Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Gear' started by NYTitansFan, Jan 30, 2007.
Show me where you can prove that 5% of the software out there isn't mac-compatible...
Cygwin is an emulator, so keep trying...
Windows does not natively run Unix apps and environments, OS X can...
I can't because nobody can keep track of all the crap that's out there, but common sense will tell you it's not. And that fact that a) Mac now switched to x86 architecture to facilitate Windows and Windows apps and b) there have been a number of Windows emulators for Mac (never heard anyone use a Mac emulator for Windows) tells me there's been a need to run Windows only application on the Mac.
Your argument is like saying that if I take Linux and use Beryl for the GUI then it isn't Linux anymore... :wack:
They would be stupid not to and your complaint is foolish. You really think the computer industry would be as successful today if no one ever released a GUI. We'd be better off stuck with command line interfaces?
Real power users (the ones who actually know what the hell they are doing) can still do whatever they want. But if the average person can't use a computer they won't buy it.
I'm trying to point out to you that just because it looks like it's native, doesn't mean it is. But next time I get near a Mac OSX I will test your claim, that I can use any Unix command. Unfortunately that might be a while since I left the advertisement company, but I will write it down on my todo list.
It's not common sense. It just means you are making things up to defend your argument.
Lots of people want to run Windows apps on a mac. I have no reason to pretend otherwise. There are a number of specific programs that only run on a PC that people need to use despite the fact that they don't want to use Windows primarily. But to suggest that less than 5% of all software runs on a Mac is ludicrous...
As for Intel chips, Apple switched because IBM and Motorola couldn't deliver. The PPC chips were always coming out late. And the biggest issue was that Intel had beaten them in power consumption and Apple couldn't build a laptop with the G5 because it ran so hot. It wasn't because of Windows, even though Apple has taken advantage of that too...
Exactly. If the GUI is your only way of communicating with the kernel (even if it's through a command line) I don't qualify it as proper Unix/Linux.
No, I like GUI's. What I don't like are GUI's that alienate the user from what is actually going on. We're not quite there yet, but if the trend continues soon we will be.
I agree that PowerUsers can still to an extent (in both Vista and OSX) do whatever they want. However I don't believe we should gravitate towards the people who don't know, rather they should be educated so that they will know.
Again, it is native on a Mac. It has been ever since OS X was released.
Go under the Applications folder, under Utilities, and open the Terminal app. You can run anything directly through BSD.
Well I'll await your hard scientific evidence that conclusively proves that there are more than 5% of 3rd party programs for the Mac, but we both know nobody can ever with any degree of certainty calculate the number of applications in the world.
And you can call it "making things up" if you will, I call it a postulation.
A GUI only runs on top of an OS. It's still the same OS. And anyone who chooses to bypass the GUI can do so. You can do it on a Mac easily because... it's Unix...
You can never educate the majority of people enough for that. It's far better to build a device that is extremely powerful that can be customized to fit the user. And I guarantee you that if the choice was between a power but complicated system versus a good and very simple system, the simple one to use would win out in the marketplace. That's why Windows is so much more popular than Linux despite the fact that Linux is free.