I haven’t used Vista that much yet cuz I didn’t wanna buy it (honestly, I’m a college student, I can’t afford it between paying for phone bill, gas, etc.) but I would like to. I would just want someone to explain to me why some people think it’s a memory hog and others to explain to me that it’s not (if it really isn’t). I will definitely buy it later on (when I’ve saved) if someone can convince me, not that it’s better than OSX (please don’t, I already really like OSX and just wanna be able to run Vista, as well. I’m sure they probably both kick ass), but that it’s a good OS worth getting. I’ve heard mixed reviews, but mainly I’ve heard bad things. Or would someone suggest skipping it and going straight to Windows 7?

1. Your first argument proposes nothing, especially since Microsoft threw money at user experience research, which is something Apple has never done. That’s why the superbar is better than the dock, and I’m not the only one who agrees. The original coiners of the term “Jesus Phone” agree with me as well.

2. Windows 7 has WOW64 and has had WOW64 since XP, which was the first x64 OS ever released.

3. 6GB is a huge difference, but you clearly didn’t read my post (and posts by others who looked at Snow Leopard). All PPC emulation code was removed, and yes, that does total 6GB. In other words, that drop in space was just because Apple killed backwards compatibility with a platform which still has computers less than 3.5 years old.

4. I checked with my contacts at Adobe before approving your comment just to see how informed your claim might’ve been. As it turns out, you did indeed miss the big picture and instead argued the same cocoa v. carbon point.
Adobe poured their resources into 64bit on Windows because they knew that Windows was worth their investment. Windows was already on boxes with large amounts of ram, and ram management in Vista was already better than ram management in Leopard (Superfetch meant Photoshop could be loaded in a heartbeat, and Vista x64 offers a completely native 64bit environment, thus allowing for CS4 to be run via x64 without any emulation in any part whatsoever). As for cocoa v. carbon, we get back to ROI. It’s not a matter of laziness, it’s a matter of how much money would be made from porting the whole suite to a new codebase for a smaller subset of users. Porting to cocoa for less users v. coding for native x64 usage for more users… the choice is obvious from a business perspective.

5. Leopard is a 64bit OS with 32bit components running natively. It’s an incomplete transition, which is why Apple touted 64bit so heavily at the keynote. 7 and Vista x64 are 64bit at heart with the ability to run 32bit code via WOW64, and because there are no 32bit components or drivers running natively, it allows for more stability.

6. Aero Peek is nothing like Expose. Expose gives scaled-down previews, while Peek gives full window previews. From a functionality perspective, Aero Peek wins, and I’m not the only one who agrees.

7. Desperate argument, as I wasn’t comparing it to Windows. If we’re going to look at disk functionality, let’s take a look at Dynamic Disks in Windows and you can tell me which one is more useful in a business environment (even though Dynamic Disks aren’t a file system).

8. In conclusion, your entire post failed. Let’s explain why:
- You used personal insults to try and belittle the reader into following your opinion.
- You were completely uninformed with regards to how both Windows and Mac OS work. Vista retains 32bit compatibility and then some, while Snow Leopard only recently reached that same bar (Leopard was a 64/32bit mash, as was Tiger). You also didn’t understand the source of the 6GB free-up in space, the fundamental differences in the gui elements between the two operating systems, and (as usual) pulled up the argument that Microsoft copied Apple when in fact it was the other way around (forcing Expose onto the dock as was done with Aero Peek. Such a mundane thing to copy, too).
- You were highly uninformed with regards to the nature of the Adobe/Apple Cocoa/Carbon conflict (which I explained above).
- You contradicted yourself. You said Windows went with the “Screw 32bit apps” approach but then followed up with “much like windows 7 is a 64 bit operating system with 32 bit components.”
- You repeatedly stressed unverifiable and unsubstantiated points (such as Microsoft copying Apple) without proof in order to drive it through the reader’s head.
- You used off-topic arguments to drive attention away from a particular failing (see your note about ZFS)
- You didn’t cite any points at all. I at least cited two with links from reputed Apple-leaning blogs.

In short, you pulled a Fox News on the readers, and your argument that Windows 7 is also a service pack totally failed due to the flawed nature of everything you wrote, so my reply was necessary to counteract your work.

Thankfully, people know where to reach you. I suppose you did yourself a favor making your email public.

The only features Microsoft has added to Windows 7 are “under that hood” changes that you explain of, and they will probably charge full price for it. Honestly, all these new GUI improvements in Windows 7 are mere copies of their OSX counterparts. They finally, (after years of OSX already having them) adding GUI features that would make work much easier. If anyone is getting ripped off, it is Windows users for having to pay more than $100 for a service pack known as windows 7.

Next thing, Snow Leopard will still have 32-bit APIs that will allow users to run older applications. What does a 64 bit version of 7 say? It says “Screw 32 bit apps”, and gives you no options for compatability. At least Snow Leopard will allow users to use 32 bit and 64 bit applications in live time, without comprimising for compatability.

For your information 6 Gigs is a HUGE difference. If you are seriously not impressed, it is probably because you already live with a bloated 40 gigabyte version of windows vista ultimate. Of course, to you, 6 gigs would make little difference, but in a world where OSX is only 10 gigs in size, 6 gigs is more than half of the original size of the OS.

As for 64 vit versions of Adobe’s creative suite, do not try to feed false information. If Adobe wanted to, they could of built a 64 bit version of their program. Why didn’t they do it? It was because apple dropped support for carbon, and has since been focusing on cocoa. Adobe dropped their 64 bit version of their in-dev carbon suite because apple discouraged the older technology.

Leopard is already a 64 bit operating system with 32 bit components, much like windows 7 is a 64 bit operating system with 32 bit components.

Also, you bash on expose, which has been around since 2003 FYI. In fact, I can place Expose right into my dock on 10.5, but I don’t need to because I have a keyboard shortcut already that is more efficient than throwing my mouse over to the edge of the screen. Expose is nothing new. Microsoft ripped off the concept first in 2006 with flip 3d (which is horrible BTW), and now they do this. Hah, originality at it’s best.

It is sad that apple removed ZFS support, but it is incredibly easy to add ZFS support in existing systems with 3rd party add-ons. Windows doesn’t even have ZFS support, so quit your complaining.

In conclusion, your complaints are what every other Windows Fanboy has used. You claim that Snow Leopard is a “service pack”, a gimick that 7fanbois have used. Well I present this to you, Windows 7 is only a service pack and should be free. Oh, thats right, microsoft is going to charge $200 for their ultimate version. You guys got canned by redmond.

Windows 7 goes far beyond Vista. A complete overhaul and upgrade of the UI. Overhauled muticore, kernel, and networking improvements across the board. New implementation for SSD’s. Those are just the beginnning. The improvements to Windows 7 do more to the Windows platform than SnowLeopard does. If they could fix Vista to be Windows 7, Microsoft would have. Just as they completely overhauled XP’s security in free service packs with XP SP 2 and 3. If you want what I find is an appropriate analogy, Windows 7 is approximately like OS-X 10.1, 10.2, 10.3, 10.4, and 10.5 rolled up with new and more relevant technology upgrades in one upgrade with one price. Except for the last 5 versions of OS-X, you’ve paid 129,99 price point 5 times. So thats a grand total of $649.95 plus tax for what we’re going to get for much less. Now you’re paying an additional $29 in upgrades that have been apart of Windows for years. That my friends is the root of the Apple tax.

Windows users get at least 2 possibly 3 service packs for free, while OS-X users will have to pay for the service pack in 10.7. Unlike SnowLeopard, XP 64, Vista 64, and 7 64 are 100 percent fully 64 bit operating systems. Apple still hasn’t become 100%. As of Windows 7, I’ve fully transitioned to 64 bit OS. I’m pretty sure that the Windows 7 generation will most likely be the last of the 32 bit era.

You might want to read it once more. That 6 gig cut is because Apple dropped PPC support, and Vista SP1 offered similar speed increases to RTM that Snow Leopard gave to Leopard (speaking from experience on both platforms, here).