Staredit Network

Everytime I see mac eyecandy I say "I'd hit it!" mac has better everything, but windows has the gaming edge. (Maybe not for long), also I'm sure you could just play games on the XP and then use the interweb on the mac.

You were probably on a Mac 9. ...Or youre just being a fool.

And how could Windows have any say in this? They're just making Macs have an ability to read Windows-style coding.

You guys arent reading clear. It's not like they're combing the two.

Virus walks in. Takes Finder. Munch Munch Munch.

Wrong. They both stole from XEROX

Get a nice screensaver then...

True. The best thing Macs are for is schools, because kids are always dumb enough to download viruses I made an HTML document that opened 100+ windows. named it OpenThis and they opened it.

Yay! If you want to play a game, play UT2K4 for linux


No, its called a boot loader. If you want some other nice ones, check out GRUB and LILO. It alows you to choose which one you want to load from. I choose between Linux and Windows right now. Maybe I'll get OSX on my laptop soon.

No, No, No, you have it wrong.

All they did, was allow you to have a much easier time at installing dual operating systems. It doesn't matter if you run Windows XP on a Mac based PC, or on some other PC, you will still have an equal chance of getting a virus.

All they are doing is allowing you to install Windows XP and the Mac operating system on the same computer. Both *should* run unrelated to eachother, and you can still get a virus. It's the same as dual loading Windows and a Linux operating system on the same computer.

Also, depending on the video card most Macs use (can someone enlighten me here), some games may have capability issues if they are run on the Windows operating system based with mac hardware.

I might possibly consider buying one of the Mac/Windows Hybrids in the distant future. I really don't know much about them though. I have some reading to do in magazine lol.

Macs seem like they could be alright, but I have never used a recent one and have only used the crappy old ones at our school. But you said that they are faster than windows? Everything that I click on my computer comes up instantly.

Why do Macs generally seem like they have worse hardware? Like, one of their better models, the iMac, I think has a 1.7 ghz processor, 512 mb of RAM and like a Radeon 9550 or something close to that. That's not really great hardware, so what gives?

But that would mean that the Windows part could get virused, but not the Mac part? Im not sure, but Windows type viruses target Windows type objects. Ah, I dont know, it's confusing. Im not much of a tech geek.


Im talking about turning on Applications, downloading and crap.

Yup. The mac part could get killed by a mac virus and the windows part could be killed by a windows virus.

What? Anyway, most of the stuff I find on the internet is for windows, so I need windows. Macs have nice hardware acelleration, but thats just because they are too selfish to make their software for a hardware specification rather than just certain hardware.

By the way, its cake to crash macs. Open up a terminal window and type "kill 1" and watch your mac crash.

1. Thats the thing, a "Mac Virus" doesnt exist.

Because people dont use macs. Now that people use linux for servers, linux viruses have started popping up.

Im aware of that, but Macs are apparently hard to decode, and






By the way, I'm pretty sure Macs are way too secure for the bull.

That's due to a vulnerability in the email program. Or Automater. Or the basic stupidity of most computer users.

Mail (a Mail program for Macs. OMG RALY?!) seems pretty secure. Im not sure how you could let it get h4xed unless youre a stupid ass.

Censors, what the hell? We can say ass, but a dumb one is unnacceptable?

Well I would definently use it on my mac if I waited about 2 months so I could've gotten an intel iMac.

I don't see why you wouldn't do this, its very easy to switch between operating systems, you get the best of both worlds. I actualy prefere the apple operating system. You don't have to deal with spy wear/viruses (yet...) and it doesn't crash, atleast no more than windows. However, windows has plennty of programs that aren't ported.

You'd be surprised at how fast things run on a Mac like that though.

My specs (I have a 2 year old iMac) are like this:
Processor: PowerPC G5 - 1.6Ghz
Memory: 1GB physical RAM.
Gfx Card: GeForce FX 5200 (64MB)

It will run the following processor-intensive games without problems or much slowdown:
Halo
Close Combat: First to Fight
America's Army
Star Wars Battlefront
Stubbs the Zombie

It does begin to choke on games like The Sims 2 and Sim City 4 though.

The top of the range PowerPC Macs have basic specs like this (you can upgrade them through the Apple Store):
Processor: PowerPC G5 - 2x 2.5Ghz Dual Core (This adds up to 10Ghz)
Memory: 512MB physical RAM (Apple are notorious for not giving their computers enough RAM)
Gfx Card: GeForce 6600 (256MB)

That should be able to run pretty much anything smoothly.

The Intel Macs currently only go up to 2Ghz Core Duo.

Actually people have begun discovering a few major flaws in the Mac OS. It's just that no one cares enough about Macs (last I heard Apple had a whopping 3% of the computer market) to design viruses for them. Also, nowadays the quality of processors are not based solely on their frequency, but also their architecture. That is why a 2.0 GHz AMD Athlon 64 can outperform a 3.0 GHz P4. You also have to take into account L1 and L2 caches, cores, motherboard, etc. Beyond that, why do you think an XBox (with specs at like 700 Mhz and 32 mb graphics, I'm guessing) can run games like Halo and even Half-Life 2 (albeitedly at a crappy 640x480)? Well, congratulations to you Mac users, all 3% of you.

As of now, personal computers are overwhelmingly more powerful than Macs.

I don't really like macs. They don't have as much potential CPU's have and if they break you are almost screwed. I think they are kinda cool but really not worth it. I think XP on apple will be awsome though, it will help it get better.

Macs are personal computers. I'm also well aware of the differences in the architecture of processors. The PowerPC G5 was superior, Hz for Hz, to the Intel Pentium 4, but Apple has ditched the G5 because it's at its peak right now, and IBM can't make it any faster without overheating problems and the like. As for caches - yes I know about them, and that larger, more efficient caches speed things up considerably. Essentially, computers are vastly complex pieces of technology, with many factors determining their actual 'speed.'

I also know how small a share of the computer market Apple has, and how good a protection against viruses that statistic is. Virus programmers want to cause widespread infection, not just 3% of the computer market.

However, my Mac has only crashed twice, ironically when I was trying to save in Microsoft Word(!), and is still as fast as it was when it was bought. Macs, in addition to performing self-maintenance tasks daily, weekly and monthly, have a lot of optional maintenance scripts which I run regularly. This means that an Apple computer will generally last a lot longer than a PC running Windows. I know people who have Apple II computers from the late 80s which still run like new, whereas every PC owner I know laments the fact that their 2 or 3 year-old computer is shot or runs like molasses because of massive spyware and virus infection, or gradual deterioration due to a lack of basic OS maintenance. This is perhaps due to the fact that cheaper PCs attract a poor type of end-user who will run it into the ground through their technological incompetence.

I'm bored so I'll stop. I still prefer Mac to PC, although I am aware of the perks of having a Windows-compatible PC.

More cache doenst necesarily mean more speed. 512mb is the recomended amount for gaming,any more would just slow things down.


All they have to do is reformat...The OS doesnt destroy your hardware.


My winxp crashed 0 times for the 3 years i had it.

Old news, the only difference is that Apple officially recognizes it.

Well, having a massive cache would defy the object of it being there in the first place, because a cache just stores the data accessed most frequently by the CPU, right? A cache-size vs. cache miss-rate graph is almost a sigmoid curve, so the benefit of having a larger cache decreases dramatically after a certain point, but things won't slow down - they just wouldn't get any faster.



Most end-users don't have a reliable means of backing up their data, which is why they have the problems they do.



Then you must be a good end-user who looks after their computer.

Does this work backwards for Intel based PCs?

Yes, but Apple is a lot more cranky about that, and a recent host of a patch to install OS X on a non-Mac computer was forced to take it off after Apple found out about it.

Just a note. Halo runs fine on my 750Mhz Pentium 3 with 32mb Nvida Geforce2 Pro and 512mb RAM.