Author Topic: Vista, Mac OS X Clone?  (Read 10883 times)

WMD

  • Global Moderator
  • Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 2,525
  • Kudos: 391
    • http://www.dognoodle99.cjb.net
Re: Vista, Mac os Clone.
« Reply #90 on: 7 April 2006, 02:04 »
57C?  I have the same model, and I'd be scared if it was idling that high.  I don't think it reaches 50 at idle.  Stock fan.
My BSOD gallery
"Yes there's nothing wrong with going around being rude and selfish, killing people and fucking married women, but being childish is a cardinal sin around these parts." -Aloone_Jonez

H_TeXMeX_H

  • Member
  • **
  • Posts: 1,988
  • Kudos: 494
    • http://draconishinobi.50webs.com/
Re: Vista, Mac os Clone.
« Reply #91 on: 7 April 2006, 03:19 »
This is on a laptop though ... max is actually 75 C not 70 ... assuming the sensor is reporting accurate data

Orethrius

  • Member
  • **
  • Posts: 1,783
  • Kudos: 982
Re: Vista, Mac os Clone.
« Reply #92 on: 9 April 2006, 05:47 »
Toadlife: For what it's worth, I was going for the logical fallacies in Xeniczone's post, not the end conclusion.  The end matters not where the means are at fault.  If he wanted to state that AMDs run hotter, by all means he's welcome to do so, but not by jeopardising an otherwise valid piece of data.

Tex: Thanks, it's good to see that I'm not the only one noticing when someone posts fallacious logic for an otherwise sound conclusion.

Proudly posted from a Gentoo Linux system.

Quote from: Calum
even if you're renting you've got more rights than if you're using windows.

System Vitals

back4hack

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 2
  • Kudos: 10
Re: Vista, Mac os Clone.
« Reply #93 on: 23 April 2006, 11:12 »
I see they've stolen the interface to make it look like OS X but what I would love to know is does the operating system itself now sport an operating system built on open source or does it still have an underlying shitty ntoskrnl?

back4hack

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 2
  • Kudos: 10
Re: Vista, Mac os Clone.
« Reply #94 on: 23 April 2006, 11:56 »
I take back that last comment, i've been reading about Windows Vista from google.. an yeap same ntoskrnl, just a few tweak's to it. Apparently it wont run on systems without a pretty substantial graphics card. So unless you bought your PC with it on, it's pointless downloading the beta of WinFX RC.

It look's like a pile of something unpleasent, kind of exactly like what I cleaned off my carpet this morning after waking up to find I'd locked the cat in the front room...

IBM has cancelled their contract with Microsoft as of October this year. That means that IBM will not use Windows Vista for their desktops. Beginning from July, IBM employees will begin using IBM Workplace on their new, Red Hat-based platform. Not all at once - some will keep using their present Windows versions for a while. But none will upgrade to Vista. Good for them!

That's just typical of Microsoft, they see apples sale's doing really well and presume that by making Windows look more like a piece of eye candy that there sales will improve, completely ignoring the fact that the underlying OS is the reason people go with Apple in the first place.

Way to go Microsoft.. What Mindless boffin thought this up?
« Last Edit: 23 April 2006, 12:04 by back4hack »

H_TeXMeX_H

  • Member
  • **
  • Posts: 1,988
  • Kudos: 494
    • http://draconishinobi.50webs.com/
Re: Vista, Mac os Clone.
« Reply #95 on: 23 April 2006, 19:15 »
Good news indeed ... IBM not buying into Vista ... no one else should either.

inane

  • Member
  • **
  • Posts: 107
  • Kudos: 233
    • http://www.myblogspace.net/inaneframe
Re: Vista, Mac os Clone.
« Reply #96 on: 23 April 2006, 22:10 »
Quote
IBM has cancelled their contract with Microsoft as of October this year. That means that IBM will not use Windows Vista for their desktops. Beginning from July, IBM employees will begin using IBM Workplace on their new, Red Hat-based platform. Not all at once - some will keep using their present Windows versions for a while. But none will upgrade to Vista. Good for them!
REALLY?! Awesome, it's about goddamn time, took em 18 years to wean off of the piece of shit and get back at Microshit. They sure were talkin enough smack on their websites about GNU/Linux being better... hope this is a trend, corporate Microsoft software wars survivors first, than everyone else.:thumbup:

inane

  • Member
  • **
  • Posts: 107
  • Kudos: 233
    • http://www.myblogspace.net/inaneframe
Re: Vista, Mac os Clone.
« Reply #97 on: 23 April 2006, 22:19 »
Found it.

That would be something if IBM were the stone that topple Microsoft, that broke the dam. The irony is so THICK you can choke on it. They made them and it looks like they'll be breaking them... :D

I smell games, BIG BUDGET ones for *NIX baby!!! OH RAH!!

toadlife

  • Member
  • **
  • Posts: 730
  • Kudos: 376
    • http://toadlife.net
Re: Vista, Mac os Clone.
« Reply #98 on: 23 April 2006, 23:39 »
Quote from: back4hack
I see they've stolen the interface to make it look like OS X but what I would love to know is does the operating system itself now sport an operating system built on open source or does it still have an underlying shitty ntoskrnl?

I fail to see how making things transparent and more high-res make it a copy of OSX. What were they supposed to do, make it look uglier? For that, they could have copied KDE or Gnome.

And about the kernel, the kernel is one of the major strengths of NT. The crap piled onto it are the cause all of the issues.
:)

piratePenguin

  • VIP
  • Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 3,027
  • Kudos: 775
    • http://piratepenguin.is-a-geek.com/~declan/
Re: Vista, Mac os Clone.
« Reply #99 on: 24 April 2006, 00:23 »
Quote from: toadlife
I fail to see how making things transparent and more high-res make it a copy of OSX. What were they supposed to do, make it look uglier? For that, they could have copied KDE or Gnome.
GTK+ 1 was pretty ugly. But thankfully I didn't have to wait until 2006 for GTK+ 2 (or Xgl and all that crack).

EDIT: and FFS XP's luna fucking thing is the ugliest since I dunno when. Why are people given that in 2006?
« Last Edit: 24 April 2006, 00:33 by piratePenguin »
"What you share with the world is what it keeps of you."
 - Noah And The Whale: Give a little love



a poem by my computer, Macintosh Vigilante
Macintosh amends a damned around the requested typewriter. Macintosh urges a scarce design. Macintosh postulates an autobiography. Macintosh tolls the solo variant. Why does a winter audience delay macintosh? The maker tosses macintosh. Beneath female suffers a double scum. How will a rat cube the heavier cricket? Macintosh calls a method. Can macintosh nest opposite the headache? Macintosh ties the wrong fairy. When can macintosh stem the land gang? Female aborts underneath macintosh. Inside macintosh waffles female. Next to macintosh worries a well.

H_TeXMeX_H

  • Member
  • **
  • Posts: 1,988
  • Kudos: 494
    • http://draconishinobi.50webs.com/
Re: Vista, Mac os Clone.
« Reply #100 on: 24 April 2006, 00:42 »
I agree GNOME and KDE are quite ugly (even with different themes) ... my recommendation: fluxbox

I've recently decided to try out nearly every window manager available for Linux, including: GNOME, KDE, Fluxbox, Blackbox, Afterstep, IceWM, Openbox, WM, XFCE

I say fluxbox is the best ... the ugliest being GNOME, KDE, XFCE, IceWM

Now .... there are usually downsides to having transparency effects, like increased resource usage ... it doesn't seem to be the case with fluxbox ... can't say the same thing for Vi$ta. And Vi$ta is far less customizable, stable, useful. I switched away from GNOME mostly cuz nautilus kept crashing and GNOME in general kept not responding (keyboard not responding), which never happened on KDE BTW and neither on fluxbox.

Now whether Vi$ta is a rip-off of OS X ... that's almost guarranteed, but of course there are ingnorant people out there who refuse to take into account any evidence whatsoever in making a case for this ...

inane

  • Member
  • **
  • Posts: 107
  • Kudos: 233
    • http://www.myblogspace.net/inaneframe
Re: Vista, Mac os Clone.
« Reply #101 on: 24 April 2006, 02:05 »
Fluxbox is NOT pretty... it's utilitarian. The whole point of it is to get away from the looks.

toadlife

  • Member
  • **
  • Posts: 730
  • Kudos: 376
    • http://toadlife.net
Re: Vista, Mac os Clone.
« Reply #102 on: 24 April 2006, 02:36 »
Quote from: inane
Fluxbox is NOT pretty... it's utilitarian. The whole point of it is to get away from the looks.

Actually I would agree with TeXMeX. Fluxbox is the nicest looking desktop environment I've seen for unix.  What fluxbox isn't, is very functional. Functionality is what make a desktop/windows manager slow.
:)

toadlife

  • Member
  • **
  • Posts: 730
  • Kudos: 376
    • http://toadlife.net
Re: Vista, Mac os Clone.
« Reply #103 on: 24 April 2006, 02:39 »
Quote from: piratePenguin
GTK+ 1 was pretty ugly. But thankfully I didn't have to wait until 2006 for GTK+ 2 (or Xgl and all that crack).

EDIT: and FFS XP's luna fucking thing is the ugliest since I dunno when. Why are people given that in 2006?

luna is getting pretty old. That's why I use Royale in XP now. It's not earth shattering, but I think it's nicer than Luna.
:)

WMD

  • Global Moderator
  • Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 2,525
  • Kudos: 391
    • http://www.dognoodle99.cjb.net
Re: Vista, Mac os Clone.
« Reply #104 on: 24 April 2006, 04:50 »
Royale is the theme for XP Media Center.  And it's much better than Luna, that's for sure.
My BSOD gallery
"Yes there's nothing wrong with going around being rude and selfish, killing people and fucking married women, but being childish is a cardinal sin around these parts." -Aloone_Jonez