Author Topic: Windows vs. Mac: I'm starting to change. (Read 143441 times)

f0dder · « **Reply #125 on:** October 14, 2009, 05:19 AM »

You know what would be a cool idea? I large pad on your desk to replace a mouse if you wanted. You use your fingers to move around and do stuff with multi-touch commands and so forth.
-superboyac

Cute idea, but touch is still less precise than a mouse - it'd probably work fine for daily use, but if you need any kind of precision work (graphics, whatever) I doubt it's going to play out that well.

The price for a Mac on the lower end is more expensive, but as you scale up, the price isn't that much different, I've found.
-wraith808

Wasn't like that last time I looked - sure, if you need the exact same kind of connections and features, you might be right... but for "standard" needs, every time I've looked I was able to get substantially faster hardware for the same price tag, or comparable hardware for a substantially lower price.

pc's can't do it like a mac can
-cmpm

(windows) PCs can't do what like a (pc) mac can? If it wasn't for Apple's monopolistc artificial restriction crap, I could take a snow leopard DVD and install it right on my current standard Windows box - or in a virtual machine. Funnily enough there's no problems installing Windows on Apple hardware, only the other way around. (But hey, hack up the install OS X DVD and you'll be able to run it on a lot of standard machines).

cmpm · « **Reply #126 on:** October 14, 2009, 06:11 AM »

It's Apple's fault that MS and it's mob won't make Windows capable of handling OSX?

I'm quite sure ms could do it. But they will not.
That would change the market for MS.
I'm pretty sure if Windows could run Apple's OS,
there would be a change in what's on the shelf in the OS aisle.

Josh · « **Reply #127 on:** October 14, 2009, 06:15 AM »

It's Apple's fault that MS and it's mob won't make Windows capable of handling OSX?

I'm quite sure ms could do it. But they will not.
That would change the market for MS.
I'm pretty sure if Windows could run Apple's OS,
there would be a change in what's on the shelf in the OS aisle.
-cmpm (October 14, 2009, 06:11 AM)

Windows handling OSX? OSX is an Operating System, Windows is an Operating System. It's not a matter of one "handling" the other. MAC is a hardware platform (Exactly the same as a "PC") that people buy and then consequently install windows on because OSX cannot run the programs they need. It's not a matter of WINDOWS running MAC's OS, It's a matter of MAC opening up OSX so that it could be run on a "PC" without HACKING it.

wraith808 · « **Reply #128 on:** October 14, 2009, 06:26 AM »

Neither the 9400M or the 9600M GT on the MacBook Pro are anywhere *near* "top end". The dell has a ATI Mobility RADEON HD 4670 which should be fairly decent - comparable at the least.

<snip />

ATI Mobility Radeon™ HD4650 graphics card with 1GB vRAM-great for games and movies

-JavaJones (October 14, 2009, 01:43 AM)

The 4670 is pretty comparable... until you look at the pixel pipelines. the 9600 can pump more graphics through easily, despite being an earlier video card... and the macbook that I was looking at had a 7200 RPM hard drive... another significant upgrade. Add to that the fact that you can switch graphics cards to increase battery life- I have that on my VAIO, and that was a pretty decent upgrade also...

cmpm · « **Reply #129 on:** October 14, 2009, 06:33 AM »

Whatever....

The windows machine will not be built to handle the OSX format.
Their 90% would change. They are not that stupid.

Apple made a marketing move to use intel and bootcamp.

It's about their money, both of them, not what we, the computer users would like.

40hz · « **Reply #130 on:** October 14, 2009, 06:39 AM »

well. hm

this is primarily a pc site
not for mac users
-cmpm (October 13, 2009, 06:16 PM)

I don't think that's true. DoCo is remarkably agnostic when it comes to hardware platform and operating systems.

There's "primarily" more discussion of non-Apple related topics because that's what the majority of the DoCo community work with.

We're a promiscuous bunch here. Most of us will use anything.

being able to really install both OS on one computer is a plus
that is one reason for the one i bought
pc's can't do it like a mac can

I think it would be more correct to say PCs aren't allowed to do it like Macs are."

Not being able to easily install OSX on anything but Apple's hardware is a purely arbitrary marketing decision by Apple to force you to buy theirs. There are no legitimate technical reasons for why it can't be done as easily as installing Windows or Linux on a Mac.

Apple used to say that "1984 won't be like 1984." And they were right. But I guess they stopped counting at that point. Because most of what they did afterwards only brought it closer.

Here's an interesting thing about many people who style themselves "Revolutionaries." Once they buck the old regime and gain some power for themselves, they almost always become worse tyrants than the people they replaced.

But then again, it's always been a truism that rules are made for other people so I guess it's to be expected.

Like Apple says: Think Different!

Maybe they should have said: Abandon Logic!

Josh · « **Reply #131 on:** October 14, 2009, 06:44 AM »

Whatever....

The windows machine will not be built to handle the OSX format.
Their 90% would change. They are not that stupid.
-cmpm (October 14, 2009, 06:33 AM)

You keep saying Windows. Mac's are PCs just like PCs are PCs. They use identical hardware. Apple has CHOSEN to limit OSX to the MAC (PC) hardware it chooses. They use very strict controls to ensure you cannot install it on other hardware although that won't and hasn't stopped the hacking crowd. There are hackintoshes and they prove that apple is arbitrarily locking down it's SOFTWARE to its HARDWARE.

f0dder · « **Reply #132 on:** October 14, 2009, 06:54 AM »

Whatever....

The windows machine will not be built to handle the OSX format.
Their 90% would change. They are not that stupid.

Apple made a marketing move to use intel and bootcamp.

It's about their money, both of them, not what we, the computer users would like.
-cmpm (October 14, 2009, 06:33 AM)

Oh boy, you really bought the kool-aid, didn't you?

See what Josh wrote in the post right before this one.

cmpm · « **Reply #133 on:** October 14, 2009, 07:47 AM »

Microsoft is guilty of the same tactics is what I'm saying.
It's about money!

I can install MS windows on a Mac.
I can't install Mac on a Computer built for MS windows.
So you say it's apple's fault.
I don't really know.
If hackers can do it, certainly ms can.

and yeah i know a mac is a pc
thinking of that stupid commercial.....
"I'm a pc"
they don't say ms windows you know

wraith808 · « **Reply #134 on:** October 14, 2009, 08:59 AM »

Ummm... you can install windows on a Mac. Even without bootcamp. There are several other non-hacky ways to install windows on a Mac. As for the other ways, well, Apple has safeguards built into the standard OS installs to keep you from installing on anything other than Apple Hardware. And they don't sell their OS in any manner other than with their hardware, or as an upgrade to an existing installation.

You're right- it's about money... but the focus for the two is in different areas. MS is a software company- all they care about is selling Office and other software... and to do that, they keep people on Windows, though they make a lot of money off of Macs too. If you want to run it on whatever hardware (I couldn't think of anything far enough out there) it's up to you. Apple is a hardware company. They sell software, but don't get it twisted- their primary bread and butter is hardware. The OS (Is it still OSX... or is it now OSXI? Or OSXII?) is just their way of selling through more hardware. Why else do you think they control prices on their hardware so much? Competition in the hardware market would undercut their bottom line.

In the end, buy what you need and want- it's a tool, and nothing more. They don't care anything for you other than your $$$... so why should you care any more for them that that?

cmpm · « **Reply #135 on:** October 14, 2009, 09:16 AM »

Yes, I can see apple being about hardware and MS about software. Thanks for that input wraith808.

Don't know if apple has a patent on their format though.
Seems ms could put in the ability to create a mac partition.
There's a lot I don't know, nor care about.

Dormouse · « **Reply #136 on:** October 14, 2009, 09:30 AM »

Since Mac OSX is owned by Apple who don't permit it to be installed on anything except their own hardware, MS cannot legally do anything to install it on Windows PCs. Hackers don't worry about about any licensing restrictions. So, it is possible to circumvent the restrictions, but MS cannot do it for you.

Darwin · « **Reply #137 on:** October 14, 2009, 09:33 AM »

If hackers can do it, certainly ms can

Apple *tries* to restrict installation of OSX to Apple produced and sold hardware. Indeed, it is difficult to install OSX on non-Apple hardware and doing so is in violation of Apple's EULA (or so I belivieve). The OS looks for a unique hardware ID on the MB when it's being installed - if it doesn't find it, it won't run without a lot of hacking. This is 100% on Apple and has nothing to do with MS or with the PC manufacturer. This is a marketing decision on Apple's part - "PC" (or rather, non-Apple PC) manufacturers could care less if you install OSX on their machines but Apple won't allow it - which I have always thought to be shortsighted because there ARE enough people out there who are fed up with Windows that they might make the switch if they could do it with their existing hardware and Apple could thus grab more of the OS market share. Microsoft, no doubt, is pretty happy about this arrangement BUT they have nothing to do with it and will have no control over it if, in future, Apple releases OSX to the unwashed masses. I suspect that Apple/Jobs know that if OSX were released for use on non-Apple controlled boxes, they'd have a LOT of problems with it fast and the lustre would come off OSX faster than you can say Windows 7 (or XP or Vista)!

No one will dispute your argument that to both companies it's about the money. However, if you continue to brand Microsoft as the "bad guy" in the "OSX won't run on a Microsoft machine (sic)" scenario, you're going to continue to draw rebuttals.

Now, as wraith notes above, when it comes to choosing an Apple versus a non-Apple machine (and thus OSX versus Windows versus something else): whatever floats your boat!

Josh · « **Reply #138 on:** October 14, 2009, 10:39 AM »

cmpm, i am sorry but you are wrong. It is NOT Microsofts responsibility to make OSX run on PC Hardware. OSX is proprietary to the mac. Yes it can work on the PC hardware, but only after hacking it. That is NOT Microsofts job nor is it a PC Manufacturers job. Apple has restricted use to their MAC hardware platform. Saying that microsoft could "create a mac partition" is silly in so many ways when it comes to a business aspect. Why would they WANT to do that? OSX offers nothing in terms of software or program availability that windows cannot already handle.

As you say, there is a lot you do not know, and I would suggest reading up on this topic because labeling microsoft the bad guy on this aspect is the wrong way to go. Apple has their software locked to hardware. It is NOT microsoft trying to lock out apple from the PC platform (which it has no control over).

cmpm · « **Reply #139 on:** October 14, 2009, 11:32 AM »

I didn't label MS as the 'bad guy', sheesh!
They are just companies doing what they do.

Have to pass on the reading up,
I don't care, nor could I do a dam thing about it.

However, I do appreciate the info.

I just thought if you can put windows on a mac,
why not mac on the windows machine.
If they do it, fine, if not, so what.
I already said I'm a windows guy,
and I would like to learn the mac,
but I won't pay the price it costs for me to learn it.

My son, yes, majoring in Creative Writing,
any tools he thinks he needs I'll do my best to get it.

That's why I posted on this thread-
cause there is a mac user here close.
Told you why I got it and more.
Maybe get some OPERATING TIPS.

Then a witch hunt for a bad guy?
pffft bs and more from non-mac users
It's business as usual.
I'm throwing a few ideas around, get over it.
I don't have all the facts and haven't seen 'em posted here.
Like a mac can create a ntfs partition on any MS windows comp.
Why can't Windows do a mac partition?
Don't know. Some kind of "deal" in corporate computer crap.

superboyac · « **Reply #140 on:** October 14, 2009, 11:36 AM »

I didn't label MS as the 'bad guy', sheesh!
They are just companies doing what they do.

Have to pass on the reading up,
I don't care, nor could I do a dam thing about it.

However, I do appreciate the info.

I just thought if you can put windows on a mac,
why not mac on the windows machine.
If they do it, fine, if not, so what.
I already said I'm a windows guy,
and I would like to learn the mac,
but I won't pay the price it costs for me to learn it.

My son, yes, majoring in Creative Writing,
any tools he thinks he needs I'll do my best to get it.

That's why I posted on this thread-
cause there is a mac user here close.
Told you why I got it and more.
Maybe get some OPERATING TIPS.

Then a witch hunt for a bad guy?
pffft bs and more from non-mac users
It's business as usual.
I'm throwing a few ideas around, get over it.
I don't have all the facts and haven't seen 'em posted here.
Like a mac can create a ntfs partition on any MS windows comp.
Why can't Windows do a mac partition?
Don't know. Some kind of "deal" in corporate computer crap.
-cmpm (October 14, 2009, 11:32 AM)

Is this a poem?

f0dder · « **Reply #141 on:** October 14, 2009, 11:41 AM »

Sure is Creative Writing

cmpm · « **Reply #142 on:** October 14, 2009, 11:56 AM »

lol, thanks, just talking here
i can't hold no ill feelings about any of this
can't afford 'em
i've learned tons here from you all
expect i'll learn more
if i can remember or look it up
1st thing that goes-memory-can't think of the 2nd....

JavaJones · « **Reply #143 on:** October 14, 2009, 12:20 PM »

Neither the 9400M or the 9600M GT on the MacBook Pro are anywhere *near* "top end". The dell has a ATI Mobility RADEON HD 4670 which should be fairly decent - comparable at the least.

<snip />

ATI Mobility Radeon™ HD4650 graphics card with 1GB vRAM-great for games and movies

-JavaJones (October 14, 2009, 01:43 AM)
The 4670 is pretty comparable... until you look at the pixel pipelines. the 9600 can pump more graphics through easily, despite being an earlier video card...
-wraith808 (October 14, 2009, 06:26 AM)

And you're basing that assertion on what, exactly? Here are some benchmarks
http://www.notebookc...mark-List.844.0.html
9600M:
3DMark01:26807 3DMark03:14889 3DMark05:9592 3DMark06:5063

4670:
3DMark01:24975 3DMark03:22295 3DMark05:12614 3DMark06:6842

The only test the 9600 excels at is a much older and simpler one (3D Mark 01). All the newer, more complex tests are dominated by the 4670.

and the macbook that I was looking at had a 7200 RPM hard drive... another significant upgrade. Add to that the fact that you can switch graphics cards to increase battery life- I have that on my VAIO, and that was a pretty decent upgrade also...

The Dell config also had a 7200RPM HD, and it would be a very cheap upgrade in any case, hardly making up the difference in cost for any of the other configs. In fact I could have put a much faster and lower power using SSD in any of the configs I posted and still been below the Mac's cost.

- Oshyan

wraith808 · « **Reply #144 on:** October 14, 2009, 01:32 PM »

The pixel pipelines do show up in the 3DMark01 tests.. thats the reason that it does better. For this reason, it's good enough for most practical applications, and that was my point. If you add the newest gee-whiz features graphical upgrades, then yes, you'll fall a bit shorter. But that's if you're buying for gaming pretty much, which isn't the greatest percentage of users out there...

And as far as pricing, when I did mine:
Dell Studio XPS 16: $2128
Sony VAIO: 1998
HP HDX: 1998
MacBook Pro: 2399

Is it more? Yes... I never said it wasn't. However, if you look at the lower end MacBooks vs the lower end Windows PCs, you can get a laptop for $400 (or less) while you're at $1000 for the entry into the MacBook arena. Which still says

The price for a Mac on the lower end is more expensive, but as you scale up, the price isn't that much different, I've found.

Darwin · « **Reply #145 on:** October 14, 2009, 04:04 PM »

1st thing that goes-memory-can't think of the 2nd....
-cmpm (October 14, 2009, 11:56 AM)

Once your memory goes, you can just forget it.

Innuendo · « **Reply #146 on:** October 15, 2009, 02:35 PM »

Neither the 9400M or the 9600M GT on the MacBook Pro are anywhere *near* "top end". The dell has a ATI Mobility RADEON HD 4670 which should be fairly decent - comparable at the least.
-JavaJones (October 14, 2009, 01:43 AM)

I was going to post the exact same thing, but to be fair that's not an Apple-only experience. Most laptops in general do not have top-end graphics capabilities.

Innuendo · « **Reply #147 on:** October 15, 2009, 02:46 PM »

I can install MS windows on a Mac.
I can't install Mac on a Computer built for MS windows.
So you say it's apple's fault.
I don't really know.
If hackers can do it, certainly ms can.
-cmpm (October 14, 2009, 07:47 AM)

To understand the reasons of why you can't install Apple's OS on a computer built for Windows you have to understand the process. Apple, just like every other computer manufacturer, specs out and designs the motherboard that goes into their computers. The key difference between a motherboard made for an Apple computer and one made for any Windows PC is that Apple has a custom-made chip integrated into the motherboard that is exclusive to Apple & no other PC manufacturer has access to.

When you go to try to install Apple's OS one of the first things it does is check to make sure that custom chip is present on the motherboard & everything is legit. If the OS installer isn't able to detect that chip then the OS will not be able to be installed.

Apple is the only one legally allowed to make this chip and they won't sell it to any other computer manufacturer. Now with the situation being the way it is the only way to install an Apple OS on a non-Apple computer is to either clone the chip and include it on a motherboard which would be costly and illegal or to hack the Apple OS to remove detection for the custom chip which is also illegal.

I hope this explanation helps you see that through this custom chip Apple controls what kind of hardware you can install their OS on & they don't want anyone to be able to install it on any hardware they aren't making a profit on.

Hope this helps.

wraith808 · « **Reply #148 on:** October 15, 2009, 03:49 PM »

Neither the 9400M or the 9600M GT on the MacBook Pro are anywhere *near* "top end". The dell has a ATI Mobility RADEON HD 4670 which should be fairly decent - comparable at the least.
-JavaJones (October 14, 2009, 01:43 AM)

I was going to post the exact same thing, but to be fair that's not an Apple-only experience. Most laptops in general do not have top-end graphics capabilities.
-Innuendo (October 15, 2009, 02:35 PM)

And my point on the video card is that really only matters if you're looking at gaming. I have a gaming box- I'm buying this for work and to do iPhone stuff. Doing that, the 9600 pushes enough pixels to be at a good enough for the use level... most of the apps that I'm going to use are going to be at the 3DMark01 levels of advanced graphics use... Macs aren't really for gaming, so you buy the tool for what you're looking to do...

Innuendo · « **Reply #149 on:** October 15, 2009, 05:24 PM »

And my point on the video card is that really only matters if you're looking at gaming. I have a gaming box- I'm buying this for work and to do iPhone stuff. Doing that, the 9600 pushes enough pixels to be at a good enough for the use level... most of the apps that I'm going to use are going to be at the 3DMark01 levels of advanced graphics use... Macs aren't really for gaming, so you buy the tool for what you're looking to do...
-wraith808 (October 15, 2009, 03:49 PM)

And I agree with everything you just said. My only issue was someone (was it you?) said that the 9600 was a top end graphics card. It's not. It's a very capable solution for a large percentage of people and uses, but it's not a top end solution.