Make an AMV. Buy a Powerbook.

klinky · Post by **klinky** » Fri May 30, 2003 10:25 pm

Keep in mind that Appl's OS's are not known for their great stability. They crash as well. Earlier versions had crap mutli-threading and memory support. Basically up until OS X, they'd been piling crap ontop of a OS built since about '85.

~klinky

the Black Monarch · Post by **the Black Monarch** » Fri May 30, 2003 10:35 pm

Yeah, but the same was true of Windows until 2000...

Unless I've been misinformed, Win '95 was built on the same code as 3.1, which was built on the same code as DOS. The '98 kernel was much better, but still a buggy piece of crap compared to the improvements that were made to it in 2000.

kthulhu · Post by **kthulhu** » Sat May 31, 2003 12:18 am

Windows 3.1 was a superadvanced graphical shell for DOS, essentially.

Windows 95 could be considered a merger between DOS and Windows 3.1, with a new interface and updated code. It kind of hid DOS, but you could still shut down into it.

Windows 98 and ME are more of the same, although you can't shut down or boot into DOS with Windows ME unless you get a hack or use a boot floppy.

Windows 2000 and XP are based off of the Windows NT kernel, which is based off of Microsoft's share of the OS/2 code, some Unix standards, and a ported, updated version of the Windows API and kernel. In other words, it's not a terrible system.

Windows NT and Window 9x are two seperate code bases, although it appears with XP that the junky 9x one is dead.

the Black Monarch · Post by **the Black Monarch** » Sat May 31, 2003 11:58 am

Actually, I heard that Longhorn was ressurrecting a "fixed" version of the 9x code.

kthulhu · Post by **kthulhu** » Sat May 31, 2003 4:33 pm

God forbid if it does.

I'm sticking to Windows 2000 for as long as I can. Once I can no longer use it, I'll probably look into jumping ship to one of the Unixes, or maybe even the MacOS platform.

the Black Monarch · Post by **the Black Monarch** » Mon Jun 02, 2003 10:40 pm

I'd use 2000, but my comp came with XP and I didn't feel like switching.

When I can't use XP anymore, I'll switch to the most recent Windows OS that uses the NT kernel. What I heard about Longhorn, which is not necessarily true, does not dictate the future of all Windows OSes.

I'm going to be a Windows user forever just because Unix and Mac won't play my dozens of computer games.

J89idsioss · Post by **J89idsioss** » Thu Jun 05, 2003 8:44 pm

Sounds like a religous debate to me. I've heard this a million times before. I'm getting a mac. I'm estactic to get a mac. But really, get what you want, both will do the job. I think all computers are horribly flawed along with most software, and the designers should step back and take a look at what they're doing. It's happened with apple before & same with microsoft. Hopefully thier self evaluation continues bringing us hardware & software that works. And hopefully we'll never see a computer that crashes when you remove the mouse, ever again. 8)

alternatefutures · Post by **alternatefutures** » Sat Jun 07, 2003 6:06 pm

Some info: Apple is NOT considering switching to AMD or Intel. If they move from Motorola the top contender is IBM's PPC970, of which Apple has purchased several hundred thousand, and some people are even saying to expect the switch this month. I give low odds on that, but Apple tends to keep things hushed up until the last second, so its possible (in which case my condolences to everyone who bought a Mac recently). If Apple can maintain its prices with dual PPC970 solutions the balance of computing power could shift dramatically. The current Motorola chips lag behind AMD and Intel solutions, even in dual configuration. The situation if Apple sticks with Motorola will become critical when AMD releases the Athlon 64 later this year and Intel releases Prescott early next year.

The only thing the Mac is actually better at is in the print industry, as it has better color matching between what's displayed on the monitor and what comes out from the printer. Since you don't print out AMVs, there's no advantage to the Mac, save FCP. Of course, the PC has programs to match FCP: Vegas and Avid Xpress Pro.

For OSes, stability between XP and OSX are at parity, maybe OSX is a tiny-weeny bit more stable than XP, but it's nothing to brag about. Both of these OSes bog down their systems, OSX more so than XP. For stability and speed you want Win2K. Otherwise, use what you know.

Anyway, if you think Apple will move to an x86 architechture you're dreaming. Apple wants control over the hardware its OS runs on, and the idea of bargain basement manufacturers selling machines made with shoddy components that run OSX is not something they want to deal with. The main reason you hear more about XP problems is the varying quality controls across PC manufacturers. If OSX was allowed to roam free you'd hear the same complaints.

J89idsioss · Post by **J89idsioss** » Sun Jun 08, 2003 1:43 am

I agree, good thing for them that hasn't happened yet.

the Black Monarch · Post by **the Black Monarch** » Mon Jun 09, 2003 6:03 am

alternatefutures wrote: Athlon 64 later this year and Intel releases Prescott early next year.

This "Athlon 64" that you speak of... don't you mean the Opteron?

Prescott is just the P4, only with a smaller die size.