x2
Apple going downhill?
- Thread starter Arachnae
- Start date
Soldato
Ok so Windows 7 has been a good launch for Microsoft but then it bloody well should have as it is the code for Vista fixed to work with a UI that is shamelessly borrowed from OS X. People have had problems with Windows 7 though.
Snow Leopard on the other hand was just about a complete re-write of the core of OS X with a move to a fully 64bit core. Given the radical nature of the code it is not surprising that there was a few problems. However, these did not effect most people (I know nobody who had any issues).
As for the hardware you only have to look and feel. It is miles away from the average PC build. My three year old MacBook looks (and runs) almost as good as new and when I had one problem Apple fixed it within 20 minutes the day after I reported it (all for free even though the MacBook was out of warranty)
I've been an Apple user since the Mac Classic. I'll probably be an Apple user for a good while longer. In fact I'm going shopping for an 27" iMac this weekend and it will be worth every penny I'm spending on it simply because it will do what I want it to do without getting in the way and that is worth the price of entry alone, never mind the good looks, the perfomance, the software and the support.
Man of Honour
I think he's referring to some quote from someone at Microsoft who said straight off that they used OSX as an inspiration for Windows 7. Personally I think in real terms it borrows more from linux (everybody's taken with the snap to full screen and half screen feature, which is nice but I've been able to do that for years with linux).
Either way, I do think it's somewhat sad that Microsoft have seemingly ceased to innovate when it comes to Windows. Love it or hate it, office 2007 was a radical departure and I see what they were trying to do there are it did sort of work. The server products are still progressing and SQL and Exchange improve release by release but what exactly does windows 7 do better than XP did - I suppose it's got better security but I'm reluctant to call that much needed improvement innovation.
Either way, I do think it's somewhat sad that Microsoft have seemingly ceased to innovate when it comes to Windows. Love it or hate it, office 2007 was a radical departure and I see what they were trying to do there are it did sort of work. The server products are still progressing and SQL and Exchange improve release by release but what exactly does windows 7 do better than XP did - I suppose it's got better security but I'm reluctant to call that much needed improvement innovation.
Seems you've been watchign too much of bertrand on wwdc..
innovate not imitate right?
Well the simple fact is that operating systems are just that, people write programs for them.. MS have already been lambasted plenty of times for trying to integrate other programs into windows, i mean windows 7 almost shipped without IE because of the "unfair" competition.
I'm by no means a windows lover but nor am i a mac 'fanboi' either..
It's quite hypocritical really when you think about it..
Have you guys even seen how apple skews the facts and figures in the wwdcs?
I watched it again the other day, and they talk about how windows 7 is just a vista patch with a facelift.. and then talk for 20 minutes about snow leopard which amounts to the same thing for leopard.
There are only so many good ideas out there which you can implement directly into an OS, if someone else has a good idea, why not modify it slightly and implement it? If they didn't copy the good ideas people would whine that they don't have feature X instead of whining that they copied feature X.
And it's not as if it is one way either.. time machine is a glorified system restore.. yes apple have made it fancier and added their own pinache, but in reality.. how is it different from microsoft taking an idea from apple?
Look at things objectively and you'll see that all OS developers take ideas from other OS's, every single one of them.
innovate not imitate right?
Well the simple fact is that operating systems are just that, people write programs for them.. MS have already been lambasted plenty of times for trying to integrate other programs into windows, i mean windows 7 almost shipped without IE because of the "unfair" competition.
I'm by no means a windows lover but nor am i a mac 'fanboi' either..
It's quite hypocritical really when you think about it..
Have you guys even seen how apple skews the facts and figures in the wwdcs?
I watched it again the other day, and they talk about how windows 7 is just a vista patch with a facelift.. and then talk for 20 minutes about snow leopard which amounts to the same thing for leopard.
There are only so many good ideas out there which you can implement directly into an OS, if someone else has a good idea, why not modify it slightly and implement it? If they didn't copy the good ideas people would whine that they don't have feature X instead of whining that they copied feature X.
And it's not as if it is one way either.. time machine is a glorified system restore.. yes apple have made it fancier and added their own pinache, but in reality.. how is it different from microsoft taking an idea from apple?
Look at things objectively and you'll see that all OS developers take ideas from other OS's, every single one of them.
Soldato
Look at the dock and then go look at the new Windows 7 taskbar complete with the ability to "pin" items to the taskbar.
Then there is the Spotlight style search.
Anyway I like Windows 7 but it is not a patch on Snow Leopard.
You could argue they've just gone back to what worked in Windows 1.
And spotlight style search was in Vista.
I'm not saying Microsoft haven't borrowed/stole/been inspired by anything in OS X, but as Arachnae said they all borrow and steal from each other and that's how it should be.
And spotlight style search was in Vista.
I'm not saying Microsoft haven't borrowed/stole/been inspired by anything in OS X, but as Arachnae said they all borrow and steal from each other and that's how it should be.
Man of Honour
And that's fine, but it'd be nice if Microsoft showed any signs of innovation. As I've said, they're obviously capable of it looking at office 2007 and the latest exchange/sql version but what is there in Windows 7? Vista had a few bits but nothing stand out...
What happened to WinFS? - that would have been a real step forwards and it's been missing in action for years now...
Not everything apple do is original sure, but spotlight was brilliant when it first turned up and I disagree about time machine, it's the first real consumer targeted backup solution built into an OS. I've no issue with people borrowing the idea, the competition fuels innovation further, but I just see very little coming from microsoft on the consumer OS front...
Soldato
The Alienware is in no way equivalent to the MBP. It's 1.5kg heavier and twice the thickness.
I think WinFS was put on the back burner when they couldn't even explain it to themselves. It sounded nice in theory but for something like that to work across all files and applications it needs to be truely open source, something they're not very good at.
I agree with you about Windows 7 not having any major features that stand out. But that's going to be a problem for all operating systems going forward because they pretty much do everything already. The only one offering a fresh apporach is Google Chrome OS.
and googles chrome OS isn't entirely original either.. there are plenty of programs that hide away on screen edges and return when you hover over them, and the mail alerts on their first video of it has been done by msn messenger for years.
The only thing you could really say that is unique about chrome OS (from what ive seen so far) is the way your files are stored remotely, but any user can backup to a remote server.. it's just built in to the OS with chrome
When OS's are as advanced as they are currently, the number of innovative pieces of bundled software is going to be limited. I mean spotlight is a good idea, but underneath is it anything more that a glorified search engine?
System restore and time machine are nothing but automated file and state configuration backups.. something that you have been able to do for a very long time with a product like norton ghost.
I see innovation as something revolutionary, but a lot of these so called great features are just shortcuts. They're there to save time, not something brand new.
The only thing you could really say that is unique about chrome OS (from what ive seen so far) is the way your files are stored remotely, but any user can backup to a remote server.. it's just built in to the OS with chrome
When OS's are as advanced as they are currently, the number of innovative pieces of bundled software is going to be limited. I mean spotlight is a good idea, but underneath is it anything more that a glorified search engine?
System restore and time machine are nothing but automated file and state configuration backups.. something that you have been able to do for a very long time with a product like norton ghost.
I see innovation as something revolutionary, but a lot of these so called great features are just shortcuts. They're there to save time, not something brand new.
I think you've totally missed the point with Google Chrome OS. It's revolutionary because they're getting rid of the idea of programs running on your machine. Which a lot of the press couldn't seem to grasp when I watched the webcast, they all started asking about installing Photoshop and Android apps. To say it's not revolutionary because they included a gadget to check for mail (which is in Chrome the browser now as an extension) is a little short-sighted.
With Chrome OS we're going to start seeing a lot more applications running in the cloud. Even with a very limited spec notebook we should be able to play Crysis in the highest detail with OnLive we could see the same with with Photoshop, Final Cut and other applications that would normally require a high end desktop. This is a few years down the line of course, but we need someone like Google to push the big companies in that direction.
With Chrome OS we're going to start seeing a lot more applications running in the cloud. Even with a very limited spec notebook we should be able to play Crysis in the highest detail with OnLive we could see the same with with Photoshop, Final Cut and other applications that would normally require a high end desktop. This is a few years down the line of course, but we need someone like Google to push the big companies in that direction.
Last edited:
I think you're taking the idea of cloud computing to the extreme. The sheer amount of bandwidth it would require to run crysis on a cloud/terminal style system would be insane, and in such a case the graphics still need to be interpretted and rendered.. so I'm afraid a limited spec notebook just wouldn't run it at the highest settings.
A terminal-cloud system works simply because there is nothing intensive that needs processing on the terminal end, processing is all done serverside and the output is usually very simple.
This is proved really in their FAQ, you need a 5Mbps line for 720p which isnt even full hd. Here in englandland we are still several years away from everyone having that kind of bandwidth and I severely doubt that the 5Mbps quoted is at the highest quality settings. And there's no listed price, so it could quite easily be cheaper to go buy an xbox 360 and a game where you dont clog up your internet connection and you can run it in full hd.
I think there are a lot of prerequisites needed and it is a lot of effort to go to to do what a bog standard pc or mac can do anyway.
I mean.. if what you're saying is so revolutionary is the ability to run services and programs remotely, how is it any different from having a virtual server that you just vnc or rdp into?
A terminal-cloud system works simply because there is nothing intensive that needs processing on the terminal end, processing is all done serverside and the output is usually very simple.
This is proved really in their FAQ, you need a 5Mbps line for 720p which isnt even full hd. Here in englandland we are still several years away from everyone having that kind of bandwidth and I severely doubt that the 5Mbps quoted is at the highest quality settings. And there's no listed price, so it could quite easily be cheaper to go buy an xbox 360 and a game where you dont clog up your internet connection and you can run it in full hd.
I think there are a lot of prerequisites needed and it is a lot of effort to go to to do what a bog standard pc or mac can do anyway.
I mean.. if what you're saying is so revolutionary is the ability to run services and programs remotely, how is it any different from having a virtual server that you just vnc or rdp into?
Last edited:
Of course it's taking it to the extreme but that's what is going to be possible in a few years time. It's up and running on the iPhone so there's no reason it can't run on a Notebook running Chrome OS.
5Mbps will be the highest quality settings they won't save bandwidth buy cutting the quality of the graphics. They'll only be able to do that by reducing the resolution sent to the end user. 5Mbps isn't that far away and 720p is HD (360 games are rendered at 720p and some are even 480p) and maybe it will be cheaper to buy a 360 but the price point of OnLive doesn't change Chrome OS.
And it's revolutionary compared to a virtual server because of how you connect to a virtual server. At the moment you need an OS installed, then you need to install software usually to connect to the server. All that is going to take loner to boot and drain the battery a lot quicker than a web browser that boots in 7 seconds on an EEE PC. I don't think you can boot Windows 7, run the software and connect to a virtual server in 7 seconds on an EEE PC.
5Mbps will be the highest quality settings they won't save bandwidth buy cutting the quality of the graphics. They'll only be able to do that by reducing the resolution sent to the end user. 5Mbps isn't that far away and 720p is HD (360 games are rendered at 720p and some are even 480p) and maybe it will be cheaper to buy a 360 but the price point of OnLive doesn't change Chrome OS.
And it's revolutionary compared to a virtual server because of how you connect to a virtual server. At the moment you need an OS installed, then you need to install software usually to connect to the server. All that is going to take loner to boot and drain the battery a lot quicker than a web browser that boots in 7 seconds on an EEE PC. I don't think you can boot Windows 7, run the software and connect to a virtual server in 7 seconds on an EEE PC.
Last edited:
ROFL at 5mbps,
the cable between your graphics card and monitor runs at Gbps mate. So yer the image is going to laughably compressed and poor quality .
I can't see this happening for a long time
sid
It's happening today...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s7fq8NmiV8U
Show me a notebook that can run high end games with better quality than that and I'll stand correted. Obviously you can't tell watching a Youtube video, but the quality hardly looked "poor" to me.
Here's Crysis multiplayer http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6Lqkz5UJHbY. The majority of people on these boards probably don't have a computer capable of playing Crysis with that quality at 60FPS.
This is going wildly off-topic now though.
Last edited:
Associate
I never meant it as if you were wanting a MacBook Pro go for the Alienware. They are aimed at two entirely different consumers. My point was that Apple rips you off. They play with peoples perceptions of "value" and "quality" (as evidenced by the two people that would pay £150 for a trackpad
) to, basically, make you pay more. Their profit margins are HUGE. I can't really fault Apple for doing this as they are a company not your best friend. But Apple consumers really need to be more sensible and not like this stereotypical but fairly accurate viewpoint of them.According to an actual study(!), Macs aren't of the best quality (on average) anyway:
http://www.squaretrade.com/htm/pdf/SquareTrade_laptop_reliability_1109.pdf
Soldato
The nice thing about the macbooks is the software you get with it. iWeb as an example is awesome for someone like me who doesn't own webspace or know much about making websites, publishing via ftp etc... but using this program makes it all rather simple. I've got the newest version of the 13 inch macbook pro and I weighed up the pro's and cons of it against many other laptops and for my needs (university study, planning and internet stuff plus very good battery life whilst being inaudible) its absolutely spot on.
I have a long in the tooth desktop with windows 7 on it so I use both snow leopard and W7 daily and find both OS very easy to use whilst each has pro's and con's over the other.
With the HE discount and a 3 year warranty, I'd easily spend my money again on what I got
I have a long in the tooth desktop with windows 7 on it so I use both snow leopard and W7 daily and find both OS very easy to use whilst each has pro's and con's over the other.
With the HE discount and a 3 year warranty, I'd easily spend my money again on what I got
Why must they support more machines? I don't follow your logic. It's perfectly possible to have mass market with a small number of products. How many model cars does Toyota make? How many models of razor do Gillette produce?
razors and to an extent cars arent dynamic products.. when was the last time you heard of a shaving product manufacturer announce an update? the difference between a razor with a fixed need for a specific part that costs a few pounds and a pc/mac that is in constant need of care are very different.. its a ridiculous argument.
Yes, they could limit the specs of macs to exactly what they want them to be.. but a large number of computer users like to be able to specify their own hardware, such as the graphics card, the amount of ram, the hard drive size and any number of weird and wonderful peripherals.
I think that, given how stubborn people are, apple will have to looen their grip on the specs and allow users more freedom if they want to conquer the mass market.
With regards to the onlive thing, im pretty sure that those videos are on ideal settings.. the data centre may be 50 miles away... but if theyre connected directly by fiber and not having to jump through hoops via adsl providers, its a completely different scenario.
Case in point... I work at a datacentre, and the ping to our other site 70 miles away is maybe 2ms tops, file transfers are obviously very fast.
I live 15 minutes walk from work, which is maybe a mile? Suddenly that 2ms becomes 20ms when i connect from home. And to be fair to my home isp, the route is really short.. only 4 hops. Then you have to take into account that there will probably only be a handful of people using those servers in the videos.. what happens when they get a lot of customers? I'd be interested to know what hardware their servers are running, as crysis isn't a light game as they admit.. so how will they be affected when you have say 100000 players online at the same time?
For this to work on only 5Mbps, it would need to be rendered server side and basically be just video output you're witnessing. which means any latency is going to absolutely ruin your game :/
I'm sure in a perfect world it would work great, but in the real world i have my doubts.
Yes, they could limit the specs of macs to exactly what they want them to be.. but a large number of computer users like to be able to specify their own hardware, such as the graphics card, the amount of ram, the hard drive size and any number of weird and wonderful peripherals.
I think that, given how stubborn people are, apple will have to looen their grip on the specs and allow users more freedom if they want to conquer the mass market.
With regards to the onlive thing, im pretty sure that those videos are on ideal settings.. the data centre may be 50 miles away... but if theyre connected directly by fiber and not having to jump through hoops via adsl providers, its a completely different scenario.
Case in point... I work at a datacentre, and the ping to our other site 70 miles away is maybe 2ms tops, file transfers are obviously very fast.
I live 15 minutes walk from work, which is maybe a mile? Suddenly that 2ms becomes 20ms when i connect from home. And to be fair to my home isp, the route is really short.. only 4 hops. Then you have to take into account that there will probably only be a handful of people using those servers in the videos.. what happens when they get a lot of customers? I'd be interested to know what hardware their servers are running, as crysis isn't a light game as they admit.. so how will they be affected when you have say 100000 players online at the same time?
For this to work on only 5Mbps, it would need to be rendered server side and basically be just video output you're witnessing. which means any latency is going to absolutely ruin your game :/
I'm sure in a perfect world it would work great, but in the real world i have my doubts.