Has Anyone Here Come From Mac OS to Vista?

  • Thread starter Thread starter emanon
  • Start date Start date
Speaking of the bash shell, I finally got around to trying Cygwin[2]
last week. I now use it about 8X more than cmd.exe

[2]http://cygwin.com/

The Windows command line sucks. I use it, but I don't like it nearly
as much as bash (or any other UNIX-type shell).

Cygwin is a great addition to Windows and it makes up what Windows lacks
in commands, features, etc. I've been using Cygwin for several or more
years now and its great. Using Cygwin in Windows reminds me of the days
of using Mac OS X and Linux.

In Cygwin you can use some linux utilities and programs, such as
DocBook/XML, without needing linux. You can also get exposure and usage
from Perl and other languages (i.e. Python, PHP).
 
I found Mac software is easier to learn and adapt than Windows software.
If you already know how the device should interact with the operating
system, its a matter of finding the compatible software to run and
interact with the device. Newer Windows software tends to convolute
previous known and backward compatible features forcing the users to
enter in to the learning curve. Thus this does not divide the operating
system platforms, just the software used with the device (or devices).

Thank you for your compliment on my response.
 
Well I can answer any questions he has about the diffrences etc, but cant
say why I have switched, as I havnt
 
Scott said:
Noted tech guru David Vogue (of Vogue Press/Missing Manual Series, and
New York Times column fame) has worked extensively with both.

"Vogue?!"


You can actually email the guy and he'll respond as well (cuz he's
cool like that).

Well, he does prefer you spell his name right! <g>
 
I would have agreed with you till I decided it was time to get a new
computer 2 years ago (I replace my existing one every 4-6 years).

For the first time ever, I seriously considered a Mac. I didn't have
any "major" investments in Windows software. Paint Shop Pro X and
Office 2003 Student and Teacher, were about it when it came to "high
priced" stuff.

I was most attracted to OS X's BSD-based guts, coupled with the
terminal and it's bash shell. AND the GUI blew XP away (that's not as
true with Vista).

Eye candy do not maketh the GUI though.
And you can run X-Window [Linux, UNiX, Solaris, etc etc) apps in OS X
also). And since that time, they switched to Intel which makes it
even more appealing.

Because of dual booting and/or usable virtualisation you mean? Tis
very handy.
But I could not get past the overpriced hardware and while you can
custom order if you buy from Apple, you don't get nearly the options
you do, when you custom order a PC online..from virtually anyone).

It's that old hardware choice vs tight hardware/software integration
thing. Each has its benefits, but unfortunately, they're mutually
exclusive.
The biggest adjustment for me would be the Mac menu bar vs the app
menu bar being in each individual app in Windows).

That's probably a familiarity thing. Get ingrained within the way of
working of one OS, and another will inevitably be alien and seems...
just wrong for a time. Happens to us all to some degree or other.
I've played with Macs a bit and I find that a bit awkward.

Ditto as above. Some are too set in their ways to change; others take
to change like a duck to water.
 
No, the Apple poofs were too lazy to creat their own OS so they bought a
Unix license and made the GUI look poofy.

Ahh.
--
Scott http://angrykeyboarder.com

A: Because it messes up the order in which people normally read text.
Q: Why is top-posting such a bad thing?
NOTICE: In-Newsgroup (and therefore off-topic) comments on my sig will
be cheerfully ignored, so don't waste our time.
 
Speaking of the bash shell, I finally got around to trying Cygwin[2]
last week. I now use it about 8X more than cmd.exe

[2]http://cygwin.com/

The Windows command line sucks. I use it, but I don't like it nearly
as much as bash (or any other UNIX-type shell).

Cygwin is a great addition to Windows and it makes up what Windows lacks
in commands, features, etc. I've been using Cygwin for several or more
years now and its great. Using Cygwin in Windows reminds me of the days
of using Mac OS X and Linux.

In Cygwin you can use some linux utilities and programs, such as
DocBook/XML, without needing linux. You can also get exposure and usage
from Perl and other languages (i.e. Python, PHP).

I get the "exposure" in Linux itself as well. Recently with Ubuntu an
Debian. Previously with Fedora Core, SUSE, Mandrake and RedHat.

The exposure didn't change anything for me. I'm not a programmer. It's
Greek to me...

although I have managed to...

../configure
make
make install

a few times.

--
Scott http://angrykeyboarder.com

A: Because it messes up the order in which people normally read text.
Q: Why is top-posting such a bad thing?
NOTICE: In-Newsgroup (and therefore off-topic) comments on my sig will
be cheerfully ignored, so don't waste our time.
 
"Vogue?!"




Well, he does prefer you spell his name right! <g>

Nothing like spell checking + ADHD.

--
Scott http://angrykeyboarder.com

A: Because it messes up the order in which people normally read text.
Q: Why is top-posting such a bad thing?
NOTICE: In-Newsgroup (and therefore off-topic) comments on my sig will
be cheerfully ignored, so don't waste our time.
 
"C'mon Pogue! Let your body move to the muuusic, hey hey hey..." ;-)

I'm confused.

Are you Wayne or Madaonna?
--
Scott http://angrykeyboarder.com

A: Because it messes up the order in which people normally read text.
Q: Why is top-posting such a bad thing?
NOTICE: In-Newsgroup (and therefore off-topic) comments on my sig will
be cheerfully ignored, so don't waste our time.
 
Scott said:
I can't speak for Mac Notebooks but from what I've gathered most
internal hardware (Video Cards, Hard Drives, Optical Drives, RAM....)
is compatible with Mac desktops since they switched to the PCI BUS
(and more recently PCI Express) a number of years ago.
--

And I do want to stress that it was the "last straw". It was not the only
determination. One big factor was I wasn't prepared for the daily
disconnect (Mac notebook at home, XP at work). I never quite felt right
with it. As far as reliability it was rock solid and did what it was
advertised to do. Oh, and for the record, I did own it for 2 years.

I'm not about to knock Macs. It just turned out it didn't work out for me.
I respect Apple and what they do (my family owns 2 iPods). I will be buying
a Mac for my daughter next year because that's what the school uses. Horses
for courses I guess.

Art
 
emanon said:
I'm qualifying that to *here* because I'm sure *somewhere* there is
someone that has. If there is, I'd be interested in hearing why and what
their experience has been like. I'm trying to decide what my next computer
is going to be, so I'd be interested in hearing about conversion to Vista
from Mac.

I have a follow up question for Mac users. Does alot of software try to
install Google or Yahoo toolbars like the Windows stuff does? I install a
lot of learning games on my daughter's PC and that seems to happen. One
today snuck by a free trial of AOL and posted the icon on the desktop.
Fortunately I deleted it. That stuff confuses my daughter as she thinks
they're games and just clicks away!

Art
 
Pipboy said:
No, the Apple poofs were too lazy to creat their own OS so they bought a
Unix license and made the GUI look poofy.

Not defending the "poofs" or anything, but why would you write your own OS
when there's a proven one out there you can buy? It doesn't sound lazy to
me, sounds like good business sense (if that's in fact what happened).
After all, Bill Gates did not write DOS.

Art
 
I found Mac software is easier to learn and adapt than Windows software.
If you already know how the device should interact with the operating
system, its a matter of finding the compatible software to run and
interact with the device. Newer Windows software tends to convolute
previous known and backward compatible features forcing the users to
enter in to the learning curve. Thus this does not divide the operating
system platforms, just the software used with the device (or devices).

Thank you for your compliment on my response.

Yea, well, if Microsoft were as lazy as Apple they could just dump legacy
compatibility and buy a Unix license too.
 
I'm qualifying that to *here* because I'm sure *somewhere* there is someone
that has. If there is, I'd be interested in hearing why and what their
experience has been like. I'm trying to decide what my next computer is
going to be, so I'd be interested in hearing about conversion to Vista from
Mac.

My last PC was an Apple Intel iMac (17").
Once Boot Camp Assistant was released, I created a dual-boot with XP with
little trouble. In fact, Apple has made it extremely easy to dual-boot
XP or Vista with OS X (if that is what you want to do).

While it worked rather well (even being faster than most other PCs I had
previously owned), I could not use all the Apple-supplied hardware, since
Apple has yet to supply Windows drivers for all of them.

When I started using the Vista Betas, I was at first unable to install
Vista without deleting the EFI partition. With the release of Vista Beta
2, however, I was able to use the Boot Camp installer to install Vista
exactly as I installed XP. Not having Vista drivers, I was unable to use
some of the Apple Hardware.

After experimentation, I soon learned that it is no longer necessary to
have OS X installed on the HD at all, and I tried installing and running
both XP and Vista after wiping the HD, with complete success (except for
the missing Vista drivers, of course, which I was able to download (most
of them) from the Net, since most of the devices on an Intel Macintosh are
off-the-shelf anyway.

If you would like help installing either XP or Vista on an Apple Intel
PC, let me know, and I will give you my personal experience in how to do
it properly.

I personally do not care for OS X, or any Apple OS, for that matter, so I
used XP or Vista as the exclusive OSes on my iMac as soon as I found out
it was easily possible (in fact, its just as easy to install Vista or XP
as the ONLY OS on an Apple Intel Macintosh as it is to install it as the
only OS on a non-Apple PC.

Why is this possible?
Simple:
When Apple created Boot Camp Assistant, they also issued a firmware update
for the Intel Macintoshes which enables almost ANY Intel-based/BIOS-using
OS to be installed as the only OS. Since ALL newer Intel Macintoshes have
this firmware installed at the factory, it is not necessary to install
them from within OS X. This firmware update actually creates a
BIOS-Compatiblity module in the EFI chip on the Apple logicboard, which
enables BIOS-using OSes to install.

In my opinion, the Apple Intel PCs (iMacs and up) are excellent Vista or
XP hardware platforms, IF they have a minimum of 2GB installed RAM and
256MB non-shared VRAM on the video adaptor.

It will take a LITTLE work, but none of it is difficult by any means. This
mostly comprises in making sure the necessary Apple firmware updates are
installed (if your Apple Intel PC is "gen1"), and making sure the
"Macintosh Drivers for XP" disk is burnt from within OS X. It will NOT be
necessary to use BootCamp Assistant to prepare the HD IF you are
installing Windows as the ONLY OS, replacing OS X, since both the XP and
Vista installers have the necessary partitioning/formatting tools
built-in. I have not yet been able to perform an installation of either
using Retail Upgrade media. You WILL need either a "Full Retail" kit, or
a "Full OEM" kit (or in the case of Vista, a "System Builder Kit").



Donald L McDaniel
Please reply to the original thread and newsgroup
===========================================================
 
I have a follow up question for Mac users. Does alot of software try to
install Google or Yahoo toolbars like the Windows stuff does?
<snip>

No. I'd guess (but am open to being corrected) that such
functionality is facilitated by ActiveX, of which there is no direct
Mac equivalent. Hence, such add-ons cannot install themselves.
 
Donald - your account sounds like a senariou I am seriously considering...
I've been running Vista in varios forms for almost a year now, but would
like some more robust hardware, and i get (at least the impression that)
Mac's do seem more elegant and still robust..

May be i could email you later in the year? I will proabably wait for OSX
10.5 just in case it's all that amazine... Previews dont blow me away, but
hey... we know about Mr Jobs and his marketing tricks!

Kind regards,
William
 
Apple isn't lazy and legacy hardware is not an issue with Mac OS X, at
least based on my experiences and from working with Mac OS X. The Mac
OS X upgrade experience is far easier than Windows -- buy a new Mac. :)
That is if your current Mac system is powerful enough to run the
latest Mac OS. Compatibility issues with Mac OS X is far less compared
to Windows and Linux. Apple has Mac OS X tied to proprietary hardware.
If I remember correctly, Microsoft talked or tried to do this with
Vista when it had been called Palladium (sp?), but not sure what
happened to the hardware vendors. This has been several years ago when
I read this article.

If Microsoft would have released Windows Vista on select computer
systems (i.e. Vista Approved Systems), similar to Apple, Vista's
compatibility and usability would be better.
 
when there's a proven one out there you can buy? It doesn't sound lazy to
me, sounds like good business sense (if that's in fact what happened).
After all, Bill Gates did not write DOS.

Art

Vista is not Dos. Apple broke all compatibilty with their existing apps and
every Mac user had to buy all their software once again when they went to a
Unix OS. Imagine the uproar if Microsoft made such a move.
 
Back
Top