Sijun Forums :: View topic

faustgfx · Posted: Mon Jul 30, 2001 4:06 am

Uptime:
4 weeks 4 days 23 hours 27 minutes 21 seconds 662 ms

C:\>

show me ANY macintosh with ANY macos that has been up for even a week straight.

Impaler · Posted: Mon Jul 30, 2001 8:17 am

What the hell is a Macintons? How about a macos?

And besides.. Windows would crash after 47 hours of uptime until Win2k was released, so we're not all that badass, either.

Plus, shouldn't your RAM be melted by now?

ex · Posted: Mon Jul 30, 2001 8:32 am

I leave my win 98 running for like days straight at a time.... And yes, it gets use while it's running. What are you talking about?

faustgfx · Posted: Mon Jul 30, 2001 9:16 am

47 days until wink2 = bullshit. ever hear of windows nt?

ram melted? hardware illiteracy rules.

macintons = typo of macintosh.

macos = if you don't know, you don't need to know.

ex · Posted: Mon Jul 30, 2001 9:30 am

narf.

Dan3d · Posted: Mon Jul 30, 2001 9:33 am

I never shut off my PC unless I am upgrading my hardware. It runs 24/7 even when I am on vacation. I have run Win95/98, WinNT4 (all service packs) and Win2000. I do agree that Win2000 is very stable (compared to Win95/98), but so was WinNt4. My PC never goes down (not since installing NT4 and then, two years later, upgrading to Win2000) and I run some heavy-duty programs like 3D apps (MAX, Realsoft3D), 2D apps (Photoshop, Painter, etc.), real time 3D game development tools and engines, and, of course, games and DVDs.

PCs rock. Pure and simple.

ex · Posted: Mon Jul 30, 2001 9:42 am

I need win nt.

ex · Posted: Mon Jul 30, 2001 9:59 am

I have the Evaluation Edition
120-day Limit on use

What do you say?

I format and install it?

Jussi, unblock me on aim for 5 mins? Please.

Impaler · Posted: Mon Jul 30, 2001 10:25 am

It's a joke, jackass. RAM can't melt, not with the minute voltage running through it.

All the same, I doubt anyone could keep their Windows 98 running any bit longer than a Macintosh, especially with Mac OS X, which is purportedly more stable than anything less than an NT machine, or any Linux release. :p

But, yeah. Macs suck if you know the difference between your Operating System and your Internet Browser.

And on a side note to fgfgxfgfxfx, since you're asleep and whatnot, you and I should have a flamewar of epic proportions, even if it would have to be staged. It would be entertaining to no end.

ex · Posted: Mon Jul 30, 2001 10:45 am

the new g4 runs photoshop 50x faster than the leading 1.7 ghz pentium

holy shit.

Impaler · Posted: Mon Jul 30, 2001 10:48 am

Well, yeah. Mac was always better with graphics. Not sure why, either.

Mullins uses a G4.

ex · Posted: Mon Jul 30, 2001 10:55 am

Mullins is a rich bastard.

balistic · Posted: Mon Jul 30, 2001 12:29 pm

ex: Adobe always cripples at least one filter on the PC side of things so that Apple can benchmark it and brag about how much faster they are . . . but its only ever one or two filters, the rest of the app doesn't really care what its running on.

It used to be radial blur, not sure which one they're rigging nowadays.

My year-and-a-half-old 700 MHz Athlon will utterly stomp any Mac at 3D rendering because those kinds of calculations can't be G4 optimized . . . the bit path is too narrow.

A fifty dollar Duron chip can still out-render a bottom-end Pentium 4.

My point is that hardware companies will pick one benchmark or statistic that makes them look good and market the hell out of it, ignoring results that might be more relavent to the consumer.

40x CDROM drives only spin that fast towards the end of a disc. Hard disk manufacturers still call 1000 kilobytes a megabyte to make their drives look bigger (a meg is actually 1024 kb). Monitors are still advertised based on the size of the glass, not the size of the picture.

Its all marketing.

Mezoic · Posted: Mon Jul 30, 2001 12:32 pm

I've been using Win2k without rebooting for a while now (atleast 4 weeks). Was using 128MB RAM up until today, now I have 384.

WinME or 98, from I hear, has horrid memory leaks.

I've never understood the whole reason why Photoshop is better on a Mac. Everytime I ask a Pro-Mac user why, I never seem to get an answer except for "it just is". Hmm oh well. You have to respect Macs, they are so pretty.

nova · Posted: Mon Jul 30, 2001 12:40 pm

hm. i heard win2k had horrid memory leaks.. or usasge or something. i need more RAM

[ July 30, 2001: Message edited by: Nova ]

ex · Posted: Mon Jul 30, 2001 1:07 pm

Lol, that sucks. But thank you for telling me.

I'm upgrading my pc, what should i get?

faustgfx · Posted: Mon Jul 30, 2001 6:28 pm

werd, balistic.

*pats duron*
best part is,performance-wise this 1010mhz is on par with dual p3 700's to which i'm used to.

Awetopsy · Posted: Tue Jul 31, 2001 12:19 pm

hehe.. I got MS win NT4 for free.

ms was giving out the full cds for free.. also came with window 95 I believe and a bunch of server stuff.

but.. that was a couple years ago.. havent heard of any more freebies.

Ataxia · Posted: Tue Jul 31, 2001 6:31 pm

Win2k HAD memory leaks at the beginning but I beleive sp1 and 2 fix those to some extent.. the os itself uses a hell of alot of memory but u can shave that down to around 50-60 by turning a few things off(all the fancy shit u dont need and probably dont want). OSX and win2k are both nice os's.. I'am pro computer not one or the other.. who cares what people use rather then the result?..

I like doing 3d on my pc and painting my maps up on the g4 while the other pc is rendering or the likes. Maya on osx is supposed to gun in speed compared to the wintel boxes.. So i may use that at some stage in the future, but still the only thing thats going to matter is the output.

faustgfx · Posted: Wed Aug 01, 2001 6:42 am

(kinda makes you wonder how come my win2k at home eats no more than 43 megs of RAM itself)

A.Buttle · member Member # Joined: 20 Mar 2000 Posts: 1724

I like my Mac. Yay!!

Little Spanish bits for all!!