Operating Systems > macOS

Old macs are faster than new PCs running windows

<< < (2/4) > >>

hm_murdock:
They make less money, but it raises "market share" which is what Ballmer gives a fuck about. Remember that Windows PC people care about winning some imaginary war against Apple.

We can sit here and say "I don't like Windows because it...

* Has shitty multitasking
* Has shitty memory management
* Has shitty security
* Is a big DRM scam
* Is made by corrupt buffoons

Whatever. We can say why. These are people who say "I hate (Insert "Macs" or "Apple" or "Linux" here)," even though they've never used the stuff. They know they hate something they know nothing about.

It's all because it's a big war to them. Remember, there's a whole lot of people who don't like Windows and MS, and somehow these jokers see it as a threat to them personally, since it casts doubt on their "choice". That is, they're afraid they might be wrong, so they have to constantly make up stuff about how they "like it" or how it's "just as good"... when it's all a lie.

A 2GHz P4 with a 2 month old install of XP starts slower than my Power Mac 6500 (250MHz PPC 603e) with OS 8.6.

So bah.

davidnix71:
Maybe C/C++/C# is faster than VB6. OS 6 was written in assembler. You could run it from a floppy, GUI and all.

Then again maybe it's the stupid Winblows registry. That never made any sense to me, but someone must have thought it was a good idea.

H_TeXMeX_H:
It's all of it ... it's just shit

worker201:
Don't forget all the retro modes and legacy albatrosses.  Windows is a sucker for 20-year backwards compatibility.  Tiger doesn't even acknowlege pre-OSX existence, and Linux was designed from the inside out to be nicely compatible with ancient flavors via minimum hassle.  Windows users think it's great that they can still run shitware from 1996, but everyone else has gotten over it and moved on.

mobrien_12:
OK, while windows is bloated and slow and frustrating, this article is STUPID.

SYSTEM 6, are you kidding me? An OS which did not support preemptive multitasking and could support a maximum of 8 MB ram and no virtual memory, no network stack?  Of course it's faster.  DOS is also faster than windowsXP.  So is GEM for #$%% sake.

And the apps run faster?  NO DUH.  They are tiny because there was no ram.  Again, run GEM or (even win 3.1) on your monster screamer modern box and you will see the same thing.  

Maybe if he compared it to BEOS or something that had preemptive multitasking and comparable capabilities I might take this seriously.

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[#] Next page

[*] Previous page