Apple makes Macs run Windows XP

In article , J. Clarke
wrote:

lightroom

It hasn't appeared for the G series Macs yet except as an open beta.

what is a g series mac? do you mean powerpc macs? lightroom is a
universal binary that runs on both powerpc and intel macs.

It runs under soft emulation on Intel macs, not natively.

wrong. lightroom is a universal binary and runs natively on either cpu.

Why would Windows user _want_ to try it? But, regardless, actually we can.

same reason anyone would want to try it - it is actually quite good.
and the only way you can try it right now is with a mac; the windows
version is due out in several months.

Except for the myriad applications that are in every day use for the
same purposes.

similar but not the same.

If they are similar and can be used to accomplish the same end then they
are "equivalent".

well macs and pcs can be used to accomplish the same end, so i guess
they are equivalent.

Within limits, yes, they are. A Mac is just another computer--there's
nothing magic about it except the pestiferous obnoxiousness of its
advocates.

and there are the pc advocates who relish in being oblivious to what a
mac can *actually do*.

applescript,

Just another shell scripting language. Hardly an "innovation".

it is FAR more than a shell scripting language. in fact, full fledged
applications can be written with it.

They can with the bourne, c, k, or any of several other Unix shells as well.
It's just scripts.

if you think that is what applescript is, then you are *very*
ill-informed.

automator is a gui front end to applescript, and therefore, many more
people can benefit from automating tasks they do every day. do you
really expect the average user to start writing shell scripts??

I've never been able to _stop_ them.

why would you want to stop someone from making their workflow easier?

adobe created pdf, but apple used it for the imaging model in osx.

Seems to me that NeXT and adobe developed that capability in cooperation.
In any case, my feelings toward any Adobe crap are such that this alone
marks OS/X as something to be avoided.

nothing like being objective.

zeroconf
networking aka rendezvous/bonjour.

Which handles security how?

who said anything about security? it is self-configuration for tcp/ip
networks and basically makes tcp as plug-n-play as appletalk networks
were.

If it requires _zero_ configuration then how do passwords get set?

same way as always.

If it's just "self configuration for TCP/IP networks", then it's just a
fancy name for DHCP.

no it isn't - dhcp is seperate. for instance, buy a network printer
and plug it into the network and the mac already knows about the
printer and can print to it.

they most certainly do. for you to make that claim suggests you are
very unfamiliar with what they can do.

Fine, tell me what they do that other applications do not do.

i outlined some of the key features of aperture and you claimed it was
nothing more than a file manager. it is becoming clear that you have a
lot of anti-mac biases along with a lot of misinformation and are
entirely uninterested in learning about what they can do. they aren't
perfect (nothing is) but they do a lot of things quite well.

nospam wrote:

In article , J. Clarke
wrote:

lightroom

It hasn't appeared for the G series Macs yet except as an open beta.

what is a g series mac? do you mean powerpc macs? lightroom is a
universal binary that runs on both powerpc and intel macs.

It runs under soft emulation on Intel macs, not natively.

wrong. lightroom is a universal binary and runs natively on either cpu.

Why would Windows user _want_ to try it? But, regardless, actually we
can.

same reason anyone would want to try it - it is actually quite good.
and the only way you can try it right now is with a mac; the windows
version is due out in several months.

Don't need a Mac to run Mac apps. OS/X runs fine under PearPC. The OS/X86
beta runs on just about any PC.

Except for the myriad applications that are in every day use for
the same purposes.

similar but not the same.

If they are similar and can be used to accomplish the same end then
they are "equivalent".

well macs and pcs can be used to accomplish the same end, so i guess
they are equivalent.

Within limits, yes, they are. A Mac is just another computer--there's
nothing magic about it except the pestiferous obnoxiousness of its
advocates.

and there are the pc advocates who relish in being oblivious to what a
mac can *actually do*.

I've never seen a Mac advocate actually describe anything particularly
interesting that a Mac can do that a PC can't. Instead of describing real
capabilities, you list software titles or make vague assertions about
stability and security.

applescript,

Just another shell scripting language. Hardly an "innovation".

it is FAR more than a shell scripting language. in fact, full fledged
applications can be written with it.

They can with the bourne, c, k, or any of several other Unix shells as
well. It's just scripts.

if you think that is what applescript is, then you are *very*
ill-informed.

If you think that it's not then you have no clue what a real shell script is
like.

automator is a gui front end to applescript, and therefore, many more
people can benefit from automating tasks they do every day. do you
really expect the average user to start writing shell scripts??

I've never been able to _stop_ them.

why would you want to stop someone from making their workflow easier?

You're missing the point.

adobe created pdf, but apple used it for the imaging model in osx.

Seems to me that NeXT and adobe developed that capability in cooperation.
In any case, my feelings toward any Adobe crap are such that this alone
marks OS/X as something to be avoided.

nothing like being objective.

Just a way to slow things down in my experience.

zeroconf
networking aka rendezvous/bonjour.

Which handles security how?

who said anything about security? it is self-configuration for tcp/ip
networks and basically makes tcp as plug-n-play as appletalk networks
were.

If it requires _zero_ configuration then how do passwords get set?

same way as always.

How? Assigning passwords and the like is "configuration".

If it's just "self configuration for TCP/IP networks", then it's just a
fancy name for DHCP.

no it isn't - dhcp is seperate. for instance, buy a network printer
and plug it into the network and the mac already knows about the
printer and can print to it.

Oh, you mean Universal Plug and Pray.

they most certainly do. for you to make that claim suggests you are
very unfamiliar with what they can do.

Fine, tell me what they do that other applications do not do.

i outlined some of the key features of aperture and you claimed it was
nothing more than a file manager.

You didn't describe anything that I can't do from the desktop in Windows.

it is becoming clear that you have a
lot of anti-mac biases along with a lot of misinformation and are
entirely uninterested in learning about what they can do. they aren't
perfect (nothing is) but they do a lot of things quite well.

I'm quite interested in learning whether they can do anything _useful_. I
see absolutely _no_ evidence that there is anything that I can do with a
Mac that I can't do with a PC. You've listed a bunch of software titles.
I could list a bunch that don't run on a Mac. Listing titles doesn't
describe capabilities.

Tell me _one_ action that I can perform on a Mac that I can't perform on a
PC.
--
--John
to email, dial "usenet" and validate
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)

SMS wrote:

Tom Warner wrote:

My conjecture is that the *actual solution* that will be delivered with
OSX 10.5 will _not_ be a dual boot but rather make use of a Virtual
Machine.

Absolutely not. The dual boot machine will run Windows natively. It
isn't just the speed, there are many programs that won't run in Virtual
Machine mode.

Well, at least Cringely agrees with me:

"The version of Boot Camp that will ship with OS X 10.5 will likely be
very different from the version people are playing with today. The
actual shipping version, I predict, will have full OS virtualization so
that both operating systems can run side-by-side and a user can cut and
paste data from one to the other. Apple may have already developed this
capability, or maybe they'll license or buy it from outside. Parallel
Workstation 2.1 sure looks nice from Parallels, Inc. Maybe Apple should
buy the whole company.
If Apple's intent is to do virtualization, then why bother with this
dual boot version of Boot Camp? My best guess is to throw off Microsoft
until it is too late. Not that I think Microsoft will even care as long
as they get their money, but Apple can be sneaky this way.
So Apple will at least offer the option for users to run a virtualized
version of Windows Vista atop OS X, which brings with it two HUGE
advantages. First, the bad guys and script kiddies will have to get
through OS X security before they even have a chance at cracking Vista
security. Second, by running a virtual version of Windows Vista loaded
from a read-only partition, Microsoft's recommended method of dealing
with malware (periodically wipe the OS and application from your disk
and load them anew) can be done in seconds instead of hours and can be
done daily instead of monthly or quarterly or yearly."

http://www.pbs.org/cringely/pulpit/pulpit20060413.html

All the best,
Tom
--
With or without religion,
you would have good people doing good things
and evil people doing evil things.
But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion.

Tom Warner wrote:

SMS wrote:

Tom Warner wrote:

My conjecture is that the *actual solution* that will be delivered with
OSX 10.5 will _not_ be a dual boot but rather make use of a Virtual
Machine.

Absolutely not. The dual boot machine will run Windows natively. It
isn't just the speed, there are many programs that won't run in Virtual
Machine mode.

Well, at least Cringely agrees with me:

Whoever Cringely is.

"The version of Boot Camp that will ship with OS X 10.5 will likely be
very different from the version people are playing with today. The
actual shipping version, I predict, will have full OS virtualization so
that both operating systems can run side-by-side and a user can cut and
paste data from one to the other. Apple may have already developed this
capability, or maybe they'll license or buy it from outside. Parallel
Workstation 2.1 sure looks nice from Parallels, Inc. Maybe Apple should
buy the whole company.
If Apple's intent is to do virtualization, then why bother with this
dual boot version of Boot Camp? My best guess is to throw off Microsoft
until it is too late.

To what purpose? What do you think Microsoft would do if Apple had
announced this? Fix Vista so it won't run in a VM? That sabotages some of
their _own_ products. Include a VMM in Vista? They're already planning on
doing that. So what's the point of hiding it?

Not that I think Microsoft will even care as long
as they get their money, but Apple can be sneaky this way.

Sounds more like being paranoid. Maybe Jobs needs to put more tinfoil in
his.

So Apple will at least offer the option for users to run a virtualized
version of Windows Vista atop OS X, which brings with it two HUGE
advantages. First, the bad guys and script kiddies will have to get
through OS X security before they even have a chance at cracking Vista
security. Second, by running a virtual version of Windows Vista loaded
from a read-only partition, Microsoft's recommended method of dealing
with malware (periodically wipe the OS and application from your disk
and load them anew) can be done in seconds instead of hours and can be
done daily instead of monthly or quarterly or yearly."

You can do that under XP now.

However what leads you to believe that that is Microsot's "recommended way".
Sometimes it is the most cost-effective alternative, sometimes not.

http://www.pbs.org/cringely/pulpit/pulpit20060413.html

Reading that, it's all opinion--his comments about OS/X and a virtual
machine don't even come from a hotel clerk, he pulled them right out of his
ass and he admits as much. He also thinks that in a .1 level version
upgrade Apple is going to dump the Mach kernel, which pretty much shoots
down any credibility that he might have had.

All the best,
Tom

--
--John
to email, dial "usenet" and validate
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)