Computer Science Canada :: View topic - Windowzzzzzzz....

Computer Science Canada

Windowzzzzzzz....

Author:	Martin [ Fri Oct 24, 2003 12:22 am ]
Post subject:	Windowzzzzzzz....
It has become generally accepted that, as far as an opperating system goes, windows is the only way to do it. That's not to say that Mac's and Linux are useless, it's just that all three of those opperating systems have the same basic user interface behind them: Windows. It has gotten to the point where many people cannot even imagine a different, and possibly better way of doing things. Now, I must admit that the windows layout is quite good, and I'm sure that the boyz down at Micro$oft are busy trying to think up ways to improve it, but what do you think a different way could be? Not necessarily better, or worse, just different. And, with your new method, what does it have that Windows lacks, and vice versa. Think outside the box. Or just remember, there is no box

Author:	Tony [ Fri Oct 24, 2003 8:30 am ]
Post subject:
perhaps the user inferface could be changed, but not as much as you think. If I was to have a 3D interface, I might as well have a railgun alone with it. Shoot files you want to open

Author:	PaddyLong [ Fri Oct 24, 2003 9:59 am ]
Post subject:
you're just talking about the shell right? because there's lots of alternative shells out there that you can get for windows.

Author:	rizzix [ Fri Oct 24, 2003 3:23 pm ]
Post subject:
lol darkness why give m$ all the credit.. m$ is never innovative.. they just copy of the best (and worst) from everyone.. GUI was a project at zerox labs (i think zerox, not sure). anyhow the first GUI project was pretty much just a research subject. But steve jobs took that project and created a GUI OS for commercial use. There was another one being popularized at the same time.. it was called icon (it got it's idea from the same lab!) or something. anyhow.. the Apple I and Apple II got really popular, specially in universities and other educational institutes. thus it took off. The came in the macintosh with 100s - 1000s of improvements.. In the mean while m$ had created DOS as a highly simplified, easy to use OS. but it only had a CUI to it. So looking at the way the macs took off they decided to add some GUI to it. They then created a GUI shell over the DOS OS and called it Windows 3.1. This version of windows was such a rip-off the mac GUI (omg as i said they were and are NEVER INNOVATIVE). But it was sold at a remarkable cheap rate.. and the most important point is that it worked on cheaper IBM-compatibles. Since the offer was too good to be true (mac were expensive those days) it really took off. Now they are as usual always behind apple in terms of Human Interface Guidelines. They never seem to have mastered the art and skill and intellect of creating a perfect GUI.. But the funny thing since it has got so popular.. many people.. (just like you [no offense]) have no idea how foolishly they blindly believe that m$ did it all. Now have u ever tried Mac OS X? I don't think so. Try it. It is the most advance GUI, OS you'll ever touch. It is freakin easy to use (as usual) but hell more. There are some concepts you'll see there that are just mind boggling. BTW: Mac OS 9 was terrible.. this is the X (10).. i'm waiting for panther!

Author:	LovelyCrap [ Fri Oct 24, 2003 5:08 pm ]
Post subject:
I agree with rizzix. Mac OS is far superior in many ways when compared to windows. When was the last time you heard of a Mac crashing? Thats not to say that they don't crash (and when they do it's pretty spectacular... kinda like dropping a nuke...), they just do it far less often than Windows (esp 9X). Unfortunately due to the nature of Mac OS and the way Apple implements their computers, PC's are still better than Macs (for most users). For now at least, you have to buy a Mac in order to use Mac OS. This wouldn't be so bad if it wasn't for the fact that Macs are ridiculously underpowered compared to most PC's in a comparable price range, and upgrading a Mac offers limited options. This may soon change because Apple has finally decided to develop a OS compatible with PC's. Back to the whole interface thing. A 3D interface would be totally unnecessary, not to mention quite clunky. Plus, the average household computer won't be able to run such a 3D application/OS with a decent frame rate. What would you do with a 3D OS environment anyway? Adding a Z-axis would make navigation so much more difficult than a simple 2D interface. Just my 2 cents.

Author:	Homer_simpson [ Fri Oct 24, 2003 5:16 pm ]
Post subject:
well a 2d one would look more pro... but as long as it doesn't slow down so much and doesn't take up so much memory 3d would be nice...

Author:	Tony [ Fri Oct 24, 2003 5:20 pm ]
Post subject:
but honestly, what would you do with a 3D interface? Scater your files around de_dust map and use AK to fight off virus infected files? A well designed 2D interfect would be way better.

Author:	AsianSensation [ Fri Oct 24, 2003 7:34 pm ]
Post subject:
I agree with Tony, a 2D interface is better than a 3D interface, think of the real world example, A real library versus an online library, it's way easier to get the resources online than to search shelf by shelf for a book in the real library. The fact that public libraries uses computers to help people find stuff just proves my point.

Author:	Dan [ Fri Oct 24, 2003 9:56 pm ]
Post subject:
well i think that if you had some realy cool video out put device like VR or some how sending the info right to your brian that a 3d GUI system whould be far better. but with a output device that can only turtly out put on a 2d surface you pirtty much need to have it 2d or you will just be casuing trouble b/c you will have to be chaging the view all the time and it whould just be a pain in the ass. i whould say that as soon as a 3d output deivce is made well then a 3d os whould be the best by far. till then 2d is realy the only way.

Author:	Martin [ Fri Oct 24, 2003 11:50 pm ]
Post subject:
Windows Longhorn is supposed to have DirectX support for 3d graphics of some sort, although I think it'll just be to make icons/buttons look a lot nicer.

Author:	LovelyCrap [ Sat Oct 25, 2003 1:42 am ]
Post subject:
Darkness wrote: Windows Longhorn is supposed to have DirectX support for 3d graphics of some sort, although I think it'll just be to make icons/buttons look a lot nicer. Longhorn's interface will not be 3D. You are correct in assuming it's only for icons/buttons and crap like that.

Author:	rizzix [ Sat Oct 25, 2003 10:25 am ]
Post subject:
it is probably something like Panther, the whole os is rendered using OpenGL (and the amazing QuartzExtreme).. in LongHorn's case DirectX It is still 2D with a minor, really micro z-axis for a bit of a realistic 3d effect. It look better that way. BTW: Panther is released! 150 new features! Check out this little video

Author:	rizzix [ Sat Oct 25, 2003 10:35 am ]
Post subject:
speaking of which there is one thing m$ invented that is cool and i will admit apple did borrow the idea. Fast User Switching! (apple admitted it them selves as well)

Author:	Martin [ Sat Oct 25, 2003 6:28 pm ]
Post subject:
Panther looks awesome...if they would let me right click, I'd buy a mac for university

Author:	rizzix [ Sat Oct 25, 2003 6:37 pm ]
Post subject:
c'mon man... everyone says that.. just buy a 2-button mouse.. both buttons will work!! in a one button mouse, the equivalent of a right click is control+click. just buy a 2 button!

Author:	LovelyCrap [ Sat Oct 25, 2003 8:27 pm ]
Post subject:
rizzix wrote: c'mon man... everyone says that.. just buy a 2-button mouse.. both buttons will work!! in a one button mouse, the equivalent of a right click is control+click. just buy a 2 button! LoL. Thats the first time I've ever heard of anyone using that as an excuse to not get a mac. "Real geeks have 5+ buttons on their mouse."

Author:	Tony [ Sat Oct 25, 2003 9:13 pm ]
Post subject:
well my excuse is that all the software I got is for PC

Author:	Mazer [ Sat Oct 25, 2003 9:53 pm ]
Post subject:
i don't see how 3d would help an operating system's interface. i mean, say you really want to have 3 dimensions... isn't that what life is for?

Author:	Homer_simpson [ Sun Oct 26, 2003 1:01 am ]
Post subject:
the more life like it is... the easier to use it becomes... but i still think that 2d interface would look more pro... but nice 3d looking buttons or windows would be kinda nice...

Author:	rizzix [ Sun Oct 26, 2003 10:29 am ]
Post subject:
LovelyCrap wrote: rizzix wrote: c'mon man... everyone says that.. just buy a 2-button mouse.. both buttons will work!! in a one button mouse, the equivalent of a right click is control+click. just buy a 2 button! LoL. Thats the first time I've ever heard of anyone using that as an excuse to not get a mac. "Real geeks have 5+ buttons on their mouse." yep but i've heard a lot of folks say that to me.. specially in those mac vs pc flame wars.. yea nice excuse!

Author:	rizzix [ Sun Oct 26, 2003 10:32 am ]
Post subject:
tony wrote: well my excuse is that all the software I got is for PC well tony there's something called VirtualPC for mac that let's you run windows inside osx. It was a product by connectix, but now m$ bought it off, and they did promise to continue make that product. so you might wanna check that out! and by a mac!

Author:	Tony [ Sun Oct 26, 2003 12:09 pm ]
Post subject:
rizzix wrote: VirtualPC I know of VirtualPC, but the whole point of owning a Mac (from my perspective) is its superiour handling of Adobe Products. Now wouldn't be much of a point if software would have to run through a 3rd party program just to communicate with the OS, eh? And after I spend all of my money on G5, I wouldn't have those $$$ neccesary for PhotoShop + Illustrator.

Author:	rizzix [ Mon Oct 27, 2003 4:13 pm ]
Post subject:
i know about the greed for power and everthing.. but why waste cash on a G5, it is way too expensive right now.. The G4s r not bad.. get a powerbook (or ibook). then later on when the prices drop go for a G5 desktop

Author:	Tony [ Mon Oct 27, 2003 6:13 pm ]
Post subject:
that still doesn't change the fact that I would be required to purchase all of the software.

Author:	rizzix [ Mon Oct 27, 2003 7:41 pm ]
Post subject:
now u know why we need Java heh

Author:	LovelyCrap [ Mon Oct 27, 2003 8:22 pm ]
Post subject:
My excuse for not buying a mac is because of the limited power of Apple computers in general. Add on the fact that you can't upgrade a Mac's CPU or motherboard and you can bet that my wallet will go no where near a Mac. You might argue that the G5 is pretty powerful with it's dual 64-bit processors, but the standard G5 is only 2Ghz per CPU and having two processors doesn't mean it will perform doubly fast. Actually, you won't notice a difference at all unless you are using programs designed to support multiple processors or if your multitasking. But even then, the best you can hope for is a 30%-45% increase over a single processor system. So technically the G5 is just a glorified 2.4Ghz 64-bit computer that happens to cost a whole lot and use Mac OS. For the price of a G5, I could build myself a decked out Athlon 64 3200+ system which would kill the G5 then defecate on it's dead body. IMO, the only thing Apple has going for them is their OS's and their sweet ass G4 cases. My long time dream has been to acquire a G4, gut it, then stick a PC in it. Ohh yeah.... iPods are pretty cool too.

Author:	Tony [ Mon Oct 27, 2003 9:19 pm ]
Post subject:
heh yeah, Macs can get preaty expensive. Just wondering - how good of a laptop can I get for a reasonable price? I mean I want a new machine to play around by the time uni comes, but I also want it to be a laptop, seeing as I'm gonna be majoring in CS and would probly carry my work around.

Author:	rizzix [ Mon Oct 27, 2003 10:08 pm ]
Post subject:
actually the whole os was originally designed in a way to support multiple processors. It is designed from the ground up with multiple processors in mind. Thus having one processor is a limiting factor here, but the results are not so bad. Thus the dual G5 is really an ideal designed hardware for the mac. You don't need to write special software to take advantage of both processors, it is automatically done for you. At first when OSX was just born you had to keep this in mind.. but apple saw the fault and fixed it. Secondly, I wouldn't recommend judging the speed of the processor by it's mhz. Mhz is not the only deciding factor on how fast a processor is. you might wanna take a look into the Megahertz Myth (hey and some dude also made a cartoon on it, hehe). For now all i can say that the number of tetra-flops is a better judgment on how fast a processor really is. a single 2ghz g5 is really faster than a single 2ghz xeon or amd. It's all in the megahertz myth.

Author:	LovelyCrap [ Wed Oct 29, 2003 5:14 pm ]
Post subject:
rizzix wrote: actually the whole os was originally designed in a way to support multiple processors. It is designed from the ground up with multiple processors in mind. Thus having one processor is a limiting factor here, but the results are not so bad. Thus the dual G5 is really an ideal designed hardware for the mac. You don't need to write special software to take advantage of both processors, it is automatically done for you. At first when OSX was just born you had to keep this in mind.. but apple saw the fault and fixed it. Secondly, I wouldn't recommend judging the speed of the processor by it's mhz. Mhz is not the only deciding factor on how fast a processor is. you might wanna take a look into the Megahertz Myth (hey and some dude also made a cartoon on it, hehe). For now all i can say that the number of tetra-flops is a better judgment on how fast a processor really is. a single 2ghz g5 is really faster than a single 2ghz xeon or amd. It's all in the megahertz myth. I know all about the Mhz myth. I've been preaching it for years. In my previous post, I pointed out that a AMD would be able to beat the G5 in most applications. I did not mention Mhz as being a factor. The only time i mentioned Mhz at all was when I said that the dual 2Ghz G5 is about as good as a single 2.4Ghz G5 (if it existed) for most applications. Sorry if there was any confusion. First of all, a single G5 is not faster than a single AMD of equal speed. Mhz for Mhz, AMD is faster than Intel and Mac. AMD is also cheaper Mhz for Mhz than Intel and Mac (at stock speed), which is why they are my preferred brand of processor. The reason I don't own one myself is because the P4C 2.4Ghz is the best overcklocker money can buy right now and it also happens to be pretty cheap. Second of all, dual processors of the same speed can never be 100% more efficient than a single processor of equal speed. This is because of the clock cycles spent communicating between the two processors, the time spent in que waiting to access the memory (doubles with two processors), as well as the various inefficiencies caused by software. Third of all, Mac's OS does not make all programs magically support multiple processors. It actually just adds a couple simple optimizations so when you are running several programs at once, you gain a considerable performance boost. However, if you are only running one program, you will receive more or less the same performance on a dual processor as on a single processor computer (unless the application specifically supports multiple processors). Last of all, don't trust the benchmarks posted on the Apple website which makes the G5 appear that it is faster than anything else out there. Notice that all the benchmarks used are synthetic and there was not a single real-world bench on there? Why the G5 sucks: - The ridiculous $3000USD price tag. - It uses PC2100 RAM. You can purchase RAM twice as fast for the PC. - A 32x 16x 10x CDRW? WTF? When I can buy a 52X32X52 CDRW for a mere $60? - Crappy Radeon 9600. The 9600 is actually a great video card, but for a $3000USD computer, you deserve much better. - You could build a PC with identical/better performance for around $2000USD. I suppose if you are a long time Mac user, the G5 would be a logical upgrade. But if you are a PC user, the G5 isn't the best incentive to make you switch to Macs. Now just to prove my point and show that I'm not making this crap up, this lengthy article by PCWorld supports my arguments. If you don't feel like reading it all then just go straight to the benchmarks. Here is another article from a less credible source.

Author:	LovelyCrap [ Wed Oct 29, 2003 5:42 pm ]
Post subject:
tony wrote: heh yeah, Macs can get preaty expensive. Just wondering - how good of a laptop can I get for a reasonable price? I mean I want a new machine to play around by the time uni comes, but I also want it to be a laptop, seeing as I'm gonna be majoring in CS and would probly carry my work around. What type of applications do you intend on using? I would imagine that you will be using it for programming.... music maybe? some gaming? You could get a pretty decent laptop for under $1500CDN, unless you want to game on it, in which case a decent laptop would cost around $3000CDN. Most of the sub $2000CDN laptops use ancient video cards that are completely worthless for rendering 3D unless the only game you want to play is Quake 2. The pricer laptops either use a Radeon mobility 9000/9600 or a nVidia Go! Out of the two, Radeon mobility is head and shoulders above the current nVidia offerings. When searching for a laptop/desktop, Celeron = bad. I cannot stress that enough. A AMD Athlon 1.5Ghz beats a Celeron 2.2Ghz in almost all applications. BTW, sorry for the double post but I wanted to seperate the two posts from each other and double posting seemed like a good idea.

Author:	rizzix [ Wed Oct 29, 2003 6:09 pm ]
Post subject:
couple of things to get clear here.. #1) the os it self does not get the apps to magically support multiple processors.. that's not what i meant... usually u need to re-compile ur app on with the new os to take advantage of the optimizations.. and some of those include advance multi-processor, multi-threaded optimizations. Apple tends to include these optimizations automatically in ur code if u compile using their libraries. For example the altivec floating point optimizations (although altivec is for vector operations) #2) adding 2 processors does not increase speed. i've never said that. But it does improve performance, for obvious reasons u already know: the os it self is a collection of daemons, these daemons run in the background continuously, some of them simultaneously some only when triggered to do so. Thus since the os is compiled for multiple processors.. it distributes these daemons on to different processors thus load-balancing it. This termendously improves performance as compared to having ur os running everything on one processor. And of course as u said the os will distribute multiple apps on different processors. Another way the macs improve performance is by sending all graphics processing routines directly to the GPU (graphics processing unit). There is very little CPU intervention.

Author:	Tony [ Wed Oct 29, 2003 6:18 pm ]
Post subject:
LovelyCrap wrote: What type of applications do you intend on using? heh, well programming naturally, but that doesn't have that much of a requirement. In case you don't already know it - I'm interested quite a bit in graphics (Adobe Illustrator/Photoshop and 3DSMAX). I've got Xbox for games 8). Though right now I'm really having my doubts. Would a laptop be a neccesity for CS major? Can I just build myself a kickass desktop instead?

Author:	LovelyCrap [ Wed Oct 29, 2003 6:29 pm ]
Post subject:
rizzix wrote: #1) the os it self does not get the apps to magically support multiple processors.. that's not what i meant... usually u need to re-compile ur app on with the new os to take advantage of the optimizations.. and some of those include advance multi-processor, multi-threaded optimizations. Apple tends to include these optimizations automatically in ur code if u compile using their libraries. For example the altivec floating point optimizations (although altivec is for vector operations) True. However, there doesn't seem to be a large amount of software developers who are going to release updates for their software anytime soon. Also, a lot of multimedia software (non-content creation) for the Mac are ports from the PC and support is pretty much non-existent so you won't see any optimizations anytime soon. rizzix wrote: Another way the macs improve performance is by sending all graphics processing routines directly to the GPU (graphics processing unit). There is very little CPU intervention. Unfortunately this is somewhat irrelevant since when it comes to 3D rendering and gaming, the macs get smoked. I have yet to see a single 3D related benchmark showing the G5 on top.

Author:	LovelyCrap [ Wed Oct 29, 2003 6:37 pm ]
Post subject:
tony wrote: LovelyCrap wrote: What type of applications do you intend on using? heh, well programming naturally, but that doesn't have that much of a requirement. In case you don't already know it - I'm interested quite a bit in graphics (Adobe Illustrator/Photoshop and 3DSMAX). I've got Xbox for games 8). Though right now I'm really having my doubts. Would a laptop be a neccesity for CS major? Can I just build myself a kickass desktop instead? I donno about CS but you definitely don't need a laptop for a CE major. Personally I'd go with a desktop. I was never a big fan of laptops. Besides, what would you do with your new found mobility anyway? Take your laptop to all your lectures? Is that necessary? or even favorable? Xbox... bah! You haven't gamed until you've sat down in front of a decked out desktop and played your favorite game in a online 64+ player match, complete with surround sound. 8) The closest you can get to that on the console is SOCOM, and that game is still quite limited compared to PC games of the same genre.

:

You can syndicate this boards posts using the file backend.php or view the topic map using sitemap.php.

Terms of Use | Privacy Policy