Win 7 - A Mac owner's perspective

**elgrecomac** · 07-06-2009

I own and really like my MacBook Pro 17" laptop / cooktop*. I have, for professional reasons, need to use Windows-only apps like MS Project and Visio. I use VMWare's Fusion product to install Win 7/64 on my Mac so I can run the two OS' concurrently without having to reboot... and so, because Apple OSX allows it, I allocate 1.8gb of ram for Win 7/64 and the remainder ( 2.2 gb) is use by OSX.

After using older versions of the beta for several months and now RC1 I think that Microsoft finally got their shiit together. Win 7 is feature rich, stable, fast and easy to install. I have had virtually no significant problems with the OS and it recognizes all of my blue-tooth hardware and network devices. There is a sizable contingent of Mac users who use windows for professional reasons,like me, and the general consensus of opinion is a big thumbs up re: Win 7 RC1.

As for the whole look and feel issues compared to OSX, well, RC1 is not there yet but is MUCH MUCH closer. So close, in fact, that I believe Apple is worried. They just announced their upgrade pricing to Snow Leopard OSX 10.6 for $30: almost a free upgrade. And Apple announced a decrease in price on many of their computers 2 months earlier than they usually do because of #1- the economy and #2 - the pending Win 7 juggernaut.

My big complaint is Win 7's inability to address and utilize all the memory installed on the computer. The 3gb limit seems silly in the year 2009. Most of my friends who use macs have AT LEAST 4gb of ram and on the desktop 'pro' units have 8, 16 and even 32 gb of ram...all accessible by the OS.

My other complaint is Not an OS issue but, rather, a browser issue: IE 8 is awful and slow compared to its competitors. I use Firefox on my Mac. It stuns me that Microsoft makes such great strides with the OS and belly flops on the browser. Very disappointing when compared to Firefox or Safari. Fortunately for you Windows only users, you can use Safari and Firefox as well.

BTW, I also installed RC1 on my 3 year old Sony Vaio with 1gb of ram...again, easy to install, Fast and STABLE. I did a test to see how my graduate school, macophile daughter would like Win 7 and here is her response: "it was not very intuitive". I asked her why and she said 'In Word, it was not very obvious where many of the features are located ...such as 'save as'". I chuckled and told her I totally agreed with her and I said it was a stylistic flaw in MS Office 2007 on PCs and that many IT managers around the world shared her complaint. ...but it was not Win 7 flaw. She then went through several areas in the OS and said the OS was easy to get used to and the apps ran fast on it.

So cudos to Microsoft re: Win 7.
==============
* The 17" macbook pros run hot....real hot. So hot, in fact, that Apple doesn't market them as laptops but rather a notebook computer because, well...its too damned hot. So I have relabeled mine a cooktop because I think I can cook breakfast on it. If the CPU and the GPU are really working, the temp of the cooktop reaches over 140 deg on the outside of the case and 180 at the GPU and CPU inside and the dual fans are screaming.

**kojo87** · 07-06-2009

glad to see a Mac owner with a relatively open perspective. most of my Mac friends are too hypnotized by their glowing Apple logo to even look at a Windows OS

regarding the RAM limit. ANY 32 bit OS will limit the RAM at 4GB (not 3 as you stated) 64 bit will allow for more RAM. i believe 64 bit is only limited by the motherboard. im running Vista Ultimate x64 with 8GB of RAM and it is all recognized.

regarding Internet Explorer 8. duh. IE sucks. thats old news. anyone who knows anything about anything knows to use Firefox or Chrome. you even said that you use Firefox and not Safari. bundled web browsers are pretty lame.

just curious. in what ways would you say Windows 7 is lacking compared to OSX? i've heard many people say it is but nobody has given me a good reason why.

regarding the Macbook heat. why on earth does it run so freaking hot!? that seems borderline dangerous to me! 180F is way hotter than any processor should run. my desktop's Phenom II stays under 125F under load. sure its a desktop with way more cooling but its OCed from 3.0 to 3.5 at 1.38v

on a side note i find it humorous that Apple claims their price drops are due to the economy. don't they realize there is a HUGE market out there for sub $1000 computers? none of the 7 prefab computers in my house cost more than $500. and all are pretty comparable to Macs spec wise.

**elgrecomac** · 07-06-2009

Originally Posted by kojo87

glad to see a Mac owner with a relatively open perspective. most of my Mac friends are too hypnotized by their glowing Apple logo to even look at a Windows OS

regarding the RAM limit. ANY 32 bit OS will limit the RAM at 4GB (not 3 as you stated) 64 bit will allow for more RAM. i believe 64 bit is only limited by the motherboard. im running Vista Ultimate x64 with 8GB of RAM and it is all recognized.

regarding Internet Explorer 8. duh. IE sucks. thats old news. anyone who knows anything about anything knows to use Firefox or Chrome. you even said that you use Firefox and not Safari. bundled web browsers are pretty lame.

just curious. in what ways would you say Windows 7 is lacking compared to OSX? i've heard many people say it is but nobody has given me a good reason why.

regarding the Macbook heat. why on earth does it run so freaking hot!? that seems borderline dangerous to me! 180F is way hotter than any processor should run. my desktop's Phenom II stays under 125F under load. sure its a desktop with way more cooling but its OCed from 3.0 to 3.5 at 1.38v

on a side note i find it humorous that Apple claims their price drops are due to the economy. don't they realize there is a HUGE market out there for sub $1000 computers? none of the 7 prefab computers in my house cost more than $500. and all are pretty comparable to Macs spec wise.

One man's opinion of Win 7 vs OSX
1. From a system configuration standpoint, the System Preferences on a Mac makes much more sense and is easier to navigate than the Control Panel. Still not even close with Win 7.
2. The BSOD and system hangs. Win 7 seems to have addressed a lot of this but it is a big sore spot none the less...maybe just baggage. My 1 1/2 year old mac has NEVER froze. Never. Yes, I have had apps hang but not the OS. There is a 'force quit' option on every app on my system dock (task bar) to shut down an unresponsive app. I have NEVER had to do the Apple version of the three fingered tango (cntl/alt/ del).
3. Home networking. On my Mac, an 8 year old can figure out how to connect 3 macs and share a printer. MS has made progress with Win 7 but it is still more complicated...and it really shouldn't be.
4. Deleting apps: for most apps, on a mac, you go to the app folder and drag the app to the trash can. That's it. No registry to worry about. No lingering DLLs. There are some exceptions but for 90% of the apps that's how you uninstall them.
5. Time machine: a built in backup system that works with my 2TB external drive seamlessly. It is really quite good and if, as I type this response, I want to get a file I deleted 3 months ago, it will take me less than a minute to find and retrieve it.
6. Spaces: built in to OSX are virtual desktops...up to 16 them. I have a 'space' for may apps so as not to have a cluttered desktop. VMware fusion, of course, has its own space.
7. Firewire 800. The only way to connect external drives with a laptop. Fast backups. Fast copies. MUCH faster than USB. I know this is not an OS issue but its a big deal for someone accessing and reteiving large files on a external drive from a laptop/cooktop.
8. Spotlight is a better AND faster searching tool than that found on Win 7. Searches apps, docs, emails...everything, easily. It can also search content on other computers on the network or even over the Internet, using the Back to My Mac feature. Spotlight also allows advanced Boolean searches; Smart search folders that automatically updates as the content changes.
9. Finder. It just cleaner from my perspective than Explorer. Always has been.
10. Apple is a closed system. They make the hardware and the OS so the chance of conflicts is less. Of course this is a disadvantage as well due to price fixing of Apple with regards to their hardware. I really have not tested SW/HW conflicts on Win 7 but it is inherent in a OS sold by multiple hardware providers.

Again, just one man's opinion.

As for the heat issue, Apple really pushes the GPU for many things and Win 7 doesn't seem to do this to anywhere close to the extent that Apple does. This is just a different approach to OS development.

As for 32 bit OS' accessing ram, I think you may need to do a fact check. I had 4 gb of ram on my system at work but Vista could only 'see' and 'use' about 3.2gb. I think I am right about this.

I agree about the pricing but, at $140 a share and rising, they seem to have their shiit together when it comes to customer loyalty, customer satisfaction and innovation. And no company in the world knows how to market to consumers better than Apple. Where Apple lacks in marketing skill is at the corporation level. The glass ceiling for Apple is big corporations who buy thousands of computers at a time. And with Win 7 I feel Apples 8% market share worldwide will be hard pressed to keep from dropping lower.

**volkerd** · 07-06-2009

Interesting... I was really tempted to buy a Mac, but I decided to go for a Thinkpad instead, running 7232X64. Although i love Apples design, I couldn't live with the glossy screen, the non user-changeable battery, the heat, and the fact that it is a closed system.

**omnivious** · 07-06-2009

I believe that the ram limit on the 64 bit windows 7 is set at 192 gb, if you have that much, more power to ya but from my understanding the 32 bit shouldn't have any problems with 4 gb of ram, that is usually the 32 bit limit... win7 will be coming in both 32 and 64 bit in one and will choose optimal settings for you according to the people I've spoken to from microsoft and the reviews, why you would run a 32 bit on a system that's carrying more then 4 gb of ram, I don't have a clue but the 63 is not gonna cost more and it will be coming on one disc... I am currently running 8 gigs on my system with win7 and it runs beautifully...

**elgrecomac** · 07-06-2009

Originally Posted by volkerd

Interesting... I was really tempted to buy a Mac, but I decided to go for a Thinkpad instead, running 7232X64. Although i love Apples design, I couldn't live with the glossy screen, the non user-changeable battery, the heat, and the fact that it is a closed system.

My MacBook Pro has a matted screen, not glossy. It is a configuration option when you buy it.

**elgrecomac** · 07-06-2009

Originally Posted by omnivious

I believe that the ram limit on the 64 bit windows 7 is set at 192 gb, if you have that much, more power to ya but from my understanding the 32 bit shouldn't have any problems with 4 gb of ram, that is usually the 32 bit limit... win7 will be coming in both 32 and 64 bit in one and will choose optimal settings for you according to the people I've spoken to from microsoft and the reviews, why you would run a 32 bit on a system that's carrying more then 4 gb of ram, I don't have a clue but the 63 is not gonna cost more and it will be coming on one disc... I am currently running 8 gigs on my system with win7 and it runs beautifully...

But my issue is with 32 bit windows. I DO use 4gb of RAM all the time and have multiple apps open accessing large files. It is interesting that when I switched to a Mac I used to close apps all the time...my windows training to preserve ram....but now, like most mac owners, I just open apps up and leave them open and really never worry about memory management. Of course, with Win 7/64 and OSX Leopard and Snow Leopard this is not an issue.

**elgrecomac** · 07-06-2009

BTW, I appreciate the civil dialogue. Not like Foxnews, a mac forum or other windows forums. Good Q&A and opinions.

**kojo87** · 07-06-2009

ever since i installed Vista 64 bit on my desktop i don't see any reason to go back to 32 bit. is there any point at all? all my 32 bit apps run fine in 64 bit. Windows even designates two separate Program File folders: "Program Files" and "Program Files (x86)" i'll admit i don't know much of anything about running a 64 bit OS on Intel processors. the Intel Atom N280 is really the only Intel processor i've ever used. i've only run 64 bit OSes on the AMD Athlon 64 X2 and Phenom II X4. is there a limitation to which processors are capable of running 64 bit? (to be honest i just figured because my Athlon had 64 in the name it was capable :P ) is there any advantage to a 32 bit OS?

regarding your 3.2GB of RAM limit. im curious to why it won't recognize all 4GB. it reminds me of an issue i had long ago on an old HP desktop running XP. i upgraded to 1GB RAM but the OS only recognized about 700MB or so. still no idea why. maybe its just a fluke

**omnivious** · 07-06-2009

the 64 bit os requires a 64 bit processor, most new processors will support 64 bit, the only advantage that I see in 32 bit is that it just takes up less space, if you're limited in your hdd space then you could save some space with the 32... the ram limitation is also a 32 bit issue, 32 bit windows weren't able to use more then the limitation of ram