Top Reasons to Run Windows on a Mac...or Not!

at least apple made somthing useful for their hardware. Mac OS are all shit anyway, its incompatible with everything.

it is incompatable with everything by design. The less that Apple has to worry about in the way of 3rd party developers the cleaner and more form fitting OS X can be.

It is no mistake that OS X is the way that is it.

Running Windows on a Macbook Pro is like Paris Hilton shopping at Wal-Mart. These really aren't good enough reasons. Yes Apple made it possible, but there really isn't any good whys. Almost every Windows major app has a Mac version. Dump the red-headed step child.

Dweeby snots and their round edged plastic crap... just so Todd and Margo. Blech.

Everyone in PCWorld blogs makes sweeping generalisations that are based on either negligible information or misinformation. Shades of grey do not exist. And pi is really a rational number, we just don't know it yet.

Price is always an issue.

Buying a mac is like paying an extra 20-30% just for apple's designer computer case. It surely looks nice in few occasions, but who would really care after looking it for more than a week.

I am not saying mac makes worse products. In the contrary, most of their product are solid. However, for the price they are charging, the goods almost seem inferior.

For those of you who use pc for regular daily purposes (pc game, surf the web, compose essay), Windows-PC probably still the best choice for you. The extra buck or two you saved from buying an mac probably can help you to upgrade your computer twice as often. Let me tell you one thing, an 4 yr old computer is slower than a 2 yr old one.

It is a great step Apple is taking. There are plenty business appications that runs and only run on Windows. For example my company uses QuickBooks Online, which is a web-accessible accounting software. But it only runs with Internet Explorer on Windows. So I can't wait to get my hands on the next revision of the MacBook Pro!!!

A friend of mine was the chief engineer for the country of Trinadad. His policy was that unless you use cad, buy a mac. Unless your company can afford someone to maintain pcs, it is often cheaper to run a mac. The catch is that some programs only run on a pc. That being the case, having the option to run windows for all but specialized software is a definite financial advantage to all but the extremely pc savvy people.

"5. You like to build your own computers. There's no such thing as a handbuilt Mac, although it's an intriguing idea. "

May be true now for intel macs but with older PPC Macs I am running several home-built Macs based on PPC MBs bought on eBay. Rackmount and tower mounted pesonalized machine with coolness... For the longest time my main machine was a homebuilt G4 (my homebuilt Windows machine gets booted as needed -- 1x -2x a month). Now I have a G5 but still have a dual G4 based Server in a tower and another in a rack. The tower has 3 CD/DVD drives, RAID card, and a cool Lian Li case modded by me.

"Running Windows on a Macbook Pro is like Paris Hilton shopping at Wal-Mart. These really aren't good enough reasons. Yes Apple made it possible, but there really isn't (sic) any good whys. Almost every Windows major app has a Mac version. Dump the red-headed step child."

Uh, Mike?

Ooo! Finally someone mentions Paris Hilton in a chat about Mac's superior design. Good call! And as to red-headed stepchildren, that would be wintel. They know at least over in Redmond, that if there is no Apple, there goes their innovative R & D source to steal from, and you obviously don't know that OSX is Linux underneath. And maybe Microsoft, when it puts out SP #573, to match Apple's superiority...? Let's hope for your sake they remember to leave the grammar checker in Word.

Hey Mike Smith!

The fact that you mentioned Paris Hilton in any arguement, shows your lack of intelligence and diminshes the credibility of those that feel the same way you do about macs! Your statement about every major windows app having a mac version further proves so. Ask anyone in the legal industry about WordPerfect. Go ahead and continue to run your neccessary updates every first Tuesday of the month to protect your coveted pc. Not only does a mac run your lousy windows os, it does it on a better machine, and when Leopard, the new OS comes out, it will run windows better than any pc for the same price point. All of you pc geeks are clouded by $399 computer prices from dell and argue that macs are expensive. Wasting time protecting your pc is expensive. Unless your time isn't worth that much. After you add all the necessary options to compare a pc to a mac, you are at the same price point, if not higher. I have not had a virus in 3 years, since I started using macs. How many windows users can claim that? I must ask, why waste your time with a virus magnet?

Posted by mike smith on Thursday, April 06, 2006, 11:09 PM (PST)
Running Windows on a Macbook Pro is like Paris Hilton shopping at Wal-Mart. These really aren't good enough reasons. Yes Apple made it possible, but there really isn't any good whys. Almost every Windows major app has a Mac version. Dump the red-headed step child.

hey this is all very healthy. microsoft has gotten tired, greedy , and tried to keep its businesss going by acting like a monopolistic predator. it missed the boat on where the pc is going. now that the market has decided pc's are for fun, not taking over the world the way gates invisioned. microsoft will keep coming up with yet anohter version of windows to keep money coming in, but all the features that are poorly designed, that reflect gates telling you how to do things--ever write a letter--make the apple alternative more and more pleasing.

Absolute NONSENSE article. All of your reasons for NOT buying a Mac over PC are about as flimsy as wet tissue paper!!!
I've just switched to a MacBook Pro... which cost me all in, top spec about ?2,000. I used to have a top spec Dell Insprion 8100 laptop which cost me ?3,000 when I bought it a few years back. And I can tell you... I'm never going back a to PC. The build quality of Apple hardware is miles ahead of PC's.
I still think Apple at $71 stock price is a screaming buy. I can see them doubling their share of the computer market over the next 5 years.

Hey Formet PC Puppet!

I've run windows boxes for over 10yrs, without virus software, and I've never had a single virus :P

Not bad for a "virus magnet".
lol

Dear Former PC Puppet;
The simple fact remains that MAC's remain virus free because there are so few of you fellows out there that no one woudl want to write a program, and asignifigantly difficult one at that, for a user base that doesnt exist. Malicious code is designed to damage mass volumes, whic MAC lacks. I run windows, and i dont get viruses, because unlike the 70% of windows users and bulk majority of MAC users, i know HOW TO USE A COMPUTER, more importantly, i know how to maintain one. Mac is great, i agree, i run a ssh/ftp/http server on one, but aside from the GUI layer over the UNIX/BSD kernel, i could as easily use linux or FreeBSD. I picked mac cause i got one used for 40$. The hardware is now the same, since it runs the same archetecture, and the software is simply a GUI abstract over the BSD core, Mac stole an incredible ammount form OSS/FSF to build the Darwin core and the GUI system on top of it.
Simple fact is that were Mac the majority PC being used, viruses and security flaws woudl exist primarily for that. When you Mac'ers get more than 10% market share, go ahead and make sweaping secrity statements, until then, accept that MAC is more a cult of wannabe UNIX users these days then a serious revolution. Not to defend Windows, which has serious flaws, but your no better, and you shoudlnt forget that or MAC will end up teh same as MS.

Hey Formet PC Puppet!

get a life you dickless monkey

As for not having a virus in three years I envy you. I myself have found the solution to Bill Gates virus issue...stop downloading his updates! New OS are configured to let a virus in every now and then plus with their recommended Norton Anti-virus your pc is as good as cooked. I have an old IBM Lapdog running on W95 and guess what, NO VIRUS...EVER. Macs are more powerful but their functionality isn't suited for everyone. I like this forum; I didn't know I was a geek until I understood this entire hubbub on this site.

I run a computer repair company. We service both PC's & Mac's.

Personally I wouldn't have a Mac if it were given to me for free!

As stated earlier, the only reason Windows is subjected to so many viral attacks is simply because of its share in the marketplace. Who would bother writing a Mac virus knowing that there are hardly any out there?

It is nothing to do with one OS being more secure than another. If the tables were turned and OSX accounted for 95% of computers, do you really believe there wouldn't be weekly updates?

Anyway I'm off now to revive a PowerBook G4 that won't boot after an Apple update!

See Ya

In a nutshell... THE MARKETS NEVER LIE. The collective of the market HAS SPOKEN.

Look at Apple's stock price.... rallied 15% in two days.

Let me ask a a simple question... would you rather be long Apple stock, or Dell or perhaps Microsoft...???

I think that's a pretty easy one to answer.

I am a MAC FANATIC since my first Mac 512K, but have been forced to use PC since 1993 because of PC-only software. Those people who think there's a Mac-version of everything that's needed don't live in the real world. (eg specialist software used by IP lawyers) But I'm not quite ready to come back. I'm waiting for a dual-boot system that can toggle back and forth, and can cut and paste between the two environments, and which can save documents in common folders.

Quote: Former PC Puppet
==================
I have not had a virus in 3 years, since I started using macs. How many windows users can claim that? I must ask, why waste your time with a virus magnet?
==================

Although I like the Mac OS more, you must not have (had) good network security in place. Like another poster stated, I haven't had a virus on my computers in some years.

Personally, I'm not as interested in buying Mac hardware as I am the operating system. I know this is blasphemy, but I'd rather install and run the operating system natively on a PC than on Apple hardware. I like their hardware, but right now, the configuration that I want.

It's npt juts martketshare. Seriously. Take a close look at teh underlying structure of both the Windows and Mac OSX operating systems and you'll find OS X is more secure anyway.

No doubt perceived marketshare makes a big difference but it is far harder to write a self-replicating virus for a BSD/UNIX style operating system than for Win32 systems. And that's even before you take into account the out-of-the-box setup of the two OSs (Default Administrator rights anyone?).

Of course, take out OutlookExpress and Internet Explorer and install a firewall and you've solved half your security holes on the spot. :P

I wish Jobs would release OS/X for PC/Intel.

i'm having a real laugh out of all of this... great comments here... but why in the world anyone would want to use Software From Satan? in the first place is beyond me, especially when there is a much better alternative: a Linux-based system... one of the reasons OS X rocks so much is the [Free]BSD base and it's support for open software...

Just count me: Microsoft-free since 1993!

My kids regulaly crashed my home windows until I bought a Mac - now no problems. In my office I'd hate it, and will continue with the flexibility that Windows gives me and, which, I've kept clean forever!

Here's why I'll get another Mac and run Windows also. I'll address costs too.

Multimedia
Mac applications are simply better. I do picture editing, videoediting, music-related projects and anything dealing with communications on it. For this type of application when comparing Mac vs Windows, the Mac is cheaper & easier to work with.

Work-Related Applications
Boring work-related stuff => Windows. For this Windows is cheaper.

Well I suppose this is PCWorld, so I can't expect much of the posts here..

What you guys don't understand is: Apple's Mac operating system is LIGHT YEARS ahead of XP and VISTA.

That is why this is going to be a big deal. As more users are exposed to OSX the more they will drop Windows for good.

My business runs on Macs and after 15 years with Windows, life has become a dream...

Oh, and think about this too. Do you think Apple, worth $60bn, uses Windows because there is no business software made for Macs??!*$ Get real guys.

It's amazing how many of you actually post something insulting others posts. How rude.

This is a good step from Apple, and will eventually lead to, and I know everyone will disagree, but a working merger between apple and microsoft.

Soon we will be told that all microsoft programs will be built to run on windows and apple.

Scoff at that for now, but i have a very good source that this is happening, and that a possible merger is in the works

For 'merger' read 'takeover'

Apple Macs = PC's for beginners

The part about all of this that boggles my mind is that people are treating it like it's something new and special. Dual Boot systems have been around for ages, certainly in the PC world and even in the Mac world since OSX hit the stage. More recently, there are already plenty of people running XP on Macs, and for that matter there's a perfectly workable copy of OSX that runs on PCs. The only people who are making a fuss about this at all are people who don't know any better to begin with.

Applause to Boot Camp! I don't use Windows except at work. My company's training is on-line and CD-based for Windows only, which is the only reason I would use this, but many people may like this for games and other Apps, at least when Apple produces an Intel Hypo desktop. (an Imac would probably do pretty good, too, but I'm a tower guy). I Think most would find that Mac OS and it's great I-apps is much better, anyway, for daily fun stuff, movies, photo, etc., plus security. My PC friend, a technician by trade, was just telling me he made 'the weekly virus scan' around his home network, and how excited he was that he only found 2 viruses on his brother's machine, and the other 2 machines were clear. ONLY 2? this is a good thing? i TRIED PRINTING SOMETHING THE OTHER DAY OVER THERE, AND i COULDN'T, BECAUSE HE 'ONLY TURNS ON PRINTER SHARING WHEN HE NEEDS IT' (HE'S AFRAID)

I'm a PC, Mac & Linux user. Both have their own +ves & big -ves. From my point of view OSX is becoming another Windows (not UI-wise). There are more frequent updates(including security) (to match the pace of Microsoft) from Apple now-a-days. Plz chk out the following list and the dates:

Mac OS X 10.4.6 for PPC (Universal) ? Update 04/03/2006
Security Update 2006-002 v1.1 Mac OS X 10.4.5 (PPC) ? Update 03/16/2006
Security Update 2006-001 Mac OS X 10.4.5 (PPC) ? Update 03/01/2006
Mac OS X Update 10.4.5 ? Update 02/14/2006
Mac OS X Update 10.4.4 ? Update 01/10/2006
Mac OS X Update 10.4.3 ? Update 10/31/2005

There were 9 secuirty updates for OSX in 2005.

I've been using Windows for 7 yrs without any viruses. My first Mac with Panther crashed on the first day of my use (still my CD-drive in my Mac won't work properly).

All one has to do is to maintain their PC/Mac properly.

P.S: If you want a more secure, robust and good UI (not awesome) and a OS to do your job switch/stick to Linux.

Good luck.

I know my previous comments are irrelevant to the topic, but shows some facts related to the topic. Sorry about that.
Anyway, kudos to Bootcamp creators.

Who said Apple makes good software and hardware?? From my experience, they are a bunch of junk!

Basically I think that Aplle ported Windows to beat Microsoft to the punch. With the hacks out there now I would think it would only be a matter of time before Micrsoft's Mac department (Yes they have one) rolled out the same kind of software bundled with Windows for some rediculous price. By beating Microsoft to the punch Apple (yes that is the real company name, Mac is a kind of computer) gains all the rewards, yet non of the support worries. Great idea and I agree that this, in combination with everything else that is going well for Apple will increase their market share considerably. Oh and the whole virus thing, the answer is learn how to use a computer. If your on Windows or OSX get a virus program, schedule it to run regularly (at least once a week), and schedule the security updates (yes Apple has them to, its in the software update choice in the Apple menu). While there aren't many Apple virus' out there now, they are coming!

It's true Apple's software and hardware aren't good, they're excellent...
But this Bootcamp software is the biggest mistake Apple could make.
Apple users switched because windows sucked, now people invested in their comps, software and hardware and here they are giving them windows again....
This can be compared to Coca-Cola soft drink which was great untill some smart ass tried to make it better... we all know how that ended

Do you want to know what the bottom line is for many, MANY people who use PCs?

You cannot play most games on a Mac. There isn't the hardware for it, and there isn't the software for it. Windows is the only system that has made any effort to create an environment suitable for the proliferation and creation of video games. There are people, and I am included, who play games on their computer on a daily basis. If I got a Mac, it would be the death of my career as a gamer. Let's see some solid hardware and software solutions out of Apple SOLELY designed for gaming, and we'll see many more people gravitating towards Apple. Are you fellows not familiar with the fact that many people (I can think of several I know off the top of my head) are each constructing an ENTIRELY NEW PC just to play Oblivion? This is a way of life for PC users. Mac chumps can bitch all they want, but they do NOT play video games.

These posts often sound more political than informed, like listening in on wingnuts and libs.
I run a PC lan at work, and a mac lan at home. The mac network is less maintenance, and more robust, but the pc network allows greater administrator control. The mac os rarely requires attention, but is more frustrating than pcs when issues do arise because of its controls. All said, the osx network would be fine with me given it could be ported to run xp apps.

Oh, jeezuz jayh.
I say Apple makes the absolute highest quality hardware and most phenomenal software. Apple's iLife suite of programs (iPhoto, iMovie, GarageBand, iTunes, iWeb -- not to mention OS X) are worth the cost of a Mac in themselves. I have been using Macs since 1987. My Powebook G3 has run flawlessly for 6 full years. My newer Powerbook G4 is a dream. My "blue and white" G3 tower ran hard and fast (usually 12 hours a day) for 7 years with zero hardware problems. My almost two-year old G4 tower still acts like a brand new computer and I'm sure it too will last for many more years. So, no Jayh, Apple does not make "junk". --HP does, though--

My thanks to Apple for providing me with the tools which allow me to be successfully self-employed in a job I enjoy.

I gotta mention, from reading above.
Apples also seem to cost a lot more, but look at the software that is loaded onto the computer. That software isn't cheap, or crappy for that matter, like Garageband, iPhoto, iWeb, iMovie...
While buying a new PC, you get all these usless programs most the time.

I think it's hot that Paris Hilton shops at the Trinidad Wal-Mart for her computer and has only two viruses, even though she doesn't use Windows or Mac, but prefers Linux instead.

Macs do NOT cost more. I thought they did and sacrificed my integrity by buying PC notebooks --they cost slightly less than Powerbooks at the time. The PCs had to go in for repairs on two to three occasions before expiring (R.I.P.) after one year of use. The first one wound up costing me about 5K dollars for a year's use, the second, 2K, not including the extra software (antivirus, utilities, etc) I needed to use 'em. Finally, I was low on money and decided to give the iBook a shot. It's well over two years and it's never needed repairs aside from a 50 dollar DIY keyboard replacement.

For the life of me I still can't understand why anyone would want to load a sub-standard OS on a machine by it's very nature is close to perfect. I mean, if I wanted to polute my life, I'd get a piece-of-crap 600 dollar Dell I can throw away when I was done with it. And the uninformed or just plain lazy are still spouting the age-old myths about Macs to justify their own choice for self-inflicted pain. I LOVE to watch them spout... eyes rolling back in the head, but refuse to comment on it any more. Life is too short to deal with idiots. But to all the rational people out there.... use what's best for you, let me use what's best for me, and we can have a beer sometime. But you'll never catch me wasting my time.

Another PC World in-depth article. I don't know where you buy your windows software, but it can be had for roughly half the amount you quoted.

- Otherwise, there is no reason what so ever to run windows on mac (unless it's bundled). The best approach is two 'PCs' and a KVM.

I don't think I would ever run Windows on a mac for one reason, windows gets tons of viruses. Why screw up you expensive mac when you could easily buy a cheap disposable pc that will eventualy be destroyed buy internet spy ware and viruses anyway? When that happens, just go out and buy or build another PC and continue to use the same mac that you have had for the last four or five years with no problems.

I think the move by Apple is brilliant. After owning and working on a PC for 17 years (since DOS days) I have recently made the bold move to a MAC. There is not turning back, the difference in stability, the UI, everything is better. It just works. I have people ask me what computer to buy and I say "No question: A MAC" and they buy a PC because they are afraid to make the switch. The computer is a large investment, and if they don't like it they are stuck - so they go with the safe bet of what they know. With Boot Camp, people can make the switch knowing that if they don't like OS X (which any MAC user knows they will) they can turn it into a PC without having to buy yet more hardware. It is an excellent vehicle to address the large group of people afraid to make the leap of faith to a MAC.

Don't talk out of your arse!

How difficult is it to make an OS work on one hardware setup? Windows has to work on an infinite number of system specs. Any monkey could have written OSX Play School! Hats off to Linux too in that respect.

You Mac people really do live in cloud cuckoo land. 'It just works' - well cock a doodle doo!

It will never happen, but I would love to see Apple with the market share that Microsoft has. Then we would see how secure it was, when the script kiddies had a new target!

I have both machines. The PC is just for gameing. The gameing world revolves around Microsofts lockdown on Direct X - Mac uses openGL. The PC breaks every once in a while, understandable as its a cut price thingy, whereas the mac is an expensive professional tool. I think ts great I will be able to create more space on my desktop by getting rid of the PC, putting a badass graphics card into my mac and run windoze, cant wait, Eve-online will look so sweet on my cinema display.

For me this is fantastic news. As an administrator of both a windows 2003 network and an OS X (10.4) network it means i can produce and test all my resources without changing machines and no more problems with OS compatability! Just to have my two cents on the matter, i generally believe after having to manage in both environments that neither OS is better than the other, sure they both have there distinct advantages but overall they can both be just as stubborn as each other :)

Apple fanbois unite!

Its still a black box - hence, no buying, thanks.

I'm with J Salas on this one...I'd give Macs a shot if they could play games, but for now it seems silly to keep a PC just for gaming and a Mac for everything else. Maybe if I can afford to do that one of these days, I will.

when are you people going to stop defending your native system and start realizing:

1)Macs are good if you are really into video, picture, audio editing

2)PCs are better for everything else, reason being that they are much more stable, flexible and have much more of a hardware selection

windows on a mac?!! Anybody that has used a mac for anytime at all whould know this is a bad idea. Ihave a blue and white g3 (circa 1998)
never had a virus, never used virus detection, never had any troubles and although it finally starting so show its age now I wouldnt trade it for ANY windows platform. how many have you sat around listening to people talk about all the troubles there having with there microsoft based junk.

It's really funny that the most excited people are PC users dying to get their hands on a MAC. MAC hardware is okay, but OS X is what rocks in comparison to XP. And of course they'll just run crappy windows. As a primarily MAC user (but with both platforms) I agree with Ed: this will kill OS X. Windows will win the Beta/VHS war with it's clumsy unintuitive OS. What's that sweetie? Oh, Paris says hi ...

Well, let's see. I've used both platforms since the beginning of personal computing. (And CP/M and punchcards and so on...) I use both platforms every day. On the DOS/Windows platforms I have spent less for hardware and software. On the Mac platforms I have paid more for hardware and software. However... On the Mac platform I have paid less than $500 for support and repairs over a period of 20 years. On the Wintel platform I pay that much every year! So I think MacOS is the winner. BootCamp is just icing on the cake.

Wow.. don't you good people have a better use for your time than insulting each other?

On a fundamental level, OS X vs. Windows is a pointless discussion. It's like arguing the virtues of a philips-head screwdriver vs. a slot-head screwdriver.

The only reason I use Windows is for an Oracle client and an MMORPG; the only reason I use OS X is for AppleScript and Sherlock. Personally, I'd rather be laying in a hammock sipping mai-tai's and smoking Dunhills.

Does Mac support:

Battlefield 2
Half-Life 2
FEAR
Madden 2006
Age of the Empires 3
Quake 4

and sli Geforce 7900 gtx?

When they do, I will buy one. Until then, I'll be buying Alienware and Falcon Northwest or building my own.

Even if I could dual boot, the best graphics card you can get is a 256 MB ATI x1600!

PC's more stable, that's a joke. I own & run both platforms. Both with the latest hardware & software. OS X is more stable. I certainly prefer the OS X interface.

I have both a MAC and PC. I use the MAC for the hum bug kind of stuff that the computer comes with....photos, music, surfing web, word processing. There is so much software out there that does so much and just about none of it runs on MAC OS. What good is a superior OS if there is not the hugely robust selection of software for every niche. For instance, i have software that records all my yahoo music streams and tags and labels the MP3s. There are millions of software programs that MAC OS does not have....yet. I guess with dual boot, you won't have to wait anymore. It seems like Mac OS is just linux with more selection of software but not nearly what Windows has.

I have about 100 Mac OS X machines and 10 Windows machines that students use in our labs. Students pound on these machines all day. I almost never have a porblem with the Macs, but that is not the case with the Dells.

Mac OS X is a powerful, secure by design (clamped down by default), and elegant OS. Its works beautifully in a UNIX environment given its UNIX underpinnings, whereas Windows does not. I mainly use UNIX software that is being Macified in an elegant ways, e.g., LaTeX, R, and other open-source software. Windows versions of these pale by comparison. I work in a technical area, but the multimedia capabaliities for education are exploding, e.g., video podcasting.

The real advantage of Mac OS X is the Cocoa (old NeXTstep) programming environment. Apple will probably port it to Windows and then the Mac will be the premier cross-platform programming environment. Productivitiy is greatly increased, which is why Apple releases so much software in so short a time frame. If this happens, I will switch from Java and develop my statistical software in Cocoa. It will be awesome.

BootCamp, yes. Virtualization is better. Cross-platform Cocoa would be nirvana, but most of you PC types don't know it yet.

UNIX and its Linux (which had EFI support almost immediately) and OS X variants will win in the end.

DosRocks said:

"I've run windows boxes for over 10yrs, without virus software, and I've never had a single virus :P"

LOL! You just don't know about the viruses infesting your poor Windows box. Install antivirus software then watch as it scans your system. If that is not the case, try connecting your Windows computer to the Internet some time.

All the discussion about OSX vs. Windows is sort of moot. As long as Apple continues to push the envelope in UI and product design there will be a market for Apple computers. Boot Camp simply offers a Mac user more flexibility in doing what we do: living an increasingly digital life.
Products like Parallels promise even MORE flexibility than Boot Camp through very effecient (except on the Mini apparently) virtualization.
As for gamers (yes, I am one). Hard core gamers are not Mac gamers in the same way that Xbox gamers aren't Mac gamers. It's apples and oranges folks because gaming is a hardware issue, and what Boot Camp is about in the end is running software; and that's OK.
Either way, a Mac user is a Mac user. We like our UI, but we also appreciate Apple expanding our options and improving our digital life by integrating yet another service into my trusty Mac.
Keep up the good work Apple.

How about vice versa?

Generic PCs running Mac?

Now, that would be interesting.

A number of people quote Apple stock price to defend the Mac. Apple's core business is the iPod, not the Mac. They sell millions of iPods every quarter - the Mac does not drive their stock price.

It's not the Mac or the iPod that drives Apple stock. It's innovation that drives Apple stock. Apples core business is innovation.

Best Music Recording laptops with outlook... quite compelling. Sounds like its going to be a bitch to back up.

Like em both...

What would be better is for someone(and maybe there already is, I don't know)to create a program that allowd for running MAC Operating Systems on a Windows-based PC. Then those of us poor slobs who can't afford the absurd price of a MAC can still use the cool MAC-only software like Final Cut...

This boot camp business is the second step in Apple divesting itself from the software/os market (the first step was the move to a unix-based os). The future of Apple is in high-end hardware; they're happy to let someone else worry about the os headaches.

just read the article didnt really read any of the coments.
just want to make a comment about the last point "handbuilt mac"
my friend built a full blown pc in order to run tiger and windows. i was there for the building stage and testing. it works much much faster than my dual 2.0 G5 .....much faster. we do music so the computer does get tested to its limits.

not only doest work but it cost him under $1000 .......canadian.

Hey Anthony, your wrong. Mac OS X does NOT sit on top of Linux. Unix is underneath. And there not the same thing because Linux uses Unix underneath admittedly.

Boys and girls, play nicely. This discussion is mostly hype and old data. Apple sports Intel hardware now, so most differences are gone, especially in price for comparable quality. A remaining different between us is attitude; Apple users aren't geeks. We don't want to mess with our machine's innards; we just want the damned things to work-- which they do. Apple gave up on the Enterprise market long ago; this might be part of a game-plan to get it back. But Apple can do so, only if they can provide a better user experience at a same or lower price, especially Total Cost of Ownership. The market will tell us and Boot Camp will help.

Reading these posts seems to bring out one point to me and that is what were are challenging each other with is buy-in for our set of beliefs over something quite difficult to be objective about. The fact that most of the comments are emotional would lead one to think that this is entirely a matter of preference. Some people like blue cars, some white. Both cars get you to your destination, but you will like one more than the other, for emotional and/or aesthetic reasons. Operating systems provide an execution environment for programs. Programs can run alone or work together. Programs are instructions. The meaning of instructions is determined by the programmer. The result of the instructions is determined by the user. No more, nor less. Anything else, is basically kitchen cabinet refacing.

Macs strength is that it does the thinking for people who like to think they make their own decisions.. Instant rebellion and membership to an exclusive club.. "It just works" - please, drop the marketing rhetoric. Yes, marketing, Apple has a masterful department that can make a 32 meg onboard generic intel video card sound like it can blow away an nVidia SLI 7900.

Go buy a trucker hat and move to Williamsburgh with your pretty little white boxes....

If they had moved to AMD I might be inclined to think they made some small advance away from style over content....

All I can really say is that mac's are great for people that will click on any link they see and can't be bothered with the confusion of 2 buttons on a mouse..
My sister could crash a pc in less than a few hours on it, now she has a mac and manages to eek out an extra 2 hours before doing something blissfully uninformed and crashes that..

look at the ipod speaker thing, 53hz to 18khz
and they call it "audiophile quality"
apparently 128kbps mp3's are also "audiophile quality"

Marketing can be Magick..

I couldn't agree more Justin. Marketing magic, indeed.

Most claims from Apple about their computers sound like Sega's "blast processing" in my head.

Linux is undoubtly the best OS. Its free and has the greatest number of options...

I just wanted to add I am a guy who lives in the ghetto make blue collar wages 35K USA.I dont build computers and never will.I bought my Emac for 800$2 years ago and that was after i returned a HP laptop after only a week of use.The laptop and windows exp. was just a waste of time,plus i had allready used up my tech support and from there after it would have been a hefty bill.
As far as marketshare OSX is obviously gaining and for whatever reasons .The M$ bots seem to be irrated by this . Impartial observers must be noticing how the pro mac posts are positive and the M$ bots seem to be rude lil kids whos daddy bought them all there black boxes {prob tech supporttoo}.Now that virtualization is the main front invested area of software dev.Us mac users are gaining.I myself am gonna bet Mac has 10% marketshare by 2009.It will never reach 30% and lets not hope so.I cant imagine 3 out of 10 Mercedes being on the roads.
After 3 years of use I have spent 950 on computer and software tech support etc.I have photoshop and Halo.I play BF2 on my game console.I have a nikon d50 dslr599$. All the digital media I have mentioned above cost me 2000 $ USA.I would like to thank apple to afford me these luxuries.who ever the real gamers on here who are PC user and spent that can they even compare to what i own for 2k!!!!!!!!! happy OSX all!!!!!!!!!

Mac OS is terribly designed. Other than that Mac and PC do exactly the same thing. Macs just cost a lot more and prohibit you from getting work done in a timely fashion.

"1)Macs are good if you are really into video, picture, audio editing"

This hasn't been true for more than 10 years.

Mac/PC/Linux user chiming in saying do whatever you want. They all suck (just like politicians). Each side has their own benefits/drawbacks/cult following. You want quality . . . go with Mac. You want cheap . . . pick a box up off the side of the road and go linux (ubuntu is stupid easy). You want a catch all . . . choose M$

PC WORLD BLOWS!

Macs are far superior...always will be, quit denying it people!

Who ever would think the ipod sucks? It sells a ton, it must suck terribly.

I guess I'm missing the point. Why would Apple encourage people running Windoze on their platforms? Doesn't that generate more revenue for M$?

I'd think the real trick would be for someone to figure out how to run Apple's OS X on a non-Apple machine.

For those of you who deny that Macs are the best for video, picture, and audio editing, perhaps you could explain why those industries nearly exclusively use Macs. I know this from first hand experience. Basically if you don't use a Mac, you will be less productive and not make it very far in any of those industries. Period, non-debatable. Windows and Macs both have their strengths, and the above mentioned areas are the strong points for Apple.

"PC WORLD BLOWS!

Macs are far superior...always will be, quit denying it people!

Who ever would think the ipod sucks? It sells a ton, it must suck terribly."

Who would ever think PC's suck? They sell tons, they much really suck!

Sorry, don't know if it's been said before, but if not I'd like to coin a word. MACrosoft. I think it rolls of the tongue a bit easier than winapple. Then again, some people may not enunciate well enough to be understood properly. No offense meant to the author.

I'd just like to mention that macs are better not because of their hardware or OS, but the way they work in perfect harmony. This is also what drives up the price. Not only does apple sell top of the line hardware, but they include all the software you need as well. I bought an imac g5 a few monts ago, after having two Compaq top of the line notebooks before it, and will never change back. The OS is so advanced, that you can have all of your applications open at one and never bogg down the computer. They also have tons of cool crap that pc's don't, and did i mention that it never crashes, even when rendering video?

anyone who doesn't switch soon must have serious disabilities.

From abroad, so please excuse the language, It is a pity that macs require a hefty investment to start with, proportionately a lot more if not in the USA. But once you've used one, I mean, that windows stuff and all that is produced with it is so ugly. Reflects the philosophy of both companies, neither one of them an NGO of course, but microsoft case is just plain steeling all and everything in exchange for barriers to never get out of the road that leads to the next toll both. A real shame and a sign of the times.

Former PC Puppet wrote:
"I have not had a virus in 3 years, since I started using macs. How many windows users can claim that? I must ask, why waste your time with a virus magnet?"

I can claim that, so can all my clients that I fix computers for... all running Windows boxes, all clean since I started doing IT work for them.

If you know how to configure Windows, it's just as safe and secure (if not more so) than a Mac. Most of my clients only call me once every six months or a year to clean dust from the machine case and to do a quick system check-up. I just did three machines this morning that I hadn't seen for about the past year (342 days, to be exact)... all of them are spyware / adware / rootkit / virus free, all of them are running fine... just did a quick cleanup of unnecessary files and the usual checks to be sure the systems were clean, and cleaned out the dust... total time, 2 hours for 3 machines.

Those machines are running just as well now as when they were new... and they're heavily used.

That works out to about 40 minutes of IT attention per year, per machine.

Can you claim that your Mac only requires 40 minutes of IT attention per year? I think not.

I've used Macs in the past (including the latest OS) and found the interface to be highly unintuitive, as well as the configuration of certain things to be nearly impossible (like WiFi using WPA encryption, printing to a network printer, etc.)... things that work out-of-the-box on a Windows machine.

I think it's a good thing that Macs are moving to the Linux OS... at least that interface makes some sense... but when I first saw the little bouncing icons on a Mac, I thought to myself, "Great, another toy OS...". And my initial assessment wasn't too far from the truth.

With Windows (Win2K, WinXP, Win2k3), you strip out all the eye candy (so it looks like Win98), and it's intuitive and easy to use. You configure it properly so it's secure. You tweak it so it's fast. You set it up so it takes care of system maintenance on its own.

Then you forget about the machine and go to work with it... without worrying about whether it'll get a virus, or if it'll crash, or if you won't be able to print to a network printer, or if you'll be able to find the icon that starts a program or system service (said icons on a Mac seem to be buried in a VERY unintuitive and very long list of ubiquitously named folders).

Long story short, there's a reason Windows is the dominant OS... because Microsoft put a lot of effort into making the interface intuitive and easy to use and configure. Lately, they've put a lot of effort into making it secure, as well. That's why it'll remain the dominant OS.

I predict that what will happen is that more Mac users will switch to Windows because of this Windows-on-Mac thing.

Wow... every other post on this site is either full of spelling and grammar mistakes or makes a useless point that has been made 10 times already.
As for the article, I found it useless....
FYI - I hate the Ipod.... does anyone know what the "I" stands for? Like maybe, "Internet Pod"? Although that doesn't make much sense, imhop....

I am a PC user from 1996 onwards. I have never used Mac, but I just dont' know why people are going "gaga" over bootcamp. I have XP and Fedora core 4 as dual boot and they co-exist. Bootcamp is another dual boot scenario. If Apple can let us run windows applications without dual boot it would be a real coup. I am not talking virtualization. Any way if you want it cheap buy a Dell or hp and load Linux ( Fedora is good) or build your own.

The computing platform which I prefer is superior to the computing platform which you prefer.

Also, the sporting organization from my local area is superior to the one from your local area.

Ubiquitous: adjective. present, appearing, or found everywhere

After owning 23 Windows systems and now a Mac OS X, I'll never go back to Microsoft madness - it's for the birds.

love will find a way

this is quite amazing.......u do realize that the first question that all program designers that are hired for microsoft are asked is which OS is the best...and there are only three right answers unix, linux and osx...any idiot who says windows is not called back...this jus shows what MS thinks of their own products...im havin a laugh at all those peeps who thick pc's are great

The "red and "blue" analogy was a very poor one. Actually, it may be more accurate an analogy to descrime them like a Mercedes and a Chevy. If you only had to pay 10% or even 20% more for a Mercedes or BMW, the choice is obvious - save your money if you have to; for the quality of experience, the aesthetic glow, durability, resaleability, etc., etc. you would be unwise to save a little, for so much less.

You may think you're saving your money getting the Chevy, but in a couple of years when the plasic door handles and nobs start breaking off, and the motor parts start giving out, per predetermined obsolescent design - then, you will get that sinking feeling. Then - if not immediately after driving off the lot - will you rue the day, you didn't acomidate the opportunity to buy the Mercedes, for only a little bit more. By the way, the price difference is actually much less a difference, than it used to be. (For Macs vs PCs)

As to the pro PC advocates above, two of the most wordy and staunch supporters, and probably the others, are the very ones who are selling their services TO FIX AND MAINTAIN those mashines. That's hilarious.

They are the scribes of the middle ages who are indignant of the Bible or any books being translated for the masses. Man do they hate Guttenburg, and his damn printing press. "Just imagine!, books in English!, in German!!, in FRENCH!!!. My God, what is this world coming to. We are the keepers of knowledge! If this catches on [Apple Macs], we will lose our power!

Don't worry, you will have a job(s) for years to come, but hopefully only a few.

In the mean time, if you people do want to get work done simply and eligantly, get a mac and cruise down the highway of life in style and that oh so perceptable aesthetic glow. Aufvederzane! I can't spell it, but I know it.
(Goodbye in Latin? Latin is all Geek to me.)

NOYGDB, you claim to have used Macs, then in your supreme ignorance blow it out about Apple moving to Linux. And the only way you can keep XP running is to strip it down to 98. Can't quite figure out how to make it run like 3?

And as to what is germain to this article, please let me post an experience.

I am a photographer, and one of my photo labs introduced me to a software they used for the photogs to show their photos to their customers. Naturally, the thought of showing my work to a customer, placing the order, printing a receipt with the thumbs of the pics they ordered, and then sending them over the net directly to the lab and even posting a website for others to view and order online - wow, this made me very very excited. What a cool deal!

Then the catch - it only worked on PCs. I was crushed [I exagerate for a little effect.] The lab guy was adamant (He was a hardcore PCer) "What about Virtual PC?"

"No way, NEVER!" He smugly replied.
I bought the $300 software and the USB toggle. He recomended a guy who could build me a custom mashine. Ug. I was sick of that possibility. My Pismo was getting long in the tooth, and I needed a new mashine - But a PC (Peisa Crapp)! I was really down.

Grrrr. I got Virtual PC on my 6 year old Pismo laptop, went to the software site, downloaded their demo, and it worked! I then called the software company's tech support. They said it couldn't happen. Then I said, "it just happened" They said, "we wount support it." JEEZ LOUiZ!!!

Now I just got a beatiful 17" Intel iMac. I'm so glad I waited. (Stuggle has its previlages.) Now I am truly interested in Boot Camp. Now I can't wait to get it in and get it on!

How neat it will be to bring in my iMac for the monitor to be calibrated by the PC only photo lab guy for his photo printers. I will try to be as gracious as I can. (Hee hee!)

the article is flat wrong on one point. the cost of windows. for 1 licence xp home is 100 dollars, and pro is 200. it's even cheaper oem at newegg.

1. The hardware is beter.
2. It looks better too.
3. For $599 I can get a screaming fast mac mini that also runs XP
4. Why? Run Digital Performer and Cakewalk on the same system.
5. OS X looks better
6. OS X looks better
7 I've been a pc user for 20 years, and I really like OS X
8. even with OS X's faults, I like it better
9. But I still want to use all the cool little freeware music apps I've collected for the PC over the years, weird music and sound generating tools.
10. Mac users have traditionally been arrogant snobs, it's true. boot XP on a Mac just to thumb your nose at them.

I don,t know if i missunderstood you most but at the end it looks to me that running Windows in a Mac is just matter of vanity?

OS X is not copy protected and needs no annoying authorization, so if you have 10 computers, you won't have to buy 10 copies at $100 apiece. XP has to be reauthorized, sometimes just because you pulled a PCI card and replaced it with another one.

Personally, I use both Windows on a PC and OSX on a Mac, although I use Windows more. Admittedly, I'm a gamer, and Oblivion is alot more enjoyable when it works, so that's one thing I use a PC for. Not only that, but i definitely prefer AMD over all else. I also build my own computers.

I would also just like to make a quick point here: the mass population is largely ignorant, doesn't know what they want, and wouldn't know how to get it anyway. To inform some Mac users that are posting here... just because a lot of people use Dells and HPs doesn't mean that they should be taken as the pinnacle example of PC-computing. In my opinion, Dell and HP/Compaq/whatever-they-are-now are terrible unless you don't know what you're doing and just want a computer for the most minimal reasons. You can criticize Windows AFTER you've used it in the right environment, and then I won't have a problem. Windows is very bulky, known to be unstable in certain situations, and isn't idiot-proof. Personally, I know what I'm doing on a PC, and I haven't had a virus in years (I use Norton, by the way, as my primary virus tool... funny how people can criticize.). I use my PC heavily, and as people here have said, if you do it right, it's great. Same with Mac... but it all depends on what you're using it for. Like I said, I use both, and I prefer Windows, but simply because it's more dynamic/flexible, which you can't argue with in comparison to Mac. However, I'd also like to point out that I use Linux, which I prefer over both Windows and Mac in terms of "intelligence."

And by the way, I really do think that Apple would be FAR less successful without iPod/iTunes (which, despite the fact that I am a part-time Mac user, I utterly DESPISE.)

I just like Macs because it is easier to delete the "naughty" content after your done. There are always clues left behind when I use windows...

X Spot wrote:
"NOYGDB, you claim to have used Macs, then in your supreme ignorance blow it out about Apple moving to Linux. And the only way you can keep XP running is to strip it down to 98. Can't quite figure out how to make it run like 3?"

Apple IS moving to a (Linuxish) platform... or isn't BSD enough like Linux to suit you? Oh, BTW, I also use Linux (FreeBSD, Fedora Core, and PHLAK Linux).

And with Apple moving to Intel hardware (which is the same as a PC), you're a fool if you're going to pay a 20% premium for what is essentially a PC, with FreeBSD and a custom themed interface.

Oh, that's right... you're a one-mouse-button, jumping icons, pretty interface, 'can't actually be productive with it' Mac user... you couldn't configure a FreeBSD machine to save your life. So you pay 20% more for the same hardware and software as I do... and then ignorantly proclaim your superiority because it's got an Apple logo on it.

And I don't strip Windows of its eye candy because that's the only way I can make it run... it's done as part of the tweaking to speed the machine up and make it more intuitive to use... Microsoft spent a ton of money making Win98 intuitive, then threw all that out the window to make WinXP look pretty for the masses, so they could sell more copies... if you want to get things done, rather than have a pretty screen, you strip away the eye candy.

I can rework a machine and give it an extra 15 to 20% speed boost over a stock-configured machine, just by knowing what to tweak... and that doesn't include over-clocking, which I'm also good at (I'm running this machine 25% overclocked on CPU, memory and FSB with no problems because I built a custom cooling system for it and use quality components).

You make it sound as though I don't know what I'm doing with computers... but do go on about how your Intel-hardware, FreeBSD-based software machine is superior (and hence, makes you superior through association) because it's got an Apple logo on it. It's ever so amusing.

According to some posters I am a stupid one-mousebutton clueless computer illiterate with very limited mental capabilities due to the use of OS X. So be it.

So far I have not been convinced by those who find it necessary for me to build/configure/tune my own computer, Why? The computer has to work for me, not the other way around. I am sorry I do not like to build/configure/tune my computer, I just have enough building/configuring/tuning to do on my own work. I would like the ability to build/configure/tune my computer if needed and the underlying BSD should suffice just fine.

I have not been convinced by those who find the Windows OS so great they think I'd be better of using it. Why? I live in 2006 and don't see why I should be better of using an aging OS.

Apparently some feel I should wait until 2007 so I can use Windows Vista. Guess what..I do not want to wait until next year. I don't see the point of waiting while there is already an alternative available. I can actually use it right now and have done so yesterday, last week/month/year.

Some think I must be hampered by the inability to run one trillion programs available for Windows. Since I never intended to run one trillion programs on my computer, this has not been an issue for me. Mind you that there are also programs available on OS X which are not available on Windows

Rightfully some say that the availability of games is not as good on OS X as it is for Windows. This is absolutely true, and I hope with Boot Camp this will make it easier for me to play these games without having another computer around just to play these games on.

Anyone who pays for a Microsoft product...

their terrible software, games, xbox, clunky garbage peripheals...all of it..are FOOLS!

pwr wrote:
"I live in 2006 and don't see why I should be better of[sic] using an aging OS."

Here's a clue for you, sparky... OS's don't age (i.e.: become more decrepit over time)... they improve over time.

ALL operating systems experience this. But if you think the Mac OS (prior to the move to its FreeBSD origin) is superior for real-world needs to a Windows OS, you're sadly mistaken.

The reason Apple moved to an Intel-hardware platform is because (by their own admission) it would improve performance. So, we in the WIntel world have had superior hardware, by Apple's own admission, for years.

The reason Apple moved to an OS that is based upon FreeBSD is because it would improve the user experience... so, again by Apple's own admission, Mac users have been behind the times in comparison to even an 'aged' OS such as BSD (which had its inception in 1993, predating WinXP by several years).

Again, there is a reason WinXP is so popular... because Microsoft spent a lot of time and effort ensuring that people can actually GET THINGS ACCOMPLISHED with the OS, rather than just brag about the sleek case design and nifty logo.

Essentially, what Apple is doing to all you Mac-fanatics is leaving you with a legacy OS and hardware platform, and moving to a completely new OS and hardware platform, because even they realize that they've become so far behind the times in terms of usability and speed that the myth of Mac's superiority was getting a bit more than thread-bare.

So, you'll all be required to purchase completely new hardware and software in order to remain forward-compatible with the new Macs... now how much better a deal is a Mac?

I can run WinXP on any Intel-based box ranging from an old 486 (albeit slowly) from 1990, to the latest, fastest hardware. Can you do that with your old Mac hardware with the new Mac OS?

Posted by ehicks on Saturday, April 08, 2006, 04:53 PM (PST)
love will find a way

It already has, it's called Windows XP

'5. You hate the iPod. You can kind of understand why few companies who make digital music hardware and services bother to support the Mac. Why try to compete with Steve Jobs on his own turf? But putting Windows on a Mac opens up opportunities to use subcription-based music services such as Napster, as well as a variety of music and video gadgets that don't work with Mac OS. In other words, it lets you enjoy entertainment in ways that don't necessarily map to Apple's grand strategy.'

Who out there can give any reasons to NOT like the iPod? They are flawless.

Posted by Brett on Saturday, April 08, 2006, 09:18 AM (PST)
"1)Macs are good if you are really into video, picture, audio editing"

"This hasn't been true for more than 10 years."

um- WHY do you think people buy macs? To stare at them? They buy them because those are the things they do BEST.

um- WHY do you think people buy macs? To stare at them?

That, and because they are gullible enough to think that owning a one button mouse computer gives them some kudos!

okay- so their mouse is impressive in the fact that it does everything a normal mouse does and than some.

but i mean- if their mouse is better than the average how much better must their computers be?

just an interesting fact.. Lord of the Rings- MADE ON A MAC. as far as your comment about their video capabilities.

NOYGDB wrote:
"Here's a clue for you, sparky... OS's don't age (i.e.: become more decrepit over time)... they improve over time."
Then DOS must be an ?ber system by now.

"...if you think the Mac OS (prior to the move to its FreeBSD origin) is superior for real-world needs to a Windows OS, you're sadly mistaken."
You mean OS9 being superior to windowsME/XP? Hell no, I may be stupid, but I'm not a retard!

"...So, we in the WIntel world have had superior hardware, by Apple's own admission, for years."
True, the PPC has been lagging development for some time, and Intel catches up. Note however most of 'you' do not use computers with superior hardware since they deem it too expensive.

"The reason Apple moved to an OS that is based upon FreeBSD is because it would improve the user experience..."
Don't forget stability. Perhaps also a reason why they didn't choose WinN(ew)T(echnology)

I know there are some smart people working at Microsoft but it shows so little in the Windows OS. I don't want to baby-sit my computer. I feel that Windows hampers me more in my work then OSX. Even the upcoming Vista is so task oriented that I already feel I have to go through tasklists the OS comes up with rather then do the things I want. Let me peek in the future for a moment...

"Windows Vista Task schedular - your tasks for today:
- install security patch #4AFF838DA34, #4AFF838DA35, #4AFF838DA36 and #4AFF838DA37 (multiple reboot required)
- update virus definitions (reboot required) and scan hard drives (approx. hours)"
- reboot Vista
- update DirextX v13 drivers - (possible manual reinstall needed, reboot guaranteed)"

I don't want to spend my time like this. Yes, just like with regular PC's I need to buy new hardware. Have you not heard the hardware vendors complaining about the Vista delay. Is it perhaps because people have to buy new hardware to run Vista on? Not to mention new software. So why is it ok for windows but not ok for the rest? There are people who run OSX on old hardware and it seems to run although I would not recommend it. But then again there are people running XP on a 486 box.

"Windows Vista Task schedular - your tasks for today:
- install security patch #4AFF838DA34, #4AFF838DA35, #4AFF838DA36 and #4AFF838DA37 (multiple reboot required)
- update virus definitions (reboot required) and scan hard drives (approx. hours)"
- reboot Vista
- update DirextX v13 drivers - (possible manual reinstall needed, reboot guaranteed)"

Or, simply: 'Turn on automatic updates.'

pwr wrote:
"Then DOS must be an ?ber system by now."

No, it is obsolete, replaced by better technology. Microsoft, years ago, went through what Apple is going through right now, dumping an obsolete operating system for better technology. Except DOS will still run on today's PCs, whereas the old Mac operating system won't run on the new Mac hardware.

Frankie wrote:
"Or, simply: 'Turn on automatic updates.'"

Exactly... you turn on Automatic Updates... the next time you shut down the machine, the updates will be installed prior to the machine shutting down.

With the correct antivirus software, your antivirus definition files are downloaded automatically. Virus scans also happen automatically. In fact, you can schedule ALL system maintenance to happen automatically (including defragging). The clients I do IT work for never have to worry about doing anything other than running AdAware and Spyware Blaster once a week or so, since those can't be scheduled to run automatically (although they can be scheduled to start up automatically, so all the clients have to do is click a few buttons). Everything else is done automatically.

OS patches come out once a month, unless there's a real doozie of a security hole, then they release a patch early. But, if your router is secured, your computer is correctly configured, and you use safe computing practices, then there's no need to worry about whether or not you're safe... you are.

I even handle live viruses on this machine, in attempting to reverse engineer them to try to determine who is responsible for creating them... and I've never had a virus that escaped my sandbox. Even if it did, it wouldn't have the system permissions to do anything.

As for stability... I use this machine extremely heavily... I use it to reverse engineer viruses, to fight spammers, to go after online scammers, to program in several languages, etc.

I generally have around 50 processes running (including a couple servers... I run my own DNS server on this machine, and have an FTP server that can only be accessed via port-knocking), and my CPU utilization averages around 60-70%, often spiking to 100% when I'm really pushing it. I consume around 20GB of internet bandwidth per day. And this machine has run for as long as 6 months between reboots, and I only rebooted then because I wanted to get all the accumulated updates installed and drop in a new peripheral card. It could have easily run for another 6 months without any problems. How's that for stable?

And even as hard as I push this machine (and as aggressively as it is overclocked), the CPU never sees 105 degrees Fahrenheit, because of the custom cooling system I built. The hottest part of the machine, the NorthBridge controller, sometimes sees 110 degrees Fahrenheit. The hard drives, sitting in heat-dissipating cages, run just over room temperature.

But even a stock computer doesn't run very hot anymore, with heatpipe CPU coolers and variable-speed, hi-flow fans, in conjunction with lower voltages in modern processors.

Meanwhile, you've got Apple replacing motherboards on MacBook Pros with updated versions because they run so hot (even while idle) that you can't touch them... there's some hardware that'll last a long time, eh? Heat is the number one killer of computer components, and apparently the MacBook Pro runs as hot as a pistol. And that's not taking into account its other problems (WiFi connection problems, screen flicker, etc.).

Macs are nothing more than style over substance... a shiny interface with inferior infrastructure... a Ferrari chassis with a Yugo drivetrain. And the updates and upgrades Apple is currently doing out of desperation because they know they're dreadfully behind the times still don't catch them up with the rest of the computing world.

You couldn't pay me to use a Mac.

"NOYGDB" wrote: "..."

Well if you can do it with Windows you certainly can do it with another OS. The fact that you did not have experienced crashes so often is something many could wish for but in the rest of the OS universe the OS is expected to keep running by default.

Even with the 'overheated' MacBook Pros Apple is lightyears ahead with the computer/grill combination 'IGrill'. Think about it, it's perfect!

So you blame Apple for being on the cutt.. eh.. burning edge. If you can forgive Microsoft for it's current OS state, then surely you can forgive Apple for this due to the fact they are pushing the limits.
If only Microsoft would do this, the computer world would at least be more interesting regardless of which OS you would use.

Parts of the reason I like OS X is also due to the frustrations I have experienced with Windows, so if Apple is more style then substance then the Windows substance is not that much to write home about (currently in 2006)

> You couldn't pay me to use a Mac

Then don't us it.

You're right on one count... Windows isn't perfect.

It's got such a huge user base that the hackers are trying everything to compromise machines... because there's big money in it... they then sell access to those machines to the spammers, who use them to spam through and to host their sites (botnets).

But, Apple has been releasing security fixes of their own recently, at a higher rate than usual... and I guarantee that if Apple had 10,000 hackers constantly trying to crack their OS, they'd have just as many (if not more, since they've not gone through the 'trial by fire' that Windows has) security holes as Windows.

Windows is a battle-hardened OS, it's going through the 'trial by fire' right now, every day. Hackers the world over are trying to crack it, and Microsoft responds by fixing the security holes that are found. And every time they fix a security hole, that's one less available to the hackers... meaning the OS is becoming more hardened over time.

Meanwhile, Apple is enjoying relative quiet... no one WANTS to crack it, because there aren't enough machines with the Mac OS to make it worth their while.

But, when the mongrel hordes begin chipping away at the Mac-fanatics' blissful ignorance of the real-world of hacking, by repeatedly cracking the OS, will Apple be up to the task of ensuring the OS is patched quickly? Most likely, they'll run out of resources before they run out of security holes to fix... because their user base (and hence their income) isn't large enough to cover the increased costs of constantly fixing the OS.

Of course, that's part of the reason they went with an OS based upon BSD... some of the security holes will be patched by people in the open source community, with no costs to Apple.

But the day is rapidly approaching when the hackers will turn their attention to the Mac... I personally don't think Apple is ready for the onslaught.

You are all fools!

Fool#1 hates windows because he/she is a mac snob

Fool#2 is judging the new macs based on the old macs. There was a time when macs were the best choice for "creative" tasks. Now most creative software (music video photography) is cross platform.

Fool#3 is a microsoft snob.

The Mac/PC wars are over. Both platforms have strengths and weaknesses. IF you have an old predjudice against either platform, it is time to get over it, re-evaluate both systems and see what is best. Since you can run XP on your mac now, why not do it that way? Is there a faster machine available in the price range of the Dual Core Mac mini for xp or os x? (Probably - it would be good to see some good price comparisons.

Microsoft snob? I think not... you apparently didn't read what I wrote, or you'd eat your words. I also use PHLAK Linux, FreeBSD, and Fedora Core, and I've used Macs in the past.

The reason I don't LIKE Macs is because I've USED Macs, and found them to be unintuitive and constrictive to a point beyond aggravation.

And for the latest news, you've got Apple's Boot Camp ironically breaking some users' OS X installation, while allowing WinXP to run... and you've got an apparent conflict within Apple, some saying that installing Boot Camp will void your warranty, others saying it won't.

Sounds to me like this is a very disorganized company that creates shoddy, untested hardware and software, relying upon its fanatical user base to continue their lemming-like march into Apple stores to purchase said products, rather than relying upon creating well-designed products that allow people to actually get things done in a trouble-free manner.

Now I'm SURE that when the hackers turn their attention to the Mac, chaos will rein. Apple can't even handle simple hardware and software rollouts without creating confusion and problems... a dozen new exploits per month would be too much for them.

Just a sixth scenario that might lead someone to use Windows on a Mac :
People who like to use a Mac, and yet need to run specialized software that has never and most likely won't ever be brought to MacOS. For instance, all softwares used for mechanical design and simulation (SolidEdge, Catia, Nastran,...).
A Mac running Windows as fast as a real Windows PC, is for me the best of both worlds, bringing together what I need to use and what I like to use. Just add Linux and you get a universal platform, all in one.

NOYGDB wrotes this " Now I'm SURE that when the hackers turn their attention to the Mac, chaos will rein. Apple can't even handle simple hardware and software rollouts without creating confusion and problems... a dozen new exploits per month would be too much for them."
First of all NOYGDM is an abreviation of[none of your god **** business].Just wanted to illustrate the class of the person i am quoting here.
Anyone esp true Microsoft users and professionals,who really know what they are talking about must know this is a kid or a wallmart frequent flyer.It is important for all consumers to weight the pros and cons of all good products> Apple/Microsoft are just 2 tech companies with very good products behind them.What consumers dont need is people posting blind faith,untrue, and actuall malicuous oppinions as NOYGDB has.To actually post that kind of an untrue and malicous post is so very irresponsible to all who read these posts.I wont say which OS I use. I will say NOYGDB post that I have quoted is actually a description of an OS that is frequently sold at Wallmart!!!!!!

Don't forget games Louis Q. Very important!

NOTGDB wrote:
"Windows is a battle-hardened OS, it's going through the 'trial .... the OS is becoming more hardened over time."

But next year the trial by fire will be starting all over again with Vista since big parts of the OS have been redesigned. You might argue that they have learned from their mistakes but if Microsoft then comes up with monad scripting, which security wise is _not_ a smart move to make, it should at least make you wonder...

As for more attacks on OSX, well time will tell what will happen. It might go the way Windows has suffered or it might go the way Linux has handled the attacks. But if you are worried about the way Apple handles hardware, take a look at the XBox 360. With the same reasoning Microsoft is not able to do it either, although they have the resources to test their own stuff. So again why is it ok for Microsoft but not ok for the rest?

As for the comments by J.O. Therfool, alltough I do agree with the overall message, the 'Mac/PC wars' are far from over. The hardware might be more of the same, the principles underpinning each OS are hugely different.

Dan M, good points, except I really don't think you should use a poster's name against them... the internet is a glorious place, no?

Pwr, I don't necessarily disagree with that post, but to be fair, Microsoft's hardware problems with the 360 were largely a supply/demand issue rather than a functionality/compatibility issue. Granted, some performance issues have cropped up with it now, but that's the buisness. And besides, that's a console, not a PC.

Dan M. wrote:
"Anyone esp true Microsoft users and professionals,who really know what they are talking about must know this is a kid or a wallmart[sic] frequent flyer."

Bwahahahaha! You're an idiot. If only you knew who you were speaking of... but then, that 'NOYGDB' is there for a reason. I build my own machines, and they're high-end machines... I run Linux and Windows, and have run Macs in the past.

In other words, these purported "blind faith,untrue, and actuall[sic] malicuous[sic] oppinions[sic]" are based upon actual experience with the various OS's.

I'm now working on a new setup... where a stripped-down version of Linux is installed, virtualization software is installed that is run on the stripped-down version of Linux, and whatever OS's the client wants are installed. Hopefully soon, a virtualization module for the Mac OS will be released, so Windows, Linux and Mac can be run together at the same time on the same machine.

Then people will get the chance to compare the OSs side by side in real-time... and they'll see how unintuitive and restrictive the Mac OS is compared to ANY other OS.

Virtualization will accomplish several things, chief amongst them that the client can SIMULTANEOUSLY run different operating systems, and when an OS gets borked, you just re-image that OS's partition, and they're back up and running in under half an hour. Any working files (documents, photos, etc.) are saved to a different partition than the OS, so when the OS gets messed up, they don't lose their data.

Sound like a "kid or a wallmart frequent flyer" to you?

Conversely, your numerous grammatical and dictional solicisms lead one to believe that it is YOU who most likely contributes to the statistical weighting of the 'Walmart-shopping, slack-jawed, mouth-breathing droolers' category.

Please, for the good of humanity, don't breed.

Frankie, the XBox is a console indeed but it still has Microsoft approved stamps all over it. If the XBox 360 product line has some units failing due to the cutting edginess of the product, I can understand that.

NOYGDB wrote: "... and they'll see how unintuitive and restrictive the Mac OS is compared to ANY other OS."
??? What version of Mac OS are you referring to?

The latest Mac OS version...

I just can't get around the lack of context menus, the one-button mouse (I keep trying to right-click and middle-click, out of habit) without a scroll-wheel (the most useful invention for a computer since the mouse, IMO.), what would be the task bar Start Menu in Windows being along the top of the screen (my eyes naturally look to the bottom of the screen for the controls, just as my eyes naturally look down at the speedometer, tach, gas gauge, etc. on a vehicle. Imagine a car where you had to look at the top of the windshield to see that stuff... it'd be unnatural, and get in the way), the icons that don't seem to reflect anything about the programs or files they represent (and no icon text in the Apple Dock! It's like an overly large Quick Launch toolbar in WinXP... one of the first things I do away with), the Dock itself (forcing you to hover over each icon (Dock scrubbing) to see what it is, and it auto-hiding if you accidentally move off of it while 'scrubbing' across the icons... just like the auto-hide in Windows (which I disable), those god-awful red, green and yellow buttons for minimizing / maximizing / closing the windows (I can never remember which is which and invariably end up clicking the wrong one, or having to hover the mouse to figure out what each one does, which wastes time), that dreadful Finder that makes it harder to find things than by doing a DIR /O:E /S at the command line on a PC, the network printing problems (all my printers are network printers!), the WiFi 'feature' where you have to manually connect each time after a reboot, rather than it connecting automatically (no matter what I did, it wouldn't automatically connect to a WPA encrypted wireless network... not even Apple could figure out how to make that work the way it should), the lack of software for what I want to accomplish with a computer, etc., etc., etc...

Oh, and the bouncing icons... hate those.

Lots of little annoyances that add up to a big headache in trying to use the OS.

I think the problem isn't that the OS itself is too simplistic. It's a sophisticated OS, but the interface is simplified, to keep neophytes from getting themselves into trouble. They've dumbed down the interface so much that you can't get things done quickly. I tend to work so fast that I'm usually waiting for the machine, not the other way around... the Mac forces me to work more slowly because of all the above (and more), which is frustrating.

And, repairing them is no picnic, either... again, because most of the OS controls are buried and / or undocumented, to keep neophytes from getting themselves into trouble.

Now, if the Mac had a Win98-themed interface, that might be something... WinXP's default interface sucks just as much as the Mac's (because Microsoft tried to 'Mac-ify' WinXP to sell more copies (i.e.: add in all the visual doo-dads to make it look pretty for all the 'Wallmart frequent flyers', at the expense of usability)), which is why I strip out all the eye candy (the rounded task bar, the molded minimize / maximize / close buttons, the rounded window title bar, the big, clumsy new Start Menu, etc.) and go back to a Win98 look... it's simple, quick, and intuitive.

I've done the eye-candy-ectomy for a lot of computers (well over a thousand by now) , and each person without fail has said that the machine was easier to use and they got things done more quickly with the stripped-down interface. Not to mention it makes the machine faster.

NOYGDB wrote:
"lack of context menus, the one-button mouse"
That is indeed a pain especially with programs which depend heavily on context menus. I tried single button mouse but it doesn't work. So I connected a Microsoft IntelliMouse (yes a Microsoft mouse) and that solved it.

"what would be the task bar Start Menu in Windows being along the top of the screen"
I never actually think about it. If working on OS X I look up, if working with Windows I look down. Mind you that windows application have their application menus also aligned to the upper side of the window, not to the bottom. Actually I prefer application menus to be within the application window then rather on the top side of the desktop like OS X has, but I also realized that removing the menu from the application window leaves more space to display application stuff. This is then a plus when you have multiple windows running side by side, while they use the common menu space on the desktop. So this is something I got used to.

"Dock scrubbing...bouncing icons..."
I REALLY like dock scrubbing and bouncing icons!

"dreadful Finder that makes it harder to find things than by doing a DIR /O:E /S at the command line on a PC".
Although I am not really fond of the Finder either, I dislike File Explorer just the same. But don't tell me you didn't see Terminal.app. I've got it in my Dock for the occasional find (I'm scrubbing it now, it's so much fun).

"...the interface is simplified, to keep neophytes from getting themselves into trouble."
Unfortunately a lot of people using computers are computer 'challenged', hence the simplification I guess. What is actually needed (for OS X and Windows) is to have an option to have a simplified desktop for regular users and extended desktop for administrators and the like (so that I (admin) don't have to switch all options of File Explorer for example).

"Now, if the Mac had a Win98-themed interface, that might be something"
My eyes hurt just thinking about it...2 bit transparency icons. Anyway I do understand that you know your way around 98/NT and therefore OS X is a challenge. I can only say that for me it has been a fun challenge so far, and I have been introduced to some very handy GUI stuff which made me wonder why in earth people are staring so blindly at Windows and really think the XP GUI is fun, fantastic, exciting, enabling, connecting and all that. In that respect I didn't mind the extra work trying to know my way around OS X. And to be fair you do need some time to know your way around 98/NT just the same. And I guess the same may be said about Vista, but then again I read somewhere that in the future the screen properties will be accessible via a web based GUI where you will have to go through a couple of screens before you get to the properties.

"eye-candy-ectomy...makes the machine faster"
True, but the same applied to the comandline/gui debate, and today GUIs rules. And it is inevitable that more effects and animation will be incorporated in future GUIs to come, if websites are an indication of the GUI evolution. For pure processing this is not a good thing, however computers are now more then processing alone, it's about average people who don't buy a computer to be an administrator or doing maintenance, but to have fun with it and to be creative. Bare bone GUIs are dull and therefore not fun and creative. And no I'm not into marketing.

pwr wrote:
"True, but the same applied to the comandline/gui debate, and today GUIs rules."

That's because the switch from command line to GUI actually helped people to get more accomplished... the Mac interface doesn't, neither does the default WinXP interface. They slow you down, compared to a Win98-style interface. The difference being that it's a simple 5 minute fix to change the WinXP interface, whereas the Mac interface is there, no matter what.

I don't use a computer for entertainment... it's a tool, just like a hammer is a tool. It's used to get something accomplished. I don't need or want a fancy interface... I want it clean, quick, and intuitive.

The Mac 'hammer' is akin to one of those new, flexible-handled, weird-headed no-rebound hammers that don't drive nails very well. It may be fine for some people, and it's a nifty gadget that sparks a lot of conversation, but when driving nails is your main goal, you want a hammer that'll do the job as quickly as possible... in the case of what I do with computers, that's Windows, at least until the applications necessary to do the job are available under Linux.

NOYGDB wrote: "I don't use a computer for entertainment... it's a tool, just like a hammer is a tool."
I compare operating systems with women. You can pick the ones you like, should be fun to live with, nice to look at and each couple of years you can replace them with an new version.

pwr wrote:
"I compare operating systems with women. You can pick the ones you like, should be fun to live with, nice to look at and each couple of years you can replace them with an new version."

Hahaha nice. Interesting concept.