Wed May 15 21:50:53 2002

Wed May 15 21:52:59 2002

Silly Magus :)

Wed May 15 21:53:11 2002

Unreliable? That's just a blatant lie.

Slow? Another blatant lie.

The lickable attack can be cute but the blatant exagerration and lies kills the joke for me.

Today my kids were building their sites on iMacs.

Gee, no crashes.

Unreliable? Only if you're an assclown.

M.

Thu May 16 01:04:53 2002

Thu May 16 11:46:30 2002

Unreliable? Maybe not, now that MacOS is actually half decent.

Uhm, try fucking NEVER.

This bullshit propaganda of Mac unreliability was started by miserable Winlots that despised Mac for being MORE reliable than their cheap-ass solutions.

Once Dell and a few others started producing a kickass product, the need for the straw man disappeared but the story didn't because too many next-gen Winlots believed the garbage. And since only a thimble-full of them ever actually USED Mac OS for more than two weeks on ONE setup, they're too stubborn and stupid to take it back.

I'm running 30 iFruits in a class full of TEENAGERS. Where the fuck are my problems? I'm running 9.0.1. They're using Netscape, IE, Mozilla(often simultaneously), Fetch, AppleWorks and tons of educational software(at least 4-5 titles per machine).

Where's my unreliability? Or am I just fucking special.

Better yet, explain where the unreliability is on my class iFruit running 9.1, also running flash MX and Adobe Photoshop 6.xx WITH NO CRASHES yet, in the last month since I purchased them.

I hate lame-ass propaganda. That really pisses me off.

Use the platform you're trashing for a change or else you'll end up saying stupid shit like Venture:

"Apples can't read .doc files without 3rd party software!"

Uhm, unless you want to sound like this assfuck, I suggest you learn about what you're talking about.

(Of course, Steve had to use a BSD to do it...) Back in the day, though, I had Maclots tell me perfectly straight-faced that if you opened apps 1, 2, 3 and didn't close em 3, 2, 1, the OS might crash. The sad part is they saw nothing wrong with that.

No, any machine will lock up with the wrong apps used. If I used Q3A and simultaneously started PS, while running CF under emulation, yes, Fortissimo would lock up.

Then again, so would any 9x variant. A set of variants, I might add, that MOST Win-Arsers acclaimed for "maligned stability" less than 2 years ago.

"Whoops, 2k came out? Ok, 9x sucks."

:rolleyes:

I've had my XP crash and hasn't been the "rock" many assclowns on Ars claim to be. One such crash was while using Mozilla, Netscape and IE concurrently. Another was attempting to use Homesite while my Interdev was on.

Did it piss me off? A tiny bit but not really. ANY OS can crash.

To say that Macs are unreliable, before X, is bullshit.  And most arsers that say so are obvious Macphobes, who demonstrate almost NO knowlege of the Mac platform...

M.

Thu May 16 14:51:59 2002

This bullshit propaganda of Mac unreliability was started by miserable Winlots that despised Mac for being MORE reliable than their cheap-ass solutions.

No, no, no, no and no.

Remember, I've used System 7.5.

Breathing on it heavily could cause it to crash.  We used to have competitions at UBC as to who could make their Mac crash doing the least innocuous operation.  The winner was a friend of mine who pulled a menu down in a text editor program.  BOOM!

We also had contests as to see who could make their Mac crash the in the most funkadelic way.  That was in my programming class-- fuck, if you ever want to make a Mac with the Classic OS crash in bizarre ways, just try to develop software under it.  Missing pointer?  Time for a light show!!

Fucking MacOS.  Jobs couldn't put it in the coffin soon enough.

Thu May 16 14:52:12 2002

MacOS before MacOS X was a flaming turd.

Thu May 16 14:54:47 2002

This bullshit propaganda of XP instability was started by miserable Maclots that despised the PC for being MORE reliable than their expensive-ass solutions.  :p

Thu May 16 15:26:24 2002

from Madan posted at 6:46 am on May 16, 2002

This bullshit propaganda of Mac unreliability was started by miserable Winlots that despised Mac for being MORE reliable than their cheap-ass solutions.

Where's my unreliability? Or am I just fucking special.

I hate lame-ass propaganda.

No, any machine will lock up with the wrong apps used.

Then again, so would any 9x variant. A set of variants, I might add, that MOST Win-Arsers acclaimed for "maligned stability" less than 2 years ago.

"Whoops, 2k came out? Ok, 9x sucks."

To say that Macs are unreliable, before X, is bullshit.

Thu May 16 15:27:01 2002

In fact the first XP crash that I saw was when my friend was installing drivers for his soundcard.  It happened when I stepped into the room and saw XP on a computer FOR THE FIRST TIME.  I shit you not.  There is no bullshit propaganda.  

I'm not impressed.

Thu May 16 15:32:47 2002

Win2K = not for consumers  (stable)
Rhapsody = not for consumers  (stable)

Mac OS X = consumer OS  (stable)
WinXP = consumer OS  (stable...or so people say)

Surely if Classic MacOS sucked...then Win9x sucked since it crashed just as much.

Technically, Apple beat Microsoft by 6 months with OS X; a stable, modern OS for *consumers*. 

k thx bye

(Edited by fuX0ringM0r0n at 8:35 am on May 16, 2002)

(Edited by fuX0ringM0r0n at 8:36 am on May 16, 2002)

Thu May 16 16:20:04 2002

I've seen XP crash twice...and if I add up the time I spent in front of an XP box it would amount to about 15 hours.

In fact the first XP crash that I saw was when my friend was installing drivers for his soundcard.  It happened when I stepped into the room and saw XP on a computer FOR THE FIRST TIME.  I shit you not.  There is no bullshit propaganda.  

I'm not impressed.

You are indeed an intellectual, making a judgment on XP's stability based on very limited observation of one machine.  Several factors could have been at play, including your friend trying to force XP to install wrong driver, for instance.

Mac OS X = consumer OS  (stable)
WinXP = consumer OS  (stable...or so people say)

Surely if Classic MacOS sucked...then Win9x sucked since it crashed just as much.

Technically, Apple beat Microsoft by 6 months with OS X; a stable, modern OS for *consumers*.  

I think you are a little loose in announcing the circumstances under which each OS was released.  you see, 2000 may not have been targeted at consumers (it was initially during development, but that was pushed off to XP as MS felt it wasn't ready for some reason) but it was very usable by anyone.  there is nothing offhand that I can think of that Win2000 isn't easier at, only the fact that some games wouldn't run on it due to crappy coding.  

Plus the fact that XP would play DVD's and Burn CD's at release.  OSX would not.

Technically the release dates may have been 6 mos apart, from a usability standpoint it was more like 18 months.

MS delayed the release of the consumer edition of NT technology because it wanted to ensure a better user experience.  Apple rushed the release of X as it was desperate to be buzzword compliant.

Thu May 16 16:53:30 2002

No, no, no, no and no.

Remember, I've used System 7.5.

That's asinine.

"Gee, Win NT sucks because I used NT 3...Gee, Win 98 sucks because I used Win 3.1"

:rolleyes:

Breathing on it heavily could cause it to crash.  We used to have competitions at UBC as to who could make their Mac crash doing the least innocuous operation.  The winner was a friend of mine who pulled a menu down in a text editor program.  BOOM!

PEBCAK. Aparently, you're still not as skilled as you like to think you are....

Fucking MacOS.  Jobs couldn't put it in the coffin soon enough.

Holds a grudge and apparently, judging from your comments. That's reason enough. Not actual logic.

Thanks for the clue. I'll keep working just fine with 100's of kids per day on iMacs that run the OS that you say is "unstable".

1st Lord of the Admiralty
OSY Administrator         I also have yet to have my XP crash.  I had Windows 2000 crash maybe four times over the course of two years, all of which were due to running games and having bugs in the sound/video drivers.

That's because XP and 2k, for the most part are stable. Although, 2k has been much better for me than XP.

But if you really want to see what an XP crash looks like...I've got a couple...

This bullshit propaganda of XP instability was started by miserable Maclots that despised the PC for being MORE reliable than their expensive-ass solutions.  

I never said XP was unstable. I said I've had it crash. I've had EVERY OS I've ever owned crash and NONE have been disproportionately higher than the other(except for maybe 98, which crashes for me more than my old copy of 95)

If you're intimating that XP is uncrashable, you're dumber than you sound.

This bullshit propaganda of Mac unreliability was started by miserable Winlots that despised Mac for being MORE reliable than their cheap-ass solutions.
Riiiight. And Steve also invented protected memory, and brought dual processors to the home for the first time, and cured cancer, and... Please, put down the kool-aid.

??? Uhm, Bill didn't invent PM either. So what the fuck is your point? UNIX did. And even when Winlots harped about how 98 had PM(only to have MS come out and PUBLICALLY state that 98 has minimal/partial PM...), it still locked up like hell. So look at what good all that propaganda was for.

Even at the height of the lies about 98's PM, noone thought that 98 was more stable than a *Nix. WhY? Because not all the crap-ified white papers in the world can over-ride experience.

Quote: Where's my unreliability? Or am I just fucking special.
Well, you ARE on OSY, so you must be special.

:rolleyes:

No, I'm fucking serious. I don't see this crashing at home or here or at the Herald. Do the iMacs love me then and hate you? I fucking doubt it.

Quote: I hate lame-ass propaganda.
Yup, so do I, like the classic "Windows users are jealous of Macs." Of course we are. That's why so few of us buy them. Oh wait....

Yeah, that's a myth. :rolleyes:

Just like the one:

"MS OS turned out as an identical, mirror copy of the Apple OS, with over 25 identical paradigms by .....ACCIDENT."

Yeah, accident.

Quote: To say that Macs are unreliable, before X, is bullshit.
Madan, come on. Now I know you're bullshitting. Ever play "crash the Mac" where the shortest uptime wins? Hell, you barely had to try to win.

Actually...NO.

And that's the part you have a hard time conveiving.

That's what happens when you stick to using 7.5, when they're already at OS 9.2.2.

M.

Thu May 16 17:07:40 2002

from Madan posted at 11:53 am on May 16, 2002

That's asinine.

"Gee, Win NT sucks because I used NT 3...Gee, Win 98 sucks because I used Win 3.1"

:rolleyes:

PEBCAK. Aparently, you're still not as skilled as you like to think you are....

Uhm, Bill didn't invent PM either.

So what the fuck is your point?

Yeah, that's a myth. :rolleyes:

"MS OS turned out as an identical, mirror copy of the Apple OS, with over 25 identical paradigms by .....ACCIDENT."

Yeah, accident.

Thu May 16 17:17:06 2002

No, you said that Macs were stable before X, and you've been called on it. No one said X sucks because the previous MacOSes were shit.

??? Fucking please.

A. Ars is full of posters ripping X.
B. "Call me"all you fucking want.  Someone on Ars is callling me on something that I have proof about and that I'm going to drop on their heads in two hours.

So, excuse me while I'm not impressed.

Quote: PEBCAK. Aparently, you're still not as skilled as you like to think you are....Of course, God knows that stupid user should have known better than to pull down that menu!

More asinine comments.

Quote: Uhm, Bill didn't invent PM either.I never said he did.

So leave "Steve" out of it.

Quote: So what the fuck is your point?Oh, not much, just pointing out again how easy it can be to blow up MacOS <X's memory...

Yes, any OS can be compromised if you WANT to do so. I've never had that degree of compromises. You must hack into your Macs all day. Gee, no shit it crashes. Or maybe you don't have one at all.

Quote: "MS OS turned out as an identical, mirror copy of the Apple OS, with over 25 identical paradigms by .....ACCIDENT."

Yeah, accident.Start listing, pal. Did it ever occur to you that certain ideas for GUIs are going to be universal?

OH FUCKING PLEASE! Don't give me that crap!

The start button is the apple menu upside-down. The trash/recycle is downright fucking embarrassing. The task/menu bar, replete with date and active app? My Computer/Mac HD? Heirarchical menus? Fuck.

Jeremy likes to "study" OS paradigms. Maybe he can chime in and state how many there are out there that don't employ the Mac screen.

Fuckers COPIED the Mac OS and flipped it.

Do I have a problem with that? No. Do I have a problem with people lying and refusing to admit it? Yes.

Give credit where fucking credit is due.

M.

Thu May 16 17:23:22 2002

from fuX0ringM0r0n posted at 10:32 am on May 16, 2002


Technically, Apple beat Microsoft by 6 months with OS X; a stable, modern OS for *consumers*.

k thx bye

Maybe, but Win2k was as about as easy to use as any version of 9x, maybe more so depending on your point of view.

And for business, you know where it actually MATTERS whether or not your OS is stable, MS had apple beat by 5 years, not including NT 3.XX.

Thu May 16 17:49:17 2002

from Madan posted at 12:17 pm on May 16, 2002

A. Ars is full of posters ripping X.

The start button is the apple menu upside-down. The trash/recycle is downright fucking embarrassing. The task/menu bar, replete with date and active app? My Computer/Mac HD? Heirarchical menus?

Madan, Apple lost the whole "look-and-feel" crap in court looong ago. Every item you listed exists in the GUIs for Windows, Mac, Linux, and even oddballs like Solaris and Irix. Are you really trying to claim everyone stole the GUI from Apple?

Give credit where fucking credit is due.

Thu May 16 17:54:53 2002

Madan, Apple lost the whole "look-and-feel" crap in court looong ago. Every item you listed exists in the GUIs for Windows, Mac, Linux, and even oddballs like Solaris and Irix. Are you really trying to claim everyone stole the GUI from Apple?

No. Some stole it from MS, who stole it from Apple.

BTW, court victory means BULLSHIT.

Because we both know MS is guilty of some shady shit and they are NOT going to get caught this time either.

Judges are assclowns.

M.

Thu May 16 18:18:23 2002

That's asinine.

"Gee, Win NT sucks because I used NT 3...Gee, Win 98 sucks because I used Win 3.1"

Mac OS9 and Mac System 7.5 are based on the same core.  Windows 98 and Windows 3.1 are not.

PEBCAK. Aparently, you're still not as skilled as you like to think you are....

Fuck off.  

Holds a grudge and apparently, judging from your comments. That's reason enough. Not actual logic.

Who holds a grudge?  Apparently judging from my comments?  Huh?  What the fuck are you talking about?

Thanks for the clue. I'll keep working just fine with 100's of kids per day on iMacs that run the OS that you say is "unstable".

You do that.  Meanwhile, some of us will continue to use real operating systems to do real work, not just fuck around on.

That's because XP and 2k, for the most part are stable. Although, 2k has been much better for me than XP.

But if you really want to see what an XP crash looks like...I've got a couple...

Must be PEBCAK.

I never said XP was unstable. I said I've had it crash. I've had EVERY OS I've ever owned crash and NONE have been disproportionately higher than the other(except for maybe 98, which crashes for me more than my old copy of 95)

PEBCAK.

If you're intimating that XP is uncrashable, you're dumber than you sound.

And you continue to be a moron.  Any OS can crash due to a bad device driver.  Device drivers have raw access to the hardware-- they have to, otherwise they won't work.  If there is a bug in the core OS, or in a device driver, the OS can crash.

But in MacOS, you don't need either of those.  You just need a single unreferenced memory pointer.  BOOM!  Any application can take down the entire system.  Hard.

That's unforgivable in a modern operating system.  Fortunately, OS 9 is in the coffin where it belongs.

Thu May 16 18:37:13 2002

Mac OS9 and Mac System 7.5 are based on the same core.  Windows 98 and Windows 3.1 are not.

Oh, fucking please.

7.5 is regarded by Mac apologists as being bad.

You haven't used a modern Mac OS except for X and you're talking shit.

Quote:  
PEBCAK. Aparently, you're still not as skilled as you like to think you are....

Fuck off.  

I'm seriously considering it.

Thanks for the clue. I'll keep working just fine with 100's of kids per day on iMacs that run the OS that you say is "unstable".

You do that.  Meanwhile, some of us will continue to use real operating systems to do real work, not just fuck around on.

I fuck around? And precisely what am I fucking around doing? My job is fucking around? Why don't you kiss my ass.

Quote:  
That's because XP and 2k, for the most part are stable. Although, 2k has been much better for me than XP.

But if you really want to see what an XP crash looks like...I've got a couple...

Must be PEBCAK.

You're an idiot. You say that Mac OS crashes all the time for you and you take offense. I tell you that XP's crashed a *couple of times* in a long while for me and you indicate that it's PEBCAK?

So XP is uncrashable, huH?

Man, the amount of shit you talk is unbelievable...

Quote:  
I never said XP was unstable. I said I've had it crash. I've had EVERY OS I've ever owned crash and NONE have been disproportionately higher than the other(except for maybe 98, which crashes for me more than my old copy of 95)

PEBCAK.

Yeah, I forgot, 2k and XP are uncrashable. And why wouldn't they be. After all, all you do on them is jerk off on pron and fuck around with browsers...

Quote:  
If you're intimating that XP is uncrashable, you're dumber than you sound.

And you continue to be a moron.  Any OS can crash due to a bad device driver.  Device drivers have raw access to the hardware-- they have to, otherwise they won't work.  If there is a bug in the core OS, or in a device driver, the OS can crash.

Drivers aren't the only causes for XP crashes assclown. Applications can do it to. AOL, for instance.

Or are they a driver in your twisted little mind?

Better yet, save the propaganda for someone else.

M.

Thu May 16 18:47:01 2002

Oh, fucking please.

7.5 is regarded by Mac apologists as being bad.

You haven't used a modern Mac OS except for X and you're talking shit.

I have used OS9.  Just because it didn't suck as much as 7.5 doesn't mean it isn't the SAME DAMN CORE AS 7.5!  

I'm seriously considering it.

As you should.  If you want to hurl insults, just remember who you are talking to and where you are.

I fuck around? And precisely what am I fucking around doing? My job is fucking around? Why don't you kiss my ass.

The kids, Madan.  The kids fuck around.  It's what kids do.

You're an idiot. You say that Mac OS crashes all the time for you and you take offense. I tell you that XP's crashed a *couple of times* in a long while for me and you indicate that it's PEBCAK?

In this case, yes.  

So XP is uncrashable, huH?

I never said that.

Man, the amount of shit you talk is unbelievable...

Look who's talking.  Crystal Reports and Visio?  :rolleyes:

Yeah, I forgot, 2k and XP are uncrashable. And why wouldn't they be. After all, all you do on them is jerk off on pron and fuck around with browsers...

:rolleyes:

Cute, Madan.  Very cute.  What the fuck do you think this bulletin board is running on?  Are you aware that the only time OSY goes down is when I get interruptions in my cable modem service?

Drivers aren't the only causes for XP crashes assclown. Applications can do it to. AOL, for instance.

Oh, Madan, you are such an idiot.

AOL rewrites and adds new DEVICE DRIVERS to Windows when you install it.  It fucks around with the core TCP/IP stack.  There is no need for AOL to do this, but it does, because AOL is designed by a bunch of fucking morons.

Or are they a driver in your twisted little mind?

YES.  AOL INSTALLS ITS OWN DRIVERS AT THE CORE NETWORKING LEVEL.  Maybe if you knew a little bit more about computers, you would understand why this is a bad thing for any application to do.

Better yet, save the propaganda for someone else.

It's not propaganda.  It's fact.  Something you seem to be in short supply of.

Thu May 16 20:28:47 2002

honestly, Jeremy is correct.  :)

Thu May 16 20:37:46 2002

That if he's never had problems on XP, never a crash that if I crash, it's my fault?

I'm sorry Steven, but that's bullshit.

M.

Thu May 16 21:26:05 2002

Correct that what? Because he's had copious problems on Mac OS..I must have too?

He's correct that OS9 and 7.whatever are built on same kernel foundation.  He's also correct that it is impossible for an app to take down XP.

...and who the hell is this "Steven" guy you keep calling out to.  Certainly not that Dell kid.

:{p <-my smiley has a mustache :cheesy:

(Edited by AllYorBaseRBelong2Us at 4:26 pm on May 16, 2002)

Thu May 16 21:37:30 2002

He's correct that OS9 and 7.whatever are built on same kernel foundation.  He's also correct that it is impossible for an app to take down XP.

When did I say they weren't? Quote me saying they weren't.

I never said that.

But then, 2k is built off of NT and is vastly superior.

To say that 7.5 == 9 is so fucking stupid. You have to have used a Mac a lot to see how insane that sounds.

M.

Thu May 16 21:55:53 2002

When I say Mac OS "Classic" is full of problems, suddenly it's PEBCAK according to Madan.  But when Madan says his Windows XP has problems, I'm not allowed to say PEBCAK? :rolleyes:

Windows XP has protected memory.  OS9 doesn't.
Windows XP can dynamically allocate memory partitions for every program.  OS9 can't.  At all.
Windows XP does not suffer from memory fragmentation.  OS9 does.  A lot.
Windows XP cannot be taken down by an invalid reference pointer.  OS9 can.  
Windows XP cannot be taken down by an errant application writing to the wrong section of memory.  OS9 can.

Both OSes can be taken down by buggy device drivers, or bugs in the core OS.

AOL rewrites core networking device drivers on both OSes.  This is why AOL should be avoided at all costs, and why it is avoided by everyone who isn't terminally brain-dead.

All the yelling in the world isn't going to change these facts, Madan.

Thu May 16 21:55:58 2002

When did I say they weren't? Quote me saying they weren't.

I never said that.

let's see:

Drivers aren't the only causes for XP crashes assclown. Applications can do it to.

that was incorrect:

The OS9 versus 7.5 argument as far as calling them mutually unreliable is valid.  I've used 9 and 7.5.  I find 9 to be quite a bit better, but that doesn't make 9 any more reliable in theory (I like talking in theory as I'm a CS guy) as they both will go down with the same stray pointer problems.

I see that as the case in classic MacOS (and 9x).  Neither kernel was protected and the *potential* for crash was much greater.  OS9 is more stable, but what are the reasons?  getting rid of the 68k legacy code after 8.5 is probably a reason, as is overall better overall code quality and bug fixing.  This means that the OS will not bork itself as often, but a stray pointer will take either one out just as quickly.

I don't doubt your honesty madan, if you say your ifruit rarely crash I believe you.  It means that the systems are configured properly (which MacGuys have continually said is necessary to keep classic reliable) and the programs your running aren't causing problems.  The issue is, if you introduce new software to your machines there could be problems.

here's my analogy as far as OS9's stability:

If a bridge was missing half it's supports, but had not yet collapsed would you call it reliable?

:cheesy:

Thu May 16 21:56:57 2002

Quote:
Quote:  
PEBCAK. Aparently, you're still not as skilled as you like to think you are....

Fuck off.    

I'm seriously considering it.

No.  please stay and work through these difficulties. :(

Thu May 16 22:05:28 2002

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Well, it seems (surprise surprise) that we have a double standard here.

When I say Mac OS "Classic" is full of problems, suddenly it's PEBCAK according to Madan.  But when Madan says his Windows XP has problems, I'm not allowed to say PEBCAK?  

Jeremy that's bullshit.

You said you have tons of problems with Classic. That it's fundamentally unstable.

I said my XP is crashed a handful of times.

That's not even close to the same situation.

Windows XP has protected memory.  OS9 doesn't.
Windows XP can dynamically allocate memory partitions for every program.  OS9 can't.  At all.
Windows XP does not suffer from memory fragmentation.  OS9 does.  A lot.
Windows XP cannot be taken down by an invalid reference pointer.  OS9 can.  
Windows XP cannot be taken down by an errant application writing to the wrong section of memory.  OS9 can.

And yet, when it comes down to it, XP still crashed on me.

So now fucking what? Do I post the screenies? I always post crash screenies on here...

I guess I will...

Oh but wait, then I'd be accused of doctoring the images with my weak PS skills.

Either way, I'm a liar.

I don't care. OS 9 is working fine in my class. That's all that matters to me.

Trash it all you want.

Both OSes can be taken down by buggy device drivers, or bugs in the core OS.

AOL rewrites core networking device drivers on both OSes.  This is why AOL should be avoided at all costs, and why it is avoided by everyone who isn't terminally brain-dead.

What about IE?

I suppose that rewrites its own OS' drivers?

No? I've had XP crash for that too.

But that doesn't change the point. The point is that you're trying to shove white paper bullshit down my throat. And yes, I never said OS 9 has PM. You'll notice that when you actually read my posts.

And yes, I never said that Mac OS 9 isn't missing proper memory managment. You'll notice THAT when you actually read my posts.

All I'm saying is that Magus called OS 9 unreliable.

I have 30 machines in my class. 350 in our school.

They've been very reliable. Even with a jackass admin that makes me look like the second coming.

Now what? More trash talk? "You've been lucky" talk?
"Your kids aren't taxing the system" talk? You don't tax the system with IE/Mozilla/Netscape/MP3Audion/Photshop4-5-6/FlashMX/AppleWorks/OfficeMac/LightWave talk?

FIne. I don't care anymore. You win.

M.

Thu May 16 22:29:33 2002

What about IE?

I suppose that rewrites its own OS' drivers?

No? I've had XP crash for that too.

I don't know how IE is coded, but I do know that any part of any program that occurs in it's own application space cannot bring the kernel down.  The only thing that can bring the kernel down is something that happens in kernel address space.  If IE is messing up and it has access to kernel space, like any OS in existance, it will bring the thing down

Thu May 16 22:30:00 2002

FIne. I don't care anymore. You win.

Well, I'm glad you've come to your senses.  :)

I would very much like to see what kind of "IE crash" took down XP that wasn't driver-related.  Perhaps a bug in the core OS, which, as I've said, can happen on any OS.  It sure as hell happens on OSX.  Kernel panic anyone?  But it wasn't an application taking down the OS.  THAT CAN'T HAPPEN ON XP, BECAUSE XP HAS PROPER MEMORY PROTECTION.  OS9 DOESN'T.  

You can deride the "white paper bullshit" all you want-- it just shows your own ignorance on the subject.  User anecdotes are no substitute for actual technical knowledge.

Gawd, I can't believe I just wrote that.  You bastard, Madan, you've turned me into DigitalFury!

Fri May 17 00:20:48 2002

from Jeremy Reimer posted at 5:30 pm on May 16, 2002

Gawd, I can't believe I just wrote that.  You bastard, Madan, you've turned me into DigitalFury!

Fri May 17 02:09:13 2002

You bastard, Madan, you've turned me into DigitalFury!

No, not yet.  You lack that certain smug arrogance. ;)

Fri May 17 03:11:30 2002

Since I won't be able to answer every point that's been made in my absence, I'm gonna summarize it in this trollish and asinine statement:  'XP stinks like hot summer garbage.'

Fri May 17 04:34:06 2002

Since I won't be able to answer every point that's been made in my absence, I'm gonna summarize it in this trollish and asinine statement:  'XP stinks like hot summer garbage.'

You know, the characters 'XP' look like an ascii smiley of someone with a bad taste in their mouth.

Now that you know, you aren't allowed to steal the idea from me as I have reserved it

Fri May 17 09:00:54 2002

That must make MacOS X that nasty shit you pass after drinking too much beer and whiskey, try to make it to the toilet in the middle of the night when drunk off your arse, and shit on the floor 2 feet from the john. It's that stink puddle you run into the next morning when you wake up with a bad hangover and you are sick to your stomach and all you want to do is piss and you step bare footed right in the brown puddle...

Then again, less people are using MacOS X than are currently using any other major OS right now, so I guess it could also be that dead animal odor you can only smell (and it smells bad) but you can never find the fucking corpse.

(Edited by Evil Merlin at 2:03 am on May 17, 2002)

Fri May 17 09:11:04 2002

Anyway, if you want to critisize XP, how bout critisizing it for the fact that it is .00001 steps forward in terms of OS core development, and 7 big steps backwards in terms of UI developement.

Fri May 17 11:32:23 2002

Unlike Aqua which even in Jaguar still is full of pinstripes, bright buttons and well... shitte.

Fri May 17 13:54:13 2002

from Evil Merlin posted at 12:32 pm on May 17, 2002

Um, Duff, you forget one thing, you can turn Luna off and go back to the Windows 2000 interface should you choose to do so...

Fri May 17 14:03:28 2002

A number of Windows users on Ars have complained about the default XP UI.  While I can understand most of their complaints (hey, I'm not using the default UI either; I prefer Watercolor ;)), I don't think that Luna is horrible or toy-like because I have seen people for whom it works well -- primarily the non-power-user portion of the PC-using audience, for which I believe the interface was designed.  (After all, wouldn't that be the vast majority of computer users out there?)

Since December, I've built several computers for friends and family where I used XP as the OS.  So far, not one of them has complained about Luna -- and I leave that as the default because I want to get their feedback.  While some have changed it (since they're familiar with doing so), others left it as-is.  At the very worst, the attitude from these people are "no complaints."  My cousins, who are in HS and whose new computer replaced one with 2K that they had been using for nearly 2 years, are said to be "ecstatic" (according to their mom) with the new machine because, I am told, the interface is very fast and intuitive.

Anecdotal evidence, yes; but IMO it carries more weight than someone looking at Luna and yelling "Fisher-Price!!11".  I get the impression that the UI works for its target market -- the masses.  For others, it's easy to switch it to something more preferable.  How is that a bad thing?

Fri May 17 17:17:03 2002

from Evil Merlin posted at 4:32 am on May 17, 2002

Um, Duff, you forget one thing, you can turn Luna off and go back to the Windows 2000 interface should you choose to do so...

Yeah, I guess people can fall back to the ass-looking 9x/2k GUI that reminds me of a color version of System 1.0 (which wasn't all that bad at the time...I don't know why Microslap would decide to copy a 1984 GUI though.)  Then again...that ass-looking GUI is better than that Fisher-Price GUI.  :D

(Edited by fuX0ringM0r0n at 10:18 am on May 17, 2002)

Fri May 17 17:34:26 2002

Fri May 17 18:01:15 2002

Yeah, I guess people can fall back to the ass-looking 9x/2k GUI that reminds me of a color version of System 1.0

It looks fine, and it is fast.

Fri May 17 18:36:16 2002

from AllYorBaseRBelong2Us posted at 11:01 am on May 17, 2002

Yeah, I guess people can fall back to the ass-looking 9x/2k GUI that reminds me of a color version of System 1.0

It looks fine, and it is fast.

System 1.0?  Yeah, you're right...it wasn't bad at all.

Fri May 17 18:40:27 2002

Fri May 17 19:14:26 2002

Fri May 17 20:00:06 2002

Edit: obligatory edit...even though there was nothing to edit.

(Edited by fuX0ringM0r0n at 1:00 pm on May 17, 2002)

Fri May 17 22:36:33 2002

Fri May 17 22:53:23 2002

Fri May 17 23:09:30 2002

Sat May 18 01:00:44 2002

No you can't, as anyone who has tried will know.

What do you mean? I have luna turned off completely on my laptop, it looks totally like Win2k.

Sat May 18 08:31:27 2002

Sat May 18 14:02:42 2002

Sat May 18 14:52:09 2002

What do you mean? I have luna turned off completely on my laptop, it looks totally like Win2k.

Sat May 18 15:17:00 2002

Mon May 20 20:52:40 2002

from DeAthe posted at 2:00 am on May 18, 2002

No you can't, as anyone who has tried will know.

What do you mean? I have luna turned off completely on my laptop, it looks totally like Win2k.

It doesn't look totally like Win2K.
It doesn't act totally like Win2K.

Anyone who claims you can make XP look and act like Win2K is a liar.

It was possible in the betas, up to about beta 2 (of course, it wasn't necessary in the betas because it had the glorious WaterColour instead of the vile Luna).  But it isn't in the release version.

Tell you what, if you insist that it's possible, take a screenshot that looks like this (ignoring colour schemes, icon positioning, and so on):

Mon May 20 21:12:36 2002

Mon May 20 21:40:22 2002

Other than that, XP's fantastic.  Built-in firewall, taskbar grouping, Cleartype, how can you NOT love it?

Tue May 21 00:44:37 2002

from Jeremy Reimer posted at 10:40 pm on May 20, 2002

I think it's the "Web view" three-panel view mode in Explorer that you can't get back in XP.  That's the one thing I miss about 2k... you could click on a file and see a thumbnail to the left of the directory listing, or play a MP3 from there, or whatever.  

Other than that, XP's fantastic.  Built-in firewall, taskbar grouping, Cleartype, how can you NOT love it?

It seems unwilling to let me make the services MMC look like this:

Notice the absence of any worthless tabs.

It won't let me select users like this:

It won't let me have an IE toolbar that looks like this:

or an Explorer toolbar like this:

It doesn't seem to be able to put the lines in the Explorer tree, which I don't fully understand.

I don't think (though it's been a while since I've used XP so I could be wrong) that it lets me have the desktop work how I want.  I want to be able to plop icons down freeform, and have a 'snap to grid' menu option.  XP seems to only let me have icons that are forcibly snapped to the grid.

It has no POSIX subsystem (though SFU3, which looks to be quite neat, will, when it's released (which is imminent) should fix that), which foils some of my hobbyist activities.

There's the complete neutering of the web panel, which I can't for the life of me understand.

The only features of XP I really care for are the new Task Manager and the new netstat.  Using bullets instead of asterisks in password fields is nice too, I suppose.  WMP8 is pretty neat too, I guess.  The rest is at best the same as, and at worst grossly inferior to, what Windows 2000 gives me.

Cleartype I have no need for (too slow, and it makes small text too fuzzy), the firewall I have no need for (I'm not a dumbass), I have four rows of buttons on my taskbar to /anyway/.

Tue May 21 04:56:34 2002

I think it is strange how people (1st page) seem to think that System 7 (and other stuff from that era) is Steve Jobs' fault.  Wasn't he long gone by then?  I'm gonna' pull out a book and check, if I can find it.  Well, as far as I can tell, Sculley joined up in '83, Jobs left in '85, System 7 came out in '91, 7.5 in late '94, and 7.6 in 1997.  And I think Steve came back towards the end of 1996.  SOOO, Steve wasn't even at Apple when 7.5 was released.  Maybe you should blame Sculley, or Spindler, or maybe Amelio.  I guess you could blame Steve and the origional Mac programmers for all of their legacy code.  You could blame Woz too.

Personally, I found 7.6 to be fairly stable.  I can't really comment on 7.5 or 8+, but 7.6 was good. 9.0.4+ hasn't given me any problems either.  I guess I'm also special.

I read somewhere (can't remember where exactly) that the Mac OS didn't really have a kernal.  The System Folder and the stuff in it was the kernal.  Now that I think about it, it doesn't really make sense.

I started on 2k with MS.  It wasn't bad for about three weeks, but it slowly started to die.  Some sort of memory error on startup once it got into Windows.  I'd say that XP is pretty stable, I've had maybe four system crashes.

Luna isn't bad, Aqua is better.  I guess I like pinstripes.

Can you tell I like to ramble?

(Edited by jdsmith575 at 9:58 pm on May 20, 2002)

Tue May 21 05:32:52 2002

Anyway, I got pretty much everything the way you wanted it ( as far as I could see ) with the notable exception of web view on the pics, I can't get it to display the file stats next to the pic as you have in yours. The clock takes up a big chunk of space, cause it shows the date in there ( for some odd reason, no option to turn it off ). The address bar at the bottom of the startbar/menu looks slightly different than it does on yours,  Mine is missing the second line to the right of the Address title. The Tabs in the services of the MMC I am unable to get rid of, but they don't annoy me as much as they apparently do you.

Now the clock positioning I had never noticed, but then again I only have my start bar at a height of 1, I never expand it beyond that.

As far the placement of the address bars in IE and Explorer, quite easily done.

Anyway, those are the major differences I can see, but it's late and I got off work about an hour ago. Anyway, as I said earlier, and I will clarify for ya. I can make XP look like my 2k box. There are some subtle differences that affect how you use it, but are not noticeable for me ( except for the services tab, that I did notice right away. )

--- Edit.

Oh yea, I never noticed the web stuff missing, but I've hated that since the first day I saw it. It was always the first thing I disabled on any windows install ( well, my machines anyway ).

(Edited by DeAthe at 10:36 pm on May 20, 2002)

Tue May 21 06:13:06 2002

Glad to have you aboard.

Tue May 21 09:10:45 2002

Shure you can make IE look like that:

As can Windows Explorer

(Edited by Evil Merlin at 2:11 am on May 21, 2002)

(Edited by Evil Merlin at 2:19 am on May 21, 2002)

(Edited by Evil Merlin at 2:27 am on May 21, 2002)

(Edited by Evil Merlin at 2:27 am on May 21, 2002)

Tue May 21 11:09:07 2002

from Evil Merlin posted at 10:10 am on May 21, 2002

To get rid of the tabs in MMC, go to the View menu, from there customize and get rid of them:

Shure you can make IE look like that:

As can Windows Explorer

Look at mine more carefully, then look at yours more carefully.

Tue May 21 12:56:15 2002

Tue May 21 13:57:57 2002

Wed May 22 04:01:51 2002

from Evil Merlin posted at 1:56 pm on May 21, 2002

I don't see any difference in the IE's at all except for the GO button... which I forgot how to put back.

XP can't do that.

Wed May 22 06:26:59 2002

Either way, email me at dimaestro@hotmail.com if you're willing to host and I can send an email.

Wed May 22 13:43:48 2002

Wed May 22 21:22:02 2002

Fri May 24 04:19:38 2002

Yea, see how the clock is different than in DP's post? And I was unable to turn off the services tabs ( but the window is too low to show it ). Nor was I able to get the 'preview' or whatever it's called on DP's Explorer window to preview the file.  But once again, I don't use those functions of Windows, so I really didn't know they where different.