mac attack

[AtW]

You can use Linux or any other OS that runs on PC - choice is much bigger than on Macs, certainly until they switched to Intel hardware, but now that they did you might as well buy proper PC.

XP is a good OS btw.

[Diver]

IBM lost, but the consumers won and this is what matters.

Apple in this case was good only because IBM had to follow another strategy to beat them, but now Apple is anachronism that just won't die: they should stick to gadgets like iPod.

Why would I want to double boot on "Mac" when I can have cheaper PC that won't pay Apple premium? PC is a standard that everyone aligns itself to, Macs are just annoying bunch of people who are helping the Big Brother to self-identify themselves by buying Macs

As for running Macs software on a PC - who cares about Mac software, even Photoshop now targets mainly PCs? Face it - you lost.

Words out of my mouth and all that, only better put

well said AtW

[AtW]

It was Jesus speaking in me, Chico would have been proud

[OrangeHopper]

AtW, how many macs have you owned?

[Keldin]

A Mac can run Windows (and therefore all software that runs on Windows), either natively via BootCamp or under virtualisation via Parallels or VMWare. A Windows laptop can't run Mac software (without extreme and unsupported kernel hackery). Therefore a Mac can run much more software than a Windows-only machine.

You can run Apple OS on PCs and and ... oh no wait you can't. Not because it's not possible but because Apple will only allow you to run the Apple OS you just shelled out large chunks of money for on specific hardware which is manufactured by - any guesses here? Yes the answer is hardware made by Apple.

And people think that Microsoft is monopolistic.

K

[scooterscot]

You can run Apple OS on PCs and and ... oh no wait you can't. Not because it's not possible but because Apple will only allow you to run the Apple OS you just shelled out large chunks of money for on specific hardware which is manufactured by - any guesses here? Yes the answer is hardware made by Apple.

And people think that Microsoft is monopolistic.

K

So you mean I've really got an Apple CPU?

[Moscow Mule]

IBM lost, but the consumers won and this is what matters.

The consumers won? You're having a laugh aren't you?

Apple in this case was good only because IBM had to follow another strategy to beat them, but now Apple is anachronism that just won't die: they should stick to gadgets like iPod.

Apple should continue making good looking, good performing hardware.

Why would I want to double boot on "Mac" when I can have cheaper PC that won't pay Apple premium? PC is a standard that everyone aligns itself to, Macs are just annoying bunch of people who are helping the Big Brother to self-identify themselves by buying Macs

As for running Macs software on a PC - who cares about Mac software, even Photoshop now targets mainly PCs? Face it - you lost.

MOST people want a computer that does the things they want it to do with the minimum of fuss, you obviously have some deep seated hatred based on some experience in your childhood that makes you unable to appreciate the Mac. /Freud

[Moscow Mule]

You can run Apple OS on PCs and and ... oh no wait you can't. Not because it's not possible but because Apple will only allow you to run the Apple OS you just shelled out large chunks of money for on specific hardware which is manufactured by - any guesses here? Yes the answer is hardware made by Apple.

And people think that Microsoft is monopolistic.

K

Err, you pays your money and you takes your choice.

Apple don't allow generic hardware as they would have to support the gazillions of hardware combinations the Windows does, making OS X the flakey POS that windows is.

Yes, 5-10% of the market is definitely a monopoly

[AtW]

OrangeHopper: I never owned a single Mac, they were extremely niche computers in Russia, very expensive and bugger all software, unlike for PCs.

Moscow Mule: consumers would have been tuliped by Apple if it was not for PC. What is Mac stuff now anyway? It's Intel hardware, video and other bits come from other manufacturers, the only thing you get is a fancy case and OS that can't run x86 software as good as XP does.

I like Jobs, but he should have adopted Windows as primary OS and make nice looking hardware from standard components, maybe with enhanced reliability and lots of testing for configs, fair enough.

[Moscow Mule]

It's Intel hardware, video and other bits come from other manufacturers, the only thing you get is a fancy case and OS that can't run x86 software as good as XP does.

Indeed, you get a fancy case that adds value and pleasure - e.g. the backlit keyboard on the Macbook Pro.

I think that OS X gets you to what you want to do faster, e.g. boot times. It takes my imac <30 seconds to start from fully off. Booting into windows (to the point you can start working) is over 90 seconds (on the same hardware).

You now get the following extra benefits included in the OS;

Virtual Desktops (Spaces)
Autobackup (Time Machine)

You also get iLife included, which is pretty much all the photo editing/music making/movie editing/dvd burning software a "normal" user will ever need.

Admittedly, a lot of OS X is eye-candy but in a lot of cases the same program is faster on OX X than Windows, when it has been ported to run natively on intel/OS X (a universal binary, rather than running under Rosetta).

I've found my productivity increase by 30-40% since I switched, since everything is so intuitive. I can't put a cash value on that.