Author |
Message |
templest
|
Posted: Tue May 18, 2004 5:13 pm Post subject: (No subject) |
|
|
Quote: fact is..... ok they have their charms for some.... i think ill stick to windows 98..... and when i get a good new comp... im making it run windows 98 NOT xp.... because ive used xp... and each time i though it sucked ROYALY.... u cant do thngs manually enough... and alll those dam anoying pop up windows and crap.... ! ill stick to 98... plus 98 is faster .... without all that CRAP ..... and wehre would comps be without being able to play DOS GAMEs...!!!! they ROCK!
What the hell are you doing in a CompSci forum if you can't fix such inane issues with the Operating System? At least you should ask for help or something, instead of just dismissing it.
XP destroys Windows 98, entirely. 110%, raped. Windows 98 vs. Windows XP is like me trying to take on 1000 lions bare fist, accordingly. It's lame to even try to attempt to make anyone believe Windows 98 is better than XP, get over it.
Mac's have a damn sexy interface. Much more smooth and fluent than a Windows box. OS X 10.3 (Panther) is based off of BSD *nix, and therefor, can run pretty much anything *nix you throw at it. *SHOCK*.
Aside from that, there's a CRAP load of software for you to chose from to work on Macs that do the same thing for it, and perform better too. Every app you can throw at me, I can find a good equivalent for a Mac, or BSD|*nix. Which might in fact, out perform whatever Windows app you have.
x86 Emulators for Macs are everywhere. Do a quick google of it and see for yourself. It's not hard at all to get counter-strike running on a Mac Box.
Hell, even Microsoft writes apps for OS X. That's sorta saying saying something. Stop the Mac bashing.
"Where is the love?" |
|
|
|
|
|
Sponsor Sponsor
|
|
|
Paul
|
Posted: Tue May 18, 2004 5:26 pm Post subject: (No subject) |
|
|
lol, however u CAN say that win98 is better than winME,
computer crashes on winXP: 5
computer crashes when I had win98: way more than I can count. |
|
|
|
|
|
Andy
|
Posted: Tue May 18, 2004 5:29 pm Post subject: (No subject) |
|
|
its called get linspire or a windows emulator |
|
|
|
|
|
greenapplesodaex
|
Posted: Tue May 18, 2004 5:44 pm Post subject: reply |
|
|
jonos wrote: Would I be able to find it on the net? Or would I have to go on Kazaa or something...
there are things called "search sites" you know
here:
http://www.myjokemail.com/videos/Macintosh.shtml |
|
|
|
|
|
Dan
|
Posted: Tue May 18, 2004 5:50 pm Post subject: (No subject) |
|
|
From what i have seen win xp crashes less then 98 for me but when xp crashs it crashes a hell of a lot harder then 98 and screws more things up. |
Computer Science Canada
Help with programming in C, C++, Java, PHP, Ruby, Turing, VB and more! |
|
|
|
|
jonos
|
Posted: Tue May 18, 2004 7:33 pm Post subject: (No subject) |
|
|
I've never had WinXP crash so maybe you people are just idiots. |
|
|
|
|
|
the_short1
|
Posted: Tue May 18, 2004 8:45 pm Post subject: (No subject) |
|
|
WHAT THE HELL... i didn;t say i cant fix issues with the comp... hell ive fixed my comp from nothing back up like a dozen times...
i HATE how automatic winxp is.. not enugh CONTROL on that OS... that is why i dislike
it....... WHOA... dont go all MAC defensive on me.... Its a good OS... but i will stick to windows... or linux........ i know win98 is not BETTEr then winzp for capabilities and w/e.. but its better in its own ways.... and likej dan says... when windows 98 crashes... its ez as hell to fix... either install windows 98 OVEr ur ur current comp.... or u format and isntall again....
i dont want other software that is as good or BETTER then the software i am using.. i thouroughly enjoy the software that i am using at the moment and dont want to switch...
. |
|
|
|
|
|
rizzix
|
Posted: Tue May 18, 2004 9:02 pm Post subject: (No subject) |
|
|
jonos wrote: I've never had WinXP crash so maybe you people are just idiots.
or maybe.. u dun't hammer the OS like we do with 50000+ installed apps hehe (specially daemons and servers)
for some reason my mac can manage quite a load.. although its a 450mhz hmmm. thats a unix/linux trait though.. well if u inherit the unix.. u inherit it's power as well. |
|
|
|
|
|
Sponsor Sponsor
|
|
|
rizzix
|
Posted: Tue May 18, 2004 9:05 pm Post subject: (No subject) |
|
|
you know.. the classic mac os sucks like hell. it really can't manage even an average load.. but i guess the only distinguishing feature of that would be its elegant interface heh..
in comparism.. osx is a beast.. a "tiger" to be more precise.. waiting for 10.4 |
|
|
|
|
|
jonos
|
Posted: Tue May 18, 2004 9:51 pm Post subject: (No subject) |
|
|
I was on the Mac site and it said with processors up to 2 GHz or something like that. What is so special about that, because the one I have now is 2.6. Or is Mac just faster by design? |
|
|
|
|
|
the_short1
|
Posted: Wed May 19, 2004 6:34 am Post subject: (No subject) |
|
|
like how fast is that g5 or w/e that was on the commercial for the FASTEST mac ever
? |
|
|
|
|
|
jonos
|
Posted: Wed May 19, 2004 6:40 am Post subject: (No subject) |
|
|
I think that was also around only 2 GHz. |
|
|
|
|
|
Andy
|
Posted: Sat May 22, 2004 1:57 pm Post subject: (No subject) |
|
|
didnt it have dual processors or sumtin? |
|
|
|
|
|
|