Problem is, you make these counter statements and then you can't back it up. How do I know you haven't disabled half of the features that come with the default install of the OS? Don't make me do two installs of XP and pull up task manager to show you what I'm talking about..
Sorry, but WinXP right out of the box doesn't run much leaner then that.
That's not true at all. That's like saying Windows Vista is just Windows 3.1 with a bunch of patches.. that's bullshit and you know it!
Not really. It is completely possible to patch out code until the original isn't there any more. However, it really wouldn't surprise me to find win 3.1 code in Vista, heck, it wouldn't surprise me to find dos code in vista.
With something as complex as an OS, Pretty much Nobody starts from scratch now-a-days. Especially not companies that have been around for the last 30 years.
The fundamentals of NT and Windows 1,2,3,95,98,ME were indeed different. Notice how I didn't make comparisons between 95 and 2000 in terms of memory footprint and how 2000 has gotten "bloated" over 95. Windows NT was great in comparison to 3.x,9X...you know why? Because they built the OS from the ground up, they reprogrammed it to fix serious security loopholes and this is thanks to the development of OS/2. You can't tell me that through a series of patches, they could have made Windows 9X like 2000/XP.. There comes a point in time where you've got to revamp things, something that Vista was "suppose" to do but instead became this pig of an OS that nobody liked..
Tell me, how different is the WinNT api from the Win9X api. Answer: it isn't. Are things done differently in the background? Yep, the kernel IIRC is quite a bit different. However, because they used the same API you are going to find bits of Win95 in NT, there's no question about it.
They didn't reprogram it from the ground up.
Windows 7 is that same pig, Vista, after a losing 15lbs and with some lipstick.. Same pig, different day.. Yes it is true, a lot of software is just a patched version of its predecessors but there is suppose to come a point in a software development's life cycle where they actually reprogram from the ground up...
Who says? That's terrible programming. If you have to rebuild something from the ground up, you have written some really crappy code. Good programming means that you reuse code. Why reinvent the wheel?
Yeah and guess what? Intel tried to do something about this ancient design with its Itanium processors and while they failed at that, the idea to revamp their processors DID make sense. Alpha processors were better than Intel at one point because they were very optimized and were able to be clocked at high speeds despite running on processes like 0.5nm.
Stop pulling numbers out of your ass. Nobody is anywhere close to operating at the 0.5nm process today. Also, if you think that intel just threw away everything they've done with the 8088 and other processors when they started the Itanium, you are more retarded then people give you credit for. Engineering in general is about tweaking yesterdays concepts to fit today's problems. Why would you throw away 10+ years of work to have to take another 10+ years to make a product? Its expensive, costly, and nobody works like that.
Don't even get me STARTED on drivers.. Nothing has ballooned more in size than those things.. How did a driver that used to fit on a floppy that just lets my computer talk to my printer now become this monstrous 400MB install? WTF is up with that? Even if I want the slimmed down driver which HP now provides for its printers, it's still 50mb in size!
HP has bloated drivers, there is no question about that. Not every company does though.
Yup, you keep saying that and while you're at it, why not just say Windows 7 is just a series of patches over DOS... Maybe at Adobe that is true (I'd believe that!) but good software companies usually revamp their software at some point..
No, they don't. This is really telling about how little you actually know about the software industry. The only products made from the ground up are brand new products. The only time a company will do a total revamp on a product is when the code was so terrible in the first place that they simply can't reuse any from the original and maintenance is impossible.
The only other time is when the code is written in a defunct language (COBOL) that nobody really programs in anymore. Even in this case, they usually base the new code of of the old code to try and insure good interoperability.
No, you're not getting it.. The Playstation 2 has a 4MB video card with the processing power of a video card from 1998.
Ah, no. First off, the graphics card was a specialty one, kind of hard to compare it to any video card from any era. Second, PS2 practiced shared memory. And finally, the PS2 processor isn't an x86 comparing just about any number from it to a PC would be pretty worthless.
Why is it that I need a Geforce 3 to play GTA III on the PC at 800X600 and need an X800XT to play GTA San Andreas at a similar to slightly higher resolution? I'm quite aware of what the box says, but what the box says and what you actually need are quite different.. I already know the answer, and the answer is, console ports always suck. They do a shit job at porting things over and since their only constraint was the stupid 5 year rule, they effectively made a game that should have worked on a computer from 1999 and instead made a buggy, slow game that required a computer from 2003/4/5 which is utter bullshit. I'm quite aware of what resolution the PS2 is capable of outputting its games but I can assure you that a PC from 1999/2000 is going to have a hell of a lot more processing power than the PS2
Bull Shit. Utter and total bullshit. Do yourself a favor, Go try and run a PS2 emulator. You'll find very quickly that even today's computers have a tough time emulating what the PS2 does.
They are Different Architectures, comparisons between them is completely and utterly worthless. Saying that a PC of the era has loads more processing power then a console of the same era is so wrong on so many levels.
and a computer from 2003 is sure as shit going to have several times that of a PS2. So don't give me that bullshit about the resolution being higher on the PC when you damn well know that there is more than enough video memory, system memory and processing capability on the PC to not only play the same damn game at 3X the resolution, BUT with more polygons & higher quality textures & more physics, etc. etc. as well, something you do not see on the PC versions of these games. The texture quality of these games on the PC is on par with the PS2 versions despite the available capacity that is monstrous in comparison to the PS2's hardware capability.
Take a guess at which one is which. Here's a hint, the one with the square cars, and reduced details, lower resolution, and jaggy edges, isn't the PC.
Facebook
Twitter