XP on Macs

Apple Launches Software to Run Windows XP is the announcement (wisely not released on April 1) announcing a patch for Intel-based Macs to boot either MacOS or Windows XP:
The computer maker said its new "Boot Camp" software is available as a download beginning Wednesday. It allows users with a Microsoft Windows XP installation disc to install Windows XP on an Intel-based Mac computer.

"Apple has no desire or plan to sell or support Windows, but many customers have expressed their interest to run Windows on Apple's superior hardware now that we use Intel processors," Philip Schiller, Apple senior vice president of worldwide product marketing, said in a statement.

Boot Camp makes it easier to install Windows software on an Intel-based Mac, with a step-by-step guide. It also lets users choose to use either Mac OS X software, or the Windows software when they restart their computer.

Users can download the new Boot Camp software from Apple's Web site. A final version of Boot Camp will be available as a feature in the upcoming Mac OS X version 10.5 "Leopard."
View : : :
84 Replies. 5 pages. Viewing page 2.
Newer [  1  2  3  4  5  ] Older
64.
 
Re: No subject
Apr 5, 2006, 21:18
64.
Re: No subject Apr 5, 2006, 21:18
Apr 5, 2006, 21:18
 
showing it running faster in XP

That somewhat surprises me. The flip side is that OS X is probably a "heavier" OS than XP. It certainly does more.

Now someone needs to go out and buy one of those Dells

It's due for shipping on the 10th... Woot -- it shipped today! Replacing the piece-o-shit laptop I bought from Fry's and forced them to refund me money for (after 6 months!).

But it'll have a slower CPU than the MacBook (I didn't feel the need to upgrade it), and I suspect the video card will make the MacBook slaughter it (the 1400 is better than the Intel video, but still doesn't hold a candle to the 1600). I'm not familiar w/ Cinebench though, so I dunno.

And, of course, I'll have to remove all the crapware that Dell foists upon people.

This comment was edited on Apr 5, 21:35.
63.
 
Re: No subject
Apr 5, 2006, 21:08
63.
Re: No subject Apr 5, 2006, 21:08
Apr 5, 2006, 21:08
 
doesn't that put it closer to XP Pro? Maybe I'm confused..

No, because MCE is a superset of XP Pro (excepting that one feature), not a subset. It has a number of media handling capabilities that are not in XP Pro or Home. AFAIK, OS X still beats it in media handling (with some obvious exceptions, like OS X stock cannot serve media to an Xbox or Xbox360), but the gap is nowhere near as far as it is between OS X and XP Pro.

And, incidentilly, the whole "Pro vs Home" debate is bogus. Home is being phased out by most manufacturers and being replaced by MCE. Sure, you can still get it from some, but it's becoming more and more rare.

I was just trying to find a comparable selection from what's offered at each of the respective manufacturers

Well, hell, then we should start looking at other PC makers too then. Some of them have far, far better software offerings than Dell after all. Heck, I bet if you spec out an Alienware or Falcon system then you'll even get it to cost vastly more than Apple.

the Dell will be $520 cheaper than the Mac ($2,559 vs. $2,779)

Again, you're ignoring the $750 discount available on that particular system (at least in the US; it's unclear if you're quoting USD prices or not though).

I already went over a rather exhaustive +/- listing though. I'm honestly trying to be very fair handed about it. I think a big feature you missed on the + side for the Dell is the built in card readers. That saves me using a USB port and having an external dongle.

Oh, and the BT option for the Dell is BT 2.0 as well, not 1.1 as someone else mentioned.

FFS do you even know anything about OSX, or are you just chapping my nuts here, Beamer

That was a rather amazingly naive comment by him. Honestly, MS is hoping that Vista approaches OS X's capabilities, not visa versa.

Hey, I'd love to have a MacBook Pro. Heather would too (she more so than I even!). But, frankly, they're just too damn expensive IMO. I don't need a lot of the stuff they put on there and there's no damn way to remove it. $2000 as a base price is about $1200 higher than where I started looking, and $900 higher than where I ended up. And the old G4 laptops are a sad fucking joke nowadays.

If the price difference was closer to $200-300 then I might consider it -- although it'd end up being more since I'd still have to buy a copy of XP for it (games!).

Honestly, Apple hardware is damned nice -- I don't question that. But they're no longer competing in their own little sandbox, and they need to learn to be more flexible and offer more configuration options. Hell, I want an extended warranty on my system (recomended on laptops by consumer sites) but Apple only offers one choice there -- a 3 year warranty w/ accidental damage protection. That's significantly more expensive than the warranty I got for my Dell. And if I lived in Florida then I'd be screwed completely w/ Apple -- you can't get it there at all (nor can you get the accidental damage from Dell, but at least w/ Dell the two options are separate (and, in fairness to Apple, Dell costs $10 more for the same coverage)).

62.
 
Re: No subject
Apr 5, 2006, 20:08
62.
Re: No subject Apr 5, 2006, 20:08
Apr 5, 2006, 20:08
 

The old Mac vs. Wintel argument is over. It's now the Macintel vs. Wintel argument

Well here to add fuel to the debate are some Cinebench results for OSX vs XP on both the MacBook and iMac showing it running faster in XP

http://xlr8yourmac.com/

Now someone needs to go out and buy one of those Dells..

-----
It may be that one day a young man will adore a Pinata.
-----
I'm not even angry. I'm being so sincere right now, even though you broke my heart and killed me.
61.
 
Re: No subject
Apr 5, 2006, 17:43
61.
Re: No subject Apr 5, 2006, 17:43
Apr 5, 2006, 17:43
 
As for the good old Mac vs. Wintel argument,

The old Mac vs. Wintel argument is over. It's now the Macintel vs. Wintel argument

60.
 
Re: No subject
Apr 5, 2006, 17:11
60.
Re: No subject Apr 5, 2006, 17:11
Apr 5, 2006, 17:11
 
Have you turned on system-wide spell checking?

Yes, I have, and I've just realised that Opera actually does have spell-checking - just not check as you type. Basically, I'm an idiot.

I also know about the RDP client for OSX, which is quite good... the problem is, remote-controlling a Mac on a low-bandwidth connection is really horrible, whereas thanks to MRD's lower-level system hooks (basically it gets told where the windows are, what type they are, where text and menus are etc, and the rest is left up to the client to render), the experience is actually quite reasonable on a slow connection when remote-controlling a WinXP box. I personally don't care greatly about this feature for home use, but I wanted to absolutely as fair as I could.

59.
 
One good use for a Mac
Apr 5, 2006, 16:51
59.
One good use for a Mac Apr 5, 2006, 16:51
Apr 5, 2006, 16:51
 
If you bank uses ActiveX crapware for security, tell them you have an Apple Mac It saves all this arguing over explaining FireFox to them. They will quickly give you an alternative to their ActiveX security Works every time for me and with call centers.

58.
 
Re: No subject
Apr 5, 2006, 16:37
58.
Re: No subject Apr 5, 2006, 16:37
Apr 5, 2006, 16:37
 
Remote Desktop: Yes, Apple provide a VNC-based remote desktop app. That said, and I've never used it, I'd bet it's not as good as Remote Desktop. Remote Desktop (and its big brother, Terminal Services) are both excellent systems in Windows, hooked in at a much lower level than VNC's basic "take a screenshot, sling it down the network" approach.

Actually this is one place where a copy of XP Pro has a good advantage IMO.

Remote Desktop support in OSX is a bit of a lark on the Mac because in order to have the full experience, you need to run Apple Remote Desktop which is a $500 piece of software. That said, ARD absolutely kicks the shit out of MRD at that point because you gain a huge number of insanely powerful tools for remotely administering as many Macs as you want, but it's a whole different beast.

OOTB, it does have built-in VNC support that's as good as your client, basically. In practise I've found it to be identical to MRD, actually.

Incidentally, here's a version of Microsoft Remote Desktop for OSX that'll let you admin your Windows boxen from within OSX:

http://www.macupdate.com/info.php/id/8431


EDIT:
Edit: Opera on OSX doesn't have a built-in spellcheck. This makes me sad, and an even crappier typist than usual.

Really? Have you turned on system-wide spell checking?

Sounds like you probably do, but just in case: Get some text entered somewhere, right-click on it, and under the "Spelling" menu, select "Check Spelling As You Type".

God I love that feature! Can always tell when I post from Not-a-Mac, 'cause my spelling is pure crap
-----
It may be that one day a young man will adore a Pinata.
This comment was edited on Apr 5, 16:45.
-----
I'm not even angry. I'm being so sincere right now, even though you broke my heart and killed me.
57.
 
Re: No subject
Apr 5, 2006, 16:26
57.
Re: No subject Apr 5, 2006, 16:26
Apr 5, 2006, 16:26
 
I disagree -- XP Media Center Edition is actually much closer to OS X than XP Pro is. The only thing that MCE cannot do that Pro can is join a domain (along with the obvious corallary of cached credentials). And, that said, you can join a domain w/ MCE -- but only at install time (yes, that's whacko).

But since OSX can join domains (and anytime you damn please.. "whacko" is a good word for that MCE quirk), doesn't that put it closer to XP Pro? Maybe I'm confused..

But, uh, at this point you've not configured them anywhere even close. By including iWork on the Mac and Office SBE on the Dell you've given Dell a helluva lot more business software than the Mac. The Mac doesn't have a spreadsheet or an Outlook equivalent. I'd say that WordPerfect Office is actually a closer match (and I'd say that OpenOffice.org is a better option than either, or put MS Office on both).

Heh, yeah I was being generous with the Dell Office SBE was because you get the vastly superior Keynote with iWork, so I figured PPoint should be thrown in on the Dell..

I was just trying to find a comparable selection from what's offered at each of the respective manufacturers. The OOTB experience. You can't have exactly the same package with the exception of the OS, so of course there are trade-offs here and there..

I grow weary of this whole debate, because it really is kind of pointless, but I'm a masochist so that's not stopping me yet.

Let's pretend that everyone ONLY runs OSS so that we can stop bickering over that part.. Looking at a strictly OOTB experience (meaning I'm not monkeying around with productivity software, just hardware to get them in the same league. Both machines therefore have 100GB 5400RPM drives, and 1GB of RAM in two DIMMS - the stock Mac comes with 1 1GB DIMM. Bluetooth is added to the Dell). Here are the advantages each one has over the other as I see them:

- the Dell will be $520 cheaper than the Mac ($2,559 vs. $2,779)
- the Dell has a DL burner

- the Mac has faster RAM
- the Mac has faster graphics hardware
- the Mac has an integrated web-cam
- the Mac has an illuminated keyboard
- the Mac has 10/100/1000 Ethernet
- the Mac has 5.1 Dolby Digital optical audio in/out
- the Mac runs OSX, but can also boot Windows XP
- the Mac comes with A FULL VERSION of OSX which does not have any features missing, and will run on 64-bit hardware should you so desire it (and Apple's EULA allows for a single copy of OSX to be installed on a laptop as well as a desktop as long as it's only one user, so that would even be legit. Not that they even check, mind you ;P)


Incidentally, there's no "OSX Pro Edition," so your logic would make XP Home = mandatory.

Unless you can point out that OSX is more comparable to Pro than to Home. I mean, go bullet point to bullet point of the differences between Pro and Home and show that OSX has almost all of them.

Just because XP has several versions and OSX has one doesn't mean OSX is closer to the more expensive version. It's all about what they can do, not whether you're getting the most powerful version.


And, for the record, I'm not saying OSX is more comparable to Home than Pro. I don't know, although I'd imagine OSX is closer to Pro than Home. I'm just saying your logic is terrible.

Huh?

I'd think that the mere fact that it will run in a multiproc. environment should be enough, but FFS do you even know anything about OSX, or are you just chapping my nuts here, Beamer? Don't like the multiproc. example? Fine, but I've already mentioned a couple of other places where talking about anything OTHER than XP Pro for the sake of comparison between the two is pointless..

Instead, how about YOU go point by point down a list of features and tell me all the stuff XP PRO does that OSX doesn't (because just fucking believe me already that OSX does EVERYTHING XP Home does and then some). It'll be a much shorter list..


EDIT - gigabit-E
EDIT2 - 5.1 audio
-----
It may be that one day a young man will adore a Pinata.

This comment was edited on Apr 5, 17:36.
-----
I'm not even angry. I'm being so sincere right now, even though you broke my heart and killed me.
56.
 
Re: No subject
Apr 5, 2006, 16:23
56.
Re: No subject Apr 5, 2006, 16:23
Apr 5, 2006, 16:23
 
Unless you can point out that OSX is more comparable to Pro than to Home. I mean, go bullet point to bullet point of the differences between Pro and Home and show that OSX has almost all of them.

I think I can do that fairly easily - from http://www.microsoft.com/windowsxp/pro/howtobuy/choosing2.mspx, the differences between XP Home and Pro:

Remote Desktop: Yes, Apple provide a VNC-based remote desktop app. That said, and I've never used it, I'd bet it's not as good as Remote Desktop. Remote Desktop (and its big brother, Terminal Services) are both excellent systems in Windows, hooked in at a much lower level than VNC's basic "take a screenshot, sling it down the network" approach.

Offline files and folders: I'm not 100% sure if the Mac supports this for Samba/CIFS connections, but it can definitely do offline synchronised folders over WebDAV with .Mac. I'm not convinced that this works as broadly as Windows support does, but I've not tested it.

Scalable Processor Support: Yes, OSX supports at least dual dual-core processors. I don't believe there is a software or licensing limitation in OSX, but to my knowledge this has never been proven.

Encrypting File System: Yes, the Mac has FileVault, which encrypts your entire user folder and equates roughly to Vista's new BitLocker function.

Access Control: The Mac supports Unix permissions, but I believe ACLs can be implemented whenever requested. Additionally, different classes of user can be created, such that certain users don't have access to screw up the system. Even XP Pro doesn't have the level of user isolation that Mac OS and Unix do.

Centralised Administration: Yes, in fact, I can administer a lot of Mac-related settings and security from within a Windows-based Active Directory network. Alternatively, for even more complete control, OSX Server has more features.

Group Policy: OSX supports this to an extent, but I've never explored how far the support can be taken. Again. OSX Server has more support.

Software Installation and Maintenance: I'm not sure there is an integrated "push" installer for Macs as there is for Group Policy in Windows, but I know of a few third-party products that can do it. The Mac loses out on a corporate level here.

Roaming User Profiles: I believe this can be done fairly simply with folder redirection (Aliasing on Mac), but again, I haven't seen it working.

Remote Installation Service (RIS): Macs natively support NetBoot equivalents and that can install the OS, or so I believe.

Finally, it's not on the list, but:
Ability to join and authenticate against an Active Directory or Windows NT domain: Yes, OSX can do this. Incidentally, OSX Server also supports Open Directory, an LDAP-based directory system similar to Active Directory, and which can act as a virtual Backup Domain Controller or Active Directory Domain Controller Peer (handy if, in a large organisation, you want one or more non-Windows boxes to keep your AD store).

So there you go. I'd say OSX has a fair justification for being compared to XP Pro, but that's just my opinion.

As for the good old Mac vs. Wintel argument, I have one of each, and I use a PC at work. I love my Mac, and I love my home-built Shuttle box. I don't do a lot of gaming on the Mac (well, a bit of Diablo II from time to time), but I do tend to use it for most of my day-to-day stuff at home. I find it pleasurable to use, partly because it's a break from my Windows-based day job, and partly because I find the OS to be easier to navigate in a number of places. It's also a pain in the arse for some things, but on balance, I prefer using my Mac for browsing the web etc.

The reason I'm interested in this announcement is that I'd like to buy a MacBook Pro, use it for .NET development in Windows, and then just reboot into OSX for non-work stuff.

God, this post took a long time to write.

Edit: Opera on OSX doesn't have a built-in spellcheck. This makes me sad, and an even crappier typist than usual.
This comment was edited on Apr 5, 16:26.
55.
 
Still not Apples and Apples
Apr 5, 2006, 16:15
55.
Still not Apples and Apples Apr 5, 2006, 16:15
Apr 5, 2006, 16:15
 
Eh. No matter what, you'll have die hard supporters on either side of the issue. No proof or opinion will sway most of these people one way or the other.

One one hand, Macs have always been quite highly priced. You can usually fine a bargain-bin PC counterpart of equal-or-greater performance. And even mainstream rigs (Dell) are still cheaper.

On the other hand, Apple makes a rock-solid stable product mainly because they just support a handful of hardware versions. They don't need to support limitless combinations of hardware and drivers. And OS X is simply a dream.

The question is, do you think its worth?

The premium isn't as high as people make it out to be unless you go for Walmart PCs. But it's hit-or-miss. It could have the cheapest and most unreliable components in the world and thus crap out. Or it can last forver.

The Dells and such aren't THAT much cheaper if you factor everything into it: similar video car, similar screen, etc. But the Dell will always be a few hundred cheaper.



If I was strapped for Cash I would never even consider the MacBook (maybe an iMac or Mac Mini).


"Space. It seems to go on and on forever. But then you get to the end and a gorilla starts throwing barrels at you."
-Fry, Futurmama
"Space. It seems to go on and on forever. But then you get to the end and a gorilla starts throwing barrels at you."
-Fry, Futurama
54.
 
Re: No subject
Apr 5, 2006, 15:19
54.
Re: No subject Apr 5, 2006, 15:19
Apr 5, 2006, 15:19
 
XP Pro = mandatory because Apple doesn't make an "OSX Home Edition"

Incidentally, there's no "OSX Pro Edition," so your logic would make XP Home = mandatory.

Unless you can point out that OSX is more comparable to Pro than to Home. I mean, go bullet point to bullet point of the differences between Pro and Home and show that OSX has almost all of them.

Just because XP has several versions and OSX has one doesn't mean OSX is closer to the more expensive version. It's all about what they can do, not whether you're getting the most powerful version.


And, for the record, I'm not saying OSX is more comparable to Home than Pro. I don't know, although I'd imagine OSX is closer to Pro than Home. I'm just saying your logic is terrible.

-------------
Doomriders: the first new band worth a signature - http://www.deathwishinc.com/
53.
 
Re: No subject
Apr 5, 2006, 15:18
53.
Re: No subject Apr 5, 2006, 15:18
Apr 5, 2006, 15:18
 
XP home supports dual core processors as well as multithreading.

I think you mean hyperthreading and not mulithreading as every OS can support multithreading if your program uses a user-level thread library (ie Pthreads for example). Granted, there's a big difference between user level & kernel level threads, but TMK Windows 9x supported kernel level threads.

As for XP Pro being required for dual-processor machines, that was news to me, as both versions of XP are based off the NT kernel which did support dual processors. Go figure. I guess since most dual processor machines tend to be higher end things like servers & the like MS figures that they can extort the extra couple of $$$ for that option, whereas dual-core is intended for the home user (although aside from gaming only God knows why, as a dual-core CPU won't load a web browser any faster).

As for the Mac supporting Windows thing, I think most of you are missing the point, it doesn't matter if a Mac is X dollars more expensive than a clone, this move just means that people who are committed to Macs for one reason or another (they love OSX, specific app requirements, etc) now have one less reason to not buy Mac hardware, and (more importantly) people who refused to buy Macs because they didn't want to be tied to Mac-only apps now have one less reason to not give Macs a try.

PZ
------------
Reading: Robert Pirsig's "Zen & The Art of Motorcycle Maintenance" (again)

This comment was edited on Apr 5, 15:21.
PZ
------------
52.
 
Re: No subject
Apr 5, 2006, 15:14
52.
Re: No subject Apr 5, 2006, 15:14
Apr 5, 2006, 15:14
 
in response to "Oh, and it's fully 64-bit as well. But I'm just going to assume that you'd have a complete shit-fit if I tried to suggest the only truly fair way to compare the two would be to spec. XP Pro 64Bit on the Dell (not that it would run mind you, because MS just doesn't roll like that.. but since we're looking at "what comes in the box"..). "

Are the duo chips even 64bit enabled?

This comment was edited on Apr 5, 15:25.
51.
 
Re: No subject
Apr 5, 2006, 15:09
51.
Re: No subject Apr 5, 2006, 15:09
Apr 5, 2006, 15:09
 
I recently read that Jobs is a total jackass in person. Some ex-employees spilled the beans and the picture they draw isn't the chrome-plated sunshine Apple would have you believe.

Have a read of Robert X Cringley's Accidental Empires. Doesn't give a very flattering view of Steve at all (or, in the interests of fairness, virtually any successful person in the IT industry).
50.
 
MAC vs. PC...ugghhh same old argument
Apr 5, 2006, 15:00
50.
MAC vs. PC...ugghhh same old argument Apr 5, 2006, 15:00
Apr 5, 2006, 15:00
 
This is the same tired, old argument that has been going on since the beginning of both the pc and the mac. I have been a pc user since the beginning. Because, you could always build your own desktop pc to your own specifications. I don't know anyone who has built their own MAC from components that they buy themselves from various vendors. I am a gamer as well. So, MACs have pretty much been useless for that area of computing. So, now we're comparing laptops. I agree that the new MACs are pretty sexy. And they do come with a better bundle of software than your typical pc laptop. But, who amongst pc cognescenti just uses their pc laptop they way it came OOTB? Not me. The first thing I do is get rid of the bundled software and install the software I want on it. I also go with XP Pro because it does provide some features that XP Home doesn't. As for graphic image processing or video processing, I don't do much of that. My Compaq R3000 (came with: 2.7ghz P4, 512mb which I upgraded 1.2gig, ATI 9000GP and 60gig HDD along with 3, yes count em 3 USB ports, one firewire, and smart card slots and a 15" screen, WiFi 802.11b, JBL sound) for: $1600 after a $200 rebate froom Circuit City. It has been a very reliable laptop (w/exception of internal PS burning out, but was on warranty). I am even able to play some games on it. CS, Wanted Dead or Alive play well on it. UT2k4 plays but choppy graphics. The point I guess is: whatever floats your boat. I would still take an Alienware gaming laptop over the MAC anyday. I still think MACs are expensive and not for the average user or the gamer. But, they are better at image editing and applications such as that. As I said, I have considered buying a MAC laptop and may still do so in the future. But, for my home desktop machine, give me a pc anyday over the MAC offering. Just my 2 cents worth....

49.
 
Re: No subject
Apr 5, 2006, 14:49
49.
Re: No subject Apr 5, 2006, 14:49
Apr 5, 2006, 14:49
 

XP home supports dual core processors as well as multithreading. It's only when you go dual processors that you need xp pro. So the only point to using xp pro is jacking up the price of the dell in your flawed comparison.

No. The point of using XP Pro is because there is only one variety of OSX to buy, and oddly enough it sports 100% of the features of OSX! Including this magical support for multiple CPUs.

Oh, and it's fully 64-bit as well. But I'm just going to assume that you'd have a complete shit-fit if I tried to suggest the only truly fair way to compare the two would be to spec. XP Pro 64Bit on the Dell (not that it would run mind you, because MS just doesn't roll like that.. but since we're looking at "what comes in the box"..).

Stop saying dumb things like "the dell gets a slightly larger screen" and use one of the 15" dells for comparison instead.

OK. The 15" version of the computer would be $900 cheaper than the Mac and has a slower FSB and video card. Still get the DL burner though.


-----
It may be that one day a young man will adore a Pinata.
-----
I'm not even angry. I'm being so sincere right now, even though you broke my heart and killed me.
48.
 
No subject
Apr 5, 2006, 14:46
48.
No subject Apr 5, 2006, 14:46
Apr 5, 2006, 14:46
 
Mac User: When are you going to make a Mac version of your software?

Software Company: Why should we, just install Windows XP!

Two years from now, nobody will make software for the Mac OS.

Bewear, the end is here!

47.
 
Re: No subject
Apr 5, 2006, 14:36
47.
Re: No subject Apr 5, 2006, 14:36
Apr 5, 2006, 14:36
 
XP Pro = mandatory because Apple doesn't make an "OSX Home Edition"

I disagree -- XP Media Center Edition is actually much closer to OS X than XP Pro is. The only thing that MCE cannot do that Pro can is join a domain (along with the obvious corallary of cached credentials). And, that said, you can join a domain w/ MCE -- but only at install time (yes, that's whacko).

I'm not entirely sure what the point of bringing open-source software into the equation is..

To point out that ignoring OSS means that you're paying money for stuff that's free?

OOTB software package to put the Mac into a whole different league for only $300

But, uh, at this point you've not configured them anywhere even close. By including iWork on the Mac and Office SBE on the Dell you've given Dell a helluva lot more business software than the Mac. The Mac doesn't have a spreadsheet or an Outlook equivalent. I'd say that WordPerfect Office is actually a closer match (and I'd say that OpenOffice.org is a better option than either, or put MS Office on both).

At that point we're talking (in USD) $2899 vs $2365-750 ($750 off Inspirons $1999 or more) = $1615. Nearly a $1200 difference now.

46.
 
Win XP on a Mac?
Apr 5, 2006, 14:32
46.
Win XP on a Mac? Apr 5, 2006, 14:32
Apr 5, 2006, 14:32
 
Win XP on a Mac?

Well that should put the final nail in the coffin for Macs.


Beware, end is near, Bye, Bye, Mac. :0

45.
 
Re: No subject
Apr 5, 2006, 14:27
45.
Re: No subject Apr 5, 2006, 14:27
Apr 5, 2006, 14:27
 
You further reinforce my belief that mac users have sex with their computers.

XP home supports dual core processors as well as multithreading. It's only when you go dual processors that you need xp pro. So the only point to using xp pro is jacking up the price of the dell in your flawed comparison.

Stop saying dumb things like "the dell gets a slightly larger screen" and use one of the 15" dells for comparison instead.

Yeah those software are available for both platforms, which make my earlier 2500 vs 1540 and 2000 vs 1133 comparisons actually truthful.

And once again folks, Dual Core != Dual Processor, you do NOT need XP Pro. So you guys can save some money next time.

http://www.amd.com/us-en/Weblets/0,,7832_8366_7595~95364,00.html


This comment was edited on Apr 5, 14:28.
84 Replies. 5 pages. Viewing page 2.
Newer [  1  2  3  4  5  ] Older