I know Windoze Suck..but..

[TheWizard]

SuperTurbo wrote:

Never!! I like using Workbench because it´s fast, system efficient and allows the user to have more control over whats happening. MacOSX have none of these attributes whatsoever.

Efficient...well yes. Other than that, where have you been?

MacOSX is just a bunch of fancy, overdesigned graphics with none of the configurability that the Amiga has (or even Windoze). And you got to know illogical Unix commands to be able to use the MacOS CLI as well...

You know, my dual G5 can whip up windows faster than any of my accelerated Amigas period. As for the Amiga CLI, well... filling in the letters - i.e. using "list" as opposed to "ls" is not that much better.  :roll:

[InTheSand]

tonyvdb wrote:
ME was a disaster and 2000 did very little for improvement

Win2K actually did a great deal for improvement. It was Microsoft's first working attempt at combining the plug 'n' play and DirectX functionality from the Win9x line with the stability of the NT line. End result = an OS that's not much different to XP but is far more efficient with resource usage.

JJ wrote:
...have tried to use linux, but to be honest I have got much better things to do with my life, than trying to install and set-up linux. I want to be able to use a computer for work and playing games, surfing etc... not setting the fing thing up.

windows just install with miniaml fuss, and is ready to use.

This really does depend on your hardware and/or the Linux distro you're using.

In Ubuntu Linux, an installation from scratch is usually simply a case of booting from the CD, choosing the install option, answering a few straightforward questions (time zone, location, user name, etc - basic stuff) and letting it just do its stuff. And at the end of the installation, it all just works (at least on my hardware). Updates are then managed by the excellent package manager and associated software repositories.

Installation of Windows XP from scratch again requires booting from the CD, answering some basic questions, etc. But at the end of the install, the user is left with a basic 800x600 (or 640x480 if they're really unlucky!) desktop running in standard VGA mode, no sound, sometimes no networking, no other drivers, and a massive heap of updates to install (SP2, IE7, DirectX, and tonnes of security fixes/patches).

And yes, for practical use, Windows still has more of the applications (and certainly games) that people at large want to use. I run a mixture of Linux and Windows... And of course, good old AmigaOS!

Just my 2c worth!

 - Ali

[Tomas]

Microsoft has tried to make the best of a bad thing...When Windowz XP came out is was hyped as a new and better OS for the PC Given that they redesigned it to not use DOS as its footprint like 3.1 or 98 ME was a disaster and 2000 did very little for improvement.

Are you kidding me?  :-o Windows 2000 was a huge improvement over win9x/me!! I also believe that windows 2000 beats the hell out of both winxp and vista. The problem is that they dropped support, so that they could force people to downgrade to XP.

[Vlabguy1]

@stopthegop

The last part regarding the Amiga OS..is percisely what an  operating system should be..HELLO people..from M$ and Apple you just dont get IT...
Which is why in a previous thead I started..which I said I would like to see someone like Nintendo..use the Amiga OS..or even Sony for that matter..
put the Amiga OS on the Wii..or PS4..mmmm..then grow from there..I know Im dreaming..but it could happen..

Peace to everyone
Rich
from
NY

[Vlabguy1]

@SuperTurbo,

I feel the same way about Workbench..But for me I would rather use OSX over
M$ Windoze anyday.  Sure to me OSX feels and looks very heavy..if you get my
meaning.  That being said I would and do use OSX over Windoze anyday.  Thats just me..though..
I will be interested to see what Leopard has to offer..

But would REALLY REALLY REALLY love to be using Amiga OS4..

[A1k_man]

I've tried windows Vista rc1 on my PC it's okay, but to me it seems like Microsoft copied a bunch of Mac OS 10.4s features, edited them to to look more windows-ish, and somehow made them require much more ram than those same features in 10.4 does on my powerbook g3(fast with 384mb).
Even if you switch vista to the classic look it still takes way too much memory.

The supposed added security, it'd be cheaper and IMHO better to buy win2k(my favorite windows) and download AVG, ZoneAlarm, and AdwareSE/SpyBot.

[coldfish]

I'm surprised just how many people here have positive things to say about Windows.  Try that on any other Amiga forum. :-D  

Ive served time with;
GEOS, WB 1.3 & 3.1, Mac OS 7 thru to OSX, Win 3.1, 95, 98, 2000, XP. Linux: Knoppix, Kubuntu/Ubuntu and DSL and AROS.

Each has its merits and share of frustrations.  

I regularly use XP, 2000 and Kubuntu.  When something "better" comes along, I'll use that instead.  

OS zealotry is absurd.

[DonnyEMU]

I am using Vista RTM (thank you MSDN) x64 and loving it, every moment of it.. I am a fan of xaml, the quality of this windows seems crash free and the resource monitoring is great.. The point is you can't really see what the value of vista is until you can start seeing what these new applications can do and how they improve the user experience (very like original Amiga applications pre-2.0).

-Don

PS Windoze may suck but Microsoft Windows Vista does not, it's the best thing since the Amiga.. Plus I don't really have to worry that much about viruses and spyware anymore.

Also when you really want to see what vista/.net 3.0 gives you I'd check out the following resources..

The WPFBlog by a Frog Design Employee who also blogs about Flash  (http://www.thewpfblog.com/)

DENOUNCE
Podcast Listener and Blog Reader
http://www.thirteen23.com/work/denounce/index.html

Harmony
Visualize your music library in3d.
http://www.thirteen23.com/labs/winfx/harmony/index.html

NOSTALGIA
Yahoo! Flickr Browser and Photo Manager
http://www.thirteen23.com/work/nostalgia/index.html

CINE.VIEW
Netflix Manager with 3d graphics for your desktop
http://www.thirteen23.com/work/cine.view/index.html

You also only have to look at this woodgroove app demo to see how useful this presentation technology is inside of Windows..

http://scorbs.com/2006/06/16/woodgrove-demo/


 

[stopthegop]

@Colan1200:

You're right.  I've used OS-X very little.  Just enough to know I don't like it.  OS-X had a very "heavy" feel to it just moving around in directories -- at least to me it did.  I know the MacPro with X is faster than my Amiga but it doesn't feel faster.  In fact it feels slower.  The Amiga is lighter and feels a lot more responsive than OS-X did.  No comparison, really.  Even XP has a snappier feel to it than OS-X.  

[sdyates]

Wintel does very much suck -- don't do it. Trust me.... I spent 10 years with wintel. I finally decided to get my next machine. I waited until Amiwest hoping it would be OS4.0, but alas... we wait more.

I picked up an intel mac. The more I use it the more I think this is where Amiga would have been 5 years ago if it was not for 1994.

Many ex-amiga people have bought macs in the past and I understand why. The Mac has always felt like a close cousin. I even remember many people referred to the Amiga as a colour Mac back in the day.

Trust me when I say a 20inch iMac will make you feel more at home, and will still let you run windows on it. And here is the bonus, you can also run UAE on it too.

[KThunder]

i think its kind of funny when people talk about bloated os
how do you know it is bloated? do you know how many applications are used and how many libraries support stuff.

when os 3.0 came out and used 6 disks to install did anyone talk about bloat?

the more you got the more you find use for. thats what winxp does. if you have 1gig of ram it loads more stuff into ram. xp will boot with what 64megs bare minimum. do you really want to sit with most of a gig doing nothing and wait for stuff to load when it could be ready to go?

[stopthegop]

@KThunder:

I'd rather have an OS that is nimble and responsive, that loads quickly and doesn't waste time and resources loading libraries that seldom if ever get used.  Libraries should be loaded when a funtion within them is required by the system or is called by a user application.  Same with preference files and other application resources.  Just because the RAM exists to load everything including the kitchen sink doesn't mean we should necessarily do it.  How much extra waiting could there be anyway with processors now in the 3-4GHZ+ range?   I know the car analogy is kind of a cliche, but consider race cars.  F1 cars have oodles of raw horse power AND are extremely lightweight!  You don't see F1 teams respond to every gain in power with an urge to add more weight.  If they did the way computer companies add "features" you'd have Formula 1 cars that drove like Winnebagos.  

[Colani1200]

stopthegop wrote:
Just because the RAM exists to load everything including the kitchen sink doesn't mean we should necessarily do it.

:lol: Vista seems to load it, and even more (link inside). Ah... whatever... imho it's a waste of time even to think about it.

[Hammer]

I'd rather have an OS that is nimble and responsive, that loads quickly and doesn't waste time and resources loading libraries that seldom if ever get used. Libraries should be loaded when a funtion within them is required by the system or is called by a user application. Same with preference files and other application resources. Just because the RAM exists to load everything including the kitchen sink doesn't mean we should necessarily do it. How much extra waiting could there be anyway with processors now in the 3-4GHZ+ range? I know the car analogy is kind of a cliche, but consider race cars. F1 cars have oodles of raw horse power AND are extremely lightweight! You don't see F1 teams respond to every gain in power with an urge to add more weight. If they did the way computer companies add "features" you'd have Formula 1 cars that drove like Winnebagos.

F1 cars doesn't have 5 seats, power windows, power sun roof, aircon for 5 people, sat-nav, 6-8 speaker MP3/CD/FM radio, in-car-TFT DVD players, electronic assist brakes/traction control, sound dampening insulation and 'etc'.

I rather have a ~1.5Ton Lexus than a F1 car.

[InTheSand]

KThunder wrote:
xp will boot with what 64megs bare minimum. do you really want to sit with most of a gig doing nothing and wait for stuff to load when it could be ready to go?

It might boot, eventually... But XP on that configuration would be pretty much unusable... 256Mb is a realistic bare minimum for running XP and a few applications, with 512Mb (or preferably 1Gb+) for a comfortable experience...

Win2K, essentially the same platform, is usable with half the RAM amounts above.

 - Ali

[nyteschayde]

I have been running the beta for a while now. If you have supported hardware it's not bad. I don't like all the added security but with a little effort you can figure out how to turn it off.

I use all the major platforms. I am writing this on a new MacBook Pro that I convinced my company to buy for me. =) All in all, each of the platforms including the Amiga have their pros and cons. Anyone who cannot admit as much is overly biased towards their platform of choice.

Nonetheless if you are used to an Amiga there will be many niceties. If you are used to WinXP or Mac OS X the novelty factor won't be quite as big. But like everything new it has its merits and faults.

Have fun with it. When you get frustrated, and you will, remember there are others out there that have probably solved your problems. Use google.