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

(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.

also SSH was open on the mac mini

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

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.

cause MACOS sucks

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.