Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Not an XP thing, but many PCs have a nice hardware Sleep/Hibernate button which is often convenient...

The hideously old code in Windows has one advantage - old hardware without OSX drivers (the manufacturers were too lazy to go past OS9) doesn't work without Parallels/VMWare/Sheepshaver...
 
Not correct. Modern graphics cards are EFI compatible. OS X just doesn't have drivers for them. So now we have to wait on Apple to support the cards (which is why "3rd party" drivers can be an advantage). Another part of the problem is Apple doesn't have a machine cost less $2500.
EFI!? Who won modern gamers was determined back in the days of Win95 and OS 8 & 9 NOT OS X and XP (Vista). The graphics card companies could have written drivers for the cards but the desktop solutions at the time were expensive compared to the x86 solutions so they didn't. And you're right, Apple didn't make it easy for game companies.
 
3. Cmd+Space "Saf" Enter and Safari is launched. A lot easier and quicker than Windows key, arrow key, arrow key, arrow key, arrow key, arrow key to what you want. (my guess on this one is that we agree to disagree).

I like how we've come full circle. Back when PC's were DOS machines, my Mac-fanboy friends (we were all in high school at the time) would keep making fun of me for using the keyboard to type names of programs into the DOS command line when they would just click and drag and double click. Even though, as you Spotlight users have discovered, the typing method is frequently more efficient.

Especially now when Macs now boast a Unix shell, which is far superior to the DOS/Windows command line.

Call me a geek, but that's pretty much what brought me to switch. As a Windows user, I loved my CLI... and when I saw that OS X gave me all the pretty stuff and a real shell too... sold!
 
EFI!? Who won modern gamers was determined back in the days of Win95 and OS 8 & 9 NOT OS X and XP (Vista). The graphics card companies could have written drivers for the cards but the desktop solutions at the time were expensive compared to the x86 solutions so they didn't. And you're right, Apple didn't make it easy for game companies.

I was just replying to what you said about compatibility with todays Macs (well Mac Pro as it were). Back in the Windows 95 days Direct3D really wasn't dominating, OpenGL was still seen as the better choice. You are right about the cost difference between x86 vs PPC. It was (is) a chicken egg situation, hardware (GPU's) require games and the games require the hardware (GPU's). Open Firmware didn't help Apple any in that regards, nor did the lower market share.

I would venture to say that if every Mac user in the PPC days would have wrote Apple/ATI/Nvidia calling for support or simultaneous release of PC/Mac hardware they may have listened (after all who wants to leave money on the table like that).

It didn't happen, as most Apple users don't see games as something inportant. Most Apple users that want to play games are happy with giving MS money (read:buying Windows, or an xbox/360), so Apple has no incentive to make overtures to game makers to get more games on the Mac platform.

Think about it this way, why didn't Apple fight MS for Bungie? Think about Apple releasing the xbox with Halo versus MS doing it. Where would Apple be today if they had embraced that market (and had $4 billion to burn)?
 
EFI!? Who won modern gamers was determined back in the days of Win95 and OS 8 & 9 NOT OS X and XP (Vista). The graphics card companies could have written drivers for the cards but the desktop solutions at the time were expensive compared to the x86 solutions so they didn't. And you're right, Apple didn't make it easy for game companies.

its hard to develop anything for a company who want to close everything.

its also hard when apple only offers limited hardware combination choices. which makes their marketshare decisively super small. There are plenty of users who want to play advanced games, they can do with with $300 on a PC desktop, while mac has no match at all. OSX changes nothing in these situations. mac just can't cover the mass market in its current mode.

its even harder when apple is famous for cutting into the profit of its partners. especially when they control every piece of hardware of a mac.

all in all, its apple's attitude toward partnership, as well as its way of control, makes the games very hard for macs, back in 1990s, as well as today with OSX. OSX vs. Vista, for gamers, even if they were to be on same level right now from start. Vista will still be winner.
 
its even harder when apple is famous for cutting into the profit of its partners. especially when they control every piece of hardware of a mac.

all in all, its apple's attitude toward partnership, as well as its way of control, makes the games very hard for macs, back in 1990s, as well as today with OSX. OSX vs. Vista, for gamers, even if they were to be on same level right now from start. Vista will still be winner.

I agree. Apple may say it locks its hardware to ensure compatibility with its software, but the greater truth is that they make the majority of their profits from their hardware, and not their software. And that hardware is very tightly controlled--proprietary AC adapters, batteries, peripherals, everything. As long as the hardware is essentially solely marketed, distributed, and available via Apple, few companies will want to invest money in partnerships with them, because it isn't much fun to play with the kid on the playground who never lets you use his toys.
 
What does MAC do right? I can list about 100 things that it does better than Piece of crap to <gasp> :eek:[/QUOTE]


You dont know what your talking about you mean you can list 100 things that "mac" does better piece of crap pc always get viruses face it you already lost 4 more things "1"the speed suck"2" the ram suck"3"why would you want to install leopard on "piece of crap=pc p=piece c=crap"4" Apple rocks trust me i have 4 and i know one is intel core 2 duo 3.00ghz mac pro
other imac g5 intel core 2 duo 2.4ghz black and silver mac mini 2.00 ghz intel core 2 duo and other a very old one that still works very very good
powerPC 7300/180 crecendo 500"mhz"and still works good
"g3"! thats why apple rock's to bad you made a big mistake Piece of crap is Crap LOL!!!:D:apple: apple rock out loud!!!!!!
 
Yes mac does have a machine now that costes less than 2500$ its called mac mini it costs 599$ for 1 gb of ram 1.83ghz 80 gb of space combo drive and 829$ for 1 gb of ram 120 gb of space and superdrive the rest i dont know im not sure if the one for 829$ comes with 2gb of ram:cool::D:cool::D:cool::D:apple::apple::apple::apple:
 
In all seriousness, it has the large market share (granted it is dwindling), it sells (according to figures) and makes big profits (before Vista anyway).
That's quite a big thing to get right.
 
Yes mac does have a machine now that costes less than 2500$ its called mac mini it costs 599$ for 1 gb of ram 1.83ghz 80 gb of space combo drive and 829$ for 1 gb of ram 120 gb of space and superdrive the rest i dont know im not sure if the one for 829$ comes with 2gb of ram:cool::D:cool::D:cool::D:apple::apple::apple::apple:

Somebody buy this man some punctuation marks! :eek:
 
What does it do wrong.. in my case nothing yet , but its a boring and irritating OS. I have no comment on the Zune. :eek:
 
I might be resurrecting a thread that's better left in the past, but...

I came to this thread by searching for threads on the topic of "Focus-Follows-Mouse" or FFM. So, I thought I'd comment on this...

Here's something else you can do in Windows but can't do in OS X: Point to focus. It's the ability to switch windows without clicking on them, but merely by pointing to them with the mouse. This way, you can type, scroll, or otherwise fully use a window/program without bringing it into the foreground; the focus automatically follows your mouse. Sound cool? Yeah, it is. And it's something Windows users have had for ages. Unix users too. But apparently, there isn't a way to enable this in OS X. And that's a shame.

Okay, it's interesting that this is the opposite of my experience. So, I'm curious about your set-up.

The reason that I went looking on this topic was because I was so fed up with the lack of ANY kind of this behavior in Windows, especially around scrolling. I can't tell you how often I'm in a DB program and I've selected an element in a pop-up field, then I mouse over to the list that popped up and try to scroll the list using the scroll wheel, only to have my selection in the pop-up field changed because I didn't click my focus out of that field. This behavior drives me NUTS!

Now, to be fair, there are Windows apps that do let the scroll focus follow the mouse, such as Outlook, but it seems to be the exception, not the rule. Indeed, even in Outlook, if I mouse over an Explorer window that's in the background I cannot scroll it, let alone cause any keyboard input to go into it, without clicking on it to bring the focus to it.

Now, for my money, in general I don't want FFM. I've worked on Unix systems where it was set up, and I was forever accidentally pulling windows to the front because I had bumped the mouse, or tried to move it out of the way of where I was typing. It can be an extremely annoying thing. But scroll focus is definitely something different. I, for one, find that it is intuitive and logical that the scroll focus should be where the mouse is. After all, if you're scrolling (using the scroll wheel), then you're hand is on the mouse.

In any event, in my experience, Windows does not do this consistently, but OS X does. If I'm wrong, I'd love to know it.

In any event, while I freely grant that Windows does do some things better than OS X, OS X does do a much better job of maintaining consistency in UI throughout all applications. In general, the exceptions that I've found are usually (though not always) programs that have been ported from a Windows version without significantly changing the UI to match the Mac OS HIG.

Beyond that, they're both tools. Each has its strengths and weaknesses. Each is appropriate to be used in certain areas and not in others.
 
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.