Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
lord_flash said:
At the better part of £2000 a new MacBook Pro is not a toy; not for me at least. Unless I can be confident of running everything I need to - and that's real work, not just iLife - for at least three years, then it's far too much.

Last I checked my £3000 Powerbook G4, or my iMac G5 weren't classed as toys when I bought them, and I didn't need Windows running on them to make the distinction.

I too need the odd bit of Windows software but this situation has got much better in recent years and generally if you look you can find an equivalent, often better written and designed that runs native on OS X. I'd like to see the Windows apps we all need ported to OS X rather than have to run Windows on my Mac, that's not a solution to the problem.
 
luko said:
Dual booting is only appealing to a tiny tiny percentage of users.

So >50% is a tiny tiny percentage? Think about it... if Apple's market share is predicted to double because the Mac can dual boot, then right there you have 50% of the Apple market that uses windows. THEN you count all of the current Mac users that will ADD windows to their boxes... and you have more than 50%.

Despite this though... it's not like Apple would go away... the worst case scenario would be Mac OS X get as much additional software made for it as Linux does (remeber, all Linux users can dual boot), but since more people would use Mac OS, it probably wouldn't even be that bad.
 
I can really understand the arguement that says that we don't want Windows on a Mac because it will mean that software companies become lazy and ditch the Mac version of their apps. However I think I disagree. I am an Architect, a profession who typically love Apple products but use PC's. This is mainly because of certain pieces of software from certain companies who don't believe there are enough Mac users to warrant porting the application. My two are AutoCAD and Rhino 3D. And before you begin, I know there are altenatives but I want and need to use these apps (please just accept the fact).

I own a Mac and do everything I can on it. I have KVM'ed it with a PC for the above apps. I would buy many more Macs if they had a way of running AutoCad better than current Virtual PC speeds.

I really think that if we had a Rosetta for Windows or dual booting, then many many people would be reassured and switch. Once the percentages of Mac users has increased substancially, as I am sure it would, software companies like AutoDesk would take the section of the market much more seriously and port their products properly.

I really believe that the Macs are so much better than the average PC and OSX is so much better than XP (and probably Vista) that I think that it is time for Apple to compete directly. The product is good enough. Believe in it and watch them switch. Then maybe Windows users will start to worry that software houses will consider ditching the windows version of Photoshop!

I can envisage a future where over 50% of the computers in architects offices are Macs and 90% of the notebooks in their bags. Its so close - just one tiny step.
 
To all the people that are dissapointed about lack of EFI support in Vista...

Why would you buy a mac that comes with OSX for free and then moan when a rival company doesnt offer support for running their copied version of OSX?

Look at what Vista does and even how it looks. Its all just OSX in a different box!

If you REALLY need to use Windows (i cant see why unless you are a developer) buy a PC or use VPC.
 
(L) said:
(1) Games are NOT the biggest thing holding Macs back. Market share, however, is. It kinda loops back on itself. You may not like consoles, but there's a machine dedicated to gaming...doesn't sound all that different from your super-costly rig to me, a non-gamer. Would all the games being written for Macs help Macs? Sure. Does Apple seem to think that is significant? As you say, clearly not. Real gamers have rigs like yours anyway, and for the rest of us, hey, we have other priorities.

Which is a mistake on Apple's part, IMO.

Gamers spend a lot of money on their machines, and probably upgrade them more often than most other users.

I bought an Xbox just to play Halo, and if it had been PC-only I might well have bought a PC instead, just to play it. Don't underestimate the drawing power of one 'killer' Mac-only or Mac-first game.
 
It's interesting that the people who have to use Windows regularly, for work or for college or whatever, aren't the ones that are constantly bashing it.

How can you be so sure something sucks so bad if you don't or never have used it? Whilst I'm sure some people have used it and think it sucks, I'm also sure there are plenty of Windows haters who have never used it.
 
JFreak said:
Gamers WERE happy with Macs before everyone begun to code against DirectX, which is yet again a good example how Microsoft abuses their monopoly and fails to play nice with open standards like OpenGL.

Point taken, but looking forward it is unlikely we will return to such a position.
 
macgruff said:
Last I checked my £3000 Powerbook G4, or my iMac G5 weren't classed as toys when I bought them.

Yeah, and your car isn't a toy either. Does that mean you can't use it to go to the park, or a football game or something?
 
ctachme said:
So >50% is a tiny tiny percentage? Think about it... if Apple's market share is predicted to double because the Mac can dual boot, then right there you have 50% of the Apple market that uses windows. THEN you count all of the current Mac users that will ADD windows to their boxes... and you have more than 50%.

The only people who I can see sticking with a dual boot setup are gamers, because you tend to play a game for a long period of time. I'm not a gamer, I could find nothing more tedious than rebooting everytime I needed to switch application, and I am one of the people who needs certain Windows apps.

The fact that dual booting would be more appealing to gamers brings up another thing. Gamers tinker with their computers more than anyone! I highly doubt an Imac is likely to satisfy a hardcore gamer, or any mac for that matter.
 
ctachme said:
Yeah, and your car isn't a toy either. Does that mean you can't use it to go to the park, or a football game or something?

No... but I probably couldn't use it in the park or to play football.... :D

I fail to see your point....
 
fatfish said:
How can you get on with your "real work" under OSX, while you have the thing in bits for an upgrade or a virus problem on the windows side of things.

Imagine designing a web page in OSX and having to reboot to windows and back again, to see if it works in IE under windows everytime you make a change.

Sarcasm aside, recent versions of Windows work very well. I can leave my Windows XP and 2003 machines up for weeks at a time, just as I do my OS X machines.

Many of us who prefer using the Macs and OS X where possible also need applications that have no acceptable equivalent in the OS X world, and need to have some sort of Windows access if possible.
 
seriously, how can anyone believe that apple is not against booting windows crap, at least I don't believe it from the day one.

sooner or later, they'll build a special mama chip into apple "labled" case and still call themself not against it. Yeright, they won't be able to against real hackers, that's for sure.
 
luko said:
It's interesting that the people who have to use Windows regularly, for work or for college or whatever, aren't the ones that are constantly bashing it.

How can you be so sure something sucks so bad if you don't or never have used it? Whilst I'm sure some people have used it and think it sucks, I'm also sure there are plenty of Windows haters who have never used it.

How can I be sure.
I'm in business. The number of times I ask for something to be sent by email only to be told ''email is not working at the moment, I'll send it by post''. Or "I'll phone you back my system has just crashed". Or "can you call back, we have a problem, but our IT guy is working on it".
Or even outside of business, the number of people who bring me stuff to do for them, because their PC can't do it or is not working, is unbelievable.

Just because I don't use one doesn't mean I can't see why I don't use one. I haven't died yet, but I know I don't want to.
 
JFreak said:
...and in that regard all non-IE browsers are only a good thing.
I echo those sentiments completely.

And I would go a step further (beyond browsers) in that I really don't think that two dominant computing platforms are much better than one... the computing world would do much better if there were four or five. And Windows users would be better off in such a situation even if they were still the majority platform at something like 50% market share... because the other platforms help create a buffer from attacks on their platform.

The ills of a homogeneous environment were proven decades ago in the agriculture industry. When people planted field after field of the same crops, they became vulnerable to viruses and pests. Entire crops were lost as these viruses and pests were able to move unchecked from field to field.

Currently most large scale farms will not harvest similar crops next to each other and will instead plant something different between them to act as a buffer to slow the spread of such contaminants.

It was this argument that was put forth by both government and university security experts in the mid 90s in suggesting that federal, state, local, corporate and educational computer networks not be homogeneous (I wish I still had some of those reports, they were very interesting and foresaw much of what people are dealing with today).


It should also be noted that people at Microsoft are aware of the dangers of having a homogeneous environment, but the culture within Microsoft is that of a state of fear. Difficult as it may be to believe, Microsoft honestly thinks that it is constantly on the verge of collapse. They see their dominance as momentary which is why they are willing to take some of the most extreme (and anticompetitive) measures in any area they set out in. And what they have found is that it is easier to deal with the massive attacks on their users, the law suits, the settlements and the penalties than it would be to innovate and compete on a level playing field.

This isn't meant as an excuse for their actions, just to point out the mind set (and internal culture) that turned Microsoft from the company it was in the early 80s to the one it is today.

While it would definitely make my work easier if IE was standards compliant, things could have been worse if things like Visual J++ and MS-HTML had gotten a foot hold. :eek:
 
stuartluff said:
If you REALLY need to use Windows (i cant see why unless you are a developer) buy a PC or use VPC.
VPC is fine for my needs, but it hasn't yet been ported for the Intel Macs. I actually prefer VPC to dual-boot. Afterall, I want to be using my OS X apps at the same time, and like the ability to copy files between the two systems.
 
fatfish said:
How can I be sure.
I'm in business. The number of times I ask for something to be sent by email only to be told ''email is not working at the moment, I'll send it by post''. Or "I'll phone you back my system has just crashed". Or "can you call back, we have a problem, but our IT guy is working on it".
Or even outside of business, the number of people who bring me stuff to do for them, because their PC can't do it or is not working, is unbelievable.

Just because I don't use one doesn't mean I can't see why I don't use one. I haven't died yet, but I know I don't want to.
that's the mac elite problem, I love mac, but I never think pc is worse than mac, come on, does mac give you orgsm? it's just a case, you'll get result depending on how much you know. DOn't blame the machine if it just not fit your "style".
 
fatfish said:
How can I be sure.
I'm in business. The number of times I ask for something to be sent by email only to be told ''email is not working at the moment, I'll send it by post''. Or "I'll phone you back my system has just crashed". Or "can you call back, we have a problem, but our IT guy is working on it".
Or even outside of business, the number of people who bring me stuff to do for them, because their PC can't do it or is not working, is unbelievable.

Just because I don't use one doesn't mean I can't see why I don't use one. I haven't died yet, but I know I don't want to.

So you base your decision on the fact someones email doesn't work? lol....

The guy down the road from me can't play one of his DVD-Rs in his Sony DVD recorder. It's hardly cause for me to go round saying Sony DVD players suck ass!

And don't forget aswell, 90% of computer users use Windows, 5% Macs. Guess why you hear more about problems with Windows than you do with Macs? That also means a far higher percentage of un-tech savy people buy Windows machines. My mum has one, she ain't got a clue how to do anything but web surf. I'm quite sure it would be the same if she had a Mac.

I'm not saying Windows is better, I don't think that. I'm saying once you've used both equally then you can comment and then I'll listen

I dunno, it's like saying a movie sucks without even seeing it.
 
macgruff said:
No... but I probably couldn't use it in the park or to play football.... :D

I fail to see your point....

But in order to get to the park you need the car. That's my point. The computer (or car) itself aren't toys... but they can be used to facilitate gaming, or work, or school, or whatever.
 
In my experiences, dual booting is a bad idea. If you need Windows, and you need OS X, it is best to have them running on their own machines.

I would venture to say that many of the people who talk about dual booting on this forum have never really tried it to see how useless it can be.
 
macgruff said:
Last I checked my £3000 Powerbook G4, or my iMac G5 weren't classed as toys when I bought them, and I didn't need Windows running on them to make the distinction.

Now that's an expensive iMac... £3000 (U.K) = $5209 (U.S).

[/QUOTE]I too need the odd bit of Windows software but this situation has got much better in recent years and generally if you look you can find an equivalent, often better written and designed that runs native on OS X. I'd like to see the Windows apps we all need ported to OS X rather than have to run Windows on my Mac, that's not a solution to the problem.[/QUOTE]

I quite agree. But at the moment, as an end user, that still hasn't happened. Just one example: I'd buy Quicken if it could do all that magic account-linking automated stuff that the Windows version does. But the potential time saved by it makes a few boots worth it.

Perhaps dual-boot machines are just for obsessives who want the most possibilities in the smallest space, who why deny me that?
 
timswim78 said:
In my experiences, dual booting is a bad idea. If you need Windows, and you need OS X, it is best to have them running on their own machines.

Yes, but, but, but... some folk live in tiny flats in city centres. Dual boot in a single laptop isn't a bad idea, i promise you.
 
ctachme said:
But in order to get to the park you need the car. That's my point. The computer (or car) itself aren't toys... but they can be used to facilitate gaming, or work, or school, or whatever.

Which was also my original point to a previous post - that a Mac can be used for serious business - as well as other activities. Including games (Yes I have a number on my Mac), granted not as many as PC computers...yet. I'd like to see that change but I dont think running Windows on my Mac is the best solution for the Mac platform. I have no objection if someone hacks it so they can get Windows runing on their Mac, I just dont think allowing Windows to easily install on the Mac is the right solution. Getting developers to port apps and games to the Mac natively is the solution, switching to the Intel Platform is a big step in that direction, Windows on Mac would be two steps back, its a short term fix at best.

I have an Xbox, I dont cry that it doesn't play all the Playstation games out there, I bought it for its own strengths and the software catalogue it has (Which is smaller than the playstation). If I want to play playstation games I'd buy a playstation (in addition to my Game cube and my Dreamcast :D )
 
macgruff said:
I have an Xbox, I dont cry that it doesn't play all the Playstation games out there, I bought it for its own strengths and the software catalogue it has (Which is smaller than the playstation). If I want to play playstation games I'd buy a playstation (in addition to my Game cube and my Dreamcast :D )

So you have the minority Xbox, GC and Dreamcast (of which, like, five were ever sold) - everything but the dominant PlayStation - and your computing platform is Apple (which, let's be fair, doesn't have a controling percentage of the industry).

Since it's not an anti-M$ thing, it seems to me like you're just keen to be in the niche market, whatever sector? :)
 
macgruff said:
I have an Xbox, I dont cry that it doesn't play all the Playstation games out there, I bought it for its own strengths and the software catalogue it has (Which is smaller than the playstation). If I want to play playstation games I'd buy a playstation (in addition to my Game cube and my Dreamcast :D )

Ah but....you don't remember hearing these such discussions before Apple to switched to Intel.

What I'm saying is, for example, if it were realised that your Xbox 360 was built with the exact same components as the PS3 and there was a possibility of legally running PS3 games on your Xbox 360 I bet my house that you'd be interested!!!

You don't cry about it now because you know there's no chance that's it's ever gonna happen. So it's unfair to compare the two. :)
 
luko said:
So you base your decision on the fact someones email doesn't work? lol....

The guy down the road from me can't play one of his DVD-Rs in his Sony DVD recorder. It's hardly cause for me to go round saying Sony DVD players suck ass!

And don't forget aswell, 90% of computer users use Windows, 5% Macs. Guess why you hear more about problems with Windows than you do with Macs? That also means a far higher percentage of un-tech savy people buy Windows machines. My mum has one, she ain't got a clue how to do anything but web surf. I'm quite sure it would be the same if she had a Mac.

I'm not saying Windows is better, I don't think that. I'm saying once you've used both equally then you can comment and then I'll listen

I dunno, it's like saying a movie sucks without even seeing it.

Yes I do base my opinions on someone elses experience, what is wrong with that. Otherwise I'd need a field to put all the different models and makes of cars I'd bought just to see which one is best. Get real man!!!

As for un-tech savy people, I have a lot of them working for me, I'd much rather have someone like that working on a mac than a PC. And these un-tech savy people are part of the reason I draw the conclusion I do. Without exception, the people who work on my macs all say thier own PC's at home are always having problems they don't get on my macs.

In fact if everyone was tech savy, I'd be less inclined to choose a mac, I've no doubt with a little experience the PC is just as reliable as the mac, but the point is most users don't have that experience.
 
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.