 |
| Register | Login | |||||
 |
Main
| Memberlist
| Active users
| ACS
| Commons
| Calendar
| Online users Ranks | FAQ | Color Chart | Photo album | IRC Chat |
|
| | ||
|
| Register | Login | |||||
|
Main
| Memberlist
| Active users
| ACS
| Commons
| Calendar
| Online users Ranks | FAQ | Color Chart | Photo album | IRC Chat |
|
| | ||
| 0 user currently in Hardware/Software. |
| Acmlm's Board - I2 Archive - Hardware/Software - Microsoft Operating System GUI |
 |  |  |
| Pages: 1 2 3 4 | Add to favorites | "RSS" Feed | Next newer thread | Next older thread |
| User | Post | ||
Snika Boo Level: 44  Posts: 668/916 EXP: 600678 For next: 10607 Since: 07-21-04 From: Freezing Cold Alaska! Since last post: 2 days Last activity: 2 days |
| ||
| Okay, we all know what sells today in operating systems and their equally expensive software: Graphical User Interface Or as the simpletons (and everyone else) calls it, GUI. Its no secret what little Billy Gates has been doing. He's copied Windows 2000, smacked on some fancy graphics, and called it Windows XP. He is following the same example he set by copying Windows XP and adding ever more fancy graphics and calling it a new OS. This is all well and good. Personally, I love eye candy. Thats one of the main reasons I considered buying OS X. Sure, the operating system was simple enough to be designed for a chimpanzee, but it sure looked pretty. Anyways, I was pondering over the new 'revolutionary' Microsoft Office and Windows Vista and couldn't help but notice something... Office looks really... Mac-like. Check out this: http://www.microsoft.com/office/preview/uioverview.mspx Look at the larger views of some of the pics. http://forevergeek.com/windows/windows_vista_beta_screenshots.php Vista doesn't fail the pattern. Look closely at the second pic. Crazy blue folders? Ahh!!! Mac OS X Flashback! I am not trying to discourage this act. I am glad inspiration between operating systems can be made. I just don't want Windows to become OS X. Please, post your opinions on the matter of Windows GUI and its similarites and differences to Mac OS X. Also, just post about the new Windows GUI and tell me if you dig it. I do. I dig it like a gardner. |
|||
|
HyperLamer <||bass> and this was the soloution i thought of that was guarinteed to piss off the greatest amount of people Sesshomaru Tamaranian Level: 118 Posts: 7085/8210 EXP: 18171887 For next: 211027 Since: 03-15-04 From: Canada, w00t! LOL FAD Since last post: 2 hours Last activity: 2 hours |
| ||
| XP's eye candy is already a huge resource hog and the default themes suck. From what I've seen the next version is just going to be 10 times flashier and use 10 times the resources while still being 10 times as ugly. | |||
|
Tarale I'm not under the alfluence of incohol like some thinkle peop I am. It's just the drunker I sit here the longer I get.  Level: 73  Posts: 2555/2720 EXP: 3458036 For next: 27832 Since: 03-18-04 From: Adelaide, Australia Since last post: 4 hours Last activity: 2 hours |
| ||
| Windows is not going to become OS X any time soon. I'm sorry, but if you think that all there is to OS X is the eye candy, you REALLY need to go and educate yourself about OS X. As for Windows being influenced by Mac OS (Classic OR X) well, that's been happening for years. Where do you think your Recycle Bin comes from? Mac OS has had a Trash can since the beginning of Mac OS -- back in 1984. Windows didn't have the Recycle Bin until Windows 95 was released... Early versions of Windows (and other systems such as GEM for that matter) were clear attempts to replicate the Macintosh operating sytem too. Windows has been taking influence from Mac OS since the very beginning... I'm not surprised to see it continue. As for the look and feel of Vista, well personally I don't like it. I can see what they're trying to do, but... it just doesn't look quite right to me. Apple do it better. And I'm going to have to slap you for your comment about OS X being simple.... the core OS is quite powerful, just because it *looks* simple doesn't mean it is....  (edited by Tarale on 09-15-05 02:15 AM) |
|||
neotransotaku Baby Mario 戻れたら、 誰も気が付く Level: 87 Posts: 3889/4016 EXP: 6220548 For next: 172226 Since: 03-15-04 From: Outside of Time/Space Since last post: 11 hours Last activity: 1 hour |
| ||
Originally posted by HyperHacker I wonder, how much more resources does windows vista use in comparison to OSX? any one have hard numbers? as for performance, older systems suffer while newer systems you can't notice anything immediately.. the power of computing is improving so much that general, uneducated public will never notice the slowness  |
|||
|
Surlent サーレント Level: 49  Posts: 1052/1077 EXP: 863920 For next: 19963 Since: 03-15-04 From: Tower of Lezard Valeth Since last post: 16 hours Last activity: 1 hour |
| ||
| It's similar to virus scanners. Some customers buy these products on how coloured and nice the GUI looks, disregarding the resource usage and even the results in cleaning infected PCs. Or firewall software like ZoneAlarm - it is just like a playground if I see those colourful windows - and also it takes a lot of RAM. Some years ago ZA was a small icon in the system tray, opened instantly and used hardly any resources  |
|||
FreeDOS Lava Lotus Wannabe-Mod :< Level: 59 Posts: 1585/1657 EXP: 1648646 For next: 24482 Since: 03-15-04 From: Seattle Since last post: 6 hours Last activity: 4 hours |
| ||
| The Windows 95/NT4 look is very intuitive and undistracting. The same applies the slight-twist style in Win98/NT5(Win2k) with the title bar gradient and toolbar-style menubars. Actually, the Win95 looks is efficient enough that some other OSes/WMs copy the look.  |
|||
|
kitty Come on babe, pet the pussy ;) Level: 70 Posts: 2040/2449 EXP: 2962406 For next: 53405 Since: 03-15-04 From: Scranton, PA, USA Since last post: 3 hours Last activity: 3 hours |
| ||
The only XP design change (over the usual Win2k features) that I really use is the redesigned Start Menu. However, saying that WinXP is the same as Win2K but with different themes is completely wrong. WinXP has much better compatibility with everything that ran on 9x-based Windows shells (95/98/ME). It also has better memory management. To top it all off, WinXP is "Smoother", boots faster, and is overall more efficient. Oh, and it runs forever too  [Operating System]:-[WinXP Pro, SP 2 (5.1 - 2600)] [Uptime]:-[Now: 11wks 1day 2hrs 43mins 40secs]-[Record: 11wks 1day 2hrs 43mins 40secs] (edited by Yiffy Kitten on 09-15-05 10:20 PM) |
|||
|
HyperLamer <||bass> and this was the soloution i thought of that was guarinteed to piss off the greatest amount of people Sesshomaru Tamaranian Level: 118 Posts: 7089/8210 EXP: 18171887 For next: 211027 Since: 03-15-04 From: Canada, w00t! LOL FAD Since last post: 2 hours Last activity: 2 hours |
| ||
Until you need to install or change something.  |
|||
|
kitty Come on babe, pet the pussy ;) Level: 70 Posts: 2050/2449 EXP: 2962406 For next: 53405 Since: 03-15-04 From: Scranton, PA, USA Since last post: 3 hours Last activity: 3 hours |
| ||
| I've installed plenty of things and also changed plenty of settings I've also played a ton of games, downloaded probably about 500 gigs, and ran over 50 different apps. So, who says Windows isn't stable? |
|||
Kitten Yiffer Purple wand Furry moderator Vivent l'exp����¯�¿�½������©rience de signalisation d'amusement, ou bien ! Level: 135 Posts: 10975/11162 EXP: 28824106 For next: 510899 Since: 03-15-04 From: Sweden Since last post: 3 hours Last activity: 4 min. |
| ||
| Win XP is stable, as long you keep the fuck off from IE. That's is what I call instable. And also don't use the switch user feature, which have a few odd stability bugs if you have a uptime of weeks... Out of the modern OS's, I would say that Mac OS X is pretty inspiring althought Apple's way of saying "Run it on our hardware, or not at all" sorta annoys me. And Vista is gonna be the new Windows ME. And it dosen't impress me enough. And oh, I prefer 2000 if it's a old computer. Windows XP might be a fast OS, but it's the Windows OS that takes the mopst harddrive space too. And it's gone to a point where the diffrent OS's pretty much been inspired by each other. And back to the topic, for looks i'm rather bored. In Linux I use the most boring theme as possible and in Windows I use the classic theme (together with the new start-menu like Yiffy Kitten though). I wish Windows had a better CLI. Both Macintosh and Linux have alot better CLI. |
|||
Crim~ Blue Octorok Level: 10  Posts: 31/46 EXP: 4146 For next: 268 Since: 05-09-05 From: The Wild Wild West, Los Angeles Since last post: 6 days Last activity: 2 days |
| ||
Originally posted by SnikaActually, The thing that sells anything is usually the brand. Someone could put out a new OS and it could be ten times better than Windows- Not many people would use/buy it for a quite a while because people don't like to change to something they haven't used before. Also, I was reading this Maximum PC's October issue. They had a couple pages on Windows Vista. It seems that Microsoft has chosen to start over, they're letting go of alot of the old coding from way back. That's great, too bad they still made the system requirements insane. It does look a bit like OS X to me. I'm not really looking forward to Vista, and will probably stick with Windows XP for a year or so, the only thing that caught my attention was a much more accurate 'Time Remaining' bar, DirectX10, and better searching. |
|||
|
Tarale I'm not under the alfluence of incohol like some thinkle peop I am. It's just the drunker I sit here the longer I get. Level: 73 Posts: 2564/2720 EXP: 3458036 For next: 27832 Since: 03-18-04 From: Adelaide, Australia Since last post: 4 hours Last activity: 2 hours |
| ||
Originally posted by Kitten Yiffer You know WHY Apple do that, right? It's easier to support (and test, and develop for, and produce stability with) a limited range of hardware, rather than having to support every piece of hardware under the sun (like Windows has to). Windows has to support EVERYTHING, be it brand name hardware or no-name stuff, and if that hardware doesn't work well with Windows (say it causes the Blue Screen of Death) -- consumers tend to then turn around and blame Microsoft/Windows for the instability. Apple/Mac OS X doesn't have to worry about that. There are other reasons too, ie business reasons. But stability/support is one of the reasons  I wonder how many people will mess with OS X so that it runs on their PC's, and then whine that it doesn't work properly... |
|||
|
Snika Boo Level: 44 Posts: 688/916 EXP: 600678 For next: 10607 Since: 07-21-04 From: Freezing Cold Alaska! Since last post: 2 days Last activity: 2 days |
| ||
| Whoa, Tarale! You're a way hardcore Mac user! Quite frankly, I think Mac should have OS X run on other machines or at least give Windows SOMETHING. You look down the software section of a store and see Office: Mac Eddition, Windows XP Emulator for Mac, Windows games for mac, and other stuff! You don't see anything like GarageBand for Windows, Mac OS X emulator for Windows, or anything else! All we got is iTunes! I really like Mac OS X software and stuff (mainly because of the GUI and friendly interface), but that doesn't mean I'm gonna buy a whole new computer for it! |
|||
Mercury Shyguy Level: 16  Posts: 64/88 EXP: 18132 For next: 2124 Since: 07-08-04 From: Hihihi. Since last post: 1 day Last activity: 1 day |
| ||
| Just wait a bit longer in that case, as you all know Apple will switch to Intel, and will have an OS that will support it. And although Apple will not support OSX to work on PC's (they'll try to disable that by all kind of hardware protection etc.), some people will hack OSX anyway so it can run on PC's (there is already a preview OSX Tiger copy available that can run on PC's). | |||
|
Tarale I'm not under the alfluence of incohol like some thinkle peop I am. It's just the drunker I sit here the longer I get. Level: 73 Posts: 2578/2720 EXP: 3458036 For next: 27832 Since: 03-18-04 From: Adelaide, Australia Since last post: 4 hours Last activity: 2 hours |
| ||
Originally posted by Mercury Yes, but I wonder how well it will run, because of what I stated.... :-/ I assume it would run, but I wonder how buggy it could be. As for me being a "way hardcore Mac user" I have a Mac, I don't know if that makes me "way hardcore". I have three computers, one of them happens to be a Mac. It's a beautiful piece of hardware, complimented wonderfully by the software. Honestly, the whole thing is a joy to work with.I wish I could say the same about my Windows PC, which is very good, but has it's... quirks... |
|||
|
HyperLamer <||bass> and this was the soloution i thought of that was guarinteed to piss off the greatest amount of people Sesshomaru Tamaranian Level: 118 Posts: 7106/8210 EXP: 18171887 For next: 211027 Since: 03-15-04 From: Canada, w00t! LOL FAD Since last post: 2 hours Last activity: 2 hours |
| ||
| Yeah, to run OSX on a PC, hackers would have to write drivers for all your hardware. Which more than likely means you'll have to write them. | |||
|
Tarale I'm not under the alfluence of incohol like some thinkle peop I am. It's just the drunker I sit here the longer I get. Level: 73 Posts: 2593/2720 EXP: 3458036 For next: 27832 Since: 03-18-04 From: Adelaide, Australia Since last post: 4 hours Last activity: 2 hours |
| ||
Originally posted by HyperHacker BINGO! Now sure, some popular stuff will probably get drivers written for it, but then you have no idea of the quality of that driver, and there's no guarantee it will be updated if it had bugs in it or anything either.... All sounds pretty dodgy to me. |
|||
|
Mercury Shyguy Level: 16 Posts: 65/88 EXP: 18132 For next: 2124 Since: 07-08-04 From: Hihihi. Since last post: 1 day Last activity: 1 day |
| ||
| Well I don't really care anyway, I AM a 'way hardcore Mac user' . Grew up with Macs, and so far bought two for myself (we never had a Windows PC here at home, probably never will). (edited by Mercury on 09-19-05 07:40 AM) (edited by Mercury on 09-19-05 07:40 AM) |
|||
|
Snika Boo Level: 44 Posts: 691/916 EXP: 600678 For next: 10607 Since: 07-21-04 From: Freezing Cold Alaska! Since last post: 2 days Last activity: 2 days |
| ||
| With PearPC it is more or less possible to run Mac OS X on your PC... Although it is waaaay over my head to get working. It is very primative, though. No sound support and VERRRY slow (ex. installation of Mac OS X takes abouts 2 hours). | |||
|
Tarale I'm not under the alfluence of incohol like some thinkle peop I am. It's just the drunker I sit here the longer I get. Level: 73 Posts: 2599/2720 EXP: 3458036 For next: 27832 Since: 03-18-04 From: Adelaide, Australia Since last post: 4 hours Last activity: 2 hours |
| ||
Originally posted by Snika Yeah, it's very slow because it has to try to emulate the PowerPC architecture on Intel x86 hardware -- not an easy task. I haven't played with PearPC, but then I really don't see the point when I have a Mac. Reminds me, I need to install VirtualPC to my Mac just to have a play with it. I imagine it will be maddeningly slow, but I dunno, I'm just curious to see for myself firsthand. |
| Pages: 1 2 3 4 | Add to favorites | "RSS" Feed | Next newer thread | Next older thread |
| Acmlm's Board - I2 Archive - Hardware/Software - Microsoft Operating System GUI |
| | |
