<![CDATA[Vista Running 108 Apps Bites Mac OS X Back - Gizmodo Comments]]> <![CDATA[Vista Running 108 Apps Bites Mac OS X Back - Gizmodo Comments]]> <![CDATA[Vista Running 108 Apps Bites Mac OS X Back]]> Vista is awesome, isn't it?

quikboy

]]> <![CDATA[Vista Running 108 Apps Bites Mac OS X Back]]> im running 3 games like terrorist take down ,bioshock,hellgate london , 40 application ,3 virual windows plus more than you can imagine with vista ultimate 32 bit amd anthlon 64 x 2 3800+, 3 gb of ram 27 gb page file ,500 gb harddrive , 2 harddrive 120 gb and nivia geforce 8600 gts 1gb and the are running ok and the cpu is at 70%-80% and the physical Memory at 68%-71% used

electric82

]]> <![CDATA[Vista Running 108 Apps Bites Mac OS X Back]]> Wow, no bias here.

Someone with a Mac sends in a screenshot with no way to tell what the processor usage is and a statement that there was no perceived slowdown, and it gets posted as being "impressive" if not a little questionable.

Someone with Vista sends in a video with a clear shot of the processor usage running 108 applications that include resource hogs like Visual Studio, Photoshop, Office Professional and Media Center, with no perceived slowdown to be seen in the video, and it gets posted as "who cares about this kind of stuff".

Well, lets see. You guys did, at least when it was a Mac, otherwise you wouldn't have brought it to everyone's attention. But when it's a PC running Vista, then you're not interested?

Do I have that right?

BTW I can go for the record on my dual core E4500 with 4gb ram running Ubuntu. I'll even run Compiz, just for fun.

Jay Gardner

]]> <![CDATA[Vista Running 108 Apps Bites Mac OS X Back]]> "nothing to write home about"
He as 4gb of ram and a quad core processor for christ's sake. I bet 50% of the consumer market has 1GB of ram or less.

hudsong

]]> <![CDATA[Vista Running 108 Apps Bites Mac OS X Back]]> So yesterday I asked "Then how come MY computer, with Core2Duo and 2GB ram, always shows around 98% CPU usage, even with hardly anything running?! (And Norton says my system is clean)".
A few people thought Norton was the real problem, so I'll ask: Am I not supposed to run anti-virus/spy/spam software? Last year I had Windowns OneCare and it was no different. What am I to do?

Alternatively, "lianna_g" suggests that "It's one of two things- either you're a sebaceous troll or you're a complete idiot who can't tell when his machine has been sandbagged." How can I tell if I'm a sebaceous troll? And what exactly does "sandbagged" mean? And can I fix it?


priceytoys

]]> <![CDATA[Vista Running 108 Apps Bites Mac OS X Back]]> omg I didn't know vista could be so ugly looking

iwasnevy

]]> <![CDATA[Vista Running 108 Apps Bites Mac OS X Back]]> @priceytoys

...becuase you fail at basic computing it would appear.

I would suggest asking someone with some element of IT literacy to take a look.

sjw1875

]]> <![CDATA[Vista Running 108 Apps Bites Mac OS X Back]]> X has a limit of 256 client connections. Here's a picture of linux running 199 'xclock's: [badcheese.com]

scumola

]]> <![CDATA[Vista Running 108 Apps Bites Mac OS X Back]]> On linux, there's a hard limit to the number of clients that can connect to the X server (256, I believe). Here's a picture of 199 xclocks running on a linux desktop. :)

[badcheese.com]

- Steve

scumola

]]> <![CDATA[Vista Running 108 Apps Bites Mac OS X Back]]> @burnflare: your picture doesn't show anything about how well the OS is running all we have is your word. Your word said you were running 150 apps and that wasn't true so why should we believe that it was running smoothly. Why don't you do a screen capture. I was also running a screen capture at 1920x1200 resolution that left me with a 2 min video at 147mb in size. I think expose while a worthwhile feature is pointless with this many apps open. I also don't like how it's not organized with MS the windows are aligned to a grid no just all over the place like expose. But even MS version of expose is pointless with this many apps open.

danielsmi

]]> <![CDATA[Vista Running 108 Apps Bites Mac OS X Back]]> I run 115 mods/addons while playing World of Warcraft during 25 man raids and my system purrs...

My mods/addons are actually working during gameplay.

Much more impressive than 108 apps sitting "still"...with my current conig. during play I am using 1.5gb ram with fabulous frame rates while others I know on osx have to dial down video settings and disable mods/addons to even be functional.

I run vista with zero problems that I hear others reporting; In my opinion it all comes down to user preference.

Skindog

]]> <![CDATA[Vista Running 108 Apps Bites Mac OS X Back]]> @Rodime: yes indeed.

mac doesn;t need antivirus and stuff so yea.. and he could have opened like a 100 windows from a single app lol

minjae

]]> <![CDATA[Vista Running 108 Apps Bites Mac OS X Back]]> apple, windows and linux users get a hold of yourself. This is so stupid. Apple users think they're greater then windows users, windows users think apple users are arrogant, and linux users think that both are in denial about Linux's uberness.

MyEasyTV

]]> <![CDATA[Vista Running 108 Apps Bites Mac OS X Back]]> im gonna run the witcher, bioshock, and hellgate at the same time when i get home tonight. let you know how it turns out.

Angus

]]> <![CDATA[Vista Running 108 Apps Bites Mac OS X Back]]> Oh yeah!!? Well, I walked on the MOON!

(What would I do without you Brian Regan?)

UndergroundT

]]> <![CDATA[Vista Running 108 Apps Bites Mac OS X Back]]>

How comes we haven't had any Linux user telling us he's running 250,000 apps simultaneously on six different monitors.

Wait for it... wait for it...

Martindale

]]> <![CDATA[Vista Running 108 Apps Bites Mac OS X Back]]> scroll up and look at my screener, its mostly big apps, like photo shop image ready, MS office apps, and more

Viva La Volvo

]]> <![CDATA[Vista Running 108 Apps Bites Mac OS X Back]]> my mac picture is still better

burnflare

]]> <![CDATA[Vista Running 108 Apps Bites Mac OS X Back]]> 1. The start menu looked a little sluggish... oh wait, its always like that... nm...

2. Processor usage doesn't mean a thing once an application has finished loading and is just waiting for user input (this excludes apps like games (the kind that are graphical, not minesweeper), video/sound encoders/decoders, 3d rendering apps, etc. Especially if you have plenty of RAM, so Windows doesn't have to do much paging.

3. Unless said application has memory leaks, ie Firefox.

Daniel Smith, you kind of missed what I think is impressive about the OSX demo, which is that the interface stays solid, especially expose. Your Vista video doesn't quite demonstrate that (I repeat, not quite).

In any case, I'm going to test this tonight on my wifes laptop and see if her modest 1 GB RAM Core Duo laptop is able to run that may apps and still be smooth, because I highly doubt it.

andersen_hc

]]> <![CDATA[Vista Running 108 Apps Bites Mac OS X Back]]> here's what I would like to see on vista.

emule must be downloading and uploading files.
azureus must be uploading or downloading 5 torrents.
photoshop 1 single image open. 1024 x 768
premiere editing a 640 x 480 24fps movie
illustrator 1 image open 1024 x 768
painter x 1 image open. 1024 x 768
with only 4 gigs of memory.

You don't need 100+ apps this will bring xp to its knees.
I have no Idea what will happen under vista.

zbeast

]]> <![CDATA[Vista Running 108 Apps Bites Mac OS X Back]]> @Sportyboard: *golf clap*

Illuminatus

]]> <![CDATA[Vista Running 108 Apps Bites Mac OS X Back]]> Node1:
[09Apr at 12:56:26] sopfc101dn1 ~ $ ps -ef |wc -l
1694
[09Apr at 13:03:19] sopfc101dn1 ~ $ uptime
1:03pm up 87 day(s), 21:46, 17 users, load average: 3.80, 3.68, 3.36

Node2:
[09Apr at 13:01:48] sopfc101dn2 ~ $ ps -ef |wc -l
4823
[09Apr at 13:02:24] sopfc101dn2 ~ $ uptime
1:03pm up 87 day(s), 21:47, 13 users, load average: 14.54, 14.19, 13.80

krom

]]> <![CDATA[Vista Running 108 Apps Bites Mac OS X Back]]> So Vista is running every single application that can run on Vista all 108 of them.

I guess most are virus, malware and other vermin eradication programs.

How long do you think this elephant will balance on this flag pole before the inevitable crash to the ground.

Now if could only do something useful...

Oh yeah that's coming in Windows seven in 2020, the copy / imitation of OS-X 2007. The more things change the more they're the same.

butlunch

]]> <![CDATA[Vista Running 108 Apps Bites Mac OS X Back]]> Q6600 <3 Enough said.

Although I agree, doing 42 less apps than OSX is hardly biting it back.

man in gauze is king ramses II, silly.

]]> <![CDATA[Vista Running 108 Apps Bites Mac OS X Back]]> man i want chicken so bad right now

AmitB

]]> <![CDATA[Vista Running 108 Apps Bites Mac OS X Back]]> @youngjjohnson:

"I think you guys are missing the point. For everyone saying that it is pointless...that is the point. Apple always throws out some crazy stat about how vista sucks and OSX is the best, and it can do yada yada yada. The
0 guy basically said hey vista can do this too! And basically got tired of opening up apps so he stopped at 108. Also, he didnt say he used all 4gb of his memory either...he cleary stated usage at 30%. So for all you saying he used more memory...no...use a calculator. Also...who cares if it was a lap top or a desktop...who cares? Did i cover it all...who cares..."

werd, that's the point of this video. Who cares if you can do that in OS X anyone can do it in Vista or Linux too. I'm glad at least one person got the point! Props to you!


danielsmi

]]> <![CDATA[Vista Running 108 Apps Bites Mac OS X Back]]> OK so I'm the guy who made this video. The reason I made this wasn't to showcase how awesome Vista is or anything like that but to counter the OS X article that was made earlier. That article bothered me cause people where declaring that OS X was awesome cause some guy took a screen shot of his mac with a lot of apps open and he said it ran smoothly. He didn't have 150 apps open thats for sure I counted about a 100 and if he was off by 50 apps I'm sure it wasn't running as smoothly as he said but we only have his word as evidence which is why I got video proof. Anyways I just thought that post earlier was dumb and anyone with a current OS, an average processor and a good amount or RAM can do the same thing. Vista, Linux or OS X isn't going to crash cause you had a lot off processes going. You probably can't tell but I was using less than 3gb of RAM about 2.8gb in the video. While I have 4gb of memory my version of Vista is still 32 bit and is limited to using 3.25gb.

I agree that instant viewer (the MS version of expose) was not very useful with this many apps open and for that matter neither is expose. I was surprised that Flip 3d even though I never use it cause I think it's usually a waste was actually a better way of navigating all these windows cause of the large previews it provided than other methods. But usually I use alt + tab, the taskbar or instant viewer for switching windows when there's not 100+ on the screen.

danielsmi

]]> <![CDATA[Vista Running 108 Apps Bites Mac OS X Back]]> @FranklinTurtle:

If picture is worth a thousand words, then a video must be worth a million.

actually it depends on the length of the movie along with framerate as well as compression type... some compressors use stuff like the I-P-B frames in MPEG that actually duplicate the frames over several frames... or only refresh the portion that changes. in instances like that i don't believe those "changed" frames should count for a full 1000 words but maybe some subset of word count based on the percentage of the frame actually changed.

x23

]]> <![CDATA[Vista Running 108 Apps Bites Mac OS X Back]]> i wanna see someone running 1024 instances of solitaire or minesweeper!

krizoitz

]]> <![CDATA[Vista Running 108 Apps Bites Mac OS X Back]]> Guys, my self-worth is defined by the operating system I fanatically defend.

Guys.

Seriously.

Pay attention to me.

Comms

]]> <![CDATA[Vista Running 108 Apps Bites Mac OS X Back]]> SO WHAT!! I can run 1600 stickies and 3400 textedit pages, lmao, this proves shit!!! what a dumb post..it only proves that you can open a bunch of shit. Try looking into processes instead of running apps, then we'll talk!

Faslane

Faslane66

]]> <![CDATA[Vista Running 108 Apps Bites Mac OS X Back]]> I definitely believe the CPU usage was pretty low, but never mind that odd smell coming from the RAM.

Sean Robertson

]]> <![CDATA[Vista Running 108 Apps Bites Mac OS X Back]]> @Daniel: Define "use".

Loonie

]]> <![CDATA[Vista Running 108 Apps Bites Mac OS X Back]]> sonburn, Thanks for the compliment. Windows users? Please make way for the long schlong. Thank you.. Dont want to poke your eyes out:)

redwingsmonk

]]> <![CDATA[Vista Running 108 Apps Bites Mac OS X Back]]> i have had about 300 unique apps of various kinds running on my Thinkpad T42 with 512 Ram under SuSE before noticing any slowdowns. SuSE FTW!

citizen024

]]> <![CDATA[Vista Running 108 Apps Bites Mac OS X Back]]> I'd just like to be able to open 2 instances of IE without my computer crashing.

sonicwind

]]> <![CDATA[Vista Running 108 Apps Bites Mac OS X Back]]> @sonburn: " and the mac schlongs are more aesthetically pleasing."

Ugh! Poor women...

ripfire

]]> <![CDATA[Vista Running 108 Apps Bites Mac OS X Back]]> @priceytoys:
"Then how come MY computer, with Core2Duo and 2GB ram, always shows around 98% CPU usage, even with hardly anything running?! (And Norton says my system is clean)"

Theres your issue right there.

Dook_In_The_Urinal

]]> <![CDATA[Vista Running 108 Apps Bites Mac OS X Back]]> I posted this in the other thread, but heres a screenshot of me with 105+apps/157 Threads open on my low end Vista laptop.

[usera.imagecave.com]

I still had full control of my system and could do pretty much anything.

The point is, both OSX and Vista are more than capable of doing pretty much anything one could want to do.

Dook_In_The_Urinal

]]> <![CDATA[Vista Running 108 Apps Bites Mac OS X Back]]> it's pointless when its windows, when its Mac or Linux, its ground breaking

Bladefist

]]> <![CDATA[Vista Running 108 Apps Bites Mac OS X Back]]> Seriously, any musicians or video producers know 100 apps is nothing to installed on a machine. I have about 125 non-windows out of the box apps installed on my laptop. My "Program Files" folder is 20gb (and yes there are no installation files left there). My opinion is this video is not at all impressive. Start opening more resource expensive programs like adobe premier, photoshop, reason, and something that really uses serious resources. I actually have had apps like premier, photoshop, reason, FL, SONAR, and dreamweaver opened all at once. I'm not saying thats more impressive but when windows can open 100 applications like those, I'll be impressed. Nice try though.

...Also The sad thing is Vista wont run many of these 125 or so apps, I have to keep using XP. So will I replace all of these programs with a Vista versions? Absolutely not, because I can run almost every single one in wine or VMware fusion. I bought a copy of Vista and it is the biggest waste of money I think I have every made on a computer. Bye bye windows.

obis666

]]> <![CDATA[Vista Running 108 Apps Bites Mac OS X Back]]> @hakubak: Nope. You're wrong.

berribrand

]]> <![CDATA[Vista Running 108 Apps Bites Mac OS X Back]]> @lianna_g:

Try some antivirus mkay?

keepr

]]> <![CDATA[Vista Running 108 Apps Bites Mac OS X Back]]> Wow, maybe they did do something with Vista over XP.

socioecoboy

]]> <![CDATA[Vista Running 108 Apps Bites Mac OS X Back]]> @priceytoys: You ask: "Then how come MY computer, with Core2Duo and 2GB ram, always shows around 98% CPU usage, even with hardly anything running?!"

It's one of two things- either you're a sebaceous troll or you're a complete idiot who can't tell when his machine has been sandbagged.

lianna_g

]]> <![CDATA[Vista Running 108 Apps Bites Mac OS X Back]]> hahahaha. FreeHand leaks memory like a stuck pig. Run that and five apps.

jscseattle

]]> <![CDATA[Vista Running 108 Apps Bites Mac OS X Back]]> Once had a couple of thousand tabs in Opera, accidentally opened all my bookmarks.

rospaya

]]> <![CDATA[Vista Running 108 Apps Bites Mac OS X Back]]> How comes we haven't had any Linux user telling us he's running 250,000 apps simultaneously on six different monitors?

because that's not news. all linux users know their 133mhz pentium can do that without breaking a sweat.

notatoad

]]> <![CDATA[Vista Running 108 Apps Bites Mac OS X Back]]> 108 apps?

PLZ NAME THE 108 APPS!! I WANNA SEE THEIR NAMES!!!!!

jpbraconi

]]> <![CDATA[Vista Running 108 Apps Bites Mac OS X Back]]> @Kaiser-Machead: At least one person here has a grasp of software operation. Passive applications do very little if they're just waiting for input. What would be more impressive is running background tasks and seeing how responsive the UI remains. A good OS/Windowing system should make sure the UI stays responsive even under load. In the past, Windows has always failed miserably on that account, although I have no experience with Vista, so I'll leave that window open (no pun intended).

Accelerata

]]> <![CDATA[Vista Running 108 Apps Bites Mac OS X Back]]> on my powermac I run all programmes which I could find. the specs are 1.25 gh and 2 gig ram under the programmes sat photoshop etc.. all works create

jorisadri

]]> <![CDATA[Vista Running 108 Apps Bites Mac OS X Back]]> @priceytoys:

The Keyword is NORTON!

Snapper

]]> <![CDATA[Vista Running 108 Apps Bites Mac OS X Back]]> [rekoil@tino:rekoil$ ps aux | wc -l
1242
[rekoil@tino:rekoil$uptime
13:41:18 up 340 days, 23:21, 270 users, load average: 0.06, 0.05, 0.01

'nuff said.

rekoil

]]> <![CDATA[Vista Running 108 Apps Bites Mac OS X Back]]> @sumocat: But wait, the part you missed is that he quit because he was bored. He could have started more, but grew weary of the effort. It's like the guy with the wings just got bored of eating.

Elvisisdead

]]> <![CDATA[Vista Running 108 Apps Bites Mac OS X Back]]> Then how come MY computer, with Core2Duo and 2GB ram, always shows around 98% CPU usage, even with hardly anything running?! (And Norton says my system is clean)
The story sounds great, but what would make this useful is an explanation of HOW it's done.


priceytoys

]]> <![CDATA[Vista Running 108 Apps Bites Mac OS X Back]]> I rather see if they can get this workflow running!

Photoshop CS3
After Effects CS3
Maya 2008
Sony Vegas 2008
Firefox
and watching a training dvd using powerDVD
on a quad core.

I actually hear the springs go "boing!" and then crash.

VakeroRokero

]]> <![CDATA[Vista Running 108 Apps Bites Mac OS X Back]]> I can do it up to five times and after that either i have to use some sort of lubricant or the girl just gets tired and leaves.

Wrong benchmark?

theMockingNoob

]]> <![CDATA[Vista Running 108 Apps Bites Mac OS X Back]]> Big deal. Windows usually runs far more if you just count all the malware/adware running in the background.

mannypdesign

]]> <![CDATA[Vista Running 108 Apps Bites Mac OS X Back]]> Come on linux fans, i hope that someone out there is running at least 100k apps on ubuntu.

iscangel

]]> <![CDATA[Vista Running 108 Apps Bites Mac OS X Back]]> I think you guys are missing the point. For everyone saying that it is pointless...that is the point. Apple always throws out some crazy stat about how vista sucks and OSX is the best, and it can do yada yada yada. The
0 guy basically said hey vista can do this too! And basically got tired of opening up apps so he stopped at 108. Also, he didnt say he used all 4gb of his memory either...he cleary stated usage at 30%. So for all you saying he used more memory...no...use a calculator. Also...who cares if it was a lap top or a desktop...who cares? Did i cover it all...who cares...


youngjjohnson

]]> <![CDATA[Vista Running 108 Apps Bites Mac OS X Back]]> i can run 500 minesweepers too :D

kristjand

]]> <![CDATA[Vista Running 108 Apps Bites Mac OS X Back]]> All I know is that on OSX I can render a very large scene in Maya, using all 8 cores, and still -smoothly- use Spaces and Expose to switch between iTunes and Firefox, while watching videos in either one without skipping a single frame. And that is a scene that Vista won't even render at all because Vista still won't recognize all of my RAM. And even if I render a lighter scene on Vista, I can't even switch between apps smoothly, let alone watch videos. There is no contest on the memory management between the two. And Linux is even better. Vista fanboys simply haven't used another OS. Period.

autonomousgerm

]]> <![CDATA[Vista Running 108 Apps Bites Mac OS X Back]]> bah

Mac article from 2 days ago: "quite impressive"

Vista article: "Why people still care about this kind of things?" + more sarcasm.

Fanboys. Go post another camera review or something. :(

Cerixus

]]> <![CDATA[Vista Running 108 Apps Bites Mac OS X Back]]> @Worf:Better yet - how 'bout some scientist in charge of a Blue Gene/L gets hip to these stoopid articles and decides to show everyone up_

uberfu

]]> <![CDATA[Vista Running 108 Apps Bites Mac OS X Back]]> Someone should get their newest generation Mac Pro with 8 cores of processing power and scoreboard both these guys by running 150 apps in Mac while simultaneously running over 108 in Vista virtual machine at the same time. I'm not sure what that's going to prove except maybe you know how to search torrents for applications.

Samifumi

]]> <![CDATA[Vista Running 108 Apps Bites Mac OS X Back]]> 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 the fact the Gizmodo is wasting our time giving these dumb-asses time in the spot light_

Is it a slow news week Giz ? Or are you maybe just as bored as these 2 idiots trying to grab some fame?

uberfu

]]> <![CDATA[Vista Running 108 Apps Bites Mac OS X Back]]> 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?

Worf

]]> <![CDATA[Vista Running 108 Apps Bites Mac OS X Back]]> @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_

uberfu

]]> <![CDATA[Vista Running 108 Apps Bites Mac OS X Back]]> 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?

MarsVolta

]]> <![CDATA[Vista Running 108 Apps Bites Mac OS X Back]]> laptop or desktop?...he never says, does he?

Seiven

]]> <![CDATA[Vista Running 108 Apps Bites Mac OS X Back]]> ha, my pos computer at home can barely have 4-5 apps running without maxing out the proccessor and RAM..

thesillyone

]]> <![CDATA[Vista Running 108 Apps Bites Mac OS X Back]]> @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.

sonburn

]]> <![CDATA[Vista Running 108 Apps Bites Mac OS X Back]]> Yeah, well, I'm running Firefox 3.0b5 with 4 tabs open at the same time!!!!

maven2k

]]> <![CDATA[Vista Running 108 Apps Bites Mac OS X Back]]> @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

Daniel

]]> <![CDATA[Vista Running 108 Apps Bites Mac OS X Back]]> Waiwaiwait.....Minesweeper is a resource hog???

Who knew?!

Kaiser-Machead's WALL-E fetish

]]> <![CDATA[Vista Running 108 Apps Bites Mac OS X Back]]> What to say. Get a life.

MACPollo

]]> <![CDATA[Vista Running 108 Apps Bites Mac OS X Back]]> just another example of the age old penis measuring contest metaphor...guns, cars, now computer apps?

killthebabysitter

]]> <![CDATA[Vista Running 108 Apps Bites Mac OS X Back]]> 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

werk

]]> <![CDATA[Vista Running 108 Apps Bites Mac OS X Back]]> right, because any smart/organized computer user has 108 or 150 things open simultaneously... goodbye, attention span of future generations, hello, marketing lameness.

dedalus987

]]> <![CDATA[Vista Running 108 Apps Bites Mac OS X Back]]> Great. Now try using one of the apps.

Loonie

]]> <![CDATA[Vista Running 108 Apps Bites Mac OS X Back]]> 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.

Jakus

]]> <![CDATA[Vista Running 108 Apps Bites Mac OS X Back]]> [picasaweb.google.com]

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

Viva La Volvo

]]> <![CDATA[Vista Running 108 Apps Bites Mac OS X Back]]> 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

Daniel

]]> <![CDATA[Vista Running 108 Apps Bites Mac OS X Back]]> 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

Jakus

]]> <![CDATA[Vista Running 108 Apps Bites Mac OS X Back]]> @ripfire4: I would if the boss would let me.

Geisrud

]]> <![CDATA[Vista Running 108 Apps Bites Mac OS X Back]]> So, having 150 apps as compared to 108 is a lot? lol!

Evangelion

]]> <![CDATA[Vista Running 108 Apps Bites Mac OS X Back]]> 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

Daniel

]]> <![CDATA[Vista Running 108 Apps Bites Mac OS X Back]]> Underwhelming enough to be called "craptacular."

nat lyon

]]> <![CDATA[Vista Running 108 Apps Bites Mac OS X Back]]> 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.

FranklinTurtle

]]> <![CDATA[Vista Running 108 Apps Bites Mac OS X Back]]> @pcs800: Or some of us actually have sex.

Late_Night

]]> <![CDATA[Vista Running 108 Apps Bites Mac OS X Back]]> 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.

foolmartyr

]]> <![CDATA[Vista Running 108 Apps Bites Mac OS X Back]]> 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.....


Loremaster101

]]> <![CDATA[Vista Running 108 Apps Bites Mac OS X Back]]> I know this one's BS.

cyborgtroy

]]> <![CDATA[Vista Running 108 Apps Bites Mac OS X Back]]> @ripfire4: There is no difference. They're both losers.

kahri

]]> <![CDATA[Vista Running 108 Apps Bites Mac OS X Back]]> how many of the readers and writes here actually know computers, rather then using them?

Crescent

]]> <![CDATA[Vista Running 108 Apps Bites Mac OS X Back]]> sorry 42 apps... should never do minor calculations before I've had my coffee!

sonburn

]]> <![CDATA[Vista Running 108 Apps Bites Mac OS X Back]]> @jetexas: Bingo.

Hestika

]]> <![CDATA[Vista Running 108 Apps Bites Mac OS X Back]]> what the hell was that giant gird of program icons??? iv never seen it before (the one before alt tab)...

Geogeo

]]> <![CDATA[Vista Running 108 Apps Bites Mac OS X Back]]> @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.

sumocat

]]> <![CDATA[Vista Running 108 Apps Bites Mac OS X Back]]> 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.


pcs800

]]> <![CDATA[Vista Running 108 Apps Bites Mac OS X Back]]> BTW, it's not the number of apps running. It's the number of processes that matters.

ripfire

]]> <![CDATA[Vista Running 108 Apps Bites Mac OS X Back]]> 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!

sonburn

]]> <![CDATA[Vista Running 108 Apps Bites Mac OS X Back]]> @silomunke: The difference is one guy has a video and the other is just a screenshot... (or maybe that was the video ;)

ripfire

]]> <![CDATA[Vista Running 108 Apps Bites Mac OS X Back]]> Posts like these are good reminders of the strange perceptions people have about how operating systems work.

bubba451

]]> <![CDATA[Vista Running 108 Apps Bites Mac OS X Back]]> @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?

ripfire

]]> <![CDATA[Vista Running 108 Apps Bites Mac OS X Back]]> They're not even the same hardware specs!?!

yoshi

]]> <![CDATA[Vista Running 108 Apps Bites Mac OS X Back]]> 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

Viva La Volvo

]]> <![CDATA[Vista Running 108 Apps Bites Mac OS X Back]]> if i open more than 6 basic apps on my work computer the universe slows down a bit.

DeCerbo

]]> <![CDATA[Vista Running 108 Apps Bites Mac OS X Back]]> @Kaiser-Machead: But that's exactly what I said about the Mac running 150 apps.

ripfire

]]> <![CDATA[Vista Running 108 Apps Bites Mac OS X Back]]> oops.. "I don't GET this" is what I meant to type... :P

silomunke

]]> <![CDATA[Vista Running 108 Apps Bites Mac OS X Back]]> I don't this. 108 apps vs 150 apps? The better system here seems to be the 150 applications running.

silomunke

]]> <![CDATA[Vista Running 108 Apps Bites Mac OS X Back]]> @Rodime:

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

dmbfan3333

]]> <![CDATA[Vista Running 108 Apps Bites Mac OS X Back]]> @hakubak: Shows what you know, I could only get to 16 instances of IE. Yes, I tried.

Geisrud

]]> <![CDATA[Vista Running 108 Apps Bites Mac OS X Back]]> the difference is that on Mac OS X you have a useful interface for switching between applications.

Accordion

]]> <![CDATA[Vista Running 108 Apps Bites Mac OS X Back]]> but the mac interface is prettier. which TOTALLY justifies the additional cost.

Rodime

]]> <![CDATA[Vista Running 108 Apps Bites Mac OS X Back]]> 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.

dappy

]]> <![CDATA[Vista Running 108 Apps Bites Mac OS X Back]]> 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!

N@tedog

]]> <![CDATA[Vista Running 108 Apps Bites Mac OS X Back]]> 108 apps huh? Wow that means you had to close about 300 "are you sure you want to do this?" pop ups.

kahri

]]> <![CDATA[Vista Running 108 Apps Bites Mac OS X Back]]> @sorensilk: dude I own a honda civic and trust me, it's not holding 50 people.

nachobel

]]> <![CDATA[Vista Running 108 Apps Bites Mac OS X Back]]> @hakubak: I thought opening 43 instances of IE was the default setting. At least for the web sites I get caught visiting.

Monty

]]> <![CDATA[Vista Running 108 Apps Bites Mac OS X Back]]> Try opening 43+ instances of Internet Explorer. It'll puke, trust me.

hakubak

]]> <![CDATA[Vista Running 108 Apps Bites Mac OS X Back]]> 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.

Monty

]]> <![CDATA[Vista Running 108 Apps Bites Mac OS X Back]]> 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?

sorensilk

]]> <![CDATA[Vista Running 108 Apps Bites Mac OS X Back]]> 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!"

Geisrud

]]> <![CDATA[Vista Running 108 Apps Bites Mac OS X Back]]> @riqgeez: may the lord have pity on your soul

kevman90

]]> <![CDATA[Vista Running 108 Apps Bites Mac OS X Back]]> 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?

Kaiser-Machead's WALL-E fetish

]]> <![CDATA[Vista Running 108 Apps Bites Mac OS X Back]]> Welcome to exercises in the pointless.

Sleeper_Service

]]> <![CDATA[Vista Running 108 Apps Bites Mac OS X Back]]> 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.

riqgeez

]]> <![CDATA[Vista Running 108 Apps Bites Mac OS X Back]]> 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.

jetexas

]]> <![CDATA[Vista Running 108 Apps Bites Mac OS X Back]]> 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.

Sportyboard

]]> <![CDATA[Vista Running 108 Apps Bites Mac OS X Back]]> That interface sucks.

FThorn

]]>