Well boys & girls
it's been a whole year
Last year looked like this
http://www.snoopy.force9.co.uk/dv_os_07.png
As before,
You can put more than 1 vote in, if you wish
(for dual booters, work / home, etc.)
Printable View
Well boys & girls
it's been a whole year
Last year looked like this
http://www.snoopy.force9.co.uk/dv_os_07.png
As before,
You can put more than 1 vote in, if you wish
(for dual booters, work / home, etc.)
I chose Linux, because the new Ubuntu beta is great.
I'm in XP now, because it seems that whenever I boot into Ubuntu, Windows forgets about my USB WLAN adapter - and it seems to corrupt the drivers when I reinstall, too.
Weird.
(I've got it installed on my primary NTFS partition, via Wubi)
I voted for Linux, Mac OS, and Other. Arch Linux for a desktop, Mac OS X for a laptop, and FreeBSD for a server.
i use vista on my laptop for non-engineering stuff ... and mostly linux on desktop when working with matlab, ansys ...
but i have to say i'm happy with vista ... so thats my vote
Linux would have to be my favorite, followed by my own custom created OS.
:shock: And we're not talking LFS, I assume, since that would qualify as Linux. Please do elaborate.Quote:
Originally Posted by Pyrofan1
OSX and Linux.
RightQuote:
And we're not talking LFS
There really isn't much more to say. I'm building my own OS from scratch in C and assembly. Here's a link if you want more info: http://www.osdev.org/Quote:
Please do elaborate.
Linux is nice.
That's pretty cool. I don't have enough time to check out the wiki right now, but what do you do for the kernel?Quote:
Originally Posted by Pyrofan1
What do you mean?Quote:
but what do you do for the kernel?
He is building it from scratch using C and assembly, like he said :PQuote:
Originally Posted by dsr
As in, he's writing his own kernel? I guess one would learn a lot about an OS's internals that way. It just kinda seems like reinventing the hubcap ;-)
Macro kernel or micro kernel?
yeahQuote:
As in, he's writing his own kernel?
Couldn't you say the same thing about Linux?Quote:
It just kinda seems like reinventing the hubcap
I'm going towards MicroQuote:
Macro kernel or micro kernel?
I voted Vista and Linux, as my main computer (a laptop) has a Vista and Ubuntu 7.10- dual boot setup.
Now if only I could access my NTFS partition from Ubuntu after Hibernating from Vista... :mad:
In what regard? Do you mean creating your own Linux distro? If so, then yeah that would also be reinventing the wheel. I guess the main purpose in creating your own OS is to learn more about its internals. Anyway, did you name your OS?Quote:
Originally Posted by Pyrofan1
One of the problems with this poll is that people who use more linux are more like (at least me) "I want everyone to know I use linux!" and thus more likely to answer such polls and view such threads. They are also more likely to check out the tech forum, as they are generally more tech like anyways. But yeah, ubuntu here. Can't wait till 8.04.
Well when Linux was first created there were already existing OSes so in essence creating an OS is similar to Linus creating Linux.Quote:
In what regard?
Yeah, PyroS. If you want to take a peak at the source code here's a link to the latest version: http://www.usnet1.net/pyros/PyroS.0.1.0.tar.gzQuote:
Anyway, did you name your OS?
Writing a kernel is fun. We wrote a simple OS in school to run on a motorola coldfire. Our "bsod" was a big ascii-art middle finger. :D
Here's my RSOD
http://s176.photobucket.com/albums/w...t=100_1997.jpg
Thank you, I will :DQuote:
Originally Posted by Pyrofan1
Ah the asm() command, I love that little thing :content: Makes me feel like writing super fast code just thinking about it.
the last poll took several months to settle downQuote:
Originally Posted by wasup
so give it time :)
Your Bresenham Algorithm looks incomplete, yours will only do lines with a positive slope. Do you not need the negative slope lines or would you like me to show you how?Quote:
Originally Posted by Pyrofan1
I use Vista here :)
I prefer Windows, but i have taken a liking to Mac OS, the only reason though is because i have had so many bad experiences with the computers i have had with windows. I have nothing wrong with windows, but i've had no problems with my Mac. I'm actually saving up so i can install vista on my mac :D
Give me the money and I will show you how to install ubuntu (which can literally do everything vista can do and more, and generally works better). That, or pirate vista. Either one is better than BUYING and SUPPORTING windows and vista.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lucid Seeker
Yeah, i've been hearing a lot of good things about Ubuntu, when i have a spare system to install it on i may give it a test run. Isn't it supposed to have some really cool graphical interface as well as great stability?Quote:
Originally Posted by wasup
to be honest, i've completely scratched that code (along with a lot more) for the next versionQuote:
Your Bresenham Algorithm looks incomplete, yours will only do lines with a positive slope. Do you not need the negative slope lines or would you like me to show you how?
Linux is the most stable OS out there, it's why 90% of embedded and servers use it. Ubuntu's look is kind of like a cross between Windows and OSX. It used to have the Mac's cool rotating cube thing, but they took that out for a sliding set of spaces.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lucid Seeker
Oh, I was wondering why you needed a line method anyway, you never used it.Quote:
Originally Posted by Pyrofan1
the cube's still thereQuote:
Originally Posted by ninja9578
it's just not enabled by default
Oh, mind telling me how to turn it on? It's not in the effects tab.
Ubuntu 7.10 seems to omit the compiz settings manager (I don't know why, seems a bit strange)Quote:
Originally Posted by ninja9578
apt-get install compizconfig-settings-manager
After that, you'll have a new menu item in preferences - "Advanced Desktop Effects"
In here, you can tweak compiz to your hearts content
:thanks: Ah, there's my old buddy. I wonder why they took it out as default in 7.10
I think it was just an oversightQuote:
Originally Posted by ninja9578
I use Vista... as I've got a fast desktop that can run it without problems. I've been meaning to install Ubuntu on one of my hard drives for months, but never seem to get around to it. I just don't see that point right now. Hell, I even stopped using XP32. Vista x64 has actually been more stable than XP32... go figure. Haven't seen a BSOD in months, running a large overclock too.
Because it's not actually the most effective way of switching desktops... I prefer "desktop wall" (I think that's what they call it - default anyhow).Quote:
Originally Posted by ninja9578
Linux and Windshit XP
Well the point is more choice... the compiz settings manager not being included is silly... it has a TON of features you can modify, and without it ubuntu seems more or less useless to me. You can still use things like expo (the equivalent of mac spaces) or the desktop wall or the cube. Choices are good :)Quote:
Originally Posted by Identity X
Yes, I entirely agree. It's the secnd thing I installed on by 8.10 install (after Opera :P)Quote:
Originally Posted by wasup
nearly 400 views, but only 27 votes
come on
XP for gaming(mainly WoW:D), Ubuntu for everything else.
You can run WoW in Ubuntu with Wine. AppDB gave it a gold medal for compatibility.
Windows is going downhill for gaming, they're trying to force DirectX on developers and they don't want to do that because all the other major platforms are OpenGL only.
I know it's possible, but it isn't perfect. I had to disable the full screen glow and the death glow, also the game would crash much too often (related to minimizing and switching to windowed mode). Ironically, with cedega it's even worse.Quote:
Originally Posted by dsr
Cedega's quite inferior to Wine, now
(Wine's had better compatibility since the 0.9.30's - current version is 0.9.59)
I've had great success with WoW running in OpenGL mode
full screen in a virtual desktop
I think, from memory, I used this guide
http://www.wowwiki.com/Linux/Wine
no crashes, or anything
The important bit, is telling WoW to use OpenGL, rather than DirectX
Open up Config.wtf
and add the following line
Regarding Cedega,Code:SET gxApi "opengl"
Please bear in mind that Cedega is a proprietary fork of wine from back in 2002.
since then, Wine (in my opinion, at least) has far surpassed it
Having said all that,
I do find I drop about 10 FPS running WoW under wine, compared to under WinXP
so, if you're on the fringe of acceptable FPS, you may want to stick with WinXP for performance reasons
That's exactly the guide I followed. For opengl to work I had to disable said effects (they're really minor things, but I think it's worth rebooting to xp to have them), I googled to no end and couldn't find solution for the crashes. :?
With cedega the game was just unplayable with all the slowness, good thing I didn't pay for it.
Windows XP. I skip Vista, then go for Windows 7.
I was on Linux for a couple of months, but after all it wasn't really worth it for me. And with my new rig I'll certainly stay with XP for best gaming compatibility and widest array of "stuff".
Good luck getting Windows 7 before you die. It'll either take forever to get out and suffer software rot, or they'll rush to get it out and release an unfinished product like Vista.
Ubuntu updated itself today and required a restart.
Now I don't think it boots.
Wahey!
have you got a problem?
If you can get to Grub,
see if you can roll back to a previous kernel
Try deleting your Wine registry (enter rm -rf ~/.wine in an xterm), reconfiguring Wine (enter winecfg), and reinstalling WoW according to the instructions on AppDB:Quote:
Originally Posted by Scatterbrain
I haven't read through that guide, so I'm not sure if the instructions do the same thing. But you might as well try with a fresh wine config.Quote:
Open a terminal window, (konsole/terminal/x terminal etc..), type regedit and press enter. This will start the Wine equivalent of the windows registry editor. If you are familiar with using the registry editor under windows then this is pretty much the same.Note: If you are unable to rename the newly created key "New Key #1" to "OpenGL" then expand the left hand pane of the regedit window using the vertical divider bar. You should now be able to change it. A known bug in Wine is causing this unwanted behavior.
- Find HKEY_CURRENT_USER\Software\Wine\
- Highlight the wine folder in the left hand pane by left clicking on it. The icon should change to an open folder.
- Click right on the wine folder and select [NEW] then [KEY].
- Replace the text "New Key #1" with OpenGL (CaSe Sensitive).
- Right click in the right hand pane and select [NEW] then [String Value].
- Replace "New Value #1" with "DisabledExtensions" (CaSe sensitive).
- Then double click anywhere on the line, a dialog box will open.
- In the value field type "GL_ARB_vertex_buffer_object" (without the quotes).
You should see a significant performance gain.
Thank you for the help but to run the game in opengl with anti-aliasing on, it's a must to have the death effect turned off, and even then it has to be the anti-aliasing activated through the GPU options so the game will run slower (besides having no death effect). I don't really mind having to reboot just for playing anyway.
What do you mean by this..?Quote:
Originally Posted by ninja9578
I've been looking around, but I can't find what this means, can you elaborate?
Lots of game companies are porting their big releases to non-windows platforms because of increasing number of users. Microsoft is trying to push DirectX 10, which has very limited backwards compatibility, so XP users are out of luck so no game developers are using it because XP is the dominate platform and they don't want to make Vista only games.
Because DirectX 10 has bad compatibility game developers are using OpenGL instead.
Another pull of OpenGL is that the most popular platforms are exclusively OpenGL, so why would they make DirectX ports when even Windows and Xbox support OpenGL too?
Like what companies?
Any companies that make games for the: Macintosh, Wii, PS2, PS3, Nintendo DS, PSP...
Correct me if I'm wrong the Wii and PS2 are the two most popular platforms. Both are OpenGL only.
yeah I think PS2 and Wii are the most popular.
I thought you meant PC games though, I thought consoles used totally different architecture.
bah you can see how little I know about this subject.
Most PC games also come out on these platforms and do much better there. The architectures are nearly identical to other computers, they just have some special stuff in them for rendering the graphics and the PS3 has the weird core processor. Their graphics cards are all OpenGL.
ok. thx for the help.
I am trying to talk to someone about this and I wasn't sure how to describe it, or if openGL is even commonly used for big level companies for computers.
If your graphics layer is well-written, it's not TOO horrible to port (comparatively), but games will definitely run better on OpenGL, due to the wider number of target platforms (since they will focus their optimizations there more).
Vista is sweet, don't know why every one is knocking it though, maybe they can't figure it out? My only complaint is it takes to much memory to run. I will fix it shortly by switching to 64 bit so it will recognize all 4gb of memory. Don't know what all will be 64bit compatible (game wise).
LOL, yeah, that's the reason.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dreamaholic
Yeah, none of us can understand why Vista 64-bit can't run Vista 32-bit software. The Intel processors have a built in compatibility mode. Both OSX and Linux still have some old 32-bit programs and they run just fine. I'm really surprised that Microsoft didn't just rip off the compatibility code, both Linux and OSX are open source :PQuote:
Originally Posted by Dreamaholic
crappy programmers who assume sizeof(pointer) == sizeof(int) and wonder why their program breaks on 64bit systemsQuote:
Originally Posted by ninja9578
Didn't they take CS 101? :P :lmao:
It would still work if Vista would just set a few flags to let the processor know to run them in 32-bit mode.
To their credit, they DID beef up security a lot (though it's kind of annoying to use hehe).
It's a shame they only managed to release half the product.
http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post...annoy-you.htmlQuote:
though it's kind of annoying to use hehe
Windows XP. :)
Sigged. Just because it made me laugh.Quote:
Originally Posted by Pyrofan1
that's debatableQuote:
Originally Posted by Replicon
I mean,
every vista help thread I've seen advices to switch off the UAC (expressly allow all actions)
Mainly because apps still expect to have write permissions to "program files"
and looking at any Vista tweak'ing howto, and the first thing they do is switch off the UAC and some even advise the activation of the super user account as default
it's not security
it's crass
but anywho....
Agreed. Real security is security that works behind the scenes and doesn't cause further problems. All those pop ups aren't security, they are the illusion of security.
I don't need to know about an intrusion attempt, block it and don't bother me. Microsoft's security system is like when the Big Tobacco gave a million dollars to charity then spent twenty million making sure that people knew it. Oh, it blocked one spyware program then told me about three times, does it want a cookie?
Yeah... vista's security system makes it so anytime someone gets a virus it can be entirely blamed on the user. I mean, if it asks you for EVERYTHING, then it's your fault if you accidently installed a virus... right?
Reconditioned XP yanno using those chop shop programs throw out the garbage saves on space, and processes being run at fresh install :D And then some improvements made then after.
And of course Linux, totally customizable bag of win right there :D
Re: apps expecting to write to Program Files:Quote:
Originally Posted by Ynot
1) that's bad coding practice :)
2) I thought they fixed that by having it re-route to the correct place to write, and making it seamless to the application (it thinks it's reading/writing inside program files).
I'm not contesting that UAC is annoying, and that I'd turn it off right off the bat.
Files are terrible in all versions of Windows. Lots of developers have tried figuring out the best way to allow programs to have access to it's files but not clutter things. Linux had a good one for a while when they hid everything in an invisible layer, but I haven't seen that in years.
Apple has the best right now where "programs" are actually specialized folders that have everything that the program needs. Programs don't make any files outside of that package with the exception of documents. That makes drag and drop installation and removal instead of having to go through that stupid Windows Install Wizard.
Microsoft has had that Program Files folder for 15 years, it's time that they got rid of it.
Oh oh, even worse than Program files... has anyone ever written an app for the Solaris OS? *shutters*
I have yet to install any program on Vista x64 that hasn't worked because it was 32-bit software. All 32-bit should software should be compatible. If it's not, it's not because it's 32-bit software running on a 64-bit operating system. Unless the software strictly relies on 32-bit drivers, then yeah, I guess unless some type of 64-bit drivers, the software wouldn't work.Quote:
Originally Posted by ninja9578
I'm not sure if you're agreeing or disagreeing with my post :? OSs can switch drivers on the fly and there are very few drivers in 64 bit that don't have a 32 bit equivalent.Quote:
Originally Posted by blade5x
Most software problems are happening because idiot programmers shove pointers into integers because they expect them to be the same size. If they leave them as pointers than they will work. The compiler will take care of that, and even if it doesn't then... a 32 bit pointer will fit in a 64 bit register :P
A well written OS shouldn't make a difference in whether the software is 32 or 64 bits, but Linux and OSX are both 64-bit OSs exclusively, but both have support for older programs that are 32-bit.
There are rumors of a Google OS, if they release one that will certainly stir up the marketplace.
They use a customised Ubuntu in-house, but in-house it will always remain. Android is as close as it gets to a Google OS, but that's for mobile devices only (and is more of an API).Quote:
Originally Posted by ninja9578
It's not really in Google's nature to produce an OSQuote:
Originally Posted by ninja9578
Like most open-source companies
They're core business is selling services, not products
(I know there's a few exceptions, but mainly)
the rumours, were about Android
which is a mobile phone API framework on top of Linux
macs rock my world I just got my first one last year and I love it in case you didn't notice my name its MACINTOSHpie.
Oh yeah and I do know that google is coming out with android, an os for phones. Google said they were going to make a gphone but ended up making android. The sdk is out now I downloaded it but its not as easy to use as the iPhone sdk. I live my iPhone I'm writing this on it right now!
They never said that.Quote:
Originally Posted by macintoshpie
I can tell by the typo :PQuote:
Originally Posted by macintoshpie
Wtf? People ACTUALLY prefer Vista? :?
What is the world coming to?
I doubt it, they are probably people who bought a new computer and didn't feel like spending the $90 for the "downgrade."
Or maybe people are realizing Vista isn't in the same state it was a year ago? It works, it's that simple.Quote:
Originally Posted by ninja9578
Actually, my father has Vista. It boots slow as hell (fast computer too, Pentium 4 Quad 2.80 GHz, 3 GB RAM), runs slow as hell, and asks permission for EVERYTHING. Even with SP1, it sucks ass..Quote:
Originally Posted by blade5x
Get this, it even blocked iexplore.exe (Internet Explorer). :?
wtf?
If he's got a Pentium 4, that's the problem. Most likely an older slower hard drive as well. Vista is not meant for older hardware. If he's got a Core 2 Quad (but there are none at 2.8GHz by default) then I'd be angry at it's performance as well. As far as boot time goes for me, on a E6600 dual core with 4GB of RAM, it's about half the time that XP32 took to boot. Granted, XP had more "shit" on it, but they both have about the same to load at boot.
If he doesn't want permissions, he could just disable UAC.
If IE is blocked, checked if the Windows firewall blocked it. He may have accidentally blocked it. Sometimes when a program is updated, the firewall will not recognize it, and a message will come up asking whether or not to allow it access to internet.
I'll admit, for the basic computer user, Vista is an annoyance. There's a few security features that will drive a person crazy. But these slowly go away. UAC is no where near as active as it was when I first installed Vista, or maybe I'm just used to it now, I don't know.
I just don't see any benefits whatsoever
now, believe me
I do try to be unbiased about this sort of thing
and I accept that any new product can (and will) have teething problems
but at the end of the day, people deal with these because there is some sort of perceived benefit "in the end"
I just don't see this benefit
I just don't see any benefit to Vista whatsoever
in fact, I think if anything, it's worse than when it was released
Now, I don't really have any experience using Vista at all - about 30 mins on someone else's machine, that's it
but I think I can make quite valid "technical" points all the same (you may not agree)
Now, you say Vista is not suitable for "the basic computer user"
that's about 90% of the Windows demographic
Purchasing a new operating system, plus a hardware upgrade just to achieve the same level of responsiveness as you had before is crass
and people refuse to do it
"Ah !!", you say
gamers - that missing 10% who will swing the tide in Vista's favour
Granted, they are going to have far beefier machines than the 90%
but they generally want to use all that extra horsepower for games, not to support a heavier OS
this is the world of overclocking and per-game tweaked graphics drivers
look on any gaming forum, and it's full of people complaining about losing 10 frames / sec compared with XP
DirectX 10 is a no-go'er
Vista was released 18 months ago
It's already half way through it's life-span
and to date, a mere 22 games have support for directx10
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of...ctX_10_support
12 of those are not released yet, so support is speculative (based on press releases)
All in all, whether you're a
corporate (work) user
home user
gamer
whatever
what does Vista offer in terms of improvements?
Nicely said. I agree completely. DirectX 10, what was Microsoft thinking? Do I have to go get Alex's big FAIL smiley again? :P
Halfway through it's life? That's an incorrect statement. Windows 7 is scheduled to be released in 2010, in Microsoft release date time that's 6 or 7 years away.
It has a nice feature for turning your computer into a paperweight.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ynot
well, based on MS's current scheduleQuote:
Originally Posted by ninja9578
Vista released 2007
Win7 scheduled for 2010
equals 3 year life-span for Vista
18 months being half way
yes, there are likely to be delays
but on the other hand, I think they'll want to shelve vista as quickly as possible.
(there's no way MS can compete in the mobile or ultra-portable market with Vista - they need something light-weight, and sooner rather than later, or they'll lose the low end completely)
Based on current schedule, it's half-way through
OH, I thought you were talking about real time schedule. Vista was supposed to only take 3 years to complete too :P
If they push out Windows 7 as quickly as possible they'll run into the same crap that they did with Vista: an unfinished OS.
If Windows 7 flops then Microsoft will be hanging on by a very thin thread and probably get crushed by something else.
There isn't much. But if you're building a new a system, it's pretty clear to me after using the OS that Vista is the way to go, when having to choose between purchasing XP32 or Vista (64-bit).Quote:
What does Vista offer in terms of improvements?
- Integrated search bar
- SuperFetch gives the system a better response, and works better with more memory.
- It looks better. Yes I actually do care heh. Ubuntu/Linxus has the eye candy, but I don't have the time to become proficient at using it.
- Much more secure
- 64-bit support. (As in better support than XP64)
None of these make the OS upgrade worth it, but if you are building a new machine, 64-bit Vista is the way to go if you need a Windows OS. Vista is a heavier OS, but so what? Today's hardware (and I'm not even at the ultra high end by today's standard) can run it no problem. It's people trying to run it on yesterday's hardware (built for XP) that are having the problems.
Even today's laptops with dual core chips and 2GB of RAM will run Vista fine. Integrated graphics still have problems running Aero smoothly, but of course people want the nice looks, and will complain about the slow response of it on the integrated chip. Though the be honest, on a laptop I'd prefer to have XP.
Only because we have yet to see a single game that runs off DX10 only. What happens when you throw DX10 on top of DX9? More code to process, making everything run more slowly. Vista is partly to blame for this, as not many are willing to use it over XP32. Making a game DX10 only will cut off a lot of the gaming market. I have mixed feelings on DX10. It still has yet to take off and will probably not become mainstream until next year.Quote:
DirectX 10 is a no-go'er
I'm not a heavy gamer, I just HATE slow computers. I'm not naturally an impatient person, yet I have no problem using Vista. The only performance hit I've seen is in some games, the frame rates can be 5-10% slower than those on XP. Which... is minimal. It's not until you enable DX10 that you see the very large performance hits, most likely for the reason I stated previously.
I'll say it again, Vista is fine. Comments like:
Are old, mis-informed and biased, and even trolling to an extent if the person has never had a sufficient amount of experience with the OS.Quote:
It has a nice feature for turning your computer into a paperweight.
I was referring to the bug that put it into an infinite loop of boot, crash, reboot, crash, reboot...Quote:
Originally Posted by blade5x
DX10 will not take off because game companies want to make games that are heavily optimized and run on multiple platforms. They can't make a DX10 and GL version and have them both be fully optimized.
Remember, Windows isn't even close to being the largest gaming platform, I think it's third. Wii has a massive lead and PS2 is behind that, both are OpenGL only. That's pushing game developers away from DirectX.
DX gave OpenGL a run for it's money, but in the past few years OpenGL has pulled far ahead and with the release of OpenGL 3 approaching I don't see it gaining any ground even with the improved pipeline.
As for Vista's requirements, they are still much much higher than they should be. Both Linux and OSX are more powerful in almost every aspect and they take far less power. I have a laptop that could run Compriz at full speed with everything turned on, but couldn't handle Aero. Please to explain?
You said 64-bit support, that's completely false, Vista has no 64-bit support.
It's either entirely 64-bit or entirely 32-bit. There is no support for both. Weird because the processor has a built-in 32 bit mode :?
I have a picture on my computer from when windows said "A potentially malicious program is attempting to access your computer. Name: Files and Settings Transfer Wizard. Publisher: Microsoft Corporation. Allow/Deny"Quote:
Originally Posted by KitsumiChan
:chuckle:
Yup, Vista is a joke. :content:Quote:
Originally Posted by wasup
I like vista.. i only use my pc for forums and porn so its kinda irrelevant :)
Forums and....porn? o__o
Porn sites on Windows? Bye bye registry :tonguewiggle:
In that case it probably works I suppose :PQuote:
Originally Posted by marlie
But... girls don't watch porn! Are you actually a girl? (And is that really you in your avatar?)
yes yes i know im a dumbass :shock: hahaha
Why not just get a Mac then? :|
I only have Windows for gaming purposes...
Yes im really a girl and yes thats really me in my avatar lol.Quote:
Originally Posted by wasup
Girls do so like porn! just the snobby ones dont admit it
You're cute then
cause my work pays for my pc and internet yayy.. i had no choice what i got.. if i kill it they replace it.Quote:
Originally Posted by KitsumiChan
We're kind of getting off topic. :)Quote:
Originally Posted by ninja9578
Macs are damn expensive and not worth the price. What you should say is why not get ubuntu then. The new version comes out later tonight, so it's the perfect time to get it. It's free, can do anything other things can do and more, looks nice, is easy to use, it's free. Also very very stable and fast, which is great and refreshing.Quote:
Originally Posted by KitsumiChan
Okay: she's as cute as that little doggie from the XP search tool :PQuote:
Originally Posted by KitsumiChan
lol thanks... i feel really special hahahaahah:shock:Quote:
Originally Posted by ninja9578
I try :)
I don't understand what you're saying here. Vista 32-bit obviously only has 32-bit support. Vista 64-bit can install 64-bit drivers. ALL software, doesn't matter if it is 32-bit or 64-bit, will work on Vista 64-bit.Quote:
Originally Posted by ninja9578
I can't believe I'm actually posting a screen shot...
[32-bit software] Program Files (x86) Folder - 67GiB
[64-bit software] Program Files - 600MiB
http://i248.photobucket.com/albums/g.../Vista3264.jpg
So please, tell me how my Vista 64-bit operating system has a majority of 32-bit software on it if Vista 64-bit is entirely 64-bit? Like I said earlier, Vista has 64-bit support (you don't have to take advantage of it). You're right in that either you install 32-bit, or 64-bit. But I see no point in installing 32-bit at this time. Drivers have matured well for the 64-bit operating system, and all 32-bit software works on it, at least all 32-bit software I've installed.
Ha I didn't see that :P And you are damn beautiful! I must draw you :PQuote:
Originally Posted by marlie
Do girls have like their own special porn?
I think we are getting a little off topic here.
damn it now i gotta go find the blushing forum again, goddam u :PQuote:
Originally Posted by wasup
My humblest apologies for staying on topic ... :P
That was true maybe four or five years ago but not nowadays. The iMac and MacBook are no more expensive than their non-Apple counterparts. In fact, a MacBook is cheaper than a comparably equipped ThinkPad R or T series, although one might prefer the ThinkPad's 14" screen to the MacBook's 13.3". The main disadvantage with Apple hardware, specifically in the desktop market (iMac, Mac mini, and Mac Pro), is that Macs come preassembled. Many consumers prefer to assemble their own PC for cost or performance reasons. Of course, this applies to any other PC distributor, not just Apple.Quote:
Originally Posted by wasup
Now you're talking. :D Ubuntu is a very good intro to the world of free software and a perfectly capable (if not superior) substitute to the main proprietary OSes on the market (i.e. Windows and Mac OS X). It's no Arch or Slackware, but Ubuntu seems very good for the non CLI-oriented end-user.Quote:
Originally Posted by wasup
I'm very happy with Ubuntu. And Wine mostly works like a charm. People happily play WoW in linux using wine. The only software I have issues with is Poser 7 under Wine. Amusingly, it still renders faster than on a comparable windows machine (even with the desktop effects turned on hehe).
The only thing I need to figure out is how to fix my midi so I can play powertabs. It's a good thing, too. My windows laptop, which I've had for around 5 years now, is about to croak.
don't forget the lazy bastardsQuote:
Originally Posted by dsr
I - I mean, they - like ubuntu, too
Of course they, er, d-d-do. Anyone in mind?
Sorry, only just seen thisQuote:
Originally Posted by dsrOf course they, er, d-d-do. Anyone in mind?Quote:
Originally Posted by Ynot
What I mean, is Ubuntu (in my opinion, anyway) is great for those who don't want to arse about with the initial configuration (while not necessarily that complex, most is fairly simple - but it can be time consuming)
What I love about Ubuntu (and Fedora to a certain extent) is that most things come pre-configured for immediate use
I love Debian, I do
but by god, a new Debian install needs a good 2 hours of fiddling about, post-install, to get it usable
I'm all for power and flexibility of standard Debian
and I don't think Ubuntu impinges on that
but I'm lazy enough to find the "blank slate" of a new Debian base install a bit tedious
Porn is the Lost of men and Lost is the porn of girls.Quote:
Originally Posted by wasup