On 9 Aug 2006 at 7:00, Phil Daley wrote: > At 8/8/2006 04:20 PM, David W. Fenton wrote: > > >The interesting thing to see is when Apple's standard desktops come > >out, rather than their high-end workstations. My bet is that they > >will be somewhat cheaper than comparably configured PCs, but > >substantially more expensive than a standard Windows workstation, > >because, as has historically been the case, they will be higher end > >machines from the basic design up. > > Right. And why do Mac users need such a high-power machine?
Because until the switch to MacIntel, they had to, because PowerPC chips just couldn't keep up with the performance demands (hence the move toward dual processors in the hardware, and optimization of OS and applications to utilize them). > Has anyone run the Mac OS on a cheap Windows machine? How can you do that? How would you fake the Mac ROM? > I'd be interested in the performance differences. Um, it seems to me that all you need is the benchmarks for running Windows and OS X on the new MacIntels. The result has been that OS X runs blazingly fast, but that because the machines are so well designed and optimized for performance, WinXP screams too, better than almost all the PC competition (according to the articles I read about this). Apple makes good hardware. If you really need both OS's, it just makes sense to have a MacIntel and run Windows on it as well, either dual-boot, or virtualized (which is by definition going to be much easier on an Intel motherboard than on a PowerPC). But I really think that the people who really need both are the Mac users, not people like me who have spent their entire computer working lives on PCs. -- David W. Fenton http://dfenton.com David Fenton Associates http://dfenton.com/DFA/ _______________________________________________ Finale mailing list [email protected] http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
