. And speaking of memory limits, 64-bit architectures support up to 16 exabytes of RAM. Just because M$ chooses to limit maximum memory usage in their OS doesn't mean higher amounts of RAM aren't possible. And please, explain to me why it even matters when probably 0.00000001% of standalone desktop computers in the world are using that amount of memory (if that). At that point you're probably looking at a business which is going to more likely be using some kind of cluster for whatever it is they're doing. Not a desktop OS.
Ed is a Microsoft Windows guy to the core. The Mac OSX comparison
is not accurate because you don't get 192 GB of RAM on any
motherboard today, either. Why bring OSX into a fray on Windows
features, anyway? Clearly, for NFS support and anything else that is
UNIX or LINUX based Mac OSX would have all kinds of advantages.
This is about Windows 7 and that is the only comparison that is
interesting here. The fact is stated in the article that Mac OSX will
handle more RAM than I could afford to buy and for that matter so will
anything except Windows 7 Home. Windows machines are limited by
hardware, too.
Of course, the applications guys at Microsoft now have a new target
for the next version of Office... It will have to get it to require 16 GB of
RAM to run....
The relevant point is if you are going to do anything more than
connect to the internet with Windows 7 you probably want the
business premium version.
is not accurate because you don't get 192 GB of RAM on any
motherboard today, either. Why bring OSX into a fray on Windows
features, anyway? Clearly, for NFS support and anything else that is
UNIX or LINUX based Mac OSX would have all kinds of advantages.
This is about Windows 7 and that is the only comparison that is
interesting here. The fact is stated in the article that Mac OSX will
handle more RAM than I could afford to buy and for that matter so will
anything except Windows 7 Home. Windows machines are limited by
hardware, too.
Of course, the applications guys at Microsoft now have a new target
for the next version of Office... It will have to get it to require 16 GB of
RAM to run....
The relevant point is if you are going to do anything more than
connect to the internet with Windows 7 you probably want the
business premium version.
they're not going to find a Dell or HP PC at perfect purchase or whatever the store is called, capable of using 192GB of RAM. So when Ed says "Limited by hardware" for the Mac, he's already spinning. At 50,000RPM...
Homebuilds can... but with all the articles saying how homebuilding is on its way out (a hypothesis I agree with)... that first line alone is bogus.
Never mind how much memory Vista uses by itself and how much memory OS X uses by itself. On any 4GB machine, Vista always seems to take up 1.8GB. OS X... 512MB.
Almost FOUR TIMES as much. And if MS says "unused ram is wasted ram", how come Vista leaves 2GB freely available? It's being wasted by sitting there unused and not being used for caching files... Inference: Spin on MS's part.
Homebuilds can... but with all the articles saying how homebuilding is on its way out (a hypothesis I agree with)... that first line alone is bogus.
Never mind how much memory Vista uses by itself and how much memory OS X uses by itself. On any 4GB machine, Vista always seems to take up 1.8GB. OS X... 512MB.
Almost FOUR TIMES as much. And if MS says "unused ram is wasted ram", how come Vista leaves 2GB freely available? It's being wasted by sitting there unused and not being used for caching files... Inference: Spin on MS's part.
I do like how the MAC Basher above asked to be proven wrong, but Um I can't see the reasoning about the Maximum installed (preconfigured) memory says anything about the maximum memory which can be installed and addressed has any strength at all. How many PC's have a Maximum of 4 Gigabytes preinstall that can access 8 or more Gigabytes. Shoot my dv7z is claimed to only be able to use 4 Gigabytes instaleld, and if this is true, why when I installed 8 Gigs did it report every bit? Because that is the Maximum that the manufacture finds reasonable, and also it in a sense allows the manufacture to make there hardware more impressive when it comes to upgrades. This information is found out when you contact that manufacture about the bus limitations on upgrades. It is a marketing scam, and being a Salesman in mind, and behavior, it makes total sense.
To end that just because a Maximum Preconfigured OEM system is able to be bought with such and such of something, doesn't mean that is the maximum of something that can be installed!!! Eat that up now, just don't get a sour tush because of it. It's reality!!
To end that just because a Maximum Preconfigured OEM system is able to be bought with such and such of something, doesn't mean that is the maximum of something that can be installed!!! Eat that up now, just don't get a sour tush because of it. It's reality!!
It seems to me he made a fact based comparison, he qualified the chart with subsequent comments, I'd be interested to know the OSX RAM limit regardless of hardware, i'll give you that, but it is academic because OSX runs on one company's hardware, Apple, which only goes to the limits stated. Windows, Linux, etc. run on a variety of OEMs systems so a hardware limit is harder to quantify.
There's one simple reason why Ed included OSX in his comparison: it's because all the Apple fans are saying "why can't Microsoft just offer one version, like Apple does?".
This argument loses some validity when it's shown that the Enterprise/Ultimate versions of Win7 come with several features that OSX doesn't even have.
This argument loses some validity when it's shown that the Enterprise/Ultimate versions of Win7 come with several features that OSX doesn't even have.
Had I simply used the Win7 SKUs in this chart, it would have resulted in 300 Talkbacks saying exactly that about OS X. So shoot me for trying to preempt that. 
This would have been a great article had it stuck with Windows 7. The biggest non OEM buyers looking to shed Vista, now stable but slow, would have found this informative.
Instead, it's another fanboy vs fanboy tread.
I understand the need to drive clicks but I'm starting to tune Ed Botts out.
Hearst would be proud. (spanish american war reference)
Instead, it's another fanboy vs fanboy tread.
I understand the need to drive clicks but I'm starting to tune Ed Botts out.
Hearst would be proud. (spanish american war reference)
I actually went to journalism school, where they taught me it is important to spell someone's name right.
You spelled my name wrong...
BZZZZZT
You spelled my name wrong...
BZZZZZT
Ed:
I think you'll find that your name was spelled correctly, but tzcannon missed out an apostrophe.
"I understand the need to drive clicks but I'm starting to tune Ed Bott's out."
Admittedly this isn't brilliant English, but it's at about the level that the original article deserved.
I think you'll find that your name was spelled correctly, but tzcannon missed out an apostrophe.
"I understand the need to drive clicks but I'm starting to tune Ed Bott's out."
Admittedly this isn't brilliant English, but it's at about the level that the original article deserved.
I have read several of the responses of why you
added OSX, but I am finding that your
explanations lacking. The title is "Do you need
more than Windows 7 Home Premium" when in
reality, intentional or not, it became "How
does OSX stand up against Windows 7 SKU's" And
from there on out this discussion thread only
brings out the Usual Suspects for OS bashing.
You may claim you only added it in there for a
quick comparison, but you knew that this was
going to stir up the trolls and fanbois on both
aisles. 483 talkbacks, thats the most I have
seen in a while.
added OSX, but I am finding that your
explanations lacking. The title is "Do you need
more than Windows 7 Home Premium" when in
reality, intentional or not, it became "How
does OSX stand up against Windows 7 SKU's" And
from there on out this discussion thread only
brings out the Usual Suspects for OS bashing.
You may claim you only added it in there for a
quick comparison, but you knew that this was
going to stir up the trolls and fanbois on both
aisles. 483 talkbacks, thats the most I have
seen in a while.
to see Apple fanboys complaining about being included in the comparison.
If OSX had come out looking better than Windows 7 they would be crowing.
Since it did not they are attacking the messanger.
If OSX had come out looking better than Windows 7 they would be crowing.
Since it did not they are attacking the messanger.
OS X does have most of those capabilities; just under
different names. I will admit that there's one thing OS X
might not have, but everything else from network booting,
backing up to networked drives, remote displays (networked)
etc are all built into the everyday version of OS X. Snow
Leopard simplifies one Windows-only compatibility (Exchange)
so not even that is Window-only.
In other words, analysis wrong, OS X at $129 is fully as capable
as Windows Ultimate at $219--Upgrade version.
different names. I will admit that there's one thing OS X
might not have, but everything else from network booting,
backing up to networked drives, remote displays (networked)
etc are all built into the everyday version of OS X. Snow
Leopard simplifies one Windows-only compatibility (Exchange)
so not even that is Window-only.
In other words, analysis wrong, OS X at $129 is fully as capable
as Windows Ultimate at $219--Upgrade version.
You can enable the features with the right enablers that get installed with any one software that is MAC compatable. He is comparing the senerio in an out of the box senerio. It also expresses how much garbage to the typical user MS installs to the computer. So what, it isn't operating all the time in Windows 7 like it was in previous versions. Apple just puts the basics in to take advantage of the general publics usage. If the user wants more then, that is when the enable is installed with the softwares requirements. Yes I know MAC OS does have huge limitations like a Software that was made for OS 8 won't load on OS X most the time, but why use old clunky software that is not able to use the system to the fullest potential. In the end allowing such software enforces just how much money the PC market pushes people to waste.
Ed mentioned in his article he is not bashing Apple, but only included it to show which version of Windows 7 OSX is closest to, for comparison's sake. It seems to me that you think a mere comparison, which is all it was, shows bias, which is totally specious to me.
... when the information is inaccurate or incomplete. Ed's data
about OS X were both inaccurate & incomplete.
about OS X were both inaccurate & incomplete.
If someone doesn't share your view they are biased. If anybody is biased it's you my friend.
He provided a very decent chart that explains what the various OS' offer.
Of course fan boys may not appreciate the facts. But, people who matter, do.
That's why all these software companies do these biased checklists: to show you all the wonderful things their software can do, that others can't.
I'm sure Ed is biased, but, he isn't any more biased than most people here. It kind of helps real people who have real questions who want real answers to have someone with some real knowledge to go to, rather than having to drown in the whiny snivelings of fan boys from the Linuz, Mac and MS camps. And on the rare occasion that someone actually has something useful to add, is appreciated by people like me. But, all this nonsense from the fanboy base, well, it's childish and annoying. It adds nothing to the conversation, and well, pisses me off, because it makes seeing what real people with real points have to say, difficult.
Of course fan boys may not appreciate the facts. But, people who matter, do.
That's why all these software companies do these biased checklists: to show you all the wonderful things their software can do, that others can't.
I'm sure Ed is biased, but, he isn't any more biased than most people here. It kind of helps real people who have real questions who want real answers to have someone with some real knowledge to go to, rather than having to drown in the whiny snivelings of fan boys from the Linuz, Mac and MS camps. And on the rare occasion that someone actually has something useful to add, is appreciated by people like me. But, all this nonsense from the fanboy base, well, it's childish and annoying. It adds nothing to the conversation, and well, pisses me off, because it makes seeing what real people with real points have to say, difficult.
since my experience with using OS X is very limited and I didn't get on the hackintosh bandwagon yet I honestly can't say how the two would compare.
Picture everything you are upgrading now by going to
Windows 7, then add in a secure memory efficient
architecture, and subtract out the two or three games you
can't play...make it flavor free and functional out of the box
and you'll have your experience on Mac or Linux the past
two years summed up nicely.
Windows 7, then add in a secure memory efficient
architecture, and subtract out the two or three games you
can't play...make it flavor free and functional out of the box
and you'll have your experience on Mac or Linux the past
two years summed up nicely.
functional out of the box?
Define functional.
I want to play dvds and mp3s out of the box.
Can I do that with linux? NO. Codecs aren't
installed on many linux distributions OOTB--
unless I pay for a distribution that includes
them (or use a distro that includes them--
which is illegal in the US).
Seems like some pretty basic functionality that
ISN'T supported out of the box right there.
Define functional.
I want to play dvds and mp3s out of the box.
Can I do that with linux? NO. Codecs aren't
installed on many linux distributions OOTB--
unless I pay for a distribution that includes
them (or use a distro that includes them--
which is illegal in the US).
Seems like some pretty basic functionality that
ISN'T supported out of the box right there.
"unless I pay for a distribution that includes
them (or use a distro that includes them--
which is illegal in the US)."
Lawyer's, greed, anti-competitive and all that.
It's great to watch a country that thinks it can tell the rest of the world how it is (whilst not even being able to eat the right amount of food) knot itself up in its own bullsiht version of progress.
them (or use a distro that includes them--
which is illegal in the US)."
Lawyer's, greed, anti-competitive and all that.
It's great to watch a country that thinks it can tell the rest of the world how it is (whilst not even being able to eat the right amount of food) knot itself up in its own bullsiht version of progress.
How can you assume that the Personal Computer market is there only for games. Mos the usage on the computers out there has nothing to do with games. Even on the home user market. Sure they play games, but how many people got into the computer world for a game. BEsides, MAC's can run Widnows on them, and in some build right out of the BOX. so who cares if it isn't able to work on the MAC, install VMWare for MAC (Which BTW was available on MAC before PC even had a place for it) and install Windows on that MAC to play the games that are not on the MAC.
Come up with a better defense then that, or you will be tied to that Rock you picked up buy someone who knows the difference. I play with both platforms. I don't know MAC that well in comparison to the PC, but one thing is for sure, is that your defensive reply is worthless and means nothing. It is completely opposite of valuable.
Come up with a better defense then that, or you will be tied to that Rock you picked up buy someone who knows the difference. I play with both platforms. I don't know MAC that well in comparison to the PC, but one thing is for sure, is that your defensive reply is worthless and means nothing. It is completely opposite of valuable.
You can easily substitute games for business programs that can't be used on a Mac or Linux, etc. down the line of PC markets. Its great that people who prefer Mac have that to go to, its great that Linux is there for people who want to use it. Personally I don't see too many people on here trying to convert you guys to Windows, the same way the Linux and to lesser extent Mac guys need to come here and trash Windows and convert us masses to the 'true' religion.
Gamers and people still using old software on XP will want Ultimate for the XP Mode. People who work at home will want Ultimate for domain log on. My 24GB RAM system will require Ultimate in order to access all of the RAM. Any of us who store sensitive information on our computers like credit card numbers will want Ultimate for BitLocker. Anyone who has a server or NAS box at home will want Ultimate so they can back up to a network location. And those of us who support the computers of coworkers, friends, relatives, and neighbors remotely will need to force all of those people to buy Ultimate so they can host a remote desktop for us to trouble shoot their systems.
All-in-all, nobody I personally know could fully function with only Windows Home Premium. Every single one of them would need Ultimate, because even Windows Professional is too crippled to use. So, every one of them would be forced to endure the expensive two step process of buying a crippled version of Windows and then upgrading it to Ultimate. For this reason, I can't recommend that anyone I know upgrade to Windows 7 at all. I certainly won't be upgrading any of my own systems.
It's time for Microsoft to be held accountable for their bad marketing decisions and the only way that will happen is if nobody buys it.
All-in-all, nobody I personally know could fully function with only Windows Home Premium. Every single one of them would need Ultimate, because even Windows Professional is too crippled to use. So, every one of them would be forced to endure the expensive two step process of buying a crippled version of Windows and then upgrading it to Ultimate. For this reason, I can't recommend that anyone I know upgrade to Windows 7 at all. I certainly won't be upgrading any of my own systems.
It's time for Microsoft to be held accountable for their bad marketing decisions and the only way that will happen is if nobody buys it.
As a lot of people I know have Home Server, and this may be important.
It could be for cable compliant PC with DRM, the powers that be, may not want us to have that capability, as they tend to treat us like criminals.
It could be for cable compliant PC with DRM, the powers that be, may not want us to have that capability, as they tend to treat us like criminals.
There's no need to use the Windows 7 Backup program with Home Server.
unneeded as well.
I've talked to you about this before, but oddly enough, Home Premium x64 has one thing the other versions didn't on Vista - does Windows 7 only have cable compliant features on the basic version like Vista?
Right now I can only get it on Vista Home Premium if I want a 64 bit operating system. I need a lot of RAM.
I've talked to you about this before, but oddly enough, Home Premium x64 has one thing the other versions didn't on Vista - does Windows 7 only have cable compliant features on the basic version like Vista?
Right now I can only get it on Vista Home Premium if I want a 64 bit operating system. I need a lot of RAM.
Oh on Windows. Sorry. Yeah, no thanks.
Network drives ARE accessible in Home Premium.. And Home Basic, for that matter...
It's the NETWORK LOGIN TO A DOMAIN CONTROLLER that's missing.
As long as you have a valid user name and password to a server, you can connect to and access a network drive in ANY version of Windows.
All the domain login thing gives you is extra security and convenience. Not to mention access to a centrally administered network.
In case you didn't know - Home server IS based on Windows 2003 server. A lot of the technology is there. Like network shares and the like. All that's missing is the Active Directory components.
If you're going to post something - at least
It's the NETWORK LOGIN TO A DOMAIN CONTROLLER that's missing.
As long as you have a valid user name and password to a server, you can connect to and access a network drive in ANY version of Windows.
All the domain login thing gives you is extra security and convenience. Not to mention access to a centrally administered network.
In case you didn't know - Home server IS based on Windows 2003 server. A lot of the technology is there. Like network shares and the like. All that's missing is the Active Directory components.
If you're going to post something - at least
I think Ed already corrected me on that feature.
Good to know about Home Server, because I was thinking about purchasing it too, but I'll probably wait till a newer version is vetted.
Thanks Wolfie2K3!
Good to know about Home Server, because I was thinking about purchasing it too, but I'll probably wait till a newer version is vetted.
Thanks Wolfie2K3!
Join the conversation!
The best of ZDNet, delivered
ZDNet Newsletters
Get the best of ZDNet delivered straight to your inbox
