Is it time to go Mac?

[RFields5421 1]

Mac's have done this 'phone home' since OS8.That's probably where Microsoft got the idea (remember they never have original ideas - only borrow them from other folks).As we found out with the FS2004 data collection process:The way people really use FSThe way they say they use FSThe way we think everyone uses FSare all very different things.A tremendous amount of problem identification, problem definition, bug fix, and troubleshooting can best be done by recording and submitting the information back to the OS builder.

[Guest cwojackson]

"Don't know a whole lot of Mac users who complain about their OS, and I do know a few."Yep, hardly any Mac user will complain about the OS but let them consider hardware upgrades/addons and they whimper. Whereas the PC user has a wide range of vendors competing for their business, Mac users don't. That has always been the biggest drawback to the Mac.

[Noel 4,486]

If money were no object, then how would the argument go? Put another way: get your wallet out and buy a top o the line Mac Pro:Mac Pro Part Number: Z0D8 One 16x SuperDriveApple Keyboard and Mighty Mouse - U.S. English500GB 7200-rpm Serial ATA 3Gb/sAccessory kitTwo 3.0GHz Dual-Core Intel Xeon4GB (4 x 1GB)250GB 7200-rpm Serial ATA 3Gb/sMac OS X - U.S. EnglishATI Radeon X1900 XT 512MB (2 x dual-link DVI) (like to see if a DX10 card will be availble, n go with that one)Load it with Leopard (supposed be droolingly elegant & effective), BootCamp, XP Pro, and voila! It should run FS9 fantastically, FSX as good as anything, and if there is an FSXI, and it is multicore supported, voila this Mac should be able to handle it as well, no?Then it's off into Mac world for everything else! And the beauty is, PC games will still work as near as I can tell. Apparently BootCamp will allow full native XP and Vista, so how can you beat that? This guy as equipped is right at . . .. $5K!Yeah, some of the components aren't tops in performance, but I'll bet the whole thing is QUIET, FAST, SMOOTH. At least, this is my fantasy!N

[Noel 4,486]

If money were no object, then how would the argument go? Put another way: get your wallet out and buy a top o the line Mac Pro:Mac Pro Part Number: Z0D8 2 16x SuperDriveApple Keyboard and Mighty Mouse - U.S. English500GB 7200-rpm Serial ATA 3Gb/sAccessory kitTwo 3.0GHz Dual-Core Intel Xeon4GB (4 x 1GB)250GB 7200-rpm Serial ATA 3Gb/sMac OS X - U.S. EnglishATI Radeon X1900 XT 512MB (2 x dual-link DVI) (like to see if a DX10 card will be availble, n go with that one)Load it with Leopard (supposed be droolingly elegant & effective), BootCamp, XP Pro, and voila! It should run FS9 fantastically, FSX as good as anything, and if there is an FSXI, and it is multicore supported, voila this Mac should be able to handle it as well, no?Then it's off into Mac world for everything else! And the beauty is, PC games will still work as near as I can tell. Apparently BootCamp will allow full native XP and Vista, so how can you beat that? Go with the triple boot option! I love it!This guy as equipped is right at . . .. $5K! H__l that's the price of a used Taurus!Yeah, some of the components aren't tops in performance, but I'll bet the whole thing is QUIET, FAST, SMOOTH. At least, this is my fantasy!The more I think about it, the more I am intrigued!Again, this says nothing about raw value. But for sheer coolness factor, versatility, solid performance and headroom, geez what's not to love? My only complaint would be it would need a DX10 video card to become available before I'd pull the trigger."Apple Leopard ready to pounce By Stan Beer Monday, 07 August 2006 Microsoft CEO Steve Ballmer has promised Windows users that there will never be another five year delay between operating systems. However, with Apple's new Mac OS X version Leopard looming, the damage may well already be irreparable.A closed platform like the Mac is never likely to make it in a big way in the business space. Microsoft's biggest worry on that front is Linux. However, with Mac OS X now able to coexist with Windows on Mac boxes, using dual boot tools like Boot Camp or virtualization systems like Parallels and soon VMware, the Mac becomes an increasingly attractive proposition for home users.The new version of Mac OS X, dubbed Leopard, is due to be previewed today at the Apple developer's conference in San Francisco. Ahead of its showing, pundits are speculating that it will demonstrate features that are ahead of anything Microsoft has incorporated into Windows Vista.Regardless of whether Leopard turns out to be the operating system of the future, it is clear that by moving to Intel Apple has reinvigorated the interest of consumers in the Mac as an alternative to a Windows only PC.This is partly because as more members of the family incorporate computers in their day to day activities - who still uses phone books these days - there is an increasing need for plug and play systems. Another factor is that buying a Mac no longer locks users out of the Windows world. For that matter, with virtualization becoming popular, Mac users can also operate in the Linux world if they so desire."As I say, more than ever in my past am I truly considering this option.

[aerdt 0]

Apple will sooner or later open up OSX to the rest of the world.Or not.Whenever that happens Apple will have to give up their hardware business (except maybe integrated solutions, like iMacs and iBooks) and focus more on gadgets a la iPod, iPhone, embedded solutions (just like MS) and the cards of the OS market will be shuffled again and things will get very interesting. Somehow the trend points all towards that this is going to happen within a few years, because the selection of Apples desktops seems to have significantly decreased in the past few years, compared to newer iMacs and iBooks.It would also mean a revolution for operating systems. And for compatibility with Linux, which can natively run apps in OSX with the correct compiler and libraries. I wouldn't be surprised, if OSX would take 30%-40% of the market share within 5 years and Linux maybe another 10%-20% - if, and only if, OSX would be opened up to run on PC platforms.Until that happens, OSX will stay an elitist OS with 5% market share of the desktop market and will probably stay ignored by the gaming industry. Pat

[betelgeuse 41]

My first computer was a BBC micro back in the 1980s which ran a 'flight' simulation called 'Jumbo' by Molimerx. Next was FS95 and so on up to FS9. I've upgraded the OS from Windows 95, 98, 98SE, XP over the years. For both use at work and for FS, taken overall, these systems have performed very well, although at times they have infuriated me! But, to have advanced from the world of the BBC Jumbo to the highly realistic worlds of FS2002 and FS2004 to me has been fantastic. The SDK support from MS has allowed all kinds of third party software to be produced, adding immensely to the range, scope, realism and enjoyment of the simulation. I also own a G4 Powerbook. Is it a MAC or an Apple, or both? I love the design of the box itself (although it does not lie flat on a desk), and I like the graphics. Sadly, however, I cannot get most of the applications to work, except for the MS ones like Word and Excel. Has anyone ever managed to get the Mail application to work on a Powerbook? iPhoto will not let you move photos from other folders into it - you have to build up a separate database in the iPhoto application. And this in an OS which supposedly excels in images. And what on earth is 'Grab' and why does 'Finder' not find? And how do you get rid of the spinning beachball? And what is the keychain for? And why does my keychain password not work? And why can I not, as administrator, change it? I could go on and on! I have spent hours and hours on support forums trying to get the darned thing to work, mostly without success. In last week's UK Private Eye the new iBrick product was reported. This was described as a brick for throwing through the window of Apple Stores, to which a handwritten note could be attached asking why their stuff doesn't work. With a competitor like Apple, MS must be laughing all the way to the bank.

[Guest Charlie]

>Mac's have done this 'phone home' since OS8.>>That's probably where Microsoft got the idea (remember they>never have original ideas - only borrow them from other>folks).Not sure what your point is here. You say "remember" as though I have made this accusation before. I haven

[Palebushman 0]

Hi neil 0311,Your view here "- If the Mac and Mac OS is so great, why won't Apple license it? Why can't I go buy a copy of Mac OS and use it with my own hardware? Maybe it runs well only on a very small subset of carefully controlled hardware, but Windows must be compatible with many, many combinations of hardware and drivers. That's much tougher to do, but provides much more in terms of "open-ness". Mac is a closed and proprietary product."That, for me, just beautifully wraps up this whole tiresome debate in a nutshell. The very essence, of most simmers I see here on AVSIM, is to be able to tweak, modify, upgrade and do all kinds of hardware/software modifications to their 'Rigs' to further the 'reality' experience of flight simulation.

[Guest Pardue802]

If I may offer my own humble opinions on the matter: :-)There's an amazing amount of polarization when folks start discussing OS X and Windows. It truly isn't necessary, but the market being what it is I suppose it's necessary.Steve Jobs likes making money just as much as Bill Gates, and if that makes Bill Gates evil then so too does it make Steve Jobs. I'm sure their shareholders appreciate those points. In both companies, the reasons why certain things aren't open or aren't a certain way is because they have a whole lot of market analysts telling them what they feel the market will bear. It's always more acceptable for the #2 guy to bash the #1 guy, but not vice versa. That's the way marketing has always been.Windows and OS X are both commendable operating systems. I've built my own PC's (Windows) since 1998, but have been a heavy Mac user since they debuted OS X running on Intel chips about a year ago. I have an iMac, a MacBook, and a PC.I personally find the OS X operating system much more fluid, intuitive, and easier to manage. In so many cases I've discovered finer touches where Apple has just made things work like I would expect them to.Personally, even after being home-built system maker, I don't feel any remorse for the lack of expandability in OS X. It's refreshing to have everything working so amazingly well together that I don't feel the need to upgrade or rebuild. I don't see any performance or minor configuration issues that often plague system builders, and I know I've gotten lax in my computer-fixing abilities because I simply don't have anything to fix on the Mac. It works as advertised. That's the benefit of a top-down model where they make the hardware AND the software to run perfect together. Microsoft is so large that they don't have that luxury. It's a benefit of being #2.Regarding the comment about Apple being proprietary, I would counter that with the fact that it's operating system is completely open source. It's built upon a variant of the open source Unix BSD. Apple makes the core parts of their operating system freely available as Darwin. (check it out: http://developer.apple.com/opensource/index.html). The GUI and programs are closed source, but Apple has shown a tremendous leap of faith in the open source model by building upon a solid, proven code base of an OS. Code written for Linux and Unix are often very easy to port and run on OS X.Oh, and by the way, Macs really aren't that much more expensive than equivalently speced PC's. In fact, many times their workstation class machines are less expensive than a similarly equipped Dell workstation. Consider that with an iMac you get a fast processor, 20" monitor, web cam, robust operating system, very capable personal productivity applications (the iLife suite), etc. etc. All built with quality parts (unlike Dell) that need repair and replacing MUCH less often.That said, there are also a great deal of limitations with the OS. Windows has the lion's share of support of software manufacturers and it will always be a more robust platform to develop for. I find it ironic that Apple's commercials portray Mac as being the young, hip guy while it's 'ole PC plays 90+% of non-console games. Apple is the kingpin of DRM, and despite Jobs' recent letter pleading for openness, they're not going to open up their platform any time soon.Windows is also built for business, and despite the irritations of Active Directory, it's a much more robust solution for management of network users. Microsoft's .NET platform is very mature and makes it very easy to make traditional applications, web applications, or a hybrid of both. It's vendor lock in, but no worse than Apple's Cocoa. What makes Microsoft better is that .NET is a Swiss army knife and allows people to develop in many, many languages, rather than Objective C.Microsoft knows how to play their cards well, and they'll always have the advantage over Mac because of that. I'm sure Steve Jobs himself is realizing this as he is moving more of a focus to consumer electronics these days rather than the Mac.So, let's all focus on just using the right tool for the job. If Windows works, use Windows. If Mac works, use Mac. If you want to try Mac, always remember that it's still a friggin' awesome PC that you can run Windows on, so you get the best of both worlds. If you want to use Mac, run X-Plane or FlightGear. If you want to use Linux, run X-Plane or FlightGear. If you want to use Windows, run X-Plane, FlightGear, or MSFS. X-Plane is nice, but doesn't feel as polished as MSFS. That alone is enough to make me not fly it all that much... but maybe at least in XP version 9 they'll remake the cockpits so that they're all 3D and I don't have huge gaps hanging open on my widescreen iMac monitor.

[Noel 4,486]

>So, let's all focus on just using the right tool for the job. >If Windows works, use Windows. If Mac works, use Mac. If you>want to try Mac, always remember that it's still a friggin'>awesome PC that you can run Windows on, so you get the best of>both worlds. If you want to use Mac, run X-Plane or>FlightGear. If you want to use Linux, run X-Plane or>FlightGear. If you want to use Windows, run X-Plane,>FlightGear, or MSFS. X-Plane is nice, but doesn't feel as>polished as MSFS. That alone is enough to make me not fly it>all that much... but maybe at least in XP version 9 they'll>remake the cockpits so that they're all 3D and I don't have>huge gaps hanging open on my widescreen iMac monitor.Hello,It appears you have broad experience with both OS'. Tell me, were I to pick up an iMAC or upper end Mac Pro and use Bootcamp with XP or Vista, can I expect excellent performance relative to a 100% dedicated MS machine? From what I am reading here, it seems the only real issue would be in hardware expandability/availability, otherwise I can expect my Bootcamp run version of MS OS to work as good as in a dedicated MS machine, true?I think I am interested in this best of both worlds solution, provided I can run Vista/DX10 on it, which I don't think there is yet a video card available for Mac Pro.

[tf51d 284]

>>So, let's all focus on just using the right tool for the>job. >>If Windows works, use Windows. If Mac works, use Mac. If>you>>want to try Mac, always remember that it's still a friggin'>>awesome PC that you can run Windows on, so you get the best>of>>both worlds. If you want to use Mac, run X-Plane or>>FlightGear. If you want to use Linux, run X-Plane or>>FlightGear. If you want to use Windows, run X-Plane,>>FlightGear, or MSFS. X-Plane is nice, but doesn't feel as>>polished as MSFS. That alone is enough to make me not fly>it>>all that much... but maybe at least in XP version 9 they'll>>remake the cockpits so that they're all 3D and I don't have>>huge gaps hanging open on my widescreen iMac monitor.>>Hello,>>It appears you have broad experience with both OS'. Tell me,>were I to pick up an iMAC or upper end Mac Pro and use>Bootcamp with XP or Vista, can I expect excellent performance>relative to a 100% dedicated MS machine? From what I am>reading here, it seems the only real issue would be in>hardware expandability/availability, otherwise I can expect my>Bootcamp run version of MS OS to work as good as in a>dedicated MS machine, true?>>I think I am interested in this best of both worlds solution,>provided I can run Vista/DX10 on it, which I don't think there>is yet a video card available for Mac Pro. >>>Since Apple has moved to an Intel platform, it is now possible to run both MAC OS and Windows natively on it. This will give you the same performance you would get on a native PC with like components. Bootcamp is nothing more than Apple's way of dual booting. It's nothing different than the dual boot capability Windows already has! The issue of running Windows on a MAC, vs MAC OS on a PC is legal not technical. Windows has set itself up to be able to run on all PC's regardless of manufacturer. Where as Apple has specific language in their Eula, that it's OS only be able to run on an Apple computer. (and they accuse MS of anti-trust violations!!) I presume it will work with Vista too. It's no skin off MS, since it's primarily a software company and it will only increase it's sales, where as Apple is primarily Hardware so if people were to be able to run it's OS on other PC's it can hurt them severely.

[Guest Pardue802]

It will work just as it would work on a Windows PC, provied you are booted into Boot Camp and not a virtualization of Windows. For the iMac, you can expect FS X to run as well as it would on a Dell or HP computer with a 2.3GHz Core 2 Duo processor with up to 2GB RAM and a Radeon X1600 with up to 256MB RAM. Note that that video card is a DirectX 9 optimized card, and can't take advantage of some of the new stuff in DirectX 10. Thre are only a couple of cards on the market right now that are DirectX 10 capable.Same thing for the Mac Pro, only with it you have the option of being able to upgrade the video card to a DirectX 10 card such as the GeForce 8800 GTX -- with 768 MB video ram (!!)There are virtualization solutions, such as Parallels, to provide you with the ability to run Windows from within Mac OS X itself. That works fantastic for running most programs, but no product currently on the market virtualizes Direct X (all of the 3D stuff)... so game performance is unusable. You might be interested to know that both of the leading virtualization product makers out there are promising 3D Acceleration in future products, but personally I doubt it would muster the power that FS X would need to run.

[Guest Charlie]

>Hello,>>It appears you have broad experience with both OS'. Tell me,>were I to pick up an iMAC or upper end Mac Pro and use>Bootcamp with XP or Vista, can I expect excellent performance>relative to a 100% dedicated MS machine? From what I am>reading here, it seems the only real issue would be in>hardware expandability/availability, otherwise I can expect my>Bootcamp run version of MS OS to work as good as in a>dedicated MS machine, true?>>I think I am interested in this best of both worlds solution,>provided I can run Vista/DX10 on it, which I don't think there>is yet a video card available for Mac Pro. >>>I

[sightseer 895]

I've toyed with the idea of going to Mac. i have no experience withthem but I've heard good things but there seems to be way too muchup in the air right now concerning hardwrae and internet capabilities.Its just my opinion but I think the time is not too far off that we willbe running our software from online servers and our machines will onlyact as an interface for us and our monitors and the internet.Its just speculation but I don't think your OS or machine will be as importantin the future as it is now. It may be only a few years away.But this is all just speculation. For now I just want to see how thenew processes that were recently discussed will help performance while keepingpower consumption in check.

[Noel 4,486]

>Anyway, just wondering what your thinking was and whether I>may have missed something where Macs are concerned.I guess for the following reasons:1. It's a new area to explore. I very much enjoy computing and learning a new OS might just be kinda fun. I am also into digital audio, digital music and so forth and I know there are some great programs for Mac in this area.2. I'm intrigued by the possibly better "security" with Mac over Windows. Maybe this intrigue is not warranted.3. My fantasy is that I can use Mac for email, web browsing, office suite and basic PC functioning, all in what appears to be a very stable package, and then install XP or Vista in the leanest possible implementation that will support Windows gaming only. Us the Mac for everything but gaming, and visa versa.Yes, note I use the words fantasy and intrigue, because I am really am not sure whether or not #3 above makes sense. Again, of the Mac users I know, no one seems to be wanting in the area of email, browsing, digital video/audio, offic applications, etc.I do have one concern though, and that is that Apple will go away as a computing platform, such that there will not be much point in learning a new OS. I do have a friend who is getting an Mac notebook with Leopard on it, so will play with his a bit n see if I like what I see as a basic computing platform. If so, I may go down the road of dual boot and use a clean install for Windows gaming.