MAC OR PC [Archive] - QRZ Forums

N6KX

12-19-2007, 01:48 PM

You want a Mac. #I've been an information technology consultant for thirty years and have used PCs and Macs (and numerous other machines) in home and office. #Mac has always been preferable, but never more than now.

The new Macs based on Intel processors provide full access to all Mac and Windows software, so when you buy a Mac, you get it all. #When you buy a PC, all you have is a PC.

In fact, if you have enough RAM, you can run Mac, Windows XP, Windows 2000, Linux - all at the same time on a Mac! #You just drag a file from one window to the next, and the data is converted instantly behind the scenes.

I purchased a new MacBook last April, and I've never enjoyed a computer more. #Great value for the price and a breeze to use, whether you're technical or not. #Even in the corporate world, where PCs have dominated for a long time (not because they're better, but due to numerous other factors), an increasing number of companies (including some mega-corps) are moving away from the Windows world to Macs. #Macs, especially the most recent generation, have proven to be more reliable, flexible, connectible, user-friendly, and secure than any Windows platform.

For more impartial info about Macs vs PC, some recent issues of ComputerWorld (the industry weekly) feature articles that make the case quite effectively. #Good luck!

Howie N6KX #http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif

w3bny

12-19-2007, 03:02 PM

http://i20.photobucket.com/albums/b220/Bunnieman/pcmac_shutup.jpg

KB1KIX

12-19-2007, 04:08 PM

Quote[/b] (ab8ro @ Dec. 19 2007,08:00)]Quote[/b] (WD4CHP @ Dec. 18 2007,05:51)]I use both.
The Mac is superior if you do graphic minipulation.
Pc programs are cheaper.
Programs that have both Mac and Pc versions work the same after you launch them.
I disagree that PC programs are cheaper. Some PC programs are cheaper. What you will find on the MAC is a slightly better open source selection and many MAC apps are simply better/more ergonomic than their PC counterparts.
Wrong and... Wrong again.

Open source stuff on the PC is much more plentiful if you run Linux.

Same PC platform, different OS - which is basically what OSX is running on now - intel chipsets with BSD.

PC's are a lot cheaper - and they are now being shipped on much the same platform (intel chips).

PC accessories are a lot cheaper and more plentiful.

PC hardware additions are more plentiful and cheaper (though USB ended a lot of the competition there).

I'd think PC architecture - but which OS?

Windows will allow you to use commercial software - Linux offers a whole lot of open source stuff freely available.

If you look at sourceforge.net you'll see a lot of open source software that runs equally great on all 3 operating systems.

My windoze machine runs a LOT of open source software for all everyday needs and runs fine.

My linux box is my daily use machine.

And, for the record, ever since my G5, speed for mulitimedia has been no different.

For video I run Avid on both platforms and ther is really no difference.

I'd save the money and go with a PC.

Macs are just overpriced machines now.

They used to be better at the multimedia game - but that dominance has long been over and still carries on by the Cult of Mac.

Jonathan

KG6YTZ

12-19-2007, 09:56 PM

My opinion? Use whatever you want to use if it does what you want it to do. http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif

W2RI

12-19-2007, 10:08 PM

Quote[/b] (KB1KIX @ Dec. 18 2007,13:08)]Quote[/b] (ab8ro @ Dec. 19 2007,08:00)]Quote[/b] (WD4CHP @ Dec. 18 2007,05:51)]I use both.
The Mac is superior if you do graphic minipulation.
Pc programs are cheaper.
Programs that have both Mac and Pc versions work the same after you launch them.
I disagree that PC programs are cheaper. Some PC programs are cheaper. What you will find on the MAC is a slightly better open source selection and many MAC apps are simply better/more ergonomic than their PC counterparts.
Wrong and... Wrong again.
Where are the facts ?

Walter Mossberg, for example, of the Wall Street Journal says the iMac is the best consumer machine to buy.

David Pogue of the New York Times recommends the Macs.

Almost universally, Mac OS X is recommended over Windoze Vista.

It's up to you. But I'd buy a Mac.

KB1KIX

12-19-2007, 10:24 PM

Quote[/b] (W2RI @ Dec. 19 2007,18:08)]Quote[/b] (KB1KIX @ Dec. 18 2007,13:08)]Quote[/b] (ab8ro @ Dec. 19 2007,08:00)]Quote[/b] (WD4CHP @ Dec. 18 2007,05:51)]I use both.
The Mac is superior if you do graphic minipulation.
Pc programs are cheaper.
Programs that have both Mac and Pc versions work the same after you launch them.
I disagree that PC programs are cheaper. Some PC programs are cheaper. What you will find on the MAC is a slightly better open source selection and many MAC apps are simply better/more ergonomic than their PC counterparts.
Wrong and... Wrong again.
Where are the facts ?

Walter Mossberg, for example, of the Wall Street Journal says the iMac is the best consumer machine to buy.

David Pogue of the New York Times recommends the Macs.

Almost universally, Mac OS X is recommended over Windoze Vista.

It's up to you. But I'd buy a Mac.
Everyone you quoted, like myself, is just opinion.

I shouldn't have said wrong, as much as I should've said I disagree.

The side by side comparison of Avid that I ran was enough for me to not justify upgrading my machines to Mac and switch over to PC.

Windoze sucks as an OS, in general, but I'm a geek.

I don't use a lot of the stuff on my machine that makes it suck.

I use, and enjoy, a lot of open source software except for my audio and video editing.

Taking that into account, I cannot justify buying a Mac and running both Windoze and Mac OS (which is an expense) when I can run Windoze for what I need an linux for the rest in a dual boot configuration.

Now, I don't dual boot anymore, I have one of each for regular use.

The AV machines are standalone machines though.

No web surfing on them puppies!

Jonathan

N2RJ

12-19-2007, 10:50 PM

Frankly, Macs are now based on intel chips, so they're the same, hardware wise.

The only thing that really makes a difference now is the OS.

Mac OS X is nice.

Linux is nice if you want to hack around (I use Linux at work both on the desktop and on servers.)

Windows blows.

Free (Open source) software can be pretty much compiled for any platform if you have the time. Really. Even Windows. It's pretty much a non issue now.

Personally I'm so platform independent, you can give me anything and I wouldn't care.

I will tell you this though - one of our web designers got a new mac today (for work use), and first of all it kept freezing. Secondly, her email setup didn't work properly. I had to help her fix it. So much for Macs claiming that they "just work."

N2RJ

12-19-2007, 10:55 PM

Quote[/b] (W2RI @ Dec. 19 2007,17:08)]Quote[/b] (KB1KIX @ Dec. 18 2007,13:08)]Quote[/b] (ab8ro @ Dec. 19 2007,08:00)]Quote[/b] (WD4CHP @ Dec. 18 2007,05:51)]I use both.
The Mac is superior if you do graphic minipulation.
Pc programs are cheaper.
Programs that have both Mac and Pc versions work the same after you launch them.
I disagree that PC programs are cheaper. Some PC programs are cheaper. What you will find on the MAC is a slightly better open source selection and many MAC apps are simply better/more ergonomic than their PC counterparts.
Wrong and... Wrong again.
Where are the facts ?

Walter Mossberg, for example, of the Wall Street Journal says the iMac is the best consumer machine to buy.

David Pogue of the New York Times recommends the Macs.

Almost universally, Mac OS X is recommended over Windoze Vista.

It's up to you. But I'd buy a Mac.
Always take what a reviewer recommends with a grain of salt.

After all, it's just an opinion.

That's what columnists who review things are paid for - an opinion based on some facts.

It's still just an opinion.

KB1KIX

12-19-2007, 10:56 PM

Quote[/b] (N2RJ @ Dec. 19 2007,18:50)]Frankly, Macs are now based on intel chips, so they're the same, hardware wise.

The only thing that really makes a difference now is the OS.

Mac OS X is nice.

Linux is nice if you want to hack around (I use Linux at work both on the desktop and on servers.)

Windows blows.
Yep, agreed on that .

I do like it, just can't justify the cost.

What distro do you use?

For my servers, I use SuSe, still use it on my desktop.

I was thinking of experimenting with the current Fedora core or something.

I will have a 2.4G intel IBM box to play with.

Jonathan

ab8ro

12-19-2007, 11:38 PM

Quote[/b] (KB1KIX @ Dec. 18 2007,10:08)]Quote[/b] (ab8ro @ Dec. 19 2007,08:00)]Quote[/b] (WD4CHP @ Dec. 18 2007,05:51)]I use both.
The Mac is superior if you do graphic minipulation.
Pc programs are cheaper.
Programs that have both Mac and Pc versions work the same after you launch them.
I disagree that PC programs are cheaper. Some PC programs are cheaper. What you will find on the MAC is a slightly better open source selection and many MAC apps are simply better/more ergonomic than their PC counterparts.
Wrong and... Wrong again.

Open source stuff on the PC is much more plentiful if you run Linux.
The natural and reasonable assumption is that he is comparing windows to OS X. If you had read my message I stated that I use Linux on main machine so I'm well aware of the open source advantage, in most cases, of linux. But, even that's not completely true. One application that I use daily, for example, is bibdesk. It's open source and really leverages the smoothness of the desktop experience of OS X.

Many open source linux packages also run on OS X because the port is relatively easy.

Quote[/b] ]
Same PC platform, different OS - which is basically what OSX is running on now - intel chipsets with BSD.

PC's are a lot cheaper - and they are now being shipped on much the same platform (intel chips).

PCs are a lot uglier as well. Moreover, you can't run OS X. Even on my Linux desktops I use MAC keyboards. You will not find a cheaper productivity multiplier.

Quote[/b] ]
PC accessories are a lot cheaper and more plentiful.

Nonsense. This used to be really true before USB, but doesn't matter much anymore. I've seldom run into a USB device that doesn't work with my MACS. Moreover, you're campaigning for Linux, you can't be serious about Linux not having driver issues. My nvidia card is STILL a pain with Linux and it's over a year old.

Quote[/b] ]
I'd think PC architecture - but which OS?

Windows will allow you to use commercial software - Linux offers a whole lot of open source stuff freely available.

If you look at sourceforge.net you'll see a lot of open source software that runs equally great on all 3 operating systems.

I disagree. You'll see a lot of mediocre software that runs equally great. Some software really leverages the OS X experience and there's little to compete with that on Linux and even less on Windows. That said, the same is true for many Linux apps. KDE has some great features and you'll find tools to leverage those features that isn't replicated on other OSs

A good example of a simple tool that I find indispensable and is inconsistent across all platforms is sshfs. With sshfs you can mount your home directory of a server which you have ssh access to as a part of your local file system. On Linux it runs from the command line, is smooth, but requires you learn the syntax. On OS X it has either a gui or a command line version but the operation isn't as consistent. The gui mounts volumes in the default location and doesn't have the option to mount the directory at any place in your file system. Now sshfs for windows, well, at last check, it didn't exist.

But at the end of the day, Linux is still not the right choice for most people. One of the reasons I keep mainstream OSes around is to be able to run tax software/flash/etc with no hassle.

Quote[/b] ]
My windoze machine runs a LOT of open source software for all everyday needs and runs fine.

It doesn't run sshfs, because it's not available. Sorry, that's one of the limitations of windows, it's not built on unix so not as much has been ported.

Quote[/b] ]
I'd save the money and go with a PC.

Macs are just overpriced machines now.

Which run OS X and are much nicer to interact with. It's fine if you don't value that. But it's incorrect to claim that it has no value. I buy PCs as cheaply as I can get them but I value the user interface aspects of devices.

Quote[/b] ]
They used to be better at the multimedia game - but that dominance has long been over and still carries on by the Cult of Mac.

Let's be clear here. I'm not a part of the "cult." I have more PCs than MACS but no PC laptops. OS X is the best consumer desktop OS bar none, however, and that has a lot of value to a lot of people. If I'm a member of any "cult" it's the cult of open source. That's the main reason I'm always looking for alternatives to MACS because I've learned from Windows experiences not to be tied to non open source solutions. But, I have to recognize that Apple has done a good job and that although Linux has come a long way since twm was the default window manager, it has a long way to go.

The MAC experience is less clunky than either the Windows or Linux experience for most people and most applications. If you don't value that, then ok, but a lot of people do.

N2RJ

12-19-2007, 11:39 PM

Ubuntu is what I use. On the servers we are using RHEL, ubuntu and freebsd.

The video editors where I work are using mac though, along with the front end graphic designers.

They can't justify getting macs for all of us, not even for my boss who is a VP.

We of course use several professional Avid products and Mac is the preferred platform. We also use Final Cut studio.

Like Oracle's relationship with Sun, most of it is marketing. These days you can do anything on any platform.

N0KLT

12-19-2007, 11:51 PM

PC or Mac, I don't care which anyone uses. I just want those insipid PC vs Mac commercials with the fat geek vs the skinny nerd to STOP. H***, they have even come out with a couple of animated versions of the annoying things.

MAKE THEM STOP.............PLEASE

KP3FT

12-19-2007, 11:53 PM

TRS-80 and BASIC, the industry standard...

KL1ZB

12-20-2007, 01:31 AM

I would say get a Mac, its the best of all worlds.

It will run Mac OS X: fast, easy and its hard to find a virus
It will run Linux: Fun to tinker with and very customizable
It will run Windows: I have no idea why you would WANT to run windows.

KB1KIX

12-20-2007, 01:58 AM

Quote[/b] (N2RJ @ Dec. 19 2007,19:39)]We of course use several professional Avid products and Mac is the preferred platform. We also use Final Cut studio.
Kewl.

I must admit, that is the best app on the Mac - I do like Final Cut Studio - for what it does and the price difference for what we paid for Avid!

Though...... I really do like Avid.

Jonathan

kf6rdn

12-20-2007, 03:29 AM

This is almost as banal as No/CW Testing.

Use what computer you like, you're not going to change anyone elses mind whoring a particular system.

KI4PEQ

12-20-2007, 04:40 AM

Never ask what operating system a man's computer uses. If it uses Mac OS X, you will not HAVE to ask, as he will TELL you. If the man is using any form of Microsoft Windows, why embarrass him?

If Bill Gates received a penny for every instance of the infamous "Blue Screen of Death", he would be the one of the world's richest men...er...wait a minute, he IS!

I am a proud user of Macintosh since 1994 and owner of ten Macintosh machines (including the one I am writing this post on)

K6BBC

12-20-2007, 07:00 AM

All the new macs will run Windows xp or Vista. There are no Windows machines that I know of that will run OS X. I have used both. Owned both. Been using PCs since the early eighties (KayPro - cpm os). Macs were better early in the pc history - then in the nineties it was the pc. Over the past 7 years, it is the mac. If you can afford it, get the mac. OSX is elegant and simple. I have NEVER had a virus, etc. And Mac are really Windows or Mac. BTW, Windows XP runs great on my Mac.

bbc

W8EFA

12-20-2007, 04:26 PM

Most of the available Macintosh software is coded for the old PowerPC chips which #means #they are not compatible with the newest, Intel-based Mac computers. Apple's temporary solution for this problem is their #emulator called "Rosetta." Why would you want to run #Mac applications in an emulation mode? ##An emulator is traditionally a poor solution to a serious problem. An emulator will never allow for the serious user to be productive, whether it's running an entire operating system or simply one application. For example, would you want to run Office .X for Mac in emulation mode? Absolutely not.

The only software that runs natively #on the new Intel Mac is certain software made by Apple itself, and that is a very short list. It will take a great deal of time before software vendors make their applications available to run natively on Intel Macs. Examples would be Adobe's many applications, Macromedia's web software, Roxio's CD/DVD burning software, Microsoft's Office suite, and many, many other applications (nearly all, in fact).

Windows has its strengths. More than anything, it has far more available options for enterprise or "business" applications. It also has more options for consumer applications. #The Windows GUI (graphical user interface) has some real advantages over Mac OS X. #95% of users use PC's and for people that are really in the IT industry (not geeks) that is important.

If you are an experienced, sophisticated (non-business individual) user and want to mess with non-standard #to be different or for perceived performance advantages buy a MAC. #If you have to ask, #buy a PC.

The only thing where Mac is better is it is not as open to Virus, Malware, etc and possible stability. #However Vista is an awesome OS IMO and much more secure than older versions. #And bottom line since XP Windows has been very stable.

kc2orw

12-20-2007, 04:33 PM

Mex Versus BC http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/laugh.gif

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IJMqdUGZZ9s

KC5CSG

12-20-2007, 04:36 PM

Quote[/b] (W4MAJ @ Dec. 19 2007,05:24)]I was a die hard Windows user until this year. *sheepishly* Macs are better.
I was a die hard windows fan until they released Vista. I never thought they would release windows ME again LOL.

Junk.

Jerry

ab8ro

12-20-2007, 04:38 PM

Quote[/b] (W8EFA @ Dec. 19 2007,10:26)]Almost all of the available Macintosh software is coded for the PowerPC chips. That means #they are not compatible with the newest, Intel-based Mac computers. Apple's temporary solution for this problem is their #emulator called "Rosetta." Do you want to run #Mac applications in an emulation mode? I would think not. #An emulator is a poor solution to a serious problem. An emulator will never allow for the serious user to be productive, whether it's running an entire operating system or simply one application. For example, would you want to run Office .X for Mac in emulation mode? Absolutely not.

The only software that runs natively #on the new Intel Macs is certain software made by Apple itself, and that is a very short list. It will take a great deal of time before software vendors make their applications available to run natively on Intel Macs. Examples would be Adobe's many applications, Macromedia's web software, Roxio's CD/DVD burning software, Microsoft's Office suite, and many, many other applications (nearly all, in fact).

Windows has its strengths. More than anything, it has far more available options for enterprise or "business" applications. It also has more options for consumer applications. #The Windows GUI (graphical user interface) has some real advantages over Mac OS X. #95% of users use PC's and for people that are really in the IT industry (not geeks) that is important.
That's pretty much FUD. Rosetta is a very good emulator. That said, quite a few apps have been recompiled to be native intel. In fact, every single app that I use is native intel.

Most home users could give a crap about "enterprise" or "business" applications. And as far as GUI advantages, where have you been, VISTA users are downgrading to XP in droves. Apple has been leading GUI development over the last five years or so.

Windows does have some advantages though. If you want to get your hands on the latest computer malware, windows is your guy. If you like rebooting your machine a lot, go windows!

kg4llq

12-20-2007, 05:02 PM

>"In the land of the blind, the man with one eye is king."
>The computer I use for work is a PC-I had & have no choice in what to use.
>My home computer which is what I use for FUN (i.e. photos, video's, music, etc.) is a MAC
>Why do these stupid arrows keep appearing on this PC?
>Oh well it's a PC, that says it all!

>73, ya'll

N2RJ

12-20-2007, 05:13 PM

Quote[/b] (KI4PEQ @ Dec. 19 2007,23:40)]Never ask what operating system a man's computer uses. If it uses Mac OS X, you will not HAVE to ask, as he will TELL you. If the man is using any form of Microsoft Windows, why embarrass him?

If Bill Gates received a penny for every instance of the infamous "Blue Screen of Death", he would be the one of the world's richest men...er...wait a minute, he IS!

I am a proud user of Macintosh since 1994 and owner of ten Macintosh machines (including the one I am writing this post on)
Meh.

Mac OS was lame until OS X, except in the 80's when the whole GUI concept was taking flight.

No one admitted to using a mac until OS X came along.

When the Atari ST and Amiga were duking it out in 1986 or thereabouts, the Mac was a side note. Same processor, same concept, but the Atari ST and Amiga had way more "WOW" factor. Apple's 8 bit computers were way more popular.

It's too bad that basically a poor business model and poor marketing killed the Amiga (and ST). The Amiga would have been totally kick ass today. Commodore was a great company that made some really great products. However, when they kicked Tramiel in the nuts that was pretty much the end for the company.

I use a variety of platforms - various flavors of BSD (including mac), Windows 2000/NT/XP/Vista/2003, Sun Solaris and various Linuxes (with GNOME or KDE desktops, but I prefer KDE). Honestly, there's not much difference nowadays. Everyone is moving closer to the Posix model, even MS Windows (shocking).

W8EFA

12-20-2007, 05:19 PM

That is pretty funny claiming that my bashing #using an emulator vs native is FUD because it is a good emulator. http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif #The point is emulators are bad, period! #Emulation is getting to non=comptaible products to work together like in this case the MAC's #OS and the App. #Just wonderful.

Vista #is new and requires you use the right hardware and compatible apps. Do that simple task and Vista is rock solid. #I am running 64 bit vista and yes there are a few APPs I can't use but then I knew that. #I also knew what hardware it requires to run well and have that. #

For a comparison try to put the newest MAC OS on a 3 year old MAC - can't even be done

N2RJ

12-20-2007, 05:21 PM

Quote[/b] (ab8ro @ Dec. 20 2007,11:38)]Windows does have some advantages though. If you want to get your hands on the latest computer malware, windows is your guy. If you like rebooting your machine a lot, go windows!
I never pictured you as a fanboy, Darrel. Guess I was wrong!

I have a few Windows machines at home including an MCE box, and they don't have any malware (Firefox helps a lot) and I haven't rebooted this one I'm on in well over 6 months, except to install hardware/drivers (and that was because I had to open the machine) and also to install my job's VPN software.

Meanwhile, the new mac we got for our new front end web designer at work kept freezing yesterday, right out of the box.

It was running OS X Leopard.

One of my other cow-orkers uses his own Mac mini (it's a G4, not Intel based). His has a problem with the graphics card. Apparently there's some glitch with it that causes it to try to re-sync and blanks the screen every so often (random).

But anyway, macs just work. If you ignore the problems, they just work. http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/laugh.gif

N2RJ

12-20-2007, 05:24 PM

Quote[/b] (k6bbc @ Dec. 20 2007,02:00)]All the new macs will run Windows xp or Vista. There are no Windows machines that I know of that will run OS X.
Gotta love that DRM. http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif

The Church of Jobs has to ensure that the followers don't have a choice in hardware vendors.

KL1ZB

12-20-2007, 05:30 PM

Quote[/b] (ab8ro @ Dec. 19 2007,10:38)]Quote[/b] (W8EFA @ Dec. 19 2007,10:26)]Almost all of the available Macintosh software is coded for the PowerPC chips. That means they are not compatible with the newest, Intel-based Mac computers. Apple's temporary solution for this problem is their emulator called "Rosetta." Do you want to run Mac applications in an emulation mode? I would think not. An emulator is a poor solution to a serious problem. An emulator will never allow for the serious user to be productive, whether it's running an entire operating system or simply one application. For example, would you want to run Office .X for Mac in emulation mode? Absolutely not.

The only software that runs natively on the new Intel Macs is certain software made by Apple itself, and that is a very short list. It will take a great deal of time before software vendors make their applications available to run natively on Intel Macs. Examples would be Adobe's many applications, Macromedia's web software, Roxio's CD/DVD burning software, Microsoft's Office suite, and many, many other applications (nearly all, in fact).

Windows has its strengths. More than anything, it has far more available options for enterprise or "business" applications. It also has more options for consumer applications. The Windows GUI (graphical user interface) has some real advantages over Mac OS X. 95% of users use PC's and for people that are really in the IT industry (not geeks) that is important.
That's pretty much FUD. Rosetta is a very good emulator. That said, quite a few apps have been recompiled to be native intel. In fact, every single app that I use is native intel.

Most home users could give a crap about "enterprise" or "business" applications. And as far as GUI advantages, where have you been, VISTA users are downgrading to XP in droves. Apple has been leading GUI development over the last five years or so.

Windows does have some advantages though. If you want to get your hands on the latest computer malware, windows is your guy. If you like rebooting your machine a lot, go windows!
Yes total FUD, Rosetta is a very good emulator, Any application that says "Universal Binary" is compiled for both intel AND PPC based macs and most currently developed applications are or will be.

The funny thing is you said "For example, would you want to run Office .X for Mac in emulation mode? Absolutely not."

Well.... Mac Office IS running under Rosetta and it works quite well. Mac Office 2008 will be a "Universal Binary" but the current version is not.

ab8ro

12-20-2007, 05:32 PM

Quote[/b] (W8EFA @ Dec. 19 2007,11:19)]That is pretty funny claiming that my bashing #using of an emulator vs native is FUD because it is a good emulator. #The point is emulators are bad! #Emulation ids getting to non=comptaible products to work together like in the MAC's case the OS and the App. #Just wonderful.
It's precisely FUD. You are spreading fear because you think "emulators are bad." That's your opinion. Emulators work fine in many instances and, in fact, emulation comes and goes as a solution of choice. Intel has been emulating the x86 architecture with an underlying RISC architecture for some time now. Both Java and .NET run in emulated machines.

Rosetta works fine. For most users and most apps there is not a significant difference.

Quote[/b] ]
Vista #is new and requires you use the right hardware and compatible apps Vista and it is rock solid. #I am running 64 bit vista and yes there are a few APPs I can't use but then I knew that. #I also knew what hardware it requires to run well and have that. #

VISTA has just won a worst tech product of the year award. People are ordering NEW computers with XP because VISTA is such a bad product. Just because you got suckered into it doesn't mean you should spread the misery.

Quote[/b] ]
For a comparison try to put the newest MAC OS on a 3 year old MAC - can't even be done

Relevance? We're not talking about running a new OS on old hardware we're talking about a new OS on NEW hardware. I have an old mac G3 btw and it runs the previous version of OS X just fine. Windows has been playing catchup for years.

ab8ro

12-20-2007, 05:36 PM

Quote[/b] (N2RJ @ Dec. 19 2007,11:24)]Quote[/b] (k6bbc @ Dec. 20 2007,02:00)]All the new macs will run Windows xp or Vista. #There are no Windows machines that I know of that will run OS X.
Gotta love that DRM. http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif

The Church of Jobs has to ensure that the followers don't have a choice in hardware vendors.
I agree that it would be great to run OS X on PC hardware. I'd still buy mac laptops though. But it has nothing to do with the "church of Jobs", whatever that is. #Apple is a hardware company, they would lose hardware sales if they allowed OS X to run on commodity PCs. You can't fault a company for making the best choices for itself.

If you want to run OS X, you have to buy a MAC.

KB1KIX

12-20-2007, 05:37 PM

Quote[/b] (N2RJ @ Dec. 20 2007,13:21)]Quote[/b] (ab8ro @ Dec. 20 2007,11:38)]Windows does have some advantages though. If you want to get your hands on the latest computer malware, windows is your guy. If you like rebooting your machine a lot, go windows!
I never pictured you as a fanboy, Darrel. #Guess I was wrong!

I have a few Windows machines at home including an MCE box, and they don't have any malware (Firefox helps a lot) and I haven't rebooted this one I'm on in well over 6 months, except to install hardware/drivers (and that was because I had to open the machine) and also to install my job's VPN software. #

Meanwhile, the new mac we got for our new front end web designer at work kept freezing yesterday, right out of the box. #

It was running OS X Leopard.

One of my other cow-orkers uses his own Mac mini (it's a G4, not Intel based). #His has a problem with the graphics card. Apparently there's some glitch with it that causes it to try to re-sync and blanks the screen every so often (random).

But anyway, macs just work. #If you ignore the problems, they just work. # http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/laugh.gif
Agreeed 100%.

Every couple of years, Amiga has a buzz that they are resurfacing - and then disappear again.

I like OSX - especially now that it runs a real OS.

I just can't justify the price platform and everything else.

If I want to run a *nix operating system, I'll get an x86 MoBo and build a machine and not pay the money for windoze when I'm not even going to use it.

I have to say XP has been the most stable in my shop of all the OS's (not in the very beginning, but we didn't get on the XP bandwagon til around mid '02).

On Macs befor OSX, I tried Yellow Dog linux - that was really neat and ran very well.

Jonathan - Gnome user

ab8ro

12-20-2007, 05:53 PM

Quote[/b] (N2RJ @ Dec. 19 2007,11:21)]Quote[/b] (ab8ro @ Dec. 20 2007,11:38)]Windows does have some advantages though. If you want to get your hands on the latest computer malware, windows is your guy. If you like rebooting your machine a lot, go windows!
I never pictured you as a fanboy, Darrel. #Guess I was wrong!

I have a few Windows machines at home including an MCE box, and they don't have any malware (Firefox helps a lot) and I haven't rebooted this one I'm on in well over 6 months, except to install hardware/drivers (and that was because I had to open the machine) and also to install my job's VPN software. #

Meanwhile, the new mac we got for our new front end web designer at work kept freezing yesterday, right out of the box. #
That sounds like hardware. Send it back. You're missing the point completely regarding malware. You cite yourself as anecdotal evidence but you sound like an educated user. Moreover, I bet you run antivirus software. I know if I had a windows pc and didn't I'd be sorry as the logs in my linux box tell me everything I need to know.

Quote[/b] ]
One of my other cow-orkers uses his own Mac mini (it's a G4, not Intel based). #His has a problem with the graphics card. Apparently there's some glitch with it that causes it to try to re-sync and blanks the screen every so often (random).

Hardware problems should be fixed. What's your point?

Quote[/b] ]
But anyway, macs just work. #If you ignore the problems, they just work. # http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/laugh.gif

Sound bytes don't defend your position. All computers may have problems but if you're trying to claim that Windows is even as stable as Unix based machines you've got a long history to overcome. XP is the most stable OS that Microsoft has produced to date, however, in almost every environment that I've worked in Windows machines are simply not as stable as Unix based machines, including MACS.

KB1KIX

12-20-2007, 05:57 PM

Reminds me of those mac users that think there are no mac viruses and they don't need antivirus software!

Web surfers that do a little research tend to not get infected.

It's always the idiot user on my network I have to worry about!

Jonathan

N2RJ

12-20-2007, 06:03 PM

Quote[/b] (ab8ro @ Dec. 20 2007,12:36)]I agree that it would be great to run OS X on PC hardware. I'd still buy mac laptops though. But it has nothing to do with the "church of Jobs", whatever that is. Apple is a hardware company, they would lose hardware sales if they allowed OS X to run on commodity PCs. You can't fault a company for making the best choices for itself.

If you want to run OS X, you have to buy a MAC.
No, [url=http://www.reghardware.co.uk/2006/10/25/osx_generic_intel/]you can run it on a PC.[/quote]

Anyway, I always like to point this out, because people always say that Apple is a good "open source citizen" because Mach and other components of OS X are under a BSD license. Apple severely restricts your choices. Want OS X? You're stuck with a mac.

BTW, where do you get this nonsense that Apple is a hardware company? Last I checked they sold both hardware and software. The OS costs money, and the copies of Final Cut Studio we bought weren't free, and I certainly didn't imagine the box with the big brushed metal apple on it.

BTW, a MAC is not a Mac.

ab8ro

12-20-2007, 06:03 PM

Quote[/b] (KB1KIX @ Dec. 19 2007,11:57)]Reminds me of those mac users that think there are no mac viruses and they don't need antivirus software!

Web surfers that do a little research tend to not get infected.

It's always the idiot user on my network I have to worry about!

Jonathan
I've never had an infected machine, what does that tell you? You should do some research yourself. I've never had to run AV software on Macs or Linux machines. I wouldn't even think of putting a Windows machine on the net without it.

ab8ro

12-20-2007, 06:12 PM

Quote[/b] (N2RJ @ Dec. 19 2007,12:03)]Quote[/b] (ab8ro @ Dec. 20 2007,12:36)]I agree that it would be great to run OS X on PC hardware. I'd still buy mac laptops though. But it has nothing to do with the "church of Jobs", whatever that is. #Apple is a hardware company, they would lose hardware sales if they allowed OS X to run on commodity PCs. You can't fault a company for making the best choices for itself.

If you want to run OS X, you have to buy a MAC.
No, <a href="http://www.reghardware.co.uk/2006/10/25/osx_generic_intel/" target="_blank">you can run it on a PC.[/quote]
That's not a legal way to run the OS. I know, you windows users don't know the difference.

Quote[/b] ]
Anyway, I always like to point this out, because people always say that Apple is a good "open source citizen" because Mach and other components of OS X are under a BSD license. #Apple severely restricts your choices. #Want OS X? You're stuck with a mac.

Seriously, in what way does apple restrict you? Your position is naive. Apple is under no obligation to open source their products and you certainly can't point to Microsoft as an example of a "good ANYTHING citizen."

Quote[/b] ]
BTW, where do you get this nonsense that Apple is a hardware company? #Last I checked they sold both hardware and software. #

Have you been living under a rock? Apple is primarily a hardware company. Hardware is the source of the bulk of their profits. If they could make more money by opening OS X they would have already done it. Steve Jobs has said as much himself.

Here's just one link, I could find hundreds more.

[URL=http://www.crn.com/hardwar....35]http</a>

Quote[/b] ]
The Cupertino, Calif.-based company attributed the successful quarter to robust sales across its product line, namely its iBook and PowerBook computers, its iPod music players and stronger-than-expected results from its retail and education sectors.

Quote[/b] ]
BTW, a MAC is not a Mac.

Oh, then what is it? In fact, you're wrong, a MAC is exactly a Mac, that's what I meant, the less pedantic here realize that. Are you that desperate to show how smart you are?

KB1KIX

12-20-2007, 06:27 PM

Quote[/b] (ab8ro @ Dec. 20 2007,14:12)]Seriously, in what way does apple restrict you? Your position is naive. Apple is under no obligation to open source their products and you certainly can't point to Microsoft as an example of a "good ANYTHING citizen."
Your argument has no merit here.

Microsoft didn't build from an OS it took from the open source community.

It makes sense that if Apple "borrowed" from the community effort that it would return to the open source community at least a small portion of what it took.

I'd like a version of Apples System Profiler for linux, for example.

As far as Micro$oft being a good anything citizen - look at their charitable contributions (not the lawsuit settlements, which is a whole different situation).

As much as I hate Micro$oft, they have done a lot of good charitable work.

Jonathan

kc2orw

12-20-2007, 06:29 PM

Quote[/b] (ab8ro @ Dec. 20 2007,14:12)]Oh, then what is it? In fact, you're wrong, a MAC is exactly a Mac
Are you trying to show how smart you are?

Hee hee he does a good job of it too http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/laugh.gif

ab8ro

12-20-2007, 06:33 PM

Quote[/b] (KB1KIX @ Dec. 19 2007,12:27)]Quote[/b] (ab8ro @ Dec. 20 2007,14:12)]Seriously, in what way does apple restrict you? Your position is naive. Apple is under no obligation to open source their products and you certainly can't point to Microsoft as an example of a "good ANYTHING citizen."
Your argument has no merit here.

Microsoft didn't build from an OS it took from the open source community.
Microsoft took the TCP stack from the same "pool" as the BSD basis for OSX.

Quote[/b] ]
It makes sense that if Apple "borrowed" from the community effort that it would return to the open source community at least a small portion of what it took.

The assumption here is that it is required to be a good open source citizen to have the best desktop OS, it does not. Apple is bound only by the license of whatever open source it uses.

Quote[/b] ]
I'd like a version of Apples System Profiler for linux, for example.

Write one then and put it under the GPL.

Quote[/b] ]
As far as Micro$oft being a good anything citizen - look at their charitable contributions

Kinda like the church and their charitable contributions. I believe that tactic also works for drug lords in columbia and perhaps even the mafia as well.

ab8ro

12-20-2007, 06:34 PM

Quote[/b] (kc2orw @ Dec. 19 2007,12:29)]Quote[/b] (ab8ro @ Dec. 20 2007,14:12)]Oh, then what is it? In fact, you're wrong, a MAC is exactly a Mac
Hee hee he does a good job of it too http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/laugh.gif
Well, if you think that's clever, then I'd say that you're pretty easy to convince.

kc2orw

12-20-2007, 06:36 PM

Quote[/b] (ab8ro @ Dec. 20 2007,14:34)]Quote[/b] (kc2orw @ Dec. 19 2007,12:29)]Quote[/b] (ab8ro @ Dec. 20 2007,14:12)]Oh, then what is it? In fact, you're wrong, a MAC is exactly a Mac
Hee hee he does a good job of it too http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/laugh.gif
Well, if you think that's clever, then I'd say that you're pretty easy to convince.
Your a Mac Whack there is no talking to people like you.

Run Linux with KDE, works great on good hardware http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/laugh.gif

ab8ro

12-20-2007, 06:49 PM

Quote[/b] (kc2orw @ Dec. 19 2007,12:36)]Quote[/b] (ab8ro @ Dec. 20 2007,14:34)]Quote[/b] (kc2orw @ Dec. 19 2007,12:29)]Quote[/b] (ab8ro @ Dec. 20 2007,14:12)]Oh, then what is it? In fact, you're wrong, a MAC is exactly a Mac
Hee hee he does a good job of it too http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/laugh.gif
Well, if you think that's clever, then I'd say that you're pretty easy to convince.
Your a Mac Whack there is no talking to people like you.
Are you illiterate, or just slow?

Quote[/b] ]
Run Linux with KDE, works great on good hardware http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/laugh.gif

I prefer Debian, I've been running Linux as my main machine since Linux 1.2.13 with Slackware. That was stated above, try reading the thread before opening your mouth. You can crow about KDE all you like, but it's not OS/X and it isn't a good choice for MOST users.

KDE and Gnome still both suffer from the klunky factor. Irritiating inconsistencies that most users don't want to deal with. Quick how do you get flash working on a 64 bit machine? How do you LEGALLY play MP3s? DVDs? How do you get a PDF out of any graph or chart in any Linux graphic application? Convert a postscript file to PDF? Install a spell checker that automatically works with all applications?

Tax software? What was that, I didn't hear you, which tax software runs on Linux? What choices do I have for electronic filing?

I prefer open source for everything but I keep a laptop with a commodity OS so when I need to do certain things it's not so much of a hassle.

N3RQ

12-20-2007, 07:04 PM

Quote[/b] (W8EFA @ Dec. 19 2007,11:19)]For a comparison try to put the newest MAC OS on a 3 year old MAC - can't even be done
I am running the latest version of Mac OS X on a Sawtooth G4 PowerMac, and that machine was built in 1999.

ab8ro

12-20-2007, 07:08 PM

Quote[/b] (N3RQ @ Dec. 19 2007,13:04)]Quote[/b] (W8EFA @ Dec. 19 2007,11:19)]For a comparison try to put the newest MAC OS on a 3 year old MAC - can't even be done
I am running the latest version of Mac OS X on a Sawtooth G4 PowerMac, and that machine was built in 1999.
What's the speed on that. I heard something to the effect that you wouldn't be able to run the newest OS on something less than a 1Ghz G4. I don't know when the last sub Ghz G4 was produced. It might be that you won't be able to run the newest OS X on SOME machines that are three years old?

At any rate, I think that's what he's talking about.

kc2orw

12-20-2007, 07:25 PM

I gather we all pushed your buttons pretty successfully. Well most of us know how to trigger reactions out of people of your disposition. http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/laugh.gif
Second attribute of a Mac Whack: No sense of humor which is also easily exploited.

Oooh archaic old Slackware first version of Linux I got to run as it was the first that was readily available, must have been the .99 version of the Linux kernel.
1, 2, 3, 4... http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif

ab8ro

12-20-2007, 07:30 PM

Quote[/b] (kc2orw @ Dec. 19 2007,13:25)]I gather we all pushed your buttons pretty successfully.
When your position becomes untenible...

ab8ro

12-20-2007, 07:33 PM

Quote[/b] (kc2orw @ Dec. 19 2007,13:25)]Oooh archaic old Slackware first version of Linux I got to run as it was the first that was readily available, must have been the .99 version of the Linux kernel.
1, 2, 3, 4... http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif
So you came late to the game then. http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif

KL1ZB

12-20-2007, 08:08 PM

Quote[/b] (W8EFA @ Dec. 19 2007,11:19)]For a comparison try to put the newest MAC OS on a 3 year old MAC - can't even be done
Really!!!! Well thats funny because I am doing it now on stock G5 hardware that was released almost 4 years ago, no upgraded ram, no new video card, etc the same system as the day the hardware was released with out any problems.

w3wn

12-20-2007, 08:37 PM

Quote[/b] (KA7RRA @ Dec. 19 2007,07:21)]what is your opinion? #MAC OR A PC
LCARS

They should have it debugged in, oh, about 200 years.

N2RJ

12-20-2007, 08:47 PM

Quote[/b] (ab8ro @ Dec. 20 2007,13:12)]That's not a legal way to run the OS. I know, you windows users don't know the difference.
Legal whatever.

It still can be run, and despite all of the claims of "superiority" a mac is still a DRMed PC.

Quote[/b] ]
Seriously, in what way does apple restrict you? Your position is naive. Apple is under no obligation to open source their products and you certainly can't point to Microsoft as an example of a "good ANYTHING citizen."

You've learned well from your fellow fanboys.

Anytime anyone criticizes the Church of Jobs, the response is, "But, but... Microsoft!!!!"

I really couldn't care less about Microsoft. My computing time on a daily basis is spent 50/50 on Linux and Windows. Most days it's actually 70/30, with 70% being Linux.

Quote[/b] ]Have you been living under a rock? Apple is primarily a hardware company. Hardware is the source of the bulk of their profits. If they could make more money by opening OS X they would have already done it. Steve Jobs has said as much himself.

Here's just one link, I could find hundreds more.

You've only proven that Jobs will say anything to please his congregation.

Apple is still a hardware and software company.

A mac without OS X is just a PC.

Quote[/b] ]
The Cupertino, Calif.-based company attributed the successful quarter to robust sales across its product line, namely its iBook and PowerBook computers, its iPod music players and stronger-than-expected results from its retail and education sectors.

Right. Apple sells their computers without an OS?

Remember that most sales of any OS (except Linux) usually comes from OEM hardware bundles.

The people who have Windows on their PC's usually have Windows from an OEM source.

Quote[/b] ]Oh, then what is it? In fact, you're wrong, a MAC is exactly a Mac, that's what I meant, the less pedantic here realize that. Are you that desperate to show how smart you are?

No, I'm just showing what an blind idiot fanboy you are, Darrel.

A MAC is not a Mac.

If you're fanatical about something, at least call it by its proper name, capitalized properly.

N2RJ

12-20-2007, 08:51 PM

Quote[/b] (ab8ro @ Dec. 20 2007,13:49)]Quote[/b] (kc2orw @ Dec. 19 2007,12:36)]Quote[/b] (ab8ro @ Dec. 20 2007,14:34)]Quote[/b] (kc2orw @ Dec. 19 2007,12:29)]Quote[/b] (ab8ro @ Dec. 20 2007,14:12)]Oh, then what is it? In fact, you're wrong, a MAC is exactly a Mac
Hee hee he does a good job of it too http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/laugh.gif
Well, if you think that's clever, then I'd say that you're pretty easy to convince.
Your a Mac Whack there is no talking to people like you.
Are you illiterate, or just slow?

Quote[/b] ]
Run Linux with KDE, works great on good hardware http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/laugh.gif

I prefer Debian, I've been running Linux as my main machine since Linux 1.2.13 with Slackware. That was stated above, try reading the thread before opening your mouth. You can crow about KDE all you like, but it's not OS/X and it isn't a good choice for MOST users.

KDE and Gnome still both suffer from the klunky factor. Irritiating inconsistencies that most users don't want to deal with. Quick how do you get flash working on a 64 bit machine? How do you LEGALLY play MP3s? DVDs? How do you get a PDF out of any graph or chart in any Linux graphic application? Convert a postscript file to PDF? Install a spell checker that automatically works with all applications?

Tax software? What was that, I didn't hear you, which tax software runs on Linux? What choices do I have for electronic filing?

I prefer open source for everything but I keep a laptop with a commodity OS so when I need to do certain things it's not so much of a hassle.
Speaking of which, which games ran on Mac before they switched over to Intel?

Quickly - no cheating!

I don't think you'll find any type of app that won't run on Windows. At least nothing mainstream anyway.

The #1 question that is asked by many Mac newbies - "Will it run xx Windows software package?"

#2 question - "Will it run Microsoft Office?"

Imagine - the most popular productivity suite for Mac, and arguably one of the most popular mac programs - is made by Microsoft.

Yes, Mac is superior - because it can run Microsoft software. http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/laugh.gif

KL1ZB

12-20-2007, 09:19 PM

Quote[/b] (N2RJ @ Dec. 19 2007,14:47)]It still can be run, and despite all of the claims of "superiority" a mac is still a DRMed PC.
How is a Mac a DRM'ed PC?http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/rock.gif

KL1ZB

12-20-2007, 09:55 PM

Quote[/b] (N2RJ @ Dec. 19 2007,14:51)]Quote[/b] (ab8ro @ Dec. 20 2007,13:49)]Quote[/b] (kc2orw @ Dec. 19 2007,12:36)]Quote[/b] (ab8ro @ Dec. 20 2007,14:34)]Quote[/b] (kc2orw @ Dec. 19 2007,12:29)]Quote[/b] (ab8ro @ Dec. 20 2007,14:12)]Oh, then what is it? In fact, you're wrong, a MAC is exactly a Mac
Hee hee he does a good job of it too http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/laugh.gif
Well, if you think that's clever, then I'd say that you're pretty easy to convince.
Your a Mac Whack there is no talking to people like you.
Are you illiterate, or just slow?

Quote[/b] ]
Run Linux with KDE, works great on good hardware http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/laugh.gif

I prefer Debian, I've been running Linux as my main machine since Linux 1.2.13 with Slackware. That was stated above, try reading the thread before opening your mouth. You can crow about KDE all you like, but it's not OS/X and it isn't a good choice for MOST users.

KDE and Gnome still both suffer from the klunky factor. Irritiating inconsistencies that most users don't want to deal with. Quick how do you get flash working on a 64 bit machine? How do you LEGALLY play MP3s? DVDs? How do you get a PDF out of any graph or chart in any Linux graphic application? Convert a postscript file to PDF? Install a spell checker that automatically works with all applications?

Tax software? What was that, I didn't hear you, which tax software runs on Linux? What choices do I have for electronic filing?

I prefer open source for everything but I keep a laptop with a commodity OS so when I need to do certain things it's not so much of a hassle.
Speaking of which, which games ran on Mac before they switched over to Intel?

Quickly - no cheating!

I don't think you'll find any type of app that won't run on Windows. At least nothing mainstream anyway.

The #1 question that is asked by many Mac newbies - "Will it run xx Windows software package?"

#2 question - "Will it run Microsoft Office?"

Imagine - the most popular productivity suite for Mac, and arguably one of the most popular mac programs - is made by Microsoft.

Yes, Mac is superior - because it can run Microsoft software. http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/laugh.gif
I don't mean to be a buzz kill but a small little game called Halo ran on a PPC mac, looooonng before it ran on an X-Box or a PC...

O yea, The Sims, DOOM 3, Unreal 2004, Quake 4, Medal of Honor just to name a few.

So chew on that!

O no's Microsoft writes Office for the Mac, so what...

W8EFA

12-20-2007, 10:45 PM

Quote[/b] ] don't mean to be a buzz kill but a small little game called Halo ran on a PPC mac, looooonng before it ran on an X-Box or a PC...

O yea, The Sims, DOOM 3, Unreal 2004, Quake 4, Medal of Honor just to name a few.

So chew on that!

O no's Microsoft writes Office for the Mac, so what...

Don't worry you're not. #

Any claim that Mac is a better platform because more stuff is written for it is darn funny. http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif

Anyway you need to get your facts straight
Quote[/b] ]On July 21, 1999, during the Macworld Conference & Expo, Steve Jobs announced that Halo would be released for Mac OS and Windows simultaneously.

Microsoft then bought Bungie (HALO developers) in 2000. #MS is a lot more involved with Halo and games in general since own the XBOX platform than Apple.

ab8ro

12-20-2007, 10:45 PM

Quote[/b] (N2RJ @ Dec. 19 2007,14:47)]Quote[/b] (ab8ro @ Dec. 20 2007,13:12)]That's not a legal way to run the OS. I know, you windows users don't know the difference.
Legal whatever.
We're talking about choices for consumers and you're advocating using illegal software? If you want to run OS X you either buy a mac or you jump through a bunch of hurdles which include violating, at least, civil law.

Quote[/b] ]
You've only proven that Jobs will say anything to please his congregation.

The point, which seems to be above your intellectual capacity to reason, is that Apple must sell hardware to earn the profit that they currently do and that selling OS X without hardware would lower their profits. I gave you a link which demonstrates that's what they do.

Quote[/b] ]
Apple is still a hardware and software company.

A mac without OS X is just a PC.

No, it's an intel based mac. It runs OS X, it looks nicer, it feels better.

Quote[/b] ]
Right. Apple sells their computers without an OS?

Remember that most sales of any OS (except Linux) usually comes from OEM hardware bundles.

The people who have Windows on their PC's usually have Windows from an OEM source.

That's beside the point. Are you really this dense?

Of course they sell software. You were suggesting that they should open their software to others, nonsense, they make MORE profit from hardware so selling their operating system separately would cause them to lose profit. Doing so would allow others to earn the hardware profit.

I'm quite sure Apple is chomping at the bit to get your sharp analytical skills on board. Why don't you give them a call and offer your services.

Quote[/b] ]
Quote[/b] ]Oh, then what is it? In fact, you're wrong, a MAC is exactly a Mac, that's what I meant, the less pedantic here realize that. Are you that desperate to show how smart you are?

No, I'm just showing what an blind idiot fanboy you are, Darrel.

A MAC is not a Mac.

If you're fanatical about something, at least call it by its proper name, capitalized properly.

Thanks, I thought you were just trying to sound smart. Grow up.

ab8ro

12-20-2007, 10:48 PM

ab8ro

12-20-2007, 11:11 PM

Quote[/b] (N2RJ @ Dec. 19 2007,14:51)]Quote[/b] (ab8ro @ Dec. 20 2007,13:49)]Quote[/b] (kc2orw @ Dec. 19 2007,12:36)]Quote[/b] (ab8ro @ Dec. 20 2007,14:34)]Quote[/b] (kc2orw @ Dec. 19 2007,12:29)]Quote[/b] (ab8ro @ Dec. 20 2007,14:12)]Oh, then what is it? In fact, you're wrong, a MAC is exactly a Mac
Hee hee he does a good job of it too http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/laugh.gif
Well, if you think that's clever, then I'd say that you're pretty easy to convince.
Your a Mac Whack there is no talking to people like you.
Are you illiterate, or just slow?

Quote[/b] ]
Run Linux with KDE, works great on good hardware http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/laugh.gif

I prefer Debian, I've been running Linux as my main machine since Linux 1.2.13 with Slackware. That was stated above, try reading the thread before opening your mouth. You can crow about KDE all you like, but it's not OS/X and it isn't a good choice for MOST users.

KDE and Gnome still both suffer from the klunky factor. Irritiating inconsistencies that most users don't want to deal with. Quick how do you get flash working on a 64 bit machine? How do you LEGALLY play MP3s? DVDs? How do you get a PDF out of any graph or chart in any Linux graphic application? Convert a postscript file to PDF? Install a spell checker that automatically works with all applications?

Tax software? What was that, I didn't hear you, which tax software runs on Linux? What choices do I have for electronic filing?

I prefer open source for everything but I keep a laptop with a commodity OS so when I need to do certain things it's not so much of a hassle.
Speaking of which, which games ran on Mac before they switched over to Intel?
Who cares, nobody here is talking about buying a non-intel mac so your point is moot.

But the picture is building here. You seem to be a fan of illegal software and video games. You don't understand the concept of profit or that the phrase "Apple is a hardware company" no more means that apple sells only hardware than "GE is a financial company" means that GE only sells financial service.

Did I miss anything.

Do you still use CB radio?

KL1ZB

12-20-2007, 11:40 PM

Quote[/b] (W8EFA @ Dec. 19 2007,16:45)]Quote[/b] ] don't mean to be a buzz kill but a small little game called Halo ran on a PPC mac, looooonng before it ran on an X-Box or a PC...

O yea, The Sims, DOOM 3, Unreal 2004, Quake 4, Medal of Honor just to name a few.

So chew on that!

O no's Microsoft writes Office for the Mac, so what...

Don't worry you're not.

Any claim that Mac is a better platform because more stuff is written for it is darn funny. http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif

Anyway you need to get your facts straight
Quote[/b] ]On July 21, 1999, during the Macworld Conference & Expo, Steve Jobs announced that Halo would be released for Mac OS and Windows simultaneously.

Microsoft then bought Bungie (HALO developers) in 2000. MS is a lot more involved with Halo and games in general since own the XBOX platform than Apple.
My facts HA!, your funny

Here is that video of Steve jobs in 1999 with halo running on a PPC Mac. If you are not happy with this I can dig up an even earlier dev video of Halo on Mac

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c2RVje3MyhQ

So why don't YOU check your facts.

ab8ro

12-20-2007, 11:42 PM

Quote[/b] (KL1ZB @ Dec. 19 2007,15:55)]O no's Microsoft writes Office for the Mac, so what...
Agreed. If you go up further in the thread you can see that I advocate windows if office is your primary software as it's not as stable on the mac. I think most home users don't need office however.

Although I have iWork on my mac and KOffice on my Linux box(es), I don't really use either very much. I'm not the typical computer user and I almost never use word processors for anything anymore. I do create a lot of documents, however, and that's the aspect of my work that I do largely on the mac.

KL1ZB

12-21-2007, 12:44 AM

Quote[/b] (ab8ro @ Dec. 19 2007,17:42)]Quote[/b] (KL1ZB @ Dec. 19 2007,15:55)]O no's Microsoft writes Office for the Mac, so what...
Agreed. If you go up further in the thread you can see that I advocate windows if office is your primary software as it's not as stable on the mac. I think most home users don't need office however.
..."as stable"......"Microsoft"......

I don't what OS or hardware platform you are talking about.... The words, "Stability" and "Microsoft" do not belong together in the same sentence unless you have "lack of" somewhere with those two words.

ab8ro

12-21-2007, 01:30 AM

Quote[/b] (KL1ZB @ Dec. 19 2007,18:44)]Quote[/b] (ab8ro @ Dec. 19 2007,17:42)]Quote[/b] (KL1ZB @ Dec. 19 2007,15:55)]O no's Microsoft writes Office for the Mac, so what...
Agreed. If you go up further in the thread you can see that I advocate windows if office is your primary software as it's not as stable on the mac. I think most home users don't need office however.
..."as stable"......"Microsoft"......

I don't what OS or hardware platform you are talking about.... The words, "Stability" and "Microsoft" do not belong together in the same sentence unless you have "lack of" somewhere with those two words.
For whatever reason office just isn't very stable on the Mac. It's not stable on Windows either, but, it seems less so on the Mac. Powerpoint, in particular, crashes regularly.

N3RQ

12-21-2007, 02:31 AM

Quote[/b] (ab8ro @ Dec. 19 2007,13:08)]What's the speed on that. I heard something to the effect that you wouldn't be able to run the newest OS on something less than a 1Ghz G4. I don't know when the last sub Ghz G4 was produced. It might be that you won't be able to run the newest OS X on SOME machines that are three years old?

At any rate, I think that's what he's talking about.

I have two Sawtooth PowerMacs. One has the original 400Mhz G4 processor, and I upgraded the other one with a PowerLogix PowerForce 1.4GHz single G4 processor board. These machines also have re-flashed PC Radeon 8500 video cards installed.

Installing Leopard on a sub-867MHz machine is not pretty, but it can be done (see: http://charlesorourke.com/2007....awtooth (http://charlesorourke.com/2007/11/09/installing-leopard-on-an-unsupported-power-mac-g4-sawtooth) ).

N3RQ

12-21-2007, 02:40 AM

Quote[/b] (KL1ZB @ Dec. 19 2007,18:44)]Quote[/b] (ab8ro @ Dec. 19 2007,17:42)]Quote[/b] (KL1ZB @ Dec. 19 2007,15:55)]O no's Microsoft writes Office for the Mac, so what...
Agreed. If you go up further in the thread you can see that I advocate windows if office is your primary software as it's not as stable on the mac. I think most home users don't need office however.
..."as stable"......"Microsoft"......

I don't what OS or hardware platform you are talking about.... The words, "Stability" and "Microsoft" do not belong together in the same sentence unless you have "lack of" somewhere with those two words.
I have a Windows server at work that has only crashed one time in the last six years, and that crash was attributed to hardware failure.

W8EFA

12-21-2007, 03:35 AM

Quote[/b] (KL1ZB @ Dec. 20 2007,19:40)]Quote[/b] (W8EFA @ Dec. 19 2007,16:45)]Quote[/b] ] don't mean to be a buzz kill but a small little game called Halo ran on a PPC mac, looooonng before it ran on an X-Box or a PC...

O yea, The Sims, DOOM 3, Unreal 2004, Quake 4, Medal of Honor just to name a few.

So chew on that!

O no's Microsoft writes Office for the Mac, so what...

Don't worry you're not. #

Any claim that Mac is a better platform because more stuff is written for it is darn funny. http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif

Anyway you need to get your facts straight
Quote[/b] ]On July 21, 1999, during the Macworld Conference & Expo, Steve Jobs announced that Halo would be released for Mac OS and Windows simultaneously.

Microsoft then bought Bungie (HALO developers) in 2000. #MS is a lot more involved with Halo and games in general since own the XBOX platform than Apple.
My facts HA!, your funny

Here is that video of Steve jobs in 1999 with halo running on a PPC Mac. If you are not happy with this I can dig up an even earlier dev video of Halo on Mac

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c2RVje3MyhQ

So why don't YOU check your facts.
The FACT is it was released for the Mac and the PC simultaneously . Maybe you need to look up the word simultaneously to understand what it means. So you were WRONG saying it was developed and only ran on the Mac at first. I am guessing you must be about 13 years old?

Quote[/b] ]On July 21, 1999, during the Macworld Conference & Expo, Steve Jobs announced that Halo would be released for Mac OS and Windows simultaneously
Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Halo:_Combat_Evolved#_note-ignpreview)

It was actually released for Windows first
Quote[/b] ]On July 12, 2002, a Halo port for Windows was announced to be under development by Gearbox Software It was released on September 30, 2003.

Halo was later released for Mac OS X on December 11, 2003.

Actually they were originally going to release it for the Mac because the developer actually stated that the PC market was much bigger and competetive and the Mac market was so lame and not competetive.

Quote[/b] ]Yeah, I grew up on the Apple II and then the Mac," says Jason, "I wrote all this C code for PCs though, before I even went to school. This was the heyday of PCs, with Wing Commander and stuff. The PC market was really cutthroat, but the Mac market was all friendly and lame. So it was easier to compete."

Bungie Site (http://www.bungie.net/Inside/content.aspx?link=HistoryOfBungie_p1)

Hope you enjoy your dinner of crow.

KL1ZB

12-21-2007, 04:35 AM

Quote[/b] (W8EFA @ Dec. 19 2007,21:35)]Quote[/b] (KL1ZB @ Dec. 20 2007,19:40)]Quote[/b] (W8EFA @ Dec. 19 2007,16:45)]Quote[/b] ] don't mean to be a buzz kill but a small little game called Halo ran on a PPC mac, looooonng before it ran on an X-Box or a PC...

O yea, The Sims, DOOM 3, Unreal 2004, Quake 4, Medal of Honor just to name a few.

So chew on that!

O no's Microsoft writes Office for the Mac, so what...

Don't worry you're not. #

Any claim that Mac is a better platform because more stuff is written for it is darn funny. http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif

Anyway you need to get your facts straight
Quote[/b] ]On July 21, 1999, during the Macworld Conference & Expo, Steve Jobs announced that Halo would be released for Mac OS and Windows simultaneously.

Microsoft then bought Bungie (HALO developers) in 2000. #MS is a lot more involved with Halo and games in general since own the XBOX platform than Apple.
My facts HA!, your funny

Here is that video of Steve jobs in 1999 with halo running on a PPC Mac. If you are not happy with this I can dig up an even earlier dev video of Halo on Mac

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c2RVje3MyhQ

So why don't YOU check your facts.
The FACT is it was released for the Mac and the PC simultaneously . #Maybe you need to look up the word simultaneously to understand what it means. #So you were WRONG saying it was developed and only ran on the Mac at first. I am guessing you must be about 13 years old?

Quote[/b] ]On July 21, 1999, during the Macworld Conference & Expo, Steve Jobs announced that Halo would be released for Mac OS and Windows simultaneously
Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Halo:_Combat_Evolved#_note-ignpreview)

It was actually released for Windows first
Quote[/b] ]On July 12, 2002, a Halo port for Windows was announced to be under development by Gearbox Software It was released on September 30, 2003.

Halo was later released for Mac OS X on December 11, 2003.

Actually they were originally going to release it for the Mac because the developer actually stated that the PC market was much bigger and competetive and the Mac market was so #lame and not competetive.

Quote[/b] ]Yeah, I grew up on the Apple II and then the Mac," says Jason, "I wrote all this C code for PCs though, before I even went to school. This was the heyday of PCs, with Wing Commander and stuff. The PC market was really cutthroat, but the Mac market was all friendly and lame. So it was easier to compete."

Bungie Site (http://www.bungie.net/Inside/content.aspx?link=HistoryOfBungie_p1)

Hope you enjoy your dinner of crow.
I'm telling you again you need to check your facts. You stated that Halo was "released" for windows first not me.... I never stated otherwise and I'm not even arguing that point. You need to re-read my original post because my statement still stands and I quote....

"I don't mean to be a buzz kill but a small little game called Halo ran on a PPC mac, looooonng before it ran on an X-Box or a PC..."
It was originally developed ON the Mac.

I find it funny that your so wrapped up in your own FUD that you jump at any chance to try and discredit someone that has differing views.

KI4PEQ

12-21-2007, 06:16 AM

Quote[/b] (W8EFA @ Dec. 20 2007,10:26)]Most of the available Macintosh software is coded for the old PowerPC chips which #means #they are not compatible with the newest, Intel-based Mac computers. Apple's temporary solution for this problem is their #emulator called "Rosetta." Why would you want to run #Mac applications in an emulation mode? ##An emulator is traditionally a poor solution to a serious problem. An emulator will never allow for the serious user to be productive, whether it's running an entire operating system or simply one application. For example, would you want to run Office .X for Mac in emulation mode? Absolutely not.

The only software that runs natively #on the new Intel Mac is certain software made by Apple itself, and that is a very short list. It will take a great deal of time before software vendors make their applications available to run natively on Intel Macs. Examples would be Adobe's many applications, Macromedia's web software, Roxio's CD/DVD burning software, Microsoft's Office suite, and many, many other applications (nearly all, in fact).

Windows has its strengths. More than anything, it has far more available options for enterprise or "business" applications. It also has more options for consumer applications. #The Windows GUI (graphical user interface) has some real advantages over Mac OS X. #95% of users use PC's and for people that are really in the IT industry (not geeks) that is important.

If you are an experienced, sophisticated (non-business individual) user and want to mess with non-standard #to be different or for perceived performance advantages buy a MAC. #If you have to ask, #buy a PC.

The only thing where Mac is better is it is not as open to Virus, Malware, etc and possible stability. #However Vista is an awesome OS IMO and much more secure than older versions. #And bottom line since XP Windows has been very stable.
Sorry station, but it seems that you have been misinformed. It is quite obvious that you know nothing of the current crop of Macintosh software, and stating that nearly all Mac productivity software can only run under emulation is a load of hogwash. Microsoft Office for the Mac is actually a better product than the PC version. And it runs just fine on my Intel Mac, thank you.

New versions of Mac software are being written to where the software can make calls to the operating system in either PPC or Intel, and the software can operate without using Rosetta. You are correct about the Adobe Creative Suite. But you are not correct in your blanket assumption. And if the software that WORKS is written by Apple, so what. #A lot of the software you cite has an Apple equivalent that is compatible with equivalent PC software. I can burn CDs and DVDs without Roxio. Final Cut Pro is making believers out of Avid users every day. If you are a creative person, a Mac is the tool of choice. Of course, if all you want to do is crunch numbers, you will be most happy with a PC..

And yes, all of my MacBooks have both Mac OS X and Windows XP running under Parallels. I can use just about any software on the market, except for PC games calling for heavy graphics. Since I am not a gamer, it is not a problem for me.

Given the choice, I swear by a Mac as opposed to swearing AT a PC. And just in case you haven't noticed, Windows Vista sucks more than my wife's Dyson vacuum. Why do you think that business is still demanding XP machines over a year after Vista's arrival? I'll tell you. Having to replace peripherals just to work with a new operating system costs too much. And many of the PCs on the market pre-loaded with Windows Vista CANNOT be loaded with XP because there are no available drivers for the new peripherals in the computers. Vista = an extremely poor imitation of Mac OS X. At least when you use Mac OS X, when you plug in a new device, the chances of it operating right out of the box are pretty close to a certainty. Try that with any operating system from Microsoft.

WD4CHP

12-21-2007, 01:36 PM

Isn't if interesting that the longer a post goes on, the farther it gets from the origional post and degrades to an online shouting match.

KC2KFC

12-21-2007, 02:51 PM

Quote[/b] (KI4PEQ @ Dec. 20 2007,23:16)]Quote[/b] (W8EFA @ Dec. 20 2007,10:26)]Most of the available Macintosh software is coded for the old PowerPC chips which means they are not compatible with the newest, Intel-based Mac computers. Apple's temporary solution for this problem is their emulator called "Rosetta." Why would you want to run Mac applications in an emulation mode? An emulator is traditionally a poor solution to a serious problem. An emulator will never allow for the serious user to be productive, whether it's running an entire operating system or simply one application. For example, would you want to run Office .X for Mac in emulation mode? Absolutely not.

The only software that runs natively on the new Intel Mac is certain software made by Apple itself, and that is a very short list. It will take a great deal of time before software vendors make their applications available to run natively on Intel Macs. Examples would be Adobe's many applications, Macromedia's web software, Roxio's CD/DVD burning software, Microsoft's Office suite, and many, many other applications (nearly all, in fact).

Windows has its strengths. More than anything, it has far more available options for enterprise or "business" applications. It also has more options for consumer applications. The Windows GUI (graphical user interface) has some real advantages over Mac OS X. 95% of users use PC's and for people that are really in the IT industry (not geeks) that is important.

If you are an experienced, sophisticated (non-business individual) user and want to mess with non-standard to be different or for perceived performance advantages buy a MAC. If you have to ask, buy a PC.

The only thing where Mac is better is it is not as open to Virus, Malware, etc and possible stability. However Vista is an awesome OS IMO and much more secure than older versions. And bottom line since XP Windows has been very stable.
Sorry station, but it seems that you have been misinformed. It is quite obvious that you know nothing of the current crop of Macintosh software, and stating that nearly all Mac productivity software can only run under emulation is a load of hogwash. Microsoft Office for the Mac is actually a better product than the PC version. And it runs just fine on my Intel Mac, thank you.

New versions of Mac software are being written to where the software can make calls to the operating system in either PPC or Intel, and the software can operate without using Rosetta. You are correct about the Adobe Creative Suite. But you are not correct in your blanket assumption. And if the software that WORKS is written by Apple, so what. A lot of the software you cite has an Apple equivalent that is compatible with equivalent PC software. I can burn CDs and DVDs without Roxio. Final Cut Pro is making believers out of Avid users every day. If you are a creative person, a Mac is the tool of choice. Of course, if all you want to do is crunch numbers, you will be most happy with a PC..

And yes, all of my MacBooks have both Mac OS X and Windows XP running under Parallels. I can use just about any software on the market, except for PC games calling for heavy graphics. Since I am not a gamer, it is not a problem for me.

Given the choice, I swear by a Mac as opposed to swearing AT a PC. And just in case you haven't noticed, Windows Vista sucks more than my wife's Dyson vacuum. Why do you think that business is still demanding XP machines over a year after Vista's arrival? I'll tell you. Having to replace peripherals just to work with a new operating system costs too much. And many of the PCs on the market pre-loaded with Windows Vista CANNOT be loaded with XP because there are no available drivers for the new peripherals in the computers. Vista = an extremely poor imitation of Mac OS X. At least when you use Mac OS X, when you plug in a new device, the chances of it operating right out of the box are pretty close to a certainty. Try that with any operating system from Microsoft.
Actually those aren't Bill's words. You can read the entire article he "quoted" from here (http://www.epinions.com/content_4657881220).

From the link Quote[/b] ]For starters, almost all of the available Macintosh software is coded for the PowerPC chips. This means that they are not compatible with the newest, Intel-based Mac computers. Apple has a temporary solution for this problem, and it is an emulator that it calls "Rosetta." Do I want to run my Mac applications in emulation mode? Absolutely not. Certain demonstrations have concluded that running Mac applications in Rosetta is possible, perhaps even practical. But I have used Virtual PC, an emulator for running Windows on top of Mac OS X, and I can tell you that an emulator is a poor solution to a serious problem. It's all about productivity, and an emulator will never allow for the serious user to be productive, whether it's running an entire operating system or simply one application. For example, would I want to run Office .X for Mac in emulation mode? Absolutely not.

ve3sre

12-21-2007, 03:59 PM

Unless there is something that you have to use your computer for that is very "Windows-specific" and/or "Mac specific", the cheapest and IMHO best solution is to use a PC running a version of GNU/Linux. BTW, you can run some versions of GNU/Linux on a Mac too.

BTW, I don't think that most people "have" to run Microsoft Office for their office productivity uses. Open Office does the job fine for most people. IBM also now has a free "cross platform" office suite called "Symphony". As well Google is moving alot of office tasks to the web with their "Google Apps"...and so that becomes another option for people with light office tasks to perform on their computer.

GNU/Linux will allow you to keep using your old hardware for a much longer period of time. The hardware requirements for Windows Vista require most folks to purchase a brand new computer just to get any kind of decent performance out of it...and it also quite often means purchasing new hardware due to driver issues.

Driver support for GNU/Linux keeps improving and in fact I'd say that at this stage of the game it's much better than hardware support for Vista.

Most versions of GNU/Linux are free as in "free beer" along with the applications. That also means that when you want/need to upgrade your operating system/software applications those upgrades are also free. If you use one of the versions of GNU/Linux that costs money (i.e. SLED, RHEL, Xandros, Linspire) it's a whole lot cheaper than Windows.

Quite frankly, alot of the Windows applications etc. that folks use in the home are pirated. That means if your system gets hosed you spend your time hunting around for additional pirated CD's and pirated serial numbers...often of questionable origin. In the GNU/Linux world you never have to worry about this...and if you do "toast" your system you can always bring it up in "emergency" mode using a "Live CD".

The "free as in freedom" liberates you from this whole treadmill of proprietary software. You're always completely free to copy and legally re-distribute free software licensed under the GPL and other free software licenses. If you're very geeky and have the skills you're completely free even to modify that software and release it to the public. That's something you'll never get using proprietary software.

Microsoft and Apple might argue the technical merits of this or that software programme, but they will never argue that they give you more freedom than GNU/Linux (and FreeBSD)...because they don't and never will.

73

W8EFA

12-21-2007, 04:34 PM

From KI4PEQ (another Mac WHACK)
Quote[/b] ]Sorry station, but it seems that you have been misinformed. It is quite obvious that you know nothing of the current crop of Macintosh software, and stating that nearly all Mac productivity software can only run under emulation is a load of hogwash. Microsoft Office for the Mac is actually a better product than the PC version. And it runs just fine on my Intel Mac, thank you.

New versions of Mac software are being written to where the software can make calls to the operating system in either PPC or Intel, and the software can operate without using Rosetta. You are correct about the Adobe Creative Suite. But you are not correct in your blanket assumption. And if the software that WORKS is written by Apple, so what. #A lot of the software you cite has an Apple equivalent that is compatible with equivalent PC software. #I can burn CDs and DVDs without Roxio. Final Cut Pro is making believers out of Avid users every day. If you are a creative person, a Mac is the tool of choice. Of course, if all you want to do is crunch numbers, you will be most happy with a PC..

And yes, all of my MacBooks have both Mac OS X and Windows XP running under Parallels. I can use just about any software on the market, except for PC games calling for heavy graphics. Since I am not a gamer, it is not a problem for me.

Given the choice, I swear by a Mac as opposed to swearing AT a PC. And just in case you haven't noticed, Windows Vista sucks more than my wife's Dyson vacuum. Why do you think that business is still demanding XP machines over a year after Vista's arrival? I'll tell you. Having to replace peripherals just to work with a new operating system costs too much. And many of the PCs on the market pre-loaded with Windows Vista CANNOT be loaded with XP because there are no available drivers for the new peripherals in the computers. Vista = an extremely poor imitation of Mac OS X. At least when you use Mac OS X, when you plug in a new device, the chances of it operating right out of the box are pretty close to a certainty. Try that with any operating system from Microsoft.

All you are doing is spinning. #I especially like your statement "Microsoft Office for the Mac is actually a better product than the PC version. And it runs just fine on my Intel Mac, thank you." #That is just hilarious. #Thank God Microsoft wrote office otherwise what would you Mac users do? http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/tounge.gif

You can spin all you want but most of Apps won't run on a MAC. #Take Ham Radio software logging. #They ALL are for the PC, I think maybe 1 is for the Mac. # Whether it is a PC or #a Mac you BUY IT TO RUN APPLICATIONS!#Unless you need a specialized app like Quark it is a bad decision to buy a Mac. #

I can build a PC - you can't build a Mac, #you have to buy one of their already put together over priced machines. #I can build (and have) a PC that will blow away any Mac for a lot less money. #

There is a reason Business is 98% PC.

And your statement "Given the choice, I swear by a Mac as opposed to swearing AT a PC. And just in case you haven't noticed, Windows Vista sucks more than my wife's Dyson vacuum" means nothing as you are not an IT person, or an expert, nor are you familiar with Vista as you #haven't used it. #Just another Mac whack that thinks they are cool and different and don't really have a clue about the industry.

I will stick with what I can get software for, is a good value, and is extremely stable now, #and that is Vista. #I think it is funny that Macs now run Intel so they can survive.

KA8NCR

12-22-2007, 03:16 PM

Quote[/b] (W8EFA @ Dec. 21 2007,09:34)]
Quote[/b] ]
And your statement "Given the choice, I swear by a Mac as opposed to swearing AT a PC. And just in case you haven't noticed, Windows Vista sucks more than my wife's Dyson vacuum" means nothing as you are not an IT person, or an expert, nor are you familiar with Vista as you haven't used it. Just another Mac whack that thinks they are cool and different and don't really have a clue about the industry.

Oh I think it means a lot. It means that the retail computer buyer is a lot more educated and possibly jaded by Microsoft's past practices and therefore, the company is unable to put forth smooth marketing slogans such as "The Wow Starts Now" to get people to buy.

Failure in the marketplace is a pretty good indicator that "Vista sucks". Why is it failing? To begin, because Microsoft wants nearly $400 for what they advertise as the "wow", and if you don't have top of the line hardware, you get pretty much another desktop designed by someone who thinks up cute names for dot-com companies. But worse is the absolute deception that was played upon consumers with the "Vista Ready" nonsense. Turns out, they didn't tell you which of the many flavors of Vista for which the considered it ready. This isn't 1995, computer users are a lot more educated and they do get it.

I don't want to get into the Mac/PC debate, I think it's stupid and unnecessary. I use both, I see strengths and weaknesses in both and certainly Apple isn't above being stupid. It doesn't matter that the other gentleman isn't an expert, he and millions like him have rejected Microsoft's offering for a variety of reasons.

W8EFA

12-22-2007, 05:41 PM

No it doesn't mean anything when the poster is a stated Mac bigot that even has a line trashing Microsoft in his signature.

Vista has gotten an unfair bad rap because a number of reasons.
1. There are a lot of stupid users that try to run 64 Bit Vista on old Hardware
2. XP was a great OS after service pack 2 so it will take time before people want to move. That is not Vistas fault
3. People love to bash the king even though usually they don't know what they are talking about. They are usually not in the IT industry or are Geeks that don't understand business.
4. Vista not successful? Last I heard over 100 Million copies have been sold. You call that Failure? There are probably more copies sold of Vista in a month than Mac OS in a lifetime

Vista is a very good operating system as long as you have the correct hardware. It will become much more powerful as Apps are re-written for it and 2 years from now everyone will be running it.

Again the OS just runs Applications and the Mac is lacking because once again they don't have enough market share.

Macs suck Video (http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-8628889635797150249)

KA8NCR

12-22-2007, 11:39 PM

Quote[/b] (W8EFA @ Dec. 22 2007,10:41)]
Quote[/b] ]
No it doesn't mean anything when the poster is a stated Mac bigot that even has a line trashing Microsoft in his signature.

So what, why does it bother you? They guy is passionate about his Mac, just as you appear to be passionate about Vista or XP.

Quote[/b] ]
Vista has gotten an unfair bad rap because a number of reasons.
1. There are a lot of stupid users that try to run 64 Bit Vista on old Hardware

Exactly, see my previous post about all the different versions of Vista and the whole "Vista Ready" campaign. Add to it the need for top drawer hardware and I can see how people are confused, mislead and entirely pissed off.

I'm always pissed off when the feature advertised isn't contained in the version I purchase, and that difference is noted in a 3 point italic font on the lower right hand panel just underneath "Printed in USA".

Quote[/b] ]
3. People love to bash the king even though usually they don't know what they are talking about. They are usually not in the IT industry or are Geeks that don't understand business.

They're customers, they know what they like and they also know how they perceive their treatment. That's all that matters to them. Perception is reality in the mind of the consumer, and Microsoft hasn't done a good job there.

Quote[/b] ]
4. Vista not successful? Last I heard over 100 Million copies have been sold. You call that Failure? There are probably more copies sold of Vista in a month than Mac OS in a lifetime

I call it a failure because people are still asking for XP. No one in the press has had anything good to say about it, and my own experience with it is quite underwhelming. It is what it is; another version of Windows, just like in two days I'll get another version of slippers.

I was pretty impressed by OS X 10.5, but in using it for the past month, it's definitely developed some tarnish too. Coverflow is nice, but what have they done to my G4 with this beast?

Quote[/b] ]
Vista is a very good operating system as long as you have the correct hardware. It will become much more powerful as Apps are re-written for it and 2 years from now everyone will be running it.

Again, which wasn't disclosed in the myriad of flavors of Vista. And Vista is not a good excuse to run out and buy new $1500 hardware and that's one of the reasons for slow uptake. People don't see the value.

Quote[/b] ]
Again the OS just runs Applications and the Mac is lacking because once again they don't have enough market share.

So you don't like Linux or FreeBSD either? You're a qualified IT/geek, I would think you would see merits of those operating systems.

KL1ZB

12-30-2007, 12:25 PM

Quote[/b] (KL1ZB @ Dec. 19 2007,14:08)]Quote[/b] (W8EFA @ Dec. 19 2007,11:19)]For a comparison try to put the newest MAC OS on a 3 year old MAC - can't even be done
Really!!!! Well thats funny because I am doing it now on stock G5 hardware that was released almost 4 years ago, no upgraded ram, no new video card, etc the same system as the day the hardware was released with out any problems.
Well troll, you said it can't be done.

Well I'm typing this on another system(G4 this time) that is running 10.5 and is 3 years old.

I thought you said it couldn't be done???

KI4PEQ

01-06-2008, 09:37 AM

Quote[/b] (W8EFA @ Dec. 21 2007,10:34)]From KI4PEQ (another Mac WHACK)
Quote[/b] ]Sorry station, but it seems that you have been misinformed. It is quite obvious that you know nothing of the current crop of Macintosh software, and stating that nearly all Mac productivity software can only run under emulation is a load of hogwash. Microsoft Office for the Mac is actually a better product than the PC version. And it runs just fine on my Intel Mac, thank you.

New versions of Mac software are being written to where the software can make calls to the operating system in either PPC or Intel, and the software can operate without using Rosetta. You are correct about the Adobe Creative Suite. But you are not correct in your blanket assumption. And if the software that WORKS is written by Apple, so what. #A lot of the software you cite has an Apple equivalent that is compatible with equivalent PC software. #I can burn CDs and DVDs without Roxio. Final Cut Pro is making believers out of Avid users every day. If you are a creative person, a Mac is the tool of choice. Of course, if all you want to do is crunch numbers, you will be most happy with a PC..

And yes, all of my MacBooks have both Mac OS X and Windows XP running under Parallels. I can use just about any software on the market, except for PC games calling for heavy graphics. Since I am not a gamer, it is not a problem for me.

Given the choice, I swear by a Mac as opposed to swearing AT a PC. And just in case you haven't noticed, Windows Vista sucks more than my wife's Dyson vacuum. Why do you think that business is still demanding XP machines over a year after Vista's arrival? I'll tell you. Having to replace peripherals just to work with a new operating system costs too much. And many of the PCs on the market pre-loaded with Windows Vista CANNOT be loaded with XP because there are no available drivers for the new peripherals in the computers. Vista = an extremely poor imitation of Mac OS X. At least when you use Mac OS X, when you plug in a new device, the chances of it operating right out of the box are pretty close to a certainty. Try that with any operating system from Microsoft.

All you are doing is spinning. #I especially like your statement "Microsoft Office for the Mac is actually a better product than the PC version. And it runs just fine on my Intel Mac, thank you." #That is just hilarious. #Thank God Microsoft wrote office otherwise what would you Mac users do? http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/tounge.gif

You can spin all you want but most of Apps won't run on a MAC. #Take Ham Radio software logging. #They ALL are for the PC, I think maybe 1 is for the Mac. # Whether it is a PC or #a Mac you BUY IT TO RUN APPLICATIONS!#Unless you need a specialized app like Quark it is a bad decision to buy a Mac. #

I can build a PC - you can't build a Mac, #you have to buy one of their already put together over priced machines. #I can build (and have) a PC that will blow away any Mac for a lot less money. #

There is a reason Business is 98% PC.

And your statement "Given the choice, I swear by a Mac as opposed to swearing AT a PC. And just in case you haven't noticed, Windows Vista sucks more than my wife's Dyson vacuum" means nothing as you are not an IT person, or an expert, nor are you familiar with Vista as you #haven't used it. #Just another Mac whack that thinks they are cool and different and don't really have a clue about the industry.

I will stick with what I can get software for, is a good value, and is extremely stable now, #and that is Vista. #I think it is funny that Macs now run Intel so they can survive.
Not an IT person....

I guess the Novell certifications and the degree in Computer Network Administration I got after leaving the service is just wallpaper in my shack.

Oh, I don't have MICROSOFT certification....that's what makes me stupid!
Never needed it as I was semi-retired at the time, am fully retired now, and have no plans on resuming a second career in IT. I guess all of the Ethernet cabling in my house, the hardware and software that makes my home network of fourteen computers run was put in by the IT fairy.

Not my opinion about Office for the Mac, look it up. A lot of people feel the same way. And there are other Office compatible software packages that would run on my Macs if Microsoft pulled the plug (which they won't. They make too much money on them)

No ham radio logging software for the Mac? Tell that to the users of Dog Park Software's Mac Logger DX.

I HAVE used Vista. It sucks. The machine went back as all of the peripherals installed had no drivers written for XP. There are fourteen computers in my house, four of them Windows boxes, two of which I built myself. They are all networked, share files and printers with the Macs, and no problems encountered.

The Windows boxes run my weather station, my daughter's gaming platform (she loves the Sims) and the programming software for my Yaesu handheld. That's about it. My Intel Macs run XP and OS X simultaneously, and I can drag and drop between platforms at will.

You're just another Bill Gates acolyte who has consumed too much Redmond Kool-Aid, a typical Windows wanker, and your attitude towards anything from Cupertino shows.

Next time you make assumptions about someone, you should make sure you have all your stuff in one sock.

Wizards Of The Coast (http://www.wizards.com/)

These folks made some very popular video games, and wrote them on Macintosh computers. I can attest to that as three of the G4 Macs I have still have the Wizards Of The Coast property tags on the front panel. I bought them when they upgraded their hardware.

They bought more Mac machines. http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif

KL1ZB

01-06-2008, 12:27 PM

Quote[/b] (KI4PEQ @ Jan. 05 2008,03:37)]No ham radio logging software for the Mac? Tell that to the users of Dog Park Software's Mac Logger DX.
Don't forget RUMlog for DX logging

http://www.dl2rum.de/rumsoft/RUMLog.html

AND

Aether

http://www.aetherlog.com/

AND

jLog

http://jlog.org/

He still hasn't answered my comment about his claim that you can't install 10.5 on any machine that is 3 years old...

w2nsf

01-06-2008, 02:00 PM

Wait a minute...You're a ham, right?
I have two words for you:

MacLoggerDX

cocoaModem

These are the best two pieces of ham radio software, regardless of platform...and they run on a Mac.
But, please, don't believe me, just check them out for yourself.
Thank you. 73 Jim

w2nsf

01-06-2008, 02:09 PM

Boy, now that the Code vs. No Code thing is dead, might as well revamp the Mac vs. PC thing, eh what?

Oh, by the way: I'm running the semi-latest MacOS X (Tiger, 10.4.11) on a TEN-YEAR-OLD MACINTOSH (Yosemite G3 Blue & White tower)...and it works GREAT!!

So there!! http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/tounge.gif http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif

KA8NCR

01-07-2008, 01:55 AM

Quote[/b] (w2nsf @ Jan. 06 2008,07:09)]Boy, now that the Code vs. No Code thing is dead, might as well revamp the Mac vs. PC thing, eh what?

Oh, by the way: I'm running the semi-latest MacOS X (Tiger, 10.4.11) on a TEN-YEAR-OLD MACINTOSH (Yosemite G3 Blue & White tower)...and it works GREAT!!

So there!! http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/tounge.gif http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif
Please don't...

KL1ZB

01-07-2008, 02:00 AM

Quote[/b] (w2nsf @ Jan. 05 2008,08:09)]Boy, now that the Code vs. No Code thing is dead, might as well revamp the Mac vs. PC thing, eh what?

Oh, by the way: I'm running the semi-latest MacOS X (Tiger, 10.4.11) on a TEN-YEAR-OLD MACINTOSH (Yosemite G3 Blue & White tower)...and it works GREAT!!

So there!! #http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/tounge.gif http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif
Well W8EFA...

Please give us and example of Vista Ultimate running well on 10 or even 8 year old hardware. After all, Microsoft is better then Apple so you should not have any problems showing us.

KL1ZB

01-07-2008, 02:04 AM

Quote[/b] (w2nsf @ Jan. 05 2008,08:00)]Wait a minute...You're a ham, right?
I have two words for you:

# # MacLoggerDX

# # cocoaModem

These are the best two pieces of ham radio software, regardless of platform...and they run on a Mac.
But, please, don't believe me, just check them out for yourself.
Thank you. 73 Jim
He can't because W8EFA hasn't used a Mac for more then 5 hours in the last 10 years. http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif

K1MDC

01-09-2008, 09:51 AM

Quote[/b] (KL1ZB @ Dec. 19 2007,18:31)]It will run Windows: I have no idea why you would WANT to run windows.
Apparently, you don't like to play video games on your computer. A quick glance at the game aisle of the local Mac store shows that for gaming, OS X is about two years behind Windows. Linux by itself is even more pathetic. Fans of both platforms are quick to defend their beloved platforms meager game offerings, but there's no denying that games are not strong points for either Linux or OS X.

I've found no emulation software that allows the native use of 3d graphics accelerators yet. I've heard people make some mighty claims but haven't seen anything that works. The closest thing to it is Winex (or as it's now called Cedega), that allows some of the newest games to be played on Linux. I've used it and although it works well, the programs don't run as fast as they do natively. Plus, the compatibility with software isn't always up to snuff.

I've never understood why Steve Jobs is so dead set against supporting gaming on Mac. He makes lofty platitudes about how games will be supported, then nothing happens. He's often referred to the personal computer as "a bicycle for your mind", an appropriate metaphor indeed. Apparently, he doesn't think that people should be riding bicycles for fun.

PS: I like Windows XP. It's a fine, stable OS. It's the first OS I've bought from MS, and not felt like I'd been ripped off. But, I'd like to go on the record saying that Vista sucks. It sucks hard. I've used it on a new laptop that I purchased, and on a multimedia machine that I hook up to my TV. It's a buggy piece of crap. After installing it on a machine that ran Windows XP quite stable, many of the hardware devices that I used (a bluetooth controller, PCI wireless card, rf remote control, wireless keyboard, sound card, USB Hard drive) were not compatible with Vista, and either Vista would simply not recognize them, or in the case of the USB Hard drive, would only connect to the device in a fallback USB 1.1 mode (which pretty much makes a 500Gb drive absolutely worthless). The ONLY good thing I have to say about it is that they included the DVD codec, so you don't have to buy and install a third party codec like you do with XP. That's it. Oh, and the laptop that had Vista installed on it when I got it? It's had hardware issues with Vista as well, particularly with the wireless networking interface. DON'T UPGRADE TO VISTA FOR ANY REASON.

KL1ZB

01-09-2008, 08:14 PM

Quote[/b] (K1MDC @ Jan. 08 2008,03:51)]Quote[/b] (KL1ZB @ Dec. 19 2007,18:31)]It will run Windows: I have no idea why you would WANT to run windows.
Apparently, you don't like to play video games on your computer. A quick glance at the game aisle of the local Mac store shows that for gaming, OS X is about two years behind Windows. Linux by itself is even more pathetic. Fans of both platforms are quick to defend their beloved platforms meager game offerings, but there's no denying that games are not strong points for either Linux or OS X.

I've found no emulation software that allows the native use of 3d graphics accelerators yet. I've heard people make some mighty claims but haven't seen anything that works. The closest thing to it is Winex (or as it's now called Cedega), that allows some of the newest games to be played on Linux. I've used it and although it works well, the programs don't run as fast as they do natively. Plus, the compatibility with software isn't always up to snuff.

I've never understood why Steve Jobs is so dead set against supporting gaming on Mac. He makes lofty platitudes about how games will be supported, then nothing happens. He's often referred to the personal computer as "a bicycle for your mind", an appropriate metaphor indeed. Apparently, he doesn't think that people should be riding bicycles for fun.

PS: I like Windows XP. It's a fine, stable OS. It's the first OS I've bought from MS, and not felt like I'd been ripped off. But, I'd like to go on the record saying that Vista sucks. It sucks hard. I've used it on a new laptop that I purchased, and on a multimedia machine that I hook up to my TV. It's a buggy piece of crap. After installing it on a machine that ran Windows XP quite stable, many of the hardware devices that I used (a bluetooth controller, PCI wireless card, rf remote control, wireless keyboard, sound card, USB Hard drive) were not compatible with Vista, and either Vista would simply not recognize them, or in the case of the USB Hard drive, would only connect to the device in a fallback USB 1.1 mode (which pretty much makes a 500Gb drive absolutely worthless). The ONLY good thing I have to say about it is that they included the DVD codec, so you don't have to buy and install a third party codec like you do with XP. That's it. Oh, and the laptop that had Vista installed on it when I got it? It's had hardware issues with Vista as well, particularly with the wireless networking interface. DON'T UPGRADE TO VISTA FOR ANY REASON.
If I want to play games I will use My PS3, Wii or maybe if I was really desperate buy a Xbox360.

Apple has done alot for gaming. They support a open audio and graphic rendering standard(OpenGL and OpenAL), Microsoft pushes their closed DirectX "standard" this means you are locked in or have to maintain to sets of render code at the very least. Even with Apples small market share, don't you think that game makers would want to sell to the Mac Market or even the Linux market if they could? Because of DirectX they can't easily do that without spending lots of time and money on a major code re-write.