Discover the best of the web!
Learn more about Digg by taking the tour.
Video of Vista running 100 apps simultaneously
gizmodo.com — In response to that image of Mac OS X Leopard running 150 apps. Ah, nothing like the smell of napalm in the morning.
mikegcallahan- 1826 diggs
- digg it
- MrViklund, on 04/09/2008, -190/+17Buried as spam because of gizmodo.com
- BLAM8, on 04/09/2008, -13/+39LOL bitterness.
- se1zure, on 04/09/2008, -44/+9in all honesty, this isn't nearly as impressive. Not only is it 42 applications less, but this is a desktop machine, while the mac was a laptop. and this is a considerably better processor, core 2 quad (although I'm not sure if all cores are used here, but taht would explain the only 30% processing power boasted by the user).
It's interesting to see, yes, but if you made it in some grievance you had with the osx image, it's not as impressive.- lamiaconfitor, on 04/09/2008, -7/+25in either case, it is an impractical number of applications, and your mac doesn't actually "do" graphics.
- se1zure, on 04/10/2008, -0/+1where did I say that?
If you are implying that there are no video cards for macs then I am not sure where you get your info...
And my primary machine and primary laptop runs vista fyi. I prefer mac however.
- se1zure, on 04/10/2008, -0/+1where did I say that?
- lamiaconfitor, on 04/09/2008, -7/+25in either case, it is an impractical number of applications, and your mac doesn't actually "do" graphics.
- JT114881, on 04/09/2008, -9/+22Buried as ***** because of MrViklund.
- Rayhush, on 04/09/2008, -6/+6Buried as spam because you had nothing useful to say.
- heypetray, on 04/09/2008, -4/+1Your comment is just overflowing with use. Buried.
- prophetpimp, on 04/09/2008, -3/+16Buried because almost any OS can do that these days.
http://img175.imageshack.us/my.php?image=78650326m ...
Could have gotten more apps but
a) i Got bored
b) My ePenis already very well endowed.- unrandom, on 04/10/2008, -0/+1Not only that, but the metric is completely meaningless for any number of reasons. The number of processes doesn't tell you if any of those processes are doing anything CPU or IO-intensive (or are blocked).
But since we're at it...
unrandom@avatar:~/school/cs444/cvs/compiler$ ps ax --no-headers|wc -l
156
Oh look! 156 processes and I'm just sitting here listening to music and procrastinating. What an amazing OS!
/sarcasm- dacheetah, on 04/11/2008, -0/+1I just ssh'd into my ubuntu box at home and ran the same command. 100 processes without any applications open...
- unrandom, on 04/10/2008, -0/+1Not only that, but the metric is completely meaningless for any number of reasons. The number of processes doesn't tell you if any of those processes are doing anything CPU or IO-intensive (or are blocked).
- jabberwolf, on 04/09/2008, -1/+1HAHAHA !
Everything else Mactards suckup to comes from gizmodo but because its shows MS as being superior, NOW it sucks. uhuh ;) - dansmeek, on 04/09/2008, -2/+2gizmodo should be blackballed from digg. why is this guy buried to hell. what they did at CES was not cool. and that site is lame (and all their content is just rehashed from another tech site... they never have original articles).
i personally bury gizmodo everytime i see it
- enderiii, on 04/09/2008, -170/+24The problem I see with is you still have to use Vista's crappy UI. (as shown in the video)
"My car that can't turn left can go almost as fast as ones who can turn left."- 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.
- luchid, on 04/09/2008, -29/+7You dont use dock icons to switch tasks. You either CMD + TAB, or Exposé, which shows you a live preview of every window. MS copied that with Flip3D but failed, because you can only clearly see the front window when you're cycling through them.
- 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.
- MrTulip, on 04/09/2008, -1/+10alt+tab leading to thumbnails of applications etc was already available for xp (and 2k?) via one of ms' powertoys or powertools..whatever..downloadable for free for years..
- Azio, on 04/09/2008, -1/+8Yep, there's totally no way to duplicate Exposé on Vista, the only way to enjoy such functionality is to buy an Apple computer and switch to a different operating system
Oh. Wait. http://insentient.net/
- luchid, on 04/09/2008, -29/+7You dont use dock icons to switch tasks. You either CMD + TAB, or Exposé, which shows you a live preview of every window. MS copied that with Flip3D but failed, because you can only clearly see the front window when you're cycling through them.
- halobender, 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.
- Spuy767, on 04/09/2008, -30/+9Correction, SP1 made it a livable OS, before it was unacceptable.
On another note, what's the big ***** deal? Look at me, My ePenis is bigger than your ePenis.- nehalp100, on 04/09/2008, -1/+20i dont need an ePenis coz i have a real one
- MWeather, on 04/09/2008, -0/+13My ePenis is free to use or redistribute.
- MacParrot, on 04/09/2008, -0/+8Is that in your EULA?
- MWeather, on 04/09/2008, -1/+10I use the GNU Penis License v3.0
- chromerium, on 04/09/2008, -3/+1I dug that moderately because it was moderately funny.
- Amiga500, on 04/10/2008, -0/+1Please. What's unacceptable is the fact you know dick squat when it comes to computers, and probably just about everything else.
- tugger, on 04/09/2008, -0/+1Dugg for generosity... there's still 45 million people out there who bought hardware after the vista launch thinking that it would actually work okay once MS pulled XP.
- Spuy767, on 04/09/2008, -30/+9Correction, SP1 made it a livable OS, before it was unacceptable.
- robthom, on 04/09/2008, -6/+1The problem I see with is you still have to use Vista's crappy UI. (as shown in the video)
"My car that can't turn left can go almost as fast as ones who can turn left."
True. - jabberwolf, on 04/09/2008, -2/+2Um So OSX sucks then because its the one that CANT TURN LEFT !
the UI is retarded on OSX and gives you microscopic icons. THAT IS CRAPPY AND USELESS UI !- bbardlbradd, on 04/10/2008, -1/+1512x512 is not small. You can make the icons smaller, yes, and they are much more visible than the same size icons found in Windows. lol@u.
- ZekeSulastin, on 04/09/2008, -0/+2So I'm guessing you missed the study where UPS found that minimizing left turns as much as possible (yes, to the point of making 3 rights or adding route complication) was actually more efficient? ;)
- 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.
- 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
- baylat, on 04/09/2008, -7/+26Amen to that.
- digitalarcanum, on 04/09/2008, -36/+175the mactards started it!
- dondara, on 04/09/2008, -57/+16No, the windoze ***** did
- FarvaRadio, on 04/09/2008, -4/+13Feh, BeOS is better.
- pintomp3, on 04/09/2008, -4/+19wrong, the xerox asses did.
- Spuy767, on 04/09/2008, -1/+10No, it was those ***** sucking amiga *****
- akilleen, on 04/09/2008, -0/+4It was those ***** Tandy TRS-80 assholes!
- Tyr7BE, on 04/09/2008, -0/+4WAS better, way back when.
- kakwakas, on 04/09/2008, -6/+9OS2 is superior to ALL!
- chromerium, on 04/09/2008, -0/+1Truer words were never spoken. IBM should open source it.
- bejayel, on 04/09/2008, -1/+7Ninjas didnt make windows, nor did they make Mac. Both suck.
- CrunchyDeluxe, on 04/09/2008, -3/+3Um, Bill Gates is a ninja, Hello?
In other news, Steve Jobs is a pirate...- bbardlbradd, on 04/10/2008, -1/+1Bill Gates has teh gold pieces, thus, he is a pirate.
Steve Jobs has the zen, and works 4 teh lulz, thus, he is a ninja. Do you ever see Steve Jobs without this /black/ turtleneck? No, why is that? Because the rest of the time he haz his ninja mask on, and is impossible to see, because he is a NINJA.
Also, to further my argument, Pirates worry about pirates... Windows? WGA? See?
Ninjas don't worry about pirates because ninjas don't worry.
Ninja>Pirate
- bbardlbradd, on 04/10/2008, -1/+1Bill Gates has teh gold pieces, thus, he is a pirate.
- cannarymburns, on 04/09/2008, -0/+1no, we honestly don't give a rats ass about you... but we will put you back in your place if you start running around thumping your chests. its a goddamn os, there are much more important things to me in a computer, like applications...
- CedEx, on 04/09/2008, -5/+16Nah uh!!!
- crazyhorse13, on 04/09/2008, -1/+14Yuh-Huuuuh!!
- dondara, on 04/09/2008, -57/+16No, the windoze ***** did
- aajjcckk, on 04/09/2008, -65/+16Honestly, Vista 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.
Lets face the cold hard truth here - A good Linux desktop variant (e.g. Ubuntu for the sake of argument) runs much better, and gives access to about the same functionality, on FAR less powerful hardware (read: cheaper) than the engineering travesty that is Vista. Nuff said.- 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.
- ucg1, on 04/09/2008, -3/+21Can't reuse that for Ubuntu, can you?
- MacSuxWindozSux, on 04/09/2008, -1/+14No, it just doesn't fit the description as well.
- ArmandoM, on 04/09/2008, -0/+6Not all of it.
- HoratioHellpop, on 04/09/2008, -0/+5Sure as hell can. Hello, wireless? Off-the-shelf software without an emulator or VM?
- MooMaster716, on 04/09/2008, -0/+3Let me print something.
- FarvaRadio, on 04/09/2008, -2/+17Honestly, Linux is GREAT for some people. For most people, it's ok. Minimal hardware requirements. Diminishing failures in the compatibility stakes with 3rd party hardware and software. It's a joke, quite frankly.
- se1zure, on 04/09/2008, -5/+14Honestly, [your distro of linux] is Suitable for some people. For most people, it's *****. Numerous problems on every level. Good luck getting your wifi to work. Oh, and have fun listening to your music library out of the box... assuming you use mp3's like everyone else in the world. What about the latest video cards, or sound cards for that matter? My radeon x1950 pro says nope.. A failure in the compatibility stakes with 3rd party hard and software. It's a joke, quite frankly.
and I have tried linux several times, but with my hardware it is impossible to set up, wheras windows is ridiculously easy to set up, and hell, even osx86 is easier to set up properly!
- ucg1, on 04/09/2008, -3/+21Can't reuse that for Ubuntu, can you?
- 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 $750 or less. I'd hardly call that ridiculous.- MacParrot, on 04/09/2008, -21/+4You have a monitor that runs Vista?
Since most monitors use standard connections, any monitor can run any OS. Graphic cards are a different story, but it's hardly the fault of Linux or Apple that the maker doesn't include Linux or OS X drivers for those cards. That's like blaming Microsoft that it can't run iLife 08.
The fact that Linux, OS X, or Windows can run multitudes of apps at the same time is hardly news or even very interesting. This story and the one with 150 apps running on OS X should both have been buried.- goat2, on 04/09/2008, -1/+17he was saying you get the computer and the monitor for 750$, as in, you get a lot for your money.
- se1zure, on 04/09/2008, -1/+11god your an idiot. he said a computer and monitor for under $750, implying the computer under $750 is more than capable of running vista, and it will include a monitor. Wheras, a $750 computer with no monitor, or one you woudl have to buy outside of the $750 range is far less impressive price wise.
- MacSuxWindozSux, on 04/09/2008, -1/+8What lame ass retort is that...
He clearly meant Desktop PC when he said "computer and monitor".
And for the record even Vista is about a million times more compatible both in hardware and software with 3rd party products than OSX. There are only a few Mac developers in comparison, and you can only buy hardware from Apple in many cases. - wTheOnew, on 04/09/2008, -0/+3Had to reread that a few times to even remotely figure out what the hell you were trying to convey...
- chewbie, on 04/09/2008, -5/+2C-C-C-C-C-COMBO BREAKER
- MWeather, on 04/09/2008, -10/+5I'm running Ubuntu /w WindowMaker on a 300mhz laptop with 128mb ram. Cost me $10.
- TheG2, on 04/09/2008, -1/+12How is 1994?
- MWeather, on 04/09/2008, -4/+5It's great, and it does everything I need it to do : browse the web, run an IDE and SSH. I suppose I could spend a grand on something prettier that does the same thing, but what would be the point?
- didiman, on 04/09/2008, -0/+8That's actually sad.
- MWeather, on 04/09/2008, -3/+6It's sad I realized most computers are just overpowered thin-clients for web apps?
- chad78, on 04/09/2008, -2/+3That is very true. When I'm not working, I'm playing casual games (like Solitaire, Mah Jongg, or Sudoku) or surfing the web. I could do that on a $50 device. But when I am working (I'm a designer - graphics, websites, print material) - then I need something to run Adobe CS 3. Can't do that on a $50 device. That's why I have my MacBook.
- HoratioHellpop, on 04/09/2008, -1/+9That's fine for you and the 10 other people that just send email and browse the web. The rest of us have actual work to do.
- MWeather, on 04/09/2008, -4/+1I only need graphics tools for websites, so Photoshop is a bit overkill. If you already have it though, you may as well use it. Most of my time is taken up coding the actual app.
- coyote1284, on 04/09/2008, -1/+1If by "flawlessly", you mean that it's the OS causing problems with the computer as opposed to hardware causing problems with the OS, then I believe it.
I keed! FWIW, I'm a multi-platformer.
- MacParrot, on 04/09/2008, -21/+4You have a monitor that runs Vista?
- Infidelcastr0, on 04/09/2008, -0/+4It's yet to cause me any problems.
- Parkinsons, on 04/09/2008, -0/+9"Ridiculous hardware requirements."
Like being forced to buy hardware from only one company?
- 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.
- bsmang, on 04/09/2008, -3/+16Yeah, why people gotta be so protective of the OS they use? Use whatever you like and at whatever cost you wish to pay! ;-D
- antdude, on 04/09/2008, -0/+3I like all!
- bacon_skoda, on 04/09/2008, -0/+1OS is to geeks as
Cars is to gen-pop
- aclaudiu, on 04/09/2008, -14/+8Speaking against Vista is not bitching always. I have an Intel 6750 with Vista Home and an Amd X2 5000+ with XP Pro both with Nvidia 8600 GT both with the same software installed. Normally Intel should be almost twice as fast as AMD but XP/AMD boots faster and the system is more responsive where Intel/Vista is slugish sometimes and copying files is definitely much faster on XP. I don't care about UI so much (for me XP explorer was better) but Vista GUI and filesystem operations are SLOW and less stable. The only thing that I like in Vista is the ability to install programs from a non administrator account by entering the administrator password where in XP I need to log on with the administrator account (this thing existed in Linux/Suse for ages). By the way I hope that nobody here is using the administrator account for browsing the net :)
- AlienHairball, on 04/09/2008, -0/+6Just checking here, but hopefully you are aware that under XP you can shift-right-click on any executable to get the "Run As..." option which let's you enter any name/password, including administrator.
- aclaudiu, on 04/09/2008, -0/+2Try to do this with explorer. Never worked for me. I usually need this for games that are not designed for running without write access on "Program files/....".
- chewbie, on 04/09/2008, -0/+2you can't run explorer under administrator mode because that's almost like logging on as admin
- MWeather, on 04/09/2008, -0/+2Other OSes don't seem to have problems running the file manager as root.
- Tenoq, on 04/10/2008, -0/+1No they don't, although it took me a while to figure out that I needed to 'gksudo nautilus' to edit files in system fodlers. But I understand why it's that way now and actually think it's a good idea.
- aclaudiu, on 04/09/2008, -0/+2Try to do this with explorer. Never worked for me. I usually need this for games that are not designed for running without write access on "Program files/....".
- fr34k5h0w, on 04/09/2008, -1/+1Next time you're in XP right click on the downloaded program and choose "Run As...". Then you can run that program administratively. It usually works, though I've had problems when it tries to install stuff on my profile as I'm using different credentials.
- jamesdew, on 04/09/2008, -2/+4twice as fast? That processor is only about 20% faster than your AMD processor and although intel have taken the lead somewhat lately AMD still put out a good ploduct.
- aclaudiu, on 04/09/2008, -0/+1Not twice faster but not only 20% either unless we are choosing only the "relevant" benchmarks. To be honest I don't see a difference between the two in the daily usage. I'm also an old AMD fan. The Intel system was bought from ALDI for a BLU-Ray - HDDVD Combo for the overall performance/price ratio where the Amd was home made with budget and further upgrades in mind.
- jeeky, on 04/09/2008, -0/+1What's a ploduct?
- Xchus, on 04/09/2008, -0/+1maybe chinese for product?
- KillPenguin, on 04/10/2008, -0/+1Don't make fun of his accent.
- bigsteve, on 04/09/2008, -0/+1This would be exactly what youngjjohnson was talking about.
- stretch611, on 04/09/2008, -0/+3Forget about XP Explorer, real men use 3.1's File Manager. :) (or midnight commander in DOS)
- MadOtaku, on 04/09/2008, -0/+1I hate midnight commander so much. I have it on my Linux box (Damn Small Linux using Fluxbox) and it's so awkward. Maybe it's because I'm just not used to it though.
- GreenAlien, on 04/09/2008, -0/+1Weird how people are trying to mute your comment just for sharing your opinion about Vista and XP. I dug you back up for what it's worth.
- thirteenthcor, on 04/09/2008, -0/+1Same here, its probably because hes right, and backing it up with objective opinions and source-able figures.
- AlienHairball, on 04/09/2008, -0/+6Just checking here, but hopefully you are aware that under XP you can shift-right-click on any executable to get the "Run As..." option which let's you enter any name/password, including administrator.
- Andrwmorph, on 04/09/2008, -26/+24Its because everybody that uses a damn Mac is so damn smug about themselves.
I DON'T CARE IF YOUR COMPUTER LOOKS PRETTY AND IT CANT GET VIRUSES SO STOP TELLING ME GOSH!- MacParrot, on 04/09/2008, -11/+23Good thing there was nothing smug or annoying about your statement
- MWeather, on 04/09/2008, -21/+4Sadly, I DO care if your computer CAN get viruses. It costs billions of dollars a year to fix the messes that causes. Use a decent OS, and maybe I'll get less spam.
- Blandyman, on 04/09/2008, -5/+4Billions of dollars a year to fix your computer? Spend $60 on NOD32 and use the built-in firewall with only the necessary exceptions on a user account... watch how easy it'll be to keep your system virus free.
And really... why do you mention the billion dollars a year thing? No one cares about your Neon Genesis fan fiction.- MWeather, on 04/09/2008, -4/+1Yeah. I was talking about my computer alone. Brilliant deductive reasoning.
And I keep my system virus free by running Linux. It's even cheaper than NOD32.
- MWeather, on 04/09/2008, -4/+1Yeah. I was talking about my computer alone. Brilliant deductive reasoning.
- WanderlustX2, on 04/09/2008, -2/+2While we're talking about fixing things, lets fix "I DO care if your computer CAN get viruses". Every OS CAN GET viruses however they're targeted at Microsoft because of the overall impact of having just about every corporation and (what's it at?) 85-88% home user brought to their knees if launched successfully.
- CrunchyDeluxe, on 04/09/2008, -3/+10As Dino Dai Zovi says:
"I have found the code quality, at least in terms of security, to be much better overall in Vista than Mac OS X 10.4. It is obvious from observing affected components in security patches that Microsoft’s Security Development Lifecycle (SDL) has resulted in fewer vulnerabilities in newly-written code. I hope that more software vendors follow their lead in developing proactive software security development methodologies."
Mac's lack of viruses comes solely from it's 5 - 10% base. How many times must we remind people of security through obscurity before people get it?- MWeather, on 04/09/2008, -4/+1Then where are the Linux server viruses?
- MadOtaku, on 04/09/2008, -0/+3Actually, in the pre-OS X days, there were plenty of viruses in the wild despite the much smaller market share. It's secure for the same reason Linux and Unix (and I think Vista too, but I'm not sure) are; it properly manages permissions. You don't need to be an admin/root to do most tasks and running as one anyway is very insecure.
- fjc8, on 04/09/2008, -0/+4Linux server worms exist. I've seen quite a few servers get infected, mostly ones that were not running up-to-date software.
- CrunchyDeluxe, on 04/09/2008, -0/+1Plus Linux still has a relatively small userbase as far as home use is concerned. I think most hackers (or crackers?) would rather compromise the computers being operated by people like my mother, who would have no idea what to do about such an attack. That would be a lot more effective than trying to compromise a Linux server, who's being operated and maintained by people who know exactly what they're doing.
- Blandyman, on 04/09/2008, -5/+4Billions of dollars a year to fix your computer? Spend $60 on NOD32 and use the built-in firewall with only the necessary exceptions on a user account... watch how easy it'll be to keep your system virus free.
- h0ms4r, on 04/09/2008, -0/+7Thanks Napoleon
- Monkeywithacold, on 04/09/2008, -2/+6It's funny, because it isn't just tech savvy people either. People in my college classes always brag about having a mac, but when I try and ask them why it is better they usually are just like "Uh, its cute..."
- soopafly, on 04/09/2008, -8/+3#2 Reason why people use a Windows PC: Because it's the only OS they know how to use
#1 Reaons why people use a Windows PC: Because it's cheap- theaceoffire, on 04/09/2008, -5/+4O.o Windows PC == cheap?
Or just when it is compared to Mac?- Tenoq, on 04/10/2008, -0/+1No, definitely cheap. In AU dollars you're talking $250+ an XP license ($100 or so for Home OEM). $350 is damn cheap if you ask me. Then there's always that 'free' version of Windows on Mininova.
- GliTCH82, on 04/10/2008, -0/+1Surprise, you can also get OSX86 on torrent sites as well, but guess which one is pirated more.
- MWeather, on 04/09/2008, -2/+2They use whatever their PC comes installed with.
- theaceoffire, on 04/09/2008, -5/+4O.o Windows PC == cheap?
- coyote1284, on 04/09/2008, -2/+1Macs can and do get viruses, maybe not at the rate of a WinPC, but Mac viruses do exist. I'm not sure if Linux does, or if not if that's just because no one has cared to write a Linux virus, but I wouldn't believe that it's absolutely impossible.
- MadOtaku, on 04/09/2008, -3/+2Linux is a huge player in the server OS market. Believe me, people would want to write one for it. Also, there are currently no Linux or OS X viruses in the wild.
- RoboDonut, on 04/09/2008, -2/+3It's quite obvious that you don't know what you're talking about.
It is considerably harder to write viruses for Mac and Linux (mostly Linux) for two main reasons:
1. Access controls. Windows doesn't enforce them.
2. Linux isn't a single platform. It's diverse.
In nature, a lack of genetic diversity can lead to a single disease wiping out numerous organisms. Each organism has the same weaknesses as all the others. Much in the same way, Windows lacks diversity. A security flaw in one Windows installation will affect a majority of Windows installations. A virus writer can depend of a single flaw existing in many systems. Linux, however, has very little consistency. The only thing that all Linux distributions have in common is that they use some form of the Linux kernel. Even the kernel can differ to a large degree. It can have various patches, it can be compiled with/without various modules, it can be compiled for different architectures, and it's constantly being updated.
Face it, Windows is the only platform that has a virus problem. - Tenoq, on 04/10/2008, -1/+2The number of Mac viruses can be counted on your hand - and none are wild, just proof of concept. Compare that to the hundreds of thousands of Windows viruses written every year... yeah, no real comparison. Regardless of the reason (obscurity, real security, whatever) Macs don't need to worry about viruses.* You've been SERIOUSLY misled if you believe otherwise.
*For now.
- AngelBunny, on 04/10/2008, -0/+1if you had a mac would you be smug about it?
- jamesdew, on 04/09/2008, -15/+17i dont hate OSX, I hate macs. Stupid non compatabile with other pieces of hardware cant use whatever sounds or graphics card I want no sli or directx or decent overclocking options overpriced components extra fewhundred quid stuck on the price piece of crap that they are.
- MacParrot, on 04/09/2008, -12/+5Here is why you fail...
Do those makers of said "non-compatible" hardware make OS X or Linux drivers for their equipment? Or do they just make it for Windows and call it day. Or do you believe that Microsoft makes every driver for every piece of hardware that's available for Windows?- 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.- MacParrot, on 04/09/2008, -6/+1Good thing those graphics cards don't have firmware that has to be changed based on what OS you're going to run it with.
- jamesdew, on 04/09/2008, -6/+4what? i cant figure out if you;re being sarcastic. Are you saying you can hack other nvidia cards to make them work on a MAC? If so I wasn't aware of that but even if that is true that still means apple are trying to control their hardware and inflate prices just that it can be worked around.
The PC hardware platform is very competitive and I like that. There are lots of ram makers, hard drive makers, graphics card makers motherboard manufacturers all competing in an industry and consumer driven market. Apple's business model is a threat to this. - cyberwiz01, on 04/09/2008, -2/+14But my shackles are so shiny!
- jamesdew, on 04/09/2008, -2/+6i will admit that Apple make some very fashionable shackes
- MacParrot, on 04/09/2008, -1/+2James, you missed the point. OF COURSE you can hack the firmware, but you shouldn't HAVE to. Considering that Apple only makes one computer that is capable of changing the video card (the Mac Pro), it's doubtful that A: The graphics card makers will make any Mac compatible cards beyond what is requested by Apple and B: Most of the people that can afford Mac Pros will bother since the cards they have in them are very well suited toward what most people buy them for.
Not having a Core2Duo mid-range tower is IMO a glaring failure of Apple. Not everyone needs, wants, or can afford a four to eight core mega-monster computer. I would like to be able to do some of the more basic upgrades like increasing internal storage (which you can't do on any Mac besides the Mac Pro without voiding your warranty), or putting in a better graphics card (which the makers MIGHT build if Apple had a machine that allowed it besides the Mac Pro).
As far as overclocking, meh, to risk my computer for a 10% percent gain?
Back in the Mac clone days (yes I've used Macs for a long time), I did just that with a Umax C600 Mac compatible. I flashed the firmware of a better ATI graphics card and used the ATI Mac compatible driver to make it work. Since Apple killed the clones and reduced their product line to one Pro machine and all-in-one consumer models with zero expandibility beyond adding RAM for everything else, I couldn't do it now with what I can afford even if I wanted to.
This is the way it is for most Mac users. All the hardware you tout (with obvious exceptions like PCI-based expansion cards) works with Macs. Hard drives, RAM, USB/FireWire external devices, all work as long as there's a Mac compatible driver. Which gets back to my original point. It isn't up to Apple (or Microsoft, or the makers of various Linux OSes) to write these drivers. Software is the same argument.
On to your points:
"Are you saying you can hack other nvidia cards to make them work on a Mac?"
Yes you can but if you make a mistake, you can end up with a very expensive unusable card.
"If so I wasn't aware of that but even if that is true that still means apple is trying to control their hardware and inflate prices just that it can be worked around."
Apple controls the hardware that they build into their computers. Just as Dell/HP/Joe's computers and aardvark supply shop does. The difference is that Dell, HP, Joe's, etc sell cheap, expandable computers. With the exception of the Mac Pro, Apple does not. Apple limits their computer lines because they remember that having upteen million different lines (the old Performa, Centris, Quadra days) almost put them out of business. Apple has somewhere between (depending on who's numbers you believe) 5 to 21% of the consumer market and nearly 0% of the business market. Any PC maker you can name that sells directly to the business market will tell you that the margins for those machines are razor-thin. The consumer lines are where the real money per machine is. Apple (and Dell/HP/Joe's) knows this and sells computers to meet the needs of most of their assumed users. Myself and a few other Mac users are the exception, not the rule, in that we would like the power of an iMac but in a tower. Since I prefer OS X over Windows, I have to live with that. I don't hate Windows and use it at work everyday, but I prefer the Mac and the tools that are available for it.
Hopefully OS X's share of the market will increase to the point where Apple might try licensing the OS again. Apple would at that point have to stop making Macs in order for it to succeed (one of many mistakes they made with their first try). What's that magic number? I don't know, but I would have zero problem buying or building a Mac from someone other than Apple. - bencefeher, on 04/10/2008, -0/+1Your name is MacParrot.
- jamesdew, on 04/10/2008, -0/+0wow thats quite a response.
Anyway I think we agree on more things than I thought we did, i'm glad to see that you would be happy buying a mac from a 3rd party or building it yourself.
Personally I run a combination of Windows and linux. I play games a lot on my home PC so i run Windows XP, i think you would have to agree this is the best platform to do this. On my laptop I run ubuntu linux as I only really want to web browse and maybe watch some videos.
I have also worked in various support roles which include supporting macs so I have used them quite significantly and I can tell you that they do break and trying to figure out which CD drives would and would not work in them for no apparent reason drove me crazy.
Anyway the linux community write drivers for all sorts of hardware as do many of the hardware vendors themselves. I realise that mac community is mostly a graphic designers and not computer engineers so this does give linux a little advantage in this department. However macs do have significantly higher market penetration and this should mitigate this advantage somewhat.
This is certainly true in the case of graphics cards and in particular nvida who have released linux drivers and provide reasonable support for a 2% market penetration OS. I'm sure Nvidia would hapily release drivers for their entire graphics card range for the mac platform if Apple actually wanted to allow mac users to run whatever graphics card they wanted.
Also not everything needs a mac compatable driver, RAM certainly doesnt. I dont really see why a hard drive should need a special driver either, hard drives use standard I/O and a mac shouldn't care what hard drive or ram it is interfacing with. - MacParrot, on 04/10/2008, -0/+1"I play games a lot on my home PC so i run Windows XP, i think you would have to agree this is the best platform to do this."
Absolutely no argument. While you can run Windows via BootCamp or VMWare or Parallels, higher end games aren't going to run as well since they (on occasion) need better graphics cards than what Apple supplies. Doesn't mean they aren't perfectly playable, just that you'll probably get a better framerate.
"I have also worked in various support roles which include supporting macs so I have used them quite significantly and I can tell you that they do break and trying to figure out which CD drives would and would not work in them for no apparent reason drove me crazy."
Of course Macs break. Sometimes right out of the box. Anyone who touts ad words like "It just works" on either side of the argument (hating them and using it as a club or loving them and actually believing it) is living a fool's dream. Marketing slogans should NEVER be used as a basis for determing what computer you need. Pick the one with the tools you need and will give you least amount of problems. For me, that's a Mac. For someone else (shrug) it will be something different and I'm OK with that. As far as CD/DVD drives not working with OS X, that's a problem for the drive makers not Apple, which goes back to my original point.
"Also not everything needs a mac compatable driver, RAM certainly doesnt. I dont really see why a hard drive should need a special driver either, hard drives use standard I/O and a mac shouldn't care what hard drive or ram it is interfacing with."
In the old days, Apple did use (damn near) proprietary everything. Standard monitors would not work as Apple had their own connection, RAM required different types, only SCSi drives could easily be installed, they had proprietary expansion slots, ect. They've gotten away from that and now use ATA/SATA Hard Drives, standard PC RAM, PCI(e) slots, standard monitor connections and so on. Like with Linux and Windows, OS X required specific drivers to make the hardware work. A Mac is essentially a PC with some special boot loading software (which FrankenMacs emulate to get around) to prevent OS X from being used on just any PC. While I personally disagree with this approach, I understand why Apple does it. Apple isn't a software company that makes hardware, they're a hardware company that makes software. In order for them to change on the computer side, they would have to get out of the hardware business altogether and until they reach a marketshare number that would make them as much money as they do on hardware with software, it's doubtful they could do so without the entire management and the board of directors of the company being sacked by the shareholders. It could happen someday, but I'm not holding my breath.
It occurs to me that my original response to you was snarkier that it should have been, but it was a Pavlovian response to some of your misconceptions and for that I apologize. Thanks for the great discussion.
- 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?
- MacParrot, on 04/09/2008, -12/+5Here is why you fail...
- plr4ever, on 04/09/2008, -0/+1I dont understand either I have a mac that dulaboots with vista andmac osx
- mydigg1012, on 04/09/2008, -0/+2Agreed
- tk0680, on 04/09/2008, -1/+3Couldn't agree more. I personally prefer Leopard in general, but Vista's not far behind now that (most of) the driver issues have been fixed. It's not an either-or situation (especially since Bootcamp showed up).
- heavystone, on 04/09/2008, -3/+2If you all are thinking of the "are you sure" and you need to confirm every move, then this is an EASY thing to turn off. Its just a "safety" feature.
- MWeather, on 04/09/2008, -1/+4It's easy to run my Linux box as root. That doesn't make it a good idea.
- mCanada, on 04/09/2008, -5/+2I'm running Coleco Adam and quite frankly Linux, OSX and Vista et al. have nothing on it. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coleco_Adam
"the Adam had a large software library from the start."
"good reviews based on the quality of its keyboard and printer, and offered competitive sound and graphics"
Basically it ***** punches everything else.... - norcalscan, on 04/09/2008, -0/+1I'm having a wicked deja vu about youngjohnson's comment and some of the replies. Gang wars, OS, stop bitching about it etc. Must be a glitch in the matrix...or I'm just on digg.
- theliamburns1, on 04/09/2008, -1/+2Triple Boot.
I have leopard, vista, and ubuntu gutsy all installed on my imac.
Honestly....
I'd rather just go outside.- jabberwolf, on 04/10/2008, -0/+1And why can you only boot OSX on a MAC ? That is who's fault ?
Now go outside! You go nooooww!!
- jabberwolf, on 04/10/2008, -0/+1And why can you only boot OSX on a MAC ? That is who's fault ?
- Catgofire, on 04/09/2008, -22/+9haha... (the first one is less funny because of it's ... "English")
"Why people still care about this kind of things?"
"How many applications can the Beamz run?"- benzzene, on 04/09/2008, -0/+15Thanks for mentioning that. By the way, you don't know the difference between "its" and "it's".
- Lewiji, on 04/09/2008, -0/+2The point of the Mac OS one wasn't to see how many application the mac could handle, just to see what the dock/expose would like like under extreme conditions
- wonderchemist, on 04/09/2008, -74/+467Not 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!- 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.
- emyo, on 04/10/2008, -1/+0Actually try doing something in photoshop, like importing a very high quality image and using the smudge tool 1000px. Then you will see photoshop be resource hungry. Or maybe some automated actions on a folder of 500 photos. Like Firefox 2, its fine if you have one tab open but make it ten or so ...
- latova, on 04/09/2008, -18/+96Linuxboy: I can run over nine thousanddddddddddd
- Kyderdog, on 04/09/2008, -4/+19do it post the picture!
- FKnight, on 04/09/2008, -8/+34He 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).- MWeather, on 04/09/2008, -4/+16IIS doesn't fare any better when you compare IIS7 to Apache2.
- statc, on 04/09/2008, -3/+1nginx rules all
- BitBurner, on 04/09/2008, -2/+4Boy you really have not used Linux in a while.... How much is IIS7 or should I say Windows Server 2003 Web Edition or Small Business or Enterprise? How many connections can you have with those differnet versions? How much is Apache or Linux to run it on? How many connections can I have with Apache?
I have to tell you that I setup both for a living and I would way rather set up an Apache box. I may not be able to charge the client as much as building a Win2003 box but I think my customers win in the end. - whodathunk, on 04/09/2008, -1/+4# ps aux |wc -l
1728
# uptime
01:08:18 up 5 days, 4:33, 1 user, load average: 4.72, 7.53, 5.84
whee 1728 apps... Yes, it's a server undergoing a load test... Still responds fine to everything... My point is that the 'numer of apps' on a computer is as much a useful benchmark as the color of the racing car.
- FKnight, on 04/09/2008, -8/+34He can't yet. He's still compiling all of the dependencies for gnu-screenshot-maker-200801234A-unstable.tar.bz2
- coresnake, on 04/09/2008, -0/+2THIS MUST BE A MALFUNCTION!
- moush, on 04/09/2008, -0/+1Have fun with your program friends.
- dhonn, on 04/09/2008, -0/+1My install of Ubuntu is running 151 tasks. That doesn't translate to 151 applications or does it?
- rspeed, on 04/10/2008, -0/+1Not at all. I have 9 applications open, but ps aux |wc -l prints 85 (in OS X).
- rspeed, on 04/10/2008, -0/+1Not at all. I have 9 applications open, but ps aux |wc -l prints 85 (in OS X).
- keenkumar, on 04/10/2008, -1/+2WHAT 9000! THAT CANT BE RIGHT!
- Kyderdog, on 04/09/2008, -4/+19do it post the picture!
- DiggLive, on 04/09/2008, -37/+19Yeah, I have to agree. The only way I can see 100 apps being a good thing compared to the 150 is saying, "Hey look all you Leoptards, Vista isn't crashing with 100 apps open. Windows is awesome!" Hah.
- McHaleR, on 04/09/2008, -1/+3buried for not ignorant poster not reading either article
- goonnoodles, on 04/10/2008, -2/+1buried for laughing at your own joke =/
- mgoblue12, on 04/10/2008, -0/+2Dugg for Leoptard.
- 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.
- dubloe7, on 04/09/2008, -0/+8processing power is only the bottleneck on about 3% of the things that I do. its far more common for it to be memory utilization, memory speed, hard drive i/o (especially with vista), or bandwidth.
- Spuy767, on 04/09/2008, -7/+4That's a vista ruse if I'm not mistaken. Apps that are not being used have their current state cached to the RAM, and sometimes to the hard drive to free up resources for apps that are being used. This basically shows nothing other than the fact that Vista uses some clever tricks to improve performance.
- pnmoore, on 04/09/2008, -0/+17So using "clever tricks" to improve performance is bad in what way?
- dubloe7, on 04/09/2008, -11/+1because if you actually need to switch between the applications that are open instead of just using 1 or 2 you might as well relaunch them again since they have to entirely load themselves back into the system resources before the speed becomes usable.
- Blandyman, on 04/09/2008, -1/+4dubloe:
It saves its current place instead of closing it and attempting to open it at the same place next time.
Or have you never tried to put your system into hibernation? - dubloe7, on 04/09/2008, -3/+1you ever notice that when you bring your system out of hibernation it takes a bit of time for the saved memory to load into ram?
or that in the recent versions of firefox (the ones that unload memory better) if you go back to a heavy page (digg comments for example) it takes just as long to load as if you were doing it for the first time.
or have you never tried to load a digg comments page? - Blandyman, on 04/13/2008, -0/+1Yeah, it takes time to load up from memory again, but coming out of hibernation is MUCH faster than doing a cold boot of Windows.
I don't know about Firefox (haven't had trouble with it) but it sounds like a performance issue with the application, not necessarily a problem with the entire concept of caching.
- pnmoore, on 04/09/2008, -0/+17So using "clever tricks" to improve performance is bad in what way?
- scy1192, on 04/09/2008, -1/+3to be fair, this PC is a Quad core while the Macbook was a Dual core.
- bingobongony, on 04/09/2008, -1/+15And yet still costs less than the Mac. There is nothing unfair about using different specs if the cost is about the same.
- MadOtaku, on 04/09/2008, -7/+2Actually there is. This isn't a comparison of economy; it's about the OS's ability to handle large numbers of apps. The fact that anyone has dugg your comment shows a sad lack of critical thinking here.
- bingobongony, on 04/09/2008, -0/+4It is a comparisson of the USERS economy. For the same (or less) cost spent, they can get that computer. Most people (all normal ones) care about what they can get for their money, not which brand of a product does more with what they have.
I couldn't care less if a Mac can do more at the same specs as a Windows PC. I care about what I can get for $10000, or whatever amount I want to spend. - rspeed, on 04/10/2008, -0/+1Comparing the cost of a desktop to a portable is NOT fair in the least.
- bingobongony, on 04/09/2008, -1/+15And yet still costs less than the Mac. There is nothing unfair about using different specs if the cost is about the same.
- zwaldowski, on 04/09/2008, -0/+1That explains the large spikes in the video.
- AngelBunny, on 04/10/2008, -2/+1yes but osx runs more efficient at 150 apps than vista at 100 apps, so yes this video does make no sense.
also, it is mostly the same programs running on both windows and osx, so what does it matter? this video is pointless.
- 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- jhuebel, on 04/09/2008, -6/+25Score: 5, Insightful
- Acolyte357, on 04/10/2008, -0/+1this is not slashdot dick
- fr34k5h0w, on 04/09/2008, -3/+10Actually with the way OS X handles programs (IE they remain in memory unless you quit the application, not just the window), I don't think you could run multiple instances using *conventional* methods. Note that you could fire up Terminal and launch a process multiple times. I promise I'm not a Mac fanboy trying to start a flame war, I have Vista Home Premium and an Ubuntu server, too.
- superkendall, on 04/09/2008, -0/+1Virtual memory means never having to care what's in physical memory and what's swapped out.
30% processor usage on 108 apps just means he had a lot of very static applications.
- superkendall, on 04/09/2008, -0/+1Virtual memory means never having to care what's in physical memory and what's swapped out.
- dhonn, on 04/09/2008, -0/+2That's because I count running two instances as Notepad as two applications of Notepad. This argument makes no sense.
- AngelBunny, on 04/10/2008, -3/+1I hate to break it to you but even if you are right with what you are saying your argument is wrong. I can tell you don't understand how OSX works or you probably wouldn't have made this post. On OSX one might say they are running 100 apps at once and at the same time 250 windows. On windows they might say they are running 250 apps at once when they are really running 100. The terminology is actually different between operating systems. The videos of OSX running 150 apps at once are 150 different apps.
- Qumahlin, on 04/10/2008, -2/+1"The terminology is actually different between operating systems" No...it's not. The terminology is no different whatsoever. The terminology you speak of is misused on ANY window based operating system depending on the skill level of who you are talking to. If ask a tech saavy person how many apps they have open they will normally reply with the actual amount of applications as opposed to the amount of windows. Ask that same question to someone who is not tech saavy and they will just count up the windows on the screen as they don't understand the difference between a window and an application.
To honestly believe the terminology is different per operating system is asinine. You might as well say a byte on a PC isn't the same as a byte on a Mac
- Qumahlin, on 04/10/2008, -2/+1"The terminology is actually different between operating systems" No...it's not. The terminology is no different whatsoever. The terminology you speak of is misused on ANY window based operating system depending on the skill level of who you are talking to. If ask a tech saavy person how many apps they have open they will normally reply with the actual amount of applications as opposed to the amount of windows. Ask that same question to someone who is not tech saavy and they will just count up the windows on the screen as they don't understand the difference between a window and an application.
- jhuebel, on 04/09/2008, -6/+25Score: 5, Insightful
- TheSlinky, on 04/09/2008, -19/+10Please read the article before you post something stupid. It says it runs 108 apps at 30% processor usage. So by that logic he could probably run twice or maybe even three times as much.
- Tyr7BE, on 04/09/2008, -2/+19I'm not so sure you understand how a processor is used. Assuming you had the memory, you could run thousands of apps at 0% processor usage.
- prgmctan, on 04/09/2008, -1/+10he was running out of RAM
- VitriolAndAngst, on 04/09/2008, -0/+5The RAM usage could have been lower, since almost all those apps shouldn't be using the CPU in idle. I know PhotoShop does.
- crispytown, on 04/09/2008, -21/+25The difference is that the Vista example was a video and the mac was a picture. Videos speak 1000 times more then an image that could be edited with a Adobe Photoshop or any good image editor like Gimp. Personally Linux rocks both OSX and Win, but that is my personal choice.
- ggriffit, on 04/09/2008, -4/+11Um, the mac one was a video too....
- dhonn, on 04/09/2008, -2/+2Prove it with a Linux video, but linux only has like 10 apps really.
- Amiga500, on 04/10/2008, -1/+1"good image editor like Gimp"
A classic Oxymoron.
- ggriffit, on 04/09/2008, -4/+11Um, the mac one was a video too....
- cadmiumpaint, on 04/09/2008, -4/+19thats called Hillary math....
- 1kewldude, on 04/09/2008, -0/+7Was he under sinper fire making the video.....?
- h4mx0r, on 04/09/2008, -0/+2No, but he claims he was sleep deprived.
- DrywallThief, on 04/09/2008, -1/+1Yes, and he was also up at 3AM answering phone calls too.
- 1kewldude, on 04/09/2008, -0/+7Was he under sinper fire making the video.....?
- Mier, on 04/09/2008, -23/+123I didn't know there were 150 apps for the Mac.
- bigsteve, on 04/09/2008, -23/+6So *you're* guy who keeps digging 10 year old email jokes on digg, like the little girl riding the backward Donald Duck ride. How have some old retarded computer jokes like "Macs don't have software" lived this long, and still ***** get dugg up?
We can do better, digg. - jeriqo, on 04/09/2008, -27/+13Better have 100 well designed apps than 4000 pieces of trash.
- ubrikkean, on 04/09/2008, -3/+3You do realize that a significant portion of the most used applications exist and function equally on both platforms, right?
- jeriqo, on 04/10/2008, -2/+1No.
- ubrikkean, on 04/09/2008, -3/+3You do realize that a significant portion of the most used applications exist and function equally on both platforms, right?
- Mier, on 04/09/2008, -6/+9I see the macaphiles are still butthurt over their lack of application and native game support.
- OandA, on 04/09/2008, -5/+8lol well played sir well played. I'm a mac user and found this hilarious. I find it hilarious that people actually were offended by your comment.
Obviously its untrue but come on people its called sarcasm and joking around..= - delfin1, on 04/09/2008, -3/+3burn!
- AngelBunny, on 04/10/2008, -0/+1you forgot to write /sarcasm
i can't believe people took this comment seriously. - whitenerdy92, on 04/10/2008, -2/+2old.
- bigsteve, on 04/09/2008, -23/+6So *you're* guy who keeps digging 10 year old email jokes on digg, like the little girl riding the backward Donald Duck ride. How have some old retarded computer jokes like "Macs don't have software" lived this long, and still ***** get dugg up?
- thelock65, on 04/09/2008, -0/+14I mean, why would i need to run 100 apps at once? Let me know how fast it can run 3
- griz, on 04/09/2008, -1/+20But each App on Windows goes to 11.
- Commodore84, on 04/09/2008, -1/+1This comment hasn't been dugg nearly enough.
- McHaleR, on 04/09/2008, -1/+1i concur
- Syphon8, on 04/09/2008, -0/+3Why not just make the apps go to 10, but make 10 as loud as 11?
- efitz11, on 04/09/2008, -0/+2...but these apps go to 11...
- GeyserShitdick, on 04/10/2008, -1/+1HAHA I SAW THAT MOVIE TOO GUYZ
- Commodore84, on 04/09/2008, -1/+1This comment hasn't been dugg nearly enough.
- badave, on 04/09/2008, -1/+1I can only imagine that he ran out of apps.
- sirhomer, on 04/09/2008, -7/+2Maybe I should post a video of a Linux supercomputer running four billion applications at the same time. Will that shut up the Mactards and Wintards?
- Mier, on 04/09/2008, -3/+3No that will just prove you're another mouthbreathing linux user with an unsubstantiated superiority complex.
- Vorin, on 04/09/2008, -1/+2right, because when a mac fan does 150 and brags about it he isn't doing the same thing?
or when a widows user rebuts it with a similar video?
please don't label people so quickly.
- Vorin, on 04/09/2008, -1/+2right, because when a mac fan does 150 and brags about it he isn't doing the same thing?
- moyness, on 04/09/2008, -0/+1Do it, C'mon Do it.
/Starsky - AngelBunny, on 04/10/2008, -0/+14 billion applications and 4 billion separate threads from maybe 100 applications are completely different. I know there are a lot of apps for linux but 4 billion seems a bit obsessive.
- Mier, on 04/09/2008, -3/+3No that will just prove you're another mouthbreathing linux user with an unsubstantiated superiority complex.
- NCSUspoon, on 04/09/2008, -9/+1Vista doesn't run anywhere
- coheedcollapse, on 04/09/2008, -1/+2The mac version was just a picture and we had to trust them when they said that there was no slowdown. The Vista version was just some guy jacking around who got bored when he had everything on his computer open already. Also, video that shows processor usage.
- AngelBunny, on 04/10/2008, -1/+1er ... no actually there are many videos.
- sfacets, on 04/09/2008, -0/+3He tried running 101 apps, but the Dalmatians called. Also his system died a horrible and violent death.
- estvir, on 04/10/2008, -0/+2Fun fact, he had 108 apps open.
- RustyJ, on 04/09/2008, -1/+1it was 100 really AWESOME apps. that's why it beats the 150 okay apps.
/sarcasm - efitz11, on 04/09/2008, -0/+1400 BABIES
- moush, on 04/09/2008, -1/+1Too bad the windows programs are fun.
- jabberwolf, on 04/09/2008, -3/+6100 at 30% processor POWER AT 4GB RAM.
Youre lucky you even found someone with Vista that gave a dam to show you. Most already know Vista runs things better, plus Vista 64 bit is ACTUALLY 64 BIT and not the half assed version that OSX is.
MAC user, undisclosed amount of RAM ? Why because they were embarrassed !- AngelBunny, on 04/10/2008, -2/+1actually most of the videos are of old macbooks with anywere from 512 to 2 gigs of memory and not quad core.
are you so sure? - Qumahlin, on 04/10/2008, -1/+3"100 at 30% processor POWER AT 4GB RAM" You say this like it means something...the reason the processor was only at 30% usage is because the majority of those apps share DLL's and the applications were not actively doing anything...You do realize that after photoshop and other "memory intensive" apps actually open...they don't take much processor time until you actually do something in them.
Also ram means nothing, you could open that many with 2GB of ram since as I said the applications aren't active windows will simply dump memory from the apps that aren't doing anything in order to load the new ones your attempting to open.
Another chuckle is your statement of "Most already know Vista runs things better"...who would these "most" be? The people who aren't buying Vista? The magazine reviewers who have repeatedly said Vista is ***** and to stick with XP if you can? The gamers who actually spent time trying to get DX10 to work in XP purely because of how ***** Vista's performance is?
Say whatever you want about Macs and OSX, bottom line is Vista is the new Windows ME. No one wants it, its worse then its predecessor at many tasks, and if not being bundled with new PC's most companies would instead prefer to have XP pre-installed.- Syphon8, on 04/11/2008, -0/+1Say what you want about Windows ME, Vista is not like it. It's stable, good looking, and fast than XP.
- moleeyes, on 04/10/2008, -0/+1pwnt
- Amiga500, on 04/10/2008, -0/+3They wanted to install more Ram, but that isn't an easy task. First, you need Apple Certified Ram. Each stick of memory is checked for quality and receives a kiss from Mr. Jobs himself. Once you have the ram, it can only be installed by a certified Apple service center. It's not as bad as it sounds, you get a free scone and a cup of decaffeinated coffee while you wait.
- AngelBunny, on 04/10/2008, -2/+1actually most of the videos are of old macbooks with anywere from 512 to 2 gigs of memory and not quad core.
- Meltz014, on 04/09/2008, -1/+1Well, all that was said before, plus the "150" mac apps was really only about 96. Go to the Flikr page and count the icons on the dock that are running.
- theclashrocker, on 04/10/2008, -1/+1105 apps at 30% efficency would mean 210 at 60%. 315 at 90% efficency.
- gstep, on 04/10/2008, -0/+1not necessarily...a lot of apps use the same resources running on the back end like java or .net so efficiency would probably be better the higher you go
- 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.
- Topher06, on 04/09/2008, -67/+655OS 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.
- EntropyFan, on 04/09/2008, -7/+59Yes, Windows Mobile folks have the same problem....
- NnyCW, on 04/09/2008, -1/+8Speaking as someone who uses Windows Mobile, there is a setting at least to make clicking the X actually stop the damn program.
Though whoever thought that a good idea by default...- specialK16, on 04/09/2008, -2/+10Really? Where?
- NnyCW, on 04/10/2008, -0/+2Start, Settings, System Tab, Task Manager, Button Tab, Check "Enable the "X" Button to end running programs" and then select either end programs by tapping "X" or end programs by tapping and holding "X".
Running Windows Mobile 6. - gstep, on 04/10/2008, -0/+2in earlier versions you can just use the task switcher which works just fine
- specialK16, on 04/11/2008, -0/+1I have WM5, and what do you mean gstep?
- NnyCW, on 04/10/2008, -0/+2Start, Settings, System Tab, Task Manager, Button Tab, Check "Enable the "X" Button to end running programs" and then select either end programs by tapping "X" or end programs by tapping and holding "X".
- specialK16, on 04/09/2008, -2/+10Really? Where?
- basevillin, on 04/09/2008, -0/+5Programs close automatically when RAM is needed.
- gstep, on 04/10/2008, -0/+1same with iphone/touch
- NnyCW, on 04/09/2008, -1/+8Speaking as someone who uses Windows Mobile, there is a setting at least to make clicking the X actually stop the damn program.
- noahhoward, on 04/09/2008, -53/+8Wow, that was incredibly stupid. You ever stop and think it is a good thing to be able to have all of your more commonly used apps and tools open when you are working on something?
- Meltz014, on 04/09/2008, -0/+1He was making the point that most mac users don't know the difference, not that it's pointless to hide instead of quit.
- itsgotyou, on 04/09/2008, -28/+8what a dumb bunch of sorry *****.
- AsSubtleAsABrik, on 04/09/2008, -22/+22Yea I never understood why the minimize button and the x do effectively the same thing.
- lostarchitect, on 04/09/2008, -7/+41because they don't.
- SirPasta117, on 04/09/2008, -15/+5because they do
- bsmang, on 04/09/2008, -4/+2L-F'n-O-L
- 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."
- AsSubtleAsABrik, on 04/09/2008, -2/+7They both leave the application running. Hence the "effectively" part. I know there is a difference. I guess i don't really have any applications that take a long time to load up, but why else would I want to leave it a program running if I'm not using it? If I don't have a window up I have no reason for the program to be running. Like I said, i guess I could understand for programs that take a long time to load, but then having it minimized works quite well enough, and I could always set it up to minimize to the system bar if its that big of an issue.
- MadOtaku, on 04/09/2008, -0/+2OS X was built for multi-document projects (really, 'windows' would have been a better name since it doesn't expect everything to run full screen). I may close a document, then go to the file menu and make a new one.
- 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.- o0joshua0o, on 04/09/2008, -2/+9Yes, but either way, the app remains running.
- noahhoward, on 04/09/2008, -6/+5Until you close the application, yes. What don't you understand about the difference between a window and an application?
- o0joshua0o, on 04/09/2008, -2/+9Yes, but either way, the app remains running.
- 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.
- MacParrot, on 04/09/2008, -0/+10I'm certainly not a Windows power user (no kidding!), but I've noticed on XP that once the taskbar is full, it does group common open files into a single button.
Having 10 IE windows (for example) open at time usually just groups them in the taskbar with a pop-up window allowing me to select which window I want to view at a time. I don't think its as useful (for me) as Expose, but it isn't as bad as you claim.
Before anyone says it, yes I know you can enable tabs in IE, but our machines are so locked down that I can't- MWeather, on 04/09/2008, -0/+6Run Firefox from a USB drive. If that doesn't work, rename it iexplore.exe. You'd be amazed how often that works. Depends on how you're locked down, though.
- MacParrot, on 04/09/2008, -0/+1Sigh, nope that's not allowed either. I probably could force the issue as long as I don't care about having a job afterwords.
- EntropyFan, on 04/09/2008, -5/+5Um,no it does not. In Windows, if you open Word 9 times, you have 9 instances of the Word's executable in memory.
They are independent, free standing programs, not multiple documents open under the same executable.- noahhoward, on 04/09/2008, -5/+7Which is stupid.
- EntropyFan, on 04/09/2008, -1/+6noahhoward,
it depends on what you are doing. One of the most requested features I hear from Mac users (well, designers) it to be able to open up more then one instance of Photoshop. When one is busy doing a long operation on a file, open up another instance and work on something else. If you could assign instances of Photoshop to certain cores, to really separate the workload, there would be some happy campers here. - noahhoward, on 04/09/2008, -5/+3Yes but you are then sucking up more resources to duplicate all of the processes involved. There may be some very specific use cases but for 99% of users I can't see it being of any use.
- Meltz014, on 04/09/2008, -0/+1*dugg up for use of the word "Paradigm"*
- skyshock1, on 04/10/2008, -0/+2Snobbery at its finest. No its not more "accurate" to depict applications in this manner, it's just the way the GUI designers preferred to depict the applications. Windows depicts application instances as being discreet, and OSX depicts parent applications as being discreet while not really doing much to differentiate the child processes (although spaces and Apple+~ do a bit to alleviate this now). Arguing one way is more "correct" than the other is pure snobbery and semantics.
I guess my point is just use linux and STFU.
- MacParrot, on 04/09/2008, -0/+10I'm certainly not a Windows power user (no kidding!), but I've noticed on XP that once the taskbar is full, it does group common open files into a single button.
- lostarchitect, on 04/09/2008, -7/+41because they don't.
- VitriolAndAngst, on 04/09/2008, -10/+7Look, whichever platform can painlessly deal with the most clueless users who cannot set a toaster wins.
I welcome the clueless Windows users. I'm proud that we have more people who are frightened by technology -- those are the people who PAY you money and lots of it.
I thought by now that Windows folks would understand this economic dynamic...- Vorin, on 04/09/2008, -0/+4i overclocked my toaster to handle 15 slices at a time, can yours run 15 slices at a time?
- bingobongony, on 04/09/2008, -3/+1I LOVE the fat that you hnk that Windows users are stupid for not having any problems using an OS that you can't use without problems. You are NOT smarter than the average computer user. You are not smarter than the average mosquito. You aren ot more technologically advnaced than the average 5 year old. Get over yourself.
- Spuy767, on 04/09/2008, -10/+20Nice blanket statement there, What about all those windows Apps that fool you into thinking that you've closed them by minimizing themselves to the system tray? I have people come to me occasionally and say, "My computer is running slow." so often, only for me to find out that they had so much ***** in their systray that when not minimized, it covered three quarters of the task bar.
- TheSabre, on 04/09/2008, -2/+6The difference is that having to quit an application on a Mac is an OS thing. It's how the OS is designed. The Windows systray functionality you mentioned is just poor programming by the developer. You can't call it a fault with Windows because an app developer wants to be cute and put their crap in the SYSTEM tray.
- jeriqo, on 04/09/2008, -1/+5You can make your app quit when the window is closed on Mac OS too.
- bigsteve, on 04/09/2008, -8/+7Glad someone said this. The people who say "Mac apps don't close when you click the X! LOL" drive me nuts. Ok, I closed a Windows app. I think that's it's icon still in the tray there. Is the whole app still running? Is just some dopey launcher running that sucks up memory and provides me with a non-standard-UI menu for doing whatever the app does? Ok I moused over it and it disappeared, did it crash? What's going on?
On a Mac, you see a triangle. File > close closes a Window, File > Quit quits the app. App, window. App, window. Get it? They're two different things. Aaaand, I can even command+tab between apps, then command+ ~ between windows! Imagine that! That way, If i have 5 Safari windows open, 4 Firefox, 3 BBEdit, 2 AIM client, and 1 iTunes window open and I hit command+tab, I don't get 15 different ***** icons representing my open windows. I get 5, and then can move between them too. As heavy keyboard shortcut user, this (and two finger trackpad scrolling) will keep me a Mac user for years and years to come over pretty much every other platform.- Icklehamsta, on 04/09/2008, -4/+3You really haven't heard of tabs, have you? I don't think having 5 Safari windows and 4 Firefox is a very clever thing to do.
- bigsteve, on 04/09/2008, -1/+2I've heard of tabs and don't care for them. You can ctrl+tab through them, but that makes me use a different modifier key. Why do that when one modifier key can get me through my apps and windows, cut and paste, minimize, hide, and a bunch of other commands?
- acero47, on 04/09/2008, -0/+0@bigsteve
That may be a good point for Macs, but in Windows and Linux, cut, paste, etc are done with Ctrl, not the windows key. Alt-tab lets you switch between windows. Your command+~, command+tab is equivalent to our Ctrl+tab, Alt+tab. - bigsteve, on 04/09/2008, -0/+2@acero47. I'm familiar with the keybinding differences in Windows and popular windowing environments on Open source platforms, but I was originally talking about the PC vs. Mac dynamic, and my support for the Mac way.
Alt+tab and Ctrl+tab don't work the same way as Command+tab and Command+~. In Windows and Gnome/KDE, Alt+tab still shows -every- open window, not just the open applications. Which drives me nuts.
- acero47, on 04/09/2008, -1/+1Why would you ever need that many internet browsers open? I'm always amazed when I hear people mention they have multiple firefox windows open, each with 10 tabs. Is it that hard to close tabs you're done with, or do you actually need 50 separate webpages open for something? Right now, I have only 3 tabs open, Gmail, a message board at Gamefaqs, and this Digg tab. I think I max out at like 10, and that's not very common.
I'm not trying to make a dig (no pun intended) at you and I know that this is not the point of what you are saying, but can you or someone else please explain this phenomenon to me?- bigsteve, on 04/09/2008, -1/+2Web design. Multiple browser testing, viewing a page with different style sheets applied, w3schools open for reference... list goes on.
- acero47, on 04/09/2008, -0/+0@bigsteve
Thanks, though based upon your comment above, I'd guess you use things a little differently than most people who make the claim of multiple windows of multiple tabs. Would I be correct to assume you don't have multiple tabs per window? - bingobongony, on 04/09/2008, -3/+1For the same reason people load up their shiny new iPods with music that they have never listened to, and never intend to listen to...because htey CAN, and hey think it makes them superior.
- Icklehamsta, on 04/09/2008, -4/+3You really haven't heard of tabs, have you? I don't think having 5 Safari windows and 4 Firefox is a very clever thing to do.
- TheSabre, on 04/09/2008, -2/+6The difference is that having to quit an application on a Mac is an OS thing. It's how the OS is designed. The Windows systray functionality you mentioned is just poor programming by the developer. You can't call it a fault with Windows because an app developer wants to be cute and put their crap in the SYSTEM tray.
- ucg1, on 04/09/2008, -8/+6Actually I find most Mac users don't even know how to hide applications. They use minimize when they should be using hide, and they close individual windows when they should be quitting. The is especially bad with people who converted over from Windows.
Most people can't be bothered to actually learn how to use the software they are using. - JonLatane, on 04/09/2008, -7/+24Actually, most Mac users probably do know the difference. However, most recent Windows to Mac converts probably don't :)
- crazyhorse13, on 04/09/2008, -1/+5Umm most Mac users *are* recent Windows converts. Although I suppose it depends on your definition of recent.
- SonicEarth, on 04/09/2008, -8/+4Most Mac users like it in the ass.
- ChromaVita, on 04/09/2008, -0/+4Classy...
- lostarchitect, on 04/09/2008, -0/+4i didn't know your mom was a mac user...
- salomejones, on 04/09/2008, -8/+17Perhaps, but we do have a nifty built-in spell checker that works in all OS X applications, eliminating mistakes like "hidding".
- mgill3, on 04/09/2008, -4/+2Hahhhh!!! pwned.
- estvir, on 04/10/2008, -0/+1But unfortunately using a Mac won't raise your intelligence, sorry mgill3.
- salomejones, on 04/10/2008, -0/+1True enough. You have to already be smart to pick OS X over the current alternatives.
- estvir, on 04/10/2008, -0/+1But unfortunately using a Mac won't raise your intelligence, sorry mgill3.
- mgill3, on 04/09/2008, -4/+2Hahhhh!!! pwned.
- jeeky, on 04/09/2008, -0/+4Us fanboys also don't understand shut down.
- Kelmon, on 04/09/2008, -3/+2Why would I need to quit an application? One of the things I love about OS X is that an application running in the background (if it has been written well) consumes almost no processor time and the memory management ensures that it doesn't slow down active applications. Yes, quitting an application will completely free up its resources but if you already have a lot and quitting doesn't really do much then you might as well leave the application open and enjoy the benefit of not having to wait for it to launch again. The only exception that I have to this is VMWare Fusion since XP will consume a reasonable amount of processor resources even when its not doing anything.
- gstep, on 04/10/2008, -0/+1Vista somewhat does this by automatically learning what programs you use most frequently and copying big chunks into RAM @ startup
- digitallysick, on 04/10/2008, -1/+1haha, all mac n00bs do that, including my wife
- 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.)- TheRealToma, on 04/09/2008, -1/+25When it happens, it will happen in a very epic way.
- VitriolAndAngst, on 04/09/2008, -0/+6Probably more -- and it was an application server running a couple hundred dumb terminals. So I'd say that we really, really don't want to get too deep in this sort of competition.
- dubloe7, on 04/09/2008, -0/+14people are doing it now, it takes a little bit of time to open 250,000 apps.
- MioTheGreat, on 04/09/2008, -5/+30X crashed when they plugged in monitor #6, and they're still working on the xorg.conf file...
- dubloe7, on 04/09/2008, -1/+4dugg because of the amount of time ive spent messing with xorg.conf files.
- MWeather, on 04/09/2008, -0/+3Try a newer version of Xorg. I haven't even looked at my xorg.conf since Xorg 4.2
- MWeather, on 04/09/2008, -0/+11I remember when X used to crash. Thaknks for the trip down memory lane.
- HoratioHellpop, on 04/09/2008, -4/+2Like yesterday, when I was trying to get FC 8 to use dual monitors on my six-month-old Dell Latitude D630? Yah, that was long ago ...
- dubloe7, on 04/09/2008, -1/+4dugg because of the amount of time ive spent messing with xorg.conf files.
- bsmang, on 04/09/2008, -0/+6I tried it on a Linux box after the mac story went around... I got tired of opening stuff after about 75 (even the 'random' compiz window-open effects were starting to get pretty old). Maybe a shell script should do it. One thing I did notice, after I closed them all, my RAM was all cleaned and freed up, whereas under normal use, it keeps a lot of stuff in cache/buffers.
- knightmarex, on 04/09/2008, -0/+9I was feeling curious and gave it a try as well. I opened 53 apps (having OO Draw, Impress, Spreadsheets, Presentations, Inkscape, Firefox 2 & 3, F-Spot, aMSN, Skype 2, as well as Photoshop CS2, ImageReady CS2, Fireworks 8, Flash 8, IE6 under WINE; and even some KDE apps like Dolphin, Konqueror, Amarok, Okular, and many more). All this in a normal Ubuntu Gutsy 64 bits system running on a laptop: AMD Turion 2.0 Ghz with 1GB of ram, which around 128 of that goes to the nvidia geforce go 6100 video card.
I have to say I am impressed with how smooth it worked, although I did notice some lag when maximizing some apps (which I guess it's mainly because it was on swap) but once loaded they would work very smooth.
I was planning on making a video of it, but I only got to 53 apps from every day use, so I would have to install many more apps before being able to at least do more than 108 apps, and I'm not for that now, maybe later. - SonicEarth, on 04/09/2008, -4/+5Linux is much better than both Windows and Mac OS.
- gitboxgreg, on 04/09/2008, -0/+2i don't know if it is better, but i use it as my main OS. it just seems to be a little bit faster and has a lot more eye candy.
- cfelde, on 04/09/2008, -0/+5top - 22:50:07 up 15:37, 2 users, load average: 0.00, 0.13, 0.19
Tasks: 157 total, 2 running, 155 sleeping, 0 stopped, 0 zombie
Cpu(s): 1.0%us, 0.3%sy, 0.0%ni, 98.7%id, 0.0%wa, 0.0%hi, 0.0%si, 0.0%st
Mem: 4050584k total, 3841412k used, 209172k free, 70356k buffers
Swap: 9767512k total, 40264k used, 9727248k free, 2197028k cached
Guess this doesn't count?- TheRealToma, on 04/10/2008, -0/+1To be fair, the amount of apps running on Vista and osX dont include their systems services aswell. My lovely little linux box is running 71 processes at the moment but only 2 of those are GUI based. Having said that, im sure a well populated apache server would be running over a thousand child processes of apache and would make for an impressive top result.
- sehku17, on 04/09/2008, -0/+0If anyone wants to try to run EVERY application installed, go ahead and type echo $PATH. Then, type the location with an * and separate paths with semi-colons, then hit enter. ex. /usr/local/sbin/* ; /usr/local/bin/* ; /usr/sbin/* ; /usr/bin/* ; /sbin/* ; /bin/* ; /usr/bin/X11/* ; /usr/games/*
I got about 3000 apps to run, about 400 were graphical. But I got some serious lag. Couldn't co-ordinate mouse enough to click "shut down" and had to hold power button. Interesting though.
- 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.
- madmax85, on 04/09/2008, -12/+7I just need one tab open... Its not the gay section i swear
- 20grams, on 04/09/2008, -8/+1so why did u have to mention it?
- BigLLamasHouse, on 04/09/2008, -0/+4oh sublimedirectory, you'll always have a place in my heart
- whitenerdy92, on 04/10/2008, -0/+1Pics or it didn't happen
- sjbdallas, on 04/10/2008, -0/+1Google "Anal Angels" and you'll be all set.
- al11588, on 04/10/2008, -0/+0***** or GTFO
- Ahyx, on 05/02/2008, -0/+0Go back to 4chan.
- madmax85, on 04/09/2008, -12/+7I just need one tab open... Its not the gay section i swear
- FizzanoMatrix, on 04/09/2008, -1/+11Most of the apps are being run in the node cache anyways aren't they...?
- umbriago, on 04/09/2008, -6/+171Guys! guys! Please take your Operating System Pissing Match outside...perhaps into the street.
- LiquidIse, on 04/09/2008, -2/+28Cripple Fight!
- VitriolAndAngst, on 04/09/2008, -1/+4[pushes back taped glasses]
>> If you have something to say, then step into my cubicle and we will see who can hack the other's computer first. Or are you not geek enough? Your Kung Fu will fail. - dubloe7, on 04/09/2008, -0/+6... perhaps into the path of an oncoming bus.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZZVx4gmFESs- chewbie, on 04/09/2008, -1/+1http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1GOJfjfUOxg
- goodkidyo, on 04/09/2008, -0/+1where there's cars
- theaceoffire, on 04/09/2008, -0/+2And the Zebras...
- slightlygifted, on 04/09/2008, -0/+3the sun..........ITS BURNING ME!!!!
- GhostFreeman, on 04/09/2008, -0/+1a busy street, a motorway perhaps.
- scairborn, on 04/09/2008, -15/+11100 apps...and then it eats your soul apparantly.
- Kyderdog, on 04/09/2008, -1/+2101 apps he stopped short.
- VitriolAndAngst, on 04/09/2008, -0/+10I sacrifice a chicken to my Windows XP box about every 6 months -- just to be safe.
- SteveMax, on 04/09/2008, -1/+2Actually, eating your soul is hard-coded to 666 apps. Then, an image of a demon appears on the screen and sucks you down to Hell, where you are forced to sign a pact with the devil or look at Windows Me's source code. Most people sign the pact right after a small peek at the code, which is enough to cause more physical pain than any Inquisition torture.
Fortunately, the current memory system doesn't handle 666 concurrent apps. This is the reason for Windows 7 to be coming so early: it will default to 660 open apps at startup. All is going well towards global domination.- strawedberry, on 04/09/2008, -0/+1settle down there, friend
- concretewave, on 04/09/2008, -15/+9What they didn't tell you: All of the world's resources were harvested to provide enough memory to run that thing....
- Spuy767, on 04/09/2008, -1/+2I doubt it. I just bought 8 gigs of ram for my server for about $300, and his machine only has 4 gigs, so. . . um. . . fail.
- MWeather, on 04/09/2008, -0/+2Wow, 8 gigs of ECC Ram for $300? Where'd you get it?
- Spuy767, on 04/09/2008, -1/+2I doubt it. I just bought 8 gigs of ram for my server for about $300, and his machine only has 4 gigs, so. . . um. . . fail.
- 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.- crispytown, on 04/09/2008, -16/+8I hit my head on my desk after reading this comment from laughing to hard. Way to go!!!
- lostarchitect, on 04/09/2008, -18/+12yes, and it's also 1987.
- SirPasta117, on 04/09/2008, -16/+7best comment here
- Blizaine, on 04/09/2008, -27/+14Some would argue that they would rather have 150 high quality apps than 1000 sh!ty ones....
- delfin1, on 04/09/2008, -2/+3yes, some would argue that =/
- Zlorp, on 04/09/2008, -2/+4too bad those 150 high quality apps are also more than likely available in windows as well
- pond70, on 04/09/2008, -1/+2too bad those 150 apps all start with the letter '' i " IM pretty sure thats the only thing Mac has going for it ... after all its just a Unix box with a iapple gui
- estvir, on 04/10/2008, -1/+1There'd be an equal amount of quality apps and they'd also mostly be free on Windows unlike on MacOS where almost every developer tries to charge you money despite how small their app is.
- VitriolAndAngst, on 04/09/2008, -20/+18I didn't know that there were 100 you WANTED on Windows.
Just launch the typical Consumer PC without reformatting and rebuilding Windows, and about 25 unsolicited pieces of shovel-ware will launch. Do I need this multi-colored Photo Explorer to launch when I push in a CD? Apparently, Compaq thinks so.- delfin1, on 04/09/2008, -3/+4you can unistall it
- Ahyx, on 05/02/2008, -0/+0You shouldn't HAVE to.
- delfin1, on 04/09/2008, -3/+4you can unistall it
- corruptcorey, on 04/09/2008, -12/+7rhabd obviously you didn't do your homework. try going to http://www.apple.com/downloads and looking through all the applications you could download.
- designerutah, on 04/09/2008, -16/+7Old joke, stupid comment, ignorant commenter. Anything else to say?
- estvir, on 04/10/2008, -0/+1Yes; designerutah is a bitter Mac user with no sense of humour.
- stoobywon, on 04/10/2008, -0/+1yeah, youre gay
- MWeather, on 04/09/2008, -4/+28You forgot to mention the one button mouse.
- malechite, on 04/09/2008, -1/+3Mighty Mouse is a 4 button mouse with a 360 degree scroll ball... not to mention thats just what the mac comes with.
Most people will buy a logitech or something- lostarchitect, on 04/09/2008, -0/+3i think he was being sarcastic? does anyone really still think the mac only has a 1 button mouse?
- estvir, on 04/10/2008, -0/+1Also, not to mention that the MM sucks.
- gstep, on 04/10/2008, -0/+1Yeah but surprisingly most mac users i know still use the command+click for right clicks when their mighty mouse could do it. (or the two fingers on the pad click for macbooks which is the best macbook exclusive feature (only one??) in my opinion)
- malechite, on 04/09/2008, -1/+3Mighty Mouse is a 4 button mouse with a 360 degree scroll ball... not to mention thats just what the mac comes with.
- stix213, on 04/09/2008, -6/+9They just ran all 3 apps with 50 instances each
- slaptest, on 04/09/2008, -8/+8take a look:
http://www.macosxapps.com/ - designerutah, on 04/09/2008, -11/+2Wow, you guys need to get a stand-up show. Funny stuff that "no apps on the mac" stuff. And the "one button mouse" gags are hilarious!
- sfacets, on 04/09/2008, -2/+2You need to get out more.
- orbital318, on 04/09/2008, -3/+4Macs don't run instances... Each app is a separate program
- andstone, on 04/09/2008, -1/+2sick burn dude lolol
mac user btw - TomTruelle, on 04/09/2008, -1/+2***** BOOM! HEADSHOT!
- leftcoastfunk, on 04/09/2008, -18/+93looks to me more like 20 apps and 80 explorer windows, but whatever...
- crispytown, on 04/09/2008, -10/+1I guess you didn't see the video... to bad. That picture of the Mac speaks why more.... yeah right!
- MacParrot, on 04/09/2008, -0/+3While both this article and the one a few days ago showing OS X running 150 apps (so what) were essentially useless, I have to ask one important question...did you actually read what you wrote and what does it mean?
- AudioPhil3, on 04/09/2008, -13/+9If I had a logo of an apple on my dick, would you suck it?
- MakinBacon, on 04/09/2008, -2/+10No - I'd make you pull it over your head and shoot an arrow through it.
- pileofstraw, on 04/10/2008, -0/+1h4rdc0re
- MakinBacon, on 04/09/2008, -2/+10No - I'd make you pull it over your head and shoot an arrow through it.
- crispytown, on 04/09/2008, -10/+1I guess you didn't see the video... to bad. That picture of the Mac speaks why more.... yeah right!
- jeremyduffy, on 04/09/2008, -18/+6Notice there's no information on the hardware specs it took to do it...
- digitalarcanum, on 04/09/2008, -5/+20intel core2quad q6600 and 4GB of ram. Next?
- ibeetle, on 04/09/2008, -4/+6I was unaware you only needed 2 components to make a computer run.
Aparently all you need is a processor and memory. All that other stuff is completely unnecessary.- MioTheGreat, on 04/09/2008, -1/+9The other stuff is mostly irrelevent for this particular demonstration.
- 11oops, on 04/09/2008, -0/+6Yeah, I need detailed specs on his keyboard, mouse, power supply, and hard-drive capacity. Also, he must have one kick-ass soundcard to have so many programs open at once!
- ibeetle, on 04/09/2008, -4/+1Actually video card and video memory can impact the performance of some applications; such as Photoshop, and while hard drive capacity does not impact performance the type of hard drive can. For exam
- ibeetle, on 04/09/2008, -4/+6I was unaware you only needed 2 components to make a computer run.
- digitalarcanum, on 04/09/2008, -5/+20intel core2quad q6600 and 4GB of ram. Next?
