Windows 7: More disapointing as the days go on - Page 15 - Calgarypuck Forums - The Unofficial Calgary Flames Fan Community

HotHotHeat · 10-28-2009, 10:31 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mykalberta

I think you over estimate "know nothing every day consumers" act, If they arent addicted Mac Fan Boys they might be able to find START > CONTROL PANEL > MOUSE

http://www.techtalkz.com/windows-7/5...ndows-7-a.html

Or, if they were unable to find START > CONTROL PANEL > MOUSE - they might be able to find www.bing.com or www.google.com and type in "how to change mouse settings in Windows 7"

My control panel looks nothing like the one you suggest in the link.

And if I have to use an internet search engine to find mouse settings, I doubt Microsoft has served a massive segment of PC users very well.

FurnaceFace · 10-28-2009, 10:33 AM

Perhaps I should start another thread but what I want is something light I can take on trips, watch movies with, dump photos to and do some basic editing to. Things like colour correcting underwater shots and the like. Full blown CS3 is overkill for that but an older version like 7 or CS is fine. Heck, I could even get away with Picasa for the most part but I'd like the options in PS in case I'm bored and really want to do some editing. And really, a 15" display is limiting for photoshop anyway. I think I'm basically looking for something in the ultra portable genre.

FurnaceFace · 10-28-2009, 10:37 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by HotHotHeat

And if I have to use an internet search engine to find mouse settings, I doubt Microsoft has served a massive segment of PC users very well.

I'd suggest you shouldn't have to use a search engine. The mouse settings I would think are fairly intuitive for a Windows user as they should be familiar with going to the control panel to change settings.

I admit though, if someone tossed a Mac in front of me and asked me to change some settings I'd be lost and would have to poke around to find it. In that case I might break down and search for it as that's often the fastest approach.

Phaneuf3 · 10-28-2009, 10:40 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by HotHotHeat

My control panel looks nothing like the one you suggest in the link.

And if I have to use an internet search engine to find mouse settings, I doubt Microsoft has served a massive segment of PC users very well.

So you were looking at it in a categorized view then?
Personally, I don't like that view but I know of some new users that find it easier to find what they're looking for that way. In case you couldn't figure it out, here's how to change your view....
http://www.onedotnetway.com/windows-...-classic-mode/

This seems like a very simple and straight forward thing coming from a windows background but I'm sure if I started trying to tweak system settings on OS X I would get lost in their way of organizing their settings at first.

Cliche · 10-28-2009, 10:42 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by HotHotHeat

My control panel looks nothing like the one you suggest in the link.

And if I have to use an internet search engine to find mouse settings, I doubt Microsoft has served a massive segment of PC users very well.

I don't know what's so hard about highlighting control panel triangle in the address bar and selecting all items, and scrolling down to mouse from there.

or, clicking on the start menu and typing in mouse settings in the search programs and files search window. It's like using finder.

or even better, instead of viewing by category, change the view by option to large icons.

While this version is just catching up to osx, it's a heckuva lot more advanced than xp.

octothorp · 10-28-2009, 10:42 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by I-Hate-Hulse

Fanin80 did a decent post on this back at post 62. However, I realize now he never used the sale price of the Dell! Full price is for suckas....at least in the PC world.

Using your requirements, here's where Dell (one of the more pricey vendors) can get you to:

and the specs on the cheapest MacBook
Difference = $320 = 41%. ($430/55% if you equalize the RAM)

I won't even get into the world of other vendors - no time right now but I'm pretty sure there's a better deal to be had than the Dell. Although this Asus is nice if you're into the pretty MacBook Air look...

I'll be honest though, at the 13.3" screen size, playing EA sports games or doing heavy duty Photoshop is kind of crazy, and neither the Mac or Dell above will be great for that. This screen size doesn't lend itself nicely to these activities, hence why a decent vid card adapter is tough (or impossible for Mac) to find at this screen size. Step up to 15" if you're going to do that primarily.

Aren't 9-cell ion batteries going to give you around 3-4 hours of battery life? With the new Mac lithium polymer battery design you can typically get upwards of 6 (the specs on mine say 8, but I find I usually get around 6:30), though I'm typically running some heavy graphics apps. Granted, $320 is a lot to pay for a couple extra hours of battery life (and you could easily buy yourself a spare battery), but if battery life is an important consideration, it's definitely a big plus for the Macs until similar battery technology comes to the PC.

10-28-2009, 10:53 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cliche

I don't know what's so hard about highlighting control panel triangle in the address bar and selecting all items, and scrolling down to mouse from there.

or, clicking on the start menu and typing in mouse settings in the search programs and files search window. It's like using finder.

or even better, instead of viewing by category, change the view by option to large icons.

While this version is just catching up to osx, it's a heckuva lot more advanced than xp.

That's the thing.

Sit down and really learn what W7 has to offer before posting your one sided Mac review.

I have both a Macbook Pro and a PC. I, for one, simply can't get use to the Mac and it's mainly because I am a PC user. I know Mac has some good things- iMovie and Garage Band were good times- but there is no way that makes me want to spend more money than I need to.

Hot,hot,heat, to answer your question, probably the same as you.

I-Hate-Hulse · 10-28-2009, 11:08 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by octothorp

Aren't 9-cell ion batteries going to give you around 3-4 hours of battery life? With the new Mac lithium polymer battery design you can typically get upwards of 6 (the specs on mine say 8, but I find I usually get around 6:30), though I'm typically running some heavy graphics apps. Granted, $320 is a lot to pay for a couple extra hours of battery life (and you could easily buy yourself a spare battery), but if battery life is an important consideration, it's definitely a big plus for the Macs until similar battery technology comes to the PC.

zDnet reports that the stock 6-cell was good for almost 4.5 hours in a similar Inspiron 13. I want to guess that a 9 cell will at least meet, if not exceed a 6.5 hour life. At the least, it's not going to justify a 40% difference in price.

I believe there are benefits to lithium polymer batteries, but if battery life is the measure, its more or less a moot point.

octothorp · 10-28-2009, 12:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by I-Hate-Hulse

zDnet reports that the stock 6-cell was good for almost 4.5 hours in a similar Inspiron 13. I want to guess that a 9 cell will at least meet, if not exceed a 6.5 hour life. At the least, it's not going to justify a 40% difference in price.

I believe there are benefits to lithium polymer batteries, but if battery life is the measure, its more or less a moot point.

Compare it with a review (same reviewer, same tests) of the new Mac laptops.
http://www.zdnet.com.au/reviews/hard...9296879,00.htm

The PC with 6 cell does 160 minutes in video playback battery drain tests, vs. 280 minutes for a similar Mac.
Given that the difference between 6 cell and 9 cell lithium ion battery is only about 150% (85 Whr vs, 56 Whr), there's no reason to think that the 9 cell would do any better than 240 minutes. Which is 40 minutes less than the Mac in a battery drain test, which means those results would be magnified under normal usage conditions. Not really close at all, and not a chance that the ion lithium 9 cell would exceed the Macbook's battery life.

FlamingLonghorn · 10-28-2009, 12:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by octothorp

Compare it with a review (same reviewer, same tests) of the new Mac laptops.
http://www.zdnet.com.au/reviews/hard...9296879,00.htm

The PC with 6 cell does 160 minutes in video playback battery drain tests, vs. 300 minutes for a similar Mac.
Given that the difference between 6 cell and 9 cell lithium ion battery is only about 150% (85 Whr vs, 56 Whr), there's no reason to think that the 9 cell would do any better than 240 minutes. Which is an hour less than the Mac in a battery drain test, which means those results would be magnified under normal usage conditions. Not really close at all, and not a chance that the ion lithium 9 cell would exceed the Macbook's battery life.

So you can buy 2 6 cells and have better than the Mac, since the Mac doesn't have removable batteries and PCs do. Also don't quite understand why that review is comparing the Macbook and Macbook Pro to the Dell Adamo? Adamo is ultra portable and should be compared to the Air. Not saying it's a better performer than the Air but they should compare similar products.

octothorp · 10-28-2009, 01:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sowa

So you can buy 2 6 cells and have better than the Mac, since the Mac doesn't have removable batteries and PCs do. Also don't quite understand why that review is comparing the Macbook and Macbook Pro to the Dell Adamo? Adamo is ultra portable and should be compared to the Air. Not saying it's a better performer than the Air but they should compare similar products.

Yup, I agree and said in my previous post that you could buy a second battery for far less than the cost difference between the two machines.

As to the Adamo, I wasn't really looking at it; agreed, probably not a good comparison. I was looking at the results in this test against the results in the Inspiron 13 that IHH posted. Unfortunately, the site doesn't have stats up for the battery tests on the new Macbooks yet, but says that they expect the results to be similar to the MBPs. So it seemed more reliable to use those numbers than to try to find a benchmark by another reviewer that might not use exactly the same test.

wooohooo · 10-28-2009, 02:48 PM

After using this for quite some time, 7 seems to be a happy medium between the functionality of XP and the simplicity of OSx. Granted, there are still some kinks to be ironed out, but all in all, I'm very happy with this. The only thing that would make me a perfectly happy man is the Mac areas. I'm not sure what it's called but if you go to the right corner something happens, left corner etc.

HotHotHeat · 10-28-2009, 03:01 PM

5 hours of battery life in OSX translates into just over 2 in Windows 7.

Burninator · 10-28-2009, 03:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by HotHotHeat

5 hours of battery life in OSX translates into just over 2 in Windows 7.

Did you adjust the performance thinger in Windows?

Bobblehead · 10-28-2009, 03:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by HotHotHeat

5 hours of battery life in OSX translates into just over 2 in Windows 7.

That's with your Powerbook dual booted, I'm assuming?

I-Hate-Hulse · 10-28-2009, 04:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by octothorp

Compare it with a review (same reviewer, same tests) of the new Mac laptops.
http://www.zdnet.com.au/reviews/hard...9296879,00.htm

The PC with 6 cell does 160 minutes in video playback battery drain tests, vs. 280 minutes for a similar Mac.
Given that the difference between 6 cell and 9 cell lithium ion battery is only about 150% (85 Whr vs, 56 Whr), there's no reason to think that the 9 cell would do any better than 240 minutes. Which is 40 minutes less than the Mac in a battery drain test, which means those results would be magnified under normal usage conditions. Not really close at all, and not a chance that the ion lithium 9 cell would exceed the Macbook's battery life.

Fair enough - I stand corrected. I'll concede that the Dell will be short of the MB in battery life by about 40 minutes. This is where the LED displays actually has had some very tangible benefits - the 40 minutes we're talking about seemed to have been the result of LED according to the article.

Is that worth a 40% difference? We'll leave that to FurnaceFace who's in the market.

CaptainCrunch · 10-28-2009, 10:28 PM

MickMcGeough · 10-29-2009, 08:35 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by HotHotHeat

My control panel looks nothing like the one you suggest in the link.

And if I have to use an internet search engine to find mouse settings, I doubt Microsoft has served a massive segment of PC users very well.

Just click Start then type mouse. Presto!

HotHotHeat · 10-29-2009, 08:57 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bobblehead

That's with your Powerbook dual booted, I'm assuming?

Nope. I use bootcamp.

Phaneuf3 · 10-29-2009, 10:56 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by HotHotHeat

5 hours of battery life in OSX translates into just over 2 in Windows 7.

I'm curious what type of battery life my new laptop would get running OS X then. Its a relatively inexpensive Dell and I can get ~5-6 hours of battery life running Vista which is supposed to have worse power consumption than 7.

Assuming that your facts hold true for all laptops and I get 6 hours running Win7, that translates to ~15 hours of battery life running OS X. That would be something that would get me to consider switching.

edit: that's straight out of the box with no tweaking of power consumption settings.