I have been using this Vista on a Dell Lap top now for about 2 months. Its kind of a slick OS.
No problems so far.
Im also trying AVIRA Free Antvirus software. so far no problems there either.
my vista experience remained pleasant right until the first update...
downhill from there. [puke] [bang]
tried to get dell to give me a revert copy of XP...no love.
i have an original dell restore cd if you wanna give it a try it. It was for my laptop, but it worked on any dell computer i could find. but most of those computers were XP native.
I am using Vista right now. First time. It runs pretty good. 64bit OS though, so somethings dont work right (like autocad). I also have 32bit vista on my moms PC, and it is absolutely HORRIBLE. you NEED 4gb minimum, and you need to shut of certain things to make it run smoothly.
Quote from: herm on January 08, 2009, 10:11:08 AM
my vista experience remained pleasant right until the first update...
downhill from there. [puke] [bang]
tried to get dell to give me a revert copy of XP...no love.
+11ty billion
I haven't used Vista extensively since I used to work on them, but wasn't SP1 supposed to help a lot of the issues? As far as streamlining goes, please please please disable the user account control. It will make your life much easier. I think XP can still be found if you look in the right place *cough, torrents, cough*.
Don't currently run it, but used it enough to know that I am going to wait it out.
I will say I am fundamentally opposed to OS bloat. Allow me to me slip on my Mac fanboy hat for a moment. OK, cocked to the side just so, nose elevated 45 degrees...
The first few iterations of OSX actually ran *faster* than the ones they preceded on the same hardware. This is including all the spiffy transparency stuff I was running (and still run) on a G4 1.2ghz processor with 512M of slow-ass RAM. Of course they did sudo-like permissions on stuff (and got it right) long before windows was thinking about it. (They can thank 30 years of BSD development for that, but still. At least they stole right.)
So, lemme say, I am glad you like it. There are things to like about it - the way it looks and the things it fixed about XP. But I think Vista will go down as the Windows ME of its time.
I agree with il d00d. I've also got a powerbook g4 with osx 10.5 and 1gb ram, and runs about as fast a my pc desktop at work that has 3.6ghz processor.
I'm sure vista run well all on it's own, but it's when you start loading third party software you'll see what happens.
Quote from: il d00d on January 08, 2009, 02:32:00 PM
snip
But I think Vista will go down as the Windows ME of its time.
Oh come on now. Have you USED ME? I get a headache thinking about it.
Quote from: Jarvicious on January 08, 2009, 03:12:45 PM
Oh come on now. Have you USED ME? I get a headache thinking about it.
+1, vista is nothing like ME. Me was just a horrible excuse of an OS. Its like the bastard child of everything unholy.
I have no issues with Vista right now even with the dozens of programs ive loaded up onto it. Works great, (aside from 64bit compatibility issues) but thats why im triple booting Vista 64, Ubutnu 64 and XP 32bit.
Macintosh, well...sorry....Just like people dont like vista. I dont like macs. But then again, im against anything apple to begin with.
Quote from: He Man on January 08, 2009, 03:25:46 PM
snip
Macintosh, well...sorry....Just like people dont like vista. I dont like macs. But then again, im against anything apple to begin with.
Don't worry you'll come around...Everybody does... [evil]
First I had an ipod, then iphone, now powerbook. The stuff just works.
That being said, all those items are used for personal entertainment use. For work and serious computing I do prefer a pc, XP more specifically. A pc is necessary for Solidworks and other cad systems
Quote from: Jarvicious on January 08, 2009, 03:12:45 PM
Oh come on now. Have you USED ME? I get a headache thinking about it.
I am not ready... to talk about that.
To be a little clearer, I mean they both suffered from underdevelopment. I don't remember how a cosmetic upgrade resulted in the digital catastrophe that ME was, but Vista's history reads like a cautionary tale. It went way past deadlines until they started from scratch way too soon before releasing into the wild. I don't think it stood a chance. It is far more usable, to be sure, but I don't think Vista as an end product is what they had in mind.
I do agree with the fact that they didn't put enough into it. It's not that they didn't have enough time either. XP ran for years and years while they worked on Vista as a kind of side project, and they STILL weren't ready. Vista is clearly (and loosely) based on XP though, so they got lucky in that respect. The problem is that the vast majority of people thet buy these machines don't know the difference, so Microsoft can sell whatever they want.
Quote from: OverCaffeinated on January 08, 2009, 03:37:26 PM
Don't worry you'll come around...Everybody does... [evil]
Yea like hell.
I had an ipod, sold it, went with a zune. :p best decision ever. aside from the YK9 issue. The closest thing to Mac id touch is Ubuntu, which is loosely what OSX is based on. Just a crappier version.
Quote from: He Man on January 08, 2009, 04:08:12 PM
Yea like hell.
I had an ipod, sold it, went with a zune. :p best decision ever. aside from the YK9 issue. The closest thing to Mac id touch is Ubuntu, which is loosely what OSX is based on. Just a crappier version.
I like your thread "God damn it Microsoft". [cheeky]
Ok I'm done messen.
But I do have to ask how you obtained a 20006 S2R 1000?
Quote from: He Man on January 08, 2009, 04:08:12 PM
Yea like hell.
I had an ipod, sold it, went with a zune. :p best decision ever. aside from the YK9 issue. The closest thing to Mac id touch is Ubuntu, which is loosely what OSX is based on. Just a crappier version.
I'm not going to proselytize (any more) about Mac, but I am curious - what you don't like about the OS?
OSX is based on BSD, and Unbuntu is linux. They have common ancestors, but OSX is not based on Unbuntu in any way.
Quote from: Jarvicious on January 08, 2009, 04:01:35 PM
I do agree with the fact that they didn't put enough into it. It's not that they didn't have enough time either. XP ran for years and years while they worked on Vista as a kind of side project, and they STILL weren't ready. Vista is clearly (and loosely) based on XP though, so they got lucky in that respect. The problem is that the vast majority of people thet buy these machines don't know the difference, so Microsoft can sell whatever they want.
do you even recall the list of features that were slated for vista that were pulled before release?
...it's
not a short list.
Quote from: il d00d on January 08, 2009, 04:15:52 PM
OSX is based on BSD, and Unbuntu is linux. They have common ancestors, but OSX is not based on Unbuntu in any way.
i wouldn't even say they have common ancestors.
look at the family trees: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Unix_history-simple.svg (click to enlarge... may not be viewable in IE, try firefox)
nowhere do unix and minix/linux touch.
BSD is also unix based, which is what linux is based on, which is what Ubuntu is based on right? I might be getting it all wrong though.
What i dont like about OSX, this goes hand in hand with Macintosh too so...
aside from their whole marketing scheme....
1) Nothing is organized in a reasonable way.
2) if a program freezes, how the hell are you suppose to force it to shut down? theres no task manager atleast from what i know of.
3) what the hell is an apple key? why cant i use ctrl+c to copy, isntead of apple + c. The key is so awkardly placed, its almost like the alt key. has ANYONE ever used that key? no becasue its not in a friendly position. its kinda like the FN key on a laptop. you have to have a reason to use it, and youd probably have to look at the keyboard to find it. (im a big fan of hotkeys by the way)
4) Ive used macs for about 3 years now (because everywher i go, thats all they have to use) and its still annoying to figure out which key is the minmize, maximize, cross out, and if you minizme it, it dissapears to this bar that could infintely long. and can have an infinite number of items that are grouped in no particular way.
5) the more you use it the slower it gets. its like a blackberry. needs to be reset ever so often. ive gone almost a month without restarting windows. this includes programing my Rapid bike unit, drawing up things in autocad, photoshop, watching movies etc.
6)WTF Is that damn bar anyway? You know the thing that floats atop of everything but you cant really move it. I know beryl used it since mac people LOVE IT. I dont get it, i perfer my start menu thats organized and easy to find stuff, especially with that new built in search feature that vista has.
7) I hate the genralized file/edit/view etc buttons.sometimes i wanna run 3 programs at once, and i get confused on which programs' file button im clicking on.
i can go on and on. Not sure if i mentioned it, but theres also a grpahical delay in everything. Clicking on a box that pops up with some sort of list takes a while. I dont know if anyone gets what im trying to say, but those milliseconds of watching the menu open up and be use able is annoying as hell.
Granted when i first started using UBuntu, i had the same issues, but its much more windows like. I tried running Kubuntu since they said its much more windows like and friendly, but it crashed to often.
Those are my reasons. And to top it of, i wouldnt be able to stream to my xbox if i had a mac.
edit: nice chart derby. they never do cross paths. I was always told that linux was derived from Unix systems.
Quote from: He Man on January 08, 2009, 04:36:52 PM
BSD is also unix based, which is what linux is based on, which is what Ubuntu is based on right? I might be getting it all wrong though.
no, BSD
is UNIX... minix was a UNIX-like clone, but did not share any codebase with UNIX. linux was based on minix.
Quote from: derby on January 08, 2009, 04:42:58 PM
no, BSD is UNIX... minix was a UNIX-like clone, but did not share any codebase with UNIX. linux was based on minix.
AHHHH! Im not sure if i just understood it, it or im more lost now. im still irritated by losing my set of keys. :/
Quote from: He Man on January 08, 2009, 04:36:52 PM
What i dont like about OSX, this goes hand in hand with Macintosh too so...
...
2) if a program freezes, how the hell are you suppose to force it to shut down? theres no task manager atleast from what i know of.
Just FYI - Command-Option-Esc will bring up that window.
Quote from: He Man on January 08, 2009, 04:36:52 PM
3) what the hell is an apple key? why cant i use ctrl+c to copy, isntead of apple + c. The key is so awkardly placed, its almost like the alt key. has ANYONE ever used that key? no becasue its not in a friendly position. its kinda like the FN key on a laptop. you have to have a reason to use it, and youd probably have to look at the keyboard to find it. (im a big fan of hotkeys by the way)
4) Ive used macs for about 3 years now (because everywher i go, thats all they have to use) and its still annoying to figure out which key is the minmize, maximize, cross out, and if you minizme it, it dissapears to this bar that could infintely long. and can have an infinite number of items that are grouped in no particular way.
Minimize = command + m
Hide = command + h
I think you are supposed to use the apple key the way the Smurfs use the word Smurf. It is kind of an all-purpose thing. When trying to figure out key strokes, I have just guessed a lot of times and done apple + the first letter of the thing I am trying to do. Most of the time, presto, magic happens.
I agree with you though - I wish there was a system tray in OSX. A lot of people I know use multiple desktops, but to me, that is just a poor replacement for a good way to run just one.
Quote from: He Man on January 08, 2009, 04:36:52 PM
5) the more you use it the slower it gets. its like a blackberry. needs to be reset ever so often. ive gone almost a month without restarting windows. this includes programing my Rapid bike unit, drawing up things in autocad, photoshop, watching movies etc.
I have had the exact opposite experience - I have had two iBooks running different versions of OSX run for months. I don't think I have ever seen a memory leak on an OSX app I've run.
But if you're comparing it to Unbuntu, Macs tend to prioritize the applications in front of you. Linux does a little better job keeping background processes from being resource-starved.
Quote from: He Man on January 08, 2009, 04:36:52 PM
Granted when i first started using UBuntu, i had the same issues, but its much more windows like. I tried running Kubuntu since they said its much more windows like and friendly, but it crashed to often.
Those are my reasons. And to top it of, i wouldnt be able to stream to my xbox if i had a mac.
edit: nice chart derby. they never do cross paths. I was always told that linux was derived from Unix systems.
Derby is right - It'd be more accurate to say they share a common architecture, but not a common kernel. So they were not written from the same source, but the framework is about the same.
I haven't used it but connect360 promises to stream stuff to your xbox.
Most of this stuff sounds like you are on some part of the learning curve with OSX. If you don't like it for other reasons, you have no reason to commit to it, maybe the same way you committed to Unbuntu. And it sounds like we have had different experiences - I have been working on OpenSUSE on and off for the last month or so, and it requires a lot more work than OSX. For me, learning to get around in KDE has been harder than OSX.
Obviously, it comes down to preference. I am not going to argue that my preference is objectively better than yours, but I can't help pointing out when I think someone is missing out on something cool.
Quote from: He Man on January 08, 2009, 10:50:59 AM
i have an original dell restore cd if you wanna give it a try it. It was for my laptop, but it worked on any dell computer i could find. but most of those computers were XP native.
I am using Vista right now. First time. It runs pretty good. 64bit OS though, so somethings dont work right (like autocad). I also have 32bit vista on my moms PC, and it is absolutely HORRIBLE. you NEED 4gb minimum, and you need to shut of certain things to make it run smoothly.
my current machine came with vista ultimate, even though i begged Dell to put XP on instead. the computer has
all the power/memory it should need for the OS
Vista crashes about once every other day.
thinking of going with XP professional next time.
and no, i dont need or want a mac :P
I don't exactly like Vista, but haven't had as much trouble as most out of it. Boot times are long and some things take there sweet time opening, but other than that, it has been OK. I much prefered XP Pro that I had on my old machine for various reasons, but mostly because I new the OS inside and out.
As for Vista, I have tweaked it a lot and disabled some things to clear up the RAM and make it a bit faster and more stable. And I finally figured out how to disable all those annoying make the beast with two backsing "Are sure you want to open this program" pop-up warnings.
But it seems Microsoft might be throwing in the towel on Vista. Windows 7 beta is slated to debut very soon.
I dont think im missing out on anything cool by not going to mac. I am a native windows kind of guy and i can not move as fast as i can on windows as i can on mac. On Ubuntu, its a different story. I use it soley for shits and giggles. it runs great and i love it. but you are right, its just a difference of preference. Im super comfortable using windows, and it does everything i need to, and it does a very good job at it. Going mac is just...not my thing. I see a lot of people going to mac (i mean LOTS) but they all can't do a fraction of what i can do with a PC. Not to say i am like a tech geek or anything, but their user interface is very simple if you are doing simple things. Thats my biggest reason for not liking mac. I cant have 9 windows open and control each of them.
Jobu, PM me. I have something that can speed up the start up/shut down time of your computer. Im not sure if its because im running 64 bit, or what. But my laptop (centrino 2, 2ghz, 4gb ram, 320gb hdd, dedicated 512mb nvidia card) boots up in less than 40 seconds, and shuts down in about 10 seconds.
i only have 50gbs free since i have a lot of media and programs (mostly for school, AutoCAD, Photoshop, MATLAB). so its not like my computer is completely empty.
if anyone reading this wnats to stop that are you sure you want to use this program bs. just go to start >> run>> msconfig>> tools>> select disable UAC and click launch. restart. (its annoying as hell)
im intrested in this windows 7 beta...vista is very similar to xp. just nicer widgets. it could be much better (like better 32bit support for 64bit OS)
Oddly enough, I've had very good luck with Vista. No problems yet *knocks on wood* granted, I'm only using business & photo applications & internet, not really pushing the OS.
I've no problems with Mac's OS, but most of my current software won't work properly if at all on a Mac ~
JM
After some very minor tweaks to Vista, I can officially say it is the best OS I have ever used for what *I* do. ANd I have used everything from original Sun Unix to DOS to OSX to Vista and everthing in between. And I was in the "I will never use Vista" camp for a very long time.
If, on the rare occasion I do need a reboot, I have streamlined the boot so that from bios POST to my login screen is 13 seconds. (That's not a typo, 13 seconds). Then when I hit enter after entering my password, I have to wait another excrutiatingly long ~10 seconds to be fully ready to use anything on my computer.
Maybe it's because I don't like to have my hand held when I do things on my computer and have a mind of my own instead of being one of the sheep, but if you can find a Mac based computer that can do the number of processes at the speeds my PC based computer can do, I will happily lick the sweat off of a rapid German Shepard's balls.
And the sad thing...I still have over a grand less invested in this top of the line PC than I would in a top of the line Mac.
That's not to say that Apple does't have it's place in the market. I just think that if you actually use a computer for actually doing computing (heavy math processing, deep encoding, rendering, etc) Macs are definitely not the way to go.
Quote from: ZLTFUL on January 09, 2009, 09:00:37 AM
Maybe it's because I don't like to have my hand held when I do things on my computer and have a mind of my own instead of being one of the sheep, but if you can find a Mac based computer that can do the number of processes at the speeds my PC based computer can do, I will happily lick the sweat off of a rapid German Shepard's balls.
this i have to see... can you provide a list of processes and do you have a particular german shepherd in mind? ;D
Quote from: ZLTFUL on January 09, 2009, 09:00:37 AM
And the sad thing...I still have over a grand less invested in this top of the line PC than I would in a top of the line Mac.
specs?
Quote from: ZLTFUL on January 09, 2009, 09:00:37 AM
That's not to say that Apple does't have it's place in the market. I just think that if you actually use a computer for actually doing computing (heavy math processing, deep encoding, rendering, etc) Macs are definitely not the way to go.
which apple are you referring to, cause the mac pro has taken the "fastest pc alive" crown for quite a few years.
Quote from: ZLTFUL on January 09, 2009, 09:00:37 AM
If, on the rare occasion I do need a reboot, I have streamlined the boot so that from bios POST to my login screen is 13 seconds. (That's not a typo, 13 seconds). Then when I hit enter after entering my password, I have to wait another excrutiatingly long ~10 seconds to be fully ready to use anything on my computer.
Thats bloody amazing fast.
I just timed my computer. 43 seconds from the time i hit the power button to a useable desktop. programs that automatically turn on are my finger scanner, AIM, google notifyer, windows sidebar, windows media, bluetooth and wireless.
shut down just ticked 9 seconds. right now from the momment i hit te power to a unlit keyboard.
Vista is shit compared to XP and XP is shit compared to UNIX. The models we run where I work take 250 times longer to run on a PC where the OP system is Vista compared to a machine running UNIX.
Courtesy of XKCD.... http://xkcd.com/528/
(http://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/windows_7.png)
That is all
LOL awesome pic!
downloading windows 7 beta right now.... quad booting now!
Quote from: derby on January 09, 2009, 10:00:56 AM
this i have to see... can you provide a list of processes and do you have a particular german shepherd in mind? ;D
specs?
which apple are you referring to, cause the mac pro has taken the "fastest pc alive" crown for quite a few years.
Didn't PC Magazine also do a benchmark test that showed the Apple Macbook Pro ran Vista faster, etc than any comparable Dell, HP, IBM? I know the test and results just can't remember the PC mag.
Z - I'm with Derby on knowing which processes, specs and mac you're comparing. You either are using some antiquated info or really like dog ball sweat. ;D
edit
still searching for article mentioned. found this one from popular mechanics though. benchmarks load times, start up, etc mac v. vista and including vista times running natively on the mac hardware.
http://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/reviews/4258725.html?page=4 (http://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/reviews/4258725.html?page=4)
Also appears this isn't a new phenomena. Check out which Laptop PC World named the Fastest Windows Notebook for 2007.
http://www.pcworld.com/article/136649-3/in_pictures_the_most_notable_notebooks_of_2007.html (http://www.pcworld.com/article/136649-3/in_pictures_the_most_notable_notebooks_of_2007.html)
CPU: Q9550@4.0GHZ
MOBO: XFX 780i SLI
RAM: 2x2GB Patriot Viper PC8500
HSF: Xigmatek HDT-S1283
GPUs: 2x XFX 8800GTS(G92) Alpha Dog in SLI (2xGTX295 on the way will be here Monday but pushes me to the cost of a Mac)
HDD1: 2x150GB WD Velociraptors in RAID 0
HDD2: 2x500GB Seagate Barracudas RAID 1
HDD3: 1TB Seagate Free Agent External
OD1: Lite-On BD-ROM
OD2: LG DVD-RW w/Lightscribe
CASE: Cooler Master HAF-932
PSU: PCP&C TurboCool 1kW
Display: Dell 30in Ultra Sharp LCD
Benchmarks:
1M SuperPI: 10.594s
32M SuperPI: 12m00.750s
SuperPI calculates the number PI out to the specified digit. 1million in the 1M test and 32million in the 32M test.
Just sheer computational power.
For rendering, Cinebench 10 is a great benchmark as it renders using ONLY the CPU.
Single Core: 5094
Multi Core: 16123
I will have to do some encoding runs as I haven't had the need to encode since I finished buildig this rig...
And frankly, if we are talking about stock performance, then yes, I will agree that the Macs tend to have a little faster performance out of the box. But who in their right mind leaves this shit stock? I mean this chip has a healthy OC but the Q6600 I have in my HTPC box has been as high as a 100% OC on a dry ice run and if I really wanted to invest in a phase change unit could easily run that OC 24/7. 2.4ghz to 4.875ghz is a pretty impressive leap.
And I won't even get into some of the insane clocks the E8600 is capable of. 5.0GHZ on air cooling? Poop in a bucket and call it lunch that's hot.
ohhh you mean serious number crunching. :o
Benchmark Cinebench10 scores for the MacPro (current desktop although it's been over a year since it's been updated)
MacPro 3.2ghz (early 2008 model) 21,354
MacPro 2.8ghz (early 2008 model) 18,336
MacPro 3.0ghz (April 2007 model) 18,916
http://www.barefeats.com/harper.html (http://www.barefeats.com/harper.html)
Or how about some REAL number crunching --- hows 29 Teraflops?
http://arstechnica.com/journals/apple.ars/2008/07/24/virginia-tech-building-supercomputer-out-of-324-mac-pros (http://arstechnica.com/journals/apple.ars/2008/07/24/virginia-tech-building-supercomputer-out-of-324-mac-pros)
Not only is an 8 core system ridiculous to begin with but you can order them as a standard option with 4TB of storage in system with Fibre, RAID, and SAS SAN for christsake let alone the $2800 graphics upgrade (NVIDIA Quadro FX 5600 1.5GB). With a maxed out config the only comparable "PC" are all servers from IBM, Dell, HP and Sun.
I'm not looking to start a holy war, but the argument that mac's aren't as powerful or aren't "business" or "enterprise" strength is a false one. [thumbsup]
Gotta Say I am really underwhelmed by Vista.
I wonder if anyone at microsoft actually uses it, there are a lot of really simple things that go wrong that could easily be fixed. Oh and its really slow, I uninstalled it from my Bootcamp because I actually wanted to get work done rather than wait for it to start up. I have got XP on there at the moment.
Some of the more entertaining aspects.
1) I enabled MP4 movie file preview so that I get a little thumbnail of the video in explorer, I made a copy of a file yesterday and Explorer promptly restarted because it "Became unresponsive", I guess the thumbnail generation was taking too long ( like less than a second). Lost all my open web pages and work also. There is nothing wrong with the video file.
2) My favourite error was when I tried to empty the Recycle Bin. I got an error that file XX doid not exist in the recycle bin and asking me if I wanted to recreate it?
3) I absolurtely hate the way backup works in Vista Ultimate, there seems to be no way to determine what files have actually been backed up. Does wonders for my paranoia
4) Did I mention it was so slow,
Just makes me go WTF? Is that the best you can do *seriously?*
Quote from: COWBOY on January 09, 2009, 03:55:26 PM
ohhh you mean SERIOUS number crunching.
Benchmark Cinebench10 scores for the MacPro (current desktop although it's been over a year since it's been updated)
http://www.barefeats.com/harper.html (http://www.barefeats.com/harper.html) Great comparison vs other Macs...and using Cinebench. Of course, you are comparing my single 4 core CPU 4GB of RAM computer to a 2 CPU 8 Core with 16GB of RAM Mac...also that they used the 32bit version of Cinebench and not a 64bit render.
Or how about some REAL number crunching --- hows 29 Teraflops?
http://arstechnica.com/journals/apple.ars/2008/07/24/virginia-tech-building-supercomputer-out-of-324-mac-pros (http://arstechnica.com/journals/apple.ars/2008/07/24/virginia-tech-building-supercomputer-out-of-324-mac-pros)
Or perhaps Akka (Windows Based) at 46 Teraflops?
http://www-01.ibm.com/software/success/cssdb.nsf/CS/DLAS-7JHKGG?OpenDocument&Site=default&cty=en_us (http://www-01.ibm.com/software/success/cssdb.nsf/CS/DLAS-7JHKGG?OpenDocument&Site=default&cty=en_us)
I'm not looking to start a holy war, but the argument that mac's aren't as powerful or aren't "business" or "enterprise" strength is a false one.
That's just it...you are using "hardware" to defend an OS when the hardware itself is the same flavor these days. And Unix will smoke Mac OS or Vista. It all boils down to which OS makes you feel all warm and IZ_. In my case and because I run the whole gamut from rendering to encoding to DB work to gaming, prefer the flavor of Vista.
Quote from: ZLTFUL on January 09, 2009, 04:45:06 PM
Great comparison vs other Macs...and using Cinebench. Of course, you are comparing my single 4 core CPU 4GB of RAM computer to a 2 CPU 8 Core with 16GB of RAM Mac...also that they used the 32bit version of Cinebench and not a 64bit render.
Now you want the Mac to use a downgraded chip to compete with your overclocked cpu?
Didn't notice any of that falsetto in this bold claim "but if you can find a Mac based computer that can do the number of processes at the speeds my PC based computer can do, I will happily lick the sweat off of a rapid German Shepard's balls."
Are you asking us to put the Shepard back in the kennel?
QuoteThat's just it...you are using "hardware" to defend an OS when the hardware itself is the same flavor these days. And Unix will smoke Mac OS or Vista. It all boils down to which OS makes you feel all warm and IZ_. In my case and because I run the whole gamut from rendering to encoding to DB work to gaming, prefer the flavor of Vista.
1. I'm not doing anything other than responding to your premise that ..."if you actually use a computer for actually doing computing (heavy math processing, deep encoding, rendering, etc) Macs are definitely not the way to go." That is a question of processing power and computability not OS or UI.
2. From a stability standpoint as far as the HW goes there's very little difference between the Unix servers and the MacPro (the prior generation even shared chips with IBM's top of the line P-Series servers). From a speed standpoint it would depend on which level of Unix server and configuration you are looking at and how they are partitioned/clustered/virtualized etc.
3. Stating that using a Mac equates to a technical simpleton or someone who needs their hand held let alone stating that Mac's aren't for serious work is just a fanboy retarded claim and it deserved being called out as such.
I love PC's and all things MS. I sell Enterprise SW to the Fortune 100 that helps them manage, monitor and secure all the Systems, Networks, Software and Applications they have. If it weren't for the inherent flaws of the PC systemwide; I'd have a lot less income to spend on my passion - Ducs. ;D
We agree on OS from one standpoint and that's UI. I agree that's personal preference and to each their own. For me, when I get home after helping others operate on their systems, networks and applications the last thing I want to do is act as a computer tech. I bought a MacBook Pro because it's stable, reliable, relatively secure and just plain works - night after night after night after night with little to no care and feeding. The fact that it's fast is a nice plus.
QuoteI bought a MacBook Pro because it's stable, reliable, relatively secure and just plain works - night after night after night after night with little to no care and feeding.
I bought a Windows based laptop becasue its stable reliable, relaitively secure and just plain works, night after night after night ( 4 years, what finnaly got it was hardware failure from droping it, traveling with it, using it as a sheild to incoming objects. etc).
Whats the difference? it all boils down to what you need to do with it and what u are most comfortable with. All the big expensive software exists mostly on a windows based computer right now. so thats where most of the market is. When Mac cleans up their user interface to something more logical, and they stop using the whole brand to sell a life style, AND they have a good number of software then ill check it out.
Till then, im happy with my HP Blue Label laptop.
Heres something to think about. Mac attacks PC. PCs = Personal Computer. A PC can run things other than windows. Hell my PC runs Vista and Ubuntu. I could just run one or the other. Even Mac knows that they need to allow windows to run on their machines just be competative because a lot of software is still windows based. Without OSX can you even run windows bootcamp? Could you install linux/unix based OS onto a mac without having OSX on it? (these arent rhetorical questions)
Quote from: He Man on January 09, 2009, 06:01:16 PM
Whats the difference? it all boils down to what you need to do with it and what u are most comfortable with. All the big expensive software exists mostly on a windows based computer right now. so thats where most of the market is. When Mac cleans up their user interface to something more logical, and they stop using the whole brand to sell a life style, AND they have a good number of software then ill check it out.
what "big expensive software" are you referring to?
i have ONE piece of software that a choose not to run on my mac because the windows version is more fully featured: quicken.
Quote from: He Man on January 09, 2009, 06:01:16 PM
Without OSX can you even run windows bootcamp? Could you install linux/unix based OS onto a mac without having OSX on it? (these arent rhetorical questions)
yes, if you have a bootloader that can do it. grub will.
(bootcamp is really just an installation wizard, a collection of hardware drivers for windows, and a bootloader that allows you to choose which OS to boot)
you like Windows that's cool but you need to learn more about what you hate. you're points are so full of inaccuracies regarding SW, logical file structures, etc i'd get a hand cramp replying to them all.
it's not that HP doesn't sell hardware that can compete w/ a mac pro, it's just that you have to shop for it in a completely different section:
http://h10010.www1.hp.com/wwpc/us/en/en/WF06b/12454-12454-296719-307907-296721-3432827-3432828-3651657.html (http://h10010.www1.hp.com/wwpc/us/en/en/WF06b/12454-12454-296719-307907-296721-3432827-3432828-3651657.html)
this made me giggle:
Operating system
Genuine Windows Vista® Business with downgrade to Windows® XP Professional custom installed
Quote from: COWBOY on January 09, 2009, 06:35:27 PM
you like Windows that's cool but you need to learn more about what you hate. you're points are so full of inaccuracies regarding SW, logical file structures, etc i'd get a hand cramp replying to them all.
Learn more about what you hate? Is that suppose to be like "know thy enemy"?
I used it, i dont like it for the reasons i pointed out. its not like i didnt try. My school has a computer lab and im always on the Macs because the PCs always have a line. I just dont like the using it. Should i go waste my time and learn about something that i would never need to know how to use, nor care for?
If your not directing your post to me then nvm.
Quote
what "big expensive software" are you referring to?
As far as I know, there isnt autocad and matlab for Mac which is what i use the most. Im having some problems running 2006 autocad on 64bit and i heard theres an open source cad for ubuntu.... but until then im running it on 32bit windows xp.
Quote from: He Man on January 09, 2009, 08:26:50 PM
As far as I know, there isnt autocad and matlab for Mac which is what i use the most. Im having some problems running 2006 autocad on 64bit and i heard theres an open source cad for ubuntu.... but until then im running it on 32bit windows xp.
no autocad (there are alternatives), but matlab is good to go:
http://www.mathworks.com/products/matlab/requirements.html (http://www.mathworks.com/products/matlab/requirements.html)
http://www.mathworks.com/support/sysreq/current_release/macintosh.html (http://www.mathworks.com/support/sysreq/current_release/macintosh.html)
Quote from: Supero100 on January 09, 2009, 12:03:36 PM
Courtesy of XKCD.... http://xkcd.com/528/
(http://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/windows_7.png)
That is all
[laugh]
i actually popped into this thread specifically to post that xkcd, but thought i'd check and see if anybody'd beat me to it. [thumbsup]
Quote from: COWBOY on January 09, 2009, 05:15:57 PM
We agree on OS from one standpoint and that's UI. I agree that's personal preference and to each their own. For me, when I get home after helping others operate on their systems, networks and applications the last thing I want to do is act as a computer tech. I bought a MacBook Pro because it's stable, reliable, relatively secure and just plain works - night after night after night after night with little to no care and feeding. The fact that it's fast is a nice plus.
Well I *AM* the IT department for a company that cleared $155 million in revenue last year(selling the number 1 alcoholic beverage in the world). And my piss takes a uturn stream and travels 4 city blocks before climbing 3 flights of stairs and taking the elevator up 2 more floors to the urinal.
You tried to turn this into a pissing contest. 0.1% of the Top 500 super computers in the world run Mac OS. 0.1% of them run BSD. 5% of them run Windows based environments. The rest are split between Linux and Unix so if you look at it that way, we are both failsauce.
Fact is, both Vista AND Mac OS are USUALLY shot down by people how have not taken the time to learn the interface. And even more so by those afraid to tweak the environment to their liking. But I *HAVE* used both and I find for the type of computing I do, Windows (both XP and Vista) win hands down. In fact, we had a DIE HARD Mac user join our graphics team and for her first week she pregnant doged non stop about having to use Windows. I told her that when she came in on Monday that her computer would work just like her Mac (so I made it buggy and only work half the time hahaha Just kidding).
So I tweaked the UI a bit, added a theme similar to OSX, shanged a few other things and viola, she said if she didn't notice the Apple key missing, it would be identical to her Mac. She is very happy now and cranking out some great designs for upcoming concerts.
Bring a Mac Pro on over, I'll provide the beer, and we can have a bench off. Make sure you OC that harpertown though...oh wait...Mac won't let you tweak that aspect of your computer. [roll]
And the neighbors German Shepard still has his nuts...just in case. :-*
Quote from: ZLTFUL on January 09, 2009, 09:37:33 PM
You tried to turn this into a pissing contest. 0.1% of the Top 500 super computers in the world run Mac OS. 0.1% of them run BSD. 5% of them run Windows based environments. The rest are split between Linux and Unix so if you look at it that way, we are both failsauce.
And the neighbors German Shepard still has his nuts...just in case. :-*
Um actually you were the one making bold statements. Don't get all pissy because you got called on them.
If you like Windows good for you. Sounds to me what you really like is building and maintaining your own systems. That's cool.
Just don't claim the 620 you built goes 140mph and is faster than anything out there and expect everyone to accept it. [cheeky]
If you were local and if I had a Mac Pro I'd be happy to buy the beer. I'll drink and eat with any fellow Duc owner as a rule, especially the ones that are different or have differing views than me. [beer]
Unfortunately I have about as much use for that much processing power as I do for an 18 wheeler. My laptop and pickup do just fine.
Quote from: He Man on January 09, 2009, 06:01:16 PM
Could you install linux/unix based OS onto a mac without having OSX on it? (these arent rhetorical questions)
Not sure about the "without having OSX on it" part but both IBM and Red Hat are actually providing their employees the option to choose/use a MacBook Pro as their official computer with the respective version of Linux running on a partition (as opposed to the Thinkpad or Dell they used to provide). Some of my engineers are running Mac OSX, Vista and Linux on the same machine using 3 partitions. One of them is in the process of trying to get a native version of Unix working on his G5 PowerMac but hasn't finished yet. There are other ways to do this also using Virtualization software.
I run Vista in a partition only because the Company's Expense Application has yet to be migrated to the new Web App/Open Std they've migrated to. I've also used it for occasional gaming -- One area that Windows still has an unquestioned lead SW wise is games.