Apple helps Gates to a few more millions..

When I see this my first reaction is, "great, now I can play more games on my Mac." But I'm likely wrong about that. I suspect most games are so HW dependent that they will just creep along so as to be unplayable.
 
grunion:

AS I understand, this is not "Virtual MAchine' software. It's simply boot-level software that enavbles Windows to find the boot-sector it needs to start up (formats for boot process differ between Windows and Mac OS). That's what 'natively' means.

So, you shouldn't see any slowdown compared to a similarly equipped PC. It'll run the same. This sets it up as a dual-boot system, not with Virtual Machines.
 
Apple said it had no plans to sell or support Windows but added that many Mac owners have said they want to run the operating system on their Intel-using machine.
Source
Click to expand...

In other words:

  1. Bend over.
  2. Take it up your rectum.
 
Why would anyone want to do this? If you want to run Windows, then buy a Windows machine for about half the price. If you want to run OS X, clearly a superior operating system, then buy a Mac. That is what I did. I am slowly getting completely away from my Windows machine. I really only use it now for running QuickBooks and Quicken.
 
But this would mean for you for just the price of Windows you could do away with your PC immediately.

Long term I think this is a good strategy for Apple - unless of course MS stop Windows working on Macs!
 
I'm with Scrut in the 'baffled' camp. Why would anyone fork out for a Mac then run Windows on it?

Perhaps that's just down to my understanding of Macs though - but I am pretty sure you can get PCs that equal the power of a Mac, so really the only difference is the operating system.

Is it for Mac fans who realise they are losing a compatibility battle but don't want to give up their hardware? Or for Macs to appeal to a new audience by having the operating system that young people are used to in schools and at home, and for PC users to have an easier migration over to Mac?

And, more importantly, will you be able to right click?

All these questions and more, on tonight's TK Show.
 
tkingdoll said:
I'm with Scrut in the 'baffled' camp. Why would anyone fork out for a Mac then run Windows on it?

Perhaps that's just down to my understanding of Macs though - but I am pretty sure you can get PCs that equal the power of a Mac, so really the only difference is the operating system.

Is it for Mac fans who realise they are losing a compatibility battle but don't want to give up their hardware? Or for Macs to appeal to a new audience by having the operating system that young people are used to in schools and at home, and for PC users to have an easier migration over to Mac?

And, more importantly, will you be able to right click?

All these questions and more, on tonight's TK Show.
Click to expand...

tking:

Macs are more expensive, but there is a reason for it. The Macs are optomized for multimedia. THe motherboards and other systems contain extended instruction sets designed to support graphics functions, and they generally use higher quality graphics cards and sound cards. I've actually priced it out on some Macs (the older systems, not the new PC-based ones), and a PC of comparable quality graphics-wise ot a Mac runs about the same price (difference was somethig like 10%, IIRC). And often times, it's not an either-or choice. If you can only buy one system, and need the functionality of both a Mac and a PC, then it's cheaper to by one Mac and dual boot than to buy a Mac and a PC. This situation can arise with grpahics-oriented businesses (graphics programs work much better on the MAc side, but the business apps tend to have better function and more availability on the PC side), or any technical situation that supports multiple OS types. It's not for everyone, nor is it intended to be. But a not-insignifigant number of users will find this a nice feature.
 
After years of flame wars the mac nazi news groups will finally have to admit that PC hardware is just as good or better.
 
Huntsman said:
tking:

Macs are more expensive, but there is a reason for it. The Macs are optomized for multimedia. THe motherboards and other systems contain extended instruction sets designed to support graphics functions, and they generally use higher quality graphics cards and sound cards. I've actually priced it out on some Macs (the older systems, not the new PC-based ones), and a PC of comparable quality graphics-wise ot a Mac runs about the same price (difference was somethig like 10%, IIRC). And often times, it's not an either-or choice. If you can only buy one system, and need the functionality of both a Mac and a PC, then it's cheaper to by one Mac and dual boot than to buy a Mac and a PC. This situation can arise with grpahics-oriented businesses (graphics programs work much better on the MAc side, but the business apps tend to have better function and more availability on the PC side), or any technical situation that supports multiple OS types. It's not for everyone, nor is it intended to be. But a not-insignifigant number of users will find this a nice feature.
Click to expand...
Ah, I getcha.

I thought that the whole Macs-are-better-for-graphics thing was redundant as of a few years back, since PCs got super powerful. I remember reading something a while ago but it was in PC magazine so that may explain the bias.

My sister is a designer, she uses both a Mac and a PC, but only because she has artwork sent to her in Mac format from clients. Otherwise, I'm pretty sure she's said she'd rather do without it, as the PC does the job more than adequately. I may be misrepresenting her though, I'll ask her later.
 
Let's say you spend a lot of time on the road and you really really prefer to use a Mac laptop machine but for work you have to use one or two pieces of Windows software. For the price of a copy of XP you can now dual boot the Mac and run those pesky Windows programs without carrying two machines. I've been doing the same thing for years with Linux and Windows. Linux for important stuff, Windows for games. One machine. Until regular PC hardware can boot OSX (which may not happen) Mac hardware can now run most x86 operating systems. That makes it pretty versatile.

I would hazard a guess that many of the copies of Windows that get booted on Mac hardware won't be properly licensed.
 
Huntsman said:
Don't get me wrong, you can make a PC that will outperform a Mac in the graphics department. You'll end up paying just as much or more for it, though, as for the Mac.
Click to expand...
But then, you also have the advantage of a Windows platform. Either way, Windows-users win.

Pun intended.
 
jimlintott said:
Let's say you spend a lot of time on the road and you really really prefer to use a Mac laptop machine but for work you have to use one or two pieces of Windows software. For the price of a copy of XP you can now dual boot the Mac and run those pesky Windows programs without carrying two machines. I've been doing the same thing for years with Linux and Windows. Linux for important stuff, Windows for games. One machine. Until regular PC hardware can boot OSX (which may not happen) Mac hardware can now run most x86 operating systems. That makes it pretty versatile.
Click to expand...

yeah, I hadn't thought of that. Maybe this move does make sense.

Unfortunately, I have a non-Intel Mac. :(
 
CFLarsen said:
But then, you also have the advantage of a Windows platform. Either way, Windows-users win.

Pun intended.
Click to expand...

Well, the PC-based Macs are, essentially, Windows platforms. And quite frankly, the Mac hardware has almost always been excellent, becuase they keep tighter control over the systems. They've had some problems, but it's much more common to run across a cheap (quality, not price) PC component than Mac. So I wouldn't say that's much of an advantage :)

Basically, a PC-based Mac system won't differ in a substanial way (hardware-wise) from a Windows machine, except for some of the extras Mac adds in (such as the increase graphics/multimedia functions). I'd say Windows on a Mac box may even be a better system, in the long run.

TCS:

You can find Linux distros designed for the G-series Macs.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom