New posts

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Jamie-Jamie" data-source="post: 1030658" data-attributes="member: 145611">Okay, um... I have no idea what you're talking about, but on a Vista lappy with 2GB of RAM... I have Word 2010 Beta, Chrome with about 15 tabs open, iTunes, Yahoo, Calculator, MS Security Essentials, and Thunderbird all open and I'm still staring at only 68% RAM utilization.Edit: This is on a single-core Athlon 64 that was new in 2005 and there's no slow-down at all. I have Aero enabled with full FX. And just FYI, I know exactly when every graphics feature was added to Mac OS X. I've been here since the System 6 days, honeychild <img src="" class="smilie smilie--sprite smilie--sprite7" alt=":p" title="Stick out tongue    :p" loading="lazy" data-shortname=":p" />Please, do not forget that Windows Vista and 7 use highly aggressive disk caching, also used in Mac OS X. The difference is that OS X does not count its caches in Performance Monitor.As for the quality? Um, hon... you don't own any Intel Apple products, how the devil would you know? So I'm going out on a limb to say that you're wrong in everything you said.Windows Vista is only bad in the minds of bloggers with no life and Intel Macs are just as well-built as PPC Macs. Why do you hear of so many more problems? Because look a the installed base of Intel Macintoshes vs. PPC ones. I'd guess there are as many Macintoshes with Intel CPUs in operation as there were all New World Macintoshes sold total.Of course there are more errata, there are just more machines in operation. Cha, please... n'more hate, kiddo! Miss Jamie don't wanna hear it no moar!! <img src="" class="smilie smilie--sprite smilie--sprite7" alt=":p" title="Stick out tongue    :p" loading="lazy" data-shortname=":p" /></blockquote>

Verification: Name this item. 🍎