NationStates Jolt Archive

so how about it? Apple or Microsoft? Apple is more reliable yes, but Microsoft is more compatable... and how about design? Microsoft is making what people use most, a standerd tower and laptop, but Apple is making stuff that could change everything... so, Apple or Microsoft?

AHHHH OS Religon wars! *runs for the bunker*

How about both?

We are 2000 and XP. Very little OS related problems. We have rather solid security so there are little virii/worm problems.

However, Apple offered us a sweet deal on an OS X server with 14 terrabytes. Practically giving it away as I guess they are trying to get back into corporate america.

About the only thing it will be used for is to replace a series of SnapServers :eek: dreadful things.

The OS is nice but it does have it's quirks.

Apple is more reliable yes,
because they make all the hardware components and OS... yeah its not suprising when you have no choice
windows copes fantastically well when you consider the millions of different hardware combinations it has to be able to cope with. i'd like to see OSX try to do that :rolleyes:

Microsoft is making what people use most, a standerd tower and laptop,
uh, MS don't make PC's.
and there's far more innovation in the PC design market than that anyway. the latest mac design thing - which is a computer built into a screen - there was a fad for doing that with PC's fucking years ago

but Apple is making stuff that could change everything... so
huh?


i don't like apple. WindowsXP runs what i want, how i want, reliably enough for me, and gives me more choice (hardware and software), freedom (to customise etc), and PCs are cheaper. MS software sets global standards in communications and also quality (like some kind of world benchmark), and, frankly, i just prefer the GUI of windows over OSX. plus having two mouse buttons really helps things.
a friend of mine is mac crazy (and a MS-hater) now, so i use his macs a bit... we just don't get on. he's semi-computer illiterate so the mac is just great for him. those of us who have some clue as to what we're doing with computers tend to head for the PC.

AHHHH OS Religon wars! *runs for the bunker*

Apple offered us a sweet deal on an OS X server with 14 terrabytes.
a server? was it a deal just for you or can someone like me get our hands on one?



not planning on a war... hope no one gets violint about this...

Amiga!

long live apple!!!!!!!!!

What were those old sayings? Ah yes...

Mac: Macs are made for people with the IQ of bellybutton lint.

Windows: Join the rebel alliance and fight against the evil Darth Gates.

Simply put, Linux. ;)

*runs from the angry Mac and Windows users*

Microsoft don't make PCs any more? about 4-5 years ago we got a PC from Microsoft and the only things they didn't make themselves were the case and the power suply... but times have changed.

GO MICROSOFT :D

I've used Windows all my life and it's so much easier than Apple. I think people like what they're used to...whatever you get first is what you stick with.

Linux

Microsoft don't make PCs any more? about 4-5 years ago we got a PC from Microsoft and the only things they didn't make themselves were the case and the power suply... but times have changed.
MS have never made processors, or graphics/video cards, or RAM... probably not sound cards or motherboards either to the best of my knowledge

so either a) you're joking, b) you're mistaken, or c) i'm missing out on something pretty big here


that said they do make peripherals like mice and keyboards (pretty well if you ask me)

Beyond all doubt Windows for my PC. Linux for my server. Apple for my trashcan.

so how about it? Apple or Microsoft? Apple is more reliable yes, but Microsoft is more compatable... and how about design? Microsoft is making what people use most, a standerd tower and laptop, but Apple is making stuff that could change everything... so, Apple or Microsoft?
Microsoft makes neither tower nor laptop ... they are a SOFTWARE company

Microsoft makes neither tower nor laptop ... they are a SOFTWARE company

read the posts! thats been said.

read the posts! thats been said.
my bad for re pointing out your error

MS have never made processors, or graphics/video cards, or RAM... probably not sound cards or motherboards either to the best of my knowledge

so either a) you're joking, b) you're mistaken, or c) i'm missing out on something pretty big here


that said they do make peripherals like mice and keyboards (pretty well if you ask me) I'm pritty sure it was MS stuff... but that was 4 or 5 years ago so it's not like i can check again

Microsoft.

hey guys...Microsoft's the shYt, and you know it. Its, reliable, user friendly, and not a bitch.

I'm pritty sure it was MS stuff... but that was 4 or 5 years ago so it's not like i can check again
They also make network devices such as access points ... and I think I remember monitors for a bit

But I was not aware of any "complete" system beyond some sort of tv internet device

uh, MS don't make PC's.
and there's far more innovation in the PC design market than that anyway. the latest mac design thing - which is a computer built into a screen - there was a fad for doing that with PC's fucking years ago

Huh? "The latest mac design thing"? They've been doing this since 1983 with the Lisa II.

Huh? "The latest mac design thing"? They've been doing this since 1983 with the Lisa II.
Not to mention the infamous imac

apple is stupid and apple computers suck they have some of the slowest proceser speeds aned specs plus they are like ten times the prcie of a comprable pc runing windows

whatever works for you, at the moment I'm on an apple, I like the look and feel of the design, I am a graphic designer and I feel comfortable being creative on an Apple computer. I am also an avid RPG,RTS and TBS gamer, and most of those titles are on windows, so I am thinking of getting an entry level windows games machine. It doesnt matter really, in an ideal consumer environment there should be room for both platforms or more (linux,solaris etc) so consumers have a choice of what suits their personality.

Piekrom']apple is stupid and apple computers suck they have some of the slowest proceser speeds aned specs plus they are like ten times the prcie of a comprable pc runing windows
Not only are you wrong about actual processor speeds ... specs AND the actual price difference

you manage to not take into acount their advantage in processor style nor their future prospects with again changing processor brands

Not to mention the infamous imac

Hang on... I say 'they have been doing this since 1983' and you respond with 'not to mention they have been doing this since 1998'... consider me a tad bemused.

i say that we need to make only one system legal and let it be watched by the UN so that way everyone is compatible with one another this is why apple sucks it is not comptible with most things.

Hang on... I say 'they have been doing this since 1983' and you respond with 'not to mention they have been doing this since 1998'... consider me a tad bemused.
He comes with "new" fad

You point out a really old example

I point out a middle aged example but more famous


I dont know why you would be so bemused

Piekrom']i say that we need to make only one system legal and let it be watched by the UN so that way everyone is compatible with one another ....

In the name of Ghod, why?

Piekrom']i say that we need to make only one system legal and let it be watched by the UN so that way everyone is compatible with one another this is why apple sucks it is not comptible with most things.
Great idea :rolleyes: lets kill all creativity and prospect for invention and expansion

From what I've heard, you can do little more than upgrade your RAM with a Mac. With a PC, I can get a new chassis, new mobo, new processor, new RAM, new PCI card, or a new video card and so forth.

I dont know why you would be so bemused

Well, as far as I'm concerned showing that they have been building this kind all-in-one computer for over twenty years is a more effective way of proving him to be incorrect than showing that they have been building this kind of all-in-one computer for about seven. One is subsumed within the other, y'know?

so how about it? Apple or Microsoft? Apple is more reliable yes, but Microsoft is more compatable... and how about design? Microsoft is making what people use most, a standerd tower and laptop, but Apple is making stuff that could change everything... so, Apple or Microsoft?


due to lack of choices, ill pick apple, simply because i dont want to give microshit anymore power then it already has. i'd consider any who isnt either as experienced as i am in the matter, or working for microshit, a fool to support it.

people tell you its so good cause it has what everyone wants, it sometimes even comes at a reasonable price. well when you support microsoft you take it to the top, if microsoft was all there ever was, would you really want to trust your happiness to a company with a man controlling it who simply isnt satisfied with billions of dollars, i know i wouldnt.

I hate microsoft, I hate apple, but since I hate one more then the other, I vote apple, even though I'll never use apple unless not given a choice. (Linux all the way for me)

Well, as far as I'm concerned showing that they have been building this kind all-in-one computer for over twenty years is a more effective way of proving him to be incorrect than showing that they have been building this kind of all-in-one computer for about seven. One is subsumed within the other, y'know?
Where I found it effective to point out the massive line of computers he forgot about instead of a very old school example that was not neerly as widly know and easy to forget about :p

Linux.

Don't know about using it? Try knoppix. It boots right off of your CD rom drive, doesn't install anything on your current hard drive. I am told that it's much like Redhat etc. It's a good way to try without having to re-partition, format, etc.

http://www.knoppix.org (click on the top right flag for english).

so how about it? Apple or Microsoft? Apple is more reliable yes, but Microsoft is more compatable... and how about design? Microsoft is making what people use most, a standerd tower and laptop, but Apple is making stuff that could change everything... so, Apple or Microsoft?

I don't if I'd say more reliable... Apple designs the comps that work with Macintosh, Microsoft has to design Windows to work with god only knows what, and I still had more stability issues with my old school's Macs than with my comp running WinXP. Apple isn't really making stuff that could change everything either... they just sell inferior products for higher prices and say "this looks cool to us and we gave it a rediculous name that begins with i! Buy it!"

I prefer Microsoft products. Windows is so easy to use and nowadays it's better than Mac in nearly every aspect, and it's just my personal preference.

Beyond all doubt Windows for my PC. Linux for my server. Apple for my hunger cravings.

/fixed/

Apple is crazy overpriced. I love the look and style of Apple machines, but they just aren't worth the $3,000 when I can build a comparable pc for less than half the price.

Granted I don't really like Microsoft either. They try so hard to make it easy to use for people that don't know what they are doing, that it makes it difficult for people that do know what they are doing to accomplish things. Windows XP Service Pack 2 is evil!!!! I can't even access information on my own computer from another computer in my house. What kind of crap is that? If I want to protect my information I will. I don't need Microsoft to make that decision for me.

I do use Windows, but I don't like it, so I didn't vote. I think they both suck. Just thought I'd share my opinion.

due to lack of choices, ill pick apple, simply because i dont want to give microshit anymore power then it already has. i'd consider any who isnt either as experienced as i am in the matter, or working for microshit, a fool to support it.

people tell you its so good cause it has what everyone wants, it sometimes even comes at a reasonable price. well when you support microsoft you take it to the top, if microsoft was all there ever was, would you really want to trust your happiness to a company with a man controlling it who simply isnt satisfied with billions of dollars, i know i wouldnt.

I hate microsoft, I hate apple, but since I hate one more then the other, I vote apple, even though I'll never use apple unless not given a choice. (Linux all the way for me)
What distro?

If you were talking OS, then definately LINUX.
And I don't know sheeeeeet about code.



But of those 2, Apple, definately.

I use a computer for the net
and word processing only.
Would never be stupid enough
to do anything like finances with it.



http://www.microsuxx.com/
the bastards are going to burn for a long time

Where I found it effective to point out the massive line of computers he forgot about instead of a very old school example that was not neerly as widly know and easy to forget about :p

Yeah, the Lisa II is hideously obscure to all but the real geeks, and I started using the much more widely known (and quite frankly cuter) Mac Plus as an example, but then realised that it wasn't actually their first all-in-one machine.

But then I consider Apple to have lost it big-time shortly after the release of System 6.0.8, so I guess my opinions here may be somewhat against the grain.

Yeah, the Lisa II is hideously obscure to all but the real geeks, and I started using the much more widely known (and quite frankly cuter) Mac Plus as an example, but then realised that it wasn't actually their first all-in-one machine.

But then I consider Apple to have lost it big-time shortly after the release of System 6.0.8, so I guess my opinions here may be somewhat against the grain.
Lol yeah ...

Though my opinion picked up when they used BSD as the backend for x

Not only are you wrong about actual processor speeds ... specs AND the actual price difference

you manage to not take into acount their advantage in processor style nor their future prospects with again changing processor brands

i was looking at their g5 power pc ok so it is maybe 8 times the price. mac sould just make their operating system run on what windows runs on they would be a whole lot more efeciant in production and their operating system my wind up being cheeper the windows but for now they suck

as far as the virus problem windows is targeted because it is the most prevelent. think about it if you want to cause a lot of harm to a country would you attack a city or the country side the city right the same idea goes with computers you attack werte most of them are. for the most part though windows has goten its reliability way up.

They didn't even bother making an apple computer virus, its so bad.
But i hate microsoft too. They both suck, but windows is better.

Piekrom']i was looking at their g5 power pc ok so it is maybe 8 times the price. mac sould just make their operating system run on what windows runs on they would be a whole lot more efeciant in production and their operating system my wind up being cheeper the windows but for now they suck

as far as the virus problem windows is targeted because it is the most prevelent. think about it if you want to cause a lot of harm to a country would you attack a city or the country side the city right the same idea goes with computers you attack werte most of them are. for the most part though windows has goten its reliability way up.
I understand your point about targeting ... and I agree BUT I am geek enough to appreciate the small things mac excells at

(btw you may want to pay attention to the fact that MAC as of next year will be going to intell for processors ... and you CAN run osx on PC hardware already)

Bless Bill Gates! His megacorporation is my hero.

Microsoft > Apple
Windows > Macintosh

Crusade! (http://www.mac-sucks.com/)

Great idea :rolleyes: lets kill all creativity and prospect for invention and expansion



DOWN WITH CREATIVITY!!!!!

lol

.hmmm i hav microsoft but i dont really like them. so im
"undecided"

Lol yeah ...

Though my opinion picked up when they used BSD as the backend for x

I must confess though that much as I dislike Microsoft, I have been using their software for a quite frightening length of time now - since 1981... hey, maybe some day they will actually get it right.

I must confess though that much as I dislike Microsoft, I have been using their software for a quite frightening length of time now - since 1981...
Yeah its been sense 87 I believe for me ... old Ibm workstation running MS dos lol

Yeah its been sense 87 I believe for me ... old Ibm workstation running MS dos lol

A Video Genie II (TRS-80 clone) running Microsoft BASIC II for me.

Even though MS-DOS was a hack job on a bought in system (Q-DOS?), I still have a soft spot for it. There are many things that it just can't do, but those things it can do it does amazingly well and with pretty damn good stability. In this its kind of the mirror image of my experiences with WinXP - it can do shitloads, but none of them particularly well or particularly reliably.

A Video Genie II (TRS-80 clone) running Microsoft BASIC II for me.

Even though MS-DOS was a hack job on a bought in system (Q-DOS?), I still have a soft spot for it. There are many things that it just can't do, but those things it can do it does amazingly well and with pretty damn good stability. In this its kind of the mirror image of my experiences with WinXP - it can do shitloads, but none of them particularly well or particularly reliably.
All I got to say is XP is better then ME lol ... I am curious how vista will turn out

All I got to say is XP is better then ME lol ... I am curious how vista will turn out

I've stuck with 98 rather than move on to XP: yeah its flakey, but at least I know where its flakey and can mostly avoid crashing it thanks to being pretty damn familiar with it after using the self-same install for the last seven years.

I've stuck with 98 rather than move on to XP: yeah its flakey, but at least I know where its flakey and can mostly avoid crashing it thanks to being pretty damn familiar with it after using the self-same install for the last seven years.
I moved up to XP pro ... when ya get used to it, it is pretty powerfull ... plus I run my own domain around here so geting 98 to authenticate off a microsoft domain is ... intresting lol

Plus windows 9x doesd not seem to like my dual opterons in my new machine lol

What distro?

slackware personally

slackware personally
Awsome my laptop came up smooth as butter with slackware (I know the guy that makes it met him when I visited bimiji up here)


Though my only problem with it is the fact that it is really a one man show now for updates

As amazing as he is ...

I am a BSD fan

FreeBSD is my main

Also now have a debian fedora and a ubuntu machine up as well

Huh? "The latest mac design thing"? They've been doing this since 1983 with the Lisa II.
Oh, yeah, and like the TRS-80 didn't do it before that.

Oh, yeah, and like the TRS-80 didn't do it before that.

Uh-huh... but they weren't made by Apple, so claiming that 'Apple have been doing this since 1979 with the TRS-80 Model I' would be a tad ineffective as an arguing ploy, no?

Uh-huh... but they weren't made by Apple, so claiming that 'Apple have been doing this since 1979 with the TRS-80 Model I' would be a tad ineffective as an arguing ploy, no?


I was thinking the same thing ... then I caught myself before posting lol (claim that the TRS-80 thing)

Uh-huh... but they weren't made by Apple, so claiming that 'Apple have been doing this since 1979 with the TRS-80 Model I' would be a tad ineffective as an arguing ploy, no?
Not if you claim it was made by Apple, but it works as an argument that the design concept is not that original.

What the fuck is up with Mac design? It's like they build computers to be baby's playtoys. Or like they're let the designers from IKEA loose on a computer. I remember my first computer being a Mac and wondering why in God's name the screen and computer couldn't be seperated and why the fuck my mouse was square? Goddman square?! Though I have to admit they've improved now... WITH ROUND MICE! I can't wait 'til they come out with their ultimate mouse design, electrified barbed wire! ERGONOMICS YOU FUCKHEADS!
[/rant]

Godamn Apple!

Apple or Microsoft?

Linux.

(A more accurate answer would be "Unix." I would have answered "Apple" since MacOS X is Unix-based, but I figure Apple is untouchable for 2-3 years, until the switch to Intel archetecture is complete and the fallout settles. I really wanted an iBook too.)

Not if you claim it was made by Apple, but it works as an argument that the design concept is not that original.

Obviously. I had always thought that the keyboard on the TRS-80 actually housed part of the actual computer, rather than just being solely a keyboard like on a PC or a Mac these days, but I could very well be wrong.

As an IT Systems Administrator, it's my opinion that OSX is more reliable and more user friendly. Windows is more versatile, and it's very easy to have custom programs designed to interface with it.

After dealing with PC's all day, I come home to my Mac. ;)

I've stuck with 98 rather than move on to XP: yeah its flakey, but at least I know where its flakey and can mostly avoid crashing it thanks to being pretty damn familiar with it after using the self-same install for the last seven years.
Trust me when I say this, making the switch is worth it. It takes a little getting used to, but it's like Microsoft has stopped designing software to hurt you. There's almost no wrong answer to anyhting it does. You get coddled the whole way, each option explained and the bad ones already crossed out. You have to deliberatly seek out ways around the safety features to fuck up XP.

I remember my first computer being a Mac and wondering why in God's name the screen and computer couldn't be seperated and why the fuck my mouse was square?

Given a sufficiently long and thin hex wrench removing the screen from the rest of an old Mac was actually child's play.*





* Note: children should not be allowed to play with the cathode ray tubes from old Macs as they are in essence potentially lethal capacitors.

They didn't even bother making an apple computer virus, its so bad.
But i hate microsoft too. They both suck, but windows is better.
Actually they didn't make one, because it would be much harder to.

Most people create viruses for Microsoft because they 1)Hate it 2)It has so many holes for viruses it isn't even funny

EDIT: Btw, I choose Mac. Microsoft is just disgusting. It crashes, causes problems, delets your files. I've used a dual processor G5 for 2 years now and I have not had a single probelm, and I'm not lying. I bought an iBook too a few months ago, and zero problems as well.(Unless you count my iTunes program. It keeps opening when you restart, so you need to close it manually)

Actually they didn't make one, because it would be much harder to.

Most people create viruses for Microsoft because they 1)Hate it 2)It has so many holes for viruses it isn't even funny


Microsoft has a larger user base. Easier for viruses to spread.

Obviously. I had always thought that the keyboard on the TRS-80 actually housed part of the actual computer, rather than just being solely a keyboard like on a PC or a Mac these days, but I could very well be wrong.
Maybe the Model 1, but not the Models 3 and 4, I think.

Actually they didn't make one, because it would be much harder to.


...ignoring the fact that Mac virii have been existing very happily in the wild since 1988, are we?

...ignoring the fact that Mac virii have been existing very happily in the wild since 1988, are we?
Ok, fine, allow me to rephrase.

Mac viruses are much rarer

Ok, fine, allow me to rephrase.

Mac viruses are much rarer

Can't argue with that. Even when expressed as a ratio of incidents of viral infection to potential targets.

What the fuck is up with Mac design? It's like they build computers to be baby's playtoys. Or like they're let the designers from IKEA loose on a computer. I remember my first computer being a Mac and wondering why in God's name the screen and computer couldn't be seperated and why the fuck my mouse was square? Goddman square?! Though I have to admit they've improved now... WITH ROUND MICE! I can't wait 'til they come out with their ultimate mouse design, electrified barbed wire! ERGONOMICS YOU FUCKHEADS!
[/rant]

Godamn Apple!
thats cause they stold the design from xerox ... the square mouse ... they did not bother to change it much

Apple FTW !!!

My Name is Tev and I'm addicted to Macs...

thats cause they stold the design from xerox ... the square mouse ... they did not bother to change it much

Meh. I'm still disappointed that they didn't go for one of the earlier prototypes - a football sized trackerball operated with the foot. Tell me that ain't kewl.

Apples losing... O'well, got a PC myself :cool:

((sry I didn't add Linex to the list... didn't know so many people used it.))

Meh. I'm still disappointed that they didn't go for one of the earlier prototypes - a football sized trackerball operated with the foot. Tell me that ain't kewl.
That ain't cool

Huh? "The latest mac design thing"? They've been doing this since 1983 with the Lisa II.
as in the very latest release is one of these, regardless of past products

anything mac can do PCs can do better


I am a graphic designer and I feel comfortable being creative on an Apple computer.
i'm a graphic designer and i feel comfortable being creative on a PC. meh, whatever floats your boat i suppose

I would have thought Apple vs PC would have been better poll options, as other people have pointed out various *nix-based distros can run on PCs as well.

I personally use M$, but thats mainly because I like playing games. IMHO M$ rules for games (not taking consoles into account), Linux for general computer usage (word processing, internet etc), and PCs in general beat Apple for hardware upgradability. I would say that Apple is better from a design/graphics PoV - but as I havn't had any experiance with Apple computers I'm just basing that bit on what I've heard/read over the years.

It's Linux for me, but if I have to choose between the two I'd go with the one that gives me a sturdy Unix-like system - and a bash (well, I do have a mac laptop, but the main pc runs linux)

because they make all the hardware components and OS... yeah its not suprising when you have no choice
windows copes fantastically well when you consider the millions of different hardware combinations it has to be able to cope with. i'd like to see OSX try to do that :rolleyes:

OS X doesn't, but its "father" FreeBSD does, and not only on common PCs, but also on different architectures
(http://www.freebsd.org/platforms/index.html)

(...)i don't like apple. WindowsXP runs what i want, how i want, reliably enough for me, and gives me more choice (hardware and software), freedom (to customise etc), and PCs are cheaper. MS software sets global standards in communications and also quality (like some kind of world benchmark), and, frankly, i just prefer the GUI of windows over OSX. plus having two mouse buttons really helps things.

If windows XP is a benchmark of quality, well, every other non windows operating system with more than 666 users[1] must get super scores.

Also, "windows" (or "microsoft") and "standards" are not words that I would use freely in the same sentence, nor "windows" and "freedom" (you know, with free software you can actually customize the softare you use - or pay someone to do it for you)

The gui is a matter of choice (when I saw the MacOS X gui my reaction was something like "ooooooooo, shiny, beautiful"), but two button mice are common on macs, now (actually, 3 button mice are very useful for us *nix geek who use X11)

On the other side, I find that one button trackpads are easier to use, and miminize the distance between the hands and the keyboard.

a friend of mine is mac crazy (and a MS-hater) now, so i use his macs a bit... we just don't get on. he's semi-computer illiterate so the mac is just great for him. those of us who have some clue as to what we're doing with computers tend to head for the PC.

I agree that macs are great for computer-illiterates: they are easy to use, and quite "luser-resistant" (which can't be said of windows - nightmares of viruses and dialers come to my mind)

But macs are also good for some uses for *nix geeks, as they provide the basic tools they're used to, with a "nice look" - and painless support for most of the periphericals available on the market, something that linux is only close to offer, but not quite there yet.

[1] a semirandom number that should discriminate operating systems made as study projects, for fun, or any other reason other than "running computers in the real world"

Piekrom']i say that we need to make only one system legal and let it be watched by the UN so that way everyone is compatible with one another this is why apple sucks it is not comptible with most things.


that's fine, shall we pick an existing standard, right?

what about POSIX? most existing OS are either POSIX compatible or "would be POSIX compatible if getting certified would't cost too much"

thats cause they stold the design from xerox ... the square mouse ... they did not bother to change it much

bought

they bought the design from xerox

it is microsoft who later stole it from apple

It basically comes down to which user interface you are comfortable with. Sure, XP has more security holes, but the only people who ever get affected by them are idiots who don't configure their firewall/AV properly.

It basically comes down to which user interface you are comfortable with. Sure, XP has more security holes, but the only people who ever get affected by them are idiots who don't configure their firewall/AV properly.

The underlying windows architecture and the fact that those things are not really integrated into the OS makes it possible to bypass windows software firewalls with relative ease. Relative here however is still tough enough to block most of the scripted ("scriptkiddies") virii and backdoor attacks, which form the overwhelming majority.

Where it comes to marketing philosophy I actually prefer MS over apple. MS at least works on different machines. Where it comes to design I prefer the MacOS, but dislike the machines themselves.

If windows XP is a benchmark of quality, well, every other non windows operating system with more than 666 users[1] must get super scores.

Also, "windows" (or "microsoft") and "standards" are not words that I would use freely in the same sentence, nor "windows" and "freedom" (you know, with free software you can actually customize the softare you use - or pay someone to do it for you)

thats precisely what i meant - windows, because its the world standard, provides a minimum level of quality that rival OS's must better in order to be considered rivals. without this minimum benchmark, all number of shit OS's might well be out there, like in the days before widows conquered the world

and generally i don't need the software i use to be customised - for the most part it does the job i need it to, as does the OS i use. i don't need to use something else, do i don't bother

thats precisely what i meant - windows, because its the world standard, provides a minimum level of quality that rival OS's must better in order to be considered rivals. without this minimum benchmark, all number of shit OS's might well be out there, like in the days before widows conquered the world

I wonder what shit OS are you talking about

DOS? shit? no, it did its job. OS? neither (it did a good job allowing to launch programs - at least before the memory limitations begun to be too small)

Unixes? they are still alive, they were real operating systems way before windows came along, and they are now the base for most of the widely used OSs (the main exception being the two windows families)

Mac OS? It had some limitations, could not scale well to modern computers, but in its time it worked, and was more an OS than dos.

The various systems for older home computers (Commodore, Spectrum, etc.)? those where something between real computers and gaming platforms, they couldn't run a real operating system, and they didn't need it, either.

The other OSs I talked about are stuff that was never meant to run on computers that are used for real work, at least not in their current incarnation (Linux started this way, but when the mayor version changed to 2 it was already being developed as "something to be used", to get the current results):
* research projects (something good may come out, but it will probably be integrated in another OS, rather than making the current one production ready)
* learning exercises (writing an OS is a good way to learn how OSs are made)
* fun projects (these tend to have the worst results)

bought

they bought the design from xerox

it is microsoft who later stole it from apple
MY point being they were not the original designer of the mouse … did not spend the time making significant design changes … as such the “square” mouse was not entirely their fault

(and if you want to be technical it was not microsoft but ibm compatable companies that stold it from apple)

Microsoft for programming, Apple for graphics design.

Both OS's have their strengths and flaws. Microsoft simply has better programming interfaces. Apple has better graphic capabilities.

Microsoft for programming, Apple for graphics design.

Both OS's have their strengths and flaws. Microsoft simply has better programming interfaces. Apple has better graphic capabilities.
I would beg to differ

With osx being BSD based it has a multitude of built in programing facilities

Namily things like Gcc and g++ compilers along with the ability to load in any unix envyroment that you care to name

Excluding programming in VB I would choose OSX any day

Who's up for buying the Mac OS X Tiger on the Intel platform?
You could run XP and Tiger on ya Mac, err, PC.

Microsoft and Apple are evil Linux rules the universe.

Who's up for buying the Mac OS X Tiger on the Intel platform?
You could run XP and Tiger on ya Mac, err, PC.
I have seen it done already … but I am curious are they actually going to support it? I heard MAC was trying to reduce the ability to run OS 10.4 on non MAC hardware

Microsoft and Apple are evil Linux rules the universe.
PSSST OS 10.X is FreeBSD with a darwin core and a fancy gui

In the end it IS unix based

I have seen it done already … but I am curious are they actually going to support it? I heard MAC was trying to reduce the ability to run OS 10.4 on non MAC hardware

The new Intel Mac is well an Intel PC, so you can go run Windows. As for Tiger on non Mac-Intels, there might be some special hardware added somewhere.

Wonder it it works on a Athlon 64 system?

Apple's are for fags.

http://sokrates.mimuw.edu.pl/~sebek/pub/linux-pics/Linux-penguin-huge.jpg


I claim this thread in the name of ME!

I wonder what shit OS are you talking about

DOS? shit? no, it did its job. OS? neither (it did a good job allowing to launch programs - at least before the memory limitations begun to be too small)

Unixes? they are still alive, they were real operating systems way before windows came along, and they are now the base for most of the widely used OSs (the main exception being the two windows families)
-snip-
yeah those are the good ones people have heard of and know about - i didn't say all other, old OS's were shit. there were many more (shit) OS's out there in the past i believe

I be pirating OS/2 Warp as we speak.

I be pirating OS/2 Warp as we speak.
Why not GEM?

Microsoft. Always.

The new Intel Mac is well an Intel PC, so you can go run Windows. As for Tiger on non Mac-Intels, there might be some special hardware added somewhere.

Wonder it it works on a Athlon 64 system?
So you would think but I heard they are trying to restrict crossover of OS's and platforms

yeah those are the good ones people have heard of and know about - i didn't say all other, old OS's were shit. there were many more (shit) OS's out there in the past i believe

people haven't heard of other OSs because they didn't exist (on the market - again, research "labs" are a different matter), or if they did, it wasn't windows who moved them out of the market

windows succeeded in moving out of the market one OS: OS/2, not because it was a shit OS, but mostly because it was ready earlier, and while they both run dos and win16 apps, OS/2 couldn't run win32 apps (and there weren't still many OS/2 apps)

other dead OSs were either
* non portable OSs for early mainframes: they died when their architecture died, and were replaced by various unixes
* BASIC interpreters and simple OSs for early home computers: they had a specific niche on computers that weren't able to run a full OS, and were pretty much dead by the time DOS variants became a standard; by the time of windows, computers had been able to run a real operating system for a while, and they would have been pointless anyway.

Regardless of what OS you prefer, consider how bad Windows would suck if there were no alternative OS's. We'd still have 95.

Competition is good, and we're fortunate to have the choice of what works best for us.

actualy incorect due to some of the anti trust laws and everything to prevent things from becoming inferior the software indistry is given like 5 or six years on their product before they are requiered to realease the code to other developers this only aplies to microsoft as far as i know which is why they have been making newer ones to make their old ones usless to other developers in order to keep their monopoly.

* BASIC interpreters and simple OSs for early home computers: they had a specific niche on computers that weren't able to run a full OS, and were pretty much dead by the time DOS variants became a standard; by the time of windows, computers had been able to run a real operating system for a while, and they would have been pointless anyway.

Couple of points... by 'DOS variants' you mean 'MS-DOS variants', yeah?

Secondly, Windows existed for about ten years at minimum before it could actually be considered to be a real operating system rather than just a fancy GUI.

Regardless of what OS you prefer, consider how bad Windows would suck if there were no alternative OS's. We'd still have 95.


It is not competition with the alternatives that drives new releases of Windows, instead the desire to sell the same consumers what is pretty much the same product again and again.

Couple of points... by 'DOS variants' you mean 'MS-DOS variants', yeah?

Secondly, Windows existed for about ten years at minimum before it could actually be considered to be a real operating system rather than just a fancy GUI.

By DOS variants I meant things like PC-DOS, DR-DOS etc., sold by other companies than microsoft, but mostly compatible and comparable with MS-DOS.

and you're right: I used "windows" as a synonym for "windows 9x and windows NT family", i.e. "every windows sold as an operating system", and quite ignored the windows (1.x to 3.x) GUIs over dos , that are somehow off topic when talking about OSs.

(one may object that even windows 9x was a GUI over DOS, but since it was included in the "package" sold, I suppose that the DOS can be considered as part of the "windows" system.)

With windows you reboot, with linux you just root!

With windows you reboot, with linux you just root!
Naw ya still have to reboot sometimes

Ok, here's the thing,

Different OS's all have good and bad points, and for that reason, every OS is good for one job or another.

Windows is a good home pc for the regular user. It's compatable with most hardware, is well supported, and is easy to use.

Mac OS is very stable, a very nice OS, but Apple computers aren't designed for gamers, they are very good for graphic design, music (that's creating it) and all sorts of other multimedia jobs

Linux is great for developers/geeks, however some distros (eg, Mandriva, Linspire) are making it a better choice for average home users. It still has issues, with hardware developers not too interested in supporting it all the time. It's best feature, Price=FREE. It can also be a lot more secure and support bigger and more scalable networks than windows server editions.
And don't forget, FREE

I personally run a dual boot xp/FC4 (Fedora Core 4 Linux) at home, but then, I'm an IT student and have to work in both environments from time to time.

OS X doesn't, but its "father" FreeBSD does, and not only on common PCs, but also on different architectures
(http://www.freebsd.org/platforms/index.html)


For those interested, the system at the base of OS X is a FreeBSD derivative called Darwin, which is available free for x86 architectures too.

http://www.apple.com/macosx/features/unix/

wow. lots of linux people. nice

my opinion (like it matters :rolleyes: )

gaming: windows
business: windows
art & music: mac
development: linux

mac has decent machines, all IBM parts too... i just wish they didn't make them look so effeminate and/or childish. If they made compters that had the look and feel of computers and not toys, I might feel more sympathetic to another unix based system... but everything mac does just feels so backward.

Microsoft needs to stop reusing the same shitty code theyve been using in every OS they've made, and they need to ditch the whole internet explorer integration thing. IE is a big POS and unfortunately, 75% of windows is dependent on it. Definitely the most exploited system, and because of this aspect.

Linux... it's hard to learn and time consuming. Give it another 5 yrs, though. I think it'll catch up just because it's gaining popularity. A lovely thing, open source is. I just wish gaming companies would develop for linux so i wouldn't have to depend on wine, or my dual boot with windows.

LOL...I remember about ten years ago, the first time I was forced to use a computer (before that I was too young/too ignorant to realize what a computer was). Because I was forced to learn through the public school system, and my school was t3h sux0r, they made me learn on a friggin Apple IIC.

Weren't those POS "computers" from about eight or ten years before I was made to use them? They were soooooooooooooooo friggin slow that when I would enter text, nothing would show on the screen for a few seconds, followed by an entire line appearing at once. Didn't take long for me to write off Apple :rolleyes:

I know that IICs aren't representative of Apple computers on the market now, but that experience left a really bad taste in my mouth to this day...

So, that leaves me with Micro$hit. (too lazy to learn Linux/Unix :D ) My biggest complaint with Winblow$ is the POS IE, which I can't terminate by "end process." No, I wasn't st00pid enough to actually try this; I know better, but I also know that it's a useless memory hog, because I use Firefox. :D

That said, Micro$hit's business practices are evil. I truly believe the DoJ should have broken it up when it had the chance, and split Micro$hit into an OS company and an internet browser company. Maybe even split it into more than two companies...

So I make do with Win XP. The closest time I've come to a crash was trying to update to SP 2, which I know was a mistake, but the IT guys who run the campus network were trolling for everyone to do it. The computer froze during the installation but lucky me I was able to system restore and tell IT that I ain't touching SP 2 with a pole as long as hurricanes are wide.

Other than that the only problems I've had: a key falling off the keyboard 2 hours after I extracted it from the box and overheating. The former I fixed myself and haven't had anymore problems in 2 yrs :D, and the latter is apparently a design flaw with Dell Inspirons that I circumvented with one of those cooling pads and a can of compressed air. Ironically, I ended up fixing the cooling pad myself too because I looked at the warranty and discovered it would have been a pain in the @$$; it would cost more to ship back and forth than I paid for the unit.

So most of my problems have been minor hardware problems instead of Winblow$ problems. I fully acknowledge Micro$hit's evilness (greed, business practices) and as such abstained from voting in my poll.

One other thing: I have about 30 PC games. I think there are Mac versions for three, maybe four, of them. Mac-lovers try to tell me about compatibility emulators or some such thing to let me run PC programs on Macs, but for me, that means a)buying a new computer when I can (hopefully) get another 2 years off of this one, and b)running one more memory-hogging program. No thanks.

mac has decent machines, all IBM parts too... i just wish they didn't make them look so effeminate and/or childish.
Does this (http://www.apple.com/powermac/specs.html) look effeminate?
As i work in the graphics industry Apple is the way to go. The G5 still rules benchmark tests for Photoshop, it is just damn fast. Fast enough to play UT2004 with all settings maxed without any super-expensive accelerator card.

Apple is more reliable yes, but Microsoft is more compatable..

Microsoft is more compatible? With what? With other Microsoft products? Well, actually Apple is compatible with Apple products. What are you talking about?

wow. lots of linux people. nice

my opinion (like it matters :rolleyes: )

gaming: windows
business: windows
art & music: mac
development: linux

lots of linux in business these days, in the uk at least.

its not so much apple i don't like, it has its uses... but apple users who tend to be rather stuck up about it, as people seem to overlook apple is just as much of an "evil" corpration as microsoft.
but everything works for windows and the new OS from 2000 onwards (when they started using NT again) is just as reliable as any other operating system.
I would use linux but i'm still a bit of a n00b when it comes to using it, so when i figure out how to get the internet working and all my games then i may install that

Windows 95 all the way!

For those interested, the system at the base of OS X is a FreeBSD derivative called Darwin, which is available free for x86 architectures too.

http://www.apple.com/macosx/features/unix/
Darwin is yes but not the fancy gui or any of the other things that make apple stand out

Sorry but as far as BSD goes darwin is a rather bland fetureless core (before apples additions are added)

its not so much apple i don't like, it has its uses... but apple users who tend to be rather stuck up about it, as people seem to overlook apple is just as much of an "evil" corpration as microsoft.
but everything works for windows and the new OS from 2000 onwards (when they started using NT again) is just as reliable as any other operating system.
I would use linux but i'm still a bit of a n00b when it comes to using it, so when i figure out how to get the internet working and all my games then i may install that

True, they are both evil, but then Jobs and Gates are "buddies" again.

And I wouldn't say that everything works for windows after 2000. SP2 that doesn't come pre-installed is still a major hassle. And with their "security" features in XP either you get pounded with viruses and spyware or you can't download a pic from your mom. Not to mention that it isn't truly a mulit-user system.

As far as Linux is concerned, Mandrake 10 is a very nice GUI version that will run most games that are set up for Windows 2000 and later, though you may need to download certain plug-ins.

True, they are both evil, but then Jobs and Gates are "buddies" again.

And I wouldn't say that everything works for windows after 2000. SP2 that doesn't come pre-installed is still a major hassle. And with their "security" features in XP either you get pounded with viruses and spyware or you can't download a pic from your mom. Not to mention that it isn't truly a mulit-user system.

As far as Linux is concerned, Mandrake 10 is a very nice GUI version that will run most games that are set up for Windows 2000 and later, though you may need to download certain plug-ins.
1) you can slip stream SP2 into the install ... and new coppies come with that already done

2) madrake pisses me off now
No free security updates (maybe more then just security updates)

Sorry but there are better solutions then mandrake now ... they have lost my busness lol

i think that we should make one system that has the best of all the systems and scrap all the other os so programers only have one programing set to worry about. and to ensure it is not evil it should have a group of countries watching it namely the UN. Yes i want to distroy creativity it is stupid to be creative especialy when you try to be creative you reduce other peoples hapienis because you make them incompatible with you. everyone would be a lot happier with one os that everyone can agree on because compatibility would not be an issue. as far as servers go make all the different types you want because servers are ment to allow all os to conect. and they are just ment as a conection and storage hub.

Piekrom']i think that we should make one system that has the best of all the systems and scrap all the other os so programers only have one programing set to worry about. and to ensure it is not evil it should have a group of countries watching it namely the UN. Yes i want to distroy creativity it is stupid to be creative especialy when you try to be creative you reduce other peoples hapienis because you make them incompatible with you. everyone would be a lot happier with one os that everyone can agree on because compatibility would not be an issue. as far as servers go make all the different types you want because servers are ment to allow all os to conect. and they are just ment as a conection and storage hub.
You have absolutely no clue about programming do you?
I DARE you to find one language and environment that is the best solution for everything

i said to creat it not that it exsisted already i am certain that if all thouse heads of microsof apple and unix creaters got together they could do something

Piekrom']i said to creat it not that it exsisted already i am certain that if all thouse heads of microsof apple and unix creaters got together they could do something
Nope

Has been tried

There will NEVER be one all pervasive programming language because there are too many differing applications of programs

Though I suppose you don’t understand the difference between high level low level interpreted and how it relates to efficiency and application

no i do not i am not a programer

Piekrom']i said to creat it not that it exsisted already i am certain that if all thouse heads of microsof apple and unix creaters got together they could do something

System design is full of trade offs. You can't make one system that is the best at everything. You can make something that's good at a lot of things, but someone can come along with something that's better for a different set of tasks.

That's just they way things go.

Piekrom']no i do not i am not a programer
As such you got to understand that ONE language is not efficient

In certain applications you want to have low level to eek out the most efficiency such as protocol programming

In other situations an easy to use language is better

Sometimes you want things to be very universal … and that is your focus (but that reduces efficiency therefore would not be good if you need it to be really efficient like protocols)


All in all there is a “right tool” for a job like your workshop there is no one "universal" tool and there are too many requirements to make one efficently

System design is full of trade offs. You can't make one system that is the best at everything. You can make something that's good at a lot of things, but someone can come along with something that's better for a different set of tasks.

That's just they way things go.
Exactly


They tried that with java and look how that turned out

Remember all the claims that the next os will be written in java ...
Has not happened yet

I can't be bothered to get into all these complex argument which are probably way over my head anyway, so I'll just say:

Macs rule! Surely there's a reason that the best supercomputers in the world are made from Macs (or something like that - there's one uber one somewhere that's made of loads of G5s all linked up).

Uur, that didn't make any sense did it? Ah well, Macs still rule, even if I'm a buffoon.

I can't be bothered to get into all these complex argument which are probably way over my head anyway, so I'll just say:

Macs rule! Surely there's a reason that the best supercomputers in the world are made from Macs (or something like that - there's one uber one somewhere that's made of loads of G5s all linked up).

Uur, that didn't make any sense did it? Ah well, Macs still rule, even if I'm a buffoon.
Minnesota Deluth did something like that

And just a hint the wold premere DSC is running a majority PC by far

(Check Seti at home)

When you get into true super computing you dont deal with MAC or any of the standard PC manufactures

All hand made (talking true super computers rather then DSC's)

True, but all te hand made stuff is exceptionally specialised - the more common SCs are what I was referring to, and the most powerful of those are Mac based.

True, but all te hand made stuff is exceptionally specialised - the more common SCs are what I was referring to, and the most powerful of those are Mac based.
Naw we have at least two on the grounds here that clasify as super computers ... all AMD processor running *nix

Ah but do they run at 10.28 teraflops? The one I'm on about btw is the 'Big Mac' cluster at Virginia Tech. It comes in thrid in the world, behind the Earth Simulator system - 35.9 tf, and the ASCI Q system - 13.8. Pretty impressive since it only cost about $5 million, as opposed to the others which cost hundreds of millions of dollars.

Check this website for more: http://www.theregister.co.uk/2003/11/04/g5_cluster_secures_elite_spot/

Incidentally I'm pretty sure I'm right in saying that the new IBM SC (not completed yet) will be able to run at like 100 tf or something stupid - and since IBM are like teamed up with Apple, it'll be built on Apple-based processors :)

Ah but do they run at 10.28 teraflops? The one I'm on about btw is the 'Big Mac' cluster at Virginia Tech. It comes in thrid in the world, behind the Earth Simulator system - 35.9 tf, and the ASCI Q system - 13.8. Pretty impressive since it only cost about $5 million, as opposed to the others which cost hundreds of millions of dollars.

Check this website for more: http://www.theregister.co.uk/2003/11/04/g5_cluster_secures_elite_spot/

Incidentally I'm pretty sure I'm right in saying that the new IBM SC (not completed yet) will be able to run at like 100 tf or something stupid - and since IBM are like teamed up with Apple, it'll be built on Apple-based processors :)
Though the future of that is in doubt with apple switching from IBM to intell for their comercial line

Really? That'd be a shame if they did split up. Let's hope they stay together just long enough...

lol, it makes them sound like a couple experiencing marital difficulties :D

Ah but do they run at 10.28 teraflops? The one I'm on about btw is the 'Big Mac' cluster at Virginia Tech. It comes in thrid in the world, behind the Earth Simulator system - 35.9 tf, and the ASCI Q system - 13.8. Pretty impressive since it only cost about $5 million, as opposed to the others which cost hundreds of millions of dollars.

Check this website for more: http://www.theregister.co.uk/2003/11/04/g5_cluster_secures_elite_spot/

Incidentally I'm pretty sure I'm right in saying that the new IBM SC (not completed yet) will be able to run at like 100 tf or something stupid - and since IBM are like teamed up with Apple, it'll be built on Apple-based processors :)
Hmmm really only 35.9 as the third?

I mean Ibm holds 2 right now with http://yahoo.pcworld.com/yahoo/article/0,aid,121533,00.asp
91.2

Not to mention this quote

"Intel's processors powered 333 systems on the list. The company's Pentium 4 was used in 175 supercomputers and its Itanium 2 was in 79 of the systems. IBM's Power chips were used in 77 of the machines, while Intel's Xeon Extended Memory 64 Technology (EM64T) was used in 76 of the computers. HP's PA Risc processors were used in 36 systems and Advanced Micro Devices' Opteron was in 25 systems."

You'll probably find the most popular CPU for supercomputers is the Intel Itanium - an early 64 bit RISC processor.

You'll probably find the most popular CPU for supercomputers is the Intel Itanium - an early 64 bit RISC processor.
Only 79

Their p4 is used in 175

BTW here is the top 500 list

http://www.top500.org/lists/plists.php?Y=2005&M=06

Only 79

Their p4 is used in 175

Didn't see your post ... before I posted. Got a P4 in my laptop!
PS - How you turn on HT on 1.7Ghz, it's been disabled.

Didn't see your post ... before I posted. Got a P4 in my laptop!
PS - How you turn on HT on 1.7Ghz, it's been disabled.
Brand? (I asume bios switch and or flash/update)

Brand? (I asume bios switch and or flash/update)

Compaq EVO 1000C notebook. I've never seen that kind of control in the crappy Compaq BIOS.

Originally posted by UpwardThrust
Hmmm really only 35.9 as the third?

I mean Ibm holds 2 right now with http://yahoo.pcworld.com/yahoo/arti...d,121533,00.asp
91.2

Not to mention this quote

"Intel's processors powered 333 systems on the list. The company's Pentium 4 was used in 175 supercomputers and its Itanium 2 was in 79 of the systems. IBM's Power chips were used in 77 of the machines, while Intel's Xeon Extended Memory 64 Technology (EM64T) was used in 76 of the computers. HP's PA Risc processors were used in 36 systems and Advanced Micro Devices' Opteron was in 25 systems."

My information is quite probably outdated, especially since I just realised that website was from like 2003 - that IBM one you mentioned is probably the one I was on about.

My information is quite probably outdated, especially since I just realised that website was from like 2003 - that IBM one you mentioned is probably the one I was on about.
Yeah I posted the top 500 list as of june

MS is staying at 60%... is that all you got apple lovers? theres still plenty of time left

Microsoft. Plus I worship their branch: Microsoft Game Studios.

MS games aren't all that great... they have made a few groundbreakers, but nothing to make them the best game company. I think CAPCOM is better. :)

Microsoft, I'm hardly an Apple fan. :D

I would say DOS, but since that's an MS product, I'll go with Fedorra! :) Damn, I need to learn how to spell that

I would say DOS, but since that's an MS product, I'll go with Fedorra! :) Damn, I need to learn how to spell that
One r

... and there are deffinatly more powerfull distro's then that
But fedora is good for a begining user

MS is staying at 60%... is that all you got apple lovers? theres still plenty of time left
Considering their market share they are doing amazingly good

With no 'both' or 'other' option, this poll sucks.

With no 'both' or 'other' option, this poll sucks.
yea... sry. I'm gunna make another poll on "best comp company", that will have A linix and other option I garentee it.