What is Digg?733 Comments
- Topher06, on 04/09/2008, -67/+656OS X actually has to run more programs at the same time because most Mac users don't know the difference between quitting an application or simply hidding it.
- youngjjohnson, on 04/09/2008, -21/+566i dont have a problem with Vista's UI...i actually like it. And i love the new dreamscence feature too.But why does every act like its a gang war or something...like if you on one side you have to "ride on" the other OS. If you use OSX...fine, if you use Vista fine...just dont bitch about it
- wonderchemist, on 04/09/2008, -74/+468Not a fanboy here, but don't you usually trump someone by doing more than they did? This is sort of like...
Macboy: I can run 150 apps at once!
Vistaboy: So, I can run 100! 100 is better than 150! - datdamonfoo, on 04/09/2008, -54/+326I can run 1 video game at a time on Vista. Which is one more than you can on a Mac. Vista wins.
- rhabd0mancer, on 04/09/2008, -66/+311I didn't realize that there were 150 apps available for OS X.
Maybe there were some multiple instances running. - umbriago, on 04/09/2008, -6/+171Guys! guys! Please take your Operating System Pissing Match outside...perhaps into the street.
- digitalarcanum, on 04/09/2008, -36/+175the mactards started it!
- estvir, on 04/09/2008, -11/+134He said he got bored, he detailed his specs, he didn't lie (The Mac person said there was /no/ slow down, at all), this guy did a video, he had some known high resource apps open (Photoshop), etc.
- Philluminati, on 04/09/2008, -4/+117Linux, MacOS and Windows all support something called "Copy on Write" executables. What this means if you open Notepad, the executable is copied into memory and program runs. If you open a second instance of the program...only the parts of the data that change are copied and written. This means that a 1MB app uses less than 2 MB RAM if two instances are open and there is no user data in them. The same applies to DLLs etc. If two apps use the same DLL (e.g. comctrl32.dll) then there is only one instance of it in memory.
My point is that 100 copies of notepad is really 100 instances of one program. I'm not saying this detracts from Vista's argument. I bet the MacOS one had duplicate programs as well. Just something to be aware of - pk7677, on 04/09/2008, -11/+118Yes. But can it run Crysis?
- sjbdallas, on 04/09/2008, -6/+113I don't need 100 apps to run at once to look at porn. I just need 4 or 5 tabs in my browser opened to my favorite things.
- inactive, on 04/09/2008, -50/+151Digg me down, but Vista is still slower than XP.
- Mier, on 04/09/2008, -23/+124I didn't know there were 150 apps for the Mac.
- jollins, on 04/09/2008, -11/+108How is a bunch of tiny taskbar buttons worse than a bunch of microscopic dock icons? They're both bad with so many apps open at once.
- pathouston22, on 04/09/2008, -1/+91I couldn't care less if my OS can run 50, 100, or 1000000 apps at the same time.
As long as it can run anywhere 0 to 10 without crashing, I'll probably make it through life. - latova, on 04/09/2008, -18/+97Linuxboy: I can run over nine thousanddddddddddd
- leftcoastfunk, on 04/09/2008, -18/+93looks to me more like 20 apps and 80 explorer windows, but whatever...
- sagat, on 04/09/2008, -12/+66Digg me down but XP is still slower than Windows 3.01.
Duh *****! - EntropyFan, on 04/09/2008, -7/+59Yes, Windows Mobile folks have the same problem....
- shadoweva09, on 04/09/2008, -7/+58"How comes we haven't had any Linux user telling us he's running 250,000 apps simultaneously on six different monitors."
Well, were waiting you know... (you are last to the table, and only graphical apps count. Using lightweight desktops will only disappoint us.) - MacSuxWindozSux, on 04/09/2008, -15/+60Honestly, OSX is OK for some people. For most people, it's *****. Numerous problems on every level. Ridiculous hardware requirements. A complete rip off price wise. A failure in the compatibility stakes with 3rd party hard and software. It's a joke, quite frankly.
- Chocobot, on 04/09/2008, -2/+40Dugg for getting everyone here pissed off.
- zeronome, on 04/09/2008, -1/+37ummm.... WHO CARES!!!
Seems like the most pointless fight. - jeremyduffy, on 04/09/2008, -7/+42It's because they were running 100 at only 30% processor utilization supposedly. Otherwise, you're right that this makes no sense.
- DeadElephant, on 04/09/2008, -11/+45 Can't digg down the truth...
- lostarchitect, on 04/09/2008, -7/+41because they don't.
- doctorfungi, on 04/09/2008, -17/+50Well it's about 98 steps ahead of my Vista machine :(
- enterneo, on 04/09/2008, -1/+29i don't care
- inactive, on 04/09/2008, -9/+36Give it a try, you sound like one of those people who just hates it. I use Linux too. SP1 made it a good OS.
- FKnight, on 04/09/2008, -8/+35He can't yet. He's still compiling all of the dependencies for gnu-screenshot-maker-200801234A-unstable.tar.bz2
(I'll stop with the "you have to compile everything under Linux" crap as soon as OSS fans stop comparing Apache 2 to IIS 3. It's only fair). - BLAM8, on 04/09/2008, -13/+39LOL bitterness.
- LiquidIse, on 04/09/2008, -2/+28Cripple Fight!
- MWeather, on 04/09/2008, -4/+29You forgot to mention the one button mouse.
- MioTheGreat, on 04/09/2008, -5/+30X crashed when they plugged in monitor #6, and they're still working on the xorg.conf file...
- jamesdew, on 04/09/2008, -3/+28I think you will find nvidia make drivers for all 3 platforms. How many graphics cards can i run on a mac? 3 i think it is?
And why is that? Why cant I run any graphics card I like. It's not a driver issue, nvidia cards of the same generation should work without any problems they are just faster or have more pipelines.
Apple are deliberatly restricting what graphics cards can be used in a mac and jacking the price up. This is what I hate about macs. You mac users act like you have been LIBERATED by apple, freed from the shackles of teh evil windows.
In reality you have just changed your software shackles for some tighter shackes and some additional and deliberatly enforced hardware shackles. - MioTheGreat, on 04/09/2008, -4/+28There are games that don't?
- TheRealToma, on 04/09/2008, -1/+25When it happens, it will happen in a very epic way.
- philhatesyou, on 04/09/2008, -3/+25What a retarded dick measuring contest. Get the ***** out, losers.
- bigsteve, on 04/09/2008, -0/+19Ok sirpasta (and the inexplicable number of other people agreeing with him,) minimize a textedit window with unsaved text. Then maximize it, and close it. Then go "oh."
- nehalp100, on 04/09/2008, -1/+20i dont need an ePenis coz i have a real one
- baylat, on 04/09/2008, -7/+26Amen to that.
- jhuebel, on 04/09/2008, -6/+25Score: 5, Insightful
- griz, on 04/09/2008, -1/+20But each App on Windows goes to 11.
- jjustin01, on 04/09/2008, -3/+22Try alt+tab in Vista. Vista gives you live thumbnails of open applications. I don't know why everyone is in love with Flip3D. It's too slow compared to the traditional alt+tab method. I do love Expose though. I use it in Linux from time to time and it does come in handy.
- EtherGnat, on 04/09/2008, -4/+23"Ridiculous hardware requirements."
You can easily get a computer and monitor or laptop that runs Vista flawlessly for $750 or less. I'd hardly call that ridiculous. - ucg1, on 04/09/2008, -3/+21Can't reuse that for Ubuntu, can you?
- Spuy767, on 04/09/2008, -7/+25It's called a different paradigm, windows converts don't may not know right away that there is a difference, but the Mac OS model more accurately depicts how computer runs. When someone has 9 instances of the same application open in windows, it shows up nine times in the task bar, but on Mac OS, it's 9 windows under the same application bar, clearly illustrating that the windows are all a child of the application and not an application in and of themselves. The fact that a Windows user doesn't realize that the "x" button doesn't quit a Mac application is irrelevant.
- jhuebel, on 04/09/2008, -5/+23One minimizes the current window to the dock, the other closes the window but the app remains running. It's a subtle difference that I'm sure most Windows users wouldn't understand. *turning up my nose at you* /jk
However, there is a difference. And within the overall scheme of Mac OSX, the difference is significant. - lamiaconfitor, on 04/09/2008, -7/+25in either case, it is an impractical number of applications, and your mac doesn't actually "do" graphics.
- pnmoore, on 04/09/2008, -0/+17So using "clever tricks" to improve performance is bad in what way?
-
Show 51 - 100 of 730 discussions
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is