You make yourself sound really stupid when you say things like that. Try giving examples or actual reasons as to why mac sucks, using (of course) more than two words per sentence. Always helpful to throw in magnanimus words, too.
adelikat wrote:
I very much agree with this post.
Bobmario511 wrote:
Forget party hats, Christmas tree hats all the way man.
Joined: 5/2/2006
Posts: 1020
Location: Boulder, CO
I honestly don't see what people hate about OSX so much.
My problem with macs comes from the more costly and more limited hardware options due to it being sold as a predefined unit (by and large). The operating system itself is fine. Also, safari sucks so hard it makes IE look usable. That is a real accomplishment.
Joined: 11/30/2008
Posts: 650
Location: a little city in the middle of nowhere
I use XP at home, and macs at school. They run shitslow, and always crash. and as far as I'm concerned, that's all that matters. I can't work on a mac.
macs suck, because of osx
Q.E.D.
Oh boy, this can only lead to trouble.
Used XP a long, long time and it worked fairly well (had to reinstall it ~15 times, but it got a little better with service packs). What I didn't like about XP that it magically got slower and slower as time went by for no apparent reason. It wasn't the HDD, the filesystems were properly defragmented, even RAM got bigger. So naturally, I grew sick of reinstalling it every few months (>1.5 years at the end) before I gave Linux a shot on my desktop after I had been using it a long time on servers. After painfully realizing that x86_64 is just destined to fail if you want a 64bit-only system (sound, flash, media playback with 32bit codecs, other shit), I switched back to 32bit and haven't been happier since.
Joined: 11/11/2006
Posts: 1235
Location: United Kingdom
I've decided to modify ShinyDoofy's post to suit my own needs.
Used Linux recently and it worked fairly well (had to reinstall it ~5 times, but it got a little better with Gibbon). What I didn't like about Ubuntu is that it magically got slower and more broken as time went by for no apparent reason. It wasn't the HDD, and I hadn't installed anything extra; even RAM got 'bigger'. So naturally, I grew sick of reinstalling it every few months (>5 months in the end) and I gave Windows Server 2008 a shot on my server after I had been using linux a long time on servers. After painfully realizing that Ubuntu is just destined to fail if you want a server that's stable (compatibility with clients, no fear of breaking things, simple file sharing, other shit), I switched to Server 2008 and haven't been happier since.
Of course, now I can't use Bisqwit's Mupen64 --> mencoder socket piping system. Looks like I'll have to find a way to get it working in Windows..
<adelikat> I am annoyed at my irc statements ending up in forums & sigs
I hate Microsoft, but I use XP because I'm not ready to switch to Linux yet.
For sure I'll never install Vista, but I might give Windows 7 a try eventually.
To be honest, I really miss MS-DOS... And I doubt I'm the only one. Direct hardware access ftw, I remember playing Doom on my 386, it was almost smooth.
I'm tempted to say you did it wrong, but I guess the same could be easily said in my regard.
So let's rather be happy we found things we're individually satisfied with.
Joined: 3/11/2004
Posts: 1058
Location: Reykjavík, Ísland
I use Windows XP on my main computer, but it's now more because of a habit than anything else. I have tried having a dual-boot system in the past, but I've given up on it because Windows hates it and always makes it fail. I wowed to use no Windows on my laptop, so I put Ubuntu on it and so far it has been pretty sweet. The package manager for example makes everything so incredibly easy and nice. I doubt I will ever install another Windows OS. When Windows XP becomes unusable I'll just switch to Linux on my main machine and then maybe use a virtual machine if I *really* need to run something Windowsy (if it doesn't work in Wine).
The only problems I have with Ubuntu is that 1) the default GUI file explorer thingy is crap. I mean, I'm sure there are better options, but anyway I usually resort to just using a terminal, which is far more powerful anyway. And 2) if something doesn't work, you might be *royally* screwed unless you are ready to spend *hours* solving the problem.
Why is it that people can't resist getting into a pointless argument over which operating system/game console/game/soda is the best? They're like moths to a flame.
Why shouldn't they? It's fun :) And it's also what the internet is all about!
Why is it that people can't resist getting into a pointless argument over which operating system/game console/game/soda is the best? They're like moths to a flame.
Why shouldn't they? It's fun :) And it's also what the internet is all about!
I use XP at home, and macs at school. They run shitslow, and always crash. and as far as I'm concerned, that's all that matters. I can't work on a mac.
macs suck, because of osx
Q.E.D.
Any OS running in a school environment sucks. They get loaded down with crap you don't need in a single-user environment, their maintainers may not be particularly skilled (IT, as a cost center, has difficulty justifying the budget needed to hire skilled workers), and as an added bonus they tend to be out of date. In short, the OS in an academic environment (particularly in highschool, as opposed to in college) is not a valid comparison to the OS in a personal setting.
In any event, of course the OS you choose to use is going to seem better to you than the OS you're forced to use. I have a Windows box I bought basically solely because I need to test Fusillade on Windows, and you know what? It sucks! Nothing's where it should be, the UI is all wrong, the commandline isn't *nix, etc. But none of those are valid complaints because I haven't said anything specific. They're just things being different. You need to learn to separate "different" from "worse".
A valid complaint would be, say, "I don't like how Windows doesn't differentiate between a window and an application. In Windows, if I want to switch to my coding terminals (of which I normally have four open at any time), I have to hit alt-tab a whole bunch of times to bring them all to the front, and if I ever switch away to a different application, I have to hit alt-tab a whole bunch of times again, since they're each different applications. On a Mac, I have to hit command-tab until the Terminal program comes to the fore, and then they're all available (and I can easily switch between them with Command-`). Much fewer keystrokes."
See? Specific, outlines what is done differently and why the alternative is better, at least for me. I'm sure there's legions of people out there who hate the OSX application/window decision. But at least I have a specific reason here.
Pyrel - an open-source rewrite of the Angband roguelike game in Python.
Oh boy, this can only lead to trouble.
Used XP a long, long time and it worked fairly well (had to reinstall it ~15 times, but it got a little better with service packs). What I didn't like about XP that it magically got slower and slower as time went by for no apparent reason. It wasn't the HDD, the filesystems were properly defragmented, even RAM got bigger. So naturally, I grew sick of reinstalling it every few months (>1.5 years at the end)
I only had to re-install XP once in 5 1/2 years, and that was because I installed Service Pack 2 right after it came out and it turned out to be defective. I agree with becoming slower though; I believe it's because as you keep installing software so much of it has components that start up when you log in (though you can control that easily), and the system ends up taking a while to load the SOFTWARE hive in the Registry (you can't really control that without a campaign of uninstalling and aggressive registry cleaning and optimization).
Joined: 3/14/2008
Posts: 152
Location: United Kingdom
On my laptop I currently use Vista. When I got my laptop about a year ago, it came with Vista, but the 1GB RAM and 1.6GHz Celeron cpu REALLY didn't cut it. I put up with it until about June, until I decided to install XP. This worked like a dream, and the laptop was probably one of the most resposive (sure, the celeron cpu couldn't handle really heavy stuff, but everything happened quickly) machines I have ever used. During this time, I reinstalled XP about 5-6 times (once because of a virus [I don't use antivirus], and the others just to keep the system fast) and I could do basically everything that I wanted with the laptop.
While I had XP on there, I also tried out some linux distrobutions (Fedora, OpenSUSE, Ubuntu and Mandriva) and found that Mandriva was very good, and used it about 50% of the time along with XP (dual boot). Howerver, I had the same problem as Raiscan mentioned in the other thread; it kept breaking itself after a few weeks, and after reinstalling 3 or 4 times, I got tired, and went back to just XP.
Then, in December, having known that my laptop was very easily upgradable for a while, I bought myself 2GBs of RAM and a 2GHz Core 2 duo processor. Now this thing completely flied with XP, and most CPU intensive tasks almost tripled in speed.
So after seening how fast it was, I decided to go back to Vista, and was delighted to see how responsive it was now that I had the hardware. Since then, I have tried out Windows 7, but still prefer Vista, because I have not really had any major problems with it. All the programs that I need to use work, and I can get all the programs that I need, and still don't use antivirus software.
So, I am mostly happy with Vista, and although some people hate it, I am fine, and will only use a newer version of windows if a computer I buy comes preinstalled with it.
Now that I read this back, it seems to be more of a "history of my laptop" but I think I'll post it anyway.
I read about people reinstalling their OS regularly, and it just baffles me that that could be necessary just to keep the computer moving at a reasonable speed. I've been running the same install (OSX 10.4) for almost three years now with no noticeable slowdown. What happens to Windows (and, apparently, to Linux) that necessitates all these reinstallations?
Pyrel - an open-source rewrite of the Angband roguelike game in Python.
People downloading/running stupid things.
I've had XP on my home gaming rig for years and never had a slow down. It also dual-boots Ubuntu.
Linux is fantastic for development but Windows simply has the most obvious grasp on the market.
But don't do stupid things == no need to reinstall.
