Comments on: Windows, Mac OS to run side-by-side
Parallels promises to let both OSes do their thing on a Mac at the same time, unlike Apple's BootCamp.
Most Popular
Latest tech news headlines
- Ray Kurzweil tries to build a better e-reader
January 7, 2010 12:00 PM PST
- Starry, starry 'first light' from NASA's WISE mission
January 7, 2010 11:31 AM PST
- Google real-time search: 6 min. to spot quake
January 7, 2010 11:12 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
http://www.techknowcafe.com/content/view/336/42/
equipped Windows machines. Buying a cheap Windows box doesn't
mean it is of high quality.
designers here has one. Anyway you guys in the US should be
laughing when it comes to purchasing PC?s you don?t have to
pay our horrible UK VAT charges.
Although when you think our prime ministers wife Sheree Blair
has spent £3000.00 in one week on hair cuts and claimed it as
expenses you can see why our tax levels are so high.
God bless em.
windows. Allowing you to run windows on a mac without insalling
it would be them promoting windows, and selling it.
windows. Allowing you to run windows on a mac without insalling
it would be them promoting windows, and selling it.
They can't do this because they will sell. Microsoft like parralels because you still buy a copy of xp or vista, what ever you are using, but if apple go through with this, they will either have to stop, or lisence windows. They have vowed not to do this, and even if they somehow manage to win all the legal action, Microsoft will cease developing and selling Office for mac and virtual PC, and create update and dll hell for mac OSX.
If os x has native support for windows apps, it has native support for windows viruses, and the only difference between the two OSs will be what hardware it can be installed on (and it's cost), UIs and the reasons and behaviour in crashes. What is the point in a "Secure BSD core" if it is vunerable to Windows viruses? none, so I'll stick with Windows because I like the Vista UI, and regedit.
http://www.techknowcafe.com/content/view/527/42/
I got sick of XP, so I wanted to try something else. At 33 I don't care for games no more, that's what the Xbox 360 is for. I would not trade my G5 for no other computer. So then the dilema came as to what I will do with all this PC Hardware. I would love to be able to Install Mac OS X on it and totally trash the XP, but I can't.
So I keep one XP running for work pruposes and everything else was cleaned out and Slackware Linux installed and those computers not run rock solid my web network and apache software. The Vista Beta 2, that I did install, nothing worked as far as drivers and there weren't any on the manufacturers web site. Most don't even mention anything about drivers at all for any of their products. Alot of my 32-bit programs don't even work anymore on Vista, I get all kinds of errors. So ya it looks cool and sleek, but at this point Vista is useless.
By the time drivers are written for it a good year will pass after it's release, by that time OS X will have major updates :- )
There is no way that XP is better the OS X, don't even give me that, I don't believe it.
In my opinion there should be a law which prevents web pages supporting one browser only.
to Windows, rock-solid stability, media software that absolutely
beats the pants off the nearest competitor on Windows, zero
mucking about with virus protection (use stealth mode and leave
the firewall on), zero configuration, zero re-installs, consistently
ranked #1 customer support, lower total-cost-of-ownership,
longer hardware lifespan, higher resale value...
Tell me why I should buy a Windows laptop for my next
purchase when Apple's hardware is much more refined and not
actually much more expensive?
I haven't run into the IE problem you speak of in years, well,
except for Windows Live Beta :).
the article is basically about how the user can run both
operating systems on one machine seamlessly.
the fact is if you by a mac then you can run both operating
systems.
the mac is not more expensive then a PC if you compare
similarly configured machines. it is just that one cannot buy a
cheap Mac. like one cannot buy a cheap sony vaio.
a cheap dell is like $400. the cheapest mac mini is $600. so
does the extra $200 worth what you get for it? namely OS X,
iLife and quality hardware?
Yes you can. ALL Sony VAIOs are cheap, no matter what the price. But I suppose that's beside the point.
As for quality hardware in an Apple platform vs. a typical PC...I think you may be surprised at how similar the worlds (and pieces) actually are, particularly after The Switch to the Dark Side (re: Intel) that Apple made. And besides, against all [i]current[/i] Inhell processors, chipsets and support chips, I'd strongly prefer my alternatives from that lil' old company called AMD anyways (the upcoming next-gen Intel chips could sway, however). Moreover, I'm really beginning to [i]dislike[/i] the rather intimidating, end-user hardware-unfriendliness of the iMac's chassis, which I view as being not much different than an iPod. I mean, my Lian Li tower was NEVER so secretive and difficult about what's inside and being able to [i]personally[/i] swap things around when I've outgrown them. For all its goodness so far, the iMac makes the computer seem more like an appliance than an old-time working machine that one can get down and dirty under the hood with. For that, there's no topping a PC desktop machine, dare I say even a VAIO. Or any of the other propriataries, for that matter.
There's no question in my mind that OS X is superior in virtually all but one way to XP. Only with the vast library of apps and software titles does Windoze have a clear and distinct advantage. Until Apple's adoption of the Dark Side, coupled with Boot Camp and now Parallels, even that advantage--from a hardware platform standpoint--is moot. But we still can't get away from Windows, which ironically was MY whole reason for starting my personal migration to Apple to begin with.
Which is WHY we continue the debate over Windows vs. OS X whether one likes it or not. And BTW, we (well, at least me) aren't seeing the humor.
Apple's software is great as long as you run it on a Mac. People don't realize that Mac OS has one HUGE difference with Windows: Mac OS only need to run on ONE hardware which they have total control over. No brainer for them, no 100s of chipsets, no dozens of video cards, no thousands of drivers. People should give more credit to M$ for pulling out an OS that runs on hardware that anybody can actually build by themselves from any parts they like.
Maybe Apple's approach is right because they can focus more on user experience rather than supporting zillions of hardware configurations.
But imagine if Apple was in M$'s place today: One company that controls BOTH software and hardware of 80% of the computers in the worlds... Wouldn't that be a monopoly too ?
won't play streaming media. Its in the network settings or
something with the firewall but haven't really worked on it yet.
Apple will bring osX to other hardware like Dell but with very
specific hardware requirements to not spoil the osX experience,
Apple won't ever have 80% of the hardware (except maybe for the
iPod) but it will in OS software. :D
They were the first to market the concept of the computer in
your home with the Apple I.
They were the first to recognize the importance of the graphic
user interface making computers easier for mere mortals to use.
So what your actually saying is if Bill Gates never saw the the big
market that he actually did see for the GUI. From which he
snagged the idea from Apple.
If that happend..
Apple would have certainly been the dominant personal
computer on the planet for sure but wouldn't be considered a
monopoly because even back then there was other choices then
using the MAC OS, there was DOS which was running on an IBM
PC back then as well as the Commodore PET computer and the
VIC 20. But all the latter turned out to be has beens..
So no I don't think they would be. But if the Mac OS didn't have
the competition they have Windows now, it certainly wouldn't be
as good as it is today, for sure. So having Microsoft around in
someways actually improved how we use computers today.
No. Apple builds a machine that THEIR OS runs on. Microsoft doesn't build their own machines. As such Apple can put whatever they want on the machines THEY build. In this case it's their OWN OS.
The monopoly case wasn't about whether or not Windows had too much market share, it was their control over the market that they used to stifled competition.
Apple has never stopped other OSs running on their machines. You can run Linux or Windows on your Mac. However, Microsoft forced PC manufacturers to only sell machines with Windows if they wanted to retain their access to the OEM version of Windows, without which PC manufacturers would have priced themselves out of existance.
Apple exists with its higher prices on account of the fan base and because there is markets that Windows just can't compete in.
reason for such a history of massive incompatibility problems
and poor quality software all these years.
Heck it's taking Microsoft 7 years to get VIsta out. WHy, well they
have to spend most of the time making sure it doesn't break the
installed user base. Meanwhile MAc just hums right along with
an OS that is years ahead of Windows, and will be even further
along when Leopard comes out.
There's been a huge hidden price in all that availability of 3rd
party parts for WIndows. More selection has added up to a
worse computing experience because Microsoft has sacrificed
quality for profits over and over and over again.
When you have a monopoly you can get away with it.
99% of the Apple bashers have never even touched one in the
last 5 years and no not what they talk about.
Many of them are gamers with an inferiority complex that
selfishly Apple bash and contribute to the non gamers from
seeing that Apples are a great computing experience.
Of course the irony is the average $400 XBox or PlayStation is a
far superior gaming machine than any PC ever put together.
windows is at fault, not Apple, cause Gates doesn;t want users
seeing how much better QUicktime is.
The lack of strongly enforced standards by Microsoft is one
reason for such a history of massive incompatibility problems
and poor quality software all these years.
Heck it's taking Microsoft 7 years to get VIsta out. WHy, well they
have to spend most of the time making sure it doesn't break the
installed user base. Meanwhile MAc just hums right along with
an OS that is years ahead of Windows, and will be even further
along when Leopard comes out.
There's been a huge hidden price in all that availability of 3rd
party parts for WIndows. More selection has added up to a
worse computing experience because Microsoft has sacrificed
quality for profits over and over and over again.
When you have a monopoly you can get away with it.
99% of the Apple bashers have never even touched one in the
last 5 years and no not what they talk about.
Many of them are gamers with an inferiority complex that
selfishly Apple bash and contribute to the non gamers from
seeing that Apples are a great computing experience.
Of course the irony is the average $400 XBox or PlayStation is a
far superior gaming machine than any PC ever put together.
- So now why develop for Mac?
- by xandersturn August 7, 2006 6:45 AM PDT
- Mac's can now run Windows software, Windows can't run Mac software. Wouldn't it be cheaper to develop just for Windows and not worry too much about Mac development?
- Like this Reply to this comment
-
Showing 2 of 2 pages (155 Comments)