In article , Tony Houghton scribeth thus
Yes it was WIN 898 IMHO used to suffer memory leaks quite badly, but SE didn't last too long here, we skipped ME and went 2000 PRO and that was good...
That doesn't make sense, because Linux doesn't have anything like Windows' product cycle. The point is that apart from Windows 7, every major Windows release has had more problems than advantages compared to its predecessor.
It was funny how they trumpeted PowerPC over x86, then when the first Intel Macs were released (using a relatively slow mobile processor) they were allegedly the fastest Macs ever.
Because it's loosely based on FreeBSD. And FreeBSD is better than Linux, which is a jumped up UNIX wannabe....
(ducks)
You have drive names, but you 'lose' them by attaching the root of the drive to a node in the pre-existing directory tree (starting with the boot drive).
As in UNIX, for example. But Windows will actually do it too.
hald retains GEOM/GPT labels and optical media titles when mounting block devices under /media, if I recall correctly. It's rather useful to have a nice list of devices right there in the file manager (and the device notifier in the case of KDE) with descriptive names.
cp -Rp ~/staging/* /media/pendrive/ or similar. It doesn't get any easier.
I'm going to take this as an actual question rather than simple trolling.
The G4 and G5s, *when* *new*, blew away the then-current Intel P4-Xeon chips for streamed data processing, under almost all benchmarks. Particularly video encoding and straight memory tests.
Considerably later, after Intel had finally pulled their fingers out and ditched the shit Pentium 4 line, instead using the older but far better P3 architecture to create the rather excellent Core line,
Nope, using the brand new Core Duo processors in mobile and desktop versions depending on which Mac you picked up,
The MacBook Pro's were the fastest *Windows* *laptops* available at the time. They were never the fastest Macs ever, although they gave the well-over-a-year-older PPC dual G5 desktops a damn close run. Which given Moore's law is no surprise at all.
2/10, must try harder.Cheers - Jaimie
IBM's VM/CMS (from about '72) used a single letter for each mini-disk. Controlled the search order.
Oh, yes, I forgot that. I used VM/CMS a little, while setting up files for an operating system I was porting to an IBM machine (initially using VM, then the real machine).
But MS-DOS (well, PC-DOS) had drive letters before IBM got to it, of course, since they came, effectively, from CP/M.
When the first Power Macs were sold they were faster than the equivalent PC. I still have two of the early Power Macs and one of them has a dual processor design with both a 66MHz PPC601 and a 66MHz 486DX. I presume I don't have to spell out which one is faster?
Then, as the years rolled by, Motorola spent very little effort on improving the PPC chips. They were leading Intel at the begining of the
90's and trailing by the end of the decade. Apple gave Motorola an ultimatum that they either improved the chips or Apple would move to another platform. Motorola didn't want to spend the cash.I'd also say it was disingenuous to describe a Core Duo as "a relatively slow mobile processor".
What your comment also avoids is the recognition that Apple have now managed three times what Microsoft have never been able to do, porting the entire OS and applications to a completely different CPU series without having a major impact on the users of legacy software.
I saw NT on PPC, "turkey" is the term that comes to mind.
Give them names.
Odd how other operating systems cope.
With respect, you're not understanding the point being made. It's not that one cannot save files in Windows, it is that one cannot move an open file because Windows is brain dead and uses the most stupid way possible of keeping track of an open file. Other operating systems use file handles. Once a file is opened it may be renamed or moved and it won't affect the application that has the file open. Windows, in many cases, won't let you move a file once an application has opened it even if you close the file in the application. You have to quit the application before Windows recognises that you no longer have the file open.
They have names. They're just very short!
Steve gets it, but does our Tone? What's good about OS X (dunno about Linux) is that once I move or rename an open file, any app using that file just updates what the filename is. Even *gasp* Word manages it.
When you say it updates the filename do you mean if you go to save the file again it uses the new name in the save dialog? Linux apps don't generally go that far; as long as the same file handle is open it uses the same file regardless of the name, but the user has to update the filename manually if they want to reopen the file. If a file gets deleted while open only its directory entry gets removed at first, and the actual file is still present on disc until the last handle is closed and it gets deleted then.
RISC OS had the same restriction as Windows, but I've actually seen users claim it as an advantage because they reckon it makes applications less reliable or harder to write, whereas the lack of virtual memory and premptive multitasking is an advantage because it forces programmers to write better code ;-).
And you can't think of an answer? :-)
I'm aware of the BSDs having pros and cons even compared to each other let alone Linux. I like the GNU extensions to everyday tools but I really couldn't say why Linux caught on to a much greater extent.
I never disbelieved that PowerPC of the same generation outperformed Intel. Are they still keeping up/ahead because of the console market?
They were designed primarily for laptops though, and were never used in significant numbers on non-Apple desktops. I don't think they were quite as fast as the really high-end P4s and Athlons.
That's why I said it was funny how they were *allegedly* faster.
I thought the main problem was power consumption for laptops, not that the desktop CPUs weren't fast enough.
Yes, they've done that very well. Worth the disc space of having to have more than one version of each library and program. Getting 32-bit closed source stuff to run on 64-bit Linux can be a hassle. Other than stuff that was written in assembly langauge for very good reasons, anything that wasn't easily ported to 64-bit couldn't have been all that well written in the first place, so can cause even more trouble (eg Flash).
There had to be _someone_ who liked ME!
My experience was that it thought it knew what it was doing, would do it on its own, and wouldn't ask you. Unfortunately it _didn't_ know what it was doing...
Andy
That depends on which one you defined as the same generation, they were always out of step and each was faster than the other when released. What is more interesting is how the RISC power PC had more instructions than the CISC Intel processor. Also Intel have applied every advantage that RISC offered to the x86 family which is why it is still around.
Just trying that with a file opened in TextWrangler ... OK, changed the filename ... TW pretty much instantly changes the filepath it displays at the top of the window ... let's try Save As ... yes, it offers the new name (highlighted) as the default.
TBH, I don't see the point of doing anything else. After all, if I went so far as to change the filename behind an app's back, why should it think it knows better? I'm in charge here, after all.
:-)
Doubtless cars would be safer if they had a large metal spike protruding from the centre of the steering wheel towards the driver.
Anyway, screw whether it makes apps harder to write. The OS should be looking after its users, not the ****ing programmers.
It's my computer, I want to give them names that I decide to use not have it tell me what I can use.
Windows for Sheeple.
HomeOwnersHub website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.