mac and pc sucks!!!!

[B00tDisk]

I almost immediately wanted the C= 8kb upgrade with extended BASIC for my VIC20.  When I got my C64, all I could think about was that great day when I'd have the scratch for a floppy drive.  When the 128 hit, oh man, I was so excited about upgrading to that.

When I got my A500 and I found out there was a faster processor available (in this case, with my budget back in '89, an ICD AdSpeed), I bought it.  I bought a SupraRam sidecar to get more RAM.  I upgraded to a 2mb Agnus.  I put in a new Denise (?) to go from OCS to ECS.  I think.

When I could afford an A1200, I upgraded there.  I lusted after an 030 card - and I was given one by a guy who was getting out of the Amiga game.  I got the biggest HD I could afford at the time ($189 for a 60mb 2.5"!) and 4mb RAM (another $200 or so).  Hated using a little color TV so I plunked down for a (used) 1084S.

The point is, I never said "Oh this is perfectly OK, it's OK that I run out of RAM or that a given app (Vista or VistaPro) crawls, that I get told I don't have enough Chip memory, or that I have to swap floppy after floppy just to do desktop operations".  The Amiga wasn't/isn't some magical beast that is immune from Moore's Law.  If it had been the entire computing world would still be motoring around on a 256k A1000.  I always wanted something better, faster and stronger.  It's a pity that couldn't be the Amiga, forever.  The stagnation of the early 90's meant in key areas - and we all know what they are - other systems leapt to an unreachable lead.

[KThunder]

The constant upgrade thing used to bug me about pcs, until I got myself into a bit of a groove. I got an AM2+ motherboard with the cheapest athlon64 cpu I could get and basic stuff for everything else. Now every few months I get something new, usually for around 100 bucks or less. Eventually the entire system will have been replaced but I did it in cheap little steps.

I keep my windows install very clean and it is fast. I take care of freinds and family members computers, and I can tell you there is a lot of crap that can slow your computer down. I don't blame the user, some of the toolbars and stuff sound really good, but they really aren't. Toolbars, adware, malware, viruses, all that stuff steals memory and cpu time.

Check your computer often or have it checked. Windows XP and 7 really are very fast, responsive Os's. If they aren't there is something wrong. And complaining doesn't fix it. Don't use a Pc that isn't working properly get it taken care of.

[Arkhan]

Windows 7 has done a lot to restore the public's trust in Microsoft.  It's stable and just runs.  But again you need 4 gigs and a multicore machine.  

Nah.  I got it running mint on 2gig machines.

Playing games on full blown settings no less

win7 is made of WIN!!!!

[mdv2000]

I just got to chime in...

Why is Windows useful?

Windows is usefull for me cause I get PAID to write software for it!  So long live Windows platform.

[TheBilgeRat]

If you have old machines like P4s, I'd recommend puppy linux or XP.

My "ancient" P4 board runs any DE or WM just fine in Linux.  Currently I'm running Xubuntu (which really isn't that much less bloated than Ubuntu proper) and would be running Arch if I didn't have a crappy Marvell wireless card that makes me want to smash my head in trying to set it up with ndiswrapper.  This is even with the Intel issue (feature) of taking 1.2G of ram of 4G away from me for "system needs" :madashell:  Would I run Crysis 2 on this?  No.  But it plays 1080p vids no sweat while I surf faceyspace or play flash games.  Heck, I'm still running a 7 series Nvidia card! :lol:

[persia]

My first computer was a home build Z-80 CP/M machine, it ran an OS, Word Processor (Word Star) and held the documents on a single sided 5.25 inch floppy.  But it cost me more dollars than a quadcore PC homebrew with a TB HD would cost today....

[KThunder]

I was testing some parts a while ago and accidently tossed a 512m ddr2 module in and started win 7 with it. I was testing the motherboard and cpu and noticed that it started booted, and ran perfectly in a half-gig. This included running some diagnostic software including pc wizard, and getiing info on files through dxdiag.
I ran a bunch of windows included programs but nothing major. Windows task manager showed the system was stable and not running out of ram.

[Arkhan]

I just got to chime in...

Why is Windows useful?

Windows is usefull for me cause I get PAID to write software for it!  So long live Windows platform.

True dat.

[stefcep2]

Frankly I've never experienced speed issues.  Now granted I have 8 cores running at 3.2 GHz each, but even my wife's computer, a basic i5, is snappy.  Perhaps you don't have enough RAM.  Nowadays I wouldn't recommend less than 4 GB and 8 or 16 GB on a serious machine.  It's pretty cheap nowadays anyway.

BUT THIS IS THE POINT.  F'en 8 CORES!!!!!!!! RUNNING AT 3,200 MHZ. 16,000 MB OF RAM!!!! AN i5 IS NOW "BASIC".  TO DO WHAT? RUN A FRICKEN GUI?  Play a movie. That plays better on a $149 Bluray player from China.  Play some same old same old FPS.  That works better on a $199 XBOX?

Sorry when I read post like yours, and I've read many over the years, and each year the specs get higher and higher, I am convinced that people have lost perspective and have no idea what those specs actually mean.  Here's a little help: you can get the entire text plus pictures of the 32 volume Encyclopedia on ONE  0.6 GB ie 650 MB CD.

Windows 7 has done a lot to restore the public's trust in Microsoft.  It's stable and just runs.  But again you need 4 gigs and a multicore machine.  

And you are OK with this?  Its just an OS, FFS.

My main concern has always been apps, an OS is nothing more than a program loader, 4 gigs and a decent multicore will let you run Adobe's magic quite nicely.  CS5, at least on a modern Mac, is downright snappy.  Much faster than CS4.  Computers are means to an end, they aren't an end in themselves.  You wouldn't but a Tat Nano to start a moving business, why would you buy an underpowered computer to do video editing and 3D rendering?

The PC platform was always about:  "If it ain't running fast enough, buy something faster."  Here's a novel idea:  "Write decent code"

[the_leander]

BUT THIS IS THE POINT.  F'en 8 CORES!!!!!!!! RUNNING AT 3,200 MHZ. 16,000 MB OF RAM!!!! AN i5 IS NOW "BASIC".  TO DO WHAT? RUN A FRICKEN GUI?  Play a movie. That plays better on a $149 Bluray player from China.  Play some same old same old FPS.  That works better on a $199 XBOX?

Windows 7 runs comfortably on an Atom based netbook. Computationally that's probably about 1/30th of the power of the above spec. It'll work happily on 1Gb of ram doing day to day things.

Sorry when I read post like yours, and I've read many over the years, and each year the specs get higher and higher, I am convinced that people have lost perspective and have no idea what those specs actually mean.  Here's a little help: you can get the entire text plus pictures of the 32 volume Encyclopedia on ONE  0.6 GB ie 650 MB CD.

And you could probably get just the text on a single 64Mb flash stick, what's your point?

You suggest others need to get perspective, perhaps you aught to look in a mirror.

The PC platform was always about:  "If it ain't running fast enough, buy something faster."  Here's a novel idea:  "Write decent code"

Right, because there is absolutely no possibility that these large apps contain decent code. You do realise that with the example of Photoshop as was given, using layers on massive images will quite quickly run into Gbs of memory in use, right? :rolleyes:

Every time computers get to the stage where they can do just about everything reasonably quickly, someone will come along and add a new piece of software that does something that needs more, take digital video editing as a good recent example. 5 years ago only pros and geeks were editing much video on the PC, now everyone who uploads to youtube will likely chop and paste things together.

[stefcep2]

And you could probably get just the text on a single 64Mb flash stick, what's your point?

What? Its not obvious to you?

Have you actually looked at the content in the 32 volume encyclopedia?  Its A LOT.  You think its OK that some POS OS requires more than double that memory space-more likely at least 4 times- just let you make the computer do something?

You suggest others need to get perspective, perhaps you aught to look in a mirror.

Right back at ya

You really don't see why its Not A Good Thing that you have 10x hardware resources to do things 3 or 4 x as well, if you are lucky.  Actually  don't feel so bad,  find coders to be the worst offenders.  They have an intimate knowledge of what is going under the hood.  Which blinkers from seeing what's happening with the driver.  They'll tell the driver, but it does this and that to make this and that work.  And the driver nods and believes, "I'm sure you are right, but why does it feel like i'm driving a corolla when I was promised a Ferrari"

Right, because there is absolutely no possibility that these large apps contain decent code.

There might be, somewhere.  But I doubt it.  Windows is programmed by large committees.  Big apps are probably the same.  Anything done by committee processes is guaranteed to be inefficient.

You do realise that with the example of Photoshop as was given, using layers on massive images will quite quickly run into Gbs of memory in use, right? :rolleyes:

No becacuse you're the only person thats ever opened more than on layer in photoshop. Layers, are one of the least efficeint ways to image process, but its The Industry Standard, so it must be good, right?

Professional magazine photographers have been opening up images in photoshop for more than 10 years with a fraction of the RAM.  I'm convinced that most shots are taken at higher resolutions than needed, just beascsue they can.  I have a digital publishing and design graphics magazine from 2000.  3 Megapixels cameras were the next big thing.  Now they'll shoot the same photo at 12 megapixels, and complain they don't have enough ram in Photoshop to open it .

Every time computers get to the stage where they can do just about everything reasonably quickly, someone will come along and add a new piece of software that does something that needs more, take digital video editing as a good recent example. 5 years ago only pros and geeks were editing much video on the PC, now everyone who uploads to youtube will likely chop and paste things together.

In 1998, my school was using G3 imac with firewire to do all that shit-with about a tenth of the hardware specs.  You only think we've come a long way..

[Daedalus]

What? Its not obvious to you?

No becacuse you're the only person thats ever opened more than on layer in photoshop. Layers, are one of the least efficeint ways to image process, but its The Industry Standard, so it must be good, right?

Eh, what? Really, have you ever had to do much work on any photographs in Photoshop? Non-destructive editing of images is vital when you're fine-tuning a photograph, and layers allows that. Yes, it's the industry standard with all that implies, but that doesn't exactly make it a bad thing either. It's industry standard to provide USB sockets on motherboards - is that a bad thing? Besides, many many years ago, TV Paint was the first application I ever used with layers in it. It was limited to 3 layers, but I found it was amazingly flexible, and quickly got frustrated with having to merge layers to free up another one, only to wish I hadn't because I want to edit something on one of the merged layers.

Professional magazine photographers have been opening up images in photoshop for more than 10 years with a fraction of the RAM.  I'm convinced that most shots are taken at higher resolutions than needed, just beascsue they can.  I have a digital publishing and design graphics magazine from 2000.  3 Megapixels cameras were the next big thing.  Now they'll shoot the same photo at 12 megapixels, and complain they don't have enough ram in Photoshop to open it .

It really depends on what you want the image for. High-quality prints need 300dpi at least, so all you have to do is multiply this up to what size you want and that's the amount of pixels you need. It's not rocket science, but why not deal in the highest number of pixels you can, in case you do end up wanting to print it poster sized? And why not have several layers so you can adjust your curves and go back later on if you feel after you've printed it that you've lost some detail, and readjust? It's unfortunate, but layers are just that - layers, including however many million pixels of information. It's a large amount of information which is incomparable to an encyclopaedia, and there's no way to get away from it. Pure, raw information.

In 1998, my school was using G3 imac with firewire to do all that shit-with about a tenth of the hardware specs.  You only think we've come a long way..

Have you tried watching a youtube video on a G3 Mac recently? Yes, I'm not defending the programmers of these things who are producing massively inefficient code, but some things in the modern world do actually need more CPU power and memory, like it or not.

[gertsy]

I tried watching Youtube on my ZX81 once but I couldn't get it out from under the door.

[persia]

Well, when I run Windows 7, which is rare nowadays, I usually turn everything on.  You can run it on an atom, that's true.  Before my wife became a Mac person we tried to get it to run on her elderly P4 machine and it just spun the disk drive an inordinate amount of time, haven't a clue why, but it did manage to sell her on OS X, so why question providence?

The same thing with cars, we bought a new Tarago not too long ago, it's full of electronics and other bits that I haven't a clue what they do. it's all just part of modern life.  

I fly on jets when I travel, now the the Wright Brother's aircraft was far easier to understand, you can identify individual parts, no bloat there.  but at 100 m a flight it would take a heck of a long time to hit the tourist beaches in Vietnam or Indonesia...

[KThunder]

@stefcep2

I think you are making some huge assuptions in most of your points, for example:

"There might be, somewhere. But I doubt it. Windows is programmed by large committees. Big apps are probably the same. Anything done by committee processes is guaranteed to be inefficient."



You apparently have no idea how large apps are written, or what efficient code is. Do you have any examples of this supposed ineffieciency? Or any proof of it.

Should we all ignore new cpu's and ram just because you say so? and what level should we be at? should we all be running g3's or g4's? If so why not 603e's? Is ddr ram ok or should we be using sdram? and how much? we all have different needs but it 64megs ok? or should I only have 2megs?

What I am asking is this: what are you saying here? what hardware do you think is sufficient you everyone, and what os? And why?

[jj]

Code is not as efficent as when it was written for one piece of hardware. This is true. That is not to say its inefficient. Even if it is. It doesn't matter with todays hardware.
 
ITs not, on the whole, windows and apps that push ram, cpus etc fwd. Its games.
 
Get over it.
 
Windows 7 is actually a decent OS. Does it matter how big it is. And what the fook has an enclypedia got to do with anything. Nothing. Its apples and oranges.
 
Are you being purposfully retarded.  Because somethign contains lots of information but fits on cd rom, then windows should be smaller that a cd-rom .
 
Is that your argument ?