Assuming it's running natively, yes, I see that. If it's running under Parallels, then maybe Leopard will be faster. But that's a minor detail, really, compared to the ironic fact that windows is faster and more stable on a mac than a pc. So, why choose? We can have both and everybody's happy.
The argument has long been that macs are more expensive. But my experience has been that when you spec similar configurations and equal-quality components, and factor in maintenance and downtime, macs are cheaper. We all agree a Prius is less expensive in the long run, right?
This is a really nice myth that Apple would like to keep you believing. It perhaps used to be true, but Apple is quite middle-of-the-road (maybe upper middle-of-the-road) when it comes to components these days. However, "making things right" is one area where Apple beats the pants off everyone else. Practically, what this means is that if your Apple computer breaks, you're hell of a lot more likely to be able to get it fixed with very few (if any) headaches; just try that with Dell.
because Snow Leopard is a speed improvement over what it's upgrading - Leopard. Apple may support running Windows natively with boot camp, but they don't offer and speed comparisons or improvements. As for Parallels and Fusion... those are third party companies and software - if they perform better on Snow Leopard, that's a side affect of Snow Leopard being better, not anything Apple did directly. Apple can't and won't offer any statements as to their performance on the Mac.
No. The emulators only provide an environment in which Windows and Windows apps such as Office can operate simultaneously with the Mac O/S. Anything that is brought into the Windows space has all of the risks associated with the native Windows environment. If a virus or other malware is brought into the Windows space it can wreak its destruction in the Windows space. But it won't wreak destruction on the Mac O/S space/partition. Net, net, you still need the antivirus, antiwhatever and firewall apps for the Windows environment.
That is a very complex question. Most normal viruses and trojans should be able to operate in a VM environment. Rootkits and lower level exploits would have a harder time getting to the underlying hardware. If forced to summarize, yes, you can still get a virus. Tom
That depends... when running in Parallels or Fusion, you can chose to disable the internet going into the VM - this would drastically reduce your exposure to viruses. Without that, however, your vulnerability inside the VM (aka in Windows) is just as high as on a normal machine - but that virus can't "cross over" into Snow Leopard. so if you get a virus, you kill the VM and you're running in Snow Leopard like it never happened.
Hey, that sounds handy. Can it be turned on and off? I need to download PC software upgrades from time to time, but don't need full time web access from Windows. And, if I can drag files from one OS to the other, like I understand is possible with Parallels, I won't need web access from Windows at all. If that eliminates the dreaded virus risk, I can skip that headache altogether.
I wouldn't say inferior, they have the same overall quality rating, but they (the mass produced PC market), usually pick more conservative operating specs do the the cost pressure as I mentioned earlier for example the Dell may have a Q8400 CPU (2.66GHz) VS the Mac with a Q9550 CPU (2.83GHz). But to say the one is inferior is like saying the Prius is inferior to a 1967 Camaro because the Camaro is faster. Now the reason people are using Windows rather than Mac OS is quite simple. Load Tiger, Leopard, Wilde beast, or whatever Apple calls their latest OS on a PC and Apple will have their goon squad on you like stink on s**t. And this is why businesses went to PC's over Apple to begin with. It was not Bill Gates selling a line of goods as you eluded to earlier, when the PC platform was chosen, Bill Gates was making beer can pyramids in college. The PC was chosen because IBM wisely made it an open architecture so anyone could compete, Apple on the other hand wanted it all locked down (early Macs were almost impossible to even get open to service). The result, no business worth its salt is ever going to choose a single source over multiple vendors.
Apple Claims 91% of $1,000+ PC Market Revenue in June - Mac Rumors Simply put... for all but low end computers, Mac's seem to win
Let's put it this way: what most people spend on a bargain-basement Windows PC, I spend just on a power supply when I build one of my own machines Even my Windows machines are fairly reliable, despite some fun Vista antics. This one was my favorite of all The update is not installed successfully, you receive a message, and the computer restarts when you try to install an update in Windows Vista I came very close to throwing the computer case on my driveway, and using my FJ Cruiser to repeatedly run it over until it was like a metal pancake Which you can still buy, believe it or not. Still available as an OEM, so if you order a decent cheap motherboard, say from Tiger Direct, you can get it with XP Pro SP3, install it, and lead a relatively normal life Thanks to a licensing agreement that Microsoft was forced into, new computers with Vista Business also provide an included "downgrade" path to XP Pro (Either an XP install CD, or a separate partition with XP Pro) Although when Vista launced Microsoft hinted they would soon drop all support for XP, that support is now extended to 2014 It's possible that Apple could have dominated the industry if they had developed a Killer App for business, not just for artsy-fartsy use. What's ironic is that when Microsoft tried to shove Vista down everybodies throat, those in business/corporate networks quickly discovered that Vista played very poorly with older networked laser printers, older switches and routers (Didn't pass UPnP and IP6 frames), and XP Pro machines didn't even show up on a Vista network search Microsoft quickly had to roll out the LLTD hotfix that had to be installed on all XP Pro machines. Windows XP SP3 has this update installed. Especially in a tight economy it was asinine for Microsoft to expect large numbers of networked printers, the managed and unmanaged switches, and routers to be replaced
A point no one has mentioned: Windows does not recognize HFS+ (Mac OS file system) - when in BootCamp, XP does not see the Mac partition. There is a built in barrier to prevent a Windows worm or virus infecting a OS X partition. The worm would have to be written with both OS in mind. BTW, OS X can read/write to FAT32 (DOS file system) but can only read NTFS (Window NT file system). So far, most attacks against OS X have been trojan horse attacks, and if you are careless enough to download from unsafe sources, you can get malware no matter what OS you are using.
Well... I started to write the history from memory, then went looking for references (so people don't have to trust an "old man's" memory of how this went down). So, here's a direct quote: "When IBM introduced their first [ame="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microcomputer"]microcomputer[/ame] in 1980, built with the [ame="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intel_8088"]Intel 8088[/ame] microprocessor, they needed an operating system. Seeking an 8088-compatible build of CP/M, IBM initially approached Microsoft CEO Bill Gates (possibly believing that Microsoft owned CP/M due to the Microsoft Z-80 SoftCard, which allowed CP/M to run on an [ame="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apple_II"]Apple II[/ame][10]). IBM was sent to Digital Research, and a meeting was set up. However, the initial negotiations for the use of CP/M broke down—Digital Research wished to sell CP/M on a royalty basis, while IBM sought a single license, and to change the name to "PC DOS". DR founder [ame="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gary_Kildall"]Gary Kildall[/ame] refused, and IBM withdrew.[10][11] IBM again approached Bill Gates. Gates in turn approached [ame="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seattle_Computer_Products"]Seattle Computer Products[/ame]. There, programmer [ame="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tim_Paterson"]Tim Paterson[/ame] had developed a variant of CP/M-80, intended as an internal product for testing SCP's new 16-bit [ame="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intel_8086"]Intel 8086[/ame] [ame="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Central_processing_unit"]CPU[/ame] card for the S-100 bus. The system was initially named "QDOS" (Quick and Dirty Operating System), before being made commercially available as 86-DOS. Microsoft purchased 86-DOS, allegedly for $50,000. This became Microsoft Disk Operating System, MS-DOS, introduced in 1981.[12]" Reference: [ame=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DOS]DOS - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia[/ame] So, Gates "stole" QDOS for a pittance and sold it to IBM under the name MS-DOS. DOS became the standard operating system for the IBM PC, and Microsoft became the preferred supplier for all follow-ons (as they went into the GUI era with Windows). The early days of the home computer are filled with such stories. Xerox took work from Englebart in the late '60's and further developed the concept of a mouse at PARC (Palo Alto Research Center) but both failed to make further commercial use of it. Wazniak and Jobs picked up on the idea (they were at a neat demo of the mouse at PARC in the '70's - the footage from this meeting is really interesting) and ran with it. Reference: The Mother of All Mother of All Demo Celebrations
Folklore.org: Macintosh Stories: A Rich Neighbor Named Xerox BTW, lots of interesting / fun stories about the development of the original Mac at Folklore.org if you are interested.
I stand corrected, I was thinking in the terms of Windows, Mocrosoft had in fact been in business since 76 [ame=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_Gates]Bill Gates - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia[/ame] " IBM partnership In 1980, [ame="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IBM"]IBM[/ame] approached Microsoft to write the BASIC interpreter for its upcoming personal computer, the [ame="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IBM_PC"]IBM PC[/ame]. When IBM's representatives mentioned that they needed an [ame="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operating_system"]operating system[/ame], Gates referred them to [ame="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_Research"]Digital Research[/ame] (DRI), makers of the widely used CP/M operating system.[29] IBM's discussions with Digital Research went poorly, and they did not reach a licensing agreement. IBM representative Jack Sams mentioned the licensing difficulties during a subsequent meeting with Gates and told him to get an acceptable operating system. A few weeks later Gates proposed using 86-DOS (QDOS), an operating system similar to CP/M that [ame="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tim_Paterson"]Tim Paterson[/ame] of [ame="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seattle_Computer_Products"]Seattle Computer Products[/ame] (SCP) had made for hardware similar to the PC. Microsoft made a deal with SCP to become the exclusive licensing agent, and later the full owner, of 86-DOS. After adapting the operating system for the PC, Microsoft delivered it to IBM as PC-DOS in exchange for a one-time fee of $50,000. Gates did not offer to transfer the [ame="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright"]copyright[/ame] on the operating system, because he believed that other hardware vendors would clone IBM's system.[30] They did, and the sales of MS-DOS made Microsoft a major player in the industry.[31]"
Yep, you're asbsolutely right if talking about windows. There was no intention on my part to "one up" - just offering a story I happen to be interested in. I was surprised at how "unbiased" the Wikipedia article was. Many people (myself included) feel Bill Gates was more than a little underhanded in the way he won the IBM contract. He told IBM he had a solution (when he didn't) then bought QDOS for a pittance. But, hey, that's the American Way - the one who has the connection and can buy low and sell high is the winner. One of the really great mini-series that PBS did was the history of the computer a few years ago. One episode, "The Paperback Computer" follows the development of the desktop, home computer. It covers all of these little manouverings from the early days. I highly recommend the entire series to anyone interested in computers (assuming you can find a copy). I believe there were 6 1-hour episodes.
Was that the Robert Cringely PBS series? I recall him having a fairly humorous inside peek with his series "Triumph of the Nerds."
