That interface sucks.

Tomorrow, I expect to read about someone running 500 copies of Crisis on Wine in Ubuntu running on a hacked 3G iPhone powered solely by the user's mind.

Trying editing 1920x1080 AVCHD files. I don't care how many apps a machine can run total, I want to know which one can run that 1 app the fastest.

I feel like I'm editing video in 1998.

where are all the MAC fanboys? Common let's hear ya'! As soon as we get this new PC, I will be running SP1 for Vista by tomorow.

Welcome to exercises in the pointless.

Opening all of these applications is one thing, but if you tried to actually do anything substantial with any one of the graphics applications, like say, apply large edits to an HD photograph or edit a few minutes of video, the machine would probably spin and spin desperately trying to think. Also, after opening all of these applications and just having them sit there, open and unused, how much of the processor would that really take up if they're not actually doing anything except consuming a little memory?

@riqgeez: may the lord have pity on your soul

I've never seen such an...exhilarating...video.

So am I missing something? Should I be impressed that Vista retaliates by saying, "I can do 42 things less than OSX, so there!"

This is like being proud that your Honda Civic can hold 50 people and still go 30mph. Who cares if no one is ever going to do it?

Linux? You can run a dozen applications simultaneously on an Amiga with only one meg of RAM. If we do the math, that means the Amiga could (theoretically) run 49,000 applications in the same amount of RAM. Ignoring chip ram limitations, processor speed, and the fact that there were only about 1,000 applications made for the Amiga, this should mean that the Amiga Workbench is the greatest operating system ever, right? OS X, Vista and Ubuntu can suck the Amiga's balls.

Try opening 43+ instances of Internet Explorer. It'll puke, trust me.

@hakubak: I thought opening 43 instances of IE was the default setting. At least for the web sites I get caught visiting.

@sorensilk: dude I own a honda civic and trust me, it's not holding 50 people.

108 apps huh? Wow that means you had to close about 300 "are you sure you want to do this?" pop ups.

Who the hell has 108 Apps!?!?! You've got way to much BS on your PC/Mac if you've got 108 Apps. Clean that ish up.

@sorensilk: EXACTLY!

How about a mac running 150 apps including Vista in Fusion with 108 apps?

I was going to try it but I don't really care enough.

but the mac interface is prettier. which TOTALLY justifies the additional cost.

the difference is that on Mac OS X you have a useful interface for switching between applications.

@hakubak: Shows what you know, I could only get to 16 instances of IE. Yes, I tried.

@Rodime:

OSX is cheaper than vista... a macbook is cheaper than a comparable dell for that matter...

I don't this. 108 apps vs 150 apps? The better system here seems to be the 150 applications running.

oops.. "I don't GET this" is what I meant to type... :P

@Kaiser-Machead: But that's exactly what I said about the Mac running 150 apps.

if i open more than 6 basic apps on my work computer the universe slows down a bit.

i bet i could do this on my laptop, 1.6gzh Pentium M with a gig or ram. Keep it lean, keep it simple.

I bed MS tweaked the system to lie about its usage to make it look leaner

They're not even the same hardware specs!?!

@Geisrud: Only 16? You know, RAM is getting a lot cheaper nowadays. Wouldn't hurt to bump it up maybe just... oh I dunno... 4GB perhaps?

Posts like these are good reminders of the strange perceptions people have about how operating systems work.

@silomunke: The difference is one guy has a video and the other is just a screenshot... (or maybe that was the video ;)

108 apps verse 150 running at the same time is quite a large difference. Throw in the extra 48 apps and we'll talk.... P.S even if VISTA runs with the 150 apps... you'd still have to look at Vista all day.... no thanks!

BTW, it's not the number of apps running. It's the number of processes that matters.

I have 217 installed on this laptop and it is not even my main computer.
It is my opinion that if you are stunned that someone has 100+ apps installed on a windows machine, you are an extremely light computer user.

@silomunke: Yeah, I don't get this either. Some guy runs 150 apps on a Mac, then another guy responds with 108 apps on a Vista PC? That's like some guy claiming he can eat 50 super-hot buffalo wings then another guy claiming he can eat 40. Not very impressive.

what the hell was that giant gird of program icons??? iv never seen it before (the one before alt tab)...

@jetexas: Bingo.

sorry 42 apps... should never do minor calculations before I've had my coffee!

how many of the readers and writes here actually know computers, rather then using them?

@ripfire4: There is no difference. They're both losers.

I know this one's BS.

bah, its all BULL!

Run one copy of Quake or One Video and it will all fall to HELL!
There is no big deal to running a bunch of Static applications.....

does this really mean anything for either OS?

try actually having something going on in each of the programs and see how much resources you have left.

plus trying to shoot down a laptop running 150 with a desktop running 108 seems kinda pointless.

@pcs800: Or some of us actually have sex.

I like how everyone is saying how this guy just has them open an isn't doing anything, but the Mac guy just has a screenshot doesn't say he did things with the applications either. At least this guy has a video showing the processor consumption and such. If picture is worth a thousand words, then a video must be worth a million.

Underwhelming enough to be called "craptacular."

Aww...

Now I have to do it!

u suck. You're about to find out how many apps Ubuntu 7.10, 2gb ram, and 2.00ghz dual core can open.

I don't have 100+ tho.

Daniel

So, having 150 apps as compared to 108 is a lot? lol!

@ripfire4: I would if the boss would let me.

Tut, everyone is missing the big picture here. The only thing that matters is Gizmodo, How many apps do u need for gizmodo? ONE!!! thats right one program!!!

ps loving the beamz ref

Well, I did it.

I have no idea how many apps on 6 desktops, compiz (I can still do cube), 17% CPU usage, 1.6gb of ram out of 2gb.

Note the apps: I have the entire openoffice suite, eclpise, FF2, FF3, Dr. Python, Gimp, and a few other really high usage ones.

Heres the proof:

[img80.imageshack.us]

Daniel

[picasaweb.google.com]

BAM. That little fat guy took up most of my CPU ussage

lmfao, i went to my apps folder thinking
" yeah im gonna open them all, and push my rig to the max"
then i realised i only have 68 apps, and better things to do with my time.

Great. Now try using one of the apps.

right, because any smart/organized computer user has 108 or 150 things open simultaneously... goodbye, attention span of future generations, hello, marketing lameness.

Wow I'm bored...just to see what I could do, I opened 62 instances of IE7 open to Live Homepage, Firefox with a few tabs open, Outlook2007 with a half dozen open items, 2 RDP sessions, 2 UVNC sessions, Live Messenger, a couple Explorer windows, and WMP playing a 1080P trailer. Switcher is a little choppy to show them Expose-style, but Flip3D is still smooth. Everything is usable, the video doesn't appear to be dropping any frames and audio is in sync.

Vista Business, Athlon 64X2 4200+, 2 GB RAM

just another example of the age old penis measuring contest metaphor...guns, cars, now computer apps?

What to say. Get a life.

Waiwaiwait.....Minesweeper is a resource hog???

Who knew?!

@Loonie: Actually, this is caling rather well. I can use any of them (once I find it) fairly quickly, and all of compiz works, albeit a bit slow.

Daniel

Yeah, well, I'm running Firefox 3.0b5 with 4 tabs open at the same time!!!!

@killthebabysitter: that's just silly... there is no contest everybody knows black guys and mac users have bigger shlongs.... and the mac schlongs are more aesthetically pleasing.

ha, my pos computer at home can barely have 4-5 apps running without maxing out the proccessor and RAM..

laptop or desktop?...he never says, does he?

How does he tile all of the windows on the desktop like that, turning them into click able thumbnails?
does anyone know how to do this?

@riqgeez: I'm Mac fan - the article yestrday was bullshit - like I said yesterday_ And this article is bullshit today as well_ Vista sucks_ OS X is great_ Leopard is not much better than Tiger was_

100+ Apps the likes of a Calculator and a System Monitor sitting there doing nothing is no indication of a great feat_ No matter what damned OS you run it on_

Now as I said yesterday run the whole Adobe Master Collection and the entire Final Cut Studio Suite and actually have most or all of the Apps processing something on either of the spec'd systems from today or yesterday and have something NOT hang up or crash - then I might - MIGHT - be impressed_

otherwise they're BOTH Bullshit_

Yesterday's image was on a macbook pro - they only come in dual-core flavors (and up to what, 4GB of RAM?)...

This thing's on a desktop with 4GB RAM and a quad-core processor.

Tomorrow - image of 216 apps running on a fully tricked out 2x quad core Mac Pro or Dell workstation?

These 2 idiots - have no lives - probably have no jobs [worth mentioning] live in mom's basement - sitting in their week old underwear - with crumbs of various food types all over their laps and not a god damned thing better to do with their time_

Not sure what is worse - this shit or t