When you click on links to various merchants on this site and make a purchase, this can result in this site earning a commission. Affiliate programs and affiliations include, but are not limited to, the eBay Partner Network.
BAD generalization! There is NO Apple equivalent to the Panasonic or Itronix rugged laptops, and the Apple line is built from commodity components (including x86 CPUs) just like PCs.
Apple makes some nice equipment, but there is very little hardware choice. Good stuff, but I'll stick with Linux on PC hardware.
I am thinking pretty hard about getting a MAC. Right now we are in the market for a new computer.
Has any MAC users used the software that will allow you run PC applications on the MAC?
My Sister has an iMAC Laptop and I installed bootcamp and then installed Windows XP, MS Office (for PC), and a whole host of other apps for the PC. and they all run flawlessly...
I have a toshiba laptop with Windows Vista (the biggest piece of crap I have ever used)... I wish I had spent another $700 and bought a MAC.
Originally Posted by 00BlueOvalRanger
Other than the case (or enclosure), I don't see how the 'innards' could be any tougher!
A harddrive is a harddrive. (Will work on either platform.)
Video cards, CD-ROM/DVD-ROM, etc., also.
With the Intel based MBs now, you can run multiple OS on the same machine!
As for toughness. . . just don't ask me to do the 10 story 'drop test' with either!
No, the Hardrive for a MAC is strictly SCSI, and the format is that of UNIX. WILL NOT work on a PC, not without a great deal of headache. ROM Units, again they have to be SCSI to work in a MAC.
Originally Posted by lswartz
I have the same experience with XP Pro on 4 current computers. I won't switch to Vista or Vista's replacement until I have to.
Dont EVER Switch to Vista, not until M$ gets it stable.
Originally Posted by lswartz
Mac owners, well I guess some body has to buy a Lexus - they do look good.
I guess that is just like a Redneck, they sure are fun to look at, but I wouldn't want to take one home...
First, a small point of order that drives anyone with a networking background CRAZY! The computers from Apple are a "Mac". "MAC" (Media Access Control) is a network term and refers to a layer in the network protocol... Ok, maybe I should post this over on the OCD thread...
Originally Posted by Secret Agent 069
No, the Hardrive for a MAC is strictly SCSI, and the format is that of UNIX. WILL NOT work on a PC, not without a great deal of headache. ROM Units, again they have to be SCSI to work in a MAC.
While the older Macs (~1990?) pioneered on-board SCSI support, the current Macs can use SCSI, ATA/SATA, SAS, etc.
If by "format" you mean hard drives again, Macs can use multiple HD formats, but by far the most common in use today is HFS+ (journaled or non-journaled), which is an Apple format...
And I agree - they look good AND you should take one home! You get what you pay for...
The new MACs are now using the same chips as the PC's and can run Apples OS or Windows OS. The older macs had thier own CPU chip that used a reduced instruction set and were not the same as the PC's. Now days I think it really don't matter which you buy as the main differance is in the quaility of the mother board and power supply and that is based upon which model you buy.
First, a small point of order that drives anyone with a networking background CRAZY! The computers from Apple are a "Mac". "MAC" (Media Access Control) is a network term and refers to a layer in the network protocol... Ok, maybe I should post this over on the OCD thread...
It never drove ME crazy
I can't believe people are still asking "Mac or PC"
I can't stand Microsoft.
But I have a Windows XP PC on my desk as my main desktop. With eXceed, I have my UNIX apps/xterms, Samba on the UNIX server, Gigabit ethernet, and I have networked disk (Raid 0/1 and 5) from the Sun running faster than the local SATA disk in the PC ... And the Sun is chock-full of 20 9/18 and 2 73GB disk drives
Anyway...
Macs are OK - Apple finally read the writing on the wall and went to an Intel CPU so they could run Windows apps natively.
The new MACs are now using the same chips as the PC's and can run Apples OS or Windows OS. The older macs had thier own CPU chip that used a reduced instruction set and were not the same as the PC's. Now days I think it really don't matter which you buy as the main differance is in the quaility of the mother board and power supply and that is based upon which model you buy.
Stormyrider. I dont know where you get your information, but it isn't exactly correct. the Motorola chip that pre Power G4 Mac's used were not reduced instruction, actually they were a very complex chip, which ran faster, smoother with less problems than an Intel/AMD chip.
You cannot take a Mac chip and drop it into any motherboard and expect it to work. You cant take OSX Leopard install it on a PC and run a MAC OS on a PC. Which is why you need to have Bootcamp installed on your MAC to run Windows...
Let me explain it like this. Can you take a a PSD unmodified and drop it into a Chevy Sprint and drive away???
Stormyrider. I dont know where you get your information, but it isn't exactly correct. the Motorola chip that pre Power G4 Mac's used were not reduced instruction, actually they were a very complex chip, which ran faster, smoother with less problems than an Intel/AMD chip.
You cannot take a Mac chip and drop it into any motherboard and expect it to work. You cant take OSX Leopard install it on a PC and run a MAC OS on a PC. Which is why you need to have Bootcamp installed on your MAC to run Windows...
Let me explain it like this. Can you take a a PSD unmodified and drop it into a Chevy Sprint and drive away???
The Motorola CPU Chips Were of a RISC design,RISC = reduced instruction set, which meant there were fewer commands availiable to write the code with and made them run the code they had a little faster. The Intel & AMD chips are considered full instruction set chips and have more commands availiable and therefore more versitile albite a bit slower. This you can find in the catalogs. The newer MACS are now running INTEL & AMD chips just like the PC's. Part of what I have done for a has been programming computers, so I know what the differance between the is.
The Motorola CPU Chips Were of a RISC design,RISC = reduced instruction set, which meant there were fewer commands availiable to write the code with and made them run the code they had a little faster. The Intel & AMD chips are considered full instruction set chips and have more commands availiable and therefore more versitile albite a bit slower. This you can find in the catalogs. The newer MACS are now running INTEL & AMD chips just like the PC's. Part of what I have done for a has been programming computers, so I know what the differance between the is.
Right. The RISC chips execute one instruction per clock cycle, while the CISC chips may take many clock cycles to execute an instruction. But the CISC instructions do more, so for the most part it evens out. It doesn't make much of any difference at all to the user, only to compiler writers. When the speed wars were going on, it was a back and forth battle with the winner at any one time being determined by current clock speed and benchmark chosen...