Amiga.org
The "Not Quite Amiga but still computer related category" => Alternative Operating Systems => Topic started by: ElPolloDiabl on February 09, 2010, 03:53:22 PM
-
When Windows 95 came out, it's strong selling points were plug and play and ease of use. It impressed gamers because you didn't have to fiddle with DOS anymore.
Microsoft has gone daft, putting in more and more bloat. The OS is more of a whiz bang application than an operating system. The fact that you automatically buy Windows with any name brand PC or laptop means M$ can sit back and contentedly rake in money. That automatic bundling is really bad for non-sheeple consumers.
Gamers will simply abandon the Wintel PC and they have been. That is a fairly big chunk of business.
I can see innovation has ground to a halt, ty M$.
-
Can I offer you some cheese to go with your whine?
-
He's right though. Nothing useful came after about windows 2000. Personally i'll run xp untill I can't find used hardware that can run it easily, or web browsers drop support with no hack to get them going again.
-
Gamers will simply abandon the Wintel PC and they have been. That is a fairly big chunk of business.
I can see innovation has ground to a halt, ty M$.
MS doesn't really make a huge amount out of selling windows to gamers, the amount is wholly insignificant compared to the money it makes selling it to corporate customers.
I've seen the cost of windows licenses for where I work alone and that's a relatively small company.
Besides, if you want a new PC and don't want windows pre-installed, assert this at the point of sale. Theoretically you are entitled to a discount if you get the basic system without the OS.
-
Yes... windows can be buggy, slow... (at least some configs with xp runs fine and ppl talks good about windows 7) but why mac? I dont understand this fever, its the same hardware that a pc but more expensive, you can use hackintosh if you want to test the boring osx.
PS: Im not a windows fan.
-
I wouldn't call osx boring. it's a pretty clean and polished system, and if you have a beard, it's got unix stuff too.
-
I wouldn't call osx boring. it's a pretty clean and polished system, and if you have a beard, it's got unix stuff too.
I have MacOS X (Tiger) for some months now, and it is really boring.
I am not Windows, neither Microsoft fan, but give me XP over MacOS X anytime.
Also I have the feeling that on my Pentium II 500 MHz Windows XP performed better than MacOS X on 667 MHz G4. So probably on same hardware XP will perform better than MacOS X.
MacOS X is updated, oh well, but I can not try Snow Leopard because I am with PPC machine.
-
Your G4 is broken if that performance is accurate. It alway ran a lot faster than that for me, even on a g3 400. Though any modern office suite like open office 3 was unusable.
-
What exactly does it mean when say an OS is "boring"? :)
I've always thought it is an advantage when the OS doesn't get in your way when you're working.
BTW, I'm using Tiger on the first Icebook 500MHz G3 and it is pretty slow. It's quite interesting that you don't actually see the slowness - all the animations, transitions etc. are smooth, but you wait a lot on apps startup etc.
-
I'll take boring any day....much better than, oh cr#p my hdrive has been taken over by aliens from mars! Seriously, I've used OSX since it was beta, I have XP on a couple of machines. The key to OSX performance is matching the version to the hardware. I'm using 10.5 on a twin G4 1.8 MHz and its adequate. On a G3 the performance would decrease significantly. I'm using 10.6 on Intel MacBooks and a Mini and it runs great. Like the Amiga, the Mac OS is built for the hardware. To get integration on a Windows machine you need to add multiple drivers increasing the complexity of the system. Complex systems, by their nature, are more difficult to control.
No virus to speak of, rarely crashes and if it does it has a system built back-up called Time Machine. Thanks but I'll take boring in my system and exciting in the software I want to run on the system.
I came back to Commodore computers to find some excitement in my computing. For work related computing I'll stick to boring systems with solid hardware....Mac!
-
What exactly does it mean when say an OS is "boring"? :)
I've always thought it is an advantage when the OS doesn't get in your way when you're working.
An OS is boring if it does not go 'wwwooeesh!!!'
-
Lets change the word "boring" for "all applications, emulation, freeware of windows vs osx" sentence, if you want to use email, facebook or other social pages, message programs maybe is enough.
Everytime people talks about osx says about viruses, trojans, worms... ok, if osx was used by the same number of people would have the same number of virus at least, by the way if you are carefully is enought.
-
Uhh... no. Windows has so many security holes it leaks like a sieve, and some of them are tied to fundamental parts of the os that would be very hard to change. These problems aren't there in other modern oses.
-
When me friend and I get our business going, we will use UNIX/Linux for server environment and AOS for client.. Maybe AOS for server as well depends on the availability of apache and MySQL.
-
Mac is lame and Windows ROOLS hahahaa! Mac is for n00blets!
-
When Windows 95 came out, it's strong selling points were plug and play and ease of use. It impressed gamers because you didn't have to fiddle with DOS anymore.
Microsoft has gone daft, putting in more and more bloat. The OS is more of a whiz bang application than an operating system. The fact that you automatically buy Windows with any name brand PC or laptop means M$ can sit back and contentedly rake in money. That automatic bundling is really bad for non-sheeple consumers.
Gamers will simply abandon the Wintel PC and they have been. That is a fairly big chunk of business.
I can see innovation has ground to a halt, ty M$.
Are you serious?!?!?!?!?!?!
windows vista sucks but 7 is xp and then some. its fast, streamlined and stable. the only reason we have multighz multicore cpus and video cards with shaders etc. is because of gaming on the pc. not mac (sheesh gaming on the mac has always been a joke). consoles never really pushed the state of the art either. all along the way they have been ither right at or a bit behind pc chipsets.
"m$" has been at the forefront of innovation by supporting and upgrading directx and other api componants. opengl was stagnant for years and has only just pulled up semi-level.
the only people "abandoning" pcs is because of cost of upgrading not lack of innovation.
you may not like them but without intel and microsoft computing would be nowhere near what it is today.
-
you may not like them but without intel and microsoft computing would be nowhere near what it is today.
Decided to edit the hell out of my diatribe. "Computing" in general terms absolutely sucks today, especially the experience that is the internet and it's only getting worse. You can have it!
M$ and Intel were/are the catalyst for the mainstream to have taken computing down the over commercialized and mediocre state it's in. As time marches on, I'm taking less and less of an interest in modern "computing" and the Internet as a whole.
-
Uhh... no. Windows has so many security holes it leaks like a sieve, and some of them are tied to fundamental parts of the os that would be very hard to change. These problems aren't there in other modern oses.
Yes thats true but million eyes observing security fails in earth of the different windows versions vs 100? 200? 0? of people seeking holes on osx is a big difference.
Dont forget that osx have important security holes, some fixed some not, or remember this "competitions" of hacking the different os, osx is not the winner.
-
"Security through obscurity" (which is what macos and amigaos have) is like saying "Oh man, I'm going to move out into the country where my house is never ever going to be burglarized" instead of buying a lock for your damn door.
-
Yes thats true but million eyes observing security fails in earth of the different windows versions vs 100? 200? 0? of people seeking holes on osx is a big difference.
Dont forget that osx have important security holes, some fixed some not, or remember this "competitions" of hacking the different os, osx is not the winner.
Most of the hacking and computer hijacking is done to Windows because that is what 99% of business and 90% of people use. If you want to steal data or personal info, go for the windows box. If not you won't be very successful in you endeavors.
-
He's right though. Nothing useful came after about windows 2000. Personally i'll run xp untill I can't find used hardware that can run it easily, or web browsers drop support with no hack to get them going again.
I'm no Windows fanboy but Windows 7 is a very stable OS and worthy successor to Windows XP. We are working out the kinks with our Novell SuSe Linux network and once finished will be migrating all of our XP boxes to Windows 7.
I'm running it on both of my machines at home and very pleased with the results.
I'd still love to see another Amiga type machine in my lifetime but I'm certainly not going to start buying rotten fruit. I'd rather build a commodity box and install any number of alternative OSs on it. Linspire, Redhat, SuSe, Solaris, AROS, etc., etc., etc.
-
I use 4 different OSes. They all have their strengths and weaknesses.
OSX: Tiger runs well on my G4 and G5. It seems more immune to attack-ware. It often seems there is only one way to do things. This OS seems to take the opinion that it knows (better than me!) whats best. I trust this OS the least, I wonder that the contents of my HD are reported back to Apple.
XP: It has the better thought-out UI compared to OSX. Things are hidden from me, the HD is in use for no apparent reason. I don't trust this OS either. As time goes by, it gets slower. Mal-ware? Fragmentation? Seems undefendable.
Ubuntu: Just starting to try this out. Some people wrote this OS to prove to themselves they are intellllligent! I like open source.
AmigaOS: Fun. Does what I want it to. I trust this OS, it doesn't spy on the user. Nothing seems hidden. The HD is active only when I tell it to be.
-
In my view macs are for people with more money than technical skill. They work out of the box and for most users, they are harder to break than a windows pc. Myself, especially now that they are basically wintel machines running osx, I wouldn't spend that much for a closed system intel pc. In fact the only way I will ever buy a macintosh is buying one to run MORPHOS on.
As far as windows...
Windows lacks good security but that can be easily fixed with a little know how. Windows has the most applications and games too... Wintendo basically. I keep windows just for games and video editing, the rest I use linux for, and of course there is always
AMIGA!
Steven
-
Im not a fan as such, but I dont dislike Windows either (XP Pro here). It's a useful tool with lots of good software, and for the rare occasion Im in the mood for a modern game (beyond the current gen consoles which are showing thier ages(although still good fun)), the most advanced gaming system anywhere. The system itself isnt fun for me in the way amiga os/aros is, but its software makes it essential for me. Pretty much parallels OSX, but I dont really like *nix, and do on occasion enjoy modern gaming, so will stick with Windows for when I need something unattainable on my hobby systems (os3.x and aros).
-
Don't forget Bill Gates is an all-around cool guy and Steve Jobs is a complete tool.
-
When I need windows, its either 98se, 2k or XP. OS X- very good, I like the UNIX roots of it, the clean design, hate the intel part of it. I trust OS X more than Windoze. I hate that all of my networked windows boxes pick up all the bloatware $hit. I hate Micro$h
@KThunder
If windows and Intel weren't around like they are today, people would be more proficient in computers, hell ten years ago the users of computers knew more about the system they used than the users today.
@Tone007
These are some fool propaganda things you're saying. Bill Gates may be a nice guy, but Steve Jobs is NOT a tool, he is the master of the Mac Classic B&W. Okay he also pushed the Lisa, but he didn't make MS BOB nor did he screw OS/2 up. You may be a 'doze fanboy, but please state why in an intelligent, non-rantish manner.
-
Nobody outside the MMO circles gives a shit about PC gaming anymore. Sad but true. The developers are making their money off console games. How many PC exclusives did we get in 2009 ? How many games never showed up on PC at all ?
Most people just buy an xbox instead.
People have gotten convinced that they need 4 gig's of RAM to browse the internet and write letters to grandma. In 2 years when the computer is bogged down by malware, they'll be convinced they need to get a new machine with twice the system requirements of windows 7, and they'll use it for the exact same things people use PC's for now:
Write stuff, look at porn, listen to music.
-
These are some fool propaganda things you're saying.
The only fool is someone who gives a damn about what anyone else thinks of an operating system.
I have them all here, I use Windows the most. They all do the same thing, end of story. Any arguing that fact is completely pointless.
I like vanilla ice cream better!
-
Why have plain vanilla when there's FRENCH vanilla? lmao!
-
Nobody outside the MMO circles gives a shit about PC gaming anymore. Sad but true. The developers are making their money off console games. How many PC exclusives did we get in 2009 ? How many games never showed up on PC at all ?
Most people just buy an xbox instead.
People have gotten convinced that they need 4 gig's of RAM to browse the internet and write letters to grandma. In 2 years when the computer is bogged down by malware, they'll be convinced they need to get a new machine with twice the system requirements of windows 7, and they'll use it for the exact same things people use PC's for now:
Write stuff, look at porn, listen to music.
The same thing to apple computers but more expensive than a normal pc but hei! they are cool! cool for a girls bedroom (installed windows xp/7 on it) :P
-
When I need windows, its either 98se, 2k or XP. OS X- very good, I like the UNIX roots of it, the clean design, hate the intel part of it. I trust OS X more than Windoze. I hate that all of my networked windows boxes pick up all the bloatware $hit. I hate Micro$h
@Tone007
These are some fool propaganda things you're saying. Bill Gates may be a nice guy, but Steve Jobs is NOT a tool, he is the master of the Mac Classic B&W. Okay he also pushed the Lisa, but he didn't make MS BOB nor did he screw OS/2 up. You may be a 'doze fanboy, but please state why in an intelligent, non-rantish manner.
I've been running Windows for years and years and I have never, repeat never caught a major virus or Trojan. Minor tracking cookies, etc. is all. Apparently, I'm completely amazing or something. Hold, on I need to open this attachment and click this link that this guy in Namibia just sent me and he'll give me 10 million dollars. D'OH! ;^)
Yes but who could forget NEXT, because no one will ever want a color computer. Steve Jobs is most definitely a tool. A very rich tool but still a tool none the less. Ask Wozniak after he's had a few beers. Commodore missed it's chance, darn you Jack Tramiel, they had the chance to buy Apple.
Then I could have missed the gems
Macs don't get viruses. (That's why we just cleaned several of them from multiple Malware attacks and infected Word docs.)
Macs are easier to use. (Yes, that GUI is so intuitive that users just sit down and immediately know how to use the machine. There is just zero learning curve because the bouncing icons in the Dock just explain everything.)
Macs are better for graphics. (The video cards in the Mac Pros at the time were like 3-4 generations behind the low end commodity DELLs we were buying.)
Macs don't crash. (Yeah, we never see a crash just a friendly note that you should restart the computer. It's not like it's really required or anything; it's just that your Mac needs a little rest.)
Macs are like Cadillac and PeeCees are like Yugo (Uhm, OK, sure.)
and my favorite local classics.....
Macs cost less because they come with all that free built in software so you have to count that too. (Nevermind, you're right - they are so great they walk on water and make the lame walk and the blind see.)
-
they are cool! cool for a girls bedroom
I always thought Apple machines were pretty cute and aimed at girls. They had that black MacBook for a while though, which was almost interesting, but it had a garbage video chipset so I passed and bought a Sony instead.
-
The same thing to apple computers but more expensive than a normal pc but hei! they are cool! cool for a girls bedroom (installed windows xp/7 on it) :P
I hate mac's too ;)
But I'll concede they run better than windows machines these days.
But then, Im one of those linux zealots.
-
I use several different OSes here. Win 98SE, 2K, XP, Vista, and 7. As well as Mac OS 7, 8, 9.2.2, and 10.4.1.1 (I think). I also use my Amiga computers which have OS 2.0, 3.0, 3.1, 3.5 and 3.9. I even have an old PC that has OS/2 Warp on it. I am no good with Linux but I do try to play with the distros from time to time. I even have (Blasphemy!!) an Atari MegaST 2 with Tos 2.something in it. The only OS I have used that I have had any problems with was Vista. I always likened Vista to a 2 week dead pig lying in the sun, its bloated skin stretched to the point of bursting from all of the noxious fumes inside. Well that's how it felt to me, and I have a fairly okay system. An OS is merely a tool to access the programs that you use most frequently. They are supposed to be designed to not get in the way and to maximize your experience. If someone came out with an OS tomorrow (looking at google...) that allowed me to do everything I do with my Windows box (mostly games, but I am trying to make an old adventure game...) then I would more than likely check it out. If it didn't get in my way. {shrugs} I'd use it.
-
Id have quoted, but amiga.org has the worst layout for responding to particular posts ever. cant for the life of me find how to quote, or how to respond to a particular post. Anyway...
Nobody cares about pc gaming anymore ? What drugs are you on, and can I have the number to your dealer please ? Windows gets just as many exclusives as consoles (granted a lot are fps games), and the majority of multiplatform games also get a Windows version, which is often the best version (Street Fighter IV, Assassins Creed, Devil May Cry 4, Grand Theft Auto 4, Saints Row2 to name just a few). Im currently doing a 3 year course at uni based around game development and the majority of people there are gamers, and thier machine of choice is Windows. Most who have consoles also have a WIndows system. There's actually no-one in my classes who chose consoles for gaming over Windows (although I expect this doesn't accurately reflect the rest of the world being that my classmates are interested in the creative side of gaming, where not everyone into gaming is).
Being that this is a forum, anything positive about a format that someone doesnt like will probably be put down to the person saying something positive to fanboy-ism. To beat likely offenders to the punch here I should state that Im in no way, shape or form a Windows fan (nor do I dislike it). I just like to use the right tool for the right job, and there's some things Windows does better than any other system, so I'll use it for situations where that's the case.
-
Go Windows 7 then. Mac is crap also. I know a lot of people don't like MS but lets face it Apple is doing the same crap if not worse. Drop the Iphone, get an Android, drop the ipod and buy an MP3 player for cheaper that is better, DONT buy an Ipad cause it lacks everything useful to be an actual computer. Buy an apple laptop if u want to spend 3 times as much for 3 times less. Sorry if i sound negative but honestly I come here to talk about Amiga and (yes i do have 2 macs, 4 PCS and 5 Amigas) I really don't think macs are any better than other computers. In my opinion i come here cause the ONLY computer i feel is better than all the others is my Miggy.
-
I'm not a diehard Macfan the title was meant to be a hypothetical discussion from Joe User. Also since XP, Windows was a lot less buggy.
It was nice to see a cross section of views. I notice Amiga seemed to get unanimous praise. An OS is one of those things that everyone has their own ideas on what is 'ultimate.' You seem to agree that an OS should be flexible then and allow the user to tinker with it.
I don't like an OS that thinks i'm intellectually impaired and can't be trusted to turn some resource hogging features off. If you wonder why the OS needs a 2ghz+ CPU to be responsive it's because of all the background 'features' running.
If someone can explain to me why Windows needs all those gigabytes of hard drive space I might calm down.
-
Id have quoted, but amiga.org has the worst layout for responding to particular posts ever. cant for the life of me find how to quote, or how to respond to a particular post. Anyway...
Nobody cares about pc gaming anymore ? What drugs are you on, and can I have the number to your dealer please ? Windows gets just as many exclusives as consoles (granted a lot are fps games), and the majority of multiplatform games also get a Windows version, which is often the best version (Street Fighter IV, Assassins Creed, Devil May Cry 4, Grand Theft Auto 4, Saints Row2 to name just a few). Im currently doing a 3 year course at uni based around game development and the majority of people there are gamers, and thier machine of choice is Windows. Most who have consoles also have a WIndows system. There's actually no-one in my classes who chose consoles for gaming over Windows (although I expect this doesn't accurately reflect the rest of the world being that my classmates are interested in the creative side of gaming, where not everyone into gaming is).
Being that this is a forum, anything positive about a format that someone doesnt like will probably be put down to the person saying something positive to fanboy-ism. To beat likely offenders to the punch here I should state that Im in no way, shape or form a Windows fan (nor do I dislike it). I just like to use the right tool for the right job, and there's some things Windows does better than any other system, so I'll use it for situations where that's the case.
http://www.pcvsconsole.com/news.php?nid=3403
PC games generated revenue in 2009 of 538 million.
Total game software industry (console, pc and portable) revenue of 10.5 billion dollars.
PC gaming thus accounts for some 5% of the gaming industry
http://www.1up.com/do/newsStory?cId=3167645
Crytek stating that console titles sell 4-5 times as much as PC titles do.
They also mention Crysis selling over 1 million copies as of February 1st 2008. This was after 4 months on the market.
By comparison:
http://www.videogamesblogger.com/2010/01/16/system-and-game-sales-for-december-2009-in-the-usa.htm
The new mario game sold 2.8 million in one month.
Trust me. Im no bigger a fan of this than anyone here. The only console I own is an old PS2 and we use it more as a DVD player than for games anymore, but the writing is on the wall.
-
If someone can explain to me why Windows needs all those gigabytes of hard drive space I might calm down.
It doesnt. Default install is large, but it doesnt need all the stuff it installs by default. also a good chunk of the size a Windows install uses is for page and swapfiles. Really though it's no bigger than most modern Linux distros (for example) when similar amounts of useless crap is installed on both. My XP pro install for example is less than 300meg, and it could be much smaller if I could be bothered to take the time to remove more useless garbage. Just a shame you have to use a 3rd party tool (WinLite was my choice) to get rid of unneccessary junk.
-
A console is another piece of Windows bloat to add to your PC.:roflmao:
I can see the worth of a console in multiplayer arcade games, but for more complex FPS it feels like your handicapped.
It only reaffirms what I think, Windows has driven gamers off of the PC.
-
@runequestor
Sure, but piracy plays a huge part in this, and those figures represent boxed products, which in this day and age is only a modest chunk of the money gaming makes. PC gaming still represents the largest percentage of money spent in the gaming industry due in no small way to online games.
-
Quite frankly Xp like most of Windoze OS's was a bit of a dog at first but over time it's developed and IMHO, one hell of a good OS these days. Sure you get the odd useless errors but everything is easy to work on and is so frugal with it's hardware.
Vista was utter s***e to put it bluntly, but thankfully has been replaced with 7 which I hear isn't a bad OS, though is still power hungry.
NT was another good bit of work from Bill if you ask me.
-
@runequestor
Sure, but piracy plays a huge part in this, and those figures represent boxed products, which in this day and age is only a modest chunk of the money gaming makes. PC gaming still represents the largest percentage of money spent in the gaming industry due in no small way to online games.
The article doesn't mention only box product as far as I can tell, but overall revenue from sale of software, so propably includes xbox live stuff, steam etc.
Online revenue is being derived from console gaming as well though.
http://www.dfcint.com/game_article/mar06article.html
This is the most recent I can find, giving online revenue (overall) as expected to hit 6.8 billion dollars in 2011
A bit over 2/3rds of that is from PC games (and over half of that are from MMO's)
In other words.. the entire projected revenue from ALL online gaming (PC AND Console) is about two thirds the revenue from console software sales.
The PC part of the online revenue (lets round up and say 5 billion) is about half of what the console industry generated in software sales, without counting their online revenue.
-
http://www.videogamer.com/news/pc_gaming_markets_annual_revenue_is_11_billion.html quite heavily suggests otherwise, and its actually current as opposed to predictions. Not that I care really, people can enjoy whatever platform they like, but clearly pc gaming is far from dying, its just for the most part heading down a different path than the consoles (as it always has).
Not important anyway, and sorry for being off topic people.
-
@ fishy fiz: I can't agree that modern Linux distros take up as much HDD space as Windows. Most of them still have CD distributions and even these include basic software that Win doesn't (apart from IE...). When you install a whole DVD distro of Ubuntu, e.g., it may take a big chunk of of your drive, but as far as basic software goes you're practically set - office package, a decent browser, media player etc. are all included. For Windows you need, what, 10GBs and THEN you start adding the software.
-
As I stated my Windows install is roughly (slightly under) 300meg. A far cry from 10gig.
-
Does that 300MB include an Office suite and the various other full-size packages that the Linux distro includes? Not that HD space should be a problem with 1TB drives around €70 off the shelf now...
-
Nah, it's just the base install. Windows, WMP, IE, etc. For equivalent feature set its not a huge difference. Yes, there are very streamlined Linux distros out there, but any OS can be streamlined if a person is inclined, including Windows. Win9x has been cut back to less than 10 meg (considerably less when using Win95) by some people (and no, not saying it's the only system that can be made this small).
Not important, but 1TB drives can be bought for less than that. Just checked my local computer shop and they have 1TB drives from $89 AUD (49 GBP).
-
A lot of interesting views here... so I'll throw in my 2 cents worth...
If you run Windows or Linux, build your next PC. I can build a PC for $1000 buying the parts from newegg.com and blow away a $2500 HP workstation in overall performance. Prebuilt HP, DELL, etc are crap for a power user who know how to actually build and tweak a system. Check out anandtech.com and sites like that to learn about hardware, etc.
Mac too expensive, your really pay about a 50% markup - and they are usually behind the curve on what you can buy/build for half as much plus vid cards/drivers a gen behind and Xcode/Objective-C just sucks.. "Let's take C++ and make it even more anal!"
Java dev and Mono cool on Mac, but actually easier on Windows or Linux!
Yeah, Amiga was a bright and shining light in the history of early personal computing, but we are in a Windoz world... but Linux is coming on strong and even where I work - typically a Microsoft Love Fest - we are looking at linux for file,ftp, and web servers. The cost of MS is going up - when we renew our Enterprise Agreement with MS in 2012 (you do 3 years deals typically) - we are expecting up to $30K per month more under new pricing plans...
Also, Redhat reported they are having they had their best year ever in 2009 - they just offer overall lower cost of ownership and open source tools like MySQL, Apache Webserver, Tomcat App Server, etc just rock...
Eclipse with an inexpensive MyEclipse subscription gives Visual Studio a run for its money in Development IDE. Now if I can talk my company into Java instead of C# we could cut our license/tools budget by 90%!
So if you hate windows, just learn linux and stop using ms... or at least put an XP install in VirtualBox on your linux box for those must run windows apps and just enjoy linux.
-
@ fishy fiz: I'm not talking about Ubuntu 2001, I'm comparing Linux distros today with the up to date version of Win, ie. W7. I'm sure there were full blown distros in 2001 under 300MB (well, there still are - Puppy, DSL...) so using XP as a point for comparison isn't really fair.
-
All OSes suck kind of. Hence I use MorphOS. It sucks, too. But at least I can blame the developers personally ;-).
-
XP + SP3 is relatively recent. The majority of the entire OS is replaced by this point.
-
Ok :)
-
Hi,
@fanscale
"If someone can explain to me why Windows needs all those gigabytes of hard drive space I might calm down."
To put it quite bluntly, the reason Windows needs all that HD space is because todays college trained programmers are not taught to conserve or compress their programming skills, they have all the room they need to overbloat their program. Another reason today is graphics during the Amiga introduction 320X200, 320X400, 640X200 and 640X400 at 32 colors or 64 colors half bright, and HAM modes didn't really take up that much room as compared to todays 1920 X 1200 million of color screens.
Running a modern day computer today takes massive memory, hard drive space and graphics cards to play todays modern day games, when I go back on my old trusty Amiga and look at their games, they are blocky, when I play the Amiga's music it still sounds good, but I know compared to todays computers with sound I am listening to a 4 player band on the Amiga, compared to a orchestra on my PC.
Therefore todays computers have larger programs, larger sound, much larger graphics and poorer programmers then computers of yesteryear. All except for the MAC, their users get all excited about bouncing icons on a bar. Yes indeed a very boring operating system. Does MAC have any games for its users to use. I can't seem to recall seeing MAC games in gamestop, I know they have playstation, Xbox, WII and PC games, and of course games for Windows, but I don't recall ever seeing MAC games.
Oh thats right why should anyone make games for MAC, this would require thinking to play today's games, and everyone knows that MAC users can't think, their machines are turn on, use, then turn off, a completely controlled environment. This way their users won't make any mistakes or crash the MAC.
And
ever since Windows 7, "This is smerf and I am a PC"
And
ever since Amiga "This is smerf and I am a Amiga"
smerf
-
A console is another piece of Windows bloat to add to your PC.:roflmao:
I can see the worth of a console in multiplayer arcade games, but for more complex FPS it feels like your handicapped.
It only reaffirms what I think, Windows has driven gamers off of the PC.
Hi,
@Fanscale,
Sorry, but you are wrong.
Almost every PC power user I know plays games, and according to MaximumPC (sure hope I can say this) when they were asked if PC gamming was dying, they stated "Just wait there are tons of new high powered graphic and sound games comming out for the PC this year, the consoles will look cheap compared to the new high powered stuff comming out for the PC".
I have so many games on my PC I don't know which to play first.
Yes during VISTA's time gamming was terrible, most games wouldn't even play on the PC.
Windows 7 has changed that.
To all you Amiga users spouting off at PC's.
1. Buy yourself a modern day PC computer, believe it or not they are cheaper to buy then you think.
2. Get rid of your old slow 400 meghertz machines (I know that you think they should be fast because they are millions of times faster then you miggy) but that is not true anymore.
3. Buy a dual core (at the least) to a quad core machine, you will be amazed at the multi tasking these monsters could do.
4. Get Linux and Windows 7, I use Ubuntu, and would recommend this to most new computer users and MAC and Amiga users. It is easy to install and easier to use.
5. With Windows 7 get install the 32 bit first, the 64 bit is a bit more complex to run. Buy one of the new modern day games for the PC install and play. You will be amazed on how much better todays PC games are.
6. Install Amiga Forever, on these new machines and watch the Amiga OS fly.
For you MAC users, bite into the Apple and look for the worms.
smerf
-
... everyone knows that MAC users can't think, their machines are turn on, use, then turn off,
You're dead right I don't think about anything other than turning on, using and turning off my MacBook. Why should I have to think about anything else? When I'm using my Mac for writing my dissertation, researching something for use in clinic, viewing and annotating handouts during a lecture or seminar, or any number of other taxing tasks, I don't want to have to think about what my computer is doing or why. I want my OS to leave me alone while I'm working, and OS X does that.
--
moto
-
Oh thats right why should anyone make games for MAC, this would require thinking to play today's games, and everyone knows that MAC users can't think, their machines are turn on, use, then turn off, a completely controlled environment. This way their users won't make any mistakes or crash the MAC.
*****
-
@smerf
Window7 changes nothing compared to Vista for gaming. Contrary to popular belief there's not a huge difference between the 2. Windows7 isnt far removed from a fine tuned Vista. The kernel is just a point revision above Vistas, and the "userland" isnt hugely different either, but tidied up a little with less unnecessary processes resident. In fact a lot of benchmarks suggest that Windows7 is in fact fractionally slower than Vista for gaming. As for "how much better todays games are".... compared to what ? Isnt the quality of a game all in the eye of the beholder ? I generally prefer older style games, the majority of new games, while audiovisually attractive dont hold my interest for more than a few hours. There are some exceptions and some new games I very much enjoy (cant wait to play Alan Wake), but quality of a game is dictated by the game, not the era, graphics, system its running on, etc.
-
@ fishy fiz: just what I was going to write. W7 is basically slimmed down Vista and everyone's raving about it like it was W3.1 -> W95 move... Wake up, Vista is not evil incarnate and W7 is not the greatest thing since sliced bread...
-
This argument will never be resolved. It's been going on for years.
The truth is, every system out has strong points and weak points. It all depends on what you want to do with the computer.
For a game machine, Windows still seems to be on top - mainly due to the number of games being released for it. Too many games are not available for the Mac, and linux is in the same boat (or worse).
For basic computing (word processing, data management, web browsing, etc.) anything will work.
For a secure system, Linux is most likely the best.
Of course there a few of us nuts who still actually use their Amigas too :)
-
As succinctly as I possibly can, when it comes to general purpose "computing" (word processing, photo editing, e-mail, database storage, internet), I want the system, hardware and OS to get the f@ck out of my way. I just want it to work and work well. Like my automobiles. You should just turn them on and go. This is why I prefer Mac's.
If I wanted to constantly be messing around with hardware and software configs all day long, worried if my latest purchase is going to be compatible or not, it'll be in the form of a hobby that is much more fun and gratifying to me. Enter the Amiga.
-
You're dead right I don't think about anything other than turning on, using and turning off my MacBook. Why should I have to think about anything else? When I'm using my Mac for writing my dissertation, researching something for use in clinic, viewing and annotating handouts during a lecture or seminar, or any number of other taxing tasks, I don't want to have to think about what my computer is doing or why. I want my OS to leave me alone while I'm working, and OS X does that.
--
moto
What the hell is hard about just waiting 20 seconds for a computer to shut down? If someone buys a Mac OS just over this basis then they need their head seeing to if you ask me.
Oh and games for Mac? That's a joke in itself if you ask me, why by a system that doesn't allow you to let off steam once in a while (or at-least very limited).
-
Who shuts down their computer anymore anyway? Between sleep/suspend and hibernation, my systems rarely get an actual reboot. Did Apple ever get hibernation going in OSX? I only remember seeing them use sleep mode.
Oh and games for Mac? That's a joke in itself if you ask me, why by a system that doesn't allow you to let off steam once in a while (or at-least very limited).
I have Postal or Postal 2 around here somewhere for MacOS..
-
Who shuts down their computer anymore anyway? Between sleep/suspend and hibernation, my systems rarely get an actual reboot. Did Apple ever get hibernation working on their systems? I only remember seeing them use sleep mode.
Precicely, mine is only shut down overnight (sometimes) and/or if im away for more then a day. If in sleep mode, mine takes 10 - 20 secs to wake up which is a damn sight quicker then I can wake up.
-
What the hell is hard about just waiting 20 seconds for a computer to shut down?
My post said nothing about it being hard to wait for a computer to shut down. My point was that I don't want to be bothered by the OS while I'm working.
Oh and games for Mac? That's a joke in itself if you ask me, why by a system that doesn't allow you to let off steam once in a while (or at-least very limited).
I don't play games on my Mac, but if I did I could easily install Windows and reboot into XP to play games. I know the hardware isn't ideal for most modern games, but I knew that when I bought it. Gaming wasn't a consideration when I bought the machine.
--
moto
-
Hi,
@Fanscale,
Sorry, but you are wrong.
Almost every PC power user I know plays games, and according to MaximumPC (sure hope I can say this) when they were asked if PC gamming was dying, they stated "Just wait there are tons of new high powered graphic and sound games comming out for the PC this year, the consoles will look cheap compared to the new high powered stuff comming out for the PC".
And yet, the machine that sells the most games is the lowly wii and DS, with crap graphics.
For most normal users, "pc game" means little silly flash games. The developers have mostly seen the writing on the wall. Corporations don't care about anecdotal evidence. They care about who buys the product. Why does it take a (for the time) cutting edge game like Crysis 4 months to sell a million copies, when a Mario game on a glorified gamecube can do exceed 2 million in its first month?
PC gaming isn't dead, but I think it'll move more and more to smaller developers and with more of a focus on alternative titles. That's not a bad thing in itself, but deluding yourself into thinking the PC rules the gaming world is not helping.
@Fishy_fiz
Thanks for that link. Always better to have current numbers. Do note though that the article gives 6 billion revenue for US and Europe combined, and 11 billion worldwide
The original article I posted was US numbers only. So PC online revenue is definately increasing (and in the future, this will become more and more so I think) but even including that, PC's are only generating half the revenue of the console market in the US.
-
No Mac Games? How many have actually read the box on their PC game and discovered that, if they had a Mac, it was bootable on that machine too?
No Mac games? Try this: http://www.apple.com/games/
-
This page is a joke? Sims, dragonage, some simple games... pc people can play sims and dragonage with more performance and millions of more games.
Surrender, when mac people use virus or one of this games page its all over.
-
Who shuts down their computer anymore anyway? Between sleep/suspend and hibernation, my systems rarely get an actual reboot. Did Apple ever get hibernation going in OSX? I only remember seeing them use sleep mode.
I have Postal or Postal 2 around here somewhere for MacOS..
I would say most people shut down, rather than sleep/hibernate. Especially laptops, which are prone to heating up in a bag if they are left asleep, and which take just about as long to get out of hibernate as they do to boot anyway and the way sales are going these days will outnumber-if they haven't already-desktop users.
There's a lot of effort being put into making Windows and Linux boot ever faster and that's because users demand it.
Don't under-estimate the value of a fast booting OS is to the average user. It matters, Microsoft knows this and Ubuntu's targetting a 7 second boot time this year apparantly. They wouldn't be devoting resources if it didn't matter to the average user.
-
I would say most people shut down, rather than sleep/hibernate. Especially laptops, which are prone to heating up in a bag if they are left asleep, and which take just about as long to get out of hibernate as they do to boot anyway
What kind of crap laptops have you been using? I've got no less than 7 or 8 here, and they all use about as close to no power as you could hope (and make no heat) in sleep mode, and coming out of hibernation takes far less time than an actual bootup (not to mention the battery savings,) especially on older systems.
Fast bootup is nice, sure, but OSes and systems are stable enough to suspend/hibernate, and people do take advantage of it. I routinely hibernate my dual-boot netbook and switch from Linux to a hibernated Windows session and vice versa.
-
As succinctly as I possibly can, when it comes to general purpose "computing" (word processing, photo editing, e-mail, database storage, internet), I want the system, hardware and OS to get the f@ck out of my way. I just want it to work and work well. Like my automobiles. You should just turn them on and go. This is why I prefer Mac's.
Ubuntu is pretty much like that for those uses out of the box these days, and runs on much cheaper hardware. And the software is free, and meets those needs adequately for me. Sure its not as polished as OS X. Its hardware support has improved a lot, I was surprised that with a brand new laptop everything except for sound worked. To fix that i just had to add a single line to my xorg.conf file and I found that in few minutes on the forums. That was 12 months ago, the latest Ubuntu works 100% on the same laptop. And this was why I got a PC: because i can do what I'd do on a Mac for much less $$, and for the stuff that Mac doesn't do well-games, emulators and media centre functionality- I use linux or windows.
-
What kind of crap laptops have you been using? I've got no less than 7 or 8 here, and they all use about as close to no power as you could hope (and make no heat) in sleep mode, and coming out of hibernation takes far less time than an actual bootup (not to mention the battery savings,) especially on older systems.
Fast bootup is nice, sure, but OSes and systems are stable enough to suspend/hibernate, and people do take advantage of it. I routinely hibernate my dual-boot netbook and switch from Linux to a hibernated Windows session and vice versa.
Its a 12 month HP DV4. It heats up if left in a bag in sleep/hibernate. No-one I know at the large corporation I work in leaves their company laptop in sleep mode when on the road, and the company advised everyone not to do it. And i've timed waking up from hibernate: the difference is maybe a few seconds.
Like I said, Microsoft made a point of improving Win 7's boot time over Vista, and the ubuntu devs are focusing on it too, simply because it improves the computing experience of many users. It matters.
-
Go Windows 7 then. Mac is crap also. I know a lot of people don't like MS but lets face it Apple is doing the same crap if not worse. Drop the Iphone, get an Android, drop the ipod and buy an MP3 player for cheaper that is better, DONT buy an Ipad cause it lacks everything useful to be an actual computer.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lsjU0K8QPhs
-
I've heard of Ubuntu, but don't know a thing about it. Sounds like an OS of sorts.
One thing I forgot to mention to the OP is that Mac's are no longer as impervious to the crap phenomena of mainstream computing since the change to Intel CPU's. And for those of us that purposely bought a G5 at the very end, during the transition, I can tell you that OSX support ala Leopard SUCKED. For the first time as a Mac user, I felt as if I had been duped "upgrading" my computer. 10.5 slowed it down big time and felt bloated and unnecessarily glitzy. Snow Leopard (the fix) isn't even available for PowerPC users!! Also, iTunes has been "evolving" and becoming ever slower with each and every update. I don't know what the 'engine' is called now that they're using, but it absolutely sucks on my 2.1GHZ G5. You'd hit a button and there's literally a noticeable 'lag' time before the feature kicked in! Starting with version 8 or maybe 9 it was (I forget). I purposely went back to using 6 or 7 on ALL my Mac's because of how crappy and sluggish iTunes now is. Seems as if we're being forced to go Intel, but what a crap deal. As a long term Mac user, I can tell you one of the major benefits of using Mac was the fact we got a LOT of mileage out of our machines comparatively. Not so true today. And for what reason? To keep up with all the bloatware, ads and God knows what else?? This is what I mean when I rip on modern computing today. What I'm observing is beyond planned obsolescence and seems utterly greedy and unnecessary to me as a computer user. Being forced and ushered into the new computing world order sucks!
-
Its a 12 month HP DV4. It heats up if left in a bag in sleep/hibernate.
Get it fixed, it's not working right. Maybe a BIOS update...
And i've timed waking up from hibernate: the difference is maybe a few seconds.
..and then how long does it take to start up your browser and IM software and office suite and whatever other applications you'd have running? If you hibernate the system with everything running, everything comes back in a running state with no additional wait, saving even more time and power.
It sounds like people just need to learn how to use the capabilities of the current operating systems before getting new features.
-
Quite frankly Xp like most of Windoze OS's was a bit of a dog at first but over time it's developed and IMHO, one hell of a good OS these days. Sure you get the odd useless errors but everything is easy to work on and is so frugal with it's hardware.
Vista was utter s***e to put it bluntly, but thankfully has been replaced with 7 which I hear isn't a bad OS, though is still power hungry.
NT was another good bit of work from Bill if you ask me.
;^) Bill had little to do with it. Again, I'm not in love with Microsoft but the guys that wrote NT were well versed in OS design. Although they came from a more monolithic though process - IMNSHO.
"Microsoft hired a group of developers from Digital Equipment Corporation led by Dave Cutler to build Windows NT, and many elements of the design reflect earlier DEC experience with Cutler's VMS and RSX-11. The operating system was designed to run on multiple instruction set architectures and multiple hardware platforms within each architecture. The platform dependencies are largely hidden from the rest of the system by a kernel mode module called the HAL (Hardware Abstraction Layer)." - Wiki
-
Uhh... no. Windows has so many security holes it leaks like a sieve, and some of them are tied to fundamental parts of the os that would be very hard to change. These problems aren't there in other modern oses.
Yes and 98% of those security holes are between the chair and the computer. Yet because of the Windows OS popularity MS have no choice but to baby patch.
I have a 1998 Toshi Laptop with Windows XP SP3 that I use in bed upstairs (comfee!) behind a simple wireless router firewall. It has NO Virus protection and I have turned off all MS Updates. This of course makes it run fast for a 10+ YO Laptop. I use it for browsing only and have carefully set by browser’s security settings to custom high. I Do not logon as Administrator.
I check it “manually” for spyware every now and then and have never had a hit in 3+ years of use.
There are a lot of companies making a lot of money propagating the AV and Security train.
Don't get me wrong the holes are real. But rarely do nasty things come out of these holes. Mostly people with blindfolds falling into them.
Gertsy
-
On Windows:
I have had (legal) Vista Ultimate 64bit for 2 years now. It's slow, unintuitive and nigh on unusable until 5 minutes after pushing the power button. Out of the box Video and Music management is very good. I use Dual Boot XP SP3 for games.
What I don't like is all the cr*p about Windows 7. The number of features attributed to Windows 7 that were already in Vista is quite humorous. But then again it is in the PC support industry’s best interest to propagate the uptake of new OSes to keep and increase a job for everybody. For all intents and purposes all that Windows 7 has over Vista is a new name and some rewritten code to make things run faster. (Just as fast as a clean XP install)
Microsoft have, and will further move to shift people onto the new OS through proprietary bonding. “No soup for you!”
I’ve run Windows 7 Beta for a while and had a play on the release. SP1 will be out in a few weeks. What it delivers will determine if I move to it or an alternative. But XP SP3 probably looks better than Mac because of my gamehead.
Cheers
Gertsy
-
The marketting of Windows7 was interesting in my opinion. They used the exact tactics Apple used to derail Vista, but in a positive way, and it actually appears to have worked. They simply sent out the message that "it's better/good" as opposed to Apples negative Vista marketting that "it's bad". People bought into it in both cases.
-
You're dead right I don't think about anything other than turning on, using and turning off my MacBook. Why should I have to think about anything else? When I'm using my Mac for writing my dissertation, researching something for use in clinic, viewing and annotating handouts during a lecture or seminar, or any number of other taxing tasks, I don't want to have to think about what my computer is doing or why. I want my OS to leave me alone while I'm working, and OS X does that.
--
moto
Hi,
@motorollin,
Exactly, and that is just what MAC's are made for, people who just want to use them and have them do the work to just get er done. My windows machine is like my hot rod, I am constantly changing hardware, writing programs, playing the latest games, watching TV, playing music, trying different OS's, emulators, and just having fun with my computer, I very rarely use my windows machine for anything useful. For office work like databasing, spreadsheeting, and word processing I use Ubuntu. I have thought about buying an Apple product once or twice, but could never see spending that much money for an outclassed over rated computer. If I want a MAC I will just expand my PC by buying the Hackintosh, and the Leopard OS. Is Windows buggy, I don't trust it with my important stuff and I am using Windows 7. So far since I bought Windows 7 (first day) I have had no problems, my test time for an OS is about 3 years, if it doesn't crash then I will start using it for my important stuff. So far the only operating systems that have been trusted with my data are CPM, Amiga, and TRS-80. Ubuntu Linux has really impressed me, I have been using it since ver 7.04 and it has kept all my data secure.
So now you know I don't use computers, I terrorize them. I push them to there limits, any OS that passes my tests I consider great. MAC's will never get my approval because of there lack of playability. They just don't do enough.
smerf
-
You sound like a prick.
Hi,
@Hell Labs,
Only to MAC users,
I just can't see buying over priced computers, and software that regulates on how you use your equipment. The Amiga computer and OS where open, and the PC computer is really open but windows does have some regulation, but does allow you to play with the OS a lot.
One of the best computers for playing with was the C64, still have one and it is just about as amazing as the Amiga.
Sorry I want freedom with my computers.
smerf
-
Hi,
@Hell Labs,
Only to MAC users,
I just can't see buying over priced computers, and software that regulates on how you use your equipment. The Amiga computer and OS where open, and the PC computer is really open but windows does have some regulation, but does allow you to play with the OS a lot.
One of the best computers for playing with was the C64, still have one and it is just about as amazing as the Amiga.
Sorry I want freedom with my computers.
smerf
if there's one idea I wish I could go back in time and wipe out from the history of computing, its "Software as rental". Limited number of installs, registering the OS etc. Feh.
-
@smerf
Fair enough if you're more of a tinkerer. But I don't think it's fair to assume that all Mac users "can't think", and that they need "a completely controlled environment so that they "won't make any mistakes or crash the MAC". Personally I have worked in IT and am very experienced in using computers. I am very technical, but got fed up with mucking about with computers all day. So yes, I want a computer which I can just turn on, use, and turn off again. IMO the best solution for that is a Mac.
Oh, and I'm very interested to hear exactly what software Macs run which "regulates on how you use your equipment". I'm not restricted in any way whatsoever on how I use my Mac. I can use any software I like with absolutely no restriction at all.
--
moto
-
Well, I love this debate, but lets look at the things no one really wants to Address on the MAC. I know flame me all you want, for I am an Aniti-Mac fan boy, but lets look at it from another angle.
First, If I wanted to run OSX, I would run it on a custom built box. It's no big secreat that OSX can run (with a patch) on any hardware. Apple's overpriced hardware has proven really suspect lately, thats because they are using ECS and Foxcomm Motherboards and parts.
Any system builder worth their salt knows that manufacturer's like ECS and Foxcom are just about the cheapest and worst (quality wise) components and it has been showing lately with the failture rates of the Mac hardware.This is also true of companies like HP and Dell (although Dell lately has only been using intel boards, but Intel boards are "middle of the Road" for quality also).
I can build a complete low end Foxcomm based system for under $200, not including a fancy case.
Second, Lets look at the OS, FreeBSD is the same, so is OSX really worth paying for when you can get FreeBSD? BTW I am building a FreeBSD server this week, so I can comment more on that later.
So, from a "Good" system builder angle, would you want a box that has really lowend components, and a "Free" OS,- granted with a bit of work, you can have a Mac for under $200-$300.
Now, I also know that a lot of Mac software wont run just on FreeBSD, so lets (for a giggle) buy OSX and download the "patch". Now we are running a Mac Clone for under $500. Now, If I were to do this, I would want "good" hardware, so I would upgrade to an ASUS board, max out the system and still be under $800.
I am no lover of Win 7, if I am going to spend $800 on a new system, it will be with XP, now I can ditch the Intel processor and get me an AMD Phenom and really have some fun, and dual boot to FreeBSD all for under $800. Now to be fair,I can get a Mini-Mac for like $600 , so I guess it all boils down to personal preferences.
-
Apple's overpriced hardware has proven really suspect lately, thats because they are using ECS and Foxcomm Motherboards and parts.
Apple uses Foxconn motherboards, or motherboards manufactured by Foxconn at least. So does Intel. So does almost everyone.
Foxconn is the largest manufacturer of electronics and computer components worldwide, and mainly manufactures on contract to other companies. Among other things, Foxconn produces the Mac mini, the iPod and the iPhone for Apple Inc.; Intel-branded motherboards for Intel Corp.; various orders for American computer manufacturers Dell and Hewlett-Packard; motherboards for UK computer manufacturer Zoostorm; the PlayStation 2 and PlayStation 3 for Sony; the Wii for Nintendo; the Xbox 360 for Microsoft, cell phones for Motorola, the Amazon Kindle, and Cisco equipment. - From Wikipedia.
-
@quarkx
Honestly, I can't argue with anything you have said. And if I could be bothered, I would do exactly what you suggested: find a nice laptop which is compatible with the hacked version(s) of OS X 10.5 or 10.6 and use that. The reasons I haven't done so are as follows:
1. Software updates can break the hacked OS (whether deliberately or not...)
2. I haven't yet found a notebook I like which is *fully* supported by Hackintosh
3. On some hardware, getting Hackintosh working is a real effort
4. On some systems, OS X is reported to be pretty unstable
OS X is my operating system of choice. As much as I'd love to be able to run it on anything, I enjoy the ease and stability of running it on Apple hardware. And I'm prepared to pay extra for that. If you're not, then fair enough.
I can't comment on the FreeBSD vs. OS X business as I've never actually used FreeBSD. However, my understanding is that Apple have made fairly significant modifications and additions to the BSD core of OS X.
--
moto
-
@motorollin
In response to your 2. I have heard of in the hackintosh forums that one of the Dell Mini Notebooks was fully supported to be a Hackintosh. I cannot remember the model number but it was apparently a big deal and then Dell stopped selling the model. On the stability of OSX on a hackintosh, I don't know. I helped a friend of mine build a hackintosh and we followed the guides online and the thing has never had an issue so those stability issues might be hardware related. My G4 Mac crashes OSX so I cannot be sure. Then again I haven't encountered an OS I couldn't crash... It's one of the reasons I like to beta test OS software. I enjoy finding things that break so they can be fixed later.
*edit* It was the Dell Mini 9, and it was quickly replaced with the Mini 10V that wasn't fully compatible.
http://gizmodo.com/5156903/how-to-hackintosh-a-dell-mini-9-into-the-ultimate-os-x-netbook this is an article about the mini 9. Seems like an interesting read.
-
@motorollin
In response to your 2. I have heard of in the hackintosh forums that one of the Dell Mini Notebooks was fully supported to be a Hackintosh. I cannot remember the model number but it was apparently a big deal and then Dell stopped selling the model.
*edit* It was the Dell Mini 9, and it was quickly replaced with the Mini 10V that wasn't fully compatible.
http://gizmodo.com/5156903/how-to-hackintosh-a-dell-mini-9-into-the-ultimate-os-x-netbook this is an article about the mini 9. Seems like an interesting read.
I remember reading about that, and went in to PC World to try out a Mini 9. Unfortunately I can't get on with the keyboard on a netbook, and increasing the storage on it would also have cost a fortune. I'm looking for a full-sized notebook, not a netbook. If you have any ideas about a fully Hackintosh-supported notebook, please let me know :)
On the stability of OSX on a hackintosh, I don't know. I helped a friend of mine build a hackintosh and we followed the guides online and the thing has never had an issue so those stability issues might be hardware related.
That's good to know. Perhaps things have moved on since I last looked into it.
My G4 Mac crashes OSX so I cannot be sure. Then again I haven't encountered an OS I couldn't crash... It's one of the reasons I like to beta test OS software. I enjoy finding things that break so they can be fixed later.
In all honesty I have only been able to crash OS X once, and that was my own fault for attempting to hack some system files from Tiger into Leopard. The machine hung and then wouldn't boot. I had to install the OS on a USB drive, then replace the files and it was ok. That was all entirely my own fault though - in day-to-day (heavy) use, I find OS X rock solid and it has never failed me.
--
moto
-
Apple uses Foxconn motherboards, or motherboards manufactured by Foxconn at least. So does Intel. So does almost everyone.
Foxconn is the largest manufacturer of electronics and computer components worldwide, and mainly manufactures on contract to other companies. Among other things, Foxconn produces the Mac mini, the iPod and the iPhone for Apple Inc.; Intel-branded motherboards for Intel Corp.; various orders for American computer manufacturers Dell and Hewlett-Packard; motherboards for UK computer manufacturer Zoostorm; the PlayStation 2 and PlayStation 3 for Sony; the Wii for Nintendo; the Xbox 360 for Microsoft, cell phones for Motorola, the Amazon Kindle, and Cisco equipment. - From Wikipedia.
This may be true, I am not debating this, but anybody who is a system builder (I have worked as a system builder for over 25 years now) knows the 3 worst MoBo's to build a system on are: ECS, Foxcomm, and PC Partner (I am not sure if PC Partner is still around). Infact, the distributer we had, exchanged these boards "No questions asked" because the failure rate was so high on the boards. The only reason we used the boards is because they were so cheap. ECS sold "SOM" systems where the CPU was soldered right on the Motherboard and overclocked for less the $40- I think the boss was paying $25 in quantity. We could build a complete system and sell it for less then $250 and still make a few bucks profit. We use to find whole lots of Foxcomm boards defective- not just boxes but lot numbers.And, Yes, back in 2003, ECS was making the Apple laptops and also HP laptops. We use to get the HP ads and sell the "ECS branded" laptop for $50 less then HP, then HP got wise and started to cusom design their own cases.
We had a good running joke with PC Partner. If anyone remembers, PC Partner used the same packaging for all their motherboards and a photocopied "Manual". We used to joke that it was one guy out of his basement, and if you sent back the motherboard box and manual, you would get $5 back, so he could re-use them again.
-
Complaining about Mac being high priced would be less humorous on a board that wasn't dedicated to less than iPod spec boards selling for US$1000, and US$1000+ 20 year old equipment. Apple's prices look great compared to anything Amiga....
-
Is this turning into a discussion on how to hack the Mac OS in order to run it on whatever system you choose? Hate to say it, but that would violate Apple's rights. Sounds like a piracy discussion, which I know isn't allowed here.
Am I missing something?
-
Best bet to avoid piracy, video yourself going into an Apple store and requesting to buy a copy of Snow Leopard. Use those words. If anyone questions it afterwards show the video, where you have
1) Bought a copy not a license and
2) Were never asked whether you had a Mac....
Never pirate OS X, always buy a copy from your local Apple Store and install it on anything you like....
(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v655/resonatinglight/OMFG-ONOZ.gif)
-
In response to the shut down/hibernate thing, my PB G4 I keep on when I'm gonna be on it a lot. My former desktop, I shut down too. Here's why:
Sleep/hibernate on my desktop caused it to overheat (it used a power hungry P4 HT)
I don't care about fast booting, it means nothing to me. I like the fact that with apple, you can remove safari altogether. In windows 2k and up, you may be able to do it, but everytime i've tried it breaks other features.
And as for my preference of OS X over BSD/Linux, I like the availability of usable applications on a mac plus the fact you never need to run a command line.
-
Hi,
@beller
OK, you have one or two games that are good at that site but most of them died on the PC about 5 years ago. If I am going to buy a $2500 computer it better play the latest games out there. Once again sorry, but most MACs I have looked at are not really as powerful as my now obsolete 2 year old Quad core computer that I am getting ready to upgrade to a new Intel 5 or 7 computer. You know if you are going to edit a few home movies, do a couple of photo manip's or write letters I guess a MAC would be fine. Sorry but once again I buy power and want games that will torture my new hardware and graphics cards.
smerf
-
Hi,
@dreamcast270mhz
"I like the fact that with apple, you can remove safari altogether."
You have a point there, I tried Safari and removed it from my PC altogether also.
WOW!!!
I find the command line interface a very usable feature, I don't like using computers without it. The CLI in a multi task environment is like using gold, I liked it on the Amiga, and I like it in Linux and also on the PC. Since you brought it up, this is one of the features or lack of that I do not like a MAC. Once again it that old Apple saying, "Make it simple to use"
smerf
-
@smerf
What? It's Windows that doesn't have much of a usable command line, Mac gives you a full bash terminal. I beginning to doubt that you've ever actually used a Mac...
-
Oh ou misunderstand, I really like the terminal (under utilities) I just like the GUI option, just like in WB I like the show all files option on WB instead of navigating in a shell.
-
Is this turning into a discussion on how to hack the Mac OS in order to run it on whatever system you choose? Hate to say it, but that would violate Apple's rights. Sounds like a piracy discussion, which I know isn't allowed here.
Am I missing something?
Well personally I have a family Leopard and have only installed on two machines, so installing an extra copy does not constitute copyright theft. The EULA is not legally binding so installing on non-Apple equipment is not illegal.
--
moto
-
I find the command line interface a very usable feature, I don't like using computers without it.
...
Since you brought it up, this is one of the features or lack of that I do not like a MAC. Once again it that old Apple saying, "Make it simple to use"
Erm...
(http://www.sunilpatel.co.uk/images/TeX%20Help/TeX%20Terminal.jpg)
-
Hi,
@dreamcast270mhz
"I like the fact that with apple, you can remove safari altogether."
You have a point there, I tried Safari and removed it from my PC altogether also.
WOW!!!
I find the command line interface a very usable feature, I don't like using computers without it. The CLI in a multi task environment is like using gold, I liked it on the Amiga, and I like it in Linux and also on the PC. Since you brought it up, this is one of the features or lack of that I do not like a MAC. Once again it that old Apple saying, "Make it simple to use"
smerf
Im in agreement that I like having a proper CLI, but er... OS X has a pretty solid one dude
-
As I stated my Windows install is roughly (slightly under) 300meg. A far cry from 10gig.
Not using Vista then? The bare Vista install is 14-15 gigs.
-
One thing I hate with Windows is that it gets slower over time. Its not a defrag problem, as far as I can remember, it is been this way all the way back to Windows 95, and I am sick of it.
In Windows you are exposed to threats all the time. I had never got a virus in 8 years on XP, then I opened a wrong site in IE and my computer got infected. Ok, I know what die hard nerds say now, why use IE? Well, it is faster in Win systems and very crash-proof.
I have switched to FF now and I get the occasional freeze now and then just like it was 1998 and we were still running Netscape 4.72. So annoying considering a browser is a tool I use 95% of my time at the workstation.
Anyway, I decided, enough is enough. I just want a solid workstation. IMHO Apple hardware is too expensive and too locked down. And the OS does not feel as slick and fast to use as XP (yes I tried it and I missed the classic startbar). Also, I heard you can not rename a file in OSX by marking it and pressing F2 ?
And to be honest with you, I am sick of locked down systems so I am converting to Ubuntu with a virtual XP installation for those times I need a Window app.
Since Ubuntu is Linux you can do anything you want with it, so I can tune it to look exactly as Windows XP, lets just hope Linux Firefox is more stable! :(
-
Since Ubuntu is Linux you can do anything you want with it, so I can tune it to look exactly as Windows XP, lets just hope Linux Firefox is more stable! :(
Firefox does not adhere to the coding standards expected of Xorg clients. For example, it uses certain flags to bring the window forwards that are reserved for panel applications under X, and doubtless more hacks besides.
Firefox is about the least stable application I regularly use under linux. I'm warming to chrome as an alternative but frankly, firefox has the biggest selection (and usually best specific) extensions available of any browser currently.
-
I have switched to FF now and I get the occasional freeze now and then just like it was 1998 and we were still running Netscape 4.72. So annoying considering a browser is a tool I use 95% of my time at the workstation.
Firefox has always been a little unstable for me as well. It crashes regularly, and PDF viewing is especially buggy (no problem with PDFs using other browsers).
-
When Windows 95 came out, it's strong selling points were plug and play and ease of use. It impressed gamers because you didn't have to fiddle with DOS anymore.
Microsoft has gone daft, putting in more and more bloat. The OS is more of a whiz bang application than an operating system. The fact that you automatically buy Windows with any name brand PC or laptop means M$ can sit back and contentedly rake in money. That automatic bundling is really bad for non-sheeple consumers.
Gamers will simply abandon the Wintel PC and they have been. That is a fairly big chunk of business.
I can see innovation has ground to a halt, ty M$.
The real problem that Microsoft has is that their main cash-cow (the home OS market) is coming to the end of the road, in a few years time operating systems will be consigned to the history books.
-
I sold my laptop which came with Vista pre-installed and wouldn't install XP pro. I'm now using an Athlon X2 tower with XP Pro and Ubuntu. XP uses a mealy 1% of CPU time compared to 5% or more on Vista.
Even though the laptop had 4GB of memory Vista would need to be rebooted because of "memory is running low".
My XP tower only has 2GB and can run a Mac emulation, an Amiga emulation play a movie and have several browser windows open without a single complaint.
-
As someone who had to re-install Vista (blech!) on a friends laptop due to malware, spyware, and god knows what, making the system unbearably slow, I say good riddance! That was the absolute worst and most time consuming experience I've had with an operating system. Just setting up a basic system with spyware, virus checker, and browser took a day and a half.
Luckily, once her warranty is up, she'll ditch Win for a Linux system.
-
The immortal words of wisdom from an Apple Mac computer:
"There was an error. Because there was an error".
Give me a Guru Meditation anyday. It may have made no more sense, but at least it wasn't pretending to make sense ;-)
-
Also, I heard you can not rename a file in OSX by marking it and pressing F2 ?
Ummm... If every operating system behaved exactly the same way in every case, there wouldn't *be* any other operating systems! Myself, I've always hated Windows shortcuts. F2? How does that make sense? It's just because you've learned that from somewhere, rather than having a logical shortcut like RAmiga-R (for Rename). Keyboard shortcuts in any other OS (with the exception of Linux) are easier to learn and remember than Windows ones. for example, to quit: Amiga, it's RAmiga-Q. In Mac OS it's Apple-Q. In Windows it's Alt+F4... And that's just one example.
Anyway, on my mac, I find it's easier to simply click on the highlighted file's name name and edit the file name that way.
-
Anyway, on my mac, I find it's easier to simply click on the highlighted file's name name and edit the file name that way.
Same with Windows. I had no idea about F2 to rename a file in Windows!
-
Hmmm the good ol Mac vs. PC debate! WOO.
My first puter was an A500 bitd. Eventually it got replaced with Windows 3.1/Win95/Win98 etc. I've been using windows for about uh... 12 years. (I am Only 21!)
I'm used to it. I've been flailing around with it since 3.1! During that time I used a friends power mac also. It was OK, but we were like 10. It didn't matter. We just played Oregon Trail, Wolfenstein, and Gahan Wilson's Haunted House.
I bought a new Intel mac for the first time a few years ago. It was nice for awhile. Different GUI, looked and felt sleek...... but eventually I started to get annoyed. The marvel of a new shiney toy wore off. Some people get along fine in mac and make full use of all the software and whatnot. I didn't. I saw no real point for me to use an overpriced laptop to sit on the internet or use a text editor and GCC. A 486 thinkpad would have been functionally equivalent!
Mac is OK I guess, but it's no holy grail of OS's..a few of my problems:
- No equivalent to FruityLoops for same price range.
- No equivalent to NeoPaint (I dont like GIMP). I need PCX support that doesn't suck.
- My PC-Engine assembler has no mac version...
- games..... :(
I am comfortable with Windows since I have been using it for so long. Sure I have had the occasional hiccup from downloading something stupid... but it has always been extremely painless to fix. It wasn't the OS's fault either. It was my own from going to OMG1337warezd0wnl0adz.com and downloading and running an .exe without virus scanning it :D.
I just recently did the Win7 jump. I love it. It runs smooth on both machines, the GUI doesn't have the same annoying things I found in XP (like the volume slider not appearing if you're actually doing a ton of crap), and it seems to play nice with some of the strange hardware I have.
Windows 7 runs all my old games. Diablo 2 runs on it. Doom 95, all the good stuff. And then there is DOSBOX for the even older stuff. The new games run great too (I built me a gaming PC). But for any SERIOUS gaming, I use the PS3 anymore. We're at the point where consoles are trumping PCs. But it is still nice to have a computer that has the option to. Mac's gaming options are limited at best. It may get better since they're Intel now.
The home macs are also not as user-openable and add-to-able. I like being able to crack the case open and start adding parts and doing all of that when I need to. Spare parts all over. Can't do that as simply with the Mac. But some people don't care about that. Some people never open their computer. *shrug*. I like doing all of that stuff though.
My other big complaint, and it's preference really, is OSX's gui. I grew to hate buttons on the left of windows, the lack of right click, the goony MIGHTY MOUSE, and that annoying Pinwheel of Doom when a program would tweak out. It's probably because I am used to windows.
In short, Windows is great for some, and Mac is great for some.
and then Windows blows for some, and Mac blows for some.
and if someone thinks they both blow, theres all the free Linux/stuff they can use.
All of the OS's provide the same basic functionality (file access/storage, productivity suites, browsing,chatting), so it boils down to picking which one gives you the nicest tickle in your pants when you use it.
my only real problem is the condescending OMG YOU USE PC? YOURE DUMB, MACS THE BEST. USE IT, WINDOWS IS CRAP, YOU DONT KNOW ANYTHING. nonsense. It makes the normal mac users look like idiots by association.
-
I love keyboard shortcuts I use them all the time. especially alt tab to switch apps and alt f4 to close.
when guis came out some people thought keyboards were going to all but die for anything other than data entry. ive found that for entering data and working with multiple apps keyboard shortcuts are way faster and easier than reaching for the mouse or even the touchpad.
ive found that it doesnt really matter if a shortcut is intuitive or not. f1 is help alt f4 is close once you learn them you dont really think about it. what does mess me up occasionally is different apps especially those ported from linux that have completely different ones.
-
Same with Windows. I had no idea about F2 to rename a file in Windows!
It seems to be the default key binding in gnome also.
-
I love keyboard shortcuts I use them all the time. especially alt tab to switch apps and alt f4 to close.
when guis came out some people thought keyboards were going to all but die for anything other than data entry. ive found that for entering data and working with multiple apps keyboard shortcuts are way faster and easier than reaching for the mouse or even the touchpad.
ive found that it doesnt really matter if a shortcut is intuitive or not. f1 is help alt f4 is close once you learn them you dont really think about it. what does mess me up occasionally is different apps especially those ported from linux that have completely different ones.
I use notepad++ and fly around with keyboard shortcuts. I barely even use the mouse in it :D
Its pretty funny when you are tag team coding with someone who uses mouse-editing. My friend usually stares at my hands while I'm doing it and goes "I hate you".
I loooove using keyboards to highlight entire lines. :D
-
Hmmm the good ol Mac vs. PC debate! WOO.
...
All of the OS's provide the same basic functionality (file access/storage, productivity suites, browsing,chatting), so it boils down to picking which one gives you the nicest tickle in your pants when you use it.
my only real problem is the condescending OMG YOU USE PC? YOURE DUMB, MACS THE BEST. USE IT, WINDOWS IS CRAP, YOU DONT KNOW ANYTHING. nonsense. It makes the normal mac users look like idiots by association.
I totally agree. we have people in my computers class in college that all you have to do is say the word mac and they cheer. its kindoff rediculous.
there is a guy on ocremix.org (music created by people who love old video games mostly) who has put out some incredible stuff created on a pentium II system with only 32 megs of ram.
-
I totally agree. we have people in my computers class in college that all you have to do is say the word mac and they cheer. its kindoff rediculous.
there is a guy on ocremix.org (music created by people who love old video games mostly) who has put out some incredible stuff created on a pentium II system with only 32 megs of ram.
Yeah the mac vs. pc crap is always going on at my school since we have mac labs AND pc labs, right near each other.
What gets me is when you get the person whos never used the OS that they are bashing. Ignorance makes me :roflmao:
Its a shame when people buy into things, thinking that the amount spent directly reflects the possible productivity. OCRemix guy proves this is not true. I know a guy who spent at least 15000$ by now on high end synthesizers and hasn't produced a single thing with them, but acts like a know-it-all. :-/
I use a 30$ midi keyboard, and a bunch of VSTs in fruityloops, and get more done!
-
Hi,
I find the command line interface a very usable feature, I don't like using computers without it. The CLI in a multi task environment is like using gold, I liked it on the Amiga, and I like it in Linux and also on the PC. Since you brought it up, this is one of the features or lack of that I do not like a MAC. Once again it that old Apple saying, "Make it simple to use"
Once again you confirm that you have no clue what you are talking about.
-
Once again you confirm that you have no clue what you are talking about.
Im going to have to second that one. I didnt even see this post.
smerf, you are fully aware that Mac OSX is an official Unix, complete with a terminal and all of that,right?
-
I think F2 to rename is a carry over from Lotus 1-2-3 for DOS, for editing the contents of a cell. F2 puts you in in-cell edit mode in Excel.
For renaming a file, you can also click on it once, and wait a second and click on it again. Or right-click on the file and select rename from the drop-down menu.
-
And yet, the machine that sells the most games is the lowly wii and DS, with crap graphics.
For most normal users, "pc game" means little silly flash games. The developers have mostly seen the writing on the wall. Corporations don't care about anecdotal evidence. They care about who buys the product. Why does it take a (for the time) cutting edge game like Crysis 4 months to sell a million copies, when a Mario game on a glorified gamecube can do exceed 2 million in its first month?
Excuse me, but the most played game in the world right now is "pet society" on facebook. With just over 60 million users.
And it is flash based....
-
My point was that I don't want to be bothered by the OS while I'm working.
moto
What exactly do you mean by being bothered by the OS....?
I have used XP for quite some time now.
Win2K and 98SE before that.
But i have never "been bothered" by those OS.
In my experience they have done what i wanted them to do...
I have worked on one mac in my life.
A powermac G4 1.8GHz, 768ram. and an Nvidia videocard. (dont remember the version) and OS x, when os x was released....
In my hones oppinion i have never worked with a slower computer in my life. The OS was very slow to respond. and video editing was a PITA...
Using the final cut software...
For this reason, and price.... i will neve buy a mac for main computer.
My pc, at the same time was a P4 3.2GHz with 2GIG ram. and Nvidia gfx...
And of course win xp...
Using vegas video 4.0 i could do the same i could on the mac... at 1/3 of the price. including software license...
-
I have worked on one mac in my life.
A powermac G4 1.8GHz, 768ram. and an Nvidia videocard. (dont remember the version) and OS x, when os x was released....
Yes, OSX 10.0 and 10.1 was very slow.
In my hones oppinion i have never worked with a slower computer in my life. The OS was very slow to respond. and video editing was a PITA...
Using the final cut software...
For this reason, and price.... i will neve buy a mac for main computer.
Well, to be fair, that was proably 10 years ago. What if I said "I didn't like Windows 2000, so I will never buy a PC for main computer", what would you say?
-
Windows 7 added hardware acceleration to the gui. I don't think Mac has.
-
Windows 7 added hardware acceleration to the gui. I don't think Mac has.
OSX has had 3D compositing since 10.2 courtesy of Quartz Extreme (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quartz_Compositor).
-
Cant be bothered to read this thread but just thought would say, drop both and go with ubuntu
-
Windows just gets worse and worse and worse. In all honesty the problem lies in trying to bolt on security to an operating system that ignored it from the get go. XP opened the port without security then bolted the Security Patch to it later. Since then Microsoft have been preoccupied with security to the extreme that it now seriously interferes with the use of the computer.
Take 'Find Files Folder' on a Win98 machine that took a blink of an eye to scan a machine compared with say XP and the process just takes for eveeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeer. Same goes for changing sharing privileges etc. Everytime Windows has to scroll a long file list, check a directory etc there is this security process that is instigated that slows things down. Talking to folk that have used Vista and 7 say the security hurdles are even more intense.... My XP machine is slower than my Win98 machine by a mile and this computer at work is a pain in the....
The Mac is fine but I really don`t like the interface. Sadly.
I am dead in the water with MS from XP cus I just wont sign up to a wholly internet dependant system. Sadly the PS3 is now also internet dependant to play games. A world gone mad....
Saying that I guess we are at the dawn of a new era post OS reliance and MS are doomed anyway when apps can simply run from a browser. Looking forward to that day.
scuzz
-
Cant be bothered to read this thread but just thought would say, drop both and go with ubuntu
Yes, Linux, what a brilliant suggestion.
I started using Linux back in 1995, and kept that as my main OS until 2004 when I switched to OSX.
I recently got a new job where I had to use Linux (Ubuntu Karmic), and I must say I was very disappointed that Linux had not come any further when it comes to end-user experience.
First off, I had to install kernel sources and compile nv drivers to get the graphics card running. That alone is a trivial task, but not something that belongs in a "desktop ready" environemnt.
Later I discovered that the audio kept disappearing, so I had to lsof to figure out which process that locked the sound. For some reason, kpdf did that. Killing the process unlocked the sound so I could play mp3's again.
I also had major problems getting the CPU scaling module to work, so I left it as-is, running at full speed.
The next day the updates were installed with a new kernel, so I had to recompile the graphics drivers all over again.
I eventually got it running, but dammit, I don't want to deal with this kind of crap just to use the OS.
None of this would ever happen on Mac (hell, not even on Windows) systems. I know it is unfair to blame the Linux name (which is a kernel) for this, but it is stuff like this that ruins the "Linux experience" for most people.
Sorry mate, but Linux just isn't ready for the desktop yet. It's a brilliant server OS, though.
-
can't be bothered to read your post...something about linux
just kidding linux is good. i hooked my micrsoft hating brother on in and now he only uses linux. mostly madrake. he hates apple too. linux can take some manhandling though.
to me they are all just operating systems i can do nothing with almost any os, i can install it and maintain it and make it pretty; but its not the os that creates. It's the person using the computer.
argueing os's is like argueing grades of gasoline. as long as it has the basics covered the os shouldnt make that much of a difference. people have created cool art and music on amigas, and others have produced crap on dual core monsters.
-
Yes, Linux, what a brilliant suggestion.
First off, I had to install kernel sources and compile nv drivers to get the graphics card running.
Eh? The NV driver is open source and comes preinstalled with Ubuntu. If you mean the proprietary NVIDIA, this one can be installed with restricted-manager.
Later I discovered that the audio kept disappearing, so I had to lsof to figure out which process that locked the sound. For some reason, kpdf did that.
kpdf? So I assume you were using Kubuntu? Unfortunately, the KDE implementation from Ubuntu is rather poor. If you insist on KDE, better use a different distro (e.g. OpenSUSE). For Ubuntu, using the Gnome or XFCE flavor is the best choice.
I also had major problems getting the CPU scaling module to work, so I left it as-is, running at full speed.
This is supposed to work out of the box. Are you sure your CPU supports CPU scaling? If yes, check your BIOS settings. Performing a BIOS update might help aswell. If your BIOS is really broken, you may be out of luck.
The next day the updates were installed with a new kernel, so I had to recompile the graphics drivers all over again.
See above. Compiling stuff yourself or installing stuff without using the repositories will likely get you into trouble sooner or later.
-
Yes, OSX 10.0 and 10.1 was very slow.
Well, to be fair, that was proably 10 years ago. What if I said "I didn't like Windows 2000, so I will never buy a PC for main computer", what would you say?
I swapped for W2K in 2001. and for XP in 2004/2005
Only reason i swapped for 2k was drivers were no longer written to 98se.
And again, lack of drivers were the reason to swap to XP. This time it was DirecX 9.... and games support.
-------------------------------------------------------
My first real encounter with mac was in 2005. and many people said that the mac i was about to use was a "state of the art" mac. and macs could not be better at that time... (apart form more ram)
And it was a os x... version unknown...
-------------------------------------------------------
Fair enough if you make your decision judged by the os you try...
It is the os you are supposed to work with.. no matter whats under the bonnet...
Win 2000 was far from the easiest os to learn.
And the transmission from 2K - Xp was harsh... i hated XP in the beginning.
---------------------------------------------------------------
As far as games go with mac....
I was playing WOW and EVEonline at that time... and at least wow worked on the mac. eve was said to work later on. but i don't know that....
Never tried wow on the mac though...
-
Cant be bothered to read this thread but just thought would say, drop both and go with ubuntu
I have ubuntu on my laptop. it is a great os. for linux, it is easy to use.
Works great for web, mail, facebook, etc....
But it sucks for gaming. Have tried it in my pc.
Getting games to work, specially new games ain't easy.
And when they work. it works at half the speed of windows, at half the GFX settings of windows.
-
See above. Compiling stuff yourself or installing stuff without using the repositories will likely get you into trouble sooner or later.
I ran Ubuntu Karmic but switched from Gnome->KDE. And yes, I know CPU scaling works on this system (it ran Windows earlier)
But you missed the point - this kind of pinching, poking and tweaking shouldn't be necessary.
-
I ran Ubuntu Karmic but switched from Gnome->KDE.
On your running installation without a reinstall (Kubuntu)? I am surprised it worked at all.
And yes, I know CPU scaling works on this system (it ran Windows earlier)
Check the points I mentioned in my previous post.
But you missed the point - this kind of pinching, poking and tweaking shouldn't be necessary.
You missed the point aswell: Normally it isn't necessary.
-
Take 'Find Files Folder' on a Win98 machine that took a blink of an eye to scan a machine compared with say XP and the process just takes for eveeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeer.
How big was the disks at W98 times?
compared to disks today?
(i have 3tb in my computer....)
I cannot support that statement, i feel it quick and responsive. compared to the size of my disks, and the size of todays files...
Same goes for changing sharing privileges etc. Everytime Windows has to scroll a long file list, check a directory etc there is this security process that is instigated that slows things down.
What?
I use my pc as media server sharing my files on the network. Using an xBox (the first one) with XBMC as media center... I see no evidence of your statement. even browsing files shared on the network from another computer while i play movies on the tv is swift... And yet even copying files while watching movies on my TV....
I use "simple file sharing"... BTW....
And browsing a couple of thousand pictures in a folder is no problem, even on network.
Oh, i use windows commander as my main filemanager. (the most likelyhood to Dopus i could find)
My XP machine is slower than my Win98 machine by a mile and this computer at work is a pain in the...
What computer are you using?
Cpu, ram, videocard...+++?
I have an old P III 1.4 GHz with xp as media server....
gigabit Ethernet. no problems with it. (it has though 1.5 gig ram)
----------------------------------------
I do like how things are going.
Ubuntu linux... just need some driver developing.
And google os may be interesting...
-
On your running installation without a reinstall (Kubuntu)? I am surprised it worked at all.
No, simply "sudo apt-get install kde" (IIRC, and maybe a couple of others) and change the session upon graphical login. No black magic involved.
You missed the point aswell: Normally it isn't necessary.
Hey, I'm just telling my experience from the year 2010. This shouldn't happen, and yet somehow it did.
-
OK, so to sum this post up:
I started using Linux back in 1995, and kept that as my main OS until 2004 when I switched to OSX.
and then...
... Linux just isn't ready for the desktop yet.
So, it isn't ready for the desktop now, because you had problems 6 years ago?
:confused:
desiv
-
I have ubuntu on my laptop. it is a great os. for linux, it is easy to use.
Works great for web, mail, facebook, etc....
But it sucks for gaming. Have tried it in my pc.
Getting games to work, specially new games ain't easy.
And when they work. it works at half the speed of windows, at half the GFX settings of windows.
I find it brillaint for games, znes, mame scumm etc.
I gave up continualluy upgrtadding my pc to run newer games and just stick to my xbox and wii.
For everything I use my computer for ubuntu has it more than covered and its all free :)
-
I ran Ubuntu Karmic but switched from Gnome->KDE. And yes, I know CPU scaling works on this system (it ran Windows earlier)
But you missed the point - this kind of pinching, poking and tweaking shouldn't be necessary.
Sorry I am a recent ubuntu convert , and yes it does pee me off on occassion . Infact after weeks of messing about had to downgrade to 8.04 as the intergraterd ati gpu in my laptop not supported anymore (or by windows for that matter) , but as to fiddling, if you have used Amiga, and I assume you have given the nature of this site , its part of the fun.
But as i posted on another thread. Enable restricted drivers for gpu and wirelss and everyhting works out of box.
cheap no name bluetooth just works and connects to my home theatre for sound. Creative zen vison m sycs out of box etc etc etc connect new printers, installs ( couldnt get it to work with windows 7) , low level ink warning etc work .
I tired some distros years ago and didnt get anywhere. With ubuntu 9.04 or 9.10 its pretty much as polished as windows if you ask me
-
Google OS will be YALD, and therefore boring. MacOS is YALD (YADD?), and also boring. Linux is boring. Windows is Boring. AmigaOS is boring.
All OS's these days are boring. What isn't boring is the stuff that runs on them. Right now the most (general computer, including games) stuff runs on Windows, just based on scale and availability. I've got a limited amount of time to do "stuff", and can't be bothered with dicking around with WINE just to smugly say "HA! I don't run Windows to play games!"
I won't pay the Mac Tax (by the way, it's Mac not MAC, the latter is the acronym for Media Access Control and has nothing specific to do with Apple computers (the former))...and then pay for a Windows license on top of that to play PC games (and be bothered with rebooting/running some kind of virtualized PC session).
So for me the place to be is Windows. I find 20 year old 2d platformers to be depthless and dull and they just bore me to tears, so running a virtual amiga environment ain't gettin' it either (although there were some great flight sims and some not too bad original FPS's on the Amiga, too!)
Point is, there's a place for all OSs, because at the end of the day, what counts is what you do with it, not how "responsive" or for god's sake how "silky smooth" it is, nor how fast it polls the joystick port, etc. etc.
-
OK, so to sum this post up:
So, it isn't ready for the desktop now, because you had problems 6 years ago?
:confused:
Read my posts again. The problems I just described happened about a month ago.
-
The war is allways pc vs mac but lest comparing mac hardware vs mac hardware, same mac mini under morphos 2.4 and osx 14.0 (some feline name), comparing it, osx is terribly slow and responsiveness.
-
Mac's will never be anything but an "also ran". Mac's would be gone if the iPod hadn't rescued Apple.
-
The war is allways pc vs mac but lest comparing mac hardware vs mac hardware, same mac mini under morphos 2.4 and osx 14.0 (some feline name), comparing it, osx is terribly slow and responsiveness.
Meheheheheh
-
Mac's would be gone if the iPod hadn't rescued Apple.
True. Hopefully the iPad will take them down a peg or two.
-
Read my posts again. The problems I just described happened about a month ago.
Weird.. Not sure how I misread that... :confused:
Anyway, if you're installing new, you don't want "nv"..
You want to install the driver from NVidia.
(Which is what you would do with a Windows box.)
Once you do that, you get the NVidia driver; and kernel updates automatically update the NVidia driver when needed...
And judging by the comments on the Windows forums and the people I know who have tried it, you still have similar driver issues with Windows latest releases.
Mac has always had the advantage of supporting a much smaller hardware base, so driver compatibility is easier for them...
The sound issue is a pain. Just looked it up.. I was using Gnome, so didn't come across those issues...
desiv
-
Who using anything but GNOME anyways?!
Linux is OK, nowadays most things just up and work upon install, but all the stuff *I* personally have / want to use, don't run so great in Linux.
I go with Fedora instead of Ubuntu, because Ubuntu is too brown for me. Brown is boring and ugly, and the new screens i saw look like an OSX ripoff. I do not approve .
-
Who using anything but GNOME anyways?!
Me.
Enlightenment (and prior to that Openbox) on the EeePC.
Gnome on a netbook is too heavy. And the netbook remixes don't do anything for me.
-
:D ah, yeah.
When I need lightweight I use xfce, its got a little mouse for a logo, and I like those.
im mostly anti KDE. Never cared for it.
-
:D ah, yeah.
When I need lightweight I use xfce, its got a little mouse for a logo, and I like those.
Enlightenment is about as lightweight as xfce but far prettier and imho more conducive to workflow (YMMV).
im mostly anti KDE. Never cared for it.
I've played with both and wasn't really impressed with either. I mean I can use either of them just fine and they both have good and bad about them, but for me there simply wasn't anything there that really stood out.
Right now I'm using Elive on the eeepc. It works superbly. I'll be putting it on the F5 soon for use as my primary OS.
-
I have Windows 7, and I actually like it. It runs really well on my computer. I haven't had major problems with it yet. DirectX is a great API for developers. If Commodore would have actually marketed the Amiga API when it had the chance, maybe C= wouldn't have gone bankrupt so soon. By what I've read of the Amiga API code, it looks pretty easy, but it's not promoted. The only Mac I would buy would be a Mac Mini with OS X Server so that I could have unlimited user accounts for cheaper than what Microsoft charges.
-
I don't understand what all this complaining is about. Let's look at the benefits and shortcomings of each OS:
AmigaDOS: back in the '80s and '90s, it was the only personal computer on which people could affordably program. Nowadays it's hard to get new hardware and updated software, plus the lack of memory protection is a pain.
Windows: ubiquitous, machines are cheap, but costly or difficult to use for development, painfully insecure, and horribly inconsistent.
MacOS: then, the idiot savant which did certain things wonderfully but not much else; expensive. These days, it's the only mainstream Unix or Unix-like OS which is easy to use, consistent, and has excellent software selection. Most complaints have to do with expensive hardware, but installation on non-Mac hardware isn't hard and the prices aren't really that bad (you get what you pay for - you get a premium computer).
GNU/Linux: available for cheap hardware and generally more secure than Windows, especially in default setups. Downsides are inconsistency between distributions, lack of good distro-specific documentation, idiosyncratic behavior, kitchen sink syndrome, and wanna-be-Windows syndrome.
Most people who like Amigas like to tinker, but there are different kinds of tinkering. It's like people who like working on cars - some people like to work on a car and never get it finished enough to drive, so it sits around as an always going project, whereas some people keep their cars running all the time yet work on them to make them better.
Windows is great for tinkering - blocking incoming and outgoing connections constantly is like playing Space Invaders, finding and zapping trojans is like playing Centipede, et cetera. It never ends, and some people enjoy the challenge.
GNU/Linux is getting that way, too. You're always playing with new modules, reconfiguring the X Window system, trying to figure out all the background processes running, et cetera.
Some people want the car to always be drivable. I'm like that - I run servers using NetBSD without GUIs and hardly ever reboot them. I know exactly what's running, when it runs, why it runs, and know my systems are completely secure because I can recreate each and every file in the entire OS and compare them with what's on disk.
My car, by the way, is a Diesel Chevette with 450,000 miles on it. It gets 40-50 miles per gallon, and it'll be running (and running well) long after most cars currently on the road are long gone. I know I'm definitely the exception in this case.
At the other end, I want a machine which I don't need to reboot all the time, so I don't want to tinker with it. Therefore, I use Mac OS X. Every once in a while I run Software Update, but otherwise it just runs. No problems, no modules, no trying to get the GUI to match the configuration files, no killing runaway Landscape processes. It just works, it's secure, and I have certainly gotten my money's worth for my Mac mini.
Of course there are people like me who want things to just run all the time but who run Windows and GNU/Linux. They're braver than I am, and there's nothing wrong with that at all. Everyone has a choice.
BUT - and this is an important but - putting down other people's choices doesn't make yours any better. Trying to maintain tenuous stances about silly generalizations doesn't change the truth. GNU/Linux isn't always easy, but once you get it set up to your liking it's not bad. Windows is horribly insecure, but if you're smart enough to never click on links in email and you don't use IE, you're probably much less likely to get infected than the masses. Mac OS systems aren't cheap, but you can get a used Mac or install Mac OS X on some generic Intel hardware without too much fuss.
Just remember about how people always put Amigas down for stupid reasons - and we know that it was mostly just because they were jealous!
-
Windows: ubiquitous, machines are cheap, but costly or difficult to use for development, painfully insecure, and horribly inconsistent.
I would say that Windows is easy to develop software for, especially with Visual Basic. I have read that MacOS X is easy to program (API), but the Apple Stores don't have it installed to look at.
Everyone has a choice.
Indeed. I like that.
Windows is horribly insecure, but if you're smart enough to never click on links in email and you don't use IE, you're probably much less likely to get infected than the masses.
Also, if one was smart enough not to run under an administrator type account then one would be safer in Windows. Unfortunately most run in an Unlimited/Admin account on Windows rather than using a Standard/Limited account. If one does not typically login as Root on a Unix system, then why login as an admin on a Windows box.
-
@johnklos
15 years of nothing has taken a toll on AmigaOS for sure.
Cost (price performance)
1) Linux/BSD intel box
2) MS Windows
3) OS X
4) AmigaOS
Sort of speaks for itself, computer equipment to run Linux and MS Windows is ridiculously cheap. Mac is premium stuff, whilst Amiga price is in a league of it's own..
Available Apps
1) MS Windows
2) OS X
3) Linux/BSD
4) AmigaOS
Another nobrainer, MS Windows has more apps than OS X even if you count iPhone. Mac OS is fairly rich in Apps. Linux apps are ok, AmigaOS apps are old and creaky, what is modern is largely ok Linux apps ported to AmigaOS.
Ease of development
1) MacOS
2) MS Windows
3) Linux
4) AmigaOS
Yet again stating the obvious, XCode tools is nothing short of amazing. 7 Year old kids are selling iPhone apps. But here's the worrying thing about it for Apple desktops/Laptops, relative few of those developers are using those tools to build desktop apps, opting for mobile apps instead.
Available information
1) MS Windows
2) OS X
3) Linux
4) Amiga OS
Simple, to a majority of people MS Windows == Computer. 2 and 3 could be argued, since Linux source code is available and OS X is not. But Linux is no place for a n00b. Linux enthusiasts tend to get perturbed by questions that don't involve recompiling the kernel or rewriting major bits of code. Linux is Geek code and they like it that way. Classic Amiga OS is ok if you can get ahold of the aging RKM, but Morphos, AROS and OS 4.1? Fugetaboutit!!!
Out of Box experience
1) OS X
2) MS Windows
3) Linux
4) AmigaOS
Apple shines here, the Apple is well polished, when you turn on an OS X machine for the first time it is awe inspiring. Everyone else is an also ran. MS Windows is obviously next. It doesn't inspire awe, but it works pretty much out of the box. Linux, well it's a roll your own world, the Ubuntu folks have succeeded to some extent in removing the "huh? What was that?" feel, but frankly it underwhelms. AmigaOS doesn't come out of the box and is cryptic and hard to install.
Is that the all there is? No. OS X is amazingly free of viruses/worms and TO AN EXTENT spyware, for an OS that gets close to 10% of sales in the US that's a good statement. Linus of course is the same and AmigaOS is protected against viruses by obscurity.
As far are tweak-ability, it really depends on what you want. OS X is quite tweak-able and it has BSD under the bonnet so you can do a lot. The vast majority of OS X users don't tweak, they like the purity of the machine as it comes from Apple. The fact that they don't tweak is a user preference, not an OS thing.
You could say similar things about MS Windows, the majority of them just want the apps, with some work you can make MS Windows look like Snow Leopard or any OS of your choice, but few care to do so.
Linux folks are constant tweakers, it's a Geeks world and most of the tweaks fall into the "Don't these people have a life" category but still they tweak.
AmigaOS users mostly tweak but refuse to believe that anyone else can do that or that their tweaking is far and above better, purer and more genuine that anyone elses.
-
I don't understand what all this complaining is about. Let's look at the benefits and shortcomings of each OS:
AmigaDOS: back in the '80s and '90s, it was the only personal computer on which people could affordably program. Nowadays it's hard to get new hardware and updated software, plus the lack of memory protection is a pain.
Windows: ubiquitous, machines are cheap, but costly or difficult to use for development, painfully insecure, and horribly inconsistent.
MacOS: then, the idiot savant which did certain things wonderfully but not much else; expensive. These days, it's the only mainstream Unix or Unix-like OS which is easy to use, consistent, and has excellent software selection. Most complaints have to do with expensive hardware, but installation on non-Mac hardware isn't hard and the prices aren't really that bad (you get what you pay for - you get a premium computer).
GNU/Linux: available for cheap hardware and generally more secure than Windows, especially in default setups. Downsides are inconsistency between distributions, lack of good distro-specific documentation, idiosyncratic behavior, kitchen sink syndrome, and wanna-be-Windows syndrome.
Most people who like Amigas like to tinker, but there are different kinds of tinkering. It's like people who like working on cars - some people like to work on a car and never get it finished enough to drive, so it sits around as an always going project, whereas some people keep their cars running all the time yet work on them to make them better.
Windows is great for tinkering - blocking incoming and outgoing connections constantly is like playing Space Invaders, finding and zapping trojans is like playing Centipede, et cetera. It never ends, and some people enjoy the challenge.
GNU/Linux is getting that way, too. You're always playing with new modules, reconfiguring the X Window system, trying to figure out all the background processes running, et cetera.
Some people want the car to always be drivable. I'm like that - I run servers using NetBSD without GUIs and hardly ever reboot them. I know exactly what's running, when it runs, why it runs, and know my systems are completely secure because I can recreate each and every file in the entire OS and compare them with what's on disk.
My car, by the way, is a Diesel Chevette with 450,000 miles on it. It gets 40-50 miles per gallon, and it'll be running (and running well) long after most cars currently on the road are long gone. I know I'm definitely the exception in this case.
At the other end, I want a machine which I don't need to reboot all the time, so I don't want to tinker with it. Therefore, I use Mac OS X. Every once in a while I run Software Update, but otherwise it just runs. No problems, no modules, no trying to get the GUI to match the configuration files, no killing runaway Landscape processes. It just works, it's secure, and I have certainly gotten my money's worth for my Mac mini.
Of course there are people like me who want things to just run all the time but who run Windows and GNU/Linux. They're braver than I am, and there's nothing wrong with that at all. Everyone has a choice.
BUT - and this is an important but - putting down other people's choices doesn't make yours any better. Trying to maintain tenuous stances about silly generalizations doesn't change the truth. GNU/Linux isn't always easy, but once you get it set up to your liking it's not bad. Windows is horribly insecure, but if you're smart enough to never click on links in email and you don't use IE, you're probably much less likely to get infected than the masses. Mac OS systems aren't cheap, but you can get a used Mac or install Mac OS X on some generic Intel hardware without too much fuss.
Just remember about how people always put Amigas down for stupid reasons - and we know that it was mostly just because they were jealous!
Obviously a man who has used all of these and knows what he is talking about! Well said! ALL of these OPTIONS are good ones for the right individual and none of them will fit every possible situation.. That is exactly why they are out there and it is up to us to decide which one fits for our purposes. I personally run nearly all of the current Windows offerings and they all have good points and not so good points. WIN7 is pretty damn good and I really have enjoyed this one in both 32 and 64 bit offerings... I also run Linux just for the hell of it and really like a version of Ubuntu Studio and it installs fairly well but I have run into issues with Nvidia video cards. Had to buy a different one to get Linux to work... Oh well.. Along with that I have three Macs that encompass both PPC as well as Intel and run Tiger on two of them and Snow Leopard on my latest one. All of them are good machines and solid OS's... Like Windows, good points and not so good points. Since I am a glutton for punishment, I am also running Novell Netware 5.11 on one of my old machines and have definitely had issues getting that one to run.. Mostly because Novell tailored their OS to run on server class machines that were current at the time to the OS release... Sooo if you try to use different hardware you can really have troubles... That box is probably my most finicky but what the Hell.. Just playing with it anyway. My Amiga 2000 hasn't seen much use lately but I will be messing about with it soon and my Efika running MorphOS was not to my liking.. MorphOS looks gorgeous, but I haven't been able to get enough documentation/information etc. on using it and installing apps. Entirely too programmer oriented for my tastes. Nothing wrong with that, just frustrates me too much when I don't know what I am doing and can't get enough documentation/information to appease me..
WIN7 is good stuff... Mac OS is good stuff... Linux, MorphOS and Novell are all good stuff as well... Just have fun with them and use the one that fits your purpose / style whatever... In my case I get tired of the same-o same-o so I like to tinker with pretty much whatever I can get my hands on...
And despite a lot of nay-sayers out there, I am really excited about the new X1000.. (I know all of the arguments and possible downsides, but having another option to add to my computing stable is still intriguing...)
-
Enlightenment is about as lightweight as xfce but far prettier and imho more conducive to workflow (YMMV).
yeah, I saw that.... but I am bias towards things with mice/rats on them, lol.
If mac OSX suddenly had a rat for a mascot, id be in line to buy a mac probably... :roflmao:
-
Linux folks are constant tweakers, it's a Geeks world and most of the tweaks fall into the "Don't these people have a life" category but still they tweak.
Oh, well, as long as you aren't making insulting generalizations then, that's OK.. :(
desiv
-
I wanted a modern computer, so AmigaOS was out of the question. That does not change the fact that AmigsOS is awesome.
I wanted to assemble my own computer, so MacOS was out of the question. MacOS was an excellent OS the last time i tried it.
I use my PC to play online games, so Windows was selected because of performance reasons. That does not change the fact that there are several powerful and capable *NIX'es on the market, and that those can reach a high software compatability using WINE.
In the end it's about what the system is to be used for.
-
Virtualbox and an old copy of XP is far more compatible than WINE will ever be. I can even fire up that foul piece of software known as Access, cursed thing that it is.
(http://i84.photobucket.com/albums/k39/SericeousBurden/blog/death-star-ie.jpg)
I wanted a modern computer, so AmigaOS was out of the question. That does not change the fact that AmigsOS is awesome.
I wanted to assemble my own computer, so MacOS was out of the question. MacOS was an excellent OS the last time i tried it.
I use my PC to play online games, so Windows was selected because of performance reasons. That does not change the fact that there are several powerful and capable *NIX'es on the market, and that those can reach a high software compatability using WINE.
In the end it's about what the system is to be used for.
-
Windoze is buggy and slow, and my 2.1ghz G5 is quickly becoming that way too. Hello MacMini and MorphOS!
-
Virtualbox and an old copy of XP is far more compatible than WINE will ever be. I can even fire up that foul piece of software known as Access, cursed thing that it is.
(http://i84.photobucket.com/albums/k39/SericeousBurden/blog/death-star-ie.jpg)
vbox doesnt deliver as good for the high end 3D gaming experience
-
Why hasn't some one pulled the plug on this bunch of opinionated garbage?! This may well take the cake for the dumbest thread ever on amiga.org.
-
Why hasn't some one pulled the plug on this bunch of opinionated garbage?! This may well take the cake for the dumbest thread ever on amiga.org.
Well, whilst I agree that platform wars are stupid (especially these days), nothing in the thread violates the TOS and people are entitled to their opinions. Nobody is forcing you to read the thread.
-
Why hasn't some one pulled the plug on this bunch of opinionated garbage?! This may well take the cake for the dumbest thread ever on amiga.org.
We should start a vote "Is this the dumbest thread ever on Amiga Org". Yeah ?
While we're on Windows being slow. How about offering the same features over and over again and calling them "New"
The top 7 reasons for Windows 7 from the MS website and (why they sound familiar):
1. Keep your favorite files and programs handy: Pin them to the Taskbar. (Quick launch bar since Win XP)
2. Use Snap to compare two files side-by-side with a quick drag to the edge of the screen. (Right click : tile vertically Since Win 95)
3. HomeGroup takes the headache out of sharing files, devices, and printers on a home network. (The only headache is incompatibility between Windows XP, Vista and Windows 7 for home networks. This one is a bit of, make problem with Vista and fix it with 7 so nice)
4. Personlaise your PC Download fun extras to give your PC a personal touch. (Yes well you could do this from Win311)
5. With "Play To", it's easy to send music, photos, and videos from your PC to other media devices. (Right Click "Send to" does the same thing by putting the network folder or device in the "send to" folder, simple since 98(network))
6. With Windows Touch, you can use your fingers to scroll, resize windows, play media, and pan and zoom on your touch screen PC. (It's NEW Yippee! Lets buy it..!)
7. Parental Control help them be safer online, too. (Err "K9" (with repudiation) works very well for free)
Happy days are here again, everything old is new again. Happy days are here again..!
See you can teach an old dog new tricks. You just tell everybody; "No these are new tricks, no really, they are...."
Gertsy
-
Saying the features have been around is well and good, but....
can you REALLY say, Windows 3.1 was a sleek, customizable dreamOS?
quicklaunch isn't nearly as streamlined as Win7s task bar. Hell now the taskbar works like tabbed browsers almost, and has alot more to it than quicklaunch.
snap is a bit easier than the ol' Tile the Windows bit. Especially if you have more than just the TWO windows you want to use open...
and the whole file sharing thing has always been a giant PITA, and the send-to thing isn't exactly apparent.
You have to remember the OS isn't aimed strictly at people who know what the hell they are doing . There are confused newcomers also.
and people who weren't using computers when the features were "new" back with Win95. :)
-
The idea of an OS has changed to automate more and more functions. The problem is that Windows assumes you want certain functions automated and 'disappears' everything thing else. I haven't used OS X so I can't comment on that.
Maybe because it is based on NT nobody at Microsoft has thought of making it user friendly to alter the base configuration.
What's the deal with a minimum virtual memory? I didn't install 4GB of RAM so I could hear the hard driving ticking away with god knows what.
-
The idea of an OS has changed to automate more and more functions. The problem is that Windows assumes you want certain functions automated and 'disappears' everything thing else. I haven't used OS X so I can't comment on that.
Maybe because it is based on NT nobody at Microsoft has thought of making it user friendly to alter the base configuration.
They do it because my grandmother doesn't know what a service (or deamon or detached process et al) is, let alone what something like the "Application Layer Gateway Service" serivce does. The same principle applies to everything else Windows "disappears."
What's the deal with a minimum virtual memory? I didn't install 4GB of RAM so I could hear the hard driving ticking away with god knows what.
Your hard disk is obviously counting down the milliseconds to armageddon.
Having a page file allows Windows to flush unused pages of memory and make better use of them, e.g. caching files and running foreground processes. In general, your page file(s) should be the higher of total system RAM or the commit charge peak less total RAM under load (viewable in Task Manager while all your stuff is running). There are very few valid reasons for having a smaller page file, and in a world of fast, low latency terrabyte-sized hard disks, storage isn't one of them. SSDs, while small, make the arguments against page files even lamer. They're uber fast and getting less expensive by the day. Even the pricey ones are less expensive than the equivilent amount of RAM. Imagine how much fun they'll be when they're connected directly to the memory bus (or a future perhiperhal bus running at full CPU speed). ;-)
Now, let's talk about swap partitions in *nix and OS4. Actually, let's not. The arguments for and against are exactly the same as Windows. Idle memory pages should be temporarily flushed and made available to active processes.
-
Streams of strange comments flow forth from the soup when end users come into contact with computer science concepts.
-
They do it because my grandmother doesn't know what a service (or deamon or detached process et al) is, let alone what something like the "Application Layer Gateway Service" serivce does. The same principle applies to everything else Windows "disappears."
.
yerp.
and the people who are interested enough in the disappeared stuff, should have the knowledge handy to find out where it is hiding. :) If not, they shouldn't be worrying about it.
-
I think everyone is entitled to question Microsoft's design motives, but they should at least be questioned fairly. Most of Microsoft's product managers have active blogs and respond to comments and email, so you can usually get the answers you need directly from the people responsible, assuming you're polite.
I was a Novell zealot in the mid to late 90's, so I'm no stranger to questioning Microsoft.
-
I was a Novell zealot in the mid to late 90's, so I'm no stranger to questioning Microsoft.
Sounds SUSe to me..!
@ARKHAN Don't get me wrong I have no problem with MSs OSs> I use them everyday. I just find it frustrating that a new OS is marketed on flimsy features that effectively could be a SP or patch set for Win XP. Market the beef. The people that don't care about the technical details will buy it coz its new and cool. So why not say.. It's new and cool and here's the specs man..
gertsy
-
Sounds SUSe to me..!
@ARKHAN Don't get me wrong I have no problem with MSs OSs> I use them everyday. I just find it frustrating that a new OS is marketed on flimsy features that effectively could be a SP or patch set for Win XP. Market the beef. The people that don't care about the technical details will buy it coz its new and cool. So why not say.. It's new and cool and here's the specs man..
gertsy
So actually your beef really isn't with Windows Os at all, it is with MARKETING in general and that is a totally different animal... (I HATE Marketing... And politics...)
Has little to do with whether the OS is good or not..
-
@ fishy fiz: just what I was going to write. W7 is basically slimmed down Vista and everyone's raving about it like it was W3.1 -> W95 move... Wake up, Vista is not evil incarnate and W7 is not the greatest thing since sliced bread...
i have to disagree with your assertion. win7 is what vista should have been from the get go. more memory efficient, better games compatability, faster boot up, etc, etc. plus a few new tricks to boot in the ui.
i will admit vista got better after sp1 but the milk had been soured at that point. as a result win7 had to be created to shed those feelings.
win 7 even tho it shares the same minimum system requirements with vista can actually work fine on slower machimes (iirc it was tested as low as 700mhz maybe slower machines too) so it is very much more optimized than vista ever thought of being.
-
Sounds SUSe to me..!
I jumped off the Novell wagon shortly before Linux went mainstream. At the time, I still preferred NetWare to everything else out there (and still do, in some respects), but it was impossible to convice the people with the money not to give into Microsoft's promises. Microsoft did eventually deliver, but it took years for them to catch up in terms of file server performance and directory services capabilities. Windows 2008 R2 may have finally brought Active Directory up to par with Novell Directory Services.
-
Mac sux its a outdated pc (x86) with software that provides poor application support + grayish eye-candy look . Windows doesn't rule either but it has far better application support and can be used with the best hardware available
-
@adonay
April fools! You had me thinking you were serious....
-
Actually, Mac is pretty sucky - at least from a hardware upgrade perspective. For example, what are the highest supported AMD / nVidia graphics hardware? Even linux has vendor provided drivers for most of their the most recent cards.
-
Actually, Mac is pretty sucky - at least from a hardware upgrade perspective. For example, what are the highest supported AMD / nVidia graphics hardware? Even linux has vendor provided drivers for most of their the most recent cards.
Bad from a tinker standpoint, good from a run-of-the-mill user standpoint. I pitty Microsoft's position of having to support (sometimes at their own expense) every cheap piece of garbage that comes out of a Chinese factory lest they suffer the wrath of the user community.
-
Bad from a tinker standpoint, good from a run-of-the-mill user standpoint. I pitty Microsoft's position of having to support (sometimes at their own expense) every cheap piece of garbage that comes out of a Chinese factory lest they suffer the wrath of the user community.
Call me cynical, but look at this: http://www.nvidia.co.uk/object/product_geforce_gtx_285_for_mac_uk.html (http://www.nvidia.co.uk/object/product_geforce_gtx_285_for_mac_uk.html)
In other words, pay over the top for a PCIe 2.0 card that's doubtless identical to any of the other GTX285 cards (all of which are made by nVidia and resold by their "premier partner" companies), then only get the performance benefit of said card when booting your mac into windows.