Page 2 of 3
Posted: Sun Jul 31, 2005 9:47 pm
by +JuggerNaut+
Reps' giving me a boner
Posted: Sun Jul 31, 2005 10:00 pm
by Dave
haha.. 'blows spotlight out of the water'.
It had better. Apple beat MS to the punch by at least 2 years since WinFS isnt due until '07 (which in microsoft terms is '08). But of course in those two years, Apple will have had time to refine their process even further.
Do yourself a favor and install the Windows Desktop Search and see how much ram it uses and how slow it is. They'd better have a lot more up their sleeves than that.
Posted: Sun Jul 31, 2005 10:52 pm
by rep
Dave wrote:'07 (which in microsoft terms is '08).
As compared to the Powerbook G5 and G5 at 3GHz.
Posted: Sun Jul 31, 2005 10:54 pm
by Dave
rep wrote:Dave wrote:'07 (which in microsoft terms is '08).
As compared to the Powerbook G5 and G5 at 3GHz.
They never promised a G5 Powerbook and fallout over missing the 3GHz mark resulted in Apple dropping IBM as a processor supplier
Posted: Sun Jul 31, 2005 10:55 pm
by saturn
Dave wrote:haha.. 'blows spotlight out of the water'.
It had better. Apple beat MS to the punch by at least 2 years since WinFS isnt due until '07 (which in microsoft terms is '08). But of course in those two years, Apple will have had time to refine their process even further.
Do yourself a favor and install the Windows Desktop Search and see how much ram it uses and how slow it is. They'd better have a lot more up their sleeves than that.
I can't believe how fast Spotlight is. I hate the search function in XP now. But at least the porn is hidden.
Posted: Sun Jul 31, 2005 10:55 pm
by rep
eepberries wrote:Until we get 3d hologram monitors, I don't see any point.
You're right. I think we should go back to sidescrolling games.
It would be nice to have a compressed 3D delivery format other than shockwave. I'd like to make modelling tutorial 'videos' that are real time so people can handle the object so they'd understand it better. VRML obviously was great in theory, but died because it couldn't be delivered and wasn't immersive enough.
We have the power and bandwidth to deliver virtual environments now. Vista opens the door even wider.
Posted: Sun Jul 31, 2005 10:56 pm
by Dave
saturn wrote:Dave wrote:haha.. 'blows spotlight out of the water'.
It had better. Apple beat MS to the punch by at least 2 years since WinFS isnt due until '07 (which in microsoft terms is '08). But of course in those two years, Apple will have had time to refine their process even further.
Do yourself a favor and install the Windows Desktop Search and see how much ram it uses and how slow it is. They'd better have a lot more up their sleeves than that.
I can't believe how fast Spotlight is. I hate the search function in XP now. But at least the porn is hidden.
Don't tell rep that, he'll threaten you with MS vaporware
Posted: Sun Jul 31, 2005 10:57 pm
by saturn
a game is different than an UI....3D interface is very confusing and cumbersome.
Posted: Sun Jul 31, 2005 10:58 pm
by saturn
Dave wrote:saturn wrote:Dave wrote:haha.. 'blows spotlight out of the water'.
It had better. Apple beat MS to the punch by at least 2 years since WinFS isnt due until '07 (which in microsoft terms is '08). But of course in those two years, Apple will have had time to refine their process even further.
Do yourself a favor and install the Windows Desktop Search and see how much ram it uses and how slow it is. They'd better have a lot more up their sleeves than that.
I can't believe how fast Spotlight is. I hate the search function in XP now. But at least the porn is hidden.
Don't tell rep that, he'll threaten you with MS vaporware
Of course the reason for the speed is that everything's indexed the moment it lands on your HD, but rep knew that already, of course, how silly of me.
Posted: Sun Jul 31, 2005 11:00 pm
by rep
saturn wrote:Dave wrote:saturn wrote:
I can't believe how fast Spotlight is. I hate the search function in XP now. But at least the porn is hidden.
Don't tell rep that, he'll threaten you with MS vaporware
Of course the reason for the speed is that everything's indexed the moment it lands on your HD, but rep knew that already, of course, how silly of me.
That's not entirely true. Sometimes Vista needs to rebuild it's index because it didn't catch a cluster of files... A quirk they'll hopefully fix before RTM.
Vaporware is something people are using right now? Odd.
Posted: Sun Jul 31, 2005 11:05 pm
by Dave
WinFS is not the same as the Desktop Search. If it was the same thing, they why has MS repeatedly said that WinFS was cut from the final release and would be released later as an 'out-of-band' add-on?
for reference:
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2004/08/31 ... decoupled/
and a recent article that maintains the WinFS position:
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2005/05/26 ... _longhorn/
Posted: Mon Aug 01, 2005 3:17 am
by shiznit
I'll upgrade when I need to, I don't care much about the effects.
Posted: Mon Aug 01, 2005 7:06 am
by MKJ
rep wrote:Foo wrote:Gotta be honest there's nothing impressive to me there. I mean, there's nothing wrong with it, I just don't see how it justifies being a whole seperate release from XP.
Having said that, it's all talk about the gui atm and little about the actual operating of said system.
... OSX hasn't changed much at all.
OSX is therefore still OSX, not OS11
Posted: Mon Aug 01, 2005 7:34 am
by rep
MKJ wrote:rep wrote:Foo wrote:Gotta be honest there's nothing impressive to me there. I mean, there's nothing wrong with it, I just don't see how it justifies being a whole seperate release from XP.
Having said that, it's all talk about the gui atm and little about the actual operating of said system.
... OSX hasn't changed much at all.
OSX is therefore still OSX, not OS11
Oh yeah, and there's been what, four
service packs that have cost money so far?
Posted: Mon Aug 01, 2005 7:39 am
by +JuggerNaut+
shiznit wrote:I'll upgrade when I need to, I don't care much about the effects.
and what would you think would warrant a
need to upgrade to another OS? when Microsoft doesn't support XP anymore?
Posted: Mon Aug 01, 2005 7:52 am
by MKJ
rep wrote:MKJ wrote:rep wrote:
... OSX hasn't changed much at all.
OSX is therefore still OSX, not OS11
Oh yeah, and there's been what, four
service packs that have cost money so far?
point
Posted: Mon Aug 01, 2005 7:56 am
by Dave
And everyone of them was worth the money
Posted: Mon Aug 01, 2005 8:24 am
by rep
What a tool.
"Man, these widgets are innovative and revolutionary. Thanks Apple.
Hey, what's this Vista? Fucking Microsoft stealing other people's ideas!" - JerkOff Apple Fan Named Dave (JOAFND)
Posted: Mon Aug 01, 2005 8:29 am
by Dave
lol.. I happen to use a lot more than macs.. I get paid doing .Net programming. I'd say I'm pretty far up Microsoft's ass too.
I'm critical of MS because they're so fucking slow to react to market demands. Lets see how many more times LH gets shoved back. I want my .Net Framework 2.0 already so I can upgrade my apps
Posted: Mon Aug 01, 2005 8:39 am
by MKJ
rep wrote:What a tool.
"Man, these widgets are innovative and revolutionary. Thanks Apple.
Hey, what's this Vista? Fucking Microsoft stealing other people's ideas!" - JerkOff Apple Fan Named Dave (JOAFND)
replace Apple with Opera and Microsoft with Firefox and you got rep :icon14:
Posted: Mon Aug 01, 2005 8:39 am
by Dave
zing
Posted: Mon Aug 01, 2005 9:54 am
by Geebs
rep wrote:You can connect more than one IP to the same PC... It's strange, but logical. If you have fast internet such as cable, and multiple IP addresses, usually the cable company (since Docsis2.0 and 3.0 modems have an incredible throughput anyway) limits your bandwidth per IP... This is why if you have 4 IP addresses, each can possibly be downloading at the full 7MB/s speed because it's not 7MB/s divided by 4, it's 4 individual allowances of 7MB/s. I think my modem gets 40MB/s or a little higher. I'll have to check sometime.
I'm sure the cable companies will figure out some way to block this.
Posted: Mon Aug 01, 2005 10:10 am
by diego
I'm so glad they still got that great windows-firewall in it!!!
I know they probably improved it, so I'm just bitching, don't mind me.
Posted: Mon Aug 01, 2005 1:37 pm
by Transient
horton wrote:well it looks pretty, but i turned off all the nice looking features on XP, so I see little point.
Same here. It looks as close to 98 as I can get it.
Posted: Mon Aug 01, 2005 1:39 pm
by glossy
Transient wrote:horton wrote:well it looks pretty, but i turned off all the nice looking features on XP, so I see little point.
Same here. It looks as close to 98 as I can get it.
One of my machines still runs windows 98...
