BlckWyerve 0 Report post Posted June 17, 2007 Oh yeah, let it descend into lame technical jargon nobody understands so you can say you are winner! Thread over. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Count von Phoib 0 Report post Posted June 17, 2007 Of course, it's bloody hard to redesign the Pentium ISA, since it is backwards compatible to the.. what, 386? Pentium ISA is just the latest version of the old x86 base, which should be common all the way back to old 8086 processor from the late '70s for original IBM 5xxx model PCs, although exact compatibility might be limited even with the old 16-bit mode. However I've seen windows run on a 386 so it does go back at least that far. O yeah, 8086 as well... I remember seeing a mode that made your Pentium act like a 8086 :P And Godwin, if you can't stand the heat, get out of the kitchen. :P Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
IconOfEvi 0 Report post Posted June 17, 2007 Hey hey now, 386's were made of win... Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Mr.48 0 Report post Posted June 17, 2007 (edited) Quantum computers don't use Boolean ;) No? :D Edited June 17, 2007 by Mr.48 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Count von Phoib 0 Report post Posted June 17, 2007 No. Quantom computing works different then Boolean, hence it's usefullness. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
hawk10314 0 Report post Posted June 17, 2007 yes but if you look back at the CISU model from late 2006 the mitus400CPU was at least 25.335678 gyroplexes faster then the latest 7cm350 prototype from the AMD line. But ofcourse by all means if I were to stick an extra fligadex235b.01 onto the side of the mitus3c it might be better in the long run. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Count von Phoib 0 Report post Posted June 18, 2007 :lol: Of course... 1+1=0? :P Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Rattuskid 0 Report post Posted June 18, 2007 Quantum computers will just be a catch-all term/technology like 'hyperthreading' or 'dual core' or '64-bit' is right now/was. By the time they become markettable programs will be so badly outsourced and poorly structured you'll need to have the power of quantum computing just to get your word processing software not to lag behind your typing. In the meantime, Macs will still be overpriced for what raw hardware they're composed of as you're paying for 'cutting-edge' marketting on top of the unit itself. They're still be nigh impossible to upgrade, and their OSs and programs so propietary that unless you plan to only exclusivley work with them, you'll be a fish out of water for using one if you need to switch to a PC/Linux machine. Ontop of this wonderful chic appliance mentality you'll have to be comfortable belonging to basically a subculture of beardos who still program on their ]['s and will endlessly debate to you why it's so terribly important that the Mac mouse should only have one button. Or you could use a PC with Windows or another operating system, deal with a bit of shit and crashes... but actually get full use out of your system without having to pony up another few grand when you realize you're behind the technology again. Many people do this not because they're sadomasochists, but because they took their training wheels off. Slowly, as more viruses are written for Macs, more exploits are found and the OSs get more complex, you're bound to encounter the same problems anyway, with a less worthwhile suite of software to deal with them with. Apple only exists because of Windows/IBM/PCs popularity. If the later wasn't a nigh monopoly, the former would not be the college-cool Che like rebel to dump your money in. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Count von Phoib 0 Report post Posted June 18, 2007 Err, no, Quantum Computing is fundamentally different then other computers. I somehow doubt you could run things like Word or games on it, but you can use it for calculations that now take insane amounts of time. The Mac commercial == win :) Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Mr.48 0 Report post Posted June 18, 2007 No. Quantom computing works different then Boolean, hence it's usefullness. It could theoretically work on a non-boolean logic but in the experiment in the article the calculation performed was boolean in nature. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
k4l4sh 0 Report post Posted June 18, 2007 Some of you guys have a grudge against mac just because you had alot of problems with them, we all have, but it's the typical black vs white which I will not be a part of. Mac is better for some, PC is better for others; both is the max. At least some people actually tested it and came to their own conclusions in an objective manner. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Count von Phoib 0 Report post Posted June 18, 2007 I worked on an iMac on my university a few years ago, and I got an undieing hatred from them... Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Red Leader 0 Report post Posted June 18, 2007 i run a computer repair business, and the interface for Mac, is just so difficult to repair vs. windows. Also, bc, there not widely used, it is not as well documented when something goes wrong on a mac = more headache! Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Torlek 0 Report post Posted June 18, 2007 Some of you guys have a grudge against mac just because you had alot of problems with them I only have one real problem, that fucking mouse. Everything else I could learn to work with, but only one mouse button is a crime, its like having both legs and an arm amputated. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
maskawaih 0 Report post Posted June 19, 2007 I agree, sir. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
dave1001 0 Report post Posted June 19, 2007 Actually, the mouse really isn't that bad. I had to use macs in high school classes, and they're really not that bad. ... Unless you know, you actually want to get stuff done without having to go up to the menu to find what you want do every five seconds... Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
hawk10314 0 Report post Posted June 19, 2007 actualy the mouse has a lot more buttons then waht it looks like 4 buttons for clicking and side snesors for other shortcut functions. I think to many people compare PCs to the macs they used in school and yes they fucking suck. But there are also really bad PCs just like there are really bad macs and vise versa. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
IconOfEvi 0 Report post Posted June 19, 2007 actualy the mouse has a lot more buttons then waht it looks like 4 buttons for clicking and side snesors for other shortcut functions. I think to many people compare PCs to the macs they used in school and yes they fucking suck. But there are also really bad PCs just like there are really bad macs and vise versa. We're not talking about the new Mighty Mouses...if anything, its the totally wrong approach. "HEY GUYS, LETS GO FROM ONE BUTTON TO FOUR PLUS SENSORS...BUT STILL MAKE IT LOOK LIKE ONLY ONE BUTTON!!". I mean...shit, is it THAT hard to make two buttons? Two VISIBLE buttons? Oh, how PC! Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Mehman 0 Report post Posted June 19, 2007 Macs suck. End of discussion. Why do they suck? Because they are made out of suk. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
hawk10314 0 Report post Posted June 19, 2007 actualy the mouse has a lot more buttons then waht it looks like 4 buttons for clicking and side snesors for other shortcut functions. I think to many people compare PCs to the macs they used in school and yes they fucking suck. But there are also really bad PCs just like there are really bad macs and vise versa. We're not talking about the new Mighty Mouses...if anything, its the totally wrong approach. "HEY GUYS, LETS GO FROM ONE BUTTON TO FOUR PLUS SENSORS...BUT STILL MAKE IT LOOK LIKE ONLY ONE BUTTON!!". I mean...shit, is it THAT hard to make two buttons? Two VISIBLE buttons? Oh, how PC! because we all look at the mouse wheh we click it to make sure we press the right button..... Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
JokersAce 0 Report post Posted June 20, 2007 I hate Apple because of Quicktime. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
IconOfEvi 0 Report post Posted June 20, 2007 QFT. GOD I hate Quicktime...and its not like its the only thing that can play .mov files. Remember their previous lame attempts to bundle QT with iTunes, forcing you to install their shit-tacular iTunes to get QT? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Godwin 0 Report post Posted June 22, 2007 iTunes > WMP. So there. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Count von Phoib 0 Report post Posted June 22, 2007 Winamp > iTunes. :) Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
