new computer

[mobiledeli]

didnt know whree to post this, but my computer is old and dying and unable to edit anymore. so im gonna get a new one, which kind should i get? im thinking ill try a mac because ive always had a pc, intersting to try something new.

also, im not goiing to need all kinds of hd compatable stuff..

so any ideas welcome!

[TimurCivan]

you are entering a world of pain.....

(jk mac guys, i actually love both platforms)

Get the new Powerbook. it runs Windows and MacosX on the same computer, plus its blindingly fast. THis way you get best of both worlds.

[David Jimerson]

It runs Windows if you buy Windows and install it.

[TimurCivan]

yes yes... of couse. You have to partition the Hardrive too.

[Blaine]

Actually, you can download a public beta version of what Apple is calling "Bootcamp"(Windows). It appears to be a free download.

[David Jimerson]

I thought that just enabled you to install Windows. Man, if it were actually Windows for free, that would be a major copyright violation. May-jur.

[Blaine]

I thought that just enabled you to install Windows. Man, if it were actually Windows for free, that would be a major copyright violation. May-jur.
Of course, you're right. Further reading produces the following (quoted from Apple's website):

"As elegant as it gets
Boot Camp lets you install Windows XP without moving your Mac data, though you will need to bring your own copy to the table, as Apple Computer does not sell or support Microsoft Windows.(1) Boot Camp will burn a CD of all the required drivers for Windows so you don't have to scrounge around the Internet looking for them.


Optional alt. At startup, hold down the option key (alt) to choose between Mac OS X and Windows.

Run XP natively
Once you’ve completed Boot Camp, simply hold down the option key at startup to choose between Mac OS X and Windows. (That’s the “alt” key for you longtime Windows users.) After starting up, your Mac runs Windows completely natively. Simply restart to come back to Mac."

[TimurCivan]

unless Microsoft figures... "now we can get that alst 10% of the market!!!! muahahahahahahah ( bill gates squeezing his hands to gether in that grinding motion)"

[David Jimerson]

unless Microsoft figures... "now we can get that alst 10% of the market!!!! muahahahahahahah ( bill gates squeezing his hands to gether in that grinding motion)"

Oh, I think there's a huge risk for Apple here.

[craigbowman]

Someone at work just picked one up and set it up to run both systems. Speed was impressive when booted with either OS.

[Terry_Lasater]

Oh, I think there's a huge risk for Apple here.

You always seem to be on the tip of predicting Apple's demise. :evil:

[Blaine]

It seems to me that the upside is tremendous. While I can't imagine, all things being equal, choosing Windows XP over Mac OS there are a lot of PC users that have been waiting for this to move to Mac. All things are not equal, though. There are software programs I would love to run on my Mac but can't. (Virtual PC feels too cumbersome to me.)

Mac's downside (for most people) has been the cost of hardware.

[David Jimerson]

You always seem to be on the tip of predicting Apple's demise. :evil:
Only since the rumors of Apple using Intel chips came along. My reasoning was simple . . .

1) Intel chips would probably allow dual-boot Macs.

(But that'll never happen, I was told.)

2) Dual-boot Macs would make it unecessary to provide two versions of software . . . Windows and OSX . . . in order to reach the Mac market. And really, with >90% of the market being Windows-only, which one are they going to pick?

3) Intel chips make it necessary to retool the Mac software, anyway, so it's now more likely that there will be Windows versions of formerly Mac-only apps. You may say it will never happen, but I refer you to the other "never happen" above.

4) Windows versions of formerly Mac-only software would negate the need for running OSX. And seriously, other than for running OSX, who would spend twice as much for a machine?

5) Converge all that, and the only OSX users left are the truly die-hards, and they will have less and less software to run in OSX mode. So where are they going to spend most of their time?

A couple of the necessary (and supposedly impossible) dominoes have already fallen here. The next one, I'd suspect, would be the dropping of Mac versions of a lot of software. After that would be Windows versions of formerly Mac-only apps. If those two things happen -- and the former is likely; we'll see how long Apple's vanity holds out for the latter -- I think the rest is inevitable.

This does not mean I want it to happen. I've said many times that I wish Apple was more competitive; I wish they'd take the brand premium off their prices and actually try to sell computers rather than focusing on making fashion statements with them. I don't want a Windows-only world. But the big sales driver behind Macs as it is isn't so much the Mac itself, but that it's the exclusive delivery vehicle for the Mac OS. If the Mac OS flounders, and I've outlined how it might, then the Mac is done.

[Terry_Lasater]

It's all a matter of perspective. I can find comments, columns, and statistics that paint this whole scenario in a much more positive light for Apple than your post. However, I grew tired of the whole MacOS v. Windows debate some 10+ years ago.

You can check out MacCentral.com and see a completely different viewpoint.

[David Jimerson]

10 years ago, I used Macs as often as PCs. They were pretty interchangeable to me, and I was pretty anti-Microsoft. But then two things happened.

1) I started building my own machines and the Mac prices (and extremely limited upgrade options) became absolutely ri-dic-u-lous to me.

2) The upswing of Mac evangelism, fueled by the "Switch" campaign, which popularlized the cult of Mac infallibility. I'm not the only one who was SERIOUSLY turned off by it.

But the truth is, if Macs were priced along the same lines as PCs, I'd have one, alongside my Windows machines. If Apple wants to turn this into a serious bridging opportunity, they'd be well-advised to lower their prices, because I guarantee you THAT'S the bigger component in people looking to switch being hesitant, much moreso than software availability.

I mean, the only thing that's kept MS innovative in the slightest is that it still has Apple to compete with. Competition breeds excellence, and I want Apple -- and even more players, if there could be any more (Amiga? Let's go!) -- to stay as competitive as possible. Monopoly is bad, bad for everyone.

[Terry_Lasater]

I agree. Competition breeds better products and more competitive prices. Bring back the Amiga! There was a recent thread here somewhere about Amigas, but I don't recall if it claimed they were having a comeback or if it was just for nostalgia's sake.

[Dmitry Kichenko]

You can also go the other way around - buy an OSX compatible PC and run OSX on it. There may be issues with the hardware drivers, so you need to pick the appropriate hardware.

[jleo]

There's now software to run Windows and OSX simultaneously on MacIntel systems without the need to dual boot:

http://www.versiontracker.com/dyn/moreinfo/macosx/29555

[TimurCivan]

I think most of the cost comes from the looks. they are constantly upgrading the aesthetics of the machines. i mean cmon every year its redesigned...which is nice, but it drives the costs through the roof.

[mobiledeli]

wow thanks for the replies! ill be looking into some more comptuers and stuff