If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#181
|
|||
|
|||
suggestions on upgrading to a new pc
|
#182
|
|||
|
|||
suggestions on upgrading to a new pc
On Sun, 23 Aug 2009 13:45:21 -0400, J. Clarke wrote:
Fotoguy wrote: crossover translates windows api calls to unix api calls, not mac api calls. Yes, right, since Apple used NetBSD, a Unix-like OS, as the foundation of OSX, there are no "Mac" calls anymore, technically. And strictly speaking those would be Unix-like calls, since Linux and OSX are not Unix or Unix clones, just Unix-like OSes. There are significant differences, otherwise there would be patent and copyright issues. However the Unix world for the most part uses X to support the GUI, while Apple has their own GUI that does not run on top of X, so there are indeed "Mac" calls. Have you changed your mind? Initially (quote above), you stated that Crossover didn't make Mac calls only Unix ones. (Or wasn't that you J. Clarke?) Also, OSX doesn't use the BSD Unix-like monolithic kernel, but the Mach microkernel that Apple has modified for use in OSX. So, how much do you have to change the foundation Unix-like OS before it becomes a unique- unto-itself OS? Maybe, we are both right and both wrong, at the same time, depending on which calls are being made. ;-) FWIW, I've read that the originators of Mach stopped development on it a couple years ago, and that Apple has taken it over, and the modified code is available to anyone under the original Open Source license. -- Fotoguy BestInClass.com "Personalized digital camera recommendations" http://www.bestinclass.com/digital-cameras |
#183
|
|||
|
|||
suggestions on upgrading to a new pc
On Sun, 23 Aug 2009 17:58:45 +0000, Ray Fischer wrote:
Fotoguy wrote: nospam wrote: Fotoguy Yes, Crossover only runs some Windows apps. Yes, it won't run CS4. Or CS3 for that matter. CS2, 6 & 7, yes. but not perfectly. They didn't even run perfectly under Windows. ;-) I've worked for several major software companies, including Adobe, and the fact is that all software ships with bugs. Most of the bugs are inconsequential (a pixel too wide on the screen, a glitch when the planets line up just right) but it's just way too expensive to eliminate all bugs. A bit of humorous sarcasm; hence, the smiley ;-). You must have missed it. -- Fotoguy BestInClass.com "Personalized digital camera recommendations" http://www.bestinclass.com/digital-cameras |
#184
|
|||
|
|||
suggestions on upgrading to a new pc
On Sun, 23 Aug 2009 16:47:17 -0400, nospam wrote:
In article , Fotoguy wrote: Yes, Crossover only runs some Windows apps. Yes, it won't run CS4. Or CS3 for that matter. CS2, 6 & 7, yes. but not perfectly. They didn't even run perfectly under Windows. ;-) nothing runs 'perfectly' but they run a whole lot better in windows or osx than they do under wine or crossover. You're way too defensive. It gets in the way of your having a good laugh. In general, you are right. Crossover doesn't run well all Windows apps that run under it. In fact, most Windows apps don't run on it at all, particularly games. However, for those apps that carry a "Gold" rating, they run just as well under Crossover as they do under Windows. And for those Linux and OSX users who only need to run a Windows app every now and then, doesn't it makes more sense to use Crossover, if the app will run under it, than buying and installing Windows either as a dual boot or in a virtual machine? Now if your livelihood comes from running some Windows app all day, every day, then run Windows. You'll get no arguments from me. I've never represented Crossover or WINE as a Windows replacement or substitute. Crossover is just a convenient little utility for those times when a Windows app is needed, and you don't run Windows. -- Fotoguy BestInClass.com "Personalized digital camera recommendations" http://www.bestinclass.com/digital-cameras |
#185
|
|||
|
|||
suggestions on upgrading to a new pc
Fotoguy wrote:
On Sun, 23 Aug 2009 13:45:21 -0400, J. Clarke wrote: Fotoguy wrote: crossover translates windows api calls to unix api calls, not mac api calls. Yes, right, since Apple used NetBSD, a Unix-like OS, as the foundation of OSX, there are no "Mac" calls anymore, technically. And strictly speaking those would be Unix-like calls, since Linux and OSX are not Unix or Unix clones, just Unix-like OSes. There are significant differences, otherwise there would be patent and copyright issues. However the Unix world for the most part uses X to support the GUI, while Apple has their own GUI that does not run on top of X, so there are indeed "Mac" calls. Have you changed your mind? Initially (quote above), you stated that Crossover didn't make Mac calls only Unix ones. (Or wasn't that you J. Clarke?) No, it wasn't me. Pan usually gets the quoting right--why did it fail this time? Also, OSX doesn't use the BSD Unix-like monolithic kernel, but the Mach microkernel that Apple has modified for use in OSX. So, how much do you have to change the foundation Unix-like OS before it becomes a unique- unto-itself OS? One can argue nomenclature until the cows come home--the bottom line is that Mac code that uses the GUI has to be rewritten to compile on Linux, BSD, System V, or any other Unix variant, unless you write the Mac code for X in which case you're taking a performance hit. Maybe, we are both right and both wrong, at the same time, depending on which calls are being made. ;-) FWIW, I've read that the originators of Mach stopped development on it a couple years ago, and that Apple has taken it over, and the modified code is available to anyone under the original Open Source license. |
#186
|
|||
|
|||
suggestions on upgrading to a new pc
"J. Clarke" writes:
the bottom line is that Mac code that uses the GUI has to be rewritten to compile on Linux, BSD, System V, or any other Unix variant, unless you write the Mac code for X in which case you're taking a performance hit. There's also "gnustep", which is a free software implementation of nextstep, which the mac's cocoa gui interface is descended from. The _degree_ to which they're compatible, I dunno, but I do know it's possible to write software which works on both cocoa and gnustep. -Miles -- Yossarian was moved very deeply by the absolute simplicity of this clause of Catch-22 and let out a respectful whistle. "That's some catch, that Catch-22," he observed. "It's the best there is," Doc Daneeka agreed. |
#188
|
|||
|
|||
suggestions on upgrading to a new pc
"Fotoguy" wrote in message ... On Sun, 23 Aug 2009 12:44:16 -0800, Floyd L. Davidson wrote: nospam wrote: In article , Floyd L. Davidson wrote: Virtually every FS used by OSX, Linux, and the BSDs. All of which can suffer from file fragmentation. There is no "suffer" involved. Fragmentation does not affect system operation, and there is *never* any need for, nor any value to, use of a defragmentation tool. In fact, there is no defragmentation tool! yes there are. here's a few: http://sourceforge.net/projects/defragfs/ http://www.rpmseek.com/rpm/defrag_0....=com&cx=594:D: 0:3341643:0:0:0 http://www.coriolis-systems.com/iDefrag.php Oh, *somebody* wrote degrag tools. But there is no degfrag tool in the GNU tools software that is distributed with every Linux distribution. Is there even one single distribution that includes one of those defrag tools? (Serious question, because I really do not know.) Over the years, I've come across a couple Linux-based Recovery or System Rescue CDs that have defrag available, but it's rare if such a utility is included. I've yet to come across a Linux distro that includes one by default, but at over 300 distributions "out there" I have yet to look at them all (and never will). If there's a market for a product someone will construct/build or write one. I'm pretty sure there's a defrag tool for Mac OS X , but virtually all those that know about the Mac OS say it's unnecessary and advise against using such a product in a similar way that some companies sell and market anti-virus products for the Mac OS X, but as yet they aren't;'t needed and usually cause problems, but they still make people profits so will be sold. It's a bit like selling condoms to the Pope. ;-) |
#189
|
|||
|
|||
suggestions on upgrading to a new pc
"Ray Fischer" wrote in message ... J. Clarke wrote: Fotoguy wrote: On Sun, 23 Aug 2009 01:13:43 -0500, John Turco wrote: Bob Larter wrote: heavily edited for brevity Once you've got a Linux box configured the way you want it, it just runs. No defragging, no Registry cleaning, no anti-virus crap slowing down the system, etc, etc. Hello, Bob: Same here, with Windows. Starting in 1995, I've run 3.1, 95, 98SE, Millennium and now XP...and very seldom have had any of the problems that you mentioned, above. Incidentally, my next PC build will involve Vista Home Premium 64-bit (with SP1). Wait for Windows 7. Last I read, it's suppose to be released in October, but even if it isn't, wait until it is. And I wouldn't opt for getting Vista with a free upgrade to 7 either. I've never been a big fan of "upgrading" across OS versions. Too many problems. Clean installs are less problematical. So, stick with XP until 7 is released, then get or build that new system. I think that all you folks who think that Windows 7 is some kind of "fix" for Vista's "problems" are going to get an unpleasant surprise. I think that you're a cynic who likes to complain. Well I think he could be right. But M$ seem to want to ditch Vista as quick as possible there must be some reason. Hopefully windoze 7 will be better than vista, can it be worse, well we'll wait and see. Personally I prefer XP as my preferred windows OS. But at home I have my own computers and run what I want rather than what I'm told is the best OS and I've chosen Mac OS X Leopard, and eagerly awaiting snow leopard. |
#190
|
|||
|
|||
suggestions on upgrading to a new pc
On 2009-08-25 05:27:52 -0700, "whisky-dave" said:
"Fotoguy" wrote in message ... On Sun, 23 Aug 2009 12:44:16 -0800, Floyd L. Davidson wrote: nospam wrote: In article , Floyd L. Davidson wrote: Virtually every FS used by OSX, Linux, and the BSDs. All of which can suffer from file fragmentation. There is no "suffer" involved. Fragmentation does not affect system operation, and there is *never* any need for, nor any value to, use of a defragmentation tool. In fact, there is no defragmentation tool! yes there are. here's a few: http://sourceforge.net/projects/defragfs/ http://www.rpmseek.com/rpm/defrag_0....=com&cx=594:D: 0:3341643:0:0:0 http://www.coriolis-systems.com/iDefrag.php Oh, *somebody* wrote degrag tools. But there is no degfrag tool in the GNU tools software that is distributed with every Linux distribution. Is there even one single distribution that includes one of those defrag tools? (Serious question, because I really do not know.) Over the years, I've come across a couple Linux-based Recovery or System Rescue CDs that have defrag available, but it's rare if such a utility is included. I've yet to come across a Linux distro that includes one by default, but at over 300 distributions "out there" I have yet to look at them all (and never will). If there's a market for a product someone will construct/build or write one. I'm pretty sure there's a defrag tool for Mac OS X , but virtually all those that know about the Mac OS say it's unnecessary and advise against using such a product in a similar way that some companies sell and market anti-virus products for the Mac OS X, but as yet they aren't;'t needed and usually cause problems, but they still make people profits so will be sold. It's a bit like selling condoms to the Pope. ;-) Correct, there are products which provide defrag for Macs, and it is not necessary. With drives formated in Mac OS Extended (Journaled or not) The surest problem fixer using a Utility such as Disc Warrior is to rebuild the Disc Directory and fix Permissions. -- Regards, Savageduck |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Upgrading from D80 | flaming-o | Digital Photography | 7 | May 26th 08 05:14 PM |
Upgrading from D80 | PDM | Digital Photography | 3 | May 25th 08 05:23 PM |
Upgrading from D80 | frederick | Digital Photography | 0 | May 22nd 08 06:42 AM |
Upgrading from 300D - to 40D or 5D?? | BD | Digital Photography | 14 | June 27th 07 10:22 PM |
Upgrading from F707 - to what? | Lars Forslin | Digital Photography | 6 | December 21st 06 11:38 PM |