Well, as I have said, many times, some people don’t see it that way. I don’t. I don’t think the differences are huge, but it’s enough to be irritating, and noticable, by me, for one. And I don’t consider the differences between installing some hardware on my Mac vs. my PC “minimal” - there’s a big difference - to me. And, while I’m at it, I noticed this when I got my first PC way back in late 1997: When installing a cross-platform CD, the installation instructions for the PC were almost always much longer than the instructions for Mac. I was getting the message even way back then. Macs are often easier.
More choice is always better, but what a lot of us are saying is that we get the cream of the crop, and that we have “enough”. It’s like having a nice comfy corner grocery which has three or four brands of corn, all from good brands, all good quality. You only need one can of corn, so one of these four brands will do just fine. As opposed to the huge supermarket, which has 15 brands, some of them good, but some generic and really cheap and nasty. I’m not saying that a supermarket isn’t a good thing, but the hugeness of the “selection” is deceiving - a lot of the extra stuff is crap, or just redundant.
The loss of access to the big supermarket is worth it to some people. They still are able to get a good quality can of corn, after all. And they like the comfyness of the corner grocery, the friendliness of the clerks, the easiness of shopping, the whole experience is better and more beneficial to them. They prefer that, and don’t mind giving up the big supermarket because of it. If it really bothered them, they’d switch over to the big supermarket, right?
Well, since I was curious to see if there are any Mac emulators, I ran a search at Google. The only stuff I found runs old Mac stuff. I haven’t found anything else.
Does this mean it is more difficult to emulate than a PC? Not necessarily. It was never claimed that Mac’s have been emulated, just that they probably could be.
And I’ve been gathering info about Virtual PC for Mac. According to every person I’ve asked and every site that I’ve read, it runs VERY slow. Your big, bad Power G4 processor emulates PC software just about as well as an old Pentium chip runs it.
Either way, it doesn’t add a valid position for either platform.
That would be a valid argument if it wasn’t for the fact that Microsoft’s already squashed the market for competing word processors, spreadsheets, and whatnot. “Yeah, I can choose from fifty different word processors for my Windows PC, but everyone uses Word anyway, so I guess I’ll get that, too.”
iMovie isn’t an advantage for Apple because it’s only available for the Mac – iMovie is an advantage for Apple because it’s damn easy to use. At least, I hadn’t heard of any consumer-level video editing programs on a PC that allows newcomers to learn the software and make a movie in under ten minutes…
I have heard varying reports of VPC. On some programs it is slower, some programs are not bad, some run pretty crappy. It’s not the same as having a “real” PC, but for many Mac users, it’ll do. I don’t need it, since I have a “literal” PC!
My friend who is using it is not complaining. It is allowing her to use a PC-only application that is needed for a class she is taking. I don’t know if it runs “slow” or not, but it is obviously good enough. It is allowing her to participate in the class. She is not being left out because she’s got a Mac, even in this PC-centric class.
Also, there are other products that are considered to be the applications to use - like most Adobe products (Photoshop, Illustrator), Macromedia products (Flash), etc. So people usually go with them. And these programs are all available for Macs.
For the budget-impaired, Macs have affordable alternatives. No, probably not 30 alternatives, like on the PC side, but an amount that most Mac people would consider “enough”. And if the Mac users are happy, and think that their Mac is worth it, then it is worth it - to them.
Factoid for newbies to Mac: Adobe was built on Mac. Photoshop and illustrator were designed for the mac years before they were available on PC. My brain is insisting to me that this may also be true of Macromedia, but I’m not betting on that one.
The best DTP program ever made, Quark Xpress, was also made for the Mac and brought to PC years later.
What’s this supposed to prove? That there was once a day when it made a lot more sense to do DTP on a Mac? Yeah, it’s true, but that day is gone. Why do you think Illustrator 7 was such a meager upgrade for the Mac, but a huge jump forward in functionality in Windows? Because 7.0 was specifically an effort to get out from under the image of being a Mac company.
SoftMac will run up to MacOS 8.1, and faster than a real Mac. However, it doesn’t emulate a PPC, so it won’t run OS 8.5, 9.0, or X. PPC support will be available “soon”.
Hey, thanks - sounds interesting. But am I mistaken, or do you have to install a card (some sort of hardware) onto your PC to get this Mac emulator to work? I don’t like the sound of that at all…
If you don’t need to run games or multimedia-heavy PC applications, Virtual PC is fine. My 450 MHz iMac DV+ runs Office 2000 and Windows 98 at about the same speed as a 188 MHz Pentium III – mildly sluggish when initially opening menu items, but otherwise fine for writing documents, calculating spreadsheets, and what-have-you.
Goofiest Virtual PC moment – having GeneCyst (a Sega Genesis emulator) running inside Virtual PC running inside my iMac. I should’ve taken a few screen shots…
It requires Macintosh ROMs, which you can get either on a card or as files. The card is the most legitimate way to do it, because you’re getting your very own chips; however, you can also just extract the ROM from a Mac using software and transfer it over to the PC.
Virtual PC is nice and very convenient. You do indeed take a speed hit, but with each version they’ve made the emulation run a little faster.
Virtual PC 1.0 on a Mac accelerated with a 210 MHz G3 card ran about like a Pentium 66. Under VPC 2.0, more like a Pentium 90.
Virtual PC 2.0 on a 300 MHz PowerBook ran like a Pentium 166. When I upgraded to VPC 3.0 on the same machine, the performance was about 1/4 faster than a Pentium 166.
The same machine now has a 500 MHz CPU daughtercard in it and under VPC 3 I get approximately the performance of a Pentium II 266.
Uh, galt…chill, man. I wasn’t “proving” anything. It was exactly what I said: a factoid for Mac newbies that might not know these interesting factoids.
:rolleyes: Oh, please. And if a PC lover said “Interesting factoid: PC’s had 3-d graphics accelerators years before they were available for the Mac,” they’d merely be throwing out a “factoid”, not attempting to imply any value judgment.
Besides, I don’t say Mac folk are touchy… A little, uh, touched, maybe.
We run a small Mac lab at work and for some reason, Quark seems to have the worst problems with Mac OS9. After extensive “tinkering” with the Multiple User prefs, I am convinced that the Educational version of Quark is probably one of the worst, most difficult to work with desktop publishing tool. On the other hand, Adobe software works best with OS9 and seems like Adobe InDesign might take over soon enough.
Monster104:
I am a CS student, and I can tell you that Borland doesn’t make the best compilers in terms of portability of code, because they allow too much nonstandard syntax. I know this is true of Turbo Pascal from experience, and I have heard the same of Turbo C++. I like Borland’s interface better than Microsoft’s Visual C++, but my teachers usually recommend either that or g++ if it’s a Linux assignment. G++ is a pain because it’s a command line compiler, but you can set it to be strictly ANSI compliant if you need to.
galt:
The reason Macs were so popular with desktop publishing people is because Apple invented it. My fiancee’s mom used to work at Apple, and was at the meeting where they came up with the idea. PageMaker was originally an Apple product, before it spun off to Aldus and now Adobe.
Windows 95: n. 32-bit extensions and a graphical shell for a 16-bit patch to an 8-bit operating system originally coded for a 4-bit microprocessor, written by a 2-bit company that can’t stand 1 bit of competition.
