That's a lie if I ever saw one. Besides, who wants to spend hundreds of dollars just to run a couple of programs?
| |
Smoko wrote:
That's a lie if I ever saw one. Besides, who wants to spend hundreds of dollars just to run a couple of programs? Someone with the need to, obviously. You do realize computers are used for a variety of different things, yes? Lets see: You have Windows programs you want to run Situation A: You have a PC, which hopefully has a legitimate version of Windows XP. You can run Windows programs. Situation B: You have a Mac, and you have a legitimate copy of Windows XP. You can run Windows programs. Either by dual booting and bootcamp, or via Parallels or VMWare. If you're not in A or B, then you're either out of luck or you're running an illegal copy of Windows XP. Which you could just as well run as a dual boot on a Mac. Whether you have a Mac or not does not change the fact that either you're pirating an illegal copy of pay-to-use operating system, or you've already got a legitimate copy. Which you can then use on a Mac. I fail to see the problem here. If you're not willing to use money that end up in Microsofts hands (like PirateHead), then you're just not in a position to be running software that uses their operating system. | |
I wasn't suggesting piracy. I was just saying that spending hundreds of dollars to run a couple of programs is crazy.
| |
Smoko wrote:
That's a lie if I ever saw one. I would advise saving heated terms like "lie" for people who are speaking actual mistruths, like for example the COO of Time-Warner. Generally speaking, Jeff is right. Macs traditionally cost considerably more than their PC counterparts with comparable hardware and a copy of Windows pre-installed. Buying Windows on its own is not cheap, but those who are willing to pay extra to buy a Mac are already in a different kind of spending bracket. It's rather like saying that if you can afford a Lexus, you can afford to have a custom paint job done on it. Anyone buying a Lexus as opposed to, say, a Kia is shelling out more money from the get-go and it's assumed that if they can afford that, smaller expenditures are incidental. So if you can afford a Mac, you can indeed afford a copy of Windows, or else you're probably buying too much computer or the wrong brand for your budget in the first place. Besides, who wants to spend hundreds of dollars just to run a couple of programs? Anyone who wants to run those programs badly enough, I guess. For my part I've never understood why people spend so much extra to lose compatibility with so many programs, although Vista has recently made that choice easier to comprehend. It's all about perceived value for the money. Mac users know Macs are pricier, but they buy them because they like Macs and to them the price difference is worth it. Likewise anyone who really wants to run Windows programs on a Mac has to decide if their desire is enough to justify buying a copy of Windows. It's just like any other spending decision. Lummox JR | |
Alathon wrote:
If you're not willing to use money that end up in Microsofts hands (like PirateHead), then you're just not in a position to be running software that uses their operating system. We're working really hard to change that. Wine (http://www.winehq.org/) has implemented much of the Windows API and libraries on Linux, and the ReactOS project (http://www.reactos.org) is working on a full-fledged Windows replacement from top to bottom. It's been ten years in the making but we've gained a lot of ground, so hopefully within the next ten years we'll have full compatibility. | |
I was! I never have and never will pay for an OS. Microsoft can go to hell. The latest PC I bought off eBay had a Windows XP Pro serial number lable thing on it, and so far the serial works very well. :)
| |
Trosh Kubyo wrote:
The latest PC I bought off eBay had a Windows XP Pro serial number lable thing on it Well, then whoever initially bought the PC purchased Windows - The copy is legitimate. So in fact you did pay for an operating system. | |
Nada, it was gutted out and didn't come with windows installed. I think they just forgot to scrape it off with a razor blade. It was a office machine before that.
| |
Trosh Kubyo wrote:
Just dual boot with windows. I don't know why people insist on using a OS that won't even run a program you want natively. Because using a virtual machine in the manner I mentioned in [link] - that everyone seems to be ignoring - gives you the best of both worlds and gives you access to more software than any one OS distribution can provide. Last time I read, Mac's support dual booting windows now. Mac's have been able to "dual boot" between MacOS and Linux for atleast 10 years. MacOS/Windoze dual booting is a few years old - since the Intel-based Macs have been out. | |
Macs are a huge design computer,
To my understanding (this is just something I read here http://www.proaxis.com/~ferris/docs/dpi-monitor.html the website, granted is quite dated, so that might not be this might not be the case) The print size for a windows pc, and the print size for a mac, are different, in that a windows pc displays font size far larger then it should, so mac's will have different monitor capabilities, and will display fonts at the size they are printed, That would make a world of difference for someone with typographical needs, if they need to see how something would print, wouldn't it be easier to go with the computer that display's fonts the way they want it to, the size that is on a piece of paper, like it or not, its probably true, I never tested that one, since I lack a mac, but I know that you print size 8 it probably appears larger on windows, and tiny on paper. | |
See above, in re: don't wish to give any money to Microsoft.