Author Topic: Windows 7  (Read 8917 times)

mtlhddoc2

  • Level 9
  • *
  • Posts: 340
  • Fell Points: 0
    • View Profile
Re: Windows 7
« Reply #30 on: January 04, 2010, 09:56:47 PM »
the nice thing about the Mac OS is the abiklity to integrate it into a UNIX network, because the OS is basically a fancy version of UNIX, kind of like Linux.

Eerongal

  • Level 23
  • *
  • Posts: 1199
  • Fell Points: 0
  • That jaunty jackanapes with moxie and pizzazz
    • View Profile
    • Rockin' with the Erock
Re: Windows 7
« Reply #31 on: January 04, 2010, 10:22:52 PM »
the nice thing about the Mac OS is the abiklity to integrate it into a UNIX network, because the OS is basically a fancy version of UNIX, kind of like Linux.

yeah, i always thought it was weird that windows is the only OS i can think of that isn't based on a UNIX kernel in some capacity.

Which is kinda odd, since it was based on a dos kernel way back when, which i think was based upon a unix kernel. Though now we're using like their own NT kernel or something, i think
[shameless plug]
My site
[/shameless plug]

Civilized men are more discourteous than savages because they know they can be impolite without having their skulls split, as a general thing.
-R. Howard

Pie is clearly the most trustworthy. Pie for president. - Me.

ryos

  • Level 17
  • *
  • Posts: 824
  • Fell Points: 0
  • The Decemberween Thnikkaman
    • View Profile
Re: Windows 7
« Reply #32 on: January 04, 2010, 10:32:03 PM »
I saw an article a while back, just before 7 released, talking about PC cost vs. Mac Costs, and apparently mac, just the OS, comes out to costing more over time because of the constant stream of upgraded versions compared to windows. Because windows versions are fewer and far between, but cost quite a bit more.

I'm calling BS on that one. Nobody has to upgrade their Mac OS if they don't want to. It's highly worthwhile to keep current, but the same could be said of Windows.

As for Windows being faster than MacOS for some things: umm, yeah. The architectures of even the most fundamental things—like the IO subsystem, VM subsystem, networking stack, and especially the kernel—are completely different between the two. In my experience, Apple prioritizes user interface responsiveness above all else, and that has its cost in terms of raw performance. It's also one of the many things that keeps me using Macs despite the greater hardware cost.

It's also not surprising that Windows 7 is actually slower than XP in most cases. XP came out in 2001, when computers were a lot less capable. It does less, and does more with less hardware. More than that, Windows 7 (actually Vista, but most seem to want to pretend it never existed) modernizes many systems, most notably the graphics stack. A modern compositing graphics stack takes a heavy toll, but it's very much worth the cost.
Eerongal made off with my Fluffy Puff confections.

mtlhddoc2

  • Level 9
  • *
  • Posts: 340
  • Fell Points: 0
    • View Profile
Re: Windows 7
« Reply #33 on: January 04, 2010, 10:43:35 PM »
ryos: you can pare down Win7 pretty good and put it n par with XP for raw performance. The Win7 "Starter" edition leaves alot of the crap out and just is a basic OS, which I love.

It will take alot for me to give up XP though. XP is incredibly stable.

Eerongal

  • Level 23
  • *
  • Posts: 1199
  • Fell Points: 0
  • That jaunty jackanapes with moxie and pizzazz
    • View Profile
    • Rockin' with the Erock
Re: Windows 7
« Reply #34 on: January 04, 2010, 10:48:55 PM »
I saw an article a while back, just before 7 released, talking about PC cost vs. Mac Costs, and apparently mac, just the OS, comes out to costing more over time because of the constant stream of upgraded versions compared to windows. Because windows versions are fewer and far between, but cost quite a bit more.

I'm calling BS on that one. Nobody has to upgrade their Mac OS if they don't want to. It's highly worthwhile to keep current, but the same could be said of Windows.

well, of course anyone can do that. I could still be rocking some MS-DOS if i really wanted to. :P

However, the article was written because something (i dont remember if it was apple specifically or some other pro-mac source) talking about how if you just look at the OS's macs are cheaper than PCs.

Also: upgrades are included in any calculation where you have to measure the "total/true cost of ownership" for a PC system from an accounting/business perspective.
[shameless plug]
My site
[/shameless plug]

Civilized men are more discourteous than savages because they know they can be impolite without having their skulls split, as a general thing.
-R. Howard

Pie is clearly the most trustworthy. Pie for president. - Me.

Miyabi

  • Level 45
  • *
  • Posts: 3098
  • Fell Points: 1
  • Simple is the concept of love as eternity.
    • View Profile
Re: Windows 7
« Reply #35 on: January 04, 2010, 10:50:04 PM »

I was initially really excited for the MinWin server to run Windows 7, but them Microsoft had to go and shelve the project after they had spent millions of dollars making a smaller, faster kernel.  Yeah, we would have had to wait for developers to get caught up and remake software for the new kernel, BUT it would have been well worth it.
オレは長超猿庁じゃ〜。

Chaos

  • Administrator
  • Level 36
  • *****
  • Posts: 2170
  • Fell Points: 3
  • The Original Hero of Ages
    • View Profile
    • Eric Lake
Re: Windows 7
« Reply #36 on: January 04, 2010, 11:29:05 PM »
My Windows 7 computer runs faster than my XP install did without question. It boots faster, it loads applications (notably Firefox) far quicker, shuts down quicker, and multitasks better. However, I am also on a quad-core CPU, so I'm sure Windows 7 handles that newer processor far better than XP ever could. Still, in my experience, Windows 7 has run quickly and effectively, and no major hiccups.
www.17thshard.com - The Official Brandon Sanderson Fansite.

Oh SNAP, I'm an Allomancer.

Eerongal

  • Level 23
  • *
  • Posts: 1199
  • Fell Points: 0
  • That jaunty jackanapes with moxie and pizzazz
    • View Profile
    • Rockin' with the Erock
Re: Windows 7
« Reply #37 on: January 04, 2010, 11:36:31 PM »
My Windows 7 computer runs faster than my XP install did without question. It boots faster, it loads applications (notably Firefox) far quicker, shuts down quicker, and multitasks better. However, I am also on a quad-core CPU, so I'm sure Windows 7 handles that newer processor far better than XP ever could. Still, in my experience, Windows 7 has run quickly and effectively, and no major hiccups.

same here. However, you are correct, windows 7 is optimized for multi-core processors, XP wasn't.

I can find a link if anyone doesn't believe that for whatever reason, but it's supposedly true (i haven't benchmarked an XP v 7 PC)
[shameless plug]
My site
[/shameless plug]

Civilized men are more discourteous than savages because they know they can be impolite without having their skulls split, as a general thing.
-R. Howard

Pie is clearly the most trustworthy. Pie for president. - Me.

Miyabi

  • Level 45
  • *
  • Posts: 3098
  • Fell Points: 1
  • Simple is the concept of love as eternity.
    • View Profile
Re: Windows 7
« Reply #38 on: January 04, 2010, 11:40:53 PM »

XP dislikes my 64 bit processor.
オレは長超猿庁じゃ〜。