Windows users, im crying

[meltbanana314]

Mac vs PC arguements are like arguing that English is a better language than Spanish. They both server their purpose, and get the job done just as well as one enother. Typically, whichever brand gets a head start, will get the majority. Microsoft did that. You can't blame a business for being good at what they do. If Apple wants to regain the market, they have to position themselves to be better than the Wintel combo. As far as I'm concerned, they are both equal, so you won't be seeing any drastic market share changes.

"Both get the job done just as well as one another"

Your milage may vary with this one. I find it an extreme hassle to work in anything other than OS X due to the big security exploits of Windows and kludgy, unfinished software of Linux.

"Whichever brand gets a head start will get the majority"

Actually, Apple got there first. They were the majority, but Microsoft slipped in and like the conniving *******s they are - took control of the PC world through less than savory business practices. They copied GUI elements from Apple and got away with it, along with pushing WordPerfect, BeOS, and everybody else out of the way.

"They have to position themselves to be better than the Wintel combo."

They are, but most people are incredibly stupid. My father won't buy anything but Ford trucks. They keep breaking down, getting parts recalled, getting bad safety ratings but he still buys them. He is also a PC user. See any correlation?

He maintains his loyalty because "All I've ever used is Ford, why should I go with Chevy/Toyota/GMC/etc?" Same with his Windows PCs. Even with a better product staring them in the face, people will go with what they've been using for years and years despite the problems. Why? I have no clue.

 

[Avid6eek]

I find it an extreme hassle to work in anything other than OS X due to the big security exploits of Windows and kludgy, unfinished software of Linux.

How do security exploits make it a hastle? Windows automatically downloads updates...all you have to do is click the update button in the lower right to have them installed. Unless your running a server with some valuable information on it...nobody is trying to hack into your system.

Actually, Apple got there first. They were the majority, but Microsoft slipped in and like the conniving *******s they are - took control of the PC world through less than savory business practices.

Apple may have had it first, but they obviously didn't know what to do with it. The primary function of a business is to make money. MS and Intel appear to have capitalized on this one.

They are, but most people are incredibly stupid. My father won't buy anything but Ford trucks. They keep breaking down, getting parts recalled, getting bad safety ratings but he still buys them. He is also a PC user. See any correlation?

So...stupid man buys a PC, downloads virus/spyware...ignorant Mac fan claims PCs have security threats. That seems to be the trend in this thread.

He maintains his loyalty because "All I've ever used is Ford, why should I go with Chevy/Toyota/GMC/etc?" Same with his Windows PCs. Even with a better product staring them in the face, people will go with what they've been using for years and years despite the problems. Why? I have no clue.

So your saying if you buy a Chevy, it will be flawless? Think again my friend. Like many other people have said, each system has their own pros and cons. In the end, a Ford is just as good as a Chevy. Pound for pound, a Mac is no better than a PC. It's all up to personal preference. People are creatures of habit though. Go into your typical elementary school, and see what systems you kids are learning how to use....PCs. They will probably now use PCs for life. When they grow up, and are administrators of that school...what type of systems do you think they are going to buy for the new students? And it keeps on building on itself. Like I said, if Apple wants to do anything serious, they must make a product that will actually draw attention.

They got close with the new Mini. That's what got me here....but only because I am computer savy. Your average "stupid user" may buy a new Mac Mini...it looks cute, and it doesn't cost very much. They are going to buy the standard one with 256MB of RAM, and find that OS X is a dog with only 256MB of RAM. They'll go back to their faster PC with 256MB of RAM. Fundamentaly, I think apple would do better in the future if the bit the bullet and truly made the Mini a functional system.

 

[dan828]

They got close with the new Mini. That's what got me here....but only because I am computer savy. Your average "stupid user" may buy a new Mac Mini...it looks cute, and it doesn't cost very much. They are going to buy the standard one with 256MB of RAM, and find that OS X is a dog with only 256MB of RAM. They'll go back to their faster PC with 256MB of RAM. Fundamentaly, I think apple would do better in the future if the bit the bullet and truly made the Mini a functional system.

You're missing that most bargin PCs ship with only 256MB of RAM as well, and the XP is very doggy with only that much RAM. The big difference is that it's easy to pop open your average PC (Dell has a pretty nifty screwless design with a hinged case these days) and any idiot can figure out how to slap some extra RAM into the empty 1 or 3 slots available. Apple would have been well served to provide at least 2 slots in the mini and an easy way to open the case. Come on, a putty knife and the risk of ruining your warrantee, not to mention break the computer? Not to mention having a useless memory module afterwords...

Don't get me wrong, I'm buying a Mini, but it ain't perfect. It is however, from what I've seen, quite functional. And I'm running an old 400mhz G3 iMac with 10.3.7 right now with only 128MB of RAM, and it ain't all that bad, much less so than an old 1.1 Ghz Duron system I have with 384MB of ram is running XP pro.

And the who ripped of who's OS argument is just silly, it was all ripped off of Xerox anyways, with various features having been ripped off of each other at various times.

 

[Amen-Moses]

OS X Panther - $111.95
Windows Home - $92.95

Is $20 something really worth arguing? Personally, $20 won't put me, or anyone else in here in the poor house, so price isn't really of concern. To legitimently buy an OEM peice of Microsoft software, you have to buy it with a piece of hardware. It could be a $3 computer fan if need be. So when comparing the prices of MS software, you would compare the OEM prices to that of the Mac software.

But you aren't comparing like with like are you. SP2 added nothing to XP-Home so it is really a 3 year old OS now, Panther is only a year old. Feature wise you really need to compare with XP-Pro at least and as we are talking about ordinary people who don't know about OEM (i.e they just see the prices on the shelf) then the full retail price of XP-Pro should be what you compare with Panther.

Similarly it is no good telling people that Linux is free as when they walk into PC World they see three shelves, one has a plethora of Windross OS boxes starting from the Upgrades (which imo are not sufficiently labelled as such!) at about 70 quid going up to XP-Pro full retail at over 250 quid. Next shelf along you have SUSE Personal at 40 quid and Pro at 80 along with maybe 5 other releases at similar prices then tucked away where you cant find it unless you have a pack of bloodhounds you'll find maybe a single copy of Panther at 99 quid. Imho Apple pricing is very competitive for what you get but you have to be "in the know" to actually have any idea of what you are getting.

Amen-Moses

 

[dirtydog]

Actually, Apple got there first. They were the majority, but Microsoft slipped in and like the conniving *******s they are - took control of the PC world through less than savory business practices. They copied GUI elements from Apple and got away with it

Yes MS did copy Apple, but Apple have also copied MS..

Sticky menus. Originally, if you clicked on a Mac menu, it appeared and then disappeared as soon as you released the mouse button. Microsoft had a better idea -- you can release the mouse button without the menu disappearing. From MacOS 8 forwards, Apple changed their menu behavior to match MS Windoze.
Apples TextEdit program in MacOS X produces files in RTF format, a format developed by Microsoft.
In MacOS X, next to the time there is a little sound icon, same as Windoze.
The way that you sort columns in a file list has changed to the Windoze way -- instead of the ascending/descending triangle being in the right-top corner like MacOS 9, now in MacOS X it is actually on the column itself, like Windoze.
Apple copied the idea of showing a little arrow on aliases/shortcuts.
And the idea of arrow cursors with an extra symbol added, such as arrow and a plus sign (copy).
A major idea that Apple borrowed from Microsoft is Context Menus.
In MacOS X, when you move the mouse over the close box in the window titlebar, it shows an "X" for the close box, a dash for minimize, and a plus for maximize, just like MS Windoze.
And then there is the Dock in MacOS X. It's a suspiciously similar idea to the Start/Task Bar in Windoze -- the things you have open listed horizontally on a bar across the bottom of the screen.
MacOS X also has the "Computer" icon, like the "My Computer" in Windoze.
MacOS X is shifting towards using file name extensions ("myfile.doc") instead of Mac type/creator codes.
For a long time, MS Windows could update your clock for Daylight Savings Time automatically, whereas Mac users had to do it manually. Apple eventually realized that automatic updating was a good idea, and copied the idea.
Apple noticed how well the .DLL (Dynamic Link Library) idea worked in Windoze so they copied the idea and produced their own version of it called a "Shared Library".
Let's not forget the many hardware technologies that Apple borrows from the Wintel (x86 PC) world. For example, PCI, AGP, IDE/ATA/UDMA, USB, PC100/PC133 RAM, DDR RAM, etc.
Also worth mentioning is that Apple copied GUI ideas from Xerox PARC.
And this is not a complete list of copied ideas, but I cannot be bothered spending more time to make a comprehensive list.

(Source)

 

[dirtydog]

But you aren't comparing like with like are you. SP2 added nothing to XP-Home so it is really a 3 year old OS now, Panther is only a year old. Feature wise you really need to compare with XP-Pro at least and as we are talking about ordinary people who don't know about OEM (i.e they just see the prices on the shelf) then the full retail price of XP-Pro should be what you compare with Panther.

Another thing with Windows.. it may cost more (for retail) but MS brings out new versions less frequently than Apple does. Even so, anyone who bought Windows 2000 back in 1999 can still use it happily today with 100% functionality with all new software that comes out.

 

[Avid6eek]

Windows XP Pro vs Windows XP Home

I compared Windows XP Home because it is all the home user really needs. There are very few differences between Pro and Home. The only real thing Pro adds is Multiprocessor support, and basic server functionality (IIS). Both of which are not needed by the home user as they are single processor systems, and 99.9% of ISPs block ports needed to run a home server (HTTP/FTP).

I didn't even think of adding the price of Mac OS X updates. Mac charges you full price for updates, when you can get them free from Microsoft. Each new revision of OS X is nothing more than a service pack. MS also releases extra utilities to add to the OS for free....just to combate the arguement that OS X updates add functionality.

 

[meltbanana314]

How do security exploits make it a hastle? Windows automatically downloads updates...all you have to do is click the update button in the lower right to have them installed. Unless your running a server with some valuable information on it...nobody is trying to hack into your system.

There are security exploits that Microsoft knows about, and that everybody knows about - and yet they aren't fixed. Windows Messenger, (not MSN, but thats a different story) ActiveX, Outlook/Express. Just last week my brother (who is a resonably competent computer user) finished updating his XP system, rebooted it - and found that a virus had gotten on his system. A week before that, it was a trojan that infected Microsoft's Java implementation (he deleted it and went to Sun Java afterwards.) Point is, Microsoft's security record is bleak, and they keep proving it again and again to me by not FIXING anything.

Apple may have had it first, but they obviously didn't know what to do with it. The primary function of a business is to make money. MS and Intel appear to have capitalized on this one.

Apple did know what do to. They were the superior product. Windows 1.0 flopped. (even though it was copied directly from Macintosh, leading to a furious legal battle down the road, but anyway.) Microsoft eventually coerced all the computer manufacturers into adopting their software, and it worked. They aren't a business, they're the schoolyard bully for christ's sake.

So...stupid man buys a PC, downloads virus/spyware...ignorant Mac fan claims PCs have security threats. That seems to be the trend in this thread.

When my father surfs on the internet on his Windows box, within a week its full of malware. When my father uses my mother's iMac, or my Linux laptop - it stays clean. No spyware, no trojans, no viruses. He surfs the same exact websites, checks his email, and logs off. Both machines are pretty well maintained. Yeah, I'd say PCs have security threats....

So your saying if you buy a Chevy, it will be flawless? Think again my friend. Like many other people have said, each system has their own pros and cons. In the end, a Ford is just as good as a Chevy. Pound for pound, a Mac is no better than a PC. It's all up to personal preference.

I'm saying that there are other, better products with less problems on the market. The car analogy was a tad off (probably because I refuse to drive, and I take the bus or ride a bike) - but I got the point across. There are better ways to work, and given the choice between Windows and Mac - I'll take a Mac.

if Apple wants to do anything serious, they must make a product that will actually draw attention.

What do you call the first Mac? Or the PowerBook? Or the iMac, or the iPod? Were those attention-drawing enough? Apparently not, because the Dell Precison-whatchamacalit 394t40XPF system sold twice as many systems as the iMac.

Apple has been innovating. I know that's a marketing buzzword, but thats what they really do. Compare it with all the "innovating" that Microsoft, HP, and Intel *claim* they do.

They got close with the new Mini. That's what got me here....but only because I am computer savy. Your average "stupid user" may buy a new Mac Mini...it looks cute, and it doesn't cost very much. They are going to buy the standard one with 256MB of RAM, and find that OS X is a dog with only 256MB of RAM. They'll go back to their faster PC with 256MB of RAM. Fundamentaly, I think apple would do better in the future if the bit the bullet and truly made the Mini a functional system.

People wanted a cheap Mac, we GAVE them a cheap Mac - and yet they still claim it's too expensive! We can throw in as much RAM as it needs, give it a 200GB hard drive, and bundle it with software to end the Palestine-Israel conflict but people will still hate it! Why? Because it's a Mac. We can never satisfy the PC people, so why should we try to?

 

[meltbanana314]

Okay, before this turns into a gigantic flame war, how 'bout we agree to disagree?

 

[Avid6eek]

As far as the information I've read here in the forums, OS X wasn't the best OS when it was first released, and many updates were actually needed. I don't care what kind of features they add...to have to purchase a new version of the software is ridiculous.

Mac users....WAKE UP. Be a little more open minded when looking at this stuff. Very few people in this thread are admitting that both systems have problems. All there are is accusations against PC users. They aren't half as bad as you guys are being.

...so much for being the classier, more educated group of computer users.

 

[Murlyn]

OS X updates are free, OS X upgrades are not, Windows updates are free, Windows upgrades are not. It's the same.. no clue where you are getting your information.

Look at PC magazines, newsletters, etc etc.. you see security advisories all the time, for the OS itself, or IE, for Outlook, for pretty much everything MS, Excel, Word, etc.. I see them all the time.. I have no idea how people can miss it when it's all over the net! SP2 broke so many things when it first came out.. I saw that all over the net.. how do people miss this stuff? If you are going to argue in this fashion you should not be arguing for PC's you need to latch onto something that PC's actually do better than the Mac, not something that you can do a quick search on Google to find all those articles that I am talking about for security vulnerabilities in the PC.. The government, businesses all over the world are looking elsewhere at other OS's, not necessarily at Macs, but other OS's to see if they can find something more secure and stable. __It's all over the news!__ maybe it's ok for a home user, but from those that I know that use it.. well it's not ok for home users, maybe it's ok for advanced home users, except even those are getting fed up with it Longhorn is coming out in.. what 2008 now? and with half the features they promised.. that already has people looking elsewhere.. and can you blame them? I work with an ecommerce package and they are always promising everything will be fixed with the next release.. well the next release has been over a year in coming and all the bugs, problems etc are still there.. people are changing to a different ecommerce cart.. can you blame them? It's empeding their ability to mac that moola that you guys are talking about, that is so important for companies to make and they are losing it due to all the bugs and problems with the current release. Same exact thing with Windows at this point, people / businesses / governments are getting sick and tired of the problems, licensing, etc and looking elsewhere.

As for Apple being similar to MS, I agree in many ways.. I find it sickening that they practically put Mac resellers (mom and pops) out of business. They are out to make money since they are a company, but there is a line you should not cross because then you are hurting the little man.. well Apple and MS is definitely guilty of this.

Most of these arguements on this board is all personal opinion, preference and you'll argue anything that goes along with that. Read, read as much as you can and you'll see that most of the arguements given is a bunch of bull, and those that wrote it know who I am talking about, you others, keep reading, keep working and you'll get all the experience you need, keep your mind open though.. if you close it off, then you'll start arguing like some of the people above.

My first paragraph is on security, where MS lacks in every which way possible and there are articles all over the net confirming what I wrote. I did not get into where Mac's have problems and need better help, but there are those things. I just saw a complete blatant falsehood that someone wrote and couldn't let that go by without saying something

 

[Echo_]

theres 3 types of people in this thread
The PC person, who hates macs and think theyre stupid (ignorant)

the MAC only person, who thinks pcs are full of spyware and viruses (ignorant)

and the Person who realizes the benefits of both PC's and MAC's...understands that pc's need a couple fixes to make them basically spyware/virus proof quite easily, and that macs osx is a work of art as well as their machines.

 

[meltbanana314]

Mac users....WAKE UP. Be a little more open minded when looking at this stuff. Very few people in this thread are admitting that both systems have problems. All there are is accusations against PC users. They aren't half as bad as you guys are being.

...so much for being the classier, more educated group of computer users.

All operating systems have problems. Nothing is perfect. That, I can admit to. But, I am still failing to see why I would use a Windows based PC over a Mac when I can everything on a Mac *better.* You say "both systems have their ups and downs." I can see some of the downs of both (OS X's slow, somewhat overly distracting UI, and Microsoft's track record for security) but I can't see any of the "ups" for Windows. Not to sound condescending in any way, but would you care to enlighten us (me, in particular) as to why Windows is "pound for pound equal to OS X"?

 

[Avid6eek]

Wintel Platform benefits -

Software is less expensive. I know this has been discussed, but the fact remains the it is less expensive, and you don't need to purchase "full versions" nearly as often. Some simple tasks such as FTP'ing cannot be completed with OS X. I actually have to pay for an FTP client to get something decent. Windows platforms have free versions of everything.

Hardware is less expensive. Although a Mac hardware is worth the price in my opinion, the quality goes above and beyond what is needed. PCs are also much more powerful. A single Athlon 64/FX is faster than the fastest dual G5s. Windows also requires less in the way of system requirements, so it can be used, with efficiency, on cheaper systems.

Compatability...nothing is more compatible with Windows than itself. Microsoft's software is used everywhere. MS software is also backwards compatible. You don't have to worry about being left behind.

I'm just leaving work, so I don't really have time to go into anymore detail. Those three things there are major benefits for the MS/Intel world. Nothing infantile like our OS is prettier than yours.

 

[Amen-Moses]

theres 3 types of people in this thread
The PC person, who hates macs and think theyre stupid (ignorant)

the MAC only person, who thinks pcs are full of spyware and viruses (ignorant)

and the Person who realizes the benefits of both PC's and MAC's...understands that pc's need a couple fixes to make them basically spyware/virus proof quite easily, and that macs osx is a work of art as well as their machines.

Then there are the computer professionals who own and use PCs with a variety of OS's alongside Macs and other machines and reckon that Mac OS X is superior in almost every facet to the competition.

Of course that's only a personal opinion based on 30 years of experience from someone who doesn't have shares in Apple or MS and has only owned Macs since OS X.2 Jaguar.

Amen-Moses

 

[meltbanana314]

Wintel Platform benefits -

Software is less expensive. I know this has been discussed, but the fact remains the it is less expensive, and you don't need to purchase "full versions" nearly as often. Some simple tasks such as FTP'ing cannot be completed with OS X. I actually have to pay for an FTP client to get something decent. Windows platforms have free versions of everything.

First of all:
http://www.lowendmac.com/x-basics/03/0211.html

Secondly: In my experience, I've found that I've had to pay more for Windows software than than OS X software. Now, your mileage may vary on this, but because I can use a lot of open source UNIX/Linux apps on OS X (through the Fink project) - I don't have to pay money for anything. Lots of times, open source software won't be ported to Windows for whatever reason, but with a little command line knowledge I can get anything that I want for the cost of time and bandwith. I'd be glad to pay money to a person who put out a fantastic, must have product for the Mac. I just haven't see anything that has caught my eye yet.

Hardware is less expensive. Although a Mac hardware is worth the price in my opinion, the quality goes above and beyond what is needed. PCs are also much more powerful. A single Athlon 64/FX is faster than the fastest dual G5s. Windows also requires less in the way of system requirements, so it can be used, with efficiency, on cheaper systems.

If you mean: (http://www.pcworld.com/news/article/0,aid,112749,pg,1,00.asp) - perhaps you need to step back and think about it for a second.

The benchmarks were taken from the following apps -

Quake III, developed on, and for, x86 over 5 year period of programming research and enhancement. Later ported to OSX in a week by OmniGroup.

Word, developed on, and for, x86, by the developer who also wrote the operating system running on the PC's. Ported by MBU to OSX.

Photoshop, Adobe develops Photoshop in a very balanced way for the two platforms, and these are the results for this test -

Fastest 50MB image = 17 seconds, G5 = 18 seconds
Fastest 150 MB image = 47 seconds, G5 = 51 seconds

The final test was a Premiere rendering, where almost all the systems tested did the job in 3 or 4 seconds. The fastest was 3 seconds, the G5 did it in 4. This is Premiere which no longer exists as a current ongoing product for OSX.

Do you see just how biased and unscientific this all is?

Oh, and I didn't mention that most of the PC's had double the graphics memory, and had RAID as their primary storage.

Compatability...nothing is more compatible with Windows than itself. Microsoft's software is used everywhere. MS software is also backwards compatible. You don't have to worry about being left behind.

http://www.microsoft-watch.com/article2/0,1995,1636071,00.asp

Yeah, great backwards compatibility. I've also got some versions of Quickbooks and some videogames (Win 98 era) that refuse to install on my father's XP box.

I'm just leaving work, so I don't really have time to go into anymore detail. Those three things there are major benefits for the MS/Intel world. Nothing infantile like our OS is prettier than yours.

Maybe I'm just thickheaded and stubborn like my parents, but I'm not convinced.

 

[Amen-Moses]

A single Athlon 64/FX is faster than the fastest dual G5s.

Windows also requires less in the way of system requirements, so it can be used, with efficiency, on cheaper systems.

Compatability...nothing is more compatible with Windows than itself. MS software is also backwards compatible.

You see the problem is that I would say that those 3 claims are completely backwards.

1) The top G5 is about on par with the top Athlon 64/FX but at present there is absolutely no software that takes advantage of the FX so what is the point of buying one? You may have to wait for Longhorn to actually unleash any real speed from one and by then we'll be seeing the next step from IBM which will make the Athlon 64 look rather pathetic. You could of course go the Linux route I suppose but then you would have a PC running Linux at about the same speed as a PPC running Darwin and at about the same price.

2) Win XP is one of the biggest system hogs I've ever seen. The first thing I do whenever I install it is turn off all the eye candy to make it usable, basically it then looks and works exactly like 98SE.

3) Where I work the main compatibility issues we have are with Word, in particular we have to set our XP Office machines to use 97 compatibility mode otherwise we can't share files with Office 2000. Even then we still lose more files due to the incompatibility between the versions, even down to issues between different service packs, than we do to human error. If you asked our sysadmin staff what their biggest workload is they would unanimously say "Word screw-ups!".

To give you just one example; I created a Word file on Office 2000, saved the file away on a shared drive and then edited the file on an XP machine a few days later making sure to use Office 2000 format when saving it. Then someone else opened the file on Office 2000 and Word just crashed. We then reloaded the file in XP and saved it in 97 format then edited it in Office 2000 again saving it in 97 format. All seemed well with the world until I once again edited the file in XP, everything became extremely sluggish and just got worse with every edit, finally I gave up and tried to save the file hoping that I could restart Word and fix the problem. Word just hung and task manager said it wasn't responding so it had to be forced down. The file that had been a couple of hundred K was now 27Mb and could not be opened in any version of Word. I took a copy of the file home on my USB stick and loaded it in Mac Word, it was virtually unreadable so I tried OpenOffice, it loaded the file and I was able to save it back to disk in Word 97 format rescuing most of the formatting, font settings, tables etc. The file was then taken back into work and now seems fine again (and is back to a couple of hundred K).

This sort of thing happens to each of us maybe once a month.

Amen-Moses

 

[dan828]

You see the problem is that I would say that those 3 claims are completely backwards.

1) The top G5 is about on par with the top Athlon 64/FX but at present there is absolutely no software that takes advantage of the FX so what is the point of buying one? You may have to wait for Longhorn to actually unleash any real speed from one and by then we'll be seeing the next step from IBM which will make the Athlon 64 look rather pathetic. You could of course go the Linux route I suppose but then you would have a PC running Linux at about the same speed as a PPC running Darwin and at about the same price.

Actually, Windows XP 64 is in beta right now-- available for for free download if you want to play with it. I bought my father an Athlon 64 + mobo combo for christmas, and we downloaded and installed the 64 bit version for fun- still has a few sharp edges but it does take advantage of the 64 bit CPU. Due for final release in a couple of mounths.

 

[Avid6eek]

Windows XP Pro 64bit will be released on April 29th, but your free to try out the beta right now if you would like. The move to a pure 64bit OS will lead to some performance improvements in some areas, but not across the board. Even in 32bit mode, the Athlon FX is a faster processor than the current G5s. Photoshop may be the only place the Mac stands a chance.

The dual 2.5Ghz G5 is almost as fast as the Athlon FX-55, but not quite there. If you want to compare apples to apples (no pun intended) you'd be looking at a dual Opteron 250 Machine....it would smoke a dual G5 system. I'm not even going to waste my time comparing them.

I'm not trying to knock the performance of a Mac, but it just isn't there compared to a PC. If I was anti-Mac, I wouldn't have just dropped $3K on a new G5 system.

Programs need higher system requirements on a Mac, than on a PC. Refer to the box of any game, or other piece of software that can run on both platforms. A Mac has higher processor/memory requirements. I just opened the Mac System monitor to find that I am using around 5GB of virtual memory....5GB??? Holy ****....With WinXP booted up right now on my other system I'm using less than a gig.

There are programs that ran on Windows 95 that current run on XP without a problem. What OS was Apple using in 1995? Does that software still run on OS X? How about the other way around...Just about all modern software will work on Win98....What was the Mac OS back then? Can I run all the programs I just bough for my new Mac on those?

 

[meltbanana314]

Does that software still run on OS X?

Yep, it's called Classic.

How about the other way around...Just about all modern software will work on Win98....

Huh?

Then how come I see software that says "Only works on Windows 2000, NT, and XP" everywhere?

Can I run all the programs I just bough for my new Mac on those?

If you believe that new programs should be able to work on all versions of an operating system, then call Valve Software and demand a port of Half-Life 2 for BeOS or Windows 3.1 and see how far you get. I think it's unreasonable to ask that developers maintain backwards compatibility up the wazoo. It slows down the process of creating good software.