What does Macs running windows mean for the PC??

[Rudyard]

In Australia we are being bombarded with those 'im a mac and im a PC' ads where the mac is a young cool bloke and the PC is a suit dorky looky man.

Anyway those ads are now saying that macs now run windows so effectively a mac can run everything and a PC cannot.

What do you computer savy people think this means for PC's??

The end of them? Force microsoft to put out better versions of windows so people are less likely to want to pay extra for the mac component?

If a mac can run windows can a PC run the mac OS??

I have seen macs but never really used them as I like the ability to alter the guts of my PC as needed, is it true that macs are not upgradable? (plus I have not yet needed any mac specific software which would warrant the extra money for one).

Also could someone answer some questions about claims in the ad for me:

1 - digital cameras....I have used many and never once had any problem with plugging one into a pc, is this an issue that really affects PCs and ive been lucky?? The ad makes out like putting the newest cameras into a PC is a real problem whereas I have found the newer the camera the easier it is - I just plug it into a USB slot and it works straight away.

2 - Macs and viruses....I was of the opinion that Macs can get a virus (malicious code can be written for any OS??) its just that with the mega market share and apparent vulnerability of IE and windows that most are targeted to windows users??

Is that true??

Are we entering the end of the PC? Or are we getting closer to combining the 2 (I recall about 10 years ago there was meant to be a computer that brought the 2 together but it never really took off? Vague memory and knowledge about it)

[redwudz]

I have both a Mac and a PC. I don't think the newer Macs are a major threat to the PC. Both platforms have their advantages and their supporters.

I don't think you will see a standard PC run the Mac platform with any competence. They differ in too many ways.

Macs are certainly upgradeable. They have a much smaller share of the computer market and as such have fewer options for upgrades, etc., than PCs.

Mac software tends to be more expensive, in general, than the PC equivalent, if it exists. That is mostly because of the smaller user base.

Digital cameras are getting easier to use on both platforms. Not a lot of difference there. Macs do seem to have easier connectivity with video and graphics devices, but that also has evened out quite a bit.

Viruses are not written as often for the Mac OS, but they are out there.

The PC has a very strong position in the computer market. I doubt if much will change that in the future.

And everything above is just my opinion. I like and use both platforms.

[tekkieman]

PC != Windows!

This really gets me when I see it. The PC is capable of running OSes other than Windows.

[Dv8ted2]

PC != Windows!

This really gets me when I see it. The PC is capable of running OSes other than Windows.

You left out a part.

A Mac is a personal computer.

[Rudyard]

I don't think you will see a standard PC run the Mac platform with any competence. They differ in too many ways.

But if they are so different how can a Mac run windows but not the other way around??

[redwudz]

Sorry, that's probably an 'uneducated' comment on my part. My Mac has a PowerPC CPU and has to use a slow software emulator to run a PC (MicroSoft) type program. The Intel CPU Macs likely have an easier time of it. But I doubt that many Mac users will buy a Intel Mac to run a PC OS on it. I have both a G4 Mac and several MS OS PCs and I use each machine independently with their own installed programs. Trading most files between the platforms is usually no problem, though.

My Mac OS definitely won't run on any of my MS PCs. I haven't looked into running the newer Mac OS's on a regular PC, but somehow I doubt that it would work that well. But I don't know for sure.

EDIT: There are likely some more experienced Mac users that will weight in on this eventually and give some better info. I use my Mac for Photoshop and not much else lately. And I haven't upgraded the OS in a couple of years.

[Rudyard]

Can I ask what the difference is between photoshop on mac and pc (sorry , dont know much about macs and thought it would be for mac specific programs moreso than ones available on both)

[redwudz]

I don't have a PC version of Photoshop, but from what I've seen, they appear the same. I do have a database program that has both a Mac and PC version on the same disc and I've used both and they are exactly the same.

[guns1inger]

The school I look after has Macs in the art department because the art teacher believed they were better for arty things than PCs. To date they have not been impressive, although these are the PowerPC models. Two of the laptops will be replaced next year with, most likely, Core Duo models. The only advantage they will get from this is that they will no longer need to run virtual PC in order to run some of the windows only apps that are required by all staff.

If the teacher can get past this idea that the Mac is in fact the system for the free spirited, she might get to see that there is a wealth of software available for Windows the likes of which she can only dream of for the Mac.

Question : why did Microsoft spend so little effort on Windows Movie Maker when Apple put so much effort into iMovie ?

Answer : because Microsoft knew there were plenty of great editors available for windows. Apple knew that if they didn't write iMovie, the only editor available for the Macs would be FCP.

Aside from the OS eye candy (which to me is way down on the list of priorities - hence Vista isn't very high on that list), I have been totally underwelmed by the OS X experience. The interface is clunky and incredibly slow compared to XP on intel laptops of the same age. They hold a shrinking market share of around 6% (barely holding out Linux from second spot), and are rapidly becoming a PC made by a music player company.

As for the ads they have been running over here (which I suspect you got in the states months ago) - they are basically aimed at Apple's target audience for the Mac - people with no technical skills, no PC knowledge, and who can't tell that what they are saying is in fact 95% BS


Puts hands over head and runs for cover

[JerryB]

In Australia we are being bombarded with those 'im a mac and im a PC' ads where the mac is a young cool bloke and the PC is a suit dorky looky man.

Anyway those ads are now saying that macs now run windows so effectively a mac can run everything and a PC cannot.

What do you computer savy people think this means for PC's??

The end of them? Force microsoft to put out better versions of windows so people are less likely to want to pay extra for the mac component?

If a mac can run windows can a PC run the mac OS??

I have seen macs but never really used them as I like the ability to alter the guts of my PC as needed, is it true that macs are not upgradable? (plus I have not yet needed any mac specific software which would warrant the extra money for one).

Also could someone answer some questions about claims in the ad for me:

1 - digital cameras....I have used many and never once had any problem with plugging one into a pc, is this an issue that really affects PCs and ive been lucky?? The ad makes out like putting the newest cameras into a PC is a real problem whereas I have found the newer the camera the easier it is - I just plug it into a USB slot and it works straight away.

2 - Macs and viruses....I was of the opinion that Macs can get a virus (malicious code can be written for any OS??) its just that with the mega market share and apparent vulnerability of IE and windows that most are targeted to windows users??

Is that true??

Are we entering the end of the PC? Or are we getting closer to combining the 2 (I recall about 10 years ago there was meant to be a computer that brought the 2 together but it never really took off? Vague memory and knowledge about it)

hi,
well my 2 cents worth......
I would take that add with a grain of salt...!!!!
apple no longer uses the powerpc chip.. apple is now using intell chips for both there laptops and desktop computers and that would include using the same basic architexture... bascially you have a intell machine... apple redesigned there osX operating system to work with the new architexture... and later modified the window os .... to also work on the apple machines...taking into account some of proprietary that mac handle data..
So bottom line your still working with the same windows and the cpu chips and basic designed of the motherboard.... I just don't see how a apple machine would be any better at running windows OS

As far as running windows program within apple OSx.... well it has to go thru a emulator.... to convert the windows codes to something that OSx can understand... bottom line there.... it take time.... so it can't be faster.. it going to be slower.. smile..!!

as far as your questions...
1. camera's .. no system is the same.... once yo start putting programs on a system there is a variety of different configurations .. and some programs will work better with others and some have conflicts.... likeyou I have never had problem with cameras, like other people have but I am also very carefull on what programs I install and also what programs I allow to run at windows boot...! and also carefull on installing programs... ie: oneof the thing i do is defrag and turn off all programs running in the background .. this leads to a more likely good install with no problems....
2. virus's .... first of all it not a opinion... there been several virus/malware that been designed for hitting macs in fact just last month apple released a ton of secuirty patches (just like M$ been doing ..smile) to block secuirty holes in there mac OSx OS... and inf act your going to be seeing more... not only because apple getting a higher profile but also these hackers are very familiar with intell chips!!...
note: yes hackers been concentrating on windows.. high profile.. there number one, etc... where apple was in the background no one noticed or cared at the time.. smile..

3. your last question... about the end of pc.... it needs to be rephrased because apple is a pc!!.. I think the question your thinking of is , is this the end of the wintell systems and the mac will be number one..... and the answer to that is NO>>!! because for many reasons...
basically the way apple does things and control things limits them from being turely compatetive... also to make programs for OSx requires a lot of learning by most programers and programers don't see it it worth it to learn... pluse programers have to get permission to write programs, etc etc.. bottom line it hassle writing programs for OSX ....

well those are my thoughts

[ROF]

All it means is that Windows will have another platform on which to lock up on. Nothing more. Nobody is going away. And as has been mentioned the Mac is a PC.

[Marty2003]

I think I've read about cases of a few people sucessfully running OSX on a PC. I believe they used similar components compared to what's in the Intel Mac. The problem with running OSX on a PC is with the drivers. There are no drivers for most hardware. Macs have to have specific components because Apple and other companies don't have drivers for a lot of hardware. This is partly why OSX seems more stable than windows(Although I would argue that). You can run practically any hardware component on windows and all that hardware needs drivers, so if the manufactuer releases flawed drivers windows will BSOD. Apple takes care of making sure the few drivers OSX uses run flawlessly.

Running it is only one problem, OSX's EULA prohibits you from installing OSX on a Non-Mac. Now this won't physically stop you, but it does make it illegal.

[Dv8ted2]

and later modified the window os .... to also work on the apple machines...

Actually, they created a boot method to boot into windows. They did not alter windows. They would have a big lawsuit from Microsoft.

[ozymango]

First, I use both PCs and Macs but I prefer my PCs for the majority of my work, just because it's easier and cheaper for me to find hardware/software for the PC that does what I want it to do.

Second, I find Mac advertisements annoying in the extreme -- not funny, not clever, not creative, and borderline if not outright misleading (like the "the Mac talks with any camera easily" kinda crap, as if hooking your average digital camera to a Windows machine is so much harder).

Third, OS X is basically UNIX. And you can run UNIX on pretty much any computer architecture out there. It's just the OS X has a pretty GUI.

And lastly, Apple does this stuff (make their machine able to run both Windows and OS X) for the same reason Sony invented Beta Hi-Fi, Super-Beta, and EDBeta: They want more sales and more money, and so do what they can to make their product as appealing as possible to more people in the hopes of getting a market share larger than 3%.

[jagabo]

The installed userbase of >200 million Windows computers that could run OS X must be very tempting to Apple. You can be sure Apple has a warehouse full of programmers developing drivers for the most common hardware devices. It's only matter of time before we see OS X "upgrades" for Windows PCs.

It's likely that Microsoft's $150 million investment in Apple back in '97 included some kind of OS non-competetion clause. Once that contract has expired (2007 maybe?) Apple will be free to sell OS X to Windows users.

[ROF]

It's likely that Microsoft's $150 million investment in Apple back in '97 included some kind of OS non-competetion clause. Once that contract has expired (2007 maybe?) Apple will be free to sell OS X to Windows users.

I actually thought that was a pity payment from Gates & Ballmer to Jobs & Co. You know as in "Sorry for stealing your every idea and marketing it much better than ya. Here have a cookie."

[lordsmurf]

Apple is spending lots of money on a viral marketing campaign that will probably backfire more than anything else, as many of the things they say are not much different than outright lies. They get around it by using certain words or naming certain products. But it's still a lie, just more hidden.

The gaming market is not likely to give a crap about Mac ever, and most casual users follow the price tags.

I have nothing against Mac, there's an iMac sitting here by my desk, been using them equally as long as I have PCs, but Apple is probably the king of bullshit when it comes to what their systems can and cannot do.

This whole thing of "Mac is better at art and design" was true ... in the 1980s. That was just because PCs had no real GUI (on a mass market level) to speak of. Windows 3.1, 95, 98, ME, 2000, XP... all good for art and design (Adobe and Aldus products, among others). That stigma is as outdated as the 286 PC.

The effect of Windows running on a Mac? Nothing.

At most I see a few less PCs selling because now Mac users can boot into either. The keyword is "Mac users", as in people who mostly use Macs already. I don't see Windows users running to Mac hardware at 5x the price. Even then, most people have multiple computers because they need them running at the same time, not because they need two different OS.

[redwudz]

I started with Macs some years ago. I liked them and had no knowledge of the Intel computers. I went through OS 7, 8,9, 10 and I have OSX Tiger (I thnk) in my G4 Mac. Each upgrade was about $100US+. I upgraded the CPU from 700Mhz to 1.4Mhz for another $400. What irritated me was the OS seemed to get slower each time with each upgrade. I paid close to $1600 for the G4 and put another $1000 into it over a few years.

Then I got a 430Mhz Celeron Intel machine about that time. It was faster and had lots more inexpensive software available. Apple likes to make their system too proprietary and that makes it expensive. They had a great opportunity years ago to be the equal of the Intel machines. They just didn't 'get' it. Too bad, I like some of their file handling and other things about their system better than the Intel machines. Now that they are running on an Intel platform, they won't be much different than Linux or similar OS's. But Linux will probably still be a lot closer behind MS as they are nore open to innovation and lower pricing. Sorry, Apple, but that's the way I see it.

[Dv8ted2]

I Apple likes to make their system too proprietary and that makes it expensive. They had a great opportunity years ago to be the equal of the Intel machines. They just didn't 'get' it.

IBM tried that years ago and it was the flood of gerenic IBM clone computers that caused IBM to focus on servers instead.

[Super Warrior]

In Australia we are being bombarded with those 'im a mac and im a PC' ads where the mac is a young cool bloke and the PC is a suit dorky looky man.

Anyway those ads are now saying that macs now run windows so effectively a mac can run everything and a PC cannot.

What do you computer savy people think this means for PC's??

The end of them? Force microsoft to put out better versions of windows so people are less likely to want to pay extra for the mac component?

If a mac can run windows can a PC run the mac OS??

I have seen macs but never really used them as I like the ability to alter the guts of my PC as needed, is it true that macs are not upgradable? (plus I have not yet needed any mac specific software which would warrant the extra money for one).

Also could someone answer some questions about claims in the ad for me:

1 - digital cameras....I have used many and never once had any problem with plugging one into a pc, is this an issue that really affects PCs and ive been lucky?? The ad makes out like putting the newest cameras into a PC is a real problem whereas I have found the newer the camera the easier it is - I just plug it into a USB slot and it works straight away.

2 - Macs and viruses....I was of the opinion that Macs can get a virus (malicious code can be written for any OS??) its just that with the mega market share and apparent vulnerability of IE and windows that most are targeted to windows users??

Is that true??

Are we entering the end of the PC? Or are we getting closer to combining the 2 (I recall about 10 years ago there was meant to be a computer that brought the 2 together but it never really took off? Vague memory and knowledge about it)

I believe THIS will be the begining of the END for the MAC. They're touting it as some "great" thing that the MAC can do, but i think slowly overtime it will be the complete opposite and spell DOOM for the MAC platform.

When enough MAC users switch to using windows "Temporaily", it won't be long before many of them will NOT want to go back to using the MAC O.S. When they see how easy&convient WinXP is, as well as its wide range of compatableity.

Before long "MAC's" will just become another brand of PC. Retail stores may even begining selling MACs pre-loaded with Windows alongside the MAC OS.

BTW you CAN also install&Boot the MAC O.S on a PC, but who the hell would WANT to do such a thing? Not many i'd imagine as most aren't even aware(or care) that it can be done on a PC.

[dun4cheap]

Macs failure is it did not become OEM like the PC. Many years ago they were considered to be superior for desktop publishing but this is long gone. There only salvation is their die hard fans. Other than that, it is dying a slow death. They have recently switched to an intel chip similiar to that of the PC. I think with the quad core conroes that the speed without the heat will be the final straw. Lets face it, Mac suffers from the lack of demand and the fact its not OEM. Do you really think people said, hey I am going to buy a mac because it can run windows. I have not seen anything on the Mac that I can't already find on the PC. Matter of fact on the PC, I usally have choices not just one option.

[guns1inger]

Apple did go down the OEM route - at least partially - in the early 90's. They licensed a number of outfits to produce cut price Macs because they believed they were losing market share on price alone. It failed miserably, and Apple almost went into the toilet for it (and the Newton etc.). That was when Jobs can back into the fold and made the Mac pretty again. Apple were at their strongest when they targetted the education industry and had Apples in schools. But they priced themselves out of that market, and have slowly lost ground in all their key markets - desktop publishing, photographics etc. As Lord Smurf said, all they really have now as an audience are "Mac Users" - the hard core followers who use them mostly out of idealology. The Mac is like the iPod - an expensive, pretty looking thing that hides it's dark side under a deceptive advertising campaign. You can buy cheaper and better without looking too far - it just wont look like an Apple product.

[Conquest10]

Those ads are pure filth flarn filth.

About Photoshop, I use both and there is no difference between the OSX and Windows version. The only differences are due to the OS. That does cause a problem as with the Windows version, I'm used to double clicking off the image to open another. This doesn not work on a Mac as it acts like switching windows in Windows.

Like smurf said, Macs were better than PCs at design... in the 80s. Its one of those things that where you say it enough times, it becomes truth. Lots of designers were educated in the 80s so they still think this is true and so they teach others this lie and then they pass on the lie. I was also taught that. Luckily, I had already been using Photoshop in Windows before that.

[vitualis]

1 - digital cameras....I have used many and never once had any problem with plugging one into a pc, is this an issue that really affects PCs and ive been lucky?? The ad makes out like putting the newest cameras into a PC is a real problem whereas I have found the newer the camera the easier it is - I just plug it into a USB slot and it works straight away.

Exactly. This is a blatent lie. I have yet to see a modern digital camera to not be automatically recognised as such by Windows. If it required some special drivers, then it would almost certainly work better under Windows than MacOS (since the drivers would be available for Windows and probably not MacOS).

2 - Macs and viruses....I was of the opinion that Macs can get a virus (malicious code can be written for any OS??) its just that with the mega market share and apparent vulnerability of IE and windows that most are targeted to windows users??

In part right. Windows "out of the box" is definitely at greater risk. It can be argued that by design, it is less secure but the overwhelming market share should not be ignored. Virus writers target Windows not necessarily because it is a "soft" target, but because it is the "largest" target.

Are we entering the end of the PC? Or are we getting closer to combining the 2 (I recall about 10 years ago there was meant to be a computer that brought the 2 together but it never really took off? Vague memory and knowledge about it)

My opinion is that the new Macs will have a very limited effect on their overall market share. Remember that Apple is a hardware company. It makes money by selling hardware. The new Intel Macs are a great business decision for Apple. Industrial design apart, remember that Apple no longer makes their own hardware but OEMs to third parties (in fact, the same OEMs as "Windows" machines). Now, rather than requiring "specialised" (e.g., PPC chips and boards) hardware, the new MacBooks are essentially constructed from commodity hardware, meaning, a even larger profit margin. Furthermore, much of the hardware research (CPU / chipset / etc.) is in essence done "for free" by Intel as it is using common hardware with "PCs".

The fact that Apple can dual boot into Windows will have very little effect on existing MacOS users. Mac users have been dual booting (or rather, using emulation) to run Windows for years. Apple will not lose customers to Windows because of this feature. However, it may attract a small number of traditional PC users into buying Apple hardware to run Windows (or other x86 OSes) for the sake of their design. This is pure bonus "extra sales" for Apple with little downside (apart from the rabid rantings of PPC purists, who will buy Apple regardless).

This as a movement of "turning" PC users into using OSX and future Apple OSes? I think it will have minimal effect. Any person who seriously uses a computer for work and productivity (on a Windows system) have significant barriers to changing to OSX (or Linux for that matter). While OSX is hard coded to Apple hardware, it will not become a serious competitor to Windows. It can only become so if Apple allows it to run on commodity hardware, but this will certainly not happen while Jobs is on the reins. In any case, OSX on commodity hardware will have all the problems as Windows (and Linux) when it comes to drivers and it is most definitely at a huge disadvantage to Windows in this regard.

Regards.

[JohnnyMalaria]

but Apple is probably the king of bullshit when it comes to what their systems can and cannot do

Very true - and the same can be said of McDonald's, Coca Cola, Chevrolet and a host of other very successful companies that, frankly, hawk crap. But the advertising works.

Personally, we're just seeing the inevitable - convergent evolution and, implied with that, survival of the fittest. IA32, PCI, AGP, USB blah blah. Technologies that required the massive success of the Wintel platform to establish themselves as the de facto standards and, now, magically appear as some new, superior PC in the form of the Intel-based Macs.

Microsoft and Apple have a very different ethos, too. Apple won't let you buy its OS on its own but you can by Windows on its own to *legally* install on any system you like. Of course, Macs don't carry the "Designed for Windows" logo and, therefore, running Windows on a Mac may be problematic.

The current advertising campaign (which seems to have finally abated in the US) irritates the crap out of me and I deliberately change channels when exposed to it. Most of the claims are pure fantasy and seem to rely on the audience's experiences with consumer versions of Windows from more than 10 years ago. I never have my Windows XP or 2000 systems crash, plug-and-play works fantastically (unless the vendor has screwed up) and the whole experience is a whole lot cheaper.

As a Windows software developer, I also know what technology Microsoft has developed that lies underneath the hood - stuff that the Mac platform just doesn't have. Many of the OS X "features" that are touted as new and unique have been available from Microsoft since the early 1990s when NT hit the streets.

[lordsmurf]

I never have my Windows XP or 2000 systems crash, plug-and-play works fantastically

This is something I've noticed myself. The only times I see Windows XP Pro crash is when somebody applies an update or upgrade they don't really need, or are beta-testing (be it willing or unwilling) iffy software. I don't think the XP Home is much different. In other words, the software crashes the OS, the OS does not crash on its own anymore.

Earlier modern MS GUI OS, like 95-98-98SE-ME-NT4-2000 would crash for varying reasons, blue screens of death, OS goes kamikaze for no reason or silly reasons. That just really does not happen anymore. DOS never really crashed either.

Neither did OS8 and especially not OS9. Those were pretty good. Very resilient to software-induced crashing, and they almost never crashed on their own accord. OS9 was very nice.

Earlier Mac OS up to OS7 were really nothing special, not much different than Windows, sometimes worse, random bombs of death. I remember sitting in a computer programming class, you're typing text into the programmer software and up pops that damned bomb, and you have to start over. Even more aggravating, it would crash when you went to save.

The modern OS X crashes too. I don't care if it's Unix- or Linux-based or not, it crashes on it's own accord. You can be doing something in Photoshop, try to run a stock PS filter, and wham, crash. Or try to use a Mac OS X MPEG encoder, wham, crash. The "Mac users", of course, will try to say its user error or hardware error ... basically anything else to protect the image of their beloved OS.

The way OS X handles updates and upgrades also sucks. Plopping down $99 for a puny version change is a real rip-off. Not to mention all those confusing names like Jaguar and Panther and whatever. Kitty cats, how cute. It's easier to refer to it as 10.1, 10.2, 10.3 and 10.4, thanks.

OS9 was the sweet spot for Mac, XP Pro was the sweet spot for Windows.
OS X was a downgrade in quality, and I have a bad feeling Windows Vista will be the same.

[edDV]

I don't have a PC version of Photoshop, but from what I've seen, they appear the same. I do have a database program that has both a Mac and PC version on the same disc and I've used both and they are exactly the same.

I've been told but can't reference an online source that Photoshop is now full XP (DirectShow) +Intel SSE2 native and the OSX MAC version runs under DirectShow and SSE2 emulation.

This means Photoshop runs faster on the XP+P4_SSE2 playform and slower on a Mac. Maybe an Intel Mac running XP will run faster than on Apple PowerPC hardware but I'd bet that that won't happen until some future version.

[Conquest10]

Oh, don't get me started on crashes. The only time I've experienced crashes in XP is when I'm trying something in a program that I know is going to crash but hope it doesn't. Almost always I lose that gamble. But its only the program that shuts down. All I have to do is reopen it and everything is fine.

My experience with a Mac is the opposite. I was once working in Illustrator and decided to nudge an object over to the left. Nothing happened. I try with the mouse. The arrow does not move. I try the force quit. That doesn't work either. The machine is completely locked up. I hold the power button to try to turn it off. That doesn't work either! I had to unplug it to get it to shut off.

Macs don't crash and don't ever need to be restarted is another example of pure filth flarn filth.

[edDV]

Remember the Soviet Union? They decided to quit after watching a DeltaForce marathon on Satellite TV.

Actually they quit after learning their commuinication system had been decrypted a decade before and all secrets were known (military+ecomomic+political).