<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.
[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.
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.
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>
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Comments
<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.
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.
XP not only handles large files better, but, is faster than prior versions of Windows.
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>
If you're talking about NeXTSTEP column views, I find that hideously inferior.
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>
<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.
<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
[ 01-04-2002: Message edited by: RazzFazz ]</p>
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 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.