: Mac or Windows?



AMGoff
08-25-07, 01:39 AM
Just wondering what you guys use. Seeing as how Cadillacs are premium products and Macs are seen as premium products (even though they're really not) I was just curious what the proportions were amongst the Cadillac community compared to the population at large. I'm the Technology Director for a non-profit organization so I'm just as big a geek as I am a gear-head!

Feel free to list your systems as well.

Please do not turn this into some flaming, this is better than that kind of thread. There are more than enough technology sites dedicated to that.

Main portable - 15" 1.25GHz PowerBook G4, 2GB RAM, 80GB 7200rpm HD
Main desktop - 2GHz x 2 PowerMac G5, 4GB RAM, 1TB (total) HD
Work desktop (just arrived last week) - 24" 2.8GHz Core2 Extreme iMac, 4GB RAM, 750GB HD (running X, XP, Vista, & Ubuntu)

TaVern
08-25-07, 01:50 AM
Oh dear God... The Mac is the definition of a "care-free" computing experience.

I currently have a Mac-Mini desktop, 2.0 GHZ Intel Core 2 Duo, and a Powerbook G4. Also an iPhone and 40GB iPod.

Switched over to Mac almost 3 years ago and never looked back. In those three years, I've never seen a pop-up advertisement. Never installed an anti-virus software. Never seen a virus, spam-ware, spy-ware, or trojan-horse.

You know why iPods are so popular??? Because they're easy to use... Same concept goes into their computers.

nikon
08-25-07, 02:13 AM
I'd run a mac...but PC parts are so CHEAP...you just can't beat a 6000+ AMD x2 x64 for 160$.....besides all my business software is PC only, and running the windows emulator on a mac just seems like a waste of time....I know pc's inside and out, it's a little to late now to get into a mac, even though I love them...just don't know the in's and out's of them....so I'll stick with what I know.

and currently

4600+ AMD X2 x64
2gb pc3200
150gb Raptor
320gb Maxtor
some crap vid card so I can use Vista in 'aero' mode

It gets the job done
Besides I use Windows media center exclusively with my Xbox360...Mac doesn't offer that...recording HD is nice ;)

gary88
08-25-07, 02:33 AM
I'd run a mac...but PC parts are so CHEAP...you just can't beat a 6000+ AMD x2 x64 for 160$.....besides all my business software is PC only, and running the windows emulator on a mac just seems like a waste of time....I know pc's inside and out, it's a little to late now to get into a mac, even though I love them...just don't know the in's and out's of them....so I'll stick with what I know.


:yeah:

I've been with Windows since the beginning of Windows '98, basically when I got my first computer. Compaq Presario Pentium III. Now I'm on my 2nd Vaio notebook. My first one was a monster of a laptop, with a 3.2GHz Pentium 4 stuffed in it. The problem is because of that, the battery lasted about 30 minutes and it produced enough heat to keep a small family warm. Now I have an FS840, bought it because it's better for college. Smaller, lighter, and bigger HDD. 1.73GHz Pentium M processor, and stays cool all the time.

If I find myself with an extra $2000, then maybe, just maybe I'll consider buying a Mac.

dkozloski
08-25-07, 03:20 AM
A Mac is a computerlike device for the dimwitted.... Dr. Emilio Bombay

gdwriter
08-25-07, 04:13 AM
I'm on my fourth Mac since 1992, although I've been using them at work since 1990. I buy a new computer every five years it seems, and although I spend about the same amount of money, it's amazing how much more capable each machine is. Started with an LC II, then a PowerMac 6500, an iBook G4 and now a MacBook Pro.

Model Identifier: MacBookPro3,1
Processor Name: Intel Core 2 Duo
Processor Speed: 2.2 GHz
Memory: 2 GB
System Version: Mac OS X 10.4.10

gdwriter
08-25-07, 04:17 AM
A Mac is a computerlike device for the dimwitted.... Dr. Emilio Bombay:xbs:
Actually, a Mac is a computer for people who don't want to deal with Windows BS.

TaVern
08-25-07, 04:20 AM
BLUE SCREEN OF DEATH!!!

RgriTO8UHvs

Jesda
08-25-07, 08:13 AM
Mac at home. Windows on the road (compatibility with mobile internet devices and such)

CadillacSTS42005
08-25-07, 08:22 AM
PC
Perverted Clown
Probably Contagious
lol
really though PC

ewill3rd
08-25-07, 08:27 AM
All 8 of my computers are running on Windows XP.
My wife's crazy tablet PC is the only one that has any issues.
She doesn't use it that much and if she would learn how to clean up her mess her computer would run a lot better.

I was using windows before windows was windows... if that makes sense to anyone.
If you think XP sucks I'll see if I can assemble my old windows 3.1 floppy disc set and you can install that for a while :histeric:

slk230mb
08-25-07, 10:29 AM
I use both but since I'm in tech support for a living I'm way better versed in Windows.

wait4me6920
08-25-07, 02:57 PM
snip...besides all my business software is PC only, and running the windows emulator on a mac just seems like a waste of time....I know pc's inside and out, it's a little to late now to get into a mac, even though I love them...just don't know the in's and out's of them....so I'll stick with what I know......snip

Besides I use Windows media center exclusively with my Xbox360...Mac doesn't offer that...recording HD is nice ;)


:xbs:
Actually, a Mac is a computer for people who don't want to deal with Windows BS.


I too am a Mac driver - have been for more than 20 years, though I've worked with PCs over the years - build, maintain, setting up networks, etc. Still help some of the schools & dept of ed keep their systems running, imaging, etc.

People who've not previously used Mac need not be concerned - OS X is way beyond anything Microsoft has done & continues to get better - built on UNIX, it's robust & secure.

The system is very intuitive & there's very little by way of learning curve to worry about. Only the enjoyment of interacting with the best-in-class - Think Rolex vs Timex, Caddie vs Yugo, Mac vs PC.

And with the intel processors, there's no need to run Windows via an emulator - you can set up your machine to run both and choose which system you want when you boot up... A new Mac running Windows is in effect a PC & will run whatever PC software you choose to run. Or go with Parallel Desktops & have both operating systems runnning at the same time.

I have Windows loaded on both of my Macs - with website work, it's handy to have a Windows browser to check out appearance of work. It can vary depending on the platform. Also have some work-related databases built in MS Access. Other than that, I boot into Windows only when I've been very bad and deserve severe punishment.:halo:

Have a new 15" MacBookPro Intel dual-core 2.4ghz laptop & a Mac Pro Xeon 3.0ghz dual-core, dual-processor desktop unit.

wait4me6920
08-25-07, 03:03 PM
All 8 of my computers are running on Windows XP.
My wife's crazy tablet PC is the only one that has any issues.
She doesn't use it that much and if she would learn how to clean up her mess her computer would run a lot better.

I was using windows before windows was windows... if that makes sense to anyone.
If you think XP sucks I'll see if I can assemble my old windows 3.1 floppy disc set and you can install that for a while :histeric:

I've a full set, as well as a set of 3.0 - believe it or not one of the nonprofits I do gratis work for still has several beasts running these systems, as well as a couple of dos-only dinos...:eek:

AMGoff
08-25-07, 03:11 PM
Well.. I told myself I wasn't going to get into any of this because I really just wanted to see what the proportions were here. In reality it all comes down to what you like because these days there's really nothing you can do on one that you can't do on the other. But still.. here's a few points to clear up.


I'd run a mac...but PC parts are so CHEAP...you just can't beat a 6000+ AMD x2 x64 for 160$.....besides all my business software is PC only, and running the windows emulator on a mac just seems like a waste of time....


:yeah:

If I find myself with an extra $2000, then maybe, just maybe I'll consider buying a Mac.

Since their move to intel it is very easy run Windows at native speed, either by booting directly or by virtualizatiion.

As I said originally, although they are seen as a premium product that's just not the case anymore. Sure, they don't offer a bargain basement $300 machine but when matching comparable machines spec for spec against other manufacturers they either come out the same or in some instances the Mac actually comes out cheaper, especially with the higher-end workstations and servers.


A Mac is a computerlike device for the dimwitted.... Dr. Emilio Bombay

So then that makes Windows a copy of a computerlike device made for the dimwitted...

Again, I didn't want this to turn into a flaming, this is better than that kind of thing. They each have their own strengths and weaknesses and it all comes down to a matter of personally preference. I was just interested in the numbers and what type of systems you guys are running.

Cadillacboy
08-25-07, 03:12 PM
Glasses !!!!!
Oppssss windows for me lol

I~LUV~Caddys8792
08-25-07, 03:24 PM
PC, wish it was MAC.

ewill3rd
08-25-07, 04:53 PM
Man I remember being stoked when DOS 6.0 came out!

dkozloski
08-25-07, 05:30 PM
Honeywell DDP-116 and everything runs in machine language.

wait4me6920
08-25-07, 09:07 PM
Honeywell DDP-116 and everything runs in machine language.

Oh yeah - got my start with machine language - card-punch/read, tape-punch/read, FORTRAN & a number of other languages at Arizona State. Grew to detest the IBM 1130 (had another small machine we also used, but can't recall what it was).

The 1130 was so damned slow that we Air Force students would write & punch out our programs & sneak over to the university's computer center at night to run our programs on the mainframe. We did have tacit approval from our engineering dept advisor, but were told not to blab about it to others.

The mainframe could run a program in seconds that would take the 1130 close to an hour. Occasionally a miswritten program would result in a loop that threatened to bury the room in paper before we could bail out. Fun, fun...:)

Note the price of this pos in the link, pull it up to current monetary value - makes a modern PC or Mac seem an incredible value. And, of course, either is.

http://www-03.ibm.com/ibm/history/exhibits/1130/1130_intro.html

http://www.msu.edu/~mrr/mycomp/ibm1130.htm

z06bigbird
08-26-07, 12:34 AM
PC at home; abacus on road.

z06bigbird
08-26-07, 12:35 AM
PC
Perverted Clown
Probably Contagious
lol
really though PC

8000 posts??? When did you join this, when you were 3???

behind-bars
08-26-07, 01:47 AM
Am I the only Linux user around?

I have Ubuntu installed, and running XP in virtualization only when needed. I can get all the OS X eyecandy plus some with a bit of work. Plus the benefits of not worrying about viruses and spyware. And best of all not having to pay for each new version ;)

I do have a mac hat was given to me, but the processor doesnt support OS X so it doesnt get used.

hardrockcamaro@mac.c
08-29-07, 04:44 AM
Mac, I switched 4 years ago.

I'm currently running:

20" iMac G5 isight edition, 2.1GHz, 1.5GB, 500GB
15" MacBook Pro Intel Core 2 Duo 2.33GHz, 2GB, 120GB


http://homepage.mac.com/hardrockcamaro/.Pictures/mac/HomeSetup2.jpg

Jonas McFeely
08-29-07, 04:55 AM
I was raised on IIe's, 6100's and 7100's. My dad has always done editing/digital media/simulation crap for work. So his old company, Institute for Simulation and Training would buy him the biggest and baddest Macs whenever he asked. So thats what i always used up until i was about 14. I remember we had a 7100 with a 33.6 modem. Bad ass machine in its day. Played Chuck Yeagers Air Combat non stop. Effing love that game.

Then we got an AMD 1.6 with Windows and i havnt been on a Mac since. I mean i like Macs, but will never go back. Im too familiar with Windows, and MAcs with Windows are joke.

I now have a Pentium 3 400. LOL. Its a dog. 256mb RAM, 10 gig HD for the OS, and a 40 gig for the music and videos. Trying to run any decent quality video is a joke. Most Youtube crap is jumpy as hell. I have no Video card either. I cannot play music and go on the interweb at the same time. I often type too fast for the computer, and it needs to catch up. Yeah, i need to upgrade bad.

Jesda
08-29-07, 06:21 AM
Macs with Windows are the exact same thing. How are they a joke?

MediumD
08-29-07, 07:30 AM
You know why iPods are so popular??? Because they're easy to use... Same concept goes into their computers.

More like because they're trendy, IMO.

I run a 2.2ghz Athlon, 1gb of SDRAM, in a box that's like 6 years old. It gets me on the internet, handles mild video production at an acceptable pace, and that's about all I need it for these days anyway.

gothicaleigh
08-29-07, 08:04 AM
Vista 64

Lord Cadillac
08-29-07, 08:15 AM
The only reason (besides cost) that I haven't switched to a Mac yet - is my job. I connect to a Novell network and have been using a PC to do this for years. Is it possible to switch to Mac and still get my job done seamlessly? I'm doing web design with this company...

Also.. Tell me more about Parallel Desktops. That may help me to move to a Mac.

I've been using computers since the mid 80s with a Tandy, Texas Instruments and a Commodore Vic 20. I'm very experienced with computers and after a LOT of research, I feel the Mac is the way to go. Not because of graphics or any of that nonsense..

With Windows (and being that it's the most popular operating system), I need:

1. Antivirus software
2. Antispyware software
3. Antiadware software
4. Firewall protection
5. Some other "ware" that I forget what it is right now...

So to beginwith, I need 5 memory hogs operating on my machine at all times. Then I open up Adobe Dreamweaver, Adobe Photoshop, Thunderbird, Firefox, Internet Explorer and CuteFTP - and my machine is absolutely finished - and I have a pretty powerful computer..

Being that the Mac, at this point in time, is not having many viruses created for it (who'd waste their time when nobody is using it?) - this is a huge advantage.. I could probably get away without running ANYTHING - but I'll at least run something...


And with the intel processors, there's no need to run Windows via an emulator - you can set up your machine to run both and choose which system you want when you boot up... A new Mac running Windows is in effect a PC & will run whatever PC software you choose to run. Or go with Parallel Desktops & have both operating systems runnning at the same time.

wait4me6920
08-29-07, 10:10 AM
Im too familiar with Windows, and MAcs with Windows are joke.




The only reason (besides cost) that I haven't switched to a Mac yet - is my job. I connect to a Novell network and have been using a PC to do this for years. Is it possible to switch to Mac and still get my job done seamlessly? I'm doing web design with this company...

Also.. Tell me more about Parallel Desktops. That may help me to move to a Mac.

Being that the Mac, at this point in time, is not having many viruses created for it (who'd waste their time when nobody is using it?) - this is a huge advantage.. I could probably get away without running ANYTHING - but I'll at least run something...

With the new intel-based Macs, you can install a Mac program called 'Bootcamp' - this software sets up a partition within which you can install Windows XP. Once you've done this, you have a PC & can choose at boot whether you wish to boot into Mac OS-X, or Windows.

Currently, Bootcamp is a download from Apple, but with the next version of OS-X it will be included on the machine. See http://www.apple.com/macosx/bootcamp/. I've been working with the downloaded version, but would recommend holding off a purchase, should you decide to buy, until the new OS incorporating a final version of Bootcamp is included with the Mac of your choice.

I've had no problem running Windows versions of MS Office, Photoshop, Dreamweaver, Illustrator, etc., though I have Mac versions of all but Access & prefer them because I'm more at ease with Mac system.

Parallels Desktop is virtualization, but is nearly as quick as running Windows natively - and you can work with both without rebooting. It does have some limitations, but the Parallels folks are continuing to work problems & minimize shortcomings. I'd recommend you browse http://www.parallels.com to get more info.

Unfortunately, one still needs to protect the Windows side of a Mac-hosted PC since it is a PC - which means you will need anti-virus software, etc., on the PC side of the house.

On the Mac side - I've never encountered a virus, worm, trojan, spyware, whatever, that can do any damage to Mac OS. It would be possible, however to pass along a PC bug though forwarding an email to a friend using a PC. For that reason alone, I do run an anti-virus program on Mac side of the house.

Do some thinking on it & if you're near an Apple store, pop in & take one for a test drive. :thumbsup:

nikon
08-29-07, 11:09 AM
I know macs can be setup to boot win xp, or run it in an emulator...but why bother? I'd never be in OS X except to browse the web....kinda pointless, I guess thats why I havent switched.....besides all my software and games only run on winblows...and I can at least slowly upgrade my PC if I want a faster one.......If I was doing something with video editing/graphic design...sure I'd have a mac...like the boss said with windows you have to run 30 programs to protect your pc from crashing, and then it crashes anyways and slows way down.....but that would be the only reason for me to switch to mac


as for linux, I installed it (once) on a spare box...I couldn't figure out a damn thing, I may have gotten online...but when I tried to install a program it was all command line crap....screw that.

AMGoff
08-29-07, 01:32 PM
The only reason (besides cost) that I haven't switched to a Mac yet - is my job. I connect to a Novell network and have been using a PC to do this for years. Is it possible to switch to Mac and still get my job done seamlessly? I'm doing web design with this company...

Also.. Tell me more about Parallel Desktops. That may help me to move to a Mac.

I've been using computers since the mid 80s with a Tandy, Texas Instruments and a Commodore Vic 20. I'm very experienced with computers and after a LOT of research, I feel the Mac is the way to go. Not because of graphics or any of that nonsense..

With Windows (and being that it's the most popular operating system), I need:

1. Antivirus software
2. Antispyware software
3. Antiadware software
4. Firewall protection
5. Some other "ware" that I forget what it is right now...

So to beginwith, I need 5 memory hogs operating on my machine at all times. Then I open up Adobe Dreamweaver, Adobe Photoshop, Thunderbird, Firefox, Internet Explorer and CuteFTP - and my machine is absolutely finished - and I have a pretty powerful computer..

Being that the Mac, at this point in time, is not having many viruses created for it (who'd waste their time when nobody is using it?) - this is a huge advantage.. I could probably get away without running ANYTHING - but I'll at least run something...

Sal,

Not to sound like some hare krishna or happy sunshine cleaners guy, but it sounds like you're ready to join us :thumbsup: About the only point that *could* still be made against the Mac is games. I say could because I don't really feel it's a point at all... a computer is meant to be a tool for productivity. I guess I'm a little old-school here, but if you want to play a game that's what consoles are for. Regardless.. if all you need Windows for is to connect to Netware then parallels would suit you just fine (although if you had any sway with your work's it dept they could just enable Appletalk for you). I assume you're work's network is more than secure, so if you only used Windows to connect to that and nothing else you could get away with just having a good firewall enabled. If you still wanted more there are plenty of great, free anti-virus programs such as AVG, it's been my experience that the do as good a job or better than the big players without being as bloated or intrusive to the system. With Parallels you would just have Windows running just like any other program alongside all the Mac stuff. I know it's hard for some to believe but if you ever switch you'll be absolutely amazed at how much your productivity will increase. You'll turn your computer on and just get to work... and that's it, no fuss. Windows has always had a way of doing what it wants sometimes... the Mac does what you want. It used to be a pain to run Windows via emulation but with the switch to intel that's all gone, Windows will now run a full speed when you need it to. I can say if you ever decided to run this site off of a Mac Server.. you're time spent keeping up on system maintenance would decrease substantially. Macs make wonderful servers due to their unix core... it's during the middle of the night when everyone's asleep that it runs all of it's maintenance scripts and system optimizations, there is a daily, weekly, and monthly script. That's why I always tell people to leave their Mac on overnights at least a few times a week. My PowerMac never gets shut off.. it's been running non-stop for five months now without a restart and without a hiccup. I'll just say this... if you go buy a shiny new iMac you have absolutely nothing to lose. If you find you don't like the Mac OS at all you can just run Windows on it like you would any other machine... although it will be one real good looking Windows box. But I guarantee that if you give it an honest try and go into it with an open mind you will increasingly use Windows less and less in lieu of the Mac.

As far as the programs go there are native versions of Dreamweaver, Photoshop, Thunderbird, Firefox, and there are plenty of ftp programs. You'd still have to run ie through windows though. The Macs memory management system is second to none. Get a machine with say 4GB of RAM and you'll barely ever touch virtual memory... even if you do, with today's 7200rpm sata drives you will barely notice it. I've got to open and leave running an obscene amount of programs and windows to see the "spinning beachball" with my newer machines. I never close my browser (Safari or Seamonkey), Apple Mail, itunes, Adium (chat), have a ton of widgets running, and usually another program or two (usually Dreamweaver or Fireworks) and never really feel that the new intel systems can't keep up with me.

If you're looking for long-term expandability you can spring for a low-end MacPro and upgrade down the road.. faster processors (up to 8-cores total right now), up to 32GB of ram (remember when that used to be a huge hard drive!), up to 2TB internal storage, expansion card slots for newer faster multiple graphics cards for like $2000. It sounds like a lot but when you compare that spec for spec with something from say Dell you'll be really surprised by the result. Or you can just start out small and get a MacMini to try things out for $5-600 bucks. Just get extra ram from a third party supplier after you buy it. Apple is notorious for it's ram prices... but OS X LOVES ram.. the more the better and the more the happier you'll be. Go to store.apple.com and click through to the "special deals" section in the lower right corner... they always have decent deals on "refurbished" machines that come with the same warranty as a new machine but all for less money.

Sorry for the length but there's a whole lot to say on this subject. Bottom line... What do you have to lose?

codewize
08-29-07, 02:46 PM
I'm not going to vote but I will share my opinion. Years ago I would have said Linux, Red Hat specifically. Times have changed. Now I recommend Trustix for server applications and Ubuntu for the desktop. That's not to say I think any less of Red Hat because I don't. I just disagree with the fact that they commercialized the product.

OK so onward we go...

First of all lets start by saying that one of the key reasons to purchase a Mac in the past no longer exists and that's the RISC processor. Since Macs are Intel x86 platform now you're really only buying an OS.

Having said that the Mac OS is nothing more than a pretty interface sitting on top of FreeBSD. SO you're running Linux anyway

Now, I think the new Macs are nice, easy to use and reliable. However the old problems still remain. Market share. It would cost companies far to much money to ditch Windows and migrate to Mac. Besides the hardware there would be a huge learning curve for most.

Not that I'm a MS fan but the more recent version of Windows less Vista, have been very reliable. Since the Windows 2000 kernel Windows has been a decent mature OS. There is still far more software for PC than Mac and there is no shareware / freeware for Mac.

If you've never used a computer before and you want to learn, you could go either way. If you use a PC every day and you know it then there's no technical reason to change.

Now for what I use at home;
Trustix File server / Domain Controller
Red Hat 9 Transparent Ethernet Bridge
4 Windows XP Workstations

AMGoff
08-29-07, 03:25 PM
I always liked the idea of having an "exotic" cpu running in my machines. Unfortunately that also made it a barrier to a lot of people. This is not meant as an insult... but doing what you do does make you slightly out of touch with 90% of the computer buying public. It's those 90% that just want to turn a computer on and use it, they don't care about what's running under the hood or how it goes about it's business, and they don't like to build their own systems. Like I said, I work in the field, but I'll be the first to admit I'm probably only in the upper 20%, I'm more of an administrator... I know Mac and I know Windows and have my certifications for each, but I've never written a piece of code in my life. I've dabbled with linux, but that's about it. Yes there are more software titles for Windows... but there are still thousands of titles for the Mac making it damn near impossible to do something on Windows that can't be done with a Mac. And to say that there is no shareware/freeware for the Mac is just a downright lie. There is a lot of small developers out there putting out shareware for the Mac just as there is a large opensource community for the Mac. I don't wish to start any kind of fight, but it's those kind of comments that show when people have spent no appreciable time with the Mac. I'm forced to still administer a good 50 Windows machines on our network although that number has been slowly decreasing over time. Figures don't lie.. for us atleast 95% of computer troubleshooting is with our Windows machines... and this is on a network that pretty evenly split now. The other five percent of the time when a problem does pop up with one of the Macs, it's usually a five-minute fix. My point... market share does not always equal superior product.

Now I said in the very beginning of this I didn't want it to turn into this is better than that kind of thing. I've done my very best not to specifically point out any flaws in Windows or any specific reasons why I dislike it. I also don't really like to talk about linux that much because I just don't know that much about it.. and I rarely like to comment on things I don't know much about. I've only pointed out some of the good features of the Mac when a question was asked.

wait4me6920
08-29-07, 04:48 PM
There is a tremendous amount of shareware/freeware available for the Mac platform. I rely on a number of elegant shareware programs that simply are not available for Windows machines. One has only to browse www.macupdate.com or www.versiontracker.com & note over a period of a week or two just how many updates flow through the portal.

Yes, Mac OS X rests on Unix - UNIX users will feel at home in Darwin, a robust BSD environment that underlies Mac OS X, resulting in an operating system still way ahead of Windows in terms of stability and usability. The environment is accessible at any time from the Terminal application. You can also run commands that don’t require arguments (such as top) by double-clicking them in the Finder. With the thousands of man pages included in Mac OS X, one can quickly find all his/her favorite UNIX tools.

To say that there would be a huge learning curve for most in moving from Windows to Mac OS X simply does not ring true - you show me someone who experiences great difficulty in moving from Windows to Mac & I'll show you someone with more basic problems.

Ummm, regarding market share - based on this rationale, wouldn't we all be better off buying Toyota, et al, rather than a Caddie? Sure the Caddie is a more elegant way of getting there, but think of the learning curve...:rolleyes: Just kidding...

I'll grant you that many games have not been ported to the Mac OS - so if games are your thing & you wanna go Mac, make sure it's a new one with the Intel processor. I don't really get into serious gaming, but with what limited exposure I've had, I prefer stand-alone consoles anyway...

codewize
08-29-07, 09:17 PM
I wasn't saying one was better or worse than the other I was just sharing experienced opinions.

I mentioned market share not to say that one was better but to say that a Windows network is cheaper to maintain because there are far more skilled people to do it. I was looking at it from an overall cost of ownership view.

As far as the learning curve goes you guys must have some really good end users because I live and work in a world where if the Outlook icon is gone form the desktop it's a crisis and the whole world is going to end and I lost all the email for the whole company.

Granted for a somewhat computer savvy person it's a breeze. There are enough similarities so that some people could figure it out but I promise you if you pulled 100 PC's off of people desks tonight and replaced them with Macs, you'd spend the next 2 years cleaning up the mess.

wait4me6920
08-29-07, 09:43 PM
I wasn't saying one was better or worse than the other I was just sharing experienced opinions.

I mentioned market share not to say that one was better but to say that a Windows network is cheaper to maintain because there are far more skilled people to do it. I was looking at it from an overall cost of ownership view.

As far as the learning curve goes you guys must have some really good end users because I live and work in a world where if the Outlook icon is gone form the desktop it's a crisis and the whole world is going to end and I lost all the email for the whole company.

Granted for a somewhat computer savvy person it's a breeze. There are enough similarities so that some people could figure it out but I promise you if you pulled 100 PC's off of people desks tonight and replaced them with Macs, you'd spend the next 2 years cleaning up the mess.

I understand what you're saying... :)

Actually Macs work very well in a mixed network environment - I'm maintaining a couple. Hey, one of the reasons that there are far more skilled people to work Windows networking is that there are far more Winboxes out there - another reason is that more networking problems occur per platform - fewer problems; fewer maintenance types required.

While our networks are not all that large (one of 20 machines including 8 Macs; the other of slightly more than 40 with 14 Macs), invariably if there's a computer glitch, it's with one of my PCs.

Mac OS X allows the Mac system to connect to every major server platform: AppleShare, UNIX, Linux and Windows (NT/2000/XP/Vista). This is because Mac OS X supports AFP, SMB/Samba, WebDAV and UNIX NFS file sharing.

Windows NT/2000/XP/Vista: Using Mac OS X, Macintosh clients can connect directly to Windows servers thanks to the SMB client built into the Mac OS. Mac OS X requires a domain, username and password.

Linux or Unix: Clients using Mac OS X can connect to these servers using NFS, just like the other UNIX stations on the network. Viewed from Mac OS X, this is just like connecting to an Apple or Windows server.

Novell Netware: Macintosh compatibility solutions exist for Netware servers (as of version 4.x). Support for AFP is currently built into Novell 6 and optional on version 5.x.

Networked Macs and PCs can share one or more printers.

Mac OS X supports all PostScript printers on the market, but Mac OS X Server is even more impressive when it comes to printing. This is because printers managed and shared by Mac OS X Server are seen as PC printers by computers running Windows and as Mac printers by computers running Mac OS X. Because Mac OS X is UNIX-based, Mac OS X print services are even accessible to UNIX workstations.

Gimme an hour classroom session with each student sitting at a Mac keyboard & they'll never want to look at an Outlook icon again...:D

TaVern
08-30-07, 12:23 AM
Gimme an hour classroom session with each student sitting at a Mac keyboard & they'll never want to look at an Outlook icon again...:D

Absolutely :yup:

powerglide
08-31-07, 01:55 AM
I use Mac OS/Windows/Unix...never Linux yet.
They all have their place:

general office stuff: I use windows, no hassle compatibility within company and external clients
home stuff: music (iTunes Garage Band), Photoshop I use Mac
engineering tools at work: Unix or Windows

gothicaleigh
08-31-07, 10:52 AM
Show me a Mac that can do everything that my PC does and I honestly will switch. Everytime I think of building a new computer though, I look at the offerings from Apple and end up going the PC route. PC emulation has made Macs more attractive, but I don't want the hassle of compatibility issues or limitations when I want to upgrade.

wait4me6920
08-31-07, 12:17 PM
Show me a Mac that can do everything that my PC does and I honestly will switch. Everytime I think of building a new computer though, I look at the offerings from Apple and end up going the PC route. PC emulation has made Macs more attractive, but I don't want the hassle of compatibility issues or limitations when I want to upgrade.

With the new Intel processors, all of the new Macs can do Windows natively - if you load Bootcamp, what you are doing is setting up a partition that contains the foundation for a machine that is, in fact, both a Mac and a PC. No emulation involved - it'll run all the Windows programs that a Dell, HP, Gateway, etc., etc., will run, at full speed.

Again, as I mentioned earlier, if you are interested I'd wait for the machines coming out after the new Mac OS X is introduced a bit later this fall as it will include an updated version of Bootcamp. You would have to purchase a copy of Windows if you don't have one.

On the other hand, if gaming is one's primary concern, I'd stick with PC. There are quite a number of games ported to Mac OS X, but not nearly as many as are available for Winboxes.

nikon
08-31-07, 12:35 PM
^^ but whats the point then if you still have to boot into windows! I think that's what were trying to get at.....saying that it can do all the stuff a PC can ONLY if you load windows on it is just, well it can't. I wanna see a mac do all that a PC can do without emulation, dualbooting, etc.....then I'd switch, until then....it's Vista for me.

Here, just one thing, does Mac have anything like Windows media center? (watch tv (live/recorded), and all the other crap I use on media center?....just asking, because I don't think the apple tv thing will do that.

AMGoff
08-31-07, 12:45 PM
Show me a Mac that can do everything that my PC does and I honestly will switch. Everytime I think of building a new computer though, I look at the offerings from Apple and end up going the PC route. PC emulation has made Macs more attractive, but I don't want the hassle of compatibility issues or limitations when I want to upgrade.

I would need to know what exactly you do with your computer and what software titles you use. It's not emulation anymore, it's virtualization.. but I'll get back to that in a minute. As far as upgrading the hardware... it's all intel now baby. Other than the cpu.. Macs have used industry standard hardware for a while now. ddr(2) ram, sata drives, pci/pci-e/whatever the heck that new one is. But now it's intel processors too. Two dual-core processors isn't fast enough for you... pop 'em out, throw in two quad-core processors. As long as the cpu's are pin compatible they won't be a problem.


With the new Intel processors, all of the new Macs can do Windows natively - if you load Bootcamp, what you are doing is setting up a partition that contains the foundation for a machine that is, in fact, both a Mac and a PC. No emulation involved - it'll run all the Windows programs that a Dell, HP, Gateway, etc., etc., will run, at full speed.

Again, as I mentioned earlier, if you are interested I'd wait for the machines coming out after the new Mac OS X is introduced a bit later this fall as it will include an updated version of Bootcamp. You would have to purchase a copy of Windows if you don't have one.

On the other hand, if gaming is one's primary concern, I'd stick with PC. There are quite a number of games ported to Mac OS X, but not nearly as many as are available for Winboxes.

I don't like recommending bootcamp. By running Windows through bootcamp you are, essentially, turning it into a Windows box and giving it complete control over the hardware. By doing that.. if you get a really malicious virus or anything of that sort and Windows feels like trashing the hard drive.. it's gonna trash the hard drive, and not just the Windows partition.

I like virtualization... Parallels is a great program and I believe VMWare is coming out with something. Windows will load up inside the Mac just like any other application. You can run it full screen, in a window, or the feature I like the most is where you can just have a Windows program running in it's own Window, seeming as if it were just another Mac program. Seamless is the only way I can put it. Windows is running at native speed and unless you're playing really demanding games you won't notice any slow down at all, although they're improving the graphics optimization all the time. When installed it creates a disk image from which Windows (or unix, or linux) will run. That disk images acts like any other file within the Mac file system. If Windows gets corrupted you just trash that file and start over.

It provides 99.98% the speed with 0.02% possible headaches. I can't personally talk about my "switch" because there never was one. I've been using my macs happily since 1989. I know Windows and work with Windows, but only as a necessary evil. I've consistently managed to get around seven years of service from each of my machines, having just retired my "Pismo" Powerbook G3 earlier this year - I bought that machine in 2000! She still runs the current os (10.4) but I knew she wouldn't be able to handle the next release that comes out this fall. I can only assume that these intel machines will hold up as long.

wait4me6920
08-31-07, 01:15 PM
^^ but whats the point then if you still have to boot into windows! I think that's what were trying to get at.....saying that it can do all the stuff a PC can ONLY if you load windows on it is just, well it can't. I wanna see a mac do all that a PC can do without emulation, dualbooting, etc.....then I'd switch, until then....it's Vista for me.

Here, just one thing, does Mac have anything like Windows media center? (watch tv (live/recorded), and all the other crap I use on media center?....just asking, because I don't think the apple tv thing will do that.

Does your PC do 'stuff' without loading Windows on it first? This I wanna see...

Seems to me that you don't want a Mac - you want a PC named Mac...:thepan: That aint't gonna happen. The real point of going Mac is to get away from the Windows environment & revert to it only if necessary.

The only way to really determine if you'd be interested is to go to an Apple store & see what Mac has to offer.

And, yes, Mac goes way beyond media center with media (again, do a bit of research if you're interested) - apple tv is basically just a way to wirelessly flow video/music to your boob-tube.

AMGoff - I'm much like you in that I got into Mac early on. I still have my Mac 128K, a Color Classic II, & a couple LC IIs, along with a couple of Power Mac G4 machines. All work just fine. The first two are something of collector items now...:)

I agree that I'd rather run Parallels Desktop than Bootcamp, and do, but there are still some system support things to iron out - and they are continuing to refine and improve.

Thus I tinker with Bootcamp as well. And, hey, if you're gonna run Windows natively, you need to run with shields up whether on a Mac via Bootcamp or on a PC hosted PC... :eek:

railven
08-31-07, 04:12 PM
I want "Mac" users to admit something to me, please.

I got nothing against Mac users for using a Mac. What I got against Mac users is the "holier than thou" personality they tend to develop.

Admit this for me, please:

Mac is no longer a hardware decision (some stated "Macs" now use current computer hardware) but a software decision.

In retrospect, it is possible to install OS X on any standard Intel x86 setup. I can build a "PC" and make it into a "Mac," granted I find proper driver support.

I hate how people, mostly "Mac" users," don't acknowledge that Apple joining up with Intel has erased their beloved "Mac" term.

Eventually you'll be able to buy "Macs" from Dell/HP once Apple starts to allow OEM builders to use OS X as their choice. (And me saying this doesn't mean it will ever be, just my opinion.)

The line between "Mac" and "PC" is literally gone. I'd prefer conversations to be "OS X" and "Windows" based.

The Macs I know were designed diferently then the "IBM-Compatible" boxes that eventually became "PCs." That's what made a "Mac" a Mac and "PC" a Windows Box. Hell a "Mac" by definition is a "PC."

[Again I know some of my complaints are specific to all Apple users, but as Apple catches on in my group of friends its getting a bit annoying of them trying to get me to buy a PowerBook or an iPod with the constant arguement of "it's better."]

TaVern
08-31-07, 04:31 PM
I'm a Mac user, and I'm not going to admit to ANY of that bullshit.

Joel Santo Domingo did a review on 08/13/07 of the new iMac...


Finding any drawbacks to the newest Apple iMac is so hard it's almost like splitting hairs. The new aluminum iMac is a desktop nonpareil in both senses of the word: It is without equal, and (like the candy) it is sweet.

The funny part of this review? It's in PC Magazine.

Full review here -->http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,1895,2169523,00.asp

TaVern
08-31-07, 04:33 PM
And you wonder where my "holier than thou" personality develops.

wait4me6920
08-31-07, 04:46 PM
I personally feel no sense of superiority because I own Macs, nor do I feel any holier than usual which is very earthy indeed. :D

I also have owned, build & maintain PCs & associated networking.

I do, however, feel that the Mac OS X remains vastly superior to Vista. And Macs are purty...

I don't know that one can build a Mac - Apple has always held the wherewithal very close to their corporate vest. Maybe a really good hacker can - maybe one already has. Dunno.

But even if one could, you still would be missing much of the beauty of the Mac platform. A new iMac, or any new Mac, simply "presents" much better - it's way more than just a box. It's a pleasure to use. If there is a piece of computing gear that doubles as art form, it's a Mac.

Then there's that awesome OS...:)

railven
08-31-07, 05:14 PM
I'm a Mac user, and I'm not going to admit to ANY of that bullshit.

Joel Santo Domingo did a review on 08/13/07 of the new iMac...



The funny part of this review? It's in PC Magazine.

Full review here -->http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,1895,2169523,00.asp

Why is that funny? You do know that "PC" stands for Personal Computer. Whether it is a Apple Macintosh running OS X/Vista/XP, or a Microsoft Windows standalone platform.

This is exactly what I am getting at. People have come to default that the term PC means Windows. It doesn't. A Red Hat Linux system is a PC.

As for the appearance of Apple products, I'm not contesting them. They are different, beautiful if you will. But Apple is an OEM vendor too. They build OS X based computers. It is just like Dell/HP with Windows.

I'm not going to hold my breath in terms of waiting for OEM vendors like Dell/HP to start selling OS X based systems, but it is a possibility.

With hardware vendors such as SiS, ATI/AMD, Intel, and Creative all making OS X compatible hardware it won't be long till someone will be able to shop Newegg and then select OS X as their software.

wait4me6920
08-31-07, 05:22 PM
I'm not going to hold my breath in terms of waiting for OEM vendors like Dell/HP to start selling OS X based systems, but it is a possibility.

With hardware vendors such as SiS, ATI/AMD, Intel, and Creative all making OS X compatible hardware it won't be long till someone will be able to shop Newegg and then select OS X as their software.

Never say never - a good rule of thumb... :thumbsup:

railven
08-31-07, 05:26 PM
I'm not saying "never."

As for OS X on a "PC" if you Google/Yahoo "OS X on PC" You'll find plenty of information on OS X on PC.

Due to the firewall at my job I couldn't get to read much, but I saw one called PearPC.

Either way, it seems that OS X running on "PC" hardware has been done. The only problem is Apple is against it, I wonder why?

Either way, that just supports my argument of it being a Software Decision.

AMGoff
08-31-07, 06:27 PM
I want "Mac" users to admit something to me, please.

I got nothing against Mac users for using a Mac. What I got against Mac users is the "holier than thou" personality they tend to develop.

Admit this for me, please:

Mac is no longer a hardware decision (some stated "Macs" now use current computer hardware) but a software decision.

In retrospect, it is possible to install OS X on any standard Intel x86 setup. I can build a "PC" and make it into a "Mac," granted I find proper driver support.

I hate how people, mostly "Mac" users," don't acknowledge that Apple joining up with Intel has erased their beloved "Mac" term.

Eventually you'll be able to buy "Macs" from Dell/HP once Apple starts to allow OEM builders to use OS X as their choice. (And me saying this doesn't mean it will ever be, just my opinion.)

The line between "Mac" and "PC" is literally gone. I'd prefer conversations to be "OS X" and "Windows" based.

The Macs I know were designed diferently then the "IBM-Compatible" boxes that eventually became "PCs." That's what made a "Mac" a Mac and "PC" a Windows Box. Hell a "Mac" by definition is a "PC."

[Again I know some of my complaints are specific to all Apple users, but as Apple catches on in my group of friends its getting a bit annoying of them trying to get me to buy a PowerBook or an iPod with the constant arguement of "it's better."]

Well.. to set things straight... any computer with the exception of a server is a "PC," so Macs were PCs long before Windows came around. To me, the hardware has never had anything to do with it and there have been times in the past where the use of non-standard hardware cause more headaches than anything else. When I talk about the Mac, I talk about the Mac OS - whether I'm talking System 6, OS 8, or the various flavors of X. The Mac is the OS and the OS is the Mac. Don't be so certain that the OS will be released to other OEM manufacturers, at least while Steve Jobs is still alive and in control of the company.

In no way, shape, or form has Apple's decision to switch to Intel "erased," as you put it, the Mac term. By your logic, Macs lost their "Mac" term when the transitioned from the 68K architecture to the PowerPC architecture, or when they switched from the classic Mac OS to that new-fangled unix-y OS. Regardless, each transition resulted in a stronger, more viable Macintosh. I was as skeptical of the transition to Intel as I was the transition to OSX, but the fact remains that IBM had yet to fulfill their promise of a 3GHz 970 processor, nor (at the time) were they able to produce a low-power variant for notebook use, nor did they seem overly worried about keeping Apple as a customer. In hindsight, it's more than obvious that their switch to Intel was for the best. They no longer have to battle the "megahertz myth," (although I find it extremely ironic that Intel finally realized that clock speed doesn't necessarily mean more power), they get access to cutting edge notebook technologies (as venerable as it is, and as impressive as it was when introduced, the G4 was getting really long in the tooth), and they get a chip manufacturer that truly values the company, it's no secret that Intel values Apple as their premier account, giving them access to some technologies before they're made available to others.

The result is Apple's growing marketshare, yes it's still small, but it's growing every day. Their units sold increase every quarter, their growth continues to outpace the rest of the industry, their profits are astronomical, and their market cap is now rivaling IBM's.

I don't believe I have a holier-than-thou attitude as I'm always the first one to point out that it's a matter of preference. If anything I've always felt that it was the other way around.. that just because Windows holds the market share it does, that it somehow makes it a superior product, and that the Mac is nothing but a "toy" for people who either have too much money or know nothing about computers. It's only when people start nay-saying the Mac and forget that it is a matter of personal preference that I get into "pissing contests." And I really don't like getting into pissing contests due to sheer ignorance, I don't like sheer ignorance... if I wanted to get into sheer ignorance I could say things like "Windows has always been nothing but a poor copy of the Mac," or "It took Microsoft eleven years to finally come out with something comparable to what the Mac did in 1984."

But normally I prefer not to get into the reasons why I don't prefer Windows and merely try to explain why I prefer the Mac, when asked.

As far as this thread goes... it's gone far away from what I originally intended. All I wanted were numbers, and to know which systems you use, regardless of the OS running on them. So much for that... maybe I should just ask Sal to lock the thread, because I'm beginning to think it was a bad idea.

AMGoff
08-31-07, 06:47 PM
I'm not saying "never."

As for OS X on a "PC" if you Google/Yahoo "OS X on PC" You'll find plenty of information on OS X on PC.

Due to the firewall at my job I couldn't get to read much, but I saw one called PearPC.

Either way, it seems that OS X running on "PC" hardware has been done. The only problem is Apple is against it, I wonder why?

Either way, that just supports my argument of it being a Software Decision.

PearPC is an emulator much in the same light as VirtualPC. It "emulates" a G3 system on x86 hardware. There are hacks out there to run unauthorized copies of intel OSX on unauthorized machines at native speed, although they rarely work perfectly, nor do they offer any type of support or warranty.

Apple chose the proprietary route, that was their decision and it has worked out pretty well for them. Apple is against it because it's their right and their choice. If you want to legally run the Mac OS you have to run it on a Macintosh. There's also a more substantial reason as to why they do this... and it's a little thing called seamless integration. Microsoft chose the "one size fits all" approach and tries to make their software run on tons of different machines. Apple picks what hardware they want their software to run on in order to make the experience as smooth as possible. The one thing that "geeks" never seem to remember is that 95% of the population would never think of building their own machine.. hell probably 80% would never attempt to upgrade their own ram and/or hard drive.

If you have the immense desire to build your own machine it's 9 times out of 10 due to money reasons. Most of the people I know who insist on building their own machines also either run linux, or a pirated version of Windows. Like I said, I've been happily using my Macs since 1989, regardless of whether the company was in fashion or labeled as beleaguered; furthermore even despite the fact that I've worked in IT for a decade now, I've never once had some burning desire to build my own systems. I've fixed enough problems on countless other computers to know that when I come home I want a computer to just work - right out of the box.

It's like a Harley Davidson, if you have to ask... you wouldn't understand.

wait4me6920
08-31-07, 06:47 PM
I'd not do that - this isn't close to a pissing contest, no hurt feelings, & in fact I think that the string has pretty well run its course after covering quite a bit of turf...

You asked a question & sometimes when one asks a question one gets unexpected answers or more information than they wanted - even having set up parameters at the outset. If you were a prof & administering an exam, it would be quite another matter. Here folks tend to express themselves quite freely. We're mostly adults - sorta... :D

If you want to see some real action check out the strings concerning "big" wheels in the CTS forum...

TaVern
08-31-07, 07:11 PM
AMG, this is a great thread! Different viewpoints are what makes topics like this so interesting.

I have owned windows, linux, and OS X. I have owned an hp, compaq, and a Mac. I will never go back to windows.

I enjoy talking my Mac up (obviously) to family, friends, and colleagues who are considering a new computer and don't know what to get. When they do make that transition, they cannot fathom how great a computing experience it really is. I have yet to hear any regrets.


...[Again I know some of my complaints are specific to all Apple users, but as Apple catches on in my group of friends its getting a bit annoying of them trying to get me to buy a PowerBook or an iPod with the constant arguement of "it's better."]

railven, I may be wrong but your quote reads like you have never owned a Mac.

While it really is simply a matter of preference, your friends are wise... Consider the red pill :D

railven
08-31-07, 09:18 PM
AMG, this is a great thread! Different viewpoints are what makes topics like this so interesting.

I have owned windows, linux, and OS X. I have owned an hp, compaq, and a Mac. I will never go back to windows.

I enjoy talking my Mac up (obviously) to family, friends, and colleagues who are considering a new computer and don't know what to get. When they do make that transition, they cannot fathom how great a computing experience it really is. I have yet to hear any regrets.



railven, I may be wrong but your quote reads like you have never owned a Mac.

While it really is simply a matter of preference, your friends are wise... Consider the red pill :D


Actually you are wrong. I'm young but I've been priveleged to work with computers more then half my life. I learned how to switch out the RAM on a Macintosh II when I was nine years old.

Computers became my hobby. And I've tried to follow all the sides (although I admit I never got far into the Linux world).

Apple has been a strong developer in the world of computers but look at their history. When Microsoft introduced Windows 2.0 (of which I still have a legit copy and it runs great on a P4 by the way, it just won't recognize GBs haha or the actual clock speed) Apple loss a lot of its customers.

Apples have never been known for their user-friendliness. As AMG stated their hardware was hand chosen from vendors to meet Apple's desires. This caused them the lack of expandability.

Look at the PowerPC generation and the first iMacs. You could barely switch out the RAM let alone swap in a new processor. IBM's CPUs where imbedded into the board with all other hardware (VPU, Soundcard, etc).

Apple lost the enthusiast market in this manner. Then factor in the prices. Apple have always cost more then "PCs." Is it because of their sturdier design? No, old Macintosh OS were as stable as its Windows equivalent. It wasn't till OS X, and some of Nine, that started to give Apple their reliablity.

Apple finally chose to follow a more mainstream fabrication (x86 Architecture) and what did it gain in return? Whopping processing boosts and high memory bandwidth. Go ahead and compare a G4 to a G5. Yes Apple introduced the first multi-core systems but that was because they ran off multiple cores. Their processing power was unimagible buy due to its ARM design it lacked floating logic. They couldn't handle random variables in code.

That is what made Apples so efficient. They did great what they where specifically designed to do. Their lack of branching logic crippled them the videogame world. And ironically it was their linear design that helped them excel in raw encoding.

But the average joe didn't know jack about Apple. Apple was an "elite" product. Why would average joe invest the extra hundreds to buy an Apple when most of their friends, work environments, and software wasn't supported?

Apple finally stepped it up with the Mac OS X which was designed to implement everything it overlooked the past two decades - the average consumer.

Mac's are great, for encoding, but they are equal in terms of casual use to a Windows box. Yes Windows has more security holes but my argument for that has always been Windows represents probably 90%+ of the population. Hackers would benefit better targeting the majority over the minority.

But with Apples using x86 boards now, and people switching over Apple may grow in popularity which will in turn lead to higher hacker attempts.

I forgot what website, I think it was Engadet, but from 2005 to 2006 it was stated that Mac related worms increased by over 1000% (I'll try to find you guys the article.)

I've owned a PowerPC, a G4, a Classic II, and a PowerBook. But I'm a PC gamer therefore I will always keep a strong Windows Box available. I loved it when ATI finally released the Radeon 9800 in Mac version because that went straight into my G4.

My first Windows system ran off Windows 2.0. I remember my transition to Windows 3.0 and going from a 25mhz Intel DX to a Intel DX2 50MHz. Then off my same Tyan board I learned jumpers and swamped out my DX2 with a DX4 and overclocked the FSB to 33mhz and got my RAM running at 3:1 to the CPU. All of that when I was 12.

I still feel Apple's decision to go x86 robbed them of their identity. As I stated, Apple will just become another OEM vendor if this trend continues. Other OEM vendors will start offering Mac OS X as a feature. Steve Jobs won't live forever and when the chance comes to open up the product to an even larger audience, stock holders will hear the ca-ching and jump on it.

railven
08-31-07, 09:32 PM
In no way, shape, or form has Apple's decision to switch to Intel "erased," as you put it, the Mac term. By your logic, Macs lost their "Mac" term when the transitioned from the 68K architecture to the PowerPC architecture, or when they switched from the classic Mac OS to that new-fangled unix-y OS. Regardless, each transition resulted in a stronger, more viable Macintosh. I was as skeptical of the transition to Intel as I was the transition to OSX, but the fact remains that IBM had yet to fulfill their promise of a 3GHz 970 processor, nor (at the time) were they able to produce a low-power variant for notebook use, nor did they seem overly worried about keeping Apple as a customer. In hindsight, it's more than obvious that their switch to Intel was for the best. They no longer have to battle the "megahertz myth," (although I find it extremely ironic that Intel finally realized that clock speed doesn't necessarily mean more power), they get access to cutting edge notebook technologies (as venerable as it is, and as impressive as it was when introduced, the G4 was getting really long in the tooth), and they get a chip manufacturer that truly values the company, it's no secret that Intel values Apple as their premier account, giving them access to some technologies before they're made available to others.


See but those architectures were exclusive to Apple and their software. x86 was always a Windows platform. From the days of Intel DXs and Cyrix's.

Apple always ran a different architecture then Windows based boxes and that is what I meant by their identity. You could never fathom installing Macintosh OS or Windows OS on the same box.

But now you can. Now you can simple modify your BIOS (I've read a few hack websites hehe) and have it support Mac OS X native using a seperate partition. Of course this isn't as sophisticated as Parallel-ing, but it is doable.

Do you see where I am getting at, that Apple "Mac" is no longer a product per say by specific hardware? It is almost as buying BMW parts to work on your Cadillac and it run fine.

TaVern
08-31-07, 10:56 PM
I learned how to switch out the RAM on a Macintosh II when I was nine years old.

Damn, what was that like? 1 mebibyte of ram... Probably the size of a phone book.

Found this interesting in Wikipedia... The Macintosh II retailed in March, 1987 at base price of $3,898!!! Who the hell would pay that much for a computer even today?!?

railven
09-01-07, 01:00 AM
Damn, what was that like? 1 mebibyte of ram... Probably the size of a phone book.

Found this interesting in Wikipedia... The Macintosh II retailed in March, 1987 at base price of $3,898!!! Who the hell would pay that much for a computer even today?!?

Actually I remember it being similar in size to a 72-pin SIMM stick of SDRAM. I think just a little taller, in reference to it being already loaded. The stick was only 128kibs. That's really before I knew anything about computers.

We needed the RAM to be able to play classics like Oregon Trail, Jeopardy and this weird Kung Fu game that was recently re-released but it escapes me. You could only punch and kick.

Ahhh memories.

Haha speaking of memories. Do you guys remember Packard Bell? I remember my friend's mom bought them one from RAC (Rent-A-Center) and he had this Wolfenstein 3D cloan (I can't remember the name). I loved his computer. It was running a P1 at about 200mhz and had a whopping 64MBs of RAM. Mine at the time was the Intel 486DX4 @ 100mhz any only 16MBs of RAM. His computer blew mine out of the water. He was running Windows 3.1 which had the network support (even though none of us had a network back then) and sported a crisp 33.6kbs modem. I had just upgraded from a 9.6kba (or 9600 baud as they use to call em) to a 14.4kbs.

AOL was still new and you installed it off a 3.5" I remember spending the night at his house and we spent like half of the night in the X-Files chat rooms. This was before I learned about Telnet and IRC. AOL chat was awesome! It had COLOR! Haha.

Ahh good times.

wait4me6920
09-01-07, 01:05 AM
Yep, I've still several of those memory sticks in my boneyard room... :D

TaVern
09-01-07, 01:05 AM
"Oregon Trail" was AWESOME! :highfive:

[/THREADJACK]

gary88
09-01-07, 01:09 AM
"Oregon Trail" was AWESOME! :highfive:

[/THREADJACK]

Not when your oxen couldn't ever cross the river!

railven
09-01-07, 01:16 AM
Not when your oxen couldn't ever cross the river!

Screw that, you know how freaking hard it was for me to shoot anything during the hunting scenes?

I'd pray for a slow moving Ox all the time because I'd never get any of those damn rabbits/squirrels/gophers/whatever!

Haha I lost so many yo scurvey. I didn't even know what that was! Or typhoon fever. haha.

wait4me6920
09-01-07, 01:30 PM
Oregon Trail... Bought it, ahem, for the kids... :D

Super game, but I lost so many pioneers, wagons, etc., & missed so many chances at critters that the game got tired of me.

When I logged in, the machine would give me the raspberry. Only way to play without being picked on was to log in as a different person. Great programmers. :o

AMGoff
09-04-07, 08:43 PM
An interesting little snippet from a Microsoft employee's blog, see here. (http://neopoleon.com/home/blogs/neo/archive/2007/08/24/26758.aspx)

Evidently it caused quite a stir. Good read though, mirrors many of my same sentiments.

TaVern
09-04-07, 09:31 PM
Very cool write-up! If only everyone knew what we know...

railven
09-05-07, 03:21 AM
Guys you look a little desperate with that little link.

I read it.

This guy claims he works for Microsft and unless there is a seperate page I didn't see he never specifies what he does. Juding from his opening paragraphs I doubt he codes anything but a few simple arrays if that.

He doesn't seem like a GUI coder.

If you work for Microsft and claim to "I work in Windows. I live in Windows. I have several machines across all of which I have Windows installed. At work and at home, it's Windows." Why does he not know how to use Windows?

I dont work for Microsoft but I know how to alleviate his problems.

No computer just up and reboots unless there is a conflict. This also applies to Macs. No one here, either Windows user or Mac OS, can deny a system lock and the need for a force reboot. I've never had a Mac OS reboot on itself though but I've had it lock up where I had to reboot it. This guy acts like his computer rebooted itself as a joke. As a "nerd" he should know something is up, driver conflict, over heating issue, power surge, or maybe he's not up to par with his system. He lets it clutter up and fill up with malware due to all the porn sites he visits. I don't know, at this point I'm just guessing and being a little prick about it.

back to the blog. This guy doesn't seem knowledgeable about Windows OS based on this entry. I didn't look up other pages.

Terrible read, I feel like smaking that guy. He doesn't know how to manual setup the Security feature in SP 2? It's one little box you click "I'll monitor manually" and it will never prompt you again about no virus software.

Argghhh now I'm angry.

AMGoff
09-05-07, 12:18 PM
Oh my boy... to the contrary. I enjoy this kind of stuff. You're the one who seems a little too anxious, a little quick to defend. If you'd like proof I can send you a quarter of a response to your last big post, which I of course didn't post because there were far too many inconsistencies and I just didn't care that much.

As far as the blogger in question, if you were to read around the rest of it, it's seems very likely that he does in fact work for Microsoft, either that or he has set an elaborate enough rouse to fool unsuspecting readers. I would be pretty safe in guessing that MS doesn't allow their employees to disable certain security features while at Redmond. For that matter I'd be surprised if they had any sort of control over their systems at all. I'm leaning in the direction because he does say at home he disables his automatic notifications in XP while running Parallels.

If this is all true, as I sincerely hope it to be, it would be a good thing! A MS employ who actually realizes their product is not what it's all cracked up to be and isn't afraid to announce it to the world, fantastic. Maybe this means there's hope yet for the software giant.

railven
09-05-07, 06:55 PM
Oh my boy... to the contrary. I enjoy this kind of stuff. You're the one who seems a little too anxious, a little quick to defend. If you'd like proof I can send you a quarter of a response to your last big post, which I of course didn't post because there were far too many inconsistencies and I just didn't care that much.

As far as the blogger in question, if you were to read around the rest of it, it's seems very likely that he does in fact work for Microsoft, either that or he has set an elaborate enough rouse to fool unsuspecting readers. I would be pretty safe in guessing that MS doesn't allow their employees to disable certain security features while at Redmond. For that matter I'd be surprised if they had any sort of control over their systems at all. I'm leaning in the direction because he does say at home he disables his automatic notifications in XP while running Parallels.

If this is all true, as I sincerely hope it to be, it would be a good thing! A MS employ who actually realizes their product is not what it's all cracked up to be and isn't afraid to announce it to the world, fantastic. Maybe this means there's hope yet for the software giant.


About my other post if there where many inaccurate statements you should point them out. You should correct me or present an alternative to it that way I can look into it and rectify any errors. It is how I learn, many do. We present something and we expect those with a superior knowledge to help us with our mistakes. I'm not as old as oyu and I won't claim to know more then you but I know what I've learned through my own adventures and through the helpful hands of my peers and superiors. So please, point them out so I can learn.

As for the security checks. You are right. I doubt MS wouldn't want their employees to deactivate it. That is why it doesn't add up.

You will only get the Security System flag on the bottom right hand if you are not running an active security program. Why would MS not supply them with it? I believe they did. That is why I'm a bit skeptical of this guy. And if Microsoft didn't supply it, which you and I both agree is unlikely, why is he getting the flag? That should cause you to investigate. I remember day one of SP2 i got the flag. I clicked "more options" then clicked "I will manually monitor" and boom flag gone and never came back.

As for the auto updates. Microsoft implemented a reminder that keeps telling you to reboot for critical updates to take place. How is that stealing focus? I've only seen it twice on my system. At the time I had no problem rebooting.

On top of that if he is such a computer user why does he need Auto Update? That is for casual users who don't keep their files in check. In fact Auto Update is encouraged to be disabled by advance users. This includes the System Restore feature. It saves vailable resources and hard drive space. Auto Update tends to just grab everything MS marks as important even if its to something you probably don't use or have installed.

I'm not quick to defend MS because I personally hate them in terms of their software development and corporate mongreling. Look at Windows Vista. That was suppose to be the next coming of Christ in the Windows world. What did we get? Nothing but a laundry list of incompatibilities and broken drivers. But time will fix that as it fixes all other quirks in most systems. The early adopters got screwed, yet again. I am, however, quick to point out when I smell bullshit.

As I said, I didn't scour his blog. This guy can be Bill Gate's son for all I know, but what he presented as complaints are simple little nuisances that any novice user can remedy.