"Finally, if you want some rumourmongering, 192939495969798999 writes "Industry sources have leaked that tomorrow, on the 30th Anniversary of Apple Computer, Steve Jobs will announce that the new intel-based Mac laptops will support dual-booting Windows XP and OS X 10.4."
No where does it say that It's referencing the article. This is a separate subject. RTFBlurb.
When my friends or family email me, I may not be expecting them to do so, but I certainly expect the email to get to me.
Also, in the case of listservs and such, if I sign up for a newsletter, and then forget later that I have, when none of the messages have reached me, I won't know that I should have been expecting them until I remember later. I should, however, have expected the service provider to deliver them to my inbox.
http://www.shopsolid.com/ This is a store that's set up for a specific set of dance music labels, but don't let that fool you, their selection is good.
http://www.dancerecords.com/ Would-be best online record store, if only they'd stop using RealPlayer format for their samples.
http://www.juno.co.uk/ If you live in the states, any record from here is expensive (since it's an import), but you run a better chance of finding some really outstanding records, or records that haven't sold out in the states.
http://www.beatport.com This site specializes in REALLY HIGH quality mp3 files (at good prices) of all kinds of dance music. Unfortunately the entire site interface is built in Flash. It works well, as a Flash interface, but not if you can't run Flash.
http://www.satelliterecords.com/ Record store based out of NYC, great selection, excellent organization, POOR customer service and delivery times. If you can find it here, check DanceRecords.com first. If you can't, bummer.
Those are the goods. All of them have samples you can listen to before buying, and most have great recommendation systems built in to the store. Happy Hunting!
Nope. Here's why: I've seen time and again, gamers with more than one PC at their desk, be it a laptop, or other machine. One machine is running a browser with the latest info on their guild, or something, and the other runs the game. Also, I have 5 machines running at my workspace, and it's no clutter, or mess, or problem, whatsoever. I've seen bigger messes with other geeks, and if anything, the more machine mess they've got at their desk, the bigger the source of pride, and yes, GEEKS are exactly who we're talking about. They're really the only ones concerned with this dual-boot mess.
Additionally, that still does not solve the issue of running both environments simultaneously. I'd still have to take one OS down to use the other. Here's the solution I'm looking for. Dual-screens, simultaneously running OSes in two or more flavors, one mouse, one keyboard. Move the mouse from screen one (OS [foo]) over to screen two (OS [bar]) without having to perform any manual switching. I'd put some $$$ toward a project that can successfully do THAT. Otherwise, dual-booting is a waste of time.
I never said "NICE" hardware. I said "EXPENSIVE" hardware. There's a difference in context, although the reality may be that the hardware is pretty nice. Indeed, there is nicer hardware out there (that is also more expensive), but the point of my argument is: I've paid a lot of money to have a particular OS run as smoothly as possible on the hardware it was designed for. Why would I want to put a different OS on that same hardware?
In my opinion, there are far better hardware configurations on which to run Windows, however you're still going to have issues with security, hardware interoperability (unless you REALLY know you stuff; enter "computer enthusiasts"), and lack of features. This is why I liken windows on an Intel-based Mac to putting an 8-track player in a B-mer. It's not an elitist attitude, it's just plain sense. You hate Mac users for other reasons. Besides, I'm not even a "Mac User" by your definition. I own two Macs and like 4 other computers that run anything from Windows to FreeBSD. They're just tools.
My response to this (as it was to the AC above you) was: get a windows box. I know you've said your primary environment is Mac OS (meaning you have no Windows-based computers at home), but I don't think not being able to afford a separate windows machine a good enough reason. Let's say you wanted to legally install a purchased and licensed copy of Windows XP to dual-boot on your Intel Mac. That's going to cost you somewhere in the realm of $150. I'm willing to bet you could find a machine that's costs less than that, AND will sufficiently run IE, Firefox, and any other browser you wish to test on it, with an OEM licensed copy of Windows XP. Hell, I will sell you one of my machines with an OEM licensed copy of WinXP for $75. That's half of what you'd pay for the software. Not only are you getting the benefit of a second machine, you will also be able to run it, in tandem with your Mac environment without having to leave it to boot up Windows simply for a webpage test. Modern flat-panel displays are small and inexpensive enough to accomodate most desks (particularly if you're using a 17-inch Intel Mac), and let's say for instance, you're running an Intel-based mac-mini (which means you've got to use a monitor anyhow), most of the newer monitors I've seen will allow you to switch between inputs (DVI, VGA, etc.) meaning you can hook both machines up to one monitor. Problem solved. In conclusion, I'm not seeing the benefit of dual-booting. I still think there's much better ways.
I'm not convinced this is a good reason. Get a second machine, like I've done, that runs your Windows OS and software separate from the Mac machine. If you can afford to buy a Mac, a separate Windows box shouldn't be out of your realm. And if gaming is your thing, you wouldn't really be looking at a Mac in the first place, so why bother. Yes, I've seen the software reason cited over and over, but that's a really poor argument. Would you use a philips head screwdriver on a flat-head screw? No. Would you use a Mac to develop Windows software or to game? No. Use the right tool for the right job. It's that simple. Forcing something to work isn't going to give you the results you'd expect if you simply chose to use the proper tool in the first place, and in reality, that's all computers are: tools. You want a gaming tool? Go spend the money on an Alienware, not a Mac box. That's just stupid.
How about, coming up with a better argument? That's the question I'm asking. I would like to hear a different argument to why dual-booting on an Intel Mac is a worthwhile effort for me to engage in on a rather expensive piece of hardware. I own an Intel Mac. I bought it because Windows sucks, and frankly, so does Linux for my needs. If someone told me that, by running Windows on Apple Intel-based hardware, my OS environment would be secure, run faster, and instantly provide me with features that Mac OSX already does (Spotlight search, for instance) then yeah, maybe I'd be interested in fuddling around with my $2000+ computer. But considering how unlikely that is, I'll continue to tinker with one of my other 4 Windows boxes that cost far less.
My final question is: why on god's green earth is someone willing to pay $12,000 to get someone to make it work? Is it like some sort of bet that was wagered? "I'll bet you $12,000 you can't do it." Why is the dual-booting of Windows and Mac OSX so important to someone that they'd be willing to pay that much? You can't even use them both at the same time. Dual-boot does not mean "boot and run simultaneously." Again, I'm taken back to: why not use two separate machines at the same time? Mac OS on an Apple machine, and Windows OS on some other box. I do it just fine with my machines.
Hopefully someone with sense will read this because obviously I'm wasting my time speaking to an AC. This is my question(s) to Slashdot.
...is why anyone would want to run Windows on an Apple machine anyhow. I mean, don't the majority of the Slashdot users hate Windows, and wouldn't running windows on such a nice piece of hardware that comes pre-installed with some pretty damn good OS software totally defeat the purpose of spending somewhere in the neighborhood of $2000 for a computer in the first place?
Am I the only one who thinks installing Windows on a Mac is like putting an 8-Track player in a BMW?
My guess is that there's probably a deal in there somewhere (as you mentioned, Lenovo) that takes advantage of the ignorance of parents who are basically footing the bill anyhow. I imagine that either mom or dad will say, "The school recommends a ThinkPad, and that's what were getting you. I don't want my little Nancy/Johnny to be behind any of the other students because we got them a computer that might not work. What's that honey? You say you like your Powerbook better? Nonsense, this new computer will work MUCH better, it says so right here in the information."
Or perhaps you have a student who doesn't currently have a laptop. What are they thinking? "Dude, yeah I'm getting a laptop. What kind? Hell if I know. All I know is that I've gotta have it for class, and the folks are payin' for it. I'm totally going to download porn while I'm in class. Yeah, sweet huh! High-Five, dude!"
I've been considering the upgrade to the new Intel Macs since they were released. I've been paying special attention to the software/hardware issues, particularly for the line you happened to mention (Macromedia/Adobe, Native Instruments, Cubase, Reason, etc.) because, naturally, I'd like to have the Universal Binary versions. At first, I also thought that the release was premature, but I think they may have coincided the release with the tax season, ie. refund time. When my refund comes in, I intend to put it toward a new Mac mostly because it's the only time I'm really going to have that kind of cash (I don't purchase things on credit, especially computers.) It might be pre-mature to buy one, and I've considered this possibility, but it's certainly not a bad time to bring it to market.
As for reasons, yes, I can admit part of the motivation behind the purchase is "fashion." I want to work in a more "public" space, and I feel that presentation is part of the marketing plan for my intended use, but I also wanted something not Windows, and something that performs very well in the music production/graphic production arena. My past experience with Macs has proven that it does both very well. My point is that the market for these new Macs aren't just the fanboi's (Lawrd knows they'll buy anything Mac puts out.)
Slashdot Mirror
I believe that in this context, "PC" stands for "Poopoo Computer" which clearly indicates a Windows-based machine.
I stand corrected.
"Finally, if you want some rumourmongering, 192939495969798999 writes "Industry sources have leaked that tomorrow, on the 30th Anniversary of Apple Computer, Steve Jobs will announce that the new intel-based Mac laptops will support dual-booting Windows XP and OS X 10.4."
No where does it say that It's referencing the article. This is a separate subject. RTFBlurb.
(hold shift and eat a pretzel during boot, and Vista all Vista code will tranform into a robot ready for your command)
...just so you know...
For the record, I just tried that with WinXP, and I got the blue screen of death.
When my friends or family email me, I may not be expecting them to do so, but I certainly expect the email to get to me.
Also, in the case of listservs and such, if I sign up for a newsletter, and then forget later that I have, when none of the messages have reached me, I won't know that I should have been expecting them until I remember later. I should, however, have expected the service provider to deliver them to my inbox.
No no, it's very profound, read it again.
And...and that video wasn't an ad? _oh_ _no_.
Who's Neal Stephenson?
My response to that would be that Apple markets it's products, while Microsoft's product is marketing. Here's an example: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7oDPFq8s4kg&search= apple%20microsoft
If you live somewhere that doesn't have much in the way of good brick-and-mortar record stores, you should try the following links:
http://www.londonwestrecords.com/ AZ-Based record store. Great Selection.
http://www.shopsolid.com/ This is a store that's set up for a specific set of dance music labels, but don't let that fool you, their selection is good.
http://www.dancerecords.com/ Would-be best online record store, if only they'd stop using RealPlayer format for their samples.
http://www.juno.co.uk/ If you live in the states, any record from here is expensive (since it's an import), but you run a better chance of finding some really outstanding records, or records that haven't sold out in the states.
http://www.beatport.com This site specializes in REALLY HIGH quality mp3 files (at good prices) of all kinds of dance music. Unfortunately the entire site interface is built in Flash. It works well, as a Flash interface, but not if you can't run Flash.
http://www.satelliterecords.com/ Record store based out of NYC, great selection, excellent organization, POOR customer service and delivery times. If you can find it here, check DanceRecords.com first. If you can't, bummer.
Those are the goods. All of them have samples you can listen to before buying, and most have great recommendation systems built in to the store. Happy Hunting!
You're right. This is Slashdot. I'm asking the wrong questions in the first place.
"Does that convince you?"
Nope. Here's why: I've seen time and again, gamers with more than one PC at their desk, be it a laptop, or other machine. One machine is running a browser with the latest info on their guild, or something, and the other runs the game. Also, I have 5 machines running at my workspace, and it's no clutter, or mess, or problem, whatsoever. I've seen bigger messes with other geeks, and if anything, the more machine mess they've got at their desk, the bigger the source of pride, and yes, GEEKS are exactly who we're talking about. They're really the only ones concerned with this dual-boot mess.
Additionally, that still does not solve the issue of running both environments simultaneously. I'd still have to take one OS down to use the other. Here's the solution I'm looking for. Dual-screens, simultaneously running OSes in two or more flavors, one mouse, one keyboard. Move the mouse from screen one (OS [foo]) over to screen two (OS [bar]) without having to perform any manual switching. I'd put some $$$ toward a project that can successfully do THAT. Otherwise, dual-booting is a waste of time.
I just wanted to say that your sig-line reminds of something similar about statistics:
Statistics are like bikinis; what they reveal is suggestive, but what they conceal is vital.
Form factor does have a lot to do with why I bought it. Saves a lot of space, and looks nice in public. Good point.
I never said "NICE" hardware. I said "EXPENSIVE" hardware. There's a difference in context, although the reality may be that the hardware is pretty nice. Indeed, there is nicer hardware out there (that is also more expensive), but the point of my argument is: I've paid a lot of money to have a particular OS run as smoothly as possible on the hardware it was designed for. Why would I want to put a different OS on that same hardware?
In my opinion, there are far better hardware configurations on which to run Windows, however you're still going to have issues with security, hardware interoperability (unless you REALLY know you stuff; enter "computer enthusiasts"), and lack of features. This is why I liken windows on an Intel-based Mac to putting an 8-track player in a B-mer. It's not an elitist attitude, it's just plain sense. You hate Mac users for other reasons. Besides, I'm not even a "Mac User" by your definition. I own two Macs and like 4 other computers that run anything from Windows to FreeBSD. They're just tools.
My response to this (as it was to the AC above you) was: get a windows box. I know you've said your primary environment is Mac OS (meaning you have no Windows-based computers at home), but I don't think not being able to afford a separate windows machine a good enough reason. Let's say you wanted to legally install a purchased and licensed copy of Windows XP to dual-boot on your Intel Mac. That's going to cost you somewhere in the realm of $150. I'm willing to bet you could find a machine that's costs less than that, AND will sufficiently run IE, Firefox, and any other browser you wish to test on it, with an OEM licensed copy of Windows XP. Hell, I will sell you one of my machines with an OEM licensed copy of WinXP for $75. That's half of what you'd pay for the software. Not only are you getting the benefit of a second machine, you will also be able to run it, in tandem with your Mac environment without having to leave it to boot up Windows simply for a webpage test. Modern flat-panel displays are small and inexpensive enough to accomodate most desks (particularly if you're using a 17-inch Intel Mac), and let's say for instance, you're running an Intel-based mac-mini (which means you've got to use a monitor anyhow), most of the newer monitors I've seen will allow you to switch between inputs (DVI, VGA, etc.) meaning you can hook both machines up to one monitor. Problem solved. In conclusion, I'm not seeing the benefit of dual-booting. I still think there's much better ways.
I'm not convinced this is a good reason. Get a second machine, like I've done, that runs your Windows OS and software separate from the Mac machine. If you can afford to buy a Mac, a separate Windows box shouldn't be out of your realm. And if gaming is your thing, you wouldn't really be looking at a Mac in the first place, so why bother. Yes, I've seen the software reason cited over and over, but that's a really poor argument. Would you use a philips head screwdriver on a flat-head screw? No. Would you use a Mac to develop Windows software or to game? No. Use the right tool for the right job. It's that simple. Forcing something to work isn't going to give you the results you'd expect if you simply chose to use the proper tool in the first place, and in reality, that's all computers are: tools. You want a gaming tool? Go spend the money on an Alienware, not a Mac box. That's just stupid.
How about, coming up with a better argument? That's the question I'm asking. I would like to hear a different argument to why dual-booting on an Intel Mac is a worthwhile effort for me to engage in on a rather expensive piece of hardware. I own an Intel Mac. I bought it because Windows sucks, and frankly, so does Linux for my needs. If someone told me that, by running Windows on Apple Intel-based hardware, my OS environment would be secure, run faster, and instantly provide me with features that Mac OSX already does (Spotlight search, for instance) then yeah, maybe I'd be interested in fuddling around with my $2000+ computer. But considering how unlikely that is, I'll continue to tinker with one of my other 4 Windows boxes that cost far less.
My final question is: why on god's green earth is someone willing to pay $12,000 to get someone to make it work? Is it like some sort of bet that was wagered? "I'll bet you $12,000 you can't do it." Why is the dual-booting of Windows and Mac OSX so important to someone that they'd be willing to pay that much? You can't even use them both at the same time. Dual-boot does not mean "boot and run simultaneously." Again, I'm taken back to: why not use two separate machines at the same time? Mac OS on an Apple machine, and Windows OS on some other box. I do it just fine with my machines.
Hopefully someone with sense will read this because obviously I'm wasting my time speaking to an AC. This is my question(s) to Slashdot.
...is why anyone would want to run Windows on an Apple machine anyhow. I mean, don't the majority of the Slashdot users hate Windows, and wouldn't running windows on such a nice piece of hardware that comes pre-installed with some pretty damn good OS software totally defeat the purpose of spending somewhere in the neighborhood of $2000 for a computer in the first place?
Am I the only one who thinks installing Windows on a Mac is like putting an 8-Track player in a BMW?
"The AK-47. When you absolutely, positively have to kill every single mutha-fucka in the room, accept NO substitutes."
My guess is that there's probably a deal in there somewhere (as you mentioned, Lenovo) that takes advantage of the ignorance of parents who are basically footing the bill anyhow. I imagine that either mom or dad will say, "The school recommends a ThinkPad, and that's what were getting you. I don't want my little Nancy/Johnny to be behind any of the other students because we got them a computer that might not work. What's that honey? You say you like your Powerbook better? Nonsense, this new computer will work MUCH better, it says so right here in the information."
Or perhaps you have a student who doesn't currently have a laptop. What are they thinking? "Dude, yeah I'm getting a laptop. What kind? Hell if I know. All I know is that I've gotta have it for class, and the folks are payin' for it. I'm totally going to download porn while I'm in class. Yeah, sweet huh! High-Five, dude!"
I think it means Sony is hedging their bets.
No rush, take your time...
Any guesses yet?
That's right!, it's Slooowww Neeewwwwsss Daaaaayyyy...
And Americans wonder why economic sanctions don't seem to work...
Where are these "Christian" extremists exactly, and whose embassies are they burning?
You forgot, voting their leader into Presidential office.
It's Cross-Site Scripting.
The United States Military, powered by PBR!
I've been considering the upgrade to the new Intel Macs since they were released. I've been paying special attention to the software/hardware issues, particularly for the line you happened to mention (Macromedia/Adobe, Native Instruments, Cubase, Reason, etc.) because, naturally, I'd like to have the Universal Binary versions. At first, I also thought that the release was premature, but I think they may have coincided the release with the tax season, ie. refund time. When my refund comes in, I intend to put it toward a new Mac mostly because it's the only time I'm really going to have that kind of cash (I don't purchase things on credit, especially computers.) It might be pre-mature to buy one, and I've considered this possibility, but it's certainly not a bad time to bring it to market.
As for reasons, yes, I can admit part of the motivation behind the purchase is "fashion." I want to work in a more "public" space, and I feel that presentation is part of the marketing plan for my intended use, but I also wanted something not Windows, and something that performs very well in the music production/graphic production arena. My past experience with Macs has proven that it does both very well. My point is that the market for these new Macs aren't just the fanboi's (Lawrd knows they'll buy anything Mac puts out.)