[quote=name:Praetor][quote=name:Syphon][quote=name:Praetor][quote=name:ToA]I use an iMac with Mac OS 1.5.2 Leopard.[/quote] *Mac OS [i][b]X[/b][/i] 1[b][i]0[/i][/b].5.2 Leopard[/quote] *Mac OS 10.5.2 Leopard.[/quote] *Mac OS X 10.5.2 Leopard is the correct name.[/quote] No it isn't, but I won't argue semantics with you.

Quote from Praetor

Quote from Syphon[MM]

Quote from Praetor

Quote from ToA

I use an iMac with Mac OS 1.5.2 Leopard.

*Mac OS X 10.5.2 Leopard

*Mac OS 10.5.2 Leopard.

*Mac OS X 10.5.2 Leopard is the correct name.

No it isn't, but I won't argue semantics with you.

Compiz's effects look amazing enough to make any Mac fan fall to their knees and cry. [quote][quote]I use an iMac with Mac OS 1.5.2 Leopard.[/quote] *Mac OS X 10.5.2 Leopard[/quote] No, he's just really [url=http://www.nd.edu/~jvanderk/sysone/]out of date[/url]. :P Mac OS 10.5.2 is the correct way of saying it. The X indicates a variable, as in all version. Mac OS X means all versions of that string of operating systems. People purchase Macs because they're sick of Windows, and they Apple and Microsoft are doing a good job of hiding that there's another side (Mac vs. [b]PC[/b] much?). Also, they just want to give someone a bunch of money and have a computer. They don't want to install anything. In fact, Apple's entire advertising campaign focuses on simplicity and ease of use. And I'll admit, since they make all their own hardware, they're pretty much exempt from the whole standards, drivers, installation, and all that other crap that plagues desktop computers, and for that, I blame the manufacterers. It's like a car. If you want to get it repaired, you can take it to the dealership, where they'll use exactly the same parts as your car came with, but charge you ten times as much. If you take it to a repair shop, they'll charge less, and probably give you higher quality parts, but there's work to do in sorting out the bad apples, (apples, get it? :P) and there's a chance that there might be different quirks (i.e. two parts don't fit together right). If all the parts were standardized, and worked the same, then there wouldn't be any problems, ever.

Compiz's effects look amazing enough to make any Mac fan fall to their knees and cry.

Quote

Quote

I use an iMac with Mac OS 1.5.2 Leopard.

*Mac OS X 10.5.2 Leopard

No, he's just really out of date.

Mac OS 10.5.2 is the correct way of saying it. The X indicates a variable, as in all version. Mac OS X means all versions of that string of operating systems.

People purchase Macs because they're sick of Windows, and they Apple and Microsoft are doing a good job of hiding that there's another side (Mac vs. PC much?). Also, they just want to give someone a bunch of money and have a computer. They don't want to install anything. In fact, Apple's entire advertising campaign focuses on simplicity and ease of use. And I'll admit, since they make all their own hardware, they're pretty much exempt from the whole standards, drivers, installation, and all that other crap that plagues desktop computers, and for that, I blame the manufacterers. It's like a car. If you want to get it repaired, you can take it to the dealership, where they'll use exactly the same parts as your car came with, but charge you ten times as much. If you take it to a repair shop, they'll charge less, and probably give you higher quality parts, but there's work to do in sorting out the bad apples, (apples, get it? ) and there's a chance that there might be different quirks (i.e. two parts don't fit together right). If all the parts were standardized, and worked the same, then there wouldn't be any problems, ever.

no, you're both wrong. From may 2008 issue of macworld: [img=http://img147.imageshack.us/img147/9051/picture1mp7.png] [quote=name:Syphon][quote=name:Praetor][quote=name:Syphon][quote=name:Praetor][quote=name:ToA]I use an iMac with Mac OS 1.5.2 Leopard.[/quote] *Mac OS [i][b]X[/b][/i] 1[b][i]0[/i][/b].5.2 Leopard[/quote] *Mac OS 10.5.2 Leopard.[/quote] *Mac OS X 10.5.2 Leopard is the correct name.[/quote] No it isn't, but I won't argue semantics with you.[/quote] Not even the almighty Syphon is always right.

no, you're both wrong. From may 2008 issue of macworld:

Quote from Syphon[MM]

Quote from Praetor

Quote from Syphon[MM]

Quote from Praetor

Quote from ToA

I use an iMac with Mac OS 1.5.2 Leopard.

*Mac OS X 10.5.2 Leopard

*Mac OS 10.5.2 Leopard.

*Mac OS X 10.5.2 Leopard is the correct name.

No it isn't, but I won't argue semantics with you.

Not even the almighty Syphon is always right.

Oh, that was my bad. The 'X' indicates a ten, not a variable.

Oh, that was my bad. The 'X' indicates a ten, not a variable.

[quote=name:Laser Dude]Compiz's effects look amazing enough to make any Mac fan fall to their knees and cry.[/quote] I used Compiz/Beryl for my own computer and it definitely didn't make me fall down to my knees and cry.It's better than what other operating systems have in regards to special effects and stuff, but there wasn't anything too special about it. But if you're falling to your knees over the differences of special effects between Mac OS X and a Linux distro that's using beryl/compiz then there is something wrong. ANYWAY.. [quote]People purchase Macs because they're sick of Windows[/quote] Really? How do you know this? Do you know this because of the 5 people you know own a Mac are sick of Windows? Or is it because deep down, you're secretly interested in a Mac and sick of Windows too? People buy Macs for a number of reasons. Some people are partial to the operating system. Some people do not like to deal with problems with drivers. Some people, as discussed before, are interested in the physical dimensions/look of a Mac. Some people are misguided, or are buying because of the connotation Macs have. There are tons of reasons to buy a Mac. Maybe you don't see them, but they are there. [quote]and they Apple and Microsoft are doing a good job of hiding that there's another side (Mac vs. [b]PC[/b] much?)[/quote] What do you recommend? Are you aware Apple and Microsoft are businesses? Seriously, what the hell do you want from either of them. Would you like them to start giving out Linux support too? Learn about how a business works before you go complaining about something stupid like this. [quote] Also, they just want to give someone a bunch of money and have a computer. They don't want to install anything.[/quote] What's wrong with that? Why shouldn't a customer be interested in doing less work? Why do you think Ubuntu is so recommended as a first Distrobution to use for Linux? Why don't you see newbs being recommended Slackware to start out with? Because NOBODY wants to go through tons of trouble when they don't have to. [quote] In fact, Apple's entire advertising campaign focuses on simplicity and ease of use.[/quote] Should Apple be working to sell computers that nobody can use because it's just too difficult to use them? [quote] And I'll admit, since they make all their own hardware, they're pretty much exempt from the whole standards, drivers, installation, and all that other crap that plagues desktop computers, and for that, I blame the manufacterers. It's like a car. If you want to get it repaired, you can take it to the dealership, where they'll use exactly the same parts as your car came with, but charge you ten times as much. If you take it to a repair shop, they'll charge less, and probably give you higher quality parts, but there's work to do in sorting out the bad apples, (apples, get it? :P) and there's a chance that there might be different quirks (i.e. two parts don't fit together right). If all the parts were standardized, and worked the same, then there wouldn't be any problems, ever.[/quote] Ok, so I understand your comparison but what are you trying to say?

Quote from Laser Dude

Compiz's effects look amazing enough to make any Mac fan fall to their knees and cry.

I used Compiz/Beryl for my own computer and it definitely didn't make me fall down to my knees and cry.It's better than what other operating systems have in regards to special effects and stuff, but there wasn't anything too special about it. But if you're falling to your knees over the differences of special effects between Mac OS X and a Linux distro that's using beryl/compiz then there is something wrong.

ANYWAY..

Quote

People purchase Macs because they're sick of Windows

Really? How do you know this? Do you know this because of the 5 people you know own a Mac are sick of Windows? Or is it because deep down, you're secretly interested in a Mac and sick of Windows too? People buy Macs for a number of reasons. Some people are partial to the operating system. Some people do not like to deal with problems with drivers. Some people, as discussed before, are interested in the physical dimensions/look of a Mac. Some people are misguided, or are buying because of the connotation Macs have. There are tons of reasons to buy a Mac. Maybe you don't see them, but they are there.

Quote

and they Apple and Microsoft are doing a good job of hiding that there's another side (Mac vs. PC much?)

What do you recommend? Are you aware Apple and Microsoft are businesses? Seriously, what the hell do you want from either of them. Would you like them to start giving out Linux support too? Learn about how a business works before you go complaining about something stupid like this.

Quote

Also, they just want to give someone a bunch of money and have a computer. They don't want to install anything.

What's wrong with that? Why shouldn't a customer be interested in doing less work? Why do you think Ubuntu is so recommended as a first Distrobution to use for Linux? Why don't you see newbs being recommended Slackware to start out with? Because NOBODY wants to go through tons of trouble when they don't have to.

Quote

In fact, Apple's entire advertising campaign focuses on simplicity and ease of use.

Should Apple be working to sell computers that nobody can use because it's just too difficult to use them?

Quote

And I'll admit, since they make all their own hardware, they're pretty much exempt from the whole standards, drivers, installation, and all that other crap that plagues desktop computers, and for that, I blame the manufacterers. It's like a car. If you want to get it repaired, you can take it to the dealership, where they'll use exactly the same parts as your car came with, but charge you ten times as much. If you take it to a repair shop, they'll charge less, and probably give you higher quality parts, but there's work to do in sorting out the bad apples, (apples, get it? ) and there's a chance that there might be different quirks (i.e. two parts don't fit together right). If all the parts were standardized, and worked the same, then there wouldn't be any problems, ever.

Ok, so I understand your comparison but what are you trying to say?

[quote=name:Praetor]no, you're both wrong. From may 2008 issue of macworld: [img=http://img147.imageshack.us/img147/9051/picture1mp7.png] [quote=name:Syphon][quote=name:Praetor][quote=name:Syphon][quote=name:Praetor][quote=name:ToA]I use an iMac with Mac OS 1.5.2 Leopard.[/quote] *Mac OS [i][b]X[/b][/i] 1[b][i]0[/i][/b].5.2 Leopard[/quote] *Mac OS 10.5.2 Leopard.[/quote] *Mac OS X 10.5.2 Leopard is the correct name.[/quote] No it isn't, but I won't argue semantics with you.[/quote] Not even the almighty Syphon is always right.[/quote] Alright, fine. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OS_X_v10.5 It's v10.5 The 10.5 is a version number. Not even the almighty Macworld is always right. :rolleyes:

Quote from Praetor

no, you're both wrong. From may 2008 issue of macworld:

Quote from Syphon[MM]

Quote from Praetor

Quote from Syphon[MM]

Quote from Praetor

Quote from ToA

I use an iMac with Mac OS 1.5.2 Leopard.

*Mac OS X 10.5.2 Leopard

*Mac OS 10.5.2 Leopard.

*Mac OS X 10.5.2 Leopard is the correct name.

No it isn't, but I won't argue semantics with you.

Not even the almighty Syphon is always right.

Alright, fine.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OS_X_v10.5

It's v10.5 The 10.5 is a version number. Not even the almighty Macworld is always right.

Hahaha, grasping at straws now, eh Syphon? Although I applaud you for being quite articulate in each of your comments and (somewhat) admitting defeat, you are still wrong. Your first mistake was trusting wikipedia. Your second mistake was being mistaken. From System Profiler itself, here it is: System Software Overview: System Version: [i][b]Mac OS X 10.4.11[/b][/i] (8S165) Kernel Version: Darwin 8.11.0 Boot Volume: eMac HD Computer Name: Emac Computer User Name: -------------------------------- (removed) I do not see Mac OS X v10.4.11 in there anywhere. Also, about the 300 new features: http://www.apple.com/macosx/features/300.html

Hahaha, grasping at straws now, eh Syphon?

Although I applaud you for being quite articulate in each of your comments and (somewhat) admitting defeat, you are still wrong. Your first mistake was trusting wikipedia. Your second mistake was being mistaken. From System Profiler itself, here it is:

System Software Overview:

System Version: Mac OS X 10.4.11 (8S165)
Kernel Version: Darwin 8.11.0
Boot Volume: eMac HD
Computer Name: Emac Computer
User Name: -------------------------------- (removed)

I do not see Mac OS X v10.4.11 in there anywhere.

Also, about the 300 new features: http://www.apple.com/macosx/features/300.html

I prefer to be able to actually use my computer, I'd rather not use a mac.

I prefer to be able to actually use my computer, I'd rather not use a mac.

[quote=name:Anonymous]I prefer to be able to actually use my computer, I'd rather not use a mac.[/quote] I GES U PREFER 2 NOT CONTRUBITUNG 2 THREDS 2? SEE YOU AT THE DOOR.

Quote from Anonymous

I prefer to be able to actually use my computer, I'd rather not use a mac.

I GES U PREFER 2 NOT CONTRUBITUNG 2 THREDS 2?

SEE YOU AT THE DOOR.

Windows does about everything I want it to. It's a very functional OS, if bloated. It runs 99% of programs created for run on modern computers (Yes, it's made up, but no major producer makes programs just for Mac except Apple). Linux does the same thing as Windows with more hassle - in exchange, it is fully customizable, and can be fitted with a dock or whatever else you want. My school uses Ubuntu, and I've seen what it can do - a pretty nice OS, though it hates Netlogo. Macs, as far as I've seen, offer no additional functionality, except for those extremely rare Mac-specific programs. It can't run all the programs Windows or Linux can - I've seen Mac users on SEN whine about the lack of a good editor :P. In exchange, you get sleekness and perhaps ease-of-use, though someone who can't figure out Windows with offline documentation and online tutorials is pretty much lost. So, to me, Macs are pretty much useless. Before someone yells fanboi, [b]please[/b] give a reason for why I would be remotely interested with replacing my Windows with a Mac. I can't tell whether you're arguing about whether the X is there or not or whether the v is there or not. There's an X and there's a v. According to the [url=http://store.apple.com/us/browse/home/shop_mac]apple store[/url], its something like 'Mac OS X v10.5 Leopard'. 'Top Sellers' area. However, that's just Apple being retarded. X is repetitive. Now, stop arguing about this.

Windows does about everything I want it to. It's a very functional OS, if bloated. It runs 99% of programs created for run on modern computers (Yes, it's made up, but no major producer makes programs just for Mac except Apple). Linux does the same thing as Windows with more hassle - in exchange, it is fully customizable, and can be fitted with a dock or whatever else you want. My school uses Ubuntu, and I've seen what it can do - a pretty nice OS, though it hates Netlogo.

Macs, as far as I've seen, offer no additional functionality, except for those extremely rare Mac-specific programs. It can't run all the programs Windows or Linux can - I've seen Mac users on SEN whine about the lack of a good editor . In exchange, you get sleekness and perhaps ease-of-use, though someone who can't figure out Windows with offline documentation and online tutorials is pretty much lost.

So, to me, Macs are pretty much useless. Before someone yells fanboi, please give a reason for why I would be remotely interested with replacing my Windows with a Mac.

I can't tell whether you're arguing about whether the X is there or not or whether the v is there or not. There's an X and there's a v. According to the apple store, its something like 'Mac OS X v10.5 Leopard'. 'Top Sellers' area. However, that's just Apple being retarded. X is repetitive. Now, stop arguing about this.

[quote=name:Praetor]Hahaha, grasping at straws now, eh Syphon? Although I applaud you for being quite articulate in each of your comments and (somewhat) admitting defeat, you are still wrong. Your first mistake was trusting wikipedia. Your second mistake was being mistaken. From System Profiler itself, here it is: System Software Overview: System Version: [i][b]Mac OS X 10.4.11[/b][/i] (8S165) Kernel Version: Darwin 8.11.0 Boot Volume: eMac HD Computer Name: Emac Computer User Name: -------------------------------- (removed) I do not see Mac OS X v10.4.11 in there anywhere. Also, about the 300 new features: http://www.apple.com/macosx/features/300.html[/quote] I do not see Mac OS X 10.5 in there anywhere. :rolleyes: I told you to start arguing semantics. Apple's inside naming scheme is stupidly redundant and improper, end of story. And Wikipedia is more accurate than any other possible source of information. EDIT- Yes, I know, Cent. [url=http://store.apple.com/us/product/MB427Z/A?mco=MTY2MDc]This[/url] is the exact page.

Quote from Praetor

Hahaha, grasping at straws now, eh Syphon?

Although I applaud you for being quite articulate in each of your comments and (somewhat) admitting defeat, you are still wrong. Your first mistake was trusting wikipedia. Your second mistake was being mistaken. From System Profiler itself, here it is:

System Software Overview:

System Version: Mac OS X 10.4.11 (8S165)
Kernel Version: Darwin 8.11.0
Boot Volume: eMac HD
Computer Name: Emac Computer
User Name: -------------------------------- (removed)

I do not see Mac OS X v10.4.11 in there anywhere.

Also, about the 300 new features: http://www.apple.com/macosx/features/300.html

I do not see Mac OS X 10.5 in there anywhere.

I told you to start arguing semantics. Apple's inside naming scheme is stupidly redundant and improper, end of story. And Wikipedia is more accurate than any other possible source of information.

EDIT- Yes, I know, Cent. This is the exact page.

Deathawk. I wasn't complaining, I was stating what I think is going on. Reread the post with that and mind, and it'll make a lot more sense. To be honest, if it was down to picking an operating system, and I had to pick between Mac OS X and Windows, I'd pick OSX any day. Not only is the fact that it's a Unix system make my life that much easier (things like copy+paste takes 2 clicks as opposed to 5 in Windows), but I would assume it's actually [i]stable[/i] which is a long stretch for a Windows machine. Of course, it actually looks nice, too, which is something Apple does well, but their implementation of workspaces is [i]far[/i] inferior to Compiz's. Hands down, OSX > Windows. However, this is the debate, IMO, Linux > OSX. I've looked at Apple's feature list, and frankly, most of those features have been implemented in Linux for some time, many of them in a far better fashion. For example, Apple's integration of virtual desktops doesn't seem to support doing anything neat with those spaces to make them look good. Wheras it's just flipping between them and viewing them all at once, whereas in Linux you have the option of rendering them all on a two-dimensional wall, a three dimensional prism (the system calls it a cube, but it can have any number of sides), or a plane. Also, it's limited to 16 (Who would use that many!?), whereas compiz is limited to 256 (OK, pointless, but then again, why limit the number when it doesn't create any overhead, unless someone designs a computer with half-bytes) The only features that jumped out at me were Time Machine, which seems like a good idea, but I would think it'd be difficult to implement well, and Automater sounds interesting, if I'm guessing its purpose right (a GUI based program to give an easy interface to shell-scripts, right?). If you look at it all, though it doesn't actually look like a lot, at least to me it doesn't. If they added this much every 6 months it'd be good, but these came up after 3 years of work.

Deathawk. I wasn't complaining, I was stating what I think is going on. Reread the post with that and mind, and it'll make a lot more sense.

To be honest, if it was down to picking an operating system, and I had to pick between Mac OS X and Windows, I'd pick OSX any day. Not only is the fact that it's a Unix system make my life that much easier (things like copy+paste takes 2 clicks as opposed to 5 in Windows), but I would assume it's actually stable which is a long stretch for a Windows machine. Of course, it actually looks nice, too, which is something Apple does well, but their implementation of workspaces is far inferior to Compiz's.

Hands down, OSX > Windows.
However, this is the debate, IMO, Linux > OSX.

I've looked at Apple's feature list, and frankly, most of those features have been implemented in Linux for some time, many of them in a far better fashion. For example, Apple's integration of virtual desktops doesn't seem to support doing anything neat with those spaces to make them look good. Wheras it's just flipping between them and viewing them all at once, whereas in Linux you have the option of rendering them all on a two-dimensional wall, a three dimensional prism (the system calls it a cube, but it can have any number of sides), or a plane. Also, it's limited to 16 (Who would use that many!?), whereas compiz is limited to 256 (OK, pointless, but then again, why limit the number when it doesn't create any overhead, unless someone designs a computer with half-bytes) The only features that jumped out at me were Time Machine, which seems like a good idea, but I would think it'd be difficult to implement well, and Automater sounds interesting, if I'm guessing its purpose right (a GUI based program to give an easy interface to shell-scripts, right?).

If you look at it all, though it doesn't actually look like a lot, at least to me it doesn't. If they added this much every 6 months it'd be good, but these came up after 3 years of work.

I have only one thing to say: Vista sucks >_<

I have only one thing to say: Vista sucks >_<

[quote=name:CeR]I have only one thing to say: Vista sucks >_<[/quote] What a well founded and logical argument! If you're going to hate Vista, at least be like Laser Dude or Deathawk. Although I disagree with them, I greatly respect their ability to form coherent arguments for and against things. Also, yes Deathawk, most of the 300 new features were already present in Vista or a Linux distro.

Quote from CeR

I have only one thing to say: Vista sucks >_<

What a well founded and logical argument! If you're going to hate Vista, at least be like Laser Dude or Deathawk. Although I disagree with them, I greatly respect their ability to form coherent arguments for and against things.

Also, yes Deathawk, most of the 300 new features were already present in Vista or a Linux distro.

- When I had vista on my laptop it went EXTREMELY hot while idle. XP nor Ubuntu did this. - The permission escelation is annoying, for the regular user they may not see it that often, but for me I saw it really often. - The requirements are really high, I keep xp on the older machines in my house so they can still run the games they used to. - I don't like the tactics that MS is using in regards to gaming with Vista. They make certain games "vista exclusive" although they don't need to be and the windows live service is just an exuse to bring a xbox money hording model to PC gamers. - I don't know why Direct X 10 needed to be Vista exclusive. I've heard some people say something about a new driver model but that sounds like only 1 vista sepcific feature that shouldn't keep the entire Direct X from going to Xp. - The jump from Windows 3.1 to 98 was huge (gui completely changed), and the jump from 98 to XP was huge (more stable). The jump from XP to Vista however is not so great. - A lot of originally promised features in vista didn't actually make it in there, plus with all the problems it makes you wonder if its worth paying all that money for a unfinished product. Thats all I can think of so far.

- When I had vista on my laptop it went EXTREMELY hot while idle. XP nor Ubuntu did this.
- The permission escelation is annoying, for the regular user they may not see it that often, but for me I saw it really often.
- The requirements are really high, I keep xp on the older machines in my house so they can still run the games they used to.
- I don't like the tactics that MS is using in regards to gaming with Vista. They make certain games "vista exclusive" although they don't need to be and the windows live service is just an exuse to bring a xbox money hording model to PC gamers.
- I don't know why Direct X 10 needed to be Vista exclusive. I've heard some people say something about a new driver model but that sounds like only 1 vista sepcific feature that shouldn't keep the entire Direct X from going to Xp.
- The jump from Windows 3.1 to 98 was huge (gui completely changed), and the jump from 98 to XP was huge (more stable). The jump from XP to Vista however is not so great.
- A lot of originally promised features in vista didn't actually make it in there, plus with all the problems it makes you wonder if its worth paying all that money for a unfinished product.

Thats all I can think of so far.

Comparing the jump from 3.1 to 98 is like comparing the jump from XP to Windows 7... Also, I have noticed laptop hotness thing on my cousin's laptop... Odd. (Still not as hot as exploding Macbooks.) The best feature that Vista adds over XP is the redesigned Windows Explorer. And it can run at full settings on older systems... My computer is almost 4 years old, and it runs Vista fine.

Comparing the jump from 3.1 to 98 is like comparing the jump from XP to Windows 7... Also, I have noticed laptop hotness thing on my cousin's laptop... Odd. (Still not as hot as exploding Macbooks.)

The best feature that Vista adds over XP is the redesigned Windows Explorer. And it can run at full settings on older systems... My computer is almost 4 years old, and it runs Vista fine.

[quote=name:Laser Dude] The only features that jumped out at me were Time Machine, which seems like a good idea, but I would think it'd be difficult to implement well, and Automater sounds interesting, if I'm guessing its purpose right (a GUI based program to give an easy interface to shell-scripts, right?).[/quote] Time Machine is like CVS for every file on your computer, and Automator basically a visual interface to Applescript, which is a macro langauge. And yes, Time Machine is implemented very well.

Quote from Laser Dude

The only features that jumped out at me were Time Machine, which seems like a good idea, but I would think it'd be difficult to implement well, and Automater sounds interesting, if I'm guessing its purpose right (a GUI based program to give an easy interface to shell-scripts, right?).

Time Machine is like CVS for every file on your computer, and Automator basically a visual interface to Applescript, which is a macro langauge.

And yes, Time Machine is implemented very well.

[quote=name:Syphon]Comparing the jump from 3.1 to 98 is like comparing the jump from XP to Windows 7... Also, I have noticed laptop hotness thing on my cousin's laptop... Odd. (Still not as hot as exploding Macbooks.) The best feature that Vista adds over XP is the redesigned Windows Explorer. And it can run at full settings on older systems... My computer is almost 4 years old, and it runs Vista fine.[/quote] With, if I remember correctly, a 10 GB paging file?

Quote from Syphon[MM]

Comparing the jump from 3.1 to 98 is like comparing the jump from XP to Windows 7... Also, I have noticed laptop hotness thing on my cousin's laptop... Odd. (Still not as hot as exploding Macbooks.)

The best feature that Vista adds over XP is the redesigned Windows Explorer. And it can run at full settings on older systems... My computer is almost 4 years old, and it runs Vista fine.

With, if I remember correctly, a 10 GB paging file?

[quote=name:Praetor][quote=name:Syphon]Comparing the jump from 3.1 to 98 is like comparing the jump from XP to Windows 7... Also, I have noticed laptop hotness thing on my cousin's laptop... Odd. (Still not as hot as exploding Macbooks.) The best feature that Vista adds over XP is the redesigned Windows Explorer. And it can run at full settings on older systems... My computer is almost 4 years old, and it runs Vista fine.[/quote] With, if I remember correctly, a 10 GB paging file?[/quote] The OS worked without that. The 10 GB paging file is for playing The Sims 2 with all the expansions installed. :p (It's still slow.)

Quote from Praetor

Quote from Syphon[MM]

Comparing the jump from 3.1 to 98 is like comparing the jump from XP to Windows 7... Also, I have noticed laptop hotness thing on my cousin's laptop... Odd. (Still not as hot as exploding Macbooks.)

The best feature that Vista adds over XP is the redesigned Windows Explorer. And it can run at full settings on older systems... My computer is almost 4 years old, and it runs Vista fine.

With, if I remember correctly, a 10 GB paging file?

The OS worked without that. The 10 GB paging file is for playing The Sims 2 with all the expansions installed. (It's still slow.)

[quote=name:Praetor]With, if I remember correctly, a 10 GB paging file?[/quote] You have no idea how it works so don't pretend to know.

Quote from Praetor

With, if I remember correctly, a 10 GB paging file?

You have no idea how it works so don't pretend to know.