66 replies to this topic

[Rich]

PiP, on Feb 6 2007, 06:56 PM, said:

Only 95% OF PC's are on windows.

And as requested, Linux in all its glory:

Yuck lol. I hate that GUI for Linux. Imo KDE looks much better www.kde.org. That said, linux offers far more flexibility compared to Windows and OS X, as far as GUI's are concerned anyway.

I think you guys should give Linux a little bit more credit than what you're giving. It's certainly not ideal for gamers, but without it, you wouldn't have been able to slag it off on here in the first place. (Considering FS2004.com is hosted on a unix based operating system.)

Also, it is possible to run Mac OS X on a PC. However, it is very complicated and involves a lot of messing about. Not to mention the fact that compatibility issues are very likely. It is also ilegal to do this.

Edited by Rich, 07 February 2007 - 10:47 PM.

[Dardan]

it's illegal cause ms has a freaking monopoly, shoved some money down someone's pocket and now it's illegal. you can run windows on a mac if you want though.

[SwitchFX]

Imagine the day M$ buys out Mac.

[B777_300ER]

kewlceo, on Feb 6 2007, 06:12 PM, said:

An oldie but goodie:

Quote

 
If Windows were a car

At a recent computer expo (COMDEX), Bill Gates reportedly compared the computer industry with the auto industry and stated, "If GM had kept up with the technology like the computer industry has, we would all be driving $25.00 cars that got 1,000 miles to the gallon."

In response to Bill's comments, General Motors issued a press release stating, "If GM had developed technology like Microsoft, we would all be driving cars with the following characteristics:

1. For no reason whatsoever, your car would crash twice a day.

2. Every time they painted new lines on the road, you would have to buy a new car.

3. Occasionally your car would die on the freeway for no reason. You would have to pull over to the side of the road, close all of the windows, shut off the car, restart it, and reopen the windows before you could continue. For some reason you would simply accept this.

4. Occasionally, executing a maneuver such as a left turn would cause your car to shut down and refuse to restart, in which case you would have to reinstall the engine.

5. Only one person at a time could use the car unless you bought "CarNT," but then you would have to buy more seats.

6. Macintosh would make a car that was powered by the sun, was reliable, five times as fast and twice as easy to drive -- but it would only run on five percent of the roads.

7. The oil, water temperature and alternator warning lights would all be replaced by a single "general protect ion fault" warning light.

8. The airbag system would ask, "Are you sure?" before deploying.

9. Occasionally, for no reason whatsoever, your car would lock you out and refuse to let you in until you simultaneously lifted the door handle, turned the key and grabbed hold of the antenna.

10. GM would require all car buyers to also purchase a deluxe set of Rand McNally Road maps (now a GM subsidiary), even though they neither need nor want them. Attempting to delete this option would immediately cause the car's performance to diminish by 50 percent or more. Moreover, GM would become a target for investigation by the Justice Department.

11. Every time GM introduced a new car, car buyers would have to learn to drive all over again because none of the controls would operate in the same manner as the old car.

12. You'd have to press the "start" button to turn the engine off.

  





I think Windows is ok as long as it works well! Don't start me on FSX though. FSX is a great software and I love it but I just don't like how MS just messed around with it and missed out on the key features…

[dolbinau]

Dardan, on Feb 8 2007, 03:19 PM, said:

it's illegal cause ms has a freaking monopoly, shoved some money down someone's pocket and now it's illegal. you can run windows on a mac if you want though.

What ? It's illegal because Apple don't want their software installed on 'Non-apple hardware'.

[SwitchFX]

dolbinau, on Feb 7 2007, 09:30 PM, said:

Dardan, on Feb 8 2007, 03:19 PM, said:

it's illegal cause ms has a freaking monopoly, shoved some money down someone's pocket and now it's illegal. you can run windows on a mac if you want though.

What ? It's illegal because Apple don't want their software installed on 'Non-apple hardware'.

Although with Vista, you still need to authorize it with M$. Even if your doing virtualization.

[jnb]

Rich, on Feb 8 2007, 02:40 PM, said:

I hate that GUI for Linux. Imo KDE looks much better

Unfortunately, (present company excluded) many don't seem to look behind the GUI, and many probably don't care to. Linux will have it's true reputation regardless of the GUI, which BTW could be as good as any person would care to make it.

As was said, this forum is served on a nix system, and that is about performance and dependability. Statistically speaking, it could possibly be FreeBSD which reminds me...

Dardan said:

it's illegal cause ms has a freaking monopoly

AFAIK, OSX was built on FreeBSD. This is an operating system whose license is so open that you are allowed to pinch it and use it for yourself, charging others and disallowing anyone from seeing what you've done, if you want to.

[dolbinau]

SwitchFX, on Feb 8 2007, 04:36 PM, said:

dolbinau, on Feb 7 2007, 09:30 PM, said:

Dardan, on Feb 8 2007, 03:19 PM, said:

it's illegal cause ms has a freaking monopoly, shoved some money down someone's pocket and now it's illegal. you can run windows on a mac if you want though.

What ? It's illegal because Apple don't want their software installed on 'Non-apple hardware'.

Although with Vista, you still need to authorize it with M$. Even if your doing virtualization.

I don't see your point ?

[SwitchFX]

It's basically like registering a copy. Although Ultimate doe not allow this.

[dolbinau]

Again I am confused , What does Vista's authorization have anything to do with illegally running OS X on non-apple hardware?

Edited by dolbinau, 08 February 2007 - 01:01 AM.

[SwitchFX]

I was talking about Windows on Apple. Where did you get that?

[dolbinau]

SwitchFX, on Feb 8 2007, 05:05 PM, said:

I was talking about Windows on Apple. Where did you get that?

I am totally confused now!

Conversation history:

Rich said:

Quote

it is possible to run Mac OS X on a PC. However, it is very complicated and involves a lot of messing about. Not to mention the fact that compatibility issues are very likely. It is also ilegal to do this.

To which someone, or so I take, replied:

Quote

it's illegal cause ms has a freaking monopoly, shoved some money down someone's pocket and now it's illegal. you can run windows on a mac if you want though.

To which I corrected:

Quote

What huh.gif? It's illegal because Apple don't want their software installed on 'Non-apple hardware'.

To which you said:

Quote

Although with Vista, you still need to authorize it with M$. Even if your doing virtualization.

I don't understand how you relate this to running OS X on PC hardware (illegally)!

Edited by dolbinau, 08 February 2007 - 01:10 AM.

[SwitchFX]

It was a random bit of info. I still don't see how you thought it had anything to do with previous comments

I suggest lay off the porn Cameron

[Corky Buchek]

linux ftw

[dolbinau]

Quote

I still don't see how you thought it had anything to do with previous comments

Because when someone quotes someone else their post is usually a response to the quoted post !

[SwitchFX]

dolbinau, on Feb 7 2007, 10:14 PM, said:

Quote

I still don't see how you thought it had anything to do with previous comments

Because when someone quotes someone else their post is usually a response to the quoted post !

Must have not been paying attention. Although I do agree you should lay off the unmentionables.  

[umk747]

Swaying off topic - Windows bashing thread!

[Captainmk]

Why do you want to bash windows anyway? Over 90% of the worlds population use it, and it's the best OS out there currently (except for vista), XP has brought so much to me, and I'm seriously not ready to bash it

[bigflyersmallbyer]

Windows Xp=40 Million Lines of code
Windows VISTA=50 million Lines of code

i like xp more its less complex than VISTa VISTA drivers are a bit mature.

EDIT: THERE IS SOME TRADING GOING ON AT THE AKROMA SERVER SO GUY SAYING HE WORKS 4 M$ IS SELLIN COPIES OF VISTA wth AND PEOPLE ARE HANDIN OUT THERE DEATILS?

[joewashere]

PiP, on Feb 6 2007, 04:11 PM, said:

Windows XP is a remarkable achievement that has been the mainstay of the OS world for the last 6 years.

It takes waaay too much crap from people who disagree, but if it really was so bad, it wouldn't have a 95% slice of the market.

umm...and thats why vista stole all their ideas from os x?