Windows users, im crying

Status
Not open for further replies.
Joined
Apr 25, 2003
Messages
1,301
Reaction score
62
Points
48
Location
The home of the free and the land that did for Bra
Your Mac's Specs
24"iMac, 15"MB-Pro, MacBook, G4 iMac, PM G5 2x2Ghz, G4 iBook & Some PCs
Avid6eek said:
I just opened the Mac System monitor to find that I am using around 5GB of virtual memory....5GB??? Holy ****....With WinXP booted up right now on my other system I'm using less than a gig.

How much is active? The inactive number is just a measure of stuff that has been in memory in the past, it's not actually in use at the present (which is why it is inactive - Duh!). That figure will climb and climb the longer the system is running.

Unless you have several Photoshop sessions running or are doing some heavy DV or music work (and I mean HEAVY) you won't get anywhere near 5Gb of active VM, if you do then I suggest strongly that you max out the RAM as soon as possible.

The most I've ever reached was 1.3Gb active and that was with multiple audio streams being mixed in the background whilst I was editing several DVs in the foreground (oh and running several instances of Folding@Home software but they don't use that much RAM).

Amen-Moses
 
Joined
Jan 13, 2005
Messages
350
Reaction score
3
Points
18
Location
Albany, NY
Windows 2000/XP is listed by some programs because it is the most secure. Nobody recommends using Win98 or prior for anything.

WinXP has a compatability wizard build right in for old programs. If just select the application, and which version of Windows you want to run it under.
 
Joined
Jan 30, 2005
Messages
1,069
Reaction score
59
Points
48
Location
Fort Worth, Texas
Your Mac's Specs
Mac Pro, 8-Core 2.8Ghz, 10GB RAM, 2x1TB HDDs, iPod U2 Edition
I was born and raised on PC... One of those guys who could type DOS syntax before I could read and write... I started using macs about 5-6 years ago when I got into more audo/video production. So as one who has extensive use with both I have found this whole arguement to be somewhat silly... I have 2 PCs and 2 Macs. I love all four of them.

It all depends on what you are using them for. If I am editing or recording I will go with a mac and FCP over a PC any day. But I have a 1.7Ghz Toshiba Laptop that rips my G4 - Dual 1.8Ghz apart rendering in after effects... which makes no statistical sense..... but it just works better. So alot of these arguements over benchmarks and stuff are just pointless.

I go back and forth and thanks to OSX and the ability to share files between them.
Basically... if it suits you go PC if it suits you go Mac. But you'll never get me to say one is just "Overall Better" than the other.

(This message was approved by both my PCs and my Macs) :black:
 
OP
M

meltbanana314

Guest
Avid6eek said:
Nobody recommends using Win98 or prior for anything.

If most software will work with Win98, and nobody recommends using it - then why try keeping backwards compatibility with it in the first place?

Avid6eek said:
WinXP has a compatability wizard build right in for old programs. If just select the application, and which version of Windows you want to run it under.

Tried it several times with my old WWII flight sim. Crashed the system each time.
 
OP
C

Cloudane

Guest
Heh, I so miss the days of trying to get Air Warrior 3 (and CH hardware) to work with 2000/XP :D
 
Joined
Mar 30, 2004
Messages
4,744
Reaction score
381
Points
83
Location
USA
Your Mac's Specs
12" Apple PowerBook G4 (1.5GHz)
Avid6eek said:
I actually have to pay for an FTP client to get something decent. Windows platforms have free versions of everything.
Cyberduck is free. Works fine for me.

Versiontracker is full of free stuff, for both platforms.
I had the opposite problem. Took me forever to find a text editor on Windows that didn't expire or constantly bug me to upgrade. Same thing with zip compression software.

Hardware is less expensive. Although a Mac hardware is worth the price in my opinion, the quality goes above and beyond what is needed. PCs are also much more powerful. A single Athlon 64/FX is faster than the fastest dual G5s. Windows also requires less in the way of system requirements, so it can be used, with efficiency, on cheaper systems.
Nope. A single G5 1.6GHz is much faster than a dual Xeon 3.4GHz. It is, because I say so.

Talk about your "infantile."

I'd say that Mac hardware has lower failure rates, ie, it lasts longer and needs replacement less often.

As for system requirements...an iMac/233 can run Panther. A PII/300 is "recommended" for WinXP, with a PII/233 as the "minimum" system. Looks about the same to me.

Compatability...nothing is more compatible with Windows than itself. Microsoft's software is used everywhere. MS software is also backwards compatible. You don't have to worry about being left behind.
Which is like saying Pepsi is better than Coke, because it tastes more like Pepsi, and it always will. Who cares? I don't use Windows. If you do, then it matters, but that's not an advantage of one OS/Platform over another.

You want a real Windows benefit? Try these:
- Unique or custom applications are available
- Wider variety of hardware (1-kilogram laptops, for example)
- Technical support easier to find
 
Joined
Jan 12, 2005
Messages
670
Reaction score
23
Points
18
Location
Ceres, Ca
Your Mac's Specs
iPad 32 GB 3G
Oh for Pete's sake people these things are COMPUTERS, not sports teams or religions or political parties. They are tools and they can be fun to play with, but come on, name calling and angry argumentation over pieces of hardware and software? If anything is infantile it's being upset because someone claimed another piece of hardware was better or that some piece of software was best. Do you waste this much emotional energy over whether or not PVC or copper plumbing is better as well? How about the relitive merits of 110 V 60 hz electricity over 220 V 50 hz electricity? Wait, I know, what do you prefer PAL, Secam, or NTSC as a video format?

Thhhttt. Grow up.
 
OP
M

meltbanana314

Guest
dan828 said:
Oh for Pete's sake people these things are COMPUTERS, not sports teams or religions or political parties.

Given the choice of flaming each other over something relatively harmless (computers) and something extremely personal (religions/politics) - I'll take the harmless arguements anyday. Of course, I'd rather not argue at all... but thinking back to 'Jay and Silent Bob Strike Back' - isn't flamewaring over useless topics what the internet was designed for? :)
 
OP
F

falltime

Guest
theres 3 types of people in this thread
The PC person, who hates macs and think theyre stupid (ignorant)

the MAC only person, who thinks pcs are full of spyware and viruses (ignorant)

and the Person who realizes the benefits of both PC's and MAC's...understands that pc's need a couple fixes to make them basically spyware/virus proof quite easily, and that macs osx is a work of art as well as their machines.

Guess which one I am.

I'm an Apple Certified Tier 2 Mac Tech that loves his PC, and loves his G5.

I don't argue really, I just like to set things straight. I mainly use these forums to provide tech support, but occasionaly I'll drop by the Switcher Hangout, and often times read something ferocioulsy inaccurate. Many Mac users and Apple itself find it necessary to lie to consumers to bring them over to Mac.... I mean I can unerstand why Apple does it, but I'm not entirely sure why Mac users do it. I'm a serious advocate of educated consumerism and while I do think Macs are great and definitely have certain advantages over PC, they are definitely not everything Macheads make them up to be.

Nope. A single G5 1.6GHz is much faster than a dual Xeon 3.4GHz. It is, because I say so.

Talk about your "infantile."

I'd say that Mac hardware has lower failure rates, ie, it lasts longer and needs replacement less often.

A Mac's advantages dooes not lie in its performance. PC's generally hold the performance title somtimes by a very large margin.

A single 1.6GHz G5 is faster? How? What unbiased benchmarks do you have to prove this? Please don't show me Apple ones, we all know how notoriously inaccurate they are. It's very hard to fairly and accurately cross-platform benchmark. Benchmark code is optimized better for different proccessors. There's already enough real world controversy over AMD vs Intel benchmarks. Game for Game, App for App here are a few generalized cross-platform averages formed by the community itself:

WoW (FPS) More=Better-
Dual 2.5 G5 w/ 2GB RAM & 6800 Ulta: 40-45 FPS @ low res, low detail.
Single AMD Athlon FX-53 (2.4GHz) w/ 1GB RAM and 6800 Ultra: 90-100 FPS @ high res, high detail
Protools LE w/ Digi 002 DaveC Test (Tracks) More=Better -
Dual 2.5 G5 w/ 4GB RAM and 7200RPM 8MB Buffer SATA HD: 31 Tracks
Single Pentium-M 2.0GHz w/ 512MB RAM 4200RPM 2MB Buffer HD: 32+18 Tracks
Photoshop CS Filter Test (Seconds) Less=Better-
Dual 2.0 G5 w/ 1.5GB RAM: 224
Single 3.6GHz Pentium4 (Presccott) w/ 1GB RAM: 171
Single 3.6GHz Pentium 4 (Northwood) w/ 1GB RAM: 159

And who said Apple hardware has a lower failure rate? I mean I'm not really sure what you mean but Did you test this yourself? They both use the same type of memory, optical, and storage hardware... so do you just keep a few older Macs and PCs always running occasionaly testing the degradation of the silicon, transistors, and capacitors on the mobo and processor?

XP Pro costs $72 OEM and OEM software is not hard to find even for "ordinary people." SP1 and SP2 are free OS upgrades (not updates). Apple charges for it's upgrades (i.e. 10.2 to 10.3)

Windows XP is rock-solid. It's not inherently any less stable than OSX. Ironically Microsoft took the initiative to find and hire many of the top Linux coders to assist in making XP. Internet Explorer is also great and the security vulnerabilities often attributed to it actually lie with Active X which will always be intrinsically vulnerable just by virtue of what it is.

Microsoft, however, has done a great job in keeping the vulnerabilities to a minimum. Even Apple engineers will admit that SP2 does a pretty amazing job. Even so: Spyware and Viruses are not valid reasons to go to Mac. Macheads refuse to admit that their precious OSX only exercises approximately 6-7% of the entire OS market. XP takes it's 90% chunk.

7% vs. 90%: who’s got it harder? You can't blame Microsoft for all the angry 13-year olds able to code in C with a nasty itch to wreak some havoc. It's not like its impossible to code a virus in Cocoa. It's just simple logic: "What could I do to cause those most damage?" The answer is definitely not "Code a virus for OSX." LOL.

Any Tier 2 Agent will tell you that OS X has it's weaknesses. The file system (HSF+) is not as "godly" as any crazy machead would like you to believe. For video editors, its a nightmare: the increased fragmentation is atrocious and there is no real immediate defragmentation solution. You can use Norton Speed Disk, but it isn't recommended as it isn't perfect, and horridly supported - those who do serious disk-intensive work such as video editing that used Speed Disk have already noted several problems. Because of this, if you call an Apple Tech because it takes 45 minutes for a waveform track to load in FCP, their first and only answer will be to format - Avid editors have been laughing at Apple editors for years.

OSX's backwards compatibility is a shame... Classic does it very few favors.

As far as the "Microsoft steals from Apple" accusations are concerned, they are a joke. Apple steals ideas from Microsoft as much as Microsoft steals from Apple. What about Ctrl+Alt+Del? What about Alt+Tab? These were amazing features Microsoft had built into Windows since '95. Apple just recently implemented them (Alt+Tab JUST came with Panther). Fast user switching? It's just practical business strategy. Why would either company avoid implementing a successful feature just because the other one did it first? Imagine if Apple was like "Screw it, we can't have a Force Quit, Windows already has it. Our customers will just have to deal with it."

Apple did know what do to. They were the superior product. Windows 1.0 flopped. (even though it was copied directly from Macintosh, leading to a furious legal battle down the road, but anyway.) Microsoft eventually coerced all the computer manufacturers into adopting their software, and it worked. They aren't a business, they're the schoolyard bully for christ's sake.
And who can forget what Jobs did to Xerox.... at least Gates paid for DOS.
Apple hired Microsoft to code Mac OS, Gates then used several of the key design elements in Windows 1.0. Key design elements Apple stole from Xerox. The never-ending joke is that Apple sued Microsoft for trying to steal what they stole first, and in America, you can do that - thats Capitalism. :)

In the end of course Gates and Microsoft came out on top, which is why Jobs has always been known as the great marketing visionary, and Gates has always been know as the great business visionary.

In the early stages of the computing industry - easily the most cut-throat industry of it's era - you'd better expect the ones on top cheated a little.

All is fair in love and war... Hollywood, and Silicon.

A great quote from Gates about him and Jobs:
"We both had a rich neighbor that left his doors unlocked and went out of town. I just got there first and I got the loot!"
 
Joined
Apr 25, 2003
Messages
1,301
Reaction score
62
Points
48
Location
The home of the free and the land that did for Bra
Your Mac's Specs
24"iMac, 15"MB-Pro, MacBook, G4 iMac, PM G5 2x2Ghz, G4 iBook & Some PCs
Avid6eek said:
WinXP has a compatability wizard build right in for old programs. If just select the application, and which version of Windows you want to run it under.

You're right and >50% of the time it is useless. If you want to pay the shipping fees I have about 1 cubic metre of PC software you can have which is completely useless now.

I don't know how many times this has to be said, I HAVE XP-Pro, XP-Home, 98SE, Win2000, NT3.5.1, NT4, ME, ME+, 98 original, several copies of 95 and a variety of MSDOSs from 2.01 to 6.nn. I also have stacks of discs full of service packs (from pre-downloadable update days), I even have a copy of the original Windows 2 which did not work when it came out. I've used and abused them all for many years and I prefer Linux or OS X over all of them.

Most of the GUI features on XP and Aqua were available on my RiscOS system in 1989, granted they were not as pretty to look at back then ;), so the A copied B rubbish is pointless posturing.

I have run programs intended for Mac OS8 on my iMac without any problems, granted not many as almost everything I need is built in and if it isn't I'll usually find an X11 App and use that.

otoh:
SP2 installed on my PCs without any problems, in fact apart from reducing the free space on my HDs I can't even tell it is there.

I don't get PC viruses etc (probably because they are hidden behind a Linux firewall) but do still suffer from advertising nasties occasionally, especially when my daughter installs MSN or Outlook or uses IE instead of Firefox. These are just non-issues on my other systems.

So far in 2 years of Mac use I haven't had too upgrade any of my Macs, nor have I needed to re-install any software or replace HDs or RAM, my PCs otoh spend most of the time with their lids off because I'm constantly having to keep up with growing software needs, it's a bit like Trigger's broom from OFAH, "My PC is 5 years old and still going strong, in that time it has had 3 new motherboards, 5 new CPUs, 10 lots of RAM upgrades, 5 graphics cards etc etc".

Amen-Moses

btw OFAH = 'Only Fools and Horses' for those living in a cave for the last 20 years.
 
Joined
Apr 25, 2003
Messages
1,301
Reaction score
62
Points
48
Location
The home of the free and the land that did for Bra
Your Mac's Specs
24"iMac, 15"MB-Pro, MacBook, G4 iMac, PM G5 2x2Ghz, G4 iBook & Some PCs
meltbanana314 said:
If you mean: (http://www.pcworld.com/news/article/0,aid,112749,pg,1,00.asp) - perhaps you need to step back and think about it for a second.

The benchmarks were taken from the following apps -

Not only all that but none of the apps used will even make use of twin processors so why bother using a dual G5 in the test (especially running it on the older 32 bit OS). Try re-doing the benchmarks but this time run on a twin 2.5G G5 running X.3.7 and run TWO copies of Photoshop at the same time! ;)

Amen-Moses
 
OP
F

falltime

Guest
Amen-Moses said:
You're right and >50% of the time it is useless. If you want to pay the shipping fees I have about 1 cubic metre of PC software you can have which is completely useless now.

I don't know how many times this has to be said, I HAVE XP-Pro, XP-Home, 98SE, Win2000, NT3.5.1, NT4, ME, ME+, 98 original, several copies of 95 and a variety of MSDOSs from 2.01 to 6.nn. I also have stacks of discs full of service packs (from pre-downloadable update days), I even have a copy of the original Windows 2 which did not work when it came out. I've used and abused them all for many years and I prefer Linux or OS X over all of them.

Most of the GUI features on XP and Aqua were available on my RiscOS system in 1989, granted they were not as pretty to look at back then ;), so the A copied B rubbish is pointless posturing.

I have run programs intended for Mac OS8 on my iMac without any problems, granted not many as almost everything I need is built in and if it isn't I'll usually find an X11 App and use that.

otoh:
SP2 installed on my PCs without any problems, in fact apart from reducing the free space on my HDs I can't even tell it is there.

I don't get PC viruses etc (probably because they are hidden behind a Linux firewall) but do still suffer from advertising nasties occasionally, especially when my daughter installs MSN or Outlook or uses IE instead of Firefox. These are just non-issues on my other systems.

So far in 2 years of Mac use I haven't had too upgrade any of my Macs, nor have I needed to re-install any software or replace HDs or RAM, my PCs otoh spend most of the time with their lids off because I'm constantly having to keep up with growing software needs, it's a bit like Trigger's broom from OFAH, "My PC is 5 years old and still going strong, in that time it has had 3 new motherboards, 5 new CPUs, 10 lots of RAM upgrades, 5 graphics cards etc etc".

Amen-Moses

btw OFAH = 'Only Fools and Horses' for those living in a cave for the last 20 years.

I think you just have it out for Microsoft and Windows, on top of which you have a serious lack of knowledge and understanding of or relating to IT (especially Windows-based PCs). Which is not uncommon amongst fanatical Mac users who consistently derogate Windows and PCs.

First of all Windows XP, or just PCs in general backwards compatibility is notoriously better than OSX's. Apple Tech's frequently joke about OSX CE and how bad it is, honestly it is shame. If a user has a compatibility issue with XP they can easily install any OS they prefer (they aren't limited to OS 9.1+) to properly run the software - having multiple OSs on a single PC is quite conventional. There is plenty of third-party layering software that allows FAT 16/32 based OSs like Windows 3.1 and Windows 95 to read and write from NTFS partitions.

Secondly, Microsoft made serious strides in bringing the vulnerabilities down to a minimum with SP2. They focused heavily on making it harder to "accidentally" download Malware for the less adept computer users. Keep in mind that Microsoft maintains a market base millions of times larger than OSX's. This of course means they have a lot more "newbies" to accommodate. Any IT professional including Apple Techs will tell you that Microsoft's SP2 release was VERY effective.

Thirdly, I'm not entirely sure you know what a firewall actually does. It does not prevent you from downloading viruses. That's what Anti-Virus software is for. A firewall is essentially a system implemented in both hardware and/or software that protects a private network from unauthorized access.
There are several ways in which it does this, a few of the most common techniques are packet filtering, Circuit-level gateways, and Proxy Servers, none of which will prevent you from consciously downloading a malicious program. It could, however, assist in keeping the damage to a minimum after you had already downloaded and installed a virus that feeds data to an external party, such as a Trojan Horse.

So far in 2 years of Mac use I haven't had too upgrade any of my Macs, nor have I needed to re-install any software or replace HDs or RAM, my PCs otoh spend most of the time with their lids off because I'm constantly having to keep up with growing software needs, it's a bit like Trigger's broom from OFAH, "My PC is 5 years old and still going strong, in that time it has had 3 new motherboards, 5 new CPUs, 10 lots of RAM upgrades, 5 graphics cards etc etc".

Not entirely sure what point you were trying to make. PCs use the same type of hard drives and memory that Macs use, Apple doesn't make their own. It's not like WD or Crucial refuses to sell to PC users :rolleyes:. If anything PC users have a much wider variety of components to choose from since Mac mobos are very finicky about what type memory to use, they do not support Native SATA or NCQ. The only point you really made was that PCs have much better upgrade potential than Macs.
 
Joined
Jan 13, 2005
Messages
350
Reaction score
3
Points
18
Location
Albany, NY
Just give up on it already Falltime. You can't change the way narrow minded people think. Let them live in their own little world. It's not our job to enlighten them.

BTW....how do you like the 30" display? I really looks like an awsome display, but it sure does cost a fortune. I could always sell my current monitor and make up the difference. I need to start saving some money :)
 
OP
M

meltbanana314

Guest
falltime said:
Thirdly, I'm not entirely sure you know what a firewall actually does. It does not prevent you from downloading viruses. That's what Anti-Virus software is for. A firewall is essentially a system implemented in both hardware and/or software that protects a private network from unauthorized access.
There are several ways in which it does this, a few of the most common techniques are packet filtering, Circuit-level gateways, and Proxy Servers, none of which will prevent you from consciously downloading a malicious program. It could, however, assist in keeping the damage to a minimum after you had already downloaded and installed a virus that feeds data to an external party, such as a Trojan Horse.

Except you forget about the nasty little trend in new worms: propagation through open ports. It takes about four minutes for an unpatched, unfirewalled Windows XP PC to get b0rked by something like Blaster. This is without even *touching* the computer. So yes, in a certain way - a firewall does protect against viruses.
 
Joined
Apr 25, 2003
Messages
1,301
Reaction score
62
Points
48
Location
The home of the free and the land that did for Bra
Your Mac's Specs
24"iMac, 15"MB-Pro, MacBook, G4 iMac, PM G5 2x2Ghz, G4 iBook & Some PCs
falltime said:
I think you just have it out for Microsoft and Windows, on top of which you have a serious lack of knowledge and understanding of or relating to IT (especially Windows-based PCs).

Yeah, 30 years worth of "a serious lack of knowledge" for which I am currently paid 50 pounds an hour by one of the worlds biggest software companies. Every time you step onto an aircraft to fly internationally it is my software keeping you alive.

I don't have anything against PC's, if I did I wouldn't have so many of them would I? What I do have a problem with is know-nothing idiots who think the sun shines out of Bill Gates rear end.

I don't have any problems with Intel either, they are a very good provider of cheap, mediocre components, not quite as good at it as AMD but reasonable. They did rise somewhat in my opinion when they bought up the far superior DEC product line of processors and re-engineered their whole line around them and they even impressed me somewhat when they took the superb ARM based high density core and used it as the basis for the Xscale line at least they proved they were adaptable.

But anyone who seriously thinks that Intel or AMD are in the same league as IBM when it comes to hardware are seriously deluded, they are probably smoking the same stuff as those who think Microsoft are capable of producing quality software. Here is a hint, noone anywhere would even consider basing a safety critical system around anything produced by Microsoft, if they did they would be laughed out of the industry!

Amen-Moses
 
Joined
Jan 13, 2005
Messages
350
Reaction score
3
Points
18
Location
Albany, NY
IBM did make great HDs back in the day, and their Thinkpad line of notebooks are very good. I was actually surprised to find a Seagate HD in my PowerMac instead of a Hitachi drive.

As far as them being vastly superior, I don't know if I'd go that far. In terms of processing technology, Intel and AMD do offer better home user oriented processors. Both the Pentium 4, and the Athlon 64/FX are superior processors to the G5. I know details have leaked of great processor technology to come form IBM, but IBM and AMD work very closely on processor technology, so I wouldn't expect IBM to come out on top of the PC world with their next processor...it is possible that they may come out on top of Intel, but AMD will be right there with them. 64bit processors/Hypretransport...all technology that AMD/Apple released pretty much at the same time. Those two companies are in bed with eachother, and have been much longer than they've publicly announced.
 
OP
D

dirtydog

Guest
Amen-Moses said:
Yeah, 30 years worth of "a serious lack of knowledge" for which I am currently paid 50 pounds an hour by one of the worlds biggest software companies. Every time you step onto an aircraft to fly internationally it is my software keeping you alive.

You may be paid a lot but your own comments in this thread prove you don't know as much as you think..

Here is a hint, noone anywhere would even consider basing a safety critical system around anything produced by Microsoft, if they did they would be laughed out of the industry!

Off the top of my head, the Royal Navy uses Windows 2000 in their nuclear subs do they not?
 
Joined
Jan 13, 2005
Messages
350
Reaction score
3
Points
18
Location
Albany, NY
dirtydog said:
Off the top of my head, the Royal Navy uses Windows 2000 in their nuclear subs do they not?
I'm an Avid WinXP user, and I think it is a very good OS...but even I find it scary that MS software is in a nuclear sub. To be fair, I would be just as scared if a Mac OS was running their equipment as well.
 
OP
D

dirtydog

Guest
Avid6eek said:
I'm an Avid WinXP user, and I think it is a very good OS...but even I find it scary that MS software is in a nuclear sub. To be fair, I would be just as scared if a Mac OS was running their equipment as well.

I know what you mean, but I think it's a special version of Windows 2000 iirc.. could be wrong. It doesn't unduly concern me, I think it's rock solid on good hardware.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Shop Amazon


Shop for your Apple, Mac, iPhone and other computer products on Amazon.
We are a participant in the Amazon Services LLC Associates Program, an affiliate program designed to provide a means for us to earn fees by linking to Amazon and affiliated sites.
Top