Comments on: FAQ: Will your Intel-based Mac run Windows?
Since both the Mac OS and Windows now run on Intel-based hardware, shouldn't it be easy to run them on the same computer?
Ten thoughts on the new Intel iMac
Most Popular
Latest tech news headlines
- Opera browser company gets new CEO
January 5, 2010 8:11 AM PST
- Apple ceding open-source app market to Google?
January 5, 2010 8:04 AM PST
- Microsoft sets Office 2010 pricing
January 5, 2010 7:16 AM PST
- See all headlines
RSS Feeds
Add headlines from CNET News to your homepage or feedreader.
More feeds available in our RSS feed index.
- Markets
Related quotes
want OS-X to run on Windows boxes, there is another major
reason not to allow it - the user experience. One of the points
that helps Apple keep the user experience on the positive side is
the tight control over the quality of their systems and how the
hardware and software integrates.
Apple will continue to do this and test their OS against prior
Macs and new machines against their OS and multiple apps. But
there is no way they are going to even think about trying to
support the huge variety of Windows boxes out there, especially
considering that so many are really cheap machines with all
kinds of problems. All those Windows blue screens are not just
from Windows but often from the hardware. The addage of you
get what you pay for...
want OS-X to run on Windows boxes, there is another major
reason not to allow it - the user experience. One of the points
that helps Apple keep the user experience on the positive side is
the tight control over the quality of their systems and how the
hardware and software integrates.
Apple will continue to do this and test their OS against prior
Macs and new machines against their OS and multiple apps. But
there is no way they are going to even think about trying to
support the huge variety of Windows boxes out there, especially
considering that so many are really cheap machines with all
kinds of problems. All those Windows blue screens are not just
from Windows but often from the hardware. The addage of you
get what you pay for...
box and install the operating system from scratch. It is not an
upgrade only operating system.
you do, your comments are meaningless.
box and install the operating system from scratch. It is not an
upgrade only operating system.
you do, your comments are meaningless.
The only problem I can see with the mac is its overpriced, underpowered computers. Apple should consider getting out of the computer business and devote itself to what it really does well writing operating systems. Most people would gladly ditch windows if they could buy a good, easy to use OS like OS X provided there was a good base of software to run on it.
I will probably never buy an Mac computer but I would gladly buy a copy of OS X if it would run on a computer that I could buy built by my local compter store.
cheap Dell to do the job. One computer for each OS, linked on a
LAN. Works fine for me.
2. Mac's aren't cheap, but you are sadly mistaken about their
power. If OS X is any sort of a good idea on a PC , it screams on
a Mac. maybe you should take some time and find out what you
are talking about before you 'compare' performance.
3. If you won't buy a Mac, there's no point in trying to get OS X
to work on some locally built PC. Again, you need to learn more
before you post.
But that's what life is for. So go learn. You just might be
surprised by what you come up with.
The only problem I can see with the mac is its overpriced, underpowered computers. Apple should consider getting out of the computer business and devote itself to what it really does well writing operating systems. Most people would gladly ditch windows if they could buy a good, easy to use OS like OS X provided there was a good base of software to run on it.
I will probably never buy an Mac computer but I would gladly buy a copy of OS X if it would run on a computer that I could buy built by my local compter store.
cheap Dell to do the job. One computer for each OS, linked on a
LAN. Works fine for me.
2. Mac's aren't cheap, but you are sadly mistaken about their
power. If OS X is any sort of a good idea on a PC , it screams on
a Mac. maybe you should take some time and find out what you
are talking about before you 'compare' performance.
3. If you won't buy a Mac, there's no point in trying to get OS X
to work on some locally built PC. Again, you need to learn more
before you post.
But that's what life is for. So go learn. You just might be
surprised by what you come up with.
My point is that the 129 $ is the full version, not the upgrade version. And a pack of 5 licenses costs 199$
http://store.apple.com/1-800-MY-APPLE/WebObjects/AppleStore?productLearnMore=MA190Z/A
By the way, you jokers still don't get it? Why crib about something you don't have?
My Mac no longer supports the Fortran compiler. (Tiger 10.4.3) So what's the point of a Mac? If you still intend to use the standard response of which serious Mac user would want to use Windows?? then matey let me know what you use it for? For running virtual PC for enabling other applications? If so, why a Mac? I can complete the task in under 500$. If your grouse is performance, then forget it, Windows XP beats the new Tiger hands down. By the way, you guys have to see the responses at the Apple site before you actually crib back to me about windows.
Why buy something for 3000$ when I can run more applications at around 500$? What's the deal paying? Why do I need virtual PC or a third party emulator as others have pointed out?
If you intend to use it somewhere and not realize where a Mac's original position should be then just read the grouses on Mac forum before coming to windows. Start reading about the Grouses about Macs at the Apple site. (Scroll down to bottom of the page)
http://store.apple.com/1-800-MY-APPLE/WebObjects/AppleStore?productLearnMore=MA190Z/A
It's not less. It's more. Besides the loss of functionality of most applications, do you really want to spend 3000 dollars for a snob value "PC"?
If you want to, you can configure any system to run fine on any operating system subject to user's understanding. And as Mac fanatics you are entitled to respond. But I have only one point to make. Why crib about something you don't have? You guys must seriously be wanting it.
Now you can continue your grouse, Earl, Schmoe(K),Crusoe,Shauheen and the rest of your ilk.....
My point is that the 129 $ is the full version, not the upgrade version. And a pack of 5 licenses costs 199$
http://store.apple.com/1-800-MY-APPLE/WebObjects/AppleStore?productLearnMore=MA190Z/A
By the way, you jokers still don't get it? Why crib about something you don't have?
My Mac no longer supports the Fortran compiler. (Tiger 10.4.3) So what's the point of a Mac? If you still intend to use the standard response of which serious Mac user would want to use Windows?? then matey let me know what you use it for? For running virtual PC for enabling other applications? If so, why a Mac? I can complete the task in under 500$. If your grouse is performance, then forget it, Windows XP beats the new Tiger hands down. By the way, you guys have to see the responses at the Apple site before you actually crib back to me about windows.
Why buy something for 3000$ when I can run more applications at around 500$? What's the deal paying? Why do I need virtual PC or a third party emulator as others have pointed out?
If you intend to use it somewhere and not realize where a Mac's original position should be then just read the grouses on Mac forum before coming to windows. Start reading about the Grouses about Macs at the Apple site. (Scroll down to bottom of the page)
http://store.apple.com/1-800-MY-APPLE/WebObjects/AppleStore?productLearnMore=MA190Z/A
It's not less. It's more. Besides the loss of functionality of most applications, do you really want to spend 3000 dollars for a snob value "PC"?
If you want to, you can configure any system to run fine on any operating system subject to user's understanding. And as Mac fanatics you are entitled to respond. But I have only one point to make. Why crib about something you don't have? You guys must seriously be wanting it.
Now you can continue your grouse, Earl, Schmoe(K),Crusoe,Shauheen and the rest of your ilk.....
specialized program that only runs under Windows that I have
no options for, one is a web page that, while being Java uses a
specialized Windows Java call for a login (working on changing
that to true Java), and one is reserving a room with Outlook
(Exchange for Mac isn't compatible on that level).
Otherwise, everything I run is on the Mac. I find VirtualPC does
these three things perfectly well without requiring a separate
machine and without running the risk of someone killing my
hard drive.
OS X keeps Virtual PC isolated and I have all my security cranked
up max in Windows under Virtual PC to keep outside Windows
viruses, etc from leaking into my system for those few that
might be able to affect the Mac.
Some people might have a real need for a full PC depending on
how much Windows only software they need but I suspect that
the average Mac corporate user, if they have a need, something
like Virtual PC is better.
Obviously, the need is based on the user's specific usage
requirements. No one answer fits all, as can be seen by the
many differing posts.
specialized program that only runs under Windows that I have
no options for, one is a web page that, while being Java uses a
specialized Windows Java call for a login (working on changing
that to true Java), and one is reserving a room with Outlook
(Exchange for Mac isn't compatible on that level).
Otherwise, everything I run is on the Mac. I find VirtualPC does
these three things perfectly well without requiring a separate
machine and without running the risk of someone killing my
hard drive.
OS X keeps Virtual PC isolated and I have all my security cranked
up max in Windows under Virtual PC to keep outside Windows
viruses, etc from leaking into my system for those few that
might be able to affect the Mac.
Some people might have a real need for a full PC depending on
how much Windows only software they need but I suspect that
the average Mac corporate user, if they have a need, something
like Virtual PC is better.
Obviously, the need is based on the user's specific usage
requirements. No one answer fits all, as can be seen by the
many differing posts.
Wrong. They are sued for many things, but that DEFINITELY is NOT one of them. Strange that you believe that. I guess you construed that from Explorer and the Windows OS.
You don't have to get your facts straight, but you should not allow yourself to be misguided into believing something that simply is not true.
Check it, before CNET was taken over by the Borg, they did a nice job reporting on the DOJ case. A lot of evidence shed light on Microsofts business practices.
Go find out about the '90s. It's interesting.
- microsoft not a monopoly
- by thetruth1960 January 21, 2006 10:19 PM PST
- microsoft is sued for integrating applications. Let me think. iChat, iMovie, iTunes, iWeb, iWork... Whos's integrating here? And why doesn't anyone see that?
- Like this Reply to this comment
-
-
- Dear John ...
- by Thomas, David January 21, 2006 11:30 PM PST
- Please, you've subjected your own feelings into the statement "microsoft is sued for integrating applications"
- Like this View all 2 replies
Processing -
- ask me if i really care about Mac's
- by 206538395198018178908092208948 January 22, 2006 12:09 AM PST
- i dont, they can be the fastest pc on the planet, and i still wont be convinced they can smoke my 2 year old quad athlon or 6 year old dual r12000 SGI machines
- Like this View all 3 replies
Processing -
- So go read up on the anti-trust case
- by January 22, 2006 8:26 PM PST
- No one was suing M$oft for bundling their puny movie maker software with XP; it was worse than that.
- Like this
-
Showing 3 of 3 pages (314 Comments)Wrong. They are sued for many things, but that DEFINITELY is NOT one of them. Strange that you believe that. I guess you construed that from Explorer and the Windows OS.
You don't have to get your facts straight, but you should not allow yourself to be misguided into believing something that simply is not true.
Check it, before CNET was taken over by the Borg, they did a nice job reporting on the DOJ case. A lot of evidence shed light on Microsofts business practices.
Go find out about the '90s. It's interesting.