A word to the wise: If you're going to debate RacerX on technical issues, you'd better come well prepared. I've developed a lot of respect for his knowledge.
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Disapointed switcher (HP Laserjet 3150 & other)
- Thread starter frusciante
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
I'm sure he knows a lot about his particular field. Thing is, what we're discussing probably falls outside it.
I've been a mac user for uh... 2 years and about 8 months. Something to that nature anyway. My PowerBook has crashed so few times I can count the times on my two hands. I can't even begin to remember all the times my XP machine crashed in the same time frame. The hardware is all quality stuff, but software issues tend to take a big toll on XP more-so than it does on OS X. A single app can bring XP to it's knees where OS X in most cases never has an issue.
Now personally. I think both of you have something to prove here, and not who has the bigger phallus. Bickering over useless senseless crap and calling each other clueless is just .. well.. retarded. Both of you can just get over it and move on.
Fact of the matter is a computer is only as stable and useful as the user.
Now how about we get back to the original question and you two take your penis match elsewhere.
Now personally. I think both of you have something to prove here, and not who has the bigger phallus. Bickering over useless senseless crap and calling each other clueless is just .. well.. retarded. Both of you can just get over it and move on.
Fact of the matter is a computer is only as stable and useful as the user.
Now how about we get back to the original question and you two take your penis match elsewhere.
If you're sufficiently clueless as to be unable to figure it out, it's not really my problem.Sesshi said:
Sorry, but I'll never do what you do. I think speaking on subjects which I have very little knowledge or experience is ill advised.
In fact, I strongly suggest to everyone that they not do what Sesshi does.
It is one thing to express opinions (and make them known as opinions), it is another to pretend that you actually know anything (when you really don't). And Sesshi's (cumulative) experiences don't add up to anything note worthy.
This is not to say that some day he won't learn a thing or two about this platform... but today (much like yesterday) he isn't really a competent Mac user. For now we should all let him walk alone in the land of denial.
I sorta wish he would have addressed the technical aspects of my posts... I don't think he has enough experience with Mac OS X and the loads it can handle yet to speak on them yet.IJ Reilly said:
Or at least that is the reason that I assume that he avoided the subject.
But, maybe someday...
Wow... thanks!
That is quite a compliment. Specially considering how well respected you are on these boards!
Sesshi got bitten. There are plenty of companies that have bitten me over the years and I suppose I'm equally as vocal about their foul-ups. I do, however, recognise that, for as much of a mess a given company may have made of their relationship with me over the years, there are many, many more people who haven't had my problems or anything like them, and I think Sesshi sometimes forgets when posting that just because their Mac 'adventure' went wrong it doesn't mean that other peoples will do the same.
As someone who has successfully switched their entire business of five years over to Mac almost overnight, albeit all desktop systems (Mac Pro's and iMac's) rather than portables, I can testify that Sesshi's experiences are not the holy grail and that plenty of Mac hardware and software, including all of my own bought for the office, can not only work flawlessly but revolutionise ones life.
As someone who has successfully switched their entire business of five years over to Mac almost overnight, albeit all desktop systems (Mac Pro's and iMac's) rather than portables, I can testify that Sesshi's experiences are not the holy grail and that plenty of Mac hardware and software, including all of my own bought for the office, can not only work flawlessly but revolutionise ones life.
This grew out of a very simple statement about virtual memory which RacerX aggressively refuted without fully relevant knowledge of current systems.
I happen to believe that both Windows and OS X are generally stable in everyday use with some exceptions in both respects and that is surely open to debate by both the pro and anti camps and I'm not willing to flog that dead horse. Suffice it to say that while Windows is less secure unassisted, it is just as stable as OS X in everyday use as far as I'm concerned. Neither crashes that much, and when they do there is a good reason as RaceX himself said.
As I said before, try opening multiple current apps / documents - say Photoshop, Office, iTunes, etc on an Intel Mac with say 2Gb of RAM, and try opening the same Windows apps and more on a Yonah/Merom or even X2/Opteron Windows machine with half the RAM. Or better still, do this with 1Gb machines for both Windows and Mac. See which 'beachballs' to a debilitating occasionally jerky halt earlier. I'm not asking anything odd, just a simple real-life comparison between VM handling on comparable systems.
I was not inviting irrelevant comparison as RacerX has brought into the thread to dangle his knowledge in front of us. I'm sure he knows a lot in a particular area, but like many of such type he twists the conversation to suit his narrow area of expertise.
I happen to believe that both Windows and OS X are generally stable in everyday use with some exceptions in both respects and that is surely open to debate by both the pro and anti camps and I'm not willing to flog that dead horse. Suffice it to say that while Windows is less secure unassisted, it is just as stable as OS X in everyday use as far as I'm concerned. Neither crashes that much, and when they do there is a good reason as RaceX himself said.
As I said before, try opening multiple current apps / documents - say Photoshop, Office, iTunes, etc on an Intel Mac with say 2Gb of RAM, and try opening the same Windows apps and more on a Yonah/Merom or even X2/Opteron Windows machine with half the RAM. Or better still, do this with 1Gb machines for both Windows and Mac. See which 'beachballs' to a debilitating occasionally jerky halt earlier. I'm not asking anything odd, just a simple real-life comparison between VM handling on comparable systems.
I was not inviting irrelevant comparison as RacerX has brought into the thread to dangle his knowledge in front of us. I'm sure he knows a lot in a particular area, but like many of such type he twists the conversation to suit his narrow area of expertise.
If I'd meant that, I'd have said that.
Huh. And I was going for "opinionated pigheaded PITA."
Really, it doesn't take long to separate the knowledgeable from the spouters-off.
Beachballing isn't simply the domain of OS X, there's poorly written aspects of all major-use OSes on the planet. I see the hourglass plenty on Windows boxes. And make no mistake, the hourglass IS the Windows equivalent of the beachball. For example, why does every Windows box on the planet give me the hourglass when I try to create a new folder (right-click -> New -> Hourglass)? It has nothing to do with RAM. And neither in some cases does beachballing.
Right off the bat, both Photoshop and Office are not Universal apps yet. There need of memory and ability to slow a system has nothing to do with virtual memory handling... it has to do with running those apps in an emulated environment.Sesshi said:
My narrow area expertise just happens to cover most of the Mac platform. Lucky for me as that is how I make a living.Sesshi said:
And then there are people like me that can do both at the same time!IJ Reilly said:
Luckily I make a living out of doing a wider range of things.
Universal or not, they're currently used OS X apps. Although it doesn't seem to change things all that much even if you're running all-universal apps. Observed VM efficiency is lower in OS X in practical terms for a start.
@yellow - The hourglass thing in Windows while creating folders? Does your system temporarily grind to a halt while it's paging to do that?
That's definitely it from me for this "discussion". We're way off topic and it's going to get nowhere.
I've run Windows XP on 80MB of RAM.
It wasnt exactly a speed demon by any means, but it did work, and it IS possible.
It wasnt exactly a speed demon by any means, but it did work, and it IS possible.
But wasn't your point that XP handles things better than OS X? If XP were running a rosetta type emulation program, would it not take a similar performance hit? I think you've lost sight of what your point was, if you ever had one.
I have 1 Gb of RAM in my G5, and I run on average maybe eight apps at a time without any noticeable beachballing.
lol I run XP on an old Vaio with 64 mb of RAM. It's appallingly slow, but it works.
Takes on average 1:30 or therabouts (yes 1 HOUR 30 MINUTES) to start up, but once it's going, it maybe only takes a few minutes to load new explorer windows, the start menu etc...
Mind you though, I bet Tiger would be even uglier on that much RAM...
I've run panther on 128MB on a G3 350 iMac and 366 iBooks and it ran adequately. I mean you couldn't really run 8 or 9 apps at full tilt but would still boot and run a few OK. I tried running 2000 and XP on a 533 with 128MB and it was unusable. Well when I say unusable 1 - 3 minutes to perform an operation is really pushing it.
EDIT: Actually if I recall 2000 wasn't that bad.
I am under the impression that with OS X's protected memory it takes a bit of a hit with available memory for induvidual apps, as the OS allocates the memory and that memory is then not available to other apps, even if the app that has the memory allocated to it isn't using it. Correct me if I'm wrong but I am of the understanding that is the case. I also understand that this is a fundamental reason why an induvidual app wont crash the rest of the system (at least in most cases).
You'll never read this but anyway..
You're again assuming that hourglassage and beachballing are indications of swapping to disk. And again, this is not necessarily the case.