Microsoft to offer SIX (6) versions of Vista ?

Discussion in 'The Lounge' started by Puck, Mar 3, 2006.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Vigsted

    Vigsted Starter

    Joined:
    Aug 7, 2005
    Messages:
    4,341
    Well, to say Mac sucks was obviously just a stab at Mac users. Just like some Vince Young fans say Cutler sucks :winker:

    But Windows is by and large the better OS of the two.

    Regarding OSX on x86, I actually spoke to a co-worker today who said it is possible, although it runs pretty... well crappy.
    #71
  2. Vigsted

    Vigsted Starter

    Joined:
    Aug 7, 2005
    Messages:
    4,341
    If so, why are they opening up to the "non-Mac"(so speak) architecture? If so, why are the sales of x86 PC's several times bigger than the Mac?

    Some companies? I'd venture to say it's about 75% of companies that don't develop for Mac. Not because they don't "want" to, but a) because Windows is the more commong operating system and b) because of a lack of developer "support" from Apple. Now to elaborate on what I mean by support, I'd point to the fact that Microsoft spends a lot of resources on tools, documentation and the developer communities for their products in general. I haven't seen the same aggressive commitment from Apple.

    Well that's not exactly a state secret. Then again, everybody probably copied IBM back in the days.
    #72
  3. Vigsted

    Vigsted Starter

    Joined:
    Aug 7, 2005
    Messages:
    4,341
    Actually it would be Mac PowerPC vs. Intel x86 (not with the new Mac's though, since they will use Intel x86) and OSX vs Windows.

    One of Apple's strongpoints over the years was actually their hardware. Their computers were very fast, especially for graphical applications, however being so tightly bound to the OS, it was useless in any other computer.
    #73
  4. avvie

    avvie Ke ali'i o na okole Tip Jar Donor

    Joined:
    Aug 25, 2003
    Messages:
    8,749
    Okay, guys, now for the big question: Star Wars or Star Trek???
    #74
  5. Starkiller

    Starkiller 9

    Joined:
    May 30, 2002
    Messages:
    14,957
    It's very simple. IBM's processors ran way too hot. They couldn't manage to create a decent G5 processor that was capable of running in a laptop. It just got too hot. That's one of the biggest (though not only) reasons they switched to Intel. Apple needs to have top of the line laptops, plus they also wanted a modern processor that could go in a Mac mini, which is also very small and needs an energy efficient CPU.

    The fact is, Apple had been developing an Intel native version of OSX from day 1. OSX was based on NextStep, which ran on Intel hardware. Apple always had it as a contingency plan in case they had to switch to Intel.

    What about it isn't readily accessible?
    #75
  6. Starkiller

    Starkiller 9

    Joined:
    May 30, 2002
    Messages:
    14,957
    You are welcome to your opinion, but that's all it is...
    #76
  7. Gunny

    Gunny Lord and Master Tip Jar Donor

    Joined:
    Dec 7, 2002
    Messages:
    46,988
    :ha:
    #77
  8. Puck

    Puck Pro Bowler

    Joined:
    Jun 25, 2002
    Messages:
    13,051
    This is the second most ignorant statement in the history of ignorant statements

    but I'd LOVE to hear WHY you think so

    I'm guessing it's because if all corporations actually implemented their systems into Macintosh architecture that you'd be out of a job ?
    #78
  9. Puck

    Puck Pro Bowler

    Joined:
    Jun 25, 2002
    Messages:
    13,051
    by the way, in the 6 years since "switching" to Macintosh, I have yet to have a single problem of any description

    no virus'
    no 'fatal exceptions' have occured
    no hardware / software conflicts
    no NEED to access administrative functions
    not a single crash
    NEVER needed to call tech support of any kind

    none , nada, zip
    #79
  10. Gunny

    Gunny Lord and Master Tip Jar Donor

    Joined:
    Dec 7, 2002
    Messages:
    46,988
    i've never had that either. Big deal.
    #80
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.