Also, Dave, I think you're overselling the advantages of Windows software diversity. Games aside, what does Windows offer that Macs don't that interest ordinary folk? Or even nerds like me?

I tend to start programs in a certain order too. I've got that grouping stuff turned off though as I find that hinders more than it helps.

I realise I'm not Dave but I've got loads of nerdy gadgets that only come with Windows software. Hobbywise the software I use for my GPS for walking is Windows only as is my battery charger, electronic speed controllers, tiny weeny video camera, onboard monitoring gadget, RC flight sims. There are also all those little bits of shareware and freeware that I have used over the years to help out with some obscure task that I'd have struggled to find for a Mac.

There isn't a single solitary thing I could actually do with a Mac that I couldn't with a PC. Put it this way most people I know with Macs at some point end up running a version of Windows inside it for some reason or other.

Considering that the last time I looked most Adobe software was still running on PPC code, there's no way I'd waste a modern Intel Mac on any Adobe crock of shit.

There are things like that, granted, but they are very off the beaten track for most people. Personally, I'm struggling to think of much I do on Windows I couldn't directly do on a Mac, and in fact the better support for GNU/Linux stuff would bring me a richer array of apps.

It's a valid point that the Mac has a lot less freeware. However anecdotally, indie devs report it's easier to make money on a Mac app than a PC one. They claim a greeter willingness for users to pay for things, lower piracy rates, and a less crowded apps market. I'm sure there were some highish profile cross-platform devs dropping Windows support recently.

True, but the reality is that I only end up using Parallels or Bootcamp a tiny proportion of the time and most of that is for legacy applications. For most things there is usually a solution thanks to OSX's Linux background.

Oddly enough my GPS came with Mac software (and I only found that out after purchase). So times they are a-changing.

Isn't there a sort of anomaly whereby on an Intel Mac the Windows versions run faster than the Mac OS versions?

Drifting further off-topic I see there's now a 64-bit version of Photoshop for Windows, but have yet to be bored enough to try any side-by-side comparison with the 32-bit version.

Does PPC code on Intel Macs cause any major problems (e.g. stability), or is it just "wasteful" of the processors?

Can I be nosey chinny, and ask what video editing software you use? I'm guessing Final Cut?

No, I do that too.

Yeah, but both of you have OCD. ONE TWO THREE FOUR!

Yeah it's going to be wasteful. Even more so on multi-core systems. That said I'm not sure there is that much PPC code still lurking around.

I use Final Cut Studio because Adobe are wankers.

Gotta have the bed by the window.

That. And from my first use of Windows 95 until I installed Vista every single machine (either at home or at work) would be set to the 'Desert' colour scheme with the title bar text in italicised Times New Roman.

Didn't that look bloody horrible before ClearType? Or did you have a very high res screen? Or perhaps just massive title bars?

Heh. With hindsight, yes...

Man, that sounds disgusting

I haven't bothered customising the desktop on any system since my A1200. Change the background picture and screen resolution, that's it. Most heavily customised screens just look wrong and chavved up anyway.

Let's face it, how often do you actually see the desktop anyway? I barely do, either on mac or PC.

I think the only time I ever see the desktop on my Macs are when they've just booted up, or are shutting down.

I see the desktop a bit more on Windows systems, but still - hardly ever.

It's mainly this:

Chinny I know you love your mac. I loved mine (had a good few over the years, fave being the lampshade one with the flat panel coming out of a nice rounded base) but you're totally failing to mention what you paid for your xeon uber machine.

I can only hazard a guess, and I would guess we're not talking simple pounds or even hundreds of them, we're going into the thousands. At that point I would be absolutely dismayed if it wasn't capable of giving out dribbly hummers tbh.

Don't forget that you can run OSX Panther on a PC. I've done so myself (very successfully I may add) which renders macs now very expensive beautifully designed machines but nothing else. They don't have that level of exclusivity any more and that's why I stopped buying them. Macs lost that something special for me when they went over to X86.

I do agree that OSX is the best OS ever. Even OS9 absolutely trounced Winblows 98. But at the same time even though I hate it to shit I have to have windows.

Oh. And let us pray that today be the day of many deliveries !

Less than the equivalent Dell. I shit you not.

Add in the fact Final Cut Studio is cheaper than Adobe Production Suite and the entire lot ended up significantly cheaper than the nearest PC setup. I know because I priced everything up.

As for the switch to Intel, it was the best thing ever. You can run virtual Windows, and the machines are faster. PPC technology had fallen way behind.

JC remind us again why you are not working in the IT industry?

Didn't we prove yesterday that working in the IT industry != knowing anything about computers?

Not really.. You guys just seem to think I am wrong, so I let you

I have just talked to a lot of guys that disagree with what you say about Win 7, but it is not worth arguing or pushing my point.

As folks here think it is Vista 2

OK then. Who is going to be the first to claim that Windows is more stable than Unix?

Windows is more stable than Unix, as a child was able to break into Unix and plot a route to escape velociraptors, then it all went mentals.

That is like saying OSx is more stable than dos!

I don't think any of the modern OS's are that different. It depends on what you run on them. My Mac is quite capable of falling over when it feels like it. But it's not the OS, it's badly coded software. In fact the Mac doesn't lock, it seems to be the video card that goes over. The computer continues to run fine (see the problems I had with the CPC emulator running Kwik Snax a few weeks back).

Did you not see the quote from the head honcho at Microsoft who pretty much said as much? You said it was a kernel rewrite from the ground up, we found evidence showing otherwise.

HP must be full of numpties. I'm glad my dad went for the Dell in the end.

Well OSX is unix based and windows isn't DOS based.

So that's not a very good comparisson.

Windows used to be DOS based. But even then it was an unstable pile of dog doo. (3.x allowed however).

Not me. LeopardyLeopard has been running perfectly since I installed it, the only reboots have been about once every couple of months after OS updates.

My work PC (XP pro, also kept up to date) tends to need rebooting once or twice a week due to freezing up or going mental. It's totally live-with-able compared to '98 though.

I'd be a little uncomfortable going to Mac for everything as it lacks a decent text editor, and the file navigation thing is still bloody horrible compared to windows explorer (which isn't exactly fantastic either).

So I fear I'd have to spend all the time in a VM anyway.

I've not used an X86 based mac for the reasons I pointed out earlier (the exclusive part). However in all the years of using macs (right back to the Performa I had) I only ever saw the dreaded bomb once. And that was because I put some SD ram from a PC in it thinking it was the same (before I knew all about cas latency and timing etc).

Like I said I am not going to argue the point, after 1 quote...

But knowing people that work for MS I do disagaree.

yes it has a lot of Vista Components but it is not Vista or Vista 2. We will have to wait and see what is launched at teh end of the year.

You said it was a completely rewritten from-the-ground-up OS. It's not. Stop trying to wriggle your way out now.

And once again, you're disagreeing with STEVE BALLMER.

It has been but it does share core components, as expected.

SO, TELL ME ABOUT YOUR PARENTS

Ah, it's troll mode again. Fair enough.

Yes I am, he is only the figurehed of MS, not the development team. How old was that quote?


I would net expect our CEO to know exactly what the dev team were producing.

Like the kernel, the security subsystem, the window manager, and the network APIs, yeah?

You wouldn't expect your CEO to know whether your MAIN PRODUCT, coming on the heels of a massive flop in Vista, was rewritten or just updated a bit? You'd be wrong.

I know it might be hard, but don't be a cunt Myp.

I have said where I have got my information from, only one quote has been produced against.. so I think the information is flawed, as the techinal information we are getting from MS, is different than Steve'e quote.

Then some one in MS is wrong..

You've totally changed your position from "total ground-up rewrite" to "quite different but using a lot of the same components".

sorry Craster I did not realise you work for Microsoft or are one of there mahor partners... I stand corrected if that is teh case.

I've not had that kind of crash. Only GFX related ones. Some of the software I use does hefty amounts of rendering in the GPU which can cause problems as well. I've heard some people say that the NVIDIA drivers aren't as good as they could be.

It's odd that a CPC emulator can trip up the GFX card, but I guess there's no telling what dodgy shortcuts home coders can take. But like I say, it takes the GFX card, not the system.

I can't say I'd noticed the file manager being a problem. They layout differences take some getting used to.

Personally I never really got over the loss of File Manager in Windows.

One of their major partners, and one of yours, indeed :0)

I don't argue that there's a lot of new code in Windows 7, but the original proposition was whether or not it was sitting on top of the same codebase as 2000/XP/Vista/2003/2008, and it most certainly is.

I don't think that's a bad thing, either. Despite what others have said, I don't think throwing the baby out with the bathwater and starting again on Windows would be a good idea. Unless they screw up Win7 like they have with Vista, in which case they've got pretty much nothing to lose.

Is that not allowed. I orginally thought that it was going to be new 'total ground up', but having read round it last night and talking to our Archs, It is still new, but it uses some core components.

It is not Vista 2 or an enhancement of Vista, it has been re-written.

It's pretty much Vista R2. The differences between Vista and Win7 are pretty much analogous to the differences between 2003 and 2003 R2. They're not marketing it as that, obviously, but technically it appears to be the case.

The could not start again, it would cause problems with most of the hardware providors having to develop drivers over night to support their products.

Hang on what the fuck is 2003? Also, I'm confused now. If 7 is as different from Vista as Vista was from XP then I'd call it a new one rather than Vista 2.