Windows 8 Will Take on Mac OS X Lion

[n0th1n9]

This is the biggest cat in the family , I wonder whats the next cat LOL!


Mac OSX Panther

It'll be Mac OSX Liger.

 

[mikedl]

This is the biggest cat in the family , I wonder whats the next cat LOL!


Mac OSX Panther

It'll be Mac OSX Liger.

:roflmao:

 

[Stratos]

I don't see how people continue to compare OSX and Windows, they're nothing alike aside from using a keyboard, mouse, speakers and a monitor to interact with each respective OS.

 

[echrada]

Just face it Stratos, Windows 7 is far superior to your Apple cats. Imagine using an Apple sticker just to 'stand out'. I much prefer the windows logo.

We all know when an apple is left for a bit it goes bad.:devil:

 

[Imperfect1]

Before I went on deployment 6 months ago I was reading a interview with Steve Jobs he said that he believes in the future that he see's computer's going away and being replaced by devices such as the ipad. I do not believe this but what I do believe is that by this release is to help it's users get use to that direction. I think it will flop.

I hope you're right DMGrier! That MIGHT be acceptable for people who don't use their systems for serious work -- business, science, medicine, etc. for example --- but most people who DO use their computers for these kinds of purposes, need real keyboards and full computers with the ability to fully function, at least some of the time. I have seen the trend toward aesthetics over function, (for example in having 'whistle clean' Desktops and IE9 home pages with fewer and fewer links on them), and now the trend is extending to putting almost all the energy and effort into making devices for entertainment + communication + sales purposes, with less and less regard to the more 'serious' uses of the devices. That's fine, IF and only if MS offers those of us who choose to, OPTIONS to set our devices up in other ways. Unfortunately, it seems as if many of those options are being taken away from us with every new incarnation, and that is what really upsets me.

 

[n0th1n9]

Of course Mac would seam better to past windows OS's because they design their OS around a very specific set of hardware components, thus making it appear to be more reliable. The fact is, Windows has a much wider veriety of components to choose from; hence Windows market share. They have superior idea. Doing this is much harder than apple's approach which is simply to control your experience. It is kinda of gutless really. They havn't any balls to really challenge them selves.

 

[Stratos]

Just face it Stratos, Windows 7 is far superior to your Apple cats. Imagine using an Apple sticker just to 'stand out'. I much prefer the windows logo.

We all know when an apple is left for a bit it goes bad.:devil:

Apple cats? I don't hate Windows, you're greatly mistaken if that's what you think, I'm a big time Win7 supporter. I also recognize OSX's strengths just like any other OS. In my line of work I need to work with both on managed systems. I simply meant that both OSX and Windows aren't alike to be able to compare fairly. If Windows was based on a UNIX code and basically a Microsoft version of it, then I think we can compare it to OSX.

 

[Stratos]

The problem I have with Apple is OSX isn't the result of using all Apple code, they took something that existed (FreeBSD) and built on top of it. All the security benefits that OSX provides has nothing to do with any work Apple put into the OS, those security features are already part of the Unix code they use. It's like claiming you made the ultimate spaghetti sauce when you used a jar of Prego to start with then simply added/changed stuff to it and claimed it as your own. If you want to take credit for the product, make the darn thing from scratch, that's my beef.

 

[Maguscreed]

This entire thing makes no sense to me. I blame Vista, if they hadn't released it before third party support was properly ready mac fans wouldn't have this ridiculous ideal that all windows versions are horrible.

There was only ever one truly horrible windows OS and that was ME, and I shall never speak of it again.

 

[Stratos]

MS hurt itself even more prior to ME... look up Bill Gates and Windows 98. Live on TV and a huge audience... BSOD.

 

[Klaw117]

MS hurt itself even more prior to ME... look up Bill Gates and Windows 98. Live on TV and a huge audience... BSOD.

Was the version that was shown the final product or a test build? If it was still a test build, then it's not really a good representative of MS hurting itself.

Also, why does everyone keep saying the UNIX kernel is inherently more secure than the NT kernel? I have never understood the reasoning behind this.

 

[Maguscreed]

More recently
YouTube - CNET News: Steve Jobs' demo fail

 

[BrasMexo]

Hi,

I was actually a long time Mac OS X user before I finally decided that I wouldn't pay the premium price tag for a computer - I came back, after many years to Windows (although I used Windows daily at work)

The improvements between XP to Vista to 7 were massive, but unfortunately for Apple they don't really innovate anything really new. The whole thing has looked the same since 2000 or earlier, and then each release brings maybe 3 new things which seem good. To be real honest, they should stop bringing out one each year and focus on a completely new one every 3 years. The upgrades never really had that wow factor.

Windows 7 does everything I used to do on my Mac, and one feature I absolutely love is the snapping!

 

[BrasMexo]

The premium price I was refering to was the fact I can get a better spec PC laptop for less money than an lower and older spec Mac laptop.

 

[DeanP]

Just finally got a copy of OS X Lion (for Developers) from the Apple Developer Website. Didn't run well on my Macbook Pro - decided to run on my iMac. Quite amazing - same GUI.

 

[Tepid]

MS hurt itself even more prior to ME... look up Bill Gates and Windows 98. Live on TV and a huge audience... BSOD.

Was the version that was shown the final product or a test build? If it was still a test build, then it's not really a good representative of MS hurting itself.

Also, why does everyone keep saying the UNIX kernel is inherently more secure than the NT kernel? I have never understood the reasoning behind this.

1.) Whether it was a test build or not is irrelevant. The user base and the final end reputation as of 98SE says it all.

2.) The Unix kernal is to some extent more secure because you are setup to run as a standard user out of the box. Root = Admin in UNIX/Linux world. So, when you run as root, you open yourself to the same potential problems with hackers as windows.

Plus, Linux user Base is different,

a.) They don't write garbage to attack themselves.
b.) there is no money in it as the user base is insignificant
c.) It can require a level of social engineering in order to attack a linux system successfully if setup properly.

So, Linux/UNIX are more secure over all (if setup properly), but, they have their own sore spots and drawbacks as well. Many of which far outweigh the security pros aspect of using it for normal everyday joe.


*****************************

Windows 7 does everything I used to do on my Mac

And if you pay the same price for a Windows PC build with same (most times Better) hardware.
You can do absolutely everything that a MAC can do. From Audio composing to PhotoShop to Video production.

And you will more than likely get 1/3 to 1/2 more PC for the same price as a mac.

Remember, Mac Hardware IS Intel hardware.

 

[Colonel Travis]

Just finally got a copy of OS X Lion (for Developers) from the Apple Developer Website. Didn't run well on my Macbook Pro - decided to run on my iMac. Quite amazing - same GUI.

Did you mean that it's amazing (in a bad way) that Apple didn't change much, or that Lion has the same GUI but operates amazingly (in a good way)?

 

[DeanP]

Just finally got a copy of OS X Lion (for Developers) from the Apple Developer Website. Didn't run well on my Macbook Pro - decided to run on my iMac. Quite amazing - same GUI.

Did you mean that it's amazing (in a bad way) that Apple didn't change much, or that Lion has the same GUI but operates amazingly (in a good way)?

It's amazing for the features they offered in Lion (Mission Control, LaunchPad, etc..)
The GUI in Lion is still the same as Snow Leopard & Leopard. Hopefully, it will change in the final release.

UPDATE: Lion is x64 (64-bit) OS only if anyone is wondering...

 

[Klaw117]

2.) The Unix kernal is to some extent more secure because you are setup to run as a standard user out of the box. Root = Admin in UNIX/Linux world. So, when you run as root, you open yourself to the same potential problems with hackers as windows.

Plus, Linux user Base is different,

a.) They don't write garbage to attack themselves.
b.) there is no money in it as the user base is insignificant
c.) It can require a level of social engineering in order to attack a linux system successfully if setup properly.

So, Linux/UNIX are more secure over all (if setup properly), but, they have their own sore spots and drawbacks as well. Many of which far outweigh the security pros aspect of using it for normal everyday joe.

Don't Windows Vista and Windows 7 set you up with limited permissions also? In XP, you had full access to everything, but in Vista and up, even on an admin account, the UAC will pop up. Isn't this basically the same as having Linux/UNIX ask for the root password on a standard user?

Also, I'm well aware that Linux/UNIX has less viruses because of the lower usage share, but I've also heard that if Linux/UNIX did get a virus, the damage won't be as extensive as an infected Windows system. This is really what's confusing me.

Lastly, what do you mean "It can require a level of social engineering in order to attack a linux system successfully if setup properly."? Do you mean that it's harder to trick a Linux/UNIX user into installing a virus?

 

[Tepid]

Don't Windows Vista and Windows 7 set you up with limited permissions also? In XP, you had full access to everything, but in Vista and up, even on an admin account, the UAC will pop up. Isn't this basically the same as having Linux/UNIX ask for the root password on a standard user?

Yes, and no.
Not like Linux/Unix, but almost like it. And UAC has been hacked. So, Win7 security is not perfect, but it is much better than XP out of the box. But, XP can be made more secure, like Linux, as can Win7. But it requires configuring properly

Also, I'm well aware that Linux/UNIX has less viruses because of the lower usage share, but I've also heard that if Linux/UNIX did get a virus, the damage won't be as extensive as an infected Windows system. This is really what's confusing me.

Yes, that is true, due to how linux/Unix are designed. But, it also could depend on the virus and the setup of the environment as well. Some people insist on running as Root.

Lastly, what do you mean "It can require a level of social engineering in order to attack a linux system successfully if setup properly."? Do you mean that it's harder to trick a Linux/UNIX user into installing a virus?

Yes.

Let's face the real hard facts. Windows users are not educated Computer users.
Linux/Unix are not for the average Joe.

Give a Ubuntu box to any average joe and ask them to use it for one month and then come back and tell you what they think.

It won't be all roses