# Macintosh VS Windows



## firstpoint (Apr 7, 2008)

Hello Guys 

May you pls give me the main different between macintosh computers and windowscomputers, pls?


----------



## tomdkat (May 6, 2006)

Here is a starting point. The biggest differences, IMO, are: 
The layout of the UI (User Interface)
Approach to security
Mac OS X is restricted to running on Apple computers only while Windows can run on a wider spectrum of PC hardware, including Apple computers.
Peace...


----------



## SweaterVest014 (Feb 11, 2008)

Mac OS's are very user-friendly and easy to use; Windows OS's, while they aim to be user-friendly, are not altogether easy to use for beginners and non-techies.

Mac's are much safer to use (viruses, spyware, etc.); Windows is extremely virus prone and will work well only if you have a good security suite.

Mac's designs really stand out, but you do pay a price. Windows can be run on any PC machine, with a great range of prices that will fit most any budget.

Just the few things that stand out to me... I'll probably think of some more later.


----------



## Serge_N_Gin (Sep 7, 2004)

Also Apple relies on Hardware sales more than Software sales SO they only allow their Software (Mac OS) to be installed on their Hardware. Their Computers are quite stylish and can be very compact so you are paying for all of this.

Microsoft on the other hand are a Software Company so they rely heavily on the sales of their own OS (the latest being Vista) and don't really worry what kind of box it ends up in, therefore the vast array of PC types and shapes and different companies that make the boxes/monitors.

This is a different take on "What is the main difference between Mac/PC" and I should tip my hat to the member who recently put this point forth ....

_namenotfound_


----------



## SweaterVest014 (Feb 11, 2008)

Oh yeah, and I completely concur with the Apple commercials stating that Apple is fun-loving, easy to use, etc., while PC's are annoying and difficult, and get mad at nothing...


----------



## ferrija1 (Apr 11, 2006)

1. Macs are computers that run OS X, Apple's operating system. Just like Microsoft's operating system is Windows.
2. Apple makes most of their money off of hardware, so OS X can only be run on Mac computers originally sold from Apple.
3. OS X Desktop:








4. Macs are often used in media production environments, but are becoming much more popular among the general public.
5. Macs are often more expensive than PCs, but have many features that are not found on PCs.
6. Macs do not need antivirus programs because there are no viruses for Macs on the internet.


----------



## namenotfound (Apr 30, 2005)

For the last couple of posts that tried to make a distinction between Mac and "PC".

Macs *are* PC's.

I truly hate when people refer to "PC" as being Windows-only.

All PC stands for is Personal Computer, which a Mac is.



> 5. Macs are often more expensive than PCs, but have many features that are not found on PCs.


That's the same as saying:

Nikes are often more expensive than sneakers, but have many features that are not found on sneakers.

Nike is a sneaker


----------



## pelokwin (Apr 2, 2008)

Namenotfound said: _*I truly hate when people refer to "PC" as being Windows-only.

All PC stands for is Personal Computer, which a Mac is.*_ 
You are right, but almost everyone calls windows based computers PC's It is just the way we all make the distinction. (maybe the good folks at Mac came up with it to give the impression that Mac's are above Windows based computers) The rules of the English language are not set in stone and are changed on a constant basis not by scholars but by us common folk . "Ain't" is a good example, my mother cries every time someone uses it and I have yet to add it to my vocab. but it is in Funk & Wagnalls (who'd a thunk it) 
So don't let it upset you so I like your input and I don't want you to get an ulcer


----------



## tomdkat (May 6, 2006)

pelokwin said:


> The rules of the English language are not set in stone and are changed on a constant basis not by scholars but by us common folk . "Ain't" is a good example, my mother cries every time someone uses it and I have yet to add it to my vocab. but it is in Funk & Wagnalls (who'd a thunk it)


The thing is, we're not talking about "slang" or a commonly used violation of proper English. We're talking about incorrect use of a term that most who use it don't even realize is incorrect. Yet, when you tell them they are wrong, they get all defensive, yadda-yadda.

I agree with namenotfound but I also realize people will use the wrong terminology simply because it's commonplace and I have basically "given up" on getting people to realize they are abusing the terminology. Instead, when I communicate with them I simply use correct terminology with the hope they pick up on it. 

Peace...


----------



## kickback999 (Apr 14, 2008)

I also dislike the comparison of mac and "pc"
pc meaning windows.
But truthfully pc means a Linux pc too, which is far superior to a mac with osx.
Anyway, mac and pc is the same now: both use x86 and you can install osx on a normal pc.


----------



## tomdkat (May 6, 2006)

kickback999 said:


> you can install osx on a normal pc.


At least an Apple PC (i.e. a Mac). 

Peace...


----------



## pelokwin (Apr 2, 2008)

> We're talking about incorrect use of a term that most who use it don't even realize is incorrect.


I admit I have done it. Sorry. Feel free to smack me upside the head if you catch me doing it again.


> The thing is, we're not talking about "slang" or a commonly used violation of proper English.


but I feel that calling a Windows based PC just a PC is "Slang"
For short can I just sa.. type WPC, APC, LPC?


----------



## ferrija1 (Apr 11, 2006)

namenotfound said:


> For the last couple of posts that tried to make a distinction between Mac and "PC".
> 
> Macs *are* PC's.
> 
> ...


I'M SICK OF YOU SAYING THIS!  / 
Save your lessons for someone who knows more, you don't need to start confusing people who don't know what Macs are by saying that Macs are PCs. We're teaching the basics, don't bring in debates to these kinds of threads, create your own thread for this problem of yours. It's like teaching US customary units, sure, it might not be ideal but everyone uses it (in the US) and you can't change that. I've told you this before and I truly hate when you keep arguing over this word. Just drop it.

Peace


----------



## tomdkat (May 6, 2006)

pelokwin said:


> I admit I have done it. Sorry. Feel free to smack me upside the head if you catch me doing it again.


There's no need for physical violence. I'll just ask you to send me $5. 



> but I feel that calling a Windows based PC just a PC is "Slang"
> For short can I just sa.. type WPC, APC, LPC?


Actually, I consider referring to a PC running windows as just a "PC" is fine, since you're talking about a PC. The thing is, that *same* slang applies to Macs as well. 

Peace...


----------



## hamidmalikunu (Apr 15, 2008)

pelokwin said:


> Namenotfound said: _*I truly hate when people refer to "PC" as being Windows-only.
> 
> All PC stands for is Personal Computer, which a Mac is.*_
> You are right, but almost everyone calls windows based computers PC's It is just the way we all make the distinction. (maybe the good folks at Mac came up with it to give the impression that Mac's are above Windows based computers) The rules of the English language are not set in stone and are changed on a constant basis not by scholars but by us common folk . "Ain't" is a good example, my mother cries every time someone uses it and I have yet to add it to my vocab. but it is in Funk & Wagnalls (who'd a thunk it)
> So don't let it upset you so I like your input and I don't want you to get an ulcer


do you mean that mac is also a pc but we use pc only for window.

and my 2nd question is can ve call a mac as pc pls with reference


----------



## namenotfound (Apr 30, 2005)

hamidmalikunu said:


> do you mean that mac is also a pc but we use pc only for window.
> 
> and my 2nd question is can ve call a mac as pc pls with reference


Yes a mac is a pc. In fact, Apple made the FIRST PC. It was created by Steve Wozniak for a computer expo. He wanted to show his friends "hey look what I made". This was back when computers were complicated and expensive. What he made was the first PC because it was inexpensive and easy enough for anyone to use.

Steve Wozniak and Steve Jobs, both friends, then created the Apple computer company.


----------



## hamidmalikunu (Apr 15, 2008)

thx for quick reply u resolved my problem
realy thx


----------



## hamidmalikunu (Apr 15, 2008)

Then its means that mac is pc and we use the software only os x which is designed only for it
mac was designed in 1984 and when window was designed and is it easy to use mac or pc
and which is more friendly user pls 2/3 examples


----------



## namenotfound (Apr 30, 2005)

hamidmalikunu said:


> Then its means that mac is pc and we use the software only os x which is designed only for it
> mac was designed in 1984 and when window was designed and is it easy to use mac or pc
> and which is more friendly user pls 2/3 examples


I don't quite understand the question, your English is bad. But I think you want to know which is easier, Mac OS X or Windows XP/Vista?

Well Mac OS X is more straightforward. To uninstall an application in Windows, you have to do 5-7 steps. To uninstall an application on Mac OS X, it's just 1 step; drag the app to the trash can. So that's an example of why I think Mac OS X is easier.

As for error messages, Mac OS X tells you exactly what the problem is. Windows uses coded messages such as "k29dffch3fcic has an error". So that's another example of why I think Mac OS X is easier.


----------



## hamidmalikunu (Apr 15, 2008)

the diff is easy mac is start with word m and window with w


----------



## namenotfound (Apr 30, 2005)

hamidmalikunu said:


> the diff is easy mac is start with word m and window with w


"m" (and "w") aren't words, they are letters


----------



## Stoner (Oct 26, 2002)

firstpoint said:


> Hello Guys
> 
> May you pls give me the main different between macintosh computers and windowscomputers, pls?


The first is worshiped, the second is used............


----------



## pelokwin (Apr 2, 2008)

Stoner said:


> The first is worshiped, the second is used............


oh that is PRICELESS!!:up:.....and oh so true


----------



## hamidmalikunu (Apr 15, 2008)

how v can define mac
which is prefered mac or pc


----------



## namenotfound (Apr 30, 2005)

hamidmalikunu said:


> how v can define mac
> which is prefered mac or pc


It's a personal preference. If you prefer Mac, then use it. If you prefer Windows them use it.

The majority of the time I use Linux, when in school though I use my MacBook Pro. So I'd say 95% of the time I'm on Linux. :up:

I'm almost never on Windows anymore. Though I was a Windows user for 10 years.


----------



## kickback999 (Apr 14, 2008)

Which is preferred?
Well, a lot more people use windows, so logically speaking you could say Windows is preferred.
But since most people who use it claim to hate it most of the time and most people who use mac claim to actually like the mac and enjoy using it then the mac is preferred.


----------



## firstpoint (Apr 7, 2008)

Thank you guys, I made my dicison, my next compuer will be macintosh, according to your responses apple macs are better than microsoft computers... user friendly, higher security, ideal for entertainment. *ferrija1* thanks for da pic. Now I can safely say. i'm in love with Macintosh.
Cheers!


----------



## ferrija1 (Apr 11, 2006)

Glad to help, have fun!


----------



## jillian2 (Sep 11, 2004)

Sweatervest 014

I really don't find the Apple Computer designs more attractive than the PC designs. It is merely a preference. Beauty is truly in the eye of the beholder and my eyes see the pc's more attractive. Towers and monitors.


----------



## ferrija1 (Apr 11, 2006)

jillian2 said:


> Sweatervest 014
> 
> I really don't find the Apple Computer designs more attractive than the PC designs. It is merely a preference. Beauty is truly in the eye of the beholder and my eyes see the pc's more attractive. Towers and monitors.


No one ever said PCs were uglier.


----------



## tomdkat (May 6, 2006)

ferrija1 said:


> No one ever said PCs were uglier.


At least not in this thread but I have read comments where people tend to think Macs are more stylish than a "traditional" tower or desktop machine running Windows or something else. In fact I read one article that indicated the attractiveness of the MacBook was one reason people ran Linux on it; so they could run Linux on "cool" looking hardware. 

Peace...


----------



## Dyonas (May 18, 2007)

namenotfound said:


> Yes a mac is a pc. In fact, Apple made the FIRST PC. It was created by Steve Wozniak for a computer expo. He wanted to show his friends "hey look what I made". This was back when computers were complicated and expensive. What he made was the first PC because it was inexpensive and easy enough for anyone to use.
> 
> Steve Wozniak and Steve Jobs, both friends, then created the Apple computer company.


That's not true, the bit about Wozniak creating it I mean. Xerox made it but abandoned it and pretty much gave it to Apple on a plate. If you can be bothered reading a lot you can view the information in lots of places but a very quick search of "Xerox PC" gave me this link....

http://www.fool.com/news/foth/2000/foth000918.htm

The part I'll quote for you:-



> Similarly, Xerox PARC invented modern desktop computing. Windows, icons, mice, pulldown menus, "What You See Is What You Get" (WYSIWYG) printing, networked workstations, object-oriented programming -- the works. Xerox the copier company feared the paperless office and formed a think tank to invent it before anybody else could, but once its commandos had succeeded, it simply couldn't bring itself to disrupt its core business of making copiers.
> 
> Xerox could have owned the PC revolution, but instead it sat on the technology for years. Then, in exchange for the opportunity to invest in a hot new pre-IPO start-up called "Apple," the Xerox PARC commandos were forced -- under protest -- to give Apple's engineers a tour and a demonstration of their work. The result was the Apple Macintosh, which Microsoft later copied to create Windows.


----------



## ferrija1 (Apr 11, 2006)

Well of course it is an opinion, but most/many people think of Macs are more stylish.


----------



## jfm429 (Jun 8, 2007)

kickback999 said:


> ...But truthfully pc means a Linux pc too, which is far superior to a mac with osx...


I'd question that. They both run on a UNIX core, but while Linux has come a LONG way, it's still not very refined. It's far too "geeky" for the general public, even the easier-to-use distros. I personally run Fedora 8 on my old XP box as a dual-boot, and I have a Fedora 9 VM on my Mac, and although they're good, OS X is far superior.
Regardless, any Linux distro is better than any Windows version. 



kickback999 said:


> ...you can install osx on a normal pc...


Not legally.


----------



## tomdkat (May 6, 2006)

Dyonas said:


> That's not true, the bit about Wozniak creating it I mean. Xerox made it but abandoned it and pretty much gave it to Apple on a plate. If you can be bothered reading a lot you can view the information in lots of places but a very quick search of "Xerox PC" gave me this link....


Thanks for that link. I read that quote to mean Xerox created the desktop computing technology but didn't actually produce a personal computer nor did they go to market with it, as Apple did. Or am I missing something?

Peace...


----------



## tomdkat (May 6, 2006)

IMAntiSym1 said:


> while Linux has come a LONG way, it's still not very refined. It's far too "geeky" for the general public, even the easier-to-use distros.


I wholeheartedly disagree with this. Linux isn't _that_ "geeky" these days and some might argue modern desktop environments offer as intuitive a computing experience as Windows or OS X (personal preferences not withstanding).

Peace...


----------



## pelokwin (Apr 2, 2008)

tomdkat,
I would say that IMAntiSym1 should have said," Linux is _seen _as too geeky for the general public" but given a chance to play they would find it very appeling


----------



## jfm429 (Jun 8, 2007)

True, but when you see people every day who still don't know how to use tabbed browsing after three years, it's too geeky. Sorry if I wasn't specific, what I meant was that it's not for the general public as in people who basically don't know how to really use a computer and end up calling a relative to constantly "fix" them. (the example that comes to mind here was someone's grandparents had a Mac and called him several times a week to "fix" their computer, which had slowed down drastically - every single time, he simply quit the huge number of running applications that they had forgotten to quit. That went on for a long time, and the last I heard, they still didn't know the difference between Close and Quit. For these people, who make up a fairly large portion of computer users I have seen, Linux would be somewhat intimidating.


----------



## tomdkat (May 6, 2006)

pelokwin said:


> tomdkat,
> I would say that IMAntiSym1 should have said," Linux is _seen _as too geeky for the general public" but given a chance to play they would find it very appeling


Fair enough. 

Peace...


----------



## tomdkat (May 6, 2006)

IMAntiSym1 said:


> True, but when you see people every day who still don't know how to use tabbed browsing after three years, it's too geeky.


That's not a Linux issue, that's a general computer use issue. In the Linux forum, there was a thread started by someone who wanted to try Linux out but he was "scared" he would _have_ to use the command line for just about everything. After getting his system installed and running, I'm not sure how much time, if any, he's had to spend at the command line at all.

I do understand the perceptions about Linux but my point is those perceptions have quickly been diminished, in reality, even though they are still widely held by many.



> Sorry if I wasn't specific, what I meant was that it's not for the general public as in people who basically don't know how to really use a computer and end up calling a relative to constantly "fix" them.


I disagree with this since I consider Windows and Mac OS X to be in the exact same boat.



> (the example that comes to mind here was someone's grandparents had a Mac and called him several times a week to "fix" their computer, which had slowed down drastically - every single time, he simply quit the huge number of running applications that they had forgotten to quit. That went on for a long time, and the last I heard, they still didn't know the difference between Close and Quit. For these people, who make up a fairly large portion of computer users I have seen, Linux would be somewhat intimidating.


I actually support a fair number of the kind of people you describe above and most of their "fear" of Linux is simply "fear of the unknown". Case in point: my dad is a long time MS Office user, Excel in particular. He's one of the folks who refers to a spreadsheet as an "Excel". He bought a new machine and was gonna install an old copy of MS Office he had laying around until I talked him into trying out OpenOffice, something which he had never seen. He was a bit leary at first but once he saw it and tried it out, he found he likes it and hasn't mentioned MS Office since.

Instead of IE, he uses Seamonkey as his default browser. On another machine he bought, I easily got him to try out Opera (he gave NO pushback at all) and gave it a 6-month trial before deciding he likes Seamonkey better. These days, Linux really isn't any more difficult to learn or master than Windows but I'll still give a slight edge to OS X being more intuitive (in general).

Peace...


----------



## Dyonas (May 18, 2007)

tomdkat said:


> Thanks for that link. I read that quote to mean Xerox created the desktop computing technology but didn't actually produce a personal computer nor did they go to market with it, as Apple did. Or am I missing something?
> 
> Peace...


Hmm that's a point, I'm pretty sure they created it though. I found this on Wikipedia which probably explains it better.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Xerox_Star

The main part of interest would be the top and introductory paragraph.



> The Star workstation, officially known as the 8010 Star Information System, was introduced by Xerox Corporation in 1981. It was the first commercial system to incorporate various technologies that today have become commonplace in personal computers, including a bitmapped display, a window-based graphical user interface, icons, folders, mouse, Ethernet networking, file servers, print servers and e-mail.


----------



## tomdkat (May 6, 2006)

Dyonas said:


> Hmm that's a point, I'm pretty sure they created it though. I found this on Wikipedia which probably explains it better.
> 
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Xerox_Star
> 
> The main part of interest would be the top and introductory paragraph.


Thanks for that link. As you point out, the introductory paragraph certain does mention the technology that is now part of PCs, however it also states this about the Xerox Star:


> The Star workstation, officially known as the 8010 Star Information System, was introduced by Xerox Corporation in 1981. It was the first *commercial system* to incorporate various technologies that today have become commonplace in personal computers, including a bitmapped display, a window-based graphical user interface, icons, folders, mouse, Ethernet networking, file servers, print servers and e-mail.


 then the article goes on to state (in the "Star" section):


> The competitive landscape of the era was dominated by costly mainframes and minicomputers equipped with dumb terminals that time-shared processing time of the central computer. *On the other side of the spectrum, personal computers were simplistic, with limited processing power and the inability to communicate with other systems*. Xerox saw a niche somewhere in between with a distributed processing architecture  smart workstations with centralized file and peripheral sharing.


 and lastly


> *The Xerox Star was not originally meant to be a stand-alone computer, but to be part of an integrated Xerox "personal office system" that also connected to other workstations and network services via Ethernet*. Although a single unit sold for $16,000, a typical office would have to purchase at least 2 or 3 machines along with a file server and a print server. Dropping $50,000 to $100,000 for a complete installation was not an easy sell.


Those three quotes (along with other content in the article) read to me that the Xerox Star was the first computer to employ the graphical oriented technologies commonly found in modern PCs but the Xerox Star was _also_ competing with other *PC*s that didn't offer the graphical interface and the other things the Star offered.

In other words, Xerox didn't position the Star as a PC.

Peace...


----------



## Dyonas (May 18, 2007)

Aha! I tip my hat to you sir, I guess I was thinking and misread thinking he said Apple created the whole idea whereas he was saying (correctly according to the article and parts you quote) they created the first PC.


----------



## buck52 (Mar 9, 2001)

Mac will play second fiddle to PC/Windows until they make or come up with more/better software...

I recently bought a mac laptop and it will do nothing that I want it to do... the software is not available...

I was mislead and made a bad assumption... very disapointing

I have wasted much time on the phone with Nikon only to find out that Camera control pro 2 will not work on a mac and have done the same with Garmin and Delmore only to find out that none of their map programs are mac compatible...


why would anyone own a mac...


----------



## tomdkat (May 6, 2006)

buck52 said:


> Mac will play second fiddle to PC/Windows until they make or come up with more/better software...


Who is "they"?

Peace...


----------



## buck52 (Mar 9, 2001)

tomdkat said:


> Who is "they"?


no response to that dumb question...


----------



## tomdkat (May 6, 2006)

If "they" is Apple, you must keep in mind Microsoft *does NOT* develop most of the software that runs on Windows. If "they" is software vendors in general, that's not an Apple issue.

Peace..


----------



## buck52 (Mar 9, 2001)

I get your point... 

I guess the software vendors agree with me ... mac is not worth the time

It's to bad because I do like the interface the little I have played with it


----------



## tomdkat (May 6, 2006)

buck52 said:


> I guess the software vendors agree with me ... mac is not worth the time


Unfortunately, I think you're right that software vendors choose to ignore Mac OS X BUT I think most "mainstream" apps people would use most frequently are available. Apps like office productivity suites, web browsers, e-mail apps (including ones that support Exchange servers), graphics apps, desktop publishing apps, and so on.

Were you wanting to run "mainstream" apps that were not available for OS X or specialized apps? One app I that runs ONLY on Windows that boggles my mind as to why it runs ONLY on Windows is Stamps.com. You use that app (a local client) to print postage. That should run on Windows AND OS X (Intel and PPC-based Macs) at the very least and should be a platform independent Java application, ideally. Whatever... *sigh* 

Peace...


----------



## buck52 (Mar 9, 2001)

Well if you consider a streets and map or water nav program specialized I guess I am wanting something special...

The camera control program I am very surprized/disappointed that it is not available for the mac seeings how mac is highly reguarded in the graphics community


----------



## pelokwin (Apr 2, 2008)

Buck52,
You are not the only one who has run into the " not available for Mac" wall but if Macs have a flaw that would make me toss the thing out the window it would be the hardware/price to fix or replace.
(pelokwin is typing on the family Dell demon due to Mac "hardware issues)


----------



## tomdkat (May 6, 2006)

buck52 said:


> Well if you consider a streets and map or water nav program specialized I guess I am wanting something special...


Does GPS software count? I found this:

http://www8.garmin.com/pressroom/corporate/011006.html
http://www.macgpspro.com/html/newhtml/macgpspro/testimonials.html



> The camera control program I am very surprized/disappointed that it is not available for the mac seeings how mac is highly reguarded in the graphics community


What kind of camera are you wanting to control?

The most frustrating aspect of software availability for any given platform is wanting a particular application (like PhotoShop natively on Linux) to be available instead of not having anything or something you'll have to learn which is available for the platform in question.

Peace...


----------



## buck52 (Mar 9, 2001)

I have spent hours on the phone with both Garmin and Delmore ... the only two third party map programs that are worth anything...neither of whom offer their map/gps software for OS x

As for the camera... I have a Nikon D2X and and a wt-2a wireless remote for it and it requires Camera Control Pro 2 to make it all happen... It's not available for a mac


----------



## tomdkat (May 6, 2006)

buck52 said:


> I have spent hours on the phone with both Garmin and Delmore ... the only two third party map programs that are worth anything...neither of whom offer their map/gps software for OS x


These apps weren't around when you spoke with Garmin? Or maybe the person with whom you spoke wasn't aware of them?

In any event, this kind of issue is an issue with the software vendors and not Apple.



> As for the camera... I have a Nikon D2X and and a wt-2a wireless remote for it and it requires Camera Control Pro 2 to make it all happen... It's not available for a mac


Is this the Camera Control Pro 2 software you're talking about? If so, it lists Mac OS X as a supported OS (on the "Tech Specs" page) and you can even download a trial or OS X. Or were you talking about some other software?

Peace...


----------



## buck52 (Mar 9, 2001)

I agree that it is a software issue... my fault for placing the blame souly on Apple...



> Is this the Camera Control Pro 2 software you're talking about? If so, it lists Mac OS X as a supported OS (on the "Tech Specs" page) and you can even download a trial or OS X. Or were you talking about some other software?


... It will not work with OS X v 10.5.2 so the Nikon tech supervisor I spoke with said... the same is true for Garmin and Delmore...

maybe they are all giving me the runaround but I doubt it...


----------



## jfm429 (Jun 8, 2007)

Did you actually try running these apps? They may say they don't "officially" work with 10.5.2 but they may work anyway. This was true with Adobe's CS3 suite - it wasn't "officially" running on Leopard, but people were running it anyway with very few problems.


----------



## tomdkat (May 6, 2006)

buck52 said:


> ... It will not work with OS X v 10.5.2 so the Nikon tech supervisor I spoke with said... the same is true for Garmin and Delmore...
> 
> maybe they are all giving me the runaround but I doubt it...


I believe that since Leopard is a release of OS X software vendors have been slow to support. Two things to consider:

Saying an app isn't available for OS X 10.5 ( Leopard) isn't the same as saying it's not available for OS X.
There are still Windows apps that aren't compatible with Windows Vista even though this is changing over time. When Vista first came out, people complained about software incompatibilities and lack of Vista drivers, which made some hardware support a challenge.
Given my above comments, I fully agree that there is more software available for Windows than for OS X but I think we've demonstrated above the "landscape", if you will, isn't as bad as people might think. 

Peace...


----------



## ferrija1 (Apr 11, 2006)

tomdkat said:


> I believe that since Leopard is a release of OS X software vendors have been slow to support. Two things to consider:
> 
> Saying an app isn't available for OS X 10.5 ( Leopard) isn't the same as saying it's not available for OS X.
> There are still Windows apps that aren't compatible with Windows Vista even though this is changing over time. When Vista first came out, people complained about software incompatibilities and lack of Vista drivers, which made some hardware support a challenge.
> ...


I've found all my apps to be updated quite quickly. The Apple development community is a close-knit group that is usually good with updates like this, and I think they did very well.


----------



## VegasACF (May 27, 2005)

To buck52:

Have you considered running Windows on your Mac laptop? I'm assuming you're basing your opinion upon a laptop that has been available for no more than two years (the first MacBook Pro shipped in January, 2006). If this is indeed the case, that laptop is capable of natively running your Windows-only software, so long as you install the Windows OS on a drive partition. Once completed, run your Windows-only software to your heart's content.

If it is not the case, you're basing your judgment of the current offerings on hardware that is more than a generation old. Not that this is necessarily a bad thing. If I were to judge Windows Vista by its predecessor I might think it a capable OS! 

For whatever it is (or isn't) worth, I go back and forth between Windows and the MacOS on a daily basis. The former because that's what I've got in my office (meanwhile my boss is running a sparkling new Mac Pro [place assorted grumbling here]), and I've got (mostly) MacOS machines at home. On the rare occasions that I need to run some software that is Windows-only my nearly two-year-old MacBook Pro handles it with aplomb--better than the two machines that are capable of _only_ running Windows (they are, of course, slightly older models--I'm sure a top o' the line Windows-only machine would run rings around them, and likely the MacBook Pro, too).

And, for whatever else it is (or isn't) worth, I'm also still running a computer with Mac OS 9.2.2 on it. The reasons for this are many, and mostly revolve around the money involved in updating the hardware and software which work perfectly well in this OS (Pro Tools TDM hard/software that will _not_ run in OS X--update of which would cost at _least_ $15,000 from top to bottom, and _probably_ quite a bit more). Even though this OS is, what, 8 years old(?), and the software is a bit older than that it still works great. I guess if it isn't broken why (pay to) fix it?

Perhaps you just need to fully explore the capabilities of your machine before becoming fed up with it? Just a thought. Forgive me if I missed something. I'm on my lunch break, so may have missed some salient point that made mine repetitive.


----------



## tomdkat (May 6, 2006)

ferrija1 said:


> I've found all my apps to be updated quite quickly. The Apple development community is a close-knit group that is usually good with updates like this, and I think they did very well.


That's cool but some major software vendors, like Adobe, are dragging their feet for some reason. I know of a specialized dentistry oriented application where the vendor supports OS X Tiger and doesn't plan on supporting Leopard until sometime next year. Considering developers had access to Leopard _before_ it went GA, I'm not sure why there are these kinds of lags (the same goes for Vista support as well).

Peace...


----------



## jfm429 (Jun 8, 2007)

Well, Adobe is dragging their feet because they're too lazy to port to Cocoa right away to get 64-bit support and such. I know, I know, it's a _huge_ job to port something of that scale to Cocoa, but Adobe is a HUGE company and they cater to professional production studios and such, who use Macs a large percentage of the time. Adobe needs to get with the program. No pun intended.


----------



## ferrija1 (Apr 11, 2006)

CS4 will be 64-bit and we should start hearing more about it soon.


----------



## tomdkat (May 6, 2006)

IMAntiSym1 said:


> Well, Adobe is dragging their feet because they're too lazy to port to Cocoa right away to get 64-bit support and such. I know, I know, it's a _huge_ job to port something of that scale to Cocoa, but Adobe is a HUGE company and they cater to professional production studios and such, who use Macs a large percentage of the time. Adobe needs to get with the program. No pun intended.


Make sense. Would they port to Cocoa, Aqua, or both?



ferrija1 said:


> CS4 will be 64-bit and we should start hearing more about it soon.


Sounds good. : )

Peace...


----------



## ferrija1 (Apr 11, 2006)

tomdkat said:


> Make sense. Would they port to Cocoa, Aqua, or both?


Aqua? Aqua is a set of user interface elements, and Cocoa is a programming language (that utilizes Aqua).


----------



## tomdkat (May 6, 2006)

Thanks for the correction. I thought Cocoa was the name of the old UI. I wasn't aware it was a programming environment. 

It looks like the Cocoa programming environment is pretty flexible, allowing development in Objective-C, Python or Ruby.

Look at that, I learned something new today! :up:

Peace...


----------



## jfm429 (Jun 8, 2007)

CS4 will _NOT_ be 64-bit on the Mac - only on Windows. They're going to wait until CS5 or whatever. That's what I mean about Adobe not porting it to Cocoa. The current framework CS3 runs on is Carbon, which is only 32-bit. Cocoa _is_ 64-bit, but Adobe is too lazy to port it to Cocoa, and therefore, the Macs get stuck with 32-bit until Adobe gets their #### together.

Unless Adobe recently changed their mind, but I doubt it.


----------



## tomdkat (May 6, 2006)

Wow, that REALLY surprises me. How did you find this out?

Peace...


----------



## ferrija1 (Apr 11, 2006)

tomdkat said:


> Wow, that REALLY surprises me. How did you find this out?
> 
> Peace...


http://www.macworld.com/article/132810/2008/04/photoshop64.html


----------



## tomdkat (May 6, 2006)

Thanks for the link. 

Peace...


----------



## pillainp (Dec 11, 2007)

To put it simply:

Suppose you were to go out and buy a mug.

Now the guy that sells you the mug tells you what you can drink in it, where you can drink it, and how you should drink it. And he charges you an arbitrary amount for the mug that you will pay because the seller is that cool. Now you sit at home on your patio and sip irish coffee in your new expensive mug, and it breaks. You are clearly in violation of terms, because the manufacturer told you you could only drink water with his logo on it on your patio, that you buy for 4 times what its worth. That's Apple.

Now you buy another mug, that is made of whatever you want it to be made of, and you can drink whatever you want in it, wherever you want, but ocassionally, it breaks, because it just cannot handle some of the stuff you throw at it. That's Windows.

Now you buy a third mug, but you have to dig up the mud, mix it, mould it, bake and decorate it, all by yourself (but there's a lot of people on the sidelines shouting instructions to you), and then you can drink with it. But you have to make a new mug (see above) for everything you decide to drink, and everyplace, because what works one place will not work another; and those people on the sidelines, who helped you before, call you names, usually including the $ sign in place of "s", because how can you expect one mug to do everything???? That is Linux.


----------



## tomdkat (May 6, 2006)

Cute but Windows would be what goes IN the mug. 

Peace...


----------



## pillainp (Dec 11, 2007)

I was referring more to the OS/App environment than the hardware, because all hardware nowadays is PC, more or less.


----------



## tomdkat (May 6, 2006)

That's cool but then the Apple analogy falls apart because the "expense" there is the hardware. OS X costs around $130 on the shelf, iTunes is free, and the restrictions you mention apply to what you can do with Mac hardware.

Still, I think your post was cute. 

Peace...


----------



## pelokwin (Apr 2, 2008)

Ok, I am giving it a go
So Windows would be a drink that you could drink out of any mug, glass, or even your hat. It would taste good, be very mixable with any alcohol, and a lot of folks were drinking it so you could share your with them and vice-versa. Even your boss would give you some at work, but it would endlessly attract horse flies, lice, dung beetles, and army ants. So you would have to buy lots of bug repellants, and roach motels. And then after about two or so years just when you got used to your drink they would change it and you would have to buy a new mug that could hold the new drink and you hear from some people that the new drink plant had an infestation of all kinds of incests and some may be in your drink.

Apple would be a really cheap drink that would taste exactly like what you wanted at that moment and would almost never go bad. It would have bug repellants already in the mix and the ads for this drink are just to funny but to buy this drink you would have to buy a really cool but very expensive and very fragile mug and when it broke it would cost almost as much as a new mug it to get it fixed.

And Linux would be ....Kool-Aid


----------



## jfm429 (Jun 8, 2007)

An Apple compared to a very _fragile_ mug? More like indestructable polycarbonate or something...


----------



## pelokwin (Apr 2, 2008)

That whole little post was more aimed at the preception of each, I am not informed enough about the three to make a "truthful" analogy
I for one have read more post about Apple hardware going south, Windows software going north, and the go anyway you can of Linux. So that is what I used for my post


----------



## pelokwin (Apr 2, 2008)

IMAntiSym1 said:


> An Apple compared to a very _fragile_ mug? More like indestructable polycarbonate or something...


Really?


----------



## tomdkat (May 6, 2006)

pelokwin said:


> Ok, I am giving it a go
> So Windows would be a drink that you could drink out of any mug, glass, or even your hat. It would taste good, be very mixable with any alcohol, and a lot of folks were drinking it so you could share your with them and vice-versa. Even your boss would give you some at work, but it would endlessly attract horse flies, lice, dung beetles, and army ants. So you would have to buy lots of bug repellants, and roach motels. And then after about two or so years just when you got used to your drink they would change it and you would have to buy a new mug that could hold the new drink and you hear from some people that the new drink plant had an infestation of all kinds of incests and some may be in your drink.
> 
> Apple would be a really cheap drink that would taste exactly like what you wanted at that moment and would almost never go bad. It would have bug repellants already in the mix and the ads for this drink are just to funny but to buy this drink you would have to buy a really cool but very expensive and very fragile mug and when it broke it would cost almost as much as a new mug it to get it fixed.
> ...


Works for me! 5 pts for pelokwin. 

Peace...


----------



## Serge_N_Gin (Sep 7, 2004)

A tree is growing in a small park, in the middle of a town and having grown steadily for several years, is now totally covered with delicious, ripe fruit that looks, tastes and smells sublime ....

that's Apple.

There's a second tree which is now in the shade of the first tree and is also fully laden with ripe fruit, except insects have lain eggs in the fruit and while the fruit is perfectly delicious, there's a certain _"yuck"_ factor ...

that's Windows.

Just behind the first and second trees is a third tree and it too has grown steadily with the passing years. It doesn't get as much sun as the first tree but gets more than the second and is a bit of a secret with the more canny locals, as it's partially hidden by the first two trees. Locals have for years dined on the strange but delicious fruit it bears, but the secret will be revealed one day ....

that's Linux.​
.


----------



## jfm429 (Jun 8, 2007)

Serge_N_Gin said:


> A tree is growing in a small park, in the middle of a town and having grown steadily for several years, is now totally covered with delicious, ripe fruit that looks, tastes and smells sublime ....
> 
> that's Apple.
> 
> ...


Absolutely perfect!


----------



## tomdkat (May 6, 2006)

Serge_N_Gin said:


> A tree is growing in a small park, in the middle of a town and having grown steadily for several years, is now totally covered with delicious, ripe fruit that looks, tastes and smells sublime ....
> 
> that's Apple.
> 
> ...


I like this one too. I abandoned the mug analogy but I like the trees and the form of the prose. 4 pts. 

Peace...


----------



## pelokwin (Apr 2, 2008)

_Originally Posted by Serge_N_Gin 
...... ripe fruit that looks, tastes and smells sublime .... 
that's Apple.
......fruit is perfectly delicious, there's a certain "yuck" factor ... 
that's Windows.
.....but the secret will be revealed one day .... 
that's Linux._
The judge from NJ gives 8.5 pts
9.5 for the analogy
9 for poetic nature
7 for humor


----------



## Glun (Jun 4, 2008)

Ah, the bitter battle between OS'....

May I bang my head against the well repeatedly now? Yes? Thank you.
*krunk
crack
cronk
klonk
crash*


----------



## YellerPuma (Mar 8, 2008)

Serge_N_Gin said:


> A tree is growing in a small park, in the middle of a town and having grown steadily for several years, is now totally covered with delicious, ripe fruit that looks, tastes and smells sublime ....
> 
> that's Apple.
> 
> ...


I´m eatń off the 3rd tree. GO LINUX!!!!


----------



## pelokwin (Apr 2, 2008)

> Glun Ah, the bitter battle between OS'....
> 
> May I bang my head against the well repeatedly now? Yes? Thank you.
> *krunk
> ...


I would not call this a *battle*... more of, enlightened observation


----------



## jfm429 (Jun 8, 2007)

Some people would disagree...


----------



## Serge_N_Gin (Sep 7, 2004)

YellerPuma said:


> I´m eatń off the 3rd tree. GO LINUX!!!!


I've eaten from all 3 an' have a gut ache ....


----------

