Board index › Topical Discussion › Computers, Math, Science, and Technology

Windows Eight

Page 2 of 4 [ 59 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4  Next

Previous topic | Next topic

Keith
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Aug 2008
Age: 41
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,321
Location: East Sussex, UK

07 Aug 2010, 11:26 pm

Jookia wrote:
Can you guys name a good Windows OS?


Windows 8 won't be different, it's just hype.


Whoa, where did you get 8 from? We're still waiting on 7. Then 7.1 and THEN 8



Orwell
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 8 Aug 2007
Age: 35
Gender: Male
Posts: 12,518
Location: Room 101

07 Aug 2010, 11:50 pm

Keith wrote:
Jookia wrote:
Can you guys name a good Windows OS?


Windows 8 won't be different, it's just hype.


Whoa, where did you get 8 from? We're still waiting on 7. Then 7.1 and THEN 8

You do realize that software version numbers are completely arbitrary, right? They can call it Windows gamma.blue.unicorn if they want.


_________________
WAR IS PEACE
FREEDOM IS SLAVERY
IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH


Fuzzy
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 30 Mar 2006
Age: 52
Gender: Male
Posts: 5,223
Location: Alberta Canada

08 Aug 2010, 12:49 am

Orwell wrote:
Keith wrote:
Jookia wrote:
Can you guys name a good Windows OS?


Windows 8 won't be different, it's just hype.


Whoa, where did you get 8 from? We're still waiting on 7. Then 7.1 and THEN 8

You do realize that software version numbers are completely arbitrary, right? They can call it Windows gamma.blue.unicorn if they want.


Mauve has the most ram.


_________________
davidred wrote...
I installed Ubuntu once and it completely destroyed my paying relationship with Microsoft.


Asp-Z
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 6 Dec 2009
Age: 31
Gender: Male
Posts: 11,018

08 Aug 2010, 11:03 am

Fuzzy wrote:
Lets not quibble: Apple faces this conundrum too.


No they don't. Apple couldn't care less how many people buy the new operating system, as long as they can put the flashy new features on the new Macs. Apple is a hardware company first, software company second, and it's the hardware sales that make up the large portion of their profit.



Jookia
Velociraptor
Velociraptor

User avatar

Joined: 7 Jan 2007
Age: 29
Gender: Male
Posts: 410

08 Aug 2010, 1:58 pm

Asp-Z wrote:
Fuzzy wrote:
Lets not quibble: Apple faces this conundrum too.


No they don't. Apple couldn't care less how many people buy the new operating system, as long as they can put the flashy new features on the new Macs. Apple is a hardware company first, software company second, and it's the hardware sales that make up the large portion of their profit.


Which is why they're more evil than Microsoft.



Keith
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Aug 2008
Age: 41
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,321
Location: East Sussex, UK

08 Aug 2010, 2:18 pm

Orwell wrote:
Keith wrote:
Jookia wrote:
Can you guys name a good Windows OS?


Windows 8 won't be different, it's just hype.


Whoa, where did you get 8 from? We're still waiting on 7. Then 7.1 and THEN 8

You do realize that software version numbers are completely arbitrary, right? They can call it Windows gamma.blue.unicorn if they want.


You can get more information from the numbers than the name. Except that Windows 6.x uses the same numbers for bother 32bit and 64bit builds. To me, Microsoft's latest operating system is called Seven, not 7. I don't believe the next operating system WILL be called Windows 8. Just because the previous version was called 7. Windows 98 was to be Windows 97. Two year gap there ;) notice anything?

I prefer the numbers to names



Orwell
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 8 Aug 2007
Age: 35
Gender: Male
Posts: 12,518
Location: Room 101

08 Aug 2010, 5:30 pm

Keith wrote:
I prefer the numbers to names

The numbers are just another form of name. There is no functional difference between Windows 6.1 and Windows chair.toenail. Bloatware by any other name runs just as slow.


_________________
WAR IS PEACE
FREEDOM IS SLAVERY
IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH


nodice1996
Supporting Member
Supporting Member

User avatar

Joined: 3 Jan 2008
Age: 28
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,047
Location: Michigan

08 Aug 2010, 9:44 pm

Orwell wrote:
nodice1996 wrote:
Orwell wrote:
Seven needs more than one gig of ram. It's laggy on my machine even with four gigs (and yes, I know people will blame my graphics card, but I've seen it on discrete graphics systems- still laggy).

What do you mean? It runs fast, even on my moms laptop (2gb RAM, 2.4 GHZx2 proc., Integrated Graphics) it's no faster on my computer (4gb Ram, 2.6ghzx4 AMD Proc., Radeon HD 4830 512MB) The only difference appears when running games and editing video. The same differences would appear on any OS.

EDIT: Removed irrelevant portions of quote

Maybe we have different expectations of speed. I shouldn't have to wait 60-90 seconds after login for Firefox and Thunderbird to be running and usable.

I've seen Win7 x64 on high-end systems (quad-core i7, 8 gigs of memory, 1GB Nvidia graphics card) and at that point it is actually fast. Roughly equivalent to running Linux on my laptop.

Hm. I leave my computer logged in most of the time. It reboots automatically at 3AM, and logs in automatically. Why would you log out?


_________________
Guns don't kill people--Magic Missiles Do.


Keith
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Aug 2008
Age: 41
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,321
Location: East Sussex, UK

08 Aug 2010, 11:45 pm

Orwell wrote:
Keith wrote:
I prefer the numbers to names

The numbers are just another form of name. There is no functional difference between Windows 6.1 and Windows chair.toenail. Bloatware by any other name runs just as slow.


Windows chair.toenail might be better than Windows Seven - but taking up 4GB RAM instead being 64bit. as the boundary would have been broken
:lol:



Asp-Z
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 6 Dec 2009
Age: 31
Gender: Male
Posts: 11,018

09 Aug 2010, 4:57 am

Jookia wrote:
Asp-Z wrote:
Fuzzy wrote:
Lets not quibble: Apple faces this conundrum too.


No they don't. Apple couldn't care less how many people buy the new operating system, as long as they can put the flashy new features on the new Macs. Apple is a hardware company first, software company second, and it's the hardware sales that make up the large portion of their profit.


Which is why they're more evil than Microsoft.


Why? Because their business dosen't rely on selling $500 discs? :roll:



Fuzzy
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 30 Mar 2006
Age: 52
Gender: Male
Posts: 5,223
Location: Alberta Canada

09 Aug 2010, 7:54 am

Asp-Z, you really dont like thinking your statements through, do you?

Asp-Z wrote:
hardware sales that make up the large portion of their profit.

Asp-Z wrote:
Why? Because their business dosen't rely on selling $500 discs? :roll:


So somehow taking the markup off the software and tacking it onto the hardware and means it costs less? Despite being no fan of windows, I checked and windows seven ultimate only costs about half of what you said. Where are you pulling these goofy numbers from?

Maybe you mean office 2010? Its still only 300 bucks. And guess what? You have to pay the same price for it in OSX. Total savings to OSX customer? None.

So whats this mythical 500 dollar disk?

Lets get down to simple facts: OSX costs more and it doesnt matter whether the price is tacked on hardware or software. Bollocks to the OSX tax.


_________________
davidred wrote...
I installed Ubuntu once and it completely destroyed my paying relationship with Microsoft.


Orwell
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 8 Aug 2007
Age: 35
Gender: Male
Posts: 12,518
Location: Room 101

09 Aug 2010, 7:56 am

nodice1996 wrote:
Orwell wrote:
nodice1996 wrote:
Orwell wrote:
Seven needs more than one gig of ram. It's laggy on my machine even with four gigs (and yes, I know people will blame my graphics card, but I've seen it on discrete graphics systems- still laggy).

What do you mean? It runs fast, even on my moms laptop (2gb RAM, 2.4 GHZx2 proc., Integrated Graphics) it's no faster on my computer (4gb Ram, 2.6ghzx4 AMD Proc., Radeon HD 4830 512MB) The only difference appears when running games and editing video. The same differences would appear on any OS.

EDIT: Removed irrelevant portions of quote

Maybe we have different expectations of speed. I shouldn't have to wait 60-90 seconds after login for Firefox and Thunderbird to be running and usable.

I've seen Win7 x64 on high-end systems (quad-core i7, 8 gigs of memory, 1GB Nvidia graphics card) and at that point it is actually fast. Roughly equivalent to running Linux on my laptop.

Hm. I leave my computer logged in most of the time. It reboots automatically at 3AM, and logs in automatically. Why would you log out?

I multi-boot, so Windows was not the only thing on my hard drive. I would spend most of my time in GNU/Linux.

Once it had gotten started, Windows was a bit faster... just about tolerable, actually, but still significantly slower than Ubuntu or Snow Leopard.


_________________
WAR IS PEACE
FREEDOM IS SLAVERY
IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH


Orwell
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 8 Aug 2007
Age: 35
Gender: Male
Posts: 12,518
Location: Room 101

09 Aug 2010, 7:59 am

Fuzzy wrote:
Lets get down to simple facts: OSX costs more and it doesnt matter whether the price is tacked on hardware or software. Bollocks to the OSX tax.

Snow Leopard only costs $29. And at least if you buy OS X, it is because you specifically wanted it, so it's not really a "tax." Windows on the other hand comes with almost every computer whether you want it or not. That's a tax.


_________________
WAR IS PEACE
FREEDOM IS SLAVERY
IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH


Fuzzy
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 30 Mar 2006
Age: 52
Gender: Male
Posts: 5,223
Location: Alberta Canada

09 Aug 2010, 8:01 am

Asp-Z wrote:
Fuzzy wrote:
Lets not quibble: Apple faces this conundrum too.


No they don't. Apple couldn't care less how many people buy the new operating system, as long as they can put the flashy new features on the new Macs. Apple is a hardware company first, software company second, and it's the hardware sales that make up the large portion of their profit.


Here you seem to be suggesting that Apple isnt selling operating systems at all. This is complete nonsense, and its like saying Ford doesnt sell steering wheels in their automobiles. You can ask anyone with an old G5 if Apple ever locks old customers out of new features. Maybe Orwell can remind you that his 64 bit capable machine wasnt permitted to run anything but 32 bit snow leopard.

You CAN buy a regular intel or amd machine with no operating system, but I'd be surprised as hell if you ever purchased an Apple with nothing on it.

They've got you pretty well indoctrinated, dont they?


_________________
davidred wrote...
I installed Ubuntu once and it completely destroyed my paying relationship with Microsoft.


Asp-Z
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 6 Dec 2009
Age: 31
Gender: Male
Posts: 11,018

09 Aug 2010, 8:28 am

Fuzzy wrote:
So somehow taking the markup off the software and tacking it onto the hardware and means it costs less? Despite being no fan of windows, I checked and windows seven ultimate only costs about half of what you said. Where are you pulling these goofy numbers from?

Maybe you mean office 2010? Its still only 300 bucks. And guess what? You have to pay the same price for it in OSX. Total savings to OSX customer? None.

So whats this mythical 500 dollar disk?

Lets get down to simple facts: OSX costs more and it doesnt matter whether the price is tacked on hardware or software. Bollocks to the OSX tax.


I'm pretty sure Vista Ultimate cost about that in it's day. But anyways, ya wanna know how much it cost me to upgrade to Snow Leopard? £25. Quite a bit cheaper than even Windows 7 Basic.

I'd rather pay for an expensive, good quality, well built computer once than have to pay extortionate prices for each OS update after buying a cheap plasticy PC.

Take resell value into account too. How much do you think an average used PC will sell for? Hardly anything, because new ones are so damn cheap. But a Mac is more of an investment. Hell, Macs from 2000 still sell for over £100!

And try selling a used Vista disc... You'll be lucky to get £50 for it today, and that's if you got Ultimate.

As for having to pay the same for MS Office for Mac, well duh, it's still Microsoft that sets the prices :roll:

Fuzzy wrote:
Asp-Z wrote:
Fuzzy wrote:
Lets not quibble: Apple faces this conundrum too.


No they don't. Apple couldn't care less how many people buy the new operating system, as long as they can put the flashy new features on the new Macs. Apple is a hardware company first, software company second, and it's the hardware sales that make up the large portion of their profit.


Here you seem to be suggesting that Apple isnt selling operating systems at all. This is complete nonsense, and its like saying Ford doesnt sell steering wheels in their automobiles. You can ask anyone with an old G5 if Apple ever locks old customers out of new features. Maybe Orwell can remind you that his 64 bit capable machine wasnt permitted to run anything but 32 bit snow leopard.

You CAN buy a regular intel or amd machine with no operating system, but I'd be surprised as hell if you ever purchased an Apple with nothing on it.

They've got you pretty well indoctrinated, dont they?


Ford sell cars with steering wheels, but they also don't really care how many people buy the steering wheels separate from the car.

The thing about 32-bit Snow Leopard is crap. The kernel of SL dosen't run at 64-bit by default. You can hack it to do so, but it'd be damn slow. Apps, however, can still run in 64-bit mode, as many do on my MacBook.



lau
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 17 Jun 2006
Age: 76
Gender: Male
Posts: 9,797
Location: Somerset UK

09 Aug 2010, 8:36 am

nodice1996 wrote:
Orwell wrote:
nodice1996 wrote:
Orwell wrote:
Seven needs more than one gig of ram. It's laggy on my machine even with four gigs (and yes, I know people will blame my graphics card, but I've seen it on discrete graphics systems- still laggy).

What do you mean? It runs fast, even on my moms laptop (2gb RAM, 2.4 GHZx2 proc., Integrated Graphics) it's no faster on my computer (4gb Ram, 2.6ghzx4 AMD Proc., Radeon HD 4830 512MB) The only difference appears when running games and editing video. The same differences would appear on any OS.

EDIT: Removed irrelevant portions of quote

Maybe we have different expectations of speed. I shouldn't have to wait 60-90 seconds after login for Firefox and Thunderbird to be running and usable.

I've seen Win7 x64 on high-end systems (quad-core i7, 8 gigs of memory, 1GB Nvidia graphics card) and at that point it is actually fast. Roughly equivalent to running Linux on my laptop.

Hm. I leave my computer logged in most of the time. It reboots automatically at 3AM, and logs in automatically. Why would you log out?

What's far more interesting is... why would you reboot!

I'll admit that I rebooted this machine (still running Hardy Heron) three days ago, because I felt like letting the new kernel start up. Prior to that, it had had a month of continuous uptime... since the last time I chose to start up a new kernel. I must find out the detail on how to live switch kernels... then only power cuts will result in a reboot.


_________________
"Striking up conversations with strangers is an autistic person's version of extreme sports." Kamran Nazeer