Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Yeah, I say go ahead with a powerbook now. Those who complain about speed obviously haven't owned one (floor models always seem slow to me BTW). My TI in my sig continues to astound me everyday. I'm currently running LC4 in VPC and I have it hidden and my fan isn't on nor do I notice any speed deprivation. And when I check Activity monitor to make sure everything is working, sure enough VPC is taking up 80% of the CPU, but it doesn't interfere with my normal tasks.

And a RevC 12" will be faster than my RevD TI.
 
jxyama said:
um, i don't think so. xp is nothing more than colored up version of 2k. apple was developing OS X on their own time. see how panther came out within a year and a half of jaguar, and probably a similar senario for tiger? xp probably didn't even make apple flinch. it just wasn't that big of a deal to apple.

if anything, M$ realized 2006+ is too late for longhorn, given the increasing prominence of linux and to a smaller degree, OS X. if anything, it's M$ having to move up their OS developmental cycle because of OS X, not the other way around. apple makes hardware, unlike M$, which wouldn't be in business if Office and windows weren't the cash cow they are now.

first of all xp is not a 'colored up' versoin of 2k... second xp has affected os x and os x has affected xp... it works both ways
 
Soc7777777 said:
first of all xp is not a 'colored up' versoin of 2k... second xp has affected os x and os x has affected xp... it works both ways

go read up on windows tech. xp *is* more or less colored up version of 2k. it has the same kernel.

it's a cliche to suggest windows and mac os affects each other. while it's true, mac os generally is ahead of windows. FUS is about the only thing windows have beaten mac os to. even then, xp FUS is messed up at times.
 
jxyama said:
it's a cliche to suggest windows and mac os affects each other. while it's true, mac os generally is ahead of windows. FUS is about the only thing windows have beaten mac os to. even then, xp FUS is messed up at times.

Direct firewire network connection was possible on XP before OS X :p

mwuahahaha....

ok, I'm done :eek:
 
Microsoft is in business PARTLY because of Office and Windows sellings so much and delivering so much profit, but also because of their smart aquisitions (call it monopolization if you wish) and because of how good they are at conducting business in general. Really--think about it:

Office has not had a major change since Microsoft Office 97, and Windows XP is essentially a tailored version of Windows 95. Windows has not received a radical change in about a decade. 98 was the same as 95, Me was just terribe, 2000 offered a lot of new security updates but did not look much different and did not have many new features from 98, and XP, as we have already stated, is pretty much the same thing as 2000.

Even better: all their software is based on DOS, which is ancient, and, more importantly, which was stolen (err...bought for a minimal fee) from IBM(?) in the '80s.

So there you have it. Microsoft has not changed their software in a decade. Sure, they have offered a lot of new programs but I doubt those will be updated until 2010.

Don't you think it is quite a big accomplishment for Microsoft to become and maintain their status as the world's largest company?

Just another note for all the Microsoft haters reading this: Macs sucked until OS X came out--both in hardware and software. OS 9 was crap. OS 8 was crap. It was all crap until OS X.

In 1995(4?), Windows 95 was an incredible piece of software, and none of you can or should deny that. It was way ahead of it's time, and the Mac operating system of the time was garbage. So let's face it: Microsoft hasn't always been bad, and Longhorn will probably change things around as Windows 95 did. Just because the average Longhorn computer will have a 3 GHz processor does not mean it will be bad. So don't give Microsoft such a pain in the ass. Maybe they too will turn around and start making great products, just how Apple did quite recently.
 
You forget Windows 95 = Macintosh 86. That was the big joke about Windows 95 when it was released. About the only Mac OS which were crap were 7.5.2 through 7.5.5. That's when they tried to integrate TCP/IP networking with the operating system instead of having you buy MacTCP, and the first iterations of TCP/IP were very crash prone. Based on your experience below, I think you came in during that time and thought what you were seeing was representative of the Mac. It wasn't. It was an aberration.

wide said:
Microsoft is in business PARTLY because of Office and Windows sellings so much and delivering so much profit, but also because of their smart aquisitions (call it monopolization if you wish) and because of how good they are at conducting business in general. Really--think about it:

Office has not had a major change since Microsoft Office 97, and Windows XP is essentially a tailored version of Windows 95. Windows has not received a radical change in about a decade. 98 was the same as 95, Me was just terribe, 2000 offered a lot of new security updates but did not look much different and did not have many new features from 98, and XP, as we have already stated, is pretty much the same thing as 2000.

Even better: all their software is based on DOS, which is ancient, and, more importantly, which was stolen (err...bought for a minimal fee) from IBM(?) in the '80s.

So there you have it. Microsoft has not changed their software in a decade. Sure, they have offered a lot of new programs but I doubt those will be updated until 2010.

Don't you think it is quite a big accomplishment for Microsoft to become and maintain their status as the world's largest company?

Just another note for all the Microsoft haters reading this: Macs sucked until OS X came out--both in hardware and software. OS 9 was crap. OS 8 was crap. It was all crap until OS X.

In 1995(4?), Windows 95 was an incredible piece of software, and none of you can or should deny that. It was way ahead of it's time, and the Mac operating system of the time was garbage. So let's face it: Microsoft hasn't always been bad, and Longhorn will probably change things around as Windows 95 did. Just because the average Longhorn computer will have a 3 GHz processor does not mean it will be bad. So don't give Microsoft such a pain in the ass. Maybe they too will turn around and start making great products, just how Apple did quite recently.
 
wide said:
In 1995(4?), Windows 95 was an incredible piece of software, and none of you can or should deny that. It was way ahead of it's time, and the Mac operating system of the time was garbage.

it was almost 1996 before windows 95 was released. (okay, it came out in mid-95, but its release was months behind schedule).

windows 95 made windows 3.1 feel like a pleasant experience. a "start" button, yayy.
 
if you can afford to wait, then I say "WAIT"

why?

not just the G5...

but within a year, we could have OLED screens, or even, foldable screens

plus, the liquid cooling could allow for Dual processors

the current 12" LCD's are good, but they could be heavily improved

if you can afford to, I say wait

but if you can't, then certainly, the current 12" is awesome
 
Rod Rod said:
it was almost 1996 before windows 95 was released. (okay, it came out in mid-95, but its release was months behind schedule).

windows 95 made windows 3.1 feel like a pleasant experience. a "start" button, yayy.

OK, your crazy.

Windows 95 was just great compared to 3.1.

Much easier to use!
 
Rod Rod said:
it was almost 1996 before windows 95 was released. (okay, it came out in mid-95, but its release was months behind schedule).

windows 95 made windows 3.1 feel like a pleasant experience. a "start" button, yayy.

Windows 95 was viewed as a massive improvement over Windows 3.1 at the time of release across the board, and is still viewed as such in a historical context even now. How do you consider Windows 3.1 to be superior to Windows 95? I think I could coax Windows 3.0 or 3.1 (can't remember which one) to run on my old 12MHz 80286 with 1MB of RAM, and Windows 95 couldn't. Apart from that type of situtation....? I don't know....you tell me. I'm at a loss.
 
wide said:
Office has not had a major change since Microsoft Office 97, and Windows XP is essentially a tailored version of Windows 95. Windows has not received a radical change in about a decade. 98 was the same as 95, Me was just terribe, 2000 offered a lot of new security updates but did not look much different and did not have many new features from 98, and XP, as we have already stated, is pretty much the same thing as 2000.

First up, this was an excellently written troll, and you should spend your time on a board like Slashdot where the trolling community is much more supportive and well developed. I have a couple of accounts on Slashdot which I used purely for entertainment/trolling purposes. Unfortunately, macrumors.com doesn't have the same kind of trolling subculture, so your efforts are kind of wasted here...a shame really, but the first rule for a troll is that you have to target your audience properly.

Just to give you a little encouragement, I'll comment that Windows XP and Windows 95 are about as similar as crap and clay. Windows XP has a completely different operating system kernel, based on the Windows NT core.
 
win 3.1 v win95

I just had a personal preference for 3.1 nine years ago. I didn't see any improvements in FreeCell, Minesweeper or Solitaire in win95. 3.1 was more comfy too, like an old chair.

the good news is I'm using OS X these days and it's paying the bills.
 
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.