Will you buy an intel VIIV system this year?

[Eli]

lol, no.

 

[imported_goku]

Originally posted by: remagavon

Originally posted by: goku

Originally posted by: remagavon

Originally posted by: goku
Here is something I hadn't thought before and I doubt anyone else has (otherwise they would have pointed it out), has anybody considered that the reason why windows 2000 uses about 128MB of ram while windows 98/95 use between 32-64MB of ram is because windows 9X based operating systems are for the most part 16bit operating systems while Windows 2000 is a true 32bit OS?

32mb of ram was exceedingly expensive when windows 95 was released, FWIW. The minimum requirement was 4mb, although 8mb, and moreso 16mb was really necessary for decent operation and multitasking. Windows 2000 required 32mb, and ran acceptably with 64mb or better.

Edit: Also, using your logic, wouldn't windows NT require 128mb of memory?😕
That would be been extremely expensive, especially ecc memory for servers.

You're right but I've been striving to find logic in some people's thoughts that it's perfectly acceptable for operating systems to consume more ram for no apparent reason.. Believe it or not, Windows NT actually runs much nicer with 128MB of ram than you'd think.

iTunes is definitely a cpu hog, particularly when changing songs on an external ipod over the firewire bus, but it doesn't make a it a bad program. Dual core, and upcoming multi core processors are going to alleviate the prior nececssity of having a striped down OS in order to get a decent framerate in games. I can't remember the last time that I ended all of my unnecessary processes before playing a game, it's probably been years, but I do remember doing it at one point.

But that's no excuse for it to be a cpu hog "because we'll have dual core", that goes with my saying that because we have more powerful hardware now, we are less inclined to program efficent programs as much anymore because the hardware will simply take the burden. Foobar 2000 requires an astonishing 8MB of ram(sarcasm) to play music over my network from my file server. How is it that I see iTunes use up to 256MB-512MB of ram just so that it can "organize" and play music?😕 It's absolutely ridiculous for apple to get away with shoddy programming...

 

[remagavon]

Originally posted by: goku

Originally posted by: remagavon

Originally posted by: goku

Originally posted by: remagavon

Originally posted by: goku
Here is something I hadn't thought before and I doubt anyone else has (otherwise they would have pointed it out), has anybody considered that the reason why windows 2000 uses about 128MB of ram while windows 98/95 use between 32-64MB of ram is because windows 9X based operating systems are for the most part 16bit operating systems while Windows 2000 is a true 32bit OS?

32mb of ram was exceedingly expensive when windows 95 was released, FWIW. The minimum requirement was 4mb, although 8mb, and moreso 16mb was really necessary for decent operation and multitasking. Windows 2000 required 32mb, and ran acceptably with 64mb or better.

Edit: Also, using your logic, wouldn't windows NT require 128mb of memory?😕
That would be been extremely expensive, especially ecc memory for servers.

You're right but I've been striving to find logic in some people's thoughts that it's perfectly acceptable for operating systems to consume more ram for no apparent reason.. Believe it or not, Windows NT actually runs much nicer with 128MB of ram than you'd think.

iTunes is definitely a cpu hog, particularly when changing songs on an external ipod over the firewire bus, but it doesn't make a it a bad program. Dual core, and upcoming multi core processors are going to alleviate the prior nececssity of having a striped down OS in order to get a decent framerate in games. I can't remember the last time that I ended all of my unnecessary processes before playing a game, it's probably been years, but I do remember doing it at one point.

But that's no excuse for it to be a cpu hog "because we'll have dual core", that goes with my saying that because we have more powerful hardware now, we are less inclined to program efficent programs as much anymore because the hardware will simply take the burden. Foobar 2000 requires an astonishing 8MB of ram(sarcasm) to play music over my network from my file server. How is it that I see iTunes use up to 256MB-512MB of ram just so that it can "organize" and play music?😕 It's absolutely ridiculous for apple to get away with shoddy programming...

No, it's the fact that we can have indexing and instant searching built into itunes which is again afforded to us by the decent hardware we have. Because something uses resources doesn't mean it's bad, that's really a focal mentality of the past decade, when turning off a program really did matter for overall system responsiveness.

Also, I just loaded up iTunes with over 5gb of music, and it's using 26mb of memory, and less than 5% of my cpu. I really don't understand where you're getting these numbers from. If you actually use the software and don't worry about things, I'm pretty sure you'll find it to be acceptable performance wise. I haven't seen a lot of people tweaking things since Windows 2000 was the best OS out, because it's really not necessary. It's like the old saying "you should reinstall windows every 6 months" which is totally not the case anymore. It's hard to let old habits die, but really; just sit back and use your pc instead of bringing up the task manager and worrying about memory usage.

 

[HardcoreRobot]

goku for prez

 

[imported_goku]

Originally posted by: remagavon

Originally posted by: goku

Originally posted by: remagavon

Originally posted by: goku

Originally posted by: remagavon

Originally posted by: goku
Here is something I hadn't thought before and I doubt anyone else has (otherwise they would have pointed it out), has anybody considered that the reason why windows 2000 uses about 128MB of ram while windows 98/95 use between 32-64MB of ram is because windows 9X based operating systems are for the most part 16bit operating systems while Windows 2000 is a true 32bit OS?

32mb of ram was exceedingly expensive when windows 95 was released, FWIW. The minimum requirement was 4mb, although 8mb, and moreso 16mb was really necessary for decent operation and multitasking. Windows 2000 required 32mb, and ran acceptably with 64mb or better.

Edit: Also, using your logic, wouldn't windows NT require 128mb of memory?😕
That would be been extremely expensive, especially ecc memory for servers.

You're right but I've been striving to find logic in some people's thoughts that it's perfectly acceptable for operating systems to consume more ram for no apparent reason.. Believe it or not, Windows NT actually runs much nicer with 128MB of ram than you'd think.

iTunes is definitely a cpu hog, particularly when changing songs on an external ipod over the firewire bus, but it doesn't make a it a bad program. Dual core, and upcoming multi core processors are going to alleviate the prior nececssity of having a striped down OS in order to get a decent framerate in games. I can't remember the last time that I ended all of my unnecessary processes before playing a game, it's probably been years, but I do remember doing it at one point.

But that's no excuse for it to be a cpu hog "because we'll have dual core", that goes with my saying that because we have more powerful hardware now, we are less inclined to program efficent programs as much anymore because the hardware will simply take the burden. Foobar 2000 requires an astonishing 8MB of ram(sarcasm) to play music over my network from my file server. How is it that I see iTunes use up to 256MB-512MB of ram just so that it can "organize" and play music?😕 It's absolutely ridiculous for apple to get away with shoddy programming...

No, it's the fact that we can have indexing and instant searching built into itunes which is again afforded to us by the decent hardware we have. Because something uses resources doesn't mean it's bad, that's really a focal mentality of the past decade, when turning off a program really did matter for overall system responsiveness.

Also, I just loaded up iTunes with over 5gb of music, and it's using 26mb of memory, and less than 5% of my cpu. I really don't understand where you're getting these numbers from. If you actually use the software and don't worry about things, I'm pretty sure you'll find it to be acceptable performance wise. I haven't seen a lot of people tweaking things since Windows 2000 was the best OS out.

Well despite telling my sister NOT to use iTunes, she decided to install it anyways because she needed to organize her music files (she didn't know about "the godfather") and when it wasn't loaded, it was using according to task manager 10MB of ram. So when I closed iTunes' processes, I thought I would see an increase of about 10MB of physical memory but instead I saw an 80MB increase! On other systems I've seen it literally take 256MB of ram, I personally think iTunes is using more ram on your system than you think...

 

[imported_goku]

Originally posted by: HardcoreRobot
goku for prez

Sarcasm or not, I've gotten quite a few people to actually tell me that, although I doubt they say "goku for president"....

 

[imported_goku]

Originally posted by: remagavon

Originally posted by: goku

Originally posted by: remagavon

Originally posted by: goku

Originally posted by: remagavon

Originally posted by: goku
Here is something I hadn't thought before and I doubt anyone else has (otherwise they would have pointed it out), has anybody considered that the reason why windows 2000 uses about 128MB of ram while windows 98/95 use between 32-64MB of ram is because windows 9X based operating systems are for the most part 16bit operating systems while Windows 2000 is a true 32bit OS?

32mb of ram was exceedingly expensive when windows 95 was released, FWIW. The minimum requirement was 4mb, although 8mb, and moreso 16mb was really necessary for decent operation and multitasking. Windows 2000 required 32mb, and ran acceptably with 64mb or better.

Edit: Also, using your logic, wouldn't windows NT require 128mb of memory?😕
That would be been extremely expensive, especially ecc memory for servers.

You're right but I've been striving to find logic in some people's thoughts that it's perfectly acceptable for operating systems to consume more ram for no apparent reason.. Believe it or not, Windows NT actually runs much nicer with 128MB of ram than you'd think.

iTunes is definitely a cpu hog, particularly when changing songs on an external ipod over the firewire bus, but it doesn't make a it a bad program. Dual core, and upcoming multi core processors are going to alleviate the prior nececssity of having a striped down OS in order to get a decent framerate in games. I can't remember the last time that I ended all of my unnecessary processes before playing a game, it's probably been years, but I do remember doing it at one point.

But that's no excuse for it to be a cpu hog "because we'll have dual core", that goes with my saying that because we have more powerful hardware now, we are less inclined to program efficent programs as much anymore because the hardware will simply take the burden. Foobar 2000 requires an astonishing 8MB of ram(sarcasm) to play music over my network from my file server. How is it that I see iTunes use up to 256MB-512MB of ram just so that it can "organize" and play music?😕 It's absolutely ridiculous for apple to get away with shoddy programming...

No, it's the fact that we can have indexing and instant searching built into itunes which is again afforded to us by the decent hardware we have. Because something uses resources doesn't mean it's bad, that's really a focal mentality of the past decade, when turning off a program really did matter for overall system responsiveness.

Do you really believe that you need even 50MB of ram for indexing and instant searching? Foobar does a great job at this and requires very little ram..

 

[Goosemaster]

Originally posted by: TheTony
VIIV = On-chip DRM.

If you can deal with that, I suppose it's not a bad choice.

oh god....


*throws up in his mnouth a little*

 

[remagavon]

Originally posted by: goku

Originally posted by: remagavon

Originally posted by: goku

Originally posted by: remagavon

Originally posted by: goku

Originally posted by: remagavon

Originally posted by: goku
Here is something I hadn't thought before and I doubt anyone else has (otherwise they would have pointed it out), has anybody considered that the reason why windows 2000 uses about 128MB of ram while windows 98/95 use between 32-64MB of ram is because windows 9X based operating systems are for the most part 16bit operating systems while Windows 2000 is a true 32bit OS?

32mb of ram was exceedingly expensive when windows 95 was released, FWIW. The minimum requirement was 4mb, although 8mb, and moreso 16mb was really necessary for decent operation and multitasking. Windows 2000 required 32mb, and ran acceptably with 64mb or better.

Edit: Also, using your logic, wouldn't windows NT require 128mb of memory?😕
That would be been extremely expensive, especially ecc memory for servers.

You're right but I've been striving to find logic in some people's thoughts that it's perfectly acceptable for operating systems to consume more ram for no apparent reason.. Believe it or not, Windows NT actually runs much nicer with 128MB of ram than you'd think.

iTunes is definitely a cpu hog, particularly when changing songs on an external ipod over the firewire bus, but it doesn't make a it a bad program. Dual core, and upcoming multi core processors are going to alleviate the prior nececssity of having a striped down OS in order to get a decent framerate in games. I can't remember the last time that I ended all of my unnecessary processes before playing a game, it's probably been years, but I do remember doing it at one point.

But that's no excuse for it to be a cpu hog "because we'll have dual core", that goes with my saying that because we have more powerful hardware now, we are less inclined to program efficent programs as much anymore because the hardware will simply take the burden. Foobar 2000 requires an astonishing 8MB of ram(sarcasm) to play music over my network from my file server. How is it that I see iTunes use up to 256MB-512MB of ram just so that it can "organize" and play music?😕 It's absolutely ridiculous for apple to get away with shoddy programming...

No, it's the fact that we can have indexing and instant searching built into itunes which is again afforded to us by the decent hardware we have. Because something uses resources doesn't mean it's bad, that's really a focal mentality of the past decade, when turning off a program really did matter for overall system responsiveness.

Do you really believe that you need even 50MB of ram for indexing and instant searching? Foobar does a great job at this and requires very little ram..

Foobar is hideous by default and also doesn't work on OSX, or integrate natively with my ipod.

Like I said, really you should actually just use the pc instead of worrying about whether or not you're getting the maximum resource allocation accomplished at any given time. The less stress, the better.

By the way, I'm actually on an iBook right now, which has a pathetic processor and only 512mb of ram. iTunes works fine. On the pc side, the only time I've seen iTunes severely slow things down is when the little ipod manager freaks out looking for the ipod and then you get system hangs etc. I believe that was corrected in a patch, but you can of course just turn that off via msconfig under the startup options therein.

Closing itunes shows my free memory jumps by around 18-20mb, but (as far as I know) in OSX it's using core audio and on my lowly iBook that's bound to take a bit more memory. Still, 20mb is something that I don't care about. I can do everything I need to do and listen to music at the same time if I choose; it's a non issue. 🙂

 

[imported_goku]

Originally posted by: remagavon

Originally posted by: goku

Originally posted by: remagavon

Originally posted by: goku

Originally posted by: remagavon

Originally posted by: goku

Originally posted by: remagavon

Originally posted by: goku
Here is something I hadn't thought before and I doubt anyone else has (otherwise they would have pointed it out), has anybody considered that the reason why windows 2000 uses about 128MB of ram while windows 98/95 use between 32-64MB of ram is because windows 9X based operating systems are for the most part 16bit operating systems while Windows 2000 is a true 32bit OS?

32mb of ram was exceedingly expensive when windows 95 was released, FWIW. The minimum requirement was 4mb, although 8mb, and moreso 16mb was really necessary for decent operation and multitasking. Windows 2000 required 32mb, and ran acceptably with 64mb or better.

Edit: Also, using your logic, wouldn't windows NT require 128mb of memory?😕
That would be been extremely expensive, especially ecc memory for servers.

You're right but I've been striving to find logic in some people's thoughts that it's perfectly acceptable for operating systems to consume more ram for no apparent reason.. Believe it or not, Windows NT actually runs much nicer with 128MB of ram than you'd think.

iTunes is definitely a cpu hog, particularly when changing songs on an external ipod over the firewire bus, but it doesn't make a it a bad program. Dual core, and upcoming multi core processors are going to alleviate the prior nececssity of having a striped down OS in order to get a decent framerate in games. I can't remember the last time that I ended all of my unnecessary processes before playing a game, it's probably been years, but I do remember doing it at one point.

But that's no excuse for it to be a cpu hog "because we'll have dual core", that goes with my saying that because we have more powerful hardware now, we are less inclined to program efficent programs as much anymore because the hardware will simply take the burden. Foobar 2000 requires an astonishing 8MB of ram(sarcasm) to play music over my network from my file server. How is it that I see iTunes use up to 256MB-512MB of ram just so that it can "organize" and play music?😕 It's absolutely ridiculous for apple to get away with shoddy programming...

No, it's the fact that we can have indexing and instant searching built into itunes which is again afforded to us by the decent hardware we have. Because something uses resources doesn't mean it's bad, that's really a focal mentality of the past decade, when turning off a program really did matter for overall system responsiveness.

Do you really believe that you need even 50MB of ram for indexing and instant searching? Foobar does a great job at this and requires very little ram..

Foobar is hideous by default and also doesn't work on OSX, or integrate natively with my ipod.

Like I said, really you should actually just use the pc instead of worrying about whether or not you're getting the maximum resource allocation accomplished at any given time. The less stress, the better.

By the way, I'm actually on an iBook right now, which has a pathetic processor and only 512mb of ram. iTunes works fine. On the pc side, the only time I've seen iTunes severely slow things down is when the little ipod manager freaks out looking for the ipod and then you get system hangs etc. I believe that was corrected in a patch, but you can of course just turn that off via msconfig under the startup options therein.

Closing itunes shows my free memory jumps by around 18-20mb, but (as far as I know) in OSX it's using core audio and on my lowly iBook that's bound to take a bit more memory. Still, 20mb is something that I don't care about. I can do everything I need to do and listen to music at the same time if I choose; it's a non issue. 🙂

woah... wait you're trying to compare iTunes on the mac to iTunes on the PC!? Please confirm this before I go any further...

 

[remagavon]

Originally posted by: goku

Originally posted by: remagavon

Originally posted by: goku

Originally posted by: remagavon

Originally posted by: goku

Originally posted by: remagavon

Originally posted by: goku

Originally posted by: remagavon

Originally posted by: goku
Here is something I hadn't thought before and I doubt anyone else has (otherwise they would have pointed it out), has anybody considered that the reason why windows 2000 uses about 128MB of ram while windows 98/95 use between 32-64MB of ram is because windows 9X based operating systems are for the most part 16bit operating systems while Windows 2000 is a true 32bit OS?

32mb of ram was exceedingly expensive when windows 95 was released, FWIW. The minimum requirement was 4mb, although 8mb, and moreso 16mb was really necessary for decent operation and multitasking. Windows 2000 required 32mb, and ran acceptably with 64mb or better.

Edit: Also, using your logic, wouldn't windows NT require 128mb of memory?😕
That would be been extremely expensive, especially ecc memory for servers.

You're right but I've been striving to find logic in some people's thoughts that it's perfectly acceptable for operating systems to consume more ram for no apparent reason.. Believe it or not, Windows NT actually runs much nicer with 128MB of ram than you'd think.

iTunes is definitely a cpu hog, particularly when changing songs on an external ipod over the firewire bus, but it doesn't make a it a bad program. Dual core, and upcoming multi core processors are going to alleviate the prior nececssity of having a striped down OS in order to get a decent framerate in games. I can't remember the last time that I ended all of my unnecessary processes before playing a game, it's probably been years, but I do remember doing it at one point.

But that's no excuse for it to be a cpu hog "because we'll have dual core", that goes with my saying that because we have more powerful hardware now, we are less inclined to program efficent programs as much anymore because the hardware will simply take the burden. Foobar 2000 requires an astonishing 8MB of ram(sarcasm) to play music over my network from my file server. How is it that I see iTunes use up to 256MB-512MB of ram just so that it can "organize" and play music?😕 It's absolutely ridiculous for apple to get away with shoddy programming...

No, it's the fact that we can have indexing and instant searching built into itunes which is again afforded to us by the decent hardware we have. Because something uses resources doesn't mean it's bad, that's really a focal mentality of the past decade, when turning off a program really did matter for overall system responsiveness.

Do you really believe that you need even 50MB of ram for indexing and instant searching? Foobar does a great job at this and requires very little ram..

Foobar is hideous by default and also doesn't work on OSX, or integrate natively with my ipod.

Like I said, really you should actually just use the pc instead of worrying about whether or not you're getting the maximum resource allocation accomplished at any given time. The less stress, the better.

By the way, I'm actually on an iBook right now, which has a pathetic processor and only 512mb of ram. iTunes works fine. On the pc side, the only time I've seen iTunes severely slow things down is when the little ipod manager freaks out looking for the ipod and then you get system hangs etc. I believe that was corrected in a patch, but you can of course just turn that off via msconfig under the startup options therein.

Closing itunes shows my free memory jumps by around 18-20mb, but (as far as I know) in OSX it's using core audio and on my lowly iBook that's bound to take a bit more memory. Still, 20mb is something that I don't care about. I can do everything I need to do and listen to music at the same time if I choose; it's a non issue. 🙂

woah... wait you're trying to compare iTunes on the mac to iTunes on the PC!? Please confirm this before I go any further...

I have used them both, frequently. The only machine I currently have access to is a mac, so I can't load up memory usage stats on a windows pc.

I have used itunes on the PC since it was launched (and, IIRC, quickly patched) and I've had mostly good experiences with it, outside of my issues with the ipod launcher problems that I posted earlier, which I'm pretty sure was corrected with a patch.

The iBook is enormously slower than any recent windows PC; on my PC the usage was 1-3% when I played a song, on this mac it spikes to around 6-7% tops. Again, that's probably due to the sound drivers and lack of a dedicated hardware sound device (as far as I know) on the iBook.

My point is just that it doesn't severely affect anything (at least normally) that would impact the performance of the computer to the point where you're going to notice it, unless you're benchmarking or looking specifically for an issue. And this is of course due to the processing power that we have. BF2 is coded terribly like you said, but honestly there is a whole lot of stuff on the map at once, so maybe they really did need over a gig of ram for smooth performance. I don't know, and I'll never know, but I won't lose sleep over buying 2gb for a gaming machine.

People have been calling software bloated for years, to me it's mostly been just another bandwagon for people to jump on. I've used a mac mini as my primary system, with a resolution of 1600x1200 which does_not_fit into the vram on the system. That is slow, but it is completely usable. The pursuit of complete speed and instant results is something that is ultimately vain; I threw thousands of dollars into a PC recently and I finally came to the conclusion that it's ridiculous to have so much money invested in this bunch of silicon that I use for entertainment, especially being a college student.

Some things are undoubtedly designed for top of the line hardware, and certain shortcuts may be taken when designing for that hardware (FEAR.. for Christ's Sake that ran slightly choppy on my ridiculous PC) but as far as the majority of programs go; you'd really be hard pressed to slow down any decent PC built within the last 2 or 3 years with common, everyday software. I've had everything now from a ridiculous dual Xeon PC (back when they were expensive) to SLi and dual core, to 15,000rpm SCSI U320 setups with a hardware raid card, and like I said I just finally realized that the price to performance ratio falls off so dramatically that it's virtually foolish to spend so much on hardware; hence me owning an iBook.

This has really gone off on a tangent, but I just really want you to try and get a grasp on what I'm saying. Put down the personal bias against certian companies, stop taking everyone's word for everything, and start using a computer for what it was designed for. I've personally had a very positive experience after stepping back and taking a look at the whole picture like that, and I think you could to, based on how vehemently you post.
🙂

 

[MrDudeMan]

Originally posted by: goku

woah... wait you're trying to compare iTunes on the mac to iTunes on the PC!? Please confirm this before I go any further...

again, you know nothing about programming. making the transition from one OS to another is NOT hard. before you spout off about mac oriented software messing up a PC, i think you should just keep your mouth shut. you are going to be wrong.

also, iTunes does not use 80mb of ram when you close the processes. i just tried it on 3 different computers and could not duplicate those results. you are a liar. we all know you made that up to help prove your point but its just not true and that is the reality of the situation. you are such a tool.

 

[imported_goku]

Originally posted by: remagavon

Originally posted by: goku

Originally posted by: remagavon

Originally posted by: goku

Originally posted by: remagavon

Originally posted by: goku

Originally posted by: remagavon

Originally posted by: goku

Originally posted by: remagavon

Originally posted by: goku
Here is something I hadn't thought before and I doubt anyone else has (otherwise they would have pointed it out), has anybody considered that the reason why windows 2000 uses about 128MB of ram while windows 98/95 use between 32-64MB of ram is because windows 9X based operating systems are for the most part 16bit operating systems while Windows 2000 is a true 32bit OS?

32mb of ram was exceedingly expensive when windows 95 was released, FWIW. The minimum requirement was 4mb, although 8mb, and moreso 16mb was really necessary for decent operation and multitasking. Windows 2000 required 32mb, and ran acceptably with 64mb or better.

Edit: Also, using your logic, wouldn't windows NT require 128mb of memory?😕
That would be been extremely expensive, especially ecc memory for servers.

You're right but I've been striving to find logic in some people's thoughts that it's perfectly acceptable for operating systems to consume more ram for no apparent reason.. Believe it or not, Windows NT actually runs much nicer with 128MB of ram than you'd think.

iTunes is definitely a cpu hog, particularly when changing songs on an external ipod over the firewire bus, but it doesn't make a it a bad program. Dual core, and upcoming multi core processors are going to alleviate the prior nececssity of having a striped down OS in order to get a decent framerate in games. I can't remember the last time that I ended all of my unnecessary processes before playing a game, it's probably been years, but I do remember doing it at one point.

But that's no excuse for it to be a cpu hog "because we'll have dual core", that goes with my saying that because we have more powerful hardware now, we are less inclined to program efficent programs as much anymore because the hardware will simply take the burden. Foobar 2000 requires an astonishing 8MB of ram(sarcasm) to play music over my network from my file server. How is it that I see iTunes use up to 256MB-512MB of ram just so that it can "organize" and play music?😕 It's absolutely ridiculous for apple to get away with shoddy programming...

No, it's the fact that we can have indexing and instant searching built into itunes which is again afforded to us by the decent hardware we have. Because something uses resources doesn't mean it's bad, that's really a focal mentality of the past decade, when turning off a program really did matter for overall system responsiveness.

Do you really believe that you need even 50MB of ram for indexing and instant searching? Foobar does a great job at this and requires very little ram..

Foobar is hideous by default and also doesn't work on OSX, or integrate natively with my ipod.

Like I said, really you should actually just use the pc instead of worrying about whether or not you're getting the maximum resource allocation accomplished at any given time. The less stress, the better.

By the way, I'm actually on an iBook right now, which has a pathetic processor and only 512mb of ram. iTunes works fine. On the pc side, the only time I've seen iTunes severely slow things down is when the little ipod manager freaks out looking for the ipod and then you get system hangs etc. I believe that was corrected in a patch, but you can of course just turn that off via msconfig under the startup options therein.

Closing itunes shows my free memory jumps by around 18-20mb, but (as far as I know) in OSX it's using core audio and on my lowly iBook that's bound to take a bit more memory. Still, 20mb is something that I don't care about. I can do everything I need to do and listen to music at the same time if I choose; it's a non issue. 🙂

woah... wait you're trying to compare iTunes on the mac to iTunes on the PC!? Please confirm this before I go any further...

I have used them both, frequently. The only machine I currently have access to is a mac, so I can't load up memory usage stats on a windows pc.

I have used itunes on the PC since it was launched (and, IIRC, quickly patched) and I've had mostly good experiences with it, outside of my issues with the ipod launcher problems that I posted earlier, which I'm pretty sure was corrected with a patch.

The iBook is enormously slower than any recent windows PC; on my PC the usage was 1-3% when I played a song, on this mac it spikes to around 6-7% tops. Again, that's probably due to the sound drivers and lack of a dedicated hardware sound device (as far as I know) on the iBook.

My point is just that it doesn't severely affect anything (at least normally) that would impact the performance of the computer to the point where you're going to notice it, unless you're benchmarking or looking specifically for an issue. And this is of course due to the processing power that we have. BF2 is coded terribly like you said, but honestly there is a whole lot of stuff on the map at once, so maybe they really did need over a gig of ram for smooth performance. I don't know, and I'll never know, but I won't lose sleep over buying 2gb for a gaming machine.

People have been calling software bloated for years, to me it's mostly been just another bandwagon for people to jump on. I've used a mac mini as my primary system, with a resolution of 1600x1200 which does_not_fit into the vram on the system. That is slow, but it is completely usable. The pursuit of complete speed and instant results is something that is ultimately vain; I threw thousands of dollars into a PC recently and I finally came to the conclusion that it's ridiculous to have so much money invested in this bunch of silicon that I use for entertainment, especially being a college student.

Some things are undoubtedly designed for top of the line hardware, and certain shortcuts may be taken when designing for that hardware (FEAR.. for Christ's Sake that ran slightly choppy on my ridiculous PC) but as far as the majority of programs go; you'd really be hard pressed to slow down any decent PC built within the last 2 or 3 years with common, everyday software. I've had everything now from a ridiculous dual Xeon PC (back when they were expensive) to SLi and dual core, to 15,000rpm SCSI U320 setups with a hardware raid card, and like I said I just finally realized that the price to performance ratio falls off so dramatically that it's virtually foolish to spend so much on hardware; hence me owning an iBook.

This has really gone off on a tangent, but I just really want you to try and get a grasp on what I'm saying. Put down the personal bias against certian companies, stop taking everyone's word for everything, and start using a computer for what it was designed for. I've personally had a very positive experience after stepping back and taking a look at the whole picture like that, and I think you could to, based on how vehemently you post.
🙂

iTunes for the PC and iTunes for the mac are vastly different. I'm assuming you ran iTunes with your "tricked out" PC before giving it away and just settling for a mac, well FYI if you have 512MB ram and you're using iTunes, it's goanna run dog sh1t unless you did something to "tune up" your system just so that it can run that "killer app"... My sister doens't use iTunes anymore (I think) because it finally crashed for good instead of frequently, everytime she trys to load it, it crashes so she pretty much said screw it when she was visiting.. iTunes is/was horribly coded for the PC compared to the Mac, I've heard that it runs smoothly on the mac but then again I'm sure thats relative as apple computers are generally slow unless you've got a fast processor and lots of ram.

 

[imported_goku]

Originally posted by: Bigsm00th

Originally posted by: goku

woah... wait you're trying to compare iTunes on the mac to iTunes on the PC!? Please confirm this before I go any further...

again, you know nothing about programming. making the transition from one OS to another is NOT hard. before you spout off about mac oriented software messing up a PC, i think you should just keep your mouth shut. you are going to be wrong.

You're such a hypocrite, if anyone is a tool, it's you, plain and simple. Transitioning from the apple platform to the PC platform is no easy feat, how can you say that converting Power PC architecture based software to X86 based software is easy? You really need to end your self before some programmer comes in here and shows what kind of fscking idiot you are, if anything it's very difficult to convert that.

I mean look at all the games for the mac, they run dog sh1t, they're so slow it's painful. This probably explains why iTunes for the PC is so bloated and slow. And who said I never programmed? I simply said it wasn't worth my time, something I have very little of possibly because I suck at budgeting it, a good example of this is me writing this post, proving to the world you're an absolute moron. You do realize you could have left at anytime, but no, you've decided to continue this worthless engagement and have accomplished nothing except to make your self look like an ass.

FYI kid, there is a big Fscking difference between "OS" and architecture, sure OS X is a different operating system, ON A COMPLETELY DIFFERENT CPU ARCHITECTURE. Now, the transition from linux to Windows, THAT is an OS change, NOT architecture change... :roll: Idiot.

 

[Fraggable]

Originally posted by: goku

"Windows 9x was such a POS, I'm so glad microsoft has dumped support of that POS excuse for an operating system".

M$ has not dropped support for win 98. They will in June.

And unless you're a programmer, you're not knowledgeable enough to comment on why OSes need more RAM than others. If you want to run your PC with 64 megs of RAM on 95, then do it.

 

[remagavon]

Originally posted by: goku

Originally posted by: remagavon

Originally posted by: goku

Originally posted by: remagavon

Originally posted by: goku

Originally posted by: remagavon

Originally posted by: goku

Originally posted by: remagavon

Originally posted by: goku

Originally posted by: remagavon

Originally posted by: goku
Here is something I hadn't thought before and I doubt anyone else has (otherwise they would have pointed it out), has anybody considered that the reason why windows 2000 uses about 128MB of ram while windows 98/95 use between 32-64MB of ram is because windows 9X based operating systems are for the most part 16bit operating systems while Windows 2000 is a true 32bit OS?

32mb of ram was exceedingly expensive when windows 95 was released, FWIW. The minimum requirement was 4mb, although 8mb, and moreso 16mb was really necessary for decent operation and multitasking. Windows 2000 required 32mb, and ran acceptably with 64mb or better.

Edit: Also, using your logic, wouldn't windows NT require 128mb of memory?😕
That would be been extremely expensive, especially ecc memory for servers.

You're right but I've been striving to find logic in some people's thoughts that it's perfectly acceptable for operating systems to consume more ram for no apparent reason.. Believe it or not, Windows NT actually runs much nicer with 128MB of ram than you'd think.

iTunes is definitely a cpu hog, particularly when changing songs on an external ipod over the firewire bus, but it doesn't make a it a bad program. Dual core, and upcoming multi core processors are going to alleviate the prior nececssity of having a striped down OS in order to get a decent framerate in games. I can't remember the last time that I ended all of my unnecessary processes before playing a game, it's probably been years, but I do remember doing it at one point.

But that's no excuse for it to be a cpu hog "because we'll have dual core", that goes with my saying that because we have more powerful hardware now, we are less inclined to program efficent programs as much anymore because the hardware will simply take the burden. Foobar 2000 requires an astonishing 8MB of ram(sarcasm) to play music over my network from my file server. How is it that I see iTunes use up to 256MB-512MB of ram just so that it can "organize" and play music?😕 It's absolutely ridiculous for apple to get away with shoddy programming...

No, it's the fact that we can have indexing and instant searching built into itunes which is again afforded to us by the decent hardware we have. Because something uses resources doesn't mean it's bad, that's really a focal mentality of the past decade, when turning off a program really did matter for overall system responsiveness.

Do you really believe that you need even 50MB of ram for indexing and instant searching? Foobar does a great job at this and requires very little ram..

Foobar is hideous by default and also doesn't work on OSX, or integrate natively with my ipod.

Like I said, really you should actually just use the pc instead of worrying about whether or not you're getting the maximum resource allocation accomplished at any given time. The less stress, the better.

By the way, I'm actually on an iBook right now, which has a pathetic processor and only 512mb of ram. iTunes works fine. On the pc side, the only time I've seen iTunes severely slow things down is when the little ipod manager freaks out looking for the ipod and then you get system hangs etc. I believe that was corrected in a patch, but you can of course just turn that off via msconfig under the startup options therein.

Closing itunes shows my free memory jumps by around 18-20mb, but (as far as I know) in OSX it's using core audio and on my lowly iBook that's bound to take a bit more memory. Still, 20mb is something that I don't care about. I can do everything I need to do and listen to music at the same time if I choose; it's a non issue. 🙂

woah... wait you're trying to compare iTunes on the mac to iTunes on the PC!? Please confirm this before I go any further...

I have used them both, frequently. The only machine I currently have access to is a mac, so I can't load up memory usage stats on a windows pc.

I have used itunes on the PC since it was launched (and, IIRC, quickly patched) and I've had mostly good experiences with it, outside of my issues with the ipod launcher problems that I posted earlier, which I'm pretty sure was corrected with a patch.

The iBook is enormously slower than any recent windows PC; on my PC the usage was 1-3% when I played a song, on this mac it spikes to around 6-7% tops. Again, that's probably due to the sound drivers and lack of a dedicated hardware sound device (as far as I know) on the iBook.

My point is just that it doesn't severely affect anything (at least normally) that would impact the performance of the computer to the point where you're going to notice it, unless you're benchmarking or looking specifically for an issue. And this is of course due to the processing power that we have. BF2 is coded terribly like you said, but honestly there is a whole lot of stuff on the map at once, so maybe they really did need over a gig of ram for smooth performance. I don't know, and I'll never know, but I won't lose sleep over buying 2gb for a gaming machine.

People have been calling software bloated for years, to me it's mostly been just another bandwagon for people to jump on. I've used a mac mini as my primary system, with a resolution of 1600x1200 which does_not_fit into the vram on the system. That is slow, but it is completely usable. The pursuit of complete speed and instant results is something that is ultimately vain; I threw thousands of dollars into a PC recently and I finally came to the conclusion that it's ridiculous to have so much money invested in this bunch of silicon that I use for entertainment, especially being a college student.

Some things are undoubtedly designed for top of the line hardware, and certain shortcuts may be taken when designing for that hardware (FEAR.. for Christ's Sake that ran slightly choppy on my ridiculous PC) but as far as the majority of programs go; you'd really be hard pressed to slow down any decent PC built within the last 2 or 3 years with common, everyday software. I've had everything now from a ridiculous dual Xeon PC (back when they were expensive) to SLi and dual core, to 15,000rpm SCSI U320 setups with a hardware raid card, and like I said I just finally realized that the price to performance ratio falls off so dramatically that it's virtually foolish to spend so much on hardware; hence me owning an iBook.

This has really gone off on a tangent, but I just really want you to try and get a grasp on what I'm saying. Put down the personal bias against certian companies, stop taking everyone's word for everything, and start using a computer for what it was designed for. I've personally had a very positive experience after stepping back and taking a look at the whole picture like that, and I think you could to, based on how vehemently you post.
🙂

iTunes for the PC and iTunes for the mac are vastly different. I'm assuming you ran iTunes with your "tricked out" PC before giving it away and just settling for a mac, well FYI if you have 512MB ram and you're using iTunes, it's goanna run dog sh1t unless you did something to "tune up" your system just so that it can run that "killer app"... My sister doens't use iTunes anymore (I think) because it finally crashed for good instead of frequently, everytime she trys to load it, it crashes so she pretty much said screw it when she was visiting.. iTunes is/was horribly coded for the PC compared to the Mac, I've heard that it runs smoothly on the mac but then again I'm sure thats relative as apple computers are generally slow unless you've got a fast processor and lots of ram.

I never said anything about iTunes being a killer app, and I was just trying to put things into perspective in hopes that you'd lose your dogmatic perspective. I didn't give away my PC (why the heck would I do that), and I'm not settling for a mac. It just fits my needs better right now, but that's really beside the point. You're obviously not going to listen to anyone else, even though multiple people have completely disagreed with you in this thread, so enjoy being stubborn.

$80 for memory is not a lot of money. And I have in fact ran iTunes on a PC with 256mb of ram, running windows xp. It worked fine, although the PC was pretty damn slow when multitasking. The key here is that it didn't crash. I don't think I've ever actually had iTunes crash on any system, but it did hang up with the ipod manager like I said.

I hope that you're still young because you've done nothing but yell at people in this thread, without trying to objectively look at anything. 🙁

 

[SampSon]

If I was in the HTPC market I would just build my own for the fun.

 

[remagavon]

Originally posted by: goku

Originally posted by: Bigsm00th

Originally posted by: goku

woah... wait you're trying to compare iTunes on the mac to iTunes on the PC!? Please confirm this before I go any further...

again, you know nothing about programming. making the transition from one OS to another is NOT hard. before you spout off about mac oriented software messing up a PC, i think you should just keep your mouth shut. you are going to be wrong.

You're such a hypocrite, if anyone is a tool, it's you, plain and simple. Transitioning from the apple platform to the PC platform is no easy feat, how can you say that converting Power PC architecture based software to X86 based software is easy? You really need to end your self before some programmer comes in here and shows what kind of fscking idiot you are, if anything it's very difficult to convert that.

I mean look at all the games for the mac, they run dog sh1t, they're so slow it's painful. This probably explains why iTunes for the PC is so bloated and slow. And who said I never programmed? I simply said it wasn't worth my time, something I have very little of possibly because I suck at budgeting it, a good example of this is me writing this post, proving to the world you're an absolute moron. You do realize you could have left at anytime, but no, you've decided to continue this worthless engagement and have accomplished nothing except to make your self look like an ass.

FYI kid, there is a big Fscking difference between "OS" and architecture, sure OS X is a different operating system, ON A COMPLETELY DIFFERENT CPU ARCHITECTURE. Now, the transition from linux to Windows, THAT is an OS change, NOT architecture change... :roll: Idiot.

You do know that iTunes has a lot of pre-cocoa code in it, correct? That is actually an OS issue and not a CPU one. They've gotten it to work great in osx and in windows, without (as far as I know) doing a complete rewrite of the code.

Gaming performance on the mac has nothing to do with iTunes performance on the PC, that's a horrible analogy, and one that requires solid fact to back up rather than simple conjecture.

 

[imported_goku]

Originally posted by: Fraggable

Originally posted by: goku

"Windows 9x was such a POS, I'm so glad microsoft has dumped support of that POS excuse for an operating system".

M$ has not dropped support for win 98. They will in June.

And unless you're a programmer, you're not knowledgeable enough to comment on why OSes need more RAM than others. If you want to run your PC with 64 megs of RAM on 95, then do it.

Where are you? 😕

 

[imported_goku]

Originally posted by: remagavon

Originally posted by: goku

Originally posted by: remagavon

Originally posted by: goku

Originally posted by: remagavon

Originally posted by: goku

Originally posted by: remagavon

Originally posted by: goku

Originally posted by: remagavon

Originally posted by: goku

Originally posted by: remagavon

Originally posted by: goku
Here is something I hadn't thought before and I doubt anyone else has (otherwise they would have pointed it out), has anybody considered that the reason why windows 2000 uses about 128MB of ram while windows 98/95 use between 32-64MB of ram is because windows 9X based operating systems are for the most part 16bit operating systems while Windows 2000 is a true 32bit OS?

32mb of ram was exceedingly expensive when windows 95 was released, FWIW. The minimum requirement was 4mb, although 8mb, and moreso 16mb was really necessary for decent operation and multitasking. Windows 2000 required 32mb, and ran acceptably with 64mb or better.

Edit: Also, using your logic, wouldn't windows NT require 128mb of memory?😕
That would be been extremely expensive, especially ecc memory for servers.

You're right but I've been striving to find logic in some people's thoughts that it's perfectly acceptable for operating systems to consume more ram for no apparent reason.. Believe it or not, Windows NT actually runs much nicer with 128MB of ram than you'd think.

iTunes is definitely a cpu hog, particularly when changing songs on an external ipod over the firewire bus, but it doesn't make a it a bad program. Dual core, and upcoming multi core processors are going to alleviate the prior nececssity of having a striped down OS in order to get a decent framerate in games. I can't remember the last time that I ended all of my unnecessary processes before playing a game, it's probably been years, but I do remember doing it at one point.

But that's no excuse for it to be a cpu hog "because we'll have dual core", that goes with my saying that because we have more powerful hardware now, we are less inclined to program efficent programs as much anymore because the hardware will simply take the burden. Foobar 2000 requires an astonishing 8MB of ram(sarcasm) to play music over my network from my file server. How is it that I see iTunes use up to 256MB-512MB of ram just so that it can "organize" and play music?😕 It's absolutely ridiculous for apple to get away with shoddy programming...

No, it's the fact that we can have indexing and instant searching built into itunes which is again afforded to us by the decent hardware we have. Because something uses resources doesn't mean it's bad, that's really a focal mentality of the past decade, when turning off a program really did matter for overall system responsiveness.

Do you really believe that you need even 50MB of ram for indexing and instant searching? Foobar does a great job at this and requires very little ram..

Foobar is hideous by default and also doesn't work on OSX, or integrate natively with my ipod.

Like I said, really you should actually just use the pc instead of worrying about whether or not you're getting the maximum resource allocation accomplished at any given time. The less stress, the better.

By the way, I'm actually on an iBook right now, which has a pathetic processor and only 512mb of ram. iTunes works fine. On the pc side, the only time I've seen iTunes severely slow things down is when the little ipod manager freaks out looking for the ipod and then you get system hangs etc. I believe that was corrected in a patch, but you can of course just turn that off via msconfig under the startup options therein.

Closing itunes shows my free memory jumps by around 18-20mb, but (as far as I know) in OSX it's using core audio and on my lowly iBook that's bound to take a bit more memory. Still, 20mb is something that I don't care about. I can do everything I need to do and listen to music at the same time if I choose; it's a non issue. 🙂

woah... wait you're trying to compare iTunes on the mac to iTunes on the PC!? Please confirm this before I go any further...

I have used them both, frequently. The only machine I currently have access to is a mac, so I can't load up memory usage stats on a windows pc.

I have used itunes on the PC since it was launched (and, IIRC, quickly patched) and I've had mostly good experiences with it, outside of my issues with the ipod launcher problems that I posted earlier, which I'm pretty sure was corrected with a patch.

The iBook is enormously slower than any recent windows PC; on my PC the usage was 1-3% when I played a song, on this mac it spikes to around 6-7% tops. Again, that's probably due to the sound drivers and lack of a dedicated hardware sound device (as far as I know) on the iBook.

My point is just that it doesn't severely affect anything (at least normally) that would impact the performance of the computer to the point where you're going to notice it, unless you're benchmarking or looking specifically for an issue. And this is of course due to the processing power that we have. BF2 is coded terribly like you said, but honestly there is a whole lot of stuff on the map at once, so maybe they really did need over a gig of ram for smooth performance. I don't know, and I'll never know, but I won't lose sleep over buying 2gb for a gaming machine.

People have been calling software bloated for years, to me it's mostly been just another bandwagon for people to jump on. I've used a mac mini as my primary system, with a resolution of 1600x1200 which does_not_fit into the vram on the system. That is slow, but it is completely usable. The pursuit of complete speed and instant results is something that is ultimately vain; I threw thousands of dollars into a PC recently and I finally came to the conclusion that it's ridiculous to have so much money invested in this bunch of silicon that I use for entertainment, especially being a college student.

Some things are undoubtedly designed for top of the line hardware, and certain shortcuts may be taken when designing for that hardware (FEAR.. for Christ's Sake that ran slightly choppy on my ridiculous PC) but as far as the majority of programs go; you'd really be hard pressed to slow down any decent PC built within the last 2 or 3 years with common, everyday software. I've had everything now from a ridiculous dual Xeon PC (back when they were expensive) to SLi and dual core, to 15,000rpm SCSI U320 setups with a hardware raid card, and like I said I just finally realized that the price to performance ratio falls off so dramatically that it's virtually foolish to spend so much on hardware; hence me owning an iBook.

This has really gone off on a tangent, but I just really want you to try and get a grasp on what I'm saying. Put down the personal bias against certian companies, stop taking everyone's word for everything, and start using a computer for what it was designed for. I've personally had a very positive experience after stepping back and taking a look at the whole picture like that, and I think you could to, based on how vehemently you post.
🙂

iTunes for the PC and iTunes for the mac are vastly different. I'm assuming you ran iTunes with your "tricked out" PC before giving it away and just settling for a mac, well FYI if you have 512MB ram and you're using iTunes, it's goanna run dog sh1t unless you did something to "tune up" your system just so that it can run that "killer app"... My sister doens't use iTunes anymore (I think) because it finally crashed for good instead of frequently, everytime she trys to load it, it crashes so she pretty much said screw it when she was visiting.. iTunes is/was horribly coded for the PC compared to the Mac, I've heard that it runs smoothly on the mac but then again I'm sure thats relative as apple computers are generally slow unless you've got a fast processor and lots of ram.

I never said anything about iTunes being a killer app, and I was just trying to put things into perspective in hopes that you'd lose your dogmatic perspective. I didn't give away my PC (why the heck would I do that), and I'm not settling for a mac. It just fits my needs better right now, but that's really beside the point. You're obviously not going to listen to anyone else, even though multiple people have completely disagreed with you in this thread, so enjoy being stubborn.

$80 for memory is not a lot of money. And I have in fact ran iTunes on a PC with 256mb of ram, running windows xp. It worked fine, although the PC was pretty damn slow when multitasking. The key here is that it didn't crash. I don't think I've ever actually had iTunes crash on any system, but it did hang up with the ipod manager like I said.

I hope that you're still young because you've done nothing but yell at people in this thread, without trying to objectively look at anything. 🙁

What makes you think I'm goanna budge? You act like me succumbing to peer pressure is a good thing, sure maybe good for YOU. The reason why I'm standing firm on what I've said is because of the fact that everyone that has chimed in on this thread don't have a clue as to what they're talking about and are so ignorant, thinking that $40-$80 is "cheap" and the expectation for an operating system or other software to be highly efficient and low on resources to be "out of the question, or asinine"... You act like my expectations are unreasonable when infact I know they're not because there are plenty of other programs out there that prove me and others with similar beliefs as me correct.

 

[imported_goku]

Originally posted by: remagavon

Originally posted by: goku

Originally posted by: Bigsm00th

Originally posted by: goku

woah... wait you're trying to compare iTunes on the mac to iTunes on the PC!? Please confirm this before I go any further...

again, you know nothing about programming. making the transition from one OS to another is NOT hard. before you spout off about mac oriented software messing up a PC, i think you should just keep your mouth shut. you are going to be wrong.

You're such a hypocrite, if anyone is a tool, it's you, plain and simple. Transitioning from the apple platform to the PC platform is no easy feat, how can you say that converting Power PC architecture based software to X86 based software is easy? You really need to end your self before some programmer comes in here and shows what kind of fscking idiot you are, if anything it's very difficult to convert that.

I mean look at all the games for the mac, they run dog sh1t, they're so slow it's painful. This probably explains why iTunes for the PC is so bloated and slow. And who said I never programmed? I simply said it wasn't worth my time, something I have very little of possibly because I suck at budgeting it, a good example of this is me writing this post, proving to the world you're an absolute moron. You do realize you could have left at anytime, but no, you've decided to continue this worthless engagement and have accomplished nothing except to make your self look like an ass.

FYI kid, there is a big Fscking difference between "OS" and architecture, sure OS X is a different operating system, ON A COMPLETELY DIFFERENT CPU ARCHITECTURE. Now, the transition from linux to Windows, THAT is an OS change, NOT architecture change... :roll: Idiot.

You do know that iTunes has a lot of pre-cocoa code in it, correct? That is actually an OS issue and not a CPU one. They've gotten it to work great in osx and in windows, without (as far as I know) doing a complete rewrite of the code.

Gaming performance on the mac has nothing to do with iTunes performance on the PC, that's a horrible analogy, and one that requires solid fact to back up rather than simple conjecture.

Why is this a horrible analogy? Care to explain? I don't believe you can because I don't think you have a clue as to what you're talking about. If anyone here *actually knew* what they were talking about, they'd explain it but because they don't, they continue to defend companies who purposly do this not only out of laziness and to save costs but to force the consumer to upgrade..

 

[Rickten]

Originally posted by: goku

Originally posted by: remagavon

Originally posted by: goku

Originally posted by: Bigsm00th

Originally posted by: goku

woah... wait you're trying to compare iTunes on the mac to iTunes on the PC!? Please confirm this before I go any further...

again, you know nothing about programming. making the transition from one OS to another is NOT hard. before you spout off about mac oriented software messing up a PC, i think you should just keep your mouth shut. you are going to be wrong.

You're such a hypocrite, if anyone is a tool, it's you, plain and simple. Transitioning from the apple platform to the PC platform is no easy feat, how can you say that converting Power PC architecture based software to X86 based software is easy? You really need to end your self before some programmer comes in here and shows what kind of fscking idiot you are, if anything it's very difficult to convert that.

I mean look at all the games for the mac, they run dog sh1t, they're so slow it's painful. This probably explains why iTunes for the PC is so bloated and slow. And who said I never programmed? I simply said it wasn't worth my time, something I have very little of possibly because I suck at budgeting it, a good example of this is me writing this post, proving to the world you're an absolute moron. You do realize you could have left at anytime, but no, you've decided to continue this worthless engagement and have accomplished nothing except to make your self look like an ass.

FYI kid, there is a big Fscking difference between "OS" and architecture, sure OS X is a different operating system, ON A COMPLETELY DIFFERENT CPU ARCHITECTURE. Now, the transition from linux to Windows, THAT is an OS change, NOT architecture change... :roll: Idiot.

You do know that iTunes has a lot of pre-cocoa code in it, correct? That is actually an OS issue and not a CPU one. They've gotten it to work great in osx and in windows, without (as far as I know) doing a complete rewrite of the code.

Gaming performance on the mac has nothing to do with iTunes performance on the PC, that's a horrible analogy, and one that requires solid fact to back up rather than simple conjecture.

Why is this a horrible analogy? Care to explain? I don't believe you can because I don't think you have a clue as to what you're talking about. If anyone here *actually knew* what they were talking about, they'd explain it but because they don't, they continue to defend companies who purposly do this not only out of laziness and to save costs but to force the consumer to upgrade..

I bolded the important part and you definetly fall into that category. I was sure this thread would have died by now but its funny to see it hasn't.

 

[suse920]

Originally posted by: Rickten

Originally posted by: goku

Originally posted by: remagavon

Originally posted by: goku

Originally posted by: Bigsm00th

Originally posted by: goku

woah... wait you're trying to compare iTunes on the mac to iTunes on the PC!? Please confirm this before I go any further...

again, you know nothing about programming. making the transition from one OS to another is NOT hard. before you spout off about mac oriented software messing up a PC, i think you should just keep your mouth shut. you are going to be wrong.

You're such a hypocrite, if anyone is a tool, it's you, plain and simple. Transitioning from the apple platform to the PC platform is no easy feat, how can you say that converting Power PC architecture based software to X86 based software is easy? You really need to end your self before some programmer comes in here and shows what kind of fscking idiot you are, if anything it's very difficult to convert that.

I mean look at all the games for the mac, they run dog sh1t, they're so slow it's painful. This probably explains why iTunes for the PC is so bloated and slow. And who said I never programmed? I simply said it wasn't worth my time, something I have very little of possibly because I suck at budgeting it, a good example of this is me writing this post, proving to the world you're an absolute moron. You do realize you could have left at anytime, but no, you've decided to continue this worthless engagement and have accomplished nothing except to make your self look like an ass.

FYI kid, there is a big Fscking difference between "OS" and architecture, sure OS X is a different operating system, ON A COMPLETELY DIFFERENT CPU ARCHITECTURE. Now, the transition from linux to Windows, THAT is an OS change, NOT architecture change... :roll: Idiot.

You do know that iTunes has a lot of pre-cocoa code in it, correct? That is actually an OS issue and not a CPU one. They've gotten it to work great in osx and in windows, without (as far as I know) doing a complete rewrite of the code.

Gaming performance on the mac has nothing to do with iTunes performance on the PC, that's a horrible analogy, and one that requires solid fact to back up rather than simple conjecture.

Why is this a horrible analogy? Care to explain? I don't believe you can because I don't think you have a clue as to what you're talking about. If anyone here *actually knew* what they were talking about, they'd explain it but because they don't, they continue to defend companies who purposly do this not only out of laziness and to save costs but to force the consumer to upgrade..

I bolded the important part and you definetly fall into that category. I was sure this thread would have died by now but its funny to see it hasn't.

I'm cracking up now Goku for prez!

 

[WhoBeDaPlaya]

My head hurts. G'nite all 😛

 

[CheesePoofs]

No, because a) don't need a media center PC and b) VIIV is nothing more than a standard MCE PC with Intel's name more prominently displayed than normal.