Was going to switch, now not so sure...

[mick4394]

You can benchmark it all you want. I don't need a test tell me how a PC is supposed to work.

Am I to take these reactions to mean that you guys think that buying a Mac to primarily run Windows is a smart idea? If you paid attention to my entire post, you'd realize that was my point.

 

[JAT]

You can benchmark it all you want. I don't need a test tell me how a PC is supposed to work.

Am I to take these reactions to mean that you guys think that buying a Mac to primarily run Windows is a smart idea? If you paid attention to my entire post, you'd realize that was my point.

No, but you apparently need someone to tell you. What on earth is the problem with your Win install that it can't match the native resolution of the laptop? (that's my assumption of your problem) WinXP/BootCamp runs perfectly on my CD 1.66 Mini, and adjusts to whatever screen I use. So far, an old CRT multiscan and an LCD TV. No muddiness or whatever you are talking about. I haven't jumped through any hoops to get resolutions to match. It behaves exactly like my Dell tower at work in this regard. And better than the crap Latitudes I had before.

Comparing virtualization to an actual hardware PC is stupid, don't do that. No one says Parallels can replace an actual PC. Or Linux box, when talking about Parallels for Windows. It is what it is, and works for some programs just fine.

I would probably wait until Apple's drivers (Boot Camp is still beta, never make beta anything your enterprise solution) are all finished before determining whether a Mac could be the best WinXP machine around. Or Vista. The latest update addressed the most significant problems, like right-clicking on a laptop.

 

[NewSc2]

Notice the part in parenthesis . I tend to right-click A LOT more when using Windows, and for some reason use keyboard shortcuts in OS X. I can't put my finger on what the difference is, but it's there somehow

I realized it after I took a few lessons in Logic Pro -- Apple just shies away from using right-click (for people with one-button mice and people on trackpads). Some really basic functions on Logic Pro which should be right click are instead double click, shift-click, a keyboard shortcut, or a menu. In Logic you can edit the key commands so it sorta solves the problem, but it's inherent in most Apple software.

Once you get used to it it's not that bad, but right-clicking to bring up a menu tab should be inherent. In Logic I have to remember to command-click, ctrl-click, hold click, shift-enter-click, push escape twice, to achieve faster workflow. It's probably faster that way once I remember everything, but come on, 1 right click -> 1 menu -> 1 tab w/ 4 options is totally easier to remember.

 

[JAT]

My Macbook is slower than my 4 year old PC in doing very basic things -- playing videos, surfing the net, using Office programs (NeoOffice is slow, OpenOffice is slow, MS Office is slow). Granted it's faster in doing other things, and I love Expose, but if it weren't for Logic Pro I'd definitely have switched back to PC. You get a different feeling from both OS's (Windows seems better supported and quicker, Mac more stable and consumer-friendly).

How can it be slower in playing videos? Do you mean it doesn't actually achieve the proper frame rates? And surfing? You have something else wrong. Office is not native, slowness is guaranteed. And it will be a year before native is out. But it is usable, it's faster than Office was on my Dell Latitude that died early this year.

There are some really quirky things about OSX that boggle me -- lack of a simple program like Paint, Windows's calendar is more accessible, animations = cooler looking but slower, almost total lack of WMV support, no Windows Media Classic, lack of full right-clicking implementation -- instead they make up for it by having a ctrl, alt, and apple key (i know there really is a right click and it usually does what it does in Windows... but not always). Also having to Apple-N all the time instead of clicking the icon (i.e. clicking Firefox in XP will bring up a new Firefox window... in Mac you gotta Apple-N... same with Finder windows). Mac users say Windows feels bloated but it seems like with the huge amount of support (and MS sticking to x86 ever since), many common Windows programs take up less resources (IE, AIM, Winamp 2, WMC, Windows Explorer, etc.) and seem to be much better optimized than common Mac programs.

Quirky isn't the word, just different. It simply operates in a different way from Windows. That's why switching, or using both, requires some learning. There are some things like this that I like better in OSX, some in XP.

 

[mick4394]

No, but you apparently need someone to tell you. What on earth is the problem with your Win install that it can't match the native resolution of the laptop? (that's my assumption of your problem) WinXP/BootCamp runs perfectly on my CD 1.66 Mini, and adjusts to whatever screen I use. So far, an old CRT multiscan and an LCD TV. No muddiness or whatever you are talking about. I haven't jumped through any hoops to get resolutions to match. It behaves exactly like my Dell tower at work in this regard. And better than the crap Latitudes I had before.

Comparing virtualization to an actual hardware PC is stupid, don't do that. No one says Parallels can replace an actual PC. Or Linux box, when talking about Parallels for Windows. It is what it is, and works for some programs just fine.

I would probably wait until Apple's drivers (Boot Camp is still beta, never make beta anything your enterprise solution) are all finished before determining whether a Mac could be the best WinXP machine around. Or Vista. The latest update addressed the most significant problems, like right-clicking on a laptop.

There really seems to be a reading problem around here. You repeat half my points as if it's the first time they've been said. Admittedly, you reworded a lot of what has already been said, which may have clarified some things.

Again, I repeat, are you people saying that it makes sense to purchase a Mac to primarily run Windows?

(Believe me, I expected hostility over this, but it seems like you guys only read the comment about how crappy Windows looks and feels on the Mac. What about everything else that's been pointed out in this thread?)

 

[balamw]

There really seems to be a reading problem around here. You make half my points as if it's the first time they've been said.

You still haven't said how exactly your 2 year old eMachines outperforms a Mac running Windows, while my low end iMac equals recent Conroe based Dells?

B

 

[mick4394]

To quote many long time Mac users "It just works".

The funny thing here is, ultimately, I suggested that the guy makes the switch. I was just warning him that making the switch, with the idea that he could fall back on Windows, if he didn't like OSX, was a bad idea.

 

[balamw]

To quote many long time Mac users "It just works".

The funny thing here is, ultimately, I suggested that the guy makes the switch. I was just warning him that making the switch, with the idea that he could fall back on Windows, if he didn't like OSX, was a bad idea.

(Believe me, I expected hostility over this, but it seems like you guys only read the comment about how crappy Windows looks and feels on the Mac. What about everything else that's been pointed out in this thread?)

Now you're talking about look & feel? I still don't get the point you think you're making.

An iMac/MBP running windows will perform as well as any other Merom C2D based PC with an X1600 video card. It'll look like the super small footprint all in one machine or slimmer than average notebook that it is. How it feels is a bit more subjective.

There are plenty of folks running Windows in Boot Camp occasionally and some more regularly to exclusively. Most are reporting equal or superior performance to other PCs. You are essentially alone stating that it's inferior. In what way, under what conditions and for what application(s).

I presume you're saying that the eMachines "just works" and the Mac doesn't. In what way, under what conditions and for what application(s).

I certainly wouldn't recommend a Mac to run Windows in every circumstance, but there are coses where the function (i.e. also runs OS X, FCP, etc...) and form & fit (There aren't many iMac or Mac mini form & fit equivalents sold as PCs) can make it a viable option.

EDIT: It's not hostility, but what you report is just foreign to my experience so I need more data to comprehend your specific issues.

B

 

[deadpixels]

There is also the fact that the MBP's Superdrive has a lot of flaws (no region free, poor burning quality on many premium brands of discs, many reports of stuck/jammed discs).

apple does not make dvd drives so whatever they use is the same as the ones you get on pc laptops, and by the way, there is no manufacturer that sells region free dvd drives in laptops just because it's illegal. i had a alu powerbook for 3 years and never had a stuck disc in it, or problems with the superdrive for that matter. and you should know that every year apple is actually the best rated when it comes to customers satisfaction .

 

[Eraserhead]

/end rant.

Re: Macbook speed try sticking 1GB or 2GB of RAM in the damn thing, then it will be a LOT faster than 4 year old hardware (even without it was level with my iMac G5 (with 2GB RAM), which is faster than 3Ghz P4's by a long way)

Instead of Paint try Seashore

Re: IE being good, ha ha ha, on *every* PC (and everyone I know uses PC's rather than Mac's so I have a fair bit of experience) I have ever used IE is a POS, it is less reliable that Camino nightly builds, that shows how shocking it is, though version 7 may be a lot better.

Re: Two button mice, with my iMac G5 I always used a 2 button mouse, sometimes the right click menu is a bit lacking on the Mac, I have to admit I think that 1 button by default is best, many users (even on Windows) don't understand the Left/Right click thing, so that the OS is designed for them is good. Though on Pro programs maybe you need to be able to edit the right click menu.

 

[BSME]

not trying to become a part of the threadjacking, BUT my macbook 1.83 white runs windows XP just like any other pc with the same specs would, and my top of the line dell from 2-3 years ago sits side by side with it.

no reason to think just because it's a mac that it won't run windows as well, it's now on the same setup.

it's like saying a dell won't run windows as good as a HP, it makes no sense logically.

it ALL depends on the hardware being compared...

 

[Zadillo]

I still don't get why he was saying using Boot Camp for Windows looked stretched and blurry - the only time Windows looked like this was before I installed the video drivers. Once I did, it looked just like Windows on my desktop LCD screen. Nothing stretched or blurry; the only way to get that effect is to just run at the wrong resolution.... if I switch my PC's resolution to something besides the native LCD res it will look the same.

I agree with his other point, it would of course be kind of silly to buy a MBP solely to run Windows, but I do know a handful of people who have done that, just because they like the MacBook or MBP hardware.

 

[lmalave]

Back to original topic...

1) When I started reading some user forums about FCP, most people seem to agree that Apple's claims of FCP's realtime HDV capabilities are unrealistic and overrated. On the PC side, there are many solutions available for editing HDV, such as Cineform in Premiere/Vegas, Canopus HQ in Edius, etc., but on FCP it seems you are stuck with native HDV or transcoding to DVCProHD (which is a more lossy format than the other intermediate codecs). There also seem to be a lot of bugs and gotchas when working with HDV in FCP, such as problems capturing continuous footage with correct timecode, poor quality when downconverting to SD, inability to import M2T files from direct-to-disk recorders, etc.. Many of the "elite" FCP forum regulars on sites such as lafcpug.com actively berate people just for shooting in HDV, which they claim is an inferior format that should be avoided at all costs (even though PC editors seem mostly happy with it). Since I'm already comitted to HDV and can't afford to switch to anything better, this really turned me off of FCP. I hope they are wrong and Apple's claims are right...

2) There are a couple other troubling issues specific to the MBP. Some users report that the screen brightness is not uniform across the screen, this seems to be luck-of-the-draw. There is also the fact that the MBP's Superdrive has a lot of flaws (no region free, poor burning quality on many premium brands of discs, many reports of stuck/jammed discs). Granted, it is an easy problem to get around by using an external DVD drive, but I feel this should not be necessary on a brand new, top-of-the-line product.

3) With the "useful for work" aspects in doubt, its hard to justify spending $2000 on a toy. That money would buy me half of a new camera or a lot of other equipment like mikes, lights, etc.

1) This is really *the* key issue for you, I think. If FCP can't do the things you really need it to, and the other software you mention is not avaliable for OS X, then it sounds like switching is a bad idea

2) I don't think these are really big issues. You can't judge by what you see in forums since the fact is Mac users are abunch of big complainers The fact is that Macs in general (including the MacBooks probably), have the *lowest* defect rate out of any computer maker. I'm not sure about the specific numbers for the MBPs, but I'll bet they're the lowest in the industry. It's just that you don't have any similar culture of ToshibaForums or AcerForums or GatewayForums, so any little issue with any Macs become magnified in terms of their visibility.

3) Going by specs, the MBPs are definitely overpriced by several hundred dollars. You're basically paying for style points. The MBPs are the thinnest and most unique-looking (most *tastefully* unique looking anyway) laptops on the market. If that is of no value to you, then the MBP is not going to seem like a good value. Obviously, people that *are* willing to pay that much do so because a computer is something they usefor hours a day and also travel with, so they are willing to pay a premium for the MBP's design. Also, IMHO the fact that the Macs run OS X close the "value" gap by at least couple hundred dollars for me, but of course everyone has their own opinion on the value of OS X.

 

[Blue Velvet]

Running video-editing/processing apps on a Firewire 800-equipped laptop would be desirable for scratch disk and storage purposes, I would have thought...

 

[PygmySurfer]

Notice the part in parenthesis . I tend to right-click A LOT more when using Windows, and for some reason use keyboard shortcuts in OS X. I can't put my finger on what the difference is, but it's there somehow

It's that the keyboard shortcuts in Windows suck

 

[PygmySurfer]

Many of the "elite" FCP forum regulars on sites such as lafcpug.com actively berate people just for shooting in HDV, which they claim is an inferior format that should be avoided at all costs (even though PC editors seem mostly happy with it). Since I'm already comitted to HDV and can't afford to switch to anything better, this really turned me off of FCP.

If you're happy editing in HDV, who gives a damn what some "elite" jackasses on some FCP forum say? I'm not a video editor, but to me it seems your best bet is to use the native format of your camera. If cameras support more than one format (I don't know), I'd think you'd use whichever you prefer. Besides, isn't HDV on the Mac the same as HDV on Windows?

 

[scott523]

To quote many long time Mac users "It just works".

The funny thing here is, ultimately, I suggested that the guy makes the switch. I was just warning him that making the switch, with the idea that he could fall back on Windows, if he didn't like OSX, was a bad idea.

The quote does make sense in a way such as turning it on right out of the box or dragging the icon in the apps to the trash when to uninstall some of those apps. But after 5 days, my right MB speaker just didn't work.

 

[Blublub]

Call it what you want. I wasn't presenting it as an opinion. It's fact. Macs don't run Windows as well as PCs.

I know it's not popular to say around here, but it's true.

Sorry, but that most definitely isn't "true" - something must be wrong with your Boot Camp installation. You did update the apple drivers, right? Boot Camp on my MBP C2D is the best Windows machine I've ever had, and I've had loads.

 

[typecase]

You can benchmark it all you want. I don't need a test tell me how a PC is supposed to work.

I've run Windows machines for most of my life and this doesn't make sense at all. Macs are basically PCs now. My last Macbook Pro ran windows perfectly and everything looked "right" down to the last pixel. Perhaps you did something wrong during your install.

 

[mkaake]

Call it what you want. I wasn't presenting it as an opinion. It's fact. Macs don't run Windows as well as PCs.

I know it's not popular to say around here, but it's true.

Er, you're out of your mind. I mean that in the most polite way possible. But you do realize, that with the hardware we're running, if you boot into Windows, you're running a PC, right? Same components as any other windows PC, the only difference at that point in time being what the case looks like. And the last time I checked, the 'cool' factor of a case didn't determine how well Windows runs on a PC.

So no, it's not a fact, it's a really really really misguided opinion. If your mac doesn't run windows as well as a same-spec'd PC sitting next to it, you've done something to eff up your windows installation.

One last time - once you decide to boot into XP instead of X, you're no longer booting up a mac - you're booting up a PC. The *only* reason you need Bootcamp is to emulate BIOS, and provide drivers for the components (which, believe it or not, you'd have to do if you built your own PC anyway). There's seriously no difference.

Sorry for contributing to the off-topicness.

 

[mick4394]

Er, you're out of your mind. I mean that in the most polite way possible. But you do realize, that with the hardware we're running, if you boot into Windows, you're running a PC, right? Same components as any other windows PC, the only difference at that point in time being what the case looks like. And the last time I checked, the 'cool' factor of a case didn't determine how well Windows runs on a PC.

So no, it's not a fact, it's a really really really misguided opinion. If your mac doesn't run windows as well as a same-spec'd PC sitting next to it, you've done something to eff up your windows installation.

One last time - once you decide to boot into XP instead of X, you're no longer booting up a mac - you're booting up a PC. The *only* reason you need Bootcamp is to emulate BIOS, and provide drivers for the components (which, believe it or not, you'd have to do if you built your own PC anyway). There's seriously no difference.

Sorry for contributing to the off-topicness.

Here's the deal. After reading my comments, and comments from others, I decided it's probable that there is something wrong with my install. I have the updated drivers and the latest beta of Boot Camp. I checked my resolution. Everything checks out.
I've decided I'm going to blow my Windows install and start from scratch. Something is screwed up with the video. I thought it was just a Boot Camp bug that would be ironed out with later releases, but based on posts in this thread, I would agree that something must be messed up with my install.
Sorry for making an ass of myself.

Regardless of my stupidity on the subject of Boot Camp, I still stand by my point that it's pointless to purchase a Mac to primarily run Windows.

 

[Zadillo]

Regardless of my stupidity on the subject of Boot Camp, I still stand by my point that it's pointless to purchase a Mac to primarily run Windows.

I do agree with this in general (I think it is kind of silly to buy a Mac just for the hardware and not ever use OS X with it.... or only occasionally use it).

Having said that, I do know a handful of people who have at least bought MBP's simply because they like the hardware but primarily run Linux and/or Windows on them. I can't necessarily argue with this; if they just like the hardware and look, but don't want or need to run OS X, I can't say they are "wrong" for purchasing it for that purpose.

 

[mick4394]

I do agree with this in general (I think it is kind of silly to buy a Mac just for the hardware and not ever use OS X with it.... or only occasionally use it).

Having said that, I do know a handful of people who have at least bought MBP's simply because they like the hardware but primarily run Linux and/or Windows on them. I can't necessarily argue with this; if they just like the hardware and look, but don't want or need to run OS X, I can't say they are "wrong" for purchasing it for that purpose.

Hey, if you've got the money to blow, why not? But, most of us aren't sitting around trying to figure out new ways to waste our money.

If you're looking for a Windows laptop, there are better, more affordable, solutions than buying a Mac.

 

[Zadillo]

Hey, if you've got the money to blow, why not? But, most of us aren't sitting around trying to figure out new ways to waste our money.

If you're looking for a Windows laptop, there are better, more affordable, solutions than buying a Mac.

Possibly, yes, but again, for people who just really like the hardware, and prefer it over, say, some cheaper Asus options (which would otherwise be quite recommendable), I again can't say they are "wrong". I do know people who don't like the look or hardware of those "better, more affordable" solutions.

And it's not like the current C2D MBP's are deficient hardware-wise. I can see someone even now buying one and running Linux all the time on it, for example, or Windows, just because they like the hardware.

I think it would be kind of silly to not make use of OS X, but people have different tastes.

-Zadillo

 

[mick4394]

I think it would be kind of silly to not make use of OS X, but people have different tastes.

-Zadillo

Agreed. This is, basically, my point.

I'm not trying to push people to use PCs. When I first purchased a Mac, I bought it thinking it would be a nice secondary machine. Two iBooks and a Macbook later, it's become pretty much my primary machine.

My PC is still my home base. I use it mostly for storage of media and transferring with Tivo ToGo. But, my Macbook is my everyday work horse. At this point I don't know that I could go without a Mac or a PC. I just like both.

I think a lot of people will buy Macs, based on looks, thinking they'll install and use Windows, only to find that OSX is a suitable alternative.