[rasmasyean]

TechieXP, a lot of people dual boot due to what is known in psychology as "post-justification". What this basically means in this case is that they bought a Mac because of the marketing / sales presentation / hype from mactard / etc. Then they find out they need to use Windows. But then they have to go back to using OSX for other things which are "better" because it justifies that they made the right choice to begin with. Hey, some people DO actually have a legitimate reason to dual boot. However most people don't but do it because they paid so much money for it. Then some come on forums like these and rant about how great Macs are with false impressions.

[yankeeDDL]

This is going to be a never-ending comparison and we'll never get an answer that everybody will agree upon. But do we need to?
How can you compare two different systems? Does it really boil down to price?

I was reading a blog yesterday where a Windows technician recommended to run viruscan, malware scan, defrag, disk cleanup every week or so and do a clean install (as in format C: + reinstall from scratch) every 6 months. Maybe a bit excessive, but if you're a heavy installer/uninstaller, that's actually the way of living for a Windows' user.

That's not the same (at all) for Mac (or Linux) users. How much is your time worth? How much does it cost you if the computer gets infected by a virus? Or by a window-popping malware? What if you start spamming all your business contacts with emails about Viagra or cheap replicas? Or if your credit card info goes online? How much is all this worth? Fact is: the vast majority of PC users are not tech savvy, so they're totally exposed to threats. And they probably not even know that.

How much does it cost having a good antivirus subscription? And a malware scanner? And a firewall? And how will all these softwares slow down your machine compared to a Linux/Mac one?

You just can't put a number on all of the above, and even if you could, it would be different from person to person, from user to user. How fast is the same CPU when running Windows + loads of security software vs Mac OS (or Linux)?

I think it's no question that Apple will charge you for their stylish design: why shouldn't they?

The key info we need to point out, in my opinion are: Apple restricts its hardware (with good reasons, but let's not go into that) and there are "waves" of updgrades, but it's not (nearly) as ... continuos as on windows/Linux based PCs/Laptops. Fact is, people perceive Windows as THE OS. A computer comes with windows, much like with a CPU and a hard drive. This can and will change only when something major happens. Is it me or these Win vs Mac comparison have increased since Vista came out? Vista is a major change: you buy a computer and it doesn't work anymore like you would expect ... so people start looking at alternatives.

[TechieXP]

I agree a bit.
I can't why anyone needs to add/remove software on a regular basis. If you keep fair maintenance in Windows, then I don't see why you need to install it often either. In my case I've install Vista twice. But it wasn't because of problems. I started off with the 32bit version and then tried the x64 version. Many of the games I like to play for some reason wouldn't load in the 64bit version so I switched back.

Yes you are right when others started looking elsewhere because of Vista issues. But many did so based on perceive notions, not actual experience. That is why MSFT did teh Mojave project. Many of them had no idea it was actually Vista and were suprised. Ther is nothing wrong with Vista. The same issue with Vista were teh exact same when MSFT release XP. In fact Windows 2000 and XP were worse. Windows 2000 was advertised as a business only OS. However any bought it because they noticed at work the their PC rarely if ever crashed vs what they had at home which was probably Windows 98 or ME.

MSFT developed XP to bring back 9x compatibility that was not included in Win2k. People bitched for days about how bad XP was. Then after SP1 of course it got better, and each SP and updates continously made it better. I don't know where MSFT wnt wrong in Vista other than they hype many features that didn't even show up. The compatibility issues should have been expected again because it is a whole new OS. The reason Windows 7 isn't going to be an issue is because it is simply an update to teh previous kernel. Just like XP was for 2000. If anyone tried to run XP on a system that was designed for Windows 95, you were sure to have problems...especially with speed. NT unlike 9x requires systems with power...so when MSFT lax on the specs to approve that cheesy lousy chipset from Intel it cause problems. I am too aware that some people bought system that came with or were approved as system that could run Vista Premium, but did bad. That is because the systes come with teh bare minimum hardware to keep cost low and it is up to you to buy ram in order to have a pleasant experience. This is no different then any version of WIndows I ever used. 9x was more forgiving, bec the specs change was not as agressive through each version. This doesn't apply to Windows NT. If you compare the needs of NT vs 9x...you will see each build almost double on each build.

No matter what OS you use, or how great you claim it is and no matter how bad you say Windows is, you're going to have to use it. PERIOD. Whether you want to or not. Macs running Windows isn't a bad idea for a person who has a legit reason to do so. Like a business man who may have clients that use both platforms and he want to insure he is compatible for business reason. Of someone who has software that requires Windows that isn't avail for Mac which is a HUGE list. However I can't think of any other reasons. Pawning off that Windows runs better on a Mac is FUD. How can it when it is the same exact hardware...from the same brands. Intel is still Intel no metter what board you drop it on. ATI and Nvidia is teh same chips and cards no matter what hardware you drop them on. What is different, is maybe how Apple has found a way to get rid of some of teh bottlenecks that plaque Windows...but in many side my side comparisons...Macs aren't that much faster. All I see you paying for is a fancy case and a logo.

All brands have hardware in fancy quiet chrome case where wiring has been ran to be invisible. In my system for about $25 I can buy extensions and run my wires so that they will be invisible too. Its not like Apple created something that wasn't done already. I am to assume that owning a Mac is going to cost me less than owning a PC. How so?

Well compare..to insure compatibility with a Mac in todays world that means I have to buy 2 operating systems...That is close to $500 in expense...you pay extra for iLife bec OSX doesn't come with typical standard applications for editing pictures and text. This comes standard with Windows. Which means 129.00 for OSX plus $79 for iLife means you pay more then for Vista or XP which are both 199.99 average for a full CD.

Then there is the hardware. Since OEM's and Apple use CPU lock there are limitations on how you can upgrade with the desktop. But lets take an issue like someone on either side who decides not to buy the extended coverage and a component fails. In the case of Windows I can simply go out and buy a replcement..this is not totally true with Macs. In is only with the x86 Macs that you cen now buy your own video cards and download drivers. But before only Apple had them. Even now you are still limited to what drivers are available either already in OSX or what you may be able to buy. But this isn't a huge different vs Windows...with teh exception...i can replace everything..including the CPU. And of course if you build your own, the cost of ownership is less then buying from any brand...including Apple.

As far as the continous issuesMac users say we face with Windows as far as viruses and the like. Billions of people use Windows...if it was that bad, don't you think 1/2 of them would have switych in the past 30 years? Why aren't they? Maybe because teh majority of us dont have that problems. The people who have problems in Windows are teh same ones who are always victims of circumstance, because they never do what it takes to protect themselves from the outside. Example, if you know you live in a bad neighborhood and you are a female, why would you travel alone at late or wee hours? Don't you ahve friends that can take you home? what about the boyfriend..can't he pick you up and drop you off...can't you take a cab that can put you out at the door?

In fact most people who comment here and in other PC forums, sldom even mention Apple...we only do so in 2 instances...when the article mentions them or one of teh Macs users come and start trouble. In my opinion, Apple on makes 3 computers that I consider are consumer based...thats that one single 13in laptop for $999, the low-end MacBook at 1499 and the iMac. The Mac Pro is a powerhouse workstation and is beyond the needs of an average user. If I was a typical user and I bought one...then of course I wouldn't need to buy a new computer for 10 years, because I spend the whole $3000 at one time verse breaking it down and pending it in increments. However, going the Windows route...means in tens yoears I will ahve own maybe 1 or 2 systems that cost me 1/2 of a single Mac and the latest system will have the latest hardware and not 10 year old hardware that is obsolete.

If people use some simple commmon sense, then they would never buy into the Mac hype. In my opinion, if you are a typical user and you buy a Mac and you install Windows on it...i see it as a questionable move. I am not saying it is wrong, I am just saying why? Windows on a Mac is still Windows on a PC. No matter how apple try to advertise that a Mac is anything but...it is what it is...it is a PC...it uses the same x86 hardware we have ben using since the 70's...the x86 architecture has remain virtually unchanged...can you same teh same for the other guys? No. How many times has Apple changed? The fact they allow Windows to be installed on a Mac to be question the dedication to their own OS. Maybe what they are telling you and you're blind to see is...OSX isn't good enough so basically you need Windows...so here you go...we are serving it up for you on a more expensive plastic case.

OSX doesn't do what Windows does, if it did you wouldn't need Windows...you could simply switch and never look back, like many claimed they have. But I don't believe them. In truth, if you change from one brnd to another and you say you are happy...why would you need to announce it all the time? You think guys who use to drive a Chevy trucks come to work everyday and rub it in when they switch to Ford? No. But Mac users do. PC users don't need to be convince of what is good or bad. Windows offers us both and so does OSX. To us..Windows offers more good than bad, so we use it. Its not brand loyalty...its simply smart computing. I am sure teh majority of people who use Windows don't like it...they use it because they basically have too. Why? Because there is nothing out ther that is better. Windows, Linux and OSX are all equal when it comes to performing basic everyday computer functions. Once you need to cross that line that is where the difference hit a bit harder...this is where you ahve to make a afluent decision.

If MSFT standards were so bad, there is no way they would be where they are...no matter how hard they push. Because someone by now would have done better. I don't think we are so dependant on Windows that something better can't be seen. And what si so amazing..MSFT only makes 3 consumer based products that lead the industry...Windows, Office and IE...the rest of what they make are not for everyone...they are specially designed programs mostly for business. And they also make proprietory stuff for any single business providing you want to use their services.

Articles like this simply cause prejudice and problems. Its just like parents who teach their children that certain races of people are bad. Fact is they are all no better or worse then each other. But yet if their child gets involve with teh other side as they say...its a problem. I see these threads as the same. The market has chosen its leader that has a 90% share of it...and the fact some on the other side still uses it even on there hardware just shows Windows simply can't be beat. MSFT sets teh standards of how good something has to be at its base point. When other developers create browsers and operating system...who are they looking at first...they are looking at Microsoft...bec teh world says they ahve whats is best and in order to be better you ahve to beat them. Period.

With the internet anyone can look up and compare prices. How hard is it to open to broswer windows and equally compare any computer you think you need or want? In 30 mins teh average person can make a fair decision on what works best for them. So whichever they buy if they are happy with it...then lets just be happy for them, even if we ourselves don't agree with it. Because they didn't spend your money, they spent theirs. If people like wasting money, let them. If people think they made teh best choice...make them feel good about it.

If you have a dollar...and you're thirsty...out of all the drinks that you ca think of that you can have...none of them satisfies you like one does...Water! In comparison...out of all the programs you can install and use, none of them works so well in this present world...but 1...that is Windows...good or bad....that is just the way it is for now. Things do change....One day it won't be Windows...for those who are old enough to have seen the beginning and may live to see it end...can't we just be happen that we lived to have been apart of it...no matter which side we chose. Bec there is never going to be an equal playing field. One will always excel over another. What matters is which overs the most for its money...which is what this and another article eludes to.

[TechieXP]

I can afford a Mac. And last year I was very interested in buying one...after doing some homework, I realized it didn't fit what I needed so I didn't buy it. However, I do have the OS bec that is really what sets a Mac apart from any other PC. Its teh same hardware I dont care how fancy the case is outside...its whats inside that counts. After playing with OSX Leopard for 2 months now, I understand why most aren't switching. In my case, based on my needs...in order for me to do what I need...if I bought a Mac I would still have to buy WIndows and install it to use what I need. I don't want to use virtualization...

If Vista was that bad, it didn't cause that many to simply switch to OSX...the majority simply went back to XP and decide to wait to see what MSFT does next. I am so confident that Windows 7 will be so great, that many who did switch because of Vista ...will be back to Windows in just a few months.

I am curious to know, how many users who come to this forum would openly admit they have Windows installed on their Macs and plan to possibly install teh final release of Windows 7 on it.

[rgreen4]

Yes, many tout how great OS/X is and how terrible Windows is, but then mention that "Oh, by the way I have Windows on my Mac as well".

[yankeeDDL]

TechieXP,

boy, that's a long post ...

Some direct answers:

1) Mojave project. Good point. ZDnet did something similar, but from KDE perspective (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CPIgEFIv5MI). I would not give much weigth neither to the Mojave project, nor to the ZDnet video.

2) I disagree that Vista is going through the same as XP did. Sure, XP wasn't (and still isn't) perfect, but worked quite well on the installed HW right off the bat. Vista didn't: much of the "not-super-new" HW was not supported. Not to mention the resource requirements: how many have a PC with > 1GB of Ram? XP's requirements were much more in line with HW the install base at the time it went out.

In any case, I think it's undeniable how MS is scrambling to get Windows 7 out to replace Vista. Also, XP's "deadline" keeps being extended ... it's clear to me that many still want XP over Vista.

3) I disagree on the "you have to use Windows - PERIOD". I think the vast majority of PCs (by far) are used for email, web browsing, some occasional video-game and some basic "office work" (simple documents, spreadsheet ...).

Linux (and MAC) can do all this for free. The "PC of my parents" or the PC of "my teenage daughter" ... no reasons to pay for an OS. None, whatsoever. I do have a laptop with Windows for office work (I'm writing with it, and yes, I use it most of the times, cause it's a good laptop) but my private computers (a desktop and an old laptop) run Linux and Linux only. The desktop has Windows in dual-boot but God knows when was last time I booted it.

With very few and rare exceptions, like the need for using AutoCAD or Adobe Photoshop, neither of which available for Linux, you can do on Linux absolutely everything you can do on Windows. Just to be clear, I do not own a Mac today.

4) I do agree with you on the upgrades. Apple's pricing is ridicolous. But let's be realistic: again, the vast majority of PCs are long forgotten and probably are so outdated that cannot even be upgraded today. Let's also not forget that Mac ar, typically, quite well equipped (you don't find a low-cost Mac) so the likelyhood that you need an upgrade is even lower.

5) Viruses: if it was 1/2 that bad, wouldn't people switch? No, they wouldn't. For the same reason why people by a PC with Windows "by default", people don't normally switch. Linux is "free" and today's motto is "you get what you pay for". Linux is probably the one and only exception to that rule. Fact is, "average Joe" does not know Linux. Does not know how to get it, install it, learn it.

I consider myself quite advanced as a Windows' user. I used it all along since MS DOS 5.0 and I did a good amount of programming, testing with it. Yet, I got infected by Viruses twice. Both times I resorted to re-install Windows.That's why I don't use it on my home PCs and I wouldn't use it on my office PC if my employer would let me.

6) My point also wasn't really about Mac being better than PC: my point was that the article should have accounted for a lot more than the cost of HW. Linux PCs are virtually 0 maintenace. Don't require anti-virus, anti-malware, defragmentatio and come already with all the software that 95% of the PC users will ever need to use.

7) Standards .. also there I don't agree with you. MS Standards are proprietary, and as such, are bad. The backwards compatibility is a nightmare, but it's simply obvious that it's like that: MS used it's monopoly advantage to drive people to upgrade. They provide some organizations free (or cheap) upgrades to MS Office 2007 ... so then everybody else is forced to upgrade to read the newest formats. They take away support on the OS (see what's happening to XP) to force you to move to their latest generation OS. Perfectly understandable. I like to know I have a choice (most of the times) and when I can I choose not to.

Have you ever read MS EULA? Do you know that the EULA for any MS product forbids you from publicly talk bad about Microsoft? It's a condition and if you don;t fullfill it, you 're not entitled to use MS products. In Vista they went one step further and they explain that there are ways for the RIAA to check the content of your PC in case of suspected right infringement (I'm simplifying a bit: you can read here if you like http://linuxlock.blo...-ok-with.html). Are you seriously OK using a PC, knowing that in some circumstances somebody else can legally snoop into it? And how much "snooping" is OK? Is it OK to only check which MP3 and AVI files you have? Or maybe all audio and video? What about the .torrent files then? It's a dangerous path. And what's the advantage? None to me. Whatsoever. So I say "no thank you".

[asiafish]

TechieXP said:

I was think too. Dual-booting. It is an okay option...but on a laptop why? if the one single OS doesn't give you what you need, then it means you didn't choose the right one. Buying 2 OS's to e isn't a smart buy. If compatibility is what you need..no OS does it better than Windows. if you want to get away from Windows then you have Linux or OSX...but even with a desktop I see no need in booting more than one beyond testing purposes. Sure if u have Vista, you may have some software issue so you need to have XP. That makes sense. If you install 2 so that you can learn another to be proficient or to gain knowledge...that is ok too.

Why dual boot on a laptop? Many people today don't bother with desktops at all. Modern laptops are quite powerful, more powerful than the desktops of 3-years-ago.

Quote

But I am curious so that I can learn...I want to hear from a Mac user that dualboots Windows on the same system. Explain why you do it. From what I seen of users who boot Windows on a Mac, they state they use Windows most of the time. So why go out and spend 20% to 40% more just to run Windows?

Who uses Windows most of the time on their Mac? I sure don't. I use OS X for all of my professional work, all of the time. I dual boot into Windows only to play games, which are better on Windows, and to experiment with the things on the Windows platform, which is for my own curiosity and to maintain current knowledge of both systems.

Back when my primary laptop was Windows I still dual booted, one install for work, a second install for gaming. I used bleeding-edge graphics card drivers for maximum framerates for play, but very stable and mature drivers (those provided by IBM/Lenovo) for work. I still do this, bleeding-edge GPU drivers on my MacBook Pro's windows installation for games, super-stable Apple drivers on OS X for work.

Quote

Even if you in business, use Windows at work and OSX at home...you will still use Windows MOST of the time...so Windows at 199.99 vs OSX at 129.00 - if you're using the most expensive option more than 75% of the time...didn't you waste money on the other option?

I use OS X at work and at home (for work) and Windows at home and when stuck in a distant hotel room for gaming.

Quote

If I have a garage and there is a Lexus and a Camry together and I drive the Lexus more, what is the other car for? And they are the same car. The Cary and Lexus 3 and 4 series use the same chassis...just like Windows and OSX use x86... why buy 2 of the same thing? What is the benefit? Bec I don't see any. I see in my opinion...2 OS that basically can do all on some level the same things...we even share developers, and hardware. The only different is the OS and that is taste. I also look at this....in spending $1000 or $2000...if you have 2 OS's...you buy a set of software for one, and a set for the other. At some point...you will ahve similar software on both. Where is your savings? In simple terms, Macs will cost more buying double...

Why would you own two of essentially the same car, unless you had two drivers who needed a separate car at the same time. My wife and I are the only drivers, and between us we have three vehicles. She has a BMW X3 and I have a Mercedes Benz C230 Kompressor Sport. We've also got a Ford F-150 long bed with towing package. She drives her car and I drive my car most days, but when we needed to carry a bunch of bedroom that included 8' long boxes and had a total weight of 650 lbs. neither of our regular cars could do the job, but it was easy in the big truck. Sure, I can drive the truck as my regular car, but I drive over 4,500 miles per month and there is a huge difference between the 18 MPG I get in the truck and the 32 MPG I get in the Mercedes, not to mention the difference in comfort and handling. Different vehicles for different purposes.

Quote

On CL the other day, one guy had a MacBook Pro he was selling for $2700. He was selling a bunch of extras like an Airport (i know I didn't spell it right) and soe other stuff. He had this stuff 18 months. He spent $4000 total and is selling for only $2700? - http://chicago.craig...1110645964.html

That's Craigslist and a guy who obviously wanted a quick sale, which he probably got. Of course, if that stuff was HP instead of Apple, he'd be lucky to get $1500.

There are several ads like this one...are they or did he get the value of what he spent...NO and he is going to lose a bit more...
For those who justify the expense of 2 operating system bec there is a pure reasonable need...i am not taking about you. I am talking about the typical users. If you were dual-booting OSX with Linux, or Windows with Linux, then it would make since be Linux stuff is free. Owning to commercial based software on a single system...and having to buy double the commercial software to complete tasks seems like a lose lose situation even if you are rich.
Who says you have to buy double commercial software? I have Mac and Windows versions of both because I use both PCs and Macs in my business, but for my wife's computer and my daughter's computer (which aren't even set up to dual boot, though I have the spare Windows licenses) I have no reason to buy more than one version. Even on my MacBook Pro which does dual boot, I only have MS Office, FileMaker Pro and Acrobat Pro installed on OS X. My Windows Vista Business 64 installation is used for gaming, and currently I have Fallout 3 (awesome game, by the way), Mass Effect and The Witcher installed.

But its an option and I just want someone to explain there view. Just as one commented here in this thread...when choosing your buy, the cost of teh hardware is only part of the deal. if what the OS came with was enough, then you wouldn't need anything else. Windows comes with a lot...other than Office...most don't need to buy anything else. If OSX truly had everything you wouldn't need iLife. from what i seen iLife gives OSX programs that are already built into Windows to make it more fair. However if you think about it...OSX cost 129. whether you purchase the box or its preinstalled. Windows actually cost less preinstalled vs retail box. Apple makes up the rest in the cost of the computer. Since Windows based PC's cost less, you have money to spend on whatever else you need.
iLife is considered by most to be a vastly superior amateur audio/video/photo package than the trial or crapware that comes with most Windows PCs or the applications bundled with Windows. PC-centric magazines rave about iLife as well and consider it superior to the Windows built-in equivalents. I didn't buy my Mac for iLife and hardly ever use it, though my daughter loves iMovie HD. I bought my Mac because OS X works better with the way I use a laptop, which is to say constantly opening and closing it as I move from courtroom to courtroom. I keep scan my client files to PDF and thus can carry a 5.5 lb laptop that is less than an inch thick instead of two or three file folders that are easily twice the thickness and near the weight of the laptop. The laptop also allows me to work on other case files that I didn't carry with me, access and manipulate my calendar and that of all of the employees in my firm, not to mention do legal research wherever I am. I can even draft documents in the proper legal pleading format without returning to my office and print them on the portable printer that I keep in the trunk of my car.

Yes, those tasks can be done just as easily in Windows (but not in Linux), but with OS X, I can suspend and resume dozens of times per day, always in less than 3 seconds and never worry about a resume failure or the machine hanging and failing to enter sleep (and draining my battery). I carried a ThinkPad X41 to court for two years on account of its 2.7 lb weight, but the resume failures eventually led me to disable the function of sleep when the lid was closed. Of course then the 3 hour battery was insufficient and I had to move to a heavier 6 hour battery defeating the purpose of a 2.7 lb laptop.

I got my work done on the X41 and could just as easily on my current ThinkPad T60p, I just find it easier with OS X on the MacBook Pro. Of course, remember that on the ThinkPad I still had to dual boot.

Everyone doesn't need Office. MS Works is free with most PC's and suffices for typical Word files. Not everyone needs Outlook, Powerpoint, Access and Excel. And either can be purchased as standalone apps for about $80. With the money you save getting Windows, you can still get Office and a good photo editor...for under $1000. If you can spend $2k...you have more options.

Works is free with most PCs, but it isn't a substitute for complex documents just as the Linux office suites aren't. Office Student and Teach (or Home and Student) costs $150 for either Mac or PC and includes a license to install on up to 3 computers. How is that any different on either platform? For Apple users who don't need MS Office they too can use one of the free office suites (OpenOffice 3 is available for Mac and Windows for free) or Apple's iWork suite for $80. I don't have iWork and cannot comment on it, but many users seem to like it, especially Keynote.

[asiafish]

rasmasyean said:

TechieXP, a lot of people dual boot due to what is known in psychology as "post-justification". What this basically means in this case is that they bought a Mac because of the marketing / sales presentation / hype from mactard / etc. Then they find out they need to use Windows. But then they have to go back to using OSX for other things which are "better" because it justifies that they made the right choice to begin with. Hey, some people DO actually have a legitimate reason to dual boot. However most people don't but do it because they paid so much money for it. Then some come on forums like these and rant about how great Macs are with false impressions.

Most Mac users I know run OS X all the time, occasionally access Windows via Parallels or Fusion only to use some legacy Windows application that they do not yet have the Mac version of. Gradually, as they settle into using OS X and find the many replacements for their Windows apps (often free), they open Parallels less and less and spend their time in OS X.

Most Macs do not even have Windows installed in a dual boot setup at all, just OS X.

[asiafish]

rgreen4 said:

Yes, many tout how great OS/X is and how terrible Windows is, but then mention that "Oh, by the way I have Windows on my Mac as well".

Who did that? I didn't see any post here saying that OS X was great, that Windows sucked by Windows was on the Mac.

I am a Mac user and have Windows on my Mac, but as a second OS for gaming. I use OS X for work, full-time, and while I think its a better OS than Windows, I actually consider Vista to be a very good OS as well. OS X is better for the way I work, and Windows is likely better for the way you or someone else might work. They are different tools, with different strengths and weaknesses.

[rasmasyean]

Whatever anecdotes you say, man.

Just go to a ?Mac forum? (http://forums.macrumors.com/index.php) and you can see that even here it has >20% posts in ?Windows on the Mac? vs ?Mac OSX?. Furthermore?logically, if you wanted to discuss Windows, savvy users probably would go to a Windows forum so we can assume that these are mostly the computer noobs only. And who knows how long this site even existed?so the ?Windows on the Mac? section might even have been added later.

Of course individual cases can make Mac?s good for you or whatever you colleagues decide is a better work environment. However, one of the main strengths of Windows is in the enterprise setting. If you want a job that involves computer usage in some fashion, chances are it will be Windows skills needs. That?s another factor someone might want to consider.

[asiafish]

rasmasyean said:

Whatever anecdotes you say, man.

Just go to a ?Mac forum? (http://forums.macrumors.com/index.php) and you can see that even here it has >20% posts in ?Windows on the Mac? vs ?Mac OSX?. Furthermore?logically, if you wanted to discuss Windows, savvy users probably would go to a Windows forum so we can assume that these are mostly the computer noobs only. And who knows how long this site even existed?so the ?Windows on the Mac? section might even have been added later.

Of course individual cases can make Mac?s good for you or whatever you colleagues decide is a better work environment. However, one of the main strengths of Windows is in the enterprise setting. If you want a job that involves computer usage in some fashion, chances are it will be Windows skills needs. That?s another factor someone might want to consider.

Macrumors.com is a "RUMOR" site, not a forum for Mac users.

Want to see questions and answers about OS X, go to Apple's forums, or to Macworld or any of the dozens of dedicated Mac sites.

Why do Windows zealots always talk about enterprise? How many regular people set up or deal with enterprise networking? I sure hope that you are all buying the more expensive business, ultimate and enterprise versions of Windows since enterprise networking is so important to you.

[rasmasyean]

"Rumor" site...eh? That's laughfable. Why does it have like preatically the most posts compared to the other forums and when you google "Mac forums" it's the more relevant hit? Are you suggesting a correlation between Mac users and "tabloids"?
The relevance of Windows on the Enterprise is that it trickles down the chain. That's what caused it's dominance in the consumer market as well. People said...why should I use something else when I can just use one thing (and get real good at it) that does everything and even port over some of my work related things.
There are things in a Mac that you "don't need" too. Just install your custom built Linux if you want to only have the components of the OS that you actually use.
There are just much more Windows that even the broadest user in enterprise does not use. So...

[asiafish]

rasmasyean said:

"Rumor" site...eh? That's laughfable. Why does it have like preatically the most posts compared to the other forums and when you google "Mac forums" it's the more relevant hit? Are you suggesting a correlation between Mac users and "tabloids"?

The relevance of Windows on the Enterprise is that it trickles down the chain. That's what caused it's dominance in the consumer market as well. People said...why should I use something else when I can just use one thing (and get real good at it) that does everything and even port over some of my work related things.

There are things in a Mac that you "don't need" too. Just install your custom built Linux if you want to only have the components of the OS that you actually use.
There are just much more Windows that even the broadest user in enterprise does not use. So...

Lets see, for my work what I need is genuine MS Word to open legal pleadings without breaking the complex formatting, and instant sleep and wake. The best tool for that job is OS X and Microsoft Word for Macintosh. Funny, thats exactly the tool that I use.

No custom Linux will do that because no Linux word processor will open a legal pleading without breaking it. Windows won't do that because sleep and resume are slow and unreliable.

And hit count or not, Macrumors is a rumor site, about guess what, Mac rumors, which are quite popular because Apple fans are desperate to learn RUMORS about what Apple is doing.

[TechieXP]

Would you like to explain and show a list of all the software Macs can run without using Windows? If you pit OSX vs Windows and software and hardware...there is no comparison. Even if you install Windows on a Mac how do you assume you can use more software? I certainly can install OSX and Linux on my system to and it isn't a Mac. Can you install Solaris, BeOS and so many other operating systems on a Mac natively with using virtualization? NO. In fact without bootcamp, you can't install Windows directly on to Mac hardware. Just like without some hacking you can't directly install OSX on a PC.

As one person has said in another thread, no matter how many programs Windows or OSX can run...it doesn't matter because you're not going to install ALL of them. However, right now I can choose any version of Windows and list more compatible software then even the latest OSX can run. Windows 98 by itself...had over 150,000 compatible pieces of software at teh very least. Right now OSX 10.5 has a list of about 20,000 at the most of compatible native software. That means Windows XP which is backwards compatible which has its own list of native software that also numbers in the 100,000's plus the fact in can run a majority of 9x software...has basically made any other OS...a small grain of sand.

Even using virtualization, Macs or even Linux can't so what Windows does. I see people here who sy WINE can't even run older versions of Office very well. Yet they continue to say its better than Windows. When you go to any store that sales software...the Mac has basically a single shelf...Mac hardware all fits on a single shelf. Windows and PC ralted hardware is teh whole rest of the store. Even when you go to Apple store an look at teh software shelf...all i see is OSX, the 'I' softwares and Mac Office...and a few kiddlie programs. Thats it...

Think about stores like Fry's and Microcenter. Think of online stores like Ebay, Amazon, Newegg and Tigerdirect and compare hardware and software. That is a statement you should have been shamed in to even trying to pawn off. No OS on the market has ever ran more software than Windows...not even Unix or any of it variants combined. OSX just like all of Apple's other previous versions were tied to a single device...only OSX has fallen off teh original tree and fell into the Touch and the iPhone. So what. Windows has been on phones since when...? Since 2000. Linux and Windows can't be tied to a single device...they both can be found on way more hardware platforms then OSX...and these same devices use software for manipulation in many cases.

[asiafish]

TechieXP said:

Would you like to explain and show a list of all the software Macs can run without using Windows? If you pit OSX vs Windows and software and hardware...there is no comparison. Even if you install Windows on a Mac how do you assume you can use more software? I certainly can install OSX and Linux on my system to and it isn't a Mac. Can you install Solaris, BeOS and so many other operating systems on a Mac natively with using virtualization? NO. In fact without bootcamp, you can't install Windows directly on to Mac hardware. Just like without some hacking you can't directly install OSX on a PC.

As one person has said in another thread, no matter how many programs Windows or OSX can run...it doesn't matter because you're not going to install ALL of them. However, right now I can choose any version of Windows and list more compatible software then even the latest OSX can run. Windows 98 by itself...had over 150,000 compatible pieces of software at teh very least. Right now OSX 10.5 has a list of about 20,000 at the most of compatible native software. That means Windows XP which is backwards compatible which has its own list of native software that also numbers in the 100,000's plus the fact in can run a majority of 9x software...has basically made any other OS...a small grain of sand.

Even using virtualization, Macs or even Linux can't so what Windows does. I see people here who sy WINE can't even run older versions of Office very well. Yet they continue to say its better than Windows. When you go to any store that sales software...the Mac has basically a single shelf...Mac hardware all fits on a single shelf. Windows and PC ralted hardware is teh whole rest of the store. Even when you go to Apple store an look at teh software shelf...all i see is OSX, the 'I' softwares and Mac Office...and a few kiddlie programs. Thats it...

Think about stores like Fry's and Microcenter. Think of online stores like Ebay, Amazon, Newegg and Tigerdirect and compare hardware and software. That is a statement you should have been shamed in to even trying to pawn off. No OS on the market has ever ran more software than Windows...not even Unix or any of it variants combined. OSX just like all of Apple's other previous versions were tied to a single device...only OSX has fallen off teh original tree and fell into the Touch and the iPhone. So what. Windows has been on phones since when...? Since 2000. Linux and Windows can't be tied to a single device...they both can be found on way more hardware platforms then OSX...and these same devices use software for manipulation in many cases.

How many applications do you need? Most of those vast numbers are crapware and the like. I don't really care about some ancient program for decorating my house or some software for bible passages. Most tasks that people do on computers have more than one option available for Windows, more than one for Mac and probably more than one option for Linux. Nothing that I do at work lacks a native OS X program. The only programs I buy that aren't available on Mac, and this is an area no Mac user will deny, is games. Of course, since my Mac does dual boot I can use OS X for work, which is better with my usage pattern, and Windows for games.

And no, a hackintosh is not a real Mac. You have hacked drivers, instabilities, incompatibilities and the possibility that the next security or function update will hose your system because it is a HACKintosh instead of a MACintosh. I have a Hackintosh partition for my ThinkPad T60p and it is great fun making it work and having OS X boot up on a PC, but it is nowhere near mission-critical in reliability and many of its hardware features simply do not work.

[yankeeDDL]

TechieXP,

you seem to have a strong passion for XP so you have probably used it extensively. Have you ever used Linux or Mac OS? The only 2 important software that are only released for Windows are AutoCAD and Adobe Photoshop. Everything else has either a Linux version or it has an equivalent. Of course, if you must have the ribbon when you use a document editor, then MS Office is your only choice (and you can run it in Linux using Wine, but it would be slow).

Even the games: you can installe Cedega and play all "big" Windows games in Linux. The website (http://www.transgaming.com/) shows a performance comparison: obviously you pay a little penalty but remember: if you are running antivirus, firewall, malware scanners in background, the difference will be even smaller.

I reall don't understand how can anybody put so much passion in defending an expensive OS which comes with an EULA that -almost- states that you can be spied if needed.Why? I'm sure we can find some scenarios in which using Windows is better than using Linux or Mac, but then again, there will be at least as manythat go the other direction. Why do I need to buy an OS which I know I cannot use if I don't install first and anti-virus? Why do I need to pay to have an OS which I know will deteriorate with time? Why do I need to pay to bend to deal with activation codes, weekly patches which require rebooting ...

I just checked: my Ubuntu desktop has been up for 71 days. Non stop. I did countless of updates, even installed some new applications ... burned CDs, played musics, downloaded photos and videos, edited videos ... not a hiccup: it is fresh as if I had just booted it. I can see the CPU slow down immediately when idle, the system goes in deep sleep at night just to come back up in seconds when I need it to. I honestly, have never, even had nearly that type of experience with any of the windows and PCs I have ever used in the past 20 years. Windows machines that are regularly and heavily used need to be booted ... often. Maybe once a day, maybe once a week, I don't know, but it just does not compare.

[MarioJP]

I leave my windows vista machine on all the time and not a hiccup either. not to mention doing serious intensive gaming on top of that and still does not crash. I have all my im clients running in the background while i am still gaming. And everyting at max settings and still does not crash. As far leaving your computer on for 72 days is kind of pointless sure you have sleep mode and that works fine too but i prefer just to have the system off completely. Boot times on my computer is fast that i dont even need to use sleep mode or hibernation. Sides ram needs to be refreshed sooner or later no matter how stable a os is. If my system can handle some serious high end gaming for hours on end then it can handle being on all the time no problem.



I Understand if you are using a server and it must be on thats fine. But for a computer i just dont get it. Sleep mode is for those that dont want to deal with the boot times which for me is only seconds. I have my vista configured to my likings even the way it boots and not a dam problem.

[obviocapitao]

It seems that Microsoft is shooting itself in the foot, which these ads.

Microsoft is positioning itself as "cheap" -- leaving the "cool" segment to Apple.

But it doesn't matter if Microsoft gives Windows away for free -- we're about to see a surge of Linux/ARM netbooks that will cost around $200 and boost 15 hours of battery life.

If Apple ever releases a Mac netbook, Microsoft will be trapped between the "cheap" and the "cool" -- which is a terrible strategic position.

Anyway, considering only Windows and Linux, we will have:

A) Windows/Intel: 3 hours of battery life; $400
B) Linux/ARM: 15 hours of battery life; $200

What would you choose?

[MarioJP]

not too sure about arm processors but i do know its a RISC processor. I still prefer intel atom processor if i was going for a netop but then again i still prefer notebooks instead :D



Netops are cool but definitely not for me it just looks way too cheap and the screen is horrible. I stick to traditional laptops.

[asiafish]

MarioJP said:

I leave my windows vista machine on all the time and not a hiccup either. not to mention doing serious intensive gaming on top of that and still does not crash. I have all my im clients running in the background while i am still gaming. And everyting at max settings and still does not crash. As far leaving your computer on for 72 days is kind of pointless sure you have sleep mode and that works fine too but i prefer just to have the system off completely. Boot times on my computer is fast that i dont even need to use sleep mode or hibernation. Sides ram needs to be refreshed sooner or later no matter how stable a os is. If my system can handle some serious high end gaming for hours on end then it can handle being on all the time no problem.





I Understand if you are using a server and it must be on thats fine. But for a computer i just dont get it. Sleep mode is for those that dont want to deal with the boot times which for me is only seconds. I have my vista configured to my likings even the way it boots and not a dam problem.

On a desktop that may be true, but sleep and resume are essential for a traveling laptop. Sleep and resume must be absolutely reliable and extremely, as in 3 seconds fast. Show me a Windows, Linux or Mac install that can boot in 3 seconds with all applications and documents open where you left them in 3 seconds. Only sleep and hibernate can do that, and only OS X can do it in 3 seconds with absolute reliability.