Mac OS X Snow Leopard vs. Windows Seven

[Gerri Shin]

as a person whos never really used a mac before, i have to say that windows 7 is better, and as somone whos used the nightmare that is Vista i can certainly say that yes 7 is better.
As for the Snow Leopard what kind of motherboard can hold 16 GB of RAM i don't even think they make RAM sticks that are high enough to do that......but do not quote me nor insult me, i just say what i know.......
but honestly i just like windows and 7 seems so much better

There are 8GB RAM sticks available, they just cost around $250- $500 per stick. I've been using the 64 bit version of windows seven for a while now and when comparing it side by side with Vista SP1 it blazes along at half the amount of Ram as Vista as well as it doesn't bug you completely with UAC. Another revelation that I will like about Windows 7 is that they are reducing the number of editions. for Consumers they are going to a Home Premium, a Professional, and Ultimate. While there are other editions, like Starter (aimed at Netbook use), and Enterprise (only available via Volume License) there will really only be 3 true consumer editions. this is a very wise step away from the confusion Vista caused.

Well Actually Mac Pro computers have what I believe to be 8 Slots now which are capable of 2-4 GB per slot. And I believe you meant 16 Terabytes of Ram.

Ben, you're right, the Mac Pro does have 8 RAM slots, and currently Leopard can support around 32GB RAM while Snow Leopard is able to handle up to around 96GB of total RAM.
now what you'd do with all that is beyond me.

 

[Apple Inc.]

There are 8GB RAM sticks available, they just cost around $250- $500 per stick. I've been using the 64 bit version of windows seven for a while now and when comparing it side by side with Vista SP1 it blazes along at half the amount of Ram as Vista as well as it doesn't bug you completely with UAC. Another revelation that I will like about Windows 7 is that they are reducing the number of editions. for Consumers they are going to a Home Premium, a Professional, and Ultimate. While there are other editions, like Starter (aimed at Netbook use), and Enterprise (only available via Volume License) there will really only be 3 true consumer editions. this is a very wise step away from the confusion Vista caused.



Ben, you're right, the Mac Pro does have 8 RAM slots, and currently Leopard can support around 32GB RAM while Snow Leopard is able to handle up to around 96GB of total RAM.
now what you'd do with all that is beyond me.

I still feel though they should just have one edition like Mac OS X.

Support for up to a theoretical 16TB RAM[2] by further developing 64-bit kernel technologies.

So I guess this means later on it will be able to support it but we are FAR from having a computer with that much Ram.

 

[Raven-NAR-32450]

There are 8GB RAM sticks available, they just cost around $250- $500 per stick. I've been using the 64 bit version of windows seven for a while now and when comparing it side by side with Vista SP1 it blazes along at half the amount of Ram as Vista as well as it doesn't bug you completely with UAC. Another revelation that I will like about Windows 7 is that they are reducing the number of editions. for Consumers they are going to a Home Premium, a Professional, and Ultimate. While there are other editions, like Starter (aimed at Netbook use), and Enterprise (only available via Volume License) there will really only be 3 true consumer editions. this is a very wise step away from the confusion Vista caused.



Ben, you're right, the Mac Pro does have 8 RAM slots, and currently Leopard can support around 32GB RAM while Snow Leopard is able to handle up to around 96GB of total RAM.
now what you'd do with all that is beyond me.

Snow Leopard can support 92 GB of RAM? I can't help but think "can you say OVERKILL?" why on earth would Mac make a system with that many RAM slots, OSX runs fine with just 1GB of RAM, i know because there was a student in my Computer Technologies class who had never used Windows so they set her up with that little Mini Mac computer (the one that looks like a midget box with only a CD tray and a tiny light on the front) and that thing only has 1 GB of RAM

 

[wakachamo]

Snow Leopard can support 92 GB of RAM? I can't help but think "can you say OVERKILL?" why on earth would Mac make a system with that many RAM slots, OSX runs fine with just 1GB of RAM, i know because there was a student in my Computer Technologies class who had never used Windows so they set her up with that little Mini Mac computer (the one that looks like a midget box with only a CD tray and a tiny light on the front) and that thing only has 1 GB of RAM

Okay, uh, yeah? Not everybody's needs are gonna be the same as your friend's, y'know.

 

[Apple Inc.]

Snow Leopard can support 92 GB of RAM? I can't help but think "can you say OVERKILL?" why on earth would Mac make a system with that many RAM slots, OSX runs fine with just 1GB of RAM, i know because there was a student in my Computer Technologies class who had never used Windows so they set her up with that little Mini Mac computer (the one that looks like a midget box with only a CD tray and a tiny light on the front) and that thing only has 1 GB of RAM

Oh and that thing in your sig. I was simply stating that Snow Leopard could handle that much Ram. I wasn't saying it would be in every computer or anything or that we would be reaching that in the next year.

 

[RosaSunglasses.]

windows seven , looks more professional

 

[Virtual Chatot]

It's Snow Leopard obviously xD

 

[Archer]

To be honest, with regards to Windows 7, we're so far from the finished product that it's nigh impossible to predict the efficiency of the end-product. If Windows can manage to be virus-proof, then Mac really has some competition issues, but they're different products for different purposes.

 

[XaRhS]

I haven't tried out either of them, but i'll go with Windows 7. I heard it's super.

 

[Capt. Couch]

I'm working on getting Snow Leopard onto an x86 architecture-based machine at the moment. What I'd like to see is what "foreign" hardware Snow Leopard will work with straight from a clean install (with my graphics card in mind), and a simple test of its abilities. From the experience that I've had with it so far however, it is a perfectly well-built OS and very stable.

Windows Seven looks to be very promising. It has low-end requirements, and yet it maintains its nice-looking GUI inherited from Vista. Not only that, but the compatibility with most out-of-the-box drivers might even attract the US government (they never adopted Vista due to compatibility errors), which, in retrospect, is a pretty big step. I'm going to try out the beta soon and see what it's all about.

 

[s0nido]

I've always been using Windows OS, but have never actually tried a Mac OS system before until recently. Now I just wish I had one.

The only thing that bugs me about Mac is compatibility. You can't run Windows programs on Macs because they aren't programmed for it, and many small programs don't have versions for Mac. I've heard of a Windows Emulator for Mac, but I've yet to see it working.

 

[Virtual Chatot]

I've always been using Windows OS, but have never actually tried a Mac OS system before until recently. Now I just wish I had one.

The only thing that bugs me about Mac is compatibility. You can't run Windows programs on Macs because they aren't programmed for it, and many small programs don't have versions for Mac. I've heard of a Windows Emulator for Mac, but I've yet to see it working.

CrossOver for Mac is actually compatible with alot of Windows programs, and another good alternative is to just run Windows on VMware with seamless mode :P

Not only that, but the compatibility with most out-of-the-box drivers might even attract the US government (they never adopted Vista due to compatibility errors)

Obama's team is pushing for White House security to allow them to use OS X instead of Windows 2000 :p

 

[Capt. Couch]

Obama's team is pushing for White House security to allow them to use OS X instead of Windows 2000 :p

Once that has been realized by most of the general populous, it's likely that we'll see more virii for Macintosh OSes. Regardless, White House security probably won't have that problem, but I don't see how a professional IT security expert would have a problem preventing virii and hackers from infiltrating the White House network. Please feel free to beat me upside the head if such a thing has happened before...

To be honest, a major reason why the Macintosh OS has never had a large amount of virii is because of the low end-user percentage, since the OS is most commonly used by educational foundations, fanatics, and computing enthusiasts. This does not change the fact that the OS is stable and a very capable OS. I just don't exactly see how a change in the usage of computer OSes in the White House is worth it.