Mac OSX: Cracked for PCs + More Update Woes - Page 2

There's a big difference between software that's able to run on the PC and entertainment professionals that actually use a PC for professional purposes. If you were actually an entertainment professional like I am you'd find the overwelming majority are using Macs, which is why i switched to Mac for compatibility. And if the odd person ut the crowd uses Windows, no problem because I dual boot.

Mac hardware being superior is bullshit, they use exactly the same stuff as Windows, HOWEVER, Macs ARE built way better than the majority of PCs, and if you've ever owned a Mac you'd know this is true. The way they're put together inside and out is top notch. Your average DIY'er will never understand this unless he opens a Mac and takes a good look.

going from 10.4 to 10.5 is an upgrade to the existing operating system. Vista is an entirely new OS. BTW, DX10 can be hacked fro XP.

Another thing.... Mac users say that OS X looks way better than Windows. I don't disagree with this. the other day my friend was showing me how cool his Mac was with the zooming icon bar and the its simplicity. LAter that day I successfully made windows look exactly like OS X, including the zoom bar. Thats another reason why I like windows.... you can modify it to do pretty much whatever you like. I don't mind some of Windows instabilities, I have learned alot about Windows internal workings while fixing various issues, which aren't usually caused by windows itself, but by 3rd party software. I'm not saying windows is far superior... I have nothing against Mac OS . I like the way it looks, and its performance capability on crappy machines. I may even try to install it on my Dell laptop(which has all of the functionalities of any Mac laptop, for a better price).

As for price, my Dell Ispiron 1720 cost me $1600 total including shipping and accessories. It has a core 2 duo T7300, 2 gigs of Ram, a 160gb hard drive, and a high def display. Yes, I did look at the MacBook Pro, but couldn't afford it. why? it was 1000 dollars more, BASE! the Dell 1720 is $899 at base price and it is just a midrange model. My god, I would never pay that much for the same computer with a nicer looking operating system and a beautiful case design. I'd rather make windows look like OS X and still have all of the windows functionality.

Price may be a big reason Macs are such a small part of the market. most people need computers nowadays, but many cannot afford a system from a company whos cheapest PC is $600 without a monitor or keyboard/mouse.

P.S. I just looked at the apple store, and looked at the price of the Mac Pro. the base price is $2499. You get a gig of Ram, and an Nvidia 7300gt. upgrade options: $300 for 2 gigs of Ram, and $449 to upgrade to Four 7300gt graphics cards. Don't even bother looking at the display price, which is not included in the base price

i know i'm going to sound like the ever hated 'fan boy'
but honestly, why bother with osX that runs only on macs,
and windows that only runs on pcs? Who really cares?

Linux runs on anything and everything, why would you need anything else?

When i want to play a game, i pull my old 80gb hard drive off the shelf, install windows on it, and run my game. when im done the hard drive just goes back on the shelf.

And for all those n00bs who think gfx/video editing is only done on macs. Please wake up and smell the coffee or get a job in the media industry.

And in the end someone with probably close to zero technical knowledge of how OSes work quotes a long technical rant and states that. Wow. That's about as close to saying "I don't understand all that stuff you just said and you're probably right, but you still suck" as one can get.

You conveniently left out point 4. Which you couldn't refute. Which brings me to the point of that the Apple camp always glazes over inconvenient facts.

Your original arguments:

1. Leopard $129 is a Full version -- go install it anywhere you like

True.

2. Leopard does NOT have "Activation"

Leopard does have "activation". It's the process of looking whether a chip exists in your hardware before it decides to install itself or not. Apple just doesn't name the process. Windows "activation" involves attempts to check whether your copy has been used to install on another computer before it decides whether to let you use your windows.

3. PC users upgrade every 2 years so you actually spend 3X more on hardware in addition to software upgrades as you'll need a separate copy per PC thanks to Windows activation

M$ actually changed the EULA to provide for hardware enthusiasts frequently changing hardware. It's possible to change your hardware without buying a new copy of Vista.

Apple doesn't provide for hardware enthusiasts at all. You don't change the insides of your mac. If your mac can't install OS X, Apple tells you to get a new mac.

4. What is unfair? Mac can run OS X and Vista and XP and if you wanna hack a PC it can run OS X (hence the title of this thread)

OS X was designed to run on mac hardware only. Vista/XP was designed to on a huge variety of configurations. If m$ wanted to be a bitch, they'll search for mac hardware, then refuse to install. So, in actual fact, Apple's being unfair here.

5. Wanna be entertainers - musicians, mixers, colorist, film makers, photographers rarely start life with good money -- these are the folks buying Macs -- again Windows/Vista wins the snob war there

That's just common perception that Apple spread to promote the ease of use of their own OS. However, it is probably true to a certain extent. I have friends actually working in the media industry, and a good proportion of them use windows too.

Besides, I'd say a lot more serious work is done on the windows platform.

Btw (as of march 2007) OS X held only 4.29% of the market, even if you included earlier mac OSes, the entire Apple OS market share is still only 6.38%. Unless Leopard converts an additional 10% of the OS market, 30 million is just a nice marketing number. OS X is still a niche market.

6. Going from OS X 10.4 to 10.5 does NOT require graphics card upgrades, doesn't require more RAM, and does NOT have any exclusive DX10 graphics API

Changing OS from XP (NT 5.1) to Vista (NT 6) might require you to upgrade parts of your system. DirectX 10 was a dumb design decision to encourage (read: try to force) adoption of Vista.

Upgrading your current version of OS X 10.4 to 10.5 will most likely not require you to upgrade your system. If your system isn't supported, you might have to change to a entirely new mac. OS XI isn't even out yet, who knows what will happen then ...


So who's pointed out pretty much nothing?

That's my quote of the day! Funny how the Apple camp always glazes over this point and starts talking only areas where the mac is superior.



Someone said something about comparing apples to apples. But a windows VS os X isn't really an apples to apples comparison.

Windows is a line of m$ OSes made to support almost every device. That's why macs can run windows.

OS X is a OS that Apple made to support their own hardware configurations. The reason why PCs can't run OS X without hacking.

Because OS X has few permutations of hardware configurations to deal with, naturally it has less hardware conflicts. Because of the large size of the PC market, and to some extent the number of different configurations it can support, more devs will target PCs for the app they make. So, naturally more software conflicts occur on the PC as well.



User interfaces aside, it's your choice whether:

You want the (potential) ability to customize/upgrade/downgrade your hardware, and suffer any consequences from hardware/software conflicts. Go the PC route.

or

You'd rather take a configuration that's near impossible to change, but has been tested and proven, comes with a own custom OS, and has less applications available. Go the Mac route.



At the end of the day, both M$ and Apple will screw you over (in vastly different ways) even though you paid (or didn't pay) cold hard cash to use their product.

You do know that the Carrera GT3 is a straight 6. Which will give the v12 in the Lamborghini Gilado a run for its money? Anyways i digress.

I wouldnt mind buying a mac if it was economical (ie. it should be priced according to the fact that its almost stand alone and will not work with any other 3rd party hardware/software)

A nice 24" iMac with Fedora 8 will make a nice toy.

You should stay out of this discussion until you can stop making unbelievably stupid statements like that. Macs run tons of 3rd party software, and can even run Windows itself, which can run anything OSX can't, so you can actually run more software (legally!) than a normal PC. And you can even triple boot and add Linux.

Installing Windows on a Mac is as easy as installing a game.

relax inthere.
You can run anything thru virtualisation, emulation etc.... and with vmware fusion, you can even run 3d games in windows on a mac.

but my point still stands in terms of natively supported apps.

Even apple themselves dont support their new hardware properly, how much is still being run thru rosetta?

i agree with you.

but you know whats great? you can
1.run osX on a pc
2.run linux on a pc
3.run windows (obviously) on a pc

So why would you want to buy special hardware tailored for special software or vice versa, unless your doing something specialised?

Please don't think i'm dissing Apple by any means, since I was a child i have used Apple computers, my first experience with computers was with an Apple Classic. But when it comes to versatility it is no surprise that the IBM Compliant PC is the most popular.

Seriously V8VENOM you need the STFU!! OMG it is quite clear you hate windows FINE! Thats nice. One look at your sorry excuse for a website and you can see the hate you harbor towards windows computers FINE! How about you build a bridge and get the f--- over it!! You add nothing to the discussion of this article other than your full on loathing of windows and MAC fanboy attitude. Seriously just chill the f--- out!

Just for giggles I wanted to do a apples-to-apples compare and this is what I found:

From TR review (http://channel.tomshardware.com/20 [...] igurations)
--> price with upgrades: $4,741 for a Mac Pro non-RAID

From Dell for a XPS 720: $3,250
Quad-Core
XP Media Center (because the Mac Pro has 10.4)
4Gig Ram
(2) 500Gig HDs in RAID (mac pro RAID requires additional $999)
dual optical drives (both 16x dvd burners)
24" wide screen ultrasharp flatpanel
8800GTX video card
Bluetooth keyboard+mouse
19in1 media reader
Sounblaster x-fi soundcard
speaker system w/ sub woofer
MS works 8
Netgear Wireless Router + usb wireless adapter
1 year in-house service,parts + labor warrenty

Also to note if I "downgraded" to the equivalent 20" flat panel it would be $200 cheaper.
And this comes with a far superior graphics card by DEFAULT!

So how is Apple not overcharging for their equipment.... I can't help it that they choose to use Xeon procs instead of the quad core C2Ds.

The article that started this flame war was another example of sloppy, unprofessional, amateurish, biased sensational "journalism" from Tom's Hardware.

You people don't get the point. Mac haters are both immature and childish. Macs are good for some stuff, and PCs are good for some other stuff.

Macs (= the combination of hardware + software) are generally more stable than the average PC, and Mac users are willing to pay a hefty premium for this stability. What's wrong with that?
Mac performance for day to day applications, and everything apart from games is generally smoother. If one needs to do really hardcore stuff, then one needs to get a Mac Pro. Veeery expensive, yes, but again, it's not a home computer.
Did I mention how quiet Macs are? Switch to a Mac for just one hour, and you'll get what I mean.
Macs are much much much simpler to use. No tweaking! Really! Try networking with a Mac and you will understand what I mean. Now try with Windows.

(yes, Macs are more expensive)

Last but not least, Macs look good. Some people don't care having the ugly box on or under the table, and the cheap,generic looking screen an keyboard, but some people do. Why hate them? Why are they losers for paying more for something that they want to have? Because it's not something that YOU want to have, Mac haters?

(by the way, Mac's are more expensive)

Let me explain even more why you Mac haters don't get the point:
You accuse Mac users for paying big bucks for a computer that looks good, have better build quality, run smoother, but are inferior in terms of hardware to PCs. Do you guys use the same argument on everything? Do you buy ALL your clothes at Walmart? Or do you have the occasional Nike and Levis in your wardrobe? What about cars? Does anybody considers Mercedes or BMW or Jaguar users naive idiots because they pay a truckload of money to buy cars that don't do 0-60MPH in 4 seconds? Do they get mocked and ridiculed for not buying a Ford or Toyota for a fraction of the price? Is BMW and Jaguar ripping them off? Should they get a "tuned", "hotrod" Toyota instead? PC users who brag about how fast their CPU is or how low latency their RAM has or how much butt their VGA kicks, remind me of those people with small brains (or small other parts of their bodies) who install 400W RMS car stereos to show to people 4 blocks away how cool their car stereo is (and get a hearing impairment in the process). The same kind of people who brag how much they overclocked their CPU, and how little money they paid for it, comparing to the "suckers" who paid more money for the factory CPU speed. All I see here, is the poor kid on the block hating the rich kid of the block because the rich kid's toys are more expensive and more shiny and more poshy, and poor kid on the block cannot buy them, so poor kid finds easier to hate rich kid than get a grip with reality and see things for what they are.

And I don't care if there are PCs out there that are faster etc. When I want to get a new Mac, I'll just buy the best Mac I can afford, and I won't whine how I could buy a $400 PC box with the same money, and I won't whine when Apple releases its latest version of Mac OS X after their upgrade policy has expired for me..

As for PCs, I don't hate them. I actually want to buy one (again), to play games and to run the 1-2 applications that don't run well on Parallels (the Windows emulator for Mac OS X). Just for that. I'm tired of slow, buggy Windows.

Yeah, how sad, Macs cannot play games. That's why I'll probably get a PC for games. Maybe I'll get an XBox or a Wii or a PS3 or all 3 of them, if I am ever able to afford them. Actually, I don't need the PC to play games, I'll get one because I like PC games. I could just get a Wii. But again, with the Wii I won't be able to brag to my other friends and to other people I don't know about how bad is my 8800Ultra overclocked kicks ass and how many frames per second I got in Crysis etc. Still, I'll probably get an 8800, because I like it, and I don't care if your card is bigger than mine or if my card is bigger than yours.

Yes, Macs are more expensive (I'll say it once more if you have any doubt), but I don't care. I can afford them. And they suit my needs. And I like them. So I don't care how much they cost, if I can afford them. And I'll get a console for when I want to play games, if I want to save my money instead of buying that $2000 kick-ass gaming PC (which I might still get one day, because I don't suffer from the poor-kid-hates-rich-kid envy of yours, Mac haters). Got it now?

Call me a loser. Call me a sucker. Call me a fanboy. Tell me I'm being exploited and ripped off by Apple. I don't care. I'm quite happy to be a Mac user.

Man, these must have been the most pathetically lost half an hour of my life, replying to immature bigot Mac haters.

Never again.

(it was fun though)

I have nothing against macs. I do, however, have problems against frothing fanboys furiously typing angry posts every time someone says something negative about their beloved macs.

There's nothing wrong with macs. As I said are tradeoffs between the 2 platforms, and the mac's main tradeoff would be cost and relative stability vs applications and system re-configuration. and you'll just have to make your decision and live with it. Or change platform later.

I don't think the article was badly written at all. Not an good nor outstanding article definitely, but I wouldn't call it badly written. The writer was merely expressing his views/experiences on:

1) How Leopard was cracked to run on PC a week after release
2) Apple's decision to run OS X only on macs
3) How Apple deals with their customers who bought their macs too early (or late, depending on how you look at it), resulting in them not getting discounts for Leopard
4) How inconsistent Apple's censorship on their own forums are

It's bad in what way? Because it puts Apple in a bad light? By the same argument all Vista articles/reviews are bad journalism. I haven't really seen a reliable article that praises Vista. The only gripe I have with the article is the somewhat misleading title that doesn't quite reflect the content of the article.

I so need to get my hands on a mac book pro one of these days. Till then I'm stuck with what my budget allowed me to get.

Nothing wrong there, glad you said "generally"

There is nothing i ever built cheaper then this and its stable...rock solid 80 days of 100% load(Fah, apps, net, games[yes some games still work in it....hl2 + ep1 + ep2 + CS:S anyone?])

K7S5a the little 50-90 dollar board that could...XP 1800, used to run at 1.93 but its not my main rig so those days are behind it.....don't mind the max cpu....its a glitch...

I can't believe people still have the Mac vs PC argument. It just boggles my mind. Seriously, this is only still an issue because 5% of computer users are too short-sighted or elitist to just let Apple die.

To all you Mac users who want Microsoft to die a horrible, horrible death, and hate Windows users for helping them out: Let's play a little thought game. What would happen in a world where Microsoft ceased to exist?

Fortunately for us, we've never seen exactly what this would look like, so we can only guess. However, we have seen how Apple acts in other areas where it doesn't have very significant competition. Observe what has happened with the iPhone, Macs, iPods, iTunes, etc. Apple loves to lock down their hardware and software. iPods don't work with other DRM services. iTunes DRM doesn't work with other MP3 players. iPhone only works with one service provider, and again, one DRM service. OS X will only install on Macs (I'm ignoring hardware/software hacks from these examples, because they're done by a vast minority of people, they can introduce hardware or software problems, and in some cases they're illegal). You want a ringtone on your iPhone, you have to pay considerably for it. Apple loves, loves, LOVES to tie together hardware and software to lock out competitors and maintain tight control over how everything works.

In our thought experiment, with Apple leading things, consumers would lose their ability to pick what they really want. Say I want a quad-core CPU. Or a system with a dark blue case. Or a mid-range system that doesn't have a display physically attached to it. Or a low-end system which still has space for a big fat hard drive. Maybe I want an HD-DVD drive of Blu-ray writer built in. Perhaps I want a TV tuner. Maybe I want 2-4 high-end graphics cards. Apple does not cater to users who want this sort of stuff. Consumers can't vote with their wallets to choose the size, appearance, internals or special functions of their computers. There is no hardware competition either, because Apple sells all the hardware and sets all the prices. Competition between hardware companies dies because Apple only buys parts from a few of them, which decreases price wars, decreases the struggle for innovation, and if a company is unable to improve their products (such as IBM when Apple gave up on the PowerPC), everyone is stuck with the products not improving because there's no hardware alternative.

In short, if everyone supported Apple, and Apple maintained their "the computer is an appliance, you don't need to care about the parts which go into a microwave" stance on hardware, all the benefits of capitalism, the competitive market, and companies catering to customers would go out the window. People are worried about the dangers of Microsoft creating a software monoculture which is vulnerable to software threats (viruses, etc), but they seem to ignore the even greater dangers of Apple creating a hardware monoculture. If #1 CPU Maker Company has yield problems, heat issues, or hits an architectural roof, every computer user suffers because there are no competitors. Even if all the hardware is flawless though, Apple still retains the right to choose which parts consumers can use, letting them steer where hardware development goes. You want a triple- or quad-core CPU? I'm sorry, we don't offer that product at this time. Your application of choice is only single-threaded and you'd prefer a single very fast CPU core to a slower dual-core? I'm sorry, we're only selling dual-core CPUs right now. Imagine that sort of nonsense, but for every piece of computer hardware. It's similar to what we see right now with Mac hardware, but even worse--when PowerPC doesn't float your boat any longer, there IS no Intel to turn to.

Hopefully you can now see why I fear above all things a world where Apple rules the computer market. The only reason Apple is able to survive and have the best hardware is because Apple is able to sit back and pick the best technology that emerges from the PC's hardware market struggles. In short, although Apple users like to insist it's their high-end professional-grade hardware which is helping to pull us lowly PCs along, it's in fact they who are able to survive only because we provide the competitive market to draw off of.

So there you go. Mac users, don't ever get upset with us for supporting Microsoft, and don't ever get upset with Microsoft for having bugs which result from having so many combinations of hardware from so many providers. It is because Microsoft doesn't require hardware from one CPU maker and one motherboard provider that we have a multitude of companies mixing and matching to drive hardware quality and specs up, and prices down, and it's because us PC users suffer through the occasional hardware combination glitches that you're able to have the best products resulting from the competitive market. A Mac monoculture would not work.

What about a world without Apple? Some would say that Microsoft would be able to get lazy with its OS if they didn't have the "threat" of Apple overtaking them. Possibly, though I'm of the opinion that Microsoft usually doesn't care able what Apple does (with the exception of the Zune, a reactionary response to the iPod monopolizing the market). The key difference between a hardware and software monopoly is, of course, that it's immensely expensive to enter the hardware market (try making your own computer parts at prices and speeds that somebody would buy) and potentially free to enter the software/OS market (as freeware and Linux prove on a daily basis). If Microsoft truly gets lazy enough, somebody will make free software and people will use it... if Apple's hardware choices are poor though, making your own stuff is effectively impossible.

I said at the start of my post that Apple should die. This is perhaps a bit unfair--but at the very least I've demonstrated that we can't afford to have Microsoft die. In my opinion, having hardware-to-OS or OS-to-hardware limitations (Apple being the prime example with their OS-to-hardware restriction) are bad, and having software-to-OS and OS-to-software limitations (for example, DirectX only works in Windows, and Tiger won't let you keep running Beta Bootcamp) are bad, and finally file-to-software and software-to-file limitations (FairPlay DRM files only work in iTunes) are bad. If you could open any file from any (reasonably related) software, and install any software on any OS, and put any OS on any hardware, we'd see a properly open computing ecosystem in which your files, software, OS or hardware would never limit you from using any of the other things, and in that case, I would have no objections to Apple's continued existence (except of course, their snobby attitude). Until that is the case, though, I can't support them--vendor lock-in and incompatibilities suck. And because we can't afford to let Microsoft die, my only solution is for Apple to either open up or disappear.

pc can do the same audio and video work as a mac the only thing is that if i was using someone else's computer or using a office computer, I would trust a mac more than a pc as since they have less control, theres less to mess up and less chances of it crashing (macs do crash less than pc)

if i want yo use a office computer to do a large video project, i would like it on a mac since i can be a slightly more sure that it wont crash before I finish the project (even though there less drivers and software for a mac, the stability of the drivers and software is a little better than some for the PC

but since I am not professionally doing any of that, I prefer my pc as it is fast and i use many programs when working on images and forum signatures and some of the programs are not available for the mac os

but it is never good to blindly follow 1 company, i hate all fanboys

the world runs on capitalism because it works, it promotes competition which makes for better quality and lower prices.

if apple was the only computer company on earth, I bet we would be spending over 20 thousand dollars for a low end mac book

when there multiple companies, prices are generally low until when the competitors get together to decide on a 5% price increase (they do this when prices become too low for a profit, they both agree to increase prices by a certain amount )


also when it comes to os upgrades, apple is more evil than microsoft

at least microsoft supports their old stuff for some time

with apple, there more of the kind to force you into an upgrade

currently the only real push for people to get vista is direct x 10 microsoft chose not to make one for windows xp because if they did then there will be no benefit to getting vista and dealing with vistas resource hungry unstable crap

yep vista as well as any other OS has this kind of memory management but in vistas case, it causes many problems

after you run that resource hungry game then close it, your pc then has to remove the game from the memory then copy all the info from the page file, back into the memory. if your pc doesn't have like 4-8GB memory

when you run a really large game, then alt tab, it will be really sluggish
due to the the use of page file.

windows vista makes much more use of the pgefile than windows xp

Wow...just wow, I can't believe you actually said something so absurd.

You can use an upgrade for windows without the old version installed, it asks for the CD to show you have it then it installs....so the not having suitable components to install the completed package is also incorrect....

People say it is an upgrade because last time i checked you can not build a mac nor order it without an OS.....so you DO have to have the old OS to legally(since you only supposed to install it on a mac after all) get the new one....

I bought a 20" Aluminum iMac when they were first released and have since upgraded the OS from Tiger to Leopard. I was able to upgrade in place without any major issues and without having to reinstall any apps.
I've been running Leopard for several weeks now and haven't run into any stability issues.

email from a PC...

in 1984?

Maybe for a VERY select few

Skyline : do you realize this is a 2 year old thread?

But... I will join the other intelligent people that realize that mac's are overpriced and I think the concept of making software only for their hardware is rediculous.

If I were going to buy a pre-built system for $2000+, I'd get something like a dell precision dual quad core or something.... My current i7 project is coming in at under $1100 and it will smoke all of the $1800-2500 mac pro's I see for sale that have 3 generation old nvidia graphics cards and all kinds of other overpriced hardware.