Ah, you're probably right, I am getting flamey. I'm sorry.
But I "offer no facts"? Existance of lung fish is a fact. Do you not find it a bit offensive for misfit to have come to this discussion with a pedantic argument ("Whoops, drowned fish"), saying something couldn't exist that exists today? Any even rudimentary investigation of evolution would turn up lung fish.
And isn't it a bit much to have a zillion posts, all on new threads, saying that evolution hasn't been "proven"? never mind that no other theory has been proven in this sense, either?
It is not absurd to teach a belief which has put forward no theory to explain what we know of biology? Which has made no correct predictions? It is not absurd to lower the bar to zero?
I am not wrong about this; I've followed the writings of creationists. I've had dinner with D. Gish. They flattly have no theory, and don't seem to understand what the word means.
Here's one, which I've posted before: if you look at species which are related as Darwin supposed they were (common ancestry), you find common elements which span every scale you care to look at. E.g. whales, as all mammals, have mammary glands, give live birth, breath with lungs, have a specific bone structure in their inner ear, etc. etc. etc. etc. Look at DNA hamming distance. Look at gross body structure. Look at the orientation of the rods in your eye. Look wherever you want.
There is no theory besides macroevolution which predicts that a cow and whale should have the same inner ear bone structure. These are not functional differences, and the number of preserved features are vast and profound. Only common ancestry explains it.
>I have seen a lot of people claim that creationists cannot prove their theory,
Funny, I've been following this thread for awhile, and I've seen no one say this. The only people talking about "proving" theories are creationists who apparently don't understand that theories are disproven, not proven.
The differences between creation and evolution are 1) evolution makes many predictions which have proven true, and 2) creation has made none.
It is not true that "For every piece of evidence anyone provides someone else can disprove it." If you believe that, you haven't looked at the evidence.
I think most people here understand that what has changed is the REQUIREMENT, i.e. the state curriculum. It is absurd to to propose teaching creation along side evolution, because creationists have formulated no theory to explain what we know about biology, and their ideas have made no correct predictions about what we observe.
It's also absurd to say a school can provide an education while ignoring modern biology.
> Macroevolution thus cannot be subjected to the scientific method.
Well, no. It can, and has been. A theory like macroevolution make predictions, e.g. life on earth shares a common genetic heritage, which we can then test. We find all life on earth uses the same genetic code. This is not predicted by microevolution or creationism -- only by macroevolution. There are many, many more examples. The process is propose a theory, test the predictions. At this point the number of predictions of macroevolution which have proven true is staggering.
Creation, in contrast, has made no correct predictions about biology.
What "opposing views" are those? Creationists have yet to formulate a theory, or make any biological predictions that have proven true -- unlike evolution, which predicted much of what we take as common knowledge about genetics today.
Some other views, then? Let's hear the alternate explaination of all the data which supports evolution.
And, btw, big bang does not imply begining in the sense you mean. Read Hawkings. In any case, origin of the universe is a different discussion.
It is not shakey, and it's breadth is staggering. Evolution has correctly predicted many, many observations about life on earth. The bits that can be argued are *not* the central thesis of Darwin -- that speciation occurred via a mutable genetic material, from a common ancestor. The evidence for this is vast.
> An eye that almost works, like code that almost works, is useless.
No, also wrong. See "The Blind Watchmaker" for an overview of eyes that "almost work", and are being used by organisms alive today.
I don't think this is being blown out of proportion. The school board has removed the last 100 years of biology from the curriculum. It's now optional. Would you respect a graduate of a school that ignored the last 100 years of physics? Or the last 100 years of history?
No school can claim to be providing an education while ignoring evolution -- the theory that led to nearly all of modern biology.
The problem is people like you don't bother to read the thread, don't bother to learn the theory, and then spout some nonsense like this. This has been said dozens of times already, and it's still wrong.
Learn what "fact" and "theory" mean in science, e.g. gravity is a theory.
I'm really curious what information can be provided on "both sides". Creationism to date has yet to make a single correct prediction, while evolution has made dozens. Creationists haven't even composed a theory to provide an alternate explaination of all the data which supports evolution. So what "information" can be provided?
> "evolutionary theory"--is a beautiful conjecture and not much more.
It is much, much more than a beautiful conjecture. It is the only theory which predicted the same genetic basis for all life on earth. It is the only theory which predicted the vast correlations we find between related species. For example mammals are identified by a particular bone structure in their inner ear. Knowing you are a mammal, we can predict the orientation of the rods in your eye. These are not functional relationships. The correlations span the entire range of scale, from the hamming distance of the genetic code, to the gross features of the body.
> Science is really no different than any other religion.
There are huge demonstrable differences. Scientific theories make unambiguous predictions which can then be tested. You start with, say, F=ma, and predict where a ball will land when you throw it. Religion does not make rigorous predictions like this.
The theory of evolution has correctly made an astonishing number of predictions, starting with the existance of a mutable genetic material. Most of what you take for granted about genetics was once not common knowledge & was predicted by evolution.
Religion has made no predictions about biology which have proven true.
>Theories are called theories because they have not been proven.
No, that's completely wrong. If you'd bothered to read the thread, you would have known that. Theories are only disproven, they are never proven. Newton's laws have largely been disproven by Einstein's. There is nothing to say Einstein's won't be disproven -- that is, we can't prove it.
You don't understand what "fact" and "theory" is, and you're about the 100th creationist on this thread who didn't bother to read the thread & went on to display this same ignorance.
The theory of evolution is no more in doubt than the theory of gravity. The evidence is vast and overwhelming. The fact that you've never looked at it doesn't mean it's not there.
In contrast creationism has no supporting evidence.
Misfit -- You really REALLY have no idea what you're talking about. When a fish evolves a lung, you get a lung fish, some species of which ARE STILL LIVING ON OUR PLANET. Visit any good aquarium and you will find one. I'll leave it to you to ponder why it's not drowning.
You're talking out your ass about something you've never investigated AT ALL. This is what all of the creationsist on this thread have done. What's more YOU HAVEN'T EVEN READ THE THREAD. You begin like every other creationist on this thread by saying "it's just a theory", which has been addressed at least a dozen times already! Half a dozen times by me. You don't know what a "theory" is, and you don't understand the process of scientific discovery.
Read the thread. Learn the theory. Stop spouting off when you don't have a ghost of a clue.
I'm starting to think these posts are being submitted just to keep me busy. Are there really this many people who don't know what the words "theory" and "fact" mean? Are creationists incapable of *reading* before posting? Or perhaps incapable of reading at all?
If you don't know what you're talking about, first read the thread, then think, then post if you have something relevant -- rather than repeating the same stupid error that nearly every other creationist in this discussion has made. If you know nothing about scientific method, how can you comment on science?
AC -- No theory is ever proved. This has been pointed out to creationists here at least a couple dozen times, now. It's getting really, really old. Please learn something about scientific method, and please read before posting (though at 700+ it is getting difficult). If we eliminate theories which have not been proven, we eliminate all theories. Theories are only disproven. Like the 7-day creation story. It has been disproven by a variety of means of dating -- dating the earth, and dating the process of speciation.
A theory is widely accepted when the probability of disproving all of the independent supports of the theory becomes so astronomically small that it's fairly pointless to discuss it. This is the case with evolution. If you wanted to disprove it, it would take decades to revisit all the evidence which supports it, to offer alternative explainations.
In contrast creationists have produced no supporting evidence.
I would be happy to see creationists spend the time to actually create a theory of creationism which explains all of the data which supports evolution. But so far none of them have even gotten to the point of understanding that this is what they must do. The buffoons at the Creation Research Institute, and other such places, prefer to waste their time carbon dating arrow heads to "prove" people lived during the age of dinosaurs.
No theory comes remotely close to explaining the record of speciation as well as evolution does. It is the only reasonable theory we have, much as gravity is the only reasonable theory we have of why things hit the ground when we drop them.
A theory must make predictions, and those predictions must prove to be correct. This is why evolution is a theory, while creationism is not. Creationism has produced no predictions -- or rather none which have proven true.
Evolution has produced hundreds of predictions which have proven true. The first was the existance of a mutable genetic material. Another was that this material would have common structure, since it all derived from the same original self-replicating system. Today the predictions of evolution which have proven true are vast and incredible, and range in scale from molecular structures to bone structures, to the orientation of the rods in your eye, etc., etc., etc.
Creationism, meanwhile, has still produced squat. It has explained nothing. In the cases where it has made predictions (e.g. age of the earth), it has been wrong. This is not a theory, and cannot legitimately be taught as one.
The support for evolution is not dogmatic, it comes from many, many years of collected evidence, all of which point to the same conclusion. The breadth of evidence now spans nearly every major scientific discipline. Evolution has stood up to decades of scrutiny. It is a theory, like gravity, which is extremely well supported by evidence. Currently there are no other theories about speciation which come remotely close to making the number of correct predictions that are made by evolution.
No school can claim to provide an education while ignoring the last century of biology. Nearly all of modern biology followed from evolution, starting with the idea of a mutable genetic material.
"you don't know what a theory is" blah blah blah. I'm getting so tired of posting this. It is not diminishing to call evolution a "theory". Gravity is a theory. Evolution is no less supported by evidence than gravity. Read the posts you skipped for more on this.
There are not "very few facts". There are so many facts supporting evolution, and facts that were predicted by evolution, that it would takes weeks to describe all of them. Learn the theory before you spout off. And learn something about scientific method, e.g. what is a "theory".
It does offend and insult, because 1) it's absurd, and 2) it demonstrates that you've never bothered to even learn the theory. It's extremely insulting to see someone making arguments about something they know nothing about.
Learn the theory before you make these patently stupid arguments. Start with _The Blind Watchmaker_ by Dawkins, which specifically addresses your tortured math.
>I can produce numerous credible scientists, nobel prize winners and heads of biology departments at top schools who don't by it.
No, you can't. And Gould's modifications to Darwinism are not so great, and don't deviate from the core idea of speciation via a mutable genetic material (even if that mutability is facilitated by symbiosis, or whatever your favorite mechanism is).
Your analogy about Latin characters make no sense, and that you "know" it takes intelligence is entirely a matter of faith. Information does not require intelligence. Please learn some information theory.
You have no idea what you're talking about, and you haven't bothered to read the thread. You don't know what a theory is, and you don't know what "links" are "missing" in evolution. The answers to all of the above are earlier in the comments for this article. Learn something about science before you spout off.
Good lord! Does anyone read the thread before posting? This has come up a dozen times already, and the basic thing you are missing is you don't know what "theory" and "fact" are. No theory is ever proven. You can only disprove theories. They are informally accepted as fact when they make very many predictions accurately. Evolution is a theory like gravity is a theory, and the evidence for evolution is no more shakey that the evidence for gravity.
Creationism is *not* a theory, because it has made few predictions, and the predictions it made were wrong. There has hardly even been any creation theory proposed. Creationists world-wide have yet to get a grip on the methods of science, and understand that they must explain data (e.g. the fossil record, the fact that all organisms use the same genetic code, etc., etc., etc., etc.), which evolution *does*, and creationism does not.
uh, well no. Nothing in the creation story is supported by evidence. Instead CRI and other creationist groups spend their time making tortured interpretations of Genesis to weasle their way out of the glaring disparities with reality ("Well it didn't _literally_ mean 7 days", etc.), carbon dating arrow heads to determine the age of man, and other such bone-headed exercises.
There's also no flood evidence, no evidence the earth stood still, or evidence for any of the other supernatural wackiness of the Bible.
Every prediction of creationism has failed, while evolution has made more valid predictions than I could begin to list. Much of you know as common knowledge about genetics was once not so common, but was predicted by evolution.
Creationism is not a theory in the same sense that evolution is. It has produced no predictions -- at least, none that have panned out. Evolution has correctly predicted many things. One was the existance of a mutable genetic material, which is one reason why Darwin is considered the father of modern biology. Creationists have no theory, and make no predictions. They merely sit around trying to poke holes in evolution without the benefit of even a basic understanding of science. No institution can fail to teach evolution and call itself a school. You can't simply choose to ignore the last hundred years of biology and claim to be providing an education. Nor can you ignore the amazingly vast amount of evidence that supports it -- evidence that comes from nearly every major scientific discipline.
Something I don't get about this discussion: can someone give specific examples of apps where the clueless (e.g. me) could see X obviously running slower than Windows?
I've always found Windows to be pathetically unresponsive, even on faster hardware -- one of the reasons I've never had patience for it. At my job, the management buys higher-end Intel boxes for Windows than for Unix, because Windows is unusable w/o a bleedingly fast machine.
So what's going on? Can Windows be both fast and unresponsive?
Slashdot Mirror
Ah, you're probably right, I am getting flamey. I'm sorry.
But I "offer no facts"? Existance of lung fish is a fact. Do you not find it a bit offensive for misfit to have come to this discussion with a pedantic argument ("Whoops, drowned fish"), saying something couldn't exist that exists today? Any even rudimentary investigation of evolution would turn up lung fish.
And isn't it a bit much to have a zillion posts, all on new threads, saying that evolution hasn't been "proven"? never mind that no other theory has been proven in this sense, either?
Sorry again for the flames.
>It is not absurd, it is absurd not to.
It is not absurd to teach a belief which has put forward no theory to explain what we know of biology? Which has made no correct predictions? It is not absurd to lower the bar to zero?
I am not wrong about this; I've followed the writings of creationists. I've had dinner with D. Gish. They flattly have no theory, and don't seem to understand what the word means.
> Where are the positive arguments for evolution?
Here's one, which I've posted before: if you look at species which are related as Darwin supposed they were (common ancestry), you find common elements which span every scale you care to look at. E.g. whales, as all mammals, have mammary glands, give live birth, breath with lungs, have a specific bone structure in their inner ear, etc. etc. etc. etc. Look at DNA hamming distance. Look at gross body structure. Look at the orientation of the rods in your eye. Look wherever you want.
There is no theory besides macroevolution which predicts that a cow and whale should have the same inner ear bone structure. These are not functional differences, and the number of preserved features are vast and profound. Only common ancestry explains it.
>I have seen a lot of people claim that creationists cannot prove their theory,
Funny, I've been following this thread for awhile, and I've seen no one say this. The only people talking about "proving" theories are creationists who apparently don't understand that theories are disproven, not proven.
The differences between creation and evolution are 1) evolution makes many predictions which have proven true, and 2) creation has made none.
It is not true that "For every piece of evidence anyone provides someone else can disprove it." If you believe that, you haven't looked at the evidence.
I think most people here understand that what has changed is the REQUIREMENT, i.e. the state curriculum. It is absurd to to propose teaching creation along side evolution, because creationists have formulated no theory to explain what we know about biology, and their ideas have made no correct predictions about what we observe.
It's also absurd to say a school can provide an education while ignoring modern biology.
> Macroevolution thus cannot be subjected to the
scientific method.
Well, no. It can, and has been. A theory like macroevolution make predictions, e.g. life on earth shares a common genetic heritage, which we can then test. We find all life on earth uses the same genetic code. This is not predicted by microevolution or creationism -- only by macroevolution. There are many, many more examples. The process is propose a theory, test the predictions. At this point the number of predictions of macroevolution which have proven true is staggering.
Creation, in contrast, has made no correct predictions about biology.
What "opposing views" are those? Creationists have yet to formulate a theory, or make any biological predictions that have proven true -- unlike evolution, which predicted much of what we take as common knowledge about genetics today.
Some other views, then? Let's hear the alternate explaination of all the data which supports evolution.
And, btw, big bang does not imply begining in the sense you mean. Read Hawkings. In any case, origin of the universe is a different discussion.
>the evidence for evolution is very shakey
It is not shakey, and it's breadth is staggering. Evolution has correctly predicted many, many observations about life on earth. The bits that can be argued are *not* the central thesis of Darwin -- that speciation occurred via a mutable genetic material, from a common ancestor. The evidence for this is vast.
> An eye that almost works, like code that almost works, is useless.
No, also wrong. See "The Blind Watchmaker" for an overview of eyes that "almost work", and are being used by organisms alive today.
I don't think this is being blown out of proportion. The school board has removed the last 100 years of biology from the curriculum. It's now optional. Would you respect a graduate of a school that ignored the last 100 years of physics? Or the last 100 years of history?
No school can claim to be providing an education while ignoring evolution -- the theory that led to nearly all of modern biology.
The problem is people like you don't bother to read the thread, don't bother to learn the theory, and then spout some nonsense like this. This has been said dozens of times already, and it's still wrong.
Learn what "fact" and "theory" mean in science, e.g. gravity is a theory.
I'm really curious what information can be provided on "both sides". Creationism to date has yet to make a single correct prediction, while evolution has made dozens. Creationists haven't even composed a theory to provide an alternate explaination of all the data which supports evolution. So what "information" can be provided?
They have no theory.
> "evolutionary theory"--is a beautiful conjecture and not much more.
It is much, much more than a beautiful conjecture. It is the only theory which predicted the same genetic basis for all life on earth. It is the only theory which predicted the vast correlations we find between related species. For example mammals are identified by a particular bone structure in their inner ear. Knowing you are a mammal, we can predict the orientation of the rods in your eye. These are not functional relationships. The correlations span the entire range of scale, from the hamming distance of the genetic code, to the gross features of the body.
Only the theory of common ancestry predicts this.
> Science is really no different than any other religion.
There are huge demonstrable differences. Scientific theories make unambiguous predictions which can then be tested. You start with, say, F=ma, and predict where a ball will land when you throw it. Religion does not make rigorous predictions like this.
The theory of evolution has correctly made an astonishing number of predictions, starting with the existance of a mutable genetic material. Most of what you take for granted about genetics was once not common knowledge & was predicted by evolution.
Religion has made no predictions about biology which have proven true.
>Theories are called theories because they have not been proven.
No, that's completely wrong. If you'd bothered to read the thread, you would have known that. Theories are only disproven, they are never proven. Newton's laws have largely been disproven by Einstein's. There is nothing to say Einstein's won't be disproven -- that is, we can't prove it.
You don't understand what "fact" and "theory" is, and you're about the 100th creationist on this thread who didn't bother to read the thread & went on to display this same ignorance.
The theory of evolution is no more in doubt than the theory of gravity. The evidence is vast and overwhelming. The fact that you've never looked at it doesn't mean it's not there.
In contrast creationism has no supporting evidence.
Misfit -- You really REALLY have no idea what you're talking about. When a fish evolves a lung, you get a lung fish, some species of which ARE STILL LIVING ON OUR PLANET. Visit any good aquarium and you will find one. I'll leave it to you to ponder why it's not drowning.
You're talking out your ass about something you've never investigated AT ALL. This is what all of the creationsist on this thread have done. What's more YOU HAVEN'T EVEN READ THE THREAD. You begin like every other creationist on this thread by saying "it's just a theory", which has been addressed at least a dozen times already! Half a dozen times by me. You don't know what a "theory" is, and you don't understand the process of scientific discovery.
Read the thread. Learn the theory. Stop spouting off when you don't have a ghost of a clue.
I'm starting to think these posts are being submitted just to keep me busy. Are there really this many people who don't know what the words "theory" and "fact" mean? Are creationists incapable of *reading* before posting? Or perhaps incapable of reading at all?
If you don't know what you're talking about, first read the thread, then think, then post if you have something relevant -- rather than repeating the same stupid error that nearly every other creationist in this discussion has made. If you know nothing about scientific method, how can you comment on science?
AC -- No theory is ever proved. This has been pointed out to creationists here at least a couple dozen times, now. It's getting really, really old. Please learn something about scientific method, and please read before posting (though at 700+ it is getting difficult).
If we eliminate theories which have not been proven, we eliminate all theories. Theories are only disproven. Like the 7-day creation story. It has been disproven by a variety of means of dating -- dating the earth, and dating the process of speciation.
A theory is widely accepted when the probability of disproving all of the independent supports of the theory becomes so astronomically small that it's fairly pointless to discuss it. This is the case with evolution. If you wanted to disprove it, it would take decades to revisit all the evidence which supports it, to offer alternative explainations.
In contrast creationists have produced no supporting evidence.
I would be happy to see creationists spend the time to actually create a theory of creationism which explains all of the data which supports evolution. But so far none of them have even gotten to the point of understanding that this is what they must do. The buffoons at the Creation Research Institute, and other such places, prefer to waste their time carbon dating arrow heads to "prove" people lived during the age of dinosaurs.
No theory comes remotely close to explaining the record of speciation as well as evolution does. It is the only reasonable theory we have, much as gravity is the only reasonable theory we have of why things hit the ground when we drop them.
A theory must make predictions, and those predictions must prove to be correct. This is why evolution is a theory, while creationism is not. Creationism has produced no predictions -- or rather none which have proven true.
Evolution has produced hundreds of predictions which have proven true. The first was the existance of a mutable genetic material. Another was that this material would have common structure, since it all derived from the same original self-replicating system. Today the predictions of evolution which have proven true are vast and incredible, and range in scale from molecular structures to bone structures, to the orientation of the rods in your eye, etc., etc., etc.
Creationism, meanwhile, has still produced squat. It has explained nothing. In the cases where it has made predictions (e.g. age of the earth), it has been wrong. This is not a theory, and cannot legitimately be taught as one.
The support for evolution is not dogmatic, it comes from many, many years of collected evidence, all of which point to the same conclusion. The breadth of evidence now spans nearly every major scientific discipline. Evolution has stood up to decades of scrutiny. It is a theory, like gravity, which is extremely well supported by evidence. Currently there are no other theories about speciation which come remotely close to making the number of correct predictions that are made by evolution.
No school can claim to provide an education while ignoring the last century of biology. Nearly all of modern biology followed from evolution, starting with the idea of a mutable genetic material.
"you don't know what a theory is" blah blah blah. I'm getting so tired of posting this. It is not diminishing to call evolution a "theory". Gravity is a theory. Evolution is no less supported by evidence than gravity. Read the posts you skipped for more on this.
There are not "very few facts". There are so many facts supporting evolution, and facts that were predicted by evolution, that it would takes weeks to describe all of them. Learn the theory before you spout off. And learn something about scientific method, e.g. what is a "theory".
It does offend and insult, because 1) it's absurd, and 2) it demonstrates that you've never bothered to even learn the theory. It's extremely insulting to see someone making arguments about something they know nothing about.
Learn the theory before you make these patently stupid arguments. Start with _The Blind Watchmaker_ by Dawkins, which specifically addresses your tortured math.
>I can produce numerous credible scientists, nobel prize winners and heads of biology departments at top schools who don't by it.
No, you can't. And Gould's modifications to Darwinism are not so great, and don't deviate from the core idea of speciation via a mutable genetic material (even if that mutability is facilitated by symbiosis, or whatever your favorite mechanism is).
Your analogy about Latin characters make no sense, and that you "know" it takes intelligence is entirely a matter of faith. Information does not require intelligence. Please learn some information theory.
You have no idea what you're talking about, and you haven't bothered to read the thread. You don't know what a theory is, and you don't know what "links" are "missing" in evolution. The answers to all of the above are earlier in the comments for this article. Learn something about science before you spout off.
Good lord! Does anyone read the thread before posting? This has come up a dozen times already, and the basic thing you are missing is you don't know what "theory" and "fact" are. No theory is ever proven. You can only disprove theories. They are informally accepted as fact when they make very many predictions accurately. Evolution is a theory like gravity is a theory, and the evidence for evolution is no more shakey that the evidence for gravity.
Creationism is *not* a theory, because it has made few predictions, and the predictions it made were wrong. There has hardly even been any creation theory proposed. Creationists world-wide have yet to get a grip on the methods of science, and understand that they must explain data (e.g. the fossil record, the fact that all organisms use the same genetic code, etc., etc., etc., etc.), which evolution *does*, and creationism does not.
uh, well no. Nothing in the creation story is supported by evidence. Instead CRI and other creationist groups spend their time making tortured interpretations of Genesis to weasle their way out of the glaring disparities with reality ("Well it didn't _literally_ mean 7 days", etc.), carbon dating arrow heads to determine the age of man, and other such bone-headed exercises.
There's also no flood evidence, no evidence the earth stood still, or evidence for any of the other supernatural wackiness of the Bible.
Every prediction of creationism has failed, while evolution has made more valid predictions than I could begin to list. Much of you know as common knowledge about genetics was once not so common, but was predicted by evolution.
Creationism is not a theory in the same sense that evolution is. It has produced no predictions -- at least, none that have panned out. Evolution has correctly predicted many things. One was the existance of a mutable genetic material, which is one reason why Darwin is considered the father of modern biology.
Creationists have no theory, and make no predictions. They merely sit around trying to poke holes in evolution without the benefit of even a basic understanding of science.
No institution can fail to teach evolution and call itself a school. You can't simply choose to ignore the last hundred years of biology and claim to be providing an education. Nor can you ignore the amazingly vast amount of evidence that supports it -- evidence that comes from nearly every major scientific discipline.
Something I don't get about this discussion: can someone give specific examples of apps where the clueless (e.g. me) could see X obviously running slower than Windows?
I've always found Windows to be pathetically unresponsive, even on faster hardware -- one of the reasons I've never had patience for it. At my job, the management buys higher-end Intel boxes for Windows than for Unix, because Windows is unusable w/o a bleedingly fast machine.
So what's going on? Can Windows be both fast and unresponsive?