mac and pc sucks!!!!

[stefcep2]

@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.

With MS there are different and numerous departments that deal each deal with sections of the OS.  That inevitably leads to inefficiencies.

Proof?  No I don't have the source code for Windows.  Do you have it and have you checked how tight it is?  I'd say no.  So how do you know one way or the other?  So lets judge it on the end user experience. Here's a few examples.

Click on a close gadget, delay before it its re-drawn to give you feedback that you have clicked it, delay and a feel of "stickyness" before the window closes.  

Every now and then the window closes half corrupted as if there aren't enough resources, but there are.

Does this always happen?  No.  Does it happen predictably, as when under high CPU load?  No.  So whats going on?  

Other annoyances do happen all the fricken' time.

Click on start->All programs, delay before the menu is populated, delay as each program icon is redrawn,  run your pointer up or down and the menu can't keep up to redraw.  Everytime after a cold boot.  (BTW i know WHAT is happening, but how hard its is to write a bit of code that keeps an index of installed programs and corresponding icons that takes a microsecond to load at boot times  A shitty menu added with tools prefs on a crappy 4 meg 14 mhz machine does it faster.)

Why does Win 7 reload the drivers EVERY TIME I plug my mobile modem in?  Why doe sit make me wait 2 minutes later before it recognises the modem, an exceedingly common one that has the latest firmware?  It does the same thing on 5 PC's all less than 2 years old, all updated, some running XP Pro, some Vista Business, some Win 7.  But why never in Ubuntu? (which has its own different issues).

Or what about all the PC's that won't shut down because they wait for some program to exit, but it never does until you end it.  The user has said "SHUT DOWN", why is the OS ignoring that command.

This is all in the realm of the OS, software related ie coding.  Why after all these years with all the resources do lags like this happen?

You might not care, more power to you.  But operating system designers should care.  And if they don't then that doesn't negate the argument.  It just proves another well worn one:  "if it aint fast enough buy faster hardware"

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?

Like a few others here, you have totally missed the point: THE OVERALL PERFORMANCE LAGS SIGNIFICANTLY BEHIND THE HARDWARE ADVANCEMENTS THAT HAVE HAPPENED.   Read the hardware spec sheets.  Absurdly quick and massive numbers.  And remember, this "hobbling" of the hardware is cumulative over generations. If getting the FULL POTENTIAL out of your hardware doesn't matter to you and you are happy with that, then good for you.

Amiga was always about efficiency, simplicity, elegance and pushing the hardware to its limits with tight, often ingenius code.  The closest I've experienced on a PC was with BeOS.   IMO it was AmigaOS for x86.  On the same PC hardware, it made your Windows and MacOS look pedestrian.  Proof positive that PC hardware could do more than Windows would have you believe.

[stefcep2]

Exactly an OS is not an end in itself.  The OS loads programs and provides the resources those programs need and do it efficiently enough to provide a satisfactory user experience.  


Windows does that in the gaming world.  It also provides a relatively inexpensive platform to do production work on, video, sound, image manipulation, 3D rendering, etc all work just fine in Windows.  

Nobody gives a f### how many times you can read the bounce of a joystick or how many icons you can fit on your screen.  You have a computer to accomplish certain tasks and to a large extent the OS is irrelevant.  I sometimes use a PC to do photoshop and it really isn't all that different an experience to my Mac.

It depends on what is "efficiently enough" and what is a "satisfactory experience".  Your example about number of icons fitting on screen is plain wrong.  It matters from a user's point of view in a couple of ways:  Firstly more icons on screen can mean faster access to being able to launch programs, as you don't have to look under layers of folders.  In terms of a programs GUI, more icons means more functions of a program can be accessed faster. This all has an impact on the efficiency with which a user can communicate with the computer to what they need to do

If PCs were so bad and Amigas so good why are there a billion or more PC users and a few hundred Amiga users?  

Lots and lots of reasons, we know them all here, and none of which take away from what Amiga was great at.  Put AmigOS aside, and if you can, try seeing BeOS running on comparable hardware.  It really shows you how much of a boat anchor an OS like Windows can be to the hardware.  Or what might have been..

I work in a university, do you know what sits on the desks of Computer Science faculty here?  About 50% Macs and 50% PCs, not one uses a Linux box as their primary machine.  Not one.  And you want to get a chuckle from them?  Suggest that they put an Amiga on their desk.  No powerpoint, no word, no photoshop, no .....

So what you are saying is that a computer built in 1992, can't run MS Office 2010 and Photoshop CSS?  Radical concept, man.

[Arkhan]

Stefcep, I think your whining about Win7 being laggy is probably delusional.  It is also in the minority.

I run win7 on a single core 2GB machine and do not experience the lag you are whining about.  That is like the ass minimum to get the thing running...

Theres like 25 icons on the desktop and a buncha quick launch stuff pinned to the start menu.

It runs WoW full blown, all of my music and programming apps run snappy as balls, and it hasnt been rebooted since the power went out 3 weeks ago.

Also, I have experienced some lag/herpderping on Amiga computers, so it isnt like they are without fault, so you can stop waiving around the "AMIGA DID IT BACK IN THE DAY" flag.


Also, until you have worked for M$, don't comment on how they code.  You don't have any idea, so making claims about it makes you look dense.

[stefcep2]

I think (hope) we scared him off

Nah , went to sleep, like you are now differnt time zones.
 

No not really, I'd like to let him play a modern game on one of my pcs. Maybe something like Bioshock or Bioshock 2 on my current rig, then setup one of my P4's and run the same game.

Nah, I'll be up and playing it faster than you on my $199 XBOX on a 50 inch 1920x1080 plasma.

But if someone offered you say a 20% speed improvment without hardware change, would you take it?



S

[stefcep2]

Stefcep, Nah , went to sleep, like you are now differnt time zones..  It is also in the minority.

The lags are there, minority or not.  Less than than Vista, but still there.

I run win7 on a single core 2GB machine and do not experience the lag you are whining about.  That is like the ass minimum to get the thing running...

There's a message in the second sentence ..

Theres like 25 icons on the desktop and a buncha quick launch stuff pinned to the start menu.

So what?  Evry now and then the icons need to be re-read in and re-drawn on the desktop, and the start menu always needs to be populated when you boot up.  No BIG deal, but why should it happen AT ALL?

It runs WoW full blown, all of my music and programming apps run snappy as balls, and it hasnt been rebooted since the power went out 3 weeks ago.

What's your point?  That a 1992 14 mhz machine can't?

Also, I have experienced some lag/herpderping on Amiga computers, so it isnt like they are without fault, so you can stop waiving around the "AMIGA DID IT BACK IN THE DAY" flag.

Should it still be happening today?

Also, until you have worked for M$, don't comment on how they code.  You don't have any idea, so making claims about it makes you look dense.

I don't need to work for MS to know that they use committee coding.

[halvliter'n]

WTH  happened to this thread?!:roflmao:
This can  be achieved with AGA, sentence final.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k_2P31K9mRs

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rbFndrip_KM

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OoiybaNn43Q

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7zm77Fzr8mQ

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zhP_Cczg3zU

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CNfgu-1_-18

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cwsaj2PkdT4





And AMIGA RULES!:afro:

[persia]

Windows 7 now has a Dock, like OS X, so you put your frequently used programs there.  My only bad experience with Windows 7 was with my wife's PC, and I think that's largely because it was an ancient chip (P4).

The reason I brought up the IT department here on campus is because they teach operating system design, and by and at large Microsoft and Apple are pretty much on the right track, design wise.  Sure the registry was a mistake, but not a fatal one.  How many windows users see a BSOD nowadays?  The guru is my friend and companion in AmigaOS, and he makes frequent visits.  I don't consider myself having properly played with one of my Amigas if the guru doesn't show up at least once.

There is no blanket dissatisfaction in the Windows world, even Vista, which was a mistake, still left Mac with only 8% of the US market and a far smaller percentage here.  There's no rush to Linux, AROS or Haiku, even though they run on industry standard platforms.

The Amiga is single user, without adequate security, without memory protection, without broad hardware support.  The Gui looks almost cartoon like compared to modern GUIs.

There is no application for the Amiga like MS Office, Photoshop, Premiere, Final Cut, or InDesign or even a decent email client (yes I still use an email client).  The version of Lightwave for the Amiga is so old you can't do more than 1/3 of the stuff you can on a modern version.

And that's it, you buy a computer to run programs, if it doesn't have any programs then what's the point?

[halvliter'n]

@persia

It is your problem, not ours.

[stefcep2]

Windows 7 now has a Dock, like OS X, so you put your frequently used programs there.  My only bad experience with Windows 7 was with my wife's PC, and I think that's largely because it was an ancient chip (P4).

The reason I brought up the IT department here on campus is because they teach operating system design, and by and at large Microsoft and Apple are pretty much on the right track, design wise.  Sure the registry was a mistake, but not a fatal one.  How many windows users see a BSOD nowadays?  The guru is my friend and companion in AmigaOS, and he makes frequent visits.  I don't consider myself having properly played with one of my Amigas if the guru doesn't show up at least once.

There is no blanket dissatisfaction in the Windows world, even Vista, which was a mistake, still left Mac with only 8% of the US market and a far smaller percentage here.  There's no rush to Linux, AROS or Haiku, even though they run on industry standard platforms.

The Amiga is single user, without adequate security, without memory protection, without broad hardware support.  The Gui looks almost cartoon like compared to modern GUIs.

There is no application for the Amiga like MS Office, Photoshop, Premiere, Final Cut, or InDesign or even a decent email client (yes I still use an email client).  The version of Lightwave for the Amiga is so old you can't do more than 1/3 of the stuff you can on a modern version.

And that's it, you buy a computer to run programs, if it doesn't have any programs then what's the point?

What you say is correct.  Windows is now entrenched as the most popular platform and has the most support from third party hardware and software developers.  And clearly an Amiga doesn't have the hardware or software to compete.  Thats not what interests me.

What interests me is the fact that the software platforms do not do the current hardware justice.  When I took a semester in programming, my first program was to write a simple database.  A major task was to see how fast we could complete a search for a file. Over 2 weeks, just by re-writing our code we got it down better than half the time.  

Now in the modern world, if it doesn't run fast enough, you get faster/bigger capacity/extra CPU/GPU cores.  And this works, and as its so cheap, who cares.  But it also means your hardware isn't being used to its full potential.  And then your once-new hardware will soon enough feel slower, so its replaced.  And this second lot is also not being used to its full potential  After several generations of this cycle, how much has the software hobbled the hardware?  What more *could* your hardware be doing?  

After seeing BeOS run on a p2 350 mhz with a 8 Mb MAtrox TV-Tuner VGA card, multitasking several work spaces in different resolutions without any hint of slow down I was convinced that the hardware could do so much more than Windows was allowing it too.  Its successor Haiku, by all accounts continues that tradition.  Ofcourse it will never be popular enough to compete with Windows, but it shows just how good the hardware is and how Windows isn't.

[stefcep2]

Have you tried watching a youtube video on a G3 Mac recently?

No, but I remember editing raw full screen PAL overscan video, which has 4 times the amount of pixels per frame than your average 320x200 youtube rubbish.  If I can't watch a youtube video with that same G3 then that just proves the point about how aerated the youtube/flash code is, not how incapable the hardware is.

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.

For a minute there i thought you "just didn't get it", but seems thats only partially true.

[Arkhan]

There's a message in the second sentence ..

Yes, the message is that even at the bare minimum requirements, it still provides a good experience for computing.

So what?  Evry now and then the icons need to be re-read in and re-drawn on the desktop, and the start menu always needs to be populated when you boot up.  No BIG deal, but why should it happen AT ALL?

Redrawing is normal.  If it didn't happen then GUIs would be worthless.  It would draw once and you'd never see movement again.  

Your start menu needs to be populated because.... the computer has to know what is there?  It doesnt automagically just know stuff upon booting.  It has to process these things.  with the processor.  mainly the central unit like one known as the CPU.

What's your point?  That a 1992 14 mhz machine can't?

No, my point is that the rest of the Win7 world seems to be rockin' it no problems doing tons of great stuff, and you are whining cause one time you clicked the X to close a window and it took too long.

Should it still be happening today?

Yes.  If computers were perfect, there would be no such thing as tech support or debuggers.  

What interests me is the fact that the software platforms do not do the current hardware justice.  When I took a semester in programming, my first program was to write a simple database.  A major task was to see how fast we could complete a search for a file. Over 2 weeks, just by re-writing our code we got it down better than half the time.  

So you took a semester in programming and are suddenly the expert on how OS's should function and what goes on with them?

Now in the modern world, if it doesn't run fast enough, you get faster/bigger capacity/extra CPU/GPU cores.  And this works, and as its so cheap, who cares.  But it also means your hardware isn't being used to its full potential.  And then your once-new hardware will soon enough feel slower, so its replaced.  And this second lot is also not being used to its full potential  After several generations of this cycle, how much has the software hobbled the hardware?  What more *could* your hardware be doing?  
.

Its been like this since computers were made.  Its not like it just happened a year or two ago.

Pushing the technology to the limit is what brings about the need and desire for new technology.

[stefcep2]

Redrawing is normal.  If it didn't happen then GUIs would be worthless.  It would draw once and you'd never see movement again.

WTF?  This is the desktop we are talking about here. How about just drawing an icon when the program is added and deleting it when the program is removed?  Other OS's seem to do fine without re-drawing the whole fricken thing even when nothing is added or removed.  In XP, the World's most used OS this can even results in generic icons replacing the originals

Your start menu needs to be populated because.... the computer has to know what is there?  It doesnt automagically just know stuff upon booting.  It has to process these things.  with the processor.  mainly the central unit like one known as the CPU.

Right.  How about indexing that as you go along, storing that in 500 byte file at the last shutdown, and all being ready to go when you next boot up,taking a microsecond to load at the next boot?  And for all the Win 7 talk, XP is still by far the most used OS on the planet.  Try launching from the start menu in a fully populated PC and see how long XP takes to draw its menus and icons

So you took a semester in programming and are suddenly the expert on how OS's should function and what goes on with them?

No, the point thats eluded you is I only NEEDED ONE SEMESTER to know that your computer could be made to do things twice as fast if you did your job as a programmer right.  There is a discrepancy between the hardware capability and the end product.

Pushing the technology to the limit is what brings about the need and desire for new technology.

Yep, your modern day OS is pushing your hardware to the limit, but too much of that is not doing anything useful.

[Daedalus]

No, but I remember editing raw full screen PAL overscan video, which has 4 times the amount of pixels per frame than your average 320x200 youtube rubbish.  If I can't watch a youtube video with that same G3 then that just proves the point about how aerated the youtube/flash code is, not how incapable the hardware is.

Yes, I've edited full-screen video on a G3 to, and still routinely do it on my G4. My point is that mainstream things like Flash video are bloated massively, but they're also a staple of modern communications and need the raw horsepower to overcome the bloat. That's unfortunate but that's the way it is, and that's why my G3 and G4 Macs, while still suited to video editing, aren't suited to casual web browsing., whereas a Core 2 Duo Mac is.

For a minute there i thought you "just didn't get it", but seems thats only partially true.

Don't patronise me just because I don't fully agree with you. There's nothing you've said that I "didn't get" but some of what you say doesn't make sense. If you have x amount of information you want to process, of course you need >x memory to process it. No amount of efficient, assembly programming is going to change that.

[DonnyEMU]

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. As far as the 100 byte or so file that you are talking about how about fetch and superfetch which caches up files.. 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..

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..

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..

[Britelite]

No, the point thats eluded you is I only NEEDED ONE SEMESTER to know that your computer could be made to do things twice as fast if you did your job as a programmer right.

If that's your conclusion then you didn't really learn anything at all.

EDIT: I mean, have you seen the sourcecode for any OS, and how do you know that they haven't already gone through the step of "making it do things twice as fast"? Just because you got your own(?) program to work twice as fast as before doesn't even mean that you did your job right.

[stefcep2]

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