Upvote simply for the title and summary...

someones' bein a *smartass

"oh thats a really good feature"

^yeah that guy pushed me over the edge, especially as they were talking about "making music on it" which is a "feature" available by installing a music program on any goddamn operating system you want. also they keep showing the vista cool window switching thing, and never show the apple window switching thing as a comparison, so it looks like microsoft's window switching is "sooooo wicked".

also they keep saying "microsoft windows vista" but can't seem to be able to say "Apple Mac OSX" so much. And of course, they don't mention that you can run both vista and osx on a mac.

note that the BBC are big fans of microsoft bullshit. they recently spent millions making a windows-only BBC media player, and were forced to ditch it in favour of Flash.

it's just retarded, every single second of it, every word uttered in this clip is retarded.

this is a clip that condenses everything i hate about education, consumerism and journalism, all into one retarded lump of retardation.

*requeuetarded

Re-queueing this video for one more try; last queued Saturday, January 26th, 2008 4:25am PST - requeue requested by submitter MINK.

No, I'll tell you what's retarded: The phrase "Mac vs PC."
It's retarded because the argument is NEVER about PCs, it's about WINDOWS. Let it be known that an operating system is not the same thing as a computer. Therefore, stop saying "Mac vs PC." Say "Mac vs Windows" or "OSX vs Windows."
I don't hate Macs because of OSX, I hate them because their hardware is teh suck. And it's ridiculously expensive.
If I could run OSX on my PC and be able to play my games, rest assured that it would have been done by now.

That being said, this "news story" was utter shite. You can't even play a fucking DVD with home basic. What the hell is that? They have the option of buying the DVD-playing media player on-line. Who the fuck do they think they're kidding? Why wouldn't I just get media player classic? Or VLC?(Of which I have both)

P.S. - Shitsta is the worst thing to happen to computers since the trackball.
Seriously, Micro$oft? If you're reading this, pay attention. The next time I go for a hiking trip, and don't get to shower for three days after hiking many miles on rough terrain with 60lbs on my back, and get all sweaty and nasty? I'm going to come over to your office. I want you to have the entire Shitsta development team lined up ready to lick my grundle clean of all sweat, dirt, dingle berries and poo particles I couldn't get while shitting in the woods and wiping with leaves because my TP got soaked resulting in a poorly-wiped asshole.

P.S.S. I want my RAM back. Windows only recognizes 3GB? Wtf is that about? Then it eats up half of that (currently 1.45GB) just in idle? And I only have home basic? WTF were you thinking? Why do I have the max RAM allowed? Because I fucking need it just to run your damn OS. Fuck you.

P.S.S.S. If anyone has any good suggestions on reducing Shitsta's size 13^100000000 footprint, I'd love to hear them.

i used "mac vs pc" in the title to go with the whole retarded theme of the post.

and you call macs expensive but then you need to double your ram and get a new processor just to run the os and antivirus on your windows rig. whereas i am using a powerbook from 2004 and it still works fine. so i guess i saved myself about $3000 there, by not having to buy a new laptop. It doesn't even matter that I'm not on Intel. I guess i'll upgrade when that finally becomes a problem. maybe next year. or the year after.

and i can still surf porn without being turned into a spambot.

They seem retarded because their kid-ties are strangling their brain out of oxygen. I don´t know what the journalist´s excuses are.

I'm pretty sure vista doesn't really eat all that RAM when idle. Regardless of what system I install it on and regardless of the amount of RAM it has, usage is always 45-50%. I'm not sure what thats about but its pissed a lot of people off and made them think vista is more of a RAM hog than it really is. (OK its still pretty bad, but not that bad)

You only need to "double your hardware specs" if you were previously on some 2.4 celly with 512mb etc. That struggled to run xp after a while so why anybody thought vista would have lower requirements is beyond me. Its not like apple's offerings could run well on a mac from 10 years ago with modern apps.

Vista was fucked up beyond belief but it was a (marginal) improvement on xp and theres a lot of work gone on behind the pretty GUI to justify the upgrade.

Also: http://www.vlite.net/

Cobalt, what are you talking about? You just said that it eats only 45-50% of RAM. I have 3GB, therefore my report of a 1.5GB footprint is correct.

Tags for this video have been changed from 'bbc, retards, retardation, brain turning to cheese, market research, retards' to 'bbc, retards, retardation, brain turning to cheese, market research, retards, retards' - edited by sbchapm

MarineGunrock < If I could run OSX on my PC and be able to play my games, rest assured that it would have been done by now.>

This is actually possible it's called the OSX86 project. I had Tiger running in VMware (so Tiger is running above windows) quite slow but almost workable. Some one had it install native on the same computer as mine (a Gateway duo-core 1,6ghz, 1GB ram) and it work just as fast as any mac. You can have it with multi-boot P, Tiger, Ubuntu, or whatever you want.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=79AC1NWvlkc

I'm not even going to watch the video as I know it'll piss me off one way or the other.

But as for the comment on RAM.

Urgh... An OS SHOULD USE AS MUCH RAM AS IT WANTS WHILE IDLE

As long as the OS releases the RAM to anything that needs it without delay then it SHOULD use the RAM while it can for doing whatever it deems a good use to make the experience faster and more enjoyable.

It can be using it to precache things you might need next, it can be using it to store things that would otherwise need disk access for, it should be using your RAM. What's the point of having ram if it's not being used?

Seriously.

Unless you can show me that while you're running Crysis it's not giving the RAM over to it, then what is the problem? It's a painful piece of misunderstanding that SOOO many people have that for some reason an OS should slink away and do bugger all when it could be doing something useful because you're currently not doing anything.

Having said that... I have Vista, and even with the pre release SP1 (although a lot of improvements have been made), it is a pain the arse. It has some really cool stuff in it, and yet gets the most BASIC of things wrong... how can it have stuffed up file copying and deleting so much? Scary that it could... but there you go.

If they are really releasing the next version next year as rumoured, I better be able to get it for, like a $20 upgrade or so because I'll be pissed at buying Vista last year and it being superseded within a couple of years.

I think it's generally good that Vista keeps you using a lot of RAM. You want your RAM to be full of things, things that then don't have to be pulled off of your slow-ass hard drive. As nice as it may be to see that "oh I have a lot of RAM free", well that means that crap that isn't in RAM needs to get there before you can do anything with it.


That aside, I'm gonna go ahead and hate Vista with you. Adds bloat that I don't need, removed support for networking over Firewire (which is the easiest way for me to pull stuff off of my laptop when I don't have a hub handy), and to top it off, there aren't even Vista drivers for my laptop's motherboard. At least there weren't when I tried Vista a few months ago (nVidia said they had no plans to make a driver so I'm not getting my hopes up).


tl;dr: XP works. I have no reason to use Vista.

[Edit: What spoco said. Loaded the page then waited 2 hours to post.]

>> ^MINK:
and you call macs expensive but then you need to double your ram and get a new processor just to run the os and antivirus on your windows rig.


I don't have a single anti-virus program on my computer. I've never needed it. That being said, RAM is cheap. My computer cost about 1,500 when I made it a year ago, and it's still pretty good (core2 duo 2.4GHz, 3GB RAM, GeForce8800 Gts) And that included the entire tower, monitor, OS, and keyboard. Fact of the matter is that building a decent gaming rig isn't that expensive. Buying a mac with any real power is. However, most people don't need power with a mac, because you can't game on one.

Yeah, I never liked that you couldn't really "roll your own" Mac. I've always built my own computers, and it's saved me so much money.

With the whole Intel+OSX thing now, I could run OSX on the same hardware that I'm running XP on now, yes? Or am I on the crack pipe?

I won't pretend to know anything about OSX, but I'm pretty sure almost nothing is compatible with it. Like - if your Mac's HDD failed - I don't think you can just slap any ol' WD or Maxtor in there.

when do they start the quidditch match?

brilliant use of tags, MINK. love it

anyhoo, thank *deity of your choice* spoco2 explained the simple fact that RAM is made for teh usage and allocation is what matters. I am sooooo fed up with people complaining about their RAMs being full (when not running a game, mind you) and all these sh*t programs out there that "free up your RAM".

Except that my RAM is in usage when I am playing games. Windows doesn't let it go.

Who the hell didn't upvote spoco's comment about idle-ram usage?

Uber well said spoco. As usual.

now you're all just being gay.

the point of this post isn't RAM allocation ffs. why did i go there. d'oh.

the point of this post is that the BBC are fucking shit, and if you think their political coverage is any more accurate then you're a werido.

I don't like hearing from americans how terrible Fox is, and how great the BBC is. This proves it, MSM is all shit.

MarineGunrock wrote:

I won't pretend to know anything about OSX, but I'm pretty sure almost nothing is compatible with it. Like - if your Mac's HDD failed - I don't think you can just slap any ol' WD or Maxtor in there.

^all true.
"I won't pretend to know anything about OSX" lol. that's classic.


anyway the BBC blows.

FUCK MAC FUCK SHITSA FUCK APPLE FUCK XP FUCK YOU! WINDOWS 3.1 HERE I COME!!!!

>> ^MINK:
now you're all just being gay.
the point of this post isn't RAM allocation ffs. why did i go there. d'oh.
the point of this post is that the BBC are fucking shit, and if you think their political coverage is any more accurate then you're a werido.


aren't we supposed to be rather gay after witnessing these levels of 'tardation?

PC morals aside (pun-intended), what did you expect by submitting a Vista vs Mac (lol) video to this community most versed in the secret arts of IT? no way everyone's going to just bitch about the stupidity behind the "news story" while the old debate's still going strong.

Oh, macs...the problem with macs is that in the end you pay more for the same "equivalent" processing power, you cannot build one from scratch and it´s hard to tweak it, and you pay a shitload more for the oh so cute design. And it has no decent games. Then again, my amazing pc died on me yesterday and nothing brings it back. So there.

Although the best computer I ever owned was an Apple ][+. No booting, you turned it on and it was ready to go.

Like I said, I won't pretend to know anything about them. But everything that ^he said.

WHY would any school under universities need Windows or Macs?

If you don't NEED it for some software get Ubuntu or some other Linux distro. Schools are spending way too much money sponsoring Microsoft!

*british

Adding video to channels (British) - requested by Zifnab.