I really hate these "trash windows" fests... XP draws the desktop completely differently than Windows Vista and Windows 7. There is a new compositing engine that XP and before doesn't have. That's why Windows XP desktop refreshes are so badly done.. AERO is a completely different animal.
Love the pace of progress: 20 years later and they got the desktop to refresh decently. Mind you they needed multiple CPU's, GPU's and several gigabytes of ram to do it. Great, Pat On The Back MS.
As far as the 100 byte or so file that you are talking about how about fetch and superfetch which caches up files..
And yet it still has to visibly populate its start menu one program at a time.
I swear if you guys really knew more about Windows internals this topic could at least be a fair comparison. Windows actually builds on many of the things that made the Amiga so popular initially.
The last time I used XP it was 2006.. . Do you realize how ridiculous it is to compare something like Windows 7 to the Amiga and believe me folks I know the classic AmigaOS and Workbench and Intuition backwards and forwards and learned it back in 1985-86. It hasn't changed ALL that MUCH..
Windows is a very different beast in many ways and is doing so much stuff behind the scenes that if the AmigaOS did all that it's doing, it would probably be performing similarly as well..
XP is dead and has been dead for two revs of Windows already.. get over it..
Umm XP is what most of the world uses.
I love the Amiga, I own Macs and Windows boxes love them too.. I don't have performance issues with Windows or Mac anymore it really just doesn't exist if you have a relatively new machine and you are up-to-date with your OS..
I can do UI development, animation, etc. anything I want really twice as fast as i could with the Amiga because of all of the tools today like Expression Blend..
Hmmmm, TWICE is fast. With um, what factor increase in CPU power, RAM, etc, etc?
Is the penny dropping?
Y'all need to get CURRENT if you want this to be a more interesting argument..
Oh and as for the G3 G4 Mac and intel Mac Video editing comments.. None of the Mac's video is hardware accelerated by the GPU. Apple just finally released an SDK to support GPU accelerated video on macs (the CPU did it all up until now and Apple finally admits this) this came in the update for OS X 10.6.3 and isn't even support all video cards yet on apple products. It also only works on the intel ONLY snow leopard release..
So when you go to talk about how slow and bloated Flash is on the Mac, remember Apple uses your CPU for all it's worth to display video. That's why it's slow it's not that Flash is badly programmed. All other platforms that flash has access to are fully GPU accelerated. The mac version up until now has been doing something people refer to as GPUCPU acceleration (not using the NVIDIA or ATI processors)..
So the comments you guys are talking about really don't hold water..
Umm the G3 video argument was begun by me when someone said that video editing was something that became mainstream for the past 5 years. Well, we were editing digital video in 1998 with G3 over firwire, playing back full screen PAL overscan. So if the G3 can do that why can't it play youtube's shitty 320x200 flash video? Beacsue flash is a bloated POS, so bloated as you said, it needs GPU accleration to run. Hell multicore multighz, multigig ram aint enough to stream a 320x200 video without maxing the CPU out. And you folks are OK with that? Unbelievable. But thats where we've ended up now, keep re-inventing the wheel, and marvel at what you can do with it
