Aperture

djes · Post by **djes** » Mon Oct 08, 2007 12:46 pm

Irene wrote:djes, I totally agree 100%! ^_^
Do you know what? I think I know why Bill Gates and Steve Jobs are brainless and fight without reason... they drank Banana Juice! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NIyrO4p0YJc

That guy is cute but the Banana Juice is extremely healthy ^o^

Certainly! And not only banana has side effects (http://www.univ-ubs.fr/ecologie/paraquat.html), but it's also giving acid to my stomach!

So, this guy is cute, did u said?

Nik · Post by **Nik** » Mon Oct 08, 2007 11:52 pm

Well actually those GUI bling things can save CPU power if used in the right way, thats because they offload graphics processing to the GPU where it belongs. The thing is implementing these things so that they are adjustable and can actually save CPu time isn't that easy, especially on a system like Windows where the GUI is built much too deep into the OS (unlike with most Unixes where it's just a regular process and can therfor be scheduled in favor of important tasks)
If you have seen what Linux's Compiz Fusion does on an Intel Onboard GPU you will learn to honor the value of it, especially since you can adjust it in every way you like, you can use wobbling windows and transparencies or you can simply offload the classic GUI to the GPU, which makes things like Window switching/resizing/miimizing very cpu efficient.
People always tend to think that GPU based GUI is bad because Vista does it in a crap way, but that's Vistas fault, and there is simply no point in having a realy powerfull GPU idling when using your computer for work, why not let it do the windowing, I mean it's built for this stuff and with todays shaders it could even decode images and vector graphics saving even more CPU time.

I think OS X does this graphics through GPU quite good and I found it reasonably fast (it has a worse CPU scheduler than Linux though). I haven't used Vista much though so IU can't compare, but from hearsay it doesn't sound to pleasent.

Again a word to the discussion about Macs being PC hardware. It's still not totaly true, which makes it a bit harer for us Linux Users for whom BootCamp isn't built. The thing is, Macs do not have a BIOS so BootCamp simulates one, they also do have lot's of non standard stuff in them and very important for debugging, they don't have a System Beeper.

Kaeru Gaman · Post by **Kaeru Gaman** » Tue Oct 09, 2007 12:45 am

test

...ok, this appers in the correct order...

KingNips · Post by **KingNips** » Thu Oct 11, 2007 2:04 pm

pdwyer wrote:It might have been but now with vista I'm not so sure. Mac users say mac is getting better, windows users don't say that anymore and rightfully so.

Windows 2003 is good. I haven't tried the windows server 2008 RC yet, I'm a little scared it's all gone in the wrong direction too though

I'm not really a linux fan, I've installed it so many times since redhat 5 about 10 years ago, turbolinux was the only one I got close to liking but I just can't get into it long term.

Windows future is looking bleak

I've got the latest Mac Pro. I tried running MacOS X with XP in a Parallels session. MacOS is a hunk of junk. I reformatted the drives and put Vista Ultimate x64 on it, and it rocks! Much faster than MacOS X was. Of course XP x64 would be even better... but then I wouldn't get the sexy black toolbar. Can't have that... got to keep my priorities straight.

I've been playing with Windows Server 2008. It's pretty slick. I'm running sql server 2005 sp2 on it and its rock solid. IIS is much improved.

i'm trying to get a ASP.NET/Silverlight app running on it. I'll let you know how I go.

pdwyer · Post by **pdwyer** » Thu Oct 11, 2007 2:53 pm

Good to hear! (About 2008 anyway) Can't say one post is going to make me go buy Vista though, and I've tried 64bit XP and hit driver problems from hell, perhaps I was just unlucky and most people motherboards come with 64bit drivers. My nvidia MB didn't... haven't looked for a while though. It worked, just, but since there were no noticable perf differences the hassles weren't worth it

What happened to Lurk Mode?

Sebe · Post by **Sebe** » Sun Oct 14, 2007 7:50 pm

There is a lot of rant going on in this thread

Macs are worse than PCs? Look at the iMacs, I have never seen a better designed computer. Not just in terms of visuals but also considering the space it takes. It's also very quiet and doesn't get too hot. The hardware on the MacBookPro is awesome, and it was lately reviewed as the best gaming laptop you can get for that money. Of course you're paying for the Apple symbol and the design but not as much as most of the people in this thread suggest.
OS X is better in any way I can think of except gaming. It boots up much faster, it shuts down much faster. It needs less RAM, it has never crashed on the iMac of my girlfriend or mine. The firewall is much more of a firewall than what you get with Windows (and according to the CCC Germany the Windows intern firewall is the only one you should have on your computer: NO PERSONAL FIREWALLS!) and I don't need a Antivirus program (at least not 2007, but since Macs are getting popular again that may change soon).
If you're looking for the latest high-end hardware then Macs are not for you. But if you look for a very good designed computer with an OS that just fits and the possibility of putting Windows on it for games, then an iMac/MacBookPro might be for you.

Irene · Post by **Irene** » Sun Oct 14, 2007 9:30 pm

Of course design is important, but there are also greatly designed PCs. In my opinion the Alienware (http://www.alienware.com/) PCs are super cool ^o^

My father has the Area-51 ALX Desktop which he uses in co-operation with his brother (my gamer uncle ^_^) for server purposes and game testing.. Not only is that PC very wonderful (my father bought the Plasma Purple version ^o^) but it's like a hundred times better than mine and extremely quiet! My father bought it customized and the price went up to 10,500$ ^_^

Sebe · Post by **Sebe** » Sun Oct 14, 2007 10:50 pm

You tell me Apple computers are expensive but your family buys Alienware PCs and you find them cool? Sorry, but: are you mad? Alienware PCs are like total rip-offs. They are PCs where you REALLY spend like 50% of the money for the case and the name

Same with Commodore etc. And the Alienware PCs are badly designed. They take as much space as any other computer, are not quiet and its just cheap plastic. That was not what I meant when saying the design is important. :roll:

IF computer = "selfbuild"
{
buy = "PC";
}
ELSE
{
buy = "Apple";
}

Rook Zimbabwe · Post by **Rook Zimbabwe** » Sun Oct 14, 2007 11:06 pm

Just shaking my head...

Sebe · Post by **Sebe** » Sun Oct 14, 2007 11:10 pm

Please quote so we all can at least guess why you are shaking your head...

Irene · Post by **Irene** » Sun Oct 14, 2007 11:12 pm

Sebe wrote:You tell me Apple computers are expensive but your family buys Alienware PCs and you find them cool? Sorry, but: are you mad? Alienware PCs are like total rip-offs. They are PCs where you REALLY spend like 50% of the money for the case and the name :? Same with Commodore etc. And the Alienware PCs are badly designed. They take as much space as any other computer, are not quiet and its just cheap plastic. That was not what I meant when saying the design is important. :roll:

IF computer = "selfbuild"
{
buy = "PC";
}
ELSE
{
buy = "Apple";
}

What are you talking about? Alienware sells PCs for a fair price, I can tell by going to places like Dell and build similar systems; the price goes either a little (100-200$) down or up. But hey you're an Apple addict but I for one like pears more ^_^

Nik · Post by **Nik** » Sun Oct 14, 2007 11:22 pm

I for one like my iMac, but that's because I'm not really into hardware modifications and/or gaming and because running Linux it's power will last for years (it's a Core Duo not Core 2 Duo one).
I don't like the Alienware design so much atleast I didn't like the ones I know, Irene can you tell us some specs of your dads machine sounds like a monster.

Irene · Post by **Irene** » Mon Oct 15, 2007 2:33 pm

Nik wrote:I for one like my iMac, but that's because I'm not really into hardware modifications and/or gaming and because running Linux it's power will last for years (it's a Core Duo not Core 2 Duo one).
I don't like the Alienware design so much atleast I didn't like the ones I know, Irene can you tell us some specs of your dads machine sounds like a monster.

^o^

The reason why my father and my uncle need such a "power monster" is because they both are beta testers of games and my uncle develops for SEGA. The same PC also hosts 2 SEGA's Phantasy Star Online servers and if the PC wouldn't be so silent my father couldn't sleep well every night (the PC is always up 24/7...)

hardfalcon · Post by **hardfalcon** » Mon Oct 15, 2007 4:06 pm

A friend of mine bought an Alienware laptop, he had lots of problems with it (mainly thermal problems)...
The "best" computers are the self build ones (at least as long as you know how to build one) as you know exactly what hardware you have.

Some weeks ago, we went to a computer shop to ask a few details about a computer they offered. The vendor couldn't tell me a single solid information except the CPU type and the mainboard type. When I asked which RAM they were using, I was told it was DDR2 clocked 667Mhz. When asked why they didn't use 800Mhz RAM as this was definitely possible with the mainboard and the CPU they were using to build the computer, the vendor stated that "the was almost no difference between 667Mhz and 800Mhz"...

Always build your computer yourself so you know exactly what's going on...

Nik · Post by **Nik** » Mon Oct 15, 2007 4:23 pm

Then try building your own Laptop