| Author |
Message |
    
Monster©
Supporter
Username: Monster
Post Number: 2787
Registered: 7-2002
| | Posted on Wednesday, April 12, 2006 - 6:45 pm: | 
|
sheesh, I take a break for a few days...
about the comment above about not much software available for Macs
as opposed to the small amount of software only available for Macs
riiigghhttt.... I suppose that the thousands and thousands of applications available right now for OS X just isn't enough, just how much is needed?
There's already over 12,000 apps available for OS X users, I don't think I will be using them all any time soon, at the moment I have 477 apps in my applications folder, 106 in my utilities folder, and a few scattered about here and there. |
Eponymous
Citizen
Username: Eponymous
Post Number: 176
Registered: 6-2004
| | Posted on Wednesday, April 12, 2006 - 11:25 pm: |
|
Part of the idea that seems valid to me is that there are a lot of potential Mac users who need Windows for one or two apps. They would happily use BootCamp or the like to avoid buying a Windows box. Likewise many places have one or two Windows boxes around so that they can run one particular piece of software. Eliminate the need for the Windows box, and it's a win for Apple.
Running windows on a mac isn't the same as running OS X on a Windows machine. That may appear obvious but it's worth keeping in mind. OS X sells the hardware and the hardware control makes it easier for Apple to keep OS X so nice. MicroSoft has lots of difficulties because the OS must run on so many different hardware configs. |
Dogbert
Citizen
Username: Dogbert
Post Number: 61
Registered: 1-2006
| | Posted on Thursday, April 13, 2006 - 7:17 am: |
|
Why is it a big advantage not to have to buy a Windows box? Windows boxes are cheap, and the alternatives are undesirable. You have to shut down your Mac OS to use Windows under Boot Camp and virtualization imposes a permanent performance burden (although one that may not be felt by most users). Or you could just get a second computer (one that costs a lot less than the Mac you already have).
I wouldn't make predictions about the long-term for Apple, but Boot Camp is insignificant. |
Eponymous
Citizen
Username: Eponymous
Post Number: 177
Registered: 6-2004
| | Posted on Thursday, April 13, 2006 - 9:35 am: |
|
Dogbert,
I should think it would be obvious why not having to buy a second computer is an advantage, especially for Windows boxes with their many potential configurations.
It's an obvious benefit if you have a shop full of Macs not to have to buy one or two windows boxes just to run, say, an accounting program.
As for cost of a new Windows box, compare it to a Mini and I don't think you'll find it's "a lot less." |
Alleygater
Citizen
Username: Alleygater
Post Number: 1717
Registered: 10-2004
| | Posted on Thursday, April 13, 2006 - 12:14 pm: |
|
Where were you guys a few days ago when TomD and I were going at it?
TTTTttthhhhhaaaannnnkkksssss...... |
Dogbert
Citizen
Username: Dogbert
Post Number: 62
Registered: 1-2006
| | Posted on Thursday, April 13, 2006 - 1:09 pm: |
|
>>As for cost of a new Windows box, compare it to a Mini and I don't think you'll find it's "a lot less."
Apple Mini, per store.apple.com
512MB 667 DDR2 SDRAM - 2x256
60GB Serial ATA drive
Combo Drive
Mac OS X - U.S. English
1.5GHz Intel Core Solo
Intel GMA950 graphics
Accessory kit
(no keyboard, no mouse, no display, 90 days support, one year warranty)
$599
Dell Dimension B110
Intel® Celeron® D Processor 325 (2.53 GHz, 533 FSB)
Windows® XP Home Edition
512MB DDR SDRAM at 400MHz
160GB Ultra ATA/100 7200RPM Hard Drive
Single Drive: 16X CD/DVD burner (DVD+/-RW) w/double layer write capability
17 inch E773 (16 inch viewable) Conventional CRT
Dell A215 Speakers
Dell USB Keyboard and Dell 2-button Scroll Mouse
1Yr Ltd Warranty, 1Yr At-Home Service, and 1Yr HW Warranty Support
6 Months of America Online Membership Included
56K PCI Data Fax Modem
Integrated 10/100 Ethernet
Integrated Intel® Extreme Graphics 2
$359
And you can do better than Dell. This is just the first one I checked. |
Alleygater
Citizen
Username: Alleygater
Post Number: 1723
Registered: 10-2004
| | Posted on Thursday, April 13, 2006 - 1:26 pm: |
|
Dogbert, do you really want two boxes on your desk? All those cables and peripherals. I most certainly don't. In fact I don't want a Windows box at all. P.U. However, next time I need a piece of Windows software (the last time was a few years ago, I wanted to run the Ikea Kitchen Builder software) I might boot up into XP. I also MOST CERTAINLY don't want to spend an additional $350 for this functionality. |
Rastro
Citizen
Username: Rastro
Post Number: 2866
Registered: 5-2004
| | Posted on Thursday, April 13, 2006 - 1:27 pm: |
|
I don't think it's reasonable to compare a Core Solo to a Celeron. I believe a Core SOlo is essentially a Pentium M. A 1.5Ghz pentium M is superior to a Celraon, even one running at 2.5 Ghz.
But I do agree you get more with the Dell system. |
Dave
Supporter
Username: Dave
Post Number: 9215
Registered: 4-1997
| | Posted on Thursday, April 13, 2006 - 3:18 pm: |
|
The myth of cheap hardware.
Any of my Macs have lasted 3x as long as any of my PCs. I still keep a PC for one application I need and whenever I use that app I rush through the work as fast as possible to get off the dang thing.
So Boot Camp sounds good to me. No waste of hardware, no waste of space, no waste of money.
ymmv |
Dogbert
Citizen
Username: Dogbert
Post Number: 63
Registered: 1-2006
| | Posted on Thursday, April 13, 2006 - 3:28 pm: |
|
Alley: Core Solo is the new Celeron, and will be marketed under the Celeron M name. It has a single core and similar performance on a clock speed basis to conventional Celerons; the advantages are in cost and power consumption, the latter being largely a non-issue on a desktop. I would expect the performance of the 2.53GHz Celeron to be about 5/3 that of the 1.5GHz Core Solo. In other words, Macs are still overpriced.
And as a matter of fact, I have about 6 computers on/under my desk. |
Alleygater
Citizen
Username: Alleygater
Post Number: 1726
Registered: 10-2004
| | Posted on Thursday, April 13, 2006 - 4:32 pm: |
|
Dogbert, that highly techie reply about chips and what not was directed toward Rastro right? I don't have clue between a 386 and peanut, let alone a celeryon. Although they were pretty bad-azzed in Battlestar Galactica with that creepy eye.
You also are in the minority regarding the 6 computers. Most people don't want that cluttering their lives. I do have to ask you though. How many of those computers do you actually use? Willingly? |
Eponymous
Citizen
Username: Eponymous
Post Number: 178
Registered: 6-2004
| | Posted on Thursday, April 13, 2006 - 5:11 pm: |
|
Let's not turn this into a Mac v. Wintel thread. The vast majority of people want one machine and one machine only. If you consider Mac users the target audience for this Mac software, it makes great sense. If you consider Windows users who would switch, but for that one piece of software, it also makes great sense. If you consider power Windows users, it doesn't make sense.
(I won't even comment on the mini-B110 comparison.  ) |
Eponymous
Citizen
Username: Eponymous
Post Number: 179
Registered: 6-2004
| | Posted on Thursday, April 13, 2006 - 5:15 pm: |
|
Core Solo is the new Celeron, and will be marketed under the Celeron M name.
The webpage you link to seems to show both the Celeron M and Core Solo, that is, they're different chips.
So does this table from Intel. |
Andrew N de la Torre
Citizen
Username: Delatorre
Post Number: 452
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, April 17, 2006 - 9:29 pm: |
|
I think bootcamp will be a good thing for Apple users. Hopefully Apple will make more like Virtual PC negating the need for rebooting. There shouldn't be any performance hit as there won't be hardware emulation. Must admit, been using a Mac since 1990. Went to Windows 1995-1997, but went right back. Currently use Citrix client on a Mac for server applications, no problems.
As server based applications become more prevalent, Windows becomes less relevant. Most Linux based server applications work very well on a Mac.
At our Medical school and Hospital, IT spends way too much time trouble shooting Dell computers. Of the folks using Macs (Biomedical reseachers tend to use alot of Macs) rarely ever an issue with drivers, corrupted files or viruses, however very common on the Windows side.
Bootcamp provides options in terms of accessing Windows only server applications not available through Citrix or MS RDC and continue working when Windows starts to hiccup.
Overall a good thing for Apple users.
As far Unix/Linux, many many applications recompiled and runable on MacOSX. GIMP (freephotoshop) and OpenOffice (free MS office) are quite good |
SJA Molinet
Citizen
Username: Azabaxe
Post Number: 1
Registered: 4-2006
| | Posted on Tuesday, April 18, 2006 - 7:06 am: |
|
First time here. I'm a long time Mac user who has to suffer Windows at work. I'm glad that now Macs have the ability to run Windows apps natively. For me that means that I can use that ONE awful PC application absolutely necessary for work and then go on with my life being productive with OSX without having to dedicate any time to troubleshooting.
Above someone was arguing that now that Macs can run Windows natively, a reason to develop software for OSX is made moot. That person is obviously not a Mac person. Adobe ignored Mac users when they decided to allow Premiere to atrophy and Apple came up with Final Cut Pro. All that money is now in Apple's hands. Apple then upped the ante with Aperture, and Adobe got the point. I doubt Adobe will decide that it's only going to develop a Windows version of Photoshop knowing quite well that Apple can come up with viable and/or superior alternative and take over that market quickly.
The other big application is MS Office. Microsoft makes an obscene amount of money with Mac Office. And Microsoft loves money. But just in case, Apple has something called iWork, which can easily be built into a full blown Office-compatible productivity suit.
I think there are small and mid level software companies who won't have the resources to develpo for both Macs and Windows, so they choose Windows. I think those companies made that choice a long time ago.
Lastly, people buy macs to run the Mac OS. No accesibility to Windows is going to change this.
Phew! that was long.... |
kevin
Citizen
Username: Eloso
Post Number: 92
Registered: 12-2004
| | Posted on Tuesday, April 18, 2006 - 8:51 pm: |
|
Microsoft loves bootcamp. Now instead of having windows run on 95% of the worlds PCs it can run on 100%. Wether or not you run Windows on a Mac or a PC you still have to pay microsoft. In fact, microsoft is already working with Apple to make sure that Vista will run on a Mac as well.
Speaking of history - anyone else notice how Apple has gone from total proritary hardware/software to industry standard. Just about the only thing not standard is the one button mouse. As far as I can tell that and a custom bios are the only things that seperate a Mac from a PC these days.
P.S. Reading anything from AlleyGator about Apple is not worth anyone's energy. He/She is so enamoured with the whole company and full of hate for MS that one cannot have a civil nor informed dicussion.
|
Jason McIntosh
Citizen
Username: Ttwizard
Post Number: 22
Registered: 10-2005
| | Posted on Tuesday, April 18, 2006 - 9:31 pm: |
|
Here's my two cents:
Both Windows and the MacOS have their origins in the UNIX world. UNIX is the MOST stable OS you will find, so any discussion about stability is really relative.
Here's where Microsoft and Apple differ:
Apple's OS can only be run on proprietary hardware. As you know, drivers are the the conduits from the OS to the hardware. They allow the OS to communicate with all hardware. The less hardware that is supported, the easier it is for the OS to maintain stability. Secondly, Apple engineers develop many of the drivers used by the hardware that is supported by the Mac OS. This is a wise strategy and I give Apple a lot of credit to sticking to this philosophy.
Windows on the other hand supports a plethora of different hardware. Conflicts arise often because of the fact there are multitude of different hardware options and drivers are NOT necessarily written by Microsoft. You probably seen the message on either Windows 2000/XP - Driver not digitally signed. That's a clear indication that the driver was written by a third party. Microsoft also compensates for these inadequacies with an OS that is top heavy and memory and disk exhaustive.
Apple's strategy is to develop a rock solid OS, but, by way of Boot Camp capture some Windows customers by its' cool looking hardware. One thing to note is that Apple writes the drivers for the Windows OS. This is important. Don't be surprised if you see Boot Camp supporting Linux in the next release. From my standpoint, Apple is laying out a template for multi-boot systems by partnering with Intel rather than going after the Virtualization market.
Microsoft is finally recognizing that it is not a good idea to create a "catch all" OS. The next revision of the OS Vista will come in various flavors - one for business, one for multimedia, etc. This is important. each of these "builds" will achieve better stability because each will be customized for a specific purpose. The business user probably will not have the same needs as the multimedia user and vice versa, so you'll probably won't see as many strange hardware configurations that lead to hiccups.
Both Microsoft and Aplle offer execellent OS's, what differs is the strategy. I have to say Apple has a better strategy at this point.
The big picture - Virtualization will be the big winner. |
Eponymous
Citizen
Username: Eponymous
Post Number: 181
Registered: 6-2004
| | Posted on Tuesday, April 18, 2006 - 11:58 pm: |
|
Jason,
Windows is based on UNIX?
I won't believe any claims about Vista until I see it. Given Microsoft's record, I don't expect great stability or security.
As for Dell computers, I just saw this today. |
Alleygater
Citizen
Username: Alleygater
Post Number: 1768
Registered: 10-2004
| | Posted on Wednesday, April 19, 2006 - 11:16 am: |
|
Kevin wrote: P.S. Reading anything from AlleyGator about Apple is not worth anyone's energy. He/She is so enamoured with the whole company and full of hate for MS that one cannot have a civil nor informed dicussion.
OK this is funny. And if it's true, it's even funnier. Yes, I like my Mac and yes, I think they are doing some great stuff lately (OSX is a monstrous improvement over older mac OSes). Yes, I am proud that Apple is competitive again. But I also am EXTREMELY critical of the computer and the software that I use everyday -- I could name countless things that I think need to be improved still. Sure I'm biased, but I have used both macs and pcs extensively. I am not one of those people who doesn't have intimate first hand knowledge of what I speak about. Yes, I really don't like Microsoft, but that is because their business practices suck and they make software that is not very innovative or it's just rip-off from some other companies.
As a web producer, I find myself constantly irritated by how Microsoft thumbs it's nose at web standards. I think about how they had to create their own version of Java and then were sued to stop using the name Java...it just sickens me. They make my life difficult on a daily basis even when I'm not using a PC. Then there is the fact that I have to recode my pages for that shitey web browser that they make. I'm sorry, I feel fully justified in disliking that company. Why don't you give me some reasons why I SHOULD like them.} |
Tom Reingold
Supporter
Username: Noglider
Post Number: 13748
Registered: 1-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, April 19, 2006 - 4:45 pm: |
|
Both Windows and the MacOS have their origins in the UNIX world. UNIX is the MOST stable OS you will find, so any discussion about stability is really relative.
Depends on what you mean by "origins." Windows has learned a lot of lessons from unix, but there is no unix code in Windows. Mac OS X is based on unix. I'm glad about that. It's the first Mac OS based on unix.
I agree that having a plethora of supported devices decreases reliability, but it increases popularity. Microsoft's strategy is making money, despite quality, and since they are a business, I can't exactly blame them for that strategy.
I think the fact that diversifying Windows is not good for the customers but it is good for Microsoft's products. It's called product proliferation. We will now have more choices than we need. It reminds me how 60% of the soaps and toilet papers on the supermarket shelf are made by one company, but they're presented as if they are competing. I don't believe we need that much diversity. Linux and unix run on a huge variety of hardware and for a huge variety of purposes, down to tiny devices with single purposes. This works well, because they are well understood.
kevin, Apple relented and now offers three-button mice. The Mighty Mouse looks like a one-button, but it senses which side you're pressing.
|
Monster©
Supporter
Username: Monster
Post Number: 2821
Registered: 7-2002
| | Posted on Wednesday, April 19, 2006 - 7:49 pm: |
|
that's a 4 button mouse, left, right, middle, & sides
also there is no scroll wheel, it's a scroll ball, up, down, left & right. |
kevin
Citizen
Username: Eloso
Post Number: 93
Registered: 12-2004
| | Posted on Thursday, April 20, 2006 - 12:08 pm: |
|
The MacBook Pro I just opened up has only one giant button in the middle. It does look cool though - just not real pratical. |
Eponymous
Citizen
Username: Eponymous
Post Number: 183
Registered: 6-2004
| | Posted on Thursday, April 20, 2006 - 10:05 pm: |
|
Kevin,
The laptops don't come with mice, so you've got a trackpad and single button. Control-click to do right-button stuff (but you probably know that).
Steve J. is usually on the cutting edge for technology, and Apple has recently pioneered a bunch of stuff that has become standard (e.g., USB), though it often backs the loser (e.g., SCSI). |
Closed: New threads not accepted on this page