[quote who="JN4OldSchool" comment="26"] baldgyereply 18It wasn't a Windows Vs Mac, or MS Vs Apple... yeah people just posted comment about how one was sooo much better than the other, and Kona, you never made a signel coherant comment on the topic. No one thought you had a single point that made sence never mind agree with. All people did was see the topic name, and then post some arbitrary comment. And yeah the Linux guy, I was trying to get acorss the same point with not b
baldgye
[quote who="kona0197" comment="19"] Your article wasn't about how the two can not be compared. Your so called facts about Macs were mostly wrong. All I did was call you on it then you go off and pull the article and blacklist me. Pretty low move. Perhaps you should reread Fuzzy Logic's post above yours. I know a few other people who think I gave good points and defended myself well. Oh and by the way OSX isn't my favorite OS. I use Linux. I just dislike it when people d
It wasn't a Windows Vs Mac, or MS Vs Apple... yeah people just posted comment about how one was sooo much better than the other, and Kona, you never made a signel coherant comment on the topic. No one thought you had a single point that made sence never mind agree with. All people did was see the topic name, and then post some arbitrary comment. And yeah the Linux guy, I was trying to get acorss the same point with not being able to compare Linux to Windows or OSX but for
[quote who="rpstitz" comment="32"] I don't see how its a fanboy rant, the point was to point out that neither OS are comparable. How you can compare Ubuntu (for example) to OSX or Windows is laughable given how horrible it is to use, and the fact u have to command line install most applications. I didn't ever say one was out right better than the other becasue I don't think you can compare the two... not untill Apple give out there OS so you can install it on anything... somethin
[quote who="Jafo" comment="3"] "I'm not playing with you cos you don't die" is about as immature as "My dad is bigger than your dad". Debating/arguing/opining about a topic SHOULD NOT prompt either party to one or other or both of those schoolyard 'defences'. Here's one more..."if you can't stand the heat keep out of the kitchen". Anyone entering a debate about the comparative attributes of Mac vs Windows is guaranteed lively responses, not all of which will be fr
it was quite clear in your previous comments that you have no intention of 'debating' anything, and that your 'facts' bear no place in the real world due to there complete lack of any kind of substance. Its nice you made an entire post just for me, but its time for you to move on.
[quote who="dmyersturnbull" comment="29"] >But this isn't going to be some insane fanboy rant.Ha! Right.>why OS X should be one of the most secure OS's [sic] money can buy, some would argue it is but I'm not very convinced given all the hacking expo's, and reports..You're right; it isn't the most secure. But I'd prefer it over Windoze anytime. If you're interested in security, try Debian with SELinux.>how incredibly complex and advanced Windows is for supporting so many
[quote who="kona0197" comment="22"] It's comments like that that make me seriously doubt all the other 'facts' you come up with. There are a significant number of reviews that talk about how the latest build of Windows 7 works much faster than Vista. It has a Vista base. Fact. I see you're still running on 16Mb of ram... Nope. Quite more than that. I see you still like to tease. It's all good. I'd also like to know which mac's (cept the Mac Pro) you can chang
[quote who="Primal Zed" comment="17"] Windows 7 is nothing more than Vista SP3 It's comments like that that make me seriously doubt all the other 'facts' you come up with. There are a significant number of reviews that talk about how the latest build of Windows 7 works much faster than Vista. On the Apple side, they even admitted that Snow Leopard is essentially an upgraded Leopard. [/quote] I've been running Win7 for a while now
[quote who="kona0197" comment="16"] not really, the most people had to upgrade was RAM and maybe there GFX card, not the CPU with usually requires a new mobo, and therefore new RAM... which is more expencive than just GFX and RAM unless your buying a tricked out gaming GFX card... STILL more expensive than getting a Mac Mini in most cases. [/quote] the mac mini is a peice of shit, it has no use, and for £500 is more expencive than all
[quote who="kona0197" comment="10"] This means the only legal way to have a system running OS X is to buy a Mac. And for people with old Mac's that pre-date the Apple Intel friends with benefits arrangement then you’re out of luck, as Apples new version of OS X requires an Intel CPU. Yet how many had to upgrade those Windows machines when Vista hit? So your argument is mute. [/quote] not really, the most people had to upgrade was RAM and maybe there
@ Kona0197; I'm hardly a windows fanboy, and my limited experiance with OS X dosn't mean I'm incapable of looking at the OS's spec's, and comparing it with that of Windows. Also your cheapest PC price is totally random and makes no sence, for $300 you can choose from a huge range of netbooks... and where did you get $1000 for a monitor? I paid £200 for my 24" screen, thats what like $270? work it out youth.
[quote who="kona0197" comment="1"] OS X handles 64 bit programs better. OS X handles memory better. Windows is a time and money waster due to virus scanners and spyware scanners. OS X is more secure and works better all around. And so does Linux. [/quote] cheers for pretty stupid comment
Before I kick this off, I would just like to point out while I have used both systems, I like 90% of the planet use Windows for the day to day, that said I have had use of OS X, and because my knowledge of OS X is fairly limited I'm gona break it down into facts about each OS, and why they are still not comparable. I'm writing this because of something Kevin Rose said on the latest Diggnation, where they were talking about Windows 7 pricing. To sum it up, he said that the newest version
I'm gona buy the OEM version when MY RC's run out on both my desktop and laptop... upgrades are nice but a pain.
[quote who="Isiss" comment="63"] 5. Halo Wars [/quote] O.o
IMO in this order; C&C2 RA2 RA2 YR Generals Generals ZH if you play Genrals 1st, then the UI/graphics may give u issues getting into C&C2
seriously can't wait for this game now.... I'm also hoping I get into the beta... but its probally not going to happen
pretty much just GTA when I just want to kill lots and lots of people.
1. SC2 2. Demigod 3. Rolling - see my top 10 ps2 games if your wondering what and why ;)
[quote who="Haree78" comment="1"] First day purchase for me, can't wait. [/quote] agreed, I got L4D for half price on steam... people are just pissed because they feel like they are entitled to free shit.
/\/\ hahaha burrn!
According to N4G.com; there are plans to bring a new Michael Jackson game. Although not many details were given, the game will be released on PlayStation 3, PlayStation 2 and Nintendo Wii before Holiday 2009. If its anything like his previous games; http://screwattack.com/AVGN/2009/Moonwalker Its going to be AWSOME! Update: MJ is now dead. <span style
@ Haree You have taken it the wrong way, What I meant by that is that sertain genre's seem to be popular for cetain periods of time... and atm it seems like the RTS is popular on the PC atm, with games like SC2, Ruse, SupCom2 and more just arround the corner...
Ok, well over the last year or so I've been all about RTS's. Gaming seems to go with one genre for a few years, for the longest time I can remember PC gaming was all about FPS's with Quake, Doom, Unreal Tournament and Call of Duty, but recentally its been all about RTS's. So here's my list of most played and most loved RTS games. 5. Starcraft Images wont work. <span