I just accessed a file in less than 1 second. Wow, look how powerful my file system is! Oh wait, access speeds have little to do with file systems.

CONSENSUS IS NOT PROOF. Five hundred years ago consensus was that the earth was flat. That didn't make it correct, nor any closer to being correct. I can build a logical argument as to why a statement is correct, but consensus is a logical fallacy. http://www.ramdac.org/fallacies.php?fallacy=Appeal%20to%20Popularity Moose posted this in SD, but you should read it before posting here anymore. All of them.


Same with windows
Prove it. Not that it matters when a feature is added, anyway.

Just look at Windows 3.1, 95 or 98.. Lol

Windows NT (3.1, 3.5, 3.51, 4), 2000, XP, Vista, 7, and the server versions are all a different series of Windows versions. They weren't based on Windows 3.1, 95, 98, or ME. According to something I read, the original Windows NT may not have even supported any form of the Windows API until sometime later in its development.

As far as appearances, they did share similarities, though. Windows NT 3.1 - 3.51 looked like Windows 3.1 - 3.11, NT4 looked like 95, 2000 looked similar to 98 and ME. Of course, after that the similarities end, since ME was the last Windows version that was not a descendant of NT. Microsoft should have stopped the non-NT versions with 98SE if they were going to start killing off DOS support in the next version anyway, because that was really the only reason to not use an NT-based Windows at that time and part of why ME was unpopular.

Windows 2000 pretty much ran all Windows programs, IIRC, and had support for the latest versions of DirectX (unlike NT4). It had also been proven to be faster for Windows-based games than Windows 98SE or ME.

Post has been edited 6 time(s), last time on Aug 22 2009, 4:45 am by ShadowFlare.

ME is safer than OSX. NOBODY uses ME.

That's because Windows was originally made for home PCs, whereas Unix was made for mainframes, if i recall correctly. Mainframes are multiuser which made it a necessity.

i use mac os x, i love it, and don't give a shit about why 'insert os here' is better, it works for me, always have since i got it, all my other pc's i had always got virus's or broke down, this mac, which is refurbished, has worked great and had pretty much no problems.

and whoever said iLife doesnt come with the os, i thought it did, at least it did for me.

It doesn't.

It comes with a new Mac, not OS X.

i'm never ever going to get OS wars.

when will people realize that EVERY system can be fast and safe. it is ENTIRELY up to the user as to the performance of their OS.

its like saying throwing a baseball left-handed is better than throwing it right-handed. for the 'fanbois' out there, there is NO significant difference between the styles. TRUE, WITHOUT A DOUBT, one method will be better for you than the other, while it will be ENTIRELY opposite for someone else. no matter how much effort you put into it, you will NEVER be able to achieve the same result using the other method.


please don't be a sheep and listen to the malware/virus 'problems' that PCs have, every single infection is a result of the user being stupid. its just as easy getting malware on OS X.

in the end, your only criteria for picking an OS should be the UI and program compatibility

It's a lot harder to get malware and viruses on OSX than on Windows. Linux is even harder.
Except Apple makes that logic impossible, since you have to buy apple hardware to legally install OSX. Price has a lot to do with it, including the price of making it work. Windows just works, though not very well according to some. OSX only works on some hardware. Linux works after a little bit of setup work, unless you installed gentoo.

Linux isn't hard to set up. And it's true, Unix based OSes are harder to make viruses for, because of the multiuser way they were made. However, they can be hacked just as much as windows.

Linux isn't hard to set up if you've done it before. It's a beast if you haven't, or you're trying to do something in particular and you don't know how to.

Not ubuntu. From what i remember last time at least, and it should only have become easier. Maybe that's just me.

EDIT
Wait do you mean installing or post install?

Both. For me it was getting programs to work. Generally, if you have never used linux before, you have no idea how to install firefox. When I installed ubuntu 2 years ago on my brand new computer, I was stuck with 1.5 because I couldn't simply run a binary file to install 2.0. I didn't know where it went, and I didn't understand how it was so complicated to find out how to simply update a browser, when it is so simple in windows (download binary, run it, wizard does the rest).

In linux, I download it, fuck it's a .tar.bz2. Since when can files have two extensions? Okay, it's an archive file. How do I unarchive it? Where's winrar? Oh wait, okay I have to bunzip, then tar, then, wait, what? Where's the makefile? You mean I could have avoided all this by just typing sudo apt-get firefox? What is this I don't even.

And so on and so forth. That was my experience with linux. As I said before, like MANY other things, it's easy once you know how to do it. I fiddled around with Xandros which came on my eee, and was disgusted to find that I had no idea where my files were being saved to when I downloaded them. I played around with pupeee, and ubunteee or whatever, and hated the fact that I had no desktop. I tried DSL, but I couldn't get recursive changes to work, nor aircrack-ng. I found backtrack, which was quite awesome, and messed around quite a bit, but again I had trouble with recursive changes. I then gave up on linux because by that time I had wireless and had no need to try to crack the WEP encrypted wireless next door.

That's where I quit.

You just use the application manager thing. Find the app you want, check the box, and press ok. It installs and updates automatically. Its actually EASIER than windows, as you don't have to track down the website to dl from. It gets a little more tricky for custom apps that aren't in the big list, but you won't need those unless you are already good with computers.

Ubuntu two years ago...lol. It gets a major update every 6 months, with regular updates pretty much every day, including any programs such as firefox. Hardware drivers are only a problem if it's hardware that was released a week ago, as drivers take a little while to make. Most people will wait the week or so for their 500 buck gfx card to get a driver.

Post has been edited 1 time(s), last time on Aug 27 2009, 3:15 am by zany_001.

did you at least chuckle?

Oh yeah, there's no coreavc on linux either, so bye bye decent h264.

Yep. But then i thought, 'It's CAFG, maybe he wasn't joking!' and stopped laughing.

i'lll admit, i got some sort of malware one time in the last five years(since i've gotten my own comp that no one else touches). HOWEVER, even though it evaded my anti-spyware, vista UAC caught it without a sweat. from there, i downloaded another anti-spyware that DID see the malware and removed it from there.

but really, i'm almost 100% sure it was from that one time i was torrenting an .exe. yes, you see? stupid action = malware.

I actually TRIED to get spyware once on my new install of windows by turning off common sense 2009 and reverting to an earlier version of 1998 or so. That limited me from running binaries, but I still had no antivirus, and was running IE6. I got nothing. I should have just turned off common sense altogether.