Hell froze over, Apple is making the switch to Intel Chips. and Microsoft are using PowerPc chips in their new xboxes!!!
my heart....
is....
.........
Dates
· UTC
AppTel Macintosh :(
Archived25 replies · 902 views
This is an archived legacy thread. Replies are closed, but the discussion is preserved.
← Back to Behind Closed Doors
26 posts
I always thought the apple logo was spot on, a big chunk missing.
Windows 2000 advanced server for ever 
I guess, as long as apple continues to build great innovative products, and doesn't screw us over with this transition. Causing us to buy new computers because our older machines won't be compatible with the newer updates, etc. and OSX still will run smoothly, then maybe it won't be so bad. Have to wait and see :(
Digital Mike Binoche wrote: I always thought the apple logo was spot on, a big chunk missing.
Windows 2000 advanced server for ever
2003 Enterprise here ;) And it is forever... :D
Should have gone x86 in 1993 when 68K ran out of steam, but, noooo, they'd fired the only exec with sense (Gassee). And when they had a chance to get him back, they bought the wrong damn company (NeXT)
However, my iBook is running a solid white background with the original PowerPC logo on it today as an act of defiance. Its not running OSX, though 
http://www.techspot.com/gallery/showphoto.php/photo/568/size/big/cat/2/page/1
My personal tribute to quite a good CPU architechutre, now basically dead on the desktop
Thats my laptop's desktop. Guess the OS...
XP does suck indeed. Takes up too much space, Messenger, cannot reinstal over 10 times without permission, too many patches to cover up security issues, incompatible with some older software and hardware. When you first get XP you have to delete a bunch of shit to begin with.
If you think XP sucks, you obviously don't remember Windows 95, 98 & ME...
What makes Windows crash is mostly DRIVERS, not the OS itself. Think about it, Mac has a better controlled environment for developpers, so probably better drivers, and they don't crash much, they are based on UNIX which has been around for more than 20 years.
Windows XP is based on VMS, but it's so packed with features that it's impossible, even for the most profitable company on earth, to think of everything.
Microsoft has always been a victim of its own success.. many people having problems don't have legal copies and are probably running cracked softwares and have spywares and everything.
Let's face it, a fresh new install of Windows always works good.. it's when you start installing crap that it starts to run weird.
But I must admit, I used to reinstall my system once every 2 or 3 months before Windows XP, now I believe I did it twice in the last 2 years!
And of course, you have to think they are working on the follow-up since 2001 and didn't push the release so they can be sure it will be better...
There is no perfect software or OS, trust me... I am a programmer myself, and I believe a good one... and I wouldn't go in a train that would use my own code for the breaking system software :D
Spotnick wrote: If you think XP sucks, you obviously don't remember Windows 95, 98 & ME...
What makes Windows crash is mostly DRIVERS, not the OS itself. Think about it, Mac has a better controlled environment for developpers, so probably better drivers, and they don't crash much, they are based on UNIX which has been around for more than 20 years.
Windows XP is based on VMS, but it's so packed with features that it's impossible, even for the most profitable company on earth, to think of everything.
Microsoft has always been a victim of its own success.. many people having problems don't have legal copies and are probably running cracked softwares and have spywares and everything.
Let's face it, a fresh new install of Windows always works good.. it's when you start installing crap that it starts to run weird.
But I must admit, I used to reinstall my system once every 2 or 3 months before Windows XP, now I believe I did it twice in the last 2 years!
And of course, you have to think they are working on the follow-up since 2001 and didn't push the release so they can be sure it will be better...
There is no perfect software or OS, trust me... I am a programmer myself, and I believe a good one... and I wouldn't go in a train that would use my own code for the breaking system software :D
I was gonna say the same.
My XP PC's works just fine with the right hardware drivers.. Win 95, 98 and ME are crap. Win 2000 are crap too. Win NT was a pain in the ass. Win XP Pro works, and that's good enough for me.
ANd don't get me going on Win 3.12. That was so awful.
Rian wrote:
Spotnick wrote: If you think XP sucks, you obviously don't remember Windows 95, 98 & ME...
What makes Windows crash is mostly DRIVERS, not the OS itself. Think about it, Mac has a better controlled environment for developpers, so probably better drivers, and they don't crash much, they are based on UNIX which has been around for more than 20 years.
Windows XP is based on VMS, but it's so packed with features that it's impossible, even for the most profitable company on earth, to think of everything.
Microsoft has always been a victim of its own success.. many people having problems don't have legal copies and are probably running cracked softwares and have spywares and everything.
Let's face it, a fresh new install of Windows always works good.. it's when you start installing crap that it starts to run weird.
But I must admit, I used to reinstall my system once every 2 or 3 months before Windows XP, now I believe I did it twice in the last 2 years!
And of course, you have to think they are working on the follow-up since 2001 and didn't push the release so they can be sure it will be better...
There is no perfect software or OS, trust me... I am a programmer myself, and I believe a good one... and I wouldn't go in a train that would use my own code for the breaking system software :D
I was gonna say the same.
My XP PC's works just fine with the right hardware drivers.. Win 95, 98 and ME are crap. Win 2000 are crap too. Win NT was a pain in the ass. Win XP Pro works, and that's good enough for me.
ANd don't get me going on Win 3.12. That was so awful.
3.12? There was 3.11 and 3.2 But no 3-12 at least in Englis he peaking Europe.
In case you haven't guessed from the Spike-like spelling , I'm on my tablet PC
twist wrote: XP does suck indeed. Takes up too much space, Messenger, cannot reinstal over 10 times without permission, too many patches to cover up security issues, incompatible with some older software and hardware. When you first get XP you have to delete a bunch of shit to begin with.
Well, with no intention of turning this into Mac vs Win vs Linux flame, I would just like to 'add' a few things - XP takes up to about 1% of todays hard drives (120 - 160 GB), but, to be more precise, that's about the space that two DivX movies take, or one modern game that comes from DVD (even less). Too many patches can't be that bad, it's better to admit and recognize faults (and repair them) than to let potential holes in OS. Overall, Win is not any better or worse than other platforms. Incompatibility was always an issue with new technologies. The same thing happened when XP appeared, it was built on NT, so majority of 95/98 software had to be reprogrammed or adjusted. The same thing happened with Apple, when OS X appeared (just ask any musician using Mac), and virtually all software (sequencers, plugins, instruments) had to be rewritten. As for 10 reinstalls - it seems quite enough to me, since I reinstalled my OS two times (since 2001) due to completely new hardware. Over 10 times would be a possibilty for abuse. What I want to say is that, more or less, all OSes are pretty much the same, they're all capable for same things, it's up to the users to get the best from them.
MYOB wrote:
Rian wrote:
Spotnick wrote: If you think XP sucks, you obviously don't remember Windows 95, 98 & ME...
What makes Windows crash is mostly DRIVERS, not the OS itself. Think about it, Mac has a better controlled environment for developpers, so probably better drivers, and they don't crash much, they are based on UNIX which has been around for more than 20 years.
Windows XP is based on VMS, but it's so packed with features that it's impossible, even for the most profitable company on earth, to think of everything.
Microsoft has always been a victim of its own success.. many people having problems don't have legal copies and are probably running cracked softwares and have spywares and everything.
Let's face it, a fresh new install of Windows always works good.. it's when you start installing crap that it starts to run weird.
But I must admit, I used to reinstall my system once every 2 or 3 months before Windows XP, now I believe I did it twice in the last 2 years!
And of course, you have to think they are working on the follow-up since 2001 and didn't push the release so they can be sure it will be better...
There is no perfect software or OS, trust me... I am a programmer myself, and I believe a good one... and I wouldn't go in a train that would use my own code for the breaking system software :D
I was gonna say the same.
My XP PC's works just fine with the right hardware drivers.. Win 95, 98 and ME are crap. Win 2000 are crap too. Win NT was a pain in the ass. Win XP Pro works, and that's good enough for me.
ANd don't get me going on Win 3.12. That was so awful.
3.12? There was 3.11 and 3.2 But no 3-12 at least in Englis he peaking Europe.
In case you haven't guessed from the Spike-like spelling , I'm on my tablet PC
Sorry, I was a little wrong there.
In Sweden we had Win 3.1 for standalone, and 3.11 for workgroups.
moz wrote:
twist wrote: XP does suck indeed. Takes up too much space, Messenger, cannot reinstal over 10 times without permission, too many patches to cover up security issues, incompatible with some older software and hardware. When you first get XP you have to delete a bunch of shit to begin with.
Well, with no intention of turning this into Mac vs Win vs Linux flame, I would just like to 'add' a few things - XP takes up to about 1% of todays hard drives (120 - 160 GB), but, to be more precise, that's about the space that two DivX movies take, or one modern game that comes from DVD (even less). Too many patches can't be that bad, it's better to admit and recognize faults (and repair them) than to let potential holes in OS. Overall, Win is not any better or worse than other platforms. Incompatibility was always an issue with new technologies. The same thing happened when XP appeared, it was built on NT, so majority of 95/98 software had to be reprogrammed or adjusted. The same thing happened with Apple, when OS X appeared (just ask any musician using Mac), and virtually all software (sequencers, plugins, instruments) had to be rewritten. As for 10 reinstalls - it seems quite enough to me, since I reinstalled my OS two times (since 2001) due to completely new hardware. Over 10 times would be a possibilty for abuse. What I want to say is that, more or less, all OSes are pretty much the same, they're all capable for same things, it's up to the users to get the best from them.
Bah! I use an OS that takes up ONE HUNDRED MEGS when installed... and 200 with developer tools. And my install dates from January 2003, and has moved =computer= without a reinstall..
Similar sizes for OSX are 4GB/9GB... Windows 1.5GB/5GB
Clockwork C wrote: Hey MYOB. How goes the State examinations? Good luck anyhows
Argh. That pretty much sums them up. Especially honours maths.
After watching steve jobs's keynote address. I feel a bit better about the move. They've been living a double life the past 5 years, and developing OS X to run on both power pc and intel processors. They've implement several technologies to make the transition smooth.
The only thing that still bugs me is now that future macs have intel processors, they say that windows users can install their XP on a mac. Fortuanately you can't install OS X on any other PC. But of course someone will find a way.
There is a way already, with some emulators... But it is very slow (and when I say very slow, it's very, very slow)...
moz wrote: There is a way already, with some emulators... But it is very slow (and when I say very slow, it's very, very slow)...
emulator are one thing. You can run windows using virtual pc and there a a couple emulators for the PC, Like Pear, that lets you run osX.
With the new machines, you would be able to install windows as the native OS, or create a dual boot machine.
Vejayes wrote: I'm a Windows person, and I don't mind Apple much.
It's the Apple USERS I can't stand!
aww why? :(
:P
WenOrder wrote:
Vejayes wrote: I'm a Windows person, and I don't mind Apple much.
It's the Apple USERS I can't stand!
aww why? :(
:P
The superiority complex, ESPECIALLY when it was comparing wimpy machines (603e/200Mhz) to still rather powerful kit (Pentium II 366 MMX) and giving it large about RISC being better - try playing an MPEG in System 8 on the 603 and an MPEG in -Windows XP- on the PII. Which was cheaper. Which one works best?
And then again when pushing System 9 - load o'shite - against Windows 2000 - really quite good....
MYOB wrote:
Clockwork C wrote: Hey MYOB. How goes the State examinations? Good luck anyhows
Argh. That pretty much sums them up. Especially honours maths.
Thats fairly shite. I hear everyone bombed in Maths, which is always the best you can hope for when you do a poor paper. The only thing is that in the LC they have to "fit the curve" of a certain % of students obtaining A1,A2,B1, etc.....
Just keep the head - most of the major stuff will be done and dusted by tomorrow. It'll all be over so soon, and promptly forgotton about.
Good luck again. 
Well that's how it's always been. Mac users are very passionate, opinionated, and holds a grudge towards PCs for several reasons i suppose. Mainly because windows was a ripoff of mac's OS, and they became huge. But we've all heard the arguments from both sides. And I am not trying to start another debate here. it's old.
But what I am upset about, after all the years apples been preaching how much better their processor were over intel's. And the Apple faithful has always stood behind that. Even if at times, deep down, we may have felt the claims of speed weren't accurate.
So this announcement seems to contridict every thing that us mac addicts supported. But I know in the long run, it will be better for the company.
MYOB wrote:
WenOrder wrote:
Vejayes wrote: I'm a Windows person, and I don't mind Apple much.
It's the Apple USERS I can't stand!
aww why? :(
:P
The superiority complex, ESPECIALLY when it was comparing wimpy machines (603e/200Mhz) to still rather powerful kit (Pentium II 366 MMX) and giving it large about RISC being better - try playing an MPEG in System 8 on the 603 and an MPEG in -Windows XP- on the PII. Which was cheaper. Which one works best?
And then again when pushing System 9 - load o'shite - against Windows 2000 - really quite good....
