For those who continue to bash Microsoft - A Question

Morgandy wrote in post #3243471
Yours is a bad analogy as well. If you're trying to compare cars vs. cars, then saying that Macs can't use all roads is not fair.

I can name a TON of titles that don't run on a Mac without emulation of the supported OS. It's a great analogy.

Porta. All my car software. Some of my panorama software. I mean the list is almost endless as to what doesn't run on a Mac without emulation.

Yes, Mac doesn't roll on some roads. Suck it up.

cosworth wrote in post #3244191
I can name a TON of titles that don't run on a Mac without emulation of the supported OS. It's a great analogy.

The Intel-based Macs don't emulate Windows - they run it natively. That means my Macs can run any software that runs under XP (and probably Vista).

Macs are just another Intel-based PC. They just happen to have an Apple ROM soldered on the logic board that allows them to boot OS X. This ROM isn't necessary to boot Apple's version of UNIX, which is open source (Darwin), but it is required to run Aqua, the OS X interface and support files.

You can install XP Pro SP2 on a Mac without installing OS X and run it just like any other Win XP machine. That's the beauty of Macs - if you don't like OS X, just erase the hard disk and install XP Pro and you've got a well-built, high-quality, bona fide PC that will "roll on [all] roads."

Nice.

You do realize that Intel based Macs do not account for %100 of Mac market share right?

If I posted every postulation of statistical significance with every POTN response I'd get pretty tired of typing. Generalizations are the norm. I'm well aware of what an intel based Mac is capable of. Even with that, I still own a PC.

It's not 100% of the market share, but it's the only growing segment of the market share. If they aren't already, PPC Macs will be in the minority soon.

Tony-S wrote in post #3244600
You can install XP Pro SP2 on a Mac without installing OS X and run it just like any other Win XP machine. That's the beauty of Macs - if you don't like OS X, just erase the hard disk and install XP Pro and you've got a well-built, high-quality, bona fide PC that will "roll on [all] roads."

Why would I want to run windows on mac?

The mac is more expensive and doesn't allow the same flexibility as PC does in terms of upgrade flexibility and components. If I were to get a mac, I'd run it on OSX and that is limiting.

DocFrankenstein wrote in post #3244971
Why would I want to run windows on mac?

Well, only you can know why you would want to Windows on a Mac. The reason I have it is because I have research software that is Windows-specific, thus the need to have Parallels. My day job isn't photography.

The cost of similarly-equipped Macs and PCs is about the same - close enough that it's a wash. Most Macs are not as flexible as many PCs, but then again, most PCs aren't as elegant as Macs.

Stev-o is not out there to seek to rule the world. He is appealing to professionals and amateurs alike. He is challenging us out of the box. To think differently. Mac will never be the vast majority of users out there. And Apple is OK with that.

Microsoft is a company that I have had the pleasure to work for, a very visionary but also a very matter of fact type approach. Their software may be argued to be second class, but their genious of integrating program upong program (remember, if it wasn't for Microsoft, today you'd have to pay to get Netscape Navigator, or Music players). They are both very different Companies.

I liken this debate to the Canon vs. Nikon threads. Is there really a superior brand, destined to conquer the galaxy?... I think not. Perhaps before we die, we end up finding out that the big players had stocks going on both companies at the same time.

Sticks and Stones, love. Different tools for the job.

mjgravina wrote in post #3245053
if it wasn't for Microsoft, today you'd have to pay to get Netscape Navigator, or Music players)

how so?

Just google anti-trust battles of Microsoft vs these companies back in the 90s.

BTW, I only work on Microsoft Products, and Microsoft has literally put food on my table. So I am not bashing at them.

Now that I think about my own quote up there in your post, I guess if Microsoft had not done it, perhaps Apple would have gotten away with it (Integrating Browsers and Players to their OS). Jobs used to say "Good artists copy, Great artists steal".

I love his enthusiasm...

mjgravina wrote in post #3245144
Now that I think about my own quote up there in your post, I guess if Microsoft had not done it, perhaps Apple would have gotten away with it (Integrating Browsers and Players to their OS). Jobs used to say "Good artists copy, Great artists steal".

Yes, but keep it in context. He uses it in reference to Picasso.

Tony - ..In regards to the quote and the context, I don't think so.

But we can agree to disagree. This would be the wrong place to tangle in a he-said she-said game.

I assume it would also be easy to depart from the OP and make this loooong thread about something completely different.

Cheers,

I dont understand why there is even a debate on this issue. Why do people spend so much time trying to convince the other person that their system is better? Why do you care what someone else uses. This almost sounds like a religious argument. If you are not Christian you are going to hell !! If you dont use a PC your going to hell !! When you see a photo and I will use this as an example because this is a photography forum, you cant say.. man that picture must have been PP on a PC or that must have been done on a Mac. People use what they use for a reason why try and change them, its not like if you get a PC guy to change to a Mac you get a prize. Who cares, use what you use and dont worry about the other guy. If you think Mac is better, use a freakin Mac, if you think PC is better, use it. Personally I use a Mac, I have reasons I like it better, but I couldn't care less what you use. I also am not going to change your mind. If someone asks me why I chose it, I will share, but for crap sakes there is no need for computer system evangelism. I dont care what religion you believe, if you like Ford over Chevy or Mac over PC, it has no effect on MY life and it shouldnt on yours. Quit preachin to me about you system!!..........whew​.... that was long, now if that could only stop this conversation once and for all.........never happen, but oh well

I do not know if anyone mentioned in this long thread as I only read the OP but I think the reason MAC's don't get viruses is not because it Can't but because the people that make viruses don't bother inventing them for MAC because it wont screw with enough people.

However since MAC has decided to boast that they don't get viruses, I can see MACs getting MAC made viruses because of their bragging they dont get viruses. Yeah I know that MAC memory works different then PC memory and all that, but don't kid yourself thinking that one can not be invented to by pass that OS.

After the Viruses NORTON ANTIVIRUS makes to keep themselves in business, usually the true virus makers are lazy Geniuses that make these things because they hate their life, work a job they hate and this is the only thing they can do that challenges them enough. I wouldn't be surprised if one day soon MAC is plauged with Viruses it wont know how to handle because it spent too much time advertising they don't get viruses.

Not knocking MACs though. My brother has one and if a good mac was around $1000, I would probably buy one. This is just something I think about every time I see that smug hip MAC guy knocking the geeky PC Accountant guy about Viruses, error messages, etc. The MAC company is asking for it from Virus makers to invent a mac virus.

mjgravina wrote in post #3245218
Tony - ..In regards to the quote and the context, I don't think so.

Picasso made this statement just before his death in 1972. He was referring to "great" as the ability to build and expand upon the works of those before him. This is opposed to "good" that referred to those who simply emulated someone else's work. Jobs, with his undeniable ego, asserts (without actually ever saying it) that he's "great" because he took Xerox's GUI and made it better (Mac). This was also the principal issue of Apple's lawsuit against Microsoft when Windows was introduced. Apple asserted patent infringment and lost. The judge noted that what Microsoft did to Apple was no different than what Apple did to Xerox.

Can you imagine what computing would be like today if Xerox had aggressivly protected their GUI and developed it as an operating system interface? I don't think Apple or Microsoft would be around.

Xerox Tony-S? So we'd be complaing which OS is better Xerox or Brother? LOL