Question about Apple Mac and PeeCee

[tone007]

Once you bite into the apple so to speak, you'll never go back to all the hassles that come with PeeCee ownership.

I disagree.

I went all Mac for one year and it worked, but I still preferred Windows so I sold the Powerbook G4 while it was still worth something.  I have a couple of Macs lying around still, but only because I got them for next to nothing.  I'd never buy a new Mac again.

As for the hardware, the Intel machines have alot of hardware identical to what's being sold in PCs, but they aren't generic boards.

[tone007]

I believe that things should just 'work'.

What I was trying to convey also is that the Mac platform (hardware and software) has more of that 'old skool' charm to it.

Sounds a bit contradictory to me, "old skool charm" and "just work" don't really fit in the same category.  When do Amigas ever "just work?"  Getting them up and running with all the addons and software the way you want them to is usually a project that makes configuring a PC from scratch seem like child's play.

I will agree that Apple computers are more appliance-like due to the OS design and the limited hardware configurations it needs to support.  I'll be first in line when they start selling Espresso machines, but only if they come in black.

[tone007]

AmigaOS 4.1 is better than OS X.

[tone007]

You nary see this phenomenon with Mac people so often.

That's because the Mac-heads paid way too much for their hardware to consider giving it away, and most likely invested other ridiculous sums of money having it serviced or upgraded at the Apple store.  I wonder what percentage of them are crying because they can't run the newest OS on their pampered old hardware, and now they can't get anything for it in resale.

[tone007]

That trend is something Apple learned from their marketing division having watched all the "suckas" constantly upgrading Windoze with those incessant service paks.

Kind of different, as the service packs are free, and as for incessant, there were 3 service packs for Windows XP over its 9 year lifespan.

I'd say that earlier versions of OSX on older platforms are infinitely more useable, stable and reliable than previous and comparable incarnations of Windows running on frankenPC's.

A copy of Windows XP from 2001 can be service-packed and patched right up to current, for free, while a copy of OSX from 2001 will have a hard time finding software to run, and will require you to spend money to upgrade it.  Believe me, I've played with enough old versions of OSX to realize after a certain point the old versions just really aren't viable.  Thankfully, it's also very easy to pirate, so I've never had to pay for a newer copy.

[tone007]

Wow now thats a debate....but if I ask you this - mobo for mobo, OS for OS, processor for processor, with same challenging benchmark tests run on both systems (the mac & peecee) which one would come out trumps.....

To answer this one, same hardware, same performance.  The only thing that might be a variable is how an app is coded for the particular OS. At that point it's a tossup.  Benchmark apps are generally good at isolating particular components of your system, so if you test identical CPUs on a Mac and PC, the results should be pretty close.

You can run Windows on an Intel Mac, since the Intel Macs use the same hardware as PCs, it shouldn't run much differently than on a PC with similar specs.