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.
<strong>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></strong> But OS X comes with camera software you can use. No big w00p
[quote]<strong>
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></strong>
While it doesn't COME on Windows anymore it's a quick download for those who want to use it.
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.
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.
[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.
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?
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.
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!
[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.
"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.
[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.
[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.
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:
<strong>Sinewave, getting a little sensitive eh?
I'm sorry if I'm being too un-PC for you.
</strong><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
<strong> [quote]
What's wrong with quoting you from other threads, are your thoughts so random they can't be applied to different things?</strong><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. <strong> [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.
</strong><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.
<strong> [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?
</strong><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.
<strong> [quote]
That's against the EULA (that he agreed to), sorry, not a legal user getting hurt by WPA.
</strong><hr></blockquote>
That hard drive doesn't have Windows installed on it. Just Data.
<strong> [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.
</strong><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.
<strong> [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!
</strong><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.
<strong> [quote]
And once again, what's wrong with that?
OSX's kernel is essentially 20+ years old.
What the hell is your point?
</strong><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]<strong>
Goes to show how little you know about Microsoft's sales. They sell many many many OS upgrade packs.
<hr></blockquote></strong>
Not from MA and PA Kettle they don't. I know people still running 3.1 that came with their puter.
[quote]<strong>
Ok, I'll just use your patented "you've got a cock in your mouth (aren't I cute making middle school jokes?)" technique.
</strong><hr></blockquote>
Ah see that wasn't until after you called me a moron . I thought we was just trading friendly put downs.
<strong> [quote]
"Hey, look over here everyone, I don't know what the hell I'm talking about!"
You make this too easy.
</strong><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]<strong>
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.
</strong><hr></blockquote>
So you basically was sticking words in my mouth again? Making things I said into Bizarro Extremes.
[quote]<strong>
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></strong>
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]<strong>
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></strong>
You made a error in judgment obviously.
[quote]<strong>
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></strong>
Yes I do. Want to make a wager on this?
[quote]<strong>
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></strong>
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]<strong>
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></strong>
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.
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]" />
<strong>Somehow you think verbally belittling me will make other people think the same thing.. therefore making you look like your right!</strong><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]<strong>No I was mentioning that most people have no reason to upgrade to XP. Since most of the apps still work in 95.</strong><hr></blockquote>
[quote]<strong>Did I say it was a bad thing grover? All I said it that was the reason not many people was upgrading.</strong><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.
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]<strong>That hard drive doesn't have Windows installed on it. Just Data.</strong><hr></blockquote>
He takes an internal IDE hard drive to and from work every day?
[quote]<strong>Want me to go on the net and show you REAL reviews of XP and REAL complaint about the activation process?</strong><hr></blockquote>
Sure, go ahead.
[quote]<strong>Again your going on about nothing that we was arguing.. trying to start a new one?</strong><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.
[quote]<strong>Not from MA and PA Kettle they don't.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Then who buys the individual upgrade packs? Why in God's name would they if they could just warez them?
[quote]<strong>I thought we was just trading friendly put downs.</strong>[/qb]
Yes, we were until you started whining about it, acting as if you didn't.
[quote]<strong>So you basically was sticking words in my mouth again? Making things I said into Bizarro Extremes. </strong><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]<strong>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.</strong><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]<strong>You made a error in judgment obviously.</strong><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.
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.</strong><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]<strong>
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></strong>
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]<strong>
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
</strong><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.
<strong> [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.
</strong><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.
<strong> [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.
</strong><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.
<strong> [quote]
Then who buys the individual upgrade packs? Why in God's name would they if they could just warez them?
</strong><hr></blockquote>
People like you and me.. businesses. You know the people that USUALLY buy these things.
<strong> [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.
</strong><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?
<strong> [quote]
In no way was that pointed out. Why not say "WindowsXP is the only version of Windows that will run .NET"
</strong><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.
<strong> [quote]
Also, that was in no way inclusive to the argument. (I think you said that not understanding what Ducky was talking about)
</strong><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
<strong>I was making fun of your troll like debating style.</strong><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]<strong>No I never said that. No I never even HINTED towards that.</strong><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]<strong>I don't think we was talking about the drudge OS 9 was becoming was we?</strong><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]<strong>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. </strong><hr></blockquote>
Dear Lord will XP even allow an install on a 250mhz box?
[quote]<strong>People like you and me.. businesses. You know the people that USUALLY buy these things.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Wait, I thought EVERYONE warezed it all.
[quote]<strong>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.</strong><hr></blockquote>
You said, and I quote *again*:
"That is because Windows hasn't changed THAT drastically since 95."
Ta-da!
[quote]<strong>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.</strong><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.
[quote]<strong>Are you denying you did this?</strong><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.
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?
</strong><hr></blockquote>
Thanks for proving my point.
<strong> [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?
</strong><hr></blockquote>
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.
<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.
<strong> [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?
</strong><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.
<strong> [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.
</strong><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.
<strong> [quote]
Unless, of course, you are stuck with an old Windows 95 machine or are a moron</strong><hr></blockquote>
Why upgrade when you don't have to?
<strong> [quote]
Dear Lord will XP even allow an install on a 250mhz box?
</strong><hr></blockquote>
Ok lets say 350mhz Nice way to dodge the answer though
<strong> [quote]
Wait, I thought EVERYONE warezed it all.
</strong><hr></blockquote>
Did I ever say that? Nope. More of your extreme twisting of things grover?
<strong> [quote]
You said, and I quote *again*:
"That is because Windows hasn't changed THAT drastically since 95."
Ta-da!
</strong><hr></blockquote>
And THAT = the amount of change that OS 9 -> OS X went through.
<strong> [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.
</strong><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?
<strong> [quote]
took a quote from somewhere else from you but it is still applicable.
</strong><hr></blockquote>
If you say so
<strong> [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.
</strong><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.
[quote]<strong>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. </strong><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? )
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]<strong><Me> Win95 is more similar to WinXP than OS 9 is OS X.</strong><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]<strong>Did I ever say that? Nope. More of your extreme twisting of things grover?
</strong><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.
I've taken great pains to make it clear that you have repeatedly said that they are not that different.</strong><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.
<strong> [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? )
</strong><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.
<strong> [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.
</strong><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
<strong> [quote]
"That is because Windows hasn't changed THAT drastically since 95."
</strong><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?
<strong> [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.
</strong><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
<strong> [quote]
The purpose of this thread is a valuation argument re: OSX v. WinXP. Got it?
</strong><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?
<strong> [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.
</strong><hr></blockquote>
And your obviously a moron for making such a statement.
<strong> [quote]
I don't think you remember just what Windows 95 was like. . .
</strong><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.
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."
"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.
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.
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.
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.
Comments
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 ]</p>
<strong>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></strong> But OS X comes with camera software you can use. No big w00p
[quote]<strong>
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></strong>
While it doesn't COME on Windows anymore it's a quick download for those who want to use it.
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.
[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 ]</p>
If you want to leave the "meaningless rants out" why insult someone later in your post? Moron
I'm sorry if I'm being too un-PC for you.
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!
[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.
"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.
[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.
[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!"
[quote]Originally posted by groverat:
<strong>Sinewave, getting a little sensitive eh?
I'm sorry if I'm being too un-PC for you.
</strong><hr></blockquote>
Naw it's nothing to do with beig PC.. it's your reasoning behind it
<strong> [quote]
What's wrong with quoting you from other threads, are your thoughts so random they can't be applied to different things?</strong><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. <strong> [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.
</strong><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.
<strong> [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?
</strong><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.
<strong> [quote]
That's against the EULA (that he agreed to), sorry, not a legal user getting hurt by WPA.
</strong><hr></blockquote>
That hard drive doesn't have Windows installed on it. Just Data.
<strong> [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.
</strong><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.
<strong> [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!
</strong><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.
<strong> [quote]
And once again, what's wrong with that?
OSX's kernel is essentially 20+ years old.
What the hell is your point?
</strong><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]<strong>
Goes to show how little you know about Microsoft's sales. They sell many many many OS upgrade packs.
<hr></blockquote></strong>
Not from MA and PA Kettle they don't. I know people still running 3.1 that came with their puter.
[quote]<strong>
Ok, I'll just use your patented "you've got a cock in your mouth (aren't I cute making middle school jokes?)" technique.
</strong><hr></blockquote>
Ah see that wasn't until after you called me a moron
<strong> [quote]
"Hey, look over here everyone, I don't know what the hell I'm talking about!"
You make this too easy.
</strong><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]<strong>
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.
</strong><hr></blockquote>
So you basically was sticking words in my mouth again? Making things I said into Bizarro Extremes.
[quote]<strong>
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></strong>
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]<strong>
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></strong>
You made a error in judgment obviously.
[quote]<strong>
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></strong>
Yes I do. Want to make a wager on this?
[quote]<strong>
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></strong>
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]<strong>
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></strong>
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.
[ 11-18-2001: Message edited by: Sinewave ]</p>
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 ]</p>
<strong>Somehow you think verbally belittling me will make other people think the same thing.. therefore making you look like your right!</strong><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]<strong>No I was mentioning that most people have no reason to upgrade to XP. Since most of the apps still work in 95.</strong><hr></blockquote>
[quote]<strong>Did I say it was a bad thing grover? All I said it that was the reason not many people was upgrading.</strong><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.
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]<strong>That hard drive doesn't have Windows installed on it. Just Data.</strong><hr></blockquote>
He takes an internal IDE hard drive to and from work every day?
[quote]<strong>Want me to go on the net and show you REAL reviews of XP and REAL complaint about the activation process?</strong><hr></blockquote>
Sure, go ahead.
[quote]<strong>Again your going on about nothing that we was arguing.. trying to start a new one?</strong><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.
[quote]<strong>Not from MA and PA Kettle they don't.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Then who buys the individual upgrade packs? Why in God's name would they if they could just warez them?
[quote]<strong>I thought we was just trading friendly put downs.</strong>[/qb]
Yes, we were until you started whining about it, acting as if you didn't.
[quote]<strong>So you basically was sticking words in my mouth again? Making things I said into Bizarro Extremes. </strong><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]<strong>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.</strong><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]<strong>You made a error in judgment obviously.</strong><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.
[ 11-18-2001: Message edited by: groverat ]</p>
<strong>
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.</strong><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]<strong>
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></strong>
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]<strong>
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
</strong><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.
<strong> [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.
</strong><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.
<strong> [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.
</strong><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.
<strong> [quote]
Then who buys the individual upgrade packs? Why in God's name would they if they could just warez them?
</strong><hr></blockquote>
People like you and me.. businesses. You know the people that USUALLY buy these things.
<strong> [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.
</strong><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?
<strong> [quote]
In no way was that pointed out. Why not say "WindowsXP is the only version of Windows that will run .NET"
</strong><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.
<strong> [quote]
Also, that was in no way inclusive to the argument. (I think you said that not understanding what Ducky was talking about)
</strong><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 ]</p>
<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.
<strong>I was making fun of your troll like debating style.</strong><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]<strong>No I never said that. No I never even HINTED towards that.</strong><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]<strong>I don't think we was talking about the drudge OS 9 was becoming was we?</strong><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]<strong>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. </strong><hr></blockquote>
Dear Lord will XP even allow an install on a 250mhz box?
[quote]<strong>People like you and me.. businesses. You know the people that USUALLY buy these things.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Wait, I thought EVERYONE warezed it all.
[quote]<strong>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.</strong><hr></blockquote>
You said, and I quote *again*:
"That is because Windows hasn't changed THAT drastically since 95."
Ta-da!
[quote]<strong>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.</strong><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.
[quote]<strong>Are you denying you did this?</strong><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.
<strong>
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?
</strong><hr></blockquote>
Thanks for proving my point.
<strong> [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?
</strong><hr></blockquote>
Did I ever say they where the same? Did I ever say they weren't different? No. AGAIN for the 3rd time
<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.
<strong> [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?
</strong><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.
<strong> [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.
</strong><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.
<strong> [quote]
Unless, of course, you are stuck with an old Windows 95 machine or are a moron</strong><hr></blockquote>
Why upgrade when you don't have to?
<strong> [quote]
Dear Lord will XP even allow an install on a 250mhz box?
</strong><hr></blockquote>
Ok lets say 350mhz
<strong> [quote]
Wait, I thought EVERYONE warezed it all.
</strong><hr></blockquote>
Did I ever say that? Nope. More of your extreme twisting of things grover?
<strong> [quote]
You said, and I quote *again*:
"That is because Windows hasn't changed THAT drastically since 95."
Ta-da!
</strong><hr></blockquote>
And THAT = the amount of change that OS 9 -> OS X went through.
<strong> [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.
</strong><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?
<strong> [quote]
took a quote from somewhere else from you but it is still applicable.
</strong><hr></blockquote>
If you say so
<strong> [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.
</strong><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 ]</p>
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?
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]<strong><Me> Win95 is more similar to WinXP than OS 9 is OS X.</strong><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]<strong>Did I ever say that? Nope. More of your extreme twisting of things grover?
</strong><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.
<strong>
I've taken great pains to make it clear that you have repeatedly said that they are not that different.</strong><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.
<strong> [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? )
</strong><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.
<strong> [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.
</strong><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
<strong> [quote]
"That is because Windows hasn't changed THAT drastically since 95."
</strong><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?
<strong> [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.
</strong><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
<strong> [quote]
The purpose of this thread is a valuation argument re: OSX v. WinXP. Got it?
</strong><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?
<strong> [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.
</strong><hr></blockquote>
And your obviously a moron for making such a statement.
<strong> [quote]
I don't think you remember just what Windows 95 was like. . .
</strong><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.
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.
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*