What you haven't considered is that these Windows users are going to bring their Windows software along with them. They might like using the iApps, but not buy much Mac software.
Of course I have considered that. It's in my post you quoted - the tax example.
Another example, then. Consider a person with 10 pieces of Windows software, most of which work too well and/or cost too much to give up. Which is better for the OS X platform:
- this guy buys a computer and OS X from Apple, just two apps from Mac developers, and continues using 8 apps on Windows
Of course I have considered that. It's in my post you quoted - the tax example.
Another example, then. Consider a person with 10 pieces of Windows software, most of which work too well and/or cost too much to give up. Which is better for the OS X platform:
- this guy buys a computer and OS X from Apple, just two apps from Mac developers, and continues using 8 apps on Windows
- this guy continues using 10 apps on Windows?
I do understand what you're saying there. But it isn't necessarily enough.
People have to buy more than two pieces of software. They have to buy something every so often to help the developers out. If they bring ten pieces of software over and update them rather than replacing most of them, they aren't helping as much as you think.
Over the years I listen to people bitch about a developer who left the platform. But they never bought that program themselves.
We need people to come over and be so impressed with the system that they will WANT to discard most of their Windows stuff.
Apple isn't making that happen as much as they should. Having both OS's on the same machine will make it harder.
Apple isn't making that happen as much as they should. Having both OS's on the same machine will make it harder.
That's a copout. The machine will be transparent to the user because the OS will still be seperated from the user and software. What I mean is this transition will appear as nothing has happened.
Sure they might be able to run windows on it... but why would you unless you have some $$$$$$$$$$$ piece of windows software on it that you CAN NOT give up. If anything having both OS's on the same machine will give users more reason to switch. Now there isn't any more PPC bog down with drivers and out dated technology. What do you mean apple isn't doing as much as they should? Are you kidding me?! Look at their OS updates in the last 4 years. Ok now look at Microsofts. Apple has had 4 MAJOR updates in the last 4 years. Microsoft *counts* .... 1 or 2 (depends if you count sp1 and sp2 as major updates).
I don't know if anyone has mentioned this on these forums but Windows Longhorn was scrapped. It was impossible to build the OS. So now they are looking at a 2007 release date because they had to start all over with design. So 7 years to release an update... and we're bitching about apple not doing everything they can? They are miles ahead of their competitors.
....Sure they might be able to run windows on it... but why would you .....
Half Life 2. And other good games not available on mac. or those which require much more expensive PPC Macs to run those games which tend to come out much slower than PC games anyway.
That's a copout. The machine will be transparent to the user because the OS will still be seperated from the user and software. What I mean is this transition will appear as nothing has happened.
Sure they might be able to run windows on it... but why would you unless you have some $$$$$$$$$$$ piece of windows software on it that you CAN NOT give up. If anything having both OS's on the same machine will give users more reason to switch. Now there isn't any more PPC bog down with drivers and out dated technology. What do you mean apple isn't doing as much as they should? Are you kidding me?! Look at their OS updates in the last 4 years. Ok now look at Microsofts. Apple has had 4 MAJOR updates in the last 4 years. Microsoft *counts* .... 1 or 2 (depends if you count sp1 and sp2 as major updates).
I don't know if anyone has mentioned this on these forums but Windows Longhorn was scrapped. It was impossible to build the OS. So now they are looking at a 2007 release date because they had to start all over with design. So 7 years to release an update... and we're bitching about apple not doing everything they can? They are miles ahead of their competitors.
Boy, are you out of touch!
Have you actually read my posts? Have you read them and thought about what was being said, or is your response just a knee jerk?
Those are all relevent issues.
I'm not a fanboy, even though I've been responsable for at least a couple of million in Apple sales over the past few years. The issues I brought up are being discussed throught the indusrty. You can be sure that Jobs and his people have been discussing them as well.
You're wrong about what you've said. I don't even know what your first paragraph is referring to. I never said the transition wouldn't be transparent.
I wouldn't be surprised if many coming over from Windows will put it right back on the Mac they get.
This has nothing to do with how mant updated Apple has. Again, you might not have noticed, but many people - Mac users COMPLAIN about having to pay for all of those. In the PC world they call it the "Mac Tax".
And what the hell are you talking about regarding Longhorn? It wasn't discontinued. MS changes the NAME. It's the same OS. JUst now it's called Vista.
You really are out in left field. Come on in. The inning is over.
I do understand what you're saying there. But it isn't necessarily enough.
What do you want, then? People mailing money to Apple as charity? We're running out of options here.Quote:
People have to buy more than two pieces of software. They have to buy something every so often to help the developers out. If they bring ten pieces of software over and update them rather than replacing most of them, they aren't helping as much as you think.
Over the years I listen to people bitch about a developer who left the platform. But they never bought that program themselves.
We need people to come over and be so impressed with the system that they will WANT to discard most of their Windows stuff.
Apple isn't making that happen as much as they should. Having both OS's on the same machine will make it harder.
I guess I'm harming the platform, having only bought two pieces of software despite buying two Macs? Maybe I should just pack my stuff and move back on Windows to stop my horrible abuse of Apple and the OS X platform?
People will be impressed with the system when the system is good enough to impress them.
I'm thinking that a person that even dips a toe on the OS X platform is better than one that never even looks that way since he is bound to Windows by his software. Consider the extreme case of every Windows user making a "half-hearted switch". The final numbers are: ~100% of computers made by Apple, ~25% OS X user share, ~75% Windows user share.
A single "half-hearted switch" is a step to that direction from status quo. How could that be a bad thing?
[B]What do you want, then? People mailing money to Apple as charity? We're running out of options here.I guess I'm harming the platform, having only bought two pieces of software despite buying two Macs? Maybe I should just pack my stuff and move back on Windows to stop my horrible abuse of Apple and the OS X platform?
People will be impressed with the system when the system is good enough to impress them.
I'm thinking that a person that even dips a toe on the OS X platform is better than one that never even looks that way since he is bound to Windows by his software. Consider the extreme case of every Windows user making a "half-hearted switch". The final numbers are: ~100% of computers made by Apple, ~25% OS X user share, ~75% Windows user share.
A single "half-hearted switch" is a step to that direction from status quo. How could that be a bad thing?
If what you were saying is correct, it would be wonderful.
I'm not saying that it would would be worse if someone buys a Mac and virtually no Mac software then simply staying on the PC. I'm saying that it might not be enough.
Don't you people understand that software companies don't want to make a Mac version of their software as well as a Windows version? Is this so difficult an idea that you don't get it?
Why do we have developers leaving the platform on a regular basic? Do you simply find it to be easier to ignore that than to think about why it happens?
The fear, and it is real, is that with Windows running at full speed on Macs, even more developers will find an excuse to discontinue Mac software as long as they have the product for their Windows customers. The excuse is simple. Why develop for the Mac when customers are most all Windows users anyway, and even Mac users can run their Windows software?
The point I'm making about buying more than two pieces of Mac software over the time someone has their machine is to show these queasy developers that we DO want Mac software, not just Windows software running on Windows on our Macs.
While it's true that Apple makes most of it's money in the computer business from sales of machines rather than from the OS, it's the OS that makes a Mac what it is, not the hardware. If anything, it's the hardware that's been holding Mac sales down. If Apple had cheaper hardware, Apple might have double the marketshare it has now.
If the OS becomes less important because people are bringing Windows over, and continuing to use it, that would not be a good thing.
Apple might get a short term boost in sales, but when those people tell their friends and colleagues that they don't find much of a difference between the OS's, people will think again.
And don't give me that "The Mac OS is soooo much better" crap. Because it isn't obvious to most people. Apple hasn't made the effort. And whether you want to believe it or not, it takes some proactive effort to find out that it is.
Having thought this over at an hour other than 11 - 9:30 but oh well. My thoughts are this:
Yes - it would be nice to be able to run windows on the Mac for games etc. However, as people are saying, developers will not compile for the platform if you can run windows on it anyways. It would be apple making the hardware and the ALL the software, which, needless to say: this is bad.
However, if Windblows was running in a window, INSIDE OSX, in a similar way that VirtualPC does now, people would realise that they are using a Mac, even if they are playing DOom 3 on it. The OSX environment is just a click to minimize away, so why use XP when you dont have to?
This only works however, if OSX is better than Windows. At the moment, that's a definite yes, but once Longh- i mean, uh, Vista gets released, that gap will shorten, Apple needs to come out with something.
Hopefully this will encourage users to actaully use Macs as Macs, not an OSx86 type thing reversed. If users are using the platform, developers will code for it, and we all get to play Half Life 2 happily.
Having thought this over at an hour other than 11 - 9:30 but oh well. My thoughts are this:
Yes - it would be nice to be able to run windows on the Mac for games etc. However, as people are saying, developers will not compile for the platform if you can run windows on it anyways.
That is assuming
- that a dominant part of OS X population had Macs that can run Windows
- that those people actually had Windows installed
- that those people are not deterred by the necessity of *booting the machine* while switching from one productivity app to another
None of those assumptions looks very solid.
Platform = OS X / Windows, not the box with the parts.
Simply put, dual booting blows for productive work. Very few people will bother to do it. Those who do, probably have such investment in software that they would not have switched otherwise. Games, though, are a totally different mode of using the computer and booting at start and end of gaming session would work decently for most gamers.
If this was the doomsday scenario you guys are making it out to be, wouldn't the existence of VirtualPC have brought down OS X long ago?
fair points Gon, but dual booting for games is not that fun. i am enjoying my winxp64bit at the moment, especially now that i am not using those garbage dlink wifi drivers... say i'm downloading something in firefox, flip over to a bit of online UT2004, flip back out, check some mail, back to the gaming...
a cohesive package has a lot of advantages... now an updated mac mini kvm'ed to my stuff would be perfect.
in fact, this multi-os stuff would only be a threat, along the lines you are mentioning, if switching between the apps and platforms is as easy as the KVM-with-another-machine experience
this would be possible if say [darwine] takes off. imagine just opening a windows app within mac os x as seamlessly as if it were a native mac app. then things might be dangerous for developers making for mac specifically.
too early to say, at this stage, i think people have brought up interesting points. but we're talking more about business desktop/ enlightened user type market......
(KVM = that box that allows you to flip your keyboard and monitor connection between different distinct beigeboxes/macs/etc)
edit: *sigh* another post of mine that seems a bit garbled. but whatever. i used to be really anal about stuff when writin. the web changed all that. plus a lot of other schmoes (coworkers, friends, family, etc) not understanding me anyway 'coz i used to use a lot 'fancy' words
this would be possible if say [darwine] takes off. imagine just opening a windows app within mac os x as seamlessly as if it were a native mac app. then things might be dangerous for developers making for mac specifically.
If you could open a app as seamlessly as if it were a native mac app when it wasn't, there would be no point in dual coding anyway, as both applications would be exactly the same.
If you could open a app as seamlessly as if it were a native mac app when it wasn't, there would be no point in dual coding anyway, as both applications would be exactly the same.
The point is that they aren't exactly the same. It's been pretty much agreed upon that Office for the Mac is better these days than Office for Windows. Photoshop has subtle differences that make its use on the Mac easier and more pleasant. There are others as well of course.
It may be the same program but it's not exactly the same program.
Interesting. Dual SLI, but it doesn''t look like a proper setup. 2 cards are SLI bridge linked together twice right. Wouldn't you SLI bridge the 2 other Bridges for it work properly?
The point is that they aren't exactly the same. It's been pretty much agreed upon that Office for the Mac is better these days than Office for Windows. Photoshop has subtle differences that make its use on the Mac easier and more pleasant. There are others as well of course.
It may be the same program but it's not exactly the same program.
Companies can improve their standards, with careful nudging from Apple's side of the fence
Interesting. Dual SLI, but it doesn''t look like a proper setup. 2 cards are SLI bridge linked together twice right. Wouldn't you SLI bridge the 2 other Bridges for it work properly?
yeah its weird. i guess maybe each dvi output for each pair is "blended" at the end or something. whatever. i'm surprised the damn thing doesn't catch on fire with the powersupply exploding into a million pieces.
Companies can improve their standards, with careful nudging from Apple's side of the fence
They could. But when you are talking about Windows programs, sold to Windows users who either are happy with them because they don't know better, or are just used to the way they work, it's difficult to tell those companies to change them because 2% of those Windows versions of their programs are now going to be used on a Mac under Windows. You see what I'm saying?
If these people had a program developed for both platforms that actually used all of the features of those platforms they were developed under, and one person had both versions on his(her) machine, then they could compare directly. Most of the time that would be good.
But the problem is that they still need someone to show them how the Mac version differs. I find that, in general, a Mac version of a PC program, even if developed completely on the Mac platform, can be used as the Windows version on Windows can. The Windows person coming over and using that Mac version usually uses the program EXACTLY the same way they used it under Windows. They then wonder what the fuss is all about.
i used to be quite arrogant and say, well, hell, learn a new app yourself. who needs training? but certainly in the pressures and annoyances of IT in the workplace from my few years in the 'industry', certainly staff training is a big big deal for (a) being able to sell your transition to a new platform/ app/ whatever, (b) making staff and management feel happy that things are being done right and that they are not peons at the mercy of IT whims and fancies... \
edit: hmm... also if we are talking about trying to get more pc users onto macs, then part (C) with a capital C is assuading fears
Companies can improve their standards, with careful nudging from Apple's side of the fence
the thing that's been blowing my mind is the tons and tons of rubbish tweakware that you can install for windows, all with even more horrible "skins" for the ultimate in UI grotesqueness (ooh, i'm particularly virtriolic tonight....)
i think initially it looks like crossfire is getting Le ButtKicked. However it is actually an alternating thing, crossfire bests nVidia on some games, and vice versa...
i learnt in my next graphic card purchase i could use a crossfire setup with my existing Asus a8N SLI
ah, excellence... fight for my love ati and nvidia... (flicks light switch on and off) fight! fight! fight! fight!
Comments
Originally posted by melgross
What you haven't considered is that these Windows users are going to bring their Windows software along with them. They might like using the iApps, but not buy much Mac software.
Of course I have considered that. It's in my post you quoted - the tax example.
Another example, then. Consider a person with 10 pieces of Windows software, most of which work too well and/or cost too much to give up. Which is better for the OS X platform:
- this guy buys a computer and OS X from Apple, just two apps from Mac developers, and continues using 8 apps on Windows
- this guy continues using 10 apps on Windows?
Originally posted by Gon
Of course I have considered that. It's in my post you quoted - the tax example.
Another example, then. Consider a person with 10 pieces of Windows software, most of which work too well and/or cost too much to give up. Which is better for the OS X platform:
- this guy buys a computer and OS X from Apple, just two apps from Mac developers, and continues using 8 apps on Windows
- this guy continues using 10 apps on Windows?
I do understand what you're saying there. But it isn't necessarily enough.
People have to buy more than two pieces of software. They have to buy something every so often to help the developers out. If they bring ten pieces of software over and update them rather than replacing most of them, they aren't helping as much as you think.
Over the years I listen to people bitch about a developer who left the platform. But they never bought that program themselves.
We need people to come over and be so impressed with the system that they will WANT to discard most of their Windows stuff.
Apple isn't making that happen as much as they should. Having both OS's on the same machine will make it harder.
Originally posted by melgross
Apple isn't making that happen as much as they should. Having both OS's on the same machine will make it harder.
That's a copout. The machine will be transparent to the user because the OS will still be seperated from the user and software. What I mean is this transition will appear as nothing has happened.
Sure they might be able to run windows on it... but why would you unless you have some $$$$$$$$$$$ piece of windows software on it that you CAN NOT give up. If anything having both OS's on the same machine will give users more reason to switch. Now there isn't any more PPC bog down with drivers and out dated technology. What do you mean apple isn't doing as much as they should? Are you kidding me?! Look at their OS updates in the last 4 years. Ok now look at Microsofts. Apple has had 4 MAJOR updates in the last 4 years. Microsoft *counts* .... 1 or 2 (depends if you count sp1 and sp2 as major updates).
I don't know if anyone has mentioned this on these forums but Windows Longhorn was scrapped. It was impossible to build the OS. So now they are looking at a 2007 release date because they had to start all over with design. So 7 years to release an update... and we're bitching about apple not doing everything they can? They are miles ahead of their competitors.
Originally posted by emig647
....Sure they might be able to run windows on it... but why would you .....
Half Life 2. And other good games not available on mac. or those which require much more expensive PPC Macs to run those games which tend to come out much slower than PC games anyway.
Originally posted by emig647
That's a copout. The machine will be transparent to the user because the OS will still be seperated from the user and software. What I mean is this transition will appear as nothing has happened.
Sure they might be able to run windows on it... but why would you unless you have some $$$$$$$$$$$ piece of windows software on it that you CAN NOT give up. If anything having both OS's on the same machine will give users more reason to switch. Now there isn't any more PPC bog down with drivers and out dated technology. What do you mean apple isn't doing as much as they should? Are you kidding me?! Look at their OS updates in the last 4 years. Ok now look at Microsofts. Apple has had 4 MAJOR updates in the last 4 years. Microsoft *counts* .... 1 or 2 (depends if you count sp1 and sp2 as major updates).
I don't know if anyone has mentioned this on these forums but Windows Longhorn was scrapped. It was impossible to build the OS. So now they are looking at a 2007 release date because they had to start all over with design. So 7 years to release an update... and we're bitching about apple not doing everything they can? They are miles ahead of their competitors.
Boy, are you out of touch!
Have you actually read my posts? Have you read them and thought about what was being said, or is your response just a knee jerk?
Those are all relevent issues.
I'm not a fanboy, even though I've been responsable for at least a couple of million in Apple sales over the past few years. The issues I brought up are being discussed throught the indusrty. You can be sure that Jobs and his people have been discussing them as well.
You're wrong about what you've said. I don't even know what your first paragraph is referring to. I never said the transition wouldn't be transparent.
I wouldn't be surprised if many coming over from Windows will put it right back on the Mac they get.
This has nothing to do with how mant updated Apple has. Again, you might not have noticed, but many people - Mac users COMPLAIN about having to pay for all of those. In the PC world they call it the "Mac Tax".
And what the hell are you talking about regarding Longhorn? It wasn't discontinued. MS changes the NAME. It's the same OS. JUst now it's called Vista.
You really are out in left field. Come on in. The inning is over.
Originally posted by melgross
I do understand what you're saying there. But it isn't necessarily enough.
What do you want, then? People mailing money to Apple as charity? We're running out of options here.Quote:
People have to buy more than two pieces of software. They have to buy something every so often to help the developers out. If they bring ten pieces of software over and update them rather than replacing most of them, they aren't helping as much as you think.
Over the years I listen to people bitch about a developer who left the platform. But they never bought that program themselves.
We need people to come over and be so impressed with the system that they will WANT to discard most of their Windows stuff.
Apple isn't making that happen as much as they should. Having both OS's on the same machine will make it harder.
I guess I'm harming the platform, having only bought two pieces of software despite buying two Macs? Maybe I should just pack my stuff and move back on Windows to stop my horrible abuse of Apple and the OS X platform?
People will be impressed with the system when the system is good enough to impress them.
I'm thinking that a person that even dips a toe on the OS X platform is better than one that never even looks that way since he is bound to Windows by his software. Consider the extreme case of every Windows user making a "half-hearted switch". The final numbers are: ~100% of computers made by Apple, ~25% OS X user share, ~75% Windows user share.
A single "half-hearted switch" is a step to that direction from status quo. How could that be a bad thing?
Originally posted by Gon
[B]What do you want, then? People mailing money to Apple as charity? We're running out of options here.I guess I'm harming the platform, having only bought two pieces of software despite buying two Macs? Maybe I should just pack my stuff and move back on Windows to stop my horrible abuse of Apple and the OS X platform?
People will be impressed with the system when the system is good enough to impress them.
I'm thinking that a person that even dips a toe on the OS X platform is better than one that never even looks that way since he is bound to Windows by his software. Consider the extreme case of every Windows user making a "half-hearted switch". The final numbers are: ~100% of computers made by Apple, ~25% OS X user share, ~75% Windows user share.
A single "half-hearted switch" is a step to that direction from status quo. How could that be a bad thing?
If what you were saying is correct, it would be wonderful.
I'm not saying that it would would be worse if someone buys a Mac and virtually no Mac software then simply staying on the PC. I'm saying that it might not be enough.
Don't you people understand that software companies don't want to make a Mac version of their software as well as a Windows version? Is this so difficult an idea that you don't get it?
Why do we have developers leaving the platform on a regular basic? Do you simply find it to be easier to ignore that than to think about why it happens?
The fear, and it is real, is that with Windows running at full speed on Macs, even more developers will find an excuse to discontinue Mac software as long as they have the product for their Windows customers. The excuse is simple. Why develop for the Mac when customers are most all Windows users anyway, and even Mac users can run their Windows software?
The point I'm making about buying more than two pieces of Mac software over the time someone has their machine is to show these queasy developers that we DO want Mac software, not just Windows software running on Windows on our Macs.
While it's true that Apple makes most of it's money in the computer business from sales of machines rather than from the OS, it's the OS that makes a Mac what it is, not the hardware. If anything, it's the hardware that's been holding Mac sales down. If Apple had cheaper hardware, Apple might have double the marketshare it has now.
If the OS becomes less important because people are bringing Windows over, and continuing to use it, that would not be a good thing.
Apple might get a short term boost in sales, but when those people tell their friends and colleagues that they don't find much of a difference between the OS's, people will think again.
And don't give me that "The Mac OS is soooo much better" crap. Because it isn't obvious to most people. Apple hasn't made the effort. And whether you want to believe it or not, it takes some proactive effort to find out that it is.
Yes - it would be nice to be able to run windows on the Mac for games etc. However, as people are saying, developers will not compile for the platform if you can run windows on it anyways. It would be apple making the hardware and the ALL the software, which, needless to say: this is bad.
However, if Windblows was running in a window, INSIDE OSX, in a similar way that VirtualPC does now, people would realise that they are using a Mac, even if they are playing DOom 3 on it. The OSX environment is just a click to minimize away, so why use XP when you dont have to?
This only works however, if OSX is better than Windows. At the moment, that's a definite yes, but once Longh- i mean, uh, Vista gets released, that gap will shorten, Apple needs to come out with something.
Hopefully this will encourage users to actaully use Macs as Macs, not an OSx86 type thing reversed. If users are using the platform, developers will code for it, and we all get to play Half Life 2 happily.
Originally posted by pyriX
Having thought this over at an hour other than 11 - 9:30 but oh well. My thoughts are this:
Yes - it would be nice to be able to run windows on the Mac for games etc. However, as people are saying, developers will not compile for the platform if you can run windows on it anyways.
That is assuming
- that a dominant part of OS X population had Macs that can run Windows
- that those people actually had Windows installed
- that those people are not deterred by the necessity of *booting the machine* while switching from one productivity app to another
None of those assumptions looks very solid.
Platform = OS X / Windows, not the box with the parts.
Simply put, dual booting blows for productive work. Very few people will bother to do it. Those who do, probably have such investment in software that they would not have switched otherwise. Games, though, are a totally different mode of using the computer and booting at start and end of gaming session would work decently for most gamers.
If this was the doomsday scenario you guys are making it out to be, wouldn't the existence of VirtualPC have brought down OS X long ago?
a cohesive package has a lot of advantages... now an updated mac mini kvm'ed to my stuff would be perfect.
in fact, this multi-os stuff would only be a threat, along the lines you are mentioning, if switching between the apps and platforms is as easy as the KVM-with-another-machine experience
this would be possible if say [darwine] takes off. imagine just opening a windows app within mac os x as seamlessly as if it were a native mac app. then things might be dangerous for developers making for mac specifically.
too early to say, at this stage, i think people have brought up interesting points. but we're talking more about business desktop/ enlightened user type market......
(KVM = that box that allows you to flip your keyboard and monitor connection between different distinct beigeboxes/macs/etc)
edit: *sigh* another post of mine that seems a bit garbled. but whatever. i used to be really anal about stuff when writin. the web changed all that. plus a lot of other schmoes (coworkers, friends, family, etc) not understanding me anyway 'coz i used to use a lot 'fancy' words
Originally posted by sunilraman
this would be possible if say [darwine] takes off. imagine just opening a windows app within mac os x as seamlessly as if it were a native mac app. then things might be dangerous for developers making for mac specifically.
If you could open a app as seamlessly as if it were a native mac app when it wasn't, there would be no point in dual coding anyway, as both applications would be exactly the same.
Originally posted by pyriX
If you could open a app as seamlessly as if it were a native mac app when it wasn't, there would be no point in dual coding anyway, as both applications would be exactly the same.
The point is that they aren't exactly the same. It's been pretty much agreed upon that Office for the Mac is better these days than Office for Windows. Photoshop has subtle differences that make its use on the Mac easier and more pleasant. There are others as well of course.
It may be the same program but it's not exactly the same program.
http://www.hkepc.com/bbs/viewthread.php?tid=475438
WHY? WTF?
Originally posted by melgross
The point is that they aren't exactly the same. It's been pretty much agreed upon that Office for the Mac is better these days than Office for Windows. Photoshop has subtle differences that make its use on the Mac easier and more pleasant. There are others as well of course.
It may be the same program but it's not exactly the same program.
Companies can improve their standards, with careful nudging from Apple's side of the fence
Interesting. Dual SLI, but it doesn''t look like a proper setup. 2 cards are SLI bridge linked together twice right. Wouldn't you SLI bridge the 2 other Bridges for it work properly?
Originally posted by pyriX
Companies can improve their standards, with careful nudging from Apple's side of the fence
They could. But when you are talking about Windows programs, sold to Windows users who either are happy with them because they don't know better, or are just used to the way they work, it's difficult to tell those companies to change them because 2% of those Windows versions of their programs are now going to be used on a Mac under Windows. You see what I'm saying?
If these people had a program developed for both platforms that actually used all of the features of those platforms they were developed under, and one person had both versions on his(her) machine, then they could compare directly. Most of the time that would be good.
But the problem is that they still need someone to show them how the Mac version differs. I find that, in general, a Mac version of a PC program, even if developed completely on the Mac platform, can be used as the Windows version on Windows can. The Windows person coming over and using that Mac version usually uses the program EXACTLY the same way they used it under Windows. They then wonder what the fuss is all about.
edit: hmm... also if we are talking about trying to get more pc users onto macs, then part (C) with a capital C is assuading fears
Companies can improve their standards, with careful nudging from Apple's side of the fence
the thing that's been blowing my mind is the tons and tons of rubbish tweakware that you can install for windows, all with even more horrible "skins" for the ultimate in UI grotesqueness
http://www.hardware.fr/articles/590-...fire-test.html
i think initially it looks like crossfire is getting Le ButtKicked. However it is actually an alternating thing, crossfire bests nVidia on some games, and vice versa...
i learnt in my next graphic card purchase i could use a crossfire setup with my existing Asus a8N SLI
ah, excellence... fight for my love ati and nvidia... (flicks light switch on and off) fight! fight! fight! fight!