Windows XP on Intel Macs finally here: Anyone brave enough to try it?

rob_finch said:
Actually, the easiest way is to use OSX and not bother with XP at all! ;)

Seriously though, why do so many people dismiss OSX so readily? Sure it's different, and your current apps will need to be re-found/replaced, but it's hardly the end of the world if you switch. Give it some time, and you'll find yourself using it for what it is and not continually comparing it to Windows.

as i mentioned before, people want to be able to run the same apps as in the workplace, and take files home and be able to use them. the average office person isn't IT savvy and aren't going to bother arsing about trying to find alternate apps. people want to be able to accept discs or emails from other people and run them without hassle
 
What files will they want to take home. If they are Office files ( Word Powerpoint Excel Access) they will all run on a Mac with Microsoft Office for OS X ( If you bought a Windows PC, you would have to buy Office to run these as well) I use a PC at work and have to be able to work on Word Excel Powerpoint and Access as well as images, I use the Mac at home to do this quite easily with no technical expertise. Everything is loaded on a USB stick that can be used by both and I can e mail attachments between the two. I get e mails from PCs and Macs and can read both. I can run any attachments ( except viruses) . What am I missing out on?
Allan
 
bibamus said:
So, apart from the reduced amount of software that is available for the Mac ( and that is really only games ) what extra functionality has the Windows operating system got that Mac OS X hasnt?
I run Win XP and Mac, I dont feel like I`m missing out on anything using the Mac. ( I can also run a full version of XP Pro on my Mac MIni using Virtual PC, but I dont feel I need to now)
I run full Office applications, Photoshop CS and CS2, Astronomy software, Internet, email, a multifunction printer, a Pocket PC PDA, webcam, I can connect to any digital camera and video camera ( USB2 and firewire), it runs a wired and wireless network ( connected to Win XP and 2000 machines) I can burn CD`s, and DVD`s in any format, watch DVD`s listen to cd`s, have a dozen programs running on the desktop at any one time, properly, switch between any of them, clear the desktop with one keystroke, I can use Skype, MSN messenger and chat as well as many other chat programmes.
In fact, I cant think of anything any of my Windows machines can do that the Mac can`t. Can you?

I just think all this Mac bashing is done by people who have never used a Mac. Why dont you give it a try? You dont need to have just one or the other, I have both and sometimes even turn XP on. You just might find out how good they are. But, after trying both, I prefer Macs now. I didnt think I`d be saying that a year ago.

Then of course, theres always Linux to have a go at. :devil:

Allan

i've worked in an almost pc-less office before, and everyone hated using the macs. they couldn't get a decent accounts or payroll package so those were done on a pc. almost every day someone swore at the mac because someone sent them a disc that was pc only and wouldn't run on the mac - presentations, etc - and the same with file attachments. another great source for timewasting was discs getting "stuck" in the drive. there wasn't a way to physically eject discs out the drive as the button was electronic, and wouldn't recognise discs being stuck in the drive in the first place, so wouldn't even bother to eject them. i didn't suffere these problems much, but i did find crashes on a daily basis, which really annoyed me mainly as mac fans tend to slag windows users about crashing. i use xp and 2000 on a daily basis and rarely have things crashing on me, again in about 10 years i've only encountered viruses twice, with the last in the last millenium.

whilst you can get apps to do certain things on a mac, you have a far wider choice of hardware and software on pc, and the options are usually cheaper. for the same money you can have a far better pc setup, and support is far easier to get as so many people are used to using pc's. try calling an agency for an urgent temp worker, and then telling them you need someone that can use macs, you will greatly limit your chances of finding someone, and if you do find someone you will usually pay for the privelidge. it's the same for employing permanent staff, many people are comfortable working with windows, but not with mac. most of the app's i use at work won't work with a mac

and why would you want to run a pc emulator on a mac to run pc software when you can get a pc to do it instead? your just going to slow everything down, particularly on the non intel mac processors

i remember telling a mac fan a couple of years ago that i heard mac were shifting over to intel (long before it was announced/leaked, but still months/years after they started developing) and the reaction was of complete disbelief and prompted another round of mac arguing. i dunno why mac users are so argumentative about a bloody computer system

after using macs i would never ever suggest to anyone that they get a mac over a pc, you can get far better value for money and far greater help and support using pcs and windows. maybe in the next year or so things will change if we can finally get the option of running either OS on either hardware, but with vista on the horizon i'm sure they will resolve a number of issues that mac users use in the argument against pcs, such as the security issue, i understand everything will be tied down by default, so it's up to the experienced user to turn off security settings if required. as someone else said, if mac was the more popular choice, it would in turn have a far bigger share of problems with viruses. mac only has a 5% share of the computer marketplace. if it was a greater product it would have a greater share of the marketplace. it's not like we are compariing fiat cars to bmws with such a great jump in price being the main reason people choose pc's. just over 20 years ago mac's were more advanced and user friendly with the GUI over DOS, which was before the big PC boom, but they lost out big style by MS, mainly due to narrowminded business plans in thier refusal to allow clone macs or OS to run on non apple hardware. that decision cost them a tremendous share of the home computing market, giving a minority share rather than even a reasonable share

you even admit that you can't run many games on a mac, showing that the pc is the more versatile choice, as well as being the most affordable and upgradable, and of course you can build a far more powerful pc than mac, with better graphics capabilities. so why would anyone want a mac?
 
bibamus said:
What files will they want to take home. If they are Office files ( Word Powerpoint Excel Access) they will all run on a Mac with Microsoft Office for OS X ( If you bought a Windows PC, you would have to buy Office to run these as well) I use a PC at work and have to be able to work on Word Excel Powerpoint and Access as well as images, I use the Mac at home to do this quite easily with no technical expertise. Everything is loaded on a USB stick that can be used by both and I can e mail attachments between the two. I get e mails from PCs and Macs and can read both. I can run any attachments ( except viruses) . What am I missing out on?
Allan

the world doesn't revolve around the MS office suite. altho it is ironic that you need to run MS products on your mac to be able to take your work home with you isn't it? you would have been better off getting a pc, and save yourself a few quid whilst at it
 
unique said:
the world doesn't revolve around the MS office suite. altho it is ironic that you need to run MS products on your mac to be able to take your work home with you isn't it? you would have been better off getting a pc, and save yourself a few quid whilst at it

Microsoft have invested a lot of money in Office for Mac, I dont have a problem running it on a Mac. The software is available for both, I dont see it as ironic that I use it, I am just excercising my free will in buying something I want to use. I have 4 PC`s networked to the Mac, all have Office installed. I could use either, but I prefer to use the Mac.

Unlike others, i`m not trying to make out that one is better than the other. Apples small market share only shows how much of a Monopoly Microsoft has. I think its good that there is some competition for them. But while so many people are brainwashed into thinking Macs are no good, this will never change, unless people make up their own mind and try something new.

As for poor graphics capabilities, have you heard of Pixar? You know, Toy Story, Incredibles Monsters, Finding Nemo etc etc. All rendered an an Apple Mac! Pretty good for a computer that has poor graphics capabilities!

But, dont listen to me. I like Macs. I like Fiats too, much better than BMW`s, and owned by Ferrari.
Allan
 
There's a great deal of drivel on this thread, but some things are worth saying if anyone's interested. :lesson:

There are 3 reasons why you might run XP on a Mac
- to sometimes use applications only available on MS Windows
- to play PC games
- because you like the hardware but want XP

The first reason is better served by running a Windows OS inside, or alongside MacOS. It is already possible to run windows inside MacOS using the free open source Q (QEMU), and the networking works, so that covers things like web browsers, outlook, bookkeeping and online trading apps adequately. I have Windows 2000 running inside OSX on my intel imac and speed is fine for these purposes (unlike virtual PC on power Mac).

For the other two, you will want to install MS Windows directly on the machine. Although this has now been done, there are not yet drivers for all the devices. The most important one is the video driver; you are stuck with a generic one for now, meaning video is unaccelerated. That's not good enough for gaming or "design" applications.

These solutions are a bit geeky at the moment, and there are problems that haven't been ironed out - so it's best to wait if you're inclined to heed advice. There will be more and better solutions, including ones that use the virtualisation features of the Intel CPUs Apple is using (allowing OS's to run side-by-side).

There are good technical reasons why OS X is less susceptible to viruses than Windows XP and earlier Windows OS's, especially if they haven't been kept patched up to date. The switch to Intel is irrelevant to this. Windows Vista may well be the equal of OS X in this respect. It will be some years before Macs outnumber Wintel PC's (if ever), so it will be some years before they are a more attractive target for virus writers.

As regards Macs being expensive, if you truly configure a Dell system the same as the equivalent Mac, it is almost always slightly more expensive. Some things (like proper firewire on laptops or firewire target disk mode) are simply not available from Dell. Dell tricks to take into account: no OS media; weedy standard laptop battery; two memory modules instead of one (saving Dell a bit, but filling the upgrade slot); shipping and handling extra; delayed shipment (cost prices drop be several percent per month, but your buy price was fixed); constantly changing specs for the defined "price point".

Well it's turned into a bit of a rant. I am unlikely to revisit this thread; sorry. :hiya:

Edit: As has been mentioned MS Office is available for Mac OS. It covers all the features of the PC version except for the Access database. (There may also be features of Outlook with Exchange Server that aren't the same in Mac Entourage.)
 
uridium said:
Been in any office anywhere in the world lately? afraid it does...sadly

the office suite might be one of the most widely used packages in the world, but i think you'll find that money makes the world go around, and there aren't any accounts/bookkeeping/payroll/banking packages in the suite

besides those things, computers are used world wide for things such as stock shares to stock holding to security, banking, police files, air traffic control, traffic light systems, etc, none of which use apple/mac software or rely on MS office. those are the computer related things that make the world go round. don't be so short sighted to think MS office runs the planet
 
ancientgeek said:
There's a great deal of drivel on this thread, but some things are worth saying if anyone's interested. :lesson:

There are 3 reasons why you might run XP on a Mac
- to sometimes use applications only available on MS Windows
- to play PC games
- because you like the hardware but want XP

The first reason is better served by running a Windows OS inside, or alongside MacOS. It is already possible to run windows inside MacOS using the free open source Q (QEMU), and the networking works, so that covers things like web browsers, outlook, bookkeeping and online trading apps adequately. I have Windows 2000 running inside OSX on my intel imac and speed is fine for these purposes (unlike virtual PC on power Mac).

For the other two, you will want to install MS Windows directly on the machine. Although this has now been done, there are not yet drivers for all the devices. The most important one is the video driver; you are stuck with a generic one for now, meaning video is unaccelerated. That's not good enough for gaming or "design" applications.

These solutions are a bit geeky at the moment, and there are problems that haven't been ironed out - so it's best to wait if you're inclined to heed advice. There will be more and better solutions, including ones that use the virtualisation features of the Intel CPUs Apple is using (allowing OS's to run side-by-side).

There are good technical reasons why OS X is less susceptible to viruses than Windows XP and earlier Windows OS's, especially if they haven't been kept patched up to date. The switch to Intel is irrelevant to this. Windows Vista may well be the equal of OS X in this respect. It will be some years before Macs outnumber Wintel PC's (if ever), so it will be some years before they are a more attractive target for virus writers.

As regards Macs being expensive, if you truly configure a Dell system the same as the equivalent Mac, it is almost always slightly more expensive. Some things (like proper firewire on laptops or firewire target disk mode) are simply not available from Dell. Dell tricks to take into account: no OS media; weedy standard laptop battery; two memory modules instead of one (saving Dell a bit, but filling the upgrade slot); shipping and handling extra; delayed shipment (cost prices drop be several percent per month, but your buy price was fixed); constantly changing specs for the defined "price point".

Well it's turned into a bit of a rant. I am unlikely to revisit this thread; sorry. :hiya:

Edit: As has been mentioned MS Office is available for Mac OS. It covers all the features of the PC version except for the Access database. (There may also be features of Outlook with Exchange Server that aren't the same in Mac Entourage.)

don't you think it's ironic that in order to do certain things you need to run another OS on your computer? particularly when it's going to run slower due to slower processors and the CPU power used in the emulation process. a few people say you can do anything on a mac you can on a pc, but i don't see many people saying you can do something on a mac that you can't on a pc. isn't it simpler to use a PC which can do everything without resorting to emulation? plus the job can be done quicker and less costly

the reason drivers aren't available is simply due to apple restricting the use of thier hardware. isn't that great? MS don't have any restrictions like that

i don't know where you get your prices from if you think macs work out cheaper than pc's. dell aint the be all and end all of pc's, but i must add that you have choice of batteries and a number of other items you don't have the same choice with apple, and most of the time dell have offers on so you don't have to pay shipping, plus you can save in many other ways as you have various options to save based on your warranty options. the good thing about pc is you have a huge choice of hardware suppliers, and if you don't like one, you can easily build your own with parts from a number of suppliers, and then add your OS of choice, even including mac's OS if you want. you can't say the same about apple can you? plus it's easier to replace parts constantly and keep your pc up to a high spec, but you can't replace your mac motherboard and cpu and use the rest of the parts can you?

whilst some may think MS have a monopoly on OS, think back 20 years ago when mac was better than pc and the market share by mac wasn't the minority it is now. where did they go wrong? the reason people use mainly windows is through choice and hardware availability. apples restrictions are the reason they are now a minority

and whilst people say monopolies are a bad thing, you have a choice with a pc as to the OS you install, so you don't have to install windows, and you can choose to buy a mac if you wish. but think about itunes, apples monopoly on the music download system. they won't license DRM encode technology so artists can sell DRM tunes to ipod/mac users directly, and they don't give sufficient data to artists to accurately keep record of thier sales on an ongoing basis. now THAT is a monopoly. the word hippocracy springs to mind...
 
bibamus said:
In fact, I cant think of anything any of my Windows machines can do that the Mac can`t. Can you?

I just think all this Mac bashing is done by people who have never used a Mac. Why dont you give it a try? You dont need to have just one or the other, I have both and sometimes even turn XP on. You just might find out how good they are. But, after trying both, I prefer Macs now. I didnt think I`d be saying that a year ago.

Then of course, theres always Linux to have a go at. :devil:

Allan

Mac bashing? Where? I thought my post was quite even handed, and if I was going to bash anything it would probably be XP! It doesn't pay to be over confident about security on any networked computer. That is just common sense. And when you ask what a Mac can't do that you can on a pc, add "for the same money" and you get your answer!;) It is why the pc's numerical superiority will never be challenged. That obviously doesn't mean it is better, just cheaper and easier to source and maintain. And perversely, while XP is out there in its useable cracked and pirated forms, the rest of the world will keep it alive for a long time to come!
 
Cable Monkey said:
Mac bashing? Where? I thought my post was quite even handed, and if I was going to bash anything it would probably be XP! It doesn't pay to be over confident about security on any networked computer. That is just common sense. And when you ask what a Mac can't do that you can on a pc, add "for the same money" and you get your answer!;) It is why the pc's numerical superiority will never be challenged. That obviously doesn't mean it is better, just cheaper and easier to source and maintain. And perversely, while XP is out there in its useable cracked and pirated forms, the rest of the world will keep it alive for a long time to come!

and let me add to that, my wishes for apple to remove restrictions and allow any OS to run on thier hardware, and likewise thier OS to run on any hardware. the whole mac VS pc debate restarted by mac users wanting to run XP on a mac for christ sake!
 
unique said:
and let me add to that, my wishes for apple to remove restrictions and allow any OS to run on thier hardware, and likewise thier OS to run on any hardware. the whole mac VS pc debate restarted by mac users wanting to run XP on a mac for christ sake!

Perhaps it was PC users wanting to run XP on a Mac, not the other way round?

OpenOffice is now available on the Mac, so you can do away with MS Office if you want.

Just because you have to find an alternative way to do something doesn't necessarily make it not worth the effort. If you don't want to change a way of doing something, how can you see if there is something better? I think Windows users generally can't be arsed to try and look elsewhere, which is fine, but they shouldn't criticise those who will.

The arguments about having to run emulators to keep working on files is peculiar, since it's the tunnel-visioned PC users that are trying to force everyone to 'stick with them', whereas the non-PC users are just trying to do what they want how they want.
 
rob_finch said:
Perhaps it was PC users wanting to run XP on a Mac, not the other way round?

OpenOffice is now available on the Mac, so you can do away with MS Office if you want.

Just because you have to find an alternative way to do something doesn't necessarily make it not worth the effort. If you don't want to change a way of doing something, how can you see if there is something better? I think Windows users generally can't be arsed to try and look elsewhere, which is fine, but they shouldn't criticise those who will.

The arguments about having to run emulators to keep working on files is peculiar, since it's the tunnel-visioned PC users that are trying to force everyone to 'stick with them', whereas the non-PC users are just trying to do what they want how they want.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/4816520.stm

it was a mac enthusiast that started off the competition to get xp running on a mac, not pc users. there will be plenty pc users who can build a pc from components up, but wouldn't be sufficiently knowledgable to perform this task on a mac, so it would be advanced mac users with a good knowledge of pc/windows who did it i would presume.

i'm not saying using alternate methods aren't worth the effort, but when a pc can run all apps with windows, including gaming, office, accounst packages, etc, why bother using apple/mac and having to run two OS's including having to use XP for some important applications. you can use a cheaper pc setup. the main pro mac vs pc arguments aren't very valid these days, which are looks (there are plenty far nicer pc cases than mac know, such as wide choice, plus you can get customised cases that won't invalidate warranties), security (i think xp sp2 has the security holes plugged from the start, but adding anti virus, firewall and anti spyware software is pretty quick and simple to do), and stability (win98 might have crashed from time to time, but that was 8 or 9 years ago, win2k and xp are pretty stable products), but pc isn't just windows, you have the choice of other OS's

part of the tunnel vision of pc users is perhaps due to apple not allowing pc users to be able to legally run thier OS on the hardware they already have, to show them that there is an alternative choice to windows. i'd love to have a fully working copy of mac OS to install on a spare HD on one of my pc's and give it a test run, particularly if i could get my apps to run. unfortunately in reality with some of the apps i use i would have big problems moving over to apple/mac, having to relearn new apps and recreate setups and files for certain things when there isn't a mac version of the software i use (which is the case with most of the software i use at home)
 
bibamus said:
I just think all this Mac bashing is done by people who have never used a Mac. Why dont you give it a try?
Then of course, theres always Linux to have a go at. :devil:

Allan
I have used all of the above and theres three simple reasons why Mac suck (so the need to put XP on a Mac);
  • PC's are better value for money
  • PC's have a right click button on the mouse (makes a lot difference to me at least)
  • Windows is the standard platform to use for the majority of the casual and professional users
The only area where the Mac wins is if you only want to do certain multimedia things where software is only released for the Mac (like Cubase and other music making software).

Also i should point out that Microsoft has said that Office is not going to be supported on the Mac anymore.
 
The trouble with letting Mac OSX run on any generic hardware is that it will kill the user experience. Right now, Apple build the whole widget - hardware, software, the lot. This contributes in a large way to the whole "it just works" experience with a Mac.

Letting OS X loose into the wild, to run on any generic PC would put an end to that - and it would damage Apples reputation no end. Suddenly, "it just works" becomes "it might work" or "no way will it work". Granted, PC's have come a long way - if you buy Dell, IBM, Sony, or any other brand name, it's not a big deal, they pretty much "just work" too. But there are still a huge number of oddball PC's, with unexpected configurations etc, that Apple would have to certify against. For what ?

You say you'd love to have a go on your hardware. Trouble is, assuming you even could, it likely wouldn't work on your home-brew platform. So now you have even more fuel for your Macs suck argument, and become even more vocal in dismissing the platform, because now you have first hand experience of just how bad it is right ? How does that help anyone ?

For the record, I like my Macs. I have XP at home and work, and work requires that I'm on various flavours of unix & linux regularly. But I choose to use a Mac at home because I prefer it. It's a better OS for me - if prefer the user interface, finding it considerably more usable and user friendly than XP; I can drop down into the Unix shell if I need to get my hands dirty ; and the security argument really does hold water today (granted, it might not next week, but right here, right now, Mac OS X is a more secure OS). Plus, it looks nice :)

I can (and have) built cheaper Pcs with better performance. But I don't care - the value proposition of Macs is, and has always been, that the OS and bundled apps are what makes the difference, the hardware only matters in that it provides a stable base on which to run the software. That's why you can only run it on Apple hardware, and I hope it stays that way.

Cheers, Carl.
 
satinder said:
I have used all of the above and theres three simple reasons why Mac suck (so the need to put XP on a Mac);
  • PC's are better value for money
  • PC's have a right click button on the mouse (makes a lot difference to me at least)
  • Windows is the standard platform to use for the majority of the casual and professional users
The only area where the Mac wins is if you only want to do certain multimedia things where software is only released for the Mac (like Cubase and other music making software).

Also i should point out that Microsoft has said that Office is not going to be supported on the Mac anymore.

My last post in this thread, since the last thing the world needs is another Mac vs PC thread, but ..

- Any mouse with a right button will work on a Mac. And last time I looked, the new Apple mouse has a right button.

- Microsoft have said Office 2004 will not be ported to run natively on intel Macs. It will run under emulation, and the next version of Office will be a universal binary -> See the FAQ.

Anyway, thats enough troll feeding for today - it's a nice day outside, so I'm going to play :)
 
bibamus said:
As for poor graphics capabilities, have you heard of Pixar? You know, Toy Story, Incredibles Monsters, Finding Nemo etc etc. All rendered an an Apple Mac! Pretty good for a computer that has poor graphics capabilities!

Allan


sorry thats bull, all of the big animation comapanies have massive render farms of hundreds if not thousands of computers, mostly running custom written/compiled *nix os's, i know for sure that wetta (nz) use SGI machines.

Btw have just googled pixar's render farm as of '03 its a unixed based intel shop. http://www.macobserver.com/article/2003/02/10.7.shtml
 
cwick said:
The trouble with letting Mac OSX run on any generic hardware is that it will kill the user experience. Right now, Apple build the whole widget - hardware, software, the lot. This contributes in a large way to the whole "it just works" experience with a Mac.

Letting OS X loose into the wild, to run on any generic PC would put an end to that - and it would damage Apples reputation no end. Suddenly, "it just works" becomes "it might work" or "no way will it work". Granted, PC's have come a long way - if you buy Dell, IBM, Sony, or any other brand name, it's not a big deal, they pretty much "just work" too. But there are still a huge number of oddball PC's, with unexpected configurations etc, that Apple would have to certify against. For what ?

You say you'd love to have a go on your hardware. Trouble is, assuming you even could, it likely wouldn't work on your home-brew platform. So now you have even more fuel for your Macs suck argument, and become even more vocal in dismissing the platform, because now you have first hand experience of just how bad it is right ? How does that help anyone ?

For the record, I like my Macs. I have XP at home and work, and work requires that I'm on various flavours of unix & linux regularly. But I choose to use a Mac at home because I prefer it. It's a better OS for me - if prefer the user interface, finding it considerably more usable and user friendly than XP; I can drop down into the Unix shell if I need to get my hands dirty ; and the security argument really does hold water today (granted, it might not next week, but right here, right now, Mac OS X is a more secure OS). Plus, it looks nice :)

I can (and have) built cheaper Pcs with better performance. But I don't care - the value proposition of Macs is, and has always been, that the OS and bundled apps are what makes the difference, the hardware only matters in that it provides a stable base on which to run the software. That's why you can only run it on Apple hardware, and I hope it stays that way.

Cheers, Carl.

so what your saying is that apple can't write the OS to run on other hardware, even tho MS and other people can do it? or perhaps the won't do it as they know they won't be able to maintain as stable and OS as windows?

so what exactly are the reasons for choosing mac over pc if the pc hardware is cheaper, there is more pc software availability, and you can do more on a pc than on a mac particularly if you include games playing? it just seems you are paying more money for less flexibility with mac. with a pc you don't need to dual boot mac OS or have mac emulators, but it seems you do with mac, so why bother? security and stability is no longer a real issue with pc, so why should someone choose mac for use in the home or office when you can get support and training for pc's far easier.

if apple can't/won't allow thier OS to legally run on non apple hardware, they could at least remove restrictions by allowing apple hardware customers to install other OS's like xp legally and easily. who knows it might even persuade a few pc fans to give the mac OS a go

as far as i'm concerned the hackers have done a great thing by getting xp to run in intel macs, it's a shame some of the apple supporters don't seem to share this view
 
mojonojo said:
sorry thats bull, all of the big animation comapanies have massive render farms of hundreds if not thousands of computers, mostly running custom written/compiled *nix os's, i know for sure that wetta (nz) use SGI machines.

Btw have just googled pixar's render farm as of '03 its a unixed based intel shop. http://www.macobserver.com/article/2003/02/10.7.shtml

I wasnt talking about "all the big animation companies" I mentioned Pixar, I have no idea what they use in NZ! I didnt mention the render farm either, but the Render Farm used by Pixar is a bunch of servers running Linux. Windows doesnt get a look in. There must be a reason.

Anyway, as some people here seem to think Macs suck, thats ok by me. Remember, the world is flat and dogs cant look up either.

Well, I`m fed up with this now. Just going to turn my PC on for a few minutes to update the anti virus.

Allan :hiya:
 
cwick said:
My last post in this thread, since the last thing the world needs is another Mac vs PC thread, but ..

- Any mouse with a right button will work on a Mac. And last time I looked, the new Apple mouse has a right button.

- Microsoft have said Office 2004 will not be ported to run natively on intel Macs. It will run under emulation, and the next version of Office will be a universal binary -> See the FAQ.

Anyway, thats enough troll feeding for today - it's a nice day outside, so I'm going to play :)

So your basically saying that Mac's have to use hardware and software designed for the PC to become competitive?

I dont need a reply because everyone knows the answer :D .

Sat
 
unique said:
the office suite might be one of the most widely used packages in the world, but i think you'll find that money makes the world go around, and there aren't any accounts/bookkeeping/payroll/banking packages in the suite

besides those things, computers are used world wide for things such as stock shares to stock holding to security, banking, police files, air traffic control, traffic light systems, etc, none of which use apple/mac software or rely on MS office. those are the computer related things that make the world go round. don't be so short sighted to think MS office runs the planet

Have worked for HSBC, Barclays & Natwest; every one of them uses MS Office. As does every other large corporate I've worked for. Don't forget that MS office also encompasses Outlook which is the default messaging client for 90% of the corporate world as most use Exchange as the messaging backend

yes most companies also use reams of in-house software for payroll, stock management,reconcilling etc..but the simple Excel spreadsheet is the backbone of almost every office in the world.

Also remember that nearly every other lazy in-house developer uses Office api's, dll's and runtimes in their other "non" MS Office apps.

In addition any corporate that is regualted by a government body HAS to use software backed by a maintenance agreement ruling out the majority of open source application.

e.g. a Bank or utility faces huge fines and possible closure if they were to use an application or OS that is deemed out of support by the software developer.

Basically sad to say it but MS Office does make the world spin!
 
satinder said:
So your basically saying that Mac's have to use hardware and software designed for the PC to become competitive?

I dont need a reply because everyone knows the answer :D .

Sat

Mac's have to use hardware, full stop. If you want a two button mouse, then buy one. I'm a right click fanatic in Windows, yet my one button Mac mouse has not hampered me at all. And why do you think the hardware is designed solely for PC's? How many peripherals run on Windows and OSX these days?! Everything doesn't start and end with Microsoft.

unique said:
so what exactly are the reasons for choosing mac over pc

The operative word there is 'choosing'. Choice is what it's about. I find my Mac equally flexible as my PC, I can do everything on it I could on my PC, and yes, there are things I can do on it that Windows doesn't have. An example is the rapid searching of Spotlight, which covers everything, not just file names, and is built into the OS. I'm still keeping my PC, and will get good use out of it, but to continually say there is no reason for anyone to buy a Mac is a little insular. Just because you have no reason to does not make it completely pointless.
 
uridium said:
Have worked for HSBC, Barclays & Natwest; every one of them uses MS Office. As does every other large corporate I've worked for. Don't forget that MS office also encompasses Outlook which is the default messaging client for 90% of the corporate world as most use Exchange as the messaging backend

yes most companies also use reams of in-house software for payroll, stock management,reconcilling etc..but the simple Excel spreadsheet is the backbone of almost every office in the world.

Also remember that nearly every other lazy in-house developer uses Office api's, dll's and runtimes in their other "non" MS Office apps.

In addition any corporate that is regualted by a government body HAS to use software backed by a maintenance agreement ruling out the majority of open source application.

e.g. a Bank or utility faces huge fines and possible closure if they were to use an application or OS that is deemed out of support by the software developer.

Basically sad to say it but MS Office does make the world spin!

well i disagree as it's the banking, financial, and security software that make the world spin, altho i don't disagree about MS software being so rooted in offices the world over. it's interesting that apple don't have any essential apps listed in your comments, they just don't have any essential apps do they?
 
rob_finch said:
Mac's have to use hardware, full stop. If you want a two button mouse, then buy one. I'm a right click fanatic in Windows, yet my one button Mac mouse has not hampered me at all. And why do you think the hardware is designed solely for PC's? How many peripherals run on Windows and OSX these days?! Everything doesn't start and end with Microsoft.



The operative word there is 'choosing'. Choice is what it's about. I find my Mac equally flexible as my PC, I can do everything on it I could on my PC, and yes, there are things I can do on it that Windows doesn't have. An example is the rapid searching of Spotlight, which covers everything, not just file names, and is built into the OS. I'm still keeping my PC, and will get good use out of it, but to continually say there is no reason for anyone to buy a Mac is a little insular. Just because you have no reason to does not make it completely pointless.

we'll i'm asking why the point is of choosing mac when it's more expensive and you can get a cheaper and faster windows pc that will run everything without resorting to mac emulation or software and the points in reply from mac owners don't seem to sell it very well, and also seem to be against opening up the market to allow xp on a mac and mac OS on a pc

if a search function is the best example of what a mac offers over a pc, your not exactly winning me over. why should someone pay more for less when you can get it all with a pc? i personally find it ludicrous that mac users have to buy xp as a second OS or run a pc emulation to be able to run certain things, and find it strange that mac owners don't see the irony in this, nor do they seem to welcome pc/windows users into trying out apple/mac products. instead it seems like a minority club and they don't want pc owners to join. i've expressed my interest in running xp on a mac mini or running mac OS on a pc, and rather than support from mac users it just seems they are horrified of the very idea

the lack of support and enthusiasm from mac users is enough to put you off alone, particularly when you find out most of them own a pc at home or use a pc in the office, and if not resort to using xp or emulation to do at least some things. i've never seen anything list any real benefits to using the mac, it's usually things like "mac is faster" or "mac has better graphics" with no real unit of measure or specific example as evidence. we can now rule those things out, and we can rule out stability and security as xp has proven it can be both secure and stable, so what exactly are the reasons for choosing mac over pc, and paying more money as a premium?
 
rob_finch said:
Everything doesn't start and end with Microsoft.

When it comes to computers is does, theres nothing wrong with using a Mac but for most (99%) people a PC running windows is really the only choice if you want to use the majority of software.

If i am wrong why are people trying to run Xp on a Mac?

Sat
 

The latest video from AVForums

TV Buying Guide - Which TV Is Best For You?
Subscribe to our YouTube channel
Back
Top Bottom