Windows 7, not enough.

Anyone read the Mac OS Lion review over at Ars? Apple is trying to make Mac OS more like iOS, for better or worse. What I find fascinating in it's conclusion:

The Mac will always be more capable than its mobile brethren, but that doesn't mean that simple tasks must also be harder on the Mac. Imagine being able to stick a computer neophyte in front of an iMac with the same confidence that you might hand that neophyte an iPad today.

...

Over the past decade, better technology has simply reduced the number of things that we need to care about. Lion is better technology. It marks the point where Mac OS X releases stop being defined by what's been added. From now on, Mac OS X should be judged by what's been removed.

In this forum and elsewhere, I still see same questions asked 10 yrs ago. What files to backup? What is the best defrag tool? What to tweak for better performance? Maybe I'm getting old, but I feel why are we wasting brain cells on these questions in 2011.

Windows 7 is a big improvement over previous versions of Windows. It is snappy, secure, doesn't slow down after months of use. Scheduled defrag is good enough. Free MSE is good enough. But at the back of my mind, i think these features should have been included long ago.

Now I want Auto Save, App Store, Time Machine. What's the point of running quad-core machine w/ 8GB ram if you lose your last hour's work? I want to be able to install & update software as easily as in iPhone & Android. I want simple & fool-proof method to backup my machine, and to be able to restore to working machine if hd stops working in mins. I don't think this is too much to ask.

But at the back of my mind, i think these features should have been included long ago.

So did Microsoft! But 10 - 15 years ago when they tried to include all these features in Windows, Norton, McAfee and a host of other "3rd party" software makers went whining and crying to Congress and the EU claiming Microsoft was trying to run them out of business and rule the world. Microsoft was, but that is not the point. Congress and the EU agreed, and ordered Microsoft to back off including everything but the kitchen sink, or risk being forced to split up the company.

So don't blame Microsoft. And besides, those "extras" you want are NOT "operating system" functions. The OS is just supposed to facilitate all the parts working together.

As a side note, Norton, McAfee, CA, and a host other anti-malware providers were lead whiners and crybabies on Capitol Hill and the EU claiming it was their job to rid the world of malware, not Windows. Microsoft wanted to include anti-virus code in Windows XP, but was ordered not to by our IGNORANT lawmakers.

Why ignorant? Because they failed to see the obvious. What incentive does the anti-malware industry have to rid the world of malware? ABSOLUTELY NONE!!!!! No malware and they go out of business. How hard is that to see???

So what happened? Norton, McAfee, CA, TrendMicro and all the others FAILED to rid the world of malware. In fact, malware thrived under their watch. But who got blamed by the anti-malware industry, Microsoft bashers, and by biased IT [so called] journalists? Microsoft, Bill Gates, and even America!

So no more. Microsoft now puts security first, and the proof is in Windows 7, IE9, and MSE.

PS - Note that basic backup, defrag, and other utilities have been in Windows going many versions back. I emphasis "basic" - basic in the sense, they were fully capable, but none of the fancy bells and whistle (Read: fluff and bloat) of the alternative offerings.

preiius said:

Now I want Auto Save, App Store, Time Machine. What's the point of running quad-core machine w/ 8GB ram if you lose your last hour's work? I want to be able to install & update software as easily as in iPhone & Android. I want simple & fool-proof method to backup my machine, and to be able to restore to working machine if hd stops working in mins. I don't think this is too much to ask.

I myself prefer to have the control available to me via Windows. Mac has always been an OS for those who either don't have the know-how or desire to do much beyond just using the machine. I like being able to customize to my tastes. I like having the option of most any hardware or software to get the job done. I also like the challenge of building a machine from the ground up and installing whatever is necessary to deignate that machine for a certain purpose (or any purpose, for that matter).

What you ask is not too much, and can be found in Mac. There's nothing wrong with Mac, if you are one of those people who just want to sit in front of a machine and take what you're given.

What I like about Windows is that I retain control. All of what you state above can be had in Windows, either through software or customization.

If you want a Mac-like experience and automation, you should use a Mac. But let's not change the essence of Windows simply because you want a Mac.

The moment Microsoft builds in ALL the necessary apps a person would want, they'd be forced to stop selling the OS after many lengthy lawsuits.

I agree with you completely, that it would be nice to have some added functionality right away, but Microsoft isn't the one to blame here. They just aren't allowed to build in everything we would want. Look at the N versions of Windows 7 that don't even include Windows Media Player.

[QUOTE=James Colbert;1524131]

preiius said:

What I like about Windows is that I retain control.

I agree.

Digerati,

Why ignorant? Because they failed to see the obvious. What incentive does the anti-malware industry have to rid the world of malware? ABSOLUTELY NONE!!!!! No malware and they go out of business. How hard is that to see???

So what happened? Norton, McAfee, CA, TrendMicro and all the others FAILED to rid the world of malware. In fact, malware thrived under their watch. But who got blamed by the anti-malware industry, Microsoft bashers, and by biased IT [so called] journalists? Microsoft, Bill Gates, and even America!

Call me paranoid, but I sometimes think that some AV/malware companies write and distribute viruses and malware. I can't remember which one, but several years ago, there was a scare about some major virus, that was thought to be destined to do some major damage, and the very next morning after it was announce, Norton made it own announcement about having a fix for it. If that virus was so bad that the it merited such a scare tactic, I fail to understand how Norton could come up with a fix overnight...unless they designed it in the first place. I find it difficult to believe that all of the thousands of viruses have been created by ego-maniacs, hackers, etc. as we have been lead to believe.