Pics of your desktop

[bose301s 5,000+ posts]

your statement doen't even make sence. the install for vista takes 15 gigs and needs 40 to run optimally

My God you are dumb, my Vista install took less than 15 gigs, much less in fact.

 

[bose301s 5,000+ posts]

***YAWN**
ah i was hoping you would say that, the number of gadgets you can get, and the usefullness of them are miniscule compared to mac's apps, again something you'd know if you had ANY experience with mac

shut up

if 1/3 of the people use FCP, 1/3 use AVID, and 1/3 use other 3rd parties, i would consider it likely that FCP is used. I'm sorry if your small brain cannot wrap around this.

keep trying?

Bwahahahaha, not a single thing there to prove me wrong, yet you think you somehow showed me. Again, I run any OS I want in Windows, I could even run OSX illegally if I were so inclined, however I am not. And again sorry, you can get a gadget or program to do anything on the PC that the app store has, sorry it's just a fact, the number of Windows developers is likely larger than the entire OSX user base.

So in the end, you have proved nothing and I have refuted every point you have made, good job here.

 

[atoz350 10+ year member]

your statement doen't even make sence. the install for vista takes 15 gigs and needs 40 to run optimally

Irony?

You need to re-read your manuals. My Vista install only took 4 gigs of space and needed 15 gigs to run optimally for re-writes. My OSX install took 8 gigs of space and needed 20 gigs to run optimally for re-writes. Get your information straight.

 

[Pop da Hatch 10+ year member]

http://www.caraudio.com/forum/showthread.php?t=336917&highlight=desktop+pics

http://www.caraudio.com/forum/showthread.php?t=296141&highlight=desktop+pics

http://www.caraudio.com/forum/showthread.php?t=351898&highlight=post+desktop+pictures

http://www.caraudio.com/forum/showthread.php?t=117491&highlight=post+desktop+pictures

 

[cotjones 10+ year member]

You are wrong. The mac uses the same memory to function just as fast as Vista. If it didn't you wouldn't need an SSE3 instructed processor, a high-end graphics card and a minimum of 2 gigs of RAM to run Leopard. And I don't know what version of Vista you are running, but mine installed on 4 gigs of space. My OSX used 8. With a few patches, I'm running Leopard on a Windows based PC. Apple doesn't want it that way, but its tough for them.

Where the hell are you pulling these random facts from?

OSX only requires 512MB of RAM

 

[bose301s 5,000+ posts]

Irony?
You need to re-read your manuals. My Vista install only took 4 gigs of space and needed 15 gigs to run optimally for re-writes. My OSX install took 8 gigs of space and needed 20 gigs to run optimally for re-writes. Get your information straight.

I'm done with him, it's like arguing with a wall, you will never get anything through.

 

[cotjones 10+ year member]

Which would be the same as Linux/Unix.

Which again has nothing to do with this, but fyi, it's not exactly the same, and i don't know enough about the other OS to really argue about this, but i know that XNU stands for "X is not UNIX"

 

[cotjones 10+ year member]

I'm done with him, it's like arguing with a wall, you will never get anything through.

I'm still trying to fathom why you've argued with me so long about something you have ZERO knowledge and experience with.... //content.invisioncic.com/y282845/emoticons/confused.gif.e820e0216602db4765798ac39d28caa9.gif

 

[atoz350 10+ year member]

I'm done with him, it's like arguing with a wall, you will never get anything through.

In the post above yours he is asking where I'm pulling these "random facts" from. I guess he is completely ignoring the fact that in numerous posts I have stated that I have successfully installed and dual booted OSX Leopard in my Windows based PC. Where else could he think I'm getting my facts from?

To cotjones. You are wrong again. 512mb of RAM may run OSX Tiger, but it won't run Leopard.

 

[cotjones 10+ year member]

In the post above yours he is asking where I'm pulling these "random facts" from. I guess he is completely ignoring the fact that in numerous posts I have stated that I have successfully installed and dual booted OSX Leopard in my Windows based PC. Where else could he think I'm getting my facts from?
To cotjones. You are wrong again. 512mb of RAM may run OSX Tiger, but it won't run Leopard.

I don't know how to put this any plainer...

Mac OSX Leopard requires:

512MB of memory

9GB of available disk space

 

[atoz350 10+ year member]

Which again has nothing to do with this, but fyi, it's not exactly the same, and i don't know enough about the other OS to really argue about this, but i know that XNU stands for "X is not UNIX"

It is exactly the same. I have built on both Kernels.

 

[atoz350 10+ year member]

I think I'm going to join bose301s. This guy is a fucking idiot.

 

[cotjones 10+ year member]

I think I'm going to join bose301s. This guy is a fucking idiot.

http://www.apple.com/macosx/techspecs/

 

[cotjones 10+ year member]

I think I'm going to join bose301s. This guy is a fucking idiot.

http://www.apple.com/macosx/techspecs/

 

[bose301s 5,000+ posts]

Just to prove you wrong on another point, I just did a fresh install of Vista 64 on a VM and guess what, uses 10.8 gigs, well under 15. Wanna try and get something right since you have yet to this thread.