Ric5
Inactive
- Jan 29, 2008
- 29,772
- 30,452
- Disclosures
- I like 5, 8, 10, and 12 string basses
Enjoy the benefits of a premium membership!
Upgrade Account
-
TalkBass has been independent since 1998. Add your voice.
Create a free account to reply to discussions, view embedded media, and browse with fewer display ads.
Join free Log in
Want zero display ads or expanded classifieds tools? Compare plans.
has vista been fixed yet?
- Thread starter shwashwa
- Start date
Seriously, I have not much against XP. But Vista is a big mistake. Why would you want something that just doesn't work?
Xp works. Why spend money on something that doesn't work? Because it looks pretty? I don't get it...
Xp works. Why spend money on something that doesn't work? Because it looks pretty? I don't get it...
I custom build my computers myself. If I have a technical issue, I'll deal directly with the company that made the piece of hardware that's caused said issue.
As far as the Mac Mini goes... you're paying more for something smaller... I don't get the point for a DESKTOP computer.
Linux is the best, anyways. Open source FTW!
As far as the Mac Mini goes... you're paying more for something smaller... I don't get the point for a DESKTOP computer.
Linux is the best, anyways. Open source FTW!
If you are a linux fan, then why wouldn't you use OSX. It let's you do everything from a unix shell?
As far as Linux goes, not to start another war, but Linux != Open Source, the Linux source code is all under the GPL which is far far from open. If you want a true open source OS, take a look at Open/Free/Net BSD. Not really practical for music use, but I've used them for years, and they have been a pleasure to work with.
Adam
Do you even know what GPL is? GPL means that "anyone who distributes the Linux kernel must make the source code (and any modifications) available to the recipient under the same terms" (I love Wikipedia; I already knew this, but quotes are fun). I use Ubuntu on one of my boxes (currently down, unfortunately, I needed to rape a couple parts for a friend), XP on a couple others, 98 on one, ME on one, and even 95 on one. Quite frankly, I like XP... I'll admit it. I like Windows. OSX is a fine OS... I just don't want to pay for it.
Why do people feel the need to convert people to Macs? The only problem I have is that it offers me exactly the same things as Windows does but at a higher cost. I can see how people with less computer knowledge would prefer a Mac but, for me, with a relatively high level of computer knowledge (I'd say top-tier of consumer; I can code a bit, too, and know some basic techie stuff... including the hardware components, obviously), I don't see the advantage in paying extra for something (even just paying for the OS).
Why do people feel the need to convert people to Macs? The only problem I have is that it offers me exactly the same things as Windows does but at a higher cost. I can see how people with less computer knowledge would prefer a Mac but, for me, with a relatively high level of computer knowledge (I'd say top-tier of consumer; I can code a bit, too, and know some basic techie stuff... including the hardware components, obviously), I don't see the advantage in paying extra for something (even just paying for the OS).
I know the GPL very well. Do you? It has way more to do with then just the Linux kernel. If you did, you would know that is extremely different than a BSD license, and not nearly as open. Again the GPL != open source. Stallman (you know who Stallman isright?) took a good idea and ran amok.
I work in the IT field and in particular mostly with Unix systems. I actually see more computer savvy people at this point switching to OSX because they have more control of the OS because you can get under the covers via a standard command line interface.
Adam
Eh, yeah, I know the GPL's got a little messed lately but, last I checked, Linux was only registered under v2, which is still half-decent. Also, I say again: does or does not open source mean that you can access the source code of the program? If so, how can you sit there and say that Linux isn't open source? I'm just looking at this... taking the definition... and running with it.
Eh... yeah, command line, blah blah blah... I don't see the need. What kind of things are these people doing with the command line that are so important?
(sorry if I seem a little mean/cocky/whatever in this post, it's just late and my mental skills are slowly dissipating... getting my message across, just badly
)
Eh... yeah, command line, blah blah blah... I don't see the need. What kind of things are these people doing with the command line that are so important?
(sorry if I seem a little mean/cocky/whatever in this post, it's just late and my mental skills are slowly dissipating... getting my message across, just badly
)
Listen, you can even run XP. What is the need to run Vista??? What does it do that no other OS can do and is so important???
Vista? Not tons. There is stuff, stuff I've forgotten, stuff that matters to some people... google it if you really want to know, but there isn't tons.
Vista's a flop.
Here's hoping 7's half-decent.
(once again apologizing for my last post)
Vista's a flop.
Here's hoping 7's half-decent.
(once again apologizing for my last post
)Eh, yeah, I know the GPL's got a little messed lately but, last I checked, Linux was only registered under v2, which is still half-decent. Also, I say again: does or does not open source mean that you can access the source code of the program? If so, how can you sit there and say that Linux isn't open source? I'm just looking at this... taking the definition... and running with it.
Eh... yeah, command line, blah blah blah... I don't see the need. What kind of things are these people doing with the command line that are so important?
(sorry if I seem a little mean/cocky/whatever in this post, it's just late and my mental skills are slowly dissipating... getting my message across, just badly
Nah, you don't seem mean or anything, sorry if I appear to be it's all in good fun
. Advocates of the BSD license say that a truely open license lets you do whatever you want with your code, which includes not distributing it. The GPL folks argue that this lets companies like Microsoft take the code from open source projects and use it without re-distributing the code.
A google search of GPL vs BSD will point you to lots of information and you can make up your own mind. For a few good laughs do a search for Richard Stallman and Theo De raadt and you will be supplied with hours of geek entertainment.
Adam
Yes , if Vista is to be "the OS" by Microsoft in the next ten years , people has to make it work , but it doesn't mean that it's well writen.
Don't forget that the OP question was ; Is Vista ok YET
So that article is interesting because not written by Apple or Unix guys
Things like ; "If you've got problems with recording audio, you might not get a second chance. You can't sell a system to a professional studio if you don't know for sure that it's going to work."
Or:
"That's a problem in the professional music market, where Apple has a significant share - one-third or more - of the market. Apple went through similar struggles with musicians in the shift to OSX; but that was more than five years ago. Now it's Microsoft's turn."
Is Vista ok YET , after reading that article , you can say that maybe one day it's gonna be OK.
So if you want something that works YET , choose something else.
This statement instantly invalidates your claim that you possess "a relatively high level of computer knowledge".
As for the old claim that Macs are more expensive, please show me where to buy a computer that has the same specifications as the base Mac Pro for less money than the Mac Pro. So that you don't have to go look for it, this would be a computer that has two quad-core 2.8GHz processors, 2GB of 800MHz DDR2 ECC memory, a recent video card, a 320GB SATA 3Gbps 7200-rpm drive, and a DVD burner for less than $2,799.
Rickett Customs
Commercial User
Ric5, Hunta... if you're gonna throw out that you're in (or were) in the IT industry, then specify with more than just "It sucks" or "it's 3rd rate"..etc..
I'm not bustin' your chops or questioning the scope of your intelligence (this goes for anyone that mentioned they have an "I.t. background" and used a "one liner"), but I'd like to know from one admin to another, what in particular made you not like it. Was it experience or hearsay?
My point is, if you know enough about something, theres a good chance you can come up with a better response. Thats all.
I'm not bustin' your chops or questioning the scope of your intelligence (this goes for anyone that mentioned they have an "I.t. background" and used a "one liner"), but I'd like to know from one admin to another, what in particular made you not like it. Was it experience or hearsay?
My point is, if you know enough about something, theres a good chance you can come up with a better response. Thats all.
First of all, I'm sorry for not knowing about something I've never needed to use. I generally don't know about things unless I need to; it's what happens when you're self-taught in just about everything related to the subject. I'm not a techie, either, and I don't profess to be, I just know far more than most people do about computers.
As for that computer...
Those Harpertown processors are nice... $800 each. So, we're at $1600 just for the two processors. For the motherboard, we need a pretty sweet one to support two CPUs. $650 for a really nice Intel motherboard that can support that. We're now at $2250. I don't like that Radeon... HD cards are nice, but not great. Whatever, let's throw that in. That's $150 Actually, let's take the 512MB version. That's $200. We're now at $2450. The RAM? Pfft. 2 gigs of 800Mhz RAM can be had for $60. Let's round it to $2500 for simplicity. HDD? You can get 500 gigs for $100. $2600. Ah, PSU + Case... we're probably going to have to spend about $200-$250 on that.
So, in total, $2800-$2900 for that computer. In Canadian dollars.
Yeah, they're practically just as strong as the US dollar right now, but stuff is still more expensive for us.
I will concede: the Mac Pro is right on the money for how much it should cost, I'm actually quite impressed at the value there. They're not overcharging for everything and I am honestly floored.
That said, it's a horrible build. If you're going to have 2 quad-core processors, you practically MUST be running two HD cards or two 8800GTX's in SLi. If you're not, you're just wasting all that power.
(by the way, didn't count the DVD burner, but you can get those at garage sales for $5 if you want to be nitpicky... $30 or less at stores... DVD burners are not something that needs to be advertised)
(also, I'm ashamed I'm about to say this, but... what's the point of all that power if you can't play games unless you're running a virtual windows?)
Sorry, but that's just ridiculous. I assume you're approaching this from a gamer perspective, because that's the only case where your claim makes much sense.
We have systems at work with eight (and in some cases many more) processors and I couldn't even tell you what kind of video card is in those systems. Actually, I'm pretty sure the biggest system we have doesn't have a video card at all.
You may be surprised to hear this, but computers are useful for many other tasks than gaming! Hell, I don't even have a single game installed on my main computer. It may also surprise you to hear that computer games are not the most resource-intensive applications that can be run on a computer.
This reminds me of this thread: http://www.talkbass.com/forum/showthread.php?p=5496090#post5496090
Yeah, sorry if I didn't make that obvious. From a gamer's perspective, the rig is underpowered on the GPU side.
My current desktop is a 2.2 duo core + 7600GT. I'm quite happy with it and it works well (neither the GPU or CPU is bottlenecking the other; overclock both as well a bit... once I get a new motherboard I'll up em some more). While it's obviously not the greatest rig out there, it's efficient, which means I didn't waste money.
My current desktop is a 2.2 duo core + 7600GT. I'm quite happy with it and it works well (neither the GPU or CPU is bottlenecking the other; overclock both as well a bit... once I get a new motherboard I'll up em some more). While it's obviously not the greatest rig out there, it's efficient, which means I didn't waste money.
Why would anyone care about gaming while discussing computers for the use of recording?
As for that computer...
Those Harpertown processors are nice... $800 each. So, we're at $1600 just for the two processors. For the motherboard, we need a pretty sweet one to support two CPUs. $650 for a really nice Intel motherboard that can support that. We're now at $2250. I don't like that Radeon... HD cards are nice, but not great. Whatever, let's throw that in. That's $150 Actually, let's take the 512MB version. That's $200. We're now at $2450. The RAM? Pfft. 2 gigs of 800Mhz RAM can be had for $60. Let's round it to $2500 for simplicity. HDD? You can get 500 gigs for $100. $2600. Ah, PSU + Case... we're probably going to have to spend about $200-$250 on that.
So, in total, $2800-$2900 for that computer. In Canadian dollars.
Um your forgetting the cost of your OS. Oh and since your computer is custom built, no OEM warranty/support.
