I can (and do) run more under OS X than I can under anything I have seen even the BSDs. Currently running a compile of X (termial window), WoW, Safari amd Firefox each with multiple tabs, mail, iCal, iChat and the activity monitor plust a terminal window running top. Nary a glitch.
Well, let's see. It could quickly check that the old PnP stuff is still there, then scan for new stuff in the background. For hotpluggable devices, you wouldn't even need to change any code to allow this.
Ok, so now you understand. Because that is by and large what is done. However the operative word is "quickly". It simply isn't fast enough for you.
You can't possibly believe that Windows (of any variety) uses hardware or software resources better than OS X?
I'm a little worried about you of you do belive that as there a number of very obvious reasons why that is not true.
1) OSX and its hardware are made for each other. Neither has to cope with 'variants'. Windows has to cope with generalised hardware.
2) OSX operates very successfully with far less physical memory and far slower processors than Windows.
If you really want to compare the two, get an Intel iMac and dual boot both. Which makes better use of resources will be very clear (and it isn't Windows).
Great! You nailed the point right there. WHY is it designed that way??
Ta da! Read it. "Plug and Play" now if it didn't re-examine the machine it couldn't be "plug and play" now could it? If this is what you want, disable "plug and play".
You are correct, but not entirely.
When Borland released "Paradox" it ran significantly and observably faster and had less bugs than the (late as ususal) MS database offering. When asked for a response a senior Microsoft executive responded "That is because they slavishly followed the APIs we gave them rather than using internal shortcuts".
So, despite the shadow APIS, MS products did not always run faster.
Money represents goods and services. Microsoft is being fined for non-compliance. The fine will either be pad by cheque or by having goods and services to that value conviscated. Unless legal relief is obtained, the fine will be collected.
It is Microsoft that must pay the bill. I don't knw if it is Microsoft EU being fined or Microsoft in general. But I can assure you that if Microsoft EU raised its prices in response and Microsoft global did not Microsoft EU would shortly cease to exist. So it will not be a tax on EU users of Windos but a tax on all users of Windows (if it can be considered a tax at all).
I disagree that everyone sould pay the same amount.
I think that a penalty for anti-social behaviour should hurt equally. Hence, if you have more you pay more.
Slashdot Mirror
So you assert. I have found otherwise.
I can (and do) run more under OS X than I can under anything I have seen even the BSDs. Currently running a compile of X (termial window), WoW, Safari amd Firefox each with multiple tabs, mail, iCal, iChat and the activity monitor plust a terminal window running top. Nary a glitch.
You can't possibly believe that Windows (of any variety) uses hardware or software resources better than OS X? I'm a little worried about you of you do belive that as there a number of very obvious reasons why that is not true. 1) OSX and its hardware are made for each other. Neither has to cope with 'variants'. Windows has to cope with generalised hardware. 2) OSX operates very successfully with far less physical memory and far slower processors than Windows. If you really want to compare the two, get an Intel iMac and dual boot both. Which makes better use of resources will be very clear (and it isn't Windows).
You are correct, but not entirely. When Borland released "Paradox" it ran significantly and observably faster and had less bugs than the (late as ususal) MS database offering. When asked for a response a senior Microsoft executive responded "That is because they slavishly followed the APIs we gave them rather than using internal shortcuts". So, despite the shadow APIS, MS products did not always run faster.
Money represents goods and services. Microsoft is being fined for non-compliance. The fine will either be pad by cheque or by having goods and services to that value conviscated. Unless legal relief is obtained, the fine will be collected. It is Microsoft that must pay the bill. I don't knw if it is Microsoft EU being fined or Microsoft in general. But I can assure you that if Microsoft EU raised its prices in response and Microsoft global did not Microsoft EU would shortly cease to exist. So it will not be a tax on EU users of Windos but a tax on all users of Windows (if it can be considered a tax at all).
(n/t)
I disagree that everyone sould pay the same amount. I think that a penalty for anti-social behaviour should hurt equally. Hence, if you have more you pay more.