DPChallenge: A Digital Photography Contest You are not logged in. (log in or register) 
 

DPChallenge Forums >> Hardware and Software >> How can I stay with Mac with deals like this?
Pages:  
Showing posts 101 - 119 of 119, (reverse)
AuthorThread
 04/23/2008 02:28:28 PM · #101
Originally posted by scarbrd:
...it's not legal to run OS X on a non-Apple machine. Plus, running Windows on a Mac either native or virtual is fully supported.


Correct, on the first point, since Apple does not want to lose control of their hardware specification. My point was, the hardware is the same, and given that, the hypothesis that "Windows runs faster on a Mac" is greatly in doubt.

Is the fact that Windows can be made to run virtually (legally) on a Mac a pro or con for Apple? If it is desirable to do so, why is that? Why would I want, or need, to run (and pay for) two different operating systems, unless I'm a computer enthusiast that wants to do it "because I can?"
 04/23/2008 02:28:33 PM · #102
Originally posted by Louis:
Originally posted by scarbrd:
That and it's not legal to run OS X on a non-Apple machine. Plus, running Windows on a Mac either native or virtual is fully supported.

So who's the big evil corporate empire now? ;-)


Neither.
 04/23/2008 02:30:40 PM · #103
Originally posted by kirbic:
Originally posted by scarbrd:
...it's not legal to run OS X on a non-Apple machine. Plus, running Windows on a Mac either native or virtual is fully supported.


Correct, on the first point, since Apple does not want to lose control of their hardware specification. My point was, the hardware is the same, and given that, the hypothesis that "Windows runs faster on a Mac" is greatly in doubt.

Is the fact that Windows can be made to run virtually (legally) on a Mac a pro or con for Apple? If it is desirable to do so, why is that? Why would I want, or need, to run (and pay for) two different operating systems, unless I'm a computer enthusiast that wants to do it "because I can?"


I think the place where that "Windows runs faster on a Mac" comes from is the highly popularized "Windows laptop of the year" award that PC World gave out at the end of 2007 was to the MacBook Pro: link

This gets taken out of context often and gets boiled down to "Windows runs faster on a Mac". whereas, this should instead read, the fastest reasonably priced notebook in 2007 to run Windows Vista was a MacBook Pro.
 04/23/2008 02:40:21 PM · #104
Originally posted by kirbic:
Originally posted by scarbrd:
...it's not legal to run OS X on a non-Apple machine. Plus, running Windows on a Mac either native or virtual is fully supported.


Correct, on the first point, since Apple does not want to lose control of their hardware specification. My point was, the hardware is the same, and given that, the hypothesis that "Windows runs faster on a Mac" is greatly in doubt.

Is the fact that Windows can be made to run virtually (legally) on a Mac a pro or con for Apple? If it is desirable to do so, why is that? Why would I want, or need, to run (and pay for) two different operating systems, unless I'm a computer enthusiast that wants to do it "because I can?"


In my case, I run Windows in a virutal enivronment on my MacBook becuase I travel a lot in my work. Since I also use the travel opportunity for photography, I prefer my Mac over the Dell D430 that my work provides, by a long shot. I want to carry just one computer with me, so I need Windows for VPN, Exchange (Outlook) and few other Windows only apps that I need for work.

Message edited by author 2008-04-23 14:42:09.
 04/23/2008 02:53:52 PM · #105
Originally posted by Louis:
Originally posted by scarbrd:
That and it's not legal to run OS X on a non-Apple machine. Plus, running Windows on a Mac either native or virtual is fully supported.

So who's the big evil corporate empire now? ;-)


I do find this interesting. Apple doesn't seem so touchy feely when you look at it from this point of view.

However, from the Psystar story over the last few weeks we have learned that a EULA is really only worth the paper it's written on (which in most cases is no paper at all). It's also illegal to drive over the speed limit, but people do it all the time and 99.9999% of them get away with it on any given day. So Apple, in an attempt to scare you, says you aren't allowed to use Leopard on a non-Apple machine. If you call their bluff I doubt much is going to happen legally. You may run the risk of Apple trying to tweak their OS so it doesn't work on your clone though, but then we're back to the question about "who's the evil empire?" While someone diplomatically answered "neither", I'm pretty sure the more correct diplomatic answer is...both.
 04/23/2008 02:55:25 PM · #106
Originally posted by k4ffy:
I think the place where that "Windows runs faster on a Mac" comes from is the highly popularized "Windows laptop of the year" award that PC World gave out at the end of 2007

No, there have been many separate shootouts. One of the first was posted by Gearlog. I read this one in the May issue of Popular Mechanics:
[i]"We even tested Vista on the Macs using Apple’s platform-switching Boot Camp software—and found that both Apple computers ran Vista faster than our PCs did."[/i
 04/23/2008 03:02:56 PM · #107
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by k4ffy:
I think the place where that "Windows runs faster on a Mac" comes from is the highly popularized "Windows laptop of the year" award that PC World gave out at the end of 2007

No, there have been many separate shootouts. One of the first was posted by Gearlog. I read this one in the May issue of Popular Mechanics:
[i]"We even tested Vista on the Macs using Apple’s platform-switching Boot Camp software—and found that both Apple computers ran Vista faster than our PCs did."[/i


okay. i just meant that if you ask follow up questions to most people when they tell you that, it usually ends up that they read the PC World article. that's just in my experience, didn't meant that that was the only place that found this to be true.
i myself can vouch that windows runs snappily on an MBP.

Message edited by author 2008-04-23 15:21:33.
 04/23/2008 04:10:58 PM · #108
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Originally posted by Louis:
Originally posted by scarbrd:
That and it's not legal to run OS X on a non-Apple machine. Plus, running Windows on a Mac either native or virtual is fully supported.

So who's the big evil corporate empire now? ;-)


I do find this interesting. Apple doesn't seem so touchy feely when you look at it from this point of view.

However, from the Psystar story over the last few weeks we have learned that a EULA is really only worth the paper it's written on (which in most cases is no paper at all). It's also illegal to drive over the speed limit, but people do it all the time and 99.9999% of them get away with it on any given day. So Apple, in an attempt to scare you, says you aren't allowed to use Leopard on a non-Apple machine. If you call their bluff I doubt much is going to happen legally. You may run the risk of Apple trying to tweak their OS so it doesn't work on your clone though, but then we're back to the question about "who's the evil empire?" While someone diplomatically answered "neither", I'm pretty sure the more correct diplomatic answer is...both.


Is this one of those "it's OK as long as you don't get caught" arguements? We'll save that for the rant threads.

The distinction that most people miss when debating the whole Mac vs.Windows thing is that they are 2 fundamentally different kinds of companies. Microsoft makes software, period. They brand a few things like keyboards, mice, mp3 players, etc. But they do not make them or design them. Apple is a hardware company. They make computers, like Dell, HP, and others. They design, test, manage the manufacturing process from start to finish.

To distinguish themselves from the other computer makers, they also design software specifically to run on their computers. The make the software to enhance the sales of their hardware. They make no claim and offer no support for running software designed for their manufactured product to run on anything else. This is where Microsoft is at a severe disadvantage. MS makes operating systems and productivity software that must run on platforms that they have no control over. MS must predict and anticipate any and all changes to hardware a peripherals. They can give specs and requirements to the manufacturers, and with their commanding market share can drive a lot of compliance with the big boys (HP, Dell) but some guy puts out a $200 computer and people buy them up and wonder why Windows runs so poorly on them? MS fault? Hardly, but it is their problem.

So for Apple, as a hardware company that makes software for their hardware, are they under any obligation to make that software run on anyone else's hardware? Apple claims an advantage of better integration and smoother operation because they control both the hardware and the core software.

Microsoft occasionally toys with the idea of coming out with a Microsoft branded computer. Would you assume that the MS branded computer would run Windows better than and HP or a Dell? And if so, is Microsoft doing anything wrong in this case? Would that be fair to Dell and HP? Does being fair matter?

What MS does do is demand that the PC manufacturers sell their OS exclusively. And they get quite pissy when one wants to sell Linux or these days even XP over Vista preloaded.

Apple does not force or coerce anyone to use their OS or their computers.

04/23/2008 04:29:34 PM · #109
Originally posted by scarbrd:

Apple does not force or coerce anyone to use their OS or their computers.


that's right, you don't have to use it. just buy it ;)
try buying a Mac without Leopard.
 04/23/2008 04:30:28 PM · #110
Originally posted by scarbrd:
So for Apple, as a hardware company that makes software for their hardware, are they under any obligation to make that software run on anyone else's hardware? Apple claims an advantage of better integration and smoother operation because they control both the hardware and the core software.


This is likely true. It does have the disadvantage for the consumer that Apple now controls the price and market competition is not at play. So I think the ultimate question boils down to whether it is worth paying Apple's monopoly fee for the benefit of not having to worry about the OS working with 200 different mobos. For some it's worth it and for others it isn't.

As far as MSFT getting pissy about Dell, etc loading other OS platforms, well, they are throwing their weight around. I'm not saying that doesn't suck for the consumer. It does. Apple not letting their OS out of their control also sucks. Both companies, in my mind, represent "The Man". Neither is innocent. Look at the iPod. Apple has a stranglehold there. It's not going to let that go any time soon because it benefits you and me.

OTOH, while innovation is probably stiffled from there being one OS that runs on 90% of machines, it does make it easy to transport files and programs from one machine to another. If the world was split four ways between four OS's, that might be a real pain in the ass.
 04/23/2008 04:34:34 PM · #111
Originally posted by k4ffy:
Originally posted by scarbrd:

Apple does not force or coerce anyone to use their OS or their computers.


that's right, you don't have to use it. just buy it ;)
try buying a Mac without Leopard.


Apple used to give away the OS and the updates, even you bought the computer second hand. Again, pointing out that Apple is a hardware company first and foremost.

That changed around OS 7 I believe.
 04/23/2008 04:43:13 PM · #112
Originally posted by scarbrd:
MS makes operating systems and productivity software that must run on platforms that they have no control over. MS must predict and anticipate any and all changes to hardware a peripherals. They can give specs and requirements to the manufacturers, and with their commanding market share can drive a lot of compliance with the big boys (HP, Dell) but some guy puts out a $200 computer and people buy them up and wonder why Windows runs so poorly on them? MS fault? Hardly, but it is their problem.

This is an excellent point. Another issue is backward compatibility. MS desires to make its OS software as backward compatible with all known devices as long possible, which in some ways is certain to strain innovation (the whole "XP compatibility" thing in Vista comes to mind).
 04/23/2008 04:50:56 PM · #113
Originally posted by Louis:
This is an excellent point. Another issue is backward compatibility. MS desires to make its OS software as backward compatible with all known devices as long possible, which in some ways is certain to strain innovation (the whole "XP compatibility" thing in Vista comes to mind).


This is, in my meager opinion, MSFTs Achilles heel. They have so much baggage going back to even Win95 that the OS has become huge and unwieldy. Instead of having chip speeds offer things like a simply faster OS, we use that processing power to carry around more and more historical detrius.

I believe that if MSFT chose to offer a new OS that was not guaranteed to be backward compatible, it would blow Apple's offering out of the water. How could it not? David points out that Apple is a hardware company. They can manage to put out an OS because they have a very simple computer to run (meaning there aren't lots of third party hardware pieces to worry about). But MSFT's thing IS operating systems. If they were unfettered, I think we'd all be impressed.

I'm still, however, waiting for that day. Vista certainly was not it.

Message edited by author 2008-04-23 16:51:07.
 04/23/2008 04:54:55 PM · #114
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
I believe that if MSFT chose to offer a new OS that was not guaranteed to be backward compatible, it would blow Apple's offering out of the water. How could it not?

Lack of imagination. I'm pretty sure Vista was not guaranteed to be backward compatible, and many PCs just a few years old cannot run it.
 04/23/2008 05:08:21 PM · #115
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
I believe that if MSFT chose to offer a new OS that was not guaranteed to be backward compatible, it would blow Apple's offering out of the water. How could it not?

Lack of imagination. I'm pretty sure Vista was not guaranteed to be backward compatible, and many PCs just a few years old cannot run it.


Microsoft has painted themselves into a bit of a corner. They have paid a *lot* of attention to backward compatibility, at times to the detriment of current product. Vista has also been a tremendous disappointment...
- Far more problems than there should have been, given the development time and effort involved
- Too much effort on bells & whistles at the expense of performance enhancing features
- Late to market, and with key features (like a new file system) missing
- With a confusing, overly-complicated array of variants
Apple has been smart in building their OS on a rock-solid base, UNIX, and they will continue to build market share, even with their higher hardware prices.
I, for one, will stay with XP for the moment. I plan on building a new computer this year, and I cannot see a benefit of moving to Mac. I'd certainly be happy with the machine, I have no doubt of that, but the initial investment alone is a killer.
04/23/2008 05:35:24 PM · #116
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
I believe that if MSFT chose to offer a new OS that was not guaranteed to be backward compatible, it would blow Apple's offering out of the water. How could it not?

Lack of imagination. I'm pretty sure Vista was not guaranteed to be backward compatible, and many PCs just a few years old cannot run it.


I think you are wrong on the first count, but obviously right on the second. Both my dad and brother work for MSFT and I think I would have caught wind in some conversation if they had broken compatibility.

Message edited by author 2008-04-23 17:36:05.
 04/23/2008 05:51:51 PM · #117
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
I believe that if MSFT chose to offer a new OS that was not guaranteed to be backward compatible, it would blow Apple's offering out of the water. How could it not?

Lack of imagination. I'm pretty sure Vista was not guaranteed to be backward compatible, and many PCs just a few years old cannot run it.


The reason PCs that are a few years old cannot run it is not out of incompatibility.
The reason they cannot run it is because of the base-line hardware requirements. However, even these are defined for "best experience"
I shovelled a stripped down version of Vista on my Asus eeePC (900 Mhz Processor, 512 MB RAM, 4GB SSD HDD) and it works just fine. It may not be snappy, but its 100% compatible.

ETA: here's vista on an eeePC with a 35 second boot time.

Message edited by author 2008-04-23 17:53:25.
 04/24/2008 03:14:51 AM · #118
I may be a little off point here (I'm coming back to this thread rather than following it post by post) but does the mac OP (Leopard, Tiger, Pussy cat - whatever it's called ) require the same HD space as Vista ? I know that Vista was critised for the amount of resources and room it required. Not such a big problem for a new desktop (with newer, bigger HD) but could be a problem for a laptop (with smaller, slower HD).
I must admit - when I replaced my desktop last July I put XP media centre on. I found XP reliable (I've had no problems with it on 3 machines)and saw no reason to change it. I did get the Media Centre version (I believe that MC is incorporated into Vista). It was a complete waste of time - slow, clunky - does nothing more then the TV/DVD software does.
I know the mac OP is suppose to be more reliable (although I'v encountered no problems with XP) but is it a lighter (resource wise) Op then windows ?
I was baffled as to why mac laptops only offer 200/250G HD where PC's offer anything up to 500G. Is it because they think their OP and excessaries will take up less space ?
 04/24/2008 07:32:31 AM · #119
Just wanted to point out that when you get a Mac with OSX, you are also getting a Unix machine and you do not need to use the OSX Aqua GUI. You can use any X-Windows setup you want or, if you're hardcore, you can work from the command line in a terminal window.
Pages:  
Current Server Time: 08/03/2025 02:07:14 PM

Please log in or register to post to the forums.


Home - Challenges - Community - League - Photos - Cameras - Lenses - Learn - Help - Terms of Use - Privacy - Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2025 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 08/03/2025 02:07:14 PM EDT.