StarDestroyer.Net BBS

Dahak wrote:

Lord Sauron-Tyranus-Vader wrote:

Darth Wong wrote:WinXP constantly bugs you to buy Microsoft shit and sign up for Microsoft privacy invasion. WinXP blows.

Win2000 is WinXP without the spyware.

Uhh, tell me. I got XP pro for my graphics work and stuff like that. Big mistake. Cost me 200 bucks and the whole thing is one big giant ad. I especially don't like this: " The application has unexpectedly quit. would you like to send an error report to Microsoft?" Why the hell would I want to do that? Are the wonderful people at Microsoft gonna send me out a whole team of computer experts from their nearest location and correct the problem. No. I think they use the 'error reports' as comic releief.
'Hello, I cannot acess my porno site, please help.'
When is Microsoft stop with this?

Just deactivate it. As you can all the other "dial-home" features of XP...

You can?
I'm new at Winblows, I've been using a better computer for years, and now I see why. Apple rules.
Im one of those rabid Mac lovers.
Don't diss Apple.

Lord Sauron-Tyranus-Vader wrote:

Dahak wrote: Just deactivate it. As you can all the other "dial-home" features of XP...

You can?
I'm new at Winblows, I've been using a better computer for years, and now I see why. Apple rules.
Im one of those rabid Mac lovers.
Don't diss Apple.

Yes, there are several programmes running around the net which enable you to deactivate things you don't like in XP. Quite useful.

And about Apple: I never came to understand the One-button-mouse-philosophy

Dahak wrote:

Lord Sauron-Tyranus-Vader wrote:

Dahak wrote: Just deactivate it. As you can all the other "dial-home" features of XP...

You can?
I'm new at Winblows, I've been using a better computer for years, and now I see why. Apple rules.
Im one of those rabid Mac lovers.
Don't diss Apple.

Yes, there are several programmes running around the net which enable you to deactivate things you don't like in XP. Quite useful.

And about Apple: I never came to understand the One-button-mouse-philosophy

Well, besides the mouse, Apple has the best software, the best OS, and more. Plus, it has very few bugs, is powerful ,and is very easy to use.

To disable error reporting:

Press the windows key and pause/break at the same time and you get system propeties, or you can click start->control panel-> system same thing

Click the advanced tab, error reporting button, and the disable error reporting option.

Faram wrote:To disable error reporting:

Press the windows key and pause/break at the same time and you get system propeties, or you can click start->control panel-> system same thing

Click the advanced tab, error reporting button, and the disable error reporting option.

Cool.
Thanks alot.
I'll have to remeber that the next time WCIII crashes.

Lord Sauron-Tyranus-Vader wrote:

Dahak wrote:

Lord Sauron-Tyranus-Vader wrote: Uhh, tell me. I got XP pro for my graphics work and stuff like that. Big mistake. Cost me 200 bucks and the whole thing is one big giant ad. I especially don't like this: " The application has unexpectedly quit. would you like to send an error report to Microsoft?" Why the hell would I want to do that? Are the wonderful people at Microsoft gonna send me out a whole team of computer experts from their nearest location and correct the problem. No. I think they use the 'error reports' as comic releief.
'Hello, I cannot acess my porno site, please help.'
When is Microsoft stop with this?

Just deactivate it. As you can all the other "dial-home" features of XP...

You can?
I'm new at Winblows, I've been using a better computer for years, and now I see why. Apple rules.
Im one of those rabid Mac lovers.
Don't diss Apple.

Ah, a fellow Mac-head, eh?

By the way, the one-button mouse, like so many things in the Jobs-era Apple, is simply because Jobs is catering to the absolute lowest common denominator, like people who can't grasp the concept of two buttons for two purposes. Yes, there are such people.

Durandal wrote:

Lord Sauron-Tyranus-Vader wrote:

Dahak wrote: Just deactivate it. As you can all the other "dial-home" features of XP...

You can?
I'm new at Winblows, I've been using a better computer for years, and now I see why. Apple rules.
Im one of those rabid Mac lovers.
Don't diss Apple.

Ah, a fellow Mac-head, eh?

By the way, the one-button mouse, like so many things in the Jobs-era Apple, is simply because Jobs is catering to the absolute lowest common denominator, like people who can't grasp the concept of two buttons for two purposes. Yes, there are such people.

You bet I'm a Mac head.
I have had a Mac my whole short life, and I was wondering what made i so great?
Well, now I got XP, and now I know.
Let me tell ya something: my OS is 7.5, (about 5 years old) and it's still better than XP by far. I cant wait to get my hands on OSX!

Well, I wouldn't go quite that far. I'd much rather use Windows XP than the Classic Mac OS, considering that it had no multitasking or memory protection, and it lacked a decent application switcher. Not to mention that the desktop tended to get cluttered very quickly whilst browsing your HD.

OS X, however, rules.

Durandal wrote:Well, I wouldn't go quite that far. I'd much rather use Windows XP than the Classic Mac OS, considering that it had no multitasking or memory protection, and it lacked a decent application switcher. Not to mention that the desktop tended to get cluttered very quickly whilst browsing your HD.

OS X, however, rules.

I was saying that the Classic Mac OS was much easier to use than XP, and the current Mac OS totally blows XP away.
Do ya got an iPod?

I wish. I'm content with my RioVolt, for now. The iPod is just ridiculously expensive, even if it is the best MP3 player on the market. I'm waiting for Apple to turn it into a more versatile device before I consider buying one.

I bought an iPod at a Mac store near here for only 25 bucks!!!!!
It works great.
I simply could not believe it was that cheap.
Of course, the store was going out of business......

Bastard.

Durandal wrote:Overall, I'd recommend 2000. I really don't see any reason to go to XP from 2000 other than ClearType font antialiasing and some of the GDI+ elements, but that only really matters for visually picky people like me.

Microsoft apparently added quite a bit of extra stuff that's useful for the developer - some software (eg Avid Xpress DV 3.5) now requires WXP rather than W2K.

phongn wrote:

Durandal wrote:Overall, I'd recommend 2000. I really don't see any reason to go to XP from 2000 other than ClearType font antialiasing and some of the GDI+ elements, but that only really matters for visually picky people like me.

Microsoft apparently added quite a bit of extra stuff that's useful for the developer - some software (eg Avid Xpress DV 3.5) now requires WXP rather than W2K.

That's interesting. As far as I can tell, Windows XP is just 2000 with some GUI enhancements.

Durandal wrote:

phongn wrote:

Durandal wrote:Overall, I'd recommend 2000. I really don't see any reason to go to XP from 2000 other than ClearType font antialiasing and some of the GDI+ elements, but that only really matters for visually picky people like me.

Microsoft apparently added quite a bit of extra stuff that's useful for the developer - some software (eg Avid Xpress DV 3.5) now requires WXP rather than W2K.

That's interesting. As far as I can tell, Windows XP is just 2000 with some GUI enhancements.

Hrmm, apparently Microsoft did an overhaul of DirectShow for Windows XP, which is what AXPDV3.5 uses.

I know that there was more than just GUI enhancements under WXP - long ago there was a thread on Ars about it - but it's not obvious. It's somewhat similar to the W95/W98 differences, I think.

As long as you're not into DOS gaming, or use any games that can't even see the NT kernel version of DirectX (ie: XWing vs. TIE Fighter) then Win2k is perfect.

Don't forget to kill those unnecessary services. Especially on a box THAT slow.

I cuurently favor 98se and W2K. I only use Xp if I *have* to...

Windows XP is about the best thing Microsoft has done and I HATE Microsoft. I use to have 98 and XP works far better then 98 ever did and I know people with ME and XP works better then that.

And I cant stand Macs with the one buttion and no taskbar. And I've crashed just as many Macs as PC's.

But it all comes down to what do you want your computer to do. I'm in gaming and computer building so the ps is better. I can do more with it. But I know people who are phote journalist and Macs do work better for them because Macs have better photo and graphic programs.

m112880 wrote:Windows XP is about the best thing Microsoft has done and I HATE Microsoft. I use to have 98 and XP works far better then 98 ever did and I know people with ME and XP works better then that.

And I cant stand Macs with the one buttion and no taskbar. And I've crashed just as many Macs as PC's.

But it all comes down to what do you want your computer to do. I'm in gaming and computer building so the ps is better. I can do more with it. But I know people who are phote journalist and Macs do work better for them because Macs have better photo and graphic programs.

Macs work great for gaming as well.
True, not as many titles come out for Mac as they do for pc, but if you have a Mac, you don't have to worry about wasting money on a crappy game because only the good ones come out on Macs.
BTW, my Mac has never crashed.
Ever.
In it's entire 5 year existence.
My PC, however, has crashed more than 50 times in November alone.

Lord Sauron-Tyranus-Vader wrote:

m112880 wrote:Windows XP is about the best thing Microsoft has done and I HATE Microsoft. I use to have 98 and XP works far better then 98 ever did and I know people with ME and XP works better then that.

And I cant stand Macs with the one buttion and no taskbar. And I've crashed just as many Macs as PC's.

But it all comes down to what do you want your computer to do. I'm in gaming and computer building so the ps is better. I can do more with it. But I know people who are phote journalist and Macs do work better for them because Macs have better photo and graphic programs.

Macs work great for gaming as well.
True, not as many titles come out for Mac as they do for pc, but if you have a Mac, you don't have to worry about wasting money on a crappy game because only the good ones come out on Macs.
BTW, my Mac has never crashed.
Ever.
In it's entire 5 year existence.
My PC, however, has crashed more than 50 times in November alone.

Don't kid yourself. Macs pretty much suck for any kind of serious gaming. The hardware is second-rate, and the framerates that the most expensive and loaded G4 you can get will be abysmal next to a modestly equipped and priced PC.

Durandal wrote:Don't kid yourself. Macs pretty much suck for any kind of serious gaming. The hardware is second-rate, and the framerates that the most expensive and loaded G4 you can get will be abysmal next to a modestly equipped and priced PC.

Uh huh....you are aware that Macs can use the same hardware as PCs, right? You are also aware that mac chips are substantially faster than their PC equivilent, right?

1) Re: Mac superior speed claim: That's nice. Do you have any evidence?

http://www.digitalvideoediting.com/2002 ... owdown.htm

And no, I don't think that "omg higher clockz always means faster speedz", but I'd like to see some evidence that high-end Mac computers are substantially faster than their x86 counterparts.

2) Mac is overpriced. Way the hell overpriced.

3) "Only the good ones"? Sucks to be anyone with alternate tastes. Or to have PC friends that get the latest games.

Vertigo1 wrote:

Durandal wrote:Don't kid yourself. Macs pretty much suck for any kind of serious gaming. The hardware is second-rate, and the framerates that the most expensive and loaded G4 you can get will be abysmal next to a modestly equipped and priced PC.

Uh huh....you are aware that Macs can use the same hardware as PCs, right? You are also aware that mac chips are substantially faster than their PC equivilent, right?

Durandal knows that Macs can often use similar hardware (though not always - sometimes the firmware needs to be modified). The PowerPC G4 series (and its many derivatives) is not faster than the P4 or K7 designs, either.

Vertigo1 wrote:As long as you're not into DOS gaming, or use any games that can't even see the NT kernel version of DirectX (ie: XWing vs. TIE Fighter) then Win2k is perfect.

Don't forget to kill those unnecessary services. Especially on a box THAT slow.

Well, NetHack 3.3.1 protected-mode DOS runs just fine under 2K. However, I wouldn't recommend running anything more complicated than that in DOS emulation...

Vertigo1 wrote:

Durandal wrote:Don't kid yourself. Macs pretty much suck for any kind of serious gaming. The hardware is second-rate, and the framerates that the most expensive and loaded G4 you can get will be abysmal next to a modestly equipped and priced PC.

Uh huh....you are aware that Macs can use the same hardware as PCs, right? You are also aware that mac chips are substantially faster than their PC equivilent, right?

I'm aware of Apple's Marketing Department's claims, yes. However, while the G4 may be the more efficient chip in comparison to the P4 or K7 (it eeks more performance per clock cycle due to a shorter pipeline), the K7 and P4 have enough scalability to overcome their performance deficits. The P4 at 3GHz utterly slaughters the G4 at 1.25GHz, and it does it while being cheaper and more readily available. AltiVec is, without question, the best SIMD set out there, but it can only go so far. If you can't run an operation through the AltiVec unit, it will be done by an unscalable CPU whose true power is being choked by poor motherboard architecture.

Also, while Macs and PC's may use some of the same hardware, such is not the case when it comes to bus speeds and memory. Apple has recently adopted DDR2700 SDRAM in its towers (after an inexcusably long time), but it still retains the slow 133MHz and 167MHz frontside buses due to Motorola's incompetence. As a result, the theoretical bandwidth of the memory is being left unused because the bus can't shuttle data fast enough.

All this contributes to Macs being piss-poor gaming machines. There is no sound card to take sound calculations off the CPU, either. Everything audio-related must be done by the CPU. Furthermore, Apple's OpenGL implementation isn't anywhere near as mature as Direct3D on the Windows side. Apple hasn't had the time to tweak it like Microsoft does with Direct3D, so OpenGL on the Mac isn't as good as it could be. Roll into the equation that Macs don't get the latest and greatest video cards until about 3 to 6 months after they come out for the PC, and even then, the cards are normally $100 more expensive than their PC counterparts for the exact same specs on the card, which has forced many Mac users to buy a PC card and flash it with a Mac ROM and use Mac drivers. This is not an ideal situation for a gamer to be in.

EDIT: Oh, and about the DV Magazine tests ... After Effects has been a notoriously poor performer when it comes to multiprocessing on the Mac OS. The OS X version was little more than a badly-done carbonization with another 0.5 tacked on to the version number. The application still retains the OS 9 scheduling for threads, which isn't good at all for OS X, which is a multitasking OS.

Still, I'm amazed that the G4 is performing as well as it does. A while back, there was a dual 800MHz G4 (maybe it was a dual 1GHz, can't remember) pitted against a 2GHz P4 in RC5 decoding tests, and the G4 blew the P4 away. Of course, that test only measures raw CPU performance, and it isn't really indicative of real world results.