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

Sorry, Unique. I'm not trying to win you over, I'm just trying to point out that there is a choice, and there should be a choice. The only case for having a single option in anything is that that option is perfect, and I'm afraid to say that not everyone thinks Windows/PC's are perfect. Please don't keep saying there is no point to a Mac and that you HAVE to run a second OS/emulation, if that was the case, every Mac owner would be doing it, which I can assure you they are not. Surely you can see that a Mac has at least one (nay, some?!) benefits over a Windows PC? You cannot surely believe that it loses out in every single element you can think of. Spotlight was one example that came to mind. I don't think I can sway your opinion, so I didn't see the point in expending too much effort.

Sat, I'm saying that there are alternatives to the PC software out there, and that you do not have to keep using the same programs, you can continue to do what you do using something else. I don't know why people are trying to run XP on Mac hardware. Curiosity? Maybe. Necessity? I don't think so.

If the argument that buying something perhaps more expensive, or something that's different and requires some adaptation, is without merit, why would people buy different cars, or different AV equipment? If the mindset of computer buyers were the same as the customers in those industries, we'd all be driving Fiestas, and watching 4:3 TV's!! I can go everywhere in a Fiesta a jeep could go, so why buy a jeep? I can see all the same programs on a non-widescreen telly as everyone else, why buy a HD ready plasma?

You guys are obviously happy with what you've got, and I'm glad for you. Really, I am! Maybe you can be as well for us happy Mac owners? Even if you think we are stupid.
 
This ones not going away is it, anyway, I have a day off today and couldnt resist seeing what had been added to this thread.

I`m not just a Mac fan without good cause and its not just the aesthetics. Heres why. I dont expect to change anybodys mind. I never really said Macs are better ( though they patently are in my eyes) nor do I intend to defend them. They do that well enough themselves.

I`ve used Windows since I bought a 286 machine running DOS at 100mhz, from Dixons for about £900 many years ago. I`ve progressed up to an AMD chipped Shuttle running Win XP Pro, a Barton cored 3200+ processor with 1 gb memory and all the associated bells and whistles. OK, the technology is a couple of years old by now, but it does me. I dont need the latest and fastest to run the programmes I use on it. I also have an XP powered laptop and 3 other XP PC`s as well as my G4 Mac Mini.

The only reason I would need to upgrade the Shuttle any more and stick with MS, would be if I wanted to play the latest games at the highest resolution and fastest frame rates ( which I dont) If I wanted to get a PC that was capable of doing this, it would cost me a fortune, be noisy ( all that heat It would also probably need a 500 watt PSU. Thats a lot of power waste!!) and out of date in 3 months. So, it would be better to get a dedicated games console.
You wouldnt need a high end PC to do office tasks. Mine would ( and does) cope with anything I throw at it, be it office documents or photo manipulation.
If this caught on, games console sales would increase and Windows PC sales would drop dramatically.

So, what if I wanted a server, use a Windows based PC? No, do what the big companies do. Use Linux. Get an old PC ( that you probably have lying about because its worth zilch) or get a small form factor box, install either Linux or BSD on it, configure it to your required services, put it in a nice out of the way ventilated cupboard and hook it up. Sorted.

So its not just me that thinks Windows makes a poor server, an overly expensive games system, and an insecure general purpose desktop. If all the PC gamers just went out and bought consoles, and the (increasingly smaller number of) unconverted business users woke up and switched to Linux for their servers, and Apple carried on reducing the prices of its Macs, Microsoft would probably go broke tomorrow, or at the very least, lose a huge market share.

Anyway, I bought my first Mac last year for £120 because I was intrigued by all the hype about the new Mac OS X Panther. It was a 5 year old iMac ( Lime green, all in one jobby when every PC was a boring beige box) It ran Panther at 700mhz, had firewire bluetooth and wireless built in and performed faultlessly running office apps ( helping me run my business), surfing the net, email, downloading photos from DV and digi cams. I could run Photoshop CS and Paint shop pro. I even edited digital video. I loved the operating system simplicity. I could leave it on all the time, it didnt need rebooting every day to restore its speed.

I was so impressed with the Mac, when the new Mac Mini came out, I bought one straight away and sold the iMac for what I paid for it. How many 5 year old PC`s would be worth buying now?

Obviously, changing from Windows to Mac full time was going to be a big upheaval. What about all the software I had. Not so much of a problem. Nearly all the software I used had a Mac alternative, I needed to upgrade them anyway ( and the prices were not an issue) so I bought MS Office 2004 ( I use Office at work and for my business, why change?) Adobe Photoshop CS2, with Creative suite, Toast with Popcorn ( dont you just love those Mac software names?) MYOB for Mac ( What, accounting, payroll, job costing and stock control software for a Mac!!!!!! are you sure?)

The Mac already came with Realplayer, iTunes, IE (if you really cant do without it and all its security flaws) Safari, its own Mail programme, garageband, iPhoto, Chat, MSN Messenger, Quicktime, DVD and Movie player and loads more. I have an iSight firewire webcam too that looks superb.

The only software I used on the PC that didnt have a Mac alternative was Autoroute 2005 which I used a lot. How to get it to work on a Mac? Simple, I bought Virtual PC and installed a genuine copy of Windows XP Pro that I had anyway. It worked fine and gave me access to my routing software. But, I dont use it now, I have bought 2 Garmin Sat Nav systems and never see any reason to boot up Windows anymore.

So, for me, my Mac works beautifully. The Mac Mini takes up a space equal to 6 jewel cases on my desk and looks fantastic. It is absolutely silent too. I never turn it off, it goes to sleep overnight and runs its own maintenance procedures with no user intervention. In the morning it wakes up within a couple of seconds. No cumbersome loading of an operating system to wait for.

When ( and if) viruses start to affect Macs, I shall buy antivirus software, although, the risk will probably be expoited in MS Office for Mac first, seeing as MS just fixed some more critical security flaws. I am not so stupid to imagine that sometime in the future, there wont be a risk to Macs. But for the moment, not one Mac has been subject to a virus attack.

Anyway, thats why I bought and use a Mac now, prefering it over the best Microsoft has to offer. I cant think of any reason to switch back. Its all about choice ultimately and if you dare to be different, its something well worth cosidering.

Allan
 
bibamus said:
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:

In the interests of accuracy rather than argument.

Weta predominately use linux based workstations. For 2d work they predominately use shake ( ironically an Apple product). SGIs are seldom used these days being restricted to older turnkey systems like Infernos and flames which are falling out of favour due to cost ( linux workstation and shake licence will be about 20k for a good one) Inferno comes in at about 500k for a good one and there is very little that it can do that shake can't.

SGIs are occasionally used for older software like cineon and matador but hardly anyone uses them now. ( shame really)

Having run shake on both a linux workstation and G5 I'd have to say there is little in it , but speed wise the linux box was better.
 
rob_finch said:
Sorry, Unique. I'm not trying to win you over, I'm just trying to point out that there is a choice, and there should be a choice. The only case for having a single option in anything is that that option is perfect, and I'm afraid to say that not everyone thinks Windows/PC's are perfect. Please don't keep saying there is no point to a Mac and that you HAVE to run a second OS/emulation, if that was the case, every Mac owner would be doing it, which I can assure you they are not. Surely you can see that a Mac has at least one (nay, some?!) benefits over a Windows PC? You cannot surely believe that it loses out in every single element you can think of. Spotlight was one example that came to mind. I don't think I can sway your opinion, so I didn't see the point in expending too much effort.

Sat, I'm saying that there are alternatives to the PC software out there, and that you do not have to keep using the same programs, you can continue to do what you do using something else. I don't know why people are trying to run XP on Mac hardware. Curiosity? Maybe. Necessity? I don't think so.

If the argument that buying something perhaps more expensive, or something that's different and requires some adaptation, is without merit, why would people buy different cars, or different AV equipment? If the mindset of computer buyers were the same as the customers in those industries, we'd all be driving Fiestas, and watching 4:3 TV's!! I can go everywhere in a Fiesta a jeep could go, so why buy a jeep? I can see all the same programs on a non-widescreen telly as everyone else, why buy a HD ready plasma?

You guys are obviously happy with what you've got, and I'm glad for you. Really, I am! Maybe you can be as well for us happy Mac owners? Even if you think we are stupid.

i'm not saying mac is pointless. i'm asking whats the point...if? and no one seems to be able to give a reasonable answer. likewise when i ask what can mac do that pc can't, or at least what can it do better, and you only give one answer, which is a search function

with the other items you mentioned, such as cars or AV gear, usually people pay more and make a choice as the functionality or speed/capacity/etc is greater, OR they are buying a premium brand for the name alone, such as bmw, mercedes, etc. a £1 digital watch from a pound store is still going to tell the same time as a rolex/tag/omega costing tens of thousands, but you don't really buy a multi thousand pound watch just to tell the time. you buy an HDTV to get better PQ (when hdtv is available), a better amp for better sound quality or more functions, etc. the comparison just isn't the same between pc and mac

the mac isn't a premium product (it just costs a bit more) and it doesn't seem to do anything more or faster, the only difference it seems according to the users posting here is that it's "different". whilst i don't image every mac user uses xp or emulation, it just seems the answer to can mac do X at times is "yes, if you use an emulator or run xp" which isn't the most efficient or cheapest method. spending more to get less doesn't make sense to me

i agree with you completely that there should be a choice, but apple are limiting choice by preventing people running xp legitimately on apple hardware, or refusing to release mac OS for use by pc users, and whilst many hardcore mac addicts may be against this, i'm completely for it. it's just strange to see so many people pro restrictions
 
unique said:
, the only difference it seems according to the users posting here is that it's "different".

Maybe thats all there is to it, and whats wrong with that?

Maybe its just the way it does things that people admire, an unquantifiable element, if you like.

But maybe you should re read the thread, a lot of people have answered your questions already and given examples, but you dont seem to want to acknowledge them, you just keep banging on about the search function! And Mac users using an emulator............:suicide:

I wanted to run Autoroute 2005 because I always had, so I had to either run it on my PC or buy Virtual PC and run it on my Mac. I didnt want to use the PC anymore, so I bought VPC. I also had to install anti virus to protect my Mac when it ran Windows. I dont use Autoroute now, so I took Windows off and sold it.

I am not interested in running XP on my Mac. I shouldnt think many people are. Why should we, we made a decision to leave the Windows environment behind with all its security issues and flaws.

So, most Mac users are happy using a Mac. We dont have try and convince people to use Macs. Its not in our interest is it? If Apple gets a bigger market share, we may have to worry about viruses!

You asked " i agree with you completely that there should be a choice, but apple are limiting choice by preventing people running xp legitimately on apple hardware, or refusing to release mac OS for use by pc users, and whilst many hardcore mac addicts may be against this, i'm completely for it. it's just strange to see so many people pro restrictions"

This looks a purely selfish statement to me. Surely, by releasing Mac OSX to run on Windows machines you are losing the choice between buying Mac or Windows.

Whilst I dont agree with everything Steve Jobs or Bill Gates does in their day to day business dealings, or intend to defend their pricing strategy I still prefer my Mac to a Windows PC anyday.

I think the only way you are going to get an answer to your question is to buy a Mac and carry out a set of subjective tests yourself. If it doesnt work for you, fine, sell it, you wont lose much money.

Allan
 
I think bibamus has made my point for me, but I'm going to make my last post on the subject anyway. I don't think Macs have to provide something that PC's do not in order to provide a benefit, they can do the same things better and that can be enough for people. If you do want some things a Mac does that a PC doesn't, ask me in a year how many times I've defragged my hard drive, how many times I've had to re-load the OS, how bloated and corrupted my information on installed applications is (it doesn't have a registry, but you get the idea), how many viruses/spyware/trojan attacks I've had to repel, how much I can get if I decide to sell the hardware... And that's just what I can think of after 6 days of being a Mac owner.

I also do not understand why Apple do not allow OSX to be installed on other hardware, I'm sure the reasons they have make sense to them. I can say however, that my mate's old 400mhz iMac can transfer photos off his digital camera at about the same speed my 2ghz Athlon with a 7200rpm drive does. How? I dunno, but it's gotta be down to the OS and the way it handles data. He has had that iMac for about 8 years, upgraded the OS when new versions released but not had to reload it, never defragged it, never had anti-virus software installed, never used the firewall on it, and I bet it's worth a few quid on eBay...

Anyway, take care guys, see you in other threads!
 
bibamus said:
Maybe thats all there is to it, and whats wrong with that?

Maybe its just the way it does things that people admire, an unquantifiable element, if you like.

But maybe you should re read the thread, a lot of people have answered your questions already and given examples, but you dont seem to want to acknowledge them, you just keep banging on about the search function! And Mac users using an emulator............:suicide:

I wanted to run Autoroute 2005 because I always had, so I had to either run it on my PC or buy Virtual PC and run it on my Mac. I didnt want to use the PC anymore, so I bought VPC. I also had to install anti virus to protect my Mac when it ran Windows. I dont use Autoroute now, so I took Windows off and sold it.

I am not interested in running XP on my Mac. I shouldnt think many people are. Why should we, we made a decision to leave the Windows environment behind with all its security issues and flaws.

So, most Mac users are happy using a Mac. We dont have try and convince people to use Macs. Its not in our interest is it? If Apple gets a bigger market share, we may have to worry about viruses!

You asked " i agree with you completely that there should be a choice, but apple are limiting choice by preventing people running xp legitimately on apple hardware, or refusing to release mac OS for use by pc users, and whilst many hardcore mac addicts may be against this, i'm completely for it. it's just strange to see so many people pro restrictions"

This looks a purely selfish statement to me. Surely, by releasing Mac OSX to run on Windows machines you are losing the choice between buying Mac or Windows.

Whilst I dont agree with everything Steve Jobs or Bill Gates does in their day to day business dealings, or intend to defend their pricing strategy I still prefer my Mac to a Windows PC anyday.

I think the only way you are going to get an answer to your question is to buy a Mac and carry out a set of subjective tests yourself. If it doesnt work for you, fine, sell it, you wont lose much money.

Allan

so the benefits of mac are unquantifiable, and the only noticable difference is it's different? it wasn't myself who listed the search function as the only listable difference, i can't see anything listed that mac has over pc

btw the reason why your older pc loads pix at the same speed as your pc is prolly as the mac has a scsi drive with a faster data transfer rate, there won't really be any data processing involved in transferring pix from camera to drive. and xp's file management doesn't require regular defragging on NTFS (anyways i thought someone else mentioned that mac does defrag, it just does it in the background). windows has caught up with the things that mac users previously used as excuses not to use windows. viruses, trojans, spyware, etc aren't things you need to worry about running xp when its setup properly. the flaws and security issues are something of the past

how can my statement about allowing more choice between hardware and software be selfish tho? if anything it's the opposite. it doesn't take away choice as you say, but it gives more choice to the users, you choose the hardware you want, and you choose the OS you want, so people who want to buy mac hardware have the choice to run xp legitimately, and people who want to try mac OS don't need to buy another computer to try it out

as i said from the start, i'd be interested in trying out a mini mac if it wasn't for being twice the price of a basic pc setup, or forgetting about the money, if i could run the same OS as the rest of my pc's. again, i wouldn't mind trying out mac OS as you say, but why should i pay for more hardware if the only difference is that "it's different"?

im sure there are plenty of people with similar views to myself, who would be willing to spend money on mac, increase the marketshare and help bring prices down. it's pretty strange and selfish to say you don't want more mac users as it'll bring more viruses to mac. it would be in your interest if mac had a bigger user base as prices could come down and help and support could be easier to obtain. why would you want to remain in a minority apart from elitist reasons?
 
Hey Unique, the only way you are going to find out about a Mac is to buy one, seems like nothing anyone says seems to make an impression with you.

I bought my Mac Mini for less than £400. I doubt if you get even a basic PC for less than £200, but why would you want to. It would be rubbish.

I really dont understand your comments about buying your choice of PC or Mac hardware and choosing an OS to go with it. This just seems like an arguement for arguements sake. You cant fit XP legitimately on a Mac, but you could build a computer as close to a Mac as you could get, especially now that they use Intel chips, and put XP on it.

There is a way to run Mac OS X on a PC too if you want to, there is plenty of information about this on the net. But, it would never be a Mac.

Most hardware used by Mac is available for PC users anyway, so, in effect, you have your choice. The Mini uses the same memory, hard drive, DVD rewriter, cables, mouse, keyboard, speakers and monitor that a PC could use and the new ones use Intel processors, also available for Pc`s. Other Macs use normal graphic cards too. The difference is, all the components Macs use are good quality.

I dont know why Mac wont license their operating system to anyone who wants it. But why should they? They want to use it for their own computers where they can guarantee performance and retain exclusivity. ( nothing wrong with that in my book)
This happens in all walks of life. You wouldn`t expect Rolls Royce to sell you one of their engines so you could fit it in your Mondeo, just because you wanted the freedom to choose to have Rolls Royce performance without buying their car!

So, even if the differences between PC and Mac are unquantifiable, the only way you are going to be able to find out for yourself is to borrow or buy one because no matter what any one says, you will always manipulate it to suit your arguement.
As I said before, I am not defending Apple, but after owning Windows in all its flavours and now a Mac, the Mac is the nicest machine I have ever used. Just switch users once in Expose to see what I mean. The graphics used in Mac OSX knock Windows graphics for six. I dont enjoy using Windows any more, it just seems dull.

But, dont take my word for it, as if you would..........:rolleyes:

Allan
 
Unique you can't win 'the argument'

There used to be reasons to buy the Mac ie. it was the standard for publishing and media but the PC has cut into that market.

The reason IMHO that most MACs are bought is (as you've noticed) 'that it's not a PC'.

As for cost DABS were doing a Fujitsu Windows PC for £200 does the job just fine and runs all the software, just it looks like a Computer, not at all 'stylish'

bibamus said:
The Mini uses the same memory, hard drive, DVD rewriter, cables, mouse, keyboard, speakers and monitor that a PC could use and the new ones use Intel processors, also available for Pc`s. Other Macs use normal graphic cards too. The difference is, all the components Macs use are good quality.
WOW that's the best bit of 'rationalisation" I've seen for a while,
"All components are equal but some components are more equal than others"

Apple make very good margins on their computers if the OS was licenced then it would be installed on the above mentioned Fujitsu not on a nicely profitable Apple product.
 
avanzato said:
Unique you can't win 'the argument'

There used to be reasons to buy the Mac ie. it was the standard for publishing and media but the PC has cut into that market.

The reason IMHO that most MACs are bought is (as you've noticed) 'that it's not a PC'.

As for cost DABS were doing a Fujitsu Windows PC for £200 does the job just fine and runs all the software, just it looks like a Computer, not at all 'stylish'


WOW that's the best bit of 'rationalisation" I've seen for a while,
"All components are equal but some components are more equal than others"

Apple make very good margins on their computers if the OS was licenced then it would be installed on the above mentioned Fujitsu not on a nicely profitable Apple product.

buying a mac for the reason that "it's not a pc" is plain stupid. buying a mac for specific reasons makes sense

i completely disagree with your statement about apples margins, as if they open up the market a bit more they could sell more copies of the OS to pc users, particularly if the OS is as great as everyone says. again, they can sell more hardware to people who like the apple looks but want to run XP. apple seem to be great at marketing, so imagine how popular the products could be if they did an ipod style campaign targetting pc owners? at a roughtly 5% market share at the moment it can't be that hard to get another tiny 5%, doubling market share can it?
 
bibamus said:
Hey Unique, the only way you are going to find out about a Mac is to buy one, seems like nothing anyone says seems to make an impression with you.

I bought my Mac Mini for less than £400. I doubt if you get even a basic PC for less than £200, but why would you want to. It would be rubbish.

I really dont understand your comments about buying your choice of PC or Mac hardware and choosing an OS to go with it. This just seems like an arguement for arguements sake. You cant fit XP legitimately on a Mac, but you could build a computer as close to a Mac as you could get, especially now that they use Intel chips, and put XP on it.

There is a way to run Mac OS X on a PC too if you want to, there is plenty of information about this on the net. But, it would never be a Mac.

Most hardware used by Mac is available for PC users anyway, so, in effect, you have your choice. The Mini uses the same memory, hard drive, DVD rewriter, cables, mouse, keyboard, speakers and monitor that a PC could use and the new ones use Intel processors, also available for Pc`s. Other Macs use normal graphic cards too. The difference is, all the components Macs use are good quality.

I dont know why Mac wont license their operating system to anyone who wants it. But why should they? They want to use it for their own computers where they can guarantee performance and retain exclusivity. ( nothing wrong with that in my book)
This happens in all walks of life. You wouldn`t expect Rolls Royce to sell you one of their engines so you could fit it in your Mondeo, just because you wanted the freedom to choose to have Rolls Royce performance without buying their car!

So, even if the differences between PC and Mac are unquantifiable, the only way you are going to be able to find out for yourself is to borrow or buy one because no matter what any one says, you will always manipulate it to suit your arguement.
As I said before, I am not defending Apple, but after owning Windows in all its flavours and now a Mac, the Mac is the nicest machine I have ever used. Just switch users once in Expose to see what I mean. The graphics used in Mac OSX knock Windows graphics for six. I dont enjoy using Windows any more, it just seems dull.

But, dont take my word for it, as if you would..........:rolleyes:

Allan

you can easily get pc's under £200, and a new basic pc isn't rubbish, it can be more than enough for many people to use. dell are currently advertising in newspapers a basic pc with 80gig SATA HD, 2.8gig processor and 15" TFT for £250, that represents excellent value for money and would be more than capable of running most office and home pc tasks that the average person requires. it wouldn't be great for running games, but mac mini isn't a games computer of choice either. spending £400 on pc will get you a far greater specced computer than a mac mini, the main thing it has going for it is it's smallness, as it can fit nicely with a home theatre setup. mac upgrades can be generally more expensive as with drives for example you usually have to use more costly external drives rather than cheaper internal ones

i thought my statement about allowing xp or mac os on either hardware was pretty simple, so allow greater choice to users. it's debatable whether running xp on a mac is illegal or not. i'm aware you can run mac OS on a pc also, but again the legalities are debatable. what i'm trying to say is that whilst you CAN run either OS on either hardware, why don't apple allow it's customers to do it legally. the reason for apple doing it would be to allow more choice (i see at least no mac users here have had a dig at MS monopoloy of the OS market), and also because i think they can increase sales of hardware and OS by increasing customer base, which could also reduce prices all over. it's a very different analogy to fiat vs rolls royce. currently what i'm asking about CAN and IS being done, only it's not legitimate
 
OK, I see where you are coming from, but what you want can not legitimately be done, but, at least it can be done. And a sub £250 PC will I suspect never be more than a sub £250 PC. It cant possibly use any quality parts and I suspect would perform like a very cheap PC could be expected to perform. You just cant compare that to any Mac built during the last 8 or 9 years.

unique said:
(i see at least no mac users here have had a dig at MS monopoloy of the OS market),

I think you are wrong here. Many Mac users have voted against MS by moving to Mac, and if I am not mistaken, the vast majority would never go back. This must mean Apple is doing something right. OK, so Apple is also guilty of monopolising their part of the market by keeping the op system to themselves, but the way MS and Apple acheive this monopoly is fundamentally different.

So, one of the only free choices you have concerning operating systems is Linux in its various distributions. I went down this route looking for a viable alternative for Windows. Over four or five years I tried various distro`s but was never really happy with any of them. They seemed to promise much, but delivery was always disappointing and none could really compete with MS for ease of use and practicality.

I always liked the look of Mac`s operating system, especially when Panther was introduced, but there was no way of using it on my PC, ( I suppose i had the same thoughts as you, here) I tried various programmes that would make my PC look like a Mac, but they just slowed everything down. So, I did something positive about it. As I said before, I splashed out £120 on an old iMac. That was the only thing to do if I wanted to see how it worked. I didnt want to change the world or fight against it, I just wanted to be rid of Windows.

When I bought my Mac, it was like a ray of sunshine had appeared in an otherwise cloudy sky. At last here was something that excelled my expectations. I should imagine most other Mac owners thought the same.

But, heres where we are fundamentaly different. I wasnt interested in scoring points over Windows. It didnt really interest me if the Mac could do anything better than the PC, all I knew is that whatever the Mac did, it felt like it did it properly. When I acheived something on my Mac, I used to think " why cant Windows do it like this?"

And I`m not alone, many of my colleagues after seeing my Mac bought their own. All of them think the same as me. Its like climbing above the smog and breathing in the fresh air for the first time. Here was something that worked well. You could see the reasoning behind its development.

If thats a description of the unquantifiable element of owning a Mac, then thats all I need.

I cant add any more.

Allan
 
I think its obvious why they don't want to licence the OS for everyone - support. It then puts it directly in competition with Windows and the restrictions they would have to place on the OSx support would make it look a much inferior product.

One of the biggest reasons for Windows success is the amount of hardware it supports (ironicly one of the biggest problems as buggy drivers = unstable OS)

As a result they try and get people to guy Apple Hardware if they want to use the apple OS. Give it another year and the OS will be widely available with drivers to cover a large amount of PC hardware.
 
unique said:
i completely disagree with your statement about apples margins, as if they open up the market a bit more they could sell more copies of the OS to pc users, particularly if the OS is as great as everyone says. again, they can sell more hardware to people who like the apple looks but want to run XP. apple seem to be great at marketing, so imagine how popular the products could be if they did an ipod style campaign targetting pc owners? at a roughtly 5% market share at the moment it can't be that hard to get another tiny 5%, doubling market share can it?
Apple did open up their system to licenced builders of Apple 'Clones' in the late 90's. The idea was that the Mac market would be expanded by increased availability of the OS from more suppliers. What actually happened was that the Clone builders made cheaper and faster computers than Apple built, that were bought by existing Mac owners. No one else wanted them.
One of the first things Steve Jobs did when brought back to Apple was to kill the 'Clones'.

If it ran on generic hardware then maybe they'd sell more but then as has been said the cost of keeping OS up to date would rise massively too as it would need to support more hardware. Steve Jobs is also known to dislike 'Open systems'.

The shocking truth about Mac's is that apart from a vocal minority of Apple users the other 95% of the world just isn't interested in them. :devil:

bibamus said:
It cant possibly use any quality parts and I suspect would perform like a very cheap PC could be expected to perform. You just cant compare that to any Mac built during the last 8 or 9 years.
My G4 is a who's who's of 'generic' parts on the inside. Ironically that means it's actually still upgradable for reasonable cost unlike the earlier Macs in the office.

Have you thought about just enjoying your Mac rather than slagging of PC's you've not experienced?
 
bibamus said:
The difference is, all the components Macs use are good quality.
So you are saying that the componants used in a PC are somehow poor quality? Even if a PC is made on a budget and sold cheaply there are standards which every computer must have as the computer would just crash and burn if poor quality componants were used. Also i would say you are very naive if you think that only Apple use quality hardware componants, take a look at Sony Vaio's, Lenevo (IBM Thinkpad) or even when you build your own computer like me the componants used are very good quality and are priced accordingly.

Sat
 
Actually I'd say the downfall of macs is their hardware reliability. I've never seen a mac that didn't develop some hardware fault or issue , I don't know anyone with a powerbook (or even an ipod) that hasn't had a fault occur on it within 12 months from new.
 
satinder said:
take a look at Sony Vaio's, Lenevo (IBM Thinkpad) or even when you build your own computer like me the componants used are very good quality and are priced accordingly.

Sat

Yup my Thinkpad is made from very good components (will be interesting to see how it compares to the new Mac laptops when I put on OSX (license permitting ;) )
 
Mr.D said:
I've never seen a mac that didn't develop some hardware fault or issue , I don't know anyone with a powerbook (or even an ipod) that hasn't had a fault occur on it within 12 months from new.

I do.

rob_finch said:
I can say however, that my mate's old 400mhz iMac can transfer photos off his digital camera at about the same speed my 2ghz Athlon with a 7200rpm drive does. How? I dunno, but it's gotta be down to the OS and the way it handles data. He has had that iMac for about 8 years, upgraded the OS when new versions released but not had to reload it, never defragged it, never had anti-virus software installed, never used the firewall on it, and I bet it's worth a few quid on eBay...

I can add my Dad's iMac to that as well.

I said I wouldn't respond to this thread any more, I mean it this time! :rolleyes:
 
So can we buy a nice looking mac mini and run windows xp on it? Like I said earlier I dont fancy 'dumbing down' to use the apple OS
 
Baldybouncer said:
So can we buy a nice looking mac mini and run windows xp on it? Like I said earlier I dont fancy 'dumbing down' to use the apple OS

Yes its possible but not easily at the moment. Give it 6 months and i expect the tools will be out there to make it fairly easy.
 
Thanks for the reply.

I have a white Aopen cube (mac ish..) mac keyboard,Mac Soundsticks and mac mighty mouse . They all work and look great. Just couldnt bring myself to come down to an operating system that is so simplified. I enjoy being able to use my Pc as a centre to allsorts of things including my Xbox360.

So I will probably buy a nice small mac mini when windows xp runs on it! ( or the new vista...!)
 
i think that settles it, plenty people want to run xp on mac, or mac OS on a pc. it's just up to mac now to make it happen, and less people can complain that MS has a monopoly over OS's. who knows, those putting xp on a mac mini might tinker around a bit and end up using mac OS. i would try it if i had a mac mini i could dual boot, but i don't fancy paying £400 to play around with, but i might push the boat out a bit if it was guaranteed to work and legitimately
 
Rob_Quads said:
Yes its possible but not easily at the moment. Give it 6 months and i expect the tools will be out there to make it fairly easy.

Go to onmac.net where you can try it out now. If anyone does i recommend that they post there experience hear.

Sat
 
satinder said:
Go to onmac.net where you can try it out now. If anyone does i recommend that they post there experience hear.

Sat

i had a look at the stuff the other day but it isn't all that simple, particularly not for a new user to mac, but perhaps in a few weeks someone will create a simpler method, or even a boot disc or something that will do the dirty work for you. i'd also want to wait to see the results before splashing out £400. it doesn't seem like the mac users on this site seem that interested in trying it, more like pc users interested in trying it
 
avanzato said:
Have you thought about just enjoying your Mac rather than slagging of PC's you've not experienced?

Well, like others recently come to this thread, you`ve quite obviously not kept up to speed on this topic have you. I have run Pcs since the very early 90`s I build them too. I have 4 XP machines at home now, all in use, all networked together with the Mac. I do enjoy my Mac, I have been trying to explain why .....:suicide:

I still say a £200 PC will be rubbish, budgets dictate that it cant have any quality parts in it. Oh sure it will work, but I`d like to see some test results for one of those!! Can you produce any?

And Unique, 1 or maybe 2 other people agreeing with you isnt really "plenty", unless your a budding Politician or statistician!

But, I am still at a loss at to why anybody would want to put XP on a Mac, especially as a few people commenting on Mac OSX recently (" the dumbed down Operating system" :boring: ) have never used it. As somebody else said, the Mac os was released for other companies to use to produce clones. That didnt work out then, why should it now.

MS say Vista will never be available for Mac, but isnt Vista just becoming a clone of the Mac OSX now. Any screenshots of it seem very familiar to Mac users) . So, who produces the best operating system? Apple who wont release it to all and sundry because they are afraid it will become ruined, or MS who are working their best to emulate the Mac OSX?

I dont really care. This is my last post on the subject. Really.
Allan
 

The latest video from AVForums

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