Each time Windows comes out with a new OS, it ends up being more and more like the Mac OS that preceded it each time. It's blatant thievery. I was just looking at the Windows 7 tour. They were coming at me with all these "NEW" features that didn't feel new AT ALL cuz I've been used to them on my mac. Spotlight, time machine, spaces, widgets. They've been around on mac's for a while and low and behold, there's Bill knocking on my door with a box of "slim spearmints" in hand, pretending that "thin mints" don't exist.

This isn't a new phenomenon either. MS-DOS was cruising around, macintosh then released their machine(which, admittedly, the gui was stolen from an abandoned Xerox palo alto research project) but anyways, Mac was able to package the GUI and make it somewhat affordable. Fast forward a bit and Microsoft comes out with Windows THEIVERY!. it gets worse EVERY SINGLE TIME
[Edited 10/8/09 3:46am]

Fast forward to now when Apple charges double for a machine that is less powerful, built using the same chips, but comes in a pretty case!

Seriously, what's the problem? Is your OS superiority complex beginning to crack?

From what I've seen, they've copied the dock and went a step further.
They've introduced a whole bunch of new features, one of which I like called 'remote media streaming' which allows streaming of video/music content over the Internet.

Mac already had streaming, but to my knowlege that was within your network? I could be wrong--you may be able to do it over the Internet, but I've never done it.


Also, the backup solution by Microsoft is still nowhere near as elegant as Time machine on the mac. And Windows 7 will still be plagued with having a registry/hive and .dll hell. So it's still going to be expensive to support on a corporate level.

Small features like 'snap' may be very handy, but I'm not sure. I tend to dislike features in OS and applications that 'assume' you're trying to do this or that, and it preempts you by doing it for you. But we'll see. I might like snap.


Overall, the changes to Windows 7 needed to be made. Windows Vista felt dated the day it was released, and if MS copies Mac, so be it.

I do wish mac would copy a few of Windows Explorer features though. But I doubt they'll do that.

Imago said:

It's true Safari sucks unshowered balls, but we can both enjoy Firefox.

fucking nerds...

Mars23 said:

I meant 'windows explorer', not 'internet explorer'. Internet explorer is the worse browser on the market and makes Safari look like a set of beautiful, washed, low hanging balls in comparison.

But Windows Explorer is very powerful--more so than Mac finder.

Imago said:

I was wondering why anyone would praise IE.

You mean the OSX that looks a hell of a lot like Gnome?

BobGeorge909 said:

It's not a surprise. M$ has few original ideas, but lots of bloated programs that end up being resource hogs. Even the very idea of Windows was created by Apple's team back in the early days of home PCs. Gates saw it and stole the idea for his own, and put it out first, making Apple look like clones.

As far as Mars23's comment about expense. IT'S WELL WORTH IT. You don't have to defrag, you don't have a virus worry*, you DO have universal compatibility. FEW items that I've had to install a driver for on a PC, I've had to install a driver for on a Mac. It truly "JUST WORKS". Even a simple USB wireless mouse needed some freakin' driver on the PC. I plugged it into my Mac (which is a PowerPC, not an Intel based), and BAM. It was working before I put my hand on the mouse to move it. Office, Open Office, etc have Mac versions, so all your documents, spreadsheets, databases, etc will open right up on a Mac. Mp3s, AVI, MKV, and other video type files work. VLC Player makes a Mac and PC version. The firewall is built in as well, and a lot easier to navigate than Windows'.

The best thing is that part of OS X is open source, and there is a plethora of free apps out there for your Mac. You need a Trillian like IM program? Try Adium X. Need a torrent downloader like uTorrent? Try Tomato. The list goes on from the simple to the more complex.

However in the end you have to find a computer that works for you. But don't let that "it's too expensive" hype get to you. It's a lie. The Mac Mini runs for $500-700. It's made to just plug your existing USB keyboard and mouse into, has built in blue tooth for those things as well, comes w/ a DVD burner if you wish, is fast, has all the extras that a regular Macbook or iMac has of course, and is quite small. All you really need is a VGA adapter for your monitor. It's also quite portable if you need to move it around. So for the same amount of money for a desktop, you can get a very good one from Mac. Apple also often has their Macbooks on sale for 600 or 700 bucks. So the price range is still within people's range for a new computer.

*I do have a virus protection from Virex on my Mac, because a virus, although useless, on a Mac could still be passed onto a Windows user (like a macro in a Word document, or whatever), so I have it to protect myself (I use my IBM ThinkPad a bit more regularly than my Mac), and others.

I'm Ernest. And I'm a Mac.

Really? You can play mp3s on a Macintosh too?

novabrkr said:

Smart ass.

roodboi said:

I really don't care which shitty, overbloated platform anyone favours, since the best OS / hardware combination was clearly this one:


[Edited 10/8/09 11:57am]

Mars23 said:

I prefer Opera. I've used it since 2000.

I've always been diplomatic.

I use a Mac at work and Windows (XP) at home and I have no problem with either and never have.

Dauphin said:

I think U have it backwarsa. From what I've researched, gnome fashioned itse;f to look like OS X. That's their schtick. They have "skins" or themes to make their OS look like popular OS's

Mars23 said:

I suppose U MIGHT be able to say it's less powerful. But if U can get better performance form something with less power...kudo's to mac. Lets say that a windows based machine has 4 gb of ram a decent graphiz card and a 2 ghtz processor, this windows machine will get smoked like a blunt in Jamaica by a Mac with 4 gb of ram,t he standard grafiz card and a 2ghtz processor. I'm going to assume that the machine that gives a better performance wit the same equipment brings a lot to the table in saying which OS operates better.

GirlBrother said:

Safari comes with Mac so I just started using it by default. I've used IE and hate it. Not muc bothers me at all about Safari, but I state this with a MASSIVE lack of experience with other browsers. What are Safari's faults. I'm not speaking to issues of preference, but to genuine issues that are clearly defined as bad/good. I don't doubt your statement at ALL Mars, but I'm to lazy to address my lack of experience with other browsers, so I am genuinely speaking to your tenure.

BobGeorge909 said:

Gnome been around since 96. Originally, it was a take on Mac. Then Mac brought out Aqua. Gnome uses tech that allows for themes and you can get something like Aqua. Then, OSX came and started looking more and more like some themes that were popular for Gnome.

BobGeorge909 said:

Have you run XP without Anti-virus? You can't tell the difference in speed.

The numbers you're talking about have to deal with huge calculations that exist in video and audio editing. For big time number crunching, we used the Sun SparcStations back in college, not our PowerPCs.

The themes made for GNOME are for the most part made by individuals who aren't associated with the project usually in any other way than submitting some skins they've made on their free time. What particular skins are supplied with the distro are usually just chosen by the distro makers themselves, you can download others from the internet. The default theme for GNOME is an original one. Granted it's nowhere nearly as blingy as the others, which is why I love using it myself. The eye candy nonsense has gone too far years ago already.

I really don't see either what's the problem with copying stuff from other OSes. That just means the customers are potentially getting an improved setting no matter what platform they would have chosen themseves. I would be more concerned about the sustomers getting a good, functional system in exchange for the money they are spending - the integrity of the products those two giant corporations are marketing is definitely not a concern.

Appled has "ripped off" other platforms just as much as everyone else. For example, initially Mac OS had no thumbnail viewing for images either, that came from Windows applications. Yet it's a highly useful feature to have already built to the file browser. Many of the WMs that have been available for Linux have adopted many of the most useful features from both Windows and Mac OS, and I don't see why that would be a problem either. Although on the other hand I wouldn't recommend anyone to start using Linux based on the fact that similar eye candy is available for it as well.

This isn't a nerd thread though. True nerds have better things to argue about than some graphic themes being copied.

NDRU said:

Me too. cept I use a Mac at home and Windows (XP) at work. But I do prefer Macs. I do wish they had Publisher for Mac tho.