Are you folks MAC or PC?

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by baker1, Dec 20, 2005.

  1. baker1

    Nikon User Guest

    There will be a TPM; it will also keep Windows from running.[/QUOTE]

    Unless Jobs reverses himself, there won't be. He's on record as saying
    that the Mac OS will not run on any other brand of Intel machine, but
    there will not be anything preventing someone from running Windows on
    Intel Macs.
     
    Nikon User, Dec 22, 2005
    #61
    1. Advertisements

  2. baker1

    Bill Funk Guest

    Unless Jobs reverses himself, there won't be. He's on record as saying
    that the Mac OS will not run on any other brand of Intel machine, but
    there will not be anything preventing someone from running Windows on
    Intel Macs.[/QUOTE]

    IO haven't seen that; could you provide a URL? Thanks.
     
    Bill Funk, Dec 22, 2005
    #62
    1. Advertisements

  3. That makes perfect sense from Apple's point of view. They don't want to
    support a zillion dodgy PC chipsets and cards, so there's a reason for
    MacOS to somehow verify that the machine it's running on is Apple
    hardware. But there's no reason for Apple to avoid becoming a supplier
    of high-quality PCs to run Windows on, and supporting dual-boot to MacOS
    and Windows will certainly sell some more hardware.

    Dave
     
    Dave Martindale, Dec 22, 2005
    #63
  4. baker1

    Jon B Guest

    Do believe it was during his keynote speach at WWDC last year

    <http://www.apple.com/quicktime/qtv/wwdc05/>

    They didn't guarantee windows would run, but they did say they'd do
    nothing to prevent it running.
     
    Jon B, Dec 22, 2005
    #64
  5. baker1

    Ray Fischer Guest

    Why would you think that? Do you think that MicroSoft is suddenly
    going to make all their existing copies of Windows break on almost
    all machines?
     
    Ray Fischer, Dec 22, 2005
    #65
  6. baker1

    cjcampbell Guest

    Actually, Microsoft released Office 2004 for the Mac, but not for the
    PC. It has many features not available on PC versions.
     
    cjcampbell, Dec 23, 2005
    #66
  7. Actually, seems that amazon is pretty good about discounting Mac
    software. Can't recall seeing them in the few lists like this I've run
    across, nor recall seeing similar discounts at the other stores (pretty
    much all charge the same prices.) Buy.com also if I recall (especially
    with coupons).

    PS. Go for the Mac... Probably a good idea to wait for an Intel
    version, but if you want some heavy metal, the G5 towers will do just
    fine right now. (That's what I have.) Will probably be some delays in
    getting Intel native apps for a while, Adobe (initially anyway)
    indicated they probably would wait until CS3 timeframe to make the
    transition for Photoshop.

    PPS. But as other wise folks have said, if you need some specific
    capability in the software you use, make sure the Mac has it. (It
    probably will be available in some form.) Final Cut Express and Pro are
    pretty comprehensive, and other such hard-core software is available for
    the Mac too.

    PPPS. I use PCs at work, but only because I have to. (And I program
    unix boxes there too, which I want and like to do.) Macs are what I
    use at home; I can do everything I want/need to do on them, and it's on
    par with the unix boxes at work in terms of stability, and mucho better
    in terms of usability than either of the others. (For me (and many
    others).)
     
    Frank Malczewski, Dec 23, 2005
    #67
  8. baker1

    Paul Allen Guest

    I suppose you meant XP will runn on almost any x86 architecture machine.
    There's another OS that runs on everything from handhelds to Macs and
    PC's to all of IBM's product line up to and including the mainframes.
    My employer runs Linux under VM on IBM 3090 hardware and offers it as
    a service inside the company. Rock-solid reliability, all the memory
    and disk you can imagine, and cycles coming out your ears. Now, if
    Adobe would just port Photoshop to Linux on that architecture, I'd be
    set. :)

    Paul Allen
     
    Paul Allen, Dec 23, 2005
    #68
  9. baker1

    Bill Funk Guest

    Non sequitor.
    A TPM can determine what software is trying to run, and block it.
    Nothing that Microsoft can do about it.
    And it *certainly* won't be on all machines, but on Apple branded
    machines, hardly even close to all.
     
    Bill Funk, Dec 23, 2005
    #69
  10. baker1

    Ray Fischer Guest

    And do you think that Apple would make computers that would not run
    Mac OS?
    You think that Apple would make computers that would prevent Windows
    from running?
     
    Ray Fischer, Dec 24, 2005
    #70
  11. When the Intel Macs were announced, Jobs said that Apple had no plans to
    produce a version of Windows to run on these Macs, but also that it
    would do nothing to prevent someone else from doing so.
     
    Frank Malczewski, Dec 24, 2005
    #71
  12. That would be a change from his stance back in the early 80's. The
    Apple ][ used the 6502 chip, which had limited abilities. It couldn't
    handle CP/M by itself. However, it was so common, that CP/M software
    publishers would sell add-in Z80 cards so that you could run their
    software on the Apple. One such publisher was MicroPro with its "Star
    Suite". The flat-file database was called "DataStar", the spreadsheet
    was called "CalcStar", and the word-processor was called... wait for
    it... "WordStar".

    Apparently, Steve Jobs was extremely peeved that software development
    for the 6502 cpu came to a grinding halt, with all new software being
    written for the Intel 8080 or its Zilog 8000 (Z80) equivalant. That was
    a major reason that the Lisa (and later the Mac) were closed-hardware
    systems with no internal expansion slots. The only way to add a device
    was via the SCSI connecter.

    I also wonder how the Intel Apple will react to non-Apple cards. I
    remember that at one point, Macs would check their memory chips and
    refuse to run if they weren't Apple chips.
     
    Walter Dnes (delete the 'z' to get my real address, Dec 24, 2005
    #72
  13. baker1

    Ray Fischer Guest

    Indeed, I was in the room when he made that announcement. That's why
    I think it odd that someone would insist that a Mac could not run both
    OS's.
     
    Ray Fischer, Dec 24, 2005
    #73
  14. baker1

    Bruce Hoult Guest

    "Walter Dnes (delete the 'z' to get my real address)"
    That would be because CP/M was written in assembler for the 8080/Z80
    chip, which has a totally different instuction set to the 6502.

    The 6502 had approximately as much capability as the Z80. As usual, it
    was just a question of whether the software you wanted had beeen written
    for the machine you had. Z80/S100 bus machines were seen as "business"
    machines and so had business software written for them, but S100
    hardware was incredibly expensive as it was really an industrial
    standard not a home/office one. So an Apple plus a Z80 card was one of
    the cheapest ways to get into CP/M business software -- certainly if you
    wanted something with expansion abaility and a decent screen and
    keyboard -- even if you didn't have the Apple to start with.

    Nice story, except that the Lisa had internal expansion slots in the
    form of a (very expensive to make) card chassis.

    And, of course, SCSI disn't appear until several years after the Mac
    came out.

    They've never done that. They have, however, checked that the chips had
    the correct specifications in terms of access time and wait states.
    Some 3rd party memory wasn't up to the corrrect specification.
     
    Bruce Hoult, Dec 24, 2005
    #74
  15. baker1

    Bill Funk Guest

    Not that odd.
    Apple's strategy up to now has been to be a very closed system, with
    very tight control over what ran on or was put into its systems.
    All that will change? Why? Why would Apple give up it's control? It's
    so easy to maintain that control, why lose it?
    In any case, time will tell.
     
    Bill Funk, Dec 24, 2005
    #75
  16. baker1

    funny Guest

    funny, Dec 25, 2005
    #76
  17. baker1

    Nikon User Guest

    You going to be at MacWorld in January?
     
    Nikon User, Dec 25, 2005
    #77
  18. baker1

    Nikon User Guest

    The Mac wasn't sold until Jan 1984. So unless he was a preferred
    developer or an employee of one, he didn't have a Mac before then. Even
    if he had a Lisa (which wasn't a Mac), it wasn't before 1983.
     
    Nikon User, Dec 25, 2005
    #78
  19. baker1

    Nikon User Guest

    "Walter Dnes (delete the 'z' to get my real address)"
    Er, no. Software development for the 6502 did not come to a grinding
    halt.
    But the SCSI connector didn't exist on the original Mac; it first
    appeared with the Macintosh Plus. Further, there were two serial ports
    with which to attach devices. In fact, Apple's first hard disk
    connected via a serial port.
    The same way that 680x0 and PowerPC Macs react to non-Apple cards:
    they work.
    That's a false memory; Macs never did that.
     
    Nikon User, Dec 25, 2005
    #79
  20. baker1

    Ray Fischer Guest

    News to me. I see lots and lots of companies producing hardware and
    software to work with Macs.
     
    Ray Fischer, Dec 25, 2005
    #80
    1. Advertisements

Ask a Question

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments (here). After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.