Anyone here used XP much? - Page 2

I actually was interested in his question... does anybody have an answer?

What is the max copy/paste size for Windows XP, Windows 2000, OS 9, and OS X? In OS 9, Photoshop 6 is always telling me that "clipboard is too large to export" or something to that effect.'

-Ender

It's a stupid question because of course it can. It's like me asking whether or not the MacOS draws pictures on the screen.

[quote]Originally posted by groverat:
<strong>Ooh, I like "Wastebasket", also "Dust Bin" and "Sinewave's Mom" </strong><hr></blockquote>

My Mom's Sweet Ass.

[quote]Originally posted by groverat:
<strong>It is not that way with all MS apps. Just a few examples, please. I honestly don't know what you're talking about.

To use one of your lame terms, I'm afraid you're making a "bizarro extreme" out of one specific situation.

You have to option to just bypass the Recycle Bin entirely and delete the file outright, if that's how you want to do it.</strong><hr></blockquote>

Oh come on grover tell me you have never heard Windows dialog jokes? How long have you been using a computer again? I remember one shockwave file someone made that poked fun at them. It would bring up a new dialog box with every one that you pressed.

Here is a example. I just want to change the resolution. In my Mac and can just change it and I get no hassles. In Windows it gives you these "Are You sure?" dialogs every time.





Windows treats you as if your a retard. Now this may be a good feature for newbies but Windows needs to have a "Don't dumb down Windows" feature to disable this.

[ 01-03-2002: Message edited by: Sinewave ]</p>

I purchased a new sony laptop back in September and qualified for a XP Home edition upgrade. I installed it and wasn't impressed. It didn't recognize all my hardware. With 256 Mb of RAM it was slow. The "new" look was just window dressing you could pick from a few themes but not customize it yourself. I installed RedHat 7.1. The internal modem didn't work, the DVD player did not work and my system actually ran slower eventhough I setup 127 MB swap partition.

I finally settled for W2K and haven't had any propblems.

I've never been a Mac user but wish now that I had went for the iBook with the DVD/CD-RW combo drive. My goal is to have a portable system in which I can do Geneology work and then burn the information to CD or DVD. If the PowerBook ever comes out with a DVD-RW drive it will be my next system.


[quote]Originally posted by dstranathan:
<strong>I used it for the first time today. I actually kinda liked it. I have always hated Windows, but XP was almost "Mac-like". If MWSF is lame and there are no G5's, I may build a PC and run BSD and XP

I just wanted to get feedback from both Mac and PC users about XP.

One feature I wish X had is the "Remote Desktop" feature (discussed in other posts)

Any comments guys?</strong><hr></blockquote>

[quote]Originally posted by Sinewave:
<strong>
Here is a example. I just want to change the resolution. In my Mac and can just change it and I get no hassles. In Windows it gives you these "Are You sure?" dialogs every time.

(images)

Windows treats you as if your a retard. Now this may be a good feature for newbies but Windows needs to have a "Don't dumb down Windows" feature to disable this.
</strong><hr></blockquote>

On other occasions, I'd agree, but this specific dialog box is there for good reason, and has saved me from booting into safe mode several times when I tried to find out how far a given monitor could go refresh-rate-wise. Forthermore, I don't think it's too annoying, since I don't change screen resolutions very often once I found a good one for a given monitor.

Bye,
RazzFazz

Perfectly reasonable dialogue boxes, what's wrong with them?

And are you really trying to use the existence of jokes as some kind of evidence?

grover it does this in most anything you do in Windows. WTF are you talking about? I mean having to go through two or three dialogs for alot of things you change is just obnoxious.

You don't have to go through 2 or 3 dialogue boxes to do everything. I (and others) have shown why the dialogue boxes you bring up exist or how you can easily disable them.

You are taking it for granted that dialogue boxes pop up every 5 seconds and I'm telling you that I use WindowsXP every day and I don't have that.

Dialogue boxes are not a problem in WindowsXP more than they are in any other OS.

grover when I use Windows how come I notice them a lot more than I do in OS 9 or OS X? I mean some of them are pretty stupid. Especially some of the Windows installers.

Any examples?

Do the installer dialogue boxes ask you stupid things like where you want it to install and if you want a shortcut in the Start menu?

You're trying to use anecdote to discuss an issue with someone who is using reason, it just doesn't work out. WindowsXP users aren't inundated with inane dialogue boxes, I'm sorry, but it's just not that way.

[quote]Originally posted by Sinewave:
<strong>grover it does this in most anything you do in Windows. WTF are you talking about? I mean having to go through two or three dialogs for alot of things you change is just obnoxious.</strong><hr></blockquote>

Ever actually used Windows yourself for any longer period of time?
I did / do, and I don't really feel like it's too obnoxious or getting into my way - and when it does in some cases, you can mostly disable that (wizards and stuff).

Bye,
RazzFazz

grover I never said XP had them That was my question.. I asked if XP still used them like 9X did all the time.

[quote]grover I never said XP had them<hr></blockquote>

Look at the thread title, now re-read your posts. You were talking about Windows, and in a thread dedicated to XP that means you were talking about XP unless you otherwise specified, which you never did.

Your ignorance on this subject is showing, it's best you just quit while you're behind.

Also, all of the gripes you have specified are in XP along with 9x, and those gripes which you can specify have been explained in a logical manner.

[quote]That was my question.. I asked if XP still used them like 9X did all the time.<hr></blockquote>

Your question is flawed because you don't know what you're talking about.

[quote]Originally posted by groverat:
<strong>
Look at the thread title, now re-read your posts. You were talking about Windows, and in a thread dedicated to XP that means you were talking about XP unless you otherwise specified, which you never did.
<hr></blockquote></strong>
Yes I believe this was my original question.
I
I
v
[quote]Originally posted by Sinewave:
<strong>Did they put a option in XP that lets you turn off all those "Are you sure" dialogs that come up 5 times before Windows lets you do something?</strong><hr></blockquote>
I was asking if XP did this indeed. I never claimed XP did this.

[quote]<strong>
Your ignorance on this subject is showing, it's best you just quit while you're behind.
<hr></blockquote></strong>
Behind? I am not the one claiming I said something I didn't son. I just asked if XP did the dialog madness garbage.
[quote]<strong>
Also, all of the gripes you have specified are in XP along with 9x, and those gripes which you can specify have been explained in a logical manner.
<hr></blockquote></strong>
Oh so they are still in XP? They have been explained.. logical? That's a opinion. XP if like the other version of Windows pops up TONS more "Are you sure" type dialog boxes than OS X. Windows is REALLY bad at doing this. And no .. no other OS is this obnoxious about it.
[quote]<strong>
Your question is flawed because you don't know what you're talking about.
<hr></blockquote></strong>

I just looooooooove your reasoning groverat.

I sure as hell do know what I am talking about.

[quote]I was asking if XP did this indeed.<hr></blockquote>

The question you asked at the beginning of the thread is based on a false assumption, an assumption that you have yet to prove to any extent.

You contend that Windows is full of inane dialogue boxes, and it's not the truth. How am I to answer a question that is based on falsehood?

Case in point:
Has your father stopped sleeping with donkeys?

How do you answer that?
1) Your father has never slept with donkeys, so answering "yes" means that he has stopped, but at some point he was enjoying some lower-equine loving.
2) You answer "no" because he never has slept with donkeys, therefore it would be impossible for him to stop doing something he wasn't doing in the first place. But answering "no" leaves the impression that he still sneaks into the stables at night.

Do you see my quandry? It's difficult to communicate with someone like you at times.

So to fully answer your question:
XP hasn't created a "turn stupid dialogue boxes off" option because there weren't any stupid dialogue boxes to begin with.

grover IN MY AND MANY OTHERS OPINION Windows has too many dialog boxes. Just because you don't FEEL it does.. doesn't make my opinion wrong. It DOES have more than any other OS out there I guarantee. I can't believe such a simple question got you so defensive.

All I ask is for some examples, it's very simple.

As a matter of fact, a few in this thread have come out to say that Windows *isn't* full of inane dialogue boxes, not just me.

All I have to say is:

Computer: "You have performed an illegal operation"
User: (freaks out) "Ahhh I hope I don't go to jail what is my computer doing?"

[quote]Originally posted by torifile:
How about "Are you sure you want to [put shutdown option here]?" and then having to select what you want to do? Start menu -&gt; shut down -&gt; hibernate, restart, shutdown -&gt; are you sure? Pain in the ass...<hr></blockquote>

I just press a button on the front of my PC. Blammo, shutdown, just like a Mac does.

[quote]Originally posted by Sinewave:


Oh come on grover tell me you have never heard Windows dialog jokes? How long have you been using a computer again? I remember one shockwave file someone made that poked fun at them. It would bring up a new dialog box with every one that you pressed.

Here is a example. I just want to change the resolution. In my Mac and can just change it and I get no hassles. In Windows it gives you these "Are You sure?" dialogs every time.





Windows treats you as if your a retard. Now this may be a good feature for newbies but Windows needs to have a "Don't dumb down Windows" feature to disable this.

<hr></blockquote>

Those can all be turned off. Windows is setup to assume that a person has never used it before. Power users know where to go to eliminate the dialogs.

[quote]Originally posted by groverat:
<strong>It's a stupid question because of course it can. It's like me asking whether or not the MacOS draws pictures on the screen.

</strong><hr></blockquote>

NT couldn't do it, never had the chance to try it on 2000. Even if 2000 could do it, the "One step back" approach to performance M$ took with XP, made it a 50-50 chance of it actually having that functionality. Adding further doubts, is Window's weakness in handling larger files in general and large amounts of data, do to inefficiant memory management and lack of proper multi-tasking. I guess this is why Hotmail still relies on Unix. M$ hope that hardware performance will one day out weigh the disadvantages of the Windows platform doesn't seem to be happening. I was able to copy and paste a 50mb file in the beta version of OSX .. but that was a given.

Another example of XP being unable to take advantage of superior P.C. hardware, are the graphics, which, beyond a doubt, suck ass, and are probably even worse then previous generations of Windows.

Why do you still need to access drives through "My Computer"?

XP also carries the tradition of having far inferior file navigation. No column view, can't color the folders, and no scriptable/spring loaded folders. Having a ****ed up alias system certainly doesn't help either.

It's evident that M$ is not delivering the caliber operating system which is needed for them to hold onto their monopoly.

That's all bullshit.





XP not only handles large files better, but, is faster than prior versions of Windows.

[quote]XP also carries the tradition of having far inferior file navigation. No column view, can't color the folders, and no scriptable/spring loaded folders. Having a ****ed up alias system certainly doesn't help either.<hr></blockquote>
Careful now. Except for column view, the other goodies you mentioned don't exist in OSX and column view doesn't exist in OS9.

People in glass houses shouldn't eat bananas.

You may mix metaphors, but you may not operating systems

Dude you can't be serious posting benchmarks from a desktop machine vs. a portable. You do know that PS is highly dependant on HD throughput. Have a little credibility and post some desktop == desktop scores.

[ 01-04-2002: Message edited by: cowerd ]</p>

And, columns:



If you're talking about NeXTSTEP column views, I find that hideously inferior.

Actually, cowerd, the idea was to see if a TiBook could be a desktop replacement, and, it certainly is. When benchmarking those programs I benchmarked, HD speed is irrelevant due to the amount of RAM in all the systems.

That's all bullshit.

XP not only handles large files better, but, is faster than prior versions of Windows.


Ah yes, the official mark of a P.C. advocat .... white papers ... which have absolutely Zero relevance in terms of real world applications. How big are those files ... 20mb? You call that big? If pc's are so much faster, then why do Mac's command a 55% share in Video editing(and gaining) and 90% share in the Audio and DTP business, ? There's no doubt that "pre-macworld 2002" P.C. hardware is WAY better, but Windows fails to take advantage of this. Not only are Macs faster, but company's like Quark, actually take advantage of the Mac OS, to the point where there is no comparison. They aren't like Adobe, who "dumbs down" the mac version so that the P.C. side can keep up.

Sorry son, but don't bring a knife to a gun fight. <img src="graemlins/smokin.gif" border="0" alt="[Chilling]" />

When benchmarking those programs I benchmarked, HD speed is irrelevant due to the amount of RAM in all the systems.

Another sign that you need some experience in the real world. This may be correct if RAM where 100% efficient, but it's not. A general rule of thumb is to have 3X the ram, compared to the size of file your manipulating, plus extra for the system and application(s) We have a gig of RDRAM on a Dell at work, and while manipulating a 100mb file, if it runs out of swap space, it will not perform the action, despite having more then enough ram. Sorry, but the HD plays quite a vital role in manipulating large sizes of data, IN ANY APPLICATION.

On top of that, because of size and heat issuse, a mobile doesn't perform as well as desktops. Sure, applications may start nearly as fast, and navigation and web stuff are snappy, but they bog down faster when the file sizes start getting heavy.

Careful now. Except for column view, the other goodies you mentioned don't exist in OSX and column view doesn't exist in OS9.

Sorry, I didn't mean to imply that the Mac had all of those advantages over windows, but any one one of those features would be a benefit over the basics of Windows. Even without columns, OS9 navigation is way better IMO.


If you're talking about NeXTSTEP column views, I find that hideously inferior.

I could be wrong, but I believe in the column view of NeXT, you could click on tiny triangles beside the folder, which reveal the nested files. It's been quite a few months since I last used it, but if that's the case, that, combined with the "shelf", I believe that it is Windows which is inferior.

I would probably be more impressed with the new navigation style of XP, if it didn't already exist on CD burning, FTP, and cataloging apps for years now. That's M$ for you, 3 years behind everyone else, and even still, looking for a sign in which direction to head.

M$ is the number one software maker in the world, they should start acting the role for once.

[ 01-04-2002: Message edited by: the cool gut ]</p>

[quote]Originally posted by TheRoadWarrior:
<strong>

Those can all be turned off. Windows is setup to assume that a person has never used it before. Power users know where to go to eliminate the dialogs.</strong><hr></blockquote>

Well I don't need those things and I don't know where to turn them all off at. Please show me so I can get out of the dialog nightmare known as Windows.

[quote]Originally posted by the cool gut:
<strong>
Adding further doubts, is Window's weakness in handling larger files in general and large amounts of data, do to inefficiant memory management and lack of proper multi-tasking.</strong><hr></blockquote>

Which all don't apply to Windows NT/2k/XP.


[quote]<strong>
Another example of XP being unable to take advantage of superior P.C. hardware, are the graphics, which, beyond a doubt, suck ass, and are probably even worse then previous generations of Windows.
</strong><hr></blockquote>

Care to elaborate? Worse in which way? Performance-wise? Or jsut ugly (which of course isn't related to efficient use of hardware)?


[quote]<strong>
Why do you still need to access drives through "My Computer"?
</strong><hr></blockquote>

Well, that's not because the guys at MS are unable to get the drives out of there, but because this is how Windows is organized. If you don't like it, make shortcuts to your drives on the desktop.


[quote]<strong>
XP also carries the tradition of having far inferior file navigation. No column view, can't color the folders, and no scriptable/spring loaded folders. Having a ****ed up alias system certainly doesn't help either.
</strong><hr></blockquote>

NT and upwards can be told to display compressed and encrypted NTFS folders in different colors. An scriptability can partially be done by using .htt files (this is what happens when you open "Program Files" in Explorer).


[quote]<strong>It's evident that M$ is not delivering the caliber operating system which is needed for them to hold onto their monopoly.</strong><hr></blockquote>

I'll agree that the quality of XP alone would not justify it's market share, but still, at this point, the monopoly has sort of become self-sustaining.

Bye,
RazzFazz

[double post - btw, this flood control thingy is really annoying]

[ 01-04-2002: Message edited by: RazzFazz ]</p>

Well, so much for avoiding a Mac vs. Windows debate...

[quote]Originally posted by the cool gut:


Ah yes, the official mark of a P.C. advocat .... white papers ... which have absolutely Zero relevance in terms of real world applications. How big are those files ... 20mb?......
<hr></blockquote>

Funny, I tend to benchmark what the Mac crowd loves to use in terms of benchmark performance...Photoshop.

Now, it's irrelevant? Gimme a break.

[quote]
When benchmarking those programs I benchmarked, HD speed is irrelevant due to the amount of RAM in all the systems.

Another sign that you need some experience in the real world. This may be correct if RAM where 100% efficient, but it's not. A general rule of thumb is to have 3X the ram, compared to the size of file your manipulating, plus extra for the system and application(s) We have a gig of RDRAM on a Dell at work, and while manipulating a 100mb file, if it runs out of swap space, it will not perform the action, despite having more then enough ram. Sorry, but the HD plays quite a vital role in manipulating large sizes of data, IN ANY APPLICATION.<hr></blockquote>

I build systems for a living, and, I can tell you with a straight face that even with 100MB files in Photoshop, I never hear my hard drive hit on my home machine.

[quote]On top of that, because of size and heat issuse, a mobile doesn't perform as well as desktops. Sure, applications may start nearly as fast, and navigation and web stuff are snappy, but they bog down faster when the file sizes start getting heavy.<hr></blockquote>

The whole idea was to see if a laptop could outperform a desktop, using Mac specific applications, no less, and, it did. If you're trying to paint me into a corner as some "zealot" or "advocate" it ain't gonna stick.

Besides, you claimed that XP cannot handle larger files well and you implied that it was slower than prior versions. Using the all time favorite Mac benchmark program, I showed that to be a completely ignorant statement.

[ 01-04-2002: Message edited by: TheRoadWarrior ]</p>

Which all don't apply to Windows NT/2k/XP.

Which especially applies to NT. My work will be upgrading to 2000 in a few days. It should be better, but the benefits should be subtle. Just because the system doesn't go down, does not qualify it as being stable. After an app has crashed more than once, you would certainly need to reboot to flush the system. Problems also arise if an NT system has been on for an extended period of time. The NT kernal, which is in 2000 and XP as well, uses so many system resources and is so bloated that system latency is to bad that you cannot run Protools, the audio industry standard, without extra hardware support.


Care to elaborate? Worse in which way? Performance-wise? Or jsut ugly (which of course isn't related to efficient use of hardware)?

Maybe it's just that Quarts is just too far ahead. Graphics don't look very sharp in XP.


Why do you still need to access drives through "My Computer"?

Well, that's not because the guys at MS are unable to get the drives out of there,

I would beg to differ.

NT and upwards can be told to display compressed and encrypted NTFS folders in different colors. An scriptability can partially be done by using .htt files (this is what happens when you open "Program Files" in Explorer).

Both those options seem pretty limited for for the user.

I'll agree that the quality of XP alone would not justify it's market share, but still, at this point, the monopoly has sort of become self-sustaining.


Sigh ... yeah, I know. Still, Windows has had to pull out every stop to get people to glance at XP. I'd like to see what they do for an encore.

Funny, I tend to benchmark what the Mac crowd loves to use in terms of benchmark performance...Photoshop. Now, it's irrelevant? Gimme a break.

Benchmarks are for VERY specific comparisons, and should really only be used to compare very similar situations, systems and loads. Benchmarks are also done under very "ideal" situations, with only one application running, usually fresh after a restart. You also point out that everything was done in RAM. People should not by set ups, based on the fact they will be doing everything in RAM. What kind of extension set were you using on the Mac? How many layers were in the document? How long of a history was there, how many snapshots where taken? I find it interesting that you will time all of these actions, and not include opening the document, and all the saving that is required? How about spooling the document and printing in the background? None of that is done in RAM you know.


I build systems for a living, and, I can tell you with a straight face that even with 100MB files in Photoshop, I never hear my hard drive hit on my home machine.

Thats not so, Photoshop actually copies the information from RAM to the hard drive, to help "performance" Thats why if you only have 100mb free on your drive, thats all the RAM your allowed to use. Photoshop also has to access directories for filters and such, as does the OS.

If you're trying to paint me into a corner as some "zealot" or "advocate" it ain't gonna stick.

I'm not trying to paint you into anything, I just think your a little out of you're element.

Besides, you claimed that XP cannot handle larger files well and you implied that it was slower than prior versions. Using the all time favorite Mac benchmark program, I showed that to be a completely ignorant statement.

I was actually refering to NT and 2000 as previous versions. I do not consider Windows 95 through ME to be serious OS's and are technological embaressmants for Microsoft.


<a href="http://www.infoworld.com/articles/tc/xml/01/10/29/011029tcwinxp.xml" target="_blank">http://www.infoworld.com/articles/tc/xml/01/10/29/011029tcwinxp.xml</a>

<a href="http://www.tech-report.com/onearticle.x/3076" target="_blank">http://www.tech-report.com/onearticle.x/3076</a>

<a href="http://www.w2knews.com/index.cfm?action=view&issue=128" target="_blank">http://www.w2knews.com/index.cfm?action=view&issue=128</a>


Almost any OS can be used at the consumer level. I know lots of people still using '95. But M$ is number one because they make a "good enough" OS, which can run their "good enough" office suit ok. It runs on cheap gear, and 70% of users really need nothing more. In every area of computing, there is a product which is better than Windows, from Irix to Linux, the Mac, Amiga or the Tandy, they all have something over Windows. I don't know where people get the idea that M$ is number one because they actually make better products. These people obviously have not tried any of the alternatives.