Macs Get Official Windows Support

by **Ian** on Wed Apr 05, 2006 10:02 am

Big props to Apple for doing this. I might actually pick up a Mac Mini now.

http://www.apple.com/macosx/bootcamp/

by **dolphinius_rex** on Wed Apr 05, 2006 10:25 am

Oh my gosh.... someone found a way to turn a Mac into a computer!

by **Boba_Fett** on Wed Apr 05, 2006 4:00 pm

Heh, yeah.

Mac owner: Holy shit, I can actually use all these programs I have now!

by **aviationwiz** on Wed Apr 05, 2006 10:37 pm

Ian wrote:Big props to Apple for doing this. I might actually pick up a Mac Mini now.

You won't regret it my friend to the East! Would you at least run OS X as well, or not at all?

dolphinius_rex wrote:Oh my gosh.... someone found a way to turn a Mac into a computer!

I didn't know that in the definition of 'computer' was that it had to crash!

by **Ian** on Wed Apr 05, 2006 11:12 pm

i've had an iMac for years and I've had little use for it primarily due to its OS. So no, I probably would never use OS X.

by **dolphinius_rex** on Wed Apr 05, 2006 11:31 pm

aviationwiz wrote:I didn't know that in the definition of 'computer' was that it had to crash!

Nah, if that was the case, Macs would have been computers already. I've seen software crash on a mac before... but it doesn't crash so often for me on my PC (except when i'm betatesting, but that does NOT count).

by **aviationwiz** on Thu Apr 06, 2006 11:13 am

Ian wrote:i've had an iMac for years and I've had little use for it primarily due to its OS. So no, I probably would never use OS X.

Does it run OS 9 or OS X? OS 9 was pretty sucktacular, but OS X is amazing!

dolphinius_rex wrote:Nah, if that was the case, Macs would have been computers already. I've seen software crash on a mac before... but it doesn't crash so often for me on my PC (except when i'm betatesting, but that does NOT count).

I've seen *SOFTWARE* crash on a Mac before, but I don't recall ever seeing a software crash bring down the whole OS in OS X.

by **Ian** on Thu Apr 06, 2006 11:42 am

Yes, my iMac had OS X. It just doesn't appeal to me.

As far as Windows crashing more than OS X.. if you know what you're doing, Windows is a very stable OS.

by **dolphinius_rex** on Thu Apr 06, 2006 12:12 pm

It was OS X not OS9. Since it's a professionally used Mac used for video editing and mastering, it's pretty high end. That doesn't stop it from being a little unstable though. The sad thing is that when we were having the demonstration, the guy actually told us about how he has to assume one thing will freeze and crash under certain regular parameters, so he has to take precautions, which include closing and reloading the program at certain times.

Really quite sad.

No I don't remember what software was being used, or the conditions.

by **smartin4** on Thu Apr 06, 2006 1:59 pm

As far as Windows crashing more than OS X.. if you know what you're doing, Windows is a very stable OS.

I have always felt this way about Windows. If you know what you're doing and stay away from file sharing & porn sites that load all kinds of crap on your machine without your knowledge, you will have little to no issues. Of course, running anti-spyware/malware programs will keep things even cleaner (programs like Spybot & Ad Aware to name 2)

You have to expect that occasionally a program will crash and even sometimes the OS, but 99% of the time, a reboot is all that it takes to cure the ill. On today's pcs, a reboot takes what, 2 minutes at most.

And if you know what you're doing, a crash whether hw or sw related, is nothing to be afraid of, if you do regular backups (which most people don't do) you will have any important data saved somewhere, and if you're like me, you run Ghost on your pc, and once a week I take 5 minutes to do a complete image of my pc, if it were to crash beyond recovery (which hasn't happened yet), I just Ghost the machine with the image. Plus the Ghost image takes care of me having to do a complete reinstall of everything when I just decide to wipe the pc out and redo it (just because it's just time to do it) .

by **hoxlund** on Sat Apr 08, 2006 12:33 am

3..2...1...

start pissing contest now! :roll:

by **Ian** on Sat Apr 08, 2006 8:03 am

If it weren't for MS's monthly patches, I'd probably never reboot. Back in the NT 4.0 days, my daily desktop machine had an uptime of like 3 months.

by **dodecahedron** on Sat Apr 08, 2006 9:27 am

Ian wrote:As far as Windows crashing more than OS X.. if you know what you're doing, Windows is a very stable OS.

well, apparently you have to be a Windows Guru to keep your Windows from crashing.
don't know about Mac OS, but in Linux you don't have to be a guru to keep it stable.

by **dolphinius_rex** on Sat Apr 08, 2006 11:24 am

dodecahedron wrote: but in Linux you don't have to be a guru to keep it stable.

No... you just need to be a guru to INSTALL it... or you know WRITE DRIVERS for it if they don't exist for your hardware yet :wink:

by **dodecahedron** on Sat Apr 08, 2006 12:18 pm

dolphinius_rex wrote:No... you just need to be a guru to INSTALL it... or you know WRITE DRIVERS for it if they don't exist for your hardware yet

no, you don't need to be a Linux Guru to install Linux.
and nowadays there's drivers for most hardware.

by **hoxlund** on Sun Apr 09, 2006 5:11 pm

not for cutting edge technology that i use

for the things that aren't supported from fresh install you have to compile the drive yourself

thats where i get lost with linux

by **aviationwiz** on Tue Apr 11, 2006 1:39 am

Yeah,

Linux drivers aren't readily available for the most cutting edge technology usually, and sometimes installing even normal drivers can be a pain. Installing the average distro nowadays is just fine.

With Mac OS, you don't need to be an expert to install, run, or maintain it to make it run stable.

by **Alejandra** on Fri Apr 28, 2006 9:39 pm

Ian wrote:If it weren't for MS's monthly patches, I'd probably never reboot. Back in the NT 4.0 days, my daily desktop machine had an uptime of like 3 months.

Ian, I rarely reboot my PowerBook, even I never shutdown, after use I close it and it sleeps, I have to reboot more for some software updates than for Applications crashes.

Of course Intel Macs are another story, developers just begin to release their software. For example Skype releases their Universal Binary just some days ago and the software doesn't run even on old Macs, they are really stupid, release an untested software =D>

Anyway I think that virtualization software is a better solution than dual booting, there is Parallels and VMware has said it will have VMware for Mac OS, and also there are rumors about some project by Apple to run win applications directly in Mac OS.

by **aviationwiz** on Sat Apr 29, 2006 10:53 pm

Alejandra wrote:Skype releases their Universal Binary just some days ago and the software doesn't run even on old Macs, they are really stupid, release an untested software

I've used Skype on Pocket PC, Windows XP, and Mac OS X (Dual PM G5), and my friend has used it on Linux, and it's buggy on each and every one. Skype is one of the buggiest programs out there, but it works great for voice chat compared to anything else. Overall though, I would have to say that it is the most stable under Mac OS X.

by **Boba_Fett** on Sun Apr 30, 2006 5:20 pm

'Nuff said!

by **hoxlund** on Sun Apr 30, 2006 5:40 pm

is that good or bad to have sex with your computer?

ohh also im thinking about buying my first duplicator, for the 1 to 1 dups, here what would be a recommendation:

http://www.newegg.com/Product/ProductLi ... tegory=528

by **Ian** on Sun Apr 30, 2006 7:51 pm

Running Windows in a virtual machine is fine if you need to do basic tasks. For gaming though, there's no substitute for a native OS.

Macs Get Official Windows Support

Macs Get Official Windows Support

Who is online