Why would insult the MAC computers by putting on that horrible operating system?

What about the other way around. I have a homebuilt 3800 AMD Dual core. Is there a way to put Mac on that?

What in the world would cause you to respond like that? And don't tell me that I deserved it for asking such a question. It's a computer program, nothing more. If I can find a way to use it great. If not fine. But your rudeness was completly unnecessary.

his "rude" comment was before yours buddy. he started the thread by saying that. Before you get mad at someone, read the time log please. Hint: it's right next to the date

Dood, Once they get those video drivers working, I'll tell you why: Half Life, Far Cry, F.E.A.R. Oblivion, ETC.

Dood, Once they get those video drivers working, I'll tell you why: Half Life, Far Cry, F.E.A.R. Oblivion, ETC.

just to tell you that any OS is Vulnerable http://software.silicon.com/os/0,39024651,39157023,00.htm if you want mac OS on your PC click here http://www.wired.com/news/mac/0,2125,68501,00.html

Poor Scott. He doesn't like that winxp can run on a mac. Here are some thoughts about it, get over it!. The mac is not a mac anymore and for a long time now, it's all pc parts inside, didn't you hear steve saying "What's an intel chip doing in a mac? much more than it ever did on a pc", weren't those his words? Or maybe you're just waiting for a macworld not far into the future when good ole steve will say "what does windows do inside a mac? a lot more than macos ever did". Get used to it, it's coming. Deal with it! Oh, I forgot, it's ok if it comes out of steves mouth, that makes it all right, using pci buses, agp slots, usb ports and intel processors. aaaaaahahahaha!!!!

Man with all you smart OS dudes around I think we should get some printer drivers for Mandrake. Or Netgear 802.11b drivers. Honestly, Lunux is faster, more intuitive and more visually intresting (Gnome) than both OSX and WinXP. Why can't you guys just do smart things for us Linux freaks? Please?

Would you post the benchmarks of a few PC boxes running XP for comparison? I'd like to see the results side by side with the Macs.

Seriously, Linux as a UNIX variation works fine as a console OS (you need to know your way around it), but its GUI is zillions of years away from Mac oS X, not only on looks. Maybe you should ask why all artist and designers have Macs? Coincidence? NOT!, but also in its functionality. Mac OS X works through its GUI every time all he time, you don't need the console unless you want to feel geeky, that can't be said about Linux. You can put leather seats, a real spoiler, big rims to your Toyota but that doesn't make it a Ferrari...

Right ok Windows won't go in a Mac, that's totally different then Intel processors. The Intel chips do not change the personality of the computer. Windows does and let me just tell you (typing on XP on my MacBook Pro right now) Windows has a long way to go, it so inelegant. Given that games mostly run on Windows, I won't deny that but anything that can be done on both Mac or Windows, the Mac version is far more intuitive and stable. Also the comment about Mac using stuff like USB and pci, ok that's like saying "whoa look at BMW using wheels and doors, just like Ford who used them first." Those are just simple basic traits of ANY computer. Sorry.

Au contraire, I totally get it. Mac guy are so known to change their minds on the flick of a macworld. Those arguments you're using to show that I don't get it are the same ones used after a new from-pc-world hardware or feature is built on the mac, and they may even be older than you. Want some examples (and these have been arguments I've had in person with mac thruth-bearers) "NuBus us a much better architecture than anything on the pc. That PCI thing? no chance." Then NuBus gets a big kick in the behind and in comes what? PCI. And of course that same change of argument: "PCI is justg another computer component, the mac is still a mac pci notwitstanding". Yeah right. Why didn't apple made a new bus (pun intended)? IBM did, it was called microchannel, for whatever god that was at the time, but they did something new. Did apple? "We are goign to use the biggest new interconnection system for peripherals, it's called firewire and it's going to be better and more efficient than usb". There came a macworld and in with the usb port with yet another sudden change of attitude "...well, it's another way of conecting peripherals". I'm still waiting to hear pc people complaining or making any fuzz about putting firewire ports on tehir pc before or after they were on the macs. And the best one of all: "...what makes us different and a way better platform is the use of PowerPC processors, which are light years better than any intel processor". Macworld comes and the infamous"...much more than it ever did on a pc" statement and the benchmarks/claims from apple that the intel macs are faster than powerpc macs and the new change of heart: "Also the comment about Mac using stuff like USB and pci, ok that's like saying "whoa look at BMW using wheels and doors, just like Ford who used them first." Thruth is that nowadays, a mac is just a simple pc clone, no way around it and not only your post makes it clear and actually making my point, but you're posting it on an article showing this fact in the most compelling way, a mac running windows, ha! Next stop and for steve's chagrin is macos running on non mac-made pc's. Already done thought stopped by pure muscle. And the mac guys keep going. More intuitive? what's that all about. Comfort and intuition comes in different forms, you feel easier on a mac, me on a pce, another guy on linux, it just doesn't fly. Mac graphically superior? You can make a linux box look like anything you want. A pc? one word: windowblinds. It can even make win98 look like macosx or have transparencies, can you do that on macos9? It's good that mac people have this way of easily changing their minds, it's good for their blood pressure. Oh and I agree with David. Although not too much useful now I'd like comparison benchmarks.

The MacBook Pro is the fastest Core Duo laptop we've tested running the Photoshop scripts. It's faster than other laptops originally designed for Windows Id like to see those comparison benchmarks as well, considering the XP Pro running on the Intel Mac does not yet recognise the graphics card or accelerated graphics?.

Why do people keep critisizing the hard work these people had done? Finally we can use 2 of the (probably) most popular OSes there is. Hey, now you can get the best of both worlds. But yeah, as Hasapi said, I guess we do need to see other benchmark results (in Windows environment) to reach a conclusion. 3DMark 06 maybe? or more video encoding tests.

Why do people keep critisizing the hard work these people had done? Finally we can use 2 of the (probably) most popular OSes there is. Hey, now you can get the best of both worlds. But yeah, as Hasapi said, I guess we do need to see other benchmark results (in Windows environment) to reach a conclusion. 3DMark 06 maybe? or more video encoding tests.

First of all, what makes a mac different is it's software Second, the first computer in the world to have inbuilt USB as standard? The iMac G3. First laptop to have built in 802.11b? The iBook. Oh yeah, and third, FireWire is still the digital video connection standard - exactly what it was created for. Yeah, it kinda sucks that Apple had to go Intel, but at least we know they'll always take the best option available to them rather than clinging on to old technologies (BIOS, anyone?) long after they're replaced by newer and better products. A Mac may be "Just a simple PC clone", but it comes with better software than the average PC, it's easier and more fun to use than a standard PC (ok, you may have your own opinion there, but that doesn't make you more right than me), and indeed the tests show its FASTER than an average PC ("The MacBook Pro is the fastest Core Duo laptop we've tested running the Photoshop scripts. It's faster than other laptops originally designed for Windows.") Kisses Hector

When Joel comes in today, I'll work up a bigger benchmark chart that compares these Macs to other PCs. For some answers ... Bryan - Check out the ExtremeTech link in the main post to see an example of loading Mac OS X on a homebrew PC. The only problem is, that's prohibited by Apple. XGC75 - Linux has been running on Macs for a long time, so Linux on a Mac (or, for that matter, a PC) wouldn't exactly be news. XP's dominant market position is what makes this dual-boot interesting, so Mac owners can potentially play a range of games and business apps formerly unavailable for their machines. Hasapi, Lawrence - Photoshop scripts don't hit the graphics card - they're all processor, which is why we considered these tests valid. None of the scripts we ran hit the graphics card. With no graphics drivers, we'd get unrealistically low scores on any test that hits the graphics card. 3DMark, for instance, would be a total disaster. Fortunately, many hackers are working hard on graphics drivers ...

People waste so much time on useless debates. Use the OS that you like if you like them both cool then...i like them both MACOS and XP..they are both cool for different reasons. bye

If the MAC is so superior (I.E. fast, elegant, intuitive) why doesn't it control more than what a 5 percent of the global computer OS market? Because seriously folks, if the MAC was all that wouldn't they be the leader in the OS market. Microsoft is obviously a leader in the industry because it provides a certain quality product and in the future I definately see one of the Linux distributions taking over that spot in the OS market. The MAC is just a pimped out PC that now depends heavily on "looking cool" and the performance is not that much greater than a PC. If so, why did it need to make a move to jump on PC platforms and standards?

I guess I should also point out that according to arstechnica, Red Hat is working on Linux for Intel Macs. http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20060125-6045.html Therefore a triple-boot XP/RedHat/Os X system will be technically feasible soon. Of course, the OnMac folk may have to modify their bootloader to accomodate triple-booting. There are also enterprising Linux folk out there working on getting Gentoo Linux to boot on Intel Macs. Right now, with a good deal of tweaking, you can triple-boot all three operating systems on a (formerly) Windows-only PC, but as Sascha mentioned, Apple Computer frowns on loading Os X on a non-Apple system. -Joel

Why doesn't it control more than 5%? That's easy Windows and IBM PC's are cheaper to buy. It's not like the way that Fords sell better than Mercedes by being cheaper is it? Or the means by which Nike sell more clothes than Visace? People buy cheap products. For want of any further information, consumers see one computer selling marginally cheaper than another for relatively similar features and understandably buys the cheaper. Though Apple do in fact represent excellent value for money, it's still quite difficult to effectively argue that they do - no other computer manufaturer throws in Bluetooth, WiFi, a webcam, a remote control interface, speakers, a full suite of media applications and of course a 20" widscreen LCD display for the same price as an iMac and with the same specs. See how I did that without mentioning design or ease-of-use once. obviously, though, I don't know what I'm talking about, and my justifications are a sign of brainwashing by the Cupertino enemy. Hugs Hector

It's a pity Mac notebooks are so expensive. It's not worth extra speedup.

Triple boot wouldbe awsome, one could truely use the best OS for each application: MAC for graphics, video, and the like; Linux for stability, servers, and geekishly tweeking details; and Win XP for games, Office, and Solitare. Great concept, keep up the good work!

To the guy about Hacking Mac OS X. You need to read the article a little further man, the hackers were all given user names and passwords with basic authentication. All they had to do was elivate there login to admin or superuser... Tell me how long that takes to do on a windows machine? 5 Min with a bootable CD. -Andrew

also SSH was open on the mac mini

(sorry for the thread deviation) in response to the 30 minute claim... The person who performed the hack was given direct shell access to the machine. In simple terms... its like giving someone your ignition keys to the car... and saying.. .its locked... go ahead an try to steal it. Additionally, the machines configs were altered to allow this process to happen and as a result, the base level security was negated. -Michael ps. dual boot is nice. I am a developer who needs to work in both primary worlds. So for me... being able to have one machine while traveling is a godsend.

I would love to see you put up results of those same machines running similar benchmarks, booted in OS X. Even linux.... Basically an OS shootout

Bounty, Check the links for the original reviews, the PhotoShop CS2 numbers are there. Short answer: since Adobe hasn't yet created a Universal App for Intel Macs, the PhotoShop CS2 numbers for OS X are currently slower. We anticipate that when Adobe optimizes PhotoShop CS2 (or releases a Universal CS3) for Intel Macs, the scores will likely improve. -Joel

cause MACOS sucks

I'd have to say for many years I was a Mac Hater, and for the right reasons because of Mac OS 9 and earlier versions. I was the guy who'd build his PC from scratch. Some of what you guys say is right, Mac's are pretty much PC's on the inside now, but from a non-gaming perspective WinXP is a pile of crap. However, I'm intrigued to hear that people are doing this experiment (and vice versa). If man can make it, man can break it.

How about some open source programs? MP3 encoding, zip compression, prime number crunching... (or several of these at once) Anything that doesn't tax the GPU could be fair. Maybe some network serving/client tests. If not anything else, it would tell us which OS creates more overhead. This opens alot of possiblities... like the ability to compare Safari v.s. IE v.s. Konqueror all on the same hardware platform. I'm sure these kinds of reviews will pop up eventually.

I like Pedro. Mac changes way too much and it's just plain obnoxious. I never realized it until a few weeks ago, I ended up with a slightly old Mac. Here's my experience, coming from a Linux background: I got a Mac 9 PPC. I tried to install some programs but none worked, cause they all want Mac 10. I dug around and finally found a Mac 9 version of a program I wanted, but guess what? It needed 9.2 and I had a slightly older 9. So it wasn't compatable. So I upgrade to OSX, I have this 10.2.8 disk here, and, holy crap, some OSX programs need higher than 10.2.8. Apparently changing the 2nd number in the version completely breaks binary compatability? If I got the latest 10.4, sooner or later I'm just going to be in the situation that I have 10.4 for PPC and everything is going to x86. So what if I buy an x86 Mac right now? Does it end? Hells no! The new Macs are all using x86-32. Apparently the amazing wonderful Intel Core is the only x86 chip still on the market that isn't 64 bit. Not for long, of course. Later this year, Core will be 64-bit compatable, and then I'll end up with a 32-bit Mac while everyone is making 64-bit binaries. Considering the history here, I ~highly~ doubt that they will bother keeping compatability for more than a week. So if I buy this brand new Mac, it's gonna be depreciated in a year or two. Of course it'll happen. By my count it's already been broken 4 times since OS9. Mac is nice but I like my computers to last at least 5 years. I don't game so it hasn't been a problem so far since I use Linux and don't have to deal with computer rot.

I continue to see this dialog in a variety of places about Steve always changing his mind. It's called Marketing... How much product would Apple sell if Steve said... "NuBus us a much POORER architecture than anything on the pc. That PCI thing? IT'S REALLY THE BEST THING OUT THERE." OR "We are goign to use the biggest new interconnection system for peripherals, it's called firewire and it's ABOUT AS efficient AS usb. WHY DON'T YOU GIVE FIREWIRE A TRY AND TELL US WHAT YOU THINK" To sell products you need to motivate the consumers to try your product. Marketing points out the features and perceived benefits of your technology. You continue to do this over time and you incorporate other technologies as they become available. Personally, I try to take everyone's Marketing message with a grain of salt. I have my favorite applications on both platforms as I have my pet peeves about both platforms. But it's not based on what someone said during a Marketing presentation. My preference is the Mac. My employer's preference is Windows XP. I feel that I am a better Windows user because of the Mac. I try to base my decisions on what's important by what I must need to get accomplished. In the overall scheme of things how will any box that completes an operation in 10, 30, 60 or 120 seconds faster than it does today make a significant difference in what I need to get accomplished? When it's 25, 50 or 100 times faster that will really be a compelling message.

I'm impress with the resault, and maybe I should switch to Mac.

Joe Cooper just doesn't get it. First off, OS 9.0 shipped in 1999! OS 9.1 in Jan of 2001 and 9.2 in like March of 2001 along with OS X. We are talking about an OS that is ether 5, 6 or 7 years old. And if it was less than 6 years old a free updater is available on the web. http://www.macupdate.com/info.php/id/6214 As for versions causing a loss of binary compatibility...NOT!!!! There is a big difference between a new program not running on an older OS and a new OS causing application incompatibility. If you had a version of the software that worked on 10.2 I'd bet it would work under 10.4 but if a developer takes advantage of new features in an OS (thus requiring it for the program to run) that is totally different and in my mind should be encouraged. Also, it cracks me up when people equate a change in the decimal version as being a minor change to the OS. Let me clue you in. OS X is a solid and valuable brand name and Apple does not want to leave it behind. So Apple now uses the first decimal place as the major OS release indicator. That is just the way it is, get over it. Finally, yes OS X has evolved quickly. Apple has added new functionality in both API's and application updates almost every year and for those of us who love computers and technology it is GREAT! I love the changes and the new features and how much better it makes the applications I use every day. For people who want to use less advanced tools that change less often, maybe they should stick with linux and windows.

Yeah I'd have to agree that it was pretty stupid of Apple to introduce new products on an obsolete architecture. PPC is 64bit. Has been for years. Now they've gone backwards to 32bit Intel... and this fall they're going to go forward again to 64bit! Talk about planned obsolescence!!!! ~ n8

These preliminary tests certainly are interesting. I'll add them to the other benchmarks I performed comparing the MacBook Pros to other Mac systems: http://www.craigtheguru.com/reports/MacBook_Pro_Performance_Analysis.php When Mac Photoshop is updated to be Universal so that it runs natively on x86 Macs it'll be really interesting to further compare the systems performance.

You all fail to recognize that more often than not it is the user rather than the OS or architecture that make the PC/Mac of any value. Personally I use both put prefer my Windows 2000 server OS to any thing else Microsoft XP is nothing but problems and is as embarrassing as win95 was. OS 10.4 is great I have to use it several times a week for Digital Capture on photo shoots here in NYC. All this talk from gamers who cares. You want to test an OS or any machine and it's over all performance, put it in a real world situation. In the end Windows or Mac it's all about the operator and how they setup there machine. I've seen a beautiful G5 dual core that ran like crap because there was so much junk running in the background and just poorly setup. Then I've got my little P4 2.8 GHZ running Win2k SP4 with 2 gigs of ram and U160 drives in RAID 0 that coast me around $1200.00 to build that handles RAW files as fast as I can shoot them, and can process the files to TIFF just as fast as a G5. You all seem to forget that Bill Gates still owns a major share of APPLE stock; and has since those Orwellian ads back in 1984. So while all of you banter, who do you think is laughing all the way to the bank. HAHAHA, he bet on both horse's and can't lose!

Apple right now has an opportunity to fulfill the emptiness Microsoft has created by continuously pushing back the release of Vista. I think if they would certify several select Audio, Video, and Network devices instead of everything AND the kitchen sink like Microsoft, and then release OSX for certified PC's then they would put a squeeze on the MS monopoly.

Jose' The ONLY reason Microsoft has the market dominance is because of the pressures of 10-15 years ago. Microsoft was contracturaly binding OEM's llike Dell, Compaq, HP, etc. to ONLY using Windows. Not to mention the fact that Apple is an All in one package. People prefer choices, and in those choices more choices. Sadly, it usually boils down to how much computer can I get for (nowadays) $500.00 As far as the PowerPC 64bit to 32bit Intel move.. The powerPC chips were way more expensive, and golly, it looks like they were not as fast as all the hype said they were.

I'd like to see comparisons of running benchmarks on the SAME MACHINE. For example, quicktimepro encode time of a sequence under OSX vs. under XP. How does the underlying OS affect performance of the same (native) app on the same iron. I believe cinebench would also be available to test on each side. For users of native applications, is there a performance advantage of either OS?

Take that a step further. Benchmark OSX versus XP on a windows machine. Dont use something that just barely runs OSX. to be fair try it on a PC that most closely resembles the new Mac's

You all seem to forget that Bill Gates still owns a major share of APPLE stock Microsoft (not Bill Gates) bought 150 millions of non-voting Apple stock in 1997, as part of a 5-year Microsoft-Apple agreement. It was a pale 7% of total Apple stock, not a "major share". In 2002, when the agreement finished, Microsoft sold the stock.

I'm a little confused: why did you guys run such a limited set of benchmarks? Looking at the other dual-core laptops link, it appears this suite can run a number of other tests. How come you guys didn't run those as well? Don't get me wrong, my hat's off to you guys both for accomplishing this and publishing your findings. I've been holding off on upgrading my PowerBook until I could be sure that it could run XP and some more apps were native. Rosetta's nice, but I don't want to drop speed. Also, is anyone offering a challenge for getting video drivers running? Seems like that's the last piece of the puzzle. Lastly, there's no discussion of what running the OS on a day-to-day basis is like. Stable, crashes, any apps that refuse to run, peripherals not working, etc?

Apple thought about this. There is some kind of hardware in intel macs that OSX looks for when it boots. PC's dont have this. If you want to run OSX, it has to be on an apple computer. It may be possible to get around this, but I wouldn't know.

Mac OS was hacked into in 30mins Yeah sure, but what they didn't tell us (now they 're admitting it) is that the hacker was given an administrative account on that machine. So, that Mac was hacked from the "inside".

Pedro, you don't seem to know that NuBus came out on the Mac II in 1986, years before PCI, that Apple collaborated with intel on PCI, that FireWire was invented in 1989, years before USB 2, that IBM's Micro Channel was ignored by the PC industry, which stuck with ISA, that USB 2 was developed by intel in retaliation for Apple wanting to charge a per-port FireWire licensing fee, that FireWire is still popular for digital video, that Apple's adoption of USB 1 on the iMac spurred adoption in the PC world, etc.. The advantages of PowerPC over x86 are shorter pipeline and better vector processing; the advantages of x86 over PPC are better integer performance overall. The reason the newer Macs are faster than the old iMac and PowerBook (in native mode at least) is dual core on the iMac, vastly improved bus on the MacBook, and far superior GPU an all platforms, as well as a higher CPU clock rate and better integer performance. The point of this article is that Apple makes fine machines, even if you try running XP on them.

It's worthwhile to note that intel realized that long pipelines and high clock rates were not sustainable, and ditched the P4 architecture for what is essentially an evolution of the Pentium 3!! The result is that the Core Duo, at a lower clock rate, outperforms the Pentium 4 and Athlon. The reason Apple switched to x86 is not because the x86 adopted short pipelines, however, but because IBM was spending all of its time, money, and manufacturing capacity on processors for game consoles.

What is a nice OS , like XP doing on a cheap white plastic and cheap aluminium box? more than their original OS X ever did....

Well, at least Jobs got OSX running.... Unlike his much promoted and never seen from again Next. Macs running XP, PC's running OSX... OMG, whats next? Liberals and Conservatives eating lunch together? Some things were just not meant to be... I mean, it just sounds so.... Ewwwwwww....LOL I can just see the Mac guys from way back when.... Just reading that XP will now operate on an Apple box, is like being 16 and seeing your mom naked.... Anyone else remember that one? It was supposed to be the Next logical step in the OS race. To me, they are both good operating systems. And which one you use is based on your personal preference. I guess you could liken it to sexual preference. Some like one way, some the other, and some both. And, like the saying goes... "A man convinced against his will, is of the same opinion still....."

Windows XP on Macs? Okay you smart IT guys and girls that have a PC or a Mac fetish. My challenge to you, is to create a computer that has Windows XP and Mac OS X, so I can swith back and forth using one computer. I like both systems, but I don't like spending the money for two computers. Windows XP on Mac was a great start and congratulations to you guys!! And continue your research. Eusevio (I'm not a real teacher, but I play one on that show).

I used to be "build your own PC" all the way, you just can't beat price. After the 3rd & fourth whitebox video cards with underclocked memory (and one retail), bad memory, flaky processors, I just got tired of having my computer in a constant state of repair. You turn to the PC market & you really aren't going to get results much different, you really understand this if you are one of the many trying to get Dell to admit they have a capacitor issue on their motherboards. Bottom line I finally realized that unfortunately you do get what you pay for. Faced with this & the fact that I was tired of having to completely reload windows everytime I installed some game or other program that happened to goof up my dlls I finally bit the bullet & bought my first MAC (a laptop). I kept the PC around a short while but it didn't take long for me to finally decide to give it away. I've now been a happy MAC owner for almost a year now & have purchased my second MAC just recently. I've thrown all kinds of beta software & special tweaks at my MACs & though I've crashed programs the system itself still runs like magic. Say what you want about MACs but in the end I am a happier man than I was a year ago. Everything has a cost, you may not pay as much for a Dell running XP or Media Center, but you pay for it with your time.

I havenever used MAC but it sux!! I bot a Imac and I coundnt get eny progrmas to werk on it. It wanted versin 10. I only had 9. THen it wanted version 9.2, which is a free upgrade but I din no that. Then it needed something highter then 10.2. Wow. MAC break binary compatibility. You have to buy 10.5 and then progarms wont work becuse everythngs going to intel. 10.3 is like onely 30 dollers but im too chep to buy it and apple sux they should give everything away for free. Besides, why buy MAC when everyone buys a pc. pcs have usb, 802.11, monitors, mouses, keyboards. MAC doesnt. Good thinggod gave me a brane. halelooya Ex2bot ps how do i get MAc runing on my 500 mhz celeron

Hey all, I hate OS/Hardware debates. No one will ever win. Seriously. There is no ONE perfect OS/HW combiniation. If you run servers you aren't worried about pretty graphics and if you design multimedia you aren't worried about games and if you program code you want a nice crosscompatible system. Linux/XP/OSX.... they all have upsides. I would be the first to admit that XP is severely lacking... but I am a gamer and I put up with it. I love linux.. its just good. I have used OSX and I love the style it has. I want all of them... and I have them all :P XP for games Mac for media Linux for geek'ing No one combo will win all debates. I also think ppl should stop thinking Steve Jobbs is the 2nd coming of jesus. He can change his mind. He is trying to run his company the best he can. All that said I have 3 PC's one MacBookPro and one Dell Laptop. They all do me just fine.

The benchmarks you mentioned with other Core Duo laptops http://www.pcmag.com/image_popup/0,1871,s=1565&iid=127601,00.asp has as the winner a laptop @ 2.0 GHz. The MacBook Pro @2.16 GHz only beat it by 1 second on the Photoshop scripts and was beaten by roughly half a minute on the Windows Media Encode. I don't think the benchmarks are terribly impressive compaired to the other laptops.

I'm a teacher who runs a lab for computer graphics classes. Most of my folks prefer Macs (sensibly IMHO), but those who prefer Windoze may now be able to get that and on the same machine (good for my budget that way, too). I do web design, and when I know that I can test a site in IE Win, without the screwiness of VPC, that will make me even more happy.

If only this had happened 2 weeks ago I could have bought a shiny new MacBook instead of this Sony Vaio.

I love the guy who said: >> Second, the first computer in the world to have inbuilt USB as standard? The iMac G3. USB 1.0 came out in January 1996. The iMac came out in August 1998.

Why you ask?? Because there are still some specialized, low distribution, applications that will run only on the WinDoze operating system. In my case, it's DrumNote Pro which I use to write drum scores for a bagpipe band. I also remotely administer some client networks from my PC. Once I can reliably, and efficiently, run versions of Windows on an Intel Mac...my PC will be down the road. I have four Macs and two PC's in my house. (One POS PeeCee is owned by my stepson...I married into it.) Over the years, I've had seven Macs. The oldest three are spending their "retirement" in the computer lab of a local elementary school. I've never had an unrecoverable crash or a single hardware failure on any of my Macs. I've never lost a byte of data. ...and don't be ludicrous, Windows will never be the primary OS on any Mac. There would be no point in running the buggy POS-OS most of the time. BTW..., you Windows folks, where's Vista, and what's with all the features they keep cutting out...like EFI? Of course, Microsoft's motives are transparent and it's obvious they cut EFI support just to make it more difficult to put Vista on a MacTel machine and to mess with Apple. In spite of the fact that it might mean additional sales of Vista to MacTel owners, they still have such disdain for Apple that they had to take another slap at them. Shame...on them....a shame for their devotees whose machines will still be using BIOS.

With all this snide commentary going back and forth, I have to wonder... how many of you have actually worked as an engineer for either Apple OR Microsoft OR Intel OR AMD? And are therefore elligable to attach yourself to the coattails of either company. ...sound of crickets... Here's news. Unless you directly helped build a product, you don't get to claim cool-points by promoting it, any more than someone who never worked at Harley-Davidson gets to be self-righteous about Harleys. People... it's only hardware and software. Not legitimate ego-fodder. But then, this IS the Internet, where smug me-too-ism is the stock and trade. --someone with "Apple Software Engineer" on the resume and who own both Macs and PCs for good reason

Don't you guys remember, back when the power pc came out they had a option for a dos card in the box. The computer was the power mac 6100. Why would you even think about putting win crap on a mac, either by one or the other. If they did, then it would be called no competetion for mac, we would rule again. Here is the link, check it out http://www.lowendmac.com/ppc/6100.shtml.

I don't see the problem with the comment I made above The Bondi iMac was the first computer to be sold with inbuilt USB ports as standard (as in not an optional upgrade, but included in the baseline price, if you don't recognise that phrase). This has nothing to do with the time between USBs invention and the release of the iMac - the point is that NO other manufacturer was offering USB ports in their stardard PC configurations. Nobody is saying Apple invented USB or that it wouldn't have come out without them, but you cannot deny their influence and their forward thinking I don't see how anyone could hold USB implementation against Apple... particularly people who still have (ughh) serial ports on the back of their machines Cuddles Hector

I think this thread has some of the lamest gay-geek- flamers on both sides of the Apple/non-Apple debate. Also, to the twit who said that an Apple in not a PC. PC stands for personal computer. Apple makes personal computers. An Apple is a personal computer. Get it?

Pedro - lot of truth in what you say. I think the faithful's defence of Steve Jobs is a bit bizarre. Then again I wouldn't call him up on it - it's called marketing. At at the end of the day it's the product that counts. You can flog anything to the Apple faithful, but they're only turned the company around by delivering good products to a new audience (people who don't download Steve Jobs keynotes, just like they don't watch Michael Dell's ones). Jose - your argument is flawed. It's like saying McDonald's must produce the best food because it's the most popular. Having eaten elsewhere, I can assure you this is not true. They're definitely 'doing something right' as a company, but that something is not producing great food. For the record, I don't even believe OS-X is 'the best OS'. I think it's the best consumer OS, but I'd rather have Solaris 10 or some version of Linux on a server. -- Being able to add transparency to Windows 98, that's missing the point - transparency was a marketing gimmick to show that the desktop OS was using the graphics card to accelerate windowing, which was the actual interesting bit. (They're pretty much cut it out of Tiger). That's why my Mac Mini can 'outperform' a far more powerful desktop PC at certain tasks - it's offloading a lot of work from the CPU. Of course it sucks at gaming and CPU instensive work - but it's tiny and very very quiet. I'd say the same to the Linux guys - as far as I can see, only Kororaa and SLED, which use the XGL library, can actually deliver an OS-X style GPU accelerated desktop. And SLED is a prime candidate for 'best business OS' - they've spent thousands of hours focused on business users.

Thanks for the updates - man, i was going to buy a toshiba P-M for the wife (needs a pc for share trading software), but now ill wait for Macbook instead. The PC Core Duo's kept pace (understandably), but the similarly priced P-M's are getting killed, game over, apple gets my money.

> Why would insult the MAC computers by putting on that horrible operating system? BECAUSE, some of us work for a living, and in the work world there is a lot of very specific software built for Windows. I'm not talking Excel or stuff like that. So, let's say I'm on a plane heading to place X, where I will do some implementation work on an accounting system. I've got to take my Windows PC and all the tools in it. But for my own stuff I'd rather have a Mac. Do you think I should drag two machines around the world? That's dumb. I'd rather have a Mac, but I need to be able to run Windows in it at any time. Dual boot will do, though ideally I would want Windows running inside an OS/X Window. There are a lot of us, and Intel Macs are really big news for us. ... For those who wonder why Apple holds only 5% of the market, Macs lost a lot of ground during the years Jobs was out of the company. OS 9 was a piece of crap in comparison to Windows NT 4.0, and the hardware was all beige-colored and generic, yet costly. If Jobs hadn't come back, the Mac would be dead now.

It's a good way to test websites on my Mac. Besides that i hate XP (and Vista - looking at the previews). Biggest problem with microsoft: no taste! no style! no class (no class - wasn't that a motorhead song! Even Lemmy knew it)!

First of all the links are dead...can ne 1 tell the xom.zip that was avaible on OnMac.net was for iMac, MacBook or Macmini. I found only 1 file over there.. there were no different versions over there....

PC vs. Mac is slowly becoming a moot point. Convergence is on the horizon whether we like it or not.

Let's hope that this is the first step towards accessing Windows programs from within OSX.

Thanks guys, I know it's marketing, I'm not trying to criticize Jobs. In his place, I would do just as he's been doing, especially with the croud who listens to him. I also have to 100% agree that had Jobs not returned, apple would be a memory like Commodore or Amiga (talk about a nice system). What I do criticize is the way mac flock not only rationalizes but defends those tidal changes. It's nothing but hilarious. Say an statement like "Intel processors are better". Before macworld, you hear blasfemy cries and historical recolections as how the 68000 was better in the day and the powerpc kicks not only intel but even sparcs or whatever other processors are out there and they are used in gaming consoles, etc; after macworld you hear thise silly things like "well ford's and bmw's and birds & bees" and how they had to dump powerpc because they were focusing on gaming consoles. Amazing. Not even the sound of a gulp of the words they just had to swallow minutes after the speech. Having thought about it, it's like talking to an abused kid or an underdog that no matter the reality, his/hers stuff is the one and only, the best on earth. Kinda to help you sleep better at nights. Can you have good programs on macs? sure. Are they good computer? why not. The end all system? not a chance. And I'm also very sorry about those who changed platforms (from any platform to any other platform, to be clear boys from apple to pc or pc to apple, although there not much of a chance to self build a mac, is it?) because their tweaks didn't works or they self built system never quite cut it. As in all self-built experiences you have only one person to blame, you. "My Altaire didn't work" Guess whose fault that is. SOF, I would had written the same syllogism about why a mac is a pc, but ever since the "mac is better/think different" debate started, there has been no way they get that point. Don't know, maybe you'll get luckier and they'll get it thanks to you. I just got it. Now I know where the "Think Different" thing came from. Everytime you went to a macworld, you HAD to think different in order to keep up with steve's everchanging marketing. "Think different everytime so you can get my point"

I thinl that SOF it absolutely right! Let me just rimind you again, "this thread has some of the lamest gay-geek- flamers on both sides of the Apple/non-Apple debate. Also, to the twit who said that an Apple in not a PC. PC stands for personal computer. Apple makes personal computers. An Apple is a personal computer. Get it?"

Apple wants XP to run on The Macs I would bet that had it up and running a long time ago BUT they dont want to have to support the configuration NOW look at it this way All the WinTel users can buy a Mactell and get more hardware business Which Most people may not know Steve always said Apple is a Hardware company 1st Now The fight isnt against MS it against Dell, HP and Gateway Now look at the dominance of hardware Dell has the largest but its nowhere near 92% like MS then HP and Gateway I do believe Leaving Apple in 4th with just under 5% which is up from 3% 2 yrs ago As Apple slowly steals the hardware market share because It now runs XP People will see that OSX is a much better OS then XP is and Vista will be which has been delayed again So if I'm right Steve is Pretty damn Smart and Apple will take over both hardware and software and the world will be a very happy place Just think About it and Have Fun

These MAC guys are ridiculous. All MAC's are good for are the graphics as you guys have clearly stated. If I wanted graphics from my computer. I would go out and buy a Playstation or an XBOX. But no, some people dont just want graphics. They want to be able to configure their OS's to do what they want them to do. Not what Apple wants. So as to all you guys who criticized Linux. Linus is so much better than any other OS's out there. Configuration-wise no other OS can compete with Linux. Linux doesnt have much way to go to be able to dominate in the graphics world. It can do everything a MAC or XP machine can do even better. Linux is making moves, very fast moves into households and as you will see soon. Linux will be competing with every other OS's out there.

NuBus us a much better architecture than anything on the pc. That PCI thing? no chance. yeah Nubus was much better than ISA that PC used at that time. Then came PCI wich both started to use. PCI about 8 times faster than ISA and about 2 times faster than Nubus. Thant makes Nubus 4 times faster than the PC ISA bus at same timeperiod. "We are goign to use the biggest new interconnection system for peripherals, it's called firewire and it's going to be better and more efficient than usb". There came a macworld and in with the usb port with yet another sudden change of attitude "...well, it's another way of conecting peripherals". I'm still waiting to hear pc people complaining or making any fuzz about putting firewire ports on tehir pc before or after they were on the macs" First the first Firewire was developed back in 1986 and had a speed of 100 Mbps. The first version thet had a commersial success was the now called FireWire 400. Still far better than any USB version. "And the best one of all: "...what makes us different and a way better platform is the use of PowerPC processors, which are light years better than any intel processor". The PowerPC is still far better than any Intel processor Apple was right on that part. And still is and they have never told us that the Intel chip is a by technology a better prosessor.' And mac is still graphically superior thanks to OSX Framworks. The only thing that you got right is that Mac hardware is infact basically an PC clone. But well Apple built PC:s before IBM made it's known PC in 1981. PC stands for Personal computer and that is all what it stands for. So what you call PC should be called IBM PC clone. "So I upgrade to OSX, I have this 10.2.8 disk here, and, holy crap, some OSX programs need higher than 10.2.8. Apparently changing the 2nd number in the version completely breaks binary compatability? " No Binary is broken! It's because the app is using framworks that isn't available on erlier builds of OSX. Every programmer may choose to support even older system software but most of them doesn't. It's not Apples fault. And the new framworks give much comfort to the programmers so you selldome se anyone supporting older than 10.2.8 or 10.3.9. In the times of 10.4.5 and soon 10.5. The marketshare for older than 10.3.9 is so low tha there is no use. On Linux the development isn't just as fast as on the Mac. Backward compatability is proven that an OSX 10.4.5 can still run OS 9 apps and older. USB came 1996 Still Apple was the first to make it standard on ther computer. Remeber all those colorful USB gadets that where colored like the iMac. It was no coincidence. Apple also was first to have CD-ROM drives as standard. Just hate Windows ducks that have no idea of what they talk about. And yes I own both an Mac Laptop and Windows Laptop. The Mac has a 400 Mhz G4 CPU and the PC an 1.6Ghz Intel Celeron. Guess wich one i type this on?... Bad guesser?... as all Windows morons. I type it on the Mac.

Well after showing my anger on those knowin nothing I can tell that it's only for good. With my next computer I will be able to run OSX as main system. Windows for some gaming. Linux i have no use for but i could soon run that to if I wanted. It's lovingly to see that Macs performs well in Windows environment and gives no reason to get homebred wintels any more. That anyway doesn't have the right driver. Hopefully the Graphic Card issue will be solved for gaming is the only purpouse of having Windows.

for you PC fans don't worry soon enough (Jan 2007) you will have nearly all the same feature that mac os X has (tiger) with Vista. Only you probably will have to buy more RAM new video cards, new motherboards, new limitations, and some cool graphics. it will eventually cost more than the mac. Trust me. By then OS 11 will come out and microsoft will have to go back to the drawing board to copy apples OS again. But Apple just made it a little more fair by having similar hardware that runs faster since it doesnt have DOS,Win 95, 98,98SE, NT, 2000 and XP running under it requiring it to have 2 gigs just to run Vista

exbot - learn to spell. Your grasp of the english language and grammar is rather rudimentary. Your post made me laugh the most for all the wrong reasons. everyone else - it's been said before, it's just a computer. Do I own a mac? Yes I do, but I earn my living with Windows. Why do I use a mac? I am happiest there. All my friends use a Windows machine. Does that bother me? No. Do I try and convince them to buy a Mac? No, except when I get that phone call for help - LOL. Choose the system that works best for you and forget about what else thinks. If it's a PC, great. If it's a mac, great. If you want both operating system's on the same machine, so be it. Enough of the petty bickering about this operating system is better because..., Microsoft owns Apple..., etc.

Reasons? a) because it it possible. b) because Apple switched to Intel c) because Apple should not decide what OS I run on their hardware. d) because Microsoft does not decide that I can only run their software on hardware from vendor X. e) Just because it is cool. Thats why.

Ok.. The things some of you are arguing about are misplaced here. I understand some of the MAC only people are upset, don't know why because this move will only increase market share for apple. The one thing stopping me from getting a mac as my primary machine was being able to run windows apps that I HAVE to use at work. I'm not talking about office... I'm talking about .NET application tools and sourcesafe and other things like that. Before you go bashing all that stuff... this is my job which is a fortune 500 company, I can't change the framework they build in. The point is a lot of people are in the same boat. We love the mac software and experience but need to use windows apps from time to time. It's not all about looks 100% of the time, sometimes we actually need to get work done. With this solution we can do everything we need to do. As far as linux goes, it's just plain hard to maintani and even get installed correctly without help. But you KNOW someone is going to quickly figure out how to load a great version of Linux on the mac intel. I am very excited about winxp on the mac but I won't be happy until everything... video card (for games), the isight (for communication etc), the fan, and the screen brightness (doesn't have to do it auto) all work well on the mac book pro. Let's hope since they delayed Vista further (and sorry pure mac people but it looks like its got some good things and yes it even looks like they stole it from mac) that maybe it will support EFI... who knows.

I am an avid mac user converted 6 years ago. Just got a Quad because I need it to make a film I am currently producing. It really works great... I did my research and foudn that it outperforms the top Alienware and Dell machines and is on par with the top HP quad machine. except that the HP was $6000 while the mac was about 4. So im not to interested in switching to the mactel to soon. Mostly because my apps, Maya and AE would run like my dual 1.7 ghz G4. So that was out. So I opted for a quad with a external eSATAII RAID. The xp on a mac thing interests me bc my girlfriend is currency analyst on wall street, she switched to a powerbook G4 last year and loves it. But she has one major citicism that it can't run her PC based charting software. So she is very interested in the XP on a mac thing. But in the end i doubt she would want to reboot her laptop everytime she wanted to access her software. Thats why i lover Virtual PC and am hoping for a better version of this software soon. Also it may not be nessessary soo because a lot of finance software is now being done in JAVA which is very mac compatable. So hopefully the JAVA trend will continue.

i need to edit video on the move. best program still out there is final cut pro. i use my mac for what i need it to do and so should it be done with any device. and if you can do what you need to do on an older machine or os why would you care about the new one and that it cant run what you used to run. this whole debate is useless even tough i like my mac.

Some people don't speak English as their native language. As a matther of fact most people don't even speak English. Englis is the second after Mandarin languages After English comes Spanish. My native langue is spoken by 0.2-0.3 % of the world population. English is spoken by less than 1/6 of the world population. So go figure.

The Macbook Pro has 2GB of RAM, while the other two machines only have one. This would certainly explain the performance contrast between itself and the iMac. This kind of thing should be listed in the article. The comparisons between the Apples and Windows PCs doesn't make any mention of RAM, just CPU and Graphics chipset. I think if someone really wants an honest comparison, they need to specify all these details and put all the machines in the same table with the same tests.

Why still bother with Microsoft Windows(virus and spyware OS) or Apple Mac OS when you can run Linux and have KDE and the GNOME Desktop on a machine? In fact, I am using it right now and it runs awesome and blazing fast.

I am running OSX right now on a Dell. Its running Dual Xeons 2.4 and it runs very well. Also just by selecting XP I can boot that also, So for everyone who thinks its so so hard to boot OSX on a PC you are wrong.

Although Macs use many of the same components as Wintels, a key concept of Apples, historically (with a very brief exception) through present, is you get an operating system and hardware that were designed to work together. You get the whole package, not a hodge-podge, a vision that integrates the hardware and software. That is part of the reason they are more expensive and your choices are more limited. Regarding upgrades and compatibility, I have seamlessly upgraded through 7 or 8 Macs since 1986 and backward compatibility has rarely been a problem. In fact I am still using Procite 2 from 1992 and occassionally MacDraw Pro from 1991 and Claris Draw from 1994 in classic mode from OS 10.4. It is not clear why one would want to start with an old OS and hope to run newer programs (unless you are buying used computers or not buying anything).

I got a Mac 9 PPC. I tried to install some programs but none worked, cause they all want Mac 10. I dug around and finally found a Mac 9 version of a program I wanted, but guess what? It needed 9.2 and I had a slightly older 9. So it wasn't compatable. So I upgrade to OSX, I have this 10.2.8 disk here, and, holy crap, some OSX programs need higher than 10.2.8. Apparently changing the 2nd number in the version completely breaks binary compatability? You say you're a Linux user so I'll put this in Linux terms. What your complaining about is like complaining that the RPM you downloaded for Redhat 9 doesn't work on Redhat 6. The reason, the Redhat 9 binary that you have downloaded requires something from a library that is not availiable for Redhat 6. The solution, download the source (if availiable) and compile it form there, this removes your library dependacy problem, which is the actual problem here and not binary compatability. Or download Darwin Ports or Fink and install using those. If it's a commercal app then your no worse off then trying to install that Windows XP app on Windows 98 and you should have checked the requirements before purchasing the app. As for the chaging hardware, there is always Rosetta which will help with the arch. change for the short/mid term. Otherwise, welcome to the ever changing world of computers.

I don't want to get into this debate, it's kind of silly. I prefer Macs for my personal computing needs, but I use Windows and Linux for work and they're both perfectly adequate operating systems as well. Every operating system has its uses, and saying any one of them is superior for all tasks is simply untrue. However, one thing that really annoys me is when people say "MAC" as if it were an acronym. It is not. "Mac" is short for "Macintosh." It is not an abbreviation for a three-word phrase with initials "MAC." If I cared about this argument at all, I may even go so far as to say that anyone who refers to Apple's computers as "MACs" lose a lot of credibility because they don't even know the name of the thing they are bashing.

Well for those like TIm, and other Linux users that say you should forget sx and use linux.... frankly do your homework.. osx can run gnome, in ADDItion to its native interface.... it is after all unix.... What you wind up is with the advantages of both worlds..... About windows aPPS ON OSX... THE MOVE TO INTEL HAS ONE ADVANTAGE... forget dual booting..... WINE has been compiled for osx.... which means this guys.... On Intel macs..You will be able to run windows apps within osx... without emulating the processor.. also its free. Wine is still in testing stages on macintels.... but to find it just do a google for wine osx Cheers: Vantur

It's finally spring, and the blockbusters are coming fast and furious. What's New Now is somewhat shorter...

Come on Guys!! I think they did a great job; lets not start splitting hairs who's OS is better or not. We can all benefit from what these guys are doing. If we start argueing which OS is better, than we're no more than childeren who keep shouting "My daddy is stronger then your daddy" The fact of the matter is that we all want some sort of cross-usability of Operating Systems, regardless the input source. On one side the design and on the other hand your preferred OS, whether its MacOSX, Windows,Linux or UNIX If someone or somebody doesn't make the first step we all keep bashing our heads against the "I don't understand" wall. We will always have users who like chocolate or candy; the saying goes: "To many cooks spoil the broth" (Metaphorically speaking)

did you try to run it against anything fast? like for example an Alienware Aurora" m7700 with a AMD Athlon" 64 FX-60 with HyperTransport and Dual Core Technology?

Pedro, your timeline is completely whacked. You're mis-using the "facts" to support your own argument. NuBus came out after ISA but *before* PCI. NuBus was faster than ISA and Apple decided to use it over ISA which was the PC clone standard at the time. After the PCI standard was introduced, Apple switched to that. No one has ever claimed NuBus was superior to PCI, but it was available long before PCI was on the PC. It *was* superior to ISA, however. Apple was the first to support USB in its entire product line. USB was *not* a widely adapted bus standard. PCs were still using PS/2 and older Macs using ADB, but Apple switched the entire Mac line over to USB *before* other PC manufacturers did. USB was much more slowly adapted on the PC side. So, again, you are wrong. Firewire is a whole different beast and was introduced at the SAME TIME as USB on the Macintosh. They were used for different things -- USB was low-bandwidth for peripherals like mice and keyboards whereas Firewire was high-bandwidth for CD-Rs, external drives, video input, etc. USB 1 was MUCH SLOWER than the current USB 2 standard, so Firewire was required for higher bandwidth needs like video and audio production or RAID drives. Now, Firewire 800 supercedes USB 2.0 in data transfer, though USB 2 products are now more common (but that's beside the point, since not even all Macs have Firewire 800). Any argument you may have had lost all credibility because your facts are all wrong.

- Pedro, stop talking trash. - It's Mac, not MAC. MAC would be Media Access Control, Memory Access Controller, etc. - Pedro, stop being an idiot. - I use OSX and WinXP Pro every day. OSX still wins in terms of being more refined and just working wi

to waste the time in that stupid thing. I like the one which has a Porsche and replace the engine by two pedals.

People who doesn't know why putting Windows on Mac are simply just uneducated! Keep up with the news and you'll see there is a strong market for running Windows Apps on Mac. Mac Hardware are pricier than PCs but I'm holding on buying a PC because if the Mac can run Windows apps that we CAN"T find for Mac, I'll buy that Mac. I would go for Mac because it's safer, nicer, etc. But if I can't do work applications, play games (without having to wait 3-6 months a mac version if they even bother), I'd rather get the PC. This is just my example, but there are many more practicality, market share, etc. GET INFORMED!

PowerPC STILL faster even at 90nm...

What is all this argument.... sometimes I just don't understand it. I agree, just because it's not in a mac doesn't mean it sucks. It just means it's not the best right now. You rip off mac users for changing their minds, I take that as a compliment. Apple is known for putting the best parts in their machines. That often means switching teams as one technology outstrips the old. Look at the history... even recent history; with IBM processors macs were outstripping PCs by about 60% in the benchmarks. They put 10GHz in a desktop with a 1.25GHz frontside bus on each of four chips. And allowed for an insane 16GB of ram. No PC can claim that. And that seemed to be the peak for IBM. They couldn't adapt their G5 for a laptop, it just ran too hot, and they couldn't push the clock speed over 3GHz. Gone. Nice working with you but Intel has just release something better. We're going to completely revamp our entire product line, spend millions of dollars, untold amount of stress, make all the software writers out there rewrite everything, and why... we make the best machines. Macs are better than PCs; better designed, more powerful and more stable. Go work with a mac for a week and see how hard it is go back to your PC with your add/remove programs utility. Your viruses and your save reflex.

This is quite humorous. Mac OS-X is quite amazing...considering they took Unix/BSD and made it what it is. Being a linux user, I'm all for it. I'm a PC user. I used to feel the whole "Chevy vs Ford" esque "Mac vs PC" thing, and now with the x86 macs, I don't know anymore. Dissapointment is a good word. In all honesty, the true reason people put Windows on a mac and vice versa is for one reason only: Because they can. Think about linux on an Xbox, people are working on Linux on Gamecube, overclocking PS2's, etc etc. It's all because we can. Anyone who thinks that there is a market for cross-platform computing (ie - XP on a Mac) is kidding themselves. How is the world run? By huge companies. Will these huge companies EVER buy computers from anyone other than huge IT companies? Never. Will these huge IT companies EVER sell Macs running XP or vice versa? Never. Hence, this "market" is going one direction -> toilet. Home users don't matter. This is the real world, where individuals = nothing. Also, to everyone who says "Mac OSX sucks because it has no market share, thats proof" is an idiot. Have you ever heard of "Beta"? Far superior in every way to VHS, including capacity, physical size, and quality, and guess who won? Not beta... The whole speed debate is retarded...it's an x86 chip. You have the components, end of story. So what if the macbook pro runs it faster, it's not a Mac! It's an x86 processor that happens to have better components soldered onto the mobo etc.

Damn it you losers it's Mac! Not MAC. MAC is Media Access Control. PC is an acronym for Piece o' Crap. Mac is the diminutive of Macintosh. Do you idiots write your friend Robert's name BOB?

I think it's great to be able to run the MacOS on a PC. Sometimes, I'd like to be able to use a lot of the power of the "multimedia" software that Apple produces. However, being a PC SW Engineer, I have to do my work on Windows. I also like the fact that I can upgrade my hardware whenever I want. This "breakthrough" allows those of us "on the fence" to virtually sit on both side of it at the same time. You get the best of both worlds. A great OS, and the ability to pick and choose your hardware.

Just wanted to add (based on comments by PEDRO and HECTOR), that 4 of the last 5 companies I have worked for (Government, AMP, Kojo and defence), the developers are all moving to MAC machines.... I made the move... and I aint moving back!!!!

Now that would be interesting. But I guess you are a mac zealot and don't want to put mac osx into bad light.

Well something I have observed at my university is the steady increase of Mac laptops in the Computer Science lecture halls. Last year there were just 3, this year, half the laptop users in the room have a Mac of some description. For learning the C family, UNIX, X11 and Java, the Macs have a rather large advantage as they come pre-configured and simply work. I have an Intel iMac and I can confirm that it is fast. Even Rossetta doesn't bog it down. (1.5GB RAM) What I will say though is I am going to buy some crappy PC box to sit under my desk. It is early days with dual-booting the new Mactels and it is not worth the trouble with drivers etc. Unfortunately when you need a computer to tinker with, you can't go past the antiquated BIOS x86 box. P.S. I have installed WINE on my machine and I will attribute 2 things to it... 1. I was able to play ski free 32bit version. 2. My machine became so unstable after the install, I had to archive and install the other day. Yes it is cool, no it is not a Windows alternative on OS X yet.

Ok, I'm in the mood for a little of ye olde fact game, your fact against the one I find thingie. But first, a little clarification for Marty. Please re-read the post on which you based your reply. I never said that mac's should adopt isa. What I said was that if the "think different" thing was really true, apple would have come up with...i don't know, nubus 2? but they didn't, they adopted pci, which was developed by intel, compaq & dec. And remember this was a time when anything non mac and especially intel (which was windows related then, and now) was poo'd to death by steve worshipers (that is, before he said it was ok to let them in) The whole idea of a pc is that you don't need a pc vendor to sell you a system with all the new innovations, new connection standards or whatever, but that you can implement them as they come out, so that argument that "mac's were the first machine to include a cd-rom" besides flawed has no merit, since I didn't even cared that any oem computer vendor adopted it, I just went and bought mine, period. No need for permission from steve or bill to implement it on my machine, just buy. Wanted, usb? bought it, firewire? ditto, AGP? bougth a new mobo and kept everything else but the video card. Try that on a mac and don't tell me that you can connect the peripheral through firewire or usb. Now, the fact game: "(Peripheral Component Interconnect) The most common I/O bus in use today. It provides a shared data path between the CPU and peripheral controllers in all kinds of computers from laptops to mainframes. Designed by Intel, Compaq and Digital, it first appeared in PCs in 1993 and co-existed with the ISA bus for many years. Today, most PCs have only PCI slots and one AGP slot for a display adapter... Apple Computer adopted PCI for professional Power Macintosh computers (replacing NuBus) in mid-1995, and the consumer Performa product line (replacing LC PDS) in mid-1996." And here's my source http://www.answers.com/topic/peripheral-component-interconnect. Not that I could care less who came with what first. I could start by saying that IBM had the first hard drive, that the mouse was actually invented in the 60's, and so on but this is not the point and it never will. Again, what I laugh about is the steve worshipers that poo everything steve doesn't talk good about but change their mind without even a thought about it if steve decide yesterday's poo is today's miracle, which btw, was absolute crap until steve gazed upon it. And get it together mac-kies, you poo on people still connecting thru ps/2 or serial, but then clarify that usb is a slower connection meant for stupid thigs like mice & k'boards, if this is the case, why bother changing your ps/2 mouse or keyboard if it still works, are there any newer mice/keyboards needing faster conenctions? was a new standard needed to connect slow things that have no need for faster connections? Meanwhile, keep writting about how mad xp running on mac makes you, it just keep getting hilarious. I just wait to see your faces when macos on pc gets widespread and see you flame about it until daddy steve says it's ok. What will you moan about then?

Well, I have to say that I have started some sh*t on here. Go the Mac lovers fighting the PC lovers. I wanted to comment on several of the statements above. " I am running on a 800mhz PowerMac G4. It's over 4 years old and RUNNING STRONG. So to say that the life of a mac is only two years is insane. I updated the operating system several times. I'm sorry that Billie BOY Gates has deprived you of new updates for your operating system. Supposely, he is building the PERFECT operating system. It will be outdated by the time it is released. " The mac is not overpriced. I had a compaq computer before this PowerMac and that thing crashed EVERY SINGLE DAY. It was on paper the equal to my powermac. ON PAPER! I hated that machine. The worst thing about it was the operating system. " Apple and Steve Jobs does change often. Which is great. Change is a fact of life. If you stay in the state you are in, you will never grow and will be left behind. Which is what is going on now. Hopefully, for you Billie Boy will get that VISTA (osx clone) OS to you. Ill have more comments later. Thanks.

This thread is amazing - where do you people get the time to write this crap?

Pedro, don't get so agro. DOES it all really matter. I use windows, osx and fedora. They all have a purpose and I enjoy my experience on each of them, otherwise, I guess I would not play anymore. I do however find the ui of osx to be easier to use and less in your face than the others, but that is just an opinion. It's my opinion, and no one can change that. The only way ppl change their opinion is by an experience. I experienced the mac, I felt like investigating it further, and now, I love it. Simple as that. Also, ppl keep acusing mac or windows of stealing ideas from the other. I don't care who stole the ideas from who. I mean Mozart took many ideas from Haydn and Bach and developed music unparalleled, BUT, he still used the frameworks developed by thousands before him. Same goes for cooking, art, science. I don't know, I am saying a whole lot of crap here, but in the end if ppl are happy that they can duel boot their macbook pro.... YAY for them. Let ppl have some happiness in an otherwise cruel world. P.S. MacBook Pro ROCKS!

Some people know what they`re saying (like Blecch), others just say bullshit (Pedro). Oh, and the stocks myth is funny! My opinion: Windows and PCs are so ugly and boring! :( I always hated computers before trying Macs.

I switched to a Mac 2 1/2 years ago because I was tired of always having trouble with Windows. The system had to be rebooted every day. Sometimes several times a day. I started reading up on Mac OS X and learned that it was UNIX based and very stable. After using it for a short time, I found that to be true. I have NEVER had to reboot the system except after certain software installations. Even if an application hangs, you don't have to boot the Mac. You just "Force Quit" the application and re-launch it. But nothing seems to affect the OS itself. At least nothing that I have ever seen. To me, Windows is always busy being Windows. But I never know that Mac OS X it there. It just does what I ask it to do and is never "in my face." I never could say that about Windows.

Just reading through all the "my computer (or penis substitute) is better than yours" stuff. Hilarious!!! I have four macs. I love them all. I have talked many friends into buying macs. they love them. My brother has a PC he loves it. I still love my brother. My best friend has three pcs -he loves them all- and he works for Intel. I hold none of these things against him! My macs make me happy. They do what I want them to. I don't fancy swapping to PC any more than my brother fancies getting a mac. We are both very happy people. Please keep posting all this mac versus pc stuff though. Nothing on the comedy channel can compete with you guys! In the UK, "Jedi Knight" is now a legitimate religion. Can we get "mac user" and "pc user" up to that status? Come on, it's worth a try. Then we can actually kill each other over it and everything. I mean, how can you take a subject this seriously unless we can kill or die over it? On second thoughts, my first ever computer was a ZX Spectrum. Then I had an Atari. Does that make me an agnostic or an atheist? Now I love macs so I guess I'm born again, right? I'm so confused. I need to get back to my roots. Someone pass me a calculator....

Hey guys, so looks like you guys are still arguing. I was wondering if any of you knew when the biggest most powerful software company in the world was going to put out their next operating system. Just curious. ps windows sux

Spittz: When what freezes over?

Participants were given local client access to the target computer and invited to try their luck. From the article about Mac Os being hacked in 30 minutes. I would like to see how long it takes someone to hack into a Windows or Linux box after being given "local client access". Seems like an article created for no other purpose but Mac-bashing.

yes let's compare a 2.16 chip with 2.0 chips.. WOW the 2.16 chip wins?? HOW COULD SUCH A THING OCCUR? and of course apple didnt make any of this stuff, intel did, of course it runs windows stuff great

Es realmente absurdo poner un xp de mierda a una mac, lo logico y lo que seria un avance seria poner macos en una 386, eso seria lo mas correcto, windows a la basura, por inseguro, inestable caro y defectuoso.Es el produccto con mas taras y fallos que ha podido poner a la venta el ser humano. Por cierto linux for ever

It's simple - there is no superior OS. Windows is for the average user who wants application compatibility and a fairly simple and intuative interface for their everyday needs. Linux is for 1337 hx00rs and servers Macs are for Fags who nobody like besides thir poof boyfriends who bat them off when they feel lonely because noone will speak to them, and they are depressed about their social status equal to that of a child molestor.

@ Scott Milan Why would you insult Apple by calling the fastest Windows PCs the acronym for "machine access control"? Duh.

Dude!!! WTF? MAC or PC? Last time I checked PC still stood for personal computer. Am I missing something here? is a MAC not a personal computer? If you want to compare OSes, OSX to Windows fine. I think in the end your going to find pros and cons for both. If you want to compare hardware... Well... other than some external devices I dont think MS makes a box so the argument ends there. Which brings me to another point. Jose poste this Posted by: José Wednesday, March 22, 2006 10:05 AM If the MAC is so superior (I.E. fast, elegant, intuitive) why doesn't it control more than what a 5 percent of the global computer OS market? here is my opinion on this. Because IBM was too stupid to buy Windows from Gates when it had a chance. Remember the term IBM Clone anyone? If IBM had bought Windows we would have Apples OS running on MACs and Windows running only on IBM machines and not much else. But because Gates kept avalible his OS to anyone who wanted to build a computer. It was cheaper for people to go buy mix and match parts and throw on a copy of Windows and you had yourself a cheaper computer than what IBM and Apple were building. The original PC hardware battle was always between IBM and Apple. At what point computers running Windows became PCs and not IBM Clones I dont know but know your roots. I forget where I was going with all of this so I am done. Late

Note that this whole pointless argument was started by the very first comment. Maybe someone was feeling threatened and needed to get their retaliation in first?

mac is a wonderful system. why do you want to run win-os (xp..),,,, and if the mac-os used by intel, there are alot of viruses in which are net. my slogan "mac mac mac isnot used in intel. Please"

Putting XP on a Mac is _just_ pointless !!! Putting OsX on a PC is _also_ pointless !!! Putting Linux/*nix on a PC is clever !!! Owning a Mac for the Unix architecture is also clever ! Owning a Pc with XP is ....

Listening to Ben's rambling is ALSO pointless. owning a mac is also _pocket draining_ (for no reason) XP on a mac runs well it seems. Thats good, just one more choice in the bin. Will I buy a mac? A thousand times no, but hey, at least its an option.

Jobs knew this would happen. It's just typical Apple scrapple survival strategy. Jobs could care less about software. They just want to sell boxes. As someone noted, with only 5% of market, how many times can you keep up-selling? This opens the opportunity for more Mac 'n cheese to be sold. The consumer MAY benefit running dual boot and selecting best of breed software. For PC users, this opens up some multi-media possibilities. For Mac users, this opens up business apps, utilities, etc. and so on galore. As for Linux, well, it's app starved and is still too esoteric for the most of us. End Point: Apple has extended it's life for some unknown period with this move.

Why didn't these morons compare identical hardware (cpu, ram, hd, video) and truly see if a windows mactel can beat a windows intel pc? Why on earth would someone go through this trouble and NOT make an accurate comparison?

You know I dont see video drivers are the problem with XP on the MacBook... there are clearly correct XP drivers for the Mobility Radeon X1600.... I would suspect it is a resource issue.... XP is based in the world of BIOS reporting resources to it.... Mac's use open firmware.... so I would suspect that to be more of where problems present themselves

I'd really like some honest answers to this. I have been a MS user from win98se to xp since 1997. Have my own business repairing pc probs. I've only once been struck with a virus - but constantly get people calling me to fix their virii, spyware probs etc - it's the biggest percentage of my revenue - but I hate the jub now. Anyways, I'm getting out of the industry soon to become a maths lecturer & am seriously looking at my first Mac (iMac duocore 20") - just because of the many good writeups & switcher stories i've read. What was my point? oh yes - I read many, many reports of people very happily switching to Mac's & vowing to never go back. Why have I never run across stories of people doing the reverse? This can't be just an extremely well orchestrated conspiracy by Steve Jobs, can it? Anyways - just curious. Thanks in advance for thoughtful replies :-)

People change from PC to mac and from mac to PC, I can show you people that have come from mac to PC, mainly because the application they used sucked for whatever reason: they couldn't make it work, the extra hardware needed wasn't running on the mac, a new macos version that no longer support a feature on X application,They are just plain unlucky with the hardware they bought, etc. You take your pick. Same thing you'll hear from a PC user switching INTELLIGENTLY AND NOT SHEEPYSHLY BLINDLY to a mac. You'll also find this argument from people fed up from both OS' who have gone linux. What should you do? look at what you need your computer for and look for the application that best fits your needs, look at what platform it run and which one it is more stable at, then try to find people working with it and hear their daily gripes or joys. Don't fall prey on hipe, from any side. Get really informed

It has it's charme; The Never Ending War Between Mac and PC. But guys, relax ok. This is all the beginning of.... forget is. Mac likers like mac for different reasons than PC likers like PC. Call it culture difference. Anyway, happy continuation. This is fun to read. koen

Nik: I think I read somewhere that the Next system that Steve Jobs worked on while away from Apple actually became Mac OS X after he returned. If I'm wrong, someone please correct me.

I like pedro too... He's an idiot and they're entertaining. ""NuBus us a much better architecture than anything on the pc. That PCI thing? no chance." Then NuBus gets a big kick in the behind and in comes what? PCI. And of course that same change of argument: "PCI is justg another computer component, the mac is still a mac pci notwitstanding". Yeah right. Why didn't apple made a new bus (pun intended)? IBM did, it was called microchannel, for whatever god that was at the time, but they did something new. Did apple? " Um, pedro.. Nubus competed with ISA genius. It WAS superior to ISA.. the bus it was competing with. It had bus-mastering WAY before PCI was around. Apple also shipped processor-direct slots which had DMA access. They were 64bits wide when PCs were JUST starting to run 32bit PCI video. Your argument is idiotic. Why did Apple move to PCI? Because it came AFTER NuBus and it was better. I've got a question for you.. by your reasoning Apple is weak for hanging on to NuBus too long. WTF did x86 vendors keep ISA so freaking long? Why do they STILL put parallel and serial and PS/2 ports on machines? If the ultimate proof of how great a company or architecture might be is how fast they adopt new technology.. they Apple is clearly superior. PCI-X and GigE on the desktop when they were only one enterprise class x86 server hardware. First machines to give up legacy ports entirely for new technologies (like USB and FW). And though USB is largely an Intel invention.. it was Apple that made it pervasive back when Usb Plug-and-pray wasn't even working on Windows. ""We are goign to use the biggest new interconnection system for peripherals, it's called firewire and it's going to be better and more efficient than usb". There came a macworld and in with the usb port with yet another sudden change of attitude "...well, it's another way of conecting peripherals". I'm still waiting to hear pc people complaining or making any fuzz about putting firewire ports on tehir pc before or after they were on the macs. " Ah pedro, once again.. freaking priceless. Firewire IS better and more efficient than usb. Even the usb consortium pages used to point out that FW400 was faster for large transfers than USB2 480Mb until they eventually realized that wasn't good PR and they scrubbed it from their site. Firewire 400Mb was introduce in the same time frame (slightly after) USB 12Mb. Firewire 800Mb was introduced in the same time frame as USB2 480Mb. Firewire is significantly 'smarter' than USB.. Firewire devices can partner and connect to each other WITHOUT a computer to manage the connection. Firewire can also route IP traffic. Other than that, it's worth mentioning that FW and USB weren't even designed for the same purpose. USB was designed for bursty traffice like mice and keyboards. FW was designed.. from the start.. to move large ammounts of data very fast. It's desigend for moving large files like DV Video files. "Thruth is that nowadays, a mac is just a simple pc clone, no way around it and not only your post makes it clear and actually making my point, but you're posting it on an article showing this fact in the most compelling way, a mac running windows, ha! " Once again, too freaking funny. I have to agree though, the Mac IS just another pc clone now. It's like all those generic boxes that fun EFI instead of BIOs and as a result they can still do cool stuff like booting into Target FireWire Disk mode. It's just another pc clone that runs a dual-core machine in the space of an LCD monitor and it does it silently (trust me, we've got one). It's just another pc clone that just works out of the box (you've never known the real joy of Windows until the MS track pad drivers 'upgrade' the IBM thinkpad drivers and you can't use your j-key or track pad or external mice until you hack the old driver back in only with keyboard input.. now that's just working) Hey wait, I can't think of any pc clones that are anything like the Intel macs aside from the fact that they share the same instruction set now. Seriously, your post was hilarious. So opinionated and so uninformed. I nearly laughed out loud.

Nik: I think I read somewhere that the Next system that Steve Jobs worked on while away from Apple actually became Mac OS X after he returned. If I'm wrong, someone please correct me. Nope, you're not wrong.. not entirely. Apple, in one of their most colossal blunders, set out to replace the classic mac os with an OS called Copeland. It was going to be new, micro-kernel based (Nu-Kernel) with protected memory and all the goodies.. and it was going to act like the classic Mac OS and have full compatibility. Problem is, they never did it. They got some Nu-kernel work done which eventually was rolled into the classic Mac OS but Copeland as an OS was a sham. Apple went so fars as to 'demo' a Copeland Beta at their developer conference.. but it turned out it was actually an artist's rendition made in macromedia Director (though Apple pretended it was real). :-) So, After Apple came clean, they went shopping for a modern OS to replace the classic Mac OS. The contenders were NeXT and BeOS. Be was the favorite. It was basically a pretty fork of FreeBSD that already ran on PowerPC mac hardware. Be was really big on SMP and they even got around to makeing a few BeBoxes.. SMP 603e machines (they were planning to make computers with multiple smaller cpus instead of more powerful single cpus like the 604 or PentiumPro). Apple chose NeXT though. A big part of the decision was likely the technical merits.. mostly the development environment in NeXT.. NeXTStep/OpenStep... and the fact that they would inherit Steve Jobs instead of Jean Paul Gassee (also an ex-Apple exec). The first port of the NeXT OS was called Rhapsody while in development. It was VERY NeXT like. It looked like a mix of NeXT's Window manager and the classic MacOS. They actually released one version of OS X Server based on Rhapsody but then dropped that project. They went back and reworked the OS significantly. They merged Rhapsody with FreeBSD (the current OS X kernel is actually an amalgam of the NeXT MACH kernel and the FreeBSD kernel). They ripped out the NeXT Display PostScript display engine and made a Display PDF display engine (no PS licensing fees was one advantage). They also totally reworked the look and feel. So, yes.. the current Mac OS X is based on NeXT but it's been significantly modified and upgraded since the NeXT days. If you open the dev tools (free with the OS) you find all the old NeXT OpenStep frameworks though. :-) ffakr.

ffakr: Thanks for that information. I knew that I had read it somewhere quite some time ago. Tim

These kinds of arguments are what happens when PC World decides to put a link to something cool. It's entertaining to watch the Mac fans try to patiently explain things to players in the Windows only world. Unbeliveable what the unenlightened will hold on to! OSX: Graphics and Internet Windows: Windows only programs Linux: Geeky stuff (credit to the person who said the same earlier)

Didnt anyone see the side by side comparison of a macbook pro to some alienware desktop replacement. Honestly would you rather have a 5lb tops notebook that looks good or a 11 lb heavyweight that is about the same price, for the same specs. If you dont believe me go look at alienwares site... ps. this was featured on slashdot sometime back. The macbook pro is a feature loaded laptop at a decent price for what it is... win xp or mac os x which ever you use.

It's nice to see everyone's getting along now, isn't it :-) Why are so many people trying to mitigate the argument and say that both sides are right? You know and I know that no one cares who's right (and besides, I'm right anyway) Insulting people who are discussing here is fairly pointless too, I would have thought... Anyway, I've decided that it was a bad decision to be a mac user now. Oh yes, It's true. I've found that, as a mac user, I've practically killed my girlfriend's laptop by neglect. Had I been a Windows user I would have known that I was supposed to run AdAware and Norton (I HATE Norton) and at least one popup blocker, just as a bare minimum. I'd have also run some of those updates, but I didn't. Her indoors isn't much of a techie so it simply didn't get done and now I'm gonna have to wipe the laptop and reinstall everything, cause it takes nearly a full minute to open one browser window. Ah well, at least I've still got my iMac running. (Uptime currently 7 days, 7 hours, 37 minutes, but who's counting, eh!) It's nice to have a fairly dependable machine around the house, but I'm not sure I can cope with the way my iMac simply breeds bad tech practice. I'll have to go back to windows if only to see how the other side live Anyway, Lots of Kisses Hector

Hector, I just went into UNIX and did an Uptime. 54 days 17 hours 41 mins. Guess I need to do an install that requires a boot so I can remember how to restart a Mac! I used to be lucky if my Windows system stayed up 54 mins!

Hector says: "Yeah, it kinda sucks that Apple had to go Intel, but at least we know they'll always take the best option available to them rather than clinging on to old technologies." Although having no stance on the Windows/Mac OS debate, since I use and am happy with both, I must say this: AMD processors are, by all measures, superior to Intel processors, except to Dell (and now Apple!) fanboys. Yes Hector, I'm sure you'll try to fall back on your weasel words ("I said the best option AVAILABLE TO THEM! AMD doesn't have the distribution capability yet!!), but it doesn't change the fact that Apple now uses a second-rate processor. -Michael

Well, I don't see how anybody can argue against this point. If Macs can run OS X and XP side-by-side, how could Microsoft possibly compete? Apple can get the best of both worlds, while MS is still stuck with one crappy one (IMO, of course). But even if Windows is a good operating system, two is always better than one. The question is, can Apple set things up so that XP will run on Macs but OS X won't run on PCs?

No one's comparing a Mac to a UNIX server now, are they? it's plainly obvious which will win on uptime. Strangely enough my iMac isn't run as a server, and my uptime is from the last system update install that I did As for the AMD thing I think you're somewhat missing the point - the big change was moving from PPC to x86. That's the shift in technology. AMD or Intel is just semantics. If I were making a PC, yeah sure I'd use AMD, but Apple haven't. Big deal. They could do in the future if there's a good reason to, and it wouldn't be half as interesting to anybody as their shift from IBM to Intel Intel at least looks like it's putting in a little effort for the futur, though. Lay off the poor sods they've had a tough time of it :-) Cheeky little upstart appearing and stealing their market Hugs Hector P.S. I'm glad that you are amused :-D I am, at least

Sorry, Luke, I'll have to learn to read sometime - I scanned over your post and missed the details Me and Luke are in complete agreement :-D At least that's what I tell myself...

> got to love people's grasp of the english language > Posted by: Paul > Thursday, March 23, 2006 12:28 PM > > exbot - learn to spell. Your grasp of the english > language and grammar is rather rudimentary. Your > post made me laugh the most for all the wrong > reasons. Paul - I think that if you read a little bit further back, you'll see the post that Ex2bot was spoofing. He was trying to sound as dumb as he felt the original poster sounded. I could possibly be wrong, but every "point" he hit on was the same and in the same order as the post by Joe Cooper (Wednesday, March 22, 2006 1:08 PM), and he made his post later that same day. Everyone - There are numerous reasons to like all three OS's mentioned. Windows: * Has plenty of market saturation, so it is easy to find folks who are comfortable with it. * Has an excellent low level hardware access API for game development (DirectX), and lots of games. * Due to a large user base, most apps and drivers are readily available for this platform. * Con - OS is easily broken by simple user error (some changed coming in Vista will at least partially address this) Linux: * Powerful * Secure (if the admin knows his stuff) * Lots of opensource apps * Con - Documentation quality and Human Interaction Design are lacking (that is, programs and docs confuse non-geek users) Mac (OSX): * Powerful (remember, it has had UNIX underneath since they moved from OS9 to OSX) * Secure (if the user doesn't open the door for hackers) * Lots of opensource apps (yes, most *nix and X.org apps work here) * Human Interaction Design is very good, but could still be better (that is, they evangelize that "It should just work", but don't follow all of the rules of HI Design to make it optimally usable. See www.asktog.com to see what I'm talking about). * Con - Poor driver support by hardware vendors due to low market size. * Con - Poor variety of apps for the same reason (though admittedly the apps that are there are often quite nice) * Con - Inability to buy OS to put on your own machine. All in all, I personally like the power of a *nix based OS with a consistently designed and manageable user interface (I know, there are lots of management utilities out there for Linux, but consistency and usability are lacking). Unfortunately I have found that I'm not as fond of the office apps that are available to Macs as I'd like (I've grown far too accustomed to the features available in MS Office). It seems that there will be at least a small period where I will need both OS's, so it will be nice to be able to run them on one machine, though admittedly, I'd prefer a fast emulation layer rather than a second boot to access my Windows apps (may happen for apps, but for DirectX, I doubt that that will be very likely). That's my two cents, for what it's worth... :) -John

Before the Linux folks flame me: Yes I have Linux too, but that is more of a hobby system, since it takes time to RTFM before doing something new, and I don't have all that much time lately. Remember, not everyone can dedicate the time that you do to learning the OS and app configuration tricks. Also, before you say I don't know what I'm talking about, I suggest you read the following article by Eric S. Raymond, the author of "The Cathedral and the Bazaar": http://www.catb.org/~esr/writings/cups-horror.html If you are a Linux user and don't know what "The Cathedral and the Bazaar" is, first, shame on you, second, you can see ESR's "pedegree" here: http://www.catb.org/~esr/software.html -John

Just a comment about the pervasive "PC marketshare" that Microsoft enjoys, and Windows fans always throw out to heckle Mac fans... About 70% of Microsoft/PC marketshare comes from corporate ownership. That's companies, big and small, deploying desktops, workstations, laptops, servers; for scanning stations, email, a myriad of configurations. Many hundreds of thousands of PCs running MS software. These are not the "personal computers" people own. Some are high-tech, but the vast majority are price-buys for cost and compatibility. My company is one of the top 5 largest in the world -- we could buy Apple and Microsoft in the same day. The CIO doesn't give a fat rat's patoot about our computing experience. Core load for users is Win2K and Office 2K. The basic machne everyone gets is a 1.8GHz Dell micro CPU with 8mb of integrated video on the motherboard, 128mb RAM and a 5400 rpm HD. Does this sound like a fun computer to you? But it makes up a huge portion of the touted "marketshare" PC fans claim as being chosen for it's superiority over an Apple. My wife is a paralegal at a prestigious lawfirm, one big enough to kick crap out of insurance companies and tobacco industry. The legal secretaries (about 50 of them) use Pentium 200 MHz running Windows 3.11, and use WordPerfect 6. Their word processing group uses DOS and WordPerfect 5.2 on ancient 486s. Law firms are notoriously cheap in both payroll to employees and office expenditures. Their people don't need a GUI -- it slows them down; they are paid (poorly) to type, not mouse around. These PCs also make up part of the dominant PC marketshare. Anyone want to trade jobs so you can be part of the mainstream yet? My company also owns one of the three major US television networks, and a host of cable channels and film studios. Our networks studios in NYC recently went all Mac and use Final Cut Pro. We could have bought top of the line Avid systems on MS PCs, or tricked out Unix boxes (there are plenty of those around in the data storage division) but they liked working on the Mac. So it wasn't purely a "cost" decision, although trust me, at this level of corporate business, they evaluate the metrics of every studio changeout -- it wasn't done because the Team Lead went to MacWorld and has a "steve" fixation. Companies buy millions of PCs because they can be networked together, they can negotiate software licensing discounts for many thousands of users, and it makes business sense to have as many systems be the same as possible to reduce support costs. We also use 94% offshore support and development for these systems instead of hiring the Americans who trust the WIndows operating system based on it's marketshare. Think about that when you're promoting the PC over Macs to your buds, while waiting for an unemployment check so you can get a new game upgrade. The remainder of the PC marketshare is largely a lot of home users who buy their PC at BestBuy, or CompUSA, or MicroCenter, or Sears or WalMart, or online from Dell, or TigerDirect. Many of them justify buying a PC over a Mac because they say they can do work at home and not have software issues. Then they find out Office costs about $400, and MS Works files can't be used at work, and Outlook Express won't open their messages they brought home from an Exchange server. So mostly they surf the net, and pay bills online. Some use email to keep in touch, and view and send friends and family their digital camera pictures. They also spread a lot of viruses, assist with Denial of Service attacks, and at best, inform countless millions of people that Bill Gates and AOL will give them money if they forward this message to everyone in their address book. A very small minority of the PC marketshare buy high quality computers, optimize their system performance religiously, and do work they get paid for on those systems. (Don't get too smug, Mac users-- a small minority of your fan base do much more than what the average home PC user does, despite power, speed, ease of use, or security. You do, however, do that very little with great style, much like the Lexus SUV driver heading out down paved roads to the mall.) Marketshare means Doodley-squat when determining what makes a good PC. The vast majority of automobiles sold burn gasoline in reciprocating engines. Does that fact make them better than a gas/electric hybrid, or a fuel-cell powered vehicle of the future? At last we come to the tiniest portion of the MS PC marketshare: those who insist on thumbing their noses at Mac users in forums about Macs, mindlessly chanting the logic that a gazillion computers running Windows, operated each day by suited drones locked up in corporate world, proves that Apple computers suck. You guys epitomize the boringness of PCs, as badly as the hopelessly romantic Mac fanboys who think every one of Steve's farts are the rosey future epitomize the nearrowminded viewpoint of fashion-form over functional substance. Taking a nap now -- I'll be back fro the rest of the war.

How's this for marketshare...just this past week, at my second week on the job as Desktop Technician for the oldest advertising agency in the world, two IT managers who had been there for over five years apiece were both canned. One was the PC Desktop Manager. The other was the Mac Desktop Manager. One of my selling points on the table upon hire was the fact that I'm both CompTIA A+ Certified, and Apple Help Desk 10.4, Desktop and Portable Certified. Turns out the whole department is heading in this direction, and anyone unwilling or unable to adapt and adopt (much less embrace) is probably on their way down the path of the Dodo. After spending life after 10 years old as a staunch Macuser and advocate, when I decided to become an IT professional in 2003, I knew deep down the PC knowledge I'd begun to have in college would have to expand. It always annoyed me slightly that I couldn't get under the hoods of my expensive Macs and play with their guts. I always knew, even then, that though the shells were drastically and politically different, the innards of PCs and Macs had to be pretty similar. Now, knowledge, acceptance and love of that, and computer electronics in all its vast uniformity, spells the difference between (like Ron said) my having a job, and shitting bricks on the dole line. In a nutshell, it was bound to happen, and it's the wave of the future. Long live the cross-platform!

Hello, I hope you can find my comments helpful. I would be very thankful if you can read them with an open mind. I am a scientist in bioinformatics/computational biology. We have huge data sets and really hard problems to solve. I will spend some time talking about what we have found with Windows/OSX/Linux/Solaris. First off... bottom line is a sun box is the most robust and most stable. That thing is REALLY impressive. The operating system is hard to use but worth every moment you put into learning it because it is so fault tollerent. Linux boxes are just not that stable. As for intel... they have a pretty nice laptop chip but right now I have not found an intel chip up to the serious computer tasks that we do in our lab. AMD is in another class in an of it's own. On a typical dynamic programming Structural RNA problem our best intel boxes take more than double the processing time. We where really exited about the G5 processor when it first came out and can say it was impressive until we got AMD Opterons. Now the G5 is just a toy not really worth running jobs on. For personal computing perhaps a G4 is worth something but for any serious work the G4,G5 and intel boxes are really crap. My major problem with Apple is that they lie to scientists like me about the performance of the hardware they have. They say that the boxes they have are much faster than they really are and they charge quite a bit based on those claims. I think if you look into the most recient benchmarks you will find that macs suffer when they run OSX relative to linux because of the sloppy context switch to the BSD kernel. So it is not REAL unix, it is BSD with a good looking GUI run on top. When running Yellow Dog Linux on the G5 we could get significant performance boosts... and that is when we discovered that AMD still is MUCH BETTER. I find the situation for developing on a Mac unacceptable... they have a LONG way to go before they are as mature as win/linux/sun for development. But I just get the perspective that they don't have enough really good people to fix this problem. When I look at a system, I try to evaluate it with an open mind and spend the time to understand how to do the best I can with the system. I feel mac ( and windows to a lesser extent) have quite a ways to go. Please remember that the software developers are the LIFE of any system. Software development is getting a little better on mac, but it is still not to the point where serious developers can look at the mac (even running XP) as anything other than a fun little toy.

only the PowerPC G5 was fully 64 bit the G4 processor was/is 32 bit instruction, of the Mac models released so far with Intel only the iMac model is a "step back" in the instruction, although it does go from single to dual processor which is a step up in overall responsiveness. for the MacBook Pro (PowerBook 15" replacement) the new processor is a step up, and should continue to have support for at least a couple of years. a general rule of any new hardware designs is to wait for second revision before going into it if you can wait (partically for any possible hardware problems, and potentially software compatibility to catch up) there were some other innacuracies in the comments from both "sides" but I ran out of time

And who is Disney's new head chief man? Steve Jobs. I think Ron is Steve Jobs.

oh yeah, the price issue so far the 3 Mac with Intel models are all very comparible on price... when you configure the competition with the same hardware. I've checked and rechecked Dell over the past 2 months, their best deal put them no more then $200 cheaper then the comparible MacBook Pro model, Gateway within $100, (depending on when you check, and what deals are available, sometimes the competition is that much more instead of cheaper) Acer remains the only one who is substantially cheaper based on how much ram they include in a stock model (1 GB or 2 GB) usually double the ram for the same price or cheaper then all of the other companies. when it comes to the Mac mini model, the only comparible model out there is the same for the low-end core solo 1.5 Ghz model, and $!00 more for the next model up... now the competition (AOpen I believe it is) did have a single upgrade slot, which is a very good feature. but for comparible hardware, same price.

Dudes, and there are a few here, it's spelt Mac. Big M, little a, little c. It is short for Macintosh. Macintosh is a variety of Apple. HAHAAHHAA. So puhlease, stop calling it MAC. It is really irritating.

Just for some of the confused. This is not the first time an OS other than Mac OS has been run on a Mac. Apple had a Unix derivative some years back... Linux has been running on Macs for years. There is Ubuntu release, and Yellow Dog Linux, and Debian to mention a few. All have run on PPC. And debian at least runs on 68k Macs. WOW! I am waiting to see the tribooting Win, OSX, Linux box. That might be attractive. So you have not been forced to run MacOS on your Mac for some time.

This thread seesm to be predominated by three kinds of posts: Bad arguments for why Mac is better than Windows Bad arguments for why Windows is better than Mac Funny posts pointing out the silliness of other posts. If all the posts with factual errors, or invalid arguments (arguments that don't follow logically), and those with more spelling errors and grammar errors made by the average 12 year old were removed we'd have a lot less to read. Anyone interested in commenting on the article? You know, that bit at the top that talks about how WinXP runs on the new MacIntels. My favourite post is the Spanish one. That is uber cool. And pretty much sums up the state of the debate here.

In Response to: Ron's post On: Saturday, March 25, 2006 1:00 PM Ron, Just to be clear, I have no interest in using marketshare to thumb my nose at Macs. I fully intend to have OSX on a machine as soon as Steve will sell it separately from the hardware. My point was simply the realistic observation that there are many, many folks out there (not all mindless drones) that have a comfort level with MS based systems. This provides some advantages, namely:

Oh, one more thing. None of the observations made in the post above speaks to the quality of the systems involved, only to the psychology of consumers and availability of experienced users. Neither of those things makes a machine inherently bad (or good), so please do not characterize me as trying to make a judgement of the quality of the system based on how many people use it. "Everyone uses Windows! Can millions of people be wrong?" I have one word for you: communism. Lots of adherants does not make an assertion true or an idea right. Facts determine the truth, and right is subjective. -John

Oops, no HTML interpretation here (and wrong tag for list anyhow) In response to: > Scientific Computing > Posted by: daniel > Sunday, March 26, 2006 1:51 AM Daniel, Thanks for the performance comparison for the various CPUs. That is a very useful piece of information. Additionally, I think that your statements about developers being the life of computing both hit and missed. You are very right in the following senses: " that without developers, there would be no point in having a computer unless you were a hobbyist. " that without hard core development like that done by acedemics/researchers, we'd be a whole lot worse off. However, the missing bit is: " if by "serious" developers, you mean academic/ research developers, you should bear in mind the fact that those particular developers are not the driving force on commercial computer systems. They are the driving force on industrial computer systems like Solaris. " On commercial computer systems, the driving force is the group of developers producing the apps used by the many home (and office )users out there. Sadly, it seems that game development has driven avancement as much as (or more than) most other factors on commercial systems due to the rapid release of game titles using more and more resources/features. Beyond all that, as a computer hobbyist myself, I'd be interested in knowing how Mac's development tools lag behind Solaris'. I would have thought that having both gcc and the proprietary Mac tools would provide a great deal of power and flexibility. Thanks, John.

Because those wishing to be active in the serious CAD world must use AutoCad. All the industrial design and architecture schools require it. All the job offers require it. And guess what? No AutoCad for Mac. Not even a reasonable surrogate. Now, at least there's hope.

I think Daniel's arguments are pretty valid about Apple and the scientific community. I've noticed that Apple hasn't emphasized scientific computing the way it had the last couple of years. As for Sun, Daniel is the target customer for Sun, and always has been. I think the reason why Apple has slid in this arena has as much to do with the success of the iPod as it does with its choice of processors. Before the iPod's success, Apple was treading water in sales and losing marketshare while other PC manufacturers were growing (Dell). I think Apple's push into scientific computing came when they saw a potential market for a Unix OS with a easy-to-use interface that could run MS Office, and when they knew the G5 was coming they finally had a hardware solution that could compete for some of Sun's business. This worked pretty well for Apple in getting some high-end mindshare, but in overall sales volume, it didn't make big bank. The iPod changed Apple's priorities, however, as they suddenly found themselves being seen as a preferred consumer brand again. They saw an opportunity to take advantage of all the buzz and the large customer base generated by the iPod to finally start increasing Mac marketshare. What Apple wants more than anything is for average people to seriously consider buying a Mac as their next PC. I think that was a lot of the reason behind the Intel switch, and also why they didn't go with AMD. AMD kicks butt, for sure, but Intel makes complete chipsets, and is a one-stop supplier for Apple, with more fab capacity than anyone. In order to feed the consumer market, Apple wants to simplify the development of its internal hardware and make sure that supply can meet demand. Intel offers this, AMD would maybe offer this, IBM and Freescale didn't. So Apple partnered with Intel. This kinda screwed many of its markets, such as Daniel, as well as the media community (read on the net about Adobe's troubles in developing CS3 for Intel), but it lets Apple ship a lot of Mac mini's and iMacs with iLife and FrontRow to those iPod customers. Which brings me to the other point, which is the XP on Macs debate. Why have XP on a Mac? Well, between OS X, Linux, and XP, there isn't anything software-wise that can be denied to you on an Intel Mac. I am sure over time a lot of the driver problems and ease-of-installation issues will be addressed, and ubergeeks wanting a box that can do it all can have their dreams fulfilled. It sure is less expensive than buying a nicely tricked out PC to go with a Mac to do the same thing, and easier than building your own PC. (Just maybe not as fulfilling.) That said, personally I will not do the dual-boot XP trick. I bought my wife a new Intel iMac with the intention of getting it to do both Windows and OS X, as she is a Mac user but needs some PC software for her career. To me, the best solution is to wait until Virtual PC or some proven solution comes that allows Windows to run in a separate window in OS X. That will truly allow users to run anything they want at will. When this happens, I may get one for myself.

For those who say that they would like to try OS X, but only on their own PC, I certainly hope you aren't holding your breath. Apple has ZERO incentive to make OS X bootable on build-it-yourself PCs. The argument for OS X on any PC usually goes like this: Apple would massively increase its marketshare, improve the amount of development for OS X, and be able to compete directly with Microsoft for the OS market. Finally there will be a true alternative to Windows, and everyone will be better for it. Here are the problems. First, Microsoft can kill OS X by stooping all sales and development for Mac Office. While I am not privy to such things, I am sure there is a clause in the current 5-year agreement with Apple that, for Mac Office to continue its existence and development, Apple will not ship, or promote the use of OS X on anything other than Apple hardware. Microsoft is too paranoid to allow OS X to get into the wild and take even 10% of its sales. Next problem is that Apple wouldn't want it either. Apple makes its money selling computers made unique via its own hand-tooled OS. The integration between OS X and the hardware accounts for a lot of OS X's stability and friendliness. OS X-for-any-PC would erode Apple's hardware sales tremendously, and the OS sales would not return in profit what Apple would lose. Another issue is drivers. Mac users have fewer choices in hardware because some hardware manufacturers don't care about developing OS X drivers for their products. They could, but they don't see the need. The same problem is felt in Linux. Installing OS X on your PC then finding out that 20% of your peripherals can't be used, and that internal devices and cards (and possibly motherboards and chipsets) aren't supported will anger most PC users. Plug-and-play on the Mac works so well because of the hardware/software integration. This will be broken if Apple tries to ship a boxed OS X for any PC. OS X for Everybody is a losing proposition for Apple. They will never do it.

The real reason Macs dropped to three to four percent of the market and have been at that low rate for some years now is (name calling here) stubborness and desire for control. That is mostly Steve Jobs' fault. I still remember when Macs first came out. I wanted one but they cost too much. Then I remember when the OS was open for license to the overall market. I forgot how long that lasted, way less than a year, and it got pulled. That was a preference call. It was also the death knell for Macs as a major player in market share. The very type of open architecture market that the (still) great Apple II's blew open was what Jobs wanted to "protect" against. What neither he nor IBM nor Tandy (remember the Radio Shack computer stores?) not Texas Instruments and many others wanted to deal with was that an open architecture standard would open the entire class of machine to everyone. Jobs held on to the idea of controlling your customers by limiting refusing to open the Mac as a class of machine rather than a machine made by Apple. He still holds on to that and for the most part the Mac "missionary church" has failed to make enough new converts to move the market above four-percent for years (and it usually hovers closer to three percent). IBM was all-but wiped out of the game they started. Tandy screwed up by "short-sheeting" their machines and building in little non-standard hardware devices for which they charged a mint. TI just nver got it. All of them could have had a helthy-sized market if they had not insisted on trying to control their customers in the same way as the old big-iron firms. Essentially, Macs, for all their shine, are sold with big-iron dinosaur methods. They also keep prices high and try to market themselves as elite (better than), neither of which help. And upgrades have never seemed as easy as PC's (not always an accurate appearance). Then there is the vaunted graphics superiority. Wrong market, and sooner-or-later leap-frogged technology. Wrong market to sell to because selling to artists is selling to low-end employees - in most cases - in terms of the general market. At some point, regardless of what a star you are in your corporation, you are still just another employee if you are not the boss. No matter how much the art department (if they have one) uses Macs, everybody else uses IBM-compatibles. Leap-frogged technology: Something that happened to me in software (an application which wrote PostScript from a graphics app) and I've watched it elsewhere. Macs are no exception. Whatever niche you think you have, either machine speed, disk capacity or other hardware and software developments will sooner-or-later fill the niche you were best at, and then you are no longer best. Just about everything I ever wanted from a Mac is now available on IBM-compats and has been for anywhere from 15+ years ago to now. Anyone who tried to control their customers by restricting holding on to them with legal and harware devices has fallen by the wayside. Tandy could have been Dell before Dell existed. Indeed, sometimes I wonder whether Dell would have been much at all or even bothered to start if Tandy had not been so anal. Tandy had great distribution, ads which could hook you in regardless, and stores everywhere. Little programmer/consultants like myself could recommend Tandy's new IBM-compatible machines to businesses which had branches elsewhere. But Tandy had those little hooks (such as slightly incompatible hardware items) and pretty soon no-one would recommend their boxes. What used to be a very active computer store branch is now only a panel or two of computer accessories in Radio Shack stores. That irritated me as a programmer/consultant because it cost me a resource I could use and refer to. Same thing with Apple. Their target market was limited to a small segment of the business market (the real driver creating the vast availability of computers at low prices and programs at low prices). Only 20 to 25 years ago the computer market looked very different and not nearly as entrenced and embedded in darn-near every office and home. So, the problem, as I see it, was Jobs' attitude, far less so than any of the machines themselves. I am still irritated that the chance for Macs to have had a large market share was thrown away on the altar of anal-retention.

John's got his head screwed on right, at least - still missing the passion and evangelistic will of a true Mac soldier, but there is indeed a willingness to move in that direction: All that's needed now is for John to purchase a Mac and experience using one as your main computer. It just feels better. I do realise that a Mac generally costs more than a PC (unless you actually do a feature for feature price comparison, of course - see my post above) but you must always remember that you will never be able to home build a Mac system, and so if you want OS X, either get it illegitematly (heaven knows most Mac users do this anyway - particularly since no genuine Apple apllication disks contain any copy protection whatsoever) or buy a Macintosh to run it on. As with anything else in life you have to compromise - either you "fork out" for a Mac, or you compromise your user experience with a PC. The choice is yours. As an aside I bought a digital camcorder the other day to take videos of my beautiful 12-week-old daughter. I took about 5 mins of video as a first go, plugged in my FireWire cable, edited it down to a nice 40 second clip in iMovie, compressed it and moved it into iWeb in one click, and had it posted on the internet within ten minutes of plugging in my camera. Oh yeah, and it automatically generated an email with a link for me to send to her grandparents (and greatgrandparents and uncles and greatuncles and even greatgreat uncles... I recommoned having kids to anyone! :-) ) I'd like to see someone who can do that on a PC with no particular skills in video editing or computing. Obviously I do actually HAVE computing skills... but the point is that I don't even have to use them! So no, I definitely disagree that Macs are only good for design professionals - they are in fact best for home users. Hugs & Kisses Hector

In response to: > One other thing > Posted by: Glenn > Sunday, March 26, 2006 10:06 AM Glenn, Firstly, the reliance on the hardware for the Mac is overemphasized now. A properly written kext (kernel extension) file provides the OS with the hardware resource it needs (as long as the hardware is contemporary with Apple's actual target hardware). All that is needed is for hardware manufacturers to have their driver developers make that kext (or open-source their drivers so that the community can do it) to have the OS support that hardware. You can see this by reading about the experiences that the various OS hack folks are having (some bad, but some very good on hardware that is definitely not shipped on release Macs). On caveat here: IMHO video cards are too complex (and the technology changes too quickly), and they need to have commercially written drivers to be really acceptable. (Yes, I know that not all hardware accelerated video drivers for Linux are commercially written, but video hardware changes too fast for open-source to keep up with new releases without manufacturer support.) Secondly, Apple does not have to promise a perfect experience on non-certified hardware, lord knows that Microsoft doesn't. Also, I've heard folks saying that opening the platform up to OEM hardware manufacturers would ruin Apple by ruining the "it just works" experience. In response to that, I'd just like to point out how much this has damaged MS (that is, not at all). If you really believe in the OS--and that it is better than Windows when both are running on ideal hardware/drivers--then trust that people will always have a better experience than on Windows, even with substandard hardware and drivers on both. That said, Apple: 4.3% Gateway: 6.4% HP: 16% Dell: 18% (Source: http://news.com.com/PC+shipments+leap+past+expectations/2100-1003_3-5897839.html ) If Apple quadruples their market, they will be as big (roughly) as Dell, the largest PC whole system vendor today. Would you rather own Dell, or Microsoft (and don't be silly here)? Their is insufficient support for the assertion that selling the OS only would not be as profitable as selling whole machines. That is why Steve should open the OS up and sell it separately. The arguments for why they shouldn't tend to be based on logical assumptions that--while they make sense in a vacuum--ignore facts in evidence from real world precedents. Apple could be real competition for MS for the home OS user market. Some users might jump ship from MS just to get something different, others because they see the OS as suiting their specific needs. Once OSX is in the home (on generic hardware), the Linux folks will probably jump all over it since it has a built in bash shell, X11 server, and posix support (not to mention the budding Darwin open-source community). It would be quite a change in home computing. -John

On the note of the profitability of selling just the OS versus simply continuing to sell whole machines... It seems to me that the big issue here that keeps getting oversimplified by both sides is the transition period. In my post above, I mentioned that there is insufficient support for the statement that selling the OS would make apple less money than selling whole machines, but let me be clear. Apple will not have MS profits when they initially start selling the OS, they have to build up to those. They can, but they will need to commit to doing it. At first, I believe that they will have respectable sales that will rival their hardware profits, but executives don't like making major changes on "beliefs" unless those beliefs are their own. Executives like to have solid market studies to go on. Unfortunatly, no OS that has gone up against Windows (on generic hardware) has yet to post numbers that make those studies favorable. In my opinion, none of them has had all of the advantages that Mac has going for it though. Releasing the Mac OS onto generic hardware will take a leap of faith by Apple, really relying on them to trust the quality of the OS to draw in more folks than any other competitor to Windows ever has. Many folks out here in userland have the belief that that would happen. Unfortunately, it is really Steve that needs to believe that, or have some sly plan for transition that keeps hardware sales up while allowing the OS to get onto generic machines at the same time. -John

Everybody is forgetting the one plain and simple fact: Apple don't WANT to licence OS X or sell it for other computers. It is the Mac OS, as in the OS that runs on Macintoshes. If it ran on other computers, it would no longer be the Mac OS. As long as Steve Jobs is alive, Mac OS will not be licenced out. Yes, I know that it has been licenced out once before, but that was when Steve Jobs was out of the company, and the first thing he did when he came back was to shut down the clones. Maybe I'll eat my words on April 1st when Apple announce that Leopard will run on IBM PCs and will no longer be called Mac OS, but just OS. Or perhaps just System, like it used to be. How cool would System X be! However, Apple have had numerous oppertunities to licence and they haven't taken them, regardless of profitability or the amount of users it would bring, because they don't want to Cuddles Hector

Perhaps we are all missing something on the marketing side here. I have for years complained about PC sales people in various organisations like PC World, Currys e.t.c. The lack of techincal information of Apple known by them is astounding. I am guessing this is either a lack of training, or a lack of interest. I personally would like to see all of these sales people spend time in a commercial IT helpdesk environment to get more experience and knowledge (Back to topic now!) Perhaps the biggest thing we are all missing here is that now Apple PC's are using Intel chipsets, there is only the OS as a key differentiator between them and the media PC's. So of course when a PC world salesperson walks past the Apples with a customer, he can tell them about the Core duo processor and the ATI graphics chip, instead of walking past and not knowing what the hell they are. So when a customer says I want to buy an Apple, he doesn't start to sweat and shuffle back towards the army of Windows Media Center PC's that are on show, he can tell the customer that the specs are the same as a media center. With the added benefit that it runs Apple software, so they can go home, boot up the machine and make a dvd of the child's birthday in less time than it takes to bake cookies. Once again the consumer wins, for the first time ever Apple and Windows PC's will be sold on an almost level playing field. This is the victory of Apple that is not being cpitalised on. Guy Randall is an ex-IT manager for an international cruise line. He is currently working freelance on IT, Design, Photographic and Video projects. He uses both Apple and Windows machines out of Croydon, UK.

Generally, everything in this thread you have said I tend to agree with, but I don't believe that OS X can survive on its own in the wild against Microsoft, and that the biggest factor is that Microsoft controls Mac Office. Let's look at this scenario. You are a Mac user, explaining the advantages of OS X to a friend who is considering installing it on his PC. If Mac Office had been announced as dead, and could only be found on eBay, how easy would it be to convince this friend that they would be able to make such a switch without denying them crucial software they needed to make use of the computer? Sure, you could point to alternatives (Marinersoft's office suite, OpenOffice, etc.) but all these have disadvantages and caveats. The reason Office is so pervasive is the fact that the world needs an interoperable standard for this class of software. Unfortunately, instead of an open-standards solution, we have one based on a single company. Thus, Mac users rely on Mac Office to help them work in a Windows world. All Microsoft has to do is kill it to keep OS X from growing. Now, hardware. Perhaps the hardware issues are not as great as they were in the past, but, in looking at OS X being sold as a standalone product, we need to understand that Apple did something similar once when they authorized Mac clone manufacturers in the '90's. Now, things today are a bit different, and I believe that doing something like that now would actually grow the overall Mac OS marketshare, but it will still erode Apple's hardware sales tremendously. Apple would have to make a decision to get out of PC hardware business altogether to support Mac OS X licensees, and not compete with them. This is why Microsoft doesn't sell its own computers (except for the XBox 360). Having the OS be sold as a separate item to be installed anywhere is close to licensing the OS to, say, Dell or Gateway. You are letting people have an alternative to buying it all straight from you, and the disadvantages of this approach won't be seen by the customers until after you've gone into bankruptcy. Hmm. There is only one scenario in which I think it could work, and that is if Apple thinks that they can sell enough iPods and other, future products to live with the short-term losses incurred to push OS X out into the mainstream, and for Apple itself to create a give-away suite (or very low-cost suite) that will replace Office, both on OS X and Windows. I would not doubt that in a hidden set of rooms at Apple, right now is a spreadsheet app being developed that is as good as Excel and half as hard to use, with twice the eye-candy, waiting for the day that Microsoft wants to go for the throat. Apple would have to fight back hard, basically giving away this software like iTunes, but charging for support (maybe to .mac users only?). I'm not sure if Apple would find enough profit in this to be worth all the pain. Frankly, to compete with Microsoft on its home turf would require a lot more than offering an OS. You would have to replace all the pieces that go with it. I am not sure Apple would even want that burden.

I agree with you there. In fact, it seems a lot of the anger and pessimism against Apple in the PC community has subsided now that Apple has ended the processor war by joining the other side. A lot of people who claimed that Mac users were just elitists are now considering a Mac as a second computer, or at least an alternative. That is why I think that getting XP running on an Intel Mac is exciting. It lets smart PC users know that they can try a Mac out, and, if anything, they can just put Windows on it and use it as a PC if they decide they don't like it. Less potential damage that way. That, and a lot of PC users now feel that Apple has taken a big step towards them. This has done a lot to soften hearts, and this means that there will be more sales. Most tech people I speak with deride the Mac, not out of knowledge, but out of fear of the unknown. They don't relate to the Mac, so they push people off of it, as they fear that their computer knowledge would be useless to them in dealing with Mac users. The new commonality of hardware, like you said, goes a long way in relaxing that fear, and gives them a safer way to learn about OS X, and learn to support it as well. But there is still a group that wants just the OS, and I've already addressed that in previous posts. For that one, they will have to ask Microsoft, not Apple.

Why insult the english language and post such a poorly written sentence?

So to summise: PC's are crap. Mac's are crap. Linux is crap. Or looking at the argument from another persepctive: PC's are great. Mac's are great. Linux is great. Oh yeah btw did anyone notice that XP runs on a Mac now? Someone should post that.

Really folks,.... Any of you have real work to do???????

Guys, I'm an older guy from the Apple IIc days and left the fold when I couldn't afford a $10k Quadra 800 over my 486DX100 that only cost me $995 at Radioshack. I came back with the iMac and have stayed ever since. History of PCI Revisited from Above ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Remember the Power PC and CHIRP? IBM, Motorola and Apple got together to create strict industrial standards for computers. This include the PCI, USB, and Firewire interfaces now common on everything. This decision by these three is what replaced the Nubus system in Macs. Furthermore, PCI actually worked on a Mac in the mid 90's where Windows 95 in its last release had some plug-n-play capabilities but didn't work at all until Windows 98. Noone in the PC world figured that out till Windows ME in like 1999 where the iMac had been out for what some 30+ months! Nubus had been doing that with out IRQ conflicts and the other nightmare of making a Soundblaster Pro16 play nice with the 2400 baud modem. Let's not get the historical facts mixed up here. Apple was ahead of the curve not behind it with PCI. System 8.5 was doing what it supposed to. Mac Vs. PC Vs. Linux (Different Boxes for Different Tasks) +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Back to the Present. Windows XP is a nice opearting System. Bill Gates fixed a lot of crap on it. The reality of the computer world isn't as drastic as it was 10 years ago but those differences still are stark. If you want to be productive with your computer and time is money use a Macintosh. That's why graphics professionals, artists, and the like use it. I can think of no better solutions than the ones that I use my computer for and that is music and graphic design. I also have a Newton 2100 that I synch and my son has an older Performa 6400 that runs all that great educational software created in the 8.5 era.He's extremely productive and so am I. I run OS 10.2 Server on my box at home with two Windows Machines and 5 Macs in the house. I have a media server running on the 10.2 box that has the entire itunes library backed up two ways and a slew of multi-media files on a stack of drives including back-ups of home videos and more. If you want to do program, Linux is your box. Although Apple's Developer Tool Box is nice and Windows Developers Studio for XP is really a huge step in the right direction, the greatest amount of development continues to be from products that are open sourced like IBM's opensourced Eclipse with its pluig-ins and FREE pricetag. That doesn't take away from the other guys, its justmore accessable and will easy for a geek to make something on. Lastly, if you're a business guy and were fed a load of crap while taking a few classes in your MBA they failed to mention that study after studio for TCO (Total Cost of Ownership) of your DELL's, Toshiba Toughbooks, and IBM's is significantly higer than the Mac world. The reality is they buy tons of this crap at the corporate level so some $75k/year IT Geek can control your company and have it by the ballz. The rest of the small business computer world still thinks that Mac's can't open Windows files, that somehow if you send a file on a Mac a PC won't be able to read it and a slew of other myths. They throw out Macs thinking they are useless given the heavy bias in IT (I just finished my BSIT and I was offered only a single UNIX class that didn't even touch the Mac OS. It was heavily biased). The graphics design classes didn't even have Macs in their computer labs. Biased but a reality. So if you're in business most often you get a DELL dood (the American and British English spelling really is Dude). To end the argument about games, let's all be real here X Box and Playstation have more titles and better games than what's out there. This isn't to the discredit of Macsoft Games or what you can get on your PC, those machines are just made for games...that's all. Enough of my ranting... Just had to clear the smoke on that one and shoot up the BS Flag as I saw it.

This sort of thing is great for geekdom. I'm including myself in that. What y'all seem to be forgetting is marketing. True, we like all the technical aspects but none of that makes any difference to Joe Public who make up 90% of the market. The iPod is a commercial success, despite the fact that it ain't the best- or cheapest- mp3 player by a country mile. VHS ain't better than Beta, but it got the home video market sewn up. To use made-up statistics again, 99.9% of Joe Public doesn't know its backside from its elbow and doesn't really care. We're all IN the industry so we know but most folks are driven by advertising slush and that'll win out every time. So far, Microsoft (and the PC) appears as cheap but facistic. Apple appears as cool'n'groovy but costly. I use a PC because my wallet dictates it. I've used Macs because I once did a design course and had to. They're both great in their own way. But if the Mac is a Ferrari and the PC is a 'Vette, why aren't we all driving Ferrari's? Because the 'Vette is cheaper. I've said my piece. Flame me now.

Apart from the amazing tribal warfare, most posters seem to have missed something here. The first computer I bought for myself was an Apple IIe - the Mac came out the following year. There I was learning how to program in machine language, multi-task by swapping 5 1/4" diskettes from one Apple IIe to another (a few years after I bought it, I was being GIVEN Apple IIe's for free as companies bought into the PC market) and so on. So when I started being given laptop PCs by companies to do work for them, I wondered what the difference was. In a word? Apple did in hardware and firmware what PCs did with OS and software. Advantage? Simplicity, speed, availability etc etc. Disadvantage? Amazingly inflexible. Once you had a particular system or software installed, it was tough and usually expensive to change it. So bravo to Apple for loosening the hierarchy up enough to make the most of hardware while allowing flexibility of OS and software. Won't surprise me if Apples come with Windows - but don't expect the core to be Microsoft cos it will ALWAYS be Apple. Great article!

Apple's announcement this morning of software that lets Macintoshes boot Windows is, depending on your...

Net, net has anyone figured out if Powerbook running XP is faster, for most Office aps etx, than PC notbook using same processor and memory set-up?

I used Linux for 1 year and now i know, that it's a junkyard of unfinished programs. I again returned to WindowsXP, that's the best sollution to run most number of useful applications.

I agree with Alex. Windows XP is the only real OS. If you can't run your app on a windows pc then it really isn't worth running. Macs belong in the graphics dept only.

I have to say it's pretty narrow-minded to view Windows XP as the only "real OS". The only "real OS" for what demograhic? Which market? Which industry? Saying that Macs belong in the "graphics department only" is just silly. You're missing the point of Apple's (apparent) marketing goals. There's something to be said for the design and functionality of any product, and for brand loyalty. Why would someone spend $100,000 on a car when they can get one for $30,000? Why would someone buy a $300 shirt when a near exact copy can be had for $20? Why buy a $3 cup of coffee at Starbucks when you can get one at 7-11 for $1.75. It's all about consumers' self image -- how they perceive themselves and want to be seen by others. The fact is, a lot of people like to own and use cool stuff. Look at the iPod craze in the U.S. People can't get enough of them. Sure, other players have come out that are smaller and look better on paper, but they fail because they can't compete with the iPod as a brand. People love them. The same is just beginning to be true for desktop computers and peripherals. Ten years ago consumer computing was filled with beige boxes. The only difference was in the software and internal hardware (which is less tangible to many consumers). Enter the iMac, with its organic shapes and multi-colored translucent plastics. They were a huge hit because of their simplicity and visual appeal. The education market loved them. So did a lot of older people who were just beginning to have their lives changed by the Internet, e-mail, the Web, etc. All of a sudden every other computer/peripheral manufacturer wanted to use the same plastics, colors, patterns, textures, etc. in their own products. Why is that? Because they wanted to get noticed too. They wanted to be different. It's one of the few (relatively) easy ways people can compete in a crowded marketplace and build brand recongnition and equity: Look different. Get noticed. If you look at what companies such as Dell are producing now, you'll see that they've ramped up their design to try to give their product lines a look that's distinguishable from other companies. They want people to be able to look at a system and say "that's a Dell product." Alienware is a great example. Their stuff is instantly recongnizeable, and they charge and arm and a leg for it. The point is, computer use for CONSUMERS is not solely about processor speed, or which OS runs the most apps. It's often experiential. Some people LOVE having a minimalistic 6" square (Mac Mini) on their desk, and their willing to use a narrower collection of software to get it. On the other hand some people want the cheapest, no-frills computer they can buy. Much of big business obviously wants the latter. Apple's marketshare is much smaller than Microsoft's, but when it comes down to it, they don't appear to be chasing the same consumers, do they? That said, I think being able to run Windows on Mac hardware would be fantastic. I've owned both Macs and PCs concurrently for years. Each has its pros and cons. If people can own a snazzy-looking machine -- one that they actually enjoy displaying on their desk -- while being able to run an additional 90% of software that's out there, great! Just don't blindly say Windows is the only real OS, because you obviously haven't looked at the larger picture.

Aside from all this "Whos is bigger" banter, does anyone know where we can find some more comprehensive bench test on XP running on the various configutations of Macs, preferably alongside some comparable PC benchmarks.

Hello, It is really a great thing that MacIntels can run windows. Now, MacIntel and classical PC are powered by the same processor. So one interesting test would be to compare the speed of a Macintel and a PC with the same processor and both running windows when using some usual "heavy" softwares. If the MacIntel appears to be faster, I will switch to mac ! Thanksfor the great test and the photos you provided ! Regards

Just how long will it be before windows decides to do this? uh... Never. lol How about those apple stocks though. Going strong. Next thing you know steve jobs will be sitting next to bill gates in the pimpin chair. No honestly though why didn't this ever happen before? I mean i'm a pretty die hard PC fan mostly for the fact that i can customize my things and the drivers support but if apple gives me this option hmm maybe after awhile when they get more support for drivers and such it would be a worthy switch. go apple go. no pun intended as I don't care that much because I like either machine.

In all honesty and seriousness, you people need to get your heads out of the "OH MY GOD Windows XP runs on a MAC Clouds" and come back down to reality. The benchmarks show that the Macbook was faster by only 1 sec (7:11 vs 7:10) on the Photoshop CS2 test against the Acer Travelmate (Core duo 2.0ghz) : yet it was slower on the Windows Media Encode against EVERY SINGLE LAPTOP tested, with the Acer being better by 30 secs (7:37 for the Acer and only 8:07 for the Mac). ALSO, and MOST IMPORTANTLY the Acer has a Core Duo 2.0ghz whereas the Macbook pro has a 2.16ghz Core Duo. Wait a minute, you mean to tell me that a Macbook with a FASTER processor does better by 1 sec on one benchmark and does worse on the other Multimedia benchmark against every single other Core Duo PC laptop tested out there!! How does this equate the Macbook being the fastest? It does not. People get a grip, the Macbook is not the greatest Core Duo laptop. The Acer Travelmate with a slower 2.0ghz processor spanks it in benchmarks. I mean I know people who love OSX and Apple products have flawed logic, but you guys need to learn how to interpret simple benchmark results better!

In response to: > re: Windows XP on Macs: Tested, Benchmarked > Posted by: Al > Friday, April 07, 2006 9:32 PM Al, I can see your point. The tests being performed now don't show us a whole lot as far as Windows *power* on Mac hardware. Of course, a large portion of performance is a good BIOS, which does not exist for the Macs (the hack in question emulates BIOS through community-written EFI modules). If a commercial BIOS module for the Intel EFI boards was made available, then we would have more meaningful test results. Unfortunately, as it stands, that is still a pipe dream, since Intel would proabably need to code it (it is their MoBo in question after all). Can anyone think of a good motivation for Intel to release such a module? Once decent performance is achieved (doesn't have to be an atomsmasher) under Windows, that lets those of us who want both OSs but only one machine get what we want (except for the game addicts, who probably want the atom smashers). For those that want the ultimate in performance, buy Alienware. That's what they are all about.

When I develop web sites on the Mac, it's very important to view the site on a Windows machine. Explorer and Firefox view things a bit different on the PC compared to the Mac versions. It's a nice cost and space-saving option for testing purposes. I actually like both platforms very much. There's only two gripes I have with Windows though: 1. Installing programs (The user never knows how much longer until the app is installed.) e.g. I installed Microsoft Visio onto a PC at work and the status bar filled up 4 times in a row until the app was done. I never tend to have a clue of the "real" completion status. 2. Viruses from web browsing the wrong web site. The virtualization approach sounds quite interesting. (http://www.parallels.com/) Running Mac and Windows at the same time. That's what I'm interested in.

Now that Apple has released Boot Camp, there should be a new batch of benchmarks done for this. I tried searching the site, but maybe I missed something. Has anyone seen Macs with Boot Camp benchmarked under Windows anywhere? ---ADMINS--- If you don't have an article for this yet, please have one done. Based on the commentary here, it would be well received (or hated depending on which side of the holy war the reader falls on ;). -John

I would love to get a mac. no matter how fast a mac is, i cant find a mac laptop that last as long as 10-15 hours. at least my HP laptop does. and HP laptop has exactly the same specs. but other than that.

I'VE BEEN A MAC USER FOR 12 YEARS, BUT I HAD TO USE SILICONGRAFICSC AN PC'S BECAUSE I'M A 3D ANIMATOR, I STILL THINK THAT THE USER INTERACTION AND USER INTERFACE ON MACS IS FAR SUPERIOR THAN OLD PLAIN DEPRESSIVE XP . NOW I 'VE SEEN WINDOWS VISTA PREVIEWS AND I THINK IT LOOKS A LOT LIKE MACOS BUT A CHEAPER VERSION OF IT , I CANT BELIVE THE SIMILARITIES BETWEEN BOTH !! ANY WAY I UNDERSTAND PCS ARE CHEAPER, BUT HAVE SOME LUXURIES AND CONFORT IN LIFE ITS NICE, SO I PREFER TO STAY WITH MAC AND NOW I CAN RUN ALL THE APPS THAT WERE ONLY FOR PCS AND THE MAC ONES IN THE SAME MACHINE WICH IS GREAT ,MORE PRODUCTIVITY FOR ME. APPART FROM THIS I THINK THAT BOTH COMPANIES NEED TO IMPROVE BOTH SYSTEMS FOR A MORE CONFY , INTUITIVE , CREATIVE AND HUMAN ENVIRONMENT . AND I THINK CUSTOMISATION OF IT IS THE KEY , I DONT LIKE TO HAVE THE SAME LOOK ON MY COMPUTER THAT EVERY SOUL ON THIS PLANET BUT SHARE THE FUNTIONALITY AND OF COURSE HAVE BLASTING SPEED

I have used since 1985 and PC's earlier than that. As a consultant, I have installed complete systems, including networks and servers, and have trained people to use them for data base development, desktop publishing, multi media, graphics design, word processing, spreadsheets, CAD, and accounting. With the possible exception of database developement, Mac was and is arguably the best bet for working with the former four items,. Indeed, the broad publishing industry is the nitch that kept the Macintosh and Apple alive throughout the 80's and 90's. The latter programs, on the other hand, either don't exist or run slowly on the Mac or would require computer managers to support two systems. That's an Excedrin headache. Since retiring a few years ago, I have used the Mac almost exclusively because I do what runs best on the Mac. I am no longer involved in the latter industries, so I have no need for a PC. I suspect that this is true for most people . . . if they choose to admit it. Now that Intel is inside new Macs, my next Mac is going to have the new chip from Mr. Yuckie. Protestors need to know that the original Mac had a Motorola CPU. Later, Apple, Motorola and IBM formed a consortium and co-developed the Powermac CPU. IBM has been the prime manufacturer ever since. Now, IBM has focused on other markets and has not been developing chips that match Apple's needs in the publishing environment. Apple's answer to the problem included an agreement with Intel who is now producing a screamer that is much faster than the Power PC. Now that the Mac is a part of the larger world, will they be susceptible to viruses, worms and Trojan Horses and hacking. I haven't had to worry about these problems because there were too few Macs to bother screwing them up. In fact, I haven't used a virus program since . . . I can't remember when, nor am I looking forward to same.

Why would you want to run Win XP on a Mac when it is an inferior OS? APPLICATIONS! I ended up switching from Mac to PC years ago because there were certain apps that I wanted to run and they were PC only. An OS is not a means to an end, it is just a platform to allow users to run apps. Apps are what users want to run. So as one other commentator said, "Get over it!". After all, you are running Mac software on Intel chips now! Now that dual OS is possible, I think many PC users will consider buying a Mac. I know I am.

I use a pc got a nice graphic card fairly nice machine which i use mostly for gaming which makes me shudder thinking about owning a mac. my friend owns one and from what i read its supposed to have an intuitive interface i find it's not that different from windows in many ways and even grosser with the grey outlines. For those badmouthing that windows xp is ugly they dont know i guess that you can customize the appearance of everyting. As for stability windows xp is pretty stable, which mind you cannnot be said about the older operating systems like windows 95 was that ever a buggy piece of crap. the knock i have is when something crashes you get this screen send the bug or not to microsoft...irritating. As far as making web sites and graphics and such its not that hard to do on pc either you can find any program you want from shareware sites, im not sure you can say the same thing for mac's ...shudder once again.and what about downloading can you use edonkey and such? does that even run on a a mac ..shudder.

amiga DE is gonna blow it all out the window morph coding tech that runs on 41 types of cpu and supports distributed processing as standard now thats what I want.... 28 pc`s running 5.6ghz and 56gigs of ram with 28 sli configs for max fps.... boo sucks it all |(ELATE will rule) I tellls yeeeuuu hoo hawww harrrrrr and windows suck I want them with force fields not glass dam xp takes for ever to boot even on a 56ghz pc. who wrote this code a monkey on drugs

This is the first time i write in a blog so a hello to all. Now to the point. What i really hate is that macs does not have support in the means of developers. If i want a webcam i have to stick with apple webcams that have support in MACOs or to dig in the market and see what models support it. This is shit. i cant go to the fisrt store i see and grab one, put it on and start working. All the peripherals that are in the market today have exclusive support for Windows and thats it. Tell me a good reason why i shall stick with macos ? because of the graphics ? Why should i move to an non-compatiple system tha it will be a pain in the ass about peripherals? After all a computer with the standart conf (screen, keyboard,mouse,cpu,ram,mobo, disks) is some kind useless today. everyone need to connect a scanner, removable storage, tv-tunners, printers and all those kind of staff. Macs dont have tha wide range of peripherals tha win support. You have to stick with apples peripherals, and apple controls the price. They shell a junk at whatever price they want, so you just take it or leave it. In my country there`s and an another problem (Greece). In order to buy a mac you need to make some kind of account in apple, give you ID num, your credit card num and stuff like this. What the hell are these for? I wont buy a nuclear reactor. Just a damn computer. what`s all about that tracking? I want to go to a shop , grab a mac and that it. In here you cant do that. you have to give all your personal data and not only that you have to wait for 15 days. That`s why i dont like apple, shitty deals, no wide peripheral (and hardware maybe) support, software only what apple likes to support.

This is the first time i write in a blog so a hello to all. Now to the point. What i really hate is that macs does not have support in the means of developers. If i want a webcam i have to stick with apple webcams that have support in MACOs or to dig in the market and see what models support it. This is shit. i cant go to the fisrt store i see and grab one, put it on and start working. All the peripherals that are in the market today have exclusive support for Windows and thats it. Tell me a good reason why i shall stick with macos ? because of the graphics ? Why should i move to an non-compatiple system tha it will be a pain in the ass about peripherals? After all a computer with the standart conf (screen, keyboard,mouse,cpu,ram,mobo, disks) is some kind useless today. everyone need to connect a scanner, removable storage, tv-tunners, printers and all those kind of staff. Macs dont have tha wide range of peripherals tha win support. You have to stick with apples peripherals, and apple controls the price. They shell a junk at whatever price they want, so you just take it or leave it. In my country there`s and an another problem (Greece). In order to buy a mac you need to make some kind of account in apple, give you ID num, your credit card num and stuff like this. What the hell are these for? I wont buy a nuclear reactor. Just a damn computer. what`s all about that tracking? I want to go to a shop , grab a mac and that it. In here you cant do that. you have to give all your personal data and not only that you have to wait for 15 days. That`s why i dont like apple, shitty deals, no wide peripheral (and hardware maybe) support, software only what apple likes to support.

Needed for langue traslations. files: D:\i386, named xjis.nls

windows xp profesional cd rom

A mac using a intel cpu is not a pc!!!!! It is a mac and a mac will always rule pc's. MicCrow$oft windows sucks eventhought it is used on 90% of the computer in the world it sucks and everyone agrees. Join the 5% that run MacOS we are the clear majority. The mac is virus free and will forever be. The os is so security it has never had a virus or been hacked. I would pay $1,000,000 to someone who could hack or create a virus for MacOS but I will kept my money since it is immpossible to do.

A mac using a intel cpu is not a pc!!!!! It is a mac and a mac will always rule pc's. MicCrow$oft windows sucks eventhought it is used on 90% of the computer in the world it sucks and everyone agrees. Join the 5% that run MacOS we are the clear majority. The mac is virus free and will forever be. The os is so security it has never had a virus or been hacked. I would pay $1,000,000 to someone who could hack or create a virus for MacOS but I will kept my money since it is immpossible to do.

Having gone down to the local Apple store, I've tried out various models since the first Intel iMacs were released. While I was not terribly impressed with the first Intel macs that came out (32-bit processors that have or will be discontinued), the Xeon Mac towers are quite impressive, running software optimized for G4's/G5's like Photoshop at a fairly brisk pace. The MacBook Pros seemed to have a lot of zip and power, but I didn't think this was the case for the Mac minis or the lower end Notebooks. They seemed rather underpowered/sluggish. It seems that you need a Xeon chip or the equivalent to fully take advantage of OS X's power (Maybe we'll even see some AMD Macs one day). Given my recent experience with the new Intel Macs, I'd eventally like to buy one, preferably a laptop. But not right now. Apple says that its transition is complete, but in reality, it's probably just begun, since very few apps have been released as Universal ones.Plus, there isn't much hardware or software drivers optimized for the new Intel chip yet. Transition takes time, and my guess is that you won't see all the bugs/kinks ironed out of the Intel Macs for at least 2 more years. So at least for these computers, the best is definitely yet to come. You will have to wait. The Intel Macs released in the future will undoubtably get much better, smoother, so it doesn't make much sense to buy them just yet. Still, I think that a computer such an Intel Mac laptop would be a great item to purchase at a later date. Why buy an Intel Windows-only Dell machine, when you can have an Intel Mac that will run not only OS X, but have the potential to run XP, Vista, Linux and UNIX all on the same machine with different partitions and at native Intel speed? And given such a wide range of choice and versatiliy, you could conceivably use your machine to cater to practically any type of client with completely different expectations and needs. For example, imagine that a client asks you to complete a project in Macintosh done in Final Cut Pro (A Mac only software), but then another gives you a file created in Toolbook (a Windows only product) to modify/finish. So instead of having to hook up two or three machines, you only need 1. Meanwhile, you can actually multitask between the 2 platforms in native speed. That saves you time, money and provides you with a relatively seamless integration of so many different platforms. No more messy wires, routers, hardware switches, just a click on your screen to switch between the platforms. Two/Three computers for the price of 1 operating several platforms at once. Now that's what I call a bargain.