Moderator: MaxCoderz Staff
What kind of crap is that? How can the ability to install windows on a Mac be due to the Mac OS? Also, if that's the reason that it is so popular.. why don't all these people switch to Windows?The new Mac OS 'leopard' is already popular because it allows people to install and use the OS'es of Microsoft
I disagree. MinWin has absolutely nothing to do with a fully fledged graphical user targeted operating system. That's like comparing a bare Linux kernel with some busybox things (typically about 3MB and boots on your average washing machineKing Harold wrote:By showing Windows MinWin, Microsoft has effectively admitted that Vista is bloatware.
) to a DVD of Redhat. You can't compare them.It is indeed. They should be able to optimize it a LOT, but it appears they considered releasing it early a priority. Their loss.As if we didn't know it already: it's ridiculously huge in memory consumption as well as in disk space compared to any normal OS, while not offering that many extra features (not so many that it would explain over 4GB disk space or the 512MB RAM requirement).
Easy question: You can run Word on a Mac. Or Powerpoint. You can even run arbitrary software you buy in a computer store thanks to parallels. Yet still it isn't Windows, and many people (myself included) consider that an advantage in security and stability (though you need to have Win XP running in a virtual machine, which is a huge drawback, but people don't always know that).There was also something weird in a news paper I read..What kind of crap is that? How can the ability to install windows on a Mac be due to the Mac OS? Also, if that's the reason that it is so popular.. why don't all these people switch to Windows?The new Mac OS 'leopard' is already popular because it allows people to install and use the OS'es of Microsoft
I didn't mean that, I meant that if MinWin is so small, then Vista's kernel is not what is bloating Vista. If MinWin would have been, say, 1GB, then I would have found it reasonably understandable that Vista would be over four times as large (after all, it does have more functions than MinWin) but over 100 times as large..? I do not find that acceptable, no matter how much extra functionality Vista may have.I disagree. MinWin has absolutely nothing to do with a fully fledged graphical user targeted operating system. That's like comparing a bare Linux kernel with some busybox things (typically about 3MB and boots on your average washing machine Wink) to a DVD of Redhat. You can't compare them.
Why would you want to do that anyway?Easy question: You can run Word on a Mac.
So, somehow, there's a difference between that and the Linux kernel being 3MB and a complete distro 200 times as large (one cd)?If MinWin would have been, say, 1GB, then I would have found it reasonably understandable that Vista would be over four times as large (after all, it does have more functions than MinWin) but over 100 times as large..? I do not find that acceptable, no matter how much extra functionality Vista may have.
Because you're an average Joe user and you have succesfully been trained into thinking that you NEED Word to be able to read .doc files. Like Windows users think they NEED MS Paint to be able to open bitmap files. And because you need to use doc format or otherwise your manager or your secretary will not understand how to open the creepy files you e-mail to them.Why would you want to do that anyway?Easy question: You can run Word on a Mac.
Windows isn't Linux, and the DLL's seem to be the majority of the disk space (whatever the heck is in them anyway). If you are right (and you usually are) then MS is on the right track now by removing redundant crap.Have you considered that it may not be all that difficult to get a kernel running with some threading and memory management? That you can do this in a few tenthousand lines of code, and you don't need any real resources? Of course, the Linux kernel also has quite a few drivers in it. But still, the majority of memory is wasted on the graphical parts. Hell, if you include two or three desktop backgrounds with your distribution, that's already the size of the kernel...
Note that MS VirtualPC was not developed by MS, they just bought it.Timendus wrote:Of course, it's mainly the achievement of the Parallels VM software that's just 100 times better than VMware or Microsoft's crap, but it also has a lot to do with integration with the windowing system.
Which distro is so little?Timendus wrote:So, somehow, there's a difference between that and the Linux kernel being 3MB and a complete distro 200 times as large (one cd)?
A full Debian copy takes up 21 CDs, and it already needed 2 disks back in 1999 when I first tried it.Reading is the easier part, and even that is quite problematic as soon as some non-trivial features are used.Timendus wrote:Because you're an average Joe user and you have succesfully been trained into thinking that you NEED Word to be able to read .doc files.
Uhm, MS Word 2003 couldn’t open the rtf (!) file created by OOo. When I tried to export the same thing in doc (a simple one-page doc with absolutely nothing fancy in it), some table rows simply disappeared. It doesn’t matter whose fault this is, but it is a fact that interoperability between OOo and MSO is rather poor, so unless you build a new corporate IT infrastructure from scratch, there’s little chance you can change this kind of culture around you.Timendus wrote:And because you need to use doc format or otherwise your manager or your secretary will not understand how to open the creepy files you e-mail to them.
Shared libraries, of course... Good luck deleting /lib and /usr/lib to optimise your system.King Harold wrote:Windows isn't Linux, and the DLL's seem to be the majority of the disk space (whatever the heck is in them anyway).
Well, none really, as most have repositories, but an Ubuntu live CD for example has a kernel, a windowing system, some useful applications, drivers, et cetera. So that's more or less a "complete" system.CoBB wrote:Which distro is so little?
I never said interoperability isn't poor. In fact, it's horrible. But the idea that you can only open and edit a file type with one application is very much 1990, and Microsoft likes to keep the average Joe user in 1990 because most of Joe's files are in Microsoft's file formats. And it being difficult to change the IT culture in a corporate environment is exactely my point why it's a good move from Apple to make MS Office run on Macs.Uhm, MS Word 2003 couldn’t open the rtf (!) file created by OOo. When I tried to export the same thing in doc (a simple one-page doc with absolutely nothing fancy in it), some table rows simply disappeared. It doesn’t matter whose fault this is, but it is a fact that interoperability between OOo and MSO is rather poor, so unless you build a new corporate IT infrastructure from scratch, there’s little chance you can change this kind of culture around you.
But is it really news? After all, MSO has been available under Linux too for ages thanks to Wine, not to mention virtualisation environments. It’s still the same application though.Timendus wrote:And it being difficult to change the IT culture in a corporate environment is exactely my point why it's a good move from Apple to make MS Office run on Macs.
What exactly is a "normal" OS? The only OS I dare run on that low-end hardware is Windows 2000. My old XP machine had 40GB disk space and 512MB RAM, and ran (in general) very badly. You need much more than that for anything approaching decent performance. :\King Harold wrote:As if we didn't know it already: it's ridiculously huge in memory consumption as well as in disk space compared to any normal OS, while not offering that many extra features (not so many that it would explain over 4GB disk space or the 512MB RAM requirement).
Bah, all big companies are evil.Well it also proves that Microsoft is not totally evil..
No, that’s perfectly enough for XP as long as you’re not a developer or a power gamer. I had a quite similar setup for years, and I never had performance issues with XP (on the other hand, .NET stuff was ridiculously slow). Of course I never ran VS2005 on it.benryves wrote:What exactly is a "normal" OS? The only OS I dare run on that low-end hardware is Windows 2000. My old XP machine had 40GB disk space and 512MB RAM, and ran (in general) very badly. You need much more than that for anything approaching decent performance. :\
