Print 119 comment(s) - last by hemmy.. on Oct 29 at 2:49 PM

Apple mocks the history of Windows in its latest ads, comparing Windows 7 to such flops as Windows ME.  (Source: Apple)

However, Apple can't seem to resist Microsoft's quality software -- it announced today that it will be offering Boot Camp support for Windows 7 by the end of the year.  (Source: Gizmodo)
As much as Apple pretends not to love Microsoft, it can't seem to stop supporting it

Apple delivered its launch day anti-Windows 7 ads as promised.  The new ads poke fun at Microsoft's history, comparing Windows 7 to past unpopular Windows OS's that were initially lauded.  The new ad flashes back to a younger Vista era PC saying that Vista would have the problems of past Windows... and a Windows ME PC...  and a Windows 2.0 PC.  The new commercials were one of the few downers for Microsoft on a day that was filled with excitement.  

But try as hard as it wants, Apple just can't seem to bring itself to truly rain on Windows 7's launch party.  Truth be told, though Apple will never admit it, its very good friends with Microsoft.  After all, Microsoft offers one of the most popular pieces of software for Macs -- Microsoft Office for Mac.

And for the last three years two of the most popular operating systems on a Mac besides OS X were Windows XP and Windows Vista.  Apple may pretend that Windows is buggy and worthy of scorn, but when it comes down to it, the allure of the productive, functional OS is too much to resist and too much to deny its customers.

Apple even showed Microsoft a bit of love on Windows 7 launch day.  Responding to a deluge of comments from Apple MacBook owners pleading for official Windows 7 Boot Camp support, Apple revealed that it will be adding support for the new OS before the end of the year.

Granted, it won't be adding support for all Macs.  Certain older iMacs and MacBooks Pro from 2006 won't be allowed to use Windows 7.  Its unclear why, considering these computers have Intel processors and in theory could have specs more than capable of running the new OS.

Mac owners looking to get their Windows 7 groove on can probably it already, following the directions posted here.  

Comments     Threshold

This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

By StevoLincolnite on 10/23/2009 12:55:23 AM , Rating: 5
Certain older iMacs and MacBooks Pro from 2006 won't be allowed to use Windows 7. Its unclear why, considering these computers have Intel processors and in theory could have specs more than capable of running the new OS.

I can tell you why, if there customers want to run Windows 7, they would be forced to splash down another large sum of cash to upgrade to a new Mac just to run the new OS.

If the hardware was in-capable of running the OS I could understand, on the PC front if you had the problem that your hardware was inadequate you would simply do a couple of upgrades and you are set to go.

RE: Why?
By phatboye on 10/23/2009 2:02:08 AM , Rating: 2
... or maybe they don't want to spend developement time writing boot camp drivers for older, no longer supported chipsets and video cards.

RE: Why?
By just4U on 10/23/2009 4:33:09 AM , Rating: 3
I'd say the likely scenario is they don't want windows 7 to breath new life into these older machines... which in theory it could since Win7 does play quite well with older hardware.

RE: Why?
By dark matter on 10/23/2009 7:12:51 AM , Rating: 5
The same chipsets and hardware that windows 7 supports anyway? It's only the BIOS that is different on a mac, the rest is OEM hardware.

RE: Why?
By omnicronx on 10/23/2009 1:28:25 PM , Rating: 2
There still has to be some sort of BIOS emulation going on via EFI. Remember you needed to update your EFI chip to use Bootcamp in the first place, so perhaps there is something missing from earlier Mac's that does not make Windows 7 support possible.

That being said, some of the other scenarios mentioned are just as likely.

RE: Why?
By BlendMe on 10/24/2009 10:55:32 AM , Rating: 2
The 2006 (low end) iMac used the Intel GMA 950 chipset which, as far as I know, Intel doesn't even support on Windows 7. I could be wrong though. The last time I tried it was with Win 7 beta (on a Sony laptop) and I couldn't get Aero to work due to missing drivers. That graphics hardware was pretty crappy so I wouldn't be surprised if Aero didn't work at all. And that could be reason enough for Apple not to support it.

My question is: What about the better equipped Macs?

And yes... other OEM's do that too.

RE: Why?
By dark matter on 10/26/2009 9:53:27 AM , Rating: 2
Yes, aero will not work in a GMA 950. But that isn't due to a lack of drivers rather than incapable hardware.

RE: Why?
By othercents on 10/27/2009 1:43:30 PM , Rating: 2
Windows 7 works on Intel GMA950 Netbooks which is one of the target markets that Microsoft wanted it get especially since they have been trying to discontinue Windows XP. Granted Aero won't work, but Aero is definitely not the #1 reasons to buy Windows 7 either.

Windows 7 shouldn't be a problem on the older macbooks. Someone will figure out how to get them to run with or without Apple.


RE: Why?
By djcameron on 10/23/2009 9:39:10 AM , Rating: 5
On those oh-so-obsolete 3 year old computers? Gimme a break. We all know that Apple is all about planned obsolescence. You can't be cool if you don't have the latest Mac!

RE: Why?
By Omega215D on 10/23/2009 10:46:38 AM , Rating: 3
Then people turn around and start complaining that the new Windows OS doesn't have drivers for their 3 year old printer or 8 yr old software. Then when the OS does support their stuff people complain that the installation is bloated. WTF?

Sorry, just tired of having stuff advancing so slowly because of idiots...

RE: Why?
By Alexstarfire on 10/23/09, Rating: 0
RE: Why?
By PrinceGaz on 10/23/2009 2:46:03 PM , Rating: 3
When was the last 32-bit CPU even sold? Had to be at least before Vista.

The last 32-bit x86 CPU was probably sold just a few minutes ago, because VIA are still shipping C7 processors and they do not support x86-64.

RE: Why?
By overzealot on 10/23/2009 9:07:50 PM , Rating: 3
I believe that Intel still ships n and z series atoms, which also lack x64 support

RE: Why?
By dark matter on 10/26/2009 9:56:17 AM , Rating: 3
Exactly what can a printer do today that your 3 year old printer couldn't do?

I can understand if you were jumping from dot matrix to ink jet. However for the average owner a 3 year old printer is fine. In fact a 5 year old printer is fine.

Sorry, just tired of having to buy a new ******* printer because some crappy company stopped making the cartridges all because some idiot on the internet thought I was slowing him down somehow.

RE: Why?
By SiliconAddict on 10/23/2009 10:48:34 PM , Rating: 1
Yah because a chipset driver and video driver are so damn difficult to come by. we'll also ignore the fact that if they support Vista is virtually identical driver wise to support Win7. Please bitch don't insult people's intelligence by making excuses for Apple. A Mac is a damn PC wrapped in snobbery, running EFI. That is all.

RE: Why?
By seamonkey79 on 10/23/2009 8:19:32 AM , Rating: 2
The problem is that if they did allow older Macs to work with newer Windows, then those older Mac owners might not buy a newer Mac, and that would be sad.

RE: Why?
By reader1 on 10/23/09, Rating: -1
RE: Why?
By 3minence on 10/23/2009 9:01:44 AM , Rating: 2
One of the reasons people were so pissed at Vista is it did drop support for old programs, some that people were still using.

Any OS needs to support older apps for a certain distance back. No business is going to buy all new software and hardware because of a new OS. The poor reception of Vista is ample proof of that.

RE: Why?
By Targon on 10/23/2009 12:22:17 PM , Rating: 3
That isn't entirely accurate, though there were issues. The problem is that Microsoft changed a number of things in how networking and sound were handled in the move to Vista. These changes would NOT be an issue for applications that did things the "proper" way, but did break a number of applications due to a number of rules now being enforced(which were not under XP). The end result was that networking and sound MAY have been broken for some older programs, and that resulted in some major headaches, especially in the corporate world.

The solution that Microsoft implemented with Windows 7 Professional, Enterprise, and Ultimate is to allow applications to run in a Windows XP virtual machine, which in theory SHOULD solve that problem for those business customers. Of course, if a business insists on running the same software for 20 years, then there is really nothing that can be done. The days of 16 bit applications is over, and the days when DOS applications are acceptable in a business environment SHOULD be over as well.

If the company that wrote the software is no longer in business, then it makes sense to upgrade. The days of DBase 3 are long gone, so if you still run ancient software based on it, then it is time to upgrade. I know the economy is in the toilet, but honestly, 15 year-old software is a bit too old to be trustworthy, and you do NOT want to be in the situation where you can't get support for your business software because no one supports it anymore.

RE: Why?
By jonmcc33 on 10/23/09, Rating: 0
RE: Why?
By segerstein on 10/24/2009 4:49:02 PM , Rating: 1
If you need to run 16-bit apps, then you can still opt for 32-bit Windows 7.

Anyway, you can run your 16-bit apps in XP VM mode also on a 64-bit OS. If you need DOS, you don't need to look further than free DOSBox.

The one thing I don't get, is that OS X 10.6 is not available in 64-bit mode. In 2009!!!

RE: Why?
By sebmel on 10/24/2009 10:19:44 PM , Rating: 3
Unlike the either or 32 64-bit situation for Windows

Apple has been steadily building 64-bit functioning into the Mac OS. 10.4 had some, 10.5 had more and 10.6 is pretty much complete, depending on your hardware compatibility.

Mac OS X 10.6 runs old IBM PPC code through Rosetta, 32-bit and 64-bit apps. A 64-bit app like Safari can be forced to run as 32-bit if you have old 32-bit plugins installed.

Somewhat more versatile that the current state of Windows.

RE: Why?
By segerstein on 10/25/2009 1:00:23 PM , Rating: 2
I just don't get it, why Apple even made x86 (32-bit) OS and not just jump to x64.

And I wasn't talking about 64-bit PPC before.

RE: Why?
By sebmel on 10/26/2009 9:13:51 AM , Rating: 1
I should have been clearer:

OS X runs PPC code through Rosetta. It also runs 32-bit and 64-bit X86 code, and that includes recompiled Linux apps.

The reason Apple didn't simply offer 64-bit only is to offer backwards compatibility... something many readers of DT often accuse them of not doing sufficiently well. My view is that in this case Apple is offering more compatibility than Windows 7 on new machines and less on old.

Windows is offering and either/or, 32/64-bit, solution on new machines but it is supporting old ones, provided the graphics are up to is. You have to choose between the new 64-bit goodness or your old software.

Apple is not offering pre-Intel (late 2005) computers compatibility with 10.6... but it is offering compatibility for all the software you might have been running back then.

RE: Why?
By dark matter on 10/26/2009 10:03:13 AM , Rating: 3
Apologies, I misread your post, I though you said you were going to be clearer.

Are you really suggesting 32 bit software will not run on a 64 bit version of Windows? Or do you really mean 32 bit software will run without any problems and you were actually talking about 16-bit software that will not run on a 64 bit operating system without some kind of virtualisation.

Do you work in politics by any chance, just that you are rather deft at manipulating the facts.

RE: Why?
By sebmel on 10/26/2009 10:17:25 AM , Rating: 2
Then there is the issue of the limited funtionality of the versions of Windows versus the Mac OS that gives you everything.

Want limited XP compatibility? - (no games don't work) - You need Professional
Want Remote Desktop? - Pro again
Want VM? - You need Pro
Want BitLocker? - You need Ultimate
Virtual HD? - You need Ultimate

RE: Why?
By damianrobertjones on 10/26/2009 8:09:24 PM , Rating: 2
Or just but the one version that give you everything

Ultimate. So what if there's various versions when you know that one has everything. Pick, pick, pick etc. At least Ultimate still works on a dam pc, unlik OSX Snow Lep. G4 anyone? Ohhhhhh, quick, bend mac owners over

RE: Why?
By hemmy on 10/29/2009 2:49:07 PM , Rating: 2
Right.....because there aren't free alternatives to all of these things. (other than XP Mode, since it gives you a license, but if you already own XP then pick your flavor)

RE: Why?
By omnicronx on 10/23/2009 1:31:10 PM , Rating: 2
Microsoft maintaining compatibility with old hardware and software only harms consumers.
No it harms home users, not the rest of the market (which is substantially larger), and even that is debatable. Compatibility is important to MS because of the business aspect, not so that you can run old dos games.

RE: Why?
By Pirks on 10/23/09, Rating: -1
RE: Why?
By gstrickler on 10/23/2009 12:03:58 PM , Rating: 3
The machines on which Apple doesn't support Win7 w/BootCamp are all 32-bit Core (not Core 2) machines, max 2GB RAM, and have either the Intel GMA 950 or ATI X1600 GPU. While the hardware might meet the minimums necessary to run Win7, it would suck. As far as I can tell, ATI doesn't even offer Win7 drivers for the X1600, although some beta users have gotten it to work. The GMA 950 is officially supported, but it's performance sucks.

So, the bottom line is that Apple doesn't support Win7 on those machines because it would suck on those machines.

RE: Why?
By Alexstarfire on 10/23/2009 1:08:34 PM , Rating: 2
I find it odd that Apple is trying to dictate what Microsoft's OS can run on now. I wonder who in breaking some laws now. Yea, let's make <insert other company's product here> just not run on these Apple machines just because we can. Sounds a lot like the whole IE debacle again, except Apple doesn't have a monopoly.

RE: Why?
By gstrickler on 10/23/2009 1:49:29 PM , Rating: 2
They're doing no such thing. They're simply stating these are the machine upon Apple will support running Win 7 under Boot Camp. Apple doesn't sell Windows machines, but they do support running Windows on some of their computers. People have run the Win 7 beta on some of the "non-supported" machines, so it's not that they won't work, it's just that Apple won't officially support it.

Dell, HP, Gateway, Lenovo, etc. all choose on which older machines they will support a new OS. This is no different. In each case, you may be able to run the new OS on "non-supported" machines, but you're on your own doing so.

For instance, as of right now, Dell lists the supported operating systems for the Optiplex 520 (less than 3 years old) as Windows XP and 2k, not even Vista is listed as supported (although it was available with Vista, so clearly Vista is/was supported). My Precision 390 (also under 3 years old) is includes 2k, XP, XP-x64, Vista x32/x64, and RedHat 4&5, but no Win 7. I know it works with Win 7, but it's not officially supported, at least not yet. Some of the newer machines do list Win 7, so it's not just an old list.

RE: Why?
By Alexstarfire on 10/23/2009 2:20:20 PM , Rating: 2
I really have no idea what I was thinking when I posted that because you are quite right. I think Reader1 was getting to me.

RE: Why?
By gstrickler on 10/23/2009 2:54:17 PM , Rating: 2
I understand. I'm a Mac (and Windows) user, and I mostly ignore Reader1 and Pirks. Sometimes they post facts and/or legitimate complaints, but it's combined with so much bias or inaccurate info that it's mostly not worth reading.

I am a Mac fan. That doesn't mean I'm an Apple fan, and I'm definitely not an Apple or Mac apologist. Great OS, mostly great machines, not always great policies. Apple has always treated me fairly and my Apple products have been reliable. Sure, there have been failures, but not excessive ones, and the few that were design flaws were covered under a warranty extension program. Not everyone has had the same experience. As with any large company, there is always someone who believes they've been mistreated. Some have legitimate complaints, but most are just being unrealistic.

RE: Why?
By gstrickler on 10/23/2009 2:27:55 PM , Rating: 2
Yea, let's make <insert other company's product here> just not run on these Apple machines just because we can.
Apple doesn't sell Windows or Windows machines, therefore, it's not Apple's responsibility to make Windows run on their machines. That they choose to produce Boot Camp as one way a user can run some versions of Windows on some Macs is a marketing decision, nothing more. Without Boot Camp, no version of Windows will run directly on a Mac (although you can run it in a VM using VMware Fusion or Parallels Desktop).

They've done nothing to prevent running Windows on their machines, they simply don't officially support certain versions on certain machines. More accurately, by writing Boot Camp, they ADDED support for specific versions of Windows on machines meeting specific HW and EFI requirements.

In reality, Win 7 will run on the non-supported machines using Boot Camp v3.1, people have been using the Win 7 beta on those machines for quite some time. Apple doesn't support it, but it does work.

RE: Why?
By bnutz on 10/23/2009 1:53:12 PM , Rating: 2
There are Core 2 systems that max at 2GB and use the GMA 950, so it not that is 32bit vs 64bit, its because they want you to buy a new machine if you want win 7. I have a Toshiba with those specs running 7 perfect and even my P4 Dell notebook with a Radeon 9000, and 1GB works well. I don't get the Aero features on my Dell, but that is the least important feature to me.

RE: Why?
By sebmel on 10/24/2009 10:26:53 PM , Rating: 2
So really twisted logic here! Apple isn't supporting Microsoft's OS?

Doesn't it occur to you that that just might be Microsoft's job? Why isn't Microsoft writing the drivers? It seems to me that surely it's Microsoft that ought to promote the sale of Windows... or have the people complaining here become so insecure about the quality of Microsoft's work that they want Apple to do it for them?

By ice456789 on 10/23/2009 12:16:02 AM , Rating: 2
Granted, it won't be adding support for all Macs. Certain older iMacs and MacBooks Pro from 2006 won't be allowed to use Windows 7. Its unclear why, considering these computers have Intel processors and in theory could have specs more than capable of running the new OS.
So ironically, the best reason to update your old Mac hardware may be Microsoft's new OS...

RE: Irony
By 67STANG on 10/23/2009 1:08:03 AM , Rating: 5
Funny how Apple picks on Microsoft's past when the real competition is from the present. Deflection anyone?

RE: Irony
By spartan014 on 10/23/09, Rating: -1
RE: Irony
By reader1 on 10/23/09, Rating: -1
RE: Irony
By lagitup on 10/23/2009 9:39:26 AM , Rating: 3
Windows 7 is a minor upgrade but the number "7" falsely indicates a major upgrade. Internally, the Windows version numbers are: XP (5.2), Vista (6.0), W7 (6.1). The "7" in Windows 7 is no more meaningful than "XP" or "Vista"; it's the marketing name.

No, the number 7 does not in fact suggest a major upgrade becuase nobody who would've gotten "tricked" by these "lies" would know that Vista was 6. The reason Microsoft opted for version 6.1 was that many software installers check the version of windows while installing, and since very few of the changes damage app compatibility versioning it 6.1 as opposed to 7.0 was a very intelligent choice; it improves the overall user experience.

If Windows 7 was...named Windows 6.1, it wouldn't be getting nearly as much hype.

Maybe that's why marketing decided to go with 7. I'm sure OSX wouldn't be nearly as cool if they named it OS by Steve Jobs for the exclusive use of himself, fanboys, and anyone else with excessive amounts of money on their hands.

The gimmicks in Windows 7 wouldn't be getting a free pass from reviewers either.

Gimmicks like start search of the control panel by task name rather than applet name? Or perhaps you meant the libraries feature. Maybe the fast boot-up, shut-down, sleep/wake times? Or was it the good gaming benchmark scores even with aero enabled? No, no I'm pretty sure all of those would be just as appealing if it was named something else.

Microsoft could be sued for false advertising.

You could be sued for trolling; neither would get very far.

RE: Irony
By thekdub on 10/23/2009 1:49:02 PM , Rating: 2
Snow Leopard doesn't actually have a real live snow leopard anywhere in the package, even though there is a picture of one on the front and the name suggests otherwise. I expect to open up the case and be attacked by a large feral cat, not a computer operating system.

So I'm going to sue Apple for false advertising. If the packaging contained a real snow leopard, the OS wouldn't have gotten the positive reviews that it received. Actually, it probably wouldn't have gotten any reviews, since the leopard would have mauled the person doing the review.

RE: Irony
By reader1 on 10/23/09, Rating: -1
RE: Irony
By Homerboy on 10/23/2009 7:50:01 AM , Rating: 4
Exactly which one of these problems does Mac OS not have?

RE: Irony
By JasonMick on 10/23/2009 7:59:55 AM , Rating: 5
Not to feed the troll but...

Microsoft hasn't changed. Monopolies don't change because they have no competition.

Sure Microsoft has near-monopoly market share in the OS market -- just like Apple does in the MP3 player market. In both cases, though, there are alternatives, they just don't appeal to the majority as much.

- Software and hardware compatibility problems

In most cases I'd settle for needing a bit more technical knowledge in exchange for getting a nonupgradable tightly packed computer, like most Macs are.

And Macs have plenty of compatibility problems. Ever try to get a bunch of different printers working with OS X? It's not always pretty, let me tell you.

- Poor security

Windows 7 actually has better security features (such as two forms of protection against memory injection). However, OS X does enjoy one great security feature -- obscurity.

With Microsoft now offering free security software, to hold Apple up for its security record when its not actually doing anything other than selling less units seems ridiculous.

- Piracy

First off, piracy didn't truly take off among the mass public until about 1999 when Napster popped up (that's 10 years ago). Secondly, all platforms have their fair share of piracy -- OS X included. Heck, half the people I know with OS X are running pirated Photoshop, iLife, 3DSM, etc.

- Poor control over adult content

This the responsibility of the browser, not computer, considering most explicit content is delivered over the internet. I don't see Safari as doing any better than Firefox or Chrome in this department.

Besides, nothing replaces good parenting.

- Poor software

Are you kidding me? The best office suite? Hands down MS Office. The best games? All on Windows -- Macs don't even support most games. The best photo editing software? All on Windows, as well as Mac (Adobe suite).

I'm not sure quite what software you're talking about -- there's lots of good software for Windows.

- Poor bug handling system

Have you used Win7? It has a great bug reporting system. A bug is a bug -- it will cause inconvenience. However, with the new system Microsoft fixed 2000+ problems before release.

If OS X has a similarly capable bug-tracking system perhaps it would have allowed Snow Leopard to ship with a vulnerable, outdated version of Flash.

- Frustrating to buy, learn, use and fix

Come on, now. Any computer is frustrating to buy learn and fix to the novice. That includes Macs, PCs, and Linux boxes.

But there's a reason we do have a brain in our heads (some of us at least)... and we can learn how to "buy", "use", and "fix" our machines without frustration. Personally I have a lot of fun both "buying", "learning", and "fixing" PCs.

RE: Irony
By Chocobollz on 10/25/2009 5:15:13 AM , Rating: 2
Heck, half the people I know with OS X are running pirated Photoshop, iLife, 3DSM, etc.

3DSM??!! You mean, 3D Sado-Masochism? Is that a hentai game? Biko 3? :p

RE: Irony
By sebmel on 10/26/2009 9:38:05 AM , Rating: 1
Well argued: I'm just not sure about the printer issue. I've had far more problems trying to get Windows to recognise peripherals than OS X. Apple's Bonjour technology does an admirable job of recognising anything plugged into a Mac.

I have to think back to 1997 to remember the last time I had an issue with one printer on a Mac and that was simple: no driver available... I found an open source one that worked. It was par for the course back them: Macs were 2% of the market. These days, with Macs being probably 25% of home computers it's very hard to find a printer without a Mac driver... and if you're buying there's plenty of choice.

RE: Irony
By chick0n on 10/24/09, Rating: 0
RE: Irony
By Omega215D on 10/23/2009 1:13:51 AM , Rating: 4
I just watched the new Apple ad against Windows 7 and the woman mentioned about familiar with frustration and the like with Windows so won't be staying with Windows and instead moving to Mac. Boy will she be in for a surprise when she puts down her moving boxes when she gets her new Mac.

As a MacBook owner I have experienced my own frustrations with OSX and the way it handles things... as I do have some issues with past Windows but so far so good with 7.

RE: Irony
By reader1 on 10/23/09, Rating: -1
RE: Irony
By tastyratz on 10/23/2009 8:05:27 AM , Rating: 4
All computers are far too complex for intimidated OLD stubborn people. Computers are designed by geeks and make sense to them. OLD STUBBORN people, however, find them very confusing.

Fixed your quote.

Computers now are easier to learn than ever before, if my 80+ year old grandmother who still plays casettes and vhs tapes can pick up windows xp enough to read emails within a week taking a short class at the senior center, then so can anyone else - especially of prime learning age.

Computers are only as complex as you want them to be (like driving a car or being a mechanic), but core basic functionality is far easier to learn for beginners than many many other standard common tasks. If "normal people" are competent enough to complete 8th grade, study for a driving test, or beat illiteracy - they are competent enough for basic computing skills. 80% of Americans are online.

Your argument held water 20 years ago, but certainly not now.

RE: Irony
By 3minence on 10/23/2009 8:57:21 AM , Rating: 2
If you make a computer that even an idiot could use, only idiots will want to use it. Remember Microsoft Bob? Computers are complex items capable of doing complex things.

Some computers are very simple, but are designed to do limited tasks. Modern cash registers are an example. A home PC is expected to do a myriad of tasks, and therefore is more complex to use.

Someday we will have computers with limited reasoning skills and audio input so we can just tell it what we want. But that is going to take a lot more processing power and complex operating systems than what we have today.

RE: Irony
By jonmcc33 on 10/23/2009 12:43:54 PM , Rating: 5
Reader1, 7 year old daughter can use Windows Vista without a problem. Are you telling me that she is smarter than you are?

Nobody will know what a "web browser" is if you ask them, regardless of which OS they use. People identify mostly with the "blue E" on their desktop or by telling them to "open the internet".

I take it you have never done computer support ever in your life?

Ask people who the Vice President is and I wager that they will not know his name. They will know Obama though. It's merely inherent human stupidity and has nothing to do with computers or monopolies. You are putting yourself in that very category of inherent human stupidity if you keep posting this FUD.

Already running Win 7 on Bootcamp
By ashishmishra on 10/23/2009 1:08:04 AM , Rating: 3
Interesting, I am already running Windows 7 on Bootcamp 3.1 (Macbook Pro 13.3") and have encountered absolutely no issues whatsoever. Except the fact that an in-place upgrade didn't work on Vista Business, but clean install on the Bootcamp volume was pretty uneventful.

Even if you have an older intel based mac/book I see no reason for Windows 7 not to work on the existing Bootcamp 3.1

Any thoughts?

RE: Already running Win 7 on Bootcamp
By jonmcc33 on 10/23/2009 1:01:06 PM , Rating: 2
Thoughts? Runs better on a PC?

RE: Already running Win 7 on Bootcamp
By ashishmishra on 10/23/2009 5:55:51 PM , Rating: 2
I think it runs great. Feels as snappy as Snow Leopard, though start up and shutdown time can't still hold a candle to Snow Leopard but Sleep works just as good as OSX. It does run better on my desktop pc but that is also an i7 920 @ 4Ghz :D

By cmdrdredd on 10/25/2009 6:39:33 PM , Rating: 2
I think it runs great. Feels as snappy as Snow Leopard, though start up and shutdown time can't still hold a candle to Snow Leopard but Sleep works just as good as OSX. It does run better on my desktop pc but that is also an i7 920 @ 4Ghz :D

Who shuts down their computer these days? Really...unless you're playing with hardware internally.

By Alexstarfire on 10/23/2009 1:59:36 PM , Rating: 2
Perhaps, to me this is just saying that it's now officially supported. While it might have worked before it wasn't guaranteed and they wouldn't help you with any problems you encounter.

That's what is seems like to me anyway.

By SpaceJumper on 10/24/2009 9:46:28 AM , Rating: 2
I would buy a Windows PC and forget about Bootcamp. At the same time you have a backup computer and it runs better.

Stop being so negative.
By phatboye on 10/23/2009 1:52:49 AM , Rating: 3
Instead of spreading negative lies about Microsoft's products why doesn't Apple spend their advertising dollars promoting the positives of their own products.

RE: Stop being so negative.
By R3T4rd on 10/23/2009 3:24:24 AM , Rating: 2
Because there isn't very much "Positive" to advertise on.

RE: Stop being so negative.
By MonkeyPaw on 10/23/2009 7:46:20 AM , Rating: 2
Like how OSX 10.6 has been known to completely delete user account information? Even Apple's mistakes cost you more!

RE: Stop being so negative.
By reader1 on 10/23/09, Rating: -1
RE: Stop being so negative.
By ctodd on 10/23/2009 8:34:13 AM , Rating: 2
Exactly which feature is unnecessary and *gimmicky*? Feature creep is a reference I have only heard when speaking of development. I have never heard a consumer complain about feature creep. Generally, consumers want more features unless it is useless to them or they have no understanding for what it does. I don't use more than 20% of the features, but I haven't seen anything that I would deem unnecessary. Just because I don't use it doesn't mean it isn't useful to someone else. Sounds to me like you just need to use Notepad.

RE: Stop being so negative.
By Alexstarfire on 10/23/2009 1:17:33 PM , Rating: 1
Your posts sound like the typical Apple commercial, ironically enough. Mention nothing useful about the products you support and only complain about other companies products without having any evidence or support. Except in your case you take it one step further by not even mentioning the negatives of the new product. You just bitch and moan about how it sucks and/or straight up tell lies.

RE: Stop being so negative.
By AlexWade on 10/23/2009 8:25:40 AM , Rating: 2
W7 is a winner in a big way, Apple knows this. The cute girl with her kittens is hard to counter. Apple had the cool factor, but Microsoft one-upped them with that warm-inside feeling. "Ah, she's so cute". It won't appeal to computer experts, but it does appeal to anyone who is not a computer expert. The exact same market Apple is trying for with the "it just works" mantra.

Apple will always have the rich cool people, but they are in danger of losing any mainstream users they collected. Unless Apple moves fast, people will stop thinking of Apple and start thinking PC again because W7 has tremendous positive buzz.

RE: Stop being so negative.
By Targon on 10/23/2009 12:32:57 PM , Rating: 2
Apple will always have the "cool" douche-bag trying to say how cool Apple is and how lame Windows is. And only those who don't pay attention will see that Windows has come a LONG LONG way from the days of even Windows 98, while MacOS hasn't changed in any appreciable way since MacOS first came out.

So, what has changed about MacOS since 2002? Not much. What has changed about Windows since then? A lot, and most of it for the better. If Apple doesn't come up with a significant update to the UI, then Apple will end up stagnating while the Windows market evolves and becomes easier and easier to use.

I'm still waiting...
By iFX on 10/23/2009 12:15:05 AM , Rating: 2
... for Apple to try and sell us their products with commercials outlining the features of the products.

So far, I just see them picking on Microsoft (erroneously).

RE: I'm still waiting...
By TomCorelis on 10/23/2009 4:01:56 AM , Rating: 3
Pssh, facts are boring.

Trendy looking San Francisco hipster (ugh... HIPSTERS) guy insulting dorky dude in a cheesy suit? Entertaining! Micro$haft, you got SERVED! OOOOoooooo

You know what else I never see anymore? Ads with more than a paragraph of text that isn't medical disclosures in 5-point font

RE: I'm still waiting...
By reader1 on 10/23/09, Rating: -1
RE: I'm still waiting...
By zero2dash on 10/23/2009 10:39:15 AM , Rating: 1
The fact that you have nothing better to do than go on a website and post a bunch of BS about the competitor's OS is beyond pathetic.

Why don't you get a job and actually support the economy instead of sitting in your parent's basement beating off to pictures of Steve Jobs.

RE: I'm still waiting...
By clairvoyant129 on 10/23/2009 11:00:47 AM , Rating: 2
reader1 is a moron.

I rather have the expandability of a PC instead of a closed system (i.e. Macs). CPU, video card, anything can be upgraded. For Macs? When it's time for an upgrade, you're forced to buy a whole new machine.

Poor software support? The most widely used applications and not to mention games = Windows. For Mac, you need to buy a second OS and bootcamp. So how does Windows have poor software support when it's Macs that need a second OS?

RE: I'm still waiting...
By iFX on 10/23/2009 11:49:06 AM , Rating: 1
Slander is a crime, keep that in mind, kiddo.

RE: I'm still waiting...
By beastyben1 on 10/23/2009 2:20:04 PM , Rating: 2
slander = spoken
libel = written

RE: I'm still waiting...
By Hawkido on 10/23/2009 4:11:00 PM , Rating: 2
Bob is a moron = opinion
Bob has sex with underage children = statement of non-subjective fact

To express your opinion is protected by the first ammendment. To falsely accuse/incorrectly identify someone in a detremental way is slander/liable.

While "moron" was a medical term used to describe a sub-par IQ range. It has since been dropped as IQ is subjective, and can only be inacuratly measured to a limited degree.

This threat of "Slander" wouldn't be heard in a court of law.

Windows 7
By flabbergastedagain on 10/23/2009 12:14:14 PM , Rating: 2
Only 2 words:

the register.

A few weeks, maybe months, but all of your Windows versions will be acting slower and slower. Windows rot.

No such things on Linux or OSX.

RE: Windows 7
By jonmcc33 on 10/23/2009 1:03:42 PM , Rating: 2
The REGISTRY is nothing more than a database. If nothing points to old database entries then how is it slowed down?

Registry "cleaning" is a myth and registry cleaning programs do more harm than good.

RE: Windows 7
By Alexstarfire on 10/23/2009 2:04:28 PM , Rating: 2
Yea and no actually. The reason why people ended up having problems with the registry is because there were a lot of programs that didn't fully uninstall and left registry entries. There were several cases where I'd have to go manually remove entries just so I could do a proper reinstall to get it working. This pretty much only ever happened when upgrading certain programs.

If programs completely uninstall like they should then you won't have problems. I say if you're not having problems then you don't need to do anything.

I will also say I haven't had any registry problems in several years, if not longer, save for when I pretty much made the problems myself.

RE: Windows 7
By SpaceJumper on 10/24/2009 9:49:12 AM , Rating: 2
My MAC is actually getting slower. My current family video editing is actually slower than my current Windows PC.

win7 crash
By coachingjoy on 10/23/2009 4:25:28 AM , Rating: 2
Don't know if I'm alone but my new install of win7 pro was found sitting on the c drive saying it couldn't boot this morning.
This was a student download install onto a pair of Intel SSD G1's in raid0.
Solution: booted up a win7 RC1 dvd and did a repair. The MBR was restored and all is good.
Just a heads up to everyone in case it happens to you.

RE: win7 crash
By djcameron on 10/23/2009 9:47:11 AM , Rating: 2
It's most likely a SSD problem. They're still not all that reliable.

By Pneumothorax on 10/27/2009 9:56:09 AM , Rating: 3
They behave just like Venezuela. They talk trash about the US, while continuing to sell oil to us.

By Iaiken on 10/23/2009 10:31:12 AM , Rating: 2
I don't remember my 386 DX having a douchy mustache...

Funny Ads
By gstrickler on 10/23/2009 3:13:37 PM , Rating: 2
I know that they're not completely accurate, but they're ads. Whose ads are 100% accurate? They're doing what all great comedians do, find some issue which is based upon the reality of someone/something, and exaggerate that in a humorous manner. It's only funny if there is enough truth in it that people can identify with it.

A wise man once said, "don't believe everything you hear". The point of advertising isn't to inform the potential buyer, it's to sell the product. Providing information is just one way of reaching that goal. Even when they do provide accurate info, consider the source is still biased, they do want you to buy their product. Refer back to that quote. With advertising, you should consider that twice.

Relax, chill out, and laugh at the flaws they point out, even when those flaws aren't nearly as big as the ads portray. They're funny, because they point out the things that have frustrated nearly every Windows user at one time or another. Just remember, they're ads and don't take them too seriously.

By on 10/24/2009 9:03:15 AM , Rating: 2

Best quality, Best reputation , Best services

Quality is our Dignity; Service is our Lift. commodity is credit guarantee, you can rest assured of purchase, myyshop will provide service for you all, welcome to

Air Jordan 7 Retro Size 10 Blk/Red Raptor - $34

100% Authentic Brand New in Box DS Air Jordan 7 Retro Raptor colorway

Never Worn, only been tried on the day I bought them back in 2002

$35Firm; no trades (Jordan)

"bootcamp" is irrelevant..
By bangmal on 10/25/2009 6:36:59 AM , Rating: 2
The "bootcamp" crap is nothing more than partition manager plus a few drivers for some apple devices, like the trackpad, webcam etc. Every other driver like chipset, videocard, and other important stuff are supported by the vendors, which Windows have great support on those.

You can even install Windows by directly booting from the windows DVD without touching the "bootcamp" rubbish.

By MeloManiac2 on 10/23/09, Rating: -1
RE: Guys...
By Spoelie on 10/23/2009 4:52:23 AM , Rating: 5
Personally, regardless of how good their products might be, I'm getting sick and tired of the "Apple Attitude". Apple's like that annoying kid you used to know in preschool, who picked on everyone but if anyone picked on him, would go crying to the teacher instantly.

To me, it's a company who's turning out a far worse monopolist than Microsoft has ever been. Everything from their ads, app store/OS policies, bundled application installers to their "retaliation" on microsoft's laptop hunter ads just disgusts me. BTW MS's ads didn't have any problem with calling the Macbook sexy, while apple can't do anything else than sling mud.

Now why do I even bother mentioning this while so far I have kept myself out of mac vs ms discussions? My company has a very apple-centric laptop policy. After some time you have the choice between a 15" Macbook Pro and a Dell with similar specs but half the sticker price (so a no frills bulging model, not one of those sleek and sexy designs). Needless to say, since the company's paying, almost everybody picks the mac. My laptop replacement choice is coming up but I'm not sure yet if I really want to be part of the Mac cult.. It's quite bewildering to see my esteemed colleagues turn into outright zealots once the topic comes up.

RE: Guys...
By Griswold on 10/23/2009 5:55:28 AM , Rating: 3
Follow your own advice and stop worrying about those "windows geeks"?

RE: Guys...
By damianrobertjones on 10/23/2009 7:02:56 AM , Rating: 2
Maybe you also need to go outside and maybe have some help. Try not to insult the 'geeks' as you put it.

RE: Guys...
By The Irish Patient on 10/23/2009 11:39:48 AM , Rating: 3
The Apple commercials are amusing enough as an exercise in gorilla theater. However, I generally get pissed by them because Apple cheated me so badly on my first computer.

That was in July 1995. Windows 95 was just coming out. Unfortunately, I believed Apple's crapola about how it would be releasing its next generation operating system in November, and that it would completely blow win95 away.

So, I bought an Apple 6200 for $1800. Many experts rate it as the worst computer of all time. The motherboard design was so badly botched that it required four clock cycles on the bus to accomplish what a PC could do in one cycle. Glaciers move faster. And of course, it was more expensive than a PC because it was an Apple.

Even worse, Apple already knew during the summer of 1995 that it was still years away from releasing a next gen operating system. Rather than admit the fact, Apple just kept pushing the release date back by a few months at a time. The next gen turned out to be OS X, released during 2001, a mere six years later than promised.

As the years of delays passed, Apple continued to promise each new buyer that the system being purchased would run the new OS when released. At the same time, computers older than a couple of years were continually dropped from the list of those that would be compatible with the new OS. By 1997, Apple had disclosed the fact that my 6200 would not be compatible with its next gen OS.

I put up with that piece of garbage for three years. Then win98 released. I upgraded to a less expensive PC, got about ten times the performance, and never looked back.

As far as I'm concerned, Apple still owes me a refund of $1800 for the 6200. As funny as the Mac versus PC commercials are, it bothers me greatly that Apple still survives by making false promises of superiority.

RE: Guys...
By flabbergastedagain on 10/23/2009 12:22:12 PM , Rating: 2
True, thas wasn't the best period for Apple. After Steve Job's return in 1997, things got better for Apple and it's customers.

A lot has changed in those 12 years. The old OS went out of the window; nowadays we have a far better OS based on Unix.

RE: Guys...
By KoolAidMan1 on 10/23/2009 4:19:25 PM , Rating: 2
I didn't get on board until OS 10.2 came out. Macs were crap before then, now their operating system is really good. I think its common knowledge that Macs weren't that great in the 90s.

RE: Guys...
By djcameron on 10/23/2009 5:39:22 PM , Rating: 2
I've been on a MacBook for almost a year (due to work requirements), and I'm here to tell you that they are NOT all they are cracked up to be. Finder blows compared to Windows Explorer, OS X doesn't even come with a simple paint application, and the permanently stuck to the top of the screen menu is a pain-in-the-***, especially on a multi-monitor system. OS X does, in fact, have it's very own BSOD, which I like to call the BBSOD (Bilingual Black Screen OF Death). The lack of software sucks, and even when there is software, it usually costs a lot more.
On the other hand, I do really like the buttonless trackpad!

RE: Guys...
By SiliconAddict on 10/23/09, Rating: -1
Apple people are sad.
By chick0n on 10/23/09, Rating: -1
RE: Apple people are sad.
By bupkus on 10/23/2009 9:33:08 AM , Rating: 1
They whine like a fag every freakin' day.

Just what the fuck does that mean?
Whether it be race, religion, gender, I just don't see the point, unless you yourself need to posture some to butch up your act.

Straight guy walkin'

RE: Apple people are sad.
By djcameron on 10/23/2009 9:44:28 AM , Rating: 2
Settle down Beavis. There's no need to get your panties in a wad.

RE: Apple people are sad.
By chick0n on 10/23/09, Rating: -1
RE: Apple people are sad.
By jonmcc33 on 10/23/2009 12:59:40 PM , Rating: 2
I'm not gay but what does homosexuality have to do with whining? I can point out a few million heterosexual women that whine till your ears bleed.

By BigToque on 10/23/09, Rating: -1
RE: Microsoft...
By KoolAidMan1 on 10/23/2009 2:15:59 AM , Rating: 5
Microsoft has been making productivity software for Apple longer than they've been making their own operating systems. That and Office on the Mac sells quite well. It would be the breaking of a very long history of Mac development and a fair loss of revenue just to "stick it to em".

Its business, all that matters is revenue, and so long as Office or any of their other OS X software is profitable I don't see why they would stop developing it.

RE: Microsoft...
By ashtonmartin on 10/23/09, Rating: -1
RE: Microsoft...
By phatboye on 10/23/2009 3:53:13 AM , Rating: 2
I thought MS made Office for Mac as part of their Anti-trust settlement.

RE: Microsoft...
By jonmcc33 on 10/23/2009 12:54:05 PM , Rating: 1

Microsoft Office was introduced by Microsoft in 1989 for Mac OS, with a version for Windows in 1990.

Available for Mac OS before it was even available for Windows. What did you say again?

RE: Microsoft...
By ashtonmartin on 10/23/2009 1:01:43 PM , Rating: 2
You can read up about Apple v. Microsoft.,_Inc._...

In 1997, five years after the lawsuit was decided, all lingering infringement questions against Microsoft regarding the Lisa and Macintosh GUI as well as Apple's "QuickTime piracy" lawsuit against Microsoft were settled in direct negotiations. Apple agreed to make Internet Explorer their default browser, to the detriment of Netscape. Microsoft agreed to continue developing Microsoft Office and other software for the Mac over the next five years. Microsoft also purchased $150 million of non-voting Apple stock, helping Apple in its financial struggles at the time. Both parties entered into a patent cross-licensing agreement.[5][6]

RE: Microsoft...
By Alexstarfire on 10/23/2009 1:12:14 PM , Rating: 2
That 5 year agreement ended 7 years ago. BTW, I don't recall Mac OS ever having IE as the default browser, and we've had pretty much every version since like Mac OS 6.

RE: Microsoft...
By gstrickler on 10/23/2009 2:05:40 PM , Rating: 2
Mac OS did ship with IE as the default browser for a several years, from Mac OS 8.1 through Mac OS 10.2.x. For those years, IE was the fastest, most stable, and most compatible browser on the Mac. That ended when Safari 1.x and Firefox 1.x shipped. IE for the Mac hasn't been updated in over 6 years. It still works (or at least it did in Mac OS X 10.4, haven't tried it with 10.5), but it's terribly outdated and almost no one uses it anymore.

RE: Microsoft...
By Alexstarfire on 10/23/2009 2:22:56 PM , Rating: 2
I'd swear that I remember Netscape still being on the computer though. Perhaps my dad went and downloaded it. I wasn't that old back then so it's not like I could just use the computer as I pleased like I can now.

RE: Microsoft...
By gstrickler on 10/23/2009 3:21:21 PM , Rating: 2
I remember Netscape on the Mac also, don't remember if it shipped on them or if I had to download it. Mostly what I remember about it is that I used it because I didn't want to use "another MS product". However, after one session in which Netscape crashed on me 6 times in about 90 minutes, I finally tried IE (3.x at the time I think), it was so much faster and more stable that I never went back to Netscape. I tried Netscape a few times as they released updates, and I kept a copy handy in case something didn't render correctly in IE, but I always used IE first until Firefox 1.x shipped. More recently, I've switched to Safari 4 on the Mac, still use Firefox 3.5.x on Windows. I have Safari, Firefox, Opera, IE, and Chrome installed (on both platforms), but I primarily use Safari on the Mac and Firefox on Windows.

RE: Microsoft...
By Griswold on 10/23/2009 5:53:33 AM , Rating: 2
As tempting it may be, that would be the Steve Jobs way of doing things. If it generates money for MS, why ditch it? Its actually a slap in the face of apple - the best office suite on that platform comes from their arch-rival.

RE: Microsoft...
By Denigrate on 10/23/2009 9:20:33 AM , Rating: 2
So is Monaco a rival of France? No, and Apple is not a true rival of Microsoft. A US based example would be are the Royals a rival of the Yankees? Royals were once a major power in MLB, but no longer.

RE: Microsoft...
By mcnabney on 10/25/2009 12:40:24 AM , Rating: 2
The Royals get kicked around enough as it is.

Do you have to piss on them in the middle of an Operating System discussion?

RE: Microsoft...
By reader1 on 10/23/09, Rating: -1
RE: Microsoft...
By JimmyJimmington on 10/23/2009 10:30:20 AM , Rating: 1
Some people need to do real work. That means using track changes and having foreign language support that isn't utter crap. MS Office wins.

RE: Microsoft...
By jonmcc33 on 10/23/2009 12:57:11 PM , Rating: 2
That pile of crap helps drive 80% of the corporate world into making billions upon billions of dollars, giving us all jobs.

RE: Microsoft...
By Akrovah on 10/23/2009 5:01:37 PM , Rating: 1
You would not believe the kinds of things we have beena ble to make Office programs do for us because of your much reviled "feature-creep."

Really, what is wrong with software being more capable? Because it makes it more complex? Boo-Hoo. Then just use the simple basic features, they are perfectly easily accessable, and leave the grown up stuff alone.

"Can anyone tell me what MobileMe is supposed to do?... So why the f*** doesn't it do that?" -- Steve Jobs

Copyright 2016 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki