I have a question. Do you guys think that if Macintosh’s new line of iMAC’s and thier new laptops (can’t think of the name) were completely PC compatible they’d be more popular? I’m not sure how far from actually being compatible it is any more, I haven’t used a Mac since the PowerPC’s first days. The main flaw with Macs as I see it is the fact hat many games/software isn’t compatible and you limit your selection and ability to share files with friends. I’m not sure if it needs to be Windows compatible, but able to use the popular software.
I imagine that if MACs were able to be interchangable with all the PC clones they would become the biggest selling model. The entire concept and advertising is excellent, but seems to be held back by the compatibility issue. The computers are much more apealling than any Dell/Gateway/Compac models, but most people I know wouldn’t consider switching from PC’s.
Now admittedly I don’t know the intricacies that complicate the issue, and the finer differences between the OS’s and processors, but I imagine the “cool” factor would otherwise be a big hit.
The question isn’t really if the Macs are compatible, but why the pc producers haven’t
come up with a cool design like the iMAC or iBOOK (i think). This is what really baffles me since it really is obvious that people actually buy the damn things just because of the look and the advertising they get because of the look.
The best explaination I have heard describing why PCs remain so ugly is that from the PC manufacturer’s point of view, the home market is not that important. The big orders come from corporations, and corporations don’t care if a PC is pretty–they just want it to work.
On a side note, my boyfriend and I are building a new computer and we decided to go for a black one, which looks much, much cooler than “platinum” or the ubiquitous beige. finding the black case was easy. But finding black components has been a bitch and has added a considerable amount of agony to the whole process. On the other hand, when it’s done, it’ll be the coolest looking computer on the block. the one componet we cannot find in black, however, is the CDR/RW. IBM maakes one, but it runs about $100 more than a comprable platnium one from another reputable manufacturer. So y’all see the moral dilimma–is vanity worth the extra money? I think not, but it sure is going to look weird, a white drive is a black case. If the teeming millions know of a black CDR/RW for under $250, please give me an url . . .
Well, the iMac is not hurting for popularity as it is …
Compatibility with PCs, let’s see…
• You would be hard put to come up with programs that will run on a PC but will not run on an iMac, so in that sense the iMac is PC-compatible. However, using the 333 MHz iMac + VirtualPC + enough extra RAM to really use it + [PC operating system of your choice] will give you PC environment performance that will barely edge out a real PC with a Pentium 166…so you get not even yesterday’s PC performance but the day before yesterday’s, not adequate for today’s killer games. Still, a Pentium 166 is not quite a boat anchor.
• If Apple were to make the iMac truly PC compatible, they’d either have to include the equivalent of an Orange Micro card (essentially an entire PC’s worth of chips on a PCI card), which would be somewhat expensive, or abandon the Mac platform and replace the entire motherboard and related chipsets with PC equivalents, which would be industrial suicide for Apple.
• The iMac has generated more defectors from the Wintel platform than any prior Mac design, and is attracting a large number of first-time computer users. If they keep this up, more games and previously PC-first or PC-only software will be released for the Mac with feature and release-date parity, a much better solution to the downside you described.
I worked extensively with Macs for two years and found them to be so much easier than PCs. They are more durable and can take a lot more abuse but as mentioned (at least then it has been a year since I’ve worked with them) too many programs weren’t compatable. And when you found a mac version of a program it was 3 times more.
I think they have. I remember seeing a balatant copy of a PC with the same bluish translucent casing on the iMac. It’s called something like ePC. I forget though…
And some company has a computer called the Z-1. Another one of those all-in-one deals. Lemme get back to ya…
Lets see, why dont we go tell Pepsi to be like Coke so more people will buy them, right? I mean they’ll own the Pepsi market and the coke market eh? I know this analogy doesnt make much sense but youre telling Apple to stop being apple so it can sell some cool looking boxes to pc users. as for you people complaining about software, get over it. i have more than i need for anything you can name. software prices are comparable too. you people seem like youre talking from 1992. can i get a ride on your time machine or is it just that youre ignorant about this topic?
Thanks, Tracer. I hadn’t heard that one in a while.
I don’t think there is really any debate that Wintel machines are MUCH more prevalent than Macs. And that software is much more available for Windows than for MacOS. It didn’t sound to me like anyone was complaining about it, Kryptonite. Them’s just the facts.
I used Macs and PCs and enjoyed them both. I prefer design on a Mac, but most other applications I find a PC to be better.
Also, from what a friend who makes his living in graphic design - and thusly is a Mac purist - tells me, a Mac is better at using PC files/apps than vice versa.
It was neat when my friend, the Mac devotee, got into a debate with my dad, a programmer. Let’s just say it was a draw…
I’m not a gamer; if I were, that would probably make a big difference. With that initial disclaimer in mind…
PC Programs I wish were available on Mac:
Lotus SmartSuite
AutoDesk AutoCAD
Dragon Software Naturally Speaking
Mac Programs I would miss if I had to rely on a PC:
Nisus Writer
Tango Server/Editor for FileMaker Pro
Adaptec Toast
AppleScript
Dantz Retrospect
Cross-platform apps with high feature parity:
Microsoft Office Standard
Netscape Communicator
WordPerfect
Adobe Photoshop
Adobe Illustrator
Adobe Pagemaker
Norton Utilities
KPT Bryce
Macromedia Freehand
FileMaker Pro
Quark Xpress (weak/inferior on PC)
Microsoft Internet Explorer (weak/inferior on Mac)
In between is Corel: if there were a Mac version of Quattro Pro, Corel Office Suite would be in the parity list, although probably still weak on the Mac side.
I think i sorta came out seeming like an ass because the person that started this topic and the first couple of posts were by people that seemed to be oblivious to what Apple is. The only same quality between Mac & Pc is that they are both personl computers, nothing more.
Actually, Macs are the biggest selling model… just not the biggest selling platform. Who would you rather be right now, Apple or Compaq? Go check their earnings per share before you answer that… What? You think DELL is any better - check again… I’d say Apple has made the right choices.
AHunter3 wrote:
My 300MHz G3 running SoftWindows outperforms my 366MHz Pentium II in most day-to-day operations. I’m not sure why this should be, but I’ve confirmed it on a number of personal benchmarks (loading large Excel spreadsheets, launching large applications, ray tracing, saving large files, etc.).
Given the software compatibility that SoftWindows and VirtualPC offer, I would say that the old addage that “there’s a lot more software available for the PC” no longer holds. There’s more available for the Mac now, since it can run software for both OS’s.
skupla wrote:
Actually one company tried, but ended up getting sued by Apple. Acer used to have a line of trendy looking boxes, but I don’t think they were all that successful.
Has nothing to do with Bill Gates. The software that runs in emulation has no idea that is isn’t running on a PC, and the Windows software we use is IDENTICAL to the Windows software you use, so Bill doesn’t have to “give anything out”.
The Mac runs PC programs by emulating the PC hardware: the Intel processor, the ASICs, the ports, the BIOS, etc. Virtual PC is so good at it that the only PC “stuff” that won’t run on it is a tiny handful of DOS programs that bypass the API layer and try to speak directly to the hardware (and these programs are incompatible as all get-out with a lot of PC’s too) plus some software packages that rely on PC parallel port dongles for copy protection that don’t work with PowerPrint, and some off-beat PC hardware (I’m thinking of an ancient HP plotter that requires an LPT 1 modem connection + a parallel port connection).
SoftWindows cuts a few more corners under the assumption that users want Windows 98, not Red Hat Linux or OpenStep or NT Server, but still basically emulates the environment that Windows (and, within that, Windows programs) expect. In both cases, the Mac is more compatible with more PC software than many actual PCs are.
It is also true that for some tasks the emulated PC of VirtualPC or SoftWindows is actually faster than a Pentium II of comparable MHz, but for processor-intensive tasks a G3 does PC-native software under emulation about like a Pentium of a bit more than half its speed.
Nowadays, I have seen many Macs that have got the processing power to run Windows Virtual Machines. Hence, whenever you need Windows (i.e. compatibility with games and other programs) you can just go into a virtual machine. Some iMacs even have windows 7 loaded on as a virtual machine.
…