View Poll Results: Will Microsoft retire the Win2000 Track of MCSE and replace it with a XP version
- 8. You may not vote on this poll
September 22nd, 2001, 12:51 AM
gotta be a mac ... ?
Well, Yeah... I gotta confer. There's no doubt it's a PC world out there. This being a poll tho-I'm stating my personal preference. But yes Limp; I gotta agree with you. And Terr - although as usual, I'm quite lost in your reply, it does seem to deal with the limited amount of programs a mac will run. Kinda reminds me of the joke about, "If Microsoft was making cars - .... and macintosh would make a faster, more expensive car which only runs on 5% of the highways."
September 22nd, 2001, 10:24 PM
"Just because Windows users vastly outnumber Mac users, numbers alone do not denote a higher form of life. Cockroaches outnumber humans many times over, and no one says a cockroach is better than a human." - stolen from someones sig in another forum
Ok, so technically NT for Alpha is different than NT for x86, woopdeedoo.
Well, TECHNICALLY, LinuxDistroHere for mac and LinuxDistroHere for PC are different OSes, because they are written differently for different processors.
PetrOS looks interesting, not something I would ever use, but interesting.
If IBM were making Apple's PPC, I would argue strongly for Macs, but Motorola is the biggest flaw I can find in them.
I use both x86 and PPC on any given day. I am not so blind as to limit myself to one, hell almost everyday I use a VAX VMS server. What works for the task you do is all you really need.
Bah, this is such a touchy subject, and I really don't care that much. I own several machines, a Pentium 120 mhz, 32MB RAM, running NetBSD; a PowerBook G3 400mhz ,1024MB RAM, running MacOS 9.1, Darwin, and soon Mac OS X 10.1; and a Celeron 466, 192MB RAM, running Win98 and Win2k(I had Whistler Beta2, PR1, PR2, on it for a while, but then I set it up for my sis and mom).
I am building my next machine, so obviously it won't be a Mac. That is the other biggest problem with Macs, one source of hardware for new machines.
GO computer makers, keep competing so that I can reap the benefits and get the best hardware possible.
September 23rd, 2001, 10:16 AM
a minor digression please....
Dhej! - How did you get all that ram in a g3? I shorted out the whole daughterboard attempting the same and then they told me it couldn't be done. I was going for the mere gig. Assuming you're talking a pismo which supposedly is one of the few capable of such, a gig seems the max; that's kinda of an unusual number? I got my bronze up to 576 and have another 128'er sitting here calling my name every day - but, i got a little gun shy.
September 23rd, 2001, 06:30 PM
I do have a pismo, and 1024MB = 1 Gig. I have two 512MB SODIMMS in it. I put 1024 down, because OS X reports my amount of RAM that way, where MacOS 9 reports it as 1 Gig. I just thoughtthe number looked funny. Apple still says that the maximum amount of RAM that the Pismo can take is 512MB, but I think that is because when it was released there was yet to be a manufacturer of 512 SODIMMs. Then when there were 512MB SODIMMs they cost over $800 a piece, now because of how low RAM prices are, I bought both of my 512s for $112 each. I thought it was too good of a deal to pass up.
I used to have 320, then I moved to 768, then I decided what the hell lets go for a whole gig. My next addition will be a bigger harddrive, IBM makes a 40 gig Travelstar, hopefully I will be able to save up for one of those.
September 23rd, 2001, 08:34 PM
512 so dimms ...
Okay yeah man - gotcha! That's exactly the route I tried although it seems maybe the bronze firewire rig isn't as expandable as the pismo. Yeah, although i'm stating my preferences above, I suppose it's also my limitation. If you're building your own systems, Dhej - that's gotta be a more 'free form' way to be. I am, however, pretty enthusiastic over this new OS 9.2x. It's a very stable classic; much improved over 9.1 /which I used to crash some 4-5 times a day (being majorly loaded w/extensions, mind you).
September 29th, 2001, 02:37 AM
I happen to be a long time lover of Macs. My career as a Network Administrator limits my use of Macs. I can do more on a PC now than I can do on a Mac. My heart will always belong to the Apple on my left, although my pay check comes from the PC on my right.
October 13th, 2001, 12:14 AM
How about 'dem Apples??
Macs own PCs. Atleast PCs running WinBlowZ. Mac OS = 100% Stabler, More Powerful, Easier to Use (For some reason PC users have a infatuation with doing things the hard way), and it just looks a hell of a lot better. Also Mac produces the best procs out there.. but no one really seems to notice. (Please refer to the link in my signature about that one). I also like how you don't have to pamper your Mac as much as you have to with a PC. Seriously.. you look at a PC the wrong way and it'll crash.. or freeze.. or do any number of not-so-fun things.
October 13th, 2001, 12:27 AM
I gotta go with the PC. Cheaper, more applications available.
If money was no issue I would probably go with a Mac.
October 13th, 2001, 12:54 AM
When you choose between a MAC and a PC, the basic choice you're making is between compatible and proprietary. I don't think it's a hard choice. I do understand that some people prefer the MAC, although I don't know why unless they do graphics work.
October 13th, 2001, 12:59 AM
Is it possible to cannabilize parts of a Mac into a PC? If so, can you still make it work well?
Preliminary operational tests were inconclusive (the dang thing blew up)
\"Ask not what the kernel can do for you, ask what you can do for the kernel!\"