Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Macs dont crash, seriously its amazing
- Thread starter jsousa
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
dpaanlka said:
There are plenty of Windows/DOS fanatics who would enjoy it. Of course, they enjoy hex-editing their FAT map, too, to repair the !@#$ thing after one too many problems. (On diskettes, I might have done it but hard drives, no thanks.)
Even the painless approach of current software on Windows makes it easier but you still have to be so careful.
However, I really wish that Macs didn't crash but the problems aren't too bad compared to the other side of things and Mac OS 7/8/9.
I thought this statement was a little interesting, so I tested it on the machine I'm posting this on. It's an old AthlonXP running at 1.25GHz on a 100MHz FSB. DVD playback runs completely smooth and Task Manager reports a 20-30% CPU usage during playback. A dual PIII 1GHz system clearly wouldn't have a problem with this either. It's easy to blame Windows, but the problem with your system was obviously located elsewhere.maxvamp said:
As for the absurd comments about Windows XP only handling 5-10 apps at the same time: Yeah right! What a load of bollocks...
It's true that Windows has a tendency to get bogged down when running demanding apps, though. The problem can usually be solved by decreasing the apps priority, but it's still irritating. That said, Windows seems to behave entirely different on a dual core system, with very good responsiveness even with heaps of apps running. It's funny what difference an extra core can do.
risc said:
Not an Amiga. It flew with only 4 MBs of ram back in the day with multitasking. I could run DpaintIV, Art Department, Professional Page, Deluxe Video III, the Boing demo, and Amigavision all at the same time and running.
BornAgainMac said:
You must of missed my post later on when I said "OSes made this century" when people (jfreak
) started raving on about OSes from the mid 90s.Sure I loved my old computers too but any modern machine running a modern graphical OS is going to suck with 256 MB of RAM.
dpaanlka said:
Yeah, last year we had a Post Your Dock Thread that has a couple impressive full-screen shots.
Killyp said:Well I was inspired to see how many apps my MBP could open at once. In fact, it can open all of them!
It's a bit sluggish obviously, but when I stick 2 GB RAM in it, it should be fine! It still claims to have 30 % free CPU, so I can stick a few more apps in there!
Here's a screenshot:
They're all still open! I'm writing to you with 47 other programs open (48 if you include Firefox)...
Macs are awesome!!!!!!!
Love the 10.4 tiger torrent file in the background....
I do the same thing now and then. What's really fun is creating 100+ new folders on your desktop and opening them all at once. Then minimize them while holding Shift for the slow-motion effect. Open all them by holding down Shift and watch the magic. My PowerBook comes to a hault... but it eventually catches up. It definitely doesn't crash, though.
It doesn't matter how many apps I have running on my XP machine because eventually I will have to reboot it. I leave it on 24/7 and I need to reboot at least once a week. Windows eventually slows down to a crawl and programs begin freezing like crazy. It's very annoying when I'm able to keep programs open on my 17" PB for what seems like forever (reboots required on some program and OS updates).
I've done this before, but I figured I'd join in on the fun and show you all that G4's still have what it takes.
50 apps, basically every program I have.
http://img71.imageshack.us/my.php?image=50appspbg4ij1.jpg
50 apps, basically every program I have.
http://img71.imageshack.us/my.php?image=50appspbg4ij1.jpg
dpaanlka said:
Idiot! I was going to respond intelligently to your post, then realized their was no intelligent person to review it. Just for of curiosity sake, do you work for a telemarketing company that has branched off to disinformation? It seems like it, because no one who really understands computers would write such moronic posts. And, I surely cannot fathom why someone would make a dork of themselves for free.
dpaanlka said:
If processes are allowed to interfere with memory from other processes then it's mainly the OS that has a problem, because the OS should be the process controlling all low-level stuff like memory management.
Multitasking on the Mac hasn't been all that fantastic. Only since the release of Mac OS X does Mac OS support pre-emptive multitasking where the OS scheduler decides what program gets CPU time. Before that, multitasking on the Mac was simple cooperative multitasking where the application was responsible for giving back control to the OS. If the application was badly programmed and did not give back control to the OS the system would simple hang.
I've had many PCs. I will acknowledge that 2K/XP isn't the BSOD once a day POS that Win 98 and below were. However, I will say that 2K/XP have given me more serious errors that require reinstall about every 2 months. Put a Linux on the PC hardware, and the problems magically go away. Even now, a Windows reinstall on my sister's PC will not recognize its sound hardware and has taken me two days of driver hunting so far with no luck. My sister hates Linux though, go figure.
Mac OS X will suck less And Linux works fine.
risc said:
Mac OS X will suck less
And Linux works fine.
MrFrankly said:
Actually, the scheduler sucked wind in OS X until OS X.2 . It has gotten much better with each follow on release...
You are quite correct however....
Max.
Demoman said:
How can you justify this comment?
I agree with dpaanlka. If someone actually wrote something that could affectively spread across thousands of macs worldwide, and infect them all, it would be HUGE.
Macs major selling point is that they dont have viruses. What good is a mac if it gets infected just as easily as windows.
Strange... My laptop's Windows install is about a year old and it usually runs 1-2 months between reboots. When I'm rebooting I'm not doing it because of problems though, but rather because of system updates and the likes.slffl said:
I might also add that BSODs almost always are caused by malfunctioning hardware or possibly bad drivers. Before blaming Windows, you really should check out the other parts. In almost 6 years of XP usage, I don't think I've ever had a blue screen that wasn't related to hardware problems, bad drivers or overclocking. I know that most of you aren't using Windows, but for those who are, it might be good looking into this before wiping the drive. Having hardware problems also means that the BSODs are going to appear soon again, despite the fresh install, which seems to be what many of you have experienced.
I always test new hardware thoroughly, since problems are somewhat common. Especially when it comes to RAM, which also happens to cause major instability when it's defective. Considering the amount of bad RAM sticks I've gotten through the years, I can only imagine how many users that are out there thinking Windows is a piece of **** software when it's in fact the computer hardware acting up. It's not like the average user knows how to run Memtest86. Hell, most probably don't have a clue about what RAM is...
Anyway, I just checked the original XP install date on the work machine that I'm writing this on. March 14th 2003. In this time it has never blue screened once and still feels fresh as new (booting it up takes just a few seconds longer now). The most interesting thing might be that it has been connected to the net 12 hours a day the last year and a half without any protection and still hasn't caught a virus or spyware infection (ran a few online scans).
Maybe it's just luck?
P.S. My brother just started reading the above and I asked him when he last got a BSOD on his XP machine. He thought for a second or two and then replied "Never. The OS has actually never crashed on this machine.". So, the question is: Are be both just lucky or are BSODs (and other crashes for that matter) more related to bad hardware and drivers. I think they are. D.S.
EDIT: The above might be totally uninteresting to you, but I thought I'd post it for discussion anyway. As I've said many times before, though, Windows is hardly secure. Entering pretty much any porn site would get me some nice spyware immideately.... So, not very good in that aspect. As you might have understood by now, I'm far more impressed by the stability than the security.
I honestly don't know what some of you are doing to your Windows PCs.
AMD Opteron 144 2.4GHz Single Core
2GB PC3200 RAM
NVIDIA 7800GT 256MB
33 applications;
Google Earth, Titan Quest Demo, movie in VLC, music in iTunes and WMP, Photoshop, VMWare player, TV in the TV-card makers application (which uses A LOT of resources, poorly written), Tibia, virus scanning, PDF in Acrobat. Those are some of the heavier applications running.
And still, I'm able to play Titan Quest and navigate through Google Earth without any slowdowns at ALL.
AMD Opteron 144 2.4GHz Single Core
2GB PC3200 RAM
NVIDIA 7800GT 256MB
33 applications;
Google Earth, Titan Quest Demo, movie in VLC, music in iTunes and WMP, Photoshop, VMWare player, TV in the TV-card makers application (which uses A LOT of resources, poorly written), Tibia, virus scanning, PDF in Acrobat. Those are some of the heavier applications running.
And still, I'm able to play Titan Quest and navigate through Google Earth without any slowdowns at ALL.
