Windows XP beats Mac OS X [Archive]

Sinewave

11-14-2001, 05:03 AM

[quote]Originally posted by groverat:
Quicktime for Windows is a total piece of ass. At least Microsoft writes good apps for Apple's operating system.
:rolleyes:
<hr></blockquote>
You've obviously have never used WMP for the Mac ;) Not only does it suck.. there hasn't been a final version of it since 97 I believe, Just a lot of betas. They went from version 6 to version 7 without releasing a final version. And I wouldn't call IE 5 for OS X a great product either. Its slow and clumsy. Office for OS X is doing what basically MS has been doing the past 10 years.. making up it's own GUI rules and forgetting about OS X's. I guess it doesn't matter that it doesn't flow with the rest of the OS .. :rolleyes:
 [quote]
XP's activation might suck for some, but that's how they make their money. It's annoying but I can hardly blame them. And it is painless, you'll notice the startling lack of actual complaints regarded activation. The most complaints you hear are from those with no experience with it.
<hr></blockquote>
Basically the only people that it's going to hurt are the honest ones that pay for it.
 [quote]
I've used XP on a PIII 550mhz, it was decent speed-wise. I've also used OSX.1 on a 450mhz G3 tower, it was dog slow.
<hr></blockquote>
I find it hard to believe 10.1 was dog slow on a 450mhz G4 when it's quit speedy on my 350mhz G3 grover. How much RAM did that G4 have.. 64megs?
 [quote]
Sine:

Education is Apple's market to lose. Apple has had a stranglehold on that market for over a decade. Dell came up on Apple in education, not vice versa.<hr></blockquote>
Yes and Apple took it back. See you must not remember the big deal ol Mike made it out to be. He was rubbing it in Apple's face. Next time around Apple took it back in a big way.

_________________
Being Politically Correct is retarded.
http://sinewave.wirefire.com/forums/signazi.png

[ 11-14-2001: Message edited by: Sinewave ]

groverat

11-14-2001, 06:51 PM

You Maclots should be damned grateful for Office, it's keeping your platform alive. :)

WiMP for Mac does suck heinous nutsack. Man I forgot about that abortion of an app. . . *shudder*

[quote]Basically the only people that it's going to hurt are the honest ones that pay for it.<hr></blockquote>

How?

[quote] How much RAM did that G4 have.. 64megs?<hr></blockquote>

First off, it's a G3 tower, not G4. 128MB. Window resizing is a lot better, but "speedy" isn't the word for it.

Even on this Dual450 G4 I use at work OmniWeb or something will hang it and the Force Quit command isn't 1/10th as speedy or reliable as WinXP's task manager.

It's getting faster and I'm hoping that soon it will haul ass, but it's not there yet.

[quote]Yes and Apple took it back.<hr></blockquote>

So Dell comes out of nowhere and snatches it from the reigning king who fell asleep. The king wakes up and sneaks back past and Dell is supposed to be ashamed?

I have no love for Mike Dell. I live in Austin for Christ's sake and I know firsthand how evil Dell can be. My point was that more sour grapes are thrown by the Maclot horde than Mr. Dell could ever dream of throwing.

Sinewave

11-14-2001, 07:02 PM

[quote]Originally posted by groverat:
You Maclots should be damned grateful for Office, it's keeping your platform alive. :)
<hr></blockquote>
Funny thing is .. in the 4 places I have worked for that used Macs.. not one of then had Office installed ;)
 [quote]
How?
<hr></blockquote>
The people who get it illegally wont be dealing with the very WPA that is trying to detract from such things.
 [quote]
First off, it's a G3 tower, not G4. 128MB. Window resizing is a lot better, but "speedy" isn't the word for it.<hr></blockquote>
Maybe it's cause I have 512m of RAM. I know XP runs better on 512 than 128.
 [quote]
Even on this Dual450 G4 I use at work OmniWeb or something will hang it and the Force Quit command isn't 1/10th as speedy or reliable as WinXP's task manager.
<hr></blockquote>
Omniweb is still a tad slow. Try the new sneaky peaks. They are just as fast or faster than IE. That is a Omniweb thing. not a OS X thing.
 [quote]So Dell comes out of nowhere and snatches it from the reigning king who fell asleep. The king wakes up and sneaks back past and Dell is supposed to be ashamed?
<hr></blockquote>
Nice spin but Dell was acting like it was a permanent thing. That Apple was going under. That Dell was the new King of Education. Then reality smacked them in the face ;)
 [quote]
I have no love for Mike Dell. I live in Austin for Christ's sake and I know firsthand how evil Dell can be. My point was that more sour grapes are thrown by the Maclot horde than Mr. Dell could ever dream of throwing.<hr></blockquote>
Naw Mike wants to be Steve..He keeps making false claims like Dell being the first laptop shipping with wireless net capabilities. It's sour grapes. ;)

_________________
Being Politically Correct is retarded.
http://sinewave.wirefire.com/forums/signazi.png

[ 11-14-2001: Message edited by: Sinewave ]

groverat

11-14-2001, 07:16 PM

[quote]The people who get it illegally wont be dealing with the very WPA that is trying to detract from such things.<hr></blockquote>

Corporate warezing is the problem, not l33thaX0rGoD on the warez IRC channel.

M$ wants the money that's "lost" when people install the same copy of Windows on 20 different machines in a corporate environment.

[quote]Maybe it's cause I have 512m of RAM. I know XP runs better on 512 than 128.<hr></blockquote>

XP doesn't hog RAM so much if you turn off the eye candy. I have 768 so I leave the eye candy on. :)

It's as fast as Win2k on non-FisherPrice visual settings. And that's excellent.

[quote]Omniweb is still a tad slow. Try the new sneaky peaks. They are just as fast or faster than IE. That is a Omniweb thing. not a OS X thing.<hr></blockquote>

I have been using the SneakyPeeks.
I haven't come across a hung app that Force Quit handles efficiently. Oh well, it's 20x more stable than OS9. :)

[quote]Nice spin but. . .<hr></blockquote>

Spin? Has Apple *not* been the undisputed king in education for over a decade?

Dell's focus on education isn't that overwhelming, they sell to corporations. Anyway, it doesn't matter to me either way so long as there are still Macs in the lab for me to use instead of the Dells.

Fred Bear

11-14-2001, 08:30 PM

Everyone-

Windows XP is nothing more than 2000 with a new kernel (woopie-wow), Fisher-Price Looks (that annoy me frankly), and 30 new programs that completely ripoff companies such as WinZip and Adobe (the two major companies I could think of). While everyone claims that the 'task manager' is faster on XP, Mac OS X is so stable, (for me OS 9.2 as well) that I never have to use force quit so much that I clock its speeds.

I feel sad for those lackeys out there who claim how Microsoft saves the worls, because its, well not true. I feel sad for those who like the 'features' of XP, yet fail to realize that it only supports Microsoft and no other companies. I use both OS's frequently along with Redhat 7.2 and honestly, between Linux and Mac OS X, a windows box is really not needed. While some people may say that XP is great for a 'revised codebase', it is just another version of Windows which aside from its eye-candy is nothing more than a ripoff of the Mac OS, again.

Bill and his goonies have never come up with anything on their own, they always steal, hence the Antitruct suit still pending in 9 states, with Sun and 2 other major technology companies. If anyone is mad at me for taking this stance... My iBook is telling me that well, thats too bad Good day.

<img src="graemlins/hmmm.gif" border="0" alt="[Hmmm]" />

groverat

11-15-2001, 01:08 AM

[quote]Windows XP is nothing more than 2000 with a new kernel (woopie-wow), Fisher-Price Looks (that annoy me frankly), and 30 new programs that completely ripoff companies such as WinZip and Adobe (the two major companies I could think of)<hr></blockquote>

How exactly do they rip off WinZip and Adobe?

[quote]While everyone claims that the 'task manager' is faster on XP, Mac OS X is so stable, (for me OS 9.2 as well) that I never have to use force quit so much that I clock its speeds.<hr></blockquote>

Task Manager does a lot more than the Force Quit menu does. I use it to check diagnostics 99.9% of the time. Wolfenstein Beta 1 had a nasty habit of hanging on load, Task Manager pops right up when I hit Ctrl-Alt-Del. When OmniWeb4.1sp10 hangs it takes at least 9-10 seconds before Force Quit comes up.

[quote]I feel sad for those lackeys out there who claim how Microsoft saves the worls, because its, well not true.<hr></blockquote>

Who claimed Microsoft saved the world. Maclots are far more likely to glorify their corporation of choice.

[quote]I feel sad for those who like the 'features' of XP, yet fail to realize that it only supports Microsoft and no other companies.<hr></blockquote>

?
Me using Remote Assistance to administer PCs in my lab is benefiting Microsoft?

Fred Bear

11-15-2001, 01:23 AM

Ok, well honestly, that remote desktop connection has allot of security flaws. If you don’t believe me check the securityfocus list... It is worse than Swiss cheese, it is insecure as hell. Real administrators use command line because, well it works quicker, which is a benefit of Mac OS X. And yes, their remote junk is aimed at ATT, which made a program called VNC, which Microsoft has explicitly stated this program is supposed to emulate. While this VNC program is free via the GNU software license, it is still a rip off.

Furthermore, look at the built-in zip decompression and photo editing tool (which I must say do suck for their lack of ability to do anything), yet these tools aim to take market share away from WinZip and Adobe (respectively).

As for task manager. Diagnostics and quitting programs are two different things. On Mac OS X, why not use the alert console or some other utility designed to do that? If you want to use diagnostics, then obviously for Mac OS X the force quit feature is not the prime tool to use.

I really do think XP has its good points, as they removed the darn blue screen, so obviously we don’t see it, instead the kernel just reloads. Mac OS X is built on XML... Something which is very customizable. Try doing anything with XP, its worthless aside from turning the default child-mode look off.

"Maclots" as you call them are simply people who yes, don’t buy into the garbage of Microsoft. Look at companies such as Adobe, which make their programs originally for Mac OS, and why actual developers of any sort use anything other than Windows. Developers use SGI, Sun or MacOS workstations (as an example).
:p

Sinewave

11-15-2001, 01:41 AM

Grover quoting you is hard cause for some reason anytime I hit the quote button only part of your post seems to come up. I guess you HAVE to use the tags. They need to fix this.

[quote]Originally posted by groverat:
[QB]
Corporate warezing is the problem, not l33thaX0rGoD on the warez IRC channel.

M$ wants the money that's "lost" when people install the same copy of Windows on 20 different machines in a corporate environment.
<hr></blockquote>
That isn't what MS said. After all the "Business" edition doesn't have WPA
 [quote]
Spin? Has Apple *not* been the undisputed king in education for over a decade?

Dell's focus on education isn't that overwhelming, they sell to corporations. Anyway, it doesn't matter to me either way so long as there are still Macs in the lab for me to use instead of the Dells.
<hr></blockquote>
Yes but my point was Mike made it out to be bigger than it was. He was basically saying Dell would be the King from now on.. and that Apple's Education days where numbered. Until that is .. Apple came back and made him look like a moron ;)

soulcrusher

11-15-2001, 02:56 PM

[quote]Originally posted by groverat:
Task Manager does a lot more than the Force Quit menu does. I use it to check diagnostics 99.9% of the time. Wolfenstein Beta 1 had a nasty habit of hanging on load, Task Manager pops right up when I hit Ctrl-Alt-Del. When OmniWeb4.1sp10 hangs it takes at least 9-10 seconds before Force Quit comes up.<hr></blockquote>

Well, I have Process Viewer hidden all the time and when an app locks up I chose it from the dock and it instantly appears on my screen and I can quit any process I want. Oh, and it also does much more than the Windows Task Manager, so there.

NoahJ

11-15-2001, 03:51 PM

[quote]Originally posted by starfleetX:

:rolleyes: Of course you had to compare using Apple software on a Microsoft OS versus Apple on Apple. Did it occur to you that QuickTime for the PC may not be as well optimized as QuickTime for Mac OS?

Besides that, I wouldn't dare compare a 500 MHz PIII to a 400 MHz G3. Everyone here ought to know by now that 1 Motorolla Hz == ~2 Intel/AMD Hz. Isn't that true from the "Megahertz myth" we so often hear about? Thus, you should be comparing your iMac to an 800 or 900 MHz PC.

[ 11-14-2001: Message edited by: starfleetX ]<hr></blockquote>

I am not stupid, the comaprison is perfectly valid. I have been able to play the Episode 1 teaser trailer under 98 Quicktime with not a frame drop. On my OS 9 box, G4 400 it was actually and sadly quite painful. Under OS X it runs much better, and under XP. . .well it is worse. So Apple improved their OS and MS did what? This is where people start talking aobut how MS purposely is making other competing standards not work as well under XP. NOt saying htis is what is happening here, but it is possible.

Fred Bear

11-15-2001, 08:41 PM

WPA = Windows Protection Failure (sorry it doesnt stary with A, but hey...) PA was intended to keep compes of ALL XP (OS, Office, etc...) off warez channels, servers, etc. WPA is a failure. Everyone who wanted an XP product has it.. Really, do you think some dum protection stopped people? Its just another attempt of Microsoft trying to invade peoples' privacy. Companies dont need privacy. Microsoft Sucks. Plain and simple. <img src="graemlins/bugeye.gif" border="0" alt="[Skeptical]" />

groverat

11-15-2001, 09:58 PM

Fred Bear:

[quote]Ok, well honestly, that remote desktop connection has allot of security flaws.<hr></blockquote>

If I was working with nuclear secrets I might be concerned.

[quote]which made a program called VNC<hr></blockquote>

I'm well aware of VNC, I use it on the Macs and non-XP PCs.

[quote]it is still a rip off.<hr></blockquote>

Is VNC a rip-off of Timbuktu? Or PCAnywhere? Or any one of the other dozen apps just like it?

[quote]look at the built-in zip decompression and photo editing tool<hr></blockquote>

.zip is a common format. I don't know anyone who actually paid for WinZip, there were freeware unzippers before XP. :rolleyes:
How dare they bundle it with the OS so you don't have to download it!

What Adobe product is their photo-editing tool aimed at replacing?

[quote]As for task manager.<hr></blockquote>

I don't use other utilities in XP because I don't have to. Task Manager takes care of all those things and stays minimized in my system tray displaying processor usage.

[quote]Developers use SGI, Sun or MacOS workstations (as an example).<hr></blockquote>

heh

That's funny.
Developers don't use Windows. . . heh

Sine:

[quote]After all the "Business" edition doesn't have WPA<hr></blockquote>

You have to buy 250+ licenses to get the versions sans WPA.

applenut

11-15-2001, 10:10 PM

Force Quit sucks in OS X. Takes forever to come up.... when it does come up that is. Windows is near instant.

Sinewave

11-15-2001, 10:17 PM

[quote]Originally posted by groverat:
You have to buy 250+ licenses to get the versions sans WPA.[/QB]<hr></blockquote>
And this is what most companies get too. And this is the one that is going to be warezed.

groverat

11-15-2001, 10:39 PM

[quote]And this is what most companies get too. And this is the one that is going to be warezed.<hr></blockquote>

By warez fiends who would hack it anyway. It won't be casually copied anymore, that's what M$ was aiming for.

Do you think your average user knows where to get hacked copies?

Kuku

11-15-2001, 10:59 PM

Umm windows combatbilty has a much easier time then mac. Classic and carbon must require a recode, while windows only means a few missing supports. Think about that.

For me WinXP lost big time. Lack of support and all that "window certified driver, or your system explodes" crap can't be made any blunter.

I had to completely wipe a HD of XP because a install of soundmaster, rebooted to a windows explorer using 98% system resorces-i.e. can't even move the mouse. Can't be fixed as far as I know when xp doesn't even allow you to over write a system.

How's that for compatbilites? At least I can force quit classic in OSX.

Guess the old $50 technical support rule still holds. Format C: drive.

~Kuku

Fred Bear

11-15-2001, 11:46 PM

if You know, VNC is freeware... It also was started earlier than any of those program were coded. If You might not be using Nuclear Secrets, but have you heard about the cookie bug in IE6? Go to <a href="http://www.securityfocus.com" target="_blank">www.securityfocus.com</a> Microsoft cannot figure out how to patch it, and it eventually allows one to rip information from any sub directory in the /Windows folder and allows one to get all cookies. I think its pathetic that Microsoft scorned the company who released the information for this exploit 2 weeks after Microsoft failed to even mention the problem to anyone. And sorry to say, but most programmers do not use native windows If boxes to code, all of them I know use a Sun box or a Unix variant.

I laugh at all the dumb Windows users who think that Microsoft isn’t controlling them from behind... think about the 'Microsoft Virtual machine' e.g. rip off of Java... If nine US states along with the European Union think Microsoft is a bad company, in terms of their business practices, then um, is any Mac user out of line for saying that too?

I think its so dumb that the Windows users gloat about a improved 'task manager'... so what? you have a good utility to make sure Windows isn’t messing w/ your PC or when your PC crashes? Oh, and if you are too ignorant to know what Adobe products are being railroaded, then sorry, that really does say something about you. Even though paint and the internal viewer aren’t close to Adobe, at all, they are still aimed at the same market. Think about Digital cameras... They distribute software which is now not needed by XP, yet that software company just got screwed...

Karl Marx belied that capitalism was, in its self, destructive. Bill Gates and his gooiness are perfect examples of this point. PC users are always too dumb to actually know that an Intel and PPC processor cannot be compared, (different architectures maybe?). Oh-well. I use XP when I have to, otherwise long live OSX.

Fred Bear

11-15-2001, 11:49 PM

About WPA... Think about MP3 utilities such as Kaazaa or Morpheus. I dont know one person, even 'dumb' users, who dont have a warez'ed XP copy. The dumb idea of WPA failed. Company employees warez, as most humans do... F. It was a good try, but it was a crappy way of invading people's privacy. Just because you need 250+ copes doesnt mean one of those 250 people doesnt rip it... Search a P2P file sharing utility. XP is everywhere.

[ 11-15-2001: Message edited by: Fred Bear ]

mortal

11-16-2001, 12:14 AM

Computing is not a religion. But truth be told any form of woindows is nothing but DOS with an interface. If you dont believe me take a look in your sys32 folder. Notice the file extensions, .com .bat .ini these are dos extensions. 95,98,nt and the rest are just hype built on dos. Ever wonder why all other OS manufacturers gave up on dos? UNIX! <img src="graemlins/smokin.gif" border="0" alt="[Chilling]" />
power, style and world class. Any OS not built on it is'nt worth a damn. let the microsucks have their delusions.
An Apple a day keeps microsucks away!

[ 11-16-2001: Message edited by: mortal ]

Mac The Fork

11-16-2001, 12:39 AM

Uhh...

Brad

11-16-2001, 01:51 AM

[quote]Originally posted by Mac The Fork:
Uhh...<hr></blockquote> <img src="graemlins/bugeye.gif" border="0" alt="[Skeptical]" />

Sinewave

11-16-2001, 03:14 AM

[quote]Originally posted by groverat:


By warez fiends who would hack it anyway. It won't be casually copied anymore, that's what M$ was aiming for.

Do you think your average user knows where to get hacked copies?<hr></blockquote>

And the average user WONT be using this. The average user buys Windows. The average users only has it installed on one computer.. and the average user is the one that is stil having to put up with the hassles of WPA that was made to stop piracy. The pirates wont be effected by it. Therefore it's BS.

Sinewave

11-16-2001, 03:15 AM

[quote]Originally posted by Kuku:
Umm windows combatbilty has a much easier time then mac. Classic and carbon must require a recode, while windows only means a few missing supports. Think about that~Kuku<hr></blockquote>

That is because Windows hasn't changed THAT drastically since 95.

Sinewave

11-16-2001, 03:16 AM

[quote]Originally posted by Fred Bear:
About WPA... Think about MP3 utilities such as Kaazaa or Morpheus. I dont know one person, even 'dumb' users, who dont have a warez'ed XP copy. The dumb idea of WPA failed. Company employees warez, as most humans do... F. It was a good try, but it was a crappy way of invading people's privacy. Just because you need 250+ copes doesnt mean one of those 250 people doesnt rip it... Search a P2P file sharing utility. XP is everywhere.

[ 11-15-2001: Message edited by: Fred Bear ]<hr></blockquote>

Exactly

NDPTAL85

11-16-2001, 04:08 PM

Someone should let mortal know that Windows NT, 2k, and XP aren't built on top of DOS. Thats what differentiates them from Windows 3.1, 95, 98 and ME.

NoahJ

11-16-2001, 06:44 PM

[quote]Originally posted by NDPTAL85:
Someone should let mortal know that Windows NT, 2k, and XP aren't built on top of DOS. Thats what differentiates them from Windows 3.1, 95, 98 and ME.<hr></blockquote>

You are correct sir. NT is most certainly not based on MSDOS. A closer relative would be IBM's OS/2. The extensions are jsut a good way to determine who is responsible for the files as they do not use (metadata?) to determine that like the MacOS does. As OS X uses extensions as well by that logic you would be saying that OS X is based on DOS which we know to be false.

However, there is a DOS thunk layer (NTVDM) in NT for many DOS programs to work in and the WOW layer for 16 bit application compatibility for 3.x and early 95 apps. It is these layers (alond with other bells and whistles in MS programs) that start undermining the stability of the OS, as Classic does in X.

OS X and XP, both have the same idea, but I think that OS X will go further when all is said and done. XP is just an MS speedbump on the way to the BBT (bigger better thing).

Gilsch

11-16-2001, 10:12 PM

Maclot? Another anti-Mac fanatic from Ars. :rolleyes:

RubberDucky

11-16-2001, 11:46 PM

[quote]If You might not be using Nuclear Secrets, but have you heard about the cookie bug in IE6? Go to <a href="http://www.securityfocus.com" target="_blank">www.securityfocus.com</a> Microsoft cannot figure out how to patch it, and it eventually allows one to rip information from any sub directory in the /Windows folder and allows one to get all cookies.<hr></blockquote>

How convenient, you go from talking about the supposed security problems with Terminal Services to a cookie bug in IE6.

[quote]I think its pathetic that Microsoft scorned the company who released the information for this exploit 2 weeks after Microsoft failed to even mention the problem to anyone. <hr></blockquote>

Whether I agree with MS about this particular issue or not, they didn't scorn the company for releasing information about an exploint, they scorned the company for releasing step by step instructions on how to abuse the exploit that any script kiddie can follow.

I can see their point, and to them it's probably a good one. Suddenly you have a bunch of people that don't update their software vulnerable to an exploit with Fool Proof® instructions.

[quote]I laugh at all the dumb Windows users who think that Microsoft isn’t controlling them from behind... think about the 'Microsoft Virtual machine' e.g. rip off of Java... If nine US states along with the European Union think Microsoft is a bad company, in terms of their business practices, then um, is any Mac user out of line for saying that too?<hr></blockquote>

You've jumped subjects again. The Microsoft Virtual Machine is MS's Java runtime that was licensed from Sun. I fail to see how licensing something constitutes a ripoff.

I also fail to see how Microsoft's business practices have anything to do with the subject at hand; the quality of WinXP.

[quote]I think its so dumb that the Windows users gloat about a improved 'task manager'... so what? you have a good utility to make sure Windows isn’t messing w/ your PC or when your PC crashes? <hr></blockquote>

Windows has a good utility to make sure it's easy to kill a hung program. Surely you don't live in a perfect world with perfect programmers where their perfect code never crashes, or leaks memory, or steals your lunch money.

My PC doesn't crash. :D

[quote]Oh, and if you are too ignorant to know what Adobe products are being railroaded, then sorry, that really does say something about you. Even though paint and the internal viewer aren’t close to Adobe, at all, they are still aimed at the same market.<hr></blockquote>

:rolleyes:
Paint is designed to take market share from Photoshop. I do all my graphics in paint because it's l33t. Paint r0x0rs my b0x0rs.

Ironically, you posted this a few posts ago:
[quote]look at the built-in zip decompression and photo editing tool (which I must say do suck for their lack of ability to do anything), <hr></blockquote>

You're comparing full featured Archive and Photo Editing software with the basic convenience tools built into XP? That's ridiculous. You yourself state that the tools in XP can't compete with what's already out there, so why would you even try and compare them? They serve completely different purposes.

[quote]Think about Digital cameras... They distribute software which is now not needed by XP, yet that software company just got screwed... <hr></blockquote>

I bought a Sony Digicam in July. Sony made money from my digicam purchase. They didn't make any money off their bundled software. I bought the camera even though I didn't need the bundled tools. Where did Sony lose money?

[quote]Karl Marx belied that capitalism was, in its self, destructive.<hr></blockquote>

Ironically, Socialism on a broad scale is destructive. Ask all the residents of the former Soviet Union.

[quote] PC users are always too dumb to actually know that an Intel and PPC processor cannot be compared, (different architectures maybe?).<hr></blockquote>

Sure they can. How much faster will a 2GHZ P4 render a scene in Maya than a similarly expensive PPC processor?

[quote]Oh-well. I use XP when I have to, otherwise long live OSX. <hr></blockquote>

I find it hard to believe you've used XP for any extensive amount of time. Dinking around on a computer at CompUSA hardly counts as usage.

[quote]But truth be told any form of woindows is nothing but DOS with an interface. If you dont believe me take a look in your sys32 folder. Notice the file extensions, .com .bat .ini these are dos extensions.<hr></blockquote>

Hmmm... .bat is a batch scripting file, useful for many purposes. I suppose AppleScript files make OSX nothing more than a pretty front end on top of OS8 code?

.ini files are configuration files...

I've forgotten what exactly com files are.. then again, I haven't seen one in ~5 years.

[quote]And the average user WONT be using this. The average user buys Windows. The average users only has it installed on one computer.. and the average user is the one that is stil having to put up with the hassles of WPA that was made to stop piracy.<hr></blockquote>

The average user sees no problem with borrowing their neighbor's WinME disk to install on their computer.

[quote]That is because Windows hasn't changed THAT drastically since 95.<hr></blockquote>

The WinXP code base is as far from the Win95 Code Base is as OSX is from System 7

[quote]<snip> ...these layers (alond with other bells and whistles in MS programs) that start undermining the stability of the OS, as Classic does in X.<hr></blockquote>

I'm not sure what Classic does to undermine the stability of OSX, but the compatability layers in XP are run just like any other program. They get their own memory space (each instance does) and if they crash, they don't touch anything else.

Fred Bear

11-17-2001, 12:08 AM

Flaws are flaws. My point is that Microsoft failed to do anything, even notify users that they were at risk, a really crappy thing to do.

five Microsoft's licensed version of JAVA violated the license agreement, hence the lawsuit which Sun is filing in the 5th District Federal Court... It is the fact that they were never entitled to distribute it with Windows and they did, to purposely make it so people didn’t have a need to try the Jun JAVA.

One cannot honestly say that Microsoft doesn’t do stuff to take away market share from small(er) companies. Look at IE and Netscape... perfect example. While all Microsoft programs really do suck to some extent, they do things to take away from companies. Look at the X-Box. How does one go from Windows (computer code) to the X-Box? Especially since Nintendo is based in Seattle??? Hrrm, weird to me... Especially since MS owns all the software companies for X-Box software.

As for the digital camera.. I bought my Sony Digital DV camcorder and HP digital camera last month, they both came with their software which is produced by SMALLER software companies. which in the end get screwed because they are now not needed and Sony and HP will stop bundling them.

Oh, and for a history class…, the USSR never was a socialist republic... Marx was a socialist, good job on that one, but the USSR was founded on Leninism. There are many fundamental differences which divides the two, one of the biggest being Marx never called for a dictator and Lenin wanted one because he didn’t trust the Petrograd Soviets. So all-in-all although you try and be witty...

As for my use of XP sure I use it at CompUSA, good job, how did you ever know? idot...

Fred Bear Doesn’t Care........
for Windows users

[ 11-17-2001: Message edited by: Fred Bear ]

Sinewave

11-17-2001, 01:00 AM

[quote]Originally posted by RubberDucky:

The average user sees no problem with borrowing their neighbor's WinME disk to install on their computer.
<hr></blockquote>

Actually the average user All ready OWNS a copy of Windows. But I agree. MS wants to stop people from installing WinME before they pay for it and find out how really horrible it is.

 [quote]
The WinXP code base is as far from the Win95 Code Base is as OSX is from System 7
<hr></blockquote>

Is that why most Win95 apps still run on XP? ANd no it's not cause "MS just coded it THAT well"
No 95 -> XP is more like OS 7.5 --> OS 9

And it's even closer to Win2k than MS wants to tell it's customer base. That is why most Windows users that are using 2k now aren't switching over.

[ 11-17-2001: Message edited by: Sinewave ]

RubberDucky

11-17-2001, 02:10 AM

[quote]five Microsoft's licensed version of JAVA violated the license agreement, hence the lawsuit <hr></blockquote>

1) Microsoft is licensed to distribute a Java VM based on Java 1.1 (I believe)

2) The lawsuit had nothing to do with distributing the Virtual Machine. The lawsuit came about because MS added options into Visual J++ to allow coders extra flexibility on the Windows platform. This extra functionality was completely optional, however when programmers used it, it effectively made their programs single platform. This offended Sun greatly.

[quote]It is the fact that they were never entitled to distribute it with Windows and they did, to purposely make it so people didn’t have a need to try the Jun JAVA.<hr></blockquote>

Once again, Microsoft has always been allowed to distribute a VM based off Java 1.1. This license expires in the next year or so.

[quote]One cannot honestly say that Microsoft doesn’t do stuff to take away market share from small(er) companies. Look at IE and Netscape... perfect example.<hr></blockquote>

God forbid... Microsoft actually competes. That's what they're there to do.

NS4.x is what killed Netscape. Not IE. IE has been bundled since version 2, and Netscape was the dominant browser for two full product cycles until IE4 was released. Why did IE4 dominate? It was the better browser...

[quote]How does one go from Windows (computer code) to the X-Box? Especially since Nintendo is based in Seattle??? Hrrm, weird to me... quote]

I've never seen any laws limiting companies from entering new markets. Microsoft's kickass gaming API's (DirectX) are what makes them able to create the XBox.

[quote]As for the digital camera.. I bought my Sony Digital DV camcorder and HP digital camera last month, they both came with their software which is produced by SMALLER software companies. which in the end get screwed because they are now not needed and Sony and HP will stop bundling them. <hr></blockquote>

Oh? So do you use iMovie for your DV editing? What about the programs that came with it?

[quote]Oh, and for a history class…, the USSR never was a socialist republic... Marx was a socialist, good job on that one, but the USSR was founded on Leninism. There are many fundamental differences which divides the two, one of the biggest being Marx never called for a dictator and Lenin wanted one because he didn’t trust the Petrograd Soviets. <hr></blockquote>

:rolleyes:
I could just as vaguely argue that the US isn't a "true" capitalistic economy since we have things like Anti-trust laws, environmental regulation, and other decidedly non-capitalist institutions governing many of the actions of our industries.

I would be just as wrong.

[quote]Actually the average user All ready OWNS a copy of Windows. <hr></blockquote>

Yes, the average user already owns a copy of Win98, but they don't own XP. Given the slow down in purchase of OEM systems, do you really expect MS to try and rely on OEM sales as much as they have in the past? Most people only purchased an OS with a new system. 4 years ago, the need to upgrade once every two years was much greater.

Computer performance has reached a plateau where people aren't upgrading nearly as often. 3 year old technology suites their needs just fine. WPA is designed to prevent the typical consumer from walking across the street and copying their neighbor's CD.

[quote]Is that why most Win95 apps still run on XP? ANd no it's not cause "MS just coded it THAT well"
No 95 -> XP is more like OS 7.5 --> OS 9<hr></blockquote>

Ugh. You're muddling the issue. Most Win95 apps run on XP because they use the same API (Win32). The foundation for the OS is not the API. Microsoft is very good about not ditching their developers by switching API's midstream. That's why you'll find a Win16 emulator in XP.

Although the API's are the same, the jump from Win95 to XP is tremendous, on the same scale as the jump to OSX.

groverat

11-17-2001, 02:13 AM

Thanks RubberDucky for saving me time. :)

Fredbear:

[quote]It is the fact that they were never entitled to distribute it with Windows and they did, to purposely make it so people didn’t have a need to try the Jun JAVA.<hr></blockquote>

Sun took Microsoft to court for using Sun's Java Runtime. The court ordered that Microsoft stop bundling Sun's Java Runtime as per Sun's request.

It was Sun's decision not to have Java bundled with Windows.

[quote]One cannot honestly say that Microsoft doesn’t do stuff to take away market share from small(er) companies. Look at IE and Netscape... perfect example.<hr></blockquote>

"Hey hey, look over here away from the subject that I obviously know little to nothing about! Over here, hey hey hey, over here!"

No one is arguing this but you. It has nothing to do with the quality or structure of WindowsXP.

[quote]which in the end get screwed because they are now not needed and Sony and HP will stop bundling them.<hr></blockquote>

I guess Apple is evil too.

<a href="http://www.apple.com/macosx/whatyoucando/applications/imagecapture.html" target="_blank">"Image Capture. Download pictures from virtually any digital camera."</a>

[quote]As for my use of XP sure I use it at CompUSA, good job, how did you ever know? idot...<hr></blockquote>

Yeah Ducky, he's just read the anti-XP articles at anti-MS sites and boards.

Duh. ;)

Sinewave:

[quote]Actually the average user All ready OWNS a copy of Windows. But I agree.<hr></blockquote>

A copy of Windows, yes, but not always the latest one which they promptly get. . . from a friend. This is how I got all my pre-XP operating systems and how I get basically all my pay software. It's how my grandmother has Win2k now instead of WinME (bundled with her machine). It's how my mother has WinME instead of Win95. It's how my roomate. . .

[quote]Is that why most Win95 apps still run on XP? ANd no it's not cause "MS just coded it THAT well"
No 95 -> XP is more like OS 7.5 -> OS 9<hr></blockquote>

I would explain the difference between DOS and Win32 instruction sets but it's obvious you're a moron and it would do no good.

Be happy with your Mac, that's fine. I dig Macs, too, but I manage to like OSX without being ignorant to everything else. Go figure. :rolleyes:

[quote]And it's even closer to Win2k than MS wants to tell it's customer base. That is why most Windows users that are using 2k now aren't switching over.<hr></blockquote>

I don't think there's any secret in that it's a Win2k derivative.

Oh, and I was a very satisfied Windows 2000 user and now I am a very satisfied Windows XP user.

RubberDucky

11-17-2001, 02:19 AM

It's a pity you went to UT instead of God's School. :D

groverat

11-17-2001, 02:23 AM

OU sucks!

RubberDucky

11-17-2001, 02:41 AM

http://a1208.g.akamai.net/7/1208/380/1h/sportsillustrated.cnn.com/features/cover/coverlarge1015.jpg

Sinewave

11-17-2001, 02:43 AM

First off I want to say I want either AI to stop with the qb tags or user start using them. If you don't use them the quote feature doesn't work right. And it makes it a PITA to reply. Thank you.

[quote]Originally posted by RubberDucky:

Yes, the average user already owns a copy of Win98, but they don't own XP. Given the slow down in purchase of OEM systems, do you really expect MS to try and rely on OEM sales as much as they have in the past? Most people only purchased an OS with a new system. 4 years ago, the need to upgrade once every two years was much greater.
<hr></blockquote> Maybe MS needs to start giving people a REASON to upgrade? I know people running 95 that still sees no reason to upgrade. Again if some one wants to get windows illegally they can And they wont have to get past the WPA
 [quote]
Computer performance has reached a plateau where people aren't upgrading nearly as often. 3 year old technology suites their needs just fine. WPA is designed to prevent the typical consumer from walking across the street and copying their neighbor's CD.
<hr></blockquote>
Guess what they will STILL be able to. There are tons of ways WPA can be cracked now. Again.. the only people that will be effected by this is the ones that payed for it.
[quote]
Ugh. You're muddling the issue. Most Win95 apps run on XP because they use the same API (Win32). The foundation for the OS is not the API. Microsoft is very good about not ditching their developers by switching API's midstream. That's why you'll find a Win16 emulator in XP.
Although the API's are the same, the jump from Win95 to XP is tremendous, on the same scale as the jump to OSX.
<hr></blockquote>
Ok let me rephrase my comment. XP isn't THAT much different than NT 4 that was put out around 94/95 It really isn't. And no NT 4 or 95 to XP isn't as big a difference as OS 9 to OS X. Not nearly. The very fact that they use the same APIs tells me this.

[ 11-17-2001: Message edited by: Sinewave ]

RubberDucky

11-17-2001, 02:47 AM

Let's drop WPA, we're just arguing in circles. :D

[quote]Ok let me rephrase my comment. XP isn't THAT much different than NT 4 that was put out around 94/95 It really isn't. And no NT 4 or 95 to XP isn't as big a difference as OS 9 to OS X. Not nearly. The very fact that they use the same APIs tells me this.<hr></blockquote>

So, if I install the .NET runtimes on my XP box, it's that different? The .NET runtimes are a whole new set of API's.

Sinewave

11-17-2001, 02:47 AM

[quote]Originally posted by groverat:

A copy of Windows, yes, but not always the latest one which they promptly get. . . from a friend. This is how I got all my pre-XP operating systems and how I get basically all my pay software. It's how my grandmother has Win2k now instead of WinME (bundled with her machine). It's how my mother has WinME instead of Win95. It's how my roomate. . .
<hr></blockquote>
And they will still do it with XP.. just use a WPA cracking program or warez a version that doesn't have WPA. No change here.
 [quote]
I would explain the difference between DOS and Win32 instruction sets but it's obvious you're a moron and it would do no good.
<hr></blockquote>
Obviously explaining that would require you to take the cock out of your mouth so I understand ;) . And guess what 95 had Win32 instructions too. It just hardly EVER ran anything that used them.
 [quote]
Be happy with your Mac, that's fine. I dig Macs, too, but I manage to like OSX without being ignorant to everything else. Go figure.
<hr></blockquote>

Yah good for gover lets all clap for him!.. you know most people do too son ;)

[ 11-17-2001: Message edited by: Sinewave ]

Sinewave

11-17-2001, 02:50 AM

[quote]Originally posted by RubberDucky:
Let's drop WPA, we're just arguing in circles. :D
<hr></blockquote>
mhmmm ;)
 [quote]
So, if I install the .NET runtimes on my XP box, it's that different? The .NET runtimes are a whole new set of API's.<hr></blockquote>
Ah that is where it is different. .NET will only run on XP. There has to be a reason to make people want to buy it. It surely wont be the WPA ;) . From what I hear .NET wont be running for awhile now. Just like how iTunes runs on 9.1 but not 9.0. That doesn't make it a big difference between the two does it?

[ 11-17-2001: Message edited by: Sinewave ]

groverat

11-17-2001, 03:04 AM

Ducky:
Oh yeah? !! OH YEAH!?!?

damn I guess I have no retort.

OU SUCKS!

:)

Sinewave:

[quote]Maybe MS needs to start giving people a REASON to upgrade? I know people running 95 that still sees no reason to upgrade.<hr></blockquote>

I know people still using 7.5.5

You know what we call these people? Morons.

That is akin to me saying, "These idiots are proof that the MacOS hasn't improved from 7.5.5 to OSX."

[quote]Guess what they will STILL be able to. There are tons of ways WPA can be cracked now. Again.. the only people that will be effected by this is the ones that payed for it.<hr></blockquote>

You've failed to answer, how in the hell will WPA affect a legal user?

[quote]The very fact that they use the same APIs tells me this.<hr></blockquote>

I think it just tells everyone else that you don't know what the hell an API is.

[quote]And they will still do it with XP.. just use a WPA cracking program or warez a version that doesn't have WPA. No change here.<hr></blockquote>

I just got finished telling you that warezed versions, while common to file sharing people, are not easily accessed by Ma and Pa Kettle. I realize that you're wrapped up in a selfish little self-world, but understand that there is a word outside your house and there are people not like you (thank God).

[quote]And guess what 95 had Win32 instructions too. It just hardly EVER ran anything that used them.<hr></blockquote>

When did I say it didn't?
You said it was DOS with a new interface, I call you a simp. The first is false, the second is true.

[quote]Ah that is where it is different. .NET will only run on XP.<hr></blockquote>

Hey everyone, it's Sinewave, the I Don't Know What The **** I'm Talking About Clown again!

.NET will run on your beloved OSX sparky. It will run on Linux.

[quote]From what I hear .NET wont be running for awhile now.<hr></blockquote>

Microsoft's roadmap says 2004 for Blackcomb, I guess that is a while. Of course, they aren't making promises they can't keep (a foriegn concept to a Maclot, I'm sure).

FYI, not that it will go through your thick skull, Windows.NET != .NET

Sinewave

11-17-2001, 03:28 AM

[quote]Originally posted by groverat:

I know people still using 7.5.5
<hr></blockquote>
As Do I.. if that is all they need to do what they need to do.. why should they change?
[quote]
You know what we call these people? Morons.
<hr></blockquote>
Why are they morons? Why should they pay for a OS they don't need? I call that smart.
[quote]
That is akin to me saying, "These idiots are proof that the MacOS hasn't improved from 7.5.5 to OSX."
<hr></blockquote>
The big difference is.. you can't run OS X applications in 7.5 You can run most XP apps in Win95 still.
[quote]
You've failed to answer, how in the hell will WPA affect a legal user?
<hr></blockquote>
Well lets take my roomate. He has a Hard drive and he takes to and from work all the time. Now I KNOW there have been people that have had to call MS cause they have swapped HD's too often to reactivate their WPA. This is a PTA. Lets not get into the horror stories of actually GETTING your WPA license over the phone. I know a gal that took XP back cause she had been waiting 1/2 a hour on hold to get her number. What kind of service is that? Again the only people that have to deal with this are the ones that pay legally.
[quote]
I think it just tells everyone else that you don't know what the hell an API is.
<hr></blockquote>
Other than the fact you didn't use the answer I gave you.. but another answer to another thread.. and the fact you quoted me out of context doesn't help your cause grover ;) They both used basically the same Win32 API (Or application programming interface, yes I do know what a API is grover)
[quote]
I just got finished telling you that warezed versions, while common to file sharing people, are not easily accessed by Ma and Pa Kettle.<hr></blockquote>
Ma and Pa Kettle are still using the OS their computer came with. They wont upgrade to a new OS unless they buy a new computer.. which it will come on. Or their grandson hooks them up with the latest version of XP without the WMP ;)
[quote]
I realize that you're wrapped up in a selfish little self-world, but understand that there is a word outside your house and there are people not like you (thank God).
<hr></blockquote>
And what does this have to do with anything? heh come on grover don't start sinking into the lowly depths of the "personal attack" syndrome son ;)
[quote]
When did I say it didn't?
You said it was DOS with a new interface, I call you a simp. The first is false, the second is true.
<hr></blockquote>
Now I never once said it was DOS with a new interface. Not once. Please show me where you read me saying this.
[quote]
Hey everyone, it's Sinewave, the I Don't Know What The **** I'm Talking About Clown again!

.NET will run on your beloved OSX sparky. It will run on Linux.
<hr></blockquote>
Yes groverat I know this.. again my point flew over your head.. or your trying to dodge it. It will work on XP, OS X, Linux.. etc.. But NOT Win95, 98, etc.
[quote]
Microsoft's roadmap says 2004 for Blackcomb, I guess that is a while. Of course, they aren't making promises they can't keep (a foriegn concept to a Maclot, I'm sure).

FYI, not that it will go through your thick skull, Windows.NET != .NET
<hr></blockquote>
Ah more personal attacks that have no merit. Nice debating style there grover ;)
Your making assumptions all over the place that is making you look silly. Now please stop :)

[ 11-17-2001: Message edited by: Sinewave ]

Fred Bear

11-17-2001, 12:29 PM

Well, I am laughing because the dumb Windows users start a football talk in a Mac Forum, morons.... Heeelllllo? Get a life, go talk about football to your Windows box, its as dumb as you are...

Oh, and sure.. I just read all of the XP antitrust articles, how did you ever know? Oh-no, you figured me out... Cant you people take a hint that nine states, Europe and three leading technology companies are all going after MS? Doesn’t that signal some sort of problem?

And to the moron who doesn’t know crap about economics. The US IS a capitalist society despite antitrust laws. This goes back to John Maynard Keynes who provided tools for the US economy to be artificially adjusted. Despite this the main goal of a company is still to expand...

As for someone's handy link to the Apple site. Digital cameras, etc.. do not come with OSX compatible software... So for now I don’t see this as too bad eh? Unless you can transfer them in OS9.2, which would, um, be a pain.

As for JAVA, the VM DOES NOT, get it? NOT come with Windows XP anymore or 2k. One must use the windows update feature to get it... I would be entertained if Sun renews MS's license for JAVA next year... And the VM MS is NOT licensed to use because their agreement was for MS to create a VM yet it would still be cross-compatible with any platform.

[ 11-17-2001: Message edited by: Fred Bear ]

Sinewave

11-17-2001, 02:20 PM

[quote]Originally posted by Fred Bear:
As for someone's handy link to the Apple site. Digital cameras, etc.. do not come with OSX compatible software... So for now I don’t see this as too bad eh? Unless you can transfer them in OS9.2, which would, um, be a pain.
<hr></blockquote> But OS X comes with camera software you can use. No big w00p
[quote]
As for JAVA, the VM DOES NOT, get it? NOT come with Windows XP anymore or 2k. One must use the windows update feature to get it... I would be entertained if Sun renews MS's license for JAVA next year... And the VM MS is NOT licensed to use because their agreement was for MS to create a VM yet it would still be cross-compatible with any platform.
<hr></blockquote>
While it doesn't COME on Windows anymore it's a quick download for those who want to use it.

Fred Bear

11-17-2001, 04:35 PM

Oh, no, I was saying that OSX software for camers is a good thing, because itd be a pain to go into classic just for a digital camera. And while the JAVA is a quick download they still cant bind it with Windows anymore because they pissed Sun off... allot.

mortal

11-17-2001, 08:54 PM

I thought this was a place to talk about MAC. Why is it everyone is so preoccupied with windows? Like i said in a previous post this is computing not religion. I use Mac, win and Linux and I must say they all have their place and uses. Although I will say that the Mac was born from Artists while windows was born from a greedy, self important geek (who probably got beat up at school every day) with delusions of grandeur. Like Billy said "it's not about who's product is better". The gratification comes in that the shady and sneaky way he built his empire, will come back to haunt him when the next gates comes along. The funny part is 20 years from now people will say bill who? And to those that doubt my earlier statement about any form of windows being the same, crack open the kernel. Secondly a com file is a command file (dos) exe=executable (dos) do we see a trend here? The bottom line is folks, use what you need to get the job done but dont stand on your soapbox regaling people with hype that you read somewhere. I've done work for Apple and M$ and the majority of you have no idea what you are talking about. I currently have about 40 certifications from IBM, Apple, M$, Dell, HP and so on. This is an OSX forum, KEEP IT THAT WAY! If you want to belittle people and be a general pain, go back to kindergarden.

Mac The Fork

11-17-2001, 09:21 PM

[quote]And to those that doubt my earlier statement about any form of windows being the same, crack open the kernel. Secondly a com file is a command file (dos) exe=executable (dos) do we see a trend here?<hr></blockquote>

Yeah, but I'm not sure it's the trend you have in mind. Windows NT introduced a new Windows kernel. Filename extensions are symptomatic of Microsoft needing compatibility with older versions of Windows still based on DOS. Windows XP introduces the NT kernel to the consumer market, and it shows.

[quote]This is an OSX forum, KEEP IT THAT WAY!<hr></blockquote>

This topic is a comparison of Mac OS X to its main competitor. I don't see anything wrong with that.

RubberDucky

11-17-2001, 10:19 PM

Fred Bear: I'm going to quote your post, and take all the personal attacks out. Once I'm done reading the relevant bits, I will rebutt everything you've written that is easily translated into english.

[quote]And to the moron who doesn’t know crap about economics. The US IS a capitalist society despite antitrust laws. This goes back to John Maynard Keynes who provided tools for the US economy to be artificially adjusted.<hr></blockquote>

Go back and read what I wrote again. Let me translate it into what you said:

The USSR WAS a socialist society, despite the presence of a dictator and the subtle differences between Leninism and "true socialism".

[quote]As for JAVA, the VM DOES NOT, get it? NOT come with Windows XP anymore or 2k.<hr></blockquote>

Yes, I'm well aware of this. MS's license to distribute the VM expires in the next year. They chose not to include it with XP. I believe I said that in my post.

Considering I only managed to understand a small portion of your post, perhaps you should try and make them a bit more clear, and leave meaningless rants out.

[quote]And to those that doubt my earlier statement about any form of windows being the same, crack open the kernel.<hr></blockquote>

Hmmm... the WinXP/2000 kernels are completely different than the Win9x kernels. The Win32 API remains the same.

[quote]Secondly a com file is a command file (dos) exe=executable (dos) do we see a trend here?<hr></blockquote>

Are you daft? Mac the Fork nailed it.

[quote]The bottom line is folks, use what you need to get the job done but dont stand on your soapbox regaling people with hype that you read somewhere.<hr></blockquote>

Next time, I'll be sure and pull conclusions out of my ass like you've done.

[quote]I've done work for Apple and M$ and the majority of you have no idea what you are talking about.<hr></blockquote>

Janitorial work in no way gives you any sort of credible experience.

[quote]I currently have about 40 certifications from IBM, Apple, M$, Dell, HP and so on. <hr></blockquote>

1) List the certifications. 10 will do.

2) Who paid for them? Assuming each cert costs $8k, who fronted the $320k necessary for you to get that many certifications?

[ 11-17-2001: Message edited by: RubberDucky ]

Morte

11-18-2001, 02:29 AM

One note: While .NET's RTLs will function on every platform, .NET apps will require a server, and that server (.NET Enterprise Server) will certainly be restricted to one platform. MS doesn't care much about the consumer market anymore, as the real money lies in the enterprise market. I believe that there's a GNU project to create a freeware .NET compatable server.

Fred Bear

11-18-2001, 02:38 AM

Rubber Dic, I mean Rubber Ducky...

If you want to leave the "meaningless rants out" why insult someone later in your post? Moron

groverat

11-18-2001, 03:36 AM

Sinewave, getting a little sensitive eh?
I'm sorry if I'm being too un-PC for you. :rolleyes:

What's wrong with quoting you from other threads, are your thoughts so random they can't be applied to different things?

[quote]As Do I.. if that is all they need to do what they need to do.. why should they change?<hr></blockquote>

You were using their lack of upgrading as idiotic evidence of an inferiority of the newer operating systems. I was pointing out that idiocy is cross-platform.

[quote]The big difference is.. you can't run OS X applications in 7.5 You can run most XP apps in Win95 still.<hr></blockquote>

How is this a bad thing?
Because Microsoft accomplished what Apple couldn't do with Copland? Because Microsoft can evolve things and Apple has to use established code-bases to start their "advanced" OS development?

[quote]He has a Hard drive and he takes to and from work all the time.<hr></blockquote>

That's against the EULA (that he agreed to), sorry, not a legal user getting hurt by WPA.

[quote]I know a gal that took XP back cause she had been waiting 1/2 a hour on hold to get her number.<hr></blockquote>

A horror story anecdote does not a correlation make. "I knew this girl one time. . ." is hardly the basis of a decent argument. You try it too much and it's just weak.

[quote]Other than the fact you didn't use the answer I gave you<hr></blockquote>

Which was what, that NT4 -> XP isn't as big as OS9 -> OSX.
You're right, and you know why, because OS9 is a technological abortion. It was a dead-end and Apple had to start anew, that's a good thing, that their OS was doomed to such quick obsolecense while Microsoft has managed to evolve a compatable codebase and looks to keep up that pace?

Shame on Microsoft for being adaptable! :rolleyes:

[quote]They both used basically the same Win32 API<hr></blockquote>

And once again, what's wrong with that?

OSX's kernel is essentially 20+ years old.

What the hell is your point?

[quote]They wont upgrade to a new OS unless they buy a new computer.. which it will come on.<hr></blockquote>

Goes to show how little you know about Microsoft's sales. They sell many many many OS upgrade packs.

[quote]heh come on grover don't start sinking into the lowly depths of the "personal attack" syndrome son<hr></blockquote>

Ok, I'll just use your patented "you've got a cock in your mouth (aren't I cute making middle school jokes?)" technique. :rolleyes:

"Hey, look over here everyone, I don't know what the hell I'm talking about!"

You make this too easy.

[quote]Now I never once said it was DOS with a new interface. Not once. Please show me where you read me saying this.<hr></blockquote>

You said it was hardly any different from Windows 95, which was basically DOS with a new interface.

You'll notice I didn't quote you on it. :rolleyes:

[quote]Yes groverat I know this.. again my point flew over your head.. or your trying to dodge it. It will work on XP, OS X, Linux.. etc.. But NOT Win95, 98, etc.<hr></blockquote>

No, you didn't know that, here is your exact quote:
" Ah that is where it is different. .NET will only run on XP. There has to be a reason to make people want to buy it. It surely wont be the WPA "

It's right there, why would you act now like you know what the hell you are talking about after I told you?

It's right above you.

You don't know whether or not it will run on Win95 or Win98. Those two operating systems might not even have the technical ability to run them.

You don't know what the hell you are talking about so you have two options:
1) go thump at a board with morons like you
or
2) shut the hell up

(Actually, there's a 3rd option: "I'll just keep spewing bullshit to people who know better and think I'm right anyway" and that is the most likely option)

Funny that someone who claims to be so un-PC resorts to throwing red flags at someone who calls them on their moronics. Go home, pussy. :)

Fredbear:

You have wandered into the realm of the uninteligible.

[quote]Oh, no, I was saying that OSX software for camers is a good thing, because itd be a pain to go into classic just for a digital camera.<hr></blockquote>

What's good for the goose is not good for the gander, eh?

Hypocritical at all?

No, of course not, it's about Apple. :rolleyes:

[quote]And while the JAVA is a quick download they still cant bind it with Windows anymore because they pissed Sun off... allot.<hr></blockquote>

Microsoft doesn't owe Sun shit. If Sun doesn't want them to bundle it with Windows, fine, I don't see what gripes Sun has when it gets what it wants.

utensil:

[quote]This topic is a comparison of Mac OS X to its main competitor. I don't see anything wrong with that.<hr></blockquote>

It scares some of the more indoctrinated to see people using the evil group.

Like kids in Harry Potter cloaks walking into a Southern Baptist rally. ;)

"That thar is the devil! Begone ya heathens!"

Sinewave

11-18-2001, 04:07 AM

Please from now on grover use the "qb" tags ok? It makes it easier for people to reply to you.

[quote]Originally posted by groverat:
Sinewave, getting a little sensitive eh?
I'm sorry if I'm being too un-PC for you. :rolleyes:
<hr></blockquote>
Naw it's nothing to do with beig PC.. it's your reasoning behind it ;) Somehow you think verbally belittling me will make other people think the same thing.. therefore making you look like your right! Old debating tactic used by the best of trolls :)
 [quote]
What's wrong with quoting you from other threads, are your thoughts so random they can't be applied to different things?<hr></blockquote>
Oh it's fine.. just don't take them out of context. I wasn't replying to the question you asked me with that answer. [quote]
You were using their lack of upgrading as idiotic evidence of an inferiority of the newer operating systems. I was pointing out that idiocy is cross-platform.
<hr></blockquote>
No I was mentioning that most people have no reason to upgrade to XP. Since most of the apps still work in 95.
 [quote]
How is this a bad thing?
Because Microsoft accomplished what Apple couldn't do with Copland? Because Microsoft can evolve things and Apple has to use established code-bases to start their "advanced" OS development?
<hr></blockquote>
Did I say it was a bad thing grover? All I said it that was the reason not many people was upgrading. Stop taking everything I say and turning it into a bizarro extreme.
 [quote]
That's against the EULA (that he agreed to), sorry, not a legal user getting hurt by WPA.
<hr></blockquote>
That hard drive doesn't have Windows installed on it. Just Data.
 [quote]
A horror story anecdote does not a correlation make. "I knew this girl one time. . ." is hardly the basis of a decent argument. You try it too much and it's just weak.
<hr></blockquote>
Want me to go on the net and show you REAL reviews of XP and REAL complaint about the activation process? I can if you want me to.
 [quote]
You're right, and you know why, because OS9 is a technological abortion. It was a dead-end and Apple had to start anew, that's a good thing, that their OS was doomed to such quick obsolecense while Microsoft has managed to evolve a compatable codebase and looks to keep up that pace?

Shame on Microsoft for being adaptable!
<hr></blockquote>
Again your going on about nothing that we was arguing.. trying to start a new one? Everyone knows OS 9 was old technology. No one is going to argue with that grover.
 [quote]
And once again, what's wrong with that?

OSX's kernel is essentially 20+ years old.

What the hell is your point?
<hr></blockquote>
More extremes.. did I say anything was wrong with that? Did I make one statement saying "and that is wrong" no I was arguing about the "Big Differences" that you guys have been claiming between XP and earlier Windows. You guys even went to far to say it was just as big as OS 9 -> OS X which I said was bologna. That is my point. Don't you remember?
[quote]
Goes to show how little you know about Microsoft's sales. They sell many many many OS upgrade packs.
<hr></blockquote>
Not from MA and PA Kettle they don't. I know people still running 3.1 that came with their puter.
[quote]
Ok, I'll just use your patented "you've got a cock in your mouth (aren't I cute making middle school jokes?)" technique.
<hr></blockquote>
Ah see that wasn't until after you called me a moron ;) . I thought we was just trading friendly put downs.
 [quote]
"Hey, look over here everyone, I don't know what the hell I'm talking about!"

You make this too easy.
<hr></blockquote>
Obviously I do. I am not the one taking a argument and trying to twist it around grover. You had this same problem back at MacMonkey. I see you haven't quit that nasty habit. :)
[quote]
You said it was hardly any different from Windows 95, which was basically DOS with a new interface.

You'll notice I didn't quote you on it.
<hr></blockquote>
So you basically was sticking words in my mouth again? Making things I said into Bizarro Extremes.
[quote]
No, you didn't know that, here is your exact quote:
" Ah that is where it is different. .NET will only run on XP. There has to be a reason to make people want to buy it. It surely wont be the WPA "
<hr></blockquote>
For Windows users .. you know.. we WAS talking about Windows users. XP is the only OS that will run .NET Keep on track with the conversation.
[quote]
It's right there, why would you act now like you know what the hell you are talking about after I told you?
<hr></blockquote>
You made a error in judgment obviously.
[quote]
You don't know whether or not it will run on Win95 or Win98. Those two operating systems might not even have the technical ability to run them.
<hr></blockquote>
Yes I do. Want to make a wager on this?
[quote]
You don't know what the hell you are talking about so you have two options:
1) go thump at a board with morons like you
or
2) shut the hell up

(Actually, there's a 3rd option: "I'll just keep spewing bullshit to people who know better and think I'm right anyway" and that is the most likely option)
<hr></blockquote>
In other words.
"Your making me out to look like a jerk that gets mad when I am being proven wrong. So get lost so I can act all cool again"
[quote]
Funny that someone who claims to be so un-PC resorts to throwing red flags at someone who calls them on their moronics. Go home, pussy.
<hr></blockquote>
I didn't throw any red flags son. This comic reminds me of groverat. Every time I read this it reminds me of arguing with you.

http://sinewave.wirefire.com/forums/extreme.gif

[ 11-18-2001: Message edited by: Sinewave ]

Brad

11-18-2001, 07:10 AM

Heh. Dilbert is teh win. Dilbert ownz joo. :D

Seriously, guys, is there any chance you can mature enough to just put this name-calling behind you and try to make a coherent argument? I'm getting lost bewteen the insults and "corrections" being made. <img src="graemlins/bugeye.gif" border="0" alt="[Skeptical]" />

[ 11-18-2001: Message edited by: starfleetX ]

groverat

11-18-2001, 01:10 PM

[quote]Originally posted by Sinewave:
Somehow you think verbally belittling me will make other people think the same thing.. therefore making you look like your right!<hr></blockquote>

Yes, feel free to look at where I point out your own use of this. Your incessant "cock in mouth" quips might be cute at the pit you come from but here you don't insult people and then cry about being insulted.

(And for God's sake it's "you're"!)

[quote]No I was mentioning that most people have no reason to upgrade to XP. Since most of the apps still work in 95.<hr></blockquote>

[quote]Did I say it was a bad thing grover? All I said it that was the reason not many people was upgrading.<hr></blockquote>

So you're saying it's a good thing that Apple writes apps that only work with their latest and greatest, leaving users behind?

You never said it was a bad thing?

"XP is nothing new."
"Yes but there is nothing major or anything that would be considered a technological breakthrough in XP that wasn't in Win2k. It's all HYPE."
"That is because Windows hasn't changed THAT drastically since 95."
"ANd no it's not cause "MS just coded it THAT well"
No 95 -> XP is more like OS 7.5 --> OS 9"

Oh yes, you certainly weren't making judgement calls there. :rolleyes:

I don't think there's any way for you to understand how Windows has changed so much since you're so dead set on making large, uninformed statements.

Incompatability isn't a reliable benchmark of change for the better.

And even if it is, not all new apps run on Windows95, they usually require things put into the newer OSs that Win95 doesn't have.

[quote]That hard drive doesn't have Windows installed on it. Just Data.<hr></blockquote>

He takes an internal IDE hard drive to and from work every day?

[quote]Want me to go on the net and show you REAL reviews of XP and REAL complaint about the activation process?<hr></blockquote>

Sure, go ahead.

[quote]Again your going on about nothing that we was arguing.. trying to start a new one?<hr></blockquote>

I'm sorry for going a bit off track, but "we was"? Please tell me you're from a foreign country. Maybe it is best that you let Dilbert do your thinking for you.

Back on track: You were using the Win32 compatability as "evidence" that Windows hasn't evolved that much from Windows 95 to present. Now, Windows 95 is, in today's world, a complete piece of crap, slow and unstable. And this is even avoiding the idiocy behind the claim that Windows XP is even remotely similar to Windows 95. Cars still hold humans, I guess they haven't changed that much since the Model T Fords. :rolleyes:

[quote]Not from MA and PA Kettle they don't.<hr></blockquote>

Then who buys the individual upgrade packs? Why in God's name would they if they could just warez them?

[quote]I thought we was just trading friendly put downs.[/qb]

Yes, we were until you started whining about it, acting as if you didn't.

[quote]So you basically was sticking words in my mouth again? Making things I said into Bizarro Extremes. <hr></blockquote>

Take some grammar lessons for Christ's sake. WERE. WERE. WERE. WERE. WERE. WERE.

And no, not bizarro extremes, logical translations. Windows 95 was a buggy piece of shit on top of DOS, so you saying Windows XP wasn't that different from Windows 95 is saying that Windows XP is a less buggy piece of shit on top of DOS.

[quote]For Windows users .. you know.. we WAS talking about Windows users. XP is the only OS that will run .NET Keep on track with the conversation.<hr></blockquote>

In no way was that pointed out. Why not say "WindowsXP is the only version of Windows that will run .NET"

Also, that was in no way inclusive to the argument. (I think you said that not understanding what Ducky was talking about)

Give me some links showing that .NET will not run on Win98, WinME or Win2k at all, ever.

[quote]You made a error in judgment obviously.<hr></blockquote>

Ah, your words can't be trusted until they are properly spun, eh?

Nice to see you lift what clever bits you have from Dilbert strips. :rolleyes:

[ 11-18-2001: Message edited by: groverat ]

Sinewave

11-18-2001, 09:20 PM

[quote]Originally posted by groverat:

Yes, feel free to look at where I point out your own use of this. Your incessant "cock in mouth" quips might be cute at the pit you come from but here you don't insult people and then cry about being insulted.<hr></blockquote>

Hey grover did you not read a thing I just said in reply to that? As I said you called me a moron so I said that ONCE I don't know where you get this "incessant" crap from. And I said it cause I thought we was trading friendly slams. I wasn't bitching about you calling me names. I was making fun of your troll like debating style. But I am sure you'll come back and reply to this again like you never read a thing I said.

[quote]
So you're saying it's a good thing that Apple writes apps that only work with their latest and greatest, leaving users behind?
<hr></blockquote>

Heh more bizarro extremes from you grover. No I never said that. No I never even HINTED towards that. Stop putting words in my mouth.

[quote]
You never said it was a bad thing?

"XP is nothing new."
"Yes but there is nothing major or anything that would be considered a technological breakthrough in XP that wasn't in Win2k. It's all HYPE."
"That is because Windows hasn't changed THAT drastically since 95."
"ANd no it's not cause "MS just coded it THAT well"
No 95 -> XP is more like OS 7.5 --> OS 9"

Oh yes, you certainly weren't making judgement calls there
<hr></blockquote>
And WHERE in those quotes did I mention "And this is bad" I was arguing with RubberDucky's comments that XP was big as leap as OS X was. Remember? Remember me responding to you in my LAST post explaining this very thing? It's gets old having to repeat myself.

 [quote]
I'm sorry for going a bit off track, but "we was"? Please tell me you're from a foreign country. Maybe it is best that you let Dilbert do your thinking for you.
<hr></blockquote>
I don't think we was talking about the drudge OS 9 was becoming was we? No we wasn't. But instead of saying "You're right my bad" you come off with lame personal attacks trying to cover up your **** up. That is what I am bitching about grover. Not the actual making fun of.. but your slimy way you try to debate. You did it over at MacMonkey and your doing it here.
 [quote]
Back on track: You were using the Win32 compatability as "evidence" that Windows hasn't evolved that much from Windows 95 to present. Now, Windows 95 is, in today's world, a complete piece of crap, slow and unstable. And this is even avoiding the idiocy behind the claim that Windows XP is even remotely similar to Windows 95. Cars still hold humans, I guess they haven't changed that much since the Model T Fords.
<hr></blockquote>
Nope I said that Windows 95 can run most of the Apps XP can run. Is that not true? Yes. And no Win95 isn't slow compared to XP on say a 250mhz box. You can't honestly sit there at tell me it is.
 [quote]
Then who buys the individual upgrade packs? Why in God's name would they if they could just warez them?
<hr></blockquote>
People like you and me.. businesses. You know the people that USUALLY buy these things.
 [quote]
And no, not bizarro extremes, logical translations. Windows 95 was a buggy piece of shit on top of DOS, so you saying Windows XP wasn't that different from Windows 95 is saying that Windows XP is a less buggy piece of shit on top of DOS.
<hr></blockquote>
No You said I said WinXP wasn't much different than DOS. There is a BIG difference between saying that and saying WinXP isn't much different than DOS and WinXP and Win95 isn't as big of a difference as OS 9 and OS X. Did you get a long enough straw?
 [quote]
In no way was that pointed out. Why not say "WindowsXP is the only version of Windows that will run .NET"
<hr></blockquote>
As we was talking about WINDOWS users saying that XP will be the only one they will be able to run .NET on yes it should have been clear. Had we been talking about Linux and OS X users in that conversation then maybe you'd have a point. But seeing how we weren't you don't.
 [quote]
Also, that was in no way inclusive to the argument. (I think you said that not understanding what Ducky was talking about)
<hr></blockquote>
No I knew what he was talking about. You took a answer I gave some one else as a answer I gave you to YOUR question. And not only that.. you took it out of context. Are you denying you did this? Please just say no so I can get a good laugh in :)

[ 11-18-2001: Message edited by: Sinewave ]

Sinewave

11-18-2001, 09:30 PM

Here is some XP activation complaints

<a href="http://www.osopinion.com/perl/story/14765.html" target="_blank">http://www.osopinion.com/perl/story/14765.html</a>
<a href="http://www.thefab.net/topics/computing/co18_win_xp_blues.htm" target="_blank">http://www.thefab.net/topics/computing/co18_win_xp_blues.htm</a>
<a href="http://j-walk.com/ss/excel/activation.htm" target="_blank">http://j-walk.com/ss/excel/activation.htm</a>

And to answer your question about if Win95 will run .NET. There will be no more support for Win95 from now on. MS even said as much.

groverat

11-19-2001, 02:09 AM

[quote]Originally posted by Sinewave:
I was making fun of your troll like debating style.<hr></blockquote>

Isn't your entire participation in this thread a troll since you obviously know very little about the subject but are able to make grand statements?

[quote]No I never said that. No I never even HINTED towards that.<hr></blockquote>

Then what is the significance?

You say the reason people aren't upgrading (which is patently untrue) is because Windows XP runs Windows 95 applications and that the two essentially aren't different.

Since you refuse to accept the fact that the two are radically different, how could that not be a value statement?

[quote]I don't think we was talking about the drudge OS 9 was becoming was we?<hr></blockquote>

You were making value statements about the transition from Win95->XP and OS9->XP. I was merely illustrating that Apple's complete overhaul (breaking compatability) was necessary while Microsoft managed to overhaul and keep compatability. Fair enough?

[quote][/qb]Nope I said that Windows 95 can run most of the Apps XP can run. Is that not true? Yes.[/qb]<hr></blockquote>

Actually that's not entirely true.
Try installing OfficeXP on Windows 95. Or even Office 2000. Some might be compatable but there is no reason to run them on Windows95 and suffer the performance hit. (Unless, of course, you are stuck with an old Windows 95 machine or are a moron)

[quote]And no Win95 isn't slow compared to XP on say a 250mhz box. You can't honestly sit there at tell me it is. <hr></blockquote>

Dear Lord will XP even allow an install on a 250mhz box?

[quote]People like you and me.. businesses. You know the people that USUALLY buy these things.<hr></blockquote>

Wait, I thought EVERYONE warezed it all. :rolleyes:

[quote]There is a BIG difference between saying that and saying WinXP isn't much different than DOS and WinXP and Win95 isn't as big of a difference as OS 9 and OS X.<hr></blockquote>

You said, and I quote *again*:
"That is because Windows hasn't changed THAT drastically since 95."

Ta-da!

[quote]As we was talking about WINDOWS users saying that XP will be the only one they will be able to run .NET on yes it should have been clear.<hr></blockquote>

The whole point of this thread is XP v. MacOSX. Maybe you missed that with your short attention span.

So sorry if I was thinking in the context of the thread rather than reading your mind. :rolleyes:

[quote]Are you denying you did this?<hr></blockquote>

I took a quote from somewhere else from you but it is still applicable.

I still don't think you fully grasp what an API is and how saying that since they share an API that Windows95 and WindowsXP aren't that different.

Sinewave

11-19-2001, 02:53 AM

[quote]Originally posted by groverat:

Isn't your entire participation in this thread a troll since you obviously know very little about the subject but are able to make grand statements?
<hr></blockquote>
Thanks for proving my point.
 [quote]
Then what is the significance?

You say the reason people aren't upgrading (which is patently untrue) is because Windows XP runs Windows 95 applications and that the two essentially aren't different.

Since you refuse to accept the fact that the two are radically different, how could that not be a value statement?
<hr></blockquote>
Did I ever say they where the same? Did I ever say they weren't different? No. AGAIN for the 3rd time :rolleyes: I said they were NOT as different as OS 9 and OS X are. Got it? This is basically what you have been doing to me this whole conversation.

<Me> Win95 is more similar to WinXP than OS 9 is OS X.
<You> You mean to tell me your saying Win95 and WinXP are a like? You mean to tell me there is nothing significantly different between the two?

You see what I mean? Your taking things I say.. putting words in my mouth then going to the extreme with it. Your trying to make me look wrong on things I never said. Please stop this.
 [quote]
You were making value statements about the transition from Win95->XP and OS9->XP. I was merely illustrating that Apple's complete overhaul (breaking compatability) was necessary while Microsoft managed to overhaul and keep compatability. Fair enough?
<hr></blockquote>
Yes.. just like Apple managed to go from OS 7 to OS 9 and pretty much keep compatibility. Same with Win95 - XP. The difference between OS X and OS 9 is even greater than that between Win3.1 -> WIn95. Even MS needed to keep old DOS and 3.1 (like classic) to run these older apps at first.
 [quote]
Actually that's not entirely true.
Try installing OfficeXP on Windows 95. Or even Office 2000. Some might be compatable but there is no reason to run them on Windows95 and suffer the performance hit.
<hr></blockquote>
Usually people running 95 obviously don't need Office XP. Most of them are still running the version that came with 95. More than likely that version of Office suits their needs just fine. This is one of the reasons MS is dropping support for 95. They aren't making enough money off these people. Next year 98 will be next.
 [quote]
Unless, of course, you are stuck with an old Windows 95 machine or are a moron<hr></blockquote>
Why upgrade when you don't have to?
 [quote]
Dear Lord will XP even allow an install on a 250mhz box?
<hr></blockquote>
Ok lets say 350mhz :rolleyes: Nice way to dodge the answer though ;)
 [quote]
Wait, I thought EVERYONE warezed it all.
<hr></blockquote>
Did I ever say that? Nope. More of your extreme twisting of things grover?
 [quote]
You said, and I quote *again*:
"That is because Windows hasn't changed THAT drastically since 95."

Ta-da!
<hr></blockquote>
And THAT = the amount of change that OS 9 -> OS X went through. :rolleyes:
 [quote]
The whole point of this thread is XP v. MacOSX. Maybe you missed that with your short attention span.

So sorry if I was thinking in the context of the thread rather than reading your mind.
<hr></blockquote>
No the conversation WE was having at the time had to do with WINDOWS users. Nice try and twisting that btw. Remember your conversations within a conversation speeches you used to give out at MacMonkey when you'd try to knock threads off topic more than a few times when you was being proved wrong? Want me to go back and quote them for you?
 [quote]
took a quote from somewhere else from you but it is still applicable.
<hr></blockquote>
If you say so :)
 [quote]
I still don't think you fully grasp what an API is and how saying that since they share an API that Windows95 and WindowsXP aren't that different.
<hr></blockquote>
No I said since they share the API they are not as different as OS X is with OS 9. OS X's native API is completely different than OS 9s. Apple made carbon as a way for OS 9 and OS X to share some common API calls.

Again my whole point in this conversation was pointing out that Rubber Ducky's claim the differences between XP and NT4 or Win95 was just as great as the difference between OS 9 and OS X. Anyone that has any real computer knowledge would laugh at that statement.

[ 11-19-2001: Message edited by: Sinewave ]

groverat

11-19-2001, 12:29 PM

[quote]Did I ever say they where the same? Did I ever say they weren't different? No. AGAIN for the 3rd time I said they were NOT as different as OS 9 and OS X are. Got it? This is basically what you have been doing to me this whole conversation. <hr></blockquote>

I've taken great pains to make it clear that you have repeatedly said that they are not that different.

I want a little substance from you now, what tells you that they are so similar and not as different as OS9 and OSX?

A shared API? Guess what, OS9 and OSX have a shared API. (Oh, but they've got some other ones, too? :rolleyes: )

WinXP defaults to a different filing system than Windows9x. OSX uses HFS+ by default like OS9. OSX has a completely different kernel than OS9, oops, same with WinXP/Win9x. Give me your analysis of how Win95 is more similar to XP than OS9 is to OSX.

[quote]<Me> Win95 is more similar to WinXP than OS 9 is OS X.<hr></blockquote>

"That is because Windows hasn't changed THAT drastically since 95."

Look, it's very simple. You seem to think that your past posts are suddenly invisible. Just admit you don't know what you're talking about and go home.

The purpose of this thread is a valuation argument re: OSX v. WinXP. Got it?

The change from Win95 -> WinXP is as great as the change from OS9 -> OSX. The changes may not be the same, but Win95 was not hampered with what OS9 was hampered with.

I don't think you remember just what Windows 95 was like. . .

("You're." It's a contraction. Learn it, love it.)

[quote]Did I ever say that? Nope. More of your extreme twisting of things grover?
<hr></blockquote>

Your argument is that WPA is pointless since people warez their copies anyway. You asserted that casual warezing would not be affected. That's untrue.

Speaking of MacMonkey. . . go home.

Also, carbon is just as "native" as cocoa. Try again.

(And for the love of God it is "WERE".
"We WERE going to teach Sinewave how to speak English." "They WERE getting tired of Sinewave's inability to comprehend basic grammar.")

I'll give you some time on the analysis, ask some of the monkeys to help you out.

Sinewave

11-19-2001, 01:18 PM

[quote]Originally posted by groverat:

I've taken great pains to make it clear that you have repeatedly said that they are not that different.<hr></blockquote>
No you have taken great pains to take what I said out of context, twist it around.. and and put words in my mouth. While taking what I say and turning it into some bizarro extreme situation to save face.
 [quote]
I want a little substance from you now, what tells you that they are so similar and not as different as OS9 and OSX?

A shared API? Guess what, OS9 and OSX have a shared API. (Oh, but they've got some other ones, too? )
<hr></blockquote>
They have a API that can share similar calls. They are NOT the same. Meaning programs coded for OS 9 wont work with OS X. It has to be programmed for both OS 9 AND OS X. This is the Carbon API. Classic API wont run on OS X.. nor will the Cocoa apps. On the other hand most programs will run on both 95 and XP.
 [quote]
WinXP defaults to a different filing system than Windows9x. OSX uses HFS+ by default like OS9. OSX has a completely different kernel than OS9, oops, same with WinXP/Win9x. Give me your analysis of how Win95 is more similar to XP than OS9 is to OSX.
<hr></blockquote>
Are we going in circles? Have we not been discussing this the past two or so days? Have you had blinders on your eyes boy? XP CAN use a different file system. Just like you CAN use a different file system in OS X. While the kernal is XP is different than Win95.. it isn't that GREAT of a difference between it and NT 4 like I stated before. Nt4 and 2K are built from the the Nt 4 kernel. The fact that most apps still work in 95 isn't because of some great MS programming skills that they came up with to make it compatible that Apple couldn't do. It's because they are not as dissimilar as OS 9 --> OS X
 [quote]
"That is because Windows hasn't changed THAT drastically since 95."
<hr></blockquote>
Hey grover did I NOT just get through explaining what I meant by that? mean THAT = as much as X differs from 9? Did you not read that explanation? I mean it was JUST in my LAST post. But then again.. you left that quote out of your reply cause it would have busted yet ANOTHER one of your non-sensical points. How many more times are you going to do this?
 [quote]
Look, it's very simple. You seem to think that your past posts are suddenly invisible. Just admit you don't know what you're talking about and go home.
<hr></blockquote>
I think some one should be taking their OWN advice. Your the one that seems to think my posts are invisible. And obviously I know more than you about the subject or you'd not be trying to twist things around, ignore points I made, take my statements out of context, etc.. them be signs of a troller than has no idea what he is talking about
 [quote]
The purpose of this thread is a valuation argument re: OSX v. WinXP. Got it?
<hr></blockquote>
And Ducky claimed that XP was just as different as OS X. Comparing the two. That is what we are arguing is it not?
 [quote]
The change from Win95 -> WinXP is as great as the change from OS9 -> OSX. The changes may not be the same, but Win95 was not hampered with what OS9 was hampered with.
<hr></blockquote>
And your obviously a moron for making such a statement.
 [quote]
I don't think you remember just what Windows 95 was like. . .
<hr></blockquote>
Sure I do.. I admin a 95 machine at work. They use it for payroll. They have no need to get a 98/2k/XP box for this purpose.

Sinewave

11-19-2001, 01:39 PM

Lets get some quotes for groverat here

As Microsoft Marketing Manager NB Sundar says, "Although it is not radically different from ME or NT we are definitely treating it as a next generation OS for the markets. Moreover it will be a culmination of home and office OS for our markets as it is the only OS having a common code base."

<a href="http://www.zdnetindia.com/reviews/specials/winxp/stories/19104.html" target="_blank">http://www.zdnetindia.com/reviews/specials/winxp/stories/19104.html</a>

"Windows XP is the biggest advance since Windows 3.1", said Microsoft chief executive Steve Ballmer at the launch of the new operating system in London.

<a href="http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/business/newsid_1619000/1619802.stm" target="_blank">http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/business/newsid_1619000/1619802.stm</a>

Notice he didn't say "Win95"

As a company, I don't see us moving to it (XP) anytime soon, because it doesn't offer any functionality we would depend on," he said. "Most of the stuff that is different about it (is in the) interface, and skin-deep. Until we have a specific reason to mandate the upgrade, we wouldn't consider it.

<a href="http://news.cnet.com/news/0-1003-200-5870654.html" target="_blank">http://news.cnet.com/news/0-1003-200-5870654.html</a>

It wasn't until last year -- when NT was renamed Windows 2000 in its fifth incarnation -- that NT's not-so "New Technology" finally started making serious inroads on the desktop. Nevertheless, most school IT professionals rightly considered Windows 2000 a better choice for the server room than for the classroom, due to steep hardware requirements, a difficult upgrade path from Windows 95/98, and lingering incompatibilities with many device drivers, applications, and multimedia hardware.

But that was then. What Microsoft is doing now, of course, is joining the two operating system families into one by taking the best parts from each. The idea behind Windows XP (think "experience," though I suspect it actually denotes "extra profitable") is to combine the stability and security of NT/2000 with the device and application support of the 95/98 family. Can we really have the best of both worlds? Early reports indicate a cautious yes, but this holy grail comes at a heavy price in hardware requirements: In other words, don't even think about running Windows XP on a PC with less than 128 MB of RAM -- or on hardware that is more than one year old.

<a href="http://www.electronic-school.com/socket/" target="_blank">http://www.electronic-school.com/socket/</a>

So basically while Win95 and XP are different. It is HARDLY the difference that is between OS X <> OS 9 And when we are talking NT4, Win2k (which is actually a better comparison) The differences pretty much dissapear. Exp with 2k. Comparing Win95 with XP is like comparing System 6 to OS X. Comparing OS 9 to OS X is more like comparing 2k with XP.

groverat

11-19-2001, 03:10 PM

Christ I'm tired of this.

You win, you're right. ZDNet India seals it for me.

Congratulations, OSX is more different from OS9 than XP is from Win95.

I can't argue with a group of people about computers that let cows walk around their streets (in some cities).

*groverat concedes and walks to the bathroom to vomit and wash hands repeatedly*

Fred Bear

11-19-2001, 05:41 PM

Grover, you are a sick racist bastard. Seriously, just because someone if from India doesn’t mean they are a dumbass. Go to hell you bigot. Seriously, your opinions look so dumb now (and always have) you are so biased it’s not funny!

Sinewave

11-19-2001, 05:56 PM

[quote]Originally posted by groverat:
Christ I'm tired of this.

You win, you're right. ZDNet India seals it for me.
<hr></blockquote> Of course that wasn't the ONLY link I put down. And of course the US is The ONLY country that knows anything about computers I am sure :rolleyes: [quote]
I can't argue with a group of people about computers that let cows walk around their streets (in some cities).<hr></blockquote>
Are you saying there isn't any town in Texas that does this? Ahahahha all states have towns like this. And I am sure Texas has more than most.

[ 11-19-2001: Message edited by: Sinewave ]

Sinewave

11-19-2001, 05:57 PM

[quote]Originally posted by Fred Bear:
Grover, you are a sick racist bastard. Seriously, just because someone if from India doesn’t mean they are a dumbass. Go to hell you bigot. Seriously, your opinions look so dumb now (and always have) you are so biased it’s not funny!<hr></blockquote>
grover isn't a racist. He is just a sore loser ;)

groverat

11-19-2001, 07:05 PM

Actually towards the end of the article it mentions that Indians seem to be happy with Windows 95.

I realize it's not the only article you posted, they all deal with Win2k -> WinXP transition and past that I'm tired of this so I'm going away from the thread. Bye-bye, you win. :)

Fred, how exactly was that racist?

groverat

11-19-2001, 07:06 PM

Oh yeah, Windows XP is better than MacOSX.

Amorph

11-19-2001, 08:32 PM

Wow.

Three whole pages of empty chest-beating without one invocation of Godwin's Law.

I'm impressed.

Sinewave

11-19-2001, 08:57 PM

[quote]Originally posted by groverat:
Oh yeah, Windows XP is better than MacOSX.<hr></blockquote>

Better,

For me to poop on.

Gilsch

11-19-2001, 09:03 PM

GroveRat: those comments did sound racist. If you don't get why, you're more dense than I thought. Go back to Ars. I'm sure you fit there quite nicely with the anti-Mac fanatics(losers) with thousands of posts.

groverat

11-19-2001, 10:34 PM

Yes I'm a racist. You've got me. :rolleyes:

*puts on robe and pointy hat and rides into the night*

TheRoadWarrior

11-19-2001, 10:52 PM

[quote]Originally posted by ZO:

First of all its still a damn mess to configure stuff. There is no centralized place to control such simple things as sounds, colors, etc. Its EXACTLY like 98/ME/2000... its all a pretty skin.<hr></blockquote>

Actually, it's easy by setting up the things you want, double click on the Display Control panel, and click on that little "save as" button in the "Theme" tab. It creates a file which saves all the sounds, the cursor, the desktop wallpaper, etc. at which on a later date you can double click the xxx.theme file, restoring your custom settings back.

[quote]
Its also significanly slowed down everything (coming from ME)<hr></blockquote>

Yes and no. Professional applications run better (Photoshop is faster on my machine than in ME) but games will be a bit slower since there's that hardware abstraction layer in the way. That's a side effect of the stability of the NT kernal.

[quote]
It took a hell of a long time to install (about 40minutes-1 hour) and so far its a mixed ride.<hr></blockquote>

On my RAID setup, it took 22 minutes for XP to install, just 5 minutes longer than WindowsME.

[quote]Although, in the end, its still crap MS sh!t and nobody has anything to fear... OS X is much better (ahem.. just get those damn webcam, scanner, etc etc etc drivers working damn you)[/QB]<hr></blockquote>

My digital camera, USB scanner, and Firewire camera all plug and play in XP. The built in driver support for these items requires no additional software. For me, XP is like having a custom built OS because for both of my home systems (a P4 and an Athlon XP) I need not install not one single additional driver for anything I have, save for PowerDVD.

Now that I've hacked away the Playskool crap called Luna, even the GUI is more tolerable now.

:)

TheRoadWarrior

11-19-2001, 11:00 PM

[quote]Originally posted by Solishu:
You guys need to get your facts straight before posting nonsense. The upgrade from Win 95/98/ME to XP is *not* a minor upgrade with an interface tweak. What XP is is basically the next version of Windows 2k, which has descended from NT. It has been given alot of usability fixes to make it appropriate for consumers, but the underlying code base is miles ahead of the previous consumer versions of Windows.<hr></blockquote>

True, the upgrade from Win9x to WinXP would be considered a major upgrade, just as it would be to upgrade Win9x to Win2000. Upgrading Win2000 to XP would be minor at best.

The time frame of going from Win 3.1 to WinXP would be equivalent to the advances in the MacOS from System 7 to OS X. Apple just happened to do it more drastically and it won't be long before Intel pushes the PC world to dump all the legacy crap. In fact, ironically, there were reference boards from Intel at Comdex with nothing but USB/Firewire/NIC ports. Interesting concept, no?

[ 11-19-2001: Message edited by: TheRoadWarrior ]

TheRoadWarrior

11-19-2001, 11:06 PM

[quote]Originally posted by NoahJ:
....product activation in XP is invasion of privacy (no matter what MS apologists say)....<hr></blockquote>

WPA is not any invasion of privacy since there's no way Microsoft could possibly use the information to track a person down using any sort of identification. In fact, the vast majority of PCs are shipped with WPA already activated, so, the end user will never need to do it unless they reformat or reinstall a larger primary drive. The hash that is created during the activation process cannot identify a unique PC since PCs themselves have no serial numbers in any of the eletronic parts, aside from the Intel processor serial number which now comes disabled by default on all motherboards.

[quote]
But performance on it is actually quite sad. I cannot even get it to play the quicktime trailer for "Fellowship of the Ring" without hiccuping severely the whole time. This is even after rebooting and ending ALL other tasks on the machine. PIII 500, 192 MB ram, and plenty of HDD space. SAD. My iMac 400 plays the same trailer silky smooth under OS X.1.

<hr></blockquote>

I have never gotten any version of Quicktime to perform as well on any PC that I have owned compared to the Macs that I own. I'm sure that WMP for the Mac is just as bad

:)

TheRoadWarrior

11-19-2001, 11:09 PM

[quote]Originally posted by Sinewave:
Actually the MacOS was always touted as being better cause it had a better GUI that flowed instead of flickered.<hr></blockquote>

That's because the routines that handle the GUI are largely hardware based on the Mac. With a PC it's all handled though software. Even on my high end Athlon and P4 systems the windows still flicker.

Proper coding of an application does, however, eliminate the flickering. It has to do with the way the Windows GUI updates the background of the window as it's being resized, moved, etc.

TheRoadWarrior

11-19-2001, 11:18 PM

[quote]Originally posted by Sinewave:
Basically the only people that it's going to hurt are the honest ones that pay for it. <hr></blockquote>

That's correct because Microsoft realized that not enough people were buying upgrades, so, they came up with a way to force people to upgrade. WPA is that way because it allows Microsoft to disable WindowsXP in the future whenever they decide to.

TheRoadWarrior

11-19-2001, 11:24 PM

[quote]Originally posted by Fred Bear:

Furthermore, look at the built-in zip decompression and photo editing tool (which I must say do suck for their lack of ability to do anything), yet these tools aim to take market share away from WinZip and Adobe (respectively).<hr></blockquote>

Actually, the supposed "rip-offs" you speak of were licensed by Microsoft from the very companies you think they are ripping off. Microsoft realized that ALOT of people use ZIP files and the vast majority of PCs ship with CDRW drives now, so, why not include those? It saves a bunch of trouble for the end user, and, isn't file decompression included in OS X? How about CD burning? OS X has an image viewer, doesn't it? :rolleyes:

I get a good laugh over how some people criticize Microsoft for including ZIP decompression and CD burning software, yet, others criticize them for NOT including other software.

[quote]Mac OS X is built on XML... Something which is very customizable. Try doing anything with XP, its worthless aside from turning the default child-mode look off.<hr></blockquote>

Actually, XP is built around XML as well, in fact, I just finished my own theme for it to get rid of the annoying Playskool look.

:D

TheRoadWarrior

11-19-2001, 11:26 PM

[quote]Originally posted by Sinewave:
The average users only has it installed on one computer.. and the average user is the one that is stil having to put up with the hassles of WPA that was made to stop piracy. The pirates wont be effected by it. Therefore it's BS.<hr></blockquote>

Yes, the public announcement of what WPA is for is total BS. It has nothing to do with piracy at all.

TheRoadWarrior

11-19-2001, 11:34 PM

[quote]Originally posted by groverat:
You've failed to answer, how in the hell will WPA affect a legal user?<hr></blockquote>

Because WPA gives Microsoft the ability to remotely turn off the spigot and begin to force the subscription based services on the consumer.

If you can't get a WPA code, you can't use Windows after 30 days.

TheRoadWarrior

11-19-2001, 11:37 PM

[quote]Originally posted by Sinewave:
There will be no more support for Win95 from now on. MS even said as much.<hr></blockquote>

Yep, in fact, next month Microsoft dumps support for Win95. There's a reason why OfficeXP, WinXP, and DirectX no longer support Win95, not to mention more and more hardware coming to market.

WPA is part of the mechanism that Microsoft will use to eventually get everyone to upgrade, like it or not.

groverat

11-20-2001, 12:17 AM

Yet another way MS is copying Apple.

Jeez, it never ends. :)

Kuku

11-20-2001, 12:42 AM

Well microsoft being microsoft, WPA is like stating the obvious. M$ business tactics are world famous at this point, so denying it is pointless.

How exactly WPA is going to be incorporated is still sketchy at this point simply like all Microsoft moves, it's like a landslide. You see it coming, but you can't do anything about it because it comes from all sides.

Will it leverage .Net, tighten hold on businesses, pin users into the microsoft regime, massive chain e-mailing, world dominations?

So many possiblities and so many possible moves if the others fails.

The only thing in it's way is the increasing amount of awareness filtering through to consumers.

~Kuku

torifile

11-20-2001, 12:47 AM

wow, that has to be the most one sided set of replies I've ever seen. RoadWarrior, you've now got some title somewhere in ubbland :)

TheRoadWarrior

11-20-2001, 12:48 AM

[quote]Originally posted by Kuku:

How exactly WPA is going to be incorporated is still sketchy at this point....

<hr></blockquote>

Actually, WPA is all about turning off Windows at a given point in time.

If Microsoft really cared about piracy, they'd use the same system that Half-Life uses. That has been IMPOSSIBLE to crack because in order to play online, you have to authenticate your serial number with a central server.

Ooops....looks like I let the cat out of the bag here.....

TheRoadWarrior

11-20-2001, 01:02 AM

[quote]Originally posted by torifile:
wow, that has to be the most one sided set of replies I've ever seen. RoadWarrior, you've now got some title somewhere in ubbland :) <hr></blockquote>

<img src="graemlins/smokin.gif" border="0" alt="[Chilling]" />

Actually, I've been watching this thread while it developed and thought I'd add a few comments towards the end.

Sinewave

11-20-2001, 02:17 AM

And now I hear MS is going to be using a WPA for the Mac version of Office.
Great.

Mac The Fork

11-20-2001, 10:41 AM

[quote]That's because the routines that handle the GUI are largely hardware based on the Mac. With a PC it's all handled though software. Even on my high end Athlon and P4 systems the windows still flicker.<hr></blockquote>

The Mac interface routines used to be in ROM, but all drawing was done by the processor. That changed to routines being in software with hardware acceleration (like Windows), and it is now a case of routines in software with little hardware acceleration. I'm quite sure it's a matter of how the routines are written rather than where they're stored.

Kuku

11-20-2001, 05:00 PM

[quote]
Actually, WPA is all about turning off Windows at a given point in time.

If Microsoft really cared about piracy, they'd use the same system that Half-Life uses. That has been IMPOSSIBLE to crack because in order to play online, you have to authenticate your serial number with a central server.

Ooops....looks like I let the cat out of the bag here.....
<hr></blockquote>

Too simple. Off hand I can spot some problems with that. Half-Life(app) must connect to another half life(app) to play. XP is an operating system. IT has no end to incoordinate. Can M$ force all ISP services LANS, etc to provide a 'must line' to the central server? (that might be a distant future if MS has its way). So you can't force people to connect to a central server. At that point a simple IP blocking to the central server is all you need. That's why WPA is phone in.

~Kuku

groverat

11-20-2001, 05:20 PM

Shut up Kuku, Microsoft is evil and everything they do is to make users cry and babies starve.

sssh!

TheRoadWarrior

11-20-2001, 11:31 PM

But Kuku, if you push people towards online services (xbox anyone?), if broadband becomes widespread enough, it's conceivable that the OS could be written to authenticate itself upon boot. Passport and the associated services are part of this first step. Get people hooked on Microsoft's online services, then, move the OS towards that step.

From the information that is NDA (the nature of which I cannot disclose but I let some of it loose at the War Room in MacMonkey) it's very possible for Microsoft to use WPA for two main tasks:

1) Determine the extent of piracy and use the information gathered to argue that they really are not a monopoly (a monopoly requiring both control over means of production and means of distribution....if piracy of Windows is 50%, for example, Microsoft could argue that they can't control distribution, therefore, the label of "monopoly" can't stick);

2) WPA can be used to prevent people from reinstalling Windows at a later date. For example, Microsoft drops support for Win95 in December. Anyone with Win95 will forever be able to reinstall Win95. However, if a person has WinXP, and, cannot get an authentication code, it's basically useless (without cracks, which, legislation is trying to prevent the use of).

WPA isn't about stopping piracy. To believe so is misguided. ;)

TheRoadWarrior

11-20-2001, 11:36 PM

And, groverat, I don't think that Microsoft as a whole is inherently evil, but, some of the things they do certainly are.

I find it incredible to believe that reinstalling an operating system requires so much work to get things back in operating order again (reinstalling programs because registry keys get broken, etc.)

For me, I'm caught between a rock and a hard place. I love the freedom having access to basically unlimited PC hardware gives a person in the x86 world in terms of choice and customization, but, I would say that the MacOS is far superior for easy of use, reinstallation, etc.

If only there was MacOS on x86......

Well, can't have everything in life, otherwise, we wouldn't desire it <img src="graemlins/smokin.gif" border="0" alt="[Chilling]" />

Sinewave

11-21-2001, 03:09 AM

[quote]Originally posted by groverat:
Shut up Kuku, Microsoft is evil and everything they do is to make users cry and babies starve.

sssh!<hr></blockquote>

I don't remember any one even saying anything close to this.

groverat

11-21-2001, 02:28 PM

Thanks for the newsflash, Captain Obvious.

Someone get this kid an education.

"Farce? What's that, some kind of candy?"

Sinewave

11-21-2001, 05:02 PM

[quote]Originally posted by groverat:
Thanks for the newsflash, Captain Obvious.

Someone get this kid an education.

"Farce? What's that, some kind of candy?"<hr></blockquote>

http://sinewave.wirefire.com/forums/farcebar.png

Kuku

11-21-2001, 10:28 PM

TheRoadWarrior,

I never said WPA was just for anti-piracy, though there obviously is something there.

Microsoft always uses multi-prong attacks. Anti-priacy is only just one of them. While everyone knows the basic underlining there is many layers underneath. There is most probably much more to XP that M$ will leverage they critics haven't thought of yet.

There is nothing simple about about microsoft.

Is it just me or is Groverat starting to sound like President Bush? All this Evil doers, justics, and stuff. Sounds like too many batman reruns.

~Kuku

Sinewave

11-21-2001, 10:36 PM

[quote]Originally posted by Kuku:
Is it just me or is Groverat starting to sound like President Bush? All this Evil doers, justics, and stuff. Sounds like too many batman reruns.

~Kuku<hr></blockquote>

Yeah the president should be lying in court instead :)

TheRoadWarrior

11-21-2001, 11:16 PM

[quote]Originally posted by Kuku:
TheRoadWarrior,

I never said WPA was just for anti-piracy, though there obviously is something there.

Microsoft always uses multi-prong attacks. Anti-priacy is only just one of them. While everyone knows the basic underlining there is many layers underneath. There is most probably much more to XP that M$ will leverage they critics haven't thought of yet.

There is nothing simple about about microsoft.

~Kuku<hr></blockquote>

That's fine. I only wanted to point out to everyone here that there is ALOT more to WPA than what Microsoft is saying publicly. Trust me, it has the potential to get very ugly, and, sadly, before many people realize what's going on, it will be too late.

Ever wonder why the DOJ suddenly decided to settle the anti-trust case?

arhra

11-26-2001, 09:34 AM

Just a little link for Sinewave...

<a href="http://msdn.microsoft.com/downloads/default.asp?url=/downloads/sample.asp?url=/msdn-files/027/000/976/msdncompositedoc.xml" target="_blank">http://msdn.microsoft.com/downloads/default.asp?url=/downloads/sample.asp?url=/msdn-files/027/000/976/msdncompositedoc.xml</a>

some excerpts:
[quote]The Beta 2 release of the Microsoft .NET Framework Software Development Kit (SDK) includes the .NET Framework redistributable package. The SDK includes everything developers need to write, build, test, and deploy .NET Framework applications — documentation, tools, compilers, and samples.

The redistributable package runs on Microsoft Windows® XP, Windows® 2000, Windows NT® 4.0, Windows® 98, and Windows® Millennium Edition (Windows Me).<hr></blockquote>

[quote]The SDK runs on Windows® XP, Windows® 2000, and Windows NT® 4.0.<hr></blockquote>

So, far from .NET applications only running on XP, they actually run on anything from win98/NT4 on (and if you wanted, you could probably get the CLR, etc running on win95 as well, since there's very little difference between it and 98...)... and the SDK (software development kit) runs on any NT-kernel OSs form NT4 onwards...

Sinewave

11-26-2001, 10:39 AM

Point is.. MS isn't supporting .NET for Win95 even though it can run on it. There are still tons of people using 95 MS wants them to upgrade. Not that there is anything wrong with that. Most software companies do the same thing.

jimmac

11-26-2001, 12:16 PM

Sinewave,

That candy bar was the the funniest piece of humour I've seen here ever! I laughed and snickered for a min. and a half.

God I've missed this forum.

Groverat,

People who start saying " shut up " in their arguments know they have already lost . ;)

Sinewave

11-26-2001, 12:55 PM

[quote]Originally posted by jimmac:
Sinewave,

That candy bar was the the funniest piece of humour I've seen here ever! I laughed and snickered for a min. and a half.
<hr></blockquote>

I was basically making fun of myself..so everything is ok ;)

iChmul

11-26-2001, 03:46 PM

Well do you got good drivers for win2k? /me not!
I saw XP at a local computer store and you know what? There was no wanna-have-feeling like it was on Mac OS X!
Guess what I use...

peperone

11-26-2001, 03:54 PM

[quote]Originally posted by iChmul:

Guess what I use...<hr></blockquote>

Well, considering you killed your OS X recently ('sudo rm -r' is tricky), I'd guess you don't use Mac OS X atm. :p

And btw: Welcome Mr. Thomas "Fotzibär" Chmul :)

groverat

11-26-2001, 04:28 PM

yeah jimmac, it was. . . a joke. :)

the cool gut

11-26-2001, 05:27 PM

[quote]Originally posted by iChmul:

I saw XP at a local computer store and you know what? There was no wanna-have-feeling like it was on Mac OS X!
<hr></blockquote>

I got to check it out at a store as well ... I haven't been able to spend to much time with it, so I'm just going to fire off some questions ... why is there so much lag for the volume control to pop up? And what's with the kindergarden safety icons? Is M$ still working on the graphic system, or is it that X is just far superior ... I can't tell ... is it crapy icons ... or the OS? Do you still have to go to "my computer" to access your drives? Whats the largest file that you can copy between applications? Have they addressed that ƒucked up alias system yet?

Any other relevant info will be much appreciated ... as exciting as M$'s legal tactics, business strategies and technical airy hopes may be, (isn't it true that they don't even own the patent for their .NET strategy?) I am keenly interested in learning a little 'bit about their actual CURRENT os.

TheRoadWarrior

11-27-2001, 11:11 AM

The GUI "engine" in WindowsX isn't even to the primative stage, compared to what's in OS X.

It's a complete joke, if you ask me.

Nonsuch

12-02-2001, 07:58 PM

[quote]Originally posted by applenut:
Force Quit sucks in OS X. Takes forever to come up.... when it does come up that is. Windows is near instant.<hr></blockquote>

Force Quit works perfectly fine in OS X. What are all these problems people are having with Force Quit?

the cool gut

12-02-2001, 08:16 PM

At least in X, you can use the terminal to make sure the process was really killed. XP is based on a kernal thats what? 3 years old? It's about ****in' time they got it right.

Sinewave

12-02-2001, 09:02 PM

[quote]Originally posted by the cool gut:
At least in X, you can use the terminal to make sure the process was really killed. XP is based on a kernal thats what? 3 years old? It's about ****in' time they got it right.<hr></blockquote>

OS X is based on a kernal even older.

EmAn

12-02-2001, 09:14 PM

[quote]Originally posted by Nonsuch:


Force Quit works perfectly fine in OS X. What are all these problems people are having with Force Quit?<hr></blockquote>

Yeah, I don't understand what people complain about either. I've never had a problem with Force Quit.

rbald

12-02-2001, 09:31 PM

[quote]Originally posted by Sinewave:

Yes and Apple took it back. See you must not remember the big deal ol Mike made it out to be. He was rubbing it in Apple's face. Next time around Apple took it back in a big way.

_________________
Being Politically Correct is retarded.
http://sinewave.wirefire.com/forums/signazi.png

[ 11-14-2001: Message edited by: Sinewave ]<hr></blockquote>
Are you kidding or what? Dell has about 5x the market share of Apple!
:D :D :D :mad: :mad:

rbald

12-02-2001, 09:55 PM

[quote]Originally posted by iChmul:
Well do you got good drivers for win2k? /me not!
I saw XP at a local computer store and you know what? There was no wanna-have-feeling like it was on Mac OS X!
Guess what I use...<hr></blockquote>

You mac people are a riot! If the mac OS is sooo good how come Apple has 3% market share and Microsoft has 95% market share and is the world standard OS! :p :p :p

The Toolboi

12-02-2001, 10:12 PM

*bullshit*

OSX is superior in EVERY SINGLE WAY. I have had the "pleasure" of using both and OSX is a much nicer design.

However I REALLY miss OS9, I still say that interface wize its the best OS ever.

Sinewave

12-03-2001, 12:38 AM

[quote]Originally posted by rbald:

Are you kidding or what? Dell has about 5x the market share of Apple!
:D :D :D :mad: :mad: <hr></blockquote>

Not in education...

:rolleyes:

Sinewave

12-03-2001, 12:40 AM

[quote]Originally posted by rbald:


You mac people are a riot! If the mac OS is sooo good how come Apple has 3% market share and Microsoft has 95% market share and is the world standard OS! :p :p :p <hr></blockquote>

In the US.. Macs have 4-5% mkt share. MS has 90% approx. Again mkt share doesn't = good.

As we all know there are more Honda Civic drivers out there than there is Porsche.

You know Porsche has less than 1% of the car market share? Porsche's must suck!

:rolleyes:

groverat

12-03-2001, 04:09 AM

Maclots and their car analogies.

Sheesh. :rolleyes:

Mac Guru

12-03-2001, 05:42 AM

But they're true... I hear the same drivel from PC fags at Ars so calm down.

Sinewave

12-03-2001, 08:13 AM

[quote]Originally posted by groverat:
Maclots and their car analogies.

Sheesh. :rolleyes: <hr></blockquote>

PC Lots and their denial :rolleyes: are you saying that greater mkt % = better grover?
I surely hope not. I wasn't comparing Apple's to Porsches. I was showing the tard that just because the mkt share isn't great.. that doesn't mean something sucks. Esp when that something has been around since the dawn of Personal Computers. Rolleyes indeed.

cowerd

12-03-2001, 05:21 PM

TheRoadWarrior wrote:
[quote]That's fine. I only wanted to point out to everyone here that there is ALOT more to WPA than what Microsoft is saying publicly. Trust me, it has the potential to get very ugly, and, sadly, before many people realize what's going on, it will be too late.

Ever wonder why the DOJ suddenly decided to settle the anti-trust case?<hr></blockquote>
funny you should mention this--usually not one for big consipiracy theories, but Howard Schmidt, Microsoft's chief security officer, is expected to leave within the next month to join the Bush administration.
<a href="http://www.interesting-people.org/archives/interesting-people/200112/msg00003.html" target="_blank">http://www.interesting-people.org/archives/interesti ng-people/200112/msg00003.html</a>.
Things could get ugly faster than you think.

[ 12-03-2001: Message edited by: cowerd ]

groverat

12-03-2001, 06:37 PM

The Porsche analogy doesn't work because Porsche's methods prohibit their good cars from being produces in the quantity that Apple can comparatively produce their products.

Car analogies are weak, I don't care what the fags at Ars do. :)

Sinewave

12-03-2001, 10:11 PM

grover it wasn't a car analogy. It was showing market share does NOT = Quality.

NoahJ

12-04-2001, 12:20 AM

[quote]Originally posted by groverat:
The Porsche analogy doesn't work because Porsche's methods prohibit their good cars from being produces in the quantity that Apple can comparatively produce their products.

Car analogies are weak, I don't care what the fags at Ars do. :) <hr></blockquote>

How about VHS vs. BETA (don't even tell me VHS is better), or Zip Drive versus practically anything else that was competing with it at the time (click of death anyone), or how about the Amiga versus anything (where is that system now if it was so good?). The best does not mean the most market share or success. This issue has been beat into the ground, I am suprised some feel the need to argue it over and over that windows is better because everyone uses it. Sheep.

groverat

12-04-2001, 09:19 AM

[quote]I am suprised some feel the need to argue it over and over that windows is better because everyone uses it.<hr></blockquote>

Windows isn't better than the MacOS because of market share, I never said that.

NoahJ

12-04-2001, 10:04 AM

[quote]Originally posted by groverat:


Windows isn't better than the MacOS because of market share, I never said that.<hr></blockquote>

I was speaking to those in this and every thread who feel that it is because of that. They know who they are. :)

Sinewave

12-05-2001, 08:17 AM

[quote]Originally posted by groverat:


Windows isn't better than the MacOS because of market share, I never said that.<hr></blockquote>

And my original post wasn't a response to you was it?

groverat

12-05-2001, 09:57 AM

I was talking to the person that quoted me, I even quoted them.

Take smart pills.

Sinewave

12-05-2001, 10:51 AM

Well excuse me then I apologize.

But it brings up a point as to WHY you complained about such a analogy in the first place?

If you don't think mkt share = quality then what are you complaining about?

groverat

12-05-2001, 12:33 PM

I complained about car analogies because they are stupid.

This whole market share thing is a different thing from what I was talking about.

Even so, market share has no correlation with quality. I never claimed anything else or even care. :)

Sinewave

12-05-2001, 04:50 PM

[quote]Originally posted by groverat:
I complained about car analogies because they are stupid<hr></blockquote>
Sometimes one has to use analogies to explain to someone else how things work. Obviously this guy thinks mkt share = better. I was showing him how that isn't true. So the car analogy worked.
[quote]
This whole market share thing is a different thing from what I was talking about.
<hr></blockquote>
You replied right after me with
[quote]Originally posted by groverat:
Maclots and their car analogies.

Sheesh. :rolleyes: <hr></blockquote>

What am I supposed to think what you meant by that?
 [quote]
Even so, market share has no correlation with quality.<hr></blockquote>
And that's what my car analogy showed.

groverat

12-05-2001, 06:49 PM

[quote]What am I supposed to think what you meant by that?<hr></blockquote>

That car analogies are stupid and that Maclots love car analogies.

I can understand that you would think that I was arguing against your market share point, but that understanding comes from me knowing that you aren't very sharp. ;)

--

WindowsXP is better than MacOSX for a whole host of reasons, market share isn't one of them.

Sinewave

12-05-2001, 07:30 PM

[quote]Originally posted by groverat:


That car analogies are stupid and that Maclots love car analogies.

I can understand that you would think that I was arguing against your market share point, but that understanding comes from me knowing that you aren't very sharp. ;)
<hr></blockquote>

Ah.. maybe if you was a tad more clear on your posts we'd not have to guess as to your meaning. Or was you being intentionally vague to appear deep?

groverat

12-05-2001, 11:00 PM

How the hell was that intentionally vague?

"2+2=4"
"Are you trying to say that it's better to add 2 and 2 than it is to multiply 2 and 2!?!"

And how in God's name does that statement contain any kind of depth? Maybe it's deep to you, but not to the majority of people.

torifile

12-05-2001, 11:10 PM

groverat and sinewave need to be in a death match. Do you two seek one another's posts out? I'm taking bets: 2:1 odds on sinewave (based on shear posting power). Any takers? :)

Sinewave

12-06-2001, 01:20 AM

grover let me explain it to you slowly. I made a comment about mkt share. It had to do with cars. No one else made any car analogies. Right after I posted mine you posted this.

[quote]Maclots and their car analogies.

Sheesh. :rolleyes:
<hr></blockquote>

Now that either means.

1. You either thought that it was a bad example.
2. You where just being a ass.

Now I asked you why you posted that.. and you try to weasel your way out of it.

Now please lets have a straight answer as to why you rolled and sheeshed my comparison.

But I am sure we will see you post some sort of twist to turn it back on me. .and totally not answer my question. I hope I am wrong.. but I am betting..

groverat

12-06-2001, 02:20 AM

I have already explained why that particular car analogy doesn't work.

If you want to read into what I said, then fine. If you want to put words in my mouth, then fine. I would love to know what I'm supposed to be weaseling my way out of.

It's quite simple, a ****ing child could understand this.

Maclots love to use car analogies like "Mac == Rolls Royce, MS == Ford" you see that all the time. You did it and I expressed disgust at the practice. Jesus ****ING Christ you are dense.

[ 12-06-2001: Message edited by: groverat ]

The Toolboi

12-06-2001, 02:24 AM

The nice thing about exclusivley using a PC (I almost never use a mac now) is that you cant be called a macalot ;)

in my small experiences with OSX Ive never had ANY force quit problems.

I dont know about XP, but I find that quite a lot of the time it takes AGES to bring up the win2k task manager. Also MacOS rarely freezes, though its apps do.
I almost NEVER have an app freeze in win2k, but the system its self seems to halt half the time its running.
Mind you I think I have some strage conflicts right now, but even with a fresh install...

Oh, and Ill never forget when I installed that crap called WinME. Wit ha completley fresh install it crashed when I was going to properties to set up my display.

Sinewave

12-06-2001, 09:05 AM

[quote]Originally posted by groverat:
I have already explained why that particular car analogy doesn't work.

If you want to read into what I said, then fine. If you want to put words in my mouth, then fine. I would love to know what I'm supposed to be weaseling my way out of.

It's quite simple, a ****ing child could understand this.

Maclots love to use car analogies like "Mac == Rolls Royce, MS == Ford" you see that all the time. You did it and I expressed disgust at the practice. Jesus ****ING Christ you are dense.

[ 12-06-2001: Message edited by: groverat ]<hr></blockquote>

Ah I am the one who is dense? I wasn't comparing Mac = Rolls Royce, MS = Ford. AS I stated before. (and again I am the one being dense :rolleyes: ) I said I was showing how large mkt share doesn't = quality. Nowhere did I say "Macs are cool and fast as Porsches and Windows are Like Hondas" I was merely stating that mkt share doesn't = quality in a way that the person I was replying to could understand. That car analogy does INDEED work. It proves that mkt share doesn't = quality. Which is what I was out to prove. AS I stated before... 2 or 3 times.

BTW get your panties out of the perpetual knot they are in. You sound like a little kid throwing a tantrum.

the cool gut

12-08-2001, 12:11 PM

[quote]Originally posted by Sinewave:


OS X is based on a kernal even older.<hr></blockquote>

As far as I know, force quitting from the terminal in OSX works just fine ... getting it to work with the aqua gui would most likely take some finessing.

the cool gut

12-08-2001, 12:31 PM

[quote]Originally posted by rbald:


You mac people are a riot! If the mac OS is sooo good how come Apple has 3% market share and Microsoft has 95% market share and is the world standard OS! :p :p :p <hr></blockquote>

The "World Standard" in what?

Servers? no
Desktop Publishing? no
Video Editing? no
Audio ? no
Education ? no

Word Processing? THERE YA GO!!!!

Microsoft dominates the industry, because 90% of the market doesn't use the computer for anything else besides office applications, internet, and gaming ... things that P.C.s do just fine at. Despite office for the mac being the superior version, as well as file management on the Mac being head and shoulders over everything else, if you are a corporation filling office buildings with computers, you are going to go with P.C.s

MacGregor

12-10-2001, 06:47 PM

I think this thread was doomed from the beginning, but I have friends who think XP is so fast and wonderful. Mostly I think some of the filing procedures are more Mac like and they are noticing that they work faster, rather than that the speed of the software is faster.

And THAT was the point of the Mac operating system, to make the user more efficient and enjoying the process of being on a computer.

I haven't used XP so I can't compare myself, but I can see from the Teletubbie colorization, that I would get very annoyed using it.

And Groverat, I respect your opinions and thoughtful comments, but I have a hard time understanding how people feel genuine joy using software promulgated by a company that has been convicted of abusing monopolistic powers. The punishment is still being debated, but Microsoft still LOST! Why doesn't anyone running Windows talk about that? How can you admire that? It is like admiring a Nazi V2 rocker, except it isn't even that revolutionary?

If anyone can watch Balmer or Gates for more than 45 seconds and not feel disturbed, then I suggest reading Muir or Tolstoy.

groverat

12-11-2001, 12:58 PM

1) Invoking Nazi imagery exposes your limited thinking.
2) Steve Jobs disturbs me as well. He is just as bad (if not worse) than Gates or Ballmer.

I don't talk about it with my friends because my friends don't care and neither do I. Apple single-handedly put clone-makers out of business, I don't care about that either.

I think your own eyes are a little blind to your chosen object of fascination.

bradbower

12-11-2001, 02:45 PM

Is it just me that is noticing how you guys are basically arguing the same things over and over but are too pigheaded to realize by the end of the argument you're saying the same damned thing? Just out of curiosity. And no groverat, I am not asking you.

Anyway, I love OS X, but I am kinda interested in XP too. It's not as fun, beautiful, or from Apple, nor does it work nearly as seamlessly as OS X does on my Mac, but it works well and has some unique, new features, plus it ain't too bad on the eyes.

[ 12-11-2001: Message edited by: bradbower ]

tonton

12-11-2001, 03:22 PM

Let's get back on topic here: Which is the better OS?

[quote]Originally posted by groverat:
Sorry folks, but as it stands right now XP is a better operating system. It's got far better app support, better compatability with older versions of Windows (I run old-school Wolfenstein in compatability mode, DOS files and all) and it's rock-solid like Win2k.

If you don't like Luna you can turn that off easy enough. Remote Assistance is spectacular, I use it all the time to fix problems with computers at work. There are a hundred different little things that you grow to appreciate as you use it.

OSX has beautiful text rendering when the apps use quartz, I am high jealous of that, but there isn't a whole lot that OSX really beats XP at. I dig the OSX icon sets and options a lot more. The default widgets are far nicer than Luna.

There are also negatives for both, but I won't go into them.<hr></blockquote>

Groverat, did you notice how contradictory you were here? You produced three good arguments why XP is the better OS, and two of those were related to old technology. The other, although it may make your job as a lab admin easier, is a very real security threat if not deactivated.

Meanwhile the ability to turn off Luna is hardly a feature worthy of praise. OSX does not offer the ability to turn off Aqua because unlike Luna, it doesn't suck. The truth is that Microsoft produced a UI which is meaninglessly CPU intensive. Aqua can also be CPU intensive at times, but much more efficiently so, and it is a very practical improvement over the OS 9 UI. In your own words you have praised parts of OS X that are completely new, and that when fully implemented will provide a far superior user experience to anything that's possible in XP or any future NT derived OS.

I'll just keep it in mind that if I ever want to run Castle Wolfenstein that XP is the better OS. Thanks for the heads up.

Your comments regarding OS 9 being a dead end is a valid one, but it only serves to stress why the OS X line has more potential than Win NT/2000/XP. To most technologically intelligent people it is quite clear that Mac OS X is the future of the Mac OS, is successfully discarding what was limited by the past, and has enough power built-in to give it a very long shelf life. Also, the majority of Mac users are tech savvy enough to be able to make this transition without much fuss.

Windows OS development is inherently limited in that 90% (my conservative estimate) of Microsoft's user base requires the element of familiarity to cope with any particular upgrade, thus the inability for Microsoft to make more than incremental changes to the way the UI works. UI-wise it's always going to be the same old stuff with more eye candy and added "features".

Of course, Microsoft can always bring in a new kernel for added stability and scalability, and throw the old UI on top of it, with a backward compatibiliy layer (which will be less and less efficient the more changes in the Kernel there are). But what if the flaws are in the UI, flaws in what's become irreversibly engrained in the "knowledge" of the wide, non-technical user base, and even in the way developers work? My belief is that there are indeed considerable flaws there, that will never be corrected, forever limiting Windows' potential for any real change.

Let's take another look in five years. I bet OS X will prove its superiority in the long run.

Old software, Moto's speed coma and certain developers' slow reaction aside, it is clearly the better OS, which is exactly what has been asked here.

groverat

12-11-2001, 04:28 PM

[quote]You produced three good arguments why XP is the better OS, and two of those were related to old technology.<hr></blockquote>

It can run DOS applications, it has fast and transparent backwards-compatability. (better than Classic)

Win2k is more stable than any MacOS and it is most definitely a compliment.

[quote]The other, although it may make your job as a lab admin easier, is a very real security threat if not deactivated.<hr></blockquote>

Deactivated?
Read up on how Remote Assistance works.

[quote]Meanwhile the ability to turn off Luna is hardly a feature worthy of praise.<hr></blockquote>

WindowsXP is easy to customize. Not everyone is the same.

[quote]OSX does not offer the ability to turn off Aqua because unlike Luna, it doesn't suck.<hr></blockquote>

The thousands of MacOSX users out there trying to get different skins would disagree.

[quote]In your own words you have praised parts of OS X that are completely new, and that when fully implemented will provide a far superior user experience to anything that's possible in XP or any future NT derived OS.<hr></blockquote>

Whether or not it provides a better user experience is 100% dependent on the user.

[quote]Windows OS development is inherently limited in that 90% (my conservative estimate) of Microsoft's user base requires the element of familiarity to cope with any particular upgrade, thus the inability for Microsoft to make more than incremental changes to the way the UI works. UI-wise it's always going to be the same old stuff with more eye candy and added "features".<hr></blockquote>

What has changed so dramatically UI-wise from OS9 -> OSX that wasn't simply a way to get around which was a glaring problem with OS9 and earlier?

You asserting that nothing has changed UI-wise in Windows is ignorant. Use Windows 95 and Windows XP and see how much of it is the same.

[quote]Let's take another look in five years. I bet OS X will prove its superiority in the long run.<hr></blockquote>

You know little about Windows as it stands today and obviously even less about what direction Windows is heading in the future.

Not surprising.