| Home | Forums | What's new | Resources | |
| WINDOWS upgrade form 98se to??? |
| Equinoxe - Dec 12, 2001 |
| < Prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | Next> |
 |
Curtis | Jan 28, 2003 | |||
Steady on, tiger!  It's saved my butt on the few times a third party application has screwed my system over. Ever wonder why this doesn't happen in Linux or Mac OS? There's no software for either OS... 
And you talk to me about Linux? | |||||
 |
M3d10n | Jan 28, 2003 | ||
|
WinXP is far from a stable server OS, so 2K will stick around for quite a long time. The ones that are up to die are 98se and ME. At work, in my computer (1Ghz PIII 128MB RAM) I got Win2K. My boss got WinXP on his laptop (1.3Ghz Celeron 128MB RAM), and his computer runs as slow as the ones that have Win98SE and 64MB RAM. It takes a lot more time to load any apps and to start up the OS. And I have yet to find XP-only apps. Everything that works on W2K works on XP and vice-versa. | ||||
 |
Falstaf | Jan 28, 2003 | ||||||
You are correct...or were correct, if your comment had come around a year ago. It did take softare companys a while to come around, but now there is even MS Office 2001 for OS X. And, that is what classic mode is for...to run apps that have not been carbonized for OS X. I don't want to get into an aurgument about it, but OS X is unix based. You know unix, don't you? The server OS that has been known for up-time hours measured in years w/o a restart?. Now not all Mac OS's have been that great. OS 9.0.4 comes to mind from recent history. But for the most part, it has had far fewer problems than Windoze. I am not an Apple zealote though. I own and use daily an AMD 800 running Win2k. I am very comfortable in both environments, but do prefer my G4 Mac for any seriouse work. By the way, Mal, there is a way to run OS X.2 on your PPC 9500, if you want to give it a spin. You will need a version of OS 9 installed and then use a utility called XpostFacto to install OS X. Though I'm sure you are probably aware of this. | ||||||||
 |
gameboy900 | Jan 28, 2003 | ||
|
Umm...WinXP is NOT a server OS. That's what Win .Net coming out soon is for. WinXP is the replacement for Win2K Workstation. Win2K servers are going to be replaced soon. Anyway what do you expect from a Celeron anyway. Besides 128MB is too little these days anyway. And ram is dirt cheap. Upgrade that puppy to 256mb at least and you'll see it fly. You can't really compare the speed of Win9x to WinXP anyway. They both do completely different things. It's not like Win9x as to deal with all the security and networking issues WinXP does. As for Mac's. Of course they're stable and never crash...that's what you get when you have no software to run on them. And for the record I've been using WinXP on my laptop for well over a year now and it has yet to crash on me once. | ||||
|
mtxblau | Jan 28, 2003 | |||
My girlfriend's laptop (Dell Inspiron 8000 - PIII 1.1Ghz 256MB Ram), when it came from the factory, absolutely flew with WinXP. In fact, I played quite a few games of GTAIII on it. However, several months later, it's suffering from the same issue win98 has - massive slowdown. She's not using it for much more than web browsing and document editing, and now we're looking to reformat. I mean, it's terribly slow. OS X hasn't impressed me yet. Every time I try it, there's some problem with it (very strange). I went to two mac stores, and CompUSA; at CompUSA the system immediately froze when I moved the mouse, and the salespeople kindly brought out a laptop for me to use from the storeroom that also crashed. The mac store in PA, well those I assume were abused - but the mac store (upstate ny) - brand new. And pretty slow. :  :I may have a jaded view of macs because of this, but I'd actually take a Wintel machine any day. | |||||
|
Falstaf | Jan 28, 2003 | |||
Thou speaketh out thoust ass! Actually, as I stated before, that is technically true, there is less software available for the Mac. But what there is works right the first time. It is interesting that windows proponents used to say that pc's were just as good as Macs. Now they have given up on that and speak to it's supposed software availability. But it still is the standard for photo/film/video editing work and many Universities and science labs rely heavily on them. Strange for a machine with no software. As far as emulation/gaming on Macs goes, there are emu's for every console available and with they're superior graphics capabilities, the gaming experience is greatly enhanced. but then if you are a sheep ( or as I have stated in the past, a parrot only repeating what you hear and not what you know from actual experience) following the flock, what can you expect but to hear helpless, hopeless bleating. :  : | |||||
|
mtxblau | Jan 28, 2003 | |||
A lot of universities in the PA area are dumping macs in favor of PCs. Not sure why, especially with this OS X thing. Probably more cost effective (those macs are pretty damned expensive). Now, I take quarrel with this buzz phrase that Apple throws around: 'superior graphics capabilities'. What the hell does that mean? I don't ask in sarcasm - I ask because Apple and Apple users boast this but in reference to what? How is the emu experience for say, Genesis on a mac versus a PC? My machine gets 60+ fps with the Kreed renderer, how would it be better on a Mac? It's a serious question... I'm always wary of these broad phrases. I played THPS2 on these new macs (re: Upstate NY, slow) and I thought it was worse than the PC version (and the PC version is garbage). | |||||
|
gamefoo21 | Jan 28, 2003 | ||
|
mac's were the graphics artists dream. but when it comes down to it now a days you take a gfx card for a pc and put it next to one for a mac and it gets its ass thoroughly whooped. and the only real reason mac's can hold a candle to pc performance is due to the huge level 3 cache those craptactular motorola processor's are equipped with. Oh and at a graphics design course my dad took everyone was scared when the next time there mac was gonna crash, hmm evil photoshop . anyways all that hullabaloo about mac's being superior to pc's well. your average intel is running at 2.8 now as being the best lest not forget the 3.06 which has HT. now for mac cpu speeds... 800mhz i mean thats just sad. and they are still using sd-ram. technologically inferior is what comes to mind. even amd processors that say they run better and have higher performance for mhz than intel are running around 2.3ghz and are using ddr-2. mac is dieing and good ridance to those cute lil white things. that you have to pay for service packs and pay for the equivalent to windows update. | ||||
|
Falstaf | Jan 28, 2003 | |||
But if you do your research instead of bleating, you know that while intel has focused on speed only, ignoring processing power, which has decreased with each boost in speed. mac has not maintained processing power...it has increased it. By the way, the new G4's ship with 1.5 ghz cpu's. I say cpu's because they are dual cpu systems. Thats two 1.5 ghz processors that have taken on all comers and won. They may not measure as fast in base speed, but are faster because they handle more instructions per cycle. That is where the real power is. Not in a number that mean didley. And all the while drawing less power. But, yes..chances are high that mac's are on their final leggs, as far as sales ect. While they are great machines and very innovative, it's been too little too late. The new OS is great. Even windows will be moving to a more unix base in the future, it has been speculated. But too little....... Steve Jobs is a dreamer/nutcase. No one can figure his plan out (where he wants to take Apple). It's too bad as now Sun really will be the only competiter to Intel for computer design. I love all 12 of my Apple's, but also enjoy my four pc's. We'll just have to see where things go. Oh, and most older Mac OS's are free for download, including updates. How many is MS offering on their web site? 00000000000000000000000000!!!!! Not even Dos is available, not Win 3.1! And doesn't MS do the same? Wasn't win98 just an upgrade? And winMe? And isn't winXp just a hobbled version of NT? And how do you explain NT3, 3.5,4 Ect? Didn't you have to pay for all those upgrades? | |||||
 |
antime | Jan 28, 2003 | |||||||||
While it is true that the PPC architecture provides you with more power/clock and power/watt, Intel's offerings beats the G3/G4 in every other way. Slashdot recently posted a couple... of stories... which show the dual-cpu Macs being beaten in DV and photo editing, both traditional strong points of the Macintosh. It's just a fact of life that for desktop performance you can't beat Intel's and AMD's offerings, at least until the 64-bit generation arrives.
Does that include the OS ROMs for the older versions?
No, XP is NT 5.1 and comes in other flavours than the home edition. (Isn't OS X just a hobbled version of FreeBSD?) | |||||||||||
 |
IceDigger | Jan 28, 2003 | ||
I like Xandros right now  More stable then a mac | ||||
|
Falstaf | Jan 28, 2003 | |||
| |||||