Forum Home
PC World Chat
Thread ID: 81719	2007-08-05 00:49:00	Is Vista Really Worth It All?	SurferJoe46 (51)	PC World Chat

Post ID	Timestamp	Content	User
576645	2007-08-09 11:29:00	Lots of you guys may like Vista, but you have to think. Is it really worth it? Sure, if you are gamer, it is. Period. There's no debating that. Windows is the gaming OS. But if you are businessmen, or never play games, isn't it just cheaper and more economical to use a Linux or Mac computer, and not spend all this money on a new Vista operating system, high-quality video cards, expensive CPUs and components, and so on? Just buy a new Ubuntu laptop from Dell! It's cheaper, and provides less crashes than Windows. A true businessman should not care what his operating system looks like. He should not need aero-glass backgrounds. He should want a fast computer that gets its job done, and nothing else. Vista Home Premium is hardly expensive and it is way better than XP. Linux is certainly cool as well but the rest of my family have a bit of trouble figuring it out so it will be Vista for a while yet.	Twelvevolts (5457)
576646	2007-08-09 15:42:00	vista .....is way better than XP really ? please detail that	drcspy (146)
576647	2007-08-10 00:30:00	Vista Home Premium is hardly expensive and it is way better than XP. Yes, but why pay when you can have something for free? I can see how a lot of people would have trouble switching from Windows to Linux, so I don't have anything to say about that. Actually there is a gaming debate. There is not a single true DirectX 10 built from the ground up game released yet. You've got me there. But I can't imagine millions of game developers switching from Windows to Mac or Linux just because their games don't run well. Their DirectX source code would have to be completely changed to OpenGL or something else! I'm pretty sure that Windows is going to be the gaming operating system for a while. And things like Parallels for Mac don't have fast support for DirectX, so Virtual Machines don't fix the problem.	MattMik (12630)
576648	2007-08-13 10:24:00	You might want to check out the Big Mac setup at Virginia Tech Engineering dept. 10.0 Teraflops 0f grid computing when originally installed. I eat a Big Mac from time to time. For me you could go buy a Lemon or an Apricot. Keep pushing your fruit on your barrow. Your money but please do not try to convince me that you actually happen to be 100% correct all the time.	Sweep (90)
576649	2007-08-13 10:28:00	I eat a Big Mac from time to time. For me you could go buy a Lemon or an Apricot. Keep pushing your fruit on your barrow. Your money but please do not try to convince me that you actually happen to be 100% correct all the time. In what sense? Published: October 23, 2003, 6:21 PM PDT A supercomputer built by Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University from 1,100 dual-processor Macintosh G5 PCs looks likely to rank with the five fastest machines in the world, despite costing a relative pittance. In preliminary performance tests carried out on 2,112 of the system's 2,200 processors, the so-called "Big Mac" cluster achieved 8.1 teraflops, or trillions of operations per second, according to figures published on Wednesday. The system is still being tuned, and final results won't be announced until next month, but the performance figure would place the Big Mac at No. 4 on the list of the world's fastest 500 supercomputers. news.com.com It cost $5 Million US to set up.	winmacguy (3367)
576650	2007-08-13 10:43:00	With Mac OS 10.3 if my memory serves me correctly although they were using Fortran and COBOL since they were effectively running on Unix. From the pics I saw, some of the techs were definitely using PC lap tops to check stuff. Have you ever used COBOL and or FORTRAN or ASSEMBLER on a mainframe. For instance a Burroughs B3500 linked to a TC500? Or a PDP mainframe. Your memory, to me, seems somewhat defective. When was the last time you actually wrote an application to run under your operating system of choice.	Sweep (90)
576651	2007-08-13 10:47:00	In what sense? Published: October 23, 2003, 6:21 PM PDT A supercomputer built by Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University from 1,100 dual-processor Macintosh G5 PCs looks likely to rank with the five fastest machines in the world, despite costing a relative pittance. In preliminary performance tests carried out on 2,112 of the system's 2,200 processors, the so-called "Big Mac" cluster achieved 8.1 teraflops, or trillions of operations per second, according to figures published on Wednesday. The system is still being tuned, and final results won't be announced until next month, but the performance figure would place the Big Mac at No. 4 on the list of the world's fastest 500 supercomputers. news.com.com It cost $5 Million US to set up. And go buy one then. Is that to set up only or does this include hardware?	Sweep (90)
576652	2007-08-13 10:48:00	Being that I am not a coder or programmer the answer would be NO I haven't but from what I have read about scientists and engineers using OS X, who say that they like using it becasue it allows them to program/ in COBOL and FOTRAN	winmacguy (3367)
576653	2007-08-13 10:52:00	And go buy one then. Is that to set up only or does this include hardware? That included the "whole 9 yards" from unpacking to turning on. The same setup here would probably be closer to $10 million NZ being that Macs are considerably cheaper to buy and set up in the US especially for education and universities. The IBM Blue Gene setup that Canty Uni recently installed cost around 3 or 4 million NZ (if my memory serves me correctly) although I don't think it does 10 teraflops?? Some Fortran for Mac info for you www.apple.com html	winmacguy (3367)
576654	2007-08-13 11:19:00	I'm stoked with Vista, to be honest. the problems it gives me every now and then amounts to less problems than i had with XP. And it's all pretty fixable as well :) I like the new OS, both in looks and operation, and while i believe people should have a choice in what to use, I think jumping on the 'I hate everything corporate' bandwagon is a bit too easy at times. Jan, I think Vista is poos. Sticking with XP, win2k, Mac, Sun, et al, is hardly jumping on the, hate everything corporate, bandwagon, though it's not a bad ideal to have, at least the examination of the ideals staves off apathy and the heard instinct, up to a point, which is exactly opposite to where the marketeers want you. As for gaming and DX10, there's no technical reason why it could not run on XP, except that MS want to sell more Vista and for their buddies (who have cross deals and are often tied in with MS patents/IP) to profit handsomely from increased software and hardware sales. Trouble is, MS via Vista has yet to deliver, so there are some pissed off 'partners' out there. Personally, if they'd kept the new file system and a few of the other useful goodies, I might have upgraded to Vista in a year or so. As it is, it's a crippled OS with bling to cover up for its shortcomings and is produced by a company that shafts people on a tediously regular basis. And just to show I'm not a complete bandwagoner, I neither do I like tossers who dabble in giving the missus a biff to keep her on her toes.	Murray P (44)
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9