Because I already have a good monitor. And because one is likely to replace their monitor less often than their computer.

Maybe someone would like an iMac class machine, but doesn't want to pay for the screen each and every time they upgrade their machine. Maybe they want to run this iMac class machine on a bigger screen than the iMacs come in.

I agree that Apple sells great screens, but it sucks that to use one of their Cinema displays you are expected to run a mini (low end) or a Powermac (obscenely high end).

They both have their weak and strong points. I find OSX less GUI tweak friendlt than Windows XP, of course OSX is Unix based, so that could explain my last opinion.
Generally Windows is to show of gaming, OSX is to show of movies and other forms of multimedia (which the popular programs for each OS emphasize).

I agree.

And:


It runs natively, so unless I'm missing something, it'll work without any emulating.

In fact, actually, some people would say they run Windows even better than PC couterparts.

Well if that's true, it's going to be a (if not THE) best move Apple ever made. Even if some people say that they've just sold their soul.

Looking at this purely from an objective point of view, if I had no computer and had to decide between an apple computer that runs the best of both worlds or a Windows based PC that runs only Windows (and not even as good as the Apple hardware) it wouldn't even be a decision anymore, a Mac would be the obvious choice.

Double Post:
Ofcourse, the big question is, how long will it take before Microsoft starts fighting this.

Double Post:
Also: By the time this is integrated in OSX 10.5 Leopard, Vista will probably be out, and people will want to buy that instead of XP...

You've gotta ask yourself *why* MS would fight it.

This means that they get to sell more retail copies of Windows, which is a considerably higher profit margin for them than OEM. As far as they are concerned, why would it matter that it's going on an Apple branded machine as opposed to a Dell, HP, Acer, etc. machine?

Seriously, I think it would be great if Apple would included the option when purchasing a new Mac of having Windows XP already given a 20 GB partition and installed when the Mac arrives at the cost of an OEM Windows XP Service Pack 2 disc.

That's never gonna happen. And those are Apple's words, not mine.

Why would MS fight it? Well, they might sell more copies of Windows, but they'd also be helping Apple conquer a much bigger part of the computer world.

I think Microsoft would much rather fight Apple over this to ensure their own dominance on the market than make a bit more money on Windows sales.

Microsoft would fight it because should their operating system be compared side by side with OS X everyone will laugh.

I don't really understand why'd you want this. Apple computers running Windows would be like a really hot chick having hepatitus C.

Sure it might be a nice business move but I can't see myself ever doing this.

Or, you know, you could just USE Mac OS X for a while and maybe you'd understand why people are so enthusiastic about it. It's just better in general—from the overall design to its look and feel to the functionality and uniformity of operation between applications... it's a smoother, more consistent, and more pleasant experience than Windows. (Not to mention safer).

I'm excited about Boot Camp because it means I can finally chuck this damned PC tower out the window and just buy a MacBook Pro. Then I've got MacOS X for all my daily needs (plus all my graphic design and video editing needs) since it's the system I actually enjoy, and I can reboot quickly into XP if I want to run a Windows-only game. No more need for two computers, an extra monitor, or any of that crap. Very convenient.

As for why Apple's stuff costs more (it's not 4 times as much, stop exaggerating), there are several reasons. One: Apple is a small hardware company whose profits are made on hardware margins, which they use to finance all their software development. Unlike Microsoft, Apple does not make the bulk of their money off OS X or iLife. They make most of their money off the sales of their hardware (computers and iPods). Thus to stay profitable they need to charge for their hardware. Two: Apple spends a lot of time custom designing motherboards, cases, and related items. It's no secret that their industrial design is a cut above anything else out there in the PC world. They make functional AND beautiful machines, and that costs money. And finally, three: Apple's machines simply are more functional than most PCs. Yes, you can self-build an "equivalent" PC for less money, but it's not as much less as you'd think. And in the realm of laptops, when you customize a Dell or other manufacturer's laptop to match a MacBook Pro, you'll find that it often costs nearly as much.

In the end, a Mac now is more functional than ANY PC. It can run Windows—whoop de doo, so can everyone else, but it can ALSO run the best operating system out there: Mac OS X. You can go anywhere for Windows, but there's only one place you can get OS X, and that's Apple.

Like I asked before, what's to stop OS X from running on a Wintel machine now? Obviously if Windows XP can run on a Mac, then a simple logical conclusion is OS X will inversely run on a Wintel machine. And I'll be able to do it on better hardware that cost me half as much as it would buying a Mac. (Yes half as much, that is not an exaggeration. I'll do the exact breakdown if you would like.)

There isn't anything stopping you, unless you want some official solution.

Apple probably won't release something to let you do that, though, since they'd be undercutting their own hardware sales.

Cless made that quite clear, if you could get past all the smugness.

MaxOS X does run on a WinTel box. Sort of. There is just a huge lack of driver support. Getting it to install takes some hacking, and unless you build a system to closely match the hardware inside of an iMac/Mac Mini you wont get support for wireless networking, graphics, or wired networking. So, while it runs, its more of a geek badge of pride than something useful.

BootCamp is little more than a collection of Windows drivers to support the Mac hardware. The real magic is in the recent firmware update that adds the necessary CSM to the EFI implementation that Apple had initially left out. This is what allows the booting of legacy operating systems, including non-EFI Linux.

Oh, and today a company called Parallels released a beta of their Virtualization software for MacOS X Intel (like VMWare) allowing the option of running Windows from within MacOS X rather than dual-booting.

To Cetra, as ElectricSheep so helpfully pointed out, Apple's the only source for drivers for OS X. So unless you build an iMac clone (a desktop running a Core Duo on EFI with an ATI Radeon X1600 on PCIe, the same audio hardware, etc...) you won't have support for all your stuff. Running OS X on PCs requires you hack and steal (no boxed version of OS X for Intel exists yet, and won't until version 10.5 Leopard comes out sometime early next year) and it's still nowhere near an optimum experience. So, that's what's preventing you. No support. Apple can choose to release drivers for their hardware to work seamlessly with Windows. They can also choose not to release a version of OS X that will run on whatever crud you put together.

And yes, please build me a Core Duo based system in an attractive, slim, space-saving case with full-featured hardware for half the cost of a Mac. The last thing I want in the world is another ugly, space-hogging mid-tower.

And to ElectricSheep—not just Windows. Parallels will run pretty much any x86-based operating system, by the look of things. Much like VMWare.

Now, now, beggars can't be choosers here.

This is a very important lesson you'll have to learn.

Nonsense. I have a choice, and I've chosen it. People value different things, and that's something that the "PCs ARE OMG CHEAPER" crowd needs to learn. I value the total package, and I'm willing and able to pay for it. I think outside the insular nerd community that's the prevalent view.

Except you can still get a high quality PC for cheaper than a high quality Mac.

Bah, who wants Windows on their computer anyway? Thanks to some random problem my XP install is now useless, and since I've been living in Linux all year anyway I don't even see the point of repairing it. Mac OS X is the only other operating system I'd want to have on here, but considering how much control I have over everything in Linux I don't know if I'd spend much time on that either. And the look of my computer case is not so important to me that I'd buy a Mac for the sole purpose of putting Linux on it.

But getting a high quality PC means you can't run Mac OS X without serious compromises to the OS. And part of the effectiveness of OS X is based on its close ties to the hardware it runs on (allowing the OS to exploit it in a manner it couldn't do if it had to support every piece of hardware on the market). Severing the ties between Mac OS X and the Mac hardware kills a great part of the appeal of getting a Mac.

That's why we have Linux. MacOs isn't the end-all be all of operating systems. Besides, it's just a matter of time before those hackers out there figure out an easy process to get Mac Os X installed on a PC anyway.

Yup, my Windows is giving me crap a few weeks after install as well and I just use that bitch for games. I agree on the notion that a MacOSX/Linux dual boot scenario would be the prefereable setup on an Intel Mac, but this still doesen't solve the gaming issue. And Call of Cthulhu has been pretty good so far... =/

If you think Linux is in any way comparable to the current state of OS X, you're dreaming.

No, it's not.

But to think OS X is better than sex, like you appear to be doing, is just as much dreaming.

OSX is sex for the brain :edgarrock:

:biggrin:

No, let's not go down that road, but you can't argue with millions of dedicated fans worldwide. OSX doesn't get in your face like Windows does. I'm actually a fan of XP as well, before I got OSX I was pretty happy with the way it went, but then it was one virus after the other and things went downhill very fast from there on... OSX is a tool that sits quietly in the background, but does everything you want it to do, very gracefully. Anyways, that's just my two cents.

There's equal amounts of things that would make a user confused/wonder why the fuck they chose a way to do something/etc., etc. in OS X, Windows, and Linux.

To deny this would mean you're naïve. Or maybe even stupid.

What the fuck are you even saying.

That may be your $.02, but exchange rates say otherwise.