digg

Join DiggAbout

Discover the best of the web!
Learn more about Digg by taking the tour.

How does a Macbook Pro handle every application opening at once? (PIC)

flickr.com — What's your guess? If you accidentally open every application on your Macbook Pro at one time, will it crash or can it handle the load? It's running 10.4.10 with 2.33 GHz Intel Core 2 Duo and 3 GB of DDR2 SDRAM. After 12 minutes of churning along and in internal temp of over 160 degrees F, this is what happened...

Bury
show profanity settings
expand all
  • grimers1, on 10/11/2007, -20/+178Wow.
    • jefseb, on 10/10/2007, -5/+35"Wow" wasn't exactly the word that came to mind when it happened.
      • jibone, on 10/10/2007, -5/+27I thought "Wow" was Vista's tag line?
        • Audacitor, on 10/10/2007, -9/+72Only if it's followed by "this sucks!"
          • ShrimpCrackers, on 10/10/2007, -20/+41I basically run a computer lab in my room and was surprised to see that I'm able to do this not only on my decked out MacBook Pro, but also on my MacBook. Not only that, this actually works fine on my 2 Ubuntu Machines and even my aging Windows machines. Granted both Windows and OSX grind a little in comparison to the Ubuntu one.

            Just shows that modern operating systems are all able to do it. *shrugs* I guess its no big deal.
          • krebcycle, on 10/10/2007, -6/+24And why is ShrimpCrackers being dugg down? Isn't it at all interesting that it works on the other systems?
      • magicmarc, on 10/10/2007, -4/+65Do people laugh at your small dock?
        • jefseb, on 10/10/2007, -1/+42The icons may be small, but the docks girth is really what matters.
          • Vermifax, on 10/10/2007, -12/+3Chicks love it when you "rock the dock"!
        • Shorties, on 10/10/2007, -6/+26It looks small but when it expans it gets huge...
          • dclowd9901, on 10/10/2007, -2/+17Yeah, seriously. Don't be a dock blocker.
          • BadassCheese, on 10/10/2007, -0/+7"I'm a grower, not a shower"
        • lintmonkey, on 10/10/2007, -13/+4That's what she said.
        • mydigga, on 10/10/2007, -3/+5It's not the size of your dock... it's how you use it.
        • commitone, on 10/10/2007, -1/+7You need to turn on magnify to see my dock. :(

      • Spuy767, on 10/10/2007, -3/+18I was playing around one day, trying to see just how much ***** I could open in expose, and I did the same thing. My MacPro, the first iteration, @3.0Ghz with 8 gigs of ram can open all 117 applications in about 42 seconds. I'd say the extra ram helps the most cause I'm not caching as much to the HD.
        • troye, on 10/10/2007, -3/+7Damn!
        • shark615, on 10/10/2007, -4/+3Ya think? Try it with 1GB, then again OSX probably won't run well with that amt
        • designerutah, on 10/10/2007, -0/+4OS X works just fine on 768 MB of Ram and though opening that many apps takes longer, it can still be done.
    • kingkilr, on 10/10/2007, -16/+5AoE 3 is available for Macs, or is that parallels?
      • sputnikv, on 10/10/2007, -4/+17AoE 3 is available for Macs
        • kingkilr, on 10/10/2007, -8/+5Huh, never knew that, I assumed Microsoft would be too anal.

          /shrug
          • potp, on 10/10/2007, -32/+21Trsut me. When it comes to evil corporations Apple is much worse then Microsoft.
          • ShrimpCrackers, on 10/10/2007, -11/+11Sorry Potp, this is Digg, half the people here can't even remember the 80's, even less why people hated Apple (which sold the majority in PC's) back then.
          • MacParrot, on 10/10/2007, -5/+10Apple never had a majority share of computers in the 80s. Maybe you should search your memory a little more carefully and base your reminisces on facts instead.

            potp, I trust you about as far as I could throw any cheetos snarfing, pop-tarts loving basement dweller such as yourself.
          • krebcycle, on 10/10/2007, -1/+4Apple may not have had a majority share strictly speaking, but in the early 80's when the IIe reigned it was the market choice even if it didn't have more than 50% market share.
        • Kappa00, on 10/10/2007, -6/+2Yep
        • abandonedhero, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1They also released Age of Mythology for the Mac, too.
      • sputnikv, on 10/10/2007, -13/+3AoE 3 is available for Macs
      • phronko, on 10/10/2007, -8/+3AoE 3 is available for Macs?
      • MikeFromAmerica, on 10/10/2007, -1/+16AoE 3 is available for Macs!!!
      • VegaObscura3, on 10/10/2007, -6/+2AoE3 is made by Microsoft..... why would they release it for the mac?!?!
        • Elranzer, on 10/10/2007, -1/+3So is Microsoft Office. Your point?
    • moofer, on 10/10/2007, -36/+9wow nothing... most of those windows are just finder windows.
      • gavroche, on 10/10/2007, -2/+27Look at the dock
      • BlueStarr, on 10/10/2007, -1/+17Look at the dock....see the arrows under the app? that means they're open... I counted 80.
      • sugerat, on 10/10/2007, -3/+3I stopped counting at 40 finder windows...who needs that many finder windows open?
      • kat81, on 10/10/2007, -1/+2*finished counting open apps in dock (only apps with arrows indicating they were open, since there were some items with no arrow)*
        80 apps open. Exactly 80.
        So forget what windows you might see, look at the Dock to see how many apps were open.

        • superalamar, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1one of those apps is iserial reader, a cracker database full of serials and instructions on how to get past application registrations and the like. I Wonder how he got most of his apps!
    • Audacitor, on 10/10/2007, -16/+11This is impressive alright, but it's not all the apps. The dude says he opened everything in the Applications folder. What about all the stuff in the Utilities folder?
      • jefseb, on 10/10/2007, -1/+9quality point.
      • timusca, on 10/10/2007, -7/+4And while we're at it, we should open Classic and all the apps within it!
        /sarcasm
    • over90000, on 10/10/2007, -28/+36Windows can do this too. (copy pasting michypoo's comment)

      I did the same to my Windows XP. Even with 40+ applications (including entire Adobe Creative Suite, Adobe Production Suite, Microsoft Office 2007 suite, and Autodesk suite) my system didn't crash. My computer isn't even Core 2 Duo, either. I really don't think Mac users should feel so high and mighty about their operating system.

      http://i6.tinypic.com/4qgzwae.jpg
      • magicmarc, on 10/10/2007, -2/+16Whoa, careful there with solitaire!

        //sarcasm.

        So what is your PC Spec? Its unfair for you to compare the OSs without having a similar spec machine.
      • krebcycle, on 10/10/2007, -6/+8I'm curious why he is being dugg down? Anyone care to enlighten me? I think it's interesting that windows can do this too, I'm surprised.
        • digg0t, on 10/10/2007, -5/+12because he isn't using a mac, duh.
        • mlostracco, on 10/10/2007, -5/+3Because he's spamming the comments with the exact same post over and over.
          • wageslaven, on 10/10/2007, -6/+7No. Its because the forum is wanking off about OSX doing something that Windows can also do.. its not such a big deal unless the Apple users can use inaccurate memes to ignorantly assault Windows.
      • manical, on 10/10/2007, -1/+2Whoah... careful, someone might see all your pirated warez...
      • mattbatt77, on 10/10/2007, -1/+6Isn't it funny to see expose compared to a window's machine? You spent more time trying to fit all the window apps on your screen then the computer did opening them.

        Also, 40 apps vs. 80 isn't exactly a true comparison.
    • ttntyler, on 10/10/2007, -0/+8Tried it on my mac:
      http://flickr.com/photos/81872464@N00/1411976116/
      • NerveBand, on 10/10/2007, -6/+12Well I'm actually happy that you do Ctrl + A and double click a bunch of icons by acciden tin Windows XP, it will actually warn you that this may make your computer unresponsive! AWESOME.
        • turpenine, on 10/10/2007, -9/+12but on a mac, it totally just works when you do it.
        • shark615, on 10/10/2007, -2/+5There is proof above that it won't kil windows...
    • plbland, on 10/10/2007, -0/+67I'd be wowed even more if it could open a semi-long digg comments page in less than 4 seconds.
    • nakp88d, on 10/10/2007, -10/+4I'll most probably get dug down but this is nothing really,I had my ram burnt out once and had it replaced and the guys at that store had a funny way of testing rams,they put the new 1Gb stick in a p4 pc running xp and do exacly the same thing and have one of those ram monitoring apps on.12 Minutes! thats ***** awful! I mean this is dual core and 3gb ram,so there is no one else to point your fingers at except the os.
      • myheaditches, on 10/10/2007, -3/+5Or the fact that some applications are frickin huge.
      • MikeFromAmerica, on 10/10/2007, -1/+10Or the fact that the MBP has a 5400rpm drive and you're trying to open a hundred applications (most with a dozen or more file descriptors) at the same time.
    • Koldkompress, on 10/10/2007, -1/+44Pfft. That's nothing. Try opening more than 5 digg stories tabbed at once, that'll give your system a work out.
      stupid javascript
      • krebcycle, on 10/10/2007, -0/+31stupid Digg, it's not javascript's fault
      • picsectionpleez, on 10/10/2007, -1/+4All I know is that somehow I have been released from Digg's Capcha Hell and it's pure bliss.....
    • seraph582, on 10/10/2007, -24/+9*Ahem. * Where to start...

      First off, that is a piddly ***** amount of applications. Sorry. Windows comes preinstalled with that many applications - and it doesn't crash if you load them all. I'm willing to bet that most of those apps are tiny little ***** apps like a calculator and text editor and such anyway.

      Secondly, this sort of test is becoming increasingly irrelevant since web applications are going to replace many conventional ones in the coming years.

      Thirdly, I hate to break it to you, but most Windows users, despite being 100% able to perform this same "feat," are busy being entertained by the plethora of fun things there are to do on a PC that you simply are not able to do on a Mac. Come back with a few -- that's right, a FEW directX apps running at the same time as all of those ***** apps in this photo, and then I'll be impressed.

      Buried as lame for a really, really ***** picture/article, with *****, incorrect implications and for being another *yawn* needless yay-mac fanboi-ism. Mac's are pretty damn sweet - I know - but really, this was ***** stupid.
      • mlostracco, on 10/10/2007, -4/+15Wow, I got total douche chills reading that comment.
      • llno4opll, on 10/10/2007, -5/+4*Ahem.* Well my dock's bigger than yours
      • NoSpaceForRent, on 10/10/2007, -1/+7I can't figure out who he is arguing for, or against for that matter. He just sounds angry.
        • jonshipman, on 10/10/2007, -2/+4maybe his computer can't do that? shrug
      • picsectionpleez, on 10/10/2007, -1/+4Actually those apps aren't all notepad and paint. Some of them are powerful enough that if you're proficient with them you could actually have a job where you don't have to bag groceries any more man.
    • Achaean, on 10/10/2007, -5/+4thats cool. i tried the same with vista and my computer took a ***** and exploded
      • natenovs, on 10/10/2007, -3/+4wow. just stop...
      • da5id, on 10/10/2007, -3/+2I tried it on my Vista machine and it purred like a champ. However, I have 4 GB of memory. Nevertheless, I opened actual applications including four browsers (Safari, Opera, Firefox, IE 7), Google Earth, Microsoft Office, Corel office, OpenOffice, Paint Shop Pro, Google Picasso, Dragon NaturallySpeaking professional, Windows voice recognition,Windows media player, VLC, Inter-Video, 10 instances of a Divx soft-player, etc., ad nauseam. 80% of the Windows I opened weren't Finder or Explorer windows as in this demo. Yeah I downloaded the large file and examined the JPEG carefully.
    • dukeochutney, on 10/10/2007, -10/+5when did digg turn into a group of mac tools. not seeing why this is so awesome.
    • shiftt, on 10/10/2007, -1/+3Here's a video of a Black MacBook running 50 apps without a problem: http://www.applemacbook.com/videos/17-black-macboo ...
    • Nerfdude, on 10/10/2007, -7/+2....and this is why i usually block apple stories.
      • abandonedhero, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Please go back to blocking them then.
    • Klink258, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1Is that a vista ad campaign joke?
  • tjamesonky, on 10/10/2007, -58/+10That is crazy. And it never crashed? No way.
    • simonsezmac, on 10/10/2007, -13/+37Of course it never crashed! It'a a Mac! I'm going to try this right now!
      • jefseb, on 10/10/2007, -9/+7I'd like to see this as a benchmark test between a comparable PC, Mac and Linux box. Wonder what would happen.
        • simonsezmac, on 10/10/2007, -15/+5The Linux would handle it. PC would bomb out.
          • jefseb, on 10/10/2007, -2/+14Don't be a hater. There are PCs that could handle this and we all know it. I think this could be a real benchmark test...if it isn't already.
          • foxhoundadmin, on 10/10/2007, -6/+8CHRIST! "Your session has expired, please refresh the page before commenting." FINE!!

            (i'm replying to jefseb, btw)

            wow... okay. first off, it wouldn't be a good benchmark test, because different pcs run different programs. secondly, it's a TERRIBLE cross-platform benchmark, because (like in the previous statement) different pcs run different... OPERATING SYSTEMS!

            the fact that you got dugg for replying to someone who said, "The Linux would handle it. PC would bomb out," just proves that digg is now inhabited by complete noobs who don't know ***** about technology. a pc is a pc (PERSONAL COMPUTER). MACS are pcs! always have been, always will be. a linux desktop is, too, a pc--a linux server is NOT a pc!! comprende?
          • Audacitor, on 10/10/2007, -4/+10Macs aren't PCs...they're lifestyles. Get it straight.
          • krebcycle, on 10/10/2007, -1/+2Audacitor, straight is the wrong adjective, especially if matches the colors on your new vw beetle.
        • ubuntufubu, on 10/10/2007, -18/+1ubuntu can stand strong too fools
        • Audacitor, on 10/10/2007, -1/+6Ubuntu IS linux.
          Fool.
          [had to reply in wrong position because of missing reply link]
      • zweben, on 10/10/2007, -4/+7It surprises me that people are still surprised by this. I've done it on my 1.67GHz G4, which sucks compared to any current Mac.

        Most of the applications locked up for a while but eventually everything finished loading and it was usable again. Hell, i'm running 11 apps at the moment.
        • Aggaman, on 10/10/2007, -2/+5Yeah. I'm not surprised. OS X handles large numbers of open apps very well. You can have every app on your machine open, and as long as you aren't using them all at the same time, the computer is just peachy.
        • thecompkid, on 10/10/2007, -3/+2Yeah, macs are notoriously good at this kind of thing. I did this with my 500mhz iBook w/ 576 mb ram and all the programs were actually useable, BION.
          • ShrimpCrackers, on 10/10/2007, -4/+4Any modern operating system is notoriously good at this thing. Are people here seriously stuck in the 90's? What the heck is going on?
          • wageslaven, on 10/10/2007, -1/+2Your 500mh iBook ran Mac OS. Perhaps you missed the point where Apple forked FreeBSD? Mac OS and Mac OSX (FreeBSD) are totally different OSs. Comparing the two in any sense is silly.
          • tian2992, on 10/10/2007, -0/+0Its quite obious that OS X without BSD would Suck, Of course its OS X.

            You can even install it on a G3
      • tian2992, on 10/10/2007, -1/+0Of course, ot works on almost any OS X mac.
        The only thing that prevents me from having 15 apps at the time is the RAM... and Disk Space (i only got 300Mb free)
    • jefseb, on 10/10/2007, -4/+10The simple fact that I could take a screen shot with expose sorting out all the running apps was a surprise to me to. But, it's the real deal baby.
    • super_spyder, on 10/10/2007, -1/+5I very frequently do this to check out and see if i am dealing with a sick mac, because it works fine even on older g4 emacs with no problem. I have even done it on a few g3 ibooks, but that takes FOREVER (it works but takes far too long)
    • over90000, on 10/10/2007, -15/+1http://img264.imageshack.us/img264/3681/picture1bt ...
      it crashes on macs too.
      • DaffyDuck, on 10/10/2007, -2/+7That person is using Shapeshifter or some other UI changing program so that one doesn't count as Shapeshifter hooks deep into the OS and can be buggy.
    • over90000, on 10/10/2007, -12/+8Windows can do this too. (copy pasting michypoo's comment)

      I did the same to my Windows XP. Even with 40+ applications (including entire Adobe Creative Suite, Adobe Production Suite, Microsoft Office 2007 suite, and Autodesk suite) my system didn't crash. My computer isn't even Core 2 Duo, either. I really don't think Mac users should feel so high and mighty about their operating system.

      http://i6.tinypic.com/4qgzwae.jpg
      • DaffyDuck, on 10/10/2007, -8/+31. You didn't open as many programs as the OP (80 or so).
        2. You strategically opened them one-by-one, not all at the same time. (notice there is calculator then notepad then solitaire then minesweeper...)
        3. The only really intensive apps I see in your screenshot are the Adobe apps, 3ds max, and Nero (because it's now so bloated).
        • thelizardreborn, on 10/10/2007, -3/+71. Not sure how you can know there are less programs when Windows doesn't have an option to show all windows at once.
          2. If you open 2 apps at the same time, they don't actually load at the same time. Of course calculator, notepad, solitaire, and minesweeper are going to open first. They load quickly. "Strategic opening" would have saved those for the end, when there are less system resources left.
          3. The intensive apps in the Mac screenshot? Most look like Finder windows.
        • DaffyDuck, on 10/10/2007, -2/+21. He said 40+. Judging by the overlapping windows it looks like fewer than that but let's give him the benefit of the doubt and say 41. Try counting the triangles in the dock on the OS X screenshot. All the Finder windows occupy ony one of those. There are around 80 programs open. That's twice the number which is significant.

          2. There is still a difference.

          3. Photoshop, Aperture, Microsoft Word, Excel, Powerpoint, Pages, Numbers, Mail, Google Earth, iTunes, Firefox, Camino, Safari, etc. Hell, even the built-in Textedit is more intensive than Windows notepad, at least in capabilities.
        • tian2992, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1I have 254 Apps at my Applications Folder (without counting Creative Suite...) and it takes arround 45 Mins to boot them all... Of course that was when i still had free space in my hard drive
  • jefseb, on 10/10/2007, -4/+195I waited and waited for it crash...it locked up for a while here and there, but the processes kept running. Only thing that got stuck was the Photobooth app...I had to Force Quit that one in the end.
    • simonsezmac, on 10/10/2007, -10/+1How did this even happen? You had to have done this intentionally. Is there a key command to Quit all apps?
      • jefseb, on 10/10/2007, -0/+12Seriously, I hit Command+A inside my apps folder so I could organize them...I know I didn't have to, but for some reason I did. Then, by accident, I double clicked one of the highlighted icons. Wiz, bang , boom, it all started happening. It was a situation where I panic a little at first, but then you just settle in for the unavoidable system crash...but this time it just never happened.
        • trylleklovn, on 10/10/2007, -0/+10Windows actually has confirm box, to make sure you really want to open all applications on the desktop, for instance, at once.
          Probably because it's a good joke to ctrl+a and then enter on a "friends" computer, if i uses his desktop to organise shortcuts for all his applications :P

          (I'm a mac user btw, so this isn't bashing the Mac. It rarely happens that you select everything in the applicationsfolder :P)
        • lintmonkey, on 10/10/2007, -1/+4...organize them? What the heck?
      • jefseb, on 10/10/2007, -6/+1CTRL+COMMAND+EJECT... but that would have quit all applications and restarted the computer. Plus, it still would have gone through the whole process of opening each program.
    • live2board, on 10/10/2007, -0/+22Did you try force choking it first?
      • bmobile, on 10/10/2007, -4/+2I see what you did there. Nicely done!
    • super_spyder, on 10/10/2007, -9/+2I very frequently do this to check out and see if i am dealing with a sick mac, because it works fine even on older g4 emacs with no problem. I have even done it on a few g3 ibooks, but that takes FOREVER (it works but takes far too long)
    • tehpwnrate, on 10/10/2007, -0/+6I wouldn't have been impressed if I hadn't seen a little AOE3 home city over there :D
    • isunktheship, on 10/10/2007, -23/+3That's a neat idea, is there a way to do this on a PC? I'm positive it would freeze, we have real applications. (Sorry, someone had to say it)
      On a more serious note, don't Macs have all stock programs partly running in the background anyway?
      Not trying to flame, just would like a helpful response, thanks!
      • terath, on 10/10/2007, -1/+5No they don't. You are probably thinking of the way that apps don't always *close* when you close the last window, but run in the background ready to pop up another window instantly. Still, if you specifically quit the item, or never start it, it isn't loaded. I think Dashboard is always loaded, but that's about it.
        • jonshipman, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Dashboard isn't loaded until it's activated.
        • zweben, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Dashboard isn't loaded until it's activated for the first time after starting up or logging in. It then stays active even when in the background until you log out.
      • noblepenguin, on 10/10/2007, -4/+9real applications?
        wow, just… wow

        and yes, you're clearly trying to flame.

        And no, Macs don't have stand-alone applications running in the background unless they've been specified to.
      • picsectionpleez, on 10/10/2007, -1/+2"real applications" OMG I would bury you but obviously you're a kid.
    • sputnikv, on 10/10/2007, -8/+3holy *****, you have alot of things on your task bar, not to mention your dock is insane. what u have up there?
      • Audacitor, on 10/10/2007, -2/+7It's not called the task bar. It's the menu bar. Geez.

        All I can recognize is Adium. Everything else is either to small, or I just haven't see it before.
        Adium, BTW, is a chat client for MSN, Yahoo, AIM, ICQ, Gmail, etc.
        • krebcycle, on 10/10/2007, -2/+3Geez, what a loser for calling the menu bar the wrong thing. Geez.
      • piwy, on 10/10/2007, -2/+2Adium
        Aurora
        Expose (i think)
        3x iStat menu (might be mistaken again)
        somehting to the likes of virtuedesktop?
        quicksilver
        coconutWifi(?)
        next 3 no clue.
        iStat menu's again (?)
        version cue
        next 3 again no clue
        displays
        airport
        volume
        etc.
        etc

      • Skootles, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1By the way, his dock doesn't necessarily have that many things on it, but when you open apps, they get added to the dock.
      • cctoronto05, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Actually, it's called a DOCK. And the reason why there's so many items in the DOCK is because all opened programs are represented in the DOCK while they're running.
    • skealoha86, on 10/10/2007, -14/+6you *****. i tried the same thing because of you and crashed my MacBook Pro...
    • over90000, on 10/10/2007, -22/+5Windows can do this too. (copy pasting michypoo's comment)

      I did the same to my Windows XP. Even with 40+ applications (including entire Adobe Creative Suite, Adobe Production Suite, Microsoft Office 2007 suite, and Autodesk suite) my system didn't crash. My computer isn't even Core 2 Duo, either. I really don't think Mac users should feel so high and mighty about their operating system.

      http://i6.tinypic.com/4qgzwae.jpg
      • magicmarc, on 10/10/2007, -3/+7Please stop copying and pasting someone elses comment repeatedly.
        • krebcycle, on 10/10/2007, -2/+2And why is he being dugg down? Isn't it at all interesting that it works on the other systems?
      • MacParrot, on 10/10/2007, -2/+4Creativity and original thought is NOT one of over90000's stronger points
        • cctoronto05, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Yeah, but can you see all the app windows at the same time a la Expose?? No? I didn't think so...
    • kat81, on 10/10/2007, -3/+2FYI: *finished counting open apps in dock (only apps with arrows indicating they were open, since there were some items with no arrow)*
      80 apps open. Exactly 80.
      (I thought you would like to know exactly how many Apps were open, incase you didn't count)
      I'm just cutting/pasting this to the people saying "Oh, it's all Finder windows, there's probably only 40 apps open" You had exactly 80 apps open.
      (bad you - had warez stuff, and the Tor/V app... bad! :)
    • neodorian, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Nice! I bet the 3GB of RAM is what saved you. With enough RAM you can work with a zillion things at once (albeit slowly)
  • digitalpencil, on 10/10/2007, -10/+225& you could still run expose! God love the core graphics framework. roll on Leopard!!
    • jefseb, on 10/10/2007, -8/+22I can't say enough good things about it all. This is the commercial Apple should run.
      • zybch, on 10/10/2007, -16/+5Perhaps they can get that stupid stoner Elen Feiss (of whatever her name is) to do it. After all, after listening to her for 5 seconds it'd be pretty damn obvious that she is too utterly stupid to ever use ANY computer properly and is in desperate need of it to be able to cope with the most ***** up situations simply coz she quite plainly couldn't find her ass with an atlas and both hands, let alone actually use a computer without it trying to suicide itself to get away.
      • delaen, on 10/10/2007, -1/+4Do you know how much 12 minutes of airtime costs?
    • grimers1, on 10/10/2007, -2/+16When Leopard is in full release you should try to recreate your "accident" and compare results.
      • jefseb, on 10/10/2007, -2/+14that's not a bad idea. after this experience, I'm not too worried about trying it again.
    • tjamesonky, on 10/10/2007, -0/+10What was the delay time from the minute you keyed the expose command the time it organized all this into place?
    • simonsezmac, on 10/10/2007, -7/+2I'm still skeptical.
  • grimers1, on 10/10/2007, -25/+9What graphics card?
    • zybch, on 10/10/2007, -14/+2Well, as its a mac you can be sure the video card is utterly crap and underpowered.
      • alexkorova, on 10/10/2007, -1/+3A ATI Radeon X1600 with 256 MB VRAM is not that bad.
      • beastlykings, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1wow, the mac fanboys are in full force today. :)
  • jefseb, on 10/10/2007, -1/+51ATI Radeon X1600 256 MB at 1440x900
    • cautionrug, on 10/10/2007, -23/+6damn. too bad you can't game on that machine too much. Mac's Achille's Heel is gaming
      • ubuntufubu, on 10/10/2007, -3/+3that is changing Rug
      • OrangeTide, on 10/10/2007, -2/+13WoW works. (so does MAME)
        • Scruffydan, on 10/10/2007, -12/+6shall i list all the games that run on windows? nah it will take to long, suffice to say that WoW and the few other games that do run, pale in comparison to the hundreds of current (not to mention thousands of old) games that run on windows.

          If you want to game on a computer windows is your only choice
          • neffy, on 10/10/2007, -1/+10So I'll boot my Mac to Windows if I get the urge to game on my computer. Which won't happen.
          • PURDooM, on 10/10/2007, -2/+2*cough* bootcamp *cough* I can run modern games on my mac just as good as any other laptop... but us mac users have actual lives to attend to instead of games.
      • zybch, on 10/10/2007, -22/+7"Mac's Achille's Heel is gaming"

        No, mac's Achille's heel is its users.
        • MacParrot, on 10/10/2007, -2/+7And Zybch's Achille's Heel is...well...himself...and probably pop-tarts that his mom brings to him
      • BossKey, on 10/10/2007, -5/+25Ah yes, the classic ironic criticism of the Mac.

        "The Mac is not a serious computer."
        "Why not?"
        "Because you can't play games."
        • myak, on 10/10/2007, -1/+3I suppose it was something like "damn, that's some good hardware inside, too bad you can't use it for gaming" and guy makes a valid point imho. I'm a Mac lover but I honestly admit that there are not so many games to play. I had hoped it'd change with Macs going Intel but it didn't so much :( Fortunately I don't play many games anymore, and the ones I play (Urban Terror and WoW but I stopped a while ago, thank god!) are available on Linux and Mac.
        • PURDooM, on 10/10/2007, -1/+2With leopard, it will take less than 30 seconds to switch betewen windows and mac for games.
        • wageslaven, on 10/10/2007, -2/+2Ah yes, the classic ironic criticism of the Mac.

          "The Mac is not a serious computer."
          "Why not?"
          "Because you can't play games or tens of thousands of must-have applications that the world's businesses run on."
          • BossKey, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1That's funny because I support some businesses who are all Mac, and have witnessed some businesses switch from Windows to the Mac.

            Guess some of those applications aren't so "must-have" after all!!
        • mirunit, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Bootcamp! Running windows inside OSX sucks.
      • sneakerelph, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2Actually the newer MBP's have GeForce 8600's in them, which is quite acceptable for gaming on a laptop.
      • mirunit, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2I am posting this on a 2.4ghz 8600m GT 256 MBP running WindowsXP and it runs games just fine. Infact it just ran supreme commander and MOH airborne like a beast.
  • tjamesonky, on 10/10/2007, -1/+20I know I could sit and count them all, but how many applications would you say are on your machine?
  • chuckiepal35, on 10/10/2007, -8/+19this is f*ing nuts i would have crapped myyself
    • saifatlast, on 10/10/2007, -0/+35You must lead a very boring life.
  • abehaskill1, on 10/10/2007, -76/+6doesn't anyone else think this screams of photoshop? a good scam, but still a scam maybe?
    • afghanapple, on 10/10/2007, -5/+2No way this is fake. If it is this dude needs to get a life. I think it's legit
    • nicholaslent, on 10/10/2007, -2/+2It does seem weird that he used Expose and took a pic of himself with Photobooth...
      The dock is pretty amazing.
    • BakedGoods, on 10/10/2007, -3/+2You've never used a Mac have you?
      • wageslaven, on 10/10/2007, -1/+3Oh get off it, this isnt unique or special in any way.
    • AvidPreatorian, on 10/10/2007, -1/+5wow, you're lost. anyone with a mac can prove this picture to you.. get out of your house, go to an apple store, open all the apps on any machine and press F9. my macbook pro can do this with easy, never crash, no restart needed, no virus protection, no pop-ups. welcome to our world.
      • picsectionpleez, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2I'm not sure if my Mini could do it :( I have FrontRow and Adobe CS, plus a couple more memory intensive apps that I'm pretty sure would make it sad if I tried.
      • logandurand, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Attention Mac users: This has little, if anything, to do with your operating system. It's about your hardware, and FYI, Macs have the same hardware all other computers do. That's right - your Mac is the same as any other PC, it just has Apple's software running on it. Anyone who puts enough money into their machine will be able to do this. It's not even that impressive, really - because most of those applications are just sitting there idling, it's simply a question of how much RAM you have.
  • cautionrug, on 10/10/2007, -10/+1did you have any widget running, too?
    • jefseb, on 10/10/2007, -1/+2a ton. i'm a dashboard fanatic. but i don't know how they were effected.
  • diggitmidget, on 10/10/2007, -10/+30How could you have ever doubted the power of the MBP? Did you seriously think it wouldn't be able to handle that load? C'mon.
    • boogie, on 10/10/2007, -1/+1The "opening all applications" is by the way a standard way to test the fans performance, issues etc in my local Apple Retail store. So, seen it too, wasn't impressed. It's a Macbook Pro, it's just... good :-)
  • toetagger, on 10/10/2007, -32/+292It's a Mac. I have a MBP 2.17mhz 3GB RAM. I do all kinds of ***** to it and it never complains. That's the power of Unix underneath.
    Try that with Windows and your house will blow up.
    • vawksel, on 10/10/2007, -12/+113You only have to run one app on WIndows for it to blow up sometimes.
      • ShrimpCrackers, on 10/10/2007, -21/+20Why are people digging Toe-Tagger up?

        1) OSX is based on BSD, which is Unix-like but definitely not Unix; the hardware is undeniably X86.
        2) Windows can open 40 applications at once, however you're not going to run 40 identical copies of Adobe Premiere, not even my top of the line MacBook Pro 17" can do that. In Windows I can easily open say 100 copies of minesweeper, or even an instance of every application in Microsoft Office, along with every single Adobe program and it'll chug along (about 40 applications). This is a no brainer and I do similar things often.
        3) It wasn't proven that this CAN'T be done in Windows, only assumed because its fashionable to bash on Windows.
        4) While fanboys argue back and forth, both Steve Jobs and Bill Gates are laughing their way to the bank. There is a word we have for people that do free advertising for corporations...
        • anonym41414, on 10/10/2007, -3/+7"There is a word we have for people that do free advertising for corporations..."

          Customers?
        • krebcycle, on 10/10/2007, -3/+10Anyone who says anything about windows being able to do this gets mandatorily dugg down, don't even try.
        • dysonlu, on 10/10/2007, -4/+4Why was this guy being dugg up and you dugg down? It's Digg for God's Sake. Pro Apple, digg up. Pro MS, digg down. Pro Xbox360, digg up (ironically). Pro Sony PS3, digg down.
        • Pocky, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3While I suppose you are technically right about it not being true UNIX, you won't be right for long: http://arstechnica.com/journals/apple.ars/2007/08/ ...
      • MacParrot, on 10/10/2007, -3/+11I would agree. There's no reason why a WinPC of similar vintage couldn't have done the same.
        • devindotcom, on 10/10/2007, -1/+3Don't worry shrimpcrackers I'm with you too.
    • voodoozombie, on 10/10/2007, -58/+5If you think your MAC is based on UNIX you are a fool.
      • Reziarfg, on 10/10/2007, -1/+25...Ummm....voodoo...Sorry to burst your bubble, but, welcome to 1999:
        "Mac OS X is a Unix OS[1] built on technology that had been developed at NeXT through the second half of the 1980s until Apple purchased the company in early 1997."
        http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mac_OS_X
        • ShrimpCrackers, on 10/10/2007, -5/+3Correction: If you think your Mac is a Unix Machine then you are a fool. (see ToeTagger up above).

          If you think that OSX is based on BSD which is in turn based on Unix, then you are not a fool.
        • wageslaven, on 10/10/2007, -1/+4Sorry to burst _your_ bubble Reziarfg, OSX is built on FreeBSD -- it was a second attempt of PC-based UNIX that jobs tried with NeXT. OSX is -- save the GUI -- built on GNU tools, FreeBSD and the FreeBSD kernel. Almost everything of consequence is GPL or BSD software.

          "Darwin, the core of Apple's Mac OS X, borrows heavily from FreeBSD, including its virtual file system, network stack and components of its userspace"

          http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FreeBSD#Derivatives
      • GMProspect, on 10/10/2007, -1/+3what? ow... my head
      • 24imac, on 10/10/2007, -1/+17You are an idiot.
      • madmoose, on 10/10/2007, -1/+14Leopard is a certified UNIX: http://www.apple.com/macosx/leopard/technology/uni ...
        • monkeyaneng, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1i hope this means that they fix "sudo passwd username" it doesn't actually change like every other UNIX system i have used. and i'm on a mbp now. i like it but i still don't think that it is truly unix but rather based on unix. and people are right it isn't bsd it is based on the mach kernel which is slightly different
      • MacParrot, on 10/10/2007, -1/+4voodoozombie is just trying too hard to channel the ghost of Mr.T. Unfortunately he fails because Mr T isn't dead. His career on the other hand...
    • aaronm67, on 10/10/2007, -13/+3Depends what apps your running, but for the most part, this could be done just as easily on a windows computer. Most people wouldn't sit and wait for 12 minutes for all their apps to open, they would probably reboot first.
    • over90000, on 10/10/2007, -14/+0http://img264.imageshack.us/img264/3681/picture1bt ...
      it crashes on mac too
      • iPontus, on 10/10/2007, -0/+8Well, you only have yourself to blame when installing custom themes and the UI crashes...
        • over90000, on 10/10/2007, -10/+3what about windows?

          I did the same to my Windows XP. Even with 40+ applications (including entire Adobe Creative Suite, Adobe Production Suite, Microsoft Office 2007 suite, and Autodesk suite) my system didn't crash. My computer isn't even Core 2 Duo, either. I really don't think Mac users should feel so high and mighty about their operating system.

          http://i6.tinypic.com/4qgzwae.jpg
      • bigredgpk, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Holy dock Batman! i don't think i've seen an OS X dock so packed before
    • foxhoundadmin, on 10/10/2007, -5/+18i remember the BAD ol' days of using macs in school BEFORE they used mac os x, and ALL they did was crash, crash, CRASH! however, the same can be said for windows 9x pcs that were used during the same time-frame. the only difference is microsoft MADE nt. apple didn't make bsd (not unix--mac os x is based off bsd).

      anyway, i do this ALL the time after i flush the prefetch data on my windows xp pc. i open over a dozen programs i use frequently, and they all load in a couple minutes (on a pc with an amd athlon xp 3200+ cpu, 1 gb ddr-333 (single channel) sdram, and a seagate barracuda 200 gb 7200 rpm pata 100 hdd).
      • gurm, on 10/10/2007, -1/+9Depending on how nitpicky you want to be, you could argue that Microsoft did not make NT, as they acquired the technology from DEC and plastered the Win3.x and later Win95 GUI on top of it.
        • wageslaven, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3No. No they didnt.

          NT was OS/2 Version 3. When IBM refused to open the hardware control they were trying to force with PS/2 (non open model like the PC, but closed, like Apple), Microsoft decided to take OS/2 Version 3 in-house, and _that_ resulted in Windows NT.

          Microsoft did not buy any technology or code from DEC. What _did_ happen was Dave Cutler decided to leave DEC and moved to Microsoft to build Windows NT.

          http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Windows_nt#Developmen ...

          Win 3.x, Win 95/98 were always built atop MS-DOS.
          Windows NT is 2000, XP and Vista. (Vista is NT 6)

          http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Windows_NT#Releases

          Your not being "nitpicky", your just wrong.
      • dacjames, on 10/10/2007, -0/+4To be even more nitpicky, OS X is based on Mach which was a microkernal evolution of BSD which grew directly from the original UNIX. So OS X is UNIX based and at its core unix-like. Even more relevant, Leopard is certified POSIX compliant.
      • tian2992, on 10/10/2007, -0/+0@Dacjames iits microkernel, but Mach is not based form BSD, Darwin is composed of a Mach layer and a BSD layer.

        NT ruled at the time, but now is (sic) ass bloated ass is Internet Explorer.

        Mac OS Sucked!!!!

        Mac OS X RULES!!!!!!!!!!
    • over90000, on 10/10/2007, -17/+16Copy and paste from michypoo

      I did the same to my Windows XP. My system isn't even Core 2 Duo and even with 40+ application (including the entire Adobe Creative Suite, Adobe Production Suite, Microsoft Office Suite, and Autodesk Suite) it didn't crash. I really don't think Mac users should feel so high and mighty about their operating system.

      http://i6.tinypic.com/4qgzwae.jpg
      • Kelmon, on 10/10/2007, -7/+5Oh, really, we have good reason. That computer will be usable with all the applications open since OS X memory management is excellent and you won't need to restart it. But it has to be said that you don't appreciate these things until you've used a Mac for weeks.
    • dontstaylong, on 10/10/2007, -3/+17if i even look at my vista laptop wrong, it crashes.
      • wageslaven, on 10/10/2007, -3/+1Like fcuking hell. What model do you run? Are you running BETA drivers? Your full of shiat.
        • Mac101, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2Dugg down for being an idiot. Quit pretending Windows is better.
    • posure, on 10/10/2007, -2/+11Wish my MBP could do this, it has crashed for me just by unplugging a mouse.
      • sneakerelph, on 10/10/2007, -1/+2Well, if the mouse isn't plugged in the cursor won't move.
    • glbanksitter, on 10/10/2007, -1/+0 I have a MBP 2.17 3GB RAM. I do all kinds of ***** to it and it never complains.

      Kinda shocking, actually.
    • stankinaz, on 10/10/2007, -1/+0you apple guys are so ridiculous . . . . apple now uses intel. To me a mac is now a true PC
  • sparkmonkeyz, on 10/10/2007, -24/+9I don't get how you would accidentally open all the applications? "oops, my mouse slipped while I was trying to open firefox... many... many times."
    • neonenergy, on 10/10/2007, -1/+3accidental cmd-a plus a double click opens everything if you are in the application folder
      • actorboy, on 10/10/2007, -2/+8Command-A + double click will try to open everything in any folder. For the non mac users, command-A is Select All.
        • zybch, on 10/10/2007, -4/+1Sorry, but windows doesn't let you make stupid mistakes like that. Even if you crtl-a then double click on any of the selected icons all you end up doing in running just that single application, not all of them.
          However, if you ctrl-a then hit 'enter' its a whole nother' story.
          • MacParrot, on 10/10/2007, -1/+3zybch, it's not a stupid mistake if all it requires to do the same thing on a WinPC is a different shortcut. Get some perspective.
      • actorboy, on 10/10/2007, -8/+4Command-A + double click will try to open everything in any folder. For the non mac users, command-A is Select All.
      • actorboy, on 10/10/2007, -7/+4Command-A + double click will try to open everything in any folder. For the non mac users, command-A is Select All.
      • actorboy, on 10/10/2007, -3/+11Jeez! Major posting error! Sorry. It told me session expired after I tried to post and I came back to find it posted three times. My apologies, folks.
        • foxhoundadmin, on 10/10/2007, -0/+6digg's comment system sucks MORE (as if that's possible) after today's "update."
    • terath, on 10/10/2007, -1/+1And it's not that hard to do. I did it once with a big directory of photos. Man it took a long long long time to open them all.
  • ocellnuri, on 10/10/2007, -2/+61Look at that dock!
  • afwjam, on 10/10/2007, -3/+14ive done that on my macbook, pretty impressive. Just chugs away as the icons bounce on the doc.
  • djpnuemo, on 10/10/2007, -9/+65my first mac is getting purchased when leopard is released. solid!
  • RooDoG, on 10/10/2007, -7/+29More reason for me to get a MacBook Pro now
    • BossKey, on 10/10/2007, -1/+7It's really not about the MacBook Pro. It's more about Mac OS X. It's pretty bullet proof. I'm often surprised at how hard I can drive a Mac in the middle of a production deadline, opening apps and big documents, pushing the limits of the CPU and the RAM, and it keeps running and running. If I didn't restart my Macs every week or so, they would just keep going. Actually, I have one Mac that I haven't restarted in a while. It's Unix uptime is currently 112 days.
  • davewho, on 10/10/2007, -7/+57Were the 43 finder windows open before, or do you have that many folders inside of your apps folder?
    • theShiba, on 10/10/2007, -1/+14dugg for actually counting them.
    • BossKey, on 10/10/2007, -1/+6It is very possible. Remember how the Application folder works. At the top level, there can be application packages, or application folders. For example, unlike iTunes or iPhoto, Photoshop is not an icon at the top level of Applications, it is inside a folder named Adobe Photoshop CS3. There are many, many applications that are inside folders at the top level of the Applications folder, rather similar to the organization you see in the Program Files folder on Windows.

      If you did exactly what he did, select all and then double-click to open all selected items, then all the top-level applications would launch, and all the top-level application folders would open into Finder windows. There's really no surprise here.

      BTW, there is also no surprise about the result. The MacBook Pro is more powerful than the recent G5 towers.
      • BossKey, on 10/10/2007, -3/+2Aaaand a follow-up BTW...the article title is technically inaccurate, because if you're opening folder windows in the Applications window, you did not open every application on the Mac. Now, if you did a Select All in List view, and Command-right arrow to flip open the nested folders, which includes the Utilities folder, and THEN did a Select All and double-click, you would come very close to opening every app on the Mac, though there are probably still some minor apps buried a little deeper.
    • ncaauwe, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3Heh...43 Folders...I won't digg your comment since you're at 43 diggs, and that's just awesome.
  • blurrie, on 10/10/2007, -17/+1should do it on vista and see if windoze could hang.
    (fan boy alert)
    • zybch, on 10/10/2007, -7/+4You can't do that in vista simply because the UI doesn't allow stupid mistakes like a crtl-a then a double-click on any one of the icons/apps to accidentally launch them all instead of just the one you clicked on.
      • meatmcguffin, on 10/10/2007, -2/+4So if you want to launch several apps or open several files, you can't just highlight several and double click once? That sounds like it could get annoying fast
      • darklights, on 10/10/2007, -1/+1Double click, no, but you can press enter to open all items at once. So theoretically this is possible, on a bunch of shortcuts to applications.
      • toxicityj, on 10/10/2007, -1/+4http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v644/toxicityj/a ...
        i know its nto as many as they've got in that pic, but ..I ran out of programs. I just got this yesterday. 3 gigs of ram/amd dual core running Vista Ultimate.
        • kat81, on 10/10/2007, -3/+0*laughing at seeing all those Apple/Mac apps on a PC*
          • toxicityj, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3The only reason I opened them was because itunes/quicktime are memory hogs.
        • afwjam, on 10/10/2007, -1/+1god thats an ugly UI
    • RileyKA, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3You could search for all executable files, Ctrl-A to select them all and then hit enter. That would attempt to run them all... And then promptly crash... Yes i tried it.... No it didn't work...
  • davewho, on 10/10/2007, -11/+3Were the 43 finder windows open before, or do you have that many folders inside of your apps folder?
    • davewho, on 10/10/2007, -1/+3Ahh - Digg "fatal error" when posting was not in fact an error!!
  • Alex2, on 10/10/2007, -4/+37I was hoping to see a chernobyl'd mac...
  • rideroyals, on 10/10/2007, -11/+33i dont see World of Warcraft...
    • dawnraid101, on 10/10/2007, -16/+4no you dont, becuase world of war craft is for gay people like yourself.
      • toxicityj, on 10/10/2007, -1/+10oh I didn't realize people still thought "gay" was a clever insult. I'm both shocked and amaed.
        • vapblack, on 10/10/2007, -1/+1amaed. Almost!
          World of Warcraft is fullscreen so you wouldn't see it.
          • toxicityj, on 10/10/2007, -1/+3do i get points for trying? :'(
          • myak, on 10/10/2007, -2/+4If you want to be accurate, almost! You can run WoW in a window. kkthx.
          • wageslaven, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1World of Warcraft runs in Window just fine on my machine, both when I ran XP and now with Vista.
    • KMartSheriff, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2Good.
  • mstrebe, on 10/13/2007, -26/+350What's so special about that? I can totally open all the apps on my Vista machine without it cra
    • 24imac, on 10/10/2007, -13/+26yeah, one at a time.
    • seamushc, on 10/10/2007, -8/+80LoL I see what you did th
    • justin9, on 10/10/2007, -13/+7Lol. took me a min, but thats funny
    • neffy, on 10/10/2007, -8/+26Funniest comment in a while. Thanks for that.
    • martinezf123, on 10/10/2007, -29/+8cause when vista crashes it submits the last comment you were typing to Digg......
    • kayaker712, on 10/10/2007, -7/+10***** I can't even open Vista itself without it crashing!
    • neuwill, on 10/10/2007, -2/+3lol, thanks for that, made me laugh!
    • artpop, on 10/10/2007, -2/+5we had him and then we lost him
    • da_bradler, on 10/10/2007, -0/+6Dugg for still being able to click submit after a system crash... wait a MINU
  • happytedium, on 10/10/2007, -5/+22Nice. Had a MacBook Pro (15", 2.4Ghz 2GB RAM) for about 3 weeks now. ***** brilliant. Love it.
    • mirunit, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1I will agree in that it is my favorite laptop ever.
  • rideroyals, on 10/10/2007, -15/+5i dont see World of Warcraft...
  • mstrebe, on 10/10/2007, -27/+3What's so special about that? I can totally open all the apps on my Vista machine without it cra
    • EliteMacFreak, on 10/10/2007, -3/+1All ten of them that work properly. ;-)
      • garoboldy, on 10/10/2007, -2/+0the only Vista user 0 | Mac user 1
    • PURDooM, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2You guys totally missed the joke.
  • mygans, on 10/10/2007, -9/+78i clicked on the "start" menu 5 days back and it is still popping up ;)
    • SirZRX, on 10/10/2007, -4/+1i think u are the kind of guy that bitches about vista because u cant run it on ur 8 year old pc
  • davdav, on 10/10/2007, -17/+38Actual image of my computer crashing while attempting to do the same thing. Notice the title bar.

    http://img264.imageshack.us/img264/3681/picture1bt ...
    • over90000, on 10/10/2007, -12/+3Haha, thanks. I like how everyone goes "if you tried that on windows it would crash".
    • Tourney3p0, on 10/10/2007, -7/+8Dugg down for bringing us back to reality.
    • ivanvanderbyl, on 10/10/2007, -10/+4You must have a ***** house graphics card for that to occur. I just tried the same thing on my 15" MBP, 4GB 2.4GHz, launching 151 items in my applications folder, including Photoshop and Flash, but it wasn't able to take a screen capture due to low drive space, and I mean low.
    • bobcrotch, on 10/10/2007, -6/+1App zapper is lame.
    • neffy, on 10/10/2007, -2/+34I notice your UI is hacked to all hell. You expect that to be stable?
      • dysonlu, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3Why shouldn't we expect it to be stable? When Windows crashes, haters ask no such question and start bashing and dissing already.
        • unmarked, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2Sorry, but the parent is right. He's obviously using something like Shapeshifter and expecting it to be as stable. Hell, I've seen Shapeshifter cause crashes with only ONE app running. Reason: Shapeshifter is doing all kinds of nasty tricks to circumvent the OS by patching every program that launches.
    • lucask, on 10/10/2007, -0/+11amateur hour
    • ciphex, on 10/10/2007, -2/+7yeh i thought the same as neffy a first glance... Shapeshifter likely crapped trying to work that hard.
    • joe950, on 10/10/2007, -1/+8Application Enhancer is the DEVIL!!!
    • bartendercorey, on 10/10/2007, -1/+16If your system crashed how where you able to take the screenshot then?
    • Ladon, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2It crashed because you modded it. It wasn't built to be raped like Windows.
  • mrASSMAN, on 10/10/2007, -15/+4Whoa, you selected multiple apps/folders, and they actually opened up when you double-clicked? I would have never expected that!

    (laaame)
  • GinaJuice, on 10/10/2007, -2/+44iSerial... Nice.
  • voodoozombie, on 10/10/2007, -16/+4It takes a badly programmed app to crash any computer since 1999 (for example: Windows 2000, OSX, or Red Hat 6.0). Why would you think opening all of them would make it crash? Besides, anyone who has a cat and a keyboard has seen all their apps opened at the same time. Dugg down.
  • DeFex, on 10/10/2007, -3/+4why would it crash? maybe system7 might have done, but not now. if you include all the crap most people have running on their computers in the background its probably around there anyways. not having an interface does not make a BG program, service etc use much less resources.
  • h2oDomination, on 10/10/2007, -10/+2No offense to the guy, but just for doing that, he deserves to be shot. :P
    • bigkm, on 10/10/2007, -1/+1yeah he cheated cause it didn't open all the utilities folder theres about another 20 apps in there he could of with this command

      find /Applications/ -name '*.app' -exec open '{}' ;

      edit: the ";" should be escaped
  • sirbeta, on 10/10/2007, -12/+5I honestly don't see the awesomeness in this... I'm trying, but...the system functioned how it was supposed to? Amazing?
    • BlueStarr, on 10/10/2007, -5/+7Uh...try that on your Wintel box and then come back here........we'll after you reboot of course.
      • over90000, on 10/10/2007, -6/+5I did the same to my Windows XP. Even with 40+ applications (including entire Adobe Creative Suite, Adobe Production Suite, Microsoft Office 2007 suite, and Autodesk suite) my system didn't crash. My computer isn't even Core 2 Duo, either. I really don't think Mac users should feel so high and mighty about their operating system.

        http://i6.tinypic.com/4qgzwae.jpg

        michypoo's comment.
        • sirbeta, on 10/10/2007, -0/+0I like how everyone dug this guy down even though he's right. This isn't hard to do.
  • halans, on 10/10/2007, -4/+20What, no Parallels with Windows running?
    • GreenAlien, on 10/10/2007, -3/+2Would of been the icing on the cake if he'd of had several Parallels windows open, each one with the blue screen of death.
    • rspeed, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2Parallels Desktop sits in a subfolder of the Applications folder (/Applications/Parallels/Parallels Desktop.app) so the "select all, open" command wouldn't launch it.

      Good thing, too. It probably would have doubled the amount of time it took everything to launch.
  • dcbebop, on 10/10/2007, -14/+21Every application? Parallels isn't open, Entourage isn't open, Powerpoint isn't open, Flash isn't open, Terminal isn't open, iPhoto isn't open, no Photoshop and others. I'm thoroughly unimpressed ;)
    • Blacky, on 10/10/2007, -1/+2you are generally talking about applications that reside in sub-folders of the applications folder, I have a folder for ms office, iwork, cs3 so using the technique he described apple-a, apple-o (or doubleclick) those would in fact not launch.
    • konstantinos88, on 10/10/2007, -1/+2Did you even look at his dock?
      • dcbebop, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Yeah, not a sign of any of those open.
      • Klink258, on 10/10/2007, -1/+1Maybe he doesn't have parallels, flash, etc... and Terminal is in Utilities.
        Blacky is right- did you look at the 47 open finder windows?
        • punterfpc, on 10/10/2007, -1/+1Ya, most of the windows are just Finder windows. Not that impressive really... I can barely open Parallels and a few other big apps at once. and run it smoothly. Won't ever really crash though...
        • unmarked, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Yeah -- how dare people claim that running 80 apps is comparable to running one Parallels which creates a VM, sucks up a processor core and runs Windows.
    • jefseb, on 10/10/2007, -0/+0What are you talking about every one of those apps opened?
  • jakbrud, on 10/10/2007, -4/+8WOW, 160 degrees. that is insane. im surprised that ***** didn't melt.
    • Zippo, on 10/10/2007, -1/+3160ºF is only around 71ºC... which is not an unusual temperature for a MBP running at 100% for a few minutes and well within the safe operating parameters... Besides, most of the exterior of the MBP is aluminum, not plastic.
      I imagine his fans were running on bust for a good while, though.
      • engion3, on 10/10/2007, -0/+0ya mine gets up to 180 when i compress large videos, or when I am running bioshock in windows.
    • da_bradler, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1somebody didn't pay attention in chemistry
    • RevToTheRedline, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2That's not extremely hot imo, my new 2.8Ghz iMac 24" gets up to about 66C max, that's not too far behind. I would only start caring if the system started becoming unstable. But it's rock solid even after 5 hour sessions of Battlefield 2.
  • Foxehh, on 10/10/2007, -6/+2I'm surprised the OS didn't crash.
  • luke374, on 10/10/2007, -14/+2Photoshopped.
  • andretii, on 10/10/2007, -5/+3Not a single porn loaded up! And then people say that PCs are not fun.
  • erfmufn, on 10/10/2007, -1/+39I see your expose.. and I raise you another 200 windows :)

    http://deography.com/index.php?large=mydesktop2&pi ...
  • helgers7, on 10/10/2007, -0/+4I did this a few weeks after I got my Macbook Pro, only took about 3 minutes. Of course I had far fewer apps.
  • DigDugDigger, on 10/10/2007, -1/+6If you hit Apple Option Control 8 you can see the original Photobooth pic, the guy looks like Sage Francis.
  • WorldRTomi, on 10/10/2007, -2/+4most of them are simply different folders, so there are not as many apps as it looks from the screenshot...

    So how many different apps were loaded ? 20-30 ?
    • kat81, on 10/10/2007, -1/+0*finished counting open apps in dock (only apps with arrows indicating they were open, since there were some items with no arrow)*
      80 apps open. Exactly 80.
  • Dylson, on 10/10/2007, -13/+8This really isn't that great.
  • Ace0fClub5, on 10/10/2007, -3/+8heres my contribution.
    MB Pro 2.16GHz 2 gigs of ram
    Big thing with mine is that i ran all the final cut studio apps
    http://i22.photobucket.com/albums/b339/aceer4u/Pic ...
    • aussieNickuss, on 10/10/2007, -1/+2WTF....IE?!
      • mirunit, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2If you do any webdevelopment you have to have IE.
      • stalefries, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Probably got it in Parallels or VmWare Fusion.
  • BlueStarr, on 10/10/2007, -3/+7I counted 80 apps up and running.

    Damn!
  • inkswamp, on 10/10/2007, -13/+55> You can't do that in vista simply because the UI doesn't allow stupid
    > mistakes like a crtl-a then a double-click on any one of the icons/app
    > to accidentally launch them all instead of just the one you clicked on.

    It's not that the Windows UI was designed with such forethought but rather the fact that applications (exe files) are often in subfolders of the Program Files folder along with about a zillion and a half bizarrely named support files necessitating a trip to the Programs submenu in the Start menu to launch anything. On the Mac, an application generally has one icon sitting right there in the Applications folder, clean and simple and modern. So yeah, you're right. You can't easily do it in Windows but only because Windows is mired in its antiquated way of doing things and the exe files are buried under tons of crap.

    Still, I admire how smoothly you framed that to turn it into a benefit. You ought to consider a career in politics.
    • zybch, on 10/10/2007, -13/+3Look, even if you deliberately highlight 180 icons on your desktop, and then double-click on one of them, all you'll be doing is running that single program, not every app in your entire computer. If you highlight and then hit enter you can do it, but thats not going to occur anywhere near as often as the 'select-everything-then-doubleclick-on-one-of-them' situation.
      Personally it'd drive me mad to have a shortcut (cos thats what the applications folder on a mac is filled with) for every single program all lumped together in one spot without folders separating them into various topics.

      BTW, learn to use the reply function. Obviously simple ergonomics are beyond most mac users.
      • inkswamp, on 10/10/2007, -2/+5You're ignoring the point I was making by changing it slightly. Beyond that, the exe's are buried because of Windows' outdated way of doing things so even if you want to launch multiple apps at once, it's a pain in the butt. FWIW, I happen to use the select-multiple-and-double-click-one thing on the Mac all the time. It's an amazing time saver when you work with lots of files at once so whether that's good or bad UI design is subjective.

        And please keep your insults to yourself, btw. I did that intentionally. I don't like replying to comment buried down several layers deep because of Digg's crappy comment system.
        • Sneakernets, on 10/10/2007, -2/+3Quit showing your ignorance please. Those are not EXE files in the START MENU, they're SHORTCUTS, which are "*.lnk". there's a big, *****, difference.

          the EXEs are not "Buried", they're organized, believe it or not.It's not difficult at all to navigate. The Start menu shortcuts are organized by section and company, or suite, or program itself. it's the way it was intended. If you don't like it, you can create your own application folder. If you're too lazy to copy shortcuts from the start menu into another directory, then you deserve to go through the start menu 3, 4 5 times.

          Here's something sweet for you: Those "applications" in your applications folder aren't the Executables, they're aliases. :D
        • DaffyDuck, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2Sneakernets, you've got condescention down pat. Are you sure you are not an Apple user cause I thought that was our trademark. Inkswamp did not show any ignorance, you just showed your lack of reading and understanding his two posts.
      • ciphex, on 10/10/2007, -1/+8zybch wrote:
        Personally it'd drive me mad to have a shortcut (cos thats what the applications folder on a mac is filled with) for every single program all lumped together in one spot without folders separating them into various topics.
        --------------

        Just want to point out that this is far from the case. The /Applications folder in OS X largely contains directories and "packages". Packags are just directories with a file extension that directs the OS to treat them and their contents differently. So in OS X an application (package) gets the .app extension. Inside is a structured hierarchy of files and resources and (usually one) executable.

        But to the everyday user the package appears as one MYProgram.app that launches with a double click. The resources, while organized and easily accessible from either the Finder or CLI, are treated and function as the actual executable. You cannot even know without usings it how great this model is. 85% of the time or more all it takes to remove an application from your system is rm -r /Applications/MyApp.app ... OR Highlight the .app in the Finder and Command-Delete (Apple-Backspace... whatever. And of course common practice is not to rm -r around in your Applications directory... that was for illustrative purposes).

        No cruff hanging about... no worries. The other 15% of the time you're looking at things like System Preference Panes, Daemons, or sometimes Large Apps that store resources in ~/Library/Application Support. These apps almost always ship as Installer Packages with Receipts for uninstalation. If not they provide for their own cleanup.
        Application Preferences are always stored similarly in ~/Library/Preferences
        If you delete an app and decide later that you want it back, your preferences, light, nimble, ... XML... and totally out of your way, are still there when you bring it back.

        To remove, modify support files etc... is easy because you always know where they are. The myriad of benefits are too many to name but believe me, you wouldn't knock it if you knew it.
        • wageslaven, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1What about dependancies? What if my.app and my1.app rely on yourlibrary.??? - is a copy of yourlibrary.??? contained in both my.app and my1.app?

          What if you want to update yourlibrary.??? (say, youve released a bugfix or security update) - how do you do that?
      • jonshipman, on 10/10/2007, -1/+1you can create your own folders and organize that way. just drag the app file into the newly created folder. Who says the app has to remain at the applications directory?
    • fryguy1013, on 10/10/2007, -1/+9uh it's actually pretty easy to accidentally do. Highlight a bunch of files you want to delete, then hit delete and then enter immediately after. For some reason the delete dialog doesn't always come up fast, so the enter ends up "running" all the files. I've done this cleaning off my desktop and ended with a number of applications loading that I didn't want to.
      • inkswamp, on 10/10/2007, -1/+7Ah yes, must be some more of that great Windows UI zybch was talking about.
    • dbr_onix, on 10/10/2007, -1/+3Not true if you have a lot of desktop shortcuts. Ctrl+A and enter, and they'll all open.

      Anyway, if I done the same select-all and open in my application folder, it'd open the default applications and thats about it. I've organized third party applications into sub folders (LIke Web/ for browser, FTP, torrent client, dev/ for TextMate, Processing, svnX etc, system/ for various things like smcFanControl, SuperDuper, iTerm, media/ for Logic, Reason, VLC, Handbrake, Shake, and a folder for Final Cut)
      I could probably move the default applications, but I'm sure it would break stuff, and doesn't bother me too much anyway..
      • jonshipman, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2it wouldn't break anything. Maybe Dashboard, since I haven't tried that - but it should be fine.
    • aussieNickuss, on 10/10/2007, -1/+2A mate of mine used to like being a real prick and highlight all the shortcuts on my desktop. He'd count down and then hit enter. This was in the days when I would have a desktop full of shortcuts as well as only having a 500Mhz Celeron. That was long before the switch to Mac.
    • Sneakernets, on 10/10/2007, -2/+2Oh GOD I have to click START-> PROGRAMS SUCH A DIFFICULT TASK
      • wageslaven, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2You dont *have* to do that, you could copy a shortcut into a folder called "apps" and put every single *.lnk there if you'd like. You can also navigate the start menu as a file structure.

        This digg fantasy that finding and opening applications is easier on OSX is drivel -- if you cant find / open your applications, your opinion on this matter arent exactly "expert" enough to be considered in a serious discussion of the matter.

        I'd be willing to read some serious usability studies on this matter, but as an abstract concept, there is no difference between the two, at all. In each case, its Open a Menu, Open an Application.
      • inkswamp, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Apparently turning off the caps lock is also a difficult task.
  • keegan3d, on 10/10/2007, -3/+2simply beautify!
  • k3vinmartian, on 10/10/2007, -4/+8I have done this before, just to see how many windows expose could handle. I think it was something over 200 easily.
    There are dozens of screen shots showing the power of Mac on Flickr

    http://www.flickr.com/photo_zoom.gne?id=368277417& ...

    http://www.flickr.com/photo_zoom.gne?id=368915165& ...

    and for the windows fans
    http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v133/shyataroo/u ...
    • Hydraulix, on 10/10/2007, -2/+7"and for the windows fans"

      Page not found.

      Oh the irony!
    • over90000, on 11/02/2007, -12/+5For windows fans i will just copy paste the comment from michypoo

      I did the same to my Windows XP. Even with 40+ applications (including entire Adobe Creative Suite, Adobe Production Suite, Microsoft Office 2007 suite, and Autodesk suite) my system didn't crash. My computer isn't even Core 2 Duo, either. I really don't think Mac users should feel so high and mighty about their operating system.

      http://i6.tinypic.com/4qgzwae.jpg
      • neuwill, on 11/02/2007, -1/+3Gotta love the linux/apple lovers on Digg, that was a perfectly good comment!
        • DaffyDuck, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2Perhaps, but it's only half the programs so it's not exactly a fair comparison. 80 vs 40. Also, they weren't all opened at the same time. You may not think that matters but I do and it's kind of the whole point of the digg post. Also, nobody likes over90000 (which is why he was already banned at least once (his nickname was over9 before the ban)).
  • Fetching more discussions...
    Show 51 - 100 of 153 discussions
  •  

    Login or register to add a comment

    Create a new account or login to join in the conversation on Digg. You'll also be able to Digg stories to help promote things you like.


© Digg Inc. 2008 — Content posted by Digg users is dedicated to the public domain.
DIGG, DIGG IT, DUGG, DIGG THIS, Digg graphics, logos, designs, page headers, button icons, scripts, and other service names are the trademarks of Digg Inc.