Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login
Arrow Left Previous Page
Page / 2
Posted: 12/2/2001 12:49:10 PM EDT
Does anyone have this? Does it work good? I have windows ME and i think it sucks. I am thinking of getting XP.
Link Posted: 12/2/2001 12:55:12 PM EDT
Originally Posted By Orion526: Does anyone have this? Does it work good? I have windows ME and i think it sucks. I am thinking of getting XP.
View Quote
I do. Yes, it does work good. Very good. Please replace ME if your PC has the resources, you will thank yourself. Juggernaut
Link Posted: 12/2/2001 12:56:15 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 12/2/2001 12:49:56 PM EDT by Garmentless]
I think it sucks. It's been benchmarked 20 -25% slower than Win2000, and my experience says thats right. I also had problems with adding components to OfficeXP when I was logged in as someone else. It makes you go into Admin to add the components, OK, but it hosed up the install and never completed it. Then I logged in as another account later (w/admin privledges) and it started going into that Ofc install routine again. My verdict: Stay with Win2K. Edited to say go to Win2k. Yes, dump ME.
Link Posted: 12/2/2001 12:56:21 PM EDT
Link Posted: 12/2/2001 12:56:29 PM EDT
I too have ME, I almost bought XP last weekend, but I want to be able to put it on all the puters in my house (3), and I understand you have to buy licenses for each machine!!! Another screw tightened by the Microsucks network.
Link Posted: 12/2/2001 1:00:27 PM EDT
Runnin XP here. I find it very comparable to W2K in most respects. I use Remote Desktop Sharing from work, so I can access my box here and do stuff on it. A lot of the features have been dumbed-down a little for ease of use. DEFINITELY better than Me... anything is better than Me. If you get it, or any of you have it, check out Tweak XP. Pretty nifty little program.
Link Posted: 12/2/2001 1:40:57 PM EDT
I have been running XP for 3 months now and love it more stable and faster the Win 98SE or Win 2k. I also think Office XP is a great program as well. I think this is the first must have operating system since Win 95. I have this on 4 computers at home and must say it is great, the only machine that doesn't seem as fast is a Celeron 400 with 128mb of ram the rest of my machine are 550 + with 256 ram. So I think ram is a big speed issue. To top it of WPA has proven to be a moot point. Clinth
Link Posted: 12/2/2001 1:42:34 PM EDT
I've got XP and I think it runs great. I haven't had any problems with it. Michael
Link Posted: 12/2/2001 1:45:14 PM EDT
I just got Windows xp simply because Windows ME was such a drag. I have an AMD Athalon 1.2 Gb computer with a lot of memory. With Windows ME, I never thought I got near the speed that I used to get on my 600 MHz computer running Windows 98 SE. And it would 'freeze' all the time! I mean to the point that 'control-alt-delete' would not have any effect on the computer - you had to just cut the power and boot up! Yes, Windows xp can be a bitch to install programs on, and I had to reinstall a lot of new drivers on all the hardware stuff, but it appears to be damn well worth it! I'll let you know more in a couple of months! Eric The(GodForbidIShouldGetAMac!)Hun[>]:)]
Link Posted: 12/2/2001 2:03:51 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 12/2/2001 2:00:35 PM EDT by trs76]
XP is siginificantly slower than Windows 2000. And, I don't really see any benefit to having it at the moment. I bought it, installed it, thought it was pretty, but promptly went back to 2000. Biggest complaint was that some of my software choked on XP, and some programs ran really slow. I'll take performance/stability/compatbility over a pretty pastel-colored desktop. I think Windows ME is perhaps the WORST OS ever put out by Microsoft). Works alright for some people, but I've had nothing but problems with it (handles memory poorly, interprocess communication blows, stability is questionable). ME especially sucks on faster machines (500+ MHz). Works OK on my wife's P2-300 w/128Megs for WORD and Internet browsing, but sucks on my 1.4GHz with 1Gig RAM.
Link Posted: 12/2/2001 2:33:19 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 12/2/2001 2:27:57 PM EDT by Duffy]
Link Posted: 12/2/2001 2:35:35 PM EDT
i have a Dell Inspiron 4000. Lock ups, jerking and all that crap. Windows ME is a pile shit! I windows 98 is my favorite. I have it on my IBM Aptiva. With all the replies i have just gotten, think it is safe to say that i WILL be getting XP tomorrow. Thanks [beer]
Link Posted: 12/2/2001 2:50:43 PM EDT
If you get it, or any of you have it, check out Tweak XP. Pretty nifty little program.
View Quote
Where is this program? I ran a search for it and came up blank.
Link Posted: 12/2/2001 2:54:07 PM EDT
Microsoft producer of fine [size=5][b]Shit[/b][/size=5].
Link Posted: 12/2/2001 2:58:43 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 12/2/2001 2:58:52 PM EDT by drfcolt]
Originally Posted By Juggernaut:
Originally Posted By Orion526: Does anyone have this? Does it work good? I have windows ME and i think it sucks. I am thinking of getting XP.
View Quote
I do. Yes, it does work good. Very good. Please replace ME if your PC has the resources, you will thank yourself. Juggernaut
View Quote
I TOTALLY agree. I just upgraded from ME to XP/Pro and what a world of difference. ZERO crashes so far. I also upgraded to Office/XP. Also very nice. I use Win2K/Pro at work and XP/Pro is very close. I also upgraded from Win2K/Pro to XP/Pro at work and XP/Pro is definitely faster. All depends on your environment as to whether or not you see an improvement or not over Win2K. Anything is better than ME. I think MicroSoft may have hit on something this time. Biggest problem is getting new drivers for some peripherals (Colorado tape drive, Logitech camera, ...).
Link Posted: 12/2/2001 3:20:01 PM EDT
I'm running XP Professional and XP Home Edition. I've upgraded one machine from Win2000 to XP and I'm very happy with the results. I'm also now running XP on one of my older 300mhz laptops (replaced 98) and it's working like a champ too. XP is GREAT at home... if you're using your machine for something more than office work, you'll much rather have XP installed than Win2k. Windows 2000 makes a better server obviously, but for a home machine Win2k SUCKS. XP is one of the best OS's to come out of Microsoft's programming sweat-shops in a long time. Kudo's to MS for getting this one right!
Link Posted: 12/2/2001 4:10:30 PM EDT
I bought an HP with XP installed. Only problem so far is no matter how many times I check the save password box it will not remember passwords on any programs I run. Any suggestions?
Link Posted: 12/2/2001 4:28:36 PM EDT
XP pro does not require you to register in thirty days. have it on my 1.2 AMD and it runs great faster boot up than Win 2000 only downside is takes loger to shutdown it seems
Link Posted: 12/2/2001 5:13:45 PM EDT
Would Win2k be better than Win98SE at home on a P2?
Link Posted: 12/2/2001 5:56:24 PM EDT
Originally Posted By Orion526: Does anyone have this? Does it work good? I have windows ME and i think it sucks. I am thinking of getting XP.
View Quote
Anything Windows sucks. Get a Mac! And get OSX! It rocks! [url]www.apple.com[/url]
Link Posted: 12/2/2001 5:59:54 PM EDT
Originally Posted By cwalker3:
If you get it, or any of you have it, check out Tweak XP. Pretty nifty little program.
View Quote
Where is this program? I ran a search for it and came up blank.
View Quote
[url]www.tweakxp.com[/url]
Link Posted: 12/2/2001 6:08:11 PM EDT
Win2k was a HUGE step forward for the windows platform over win9x or winME. I've been running Win2k for ~a year and a half or so with no problem at all. I installed winXP about a month ago. I see no significant difference between the performance of the two. Both are very stable, XP is more user-friendly to less experienced users. I personally prefer Win2k, but you would be much better served with either. You will see a major difference from ME.
Link Posted: 12/2/2001 6:09:34 PM EDT
Thanks for the url, kuryakyn, that one just went into my favorites...
Link Posted: 12/2/2001 6:18:44 PM EDT
I am running Microsoft Windows XP Professional. It is a great Operating System. I first got XP in March when I downloaded a copy of Beta 2. Then in early August, I finally got RC1. RC2 came shortly thereafter. Overall, it is a great OS. I went to the rollout on October 25, and it was great. MS showed alot of neat features that most people don't know about. Yes, it is slower than Windows 2000. This is only because it uses alot more animations and graphics. I personally hate the XP look. So, I cahnged mine to Classic Look. I turned off all the extra little animations, sounds, etc. and it runs alot faster. Still not as fast as 2K. But, I can do alot more in XP. In fact, XP will run my DVDs, but 2K wouldn't. That isn't important since I got a DVD Player for my TV, but the added Multimedia capabilities are great. I am currently working on burning my porno movies onto video discs so I can watch them on my DVD Player. I edit my videos, etc... It actually will stay on longer than 2K. Unfortunately, when it does have to be rebooted, it has become unusable. A quick reboot and it is ready to go. Windows 2000 was a great OS. Windows XP combined the stability of 2K and the Multimedia abilities of 9x. Unfortunately, XP treats me like an idiot when I want to do detailed configurations. Stuff like "Are you sure you want to do this ?" I already set the Local Security Policy to Silently Succeed on Unsigned Programs, etc... That way I no longer get as many annoying messages. RC1 had an issue with programs hanging. This appears to have been cleared up. Beta 2 didn't operate right with CD-Rws. This also appears to have been cleared up. Overall, great OS. Definitely Upgrade: Windows 3.1, 95A, 95B, 95C, 98, 98SE, ME, NT3, NT4 Upgrade If you do alot of Graphics/Multimedia: Windows 2000
Link Posted: 12/2/2001 7:01:27 PM EDT
WARNING has screwed up many broadband services and they can;t fix it yet..
Link Posted: 12/2/2001 7:25:07 PM EDT
Originally Posted By thee12nv: WARNING has screwed up many broadband services and they can;t fix it yet..
View Quote
Details? How does this "screwing up" happen? Can't say there's any evidence of it here. I have a co-worker on DSL using XP Pro, one on Comcast cable using XP Pro, and my dad and myself running XP Pro, and using Comcast@home with nary a hitch. YMMV, of course, but where's this info from? Juggernaut
Link Posted: 12/2/2001 7:49:02 PM EDT
I'll chime in again.... if people notice any sluggishness in XP, there are a lot of things you can disable, most of it being in the grapical interface. In the Display Properties, you can switch everything to 'Windows Classic' which looks just like W2K, and runs like it. Me was junk, but from what I heard, it's going EOL in January, with Win98 and NT 4.0 going EOL in June. I'll be happy to get RID of 9x and NT. I did an upgrade from W2K, took a whopping 35 minutes or so. I have noticed XP boots a little faster than W2K. Remote Desktop Sharing is accessible via the W2K Server version of Terminal Services Client. (I use this from work to access my box here) XP will only allow one user to be using the system at once, so it's a stripped down version of the Terminal Server. Having problems with programs running in XP? Set the compatibility mode to whatever OS it worked in the best. I haven't run into a need to use this, but a buddy at work says he has, and it works pretty well. M@ (Dell Precision Workstation Support Technician)
Link Posted: 12/2/2001 8:25:50 PM EDT
[img]http://lewistechnogroup.com/images/screen1.jpg[/img] This about sums it up.... Stick with OS-X!
Link Posted: 12/2/2001 8:36:34 PM EDT
Originally Posted By libertyof76:
Originally Posted By Orion526: Does anyone have this? Does it work good? I have windows ME and i think it sucks. I am thinking of getting XP.
View Quote
Anything Windows sucks. Get a Mac! And get OSX! It rocks! [url]www.apple.com[/url]
View Quote
Oh you people, and your Tonka toys...I have to deal with enough of this crap at work from a manic D.I. dept. Juggernaut
Link Posted: 12/2/2001 8:53:29 PM EDT
Wow, Mac OS X is wild. Is that Grab Menu New. I don't remember it in OS 8. OS 7.5 was out before Windows 95 and was much better than WIndows 3.11. Folowing the release of Windows 95, MS began to get alot of Mac Users. The only real reason Mac never took over was compatibility. If you want a Mac look on a PC try BeOS. Overall, if Apple would have utilized the equipment to the best of its ability, they could have gained market share. Their biggest mistake was not allowing clones for so long. Then, yanking the clones around until they no longer existed. PCs can utilize the equipment best becuase if Asus doesn't, then Abit will and will take their market share at the same time. Competition meant that PCs run as well as the equipment allows. Macs have yet to utilize the full power of their equipment Could you imagine if Apple were to utilize the full power of the G4 processor. They would waste PC Compatibles. Instead they screw it up by limiting the ability of their systems. A system is only as good as its weakest link and Apple has proven this beyond a shadow of a doubt. BTW, has anybody ever had to deal with a Macintosh crashing. Now there is something fucking scary. Macintoshes are good machines are very multimedia usable. But, until Apple does 2 things they will be decimated by PC clones. 1) Let go of this propriatary crap. It is holding back their technology. 2) Improve compatibility. Possibly, they could create more compilers for various PC languages so that software could be more easily ported. Now, to port the software we need the source code. This is up to software manufacturers. But, I would scope out some linux software to port to Macintosh if you choose.
Link Posted: 12/2/2001 9:03:25 PM EDT
Alternately, you can install an OS which allows you to take full advantage of the SPEED of your hardware, without any of the performance-dragging garbage that Microsoft insists on loading into everything: Linux. http://[url]http://www.linux.org[/url] http://[url]http://www.redhat.com[/url] http://[url]http://www.mandrakesoft.com[/url] http://[url]http://www.suse.com[/url] http://[url]http://www.slashdot.org[/url]
Link Posted: 12/2/2001 9:16:49 PM EDT
Achmed, I tried both RedHat and Mandrake. I haven't had much luck with compatibility and with using it on the same computer as Windoze. When I complete my one of my other systems, I will place Mandrake on it. Linux really needs to be on its own system. And, that system needs to have a minum of extra odd hardware. If I use standard stuff then it might work better. RedHat doesn't like my NIC, Modem, or Video Adapter. Makes a good Server though. Leave it sitting and use it for Telnet and Secure Shell Acess. Then you can load files or Web Pages onto it. As a workstation, Linux is still lacking. Great server though.
Link Posted: 12/2/2001 9:26:42 PM EDT
Originally Posted By Juggernaut: Oh you people, and your Tonka toys...I have to deal with enough of this crap at work from a manic D.I. dept. Juggernaut
View Quote
Tonka Toys? We have the power of Unix!
Link Posted: 12/2/2001 9:51:52 PM EDT
Originally Posted By cc48510:Wow, Mac OS X is wild. Is that Grab Menu New. I don't remember it in OS 8. OS 7.5 was out before Windows 95 and was much better than WIndows 3.11. Folowing the release of Windows 95, MS began to get alot of Mac Users.
View Quote
The Grab Menu is actually the Application menu. Whatever application is currently running has its Name in that place, and in that menu is such items as "Preferences", "Hide", "Quit" etc. MS may have gotten some Mac Users, but Apple got a lot of MS users too.
The only real reason Mac never took over was compatibility. Their biggest mistake was not allowing clones for so long. Then, yanking the clones around until they no longer existed.
View Quote
The clones were a very bad idea. They didn't bring any new users to the Mac, and the machines were terrible, excepting PowerComputing. It made headaches when dealing with tech support. Besides, the best thing about Macs is their tight integration b/w hardware and software
PCs can utilize the equipment best becuase if Asus doesn't, then Abit will and will take their market share at the same time. Competition meant that PCs run as well as the equipment allows. Macs have yet to utilize the full power of their equipment Could you imagine if Apple were to utilize the full power of the G4 processor. They would waste PC Compatibles. Instead they screw it up by limiting the ability of their systems. A system is only as good as its weakest link and Apple has proven this beyond a shadow of a doubt.
View Quote
I don't think that is an issue. They are still competing with PCs. And I don't see how they are limiting there systems.
BTW, has anybody ever had to deal with a Macintosh crashing. Now there is something fucking scary.
View Quote
How do you mean? Is it any worse than the Blue Screen of Death for Windows? The MacOS has always been at least as stable as Windows, if not more. And with OSX, crashes occur very rarely. In fact I have had only 1 crash of the entire system since Sept. And I hardly reboot. I just put my system to sleep. I could go WEEKS without rebooting, if I didn't want to play games and scan my HD(those apps aren't out for X yet)
Macintoshes are good machines are very multimedia usable. But, until Apple does 2 things they will be decimated by PC clones. 1) Let go of this propriatary crap. It is holding back their technology.
View Quote
I don't think that is an issue. If anything, that comment should be directed right at MS
2) Improve compatibility. Possibly, they could create more compilers for various PC languages so that software could be more easily ported.
View Quote
Compatibility how? Any mac since 93 or so can read PC floppy disks, zip drives(when they came out, which was later), cd-roms, dvd-roms, etc. It has built in software to route a pc document to the appropriate app. AppleWorks can read Office documents. Plus you can get a sweet app call MacLinkPlus which can convert almost any PC document to an appropriate Mac document. That's what I use, so that I am completely MS-free. And Apple can't make it any easier to port Apps to the Mac.
Now, to port the software we need the source code. This is up to software manufacturers. But, I would scope out some linux software to port to Macintosh if you choose.
View Quote
And that is exceedingly easy on OSX, since Unix is the basis for it.
Link Posted: 12/2/2001 10:06:30 PM EDT
Here is a screen shot from my Computer: [img]http://www.muyfa.com/matthewbutch/Pictures/Misc/screensm.jpg[/img] (here is a full screen version: [url]http://www.muyfa.com/matthewbutch/Pictures/Misc/screen.jpg[/url] OmniWeb is the Application I use. See were Grab was, but OmniWeb is there. I also took the picture with the Menu down so you could see it. Notice that the text is AntiAliased. OmniWeb is a totally Native Web browser to X and I love it. It takes advantage of all of OSX's advanced features. See the Dock at the Bottom? I always have a Processor temp, Processor Load, Memory Load, and a Internet Data Monitors going on so I can see the status of my system. Man I love OSX! [:D]Esp. protected memory. Not having to worry if the whole system is going to die after a application crash is worth the money w/o anything else! Preemptive multitasking is sweet too. Too each is own I guess
Link Posted: 12/2/2001 10:28:22 PM EDT
Buy Xp so you can update it ASAP so it runs better or switch off an interface when the interface is a selling point so it runs better. Now that makes sense. I have also been told it has stealth programs running in the background, is this true? Personally I have 98se and still have 2000 new in the box at home (hey it was free) and have no plans on switching that either.
Link Posted: 12/2/2001 10:41:56 PM EDT
Protected memory and preemtive multitasking are good things. Too bad Apple was 10 years behind MS in offering these features. :) Apple has no place to go simply because they do not have the support of the software development community. If they had their sh*t together, they would offer free machines and development tools to experienced developers just so they can get a real application base going. Until there is something like Visual Basic or Delphi for OSX, solid RDMS, etc., developers simply will not jump on the bandwagon.
Link Posted: 12/3/2001 12:22:38 AM EDT
I just bought a brand-new Compaq Presario which came pre-loaded with WinXP. I took one look at that bubble-gum, Microsoft BOB-like interface and promptly formatted the hard drive and installed Win2000 Pro. Haven't looked back. Both operating systems have basically the same kernel, but one of them doesn't treat you like a three-year-old. [:D]
Link Posted: 12/3/2001 1:41:50 AM EDT
Originally Posted By Nimrod1193: I just bought a brand-new Compaq Presario which came pre-loaded with WinXP. I took one look at that bubble-gum, Microsoft BOB-like interface and promptly formatted the hard drive and installed Win2000 Pro. Haven't looked back. Both operating systems have basically the same kernel, but one of them doesn't treat you like a three-year-old. [:D]
View Quote
I like your style.
Link Posted: 12/3/2001 4:13:08 AM EDT
Originally Posted By libertyof76: How do you mean? Is it any worse than the Blue Screen of Death for Windows? The MacOS has always been at least as stable as Windows, if not more. And with OSX, crashes occur very rarely. In fact I have had only 1 crash of the entire system since Sept. And I hardly reboot. I just put my system to sleep. I could go WEEKS without rebooting, if I didn't want to play games and scan my HD(those apps aren't out for X yet)
View Quote
Woweee, [:D] I have NT 4.0 systems, _and_ OS/2 1.3 systems that have been running without rebooting for close to a year. I also have an NT 4.0 workstation that runs for months between reboots, and that is used for MS Office, remote control apps, Quake II server, etc.
Compatibility how? Any mac since 93 or so can read PC floppy disks, zip drives(when they came out, which was later), cd-roms, dvd-roms, etc. It has built in software to route a pc document to the appropriate app. AppleWorks can read Office documents. Plus you can get a sweet app call MacLinkPlus which can convert almost any PC document to an appropriate Mac document. That's what I use, so that I am completely MS-free. And Apple can't make it any easier to port Apps to the Mac.
View Quote
That's all nice and well, but who would want to port Apple applications to a PC? [beer]
Link Posted: 12/3/2001 4:42:09 AM EDT
XP is the future. It will replace all the existing Microsoft OS including Windows 2000.
Link Posted: 12/3/2001 4:59:58 AM EDT
[b] I heard you can burn copies of XP Pro and not have to register, is this true?[/b] [thinking] [thinking] [thinking] [thinking]
Link Posted: 12/3/2001 5:44:23 AM EDT
I have a coprorate Pro version which requires no activation [:o)]
Link Posted: 12/3/2001 6:43:33 AM EDT
The academic version does not require a code either. Av.
Link Posted: 12/3/2001 7:39:07 AM EDT
wow, I didn't realize Mac OS/X was so revolutionarily different from previous OSes. I left Macintoshes in 1996 when they were at OS 7.5.5. I had a laptop for a short while that ran OS 8. AT least my 7.5.5 had PCLink which was a little utility that simply allowed me to read PC disks. Nothing more. I had to find an appropriate application which was usually ClarisWorks which is now AppleWorks again. I kept hearing about Root and Command Line on Mac OS/X. I figured somebody'd been nipping aat the liquor cabinet a little too much. So, OS/X is just Unix with a Macintosh Look. I'll have to get it on one of my systems sometime. Unfortunately, my Mac won't support anything beyond OS/7.5.5 I guess its time to check out MacMall, MacWorld, etc...
Link Posted: 12/3/2001 12:18:44 PM EDT
Originally Posted By mattja: Protected memory and preemtive multitasking are good things. Too bad Apple was 10 years behind MS in offering these features. :) Apple has no place to go simply because they do not have the support of the software development community. If they had their sh*t together, they would offer free machines and development tools to experienced developers just so they can get a real application base going. Until there is something like Visual Basic or Delphi for OSX, solid RDMS, etc., developers simply will not jump on the bandwagon.
View Quote
I guess you're not too familiar with the Mac. OS-X comes with development tools in the box with the OS. There are tons of 3rd party (and Apple's) developer tools available . Check out an issue of [U]MacTech[/U] and you'll see what I mean. Now regarding this "proprietary" stuff I hear all of the time, whats proprietary about PCI slots, AGP, DIMMs, etc and an Open Source OS?? Apple just prefers to have some administrative controls in place. How often has a Mac user purchased a [B]Third Party[/B] piece of hardware to find it has compatability problems??? Rarely, extremely so! In the past all apple wanted developers to do was to follow conventions in hardware/software/firmware design. Most of these were clearly spelled out in their books [U]Inside The MacIntosh[/U] it was a series of reference manuals for the Mac hardware, software, driver development and conventions. In this regard, it wasn't a free for all, you know. On the other hand, everything else in my house is running Linux. No [B]real[/B] need for Micro$oft.
Link Posted: 12/3/2001 3:14:58 PM EDT
I have Win ME at home and don't have any problems. At work I upgraded to XP Pro and for the most part it works great, but just today my MS Outlook crashed and I'm reinstalling it and hope to have it up and running tomorrow. As far as Microsoft goes, they could sure as hell do a better job of making sure their software works before releasing it for sale. Just my humble opinion.
Link Posted: 12/3/2001 5:49:08 PM EDT
Link Posted: 12/3/2001 8:45:55 PM EDT
Originally Posted By misterhemi: Now regarding this "proprietary" stuff I hear all of the time, whats proprietary about PCI slots, AGP, DIMMs, etc and an Open Source OS??
View Quote
All of this is relatively new. Apple was closed source until OS X. Before PCI and AGP, Apple used Propriatary Card Slots. In fact, these weren't in use until recently. Apple discovered that to compete it needed to somewhat standardize it's architecture. DIMMs, well Apple has for a while been pretty good about supporting standard memory. Unfortunately, they don't come with much memory and until recently the upgradability of memory was pitiful. I bought a Mac and a PC around the same time. Both were brand new top of the line. Mac: 1 MB of RAM PC: 8 MB of RAM Mac: 5 MB Maximum PC: 72 MB Maximum Mac: Sole Propriatary Slot Was Already In Use PC: 3 PCI Card Slots with 2 Open Slots Mac: Came With Apple OS/7.1 PC: Came With MS Windows 3.11 Mac: Upgraded to a Apple OS/7.5.5 (Max It Could Handle) PC: Upgraded to Use Windows 95C. Could Have Handled Windows 98 and possibly NT4. Mac: Non-Standard 4x CD-Rom PC: Industry Standard 2x CD-Rom Mac: Expensive Propriatary CD-Rom Drive Required You To Insert Your Hand In A Small Opening. PC: Upgraded To 16x In 5 Minutes With No Special Tools Mac: Used Oddball Torx Screws PC: Used Standard Phillip's Head Screws Mac: Case Had One Small Piece That Came Off To Do Mantainance PC: Entire Cover Came Off Mac: No Expansion Bays PC: 1-5.25" Expansion Bay Now which did I choose. Damn sure I chose to abandon Macs altogether. Haven't used one since except for a laptop which was stolen shortly after I got it. But, even that only ran OS/8. It seems Apple is coming around finally to rational thinking. If only they would have realized this in 1994, I may not have abandoned them altogether.
Link Posted: 12/3/2001 8:59:19 PM EDT
Forgot to add: Mac: 300 MB Propriatary Hard Drive PC: 1.2 GB Standard Hard Drive Mac: Motorola 25 or 33 MHz (Can't Remember Which) 68020 Processor PC: Intel 60 MHz Pentium Processor This would have been around 94/95. It was before the advent of the PowerPC Processor. Shortly thereafter the 68040 became the big must have Mac Processor. This was also shortly before Windows 95 came out. The G3 and G4 Processors have only been around for a relatively short time. Once you realize that Apple is utilizing a 133 MHz Bus with a 128 Bit G4 Processor, you will realize just how much Pot Steve Jobs musta used. Golden Rule of computers is "Your System/Network Is Only As Fast As Its Weakest Link." The Bus sucks ass. This combined with crappy architecture ensured that Macs aren't quite up to par with PCs. Now, if they'd make OS/X for my Homebuilt PC Clone, then I might pick it up since it sounds a hell of a lot better than Windoze.
Link Posted: 12/3/2001 9:06:20 PM EDT
To put it in a short statement: Apple has and will always make a great Operating System. But, their hardware leaves alot to be desired. Make OS/X for PCs and I bet 10-1 that Apple will yank a large bunch of the marketshare from Microshaft.
Arrow Left Previous Page
Page / 2
Top Top