mac and pc sucks!!!!

[LoadWB]

Assertion 1: Correct, MS did not create the majority of the codecs in use.  But you can thank a large part of the decrease in performance in DVD viewing (in particular) to industry morons who require encryption at every stage of viewing, from the DVD to drive to memory to video to monitor, to prevent any user from capturing their product in the clear at any point.  That puts a rather large amount of stress on a system.

Assertion 2: Microsoft's use of a GPU for its visual elements is actually a very good idea.  In fact, most Amigans should like this "new found" usage, and maybe even start shouting "we did it first, with our blitters and what-not, whipper-snappers!"  But if a GPU cannot handle the load put on it to render fancy display objects, then do not blame the software writer, blame the company which made the cheap video card, and the rube who bought a $40 3D card.  Or a $200 video card made with $40 card parts and a hellacious cooling system.

Assertion 3: Windows 7 runs very well on an Atom-based Netbook.  Get your head off Vista.

Assertion 4: Windows is actually very useful, depending upon your uses.

Assertion 5: From Windows XP x64,

Code: [Select]

03/04/2010  10:58 PM         4,588,544 ntoskrnl.exe

Again, your point?  Think about the Amiga in relation: the original operating system for Amiga only had to deal with a very small set of known hardware.  With the availability of additional hardware such as sound cards and RTG video, things had to be added on.  IIRC, AHI is a 6MB package by itself.  So, in parallel, as complexity increases, so does the required support software.

Assertion 6: For that matter, why do we need such a bloated system like the Amiga, when a Commodore 64 can do all that?

Assertion 7: Go read some of Mark Russinovich's (of the late System Internals fame, now a part of Microsoft) articles on the changes in the Vista core.  I have not read anything from him on 7, admittedly, but I can say Vista had some really damn neat stuff in it, though the performance left QUITE a lot to be desired.

Assertion 8: See my response to one, re: digital rights management.

Assertion 9: Seriously?

Assertion 10: Flash?  You are going to bash an operating system because of Flash?!  You got some of it down in here, but try rendering today on decades old hardware and call me every day when one more frame is rendered.  And if you keep comparing specialized hardware (consoles) to general use hardware (PCs.)  Please stop -- you are comparing a sports car to a station wagon.  And sure, 700MB DivX is "good enough," but you will not get the quality for the performance exchange: 300MHz PII plays DivX just fine, yes, I know this, but play a Blu-Ray or your favorite movie "The Matrix" on that same machine.

Assertion 11: *sigh*  I grow tired of your "older is better" crap.  Put your money where your mouth is, please.  Take some of these old, great machines and do what you think you can do with them which makes them oh-so-much-better than modern machines.  YouTube it.  Just stop with the inane drivel.  And, yes, Adobe writes crap software which is bloated and slow -- but again, please tell me what this has to do with Microsoft?  

Assertion 12:  If you truly believe 7 is a service pack to Vista, then you have lost all credibility, along with the 9-11 Truthers and Moon Hoaxers.  Read a little, research a little, and quit trying to run software on a $150 machine which is best suited for UAE than a modern operating system, anyway, and you will have to replace in a year when it dies.  Me, I will stick with my 2.93GHz Quad-Core, 12GB of RAM with 64-bit Windows with my plethora of well-working software and OS emulations allowing me to run Solaris 10, Windows XP, and whatever the hell else I want.  Stick with outdated, antiquated hardware -- no one will care, and I am sure you will be much happier.  

Assertion 13: Not all PCs are amazing inside, though they mostly have the potential.  I would be happy to invest in your movie-on-a-floppy idea -- when you have compressed a movie which will be watchable and practical onto a floppy disk, we will be rich.  In the mean time, I think I will stick with these fangled DVD and Blu-Ray thingies, they seem to hold longer video, deeper colors, better quality, and better sound.

Assertion 14: No alternatives?  Shirley, you must be joking.

:afro:

[Karlos]

It's all horses for courses.

I have 64-bit linux for my day to day use. It does everything I need to do and is pretty robust too. However, it doesn't do everything I want to do. Despite having nvidia's proprietary drivers, it's a crap gaming platform. Not because it isn't capable, but nobody really writes any decent games for it. And no, Doom3 and Quake4 don't really cut it. There's Wine, and related spin-offs, of course, but they don't really give bang up to date support.

No matter, people say. Get a console here. Never mind that the box I am running linux on has a quad core and what was a high end gfx card (now obsoleted by newer devices, but ho hum) and that I don't really want to fill my place with consoles.

So, I dual boot a 64-bit Windows. Vista, in fact (not purchased a copy of 7 yet). Does it give me any hassle? No. Does it play up to date games properly? Yes.

Considering that from a technical perspective, modern games are the most demanding desktop applications you are likely to run, stressing CPU, GPU and IO alike, it seems strange that an OS considered so darned awful would make such a good job of it, running titles for hours on end without any issues.

[Arkhan]

Install a few video game emulators. Now the mac is superior to the Amiga again.

Still doesn't help you play modern PC games on the Mac.


Amiga_Nut: Your long winded Anti M$ post is too long to fully address, so I will just say:

If M$ is so stupid, why is it that they are everywhere?  Why is it that *my* vista laptop hasnt died, and that my 3 machines running Win7 have been on for at least a month without incident?

[Amiga_Nut]

Still doesn't help you play modern PC games on the Mac.


Amiga_Nut: Your long winded Anti M$ post is too long to fully address, so I will just say:

If M$ is so stupid, why is it that they are everywhere?  Why is it that *my* vista laptop hasnt died, and that my 3 machines running Win7 have been on for at least a month without incident?

If you don't read my post how do you know it is anti-M$. They were examples of what is it Microsoft specifically doesn't produce and questions and comparisons with similar ways using earlier/different OS. You missed the point entirely. I didn't say it crashes instantly or it is unreliable blue screen of death comments no. I said why do you need gigahertz of CPU and gigabytes of memory just to smoohly display a mouse cursor and some icons in order to execute other peoples programs via a responsive UI. IF Win 7 was all they said it would be then it would only need 266mhz and 64mb to boot up to a blank desktop (ie if it was Windows Vienna as demonstrated when sales of Vista were well below par and M$ shit their pants). n00bs callng themselves experts repeatedly claimed Win 7 is as efficient as XP? They lied, idiots forgot, cue millions of sales surprise surprise.

Also most of it is inherited from the DOS days and continued. Microsoft's dirty laundry about how they kept their monopoly with decidedly suspect business tactics have been aired for the last 10 years. And this is why in the EU the EU Commission is riding them hard and making demands the limp wristed US Supreme Court are too scared to do, don't want to lose all those tax dollars from MS profits worldwide now do we

My point about Win 7 on netbooks with awkward resolutions like 1024x600 was the lunacy of functions like the snap to screen/auto full screen as soon as you touch the edges is just an instant fail. Win 7 on those machines is unusable, and clearly a billion dollar company trumpeting on about how it was designed with netbooks in mind is telling porkies. Anyway using it seriously on a 1.6ghz Atom is like running XP on a Pentium 1, Sure it runs, but you will kill someone soon enough if you're forced to use said machine with Win7 for any real work (as opposed to pissing about on Facebook all day like a teenage twat)

My comment about Flash was regarding multitasking efficiency, task load control and prevention of resource hogging. If Windows can't keep Flash (which isn't even a full blown executing program just a resident routine) under control and not hog resources just because it is resident on minimized browser windows that may want to use it then well...explain to me again how Win 7/Vista multitasking is actually any good? Isn't this basically all your OS needs to get right at the core? Isn't this why even in AGA era of KS3 Windows was still inferior despite having 10-20x the CPU speed? Is it only me that remember the jerky multitasking demos of the mid 90s. Nothing changes, the hour glass is still here, even IBM sorted out the hour glass/spinny circle 'wait!' aspect of an OS in the mid 90s. 15 years on a spec of dust on your DVD-R whilst Nero is running can lock the machine requiring hard power down. Hmmm progress huh?

DVD playback was actually using the same program on XP and Vista, and the DVD in question is from 2003 etc. So that's the theory of other people being to blame for that issue. It stands to reason if you can't run the OS on a 333mhz P2 how the hell can you watch a DVD on that OS using the same hardware that happily does it using XP/2000. Anything else is just going off on a tangent and no relevance to the simple fact you get less from more/the same CPU.

The issue of activating the GPU and KEEPING IT 100% ACTIVATED just to display a 2D desktop with a mouse cursor and a few icons is just a stupid idea, you activate on the fly or you don't keep it active at all. Leaving a machine idle, doing nothing, resulting in GPUs getting fried on a new OS. Let's see shall we blame Nvidia or the people who come up with the dumb idea of having your entire GPU active all the time even when a 2D screen saver is showing hmmmm. This little feature of Vista had Nvidia's lawyers sharpening their claws trust me when M$ attempted to pass the buck. Nobody else built an OS that fries your 3D super hot GPU whilst doing nothing except running the actual OS. Clever NOT. What I definitely did NOT say was off-loading some of the work to the actual GPU to run natively is a bad idea, as and when required and certainly not for an idle machine executing no actual programs just displaying a desktop or screen saver. OS X doesn't blow up the even more fragile GPUs in their 17" powerbooks.....wondered why?

Talking about games sure games are the most demanding thing to run on most PCs and I never said there was anything wrong with PC hardware, but that's understandable and the hardware is not designed and built by them and is not the issue. 3Ghz for CPU geometry setup for your high end GPU costing more than a PS3 to run max settings on Crysis? sure I suppose that's justifiable, after all Amiga cost 200% the price of a Sega 16bit console with similar games. But 2ghz to smoothly display a responsive mouse cursor so you can double click on some icons to execute other programs...erm no that's just lunacy. And I can bet you that your super duper games running on your $1000 populated motherboard look the same as a $250 PS3 or $150 360 via 1080p, they certainly don't need virtual memory or 2Gb of ram to launch the games. And if Win 7 is the second coming why isn't there a game mode where the OS shuts down everything except the same handful of megabytes of code used by the 360 just to run the games? After all there is nothing a PC game does that a 360 game cannot do like XBL etc, so why have bloatware executing games, which are indeed the most demanding and resource hungry software application most people will run. Hmmm?
Design fail.

My point stands, my question unanswered, what is it specifically that windows does, AND specifically coded by MS, that is fantastic (and efficiently which is what the argument has always been). Excluding all the great things other poeple have written for Windows and other operating systems the answer is a big fat zilch my friends. Transcoding x264 and h264 doesn't require anything in Win7, speed and ability to do such things feasibly is all down to Intel/AMD's hardware.

What I never said was WB3 is all powerful and totally adequate, if I was ranting I would make silly fanboy comments. But you don't 15Gb of space to implement TCP/IP stacks or anything else essential that is missing from stock A1200HDs Topic title says Windows sucks. have yet to see an argument that proves it doesn't suck from an coding efficiency point of view.

Sure some things have improved compared to Vista, even a couple of things you can't tweek Vista to improve easily via a few mouse click. But Win 7 isn't really any better than Vista, marketing is obviously better though, with artificially fast boot times due to excessive disk thrashing after the mouse cursor comes up on real world machines. And it still suffers from 'Windows rot' just like every other version.

[TheBilgeRat]

I can tell this issue sits poorly with you so I'll attempt to be fair and unantagonistic.  The one thing windows does bang up well is run mostly decent on 90% of the hardware manufactured out there.  Mac?  Closed.  Amiga?  It was also a closed hardware system for the most part.  The clones won the hardware war.  Doesn't make them right or better, It just is.  And MS does an awesome job at running mostly stable on all of it.

[persia]

@Amiga_Nut

1989 is calling, they want your view of information technology back....

[stefcep2]

@Linde

I think it's hard for people to accept that AmigaOS is really out of step with the current century and that there aren't millions of people waiting for it.  They need to chill out and just enjoy their hobby instead of being so fundamentalist.  

For some it might be.  Others may just look at their PC (with Winblows or some half arsed Linux variant) or their style over substance Mac and wonder why with all these hardware resources the same SIMPLE things take longer than they did in 1989.  Why all these little delays, little stutters, why when I click a button there is a delay in that registering on screen, or why a window waits to close after I have clicked its close gadget, and then is drawn half corrupted as it closes, why can a 14 mz 68020 with 2 meg ram brings up a simple one line text file in ed faster than a 2400 mhz 4096 meg ram with uber-fast hard drive using "text editor" in Ubuntu.  To you that might not matter, beacsue you can still do your "work" that an amiga simply cannot, and if that makes your computing experience a happy one, then good for you. To me it just FEELS shit.

[Britelite]

The programmer is the same for C64S emulator in DOS, which is the only PC example of SID accuracy I can find

Well, you apparently haven't even tried looking for anything.

Given just how much extra CPU time any C64 emulator takes with sound enabled even in the DOS days I find it impressive that the demo/player even exists.

Having seen a sid-player on the vic-20, the amiga sid-player doesn't seem THAT impressive anymore

[Arkhan]

Another TL;DR from Amiga_Nut

I know you're anti M$ing it up if you have things like Winblows in there plain as day, and complaining about problems with an OS that are petty and whiney.

Welcome to 2010.  A place where alot of computing/OS stuff requires a powerful machine for maximum performance.  All that eye candy, and behind the scenes multitasking stuff requires power!  You keep dogging on the "experts", which implies you are an expert, so you should understand this, right?

also, welcome to, "its been like that since the get go".   Back in the day, Amiga was top-notch.  It wasn't decade old hardware trying to pump out the current needs.

Stop trying to get todays performance out of last decades hardware, lol.


Also, you dont *need* a omgexpensive computer.

two of my Windows 7 machines are like, 6 years old and they run perfectly fine.


maybe the problem isn't the OS.  PEBKAC.

[ElPolloDiabl]

why can a 14 mz 68020 with 2 meg ram brings up a simple one line text file in ed faster than a 2400 mhz 4096 meg ram with uber-fast hard drive using "text editor" in Ubuntu.  To you that might not matter, beacsue you can still do your "work" that an amiga simply cannot, and if that makes your computing experience a happy one, then good for you. To me it just FEELS shit.

Running Windows is like trying to push shit uphill. At least Linux and Amiga breaks the first time something is incompatible, they don't leave you guessing.

[stefcep2]

Another TL;DR from Amiga_Nut

I know you're anti M$ing it up if you have things like Winblows in there plain as day, and complaining about problems with an OS that are petty and whiney.

We should be beyond that now.  We have 1000z CPU power, x1000 RAM, etc, etc.  Usability, responsiveness ie putting the user in charge in real time is not petty.  Simple things that by now we shouldn't even be talking about.

Welcome to 2010.  A place where alot of computing/OS stuff requires a powerful machine for maximum performance.  All that eye candy, and behind the scenes multitasking stuff requires power!  You keep dogging on the "experts", which implies you are an expert, so you should understand this, right?

Amikit's eye candy looks as good as anything out there, and runs on 50 mhz cpu with an ancient 24 bit display board. Sure its not Aero, but then there isn't a blinding fast 3d video card with 1 gig of video RAM running the display either.  With that grunt power behind it, I shouldn't even know that I'm running any eye candy by seeing my performance suffer.  And yet I do.

Also, you dont *need* a omgexpensive computer.

two of my Windows 7 machines are like, 6 years old and they run perfectly fine.


maybe the problem isn't the OS.  PEBKAC.

yep thats MS double speak: Blame the user.

[Arkhan]

We should be beyond that now.  We have 1000z CPU power, x1000 RAM, etc, etc.  Usability, responsiveness ie putting the user in charge in real time is not petty.  Simple things that by now we shouldn't even be talking about.

The new GUI does put responsiveness ahead of everything else.... Priority has been given back to the GUI so things like changing the volume during music/video playback don't lag.

etc.
etc.

The things im calling petty are "oh, my laptop overheated, its clearly Vista's fault".   Prove it.

Show me all of these unresponsive issues.  I've got 4 machines here that say everyone complaining is full of it.

Amikit's eye candy looks as good as anything out there, and runs on 50 mhz cpu with an ancient 24 bit display board. Sure its not Aero, but then there isn't a blinding fast 3d video card with 1 gig of video RAM running the display either.  With that grunt power behind it, I shouldn't even know that I'm running any eye candy by seeing my performance suffer.  And yet I do.

Amikit is also less user friendly than Windows, no offense.  It's nice and all, but there are too many steps involved to get things done.  Sure does look nice though.

What performance stuttering are we talking about anyways?  I can run games + movies + other stuff at the same time and don't see a performance problem.  This is while running windows 7 on 6-10 year old hardware too.  

yep thats MS double speak: Blame the user.

What, should the OS automatically compensate for morons? :roflmao:

You call it double speak, I call it herpaderp.

[persia]

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.

I have Linux servers that have been running continuously for over a year and still as snappy as the day I installed them.  I'm not a big fan of Linux GUIs but KDE is pretty feature rich.  But again RAM is the key, KDE is slow as paint drying if you have only a gig or so of RAM.

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.  

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

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?

For some it might be.  Others may just look at their PC (with Winblows or some half arsed Linux variant) or their style over substance Mac and wonder why with all these hardware resources the same SIMPLE things take longer than they did in 1989.  Why all these little delays, little stutters, why when I click a button there is a delay in that registering on screen, or why a window waits to close after I have clicked its close gadget, and then is drawn half corrupted as it closes, why can a 14 mz 68020 with 2 meg ram brings up a simple one line text file in ed faster than a 2400 mhz 4096 meg ram with uber-fast hard drive using "text editor" in Ubuntu.  To you that might not matter, beacsue you can still do your "work" that an amiga simply cannot, and if that makes your computing experience a happy one, then good for you. To me it just FEELS shit.

[ElPolloDiabl]

One thing that slows me down is my Asus wireless networking card. It causes stuttering randomly, slowing down everything. I looked around for newer drivers, but no luck. I'll have to swap it.
Just because your system is fine, doesn't change the fact that some people are having problems and it is not because their system is old or cheap, some things just aren't supported by Windows.
I have nothing but trouble with itunes installed. Someone is not doing their job.

[scuzzb494]

You know nothing ever changes... From the first day I ran more than four pages of animation in DPaint and realised I needed a more RAM, to playing SIMCity 2000 and realising I needed a faster processor to running Photoshop and buying a P120, to faster internet access and Win98 to today there will always be a need to upgrade. I seem always to be chasing the new thing to optimise something that worked perfectly well with my old system. Or so it appears. We are all trapped in the creators net of upgrade and be saved.... or stand still and stagnate. Nothing changes. To be honest my Amiga 1200 opens folders and applications ten times as fast as this XP machine. The A1200 can perform all basic operations faster than this XP machine. Trouble is the A1200 will not permit me and 25 other guys to take on the Lich King in Northrend. WoW is a masterpiece and I need a machine of today to play. Just like we all need the next best thing at some time. I hate MS with a vengence, and I dislike the way Mac looks and runs. I have always struggled with Linux and can`t be bothered with it to be honest. Security is totally an issue with the user and you can avoid problems. And  so Windows I guess for ease of use, simplicity of utilising all my software, and ability without a blink of an eye to set up the torrent for WoW is my only valid choice. I play on my PS3, heck I even have an XBOX Elite ... and all the time I customise my activities so I get the best out of my computing. Nothing changes. And so with Star Trek Online I need a new machine.... It will be a 64 Bit Windows based machine. I can see no reason to change. I don`t like it but it really is as someone else pointed out a means to an end.  One day there will be  greater and better system, a more friendly interface, a more responsive OS... Today is where I live and so I use the tool I know best.... And when I am up for driving in the slow lane just for the joy of real computing I switch on my Amigas. All the time cus I love computers. Always will.

scuzz

[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.