I was a COMPLETE anti-Mac zealot up to June of this year. Then I was forced to work on them at my new job. Now I'm begging for one of my own. I admit, there still seems to be a lot of voodoo and black magic going on in the Macs, but they run amazingly well. I can run far more apps with better response on a Mac of "lesser" raw tech specs than I can on any PC.
Granted, I can't speak about the mac performance vs. a *nix based computer as I don't have the experience. Also, my experience with Macs is their G5 and Power Books, not the Macbook, mini, nor iMac. Far more expensive, to be sure, but a much better all around experience for me. So yes, in my experience, the Macs are very optimized IMHO. They just seem much more dialed in out of the box. On Dec 17, 2008, at 8:07 PM, Ken Schaefer wrote: > Huh? I haven’t noticed anything particularly optimised about the two > Macs (one Macbook and one Mac Mini) I have at home, that I can’t get > in other brands... > > Cheers > Ken > > From: Eric Brouwer [mailto:[email protected]] > Sent: Thursday, 18 December 2008 5:02 AM > To: NT System Admin Issues > Subject: Re: OT - Anyone VM a Mac Leopard OS on a PC? > > Agreed. Apple's are FAR from generic white boxes. They are HIGHLY > optimized, extremely efficient architectures. > > On Dec 17, 2008, at 12:23 PM, Jonathan Link wrote: > > > It's not whitebox, it's branded, that brand is Apple. When I > purched my MBPro, I spec'ed similary equipped notebooks from HP, > Dell and Lenovo. Apple was more expensive than some, less than > others, and I had the option of running a true UNIX as was mentioned > earlier. > > Apple is a Tier 1 manufacturer just as HP, Dell and Lenovo are. > On Wed, Dec 17, 2008 at 12:11 PM, <[email protected]> wrote: > > "Joseph L. Casale" <[email protected]> wrote on 12/17/2008 > 11:13:17 AM: > > > > >Yes, but Apple is all about total control - if you limit the OS to > > only running hardware you produce, then you absolutely know that it > > is *guaranteed* to work with any hardware your customer owns, and > > > you can spend your software time and resources in other directions, > > rather than finding ways to make it run on any hardware ever > > invented (which is part of MS's problem). > > > > > >That's the theory, as I see it, anyway. > > > This was exactly my point in the old justification towards the > > expense of the platform. > Sorry; I haven't been following the whole thread ... > > > Now its whitebox intel run-of-the mill stuff? Does this _still_ > apply? > It does if they say so. :-) > > > > > > Eric Brouwer IT Manager www.forestpost.com [email protected] 248.855.4333 ~ Finally, powerful endpoint security that ISN'T a resource hog! ~ ~ <http://www.sunbeltsoftware.com/Business/VIPRE-Enterprise/> ~
