|
|
|
Windows 7 surpasses Mac OS X in market share
|
|
The following comments relate to this news article:
article published on 28 November, 2009
Windows 7 has surpassed the Mac OS X in market share, moving to almost 6 percent in its first month of release. All Mac OS X versions combined have an estimated 5.27 percent market share, according to Net Applications.
"It's safe to say that Windows 7's daily share did peak above Mac's weekly share," said Vince Vizzaccaro, executive vice president at Net Applications, to PCWorld.
Overall, ... [ read the full article ]
Please read the original article before posting your comments.
|
Senior Member
|
29. November 2009 @ 17:46 |
Link to this message
|
Originally posted by joe777:
@bobiroc. So there are as many security holes in say Gentoo and puppy linux as there is in windows? There is the same amount of flexibility for security in windows compared to *nix? Windows on the server side is as powerful as a *nix based system?
Every windows OS I have ever installed has been bloated and uses far to many resources and of course is fundamentally flawed as far as the kernel is concerned. The are still building off the same NT kernel that was broken all those years ago and won't allow the open source community to fix it for them:P
FYI I have never came across a windows OS that didn't need mobo specific drivers to make it work!!!
Anyway chill Winston. Whatever floats your boat and if you want to spend all your hard earned cash on microshaft products then good for you.
See that is part of the problem. There are so many versions of linux the consumer has no idea what version to choose. Linux is a very secure platform and I am not gonna deny that. But give the person the time and incentive and yes it can be brought down if other measures of security are not taken. Ultimately computing has one huge security problem overall and that is the interface between the chair and the keyboard. The user of the computer is where security goes down the tube. So until you can educate the user to take good and proactive security measures then there will be security risks no matter what platform you choose. Linux, Windows, MacOS is not going to stop the user from clicking on a fishing attempt to have their information stolen. Running a open system with no firewall or neglecting to update the system with security patches affects everyone. There are billions of Windows computers in the world that run securely and productively everyday and even though millions get infected I can almost guarantee that those infected ones had poor security and not the fault of the OS.
|
|
Advertisement
|
 |
|
|
Member
|
29. November 2009 @ 18:52 |
Link to this message
|
first of all i must admit i have never tried linux. i hear bloated shit like "linux sucks windows rules" all the time but fact of the matter is that the average joe/jane (and when i say average i mean REALLY average. the type that just needs a pc and buys something reasonable) has never even heard of linux. if you live where apple does not reign strong (like the mid east for instance) then they havent even heard of macs probably..so its not a matter of choice. its a matter of prechoice which is made for them by either the PC builder they ask to build them a PC or the preinstalled PC that coms with windows..they dont want or need to know more. linux might be good i have never tried. apple is really the most bloated up brand ive ever seen. my in law is an apple fanboy even though there is no official representation of apple in my country and hes a slave to Steve jobs like all the other fanboys.im not what youd call average when it comes to PCs but im also not a programmer or something like that and i basically use it for excel music games and internet..which is why i myself as many others just cant be arsed to try a linux..or bothered to get a bloated mac/mac OS.
I think i spoke for few people in this reply
cheers
|
Junior Member
|
29. November 2009 @ 19:25 |
Link to this message
|
for me, windows is easier to use and easier to install than linux.
i have tried ubuntu on my laptop and its always make my laptop overheat because there is no ATi Power Play support for my laptop GPU :(
and ATi also not provide the driver i needed for radeon x1600 on ubuntu 9.04.
when i installed windows 7, all the drivers from the acer dvd for vista and xp work on 7. the graphic driver and powerplay also working.
also when i want to play games, my games created for windows..... so not able to run on linux natively.
|
|
joe777
Member
|
29. November 2009 @ 20:17 |
Link to this message
|
|
^^^^^ Try installing the ATI restricted driver for your GPU. Some games will run through wine and possibly the rest will run through Crossover.
For the average person wanting to do a little with their pc, i.e surf, music, video, mail and whatnot then it's a must to install the simple yet flexible ubuntu. Installation is not complex and installing software is also very easy with Synaptic, not to mention all those softwares are free and authorised through your repo. Ah mean come-on, it doesn't get much easier than that folks. Yes I know some *nix distro's are complex, but you pick a distro depending on what you will use it for.
I find it sad that folks out there are being force-fed software from the monopolising greedy sods aka'the pirates of silicone valley" software should be free and community based. When everything is in the hands of the community then it can only get better and safer, 2 heads are better than 1, 3 heads are better than 2 etc.
|
Senior Member
|
29. November 2009 @ 20:53 |
Link to this message
|
Originally posted by joe777:
^^^^^ Try installing the ATI restricted driver for your GPU. Some games will run through wine and possibly the rest will run through Crossover.
For the average person wanting to do a little with their pc, i.e surf, music, video, mail and whatnot then it's a must to install the simple yet flexible ubuntu. Installation is not complex and installing software is also very easy with Synaptic, not to mention all those softwares are free and authorised through your repo. Ah mean come-on, it doesn't get much easier than that folks. Yes I know some *nix distro's are complex, but you pick a distro depending on what you will use it for.
I find it sad that folks out there are being force-fed software from the monopolising greedy sods aka'the pirates of silicone valley" software should be free and community based. When everything is in the hands of the community then it can only get better and safer, 2 heads are better than 1, 3 heads are better than 2 etc.
Gee that is so much simpler than just installing the latest ATI Driver for Windows and then installing your game. I mean find a special "restricted" driver and then mess around with Wine or Crossover and pray that you can get a bronze or silver seal of compatibility for your applications and your games. Then when you have a problem you can talk to people like Joe on a forum that will call you sad and ignorant for not knowing that you have to jump through hoops to get crap to work because he feels it sooooo easy.
|
|
SDF_GR
Member
1 product review
|
29. November 2009 @ 21:21 |
Link to this message
|
Originally posted by cyprusrom:
This is another bloody piece of useless news, but just couldn't help myself, and had to respond to some nonsense comment...
What is a Mac, SDF_GR? Why don't you enlighten us.
Correct me if I am wrong, but a Mac is the awesome piece of hardware they use in Star Trek, right?
"2x Intel Quad Core Xeon CPU and 32GB ram-decent hardware...for gods shake man"
Wow, "for god's sake man"???- that must be absolutely amazing...!!!
what is that? Throwing some numbers in there is suppose to impress people? It would, if that were the base model for a Mac, and started somewhere below $1000. You can't be that "limited" and not realize that for less than $3000 you can put all that garbage in a PC. You guys can use whatever you want, Mac, Pc, hell, you can even go back to a Commodore, but all this "Fanboy" attitude makes you look stupid.
And no, I have never seen a Mac. I tried once to sneak onto Enterprise,it was my dream to see a Mac up-close, maybe even to be able to touch it!!!!... but they caught me((((, and put me in the cooler for trespassing...It wasn't pretty, I had to fend off some horny Chewbacca all night...But you have inspired me SDF_GR,the hope still remains, maybe someday my dream will come true and I will be able to at least catch a glimpse of the awesomeness that a Mac is.
Your ingnorense is amazing, and your posts just dont make sense.
You said: decent hardware? i gave you the decent hardware.
Now you say: overpriced... i have already said quality, but here it is again.
Just look at the damn thing.
Is there in any chance to custom build a pc like that?
You even said that sales of 1 manufacturer can be compared with the sales of every manufacturer of the entire bloody planet combined.
How hard can it be to understand that just doesnt make sense.
You didnt even knew that windows are limited to 16gb ram.
I am sure that you have never used a mac not even to browse the net.
I am too old to be fan boy.
I dont have a mac at my home, at my work i have a G5 and the stability, the speed, the simplisity of the OSX is amazing.
You dont install/unistall anything, you copy the files anywere were you want on the HDD and works, you can even move them anywere you want and it still works.
No registry, no unistall, you just delete the folder and thats it.
No firewall, no antivirus, nothing, no infinite restarts.
No 800mb ram just to run your desktop like vista or 7.
You can even take the HDD out, put it to another mac and it will boot even with different hardware, and i will not go to network capabilities that osx have that are far superior than windows.
I am not a mac fan but i am in computing more than 20 years, and yes OSX have stollen many things from open source OS's but they have done it right, and as we speek the only OS that can be compared to Linux in every aspect is OSX.
You like it or not thats it, and loose the aditute this is a forum to read and learn, post your oppinion or your knowledge, solve problems, change oppinions, debate, not to fight.
|
|
CG81
Newbie
|
29. November 2009 @ 21:31 |
Link to this message
|
Ok, since you guys are arguing I figured I would chime in. Look, screw the OS war, look at facts. (It is at this point if you have no idea of what I am about to say sit back and shut up) At the core a Unix based system is the most stable because every portion, every application is its own independent node. In other words one little hiccup like IE crashing doesn't destabilize your system or for that matter affect anything else around it. (Just an example) Ask any decent IT guy working for a large company and see what they use for their server --> Something Unix based. Now, Linux and Mac OS are the only two who use this. Microsoft does not choose to use this method to create their operating system. Instead they still swear they can make their way work. I will hand it to them, Windows 7 is in fact the best Windows they have ever made... but... its still on less stable framework then a Unix based system.
Now that we have that out of the way. We are down to Linux and Mac OS as the most stable. There are countless flavors of Linux and I have used many of them. It is an absolutely fantastic operating system with a flavor to fit anyones needs. So what is its flaw? Well, it is not easy for the average person to use. STOP. I said average, if you are reading this you need to stop and realize this website and thus you reading it are not average. This is not the destination for the normal person. Also, yes I have heard of Ubuntu and Linux Mint, and Fedora, and Dream Linux, etc, etc. Yes I think its great, but at the end of the day I have a family and I am very busy so I don't have time anymore to tinker or fiddle with something to make it work. ANYONE, who has used Linux for any amount of time cannot honestly say that this is not the byproduct of using Linux. SOME time is required. I just no longer have it.
So that brings me to the Mac. I will start saying yes, I agree they are priced far heavier than a comparable Windows based machine. Apple has figured out how to make really great designs, match them with good hardware, and a stable OS, great software and sell you an experience. THAT is what you pay more for. Not the hardware. For those of you who have not used one, that is what you don't understand. I am not talking about some far out there experience. I am talking about everything working the way you would expect it to and with little or no hassle. It took me awhile to agree to what I am now telling you but it is the truth. Having used all three for years at a time I can tell you the Mac is superior because of its great software, its ease of use, and superior OS. (Over windows). The hardware I buy as an afterthought to that. I pay, and yes heavily, for that experience of things just working and working well. If you are cheap, shut up, its not for you. Otherwise, next time, go to the website and look at something other than the prices and tell me it doesn't look better. Watch some videos on iMovie and tell me its not cool. Oh Yeah, its also free with every Mac along with a lot of other extras you pay for with Windows.
I will finish by saying I would switch back to Linux in a heartbeat if they (developers) can create the same or better experience for cheaper, but for now, the Mac is best in my book for not one, but all of the reasons I outlined above.
|
Junior Member
|
29. November 2009 @ 22:10 |
Link to this message
|
All of this back and forth because Windows 7 has a higher market share than OSX. Well duh every new pc has Windows 7 pre installed. On another note. Every OS has its issues. And every pc maker has some kind of problem. Yes I'm a windows user. I've tried Linux of different distros. The only problems I've had with it is hardware and software compatibility issues. I've never used a mac (well unless you consider the old apple II's in high school). The issue I have with them is price. Every comparable (hardware) windows pc will always cost less than a mac. The biggest reason they are so stable is because they have complete control on both software and hardware sides.
|
|
joe777
Member
|
29. November 2009 @ 22:15 |
Link to this message
|
Originally posted by bobiroc:
Originally posted by joe777:
^^^^^ Try installing the ATI restricted driver for your GPU. Some games will run through wine and possibly the rest will run through Crossover.
For the average person wanting to do a little with their pc, i.e surf, music, video, mail and whatnot then it's a must to install the simple yet flexible ubuntu. Installation is not complex and installing software is also very easy with Synaptic, not to mention all those softwares are free and authorised through your repo. Ah mean come-on, it doesn't get much easier than that folks. Yes I know some *nix distro's are complex, but you pick a distro depending on what you will use it for.
I find it sad that folks out there are being force-fed software from the monopolising greedy sods aka'the pirates of silicone valley" software should be free and community based. When everything is in the hands of the community then it can only get better and safer, 2 heads are better than 1, 3 heads are better than 2 etc.
Gee that is so much simpler than just installing the latest ATI Driver for Windows and then installing your game. I mean find a special "restricted" driver and then mess around with Wine or Crossover and pray that you can get a bronze or silver seal of compatibility for your applications and your games. Then when you have a problem you can talk to people like Joe on a forum that will call you sad and ignorant for not knowing that you have to jump through hoops to get crap to work because he feels it sooooo easy.
Dont be childish my friend, you will be prompted to install the restricted 3rd party driver for your GPU all found for you no need to search for anything.
As for working with Wine, just click on the installer and wine will open it and install automatically for you.
As for jumping through hoops, you should see what happens on a windows system when simply trying to watch HD through HDCP, calls calls and more calls using up resources that are not necessary and thats just a small example of useless and waste of resources. Anyway I think you misted the point I was making. It would be so nice to see a world without proprietary software no restrictions and freedom from the man.
|
AfterDawn Addict
1 product review
|
29. November 2009 @ 22:31 |
Link to this message
|
Originally posted by SDF_GR:
...
I am sure that you have never used a mac not even to browse the net.
I am too old to be fan boy.
No 800mb ram just to run your desktop like vista or 7.
You like it or not thats it, and loose the aditute this is a forum to read and learn, post your oppinion or your knowledge, solve problems, change oppinions, debate, not to fight.
Oh, for crying out loud, use whatever you want...If you think a shiny carcase should be impressive, by all means, get yourself a dozen...
Who's fighting friend? Didn't mean it like that, but if you feel like you got "punched", oh well...
Like I said, I never had the "privilege" to even be in the proximity of an awesomely divine Mac!!!
You didnt even knew that windows are limited to 16gb ram.
Ahm,...what?
As for the sales,manufacturers, combinations of the bloody planet and the stars and stuff...I think you meant to quote someone else.
|
Senior Member
|
29. November 2009 @ 22:37 |
Link to this message
|
Originally posted by joe777:
Originally posted by bobiroc:
Originally posted by joe777:
^^^^^ Try installing the ATI restricted driver for your GPU. Some games will run through wine and possibly the rest will run through Crossover.
For the average person wanting to do a little with their pc, i.e surf, music, video, mail and whatnot then it's a must to install the simple yet flexible ubuntu. Installation is not complex and installing software is also very easy with Synaptic, not to mention all those softwares are free and authorised through your repo. Ah mean come-on, it doesn't get much easier than that folks. Yes I know some *nix distro's are complex, but you pick a distro depending on what you will use it for.
I find it sad that folks out there are being force-fed software from the monopolising greedy sods aka'the pirates of silicone valley" software should be free and community based. When everything is in the hands of the community then it can only get better and safer, 2 heads are better than 1, 3 heads are better than 2 etc.
Gee that is so much simpler than just installing the latest ATI Driver for Windows and then installing your game. I mean find a special "restricted" driver and then mess around with Wine or Crossover and pray that you can get a bronze or silver seal of compatibility for your applications and your games. Then when you have a problem you can talk to people like Joe on a forum that will call you sad and ignorant for not knowing that you have to jump through hoops to get crap to work because he feels it sooooo easy.
Dont be childish my friend, you will be prompted to install the restricted 3rd party driver for your GPU all found for you no need to search for anything.
As for working with Wine, just click on the installer and wine will open it and install automatically for you.
As for jumping through hoops, you should see what happens on a windows system when simply trying to watch HD through HDCP, calls calls and more calls using up resources that are not necessary and thats just a small example of useless and waste of resources. Anyway I think you misted the point I was making. It would be so nice to see a world without proprietary software no restrictions and freedom from the man.
I am not being childish, I am being realistic. WINE lists their compatible apps on their website and only a handful get a gold rating, but to me that is not acceptable. You mention about ram usage and wasted resources but you obviously do not understand memory management. Windows prefetch does use some ram but it does not hog it. I will agree Vista was initially a little bloatish but updates and patches fixed that mostly and Windows 7 is very streamlined and uses resources very efficently all while maintaining the largest software and hardware compatibility. Most people do not give a rats @$$ about opensource and if they can take apart the code. They just want to buy a computer and have a pretty good guarantee that they can go out and buy a piece of software or hardware and know that it will work. The hard fact remains is no flavor of linux can touch that level of compatibility even with the add ons and the support from the "user" community. What they need is support from the all the major hardware and software makers and then maybe they can be a contender. That is not saying that Linux is not a good alternative for some people and while some people may be OS agnostic and only care if they can browse the net and check their email there are plenty of people that do care and CHOOSE windows as their OS and that is the fact that you cannot comprehend. Linux was the primary OS on the first netbooks and those had a huge return rate from the average consumer because they hated the OS as one of the primary reasons. I manage a network of about 2500 workstations and 100 or so iMacs and we went almost an entire year with a lab at each of the schools running Ubuntu with Wine and even had it professionally set up with our help and an outside organization that promised that our users (Students and Teachers) would love it and not even notice. Well they did and demanded Windows back and even filed a union grievance because of it. They did not like the open source alternatives and while you may say it was because they were not used to them and that is partially true it does show that the average user does know the difference and in the end most CHOOSE Windows.
|
AfterDawn Addict
1 product review
|
29. November 2009 @ 22:59 |
Link to this message
|
Quote:
"It would be so nice to see a world without proprietary software no restrictions and freedom from the man"
Yes,I agree, it would be nice...but will never happen. Karl Marx thought the communism was a wonderful idea, and maybe on paper or in his head it was, but was never possible, an utopia.
I agree with bobiroc, the majority of computer users, I would say the overwhelming majority, want simplicity and reliability. They don't care about kernel this, motherboard that, they want to be able to just "plug and play". I never tried any kind of Linux, and probably like the most majority, if I first have to google for 15 minutes to make my new software work, or not sure if my new DVD burner or WiFi dongle is supported, I say pass.
As for a Mac, I gave up long time ago when it took half an hour to find a free piece of software to convert a video on a mate's machine, while on my Pc I had at least half a dozen free applications.
 Piss me off, and I Will ignore You!This message has been edited since posting. Last time this message was edited on 29. November 2009 @ 23:02
|
AfterDawn Addict
4 product reviews
|
29. November 2009 @ 23:09 |
Link to this message
|
|
People want windows because they want something that will run anything they throw at it semi decently.
Win7 32 bit caps out at 8 or 16GB or ramm and that's what most people will use unless all their hardware supports 64bit, 64bit tends to be more fickle so I do not use it.
Now win7 64bit pro and above support 192GB ramm.
A shame a 4GB stick is going for around 100$ these days...
Macs are for geeks and art students not real people..just a FYI... I do have a question for the mac geeks dose it support full hardware vitalization to run XP perfectly so you can run it like a PC?
I believe I am mostly correct in the things I say. :P
This message has been edited since posting. Last time this message was edited on 29. November 2009 @ 23:17
|
AfterDawn Addict
1 product review
|
29. November 2009 @ 23:13 |
Link to this message
|
Originally posted by ZippyDSM:
Win7 32 bit caps out at 8 or 16GB or ramm and that's what most people will use unless all their hardware supports 64bit, 64bit tends to be more fickle so I do not use it.
Now win7 64bit pro and above support 192GB ramm.
Macs are for geeks and art students not real people..just a FYI... I do have a question for the mac geeks dose it support full hardware vitalization to run XP perfectly so you can run it like a PC?
I believe I am mostly correct in the things I say. :P
:)))Mostly does not encompass "all", or "everything".
|
AfterDawn Addict
4 product reviews
|
29. November 2009 @ 23:46 |
Link to this message
|
Quote:
Originally posted by ZippyDSM:
Win7 32 bit caps out at 8 or 16GB or ramm and that's what most people will use unless all their hardware supports 64bit, 64bit tends to be more fickle so I do not use it.
Now win7 64bit pro and above support 192GB ramm.
Macs are for geeks and art students not real people..just a FYI... I do have a question for the mac geeks dose it support full hardware vitalization to run XP perfectly so you can run it like a PC?
I believe I am mostly correct in the things I say. :P
:)))Mostly does not encompass "all", or "everything".
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Windows_7_editions
pro and above 192GB so it says.
Still mostly is good enough it means I can still make shit up and be funny the rest of the time :P
|
AfterDawn Addict
1 product review
|
29. November 2009 @ 23:56 |
Link to this message
|
|
Haha, the best is when you make up "funny shite"!
Is not just Win7, XP -64 and Vista 64 also have a limit higher than 16GB(although if you run 32 bit applications they cannot use more than 4GB).
|
AfterDawn Addict
4 product reviews
|
30. November 2009 @ 00:01 |
Link to this message
|
Originally posted by cyprusrom:
Haha, the best is when you make up "funny shite"!
Is not just Win7, XP -64 and Vista 64 also have a limit higher than 16GB(although if you run 32 bit applications they cannot use more than 4GB).
I know its kinda moot if you got a rig with 20 CPUs and 10 GPUs and 100GB of ramm....90% of you're programing aint going to use it all much less half.... I figure its going to take another 10 years befor apps are made to handle multi CPUs and extra ramm automatically, seems everything is built with common limits 4 CPU, limited ramm ect,ect.
|
Senior Member
|
30. November 2009 @ 00:05 |
Link to this message
|
Originally posted by ZippyDSM:
People want windows because they want something that will run anything they throw at it semi decently.
Win7 32 bit caps out at 8 or 16GB or ramm and that's what most people will use unless all their hardware supports 64bit, 64bit tends to be more fickle so I do not use it.
Now win7 64bit pro and above support 192GB ramm.
A shame a 4GB stick is going for around 100$ these days...
Macs are for geeks and art students not real people..just a FYI... I do have a question for the mac geeks dose it support full hardware vitalization to run XP perfectly so you can run it like a PC?
I believe I am mostly correct in the things I say. :P
Actually Zippy the 32bit Windows Kernel is maxed out at 4GB of ram and most machines register around 3.5GB with 32bit Windows OS. Also some motherboards limit the ram as in the case of my Ispiron Laptop which registers 3.25GB Ram Max due to the limitation on the intel chipset. Windows Basic I believe has a 8GB limitation in 64bit and Home Premium has a 16GB limitation where Pro and Ultimate/Enterprise have a 192GB limit when using 64bit. That being said most consumer boards register 16 - 24GB of Ram at most and that requires the extremely expensive 4GB modules so if you can afford those then you can afford the extra $30 - $50 for Windows Pro. I also think Windows Server can register a lot more than 192GB but again most servers do not have the DIMM capacity to go that high unless you want to spend major $$$. But that is not what is really important because most people do not need more than 4GB of Ram and the few that do get the OS that can use or recognize that much. That of course could change as the hardware matures but by then a new version of the OS will be out so it is a moot point.
That being said I am running Windows 7 on my main desktop that is about 5 years old with 2GB of ram and while it says it is using 928MB I know that I have 1118MB free and Windows will adjust its usage accordingly and even under heavy load with applications I always have 500MB or more free and I know part of that usage is for the prefetch features.
|
AfterDawn Addict
4 product reviews
|
30. November 2009 @ 00:11 |
Link to this message
|
Originally posted by bobiroc:
Originally posted by ZippyDSM:
People want windows because they want something that will run anything they throw at it semi decently.
Win7 32 bit caps out at 8 or 16GB or ramm and that's what most people will use unless all their hardware supports 64bit, 64bit tends to be more fickle so I do not use it.
Now win7 64bit pro and above support 192GB ramm.
A shame a 4GB stick is going for around 100$ these days...
Macs are for geeks and art students not real people..just a FYI... I do have a question for the mac geeks dose it support full hardware vitalization to run XP perfectly so you can run it like a PC?
I believe I am mostly correct in the things I say. :P
Actually Zippy the 32bit Windows Kernel is maxed out at 4GB of ram and most machines register around 3.5GB with 32bit Windows OS. Also some motherboards limit the ram as in the case of my Ispiron Laptop which registers 3.25GB Ram Max due to the limitation on the intel chipset. Windows Basic I believe has a 8GB limitation in 64bit and Home Premium has a 16GB limitation where Pro and Ultimate/Enterprise have a 192GB limit when using 64bit. That being said most consumer boards register 16 - 24GB of Ram at most and that requires the extremely expensive 4GB modules so if you can afford those then you can afford the extra $30 - $50 for Windows Pro. I also think Windows Server can register a lot more than 192GB but again most servers do not have the DIMM capacity to go that high unless you want to spend major $$$. But that is not what is really important because most people do not need more than 4GB of Ram and the few that do get the OS that can use or recognize that much. That of course could change as the hardware matures but by then a new version of the OS will be out so it is a moot point.
That being said I am running Windows 7 on my main desktop that is about 5 years old with 2GB of ram and while it says it is using 928MB I know that I have 1118MB free and Windows will adjust its usage accordingly and even under heavy load with applications I always have 500MB or more free and I know part of that usage is for the prefetch features.
Ya the 32bit has limits that are close to what most mobos are limited to but there are a few 80+ mobos that can do 8GB of ramm.
I got 2GB of ramm and running a 2.8 C2D and it runs faster than vista did and frankly dose better than XP did but XP was more responsive when I played videos...win7 wants to lag while starting and seeking in WMC >>
Dose your mobo has video? That can eat up ramm and performance as well.
Copyright infringement is nothing more than civil disobedience to a bad set of laws. Lets renegotiate them.
|
AfterDawn Addict
1 product review
|
30. November 2009 @ 00:20 |
Link to this message
|
Originally posted by ZippyDSM:
....
I know its kinda moot if you got a rig with 20 CPUs and 10 GPUs and 100GB of ramm....90% of you're programing aint going to use it all much less half.... I figure its going to take another 10 years befor apps are made to handle multi CPUs and extra ramm automatically, seems everything is built with common limits 4 CPU, limited ramm ect,ect.
That's why when someone throws at me some numbers, like 2x Intel Quad Core Xeon CPU and 32GB ram, puts it in a shiny box and calls it a divine Mac, doesn't impress me at all, especially when you can put all that in a Pc for a much lower cost. Now if it would be worthy of calling an "AI" and would make me breakfast, that would be different...
This message has been edited since posting. Last time this message was edited on 30. November 2009 @ 00:21
|
AfterDawn Addict
4 product reviews
|
30. November 2009 @ 01:53 |
Link to this message
|
Quote:
Originally posted by ZippyDSM:
....
I know its kinda moot if you got a rig with 20 CPUs and 10 GPUs and 100GB of ramm....90% of you're programing aint going to use it all much less half.... I figure its going to take another 10 years befor apps are made to handle multi CPUs and extra ramm automatically, seems everything is built with common limits 4 CPU, limited ramm ect,ect.
That's why when someone throws at me some numbers, like 2x Intel Quad Core Xeon CPU and 32GB ram, puts it in a shiny box and calls it a divine Mac, doesn't impress me at all, especially when you can put all that in a Pc for a much lower cost. Now if it would be worthy of calling an "AI" and would make me breakfast, that would be different...
I dunno I'd be happy if it code script for me so I don't have to cut and paste code with my drool and all....
|
|
bomber991
Member
|
30. November 2009 @ 02:11 |
Link to this message
|
Hah, all these comments fighting over windows vs mac vs linux.
I think that in the future we will see computers working more like how that Google Chrome OS is supposed to work. That is, computers that just do simple tasks. Most people at home probably just spend their time surfing the internet and checking email. Most people at work probably do the same, but also add in office applications like word processing, spreadsheets, and power points.
Linux really would be the best logical choice for an operating system when you just look at it on paper. It's free and it does all those things most people normally do. If when buying a computer the option for windows cost an extra $100, I'd think linux would become more popular. Same for businesses, when they buy computers in bulk, if they had the option of saving $100 per pc by having linux instead of windows, they would do that.
Unfortunately as some other posters here pointed out, it just doesn't work. I've had problems getting hardware to work for windows before, but with linux there's more hardware that just won't work at all. Why is that? I'm not sure, I've heard that the hardware manufacturers just simply don't make any linux drivers sometime and that's why. What about software? Seems like software should work as long as it was programmed and written for linux. I'm just guessing that nobody wants to pay a team of programmers to program for it since the market share of linux is next to nothing.
|
AfterDawn Addict
4 product reviews
|
30. November 2009 @ 04:41 |
Link to this message
|
Originally posted by bomber991:
Hah, all these comments fighting over windows vs mac vs linux.
I think that in the future we will see computers working more like how that Google Chrome OS is supposed to work. That is, computers that just do simple tasks. Most people at home probably just spend their time surfing the internet and checking email. Most people at work probably do the same, but also add in office applications like word processing, spreadsheets, and power points.
Linux really would be the best logical choice for an operating system when you just look at it on paper. It's free and it does all those things most people normally do. If when buying a computer the option for windows cost an extra $100, I'd think linux would become more popular. Same for businesses, when they buy computers in bulk, if they had the option of saving $100 per pc by having linux instead of windows, they would do that.
Unfortunately as some other posters here pointed out, it just doesn't work. I've had problems getting hardware to work for windows before, but with linux there's more hardware that just won't work at all. Why is that? I'm not sure, I've heard that the hardware manufacturers just simply don't make any linux drivers sometime and that's why. What about software? Seems like software should work as long as it was programmed and written for linux. I'm just guessing that nobody wants to pay a team of programmers to program for it since the market share of linux is next to nothing.
I dunno Linux/unix whatever you call it is great for small applications where you know the hardware supports it, if it had more support it would make a great OS on a 4GB or less flash computer where you check email,and surf on a up to date browser like fire fox or opera. The trouble is out side that it fails unless you are an uber geek who gets hot and sweety compleing code....
For the rest of us there is Windose and snob er...I mean Mac, mac is like my example of the 'ix's only it works on possibility more combination's of hardware and possibly as well has more software support, at best it runs graphic,sound and video editing flawlessly and dose a decent job at word processing, web surfing and drooling over the ultimate tech igod...no not MR gates but MR jobs.
Then we have windows whos popularity is dirvied from stick MR gates dck into every software and hardware vendor hole it can find or vice versa so "we" (the unclean walking dead PC masses) get a great swarth of hardware from cheap crappy stuff to decent over priced stuff to stuff that is as good as gold. The main trouble is every few..er.... interventions...no reinventions...no...bastardizaes...meh... er..."versions" of the win OS are inbreded with with it siblings a few times then released on the unsuspecting masses.... no one can forget it crashing on MR gates... was that ME or 98?
In anycase Windose is everywhere and since XP(well 95 was not too bad I think 3.1 was more stable and less fussy,98 was a slight improvement ME was in the bug hose again 2K was the last of the true NT, XP is our last inbreed hell spawn that was haven sent, vister was just ME all over again but based on XP thus it was not unstable but nearly twice as buggy... ) and even 2K been a mostly stable/solid OS to run most of your crap on, and most people want a simple enough OS that will easily run most of the junk they can on it thus PC is perfered by everyone...who reeks a bit of of the undead...but where else where all the modern game hating fan boys go? ...mmmmm *sniff sniff* I need a bath...and a resurrection...........
/lulz
|
|
jacklang0
Suspended permanently
|
30. November 2009 @ 09:41 |
Link to this message
|
|
SPAM removed
This message has been edited since posting. Last time this message was edited on 30. November 2009 @ 09:46
|
|
Advertisement
|
|
|
Senior Member
4 product reviews
|
30. November 2009 @ 19:28 |
Link to this message
|
I use DSL on a flash drive to access the web, i have for around 8 years.
it works with just about any machine, and it parses all the hardware before it initializes. that way it doesn't panic when a piece of hardware doesn't return a call.
as for Mac, the G5 Macs were the last of the real Macs. now there just a PC with a BIOS code that allows Mac to be installed and for the love of god get rid of the one button mouse, before i strangle somebody with it.
OEMs used to do the same thing if you had a compaq, and tried a different brand OEM disc it wouldn't load it would just restart. you had to have the Disc that came with the PC usually it had three different models that you could choose from, all have the same motherboard all had the same bios code.
|
|
