Apple zombies attack RealNetworks

[Sirber]

Wierd...

http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=17952

[Mug Funky]

bahahahaaaa!

apple freaks make me laugh. they honestly don't understand computers at all, but believe their mac is better without evidence.

"...but it sat there for three hours rendering out black frames!"

"...oh, that's a usability feature that obviously a PC user wouldn't even see the need for. that's how far in advance the mac is"

i've lost count of the number of times i've had to explain "de-frag-men-tation" to expert mac users...

[edit]
however, i'm not a fan of RealNetworks either... it took me ages to scrape RealPlayer off my computer.

[Neo Neko]

Originally posted by Mug Funky
i've lost count of the number of times i've had to explain "de-frag-men-tation" to expert mac users...

To be quite honest most of the OS in the world don't require defragmentation. It can be done on most of em. But none of them get as dog slow as MS Windows does when it gets fragmented. This is achieved through some smarter file systems and better file allocation methods. You take a speed hit. But it will almost never get as slow as MS Windows. So don't start feeling all high and mighty when explaining defragmentation to the un-windoezed masses. They don't know not because they are worse users. But rather they often don't need to know. It is not an essential skill outside the MS Windows world. So all the while they ask you to explain it over and over again with expressionless faces. They might be secretly smiling and laughing inside at another MS Windows user who just does not get it.:devil: Oh the irony! :D

[neo75903]

Neo Neko: Well said :)
U are expressing exactly an OS should do. Not bothering users what is inside but in function what the OS should do. Like a vcr, when i press 'play' i want the tape played and not asking me 'are you sure?' ;)

MacOS misses a command window and often i need that for some of my programming. How do Mac programmmers live without it? Always wondered ... :)

[jernst]

MacOS misses a command window and often i need that for some of my programming. How do Mac programmmers live without it? Always wondered ...


Mac OS X always had a terminal afaik: http://www.astcomm.net/~chris.olson/osx/screenshots/X11/1152x768/Images/2.jpg

More seriously, what Mac misses is a second (not to say a third) button on their mice :-).

[wmansir]

I'm not a Mac expert, by far, but I believe OS9 benefited from defraging, though Apple still said it was "unnecessary".

[Sirber]

ReiserFS fragmentation never goes more than 3% and the FS is quite fast. I wonder why M$ goes into fragmentation so easily...

[Neo Neko]

Originally posted by wmansir
I'm not a Mac expert, by far, but I believe OS9 benefited from defraging, though Apple still said it was "unnecessary".

And they were not mistaken. I have even defragmented my reiserfs under Linux. It mad very little difference. Enough so I would deem it unnecessary. But I suppose I benefitted from it. There have been disk defragmenters for Mac OS as long as there have been for MS Windows. In fact Mac has had em since before Mac OS was called Mac OS. But it never made as big a performance impact so it never caught on. And the rest as they say is history. Microsoft blackmailed Norton for a stripped down version to be bundled with every version of MS Windows 95 or later, and in turn destroyed the market for Norton's product. But that's nothing special. Microsoft did that alot. A sign of love I suppose. You only destroy the ones you love. Bue we are getting way OT here so I digress.

BTW for those interested I don't know if it is still avalible or if a final product was released but I used an O&O Defrag beta to defrag my ResierFS.

[Mug Funky]

I wonder why M$ goes into fragmentation so easily...

that's because NTFS is designed for speed-at-all-costs... i guess they had RAID rigs in mind when they designed it.

it'll write in the nearest piece of free space to the current location of the hard disk's head. so working with large files and small files on the same disk can be a real problem (like playing mp3s while capturing DV, or ripping off DVDs and performing stream operations on the VOBs that require re-writing the file).

@ neo neko: i wasn't aware that macs didn't need it as much as NTFS, but i'm not at all surprised... (my experience of mac is tainted by the lemons they gave us at uni. the tech staff didn't know what they were doing, and things got very bad very quickly). anyhoo, defrag was just one example of blank-facedness i encounter. i suppose a BeOS freak would confuse me equally.

@ sirber: yikes, sorry, my OT remark seems to have completely skewed this thread into OT land.

[neo75903]

Jernst: Link seems not to work.

I think it is possible to design a GUI without the need of all those mouse buttons. We are so used to have more buttons in windows we get lost in MacOS so easily. Reversed is also true, Mac users seem not to understand the need for more buttons.

[jernst]

Jernst: Link seems not to work.
The link doesn't work anymore... here is another one:

http://www.zenonez.com/prctoolsx/images/screenshot2.jpg

[Mug Funky]

Reversed is also true, Mac users seem not to understand the need for more buttons.

...a reset button would be handy. how arrogant of apple to get rid of the reset button under the assumption that the rotten things never crash? boy did i give the mains lead a workout in my day...

[neo75903]

hehe, well it isnt a bad thing, at least they are confident or at least to intend to create a crash free OS :)

[theReal]

"We don't want choice, what we want is a music player with white earphones that is unreasonably expensive!" LOL :D :D :D


In the past year I experienced about 5-6 Mac crashes at work (on three different Macs to be fair) while my PC never crashed during that whole time...

I have to admit I rather work on a Mac than on some cheap PC with crappy memory and stuff, but my own PC only consists of well chosen quality parts and so it runs at least as stable as any Mac.

btw. all our Macs at work have Logitech USB mice with 3 buttons and a wheel and you can use the left and right button plus the wheel even in system applications like Finder.

[neo75903]

I have to admit i have not enough experiences to say Mac is more stable than windows. From what i heard from some friends, OSX is the wahalla of the Os'. What suprises me is that n00b users are ussually more positive then veteran users like me. maybe we expect it to do things to much the windows way.
Win2k is still my favorite, i have seen more XP installations crashing then Win2k's did. I call XP the teletubbie version of windows :)
Neverless who am i to save the world from XP ;), one day i will look back sitting behind my pc running longhorn and think about the good times i had with the DOS prompt *sight* :p

[Atamido]

Originally posted by Neo Neko
To be quite honest most of the OS in the world don't require defragmentation. This is somewhat of a misnomer. In many (probably most) cases this is true. But if you are using a mixture of large and small files that are added and deleted, you can see a not insignificant amount of fragmentation. If you are in this situation AND you are constantly near the space limit on the partition, you will have the same amount of fragmentation that occurs with typical FAT/NTFS setups.

Probably the biggest difference in performance comes from the fact that Linux (and several other OS's) has an excellent set of disk caching algorithms, while Microsoft seems completely incapable of make a decent one. So even at the same levels of fragmentation, you are less likely to notice a performance hit under Linux than Windows.

[Sirber]

ReiserFS is my favorite :D Linux seems to use all avalible memory for disk caching :confused:

[theReal]

Linux seems to use all avalible memory for disk caching Linux may do a better disc caching job than Windows, but caching is still only some kind of workaround because harddrives are horribly slow compared to memory.
What we need is faster hdd's not better caching ;)

[Sirber]

Faster HDD means faster RPM, but it also means more noise and more heat :(

We will all burn in hell!!! :scared:

[theReal]

Faster HDD means faster RPM Think ahead - what about that new holographic discs. Those discs instead of magnetic discs in a hdd would be much faster without higher RPM. The RPM level is reached, we need new hdd technology!!

[Sirber]

The new SCSI are at 15k RPM. IDE are at 7k. SATA are at 7k with some new at 10k. I read somewhere a PCI card with 2GB flashram which speed is greater than HDD and resist reboot. Would be great to install the OS.

[Mug Funky]

flash ram wouldn't fragment either, would it? at least it'd have no reason to unless it had a stupid filesystem.

[edit]
as for disk RPM... that kinda scares me to be honest. think of the warnings that are written in big letters all over those desk grinder things you sharpen tools with. imagine a hard disk platter with a microscopic flaw in it... 15000 rpm and then it fails. i wouldn't want to be near the computer when it happens.

[Sirber]

Razor blades will flow all around your room :p, then a nuke will explode ;)