Mac users, how's your Windows 7 experience?

[HaukSwe]

I'd like to hear from people who use both OS X and Windows 7, not one or the other. I want people who really like OS X (Since i really like it...) to give feedback on Win 7 based on day to day using experience. Not a debate or anything else really.

Switching from XP to OS X was a huge upgrade and I'm very reluctant to go back to using Windows, but understand that Win 7 is a big improvement. I have zero experience using it however,

Basically I want a powerful desktop, lots of storage for some PS work, bit of Backtrack/pentesting, programming (Rails) and some regular gaming. The high end iMac is enough for my needs, but properly specced (i7, SSD, 6970m..don't want to install HDD and SSD myself in iMac) it's just about twice as much as a more powerful quality DIY PC.

Hackintosh... well, I can't be bothered with the tinkering, updates etc.

 

[Eug]

I have a quad-core Core i7 iMac, and a triple-core Athlon II X3 Win 7 desktop.
I also have a Core 2 Duo MacBook Pro, and a Pentium SU4100 Win 7 ultraportable.

Windows 7 is a massive improvement over Vista. It's a big improvement over XP as well.

However, IMHO it's still nowhere near as user friendly as OS X. The OS navigation and configuration still seems to be designed by engineers for geeks, but I get the impression they were trying to gear it more towards consumers. They tried, but failed. Like that Windows Experience Index. It's so oversimplified, it's meaningless, but it has no inherent logic. Just why did they choose a scale up to 7.9? And some things just don't much sense in terms of OS design. Why does my entire screen have to black out to launch a dialogue box just so I can give permission to launch an install application? Why do other dialogue boxes pop up behind my current windows, so I don't even know they're there? Furthermore, it's rather annoying having a computer with separate nVidia graphics software and Realtek audio software, for example.

Even some of the geek stuff is immensely easier on the Mac. eg. Swapping in new drives. (Well not the iMac.)

OTOH, at least I can play my Blu-ray discs on my Windows PCs.

 

[onlyCOpunk]

You basically use OS X for everything as why else would you buy a Mac, and use Windows only for programs that you need that aren't available for Mac.

 

[Eug]

In my case I use both every day.

I use the Mac because I prefer it and some of the software that's only on the Mac. And I use it to keep up with my Mac OS X knowledge.

I use the Windows because I need some of the software that's only on Windows. And I use it to keep current with my Windows knowledge.

 

[TheStu]

These days I use Windows more than OS X, but that is because I can't get my desktop to hack since I had to replace the mobo.

Windows 7 is the best version of Windows yet, and I absolutely prefer using it over XP (which I am forced to use at work). It is much easier to use, has a lot of great features, but it pales compared to OS X (for me at least) in terms of window management (ironic huh, Windows sucks with windows), resource management, multimedia handling, and any number of other things.

There is always the option to get the Mac Mini along with a Windows desktop, though juggling two systems is a hassle.

 

[PeeluckyDuckee]

I use both on my iMac, use windows 7 for gaming and streaming movies thru an application that is only native to windows. Osx is more user friendly I find for the most part.

I only have 32bit windows, so only 4 of my 16 GB of ram is recognized. If I need to do video editing OSX it is.

 

[HaukSwe]

There's just no happy medium.... cmon apple...

 

[Eug]

I used to use Mac OS X with virtualization with XP. However, that was annoying, and it was XP. Rather than buy a new Win 7 licence for a couple hundred $, I just bought a whole new PC for $400 (incl. monitor). It's way faster, way more convenient, and there are no issues for hardware compatibility for firmware upgrades of peripherals, etc. (Don't try to do this on a Mac through virtualization.) The best of both worlds of OS X and Win 7 is not to have a dual-boot machine, but IMO to have both machines.

The biggest drawback to my setup for me is the extra desk space needed.

 

[TheStu]

I used to use Mac OS X with virtualization with XP. However, that was annoying, and it was XP. Rather than buy a new Win 7 licence for a couple hundred $, I just bought a whole new PC for $400 (incl. monitor). It's way faster, way more convenient, and there are no issues for hardware compatibility for firmware upgrades of peripherals, etc. (Don't try to do this on a Mac through virtualization.) The best of both worlds of OS X and Win 7 is not to have a dual-boot machine, but IMO to have both machines.

The biggest drawback to my setup for me is the extra desk space needed.

That was why I was suggesting the Mac Mini. He can get the SB Quad core model and a KVM. The Mini is so small that he can just put it on top of the windows tower.

 

[Kadarin]

Funny that you ask. I have a 2010 27" iMac (ATI 5750) Just last night I created a bootcamp partition and installed Windows 7 Home Premium on it, and the highest desktop resolution it can go to is 1600x1200.

So I installed the ATI Catalyst software, and while it says it's installed in C:\Program Files\ATI Technologies, there's nothing in that directory and Windows does not have it in its list of installed programs.

My overall impression of Win 7 (this is my first experience with it) is that it's pretty shitty; it simply does not make sense in terms of where configuration settings are.

 

[lokiju]

My work laptop is a HP Probook with Windows 7 Pro. I'm a Sr Systems Engineer and mange hundreds of virtual Windows servers and a few Linux servers with VMware but for home use I'm all Mac all the time.

To me at this point it's such a day to day mix of different OS's that I don't see any issues or have any real complaints.

If I could have it my way I'd have a MacBook Pro for my work computer though since 99.9% of the time I'm just SSH'ing or RDP'ing into other systems.

 

[HaukSwe]

thanks for all the solid replies, it definitely seems like avoiding Windows is the preference for most of you.

I could use two machines, I already have a sandy bridge MBA and my old MBP is the home server/HTPC. But I just feel it's a hassle since I move my laptop to work everyday, with a mini + PC I'm in iMac territory cost wise,

I keep going on and off on the hackintosh thing, if it were stable it's the only PC today that can keep me happy. These builds reportedly work well: http://tonymacx86.blogspot.com/search/label/CustoMac

 

[runawayprisoner]

I think it depends a lot on what it is you'll be doing.

For photo editing and anything that involves graphics work, I think Mac is the better choice between the two, with an easier color management system (Windows 7 handles color management profiles depending on drivers, and also depending on driver versions), multitouch gestures as standard for easier photo viewing, and a few other small things like Expose and Spaces to help with workflow.

But for programming, Windows 7 would be easier since the file management system on Windows 7 is vastly easier and superior to Mac. Project management is a lot easier since you can move files around, copy, drag and drop or do any sort of crazy thing without having to worry about losing track of where you were. Plus there are very few permission settings to worry about. All system parameters can be accessed via Registry Editor instead of forcing you to look for different configuration files. There are also a lot more tools and utilities on Windows to monitor, view, verify, and debug applications.

For gaming, Windows 7 would also be better, due to obvious reasons.

For multimedia, Windows 7 has a lot more players, supports a lot more hardwares, has a lot more codecs and media players, and so on... so it's also arguably vastly superior in handling media contents as opposed to Mac. Though reading and viewing documents on Mac is a lot easier than on Windows. Also listening to music and other such things is superior to Windows in terms of ease, in terms of quality, and in terms of support.

I'd say... from my experience, it's 50/50, where I prefer Windows for some things, and then I prefer Mac OSX for some other things. However, I'd say that... if programming and gaming was of higher focus, Windows would be my platform of choice. But if more attention is paid to visual details, graphics, music quality, and only a little bit of that is programming, then I'd definitely stick with Mac.

I have both a Macbook Air and a Windows laptop that I use every day... for an equal amount of time each, and I'm not really tied down to either one due to any reason.

I used to own and benchmark-race with some desktop components until a few years ago, when I finally gave up because Intel hit the roof in terms of performance. So in terms of performance, I wouldn't hesitate to tell you that a top of the line iMac right now would almost be all you can get out of a high-end desktop computer at this point in time. If you are looking for better performance for Photoshop or so, I would highly recommend the iMac 2011 lineup.

 

[MagickMan]

It's fine, I use both constantly. I prefer OS X, though.

 

[Eug]

Yeah, I'm not a Windows programmer or a gamer, so that may partially explain my preference for Mac OS X. However, I do use both roughly equally. Here is my setup. From left to right:

iMac (dual monitor), Windows laptop, MacBook Pro, Windows desktop (dual monitor)



When Vista was out, I didn't use it at all. I thought Vista just sucked.

 

[Emulex]

office 2011 is a a poor implementation compared to 2010

 

[bearxor]

I don't really think the high-end iMac at $2200 is that bad a deal compared to a DIY computer once you take the monitor out of the equation.

If you gave Apple 1k for the monitor, which is a good ballpark price for a 27" 2560x1440 IPS monitor, you're only looking at $1200.

A i7-2600 is going to run you $300 alone. A decent z68 board is going to hit like $125. A 6790, probably the closest desktop equivalent to a 6970m, is going to hit $140. If you license Windows the RIGHT way (you're not building a computer for resale so you're not _technically_ supposed to be buying a OEM copy) that runs you $250. You're already up to $815 and you still have a lot of little things to go. Pick out a HD, RAM, optical drive, speakers and a case and you should easily be floating to $1100.

When you compare apples to... Apples, Mac's don't really look that bad value-wise. It's when you start trying to switch out some apples for oranges that you start messing up the formula. Do I really need a 27" 2560x1440 monitor? Why can't I get the i5 with the 6970m? $500 for a 256gb ssd? Really? $150 to UPGRADE from a 1TB drive to a 2TB? Does Microsoft really care if I, as a end user, buy the OEM version of Windows and save myself a hundred bucks even though it's in violation of the EULA?

But really, it's not been very cost effective to build your own box for a while... I could go on the Dell outlet store and buy a XPS 8300 with a i7-2600, 8gb of ram, 1.5tb hd, 5770hd and windows 7 pro for $700 right now. Try putting that one together yourself for the same price. Of course, it's not as fun...

 

[Rottie]

In my case I use both every day.

I use the Mac because I prefer it and some of the software that's only on the Mac. And I use it to keep up with my Mac OS X knowledge.

I use the Windows because I need some of the software that's only on Windows. And I use it to keep current with my Windows knowledge.

This....

 

[Rottie]

And I find Win 7 crash-borne on my Dell Mini 10 I am bit tired of it..I might have to try on my desktop PC in few weeks.
Leopard 10.5.8 is very stable since I bought it last May...

 

[Oyeve]

I do everything on the PC in my sig but I use my MBP mostly because I am really not doing much computer stuff lately and just browse the web.

 

[Ns1]

i like win7 but spaces has me using OSX as my daily driver.

 

[sxr7171]

After switching to Mac I pretty much stopped using Windows for personal computing. However I use it for my HTPC. Win 7 is definitely miles ahead of previous Windows versions, but it's still not at the purely headache-free level of Mac OS. It bugs you to restart every now and then and keeps prompting you. You have to make sure your stuff is set up correctly, install adaware, ccleaner, lavasoft (forget the program name) etc. Then you will deal with random slow downs and things like that. It's not as bad as it used to be maintenance wise but Mac OS is pretty much zero maintenance and ready for use all the time.

I realized while I used to love tweaking and optimizing my system, now I just want something that lets me get my business taken care and doesn't throw up issues while I take care of it.

I'm kind of in your boat. I want that fully loaded iMac badly but I cringe every time I see the price tag. It's very expensive when outfitted with the top CPU and SSD. I wish a 128GB SSD were an option. I don't have the time to open it up and put my own SSD in either. The MacPro on the other hand is outdated and hence grossly overpriced. The MacMini is not up to that level of power as the fully loaded iMac. I've done a SSD swap on an older MacMini and it was a trivial 20 minute job. The new iMac seems like a huge PITA to put an SSD into. Maybe booting into a Thunderbolt SSD would work, but I guess they realize the $250 savings or so isn't enough to deal with exotic solutions that also cost money. So basically they have us "by the balls". I guess I'm going to have to just bite the bullet sooner or later.

I did Hackintosh for a while and it kills the raison d'être for having a Mac: no headaches. So again they have us "by the balls".

 

[Eug]

After switching to Mac I pretty much stopped using Windows for personal computing. However I use it for my HTPC. Win 7 is definitely miles ahead of previous Windows versions, but it's still not at the purely headache-free level of Mac OS. It bugs you to restart every now and then and keeps prompting you. You have to make sure your stuff is set up correctly, install adaware, ccleaner, lavasoft (forget the program name) etc. Then you will deal with random slow downs and things like that. It's not as bad as it used to be maintenance wise but Mac OS is pretty much zero maintenance and ready for use all the time.

I think the Mac is less maintenance in general but it definitely isn't zero maintenance. And restarts are still needed for some Mac updates.

 

[umrigar]

Windows... well, I can't be bothered with the tinkering, updates etc.

 

[sxr7171]

I think the Mac is less maintenance in general but it definitely isn't zero maintenance. And restarts are still needed for some Mac updates.

Sure but it always tells you first and lets you back out of an update that needs a restart and I won't bother you for a week. Win 7 by necessity feels like it pummels you in the head for updates because some of those are security fixes and it would like "guide" you into installing them ASAP.

My MBA has been fairly "zero" maintenance. But with Lion there are issues that require a restart which happens very quickly. I've been facing random slowdowns in WMC that annoy me and the interface leaves much to be desired. I use a DiNovo mini and sometimes it won't respond in the "D-pad" mode leaving me to keep switching to mouse mode.

Ultimately there are no regular maintenance tasks like running cleaner, adaware, MSE etc. Windows has gotten a lot better but it's still not at the Mac level for not dealing with issues.