Linked by Eugenia Loli on Fri 13th Jan 2006 04:28 UTC, submitted by Dan Warne
Apple Reports spreading across the web that Intel Macs can't boot Windows XP might be inaccurate. Intel Australia, while being careful not to comment on Apple's hardware specifically, says motherboards based on the Intel 945 chipset already support EFI and can boot Windows with no problems. The key appears to be whether Apple has included a "compatibility support module". Explored in more depth in this article at APC Magazine.
Order by: Score:
oh man
by poundsmack on Fri 13th Jan 2006 04:34 UTC
poundsmack
Member since:
2005-07-13

god i want a mac that can dual boot windows!!!

Reply Score: 1

RE: oh man
by modmans2ndcoming on Fri 13th Jan 2006 05:16 UTC in reply to "oh man"
modmans2ndcoming Member since:
2005-11-09

why? It would be better to fire up VMware and run windows in full screen mode in that, then you can be in OS X and not have to wait for a boot cycle.

Reply Score: 1

RE[2]: oh man
by Eugenia on Fri 13th Jan 2006 05:18 UTC in reply to "RE: oh man"
Eugenia Member since:
2005-06-28

Not if you want to play games, or run a very cpu-hungry application, or you need more RAM or storage than it is already allocated. In these cases, native is better.

Reply Score: 5

RE[2]: oh man
by EmmEff on Fri 13th Jan 2006 05:18 UTC in reply to "RE: oh man"
EmmEff Member since:
2005-09-16

VMWare doesn't exist for OS X. Virtualization is a nice thought but not for a desktop machine.

Reply Score: 1

VMware (was RE[3]: oh man)
by jasone on Fri 13th Jan 2006 05:25 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: oh man"
jasone Member since:
2005-07-06

I fully expect that VMware will support OS X in the near future.

As for virtualization not being good for a desktop system, I strongly disagree. I find VMware immensely useful. I have one desktop machine that meets pretty much all of my needs, but I would need 5 or more machines if it weren't for VMware.

Reply Score: 2

RE: VMware (was RE[4]: oh man)
by situation on Fri 13th Jan 2006 05:31 UTC in reply to "VMware (was RE[3]: oh man)"
situation Member since:
2006-01-10

It's good for common desktop applications, but like the above poster said, any games and VMWare will simply not do. The biggest and most obvious reason is that VMWare (at least the Windows and Linux versions) don't use the underlying video card. To my knowledge, VirtualPC does not either. So that rules out 3D games being emulated on Mac, and so a native install would be necessary.

Reply Score: 1

BlackJack75 Member since:
2005-08-29

What abou Q-Emu there's already an OSX (PPC) version and Linux versions for Intel so it shouldn't be too long before we get a port.

Reply Score: 1

RE[2]: oh man
by StephenBeDoper on Fri 13th Jan 2006 16:30 UTC in reply to "RE: oh man"
StephenBeDoper Member since:
2005-07-06

Or better yet, have a KVM and two machines.

Reply Score: 1

RE: oh man
by Zenja on Fri 13th Jan 2006 22:59 UTC in reply to "oh man"
Zenja Member since:
2005-07-06

Oh man, how I want to read intelligent comments on a web site forum instead of meaningless childish babble like -gimme -gimme -gimme.

Reply Score: 1

re: oh man
by dylansmrjones on Fri 13th Jan 2006 04:43 UTC
dylansmrjones
Member since:
2005-10-02

For those living in Europe, there will most likely still be the option of applying binary patches so they can run Mac OS X on standard x86 hardware.

This approach may however be illegal in USA.

[edit: What's up with the reply-function? :s ]

Edited 2006-01-13 04:44

Reply Score: 2

RE: re: oh man
by happycamper on Fri 13th Jan 2006 09:14 UTC in reply to "re: oh man"
happycamper Member since:
2006-01-01

if that is still possible i'll move to europe

Edited 2006-01-13 09:16

Reply Score: 0

RE[2]: re: oh man
by BlackJack75 on Fri 13th Jan 2006 09:19 UTC in reply to "RE: re: oh man"
BlackJack75 Member since:
2005-08-29

Why don't you try changing your own country rather than escaping to canada or europe?

Reply Score: 0

v RE[3]: re: oh man
by modmans2ndcoming on Fri 13th Jan 2006 16:09 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: re: oh man"
I hope this is true.
by gfacer on Fri 13th Jan 2006 04:44 UTC
gfacer
Member since:
2005-11-10

Apple would be much better off if this is true, as the recent previews of Vista look pretty nice, visually.

Apple would be better off having users compare against XP where OSX looks and works better. Having said that, I think a native Virtual PC for the intel Macs will be the "killer app", because working with it has the potential to be so seamless (and Microsoft has incentives to do so, the double income of Windows licenses and Virtual PC)

I'm still on the sidelines of a new purchase until this is all figured out by those more adventurous than me.

Reply Score: 1

RE: I hope this is ...
by glarepate on Fri 13th Jan 2006 17:45 UTC in reply to "I hope this is true."
glarepate Member since:
2006-01-04

I'm still on the sidelines of a new purchase until this is all figured out by those more adventurous than me.

What is it you need figured out? You know Vista will run on the new MacIntels. Is it important to you to be able to have XP on it for some reason? Compatibility testing, benchmarking, evangelism, something else?

Reply Score: 1

Gateway uses EFI...
by mezz on Fri 13th Jan 2006 05:49 UTC
mezz
Member since:
2005-06-29

I believe that Gateway uses EFI for a while like one to two year(s), but I don't know if they are using speical Windows version or normal one.

Reply Score: 1

RE: Gateway uses EFI...
by chekr on Fri 13th Jan 2006 06:13 UTC in reply to "Gateway uses EFI..."
chekr Member since:
2005-11-05

would you happen to know what models were using efi?

Reply Score: 1

RE[2]: Gateway uses EFI...
by BlackJack75 on Fri 13th Jan 2006 09:20 UTC in reply to "RE: Gateway uses EFI..."
BlackJack75 Member since:
2005-08-29

It doesn't matter if you support EFI the question is to know whether they support _only_ EFI. Most PC manufacturers obvioulsy have a bios compatibility layer. Who would sell a PC today which can't run winxp?

Reply Score: 1

RE[2]: Gateway uses EFI...
by mezz on Fri 13th Jan 2006 19:17 UTC in reply to "RE: Gateway uses EFI..."
mezz Member since:
2005-06-29

I don't know until someone recently pointed me to this article.

http://www.kernelthread.com/publications/firmware/

Current day IA-64 computers use EFI-based firmware. Gateway even sells an IA-32 system with EFI-based firmware: the Media Center 6x0, which uses Insyde Software's InsydeH2O firmware. InsydeH2O includes a CSM for legacy BIOS runtime compatibility.

Reply Score: 1

v If you had bothered to check
by Snooks on Fri 13th Jan 2006 06:21 UTC
Question
by Walter on Fri 13th Jan 2006 07:20 UTC
Walter
Member since:
2005-07-12

Can someone explain to me *why* I would pay (more) money for an Apple PC and have it run a Microsoft OS?

And for a reason like "Playing MS-based games" or "It's more compatible" I would like to dismiss these. When you choose an Apple, you already know these reasons and are prepared to sarcifice these for your own reasons.

No I don't have a Mac, but I am thinking about buying one.

Reply Score: 3

RE: Question
by rayiner on Fri 13th Jan 2006 07:22 UTC in reply to "Question"
rayiner Member since:
2005-07-06

If you were thinking about buying one, wouldn't not having to sacrifice these things make the decision much easier?

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: Question
by Walter on Fri 13th Jan 2006 08:13 UTC in reply to "RE: Question"
Walter Member since:
2005-07-12

For some people these are sacrifices, not for me. I do not game that much, and I chack my (external) hardware for compatability, send my documents in PDF format, etc.

So no sacrifice for me.

Reply Score: 1

RE[3]: Question
by DevL on Fri 13th Jan 2006 08:28 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Question"
DevL Member since:
2005-07-06

On second reading of your original post I'm under the impression that you believe "Mac running Windows" = "Same Mac not running Mac OS X". There's a thing called dual boot, you know.

Besides, options (even such ghastly option as being able to run Windows) is a Good Thing (TM).

Reply Score: 1

RE[4]: Question
by Walter on Fri 13th Jan 2006 08:34 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Question"
Walter Member since:
2005-07-12

I know about dual boot ;) .
My PC is running 3 OS-es. Windows XP (because my boss wants me to learn about it), Debian, and FreeBSD.

Reply Score: 1

RE: Question
by DevL on Fri 13th Jan 2006 08:25 UTC in reply to "Question"
DevL Member since:
2005-07-06

"Can someone explain to me *why* I would pay (more) money for an Apple PC and have it run a Microsoft OS?"

For some silly reason you still need a Windows-specific application (or game) and don't want to run it emulated in Virtual PC or Q(EMU).

"And for a reason like "Playing MS-based games" or "It's more compatible" I would like to dismiss these. When you choose an Apple, you already know these reasons and are prepared to sarcifice these for your own reasons."

I wouldn't be so quick to dismiss said reasoning. I for one like to play the odd game once in a while, but at the same time I loathe Windows for my daily work. So, having a Mac capable of running Mac OS X and Windows (only for games, mind you) would be great.

And those that aren't prepared to make the sacrifice need not = Apple gets more customers.

"No I don't have a Mac, but I am thinking about buying one."

Smart move, you won't regret it. I've got two by the way.

Reply Score: 1

RE: Question
by danwarne on Fri 13th Jan 2006 08:25 UTC in reply to "Question"
danwarne Member since:
2005-09-04

Very simple... I am forced to use Windows at work because we have a number of custom applications that only work on Windows (and besides, there's no good way to access Exchange Servers on a Mac).

I have a shitty work PC which IT has been promising to replace for months but hasn't.

When I'm at home I choose to use OS X because I much prefer it to Windows and I don't need to run any Windows software at home.

If I get a MacBook Pro, I can use it at work as a Windows machine for my "office PC" and at home as an OS X machine for my "home Mac". Conceivably data could be shared between the two operating systems too.

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: Question
by BlackJack75 on Fri 13th Jan 2006 09:23 UTC in reply to "RE: Question"
BlackJack75 Member since:
2005-08-29

You could share easily, the same way as with a linux/windows machine. Just create a Fat32 partition for data exchange and you're set. Fat32 being the only format that most Operating systems can both read and write safely.

Reply Score: 1

RE[2]: Question
by mallard on Fri 13th Jan 2006 14:51 UTC in reply to "RE: Question"
mallard Member since:
2006-01-06

there's no good way to access Exchange Servers on a Mac

Microsoft Entourage not good enough?

Reply Score: 1

RE: Question
by alcibiades on Fri 13th Jan 2006 08:42 UTC in reply to "Question"
alcibiades Member since:
2005-10-12

You might like the hardware, without particularly liking OS X, and you might be prepared to pay a premium for it. People do that all the time with other things. The form factors are unique. Some don't particularly like all-in-ones, but if that's what you want, who else makes them? Similarly, where else are you going to find that particular laptop design other than from Apple?

Its not too different from people buying the machine they want, packaged with Windows, and then putting Linux on it. Happens a lot with Linux - you cannot find the one you want without a preload. Like, if you wanted the new Acer carbon fiber bodied ones, you'd have to buy with Windows preloaded.

The amusing thing about this question though, is surely going to be the chorus of people explaining to Walter that actually, Macs are the same price or cheaper. Should be fun. Start with the Acers, please!

Reply Score: 1

RE: Question
by theTSF on Fri 13th Jan 2006 13:05 UTC in reply to "Question"
theTSF Member since:
2005-09-27

FYI. prices are competitive with Apple Products with DELL. I was wondering on the Price difference. So I matched similarly specked (I had to customize both to make them similar) laptops

Dell Inspiron 9400 $3,302
MacBook Pro $3,248

Now to be fare the Dell Inspiron did have a 17" display while the MacBook Pro was only 15. So I added the cost of the apple care program which is about the same as a size upgrade, when comparing older powerbooks of equal specs at different sizes.

Granted that with Dells and other PC you have a wider selection of options that allow you to customize them more closely to your budget. Vs. Apples one size fits group of people. But the Price of Apple Systems are about the same with as its equally match PC brethren.

Reply Score: 1

RE[2]: Question
by Deviant on Fri 13th Jan 2006 16:20 UTC in reply to "RE: Question"
Deviant Member since:
2006-01-04

I don't know why I am letting myself get sucked into this but $3302 seemed really high for me from Dell (My company buys alot from them and keep myself aware of their various models pricing on a day to day basis).

A visit to Dell's Home site (without my discount) reveals the following. There is no Inspiron 9400 from what I can tell - There is the 9300 which is based on the Dothan Pentium-M and the E1705 which is the Yonah/Core Duo based one. Here is the pricing...

Dell E1705 Decked Out:
*Intel® Core™ Duo Processor T2400 (1.83GHz/667MHz FSB)
*Genuine Windows XP Professional
*TV Tuner w/ Remote Control
*17 inch Wide Screen XGA+ Display
*1GB Dual Channel DDR2 SDRAM at 667MHz
*100GB 5400RPM SATA Hard Drive
*8x CD/DVD burner (DVD+/-RW) with double-layer DVD+R write capability
*256MB NVIDA® GeForce™ Go 7800
*Intel PRO/Wireless 3945 802.11a/g Mini Card (54Mbps)
*Dell Wireless 350 Bluetooth Internal(2.0 + Enhanced Data Rate)
*53 WHr 6-cell Lithium Ion Primary Battery
*1Yr Ltd Warranty, 1Yr Mail-In Service, and 1Yr HW Warranty Support

Total - $2,288

MacBook Pro:
*1.83GHz Intel Core Duo with 2MB shared L2 Cache
*15.4-inch TFT display with 1440x900 resolution
*1GB (single SO-DIMM) 667MHz DDR2 SDRAM
*100GB 5400rpm Serial ATA hard drive
*Slot-load SuperDrive (DVD±RW/CD-RW)
*ATI Mobility Radeon X1600 with 256MB GDDR3 memory
*Apple Standard 1 Year Mail in Warranty
Total - $2499

So the Dell comes with a bigger and better screen, a TV tuner and faster video and it comes in less. And, this is for their just introduced 1st gen Yonah platform - you go back to a 2Ghz Pentium M Dothan Inspiron 9300 configured as above (except for ATI X300/128MB graphics) and the price drops to ~$1700.

And - this is without any Dell discounts and there are usually coupons and discounts on top of these prices. My company is a Gold Partner with Dell and I get a EPP discount with Dell that knocks the E1705 as configured well down below the $2000 mark.

I like Mac laptops and, having a 12" PowerBook 64, I am willing to concede they have a better build quality than a Dell by a long shot. I am also willing to concede that iLife and OS X brings some value to the Mac. However, making out that it is cheaper than a Dell is just not true - Dell is always, and will always be, cheaper than an Apple for similar hardware and it is the one big thing they have going for them. They sell so many they make it up on the volume - they are the Wal-Mart of the PC industry.

Reply Score: 2

RE[3]: Question
by rayiner on Fri 13th Jan 2006 16:55 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Question"
rayiner Member since:
2005-07-06

The 9400 can be found here http://www1.us.dell.com/content/products/features.aspx/inspn_9400?c...

It's $2724 with a $300 instant discount (when you add in Bluetooth). For that price, the Dell has a better graphics card, and bigger screen, but the Mac is lighter, (5.6 lb versus 7.9 lb), better-built, has a built-in camera and a remote. The "OS X tax" is very reasonable in this circumstance.

Edited 2006-01-13 17:07

Reply Score: 2

RE[4]: Question
by Deviant on Fri 13th Jan 2006 18:09 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Question"
Deviant Member since:
2006-01-04

Interesting is that they don't list that under their Home section of their site.

http://www1.us.dell.com/content/products/compare.aspx/notebooks?c=u...

I have never seen them exclude an Inspiron model from Home before as it is their Home brand - Latitude is the buisiness one and I would understand it if it was one of those. They instead have the more cyptic Inspiron E1705 listed there... After some research they seem to be pretty much the same thing though. I wonder what dell is thinking here...

Reply Score: 1

RE[4]: Question
by Zenja on Fri 13th Jan 2006 23:05 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Question"
Zenja Member since:
2005-07-06

Dell starts hurting more than Apple when you go and customise the box with a larger faster hard drive, bluetooth, power supply, screen dotpitch etc. Plus you miss out on iLife, iSight, backlit keyboard with ambiant sensor, anti motion hard disk protection, magnetic power connector, plus all other software like development kits etc.

Plus the Dull looks boring. Apple boxes turn heads.

Reply Score: 1

RE[5]: Question
by somebody on Sat 14th Jan 2006 00:23 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Question"
somebody Member since:
2005-07-07

Dell starts hurting more than Apple when you go and customise the box

Can't read? Who was talking about Dell? When in this life was Dell selling Opterons?

Plus you miss out on iLife, iSight, backlit keyboard with ambiant sensor, anti motion hard disk protection, magnetic power connector, plus all other software like development kits etc.

Oh, god you're pathetic.
1. Like I wouldn't already own Mac. And you can believe me, not impressed at all.
2. If I would only miss obscure file formats where I would be incompatible with the rest of the world. But if I would choose proprietary formats, I would go with MS and be compatible with 95% of people.

Development kits? Thanks, everything but Xcode. Tried once, didn't liked it.

Anti motion hard disk protection is common for notebook hard disks these days.

Magnetic power connector? Do they include auto piloted iDildo for you to be so impressed or what?

For me:
I won't miss how LCD has a sucky resolution
I won't miss Intel

Plus the Dull looks boring. Apple boxes turn heads.

Actualy Apple look goes well only with kitchen appliances according to my taste.

Reply Score: 1

RE: Question
by chrish on Fri 13th Jan 2006 14:09 UTC in reply to "Question"
chrish Member since:
2005-07-14

The only thing keeping me (and my wife, for that matter) from going all-Mac is gaming. Sad, but true. I've got a bunch of older games that have never been ported to OS X that I'm not willing to abandon, and my wife can't leave her Nancy Drew adventure games behind. :-)

- chrish

Reply Score: 1

RE[2]: Question
by ohhmaagawd on Fri 13th Jan 2006 14:20 UTC in reply to "Question"
ohhmaagawd Member since:
2005-11-15

because apple makes the best hardware around.

Reply Score: 1

RE[3]: Question
by halfmanhalfamazing on Fri 13th Jan 2006 16:58 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Question"
halfmanhalfamazing Member since:
2005-07-23

You said :"because apple makes the best hardware around."

LOL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Reply Score: 1

RE[4]: Question
by elsmob on Fri 13th Jan 2006 17:36 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Question"
elsmob Member since:
2006-01-09

I agree, stating that Apple makes better hardware is completely subjective...not fact.

Reply Score: 1

RE[3]: Question
by somebody on Fri 13th Jan 2006 16:59 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Question"
somebody Member since:
2005-07-07

because apple makes the best hardware around.

wow, mac zealots never stop

Time to face the harsh reality for you. It is a fsckin PC hardware, nothing more. Not best, not worst, just a fsckin ordinary PC hardware as any PC vendor out in the world, soon all PC notebooks will be Centrino duo. Some of them were even before Apple. Me personaly? Waiting for some Cell based notebook, otherwise Turion will be the way to go:)

In case of PC notebook, Sony is way more elegant than Apple. Also (for me specific), price in our country differs for almost a factor 2x. And nah, I don't need iWork or iWhatever, if I would like to use obscure proprietary formats, I would use MS software, it is at least in use by way more people.

Reply Score: 1

RE[4]: Question
by halfmanhalfamazing on Fri 13th Jan 2006 17:04 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Question"
halfmanhalfamazing Member since:
2005-07-23

Seems you caught that at the same time I did.

Have you been to the apple website lately? My stomach hurts from lmfao so much.

Just a year ago, and historically, apple has been the leader in telling us how ppc is 4 times faster at this 10 times faster at that and 80 times faster at the other thing. All your x86 are belong to ppc. you know the drill.

Now, go to their website.

x86 is 4 times faster at this, 10 times faster at that and 80 times faster at the other thing. Now all your ppc are belong to x86. The drill you used to know is wrong.

Here, drink this kool aid. It's good for your health. And buy this bridge from me too.

*EDIT* But I disagree with you about sony laptops. Apple makes a better lap than Sony does. VAIOs IMHO are horrible. All your laptops are belong to alienware.

Edited 2006-01-13 17:06

Reply Score: 1

RE[5]: Question
by somebody on Fri 13th Jan 2006 18:12 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Question"
somebody Member since:
2005-07-07

Have you been to the apple website lately? My stomach hurts from lmfao so much.

Not even near as funny as sudden change of mac zealot religion:) All suddenly saying my PC is better than your PC.

But I disagree with you about sony laptops. Apple makes a better lap than Sony does. VAIOs IMHO are horrible. All your laptops are belong to alienware.

Alienware? Not for me, but if there is a model that suits my needs (bellow), just tell me. I'm looking one year already for some 64-bit notebook that suits my needs, (64-bit is my internal need, not some performance need, since more and more servers I support are moving to Opterons) preferably Turion.

Maybe biased, but here I go:)

What do I need from notebook?
1. Extra high resolution, extra good screen (MacBook pro??? 1440x900??? I can't even remember when it was last when I worked on such small resolution. Unusable for me)
2. Thin and light
3. Battery that can last 4 hours, in my experience, well, I never needed more in my life.

What I don't need from notebook?
1. CPU, my current notebook runs downclocked to 600MHz. This is why I have few Opterons. Notebook is only needed when portable or on-site work is in question, which would account heavy terminal usage (while surfing and mailing in between waiting) for me.
2. GPU. Again, my desktops have high end GPU cards. Notebook? What would I need high end GPU in notebook? To play games? Thats why console and big screen or at least TV exist. And games don't belong on computer anyway. To work with 3D or graphics software? Yeah, right on 15":) To code? Last time I checked 1920x1200 was too small for me so I had to have 2 for each desktop.

Reply Score: 1

RE[6]: Question
by rayiner on Fri 13th Jan 2006 18:20 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: Question"
rayiner Member since:
2005-07-06

Dude, that's pretty hardcore. I find myself straining to use the full 24 inches on my 2405FPW. I can fit three 80 character windows across the thing --- what more could you want?

Reply Score: 1

RE[7]: Question
by somebody on Fri 13th Jan 2006 19:37 UTC in reply to "RE[6]: Question"
somebody Member since:
2005-07-07

Dude, that's pretty hardcore. I find myself straining to use the full 24 inches on my 2405FPW.

2405FPW? Same as all mine:) got 11 of them. Now waiting for 30" to test it.

I can fit three 80 character windows across the thing --- what more could you want?

Yes, it is a strain. I agree. But nature of my job demands it. I need too many windows to be able to switch between them, so I need environment like that to be effective. I can't imagine my self opening and seting windows I need every day. Or connecting to 50 servers I support. It is easier to initiate connection and never leave:)

And... Yes, I know you do, 99.9% of people thinks like that (and they are 100% right), but what I do is coding client-server clustered special services and apps and server maintenance. I hardly setup decent testing and coding environment on 2 desktops (4x24" monitors), to be informative enough (as in, a lot of console outputs, and each one serving its own purpose) to be usable and in the same time to be able to write code without any overlapped windows. Mostly I just set machine, run specific software and then rather move between computers than switch software (:few machines of mine were replaced when first time rebooted, running single instance of one software for whole lifetime:). For example, one is for Gimp only. One is for surfing and mailing only. Although I don't do that at home a lot. I only do that when I'm maintaing on-site and wait. Its more or less like, I just got too lazy with time.

The only computer without 2 screens is G5. Using Mac and two monitors is a pain. Or better said frequent mouse milleage to reach for menu on the second screen.

Reply Score: 1

RE[4]: Question
by nimble on Fri 13th Jan 2006 23:26 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Question"
nimble Member since:
2005-07-06

Waiting for some Cell based notebook

If you want half an hour of battery life and rubbish performance for anything but cracked PS3 games the Cell might be a good choice, but you're probably better off with the Turion.

Reply Score: 1

paying more for a mac that runs windows
by Nikato on Fri 13th Jan 2006 17:46 UTC in reply to "Question"
Nikato Member since:
2005-12-17

why pay more for a mac that runs windows.....options.

it's like buying a car that runs on e85 fuel. you have the choice to run on e85 or regular gasoline.

Reply Score: 1

RE: Question
by sexonacid on Mon 23rd Jan 2006 02:47 UTC in reply to "Question"
sexonacid Member since:
2006-01-23

To those of you crying about the high price of MAC”S I can tell you have never owned one. Besides being sexy in the way of looks they are build and the performance is over the top. I’ve had PC’s and Mac’s and I can to tell you the Mac’s are built to last unlike the PC (Pieces of Crap) that you get from Dell and the other manufactures.

If these new machines will run XP or even Vista it will be revolutionary in the world of computers. You need to have some vision I guess to see the benefits of being able to run both systems. The MAC system is killer for some things as is Microsoft. I tell you though that when it comes to the boxes you could drive a BMW (MAC) or you could drive a YUGO (PC) the choice is up to you. I know I sure love BMW’s though and just keep in mind this is all built on a big IF.

Reply Score: 1

Slightly OT
by rayiner on Fri 13th Jan 2006 07:21 UTC
rayiner
Member since:
2005-07-06

Geez, I really hope that's true. Otherwise, I've got a promise to keep...

By rayiner (1.52) on 2005-12-28 22:25:38 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Not surprising"
If Apple knew Windows wouldn't work on the new Intel Macs, then they wouldn't bother making the statement about "we won't try to stop you". I don't wear hats, but I'll print out this post and eat it with ketchup if you can't install Windows on the new Intel Macs!


I'm still at a loss to understand why Apple would forgo one of the biggest advantages of the Intel move. Perhaps to keep Microsoft happy enough to continue development of Office for OS X?

Reply Score: 4

RE: Slightly OT
by alcibiades on Fri 13th Jan 2006 09:24 UTC in reply to "Slightly OT"
alcibiades Member since:
2005-10-12

Doesn't the Acer 8200 use the 945 chipset and run XP? So why would the Macs not also run XP? Is the compatibility layer going to be different from vendor to vendor for XP, or is it a bit like a bios that you flash? If the new macs do not boot XP, are they going to be the only 945 chipset machines that don't?

Much as we were all looking forward to the video of words being eaten with ketchup...

Edited 2006-01-13 09:31

Reply Score: 1

RE[2]: Slightly OT
by _LH_ on Fri 13th Jan 2006 10:23 UTC in reply to "RE: Slightly OT"
_LH_ Member since:
2005-07-20

>Is the compatibility layer going to be different from vendor to vendor for XP, or is it a bit like a bios that you flash?

Compatibility layer is BIOS running on EFI firmware. You need to buy it from AMI or Phoenix and that will cost something on per machine basis and I'm absolutely confident that Apple won't license it because they don't need it to run Os X and it will add additional costs to their computers and cut margins.

Edit: And when it comes to PC bussiness, margins are everything. No matter how many iPods you sell.

Edited 2006-01-13 10:28

Reply Score: 1

RE[3]: Slightly OT
by Johann Chua on Fri 13th Jan 2006 10:27 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Slightly OT"
Johann Chua Member since:
2005-07-22

Maybe there'll be a ROM socket or something. You never know.

Reply Score: 1

Compatibility support module?
by BrianH on Fri 13th Jan 2006 07:44 UTC
BrianH
Member since:
2005-07-06

Compatibility support module? Is this how Intel refers to BIOS support on their EFI chipsets?

Reply Score: 1

RE: Compatibility support module?
by _LH_ on Fri 13th Jan 2006 08:14 UTC in reply to "Compatibility support module?"
_LH_ Member since:
2005-07-20

I'm pretty confident that Apple won't ship any compatibility modules with their machines because
1. Apple doesn't need CSM modules to run Os X.
2. Apple would have to license some BIOS vendors code to create a CSM and that would result in unnecessary license fees just to get the machines Windows compatible.

Reply Score: 1

BlackJack75 Member since:
2005-08-29

OTOH, they know people are going to dual boot. They would certainly prefer users to compare winXP to OSX rather than vista to osx.

Reply Score: 1

OT: skyos?
by aurora on Fri 13th Jan 2006 07:59 UTC
aurora
Member since:
2006-01-13

what about skyos running natively on the intel-macs? would be cool i think :-D

Reply Score: 1

RE: OT: skyos?
by dylansmrjones on Fri 13th Jan 2006 09:25 UTC in reply to "OT: skyos?"
dylansmrjones Member since:
2005-10-02

Now that would be interesting. A showdown between two of the most intuitive desktop implementations seen so far.

Could be funny ;)

Reply Score: 1

bornagainenguin
Member since:
2005-08-07

Because news about Intel's hardware DRM is what influenced me into buying my current laptop instead of the iBooks I was looking at - well that and not wanting to buy something that would be depreciating rapidly once Apple tries to push their new Intel Macs over their PowerBooks and ect.

Does anyone know anything new?

--bornagainpenguin

Reply Score: 1

Bah Windows
by Tyr. on Fri 13th Jan 2006 10:23 UTC
Tyr.
Member since:
2005-07-06

I'd be more interested to hear if you can run OsX on a machine like this:

"The TravelMate 8204WLMi is obviously based on the Napa platform, sporting a 2GHz dual-core Yonah. Acer hasn't skimped on the supporting components either, throwing in 2GB of RAM and a 120GB hard disk. The graphics chipset is nearly as new as the CPU - I've only seen a demo notebook from ATI running the new X1600 chipset before, but the TravelMate is packing a production version complete with 256MB of video memory." ( http://www.theregister.co.uk/2006/01/12/review_acer_8204wlmi/page2.... )

Let's switch the windows users over, you know it's for the best ;-)

Reply Score: 1

Okay now, quick, someone test this...
by truckweb on Fri 13th Jan 2006 10:30 UTC
truckweb
Member since:
2005-07-06

When will the first Intel iMac shipped? I hope soon for all this to end. It's all we are reading about, "Windows on Intel Mac".

Somebody please test it, report it and it will be the end of it.

Reply Score: 1

Thinking different ... ?
by Bajan on Fri 13th Jan 2006 11:48 UTC
Bajan
Member since:
2006-01-05

"A Mac that can legally run Windows/Linux/OS X on the one box is the ‘ultimate PC’ in compatibility terms"

Looks like viable answer in levelling the OS playing field.

Reply Score: 1

First things first
by moleskine on Fri 13th Jan 2006 12:21 UTC
moleskine
Member since:
2005-11-05

I think you guys are missing something. Apple is not in a position to starting producing tens of millions of shiny new Intel Macs. They don't have the facilities to provide the volume and as a niche player they never have had. Think Q&A, support, infrastructure and everything else. And think preserving your upscale, exclusive brand image.

Instead, Apple are in the position of being able to sell every Intel Mac they can make, at a price premium, while growing nicely but not gigantically and remaining really profitable.

For this reason, Apple don't need to start by introducing compatibility with everything and dual-booting Windows. That can come later (my guess is that it will) as Apple grow and get to grips with the Intel platform. Imho, Apple are not about to throw away everything they represent by "doing a Walmart".

Reply Score: 1

RE: First things first
by danwarne on Fri 13th Jan 2006 12:37 UTC in reply to "First things first"
danwarne Member since:
2005-09-04

What rubbish... this is the company that has been able to ramp up to produce tens of millions of iPods.

Apple doesn't manufacture anything anyway... it contracts out to massive outsourcers like Asus and Foxconn who build computers for many major brands.

And I think Steve Jobs would be very, very keen to sell a greatly increased number of Macs. Isn't that what his life ambition has been?

Reply Score: 1

RE[2]: First things first
by moleskine on Fri 13th Jan 2006 13:03 UTC in reply to "RE: First things first"
moleskine Member since:
2005-11-05

Sigh. Theyre' called growing pains. You can't grow enormously without wholesale changes, from needing three times as many sales or call-centre people to negotiating huge new banking facilities to underwrite your cash flow. Companies that don't get this right very often end up in a total mess, with collapso margins because their overheads are out of control. It's not a question of where the stuff is made; everyone outsources it.

Growing too fast would be the biggest mistake Apple could make. They are far too canny to make it and so risk nixing their brand value. There is one heck of a difference between selling a lot of iPods and selling a lot of full-up desktop computers with a whole OS and ecosystem attached. Of course Apple are going to grow, but imho they are not about to announce "Windows with everything" and storm the Winter Palace tomorrow. Let's leave the fantasies to the basement boyz from Linux.

Reply Score: 1

RE: Question
by shufflingBuffalo on Fri 13th Jan 2006 14:23 UTC
shufflingBuffalo
Member since:
2006-01-13

Answers:

1) Cost wise, the models I'm interested in (Mini and MacBook Pro) are currently comparable to equivalent generic x86 kit.

2) IMHO they're nicely designed, look good and continue to look good over time, so if they cost a little more I'm willing to put up with it because I know I'll be happy to keep it a lot longer.

3) They are pretty reliable and don't seem to need upgrading so much (for whatever reason) and as a result hold there value far better than the equivalent generic x86 box (have a look on eBay).

4) They can run OSX in addition to linux & (possibly) windows.

Reply Score: 1

Sign of Things to Come?
by rayiner on Fri 13th Jan 2006 14:35 UTC
rayiner
Member since:
2005-07-06

Has anybody noticed how, well, reasonable the prices on these new Intel machines are? The new iMac is quite a bargain --- dual core processors at a $1300 price point? The 20" is better (in terms of CPU/GPU) than my dual-core 2.3 G5, costs $800 less, and includes a 20" monitor to boot! I tried pricing it up against a dual-core Dell the other day. For the same cost, the Dell's CPU was slower (3.2 GHz P4-D), had worse graphics (X600SE), and was more expensive.

Hopefully, this is a sign of things to come. I was worried that Apple, in classical style, was going to artificially cripple the new Intel Macs, by giving them single-core chips or something equally stupid. I could have easily seen a 1.66 GHz Core Solo iMac for $1699. Hopefully, this means that the entire PowerMac line will be quad-core Conroe ;)

Reply Score: 1

RE: Sign of Things to Come?
by somebody on Fri 13th Jan 2006 17:15 UTC in reply to "Sign of Things to Come?"
somebody Member since:
2005-07-07

Has anybody noticed how, well, reasonable the prices on these new Intel machines are? The new iMac is quite a bargain --- dual core processors at a $1300 price point? The 20" is better (in terms of CPU/GPU) than my dual-core 2.3 G5, costs $800 less, and includes a 20" monitor to boot! I tried pricing it up against a dual-core Dell the other day. For the same cost, the Dell's CPU was slower (3.2 GHz P4-D), had worse graphics (X600SE), and was more expensive.

While one could simply build Opteron or AMD64X2, NForce4 and NVidia GPU and use for example Dell or Samsung 20" LCD for less?

Personally, I prefer 24", I just ordered one new Dell 30" to take it for a little test. 20" is too small, but that is just me probably.

Yeah, you can't run OSX there. Agreed.
/*Biased again*/ But I can run Linux 64-bit.

Sorry, to mess in Apple article, but somehow I can't seem to eat all these HW praising.

I was worried that Apple, in classical style, was going to artificially cripple the new Intel Macs

They did, when they moved on Intel, isn't that enough?
That would be me, speaking biased, with my preference in PPC arch.

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: Sign of Things to Come?
by rayiner on Fri 13th Jan 2006 17:49 UTC in reply to "RE: Sign of Things to Come?"
rayiner Member since:
2005-07-06

You could build it yourself (I have), but you won't save a whole lot of money. Quick back of the envelope calculation:

CPU: $500 for an X2 4400+
Motherboard: $120 for an A8R-MVP
GPU: $130 for an X1600 Pro 256MB
HDD: $110 for a 250GB Western Digital
RAM: $50 for 512MB Corsair Value RAM
PSU: $60 for a 330W Seasonic
LCD: $460 for a 20" 2005FPW
Case: $120 for an Antec P180
Other: $200 for keyboard, mouse, remote WLAN card, webcam
Total: $1750 (assuming you get free shipping on everything).

Comparable iMac 20" is $1775, free shipping.

You could save a few dollars here and there by using cheaper parts, but considering that this machine won't have a warrenty covering the whole thing, I wouldn't take that risk.

Edited 2006-01-13 17:50

Reply Score: 1

RE[3]: Sign of Things to Come?
by somebody on Fri 13th Jan 2006 19:05 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Sign of Things to Come?"
somebody Member since:
2005-07-07

CPU: $500 for an X2 4400+

:) You're trying to be funny aren't you?
All Yonah tests were done against 3800+. And Yonah was slower. Check 3800+ price.

Case: $120 for an Antec P180, PSU: $60 for a 330W Seasonic

$120 for a case? Why the hell would one pay that ammount for a case? To get las-vegas-like-home? There is a lot of extremly good cases with PSU for 70$.

My last Opteron 2.4 (2GB RAM 2x250GB HDD, NVidia 6800, no wireless, no webcam) with one 24" LCD was less-than-1800$. But then again, I can't be sure how this would account for someone else. It was a long ago since I bought the last machine without special-friend discounts. I also get a tax return on buy, so to be truthull I can't say how the other world buys things.

Comparable iMac 20" is $1775, free shipping.

Compareable with 4400+? That was a joke, wasn't it?

Free shipping where? Here in Europe for sure not:) Also Apple is converting 1EUR=1$ when calculating prices. Adding few (last Mac (dual 2.3) I bought it was about 10 or more) percents and 20% tax on that (but as I said I get tax refound).

You could save a few dollars here and there by using cheaper parts, but considering that this machine won't have a warrenty covering the whole thing, I wouldn't take that risk.

Now, this is called stepping on my toe. Talking about Mac, service, warranty and risk (risk on PCs I mean) in the same sentence.

Do you really think that I hold a grudge against Apple without any reason?

Basic common warranty on PC computers here is 2 years. Where I'm buying, they have 3 year policy. Same goes for my notebooks. Not for Apple.
http://www.apple.com/legal/warranty/hardware.html

Also, had more problems with Macs than PCs (well, not Intel ones, I'm talking about Opterons, since I got fed up of constant problems with Intels (times after P4 came out), that would be after my move to Opterons everything is running perfectly, except one HDD that crashed), I went crazy with my last PB, damn thing was more on service than by me (not that it was much worster that previous ones, but at least percentage at me was higher than percentage on service). Almost all G4s and G5s I had broke at least once durring warranty. Last G5s motherboard broke after 14-months. Guess what, when considering service costs, I decided to buy dual 2.3. So, please spare me about Apple quality. I'm using Apple computers (beside PCs) for 10 years now. I still own two G4s for the same reason. They broke and service is unacceptably expensive. All I can say about Apple quality is, they were good until G4 showed up, but with times passing they got worse than any low-end PC.

And... how long is Apple warranty?

Reply Score: 1

RE[4]: Sign of Things to Come?
by rayiner on Fri 13th Jan 2006 20:36 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Sign of Things to Come?"
rayiner Member since:
2005-07-06

:) You're trying to be funny aren't you?
All Yonah tests were done against 3800+. And Yonah was slower. Check 3800+ price.


Not really. Check AMD's official SPECint_base2000 run (which is the result that Apple publishes) for the Opteron 175 http://www.spec.org/osg/cpu2000/results/res2005q3/cpu2000-20050725-....

The 2 GHz Yonah scores almost identically (32.6 versus 32.5, respectively) to the Opteron 175 (2.2 GHz). The same machine scores 30.6 in SPECfp_base2000, versus 27.1 for the Yonah. That puts it at the level of a 1.95 GHz Opteron, or an Opteron 170. Since the X2 3800+ will be slower than the Opteron (SPECfp is cache sensitive and it has only 512KB of cache per core versus 1MB of cache per core), and integer performance is going to be more important than floating-point performance (this is an all-in-one desktop, remember!), the 4400+ seems like the best counterpart to me.

$120 for a case? Why the hell would one pay that ammount for a case? To get las-vegas-like-home? There is a lot of extremly good cases with PSU for 70$.

The iMac is a relatively quiet computer. It's both well-built, and thanks to its use of plastic rather than aluminum like the PowerMac cases, actually fairly acoustically sound. You're not going to find such a case for $70 with PSU. Heck, an iMac like case would have been even more expensive, since to really make the comparison fair, we would have had to find one of those slimine jobs.

Free shipping where? Here in Europe for sure not:)

USA, of course. Is there any place else ;) Yes, if you live in Europe, it is probably cheaper to build your own, since you don't pay Apple's "we hate Europeans" tax. Consider my argument confined to the United States.

Do you really think that I hold a grudge against Apple without any reason?

Not at all.

Basic common warranty on PC computers here is 2 years.

Yep, Apple's 1-yr warrenty sucks. 3 years is standard, at Dell's higher education store.

I can't say much for Apple's quality, as I've only had my PowerMac for a couple of months, but I don't hold Apple's parts quality in too high an esteem. My point regarding the warrenty was simply that the homebuilt doesn't come with a full warrenty, while the iMac does. Given that, I didn't put anything in that machine that I wouldn't have bought for myself. Like I said, you could probably save a few dollars here and there by buying cheaper parts (not a whole lot --- the CPU and processor account for a significant portion of the overall cost), but that wouldn't be a machine I'd build for myself.

Edited 2006-01-13 20:44

Reply Score: 1

RE[5]: Sign of Things to Come?
by HomerJ on Fri 13th Jan 2006 22:22 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Sign of Things to Come?"
HomerJ Member since:
2006-01-13

Yes, if you live in Europe, it is probably cheaper to build your own, since you don't pay Apple's "we hate Europeans" tax. Consider my argument confined to the United States.

European prices include taxes. The US prices DO NOT include taxes. Here in New York city, we have to add another 8 1/2% to the price.

Reply Score: 1

RE[6]: Sign of Things to Come?
by somebody on Fri 13th Jan 2006 22:51 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: Sign of Things to Come?"
somebody Member since:
2005-07-07

European prices include taxes.

Tax is always added on price. Formula I presented is accurate without tax.

1$=1EUR
add more than 10%
here you start talking about adding tax

Reply Score: 1

RE[5]: Sign of Things to Come?
by somebody on Fri 13th Jan 2006 22:46 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Sign of Things to Come?"
somebody Member since:
2005-07-07

The 2 GHz Yonah scores almost identically (32.6 versus 32.5, respectively) to the Opteron 175 (2.2 GHz). The same machine scores 30.6 in SPECfp_base2000, versus 27.1 for the Yonah. That puts it at the level of a 1.95 GHz Opteron, or an Opteron 170. Since the X2 3800+ will be slower than the Opteron (SPECfp is cache sensitive and it has only 512KB of cache per core versus 1MB of cache per core), and integer performance is going to be more important than floating-point performance (this is an all-in-one desktop, remember!), the 4400+ seems like the best counterpart to me.

1. You're obviously new to Apple, aren't you:? Real life and SPECfp have nothing in common. Apple always published some random spec which suited them best. Take highest bull ever published, multiply with 4x and you'll get accurate Apple assesment.
2. this is an all-in-one desktop??? So what?

Continuing this bloat is complete non-sense. I don't believe Apple, and you wish to believe Apple and Intel.

Read for example what Apple says about Rosetta, rocks, native speed. And what do you get in real life. A tiny bit better PearPC, nothing more.
Or read HT bull from Intel, and in reality?

All I can say is, as soon as first Macbook pro and IMac hit our country, I simply plan to call vendor and test real life tasks. 32-bit Linux on Yonah, 64-bit on Opterons (all from 1.8 to 2.4), as I always did, instead of looking at published benchmarks. That simply because it is a major difference if you're running 32-bit app on Opteron. Opteron and 32-bit OS is slugish at best. To say best, it is the reason why and how I bought my first Opteron. Friend of mine planned to run Best and Onyx RIPs on Windows2003. It sucked so much that he went back on P4-2.4 (which was better in performance), he even tried 64-bit Windows, sucked also (software is 32-bit, and he had both working and performance problems bigger than on normal 2003). I just did him favor and bought that Opteron from him out of pure curiosity about 64-bit Linux. Results completely different, I become avid Opteron fan. Although what I really wait is Cell.

p.s. Based on my experience and real life tests. Anandtech tests are still the best published tests, but even they suck.

The iMac is a relatively quiet computer. It's both well-built, and thanks to its use of plastic rather than aluminum like the PowerMac cases, actually fairly acoustically sound. You're not going to find such a case for $70 with PSU. Heck, an iMac like case would have been even more expensive, since to really make the comparison fair, we would have had to find one of those slimine jobs.

I usualy use Chiftec cases. Big, accessible and quiet (enough).

Ok, accoustic I don't need. One high quality sound system is enough. I don't like my computers squeaking on me.

I can't say much for Apple's quality, as I've only had my PowerMac for a couple of months, but I don't hold Apple's parts quality in too high an esteem.

I can, I'm using them for 10 years now. Usualy they break soon after 1 year.

My point regarding the warrenty was simply that the homebuilt doesn't come with a full warrenty, while the iMac does.

It was a long ago since I built my machines:) You forgot thrird option. Ordering custom built PC. That way you get full warranty for complete computer, not part related warranty.

Reply Score: 1

RE[6]: Sign of Things to Come?
by rayiner on Sat 14th Jan 2006 03:02 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: Sign of Things to Come?"
rayiner Member since:
2005-07-06

1. You're obviously new to Apple, aren't you:? Real life and SPECfp have nothing in common.

Hardly. I've been trying to convince Mac folks of the G3/G4/G5's inferiority for ages.

Take highest bull ever published, multiply with 4x and you'll get accurate Apple assesment.

The only reason I'm considering Apple's results is because they are quite in line with the official published SPEC results for the Pentium-M. Consider the CINT2000 results for the 2.26 GHz P-M. It gets 1839. The highest score for an Opteron 275 (basically an X2 4400+) is 1573. Scaling linearly with clock-speed, you'd expect a 2.0 GHz Dothan to do 1627, or approximately the same.

2. this is an all-in-one desktop??? So what?

So, it's going to be used more for integer-heavy tasks (desktop stuff), than floating-point heavy tasks (workstation stuff). For a desktop, Yonah's SPECfp figures are quite reasonable.

Continuing this bloat is complete non-sense. I don't believe Apple, and you wish to believe Apple and Intel.

You don't have to believe Apple. Look at Intel's own SPEC figures for the P-M, and compare them to AMD's SPEC figures for the Opteron 275. The two chips are in the same ballpark in integer (though, you can't compare the FP, since Yonah features an improved FPU over Dothan).

All I can say is, as soon as first Macbook pro and IMac hit our country, I simply plan to call vendor and test real life tasks. 32-bit Linux on Yonah, 64-bit on Opterons (all from 1.8 to 2.4), as I always did, instead of looking at published benchmarks. That simply because it is a major difference if you're running 32-bit app on Opteron. Opteron and 32-bit OS is slugish at best. To say best, it is the reason why and how I bought my first Opteron. Friend of mine planned to run Best and Onyx RIPs on Windows2003. It sucked so much that he went back on P4-2.4 (which was better in performance), he even tried 64-bit Windows, sucked also (software is 32-bit, and he had both working and performance problems bigger than on normal 2003). I just did him favor and bought that Opteron from him out of pure curiosity about 64-bit Linux. Results completely different, I become avid Opteron fan. Although what I really wait is Cell.

p.s. Based on my experience and real life tests. Anandtech tests are still the best published tests, but even they suck.

The iMac is a relatively quiet computer. It's both well-built, and thanks to its use of plastic rather than aluminum like the PowerMac cases, actually fairly acoustically sound. You're not going to find such a case for $70 with PSU. Heck, an iMac like case would have been even more expensive, since to really make the comparison fair, we would have had to find one of those slimine jobs.

I usualy use Chiftec cases. Big, accessible and quiet (enough).

Also in a completely different market from the iMac. If we're talking about price, we have to talk about comparable machines. It costs a lot more to design a small, sleek computer than it does to make a big sheet-steel box. Have you looked at the price of ITX PCs lately? When I say the new iMacs are reasonably priced, I mean they are reasonably priced in their market segment (and even out of it --- try building a comparable Dell or HP at that price). It makes no sense to compare a product out of its market segment.

Ok, accoustic I don't need. One high quality sound system is enough. I don't like my computers squeaking on me.

By acoustic, I mean its quiet. I've got a nice sound system. I don't need my computer adding to the cacaphony.

Reply Score: 1

RE[6]: Sign of Things to Come?
by somebody on Sat 14th Jan 2006 00:37 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Sign of Things to Come?"
somebody Member since:
2005-07-07

btw. about SPECfp data realism.

Did just a little calculation trugh history, according to specs and results Apple provided, Macbook pro should be at least 1.4x faster than PM-Quad

Just use google to compare models and use the latest data Apple provided for Quad and book

Reply Score: 1

This has got to be bad...
by JustAnotherMacUser on Fri 13th Jan 2006 15:36 UTC
JustAnotherMacUser
Member since:
2006-01-08

If Apple allows Vista to run on a Mac, then third party developers will just start demanding Mac users boot into Vista to run their software.

Eventually Mac OS X will get sidelined as Mac users come to accept Microsoft domination.

Now what would be great is if Mac OS X will run Windows software without Windows, sort of what MS is doing with Flip4Mac as a WMA Quicktime plug-in.

Naturally the Windows API plugins have to run in some sort of sandbox under Mac OS X.

Reply Score: 1

RE: This has got to be bad...
by mini-me on Fri 13th Jan 2006 16:53 UTC in reply to "This has got to be bad..."
mini-me Member since:
2005-07-06

It would be to apple's detriment to prevent vista from running.
It would be to apple's detriment to encourage vista to run.

Apple has chosen the happy middle path. IF you want to run windows go ahead, we won't help you, we won't support you, BUT it is your hardware and you can do with it what you want (provided that you don't break any laws). We will gladly support your hardware with OS X running.

I don't think developers will abandon the mac platform - that is just hogwash ;) and here is the reason: You ask consumers to spend money to buy your product AND buy MS windows to run on your mac - this is an added $200 expense, ontop of the software you buy from them, in order to run this software on an "unsupported platform" - which gives your company a bad rep.

By this same token developers would have stopped making mac apps and have just made windows apps because:
1. VPC exists
2. PC PCI cards existed so you could run windows in your mac, thus you could buy their software to run - just spend $500-$1000 to get a PCI card for you mac to run oiur software...smart ;-)

Edited 2006-01-13 16:56

Reply Score: 2

This has got to be bad... But for whom?
by glarepate on Mon 16th Jan 2006 22:55 UTC in reply to "This has got to be bad..."
glarepate Member since:
2006-01-04

If Apple allows Vista to run on a Mac, then third party developers will just start demanding Mac users boot into Vista to run their software.

If third party developers start developing on Macs and porting to other OSes then what? MS will be doomed/marginalized and Macs will rule the world?

Having a useful development environment can be more practical than having the most common OS environment in certain cases. There are environments and toolkits (Cygwin, MKS Toolkit, UWin etc.) that allow Unix developers to build Windows apps. Some developers prefer that because they can use the tools that they are familiar, productive and comfortable with. I believe that there are environments for porting Unix apps to Windows as well. Has any of this created a tipping point that swamped other OSes into oblivion?

Even so, it's OK to be unhappy if that is your preferred platform. )^B

Reply Score: 1

OS
by Smartpatrol on Fri 13th Jan 2006 17:31 UTC
Smartpatrol
Member since:
2005-07-06

The only advantage of Mac Hardware vs. Dell etc.. hardware is the ability to run OS X. Its enough for me since i prefer Mac OS for my general computing needs but need Windows to play the games i like to play. Right now i can't justify the expense but once Mactel gets more popular hopefully the prices will come down.

Reply Score: 1

AMD ?
by elsmob on Fri 13th Jan 2006 17:52 UTC
elsmob
Member since:
2006-01-09

Why couldn't have Apple gone with an AMD processor?

I have used both AMD and Intel processors and recently switched over to solely AMD. This is strictly my experience, but Intel has become lazy in regards to competition and has allowed, indirectly, AMD to surpass them in speed and quality.

</rant>

Reply Score: 1

RE: AMD ?
by rayiner on Fri 13th Jan 2006 18:07 UTC in reply to "AMD ?"
rayiner Member since:
2005-07-06

I'm an AMD fan myself, but consider this from Apple's point of view. As far as they're concerned, the battle isn't Yonah versus the X2 (its interesting academically, but few people are in a situation where they have these two particular options). The battle is Yonah versus Turion, and Conroe versus X2. Prescott versus X2 is a non-issue, because Apple won't (likely, can't!) have 64-bit Mac towers before Conroe comes out.

Now, Intel is winning the former battle, and may win the latter too. Even if it doesn't, it won't be completely embarassing for Intel like Prescott was. Back in the P6 days, the Athlon was faster than the PIII, but the margin was small, per-clock, with the Athlon winning mostley on clock-speed. The critical issues with Athlon X2 versus Conroe are going to be memory interface and FPU for Intel, and process scaling for the AMD. FSB1066 is going to hurt Intel, because while AMD will have 12.8 GB/sec of memory bandwidth at low latencies with DDR2-800, Intel will have only 8.5 GB/sec at much higher latencies. The FPU might also be an issue --- Yonah's FPU is pretty weak, and it remains to be seen whether Intel can make a better one for Conroe. Meanwhile, AMD has become dependent on a clock-speed advantage to maintain its performance-edge on integer code, and with Intel at 65nm now, and AMD not on 65nm until well into 2007, this advantage is going to be in jeopardy.

Reply Score: 2

danger
by Mellin on Sat 14th Jan 2006 02:35 UTC
Mellin
Member since:
2005-07-06

if you can install windows on a mac then software makers will tell you to buy windows and get the windows version of their programs

and so on for every thing that only works with windows

Reply Score: 1

RE: danger
by glarepate on Sat 14th Jan 2006 07:57 UTC in reply to "danger"
glarepate Member since:
2006-01-04

if you can install windows on a mac then software makers will tell you to buy windows and get the windows version of their programs

If you can't think/buy for yourself and can only do what the software makers tell you to do would you be buying a Mac just to throw away MacOS (and any percieved advantages of it)?

Well, now that I see what I have written I guess some folks might. I call those folks the more dollars than sense club.

Reply Score: 1

tax
by Mellin on Sat 14th Jan 2006 02:46 UTC
Mellin
Member since:
2005-07-06

in sweden there's a 25% tax on hardware ;)

Reply Score: 1

@ Rayiner
by deathshadow on Sat 14th Jan 2006 06:56 UTC
deathshadow
Member since:
2005-07-12

I'm with 'somebody' on this... {censored} those are some really stupid {censored} choices on hardware...

X2 4400 - Just throw your money away. Every bench I've seen puts the 3800 on par with the Yonah, which is a good two-hundred bucks cheaper.

Motherboard: $120 for an A8R-MVP
Because of course that OEM pile of crap Mac mainboard with all the parts crammed in compares to a Asus top of the line quad SATA board... that has integrated X200 which wouldn't even be used on your configuration. RIGHT. A8S-X is probably a closer match and knocks about $50 off the price.

LCD: $460 for a 20"
Because double the price is obviously worth that 10% extra viewing space... At that point I'd buy a PAIR of 19" since it's about the same money.

Case: $120
Hundred and twenty dollar cases are for retards with more money than brains... oh wait, you are comparing to apple buyers.

PSU: $60 for a 330W Seasonic
Seasick is more like it. Good god $60 for 330watts? That's very special, in the same way some olympics are special. By the time you get your case and PSU I've bought five of them.

Other: $200 for keyboard, mouse, remote WLAN card, webcam
Two hundred bucks? Whiskey tango foxtrot? The four items you listed would normally run under $80 all together, I could MAYBE push it to $120 if I went logitech across the board. (To be honest, if I got the Mac I'd still go out and drop $40 on a trackman marble)

I could knock $200 off your 'quote' with ease, and making some realistic decisions probably shave a good five hundred bucks off it.

Reply Score: 1

RE: @ Rayiner
by rayiner on Sat 14th Jan 2006 09:13 UTC in reply to "@ Rayiner"
rayiner Member since:
2005-07-06

I had this big long post going through your points, but I realized you're completely missed the object of this discussion. The goal was to create a comparable system to the iMac, not a cheapo one with the same specs. The iMac has a decent-quality (relative to Logitech, anyway) keyboard/mouse, a case that'd cost $$$ in slimline PC realm (an Aria is $100, for example), a great widescreen LCD, a fanless PSU, a very high quality motherboard with an Intel chipset, a good camera, a good wlan setup, a good remote, etc. Your "price cuts" were mainly the result of buying crappy hardware. I mean, c'mon, a SiS chipset versus an Intel one? What are you thinking? It's really no interesting statement to say that you can save money by buying shitter hardware --- it's obvious. The point was could you save money and get something comparable to the iMac.

FYI: I don't know how long you've been building computers, but let me share what I've learned in the 10 years since I built my first. Motherboards that cost less than $100 are not worth it. After a few years of use, they'll start to crash or die outright. Power supplies worth less than $50 are not worth it. They have loud fans, and couldn't deliver their rated output to save their lives. Cases made of thin sheet-metal are not worth it --- they ring and vibrate something fierce. Crappy monitors, keyboards, and mice are definitely not worth it. My eyes spend 8+ hours a day staring at small text on my LCD, and my hands spend 8+ hours a day typing on the keyboard and moving the mouse. A little bit of discomfort in any of these segments can add up to a lot of pain. Cheapo hardware is not worth it. Been there, done that, got the t-shirt. Small example: I bought a Dell PII in 1998. It had an Intel motherboard, good power supply, decent case, good screen and good keyboard. It's still running, 8 years later. In 1999, I built a cheap machine for my little brother. Got an ECS motherboard, Celeron processor, etc. The damn thing was dead within 4 years. So I built another cheap one (by now this machine was going to be my mom's). ECS motherboard again, Duron processor, etc. Damn thing is already on its last legs, crashes at least twice a day. The moral of the story: do yourself a favor and don't skimp too bad when you build your own PC. If you do that, you'll at least have a useful computer when you're ready to upgrade, instead of a piece of crap that has to be thrown away.

Edited 2006-01-14 09:16

Reply Score: 1

RE[2]: @ Rayiner
by silicon on Sun 15th Jan 2006 06:45 UTC in reply to "RE: @ Rayiner"
silicon Member since:
2005-07-30

To tell you the truth my $370 system, Config stated:

AMD Duron 2200+ 1.1 Ghz
Mercury mobo with an SiS 740 chipset
512 MB RAM
graphics onboard shared with RAM (64 MB)
and all normal accesories (keyboard,mouse,speakers)

,still runs after 4 1/2 years of purchase.

The entire PC is cheaper than your PSU+Cabinet+Accesories.

Reply Score: 1

RE[3]: @ Rayiner
by silicon on Sun 15th Jan 2006 06:46 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: @ Rayiner"
silicon Member since:
2005-07-30

Oh and yes Forgot to mention a CD ROM driver 54x (which broke in a few months) and also a 40 GB HDD

Reply Score: 1

why buy the mac box
by sexonacid on Mon 23rd Jan 2006 02:46 UTC
sexonacid
Member since:
2006-01-23

To those of you crying about the high price of MAC”S I can tell you have never owned one. Besides being sexy in the way of looks they are build and the performance is over the top. I’ve had PC’s and Mac’s and I can to tell you the Mac’s are built to last unlike the PC (Pieces of Crap) that you get from Dell and the other manufactures.

If these new machines will run XP or even Vista it will be revolutionary in the world of computers. You need to have some vision I guess to see the benefits of being able to run both systems. The MAC system is killer for some things as is Microsoft. I tell you though that when it comes to the boxes you could drive a BMW (MAC) or you could drive a YUGO (PC) the choice is up to you. I know I sure love BMW’s though and just keep in mind this is all built on a big IF.

Reply Score: 1