Jump to content
Guest Ramm

Windows is not any less of an operating system because it's Windows.

213 posts in this topic

Recommended Posts

Well, I contend that if you can't explain the difference in the "journey", there either isn't one, or you don't know what it is.

 

EFI: Thank you for your information, but it really doesn't answer my question. From what I understand, the journey is being defined in terms of abstract pleasure. Pleasure is subjective. It pleases me to use efficient transportation. It pleases you to use expensive and luxurious transportation. Which means there is no absolute difference between enjoyment.

 

The analogy has been upheld to prove "I like it better, therefore it is better".

 

I like Windows better than OS X, therefore Windows is better than OS X. Let's fight! :hysterical:

Yeah Windows ftw! But as far as the Mercedes/Chevy thing the Mercedes is better. If you could drive 400 miles in a Mercedes or in a Chevy most people would choose the Mercedes. I dont want to get in an argument cause you are like t3h forum mastah with all your post but if there was no price difference between Mercedes and Chevys which would you buy?

Summarizing the car analogy: with a luxury car when you get from A to B (especially a long journey) you'll be a lot less tired. Consider that in Italy many cars don't even have air conditioning and that the weather is hot and humid for much of the year.

Wow. I cant imagine no A/C and that Mediterranean heat.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Advertisement
Windows.

 

It's a great operating system. It has the most application compatibility. It looks great. It rarely undergoes problems. It has good drivers. It doesn't require all-that-good hardware.

 

Why is it hated so?

 

"Because it's Windblows"

 

Lame.

 

It's a great OS. I am sick of hearing people complain about it.

 

It's just as great as OS X.

 

After skinning it to look just like a Mac, it does look pretty good. ^____~

 

All seriousness though, I totally feel what you're saying. Tbh I love windows, only thing I like about Macs is how they look. Also the whole security issue is an LOL, I never have viruses or anything on my PC, but I'm also not stupid. Most who get viruses do so by their own ignorance in browsing. "click here!".. *click*

 

And so what if I have to run anti-virus software, doesn't make counter strike source run any less better. XD

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Ramm

Well, I think Vista is great. If only it didn't take so damn long to install. Aero is pretty awesome, and for those who say that, erm, whatever-you-call-it "Exposé-y" thing is useless, it isn't.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
After skinning it to look just like a Mac, it does look pretty good. ^____~

 

All seriousness though, I totally feel what you're saying. Tbh I love windows, only thing I like about Macs is how they look. Also the whole security issue is an LOL, I never have viruses or anything on my PC, but I'm also not stupid. Most who get viruses do so by their own ignorance in browsing. "click here!".. *click*

 

And so what if I have to run anti-virus software, doesn't make counter strike source run any less better. XD

Im pretty much the same way (as far as Windows goes), except for the fact that I like OS X a lot. Not enough to make me switch though! (But if I bought a laptop It'd be a Mac)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think the fact that MS keeps changing things around (Office 2k7, vista control panel) speaks volumes about how they feel about their previous work.

 

Since the OS9 -> OSX transition, Apple has more or less stuck with it.

 

That said, there's nothing wrong with Windows in its current iterations, and I use it as a primary OS. I'm just saying that Apple seems to have planned their upgrades more carefully.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ok i spent all night laughing my (beep) off at what everyone is saying about the Mac vrs Windows even those two vrs anything that ends in *ux. I litterally spent all night on forums, blogs, and chats on this subject and well i feel i should get my two cents in. Just an FYI. I run All three OS's out there. though here is a list. WIN 98,XP,Vista: Mac OS X: Ubuntu and debian: BeOS 5. I have tested and compaired all them. So Yah.

 

1) Microsoft started small then went big. Really big. Like in every living room big. This started with Windows Media Center and computers that could be hooked up to an networked home and be played all over the house. Then came microsofts game console. The infumis Xbox and Xbox 360 :D . Now I'm not saying Apple didn't try this. They started small to in a gradge to be exact. Thought they are bit behind. They released the Apple TV. Thats it as far as my knowladge goes of when apple tries to be in every living room. Both companies win on this one. Although M$ started earlier. Apple is starting to become logical in this chess game. before you know it we MCE would be opselete :blink: . I think i just made my self cry. :unsure: .

 

2) The infumous saying "THEY STOLE FROM US" *They = microsoft and us = apple users* even though this can go both ways. We can say Microsoft had the search function for YEARS just like Mac. Except Microsoft chose to revamp the start menu and that inclued a search bar that acts sort of like the Apple spotlight. Except this is Microsofts all in one. A. YOu can run programs, access admin options /out having to got different windows. Although Mac has it were you search up emails and music and other things. Microsoft chose to expand on the idea with there own stuff and not "steal". Mac users lose at this one. -_- . if only they would grow up..... jk jk jk. LOL. I would have to say M$ wins.

 

3)Hardware related- I read on this forum on page 3 think half way down there was a person talking about how Mac only works with the hardware it comes with and windows is more "customizable". I totally agree. If apple wasn't and total Hardware base company then we would already have os x out for Intel pc's along time ago. Probally back in the day when system 8 was out. but no. Windows wins on this one for being the the most customizable but Mac also wins for a stable OS that runs on their own hardware. Good both of you... :thumbsup_anim: you both win again :thumbsup_anim: .

 

Now i can go on forever but hey there really isn't no difference between the two. Everyone preferes there own system. and it all boils down to. What exactly are you goin to be using it for.

 

BTW I use My heavy Reading and writing on my hdds with XP on it and i'm running like there no tommarow. My XP is stable as Mac. and vice versa.

 

There is my two cents. :gun: *hehe just want to put that in*

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't dislike windows per se, rather I think there are better os's out there...For example, the applications that come prepackaged with windows in comparison to mac windows movie maker vs. imovie, 0 competition...safari vs. IE, again, I find safari to be a more stable (while although less compatible) user friendly, browser...garage band vs. ....oh wait. Applications aside, due to windows being the most used operating system hackers, spammers, etc, generally want to reach the largest user base. As a user in that large pool of other users, you are (generally speaking) much more susceptible to those types of things...If anyone doubts the quality (or lackthereof) of previous windows os's did you ever wonder why they basically made 3 packaged revisions (and no, not revisions like add a ton of cool new features, revisions)to the exact same os?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Ramm

I do agree that OS X has a one-up on Windows. However, you cannot beat Windows' application compatibility.

 

i dislike windows beacause when i'm using it it means i've screwed up one of my other oses.

 

Even if that were true, that would be no reason to dislike Windows.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I do agree that OS X has a one-up on Windows. However, you cannot beat Windows' application compatibility.

 

 

 

Even if that were true, that would be no reason to dislike Windows.

 

and the random errors i get sometimes. i'm actually content with vista exept the little helper tool!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Windows.

It has the most application compatibility.

Maybe; I have a feeling there are as many apps in the FOSS community these days, but if you're talking about usable, quality apps, then yes. However; this is only because Windows is popular.

 

It looks great.

Now you've lost me. Windows has all the design thought of a breezeblock wall in its classic theme. In Luna mode... Well, don't even start, but who'd want to look at those 4-year-old-authored window borders for longer than it takes to switch them off? The MCE theme 'Royale' is better, and Vista Aero... Looks pretty, but not really prettier than OS X. Looks are subjective, I guess.

 

It rarely undergoes problems.

I'd agree with this statement in general; it can be an a$$ on some hardware, but on mainstream stuff it's generally OK.

 

It has good drivers.

That's bullcrap. Both ATI and nVIDIA's drivers make me sick with all their bugs just to name two, and they're probably the two biggest hardware vendors requiring drivers aside from Intel!

 

It doesn't require all-that-good hardware.

XP/2k don't, but how long 'till you want Vista? I can run Leopard on my 6 year old Quicksilver. I'd like to see Vista running usably on a 6 year old PC.

 

Why is it hated so?

 

"Because it's Windblows"

Not at all. I have nothing against Microsoft or their OS, I just want expected more from the 7 years they had to develop Vista. Apple throw together better updates in a fraction of the time!

 

It's just as great as OS X.

The only thing I'd rather use it for is gaming, and even then only because games aren't available for OS X, or Linux, or FreeBSD, or Solaris... or any of the dozen other OSes I use.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
i dislike windows beacause when i'm using it it means i've screwed up one of my other oses.

 

That used to happen to me when I was a linux newbie and I had a small HD, long ago. Nowadays I have 820GB HD space and always at least 3 operating systems installed. On top of that one can always use a LiveCD.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
XP/2k don't, but how long 'till you want Vista? I can run Leopard on my 6 year old Quicksilver. I'd like to see Vista running usably on a 6 year old PC.

 

I have to say I was quite let down by Leopard's visual features. I hardly think that's a fair comparison. And Vista will run on lots of old machines if you're not running all that crazy Flip 3D and Aero. I think it's important to remember that OS X's "core animation" is just that, it's not real-time 3D hardware acceleration. Correct me if I'm wrong.

 

I personally love Vista and think its Microsoft's OS X - Very pretty, many things changed, not enough backward compatibility for the cheapskates. Except what is up with MS and all their default wallpapers? I mean really, that default Vista one of the aurora looks like death. I suppose it's better than that obnoxious hill think from XP.

 

Does anyone else think that Gadgets are better thought out than Widgets? I really hate how I have to stop what I'm doing for Widgets. Cuz it's F12 (wait like 10 seconds for Widgets to load up the first time), do my thing, and then F12 again. With Vista it's just as Jobs would say "Boom".... without the "and"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

R.E the bit about Vista and older hardware: That's untrue, I've heard of someone running Vista on an 800MHz PIII, it runs slowly albeit but it's there.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
And Vista will run on lots of old machines if you're not running all that crazy Flip 3D and Aero.

 

What's the point of disabling Aero and Flip3D...if those were the two prime selling points for Vista to begin with? In what way will Vista then appear any different from XP...other than the Dx10 capibility...which most average consumers are not even aware of and could honestly care less about.

 

I think it's important to remember that OS X's "core animation" is just that, it's not real-time 3D hardware acceleration. Correct me if I'm wrong.

 

You are wrong mate. Core Animation is indeed real time 3D acceleration API for OS X. It uses your GPU to perform the calculations and animation sequences...so it is hardware acceleration.

 

 

Does anyone else think that Gadgets are better thought out than Widgets? I really hate how I have to stop what I'm doing for Widgets. Cuz it's F12 (wait like 10 seconds for Widgets to load up the first time), do my thing, and then F12 again. With Vista it's just as Jobs would say "Boom".... without the "and"

 

Its your personal preference...so I cant really argue that, however I do like Widgets much, much better than Gadgets. For individuals who have 16:10 (high res as well) aspect ratio displays...gadgets might be ok, however for the vast majority of the users...who run on 4:3 aspect screen display Gadgets are very much space restricting on the desktop. I would rather have all the widgets or these "mini-apps" on a seperate window layer itself...rather than having everything on the desktop layer. The initial load up time is there for Gadgets as well....its not like they load up magically prior to the OS boot sequence. Once Widgets are loaded...they update in a flash...usually in less than a second when you call the dashboard layer. BTW if you wanted, you can make the widgets appear on the desktop permanantly also....I forgot the name of the software, but its avaliable at MacUpdate or VersionTracker.com. ;)

 

R.E the bit about Vista and older hardware: That's untrue, I've heard of someone running Vista on an 800MHz PIII, it runs slowly albeit but it's there.

 

Is it running Aero Glass? Flip3D? Do you have a link to the article please? :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
What's the point of disabling Aero and Flip3D...if those were the two prime selling points for Vista to begin with? In what way will Vista then appear any different from XP...other than the Dx10 capibility...which most average consumers are not even aware of and could honestly care less about.
Yes, because if you aren't using Aero Glass and Flip3D all the other new things magically disappear. Yup.

 

Hey, any word on those XP viruses that work flawlessly in Vista that you mentioned ? ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Yes, because if you aren't using Aero Glass and Flip3D all the other new things magically disappear. Yup.

 

Hey, any word on those XP viruses that work flawlessly in Vista that you mentioned ? ;)

 

Your kidding me right :) . Most (meaning 90%) of those "extra feateures" other than Dx10 can already be done in XP. And yes, I was meaning Aero Glass. Anything other than Aero Glass looks ugly (i.e Aero Basic). Those other 10 percent constitute for the shell improvements....which would have been truly awesome if WinFS was implemented...but that never happened now did it? Aww common mate, dont run back to the mods on this one as well. :whistle: But hey...I'm not the one who tried to hijack this thread.

 

I still need Windows for gaming purposees.....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Ramm

Doesn't Aero link against the DX10 framework, though? I heard it did, which means it would be impossible in XP.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Doesn't Aero link against the DX10 framework, though? I heard it did, which means it would be impossible in XP.

 

Hmm...I dont quite think so mate. From what I remember...all Aero Glass required as the prime requirement to run it was shader model 2.0. This is already avaliable on every grpahics card after the GeForce 6200 and the Radeon 9600, so I think it would be possible to emulate Aero Glass under XP provided there is the underlying UI frameworks. Its not dependant on Dx10...if that what you meant mate. ;) . I saw a video on youtube of Ubuntu + Beryl with a Vista UI that had the transparencies as well as the blur effect rendered perfectly.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ok, I just got my first mac (Mac Pro), November 2006.

 

Here is a few things that I've noticed.

 

OSX has a much more uniform feel. Almost every window is exactly the same between programs. (how many different "save/open" file dialogs in windows can you find within the different API's)

 

Installing software is infinitely superior under OSX. and moving a game, or program's folder doesn't mean that you lose every single link and all your shortcuts don't work, I don't know *how* OSX does that, but it does, so it wins

 

If you need permission for something, simply clicking "ok" isn't going to do it, you actually need permission!

 

Aside from my vast game collection, I have found very high quality Free software that does everything I need (with one exception, which I will get to in a sec *edit*, ok 2 exceptions, .net programming as well, though I *could* use MONO for some of it, it doesn't have directX stuff enabled yet)

 

I haven't once needed to run any special command lines, registry edits, or search into 8+ windows/menu's for the options I need. (and when I do need to chance some sort of setting, there is only 2 or 3 places I even need to look (Right click, preferences, top menu) No "msconfig" or group management consoles..

 

I don't actually deal with the Operating system. It is almost never even a factor in my day to day life. I simply run my programs and deal with them.

 

My biggest complaint about using OSX, is that Picasa doesn't run on it. I have not found any software that comes even remotly close to it's speed or ease of use for sorting through my 100+GB of photo's. (iPhoto takes about 2 minutes just to start up) I'm hoping Parallels 3.0 lives up to it's hype so I can run it, and my games under OSX.

 

I'd also like to be able to switch the copy/paste shortcuts from "command-c/v" to "control-c/v" It's just confusing as all hell switching between my mac and PC

 

 

So that's my opinions. Except for games and my laptop (which is what I use Picasa on most of the time) I've switched to OSX. I don't care about virus threats or anything like that, I ran without virus or spyware scanners for the last 2 years. I just never had any issues with them (gg hardware firewalls) so that doesn't play into my reasonings at all.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Why is it hated so?

 

"Because it's Windblows"

 

Because of about 1 00 000 viruses. Because of the tons of spyware and adware it is compatible with. Because of the complicated user interface. Because it's so hard for the averege user to maintain.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

i think windows is better than osx and here are my reasons.

 

1 i dont have to pay 600 for a cheap ass pc. If i want a cheap windows pc i can get them for 350.

2 more hardware and brands. if i dont like my ibm pc, i go to hp, if i dont like them someone else, i dont have to fork all my cash to the same company.

3 The start bar. its more useful than the dock, mine holds shortcuts to +300 apps. a dock with that many shortcut would be very annoying. i think minimizing to dock unneeded, i know what window is what, im not supid and need a reminder. i will say its pretty though

4 the close actually closes the app. no need for alt Q(apple q)

5 it just work

 

they say macs come with great software...well mac or pc i perfer to use 3rd party software. safari and ie suck compared to firefox, email is best done when web based. ichat and live have nothing on trillian or meebo. while itunes has some of the features i like, it keeps trying to get me to go to the online store and i like the look of wmp10. photobooth is really nifty, for 5 minute but then what do you do with it? i have a windows app that does the same, and i played with it for 5 minutes to. expose is pretty but i know my apps so i dont need a preview it just slows me down.

 

oh and i ran vista on my first pc, 650 p3, 384 ram(it was somewhere around there). it was slow but did work and i bet it would be the same for osx.

 

they both work but theres nothing i need to do that i neeed a more expensive computer for. so microsoft windows my vote!

 

jlc3

 

jlc3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Doesn't Aero link against the DX10 framework, though? I heard it did, which means it would be impossible in XP.

no, ist just that aero requires the new explorer thats redesigned to use gpu, xp used cpu for graphics and animations of explorer

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×