WINDOWS VISTA!!!!! Who's got it?

[jpm101]

If you have Bit Torrent or uTorrent for example (free download) and go to minanove.org , you can download different versions of MS Vista.  Also has Vista cracks. A ISo program would also help here. Don't know how legal all this is or I do it myself, but a lot of people go there. Hackers are the sworn enemy of Bill Gates, they will take no prisoners in their war against MS. So with them, there is a never ending war against MS. There are about 4 or 5 sites I know like this one. Probably dozens more out there.

I run Xandros Delux OS (Linus) from time to time. Superior to XP in a lot of ways (but I get by best with a XP system) .Xandros takes a little time to learn though. There crossover software programs (Linux in general) still fall a little short of their purpose.  For people who will fall on the sword for Apple, it's still not the end all of all home computers.

[ieffinhatecardio]

If you have Bit Torrent or uTorrent for example (free download) and go to minanove.org , you can download different versions of MS Vista.  Also has Vista cracks. A ISo program would also help here. Don't know how legal all this is or I do it myself, but a lot of people go there. Hackers are the sworn enemy of Bill Gates, they will take no prisoners in their war against MS. So with them, there is a never ending war against MS. There are about 4 or 5 sites I know like this one. Probably dozens more out there.

I run Xandros Delux OS (Linus) from time to time. Superior to XP in a lot of ways (but I get by best with a XP system) .Xandros takes a little time to learn though. There crossover software programs (Linux in general) still fall a little short of their purpose.  For people who will fall on the sword for Apple, it's still not the end all of all home computers.

Shhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh.

[bmacsys]

When are you Apple zealots going to realise Apple is just as bad as Microsoft...

Maybe even worse... lets' not's forget the years of hyping IBM PowerPC CPUs as a superior product to Intel/AMD offerings... only to be reversed when they switched to Intel

At the time the in the mid to late 90's the power pc chips from Motorola and IBM were better than any offering from AMD or Intel in speed and power consumption. But things change. Intel just outspent every one in R and D and came up with dynamite x86 chips that are fast, run cool and consume less power than the ppc risc chips available now.

[bmacsys]

Well, iTunes has problems no doubt, but the user interface of the iPod is second to none... At least to me.

I run Fedora pretty much everywhere... I did have OS X on my Dell... yes, my dell, but the sound never worked right, so I put Fedora back on that.

All I run is linux for the most part...

I do like OS X... I have a Dual G5 powermac and it's still a great machine... Does everything I want.

The G5 is a great CPU... I think the powerpc is better than Intel or AMD... I think Apple switched to Intel for mobile reasons... IBM never could get a cool G5 in a mobile machine and that was killing Apple's business... 1/2 of all of their sales are mobile machines.

I run Windows under VMWare (using the new 6.0 beta right now) and it's fine for what I need it for. (Mostly dealing with work applications), so I use them all... I'm just not impressed with Vista.

I'm not Apple Fanboy by any stretch... It's a tool, nothing more... the best tool gets my money nothing else.

If they made iTunes for Linux (cause yes, I have an ipod and I really like it) then I would never use a Mac or Windows again most likely.

I use computers with OS X 10.4, XP, Windows 2000, various linux distros, Mandrake, Fedora Core, Suse Linux. I play around with Solaris and Irix and AIX Unix. I just think OS X is the cream of the crop.

[tu_holmes]

I use computers with OS X 10.4, XP, Windows 2000, various linux distros, Mandrake, Fedora Core, Suse Linux. I play around with Solaris and Irix and AIX Unix. I just think OS X is the cream of the crop.

I don't talk about what is normally classified as "server" operating systems in these discussions, they're just not part of the scope.

OS X is great on the desktop, but as a server OS, there are many things it doesn't do well... The Mach Kernel has some limitations so I keep server and desktop separate. I would agree that on the Desktop, OS X is probably the best mix of ease of windows and power of Unix which is why I do like it very much... I just don't have a mobile mac, and a lot of what i do is on the road.

[bmacsys]

I don't talk about what is normally classified as "server" operating systems in these discussions, they're just not part of the scope.

OS X is great on the desktop, but as a server OS, there are many things it doesn't do well... The Mach Kernel has some limitations so I keep server and desktop separate. I would agree that on the Desktop, OS X is probably the best mix of ease of windows and power of Unix which is why I do like it very much... I just don't have a mobile mac, and a lot of what i do is on the road.

OS X Server is great for its ease of use and being able to get it going just using the GUI. Some things you do have to mess around command line though. For mission critical uses it may fall a bit short though.

[bmacsys]

GUI? please elaborate?

Its that stuff women get on their faces, oh never mind.....

[tu_holmes]

OS X Server is great for its ease of use and being able to get it going just using the GUI. Some things you do have to mess around command line though. For mission critical uses it may fall a bit short though.

It's fine in smaller environments... in my testing I have found that it doesn't deal with high loads very well at all.

I took a G5 Xserve and ran OS X and RedHat Linux on it... a simple test with Apache was the target.

In doing stress testing... the Mach kernel after a mere 16 simultaneous connections would start to fall behind the Linux installation, by the time we were at 32 simultaneous connections, the Mach kernel was destroyed.

I used NetBSD and the difference was very similar... there is something not right about the Mach kernel under high server based loads... That's just my take on it.

On a desktop, these issues don't show up and it's not even remotely close. On a Desktop OS X is a clear winner.

[Nordic Superman]

At the time the in the mid to late 90's the power pc chips from Motorola and IBM were better than any offering from AMD or Intel in speed and power consumption. But things change. Intel just outspent every one in R and D and came up with dynamite x86 chips that are fast, run cool and consume less power than the ppc risc chips available now.

I didn't give a metric for why Intel x86 is better on the desktop. However it's mainly because of CISC Vs. RISC issues.

Fewer low level instructions are available on RISC based CPU's compared to CISC (x86), this means more development time spent on RISC (especially in the early days when compilers weren't upto the standard of today). This gave x86 the benefit of an increased software catalogue.

[bmacsys]

I didn't give a metric for why Intel x86 is better on the desktop. However it's mainly because of CISC Vs. RISC issues.

Fewer low level instructions are available on RISC based CPU's compared to CISC (x86), this means more development time spent on RISC (especially in the early days when compilers weren't upto the standard of today). This gave x86 the benefit of an increased software catalogue.

Its about economies of scale. Intel sells processors as their bread and butter. For IBM and Motorola its just a side business. Intel had a lot more at stake and a lot more dollars to throw at their ISA than IBM and Moto.

[bmacsys]

It's fine in smaller environments... in my testing I have found that it doesn't deal with high loads very well at all.

I took a G5 Xserve and ran OS X and RedHat Linux on it... a simple test with Apache was the target.

In doing stress testing... the Mach kernel after a mere 16 simultaneous connections would start to fall behind the Linux installation, by the time we were at 32 simultaneous connections, the Mach kernel was destroyed.

I used NetBSD and the difference was very similar... there is something not right about the Mach kernel under high server based loads... That's just my take on it.

On a desktop, these issues don't show up and it's not even remotely close. On a Desktop OS X is a clear winner.

Is the Mach kernel a monolithic kernel?

[Nordic Superman]

Its about economies of scale. Intel sells processors as their bread and butter. For IBM and Motorola its just a side business. Intel had a lot more at stake and a lot more dollars to throw at their ISA than IBM and Moto.

I don't believe this to be the full story.

It's all down to Microsoft, "Wintel". As I said, software development was faster on the CISC based CPU's, more software, new generations of software quicker...

If it wasn't for Microsofts' dominance on the desktop scene... where would CISC/x86 CPU's be today? What would run on x86?

[gtbro1]

 I use windows 95 and a celeron 366


    High Tech baby.

[ToxicAvenger]

What are you initial reactions, comments, concerns?

sigh..the LAN guys will constantly be fucking up and blaming my ass 

[gtbro1]

sigh..the LAN guys will constantly be fucking up and blaming my ass 

lol...best user name ever.

[ToxicAvenger]

lol...best user name ever.

 

[24KT]

Its that stuff women get on their faces, oh never mind.....

I hate when that happens. 

[24KT]

Is the Mach kernel a monolithic kernel?

a monolithic kernal?   Yippeee.... popcorn for days! 

[tu_holmes]

Is the Mach kernel a monolithic kernel?

Very much so.

[tu_holmes]

I don't believe this to be the full story.

It's all down to Microsoft, "Wintel". As I said, software development was faster on the CISC based CPU's, more software, new generations of software quicker...

If it wasn't for Microsofts' dominance on the desktop scene... where would CISC/x86 CPU's be today? What would run on x86?

Well, who knows... the reality is that right now... Intel  and AMD are doing much better at cooling their high end mobile CPUs... that's really why Apple went Intel... They saw what was coming down the road with Woodcrest and their mobile version in regards to power and cooling and it was an easy win.

IBM had YEARS to work on a low power, good performing, low heat G5 for mobile machines and they could never make it happen... that pretty much says it all...

About the smallest machine you'll find with a new PowerPC in it is an XBox 360.