jmcslobIt's true this copy of Vista hp 64 is on It's 7th pc!!!! I've even had to talk to a person once I claimed "my mother board had burned up and since it was no longer for sale i had gotten the next best model under warranty-same brand- They then gave my new# However this can only be done "Running 1 pc with that copy" you cannot have 2 pc's with same copy unles you purchase the Full retail edition.

correction, you cannot legally install an OEM OS on more than 1pc at a time ;). but as i mentioned my vista install came from an OEM dvd, and 2 other pc's are still running vista from the same DVD.

El FiendoI know you're likening OSX to NT. Do me a favor and look up OS9. Each iteration thereof was listed as an update. Now all of a sudden OSX calls it something else and therefore its always a whole new OS? Just because terminology changes, doesn't mean its something completely different. A rose by any other name would smell as sweet. By my definition, Vista and Win7 are different, however you are adamantly applying it to 'NT' and ignoring what I'm saying.

There is no way you can tell me that the difference between XP SP1 and XP SP2 was any shorter of a jump than between the Mac iterations. It's widely regarded as the Service Pack that saved XP. I'm glad 10.5.8 is going to be free. 10.6 is not. This is what I'm talking about. 10.6.1 may be free. But you still had to pay for 10.6. If you choose to ignore that please don't respond. Hell, even Mac people I've talked to have referred to these as Service Packs. Its also worth mentioning that if you're telling me OSX is comparable to NT, I don't remember paying for NT then paying for my OSes. After all 10.0 was 129 on release wasn't it? I bet you by the time we're done with OSX, people will have paid as much from start to finish as people who bought XP then upgraded to Vista and onward until the OSX run was complete. If not a very similar number. When it comes down to it, Jobs has just found a new way to sell it to you.

It's laughable to start saying Mac has paid less compared to Windows. Both have their own unique costs, and while I believe Mac's pay more I'm sure you disagree.



Brings up an interesting point. I bought my Vista new for $130 CAD in an OEM deal. I have seen no downside in buying OEM and I wouldn't pay full price myself.

You are missing something about OS X here. Apple just uses a different naming scheme than most. Point releases are a major release. Snow Leopard will essentially be OS 17. They just choose to keep the OS X name for marketing reasons. Each point release of OS X brings very significant changes to the core and features of the os. It is in fact a new os. It would be like MS calling their OS Windows X and just adding a point after, so Win 7 would be Windows X.7. More clear now? It's nothing more than a different naming scheme.

DippyskoodlezHe claims he hasn't bought Windows since 2002.

When it's quite the otherwise. He bought XP in 2002 via OEM, so he had to purchase it again when he upgraded his motherboard (Giving him the benefit of the doubt, going from his 2002 machine directly to what he has now.) which would make him atleast purchase a vista OEM or xp+Vista+Windows 7.

Regardless he is still over $300 wheres I'm still at $150+ not having to buy anti-virus, spend time tweaking to get proper performance, or scan for ad-ware, etc etc. It just works.



Upgrading your mac, comes with an OS ;)

So you straight up bought Vista 64 OEM for your current machine? And how much did that run you?

I used to have an iMac running 10.0... so you didn't have to buy EVERY update. I have a friend still running Tiger on his Macbook. He's happily computing away.

It's only a matter of time before OS X viruses happen, Dippy. Don't get complacent.

farlex85That's pretty laughable, since now you're talking about spending another $200-300 (boot camp+windows) on top of the already much higher price machine just to do things the "lowly" cheaper machine can do, and still the cheaper one does it better (run a few demanding games in boot camp and see what I mean).

Please, remove your foot from your mouth before speaking. :D

It plays games in Bootcamp just as well as it would on a dedicated Win PC with the same hardware. Bootcamp is just a non-destructive repartitioning tool, multi-OS bootlaoader, and Windows driver package. When you boot to Windows, it's 100% native. No emulation or anything of the sort.

RavenasThe only thing that is going to cripple an OS running in VM is whether you have the system requirements to run it smoothly and properly.

There is still a performance loss in using any VM, regardless of platform.

Wile EIt's only a matter of time before OS X viruses happen, Dippy. Don't get complacent.

I'm waiting :)

I honestly don't even think Norton AV has been updated for Intel.

DippyskoodlezUpgrading your mac, comes with an OS ;)

So you straight up bought Vista 64 OEM for your current machine? And how much did that run you?

I used to have an iMac running 10.0... so you didn't have to buy EVERY update. I have a friend still running Tiger on his Macbook. He's happily computing away.

Upgrade your PC and it comes with an OS also. Don't forget, you can go out and buy a pre-built and it comes with an OS, just like a Mac. Most of us here, choose not to buy pre-builts simply because we want the flexibility of building our own, something that is impossible on the Mac side of things anyway.

If you want to focus strickly on the mainstream consumer, then PCs come with OSes just like Macs do. And when you upgrade, you get a new OS also.

And it is very true on both sides that you don't have to buy every "update" or whatever you want to call it. I still happily run a laptop with Win2000 on it. The difference is that Win2000 is still recieving at least security updates from Microsoft, while OSX 10.0 recieves no support from Apple, and hasn't for years. Even if you assume people took the free upgrade to 10.1, that version hasn't been supported for years either. And for the most part, support from Apple in the form of security patches(and yes OSX needs security patches) ends very quickly after a new product is released.

newtekie1And it is very true on both sides that you don't have to buy every "update" or whatever you want to call it. I still happily run a laptop with Win2000 on it. The difference is that Win2000 is still recieving at least security updates from Microsoft, while OSX 10.0 recieves no support from Apple, and hasn't for years. Even if you assume people took the free upgrade to 10.1, that version hasn't been supported for years either. And for the most part, support from Apple in the form of security patches(and yes OSX needs security patches) ends very quickly after a new product is released.

Once again, different company, different product audience. Apple meets the needs of its audience quite well IMO. If you don't like it, don't buy it.

Samsung no longer supports my model of LCD. Maybe we should all be hating on them too, for killing the 204B. :cry:

Microsoft supports old software well past its lifetime. This is also why we have 2 version of windows, a 32 and 64 bit. This is also why the transition for Microsoft is so utterly painful.

Vista should have been the primary inroads for 64 bit, windows 7 should have been 64 bit only IMO. Help eliminate this rediculus version list, and obscene pricing.

but hey, why not add a whole parallel product line to confuse consumers. They already don't know what they're buying anyways.

DippyskoodlezOnce again, different company, different product audience. Apple meets the needs of its audience quite well IMO. If you don't like it, don't buy it.

Samsung no longer supports my model of LCD. Maybe we should all be hating on them too, for killing the 204B. :cry:

Microsoft supports old software well past its lifetime. This is also why we have 2 version of windows, a 32 and 64 bit. This is also why the transition for Microsoft is so utterly painful.

Vista should have been the primary inroads for 64 bit, windows 7 should have been 64 bit only IMO. Help eliminate this rediculus version list, and obscene pricing.

but hey, why not add a whole parallel product line to confuse consumers. They already don't know what they're buying anyways.

You can't blame the lack of a 64bit transition entirely on MS. They are fighting an uphill battle against lazy developers, and chip companies still releasing 32bit cpus. They have to follow market demands, and unfortunately, right now, the market still demands 32 bit versions of Windows. Linux is in the same boat, at least as far as needing to support hardware is concerned.

You can't blame the lack of a 64bit transition entirely on MS. They are fighting an uphill battle against lazy developers, and chip companies still releasing 32bit cpus. They have to follow market demands, and unfortunately, right now, the market still demands 32 bit versions of Windows. Linux is in the same boat, at least as far as needing to support hardware is concerned.

Really we can blame MS, 64 bit can run 32bit so yeah it's Microsofts fault, it would not take long at all to rid our selves of 32bit if MS would just stop makeing 32bit. and yes i agree 7 should only be 64bit

jmcslobReally we can blame MS, 64 bit can run 32bit so yeah it's Microsofts fault, it would not take long at all to rid our selves of 32bit if MS would just stop makeing 32bit. and yes i agree 7 should only be 64bit

No, 64bit can't run 32bit drivers for example, but even if you don't take software into account, the chip makers are still producing 32bit only chips. A 64bit OS won't even boot on a 32bit chip.

A Cheese DanishAFAIK, I think it will be troublesome if you do and won't technically upgrade, but you may have to
do a fresh install.

DippyskoodlezClean Install req. But it will install.

I would definitely be reinstalling. So that's cool, thanks.

DippyskoodlezOnce again, different company, different product audience. Apple meets the needs of its audience quite well IMO. If you don't like it, don't buy it.

Samsung no longer supports my model of LCD. Maybe we should all be hating on them too, for killing the 204B. :cry:

Microsoft supports old software well past its lifetime. This is also why we have 2 version of windows, a 32 and 64 bit. This is also why the transition for Microsoft is so utterly painful.

Vista should have been the primary inroads for 64 bit, windows 7 should have been 64 bit only IMO. Help eliminate this rediculus version list, and obscene pricing.

but hey, why not add a whole parallel product line to confuse consumers. They already don't know what they're buying anyways.

You mis-understood me. I wasn't trying to say that Apple was wrong, or that it was even a bad thing that the older versions of OSX isn't supported. I was just commenting on your claim that you still run 10.0, which is proof that people on Apple's side don't have to upgrade. While it is true that they don't have to upgrade, neither do the people running Windows 95, but if they want continued support they do have to upgrade.


And OSX is more expensive in the long run than Windows, assuming that you buy a copy every new release. So you should really get off your OSX-is-cheaper high horse.

Window's transition to 64-bit was much nicer than OSX's. With Winodws it was "you got an old app that you need to use, fine we offer 32-bit support for that". With OSX it was "you got an old app that you need to use, too fucking bad".

Wile EYou can't blame the lack of a 64bit transition entirely on MS. They are fighting an uphill battle against lazy developers, and chip companies still releasing 32bit cpus. They have to follow market demands, and unfortunately, right now, the market still demands 32 bit versions of Windows. Linux is in the same boat, at least as far as needing to support hardware is concerned.

Very true also. While Apple dictates what hardware OSX is run on, Microsoft does not have that luxtury, at least not nearly as much as Apple does.

newtekie1You mis-understood me. I wasn't trying to say that Apple was wrong, or that it was even a bad thing that the older versions of OSX. I was just commenting on your claim that you still run 10.0, which is proof that people on Apple's side don't have to upgrade. While it is true that they don't have to upgrade, neither do the people running Windows 95, but if they want continued support they do have to upgrade.


And OSX is more expensive in the long run than Windows, assuming that you buy a copy every new release. So you should really get off your OSX-is-cheaper high horse.

Window's transition to 64-bit was much nicer than OSX's. With Winodws it was "you got an old app that you need to use, fine we offer 32-bit support for that". With OSX it was "you got an old app that you need to use, too fucking bad".



Very true also. While Apple dictates what hardware OSX is run on, Microsoft does not have that luxtury, at least not nearly as much as Apple does.

That's not true at all. 32 bit apps still work.

Hell, when they went Intel, the PPC apps still worked (and still do work). PPC is supported until Snow Leopard releases.

No, 64bit can't run 32bit drivers for example, but even if you don't take software into account, the chip makers are still producing 32bit only chips. A 64bit OS won't even boot on a 32bit chip.

And those are generally for products like Netbooks and not new Pc's. As far as for New pc's Name 1 new cpu without x64 architecture (The Atom is not a Pc cpu), x86 programs can easily run under x64 with WOW64, so again why Keep x86 going for Pc's, when older x86 cpu's have already hit their practical limits with there existing x86 Os's. Now when it comes to products like Netbooks MS would do themselves a favor and not offer an OS under the Same name line,such as, instead of W7 32 Starter maybe -Windows GO- for example,But for Pc's it should only be offered at x64.
Oh yeah, It's been at least a year since I've seen a x86 Pc product,That's not sold for something like a netbook,It's highly unlikely your going to buy a Pc with Windows 7 and use something that needs x86,and if you do it's time to upgrade anyways!!!!!!!!

jmcslobAnd those are generally for products like Netbooks and not new Pc's. As far as for New pc's Name 1 new cpu without x64 architecture (The Atom is not a Pc cpu), x86 programs can easily run under x64 with WOW64, so again why Keep x86 going for Pc's, when older x86 cpu's have already hit their practical limits with there existing x86 Os's. Now when it comes to products like Netbooks MS would do themselves a favor and not offer an OS under the Same name line,such as, instead of W7 32 Starter maybe -Windows GO- for example,But for Pc's it should only be offered at x64.
Oh yeah, It's been at least a year since I've seen a x86 Pc product,That's not sold for something like a netbook,It's highly unlikely your going to buy a Pc with Windows 7 and use something that needs x86,and if you do it's time to upgrade anyways!!!!!!!!

Whether you like it or not, Atom qualifies as a new PC part. As does Nano. Atom is very much in demand right now, and therefore, so are 32bit OSes. It wouldn't make sense for MS to abandon 32 bit with Atom's popularity. It's simple economics.

Whether you like it or not, Atom qualifies as a new PC part. As does Nano. Atom is very much in demand right now, and therefore, so are 32bit OSes. It wouldn't make sense for MS to abandon 32 bit with Atom's popularity. It's simple economics.

I do not think The Atom or the Nano are Home Pc Cpu's they are for mobile platforms and as such are marketed that way, so i believe it would be in Microsoft's interests not to abandon 32bit Os's but market them for such product's and not Home pc's.Now as far as Home Pc's they should abandon 32bit Os's as it is a total waste For current Home Pc hardware

jmcslobI do not think The Atom or the Nano are Home Pc Cpu's they are for mobile platforms and as such are marketed that way, so i believe it would be in Microsoft's interests not to abandon 32bit Os's but market them for such product's and not Home pc's.Now as far as Home Pc's they should abandon 32bit Os's as it is a total waste For current Home Pc hardware

Then how do explain the mini PCs and All in ones based on Atom? The market is still there, therefore 32bit will still be developed.

Not to mention the business side of things. They want to attract major corporations into using a new OS. Very many of these companies may rely on older computer controlled equipment that has no 64bit drivers. If there was no 32 bit version, they would have to spend even more money to upgrade hardware, or at very least commission a team of programmers to write and debug custom drivers. Both adding unwanted expense.

You are thinking in far too narrow of a market. If the demand for 32bit wasn't there, MS wouldn't make it. But as it stands, the market still calls for 32bit, whether we like that fact or not.

Then how do explain the mini PCs and All in ones based on Atom? The market is still there, therefore 32bit will still be developed.

Yeah exactly, if MS would market W7 32 towards these systems and not towards home Pc's that would be fine by me.

Not to mention the business side of things. They want to attract major corporations into using a new OS. Very many of these companies may rely on older computer controlled equipment that has no 64bit drivers. If there was no 32 bit version, they would have to spend even more money to upgrade hardware, or at very least commission a team of programmers to write and debug custom drivers. Both adding unwanted expense.

Exactly Right! again, We call this progress. Look business's are getting huge Tax write off's to upgrade and I mean huge like 100%, if they spend enough so why offer old crap!!
And look at it this way how much longer do you think MS is going to offer 32bit,what like 2 years
It's how the economic stimulus plan work's, companies upgrade put us to work and we all progress

Look I'm not saying take XP 32 or Vista 32 off the market I'm just saying leave it at that. Most companies are still running Xp with Office 2003, and when they upgrade they should do so with 64bit OS's, it only makes business sense to do so, unless they are misinformed.
As for Netbooks and all in ones I do think MS should make a 32bit OS but not call it W7 as it will not have nearly the same features as W7 That's why I think MS would do best to call it something different.
The main rerason I think MS is still offering 32bit is this, BAD PUBLICITY, they cannot afford to have another Vista Blunder, you know cause a lot of people still think Vista sucks when it far exceeds Xp in every way. They just don't need more press on how most Pc's are not compatable, so they will offer 32bit until people get to know W7 as A RELIABLE OS and then will most likely cut 32bit support

newtekie1Y
Window's transition to 64-bit was much nicer than OSX's. With Winodws it was "you got an old app that you need to use, fine we offer 32-bit support for that". With OSX it was "you got an old app that you need to use, too fucking bad"..

Instead, Microsoft milks supporting old, outdated tools and utilities, and CODE, to the point where it hinders a users's experience of the product.

instead, Apple forces developers to do what they do best. Fix the broken stuff.

God forbid a company force developers to not be lazy with their products :mad:

Normally they are given quite a lead time with advancing their program, too. Carbon not being supported was known at the start of the Intel transition, and is finally being phased out with Snow Leopard.

Hardly Apple's fault, for doing their job of properly progressing their software.

Instead, we have Microsoft keeping VB6 alive on life support, because people are too ingrained into ineffecient, and pile of shit code. if Microsoft didn't design these half assed solutions in the first place, they wouldn't be in the upgrade mess that they are now. (Looking at you office 2007, deciding to drop Lotus Notes support. Way to make our life hell.)

jmcslobAnd look at it this way how much longer do you think MS is going to offer 32bit,what like 2 years

Since win7 is releasing 32 bit, probably another 5.

Since win7 is releasing 32 bit, probably another 5.

I really hope not. and your right about apple well said

Wile EThat's not true at all. 32 bit apps still work.

Hell, when they went Intel, the PPC apps still worked (and still do work). PPC is supported until Snow Leopard releases.

You're right, I didn't mean app, I don't know wny I said app, I was talking more hardware. I got so many calls from people wondering why they couldn't get certain hardware to work with their new Mac when it worked fine with their old. Printers were a real nightmare, as it seems printer manufacturers really lag behind on releasing support for 64 bit on both platforms.

And the PPC app support has been laughable at best, half the PPC apps never worked, forcing consumers to either wait for an x86 port, or find a different product if one existed.

DippyskoodlezInstead, Microsoft milks supporting old, outdated tools and utilities, and CODE, to the point where it hinders a users's experience of the product.

instead, Apple forces developers to do what they do best. Fix the broken stuff.

God forbid a company force developers to not be lazy with their products :mad:

Normally they are given quite a lead time with advancing their program, too. Carbon not being supported was known at the start of the Intel transition, and is finally being phased out with Snow Leopard.

Hardly Apple's fault, for doing their job of properly progressing their software.

Instead, we have Microsoft keeping VB6 alive on life support, because people are too ingrained into ineffecient, and pile of shit code. if Microsoft didn't design these half assed solutions in the first place, they wouldn't be in the upgrade mess that they are now. (Looking at you office 2007, deciding to drop Lotus Notes support. Way to make our life hell.)

I find it funny how you contradict yourself in the same post just to try and make Microsoft look bad. You bitch about them not dropping support for old code and instead milking it, when in reality they are simply still trying to support as many hardware configurations as possible. This is in fact a good thing, IMO.

Then you turn right back around and bash Microsoft for dropping Lotus Notes support...A platform so ancient running on code so old, most of the industry agrees that it should have died ages ago. But instead it hasn't, and has continued to recieve new releases for the sole reason that it continued to have Microsoft Office support...:laugh:

There is no point in arguing about it really though. Apple's transition and Microsoft transition was very different because the two are in different business models. Microsoft has always had to support as many hardware configurations as possible, while Apple doesn't. It was a lot easier for Apple to transition to 64-bit than it was for Microsoft because Microsoft still has to support 32-bit hardware. While Apple can tell anyone not capable of running 64-bit "Fuck off, go buy some new hardware". After all, forcing people to buying new hardware by dropping support for hardware only a few years old is part of Apples business model also.

newtekie1And the PPC app support has been laughable at best, half the PPC apps never worked, forcing consumers to either wait for an x86 port, or find a different product if one existed.

Lol? Rosetta was an amazing creation. Wolfenstein Enemy territory is still PPC. And guess what? It still plays fine on my C2D.

I find it funny how you contradict yourself in the same post just to try and make Microsoft look bad. You bitch about them not dropping support for old code and instead milking it, when in reality they are simply still trying to support as many hardware configurations as possible. This is in fact a good thing, IMO.

Sure, supporting standards that weren't even good in the first place for 30 years is always a good idea. Go play with your VB6 some more.

Then you turn right back around and bash Microsoft for dropping Lotus Notes support...A platform so ancient running on code so old, most of the industry agrees that it should have died ages ago. But instead it hasn't, and has continued to recieve new releases for the sole reason that it continued to have Microsoft Office support...:laugh:

Yes, because did you even know they dropped Lotus support? It's not advertised. We only found out because we got a support call from our payroll department, crying because excel wasn't working with their setup. Only to find out, we can't upgrade their office, because they dropped 100% Lotus support.

It was a lot easier for Apple to transition to 64-bit than it was for Microsoft because Microsoft still has to support 32-bit hardware. While Apple can tell anyone not capable of running 64-bit "Fuck off, go buy some new hardware". After all, forcing people to buying new hardware by dropping support for hardware only a few years old is part of Apples business model also.

Microsoft should leave vista alive for 32 bit, and windows 7 for 64 bit. Everyone's happy. Which is exactly what I proposed earlier.

And of course apple can say "fuck off" to people wanting snow leopard that cannot run it on their current hardware.

Why?

Because all intel macs are 64 bit. If you can't run snow leopard, that means you're running PPC still.

Convenient? Or just well played cards?

DippyskoodlezLol? Rosetta was an amazing creation. Wolfenstein Enemy territory is still PPC. And guess what? It still plays fine on my C2D.

Yet it fails to support productive apps...:shadedshu

DippyskoodlezSure, supporting standards that weren't even good in the first place for 30 years is always a good idea. Go play with your VB6 some more.

Could that statement be anymore trollish flamebait? I would expect a mod to at least attempt to act like one. Are you even capable of having a discussion without posting flamebait statements like these? It seems like every discussion I see you post in, you are trolling and Microsoft bashing. Your a mod, act like it... A normal forum user shouldn't need to tell you these things...

At the time VB was developed, there wasn't anything better.

DippyskoodlezYes, because did you even know they dropped Lotus support? It's not advertised. We only found out because we got a support call from our payroll department, crying because excel wasn't working with their setup. Only to find out, we can't upgrade their office, because they dropped 100% Lotus support.

Actually, yes I did, because I prefer to educate myself instead of just bashing Microsoft whenever they do anything. And I jumped up and down with joy when I found out. No one should still be using Locus Notes, the program was a POS the day it was released, and it is an even bigger POS today compared to the alternatives.

And if you are trying to open Lotus files in Office, you should have converted them to Office files a long time ago...:shadedshu

DippyskoodlezMicrosoft should leave vista alive for 32 bit, and windows 7 for 64 bit. Everyone's happy. Which is exactly what I proposed earlier.

That isn't Microsoft's business model, and would piss off a lot of people with 32-bit hardware, me being one of them. There are still brand new computers being released on the market without 64-bit support, Microsoft would be idiotic to not support these computers with their latest OS. Again, Microsoft doesn't have the luxury that Apple has, they don't control the hardware their OS runs on. They would be bashed beyond belief if they dropped 32-bit support in Win7, look how badly they were bashed when they raised the minimum memory up to 512MB...

In fact, if they did drop 32-bit support from Win7, I bet you would be one of the first ones to bash Microsoft for doing it...

DippyskoodlezAnd of course apple can say "fuck off" to people wanting snow leopard that cannot run it on their current hardware.

Why?

Because all intel macs are 64 bit. If you can't run snow leopard, that means you're running PPC still.

Convenient? Or just well played cards?

I find it odd how completely wrong you are here. For someone that loves Apple so much, I would expect you to actually know what you are talking about when it comes to them. Or at least do some research.

The first iMacs and Macbooks used the standard Core Duo, with no 64-bit support. According to Apple, Snow Leapard will work with these processors...meaning Apple is still doing exactly what you are bashing Microsoft for, supporting 32-bit and confusing the transition...:laugh:

I'm done arguing, you clearly have little clue as to what you are even saying.

newtekie1You're right, I didn't mean app, I don't know wny I said app, I was talking more hardware. I got so many calls from people wondering why they couldn't get certain hardware to work with their new Mac when it worked fine with their old. Printers were a real nightmare, as it seems printer manufacturers really lag behind on releasing support for 64 bit on both platforms.

And the PPC app support has been laughable at best, half the PPC apps never worked, forcing consumers to either wait for an x86 port, or find a different product if one existed.



I find it funny how you contradict yourself in the same post just to try and make Microsoft look bad. You bitch about them not dropping support for old code and instead milking it, when in reality they are simply still trying to support as many hardware configurations as possible. This is in fact a good thing, IMO.

Then you turn right back around and bash Microsoft for dropping Lotus Notes support...A platform so ancient running on code so old, most of the industry agrees that it should have died ages ago. But instead it hasn't, and has continued to recieve new releases for the sole reason that it continued to have Microsoft Office support...:laugh:

There is no point in arguing about it really though. Apple's transition and Microsoft transition was very different because the two are in different business models. Microsoft has always had to support as many hardware configurations as possible, while Apple doesn't. It was a lot easier for Apple to transition to 64-bit than it was for Microsoft because Microsoft still has to support 32-bit hardware. While Apple can tell anyone not capable of running 64-bit "Fuck off, go buy some new hardware". After all, forcing people to buying new hardware by dropping support for hardware only a few years old is part of Apples business model also.

I agree with this explanation, for the most part. Maybe disagree on some of the details, but yeah, most of this can be explained by both Apple and MS operating on completely different business models. MS could never get away with operating like Apple. BTW, in defense of Apple (because your post does come off as a bit anti-Apple) this transition to 64bit really only excludes PPC based Macs. They are well old enough, I would think. So it's not like they are doing something completely horrible. They've been saying that Leopard is the last PPC release since they first went Intel. People have had plenty of warning to get their affairs in order.

AS far as MS needing 32bit support, I agree. It still needs to have it, at least right now with 7. Tho I think 7 should be the last. MS's market is much larger. It has to support ALL current x86 and x86-64 hardware. Apple can get away with dropping 32bit support because they're OS is written for very specific hardware, MS doesn't have that luxury. I'm glad they stuck with 32bit on 7. At first I thought it was silly, but then I realized how well 7 performs, and realized it would be great on a netbook, unlike Vista.


I also disagree on the PPC support. Trusty me, it is very, VERY good. I still have a G5 PowerMac sitting here to compare to my Core2 iMac. When we got the iMac, almost everything that ran on my G5, still ran on the iMac, including PPC only apps. Adobe, MS Office, Maya, Cubase, Reason, and a bunch of others I can't think of, all worked without a problem. The only exceptions were those that require specific drivers and such. Yeah, they took a little bit of a performance hit, but considering it had to emulate an entirely different architecture, and do it seamlessly, Apple did one hell of a job on it. Even you have to admit it.

Remember these prices are retail. Most of us will be using OEM
Additionally Vista SP2 still works fine, and hell, so does XP... nothing wrong with XP except for no dx10 support (which really isn't a big deal...)

Wile EI agree with this explanation, for the most part. Maybe disagree on some of the details, but yeah, most of this can be explained by both Apple and MS operating on completely different business models. MS could never get away with operating like Apple. BTW, in defense of Apple (because your post does come off as a bit anti-Apple) this transition to 64bit really only excludes PPC based Macs. They are well old enough, I would think. So it's not like they are doing something completely horrible. They've been saying that Leopard is the last PPC release since they first went Intel. People have had plenty of warning to get their affairs in order.

AS far as MS needing 32bit support, I agree. It still needs to have it, at least right now with 7. Tho I think 7 should be the last. MS's market is much larger. It has to support ALL current x86 and x86-64 hardware. Apple can get away with dropping 32bit support because they're OS is written for very specific hardware, MS doesn't have that luxury. I'm glad they stuck with 32bit on 7. At first I thought it was silly, but then I realized how well 7 performs, and realized it would be great on a netbook, unlike Vista.


I also disagree on the PPC support. Trusty me, it is very, VERY good. I still have a G5 PowerMac sitting here to compare to my Core2 iMac. When we got the iMac, almost everything that ran on my G5, still ran on the iMac, including PPC only apps. Adobe, MS Office, Maya, Cubase, Reason, and a bunch of others I can't think of, all worked without a problem. The only exceptions were those that require specific drivers and such. Yeah, they took a little bit of a performance hit, but considering it had to emulate an entirely different architecture, and do it seamlessly, Apple did one hell of a job on it. Even you have to admit it.

Thank you. I'm sorry if it came off a little Anti-Apple, I didn't mean it to.:o If anything, the only thing I don't like is when people try to compare Apple to Microsoft and say Microsoft is wrong for doing something differently than Apple. People need to understand that they have different business models, and essentially different customer bases. The customer bases might overlap in certian areas, but for the most part they are different. So they have to act differently.

My only problem with Apple dropping PPC support is now a lot of people's Power Macs aren't supported. Those were extremely expensive mahcines, and sold well into 2006. To have no new OS support on a computer that is only 3 years old sucks, IMO. I really feel bad for all the customers of the expensive PPC machine that Apple is screwing over with the latest OS release. IMO, they should have supported PPC for at least 10 years after the Intel switch. As there are some pretty expensive, and pretty powerful PPC machines still in use today. Even if support for PPC was limitted to G5s only, that would be enough IMO, but there should be some PPC support still.

And you are exactly right, Win7 needs 32-bit support because Microsoft still has a huge 32-bit hardware install base. Remember the huge backlash Microsoft had to deal with simply because they raised the memory requirement to 512MB...image how bad it would be if they required a 64-bit processor! Apple can do things like dropping support for huge amounts of hardware still in use today, because it fits their business model, and their customers expect it. However, Microsoft can not.

And Vista runs wonderfully on my Netbook, it actually runs better than XP Home did. The memory management on Vista is so much better than XP, even though it doesn't look like it from the outside(as more memory tends to be taken up at any one time). I can't wait for Win7 though, it should be even better than Vista on netbooks.