• 7 Reasons to Avoid Windows 7 (and gparent vs Dr Egg)
    393 replies, posted
That would just be rude.
New thread title win.
i like the new title.:buddy:
[QUOTE=Dr Egg;17292544]I do understand it. It's just that I don't think that because one (significant yes) bit of it is not interoperable doesn't mean the rest of it isn't and should be ignored. Partial interoperability is still something. And it depends on what A1 is doing.[/QUOTE] Then why didn't you just say "Excel and OOc are partially interoperable" 2 pages ago instead of trying to claim that partial interoperability equals interoperability? Like I said earlier, I'm not saying the spreadsheet is completely useless and that the two programs are completely non interoperable. But you can't claim they're interoperable, because they aren't *fully* interoperable. Just like you can't claim four chair legs are the same thing as a chair. You need a seat, too. Can we agree on that and move on, now? [QUOTE=BananasGoMoo;17294755]i like the new title.:buddy:[/QUOTE] I lol'd hard. (in before some "you laughed out louded" dummy)
Lol compwhizii nice one.
Even gizmodo which sucks on apple's balls (or mangina, depends on how you look at it) all of the time agrees that windows 7 is going to be awesome! [Url]http://gizmodo.com/5285452/os-x-snow-leopard-vs-windows-7-the-final-countdown[/Url]
A new contender has emerged: RTF. Interoperable. Works 100% with pretty much anything you throw it into. 2003 DOC. Interoperable. Not even a formatting issue if its loaded up with OOo. 2007 XLS. Fucked. Ever tried finance calculations on a spreadsheet where the formulas dont work? Interoperable by definition means that something will work, in whatever situation. You can argue that the spreadsheet works, becasue it displays, but what use is that when 50% of the functionality is crippled? Any chance of dropping this one any time soon?
[QUOTE=gparent;17296666]Then why didn't you just say "Excel and OOc are partially interoperable" 2 pages ago instead of trying to claim that partial interoperability equals interoperability? Like I said earlier, I'm not saying the spreadsheet is completely useless and that the two programs are completely non interoperable. But you can't claim they're interoperable, because they aren't *fully* interoperable. Just like you can't claim four chair legs are the same thing as a chair. You need a seat, too. Can we agree on that and move on, now? I lol'd hard. (in before some "you laughed out louded" dummy)[/QUOTE] That is what I have been meaning this whole time. They are interoperable, but not fully, but it is still there. [editline]02:57PM[/editline] Also topic title [img]http://messenger.msn.com/MMM2006-04-19_17.00/Resource/emoticons/shades_smile.gif[/img]
My whole home network is XP and Win2k - I use Win2k for my home server and for my gaming machine (so I dont have to go to 64bit as it supports like 1TB of ram). I hate Vista, we had three machines with Home Premium (two being laptops) and it simply used too much ram - so I went to XP, which uses around 100-200mb of ram, instead of 700-800. I did try disabling tons of apps and services on Vista, but its just too much hassle and after that...you loose a lot of functionality. Windows XP ftw. I wish they just made the taskbar glossy with a ton of new things for developers or something. XP pwns. However Windows 7 does look okay, boots fast but still I noticed it uses quite a bit of ram. Using ram is fine, espcially since I have 6gb on my gaming pc. However when you have laptops and eepc's with 1-2gb of ram, they cant have many apps open or even run games. Anyways XP and Win2k network here until Windows 7 comes out, I try it for a year and I like it lawl. I love XP, it does everything that Vista can do - can even get its sidebar lawl. [editline]03:19PM[/editline] Anyways Win2k = best o/s in my opinion; its stable and great for gaming if you dont want to go to 64-bit lawl. I have an old 8800 thats nearly burn't out (its fan stopped ages ago and it gets to 90c in GTA 4 with my new bodge 3000rpm AMD heatsink fan haha). I get about 270 FPS on the CSS stress test ;3 Specs: > 6gb of DDR3 1600mhz ram. > Intel i7 2.66ghz clockers whatever cpu. > X58 classified motherboard. > 8800 with 1gb of ram DDR3 1600mhz, 600mhz core. > Highest fps score in stress test: 273.60 - HDR, anisotropicx4, sync: no, everything high.
[QUOTE=djratboy;17301605]I hate Vista, we had three machines with Home Premium (two being laptops) and it simply used too much ram - so I went to XP[/QUOTE] you're an idiot superfetch google it
[QUOTE=Dr Egg;17301465]That is what I have been meaning this whole time. They are interoperable, but not fully, but it is still there. [editline]02:57PM[/editline] Also topic title [img]http://messenger.msn.com/MMM2006-04-19_17.00/Resource/emoticons/shades_smile.gif[/img][/QUOTE] Well, as long as you understand that partial interoperability is just that, partial, and that it doesn't make the programs interoperable, then that pretty much solves it.
[QUOTE=gparent;17301908]Well, as long as you understand that partial interoperability is just that, partial, and that it doesn't make the programs interoperable, then that pretty much solves it.[/QUOTE] That's what I have been saying all along. I just think that having partial inteoperability doesn't mean it isn't interoperable, whereas you think it does mean that.
[QUOTE=Dr Egg;17302350]That's what I have been saying all along. I just think that having partial inteoperability doesn't mean it isn't interoperable, whereas you think it does mean that.[/QUOTE] They're mutually exclusive. If you claim something is interoperable, you're automatically claiming that it's completely interoperable (especially if you go by what would be a standard definition of interoperability), unless you add the 'partial' qualifier. But since it's just a grammar issue, I'd rather let it slide than keep going for another page.
[QUOTE=TheMadness;17301825]you're an idiot superfetch google it[/QUOTE] Not really. On one machine I tried to play BF2 (when I had a pc with 2gb of ram) and I couldn't because there wasn't enough ram (as BF2 requires around 1.4gb) - I even closed things etc, Googled etc and I just couldn't be fucked. Whats the point of having Vista when I can have XP that has the same functionality? Thats why my entire house uses XP - it has the same functionality, driver support and works better with Win2k active directory. Edit: I also did a Google on superfetch - I did disable that. Even without, Vista uses a lot of resources. Our home network has ran better on XP, we tried Vista for about a year. So yeah thats my take. Hopefully Windows 7 will be as promising as it looks, then again the same thing happened in the Vista beta - looked good.
XP -> Win7 from my point of view: 19$ for UAC, DirectX 11, a much sexier UI and just generally a much more friendlier user experience. I don't quite see the anti-Win7 argument.
They have said that Upgrading to 7 wont clean your computer! Im getting it for free anyway so im upgrading woohooo
[QUOTE=Rombishead;17306526]They have said that Upgrading to 7 wont clean your computer! Im getting it for free anyway so im upgrading woohooo[/QUOTE] it wont clean it if you dont format. duh. Just like any OS change.
[QUOTE=gparent;17303779]They're mutually exclusive. If you claim something is interoperable, you're automatically claiming that it's completely interoperable (especially if you go by what would be a standard definition of interoperability), unless you add the 'partial' qualifier. But since it's just a grammar issue, I'd rather let it slide than keep going for another page.[/QUOTE] Not really.
[QUOTE=Dr Egg;17308265]Not really.[/QUOTE] They are. PARTIAL != COMPLETE. Unless you're a completely brainwashed, I'm sure you can understand that fact. Just stop being stubborn and accept the hard, harsh truth that partially interoperable is NOT the same thing as being completely interoperable, and that when you claim something is interoperable, that means it has to be completely interoperable, not just a tiny irrelevant fraction of it. You're basically the seller on ebay who claims he's selling a PS3 while he's actually just selling the box. Honestly, disagreeing with this is disagreeing with logic, grammar, and the dictionary. No need to get that desperate just because you can't admit you worded yourself improperly.
For fuck sakes, it was funny at first but this is really starting to get fucking retarded and extremely annoying. He doesn't have to admit anything if he doesn't want to. If you want to continue this discussion, add him on steam or something.
[QUOTE=Plastical;17310277]He doesn't have to admit anything if he doesn't want to.[/QUOTE] True, but it'd look a hell of a lot better than disagreeing with facts... So would leaving the thread. At any rate, 1x Agree.
[QUOTE=djratboy;17303860]I also did a Google on superfetch - I did disable that.[/QUOTE] facepalm.bmp see my previous comment
lolol Ah i wish we had sigs, i'd love to sig a lot of stuff in this thread
[quote]Upgrading From Windows XP Requires a Clean Install If you’re a Windows XP user, upgrading isn’t as easy as inserting a disc and running the installation. Instead, you must back up your applications and files, wipe your hard drive and perform a clean install of Windows 7. After getting Windows 7 up and running, you must either manually reinstall your software and repurpose your file library or trust Microsoft’s Easy File Transfer to migrate your files for you. We don’t see this as much of a headache, because data backups should be performed regardless of whether you’re switching to a new OS. Plus, a fresh install is preferable to ensure clean performance. But we understand why this would bug many XP users. For one, it’s time-consuming. For another, many are sensitive about their data, and they don’t trust Microsoft. (We don’t blame them.) Third, if XP is working fine for you, why fix something that isn’t broken? Vista users, on the other hand, can upgrade to Windows 7 without a clean install. They might as well climb out of that train wreck, since it’s easy.[/quote] This one got me, although it's easy enough to back up files and stuff, I'm just a bit too lazy since XP is just fine for me right now. And if it fucking breaks my Cygwin installation again, I'll kill a thousand babies.
[url]http://media.longhornfusion.net/SuperFetch_001.swf[/url]
[QUOTE=Craptasket;17097920]Fucking biased article, OP[/QUOTE] People use the word biased like it is the most awful word ever spoken. You have to be biased to write an article like that. Being biased just means you have an idea of something you are writing about and you like something. Being biased doesn't mean that you completely and blindly follow everything done by what you are supporting.
being biased in a comparison means the article is instantly worth jack shit because it'll be constantly saying A is better than B rather than A is not quite as good as B but B is better at ____ or whatever when asking someone "what's better" you don't want to know what they think about the things, you just want to know what's better
[QUOTE=gparent;17309656]They are. PARTIAL != COMPLETE. Unless you're a completely brainwashed, I'm sure you can understand that fact. Just stop being stubborn and accept the hard, harsh truth that partially interoperable is NOT the same thing as being completely interoperable, and that when you claim something is interoperable, that means it has to be completely interoperable, not just a tiny irrelevant fraction of it. You're basically the seller on ebay who claims he's selling a PS3 while he's actually just selling the box. Honestly, disagreeing with this is disagreeing with logic, grammar, and the dictionary. No need to get that desperate just because you can't admit you worded yourself improperly.[/QUOTE] I understand that partial isn't complete. But what I'm saying is that when it is partial is is still there. Like IE6 supports PNG, but not transparency in the PNG. You wouldn't said it doesn't support PNG.
ughh this is so funny. also windows 7 is nearly out!
[QUOTE=dtoporowski;17324053]also windows 7 is nearly out![/QUOTE] Yeah. I remember my first thread on it on Jan 26th 2008. Time flies.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.