I'm looking forward to not using it!
hahaha. first thing i'd do if i buy a mac is install a pirated version of xp on it.
This does a good job of removing any reasons I might have for not buying an Mac. GJ!
>>4
truth. pretty box and usable os.
ps. omg asuka id!
From another forum:
>This brings to mind the computer labs at my uny. We had Windows labs, with Dell machines; Mac labs with Power Mac machines; and mixed labs with half and half of both. But now, we could just put Intel-based Macs in every lab, and co-install Windows on all of those. Apple, a hardware company, sells twice as much hardware; MS, a software company, sells twice as many copies of software; and there's no longer a need for two types of labs; a lab can be just a lab. Everybody wins...?
I really hope this doesn't mean the end of real Mac games, though. Reading some of the comments on http://www.insidemacgames.com , they really go all over the place... the impact this will have on Mac gaming is tough to predict.
Also: MacBook Pro, Boot Camp... whoever's choosing these names for new Apple products needs to take a long walk.
I found "Boot Camp" amusing.
That's clever marketing. They actively lock out Windows XP from their Intel macs, then they act all like "Okay, so now we'll do Microsoft's job because we're nice guys and they'd never get around to do it right"
"Actively lock out"? You mean, by actually using modern technology instead of software remnants from the darkest parts of the eighties?
The BIOS is a horrible, horrible kludge, and the faster it's gone, the better. MS deserves every bit of abuse they get for not supporting the alternatives.
MacBook makes sense. First you have the iMac, which is the "home PC" for "myself" ("I"), and then (in the future) I predict they'll re-release the PowerMac as just "Mac." "The All New Mac." And so "Mac Book" makes sense, because it ties in the name "Mac" with the previously recognizable name "PowerBook." As for the "Pro" part, they'll no doubt soon release a MacBook (Non-Pro) for students and average users.
Boot Camp is a pretty clever name. As for the "actively lock out", I agree with >>10. Why should Apple have to pay the price for another companies fondness for old-as-hell technology? Linux can use EFI. Solaris can use EFI. The BSD's can use EFI. Why can't Windows? Microsoft deserves their ridicule.
>>9,10
I won't disagree, but I was commenting on the fact that Apple is using that pretext to bitch about Windows to clients who are likely to be receptive to that kind of attitude. They could have made it 100% seamless if they really wanted to - and they definitely wanted to let Windows run on their Macs. Boot camp is only clever marketing, and I'm sure that as soon as it will stop to have a noticeable effect on sales, it will be integrated seamlessly on every new mac.
Wow, now even me, a guy who biasly hates MACs, is considering getting one.
Thanks Apple!
>>10
EFI is nearly as horrible as ACPI. If you've dealt with ACPI, which is not a matter with which many who still have their sanity intact may boast, you'll know that EFI is in fact basically crap. As my first exhibit I'll present the fact that it is possible to irreparably fuck an intel mac up using just EFI calls and a lack of absolute knowledge as to what one is doing.
I wish they'd gone down the OpenBoot path. OpenBoot did so many Right Things in so little space and was portable across CPU architectures too. But then again Apple is the company that produced such an utterly braindead OpenBoot implementation that the standard pretty much fizzled and died right there.
From what I hear though, there's a halfway workable PC-BIOS emulation thingamabob in the most recent PROM update from Apple. Probably because winders really can't do without one.
I don't want to start a holy war here, but what is the deal with you Mac fanatics? I've been sitting here at my freelance gig in front of a Mac (a 8600/300 w/64 Megs of RAM) for about 20 minutes now while it attempts to copy a 17 Meg file from one folder on the hard drive to another folder. 20 minutes. At home, on my Pentium Pro 200 running NT 4, which by all standards should be a lot slower than this Mac, the same operation would take about 2 minutes. If that.
In addition, during this file transfer, Netscape will not work. And everything else has ground to a halt. Even BBEdit Lite is straining to keep up as I type this.
I won't bore you with the laundry list of other problems that I've encountered while working on various Macs, but suffice it to say there have been many, not the least of which is I've never seen a Mac that has run faster than its Wintel counterpart, despite the Macs' faster chip architecture. My 486/66 with 8 megs of ram runs faster than this 300 mhz machine at times. From a productivity standpoint, I don't get how people can claim that the Macintosh is a superior machine.
Mac addicts, flame me if you'd like, but I'd rather hear some intelligent reasons why anyone would choose to use a Mac over other faster, cheaper, more stable systems.
>>11
BSDs can use EFI? Since when?
$ locate efi | grep "^/usr/src/sys" | fgrep -v Makefile
/usr/src/sys/arch/arm/arm/undefined.c
/usr/src/sys/arch/arm/include/undefined.h
/usr/src/sys/conf/defines
/usr/src/sys/lib/libkern/arch/hppa/prefix.hI went to http://uefi.org/ and it says you need a license to implement the standard. That doesn't sound like it would work for Linux either.
>>17
FreeBSD can (and in fact, must) use EFI on IA64 (but not on i386/amd64 yet).
>>18
How? Binary blobs?
>That doesn't sound like it would work for Linux either.
That's hilarious, considering the Gentoo people have been installing Linux on their MacBook's since the day they came out.