-
I want to thank all the members that have upgraded your accounts. I truly appreciate your support of the site monetarily. Supporting the site keeps this site up and running as a lot of work daily goes on behind the scenes. Click to Support Signs101 ...
Ok you Apple Sheep !
- Thread starter ThinkRight
- Start date
CES020
New Member
The point is that it's very easy to pop into the windows side and do those things, and then enjoy the things I like about OSX for 95% of the rest of my work without the hassles I don't like about Windows.
What's the big deal about running Windows on a Mac? It's not like it's hard or takes any extra steps or effort. It runs windows and OSX at the same time, and all the windows programs are just an icon away.
Your windows machine doesn't do anything natively either, you have to buy programs to make that do what you want, so what's the big deal? Really? Some of you guys whine about the smallest things.
WildWestDesigns
Active Member
Actually it does as far as the computer is concerned. Your computer has to run two OSs and another program now in order to run Corel. That's a grand total of 4 things that you have to run in order to work in Corel Draw( 2 OS, VM Fusion (or like program) and Corel itself). When I want to run Corel I just boot up my computer and click execute for Corel. Half the work on the computer compared to a Mac that has to run Windows.
I did it this way when I had an iMac for design work, that's one of many things that I didn't like about the Mac. It ate up a crap load of resources on that iMac.
Now it might have gotten more efficient then when I was doing it a couple of years ago, but to my knowledge you still have to run 4 things in order to run Windows programs (that includes the actual Windows program).
I think our definitions of "natively" are different. I don't have to buy a separate OS, a program to setup a virtual drive for the second OS to run the program that I want to run. That seems grossly inefficient compared to just having the one OS on the computer and then running that program directly in that OS.
What I consider native is the use of one OS and you just click on the program that you want to run. You don't need a second OS and another program to get both OS to run in conjunction and then you finally open the program that you want to open.
You are ultimately using more resources to run one program that wasn't designed to "natively" work on your primary OS, in this case Mac. In my mind it's not any different then trying to use Wine to get a Windows program to execute in Linux, except in the case of Linux you don't have to run a separate OS.
In comes down to resource management. You are using up more resources to ultimately run that one program (in this case Corel Draw), because it wasn't design to work "natively" on the primary platform of that computer.
When did I force someone? I don't care what anyone uses, I'm a "use what works for you" kind of person. That's why I listed my hardware--you'll see I use both Apple products, non-Apple mainstream products, and self-brewed. Simply answering the question asked. You'll put yourself into an early grave worrying what other people on the internet care about minor choices you make in your life like what tech platform to use.
Yep. Gates and Jobs were very friendly competitors. Both created amazing things.
WrapYourCar
New Member
I find VMware fusion a little slow, perhaps i need to be running a MAC Pro, but you can always use bootcamp and load up windows from a restart if you know you want to use Versaworks/cad software? or whatever app you're talking about.. computers are so cheap these days, i just have an older PC for some stuff like running versaworks or invoicing, and use my MAC for all design/web work.
WildWestDesigns
Active Member
It is either the nature of what the program is trying to do or I think it's how the program is written and that might contribute to those type of programs being slow.
You have to remember you are going through a lot of programs to ultimately run the Windows program.
A "dual boot" type of situation still runs the issues of resource management. This works, people do it all the time, but I just like having one OS on my computer, don't have to worry about using up more resources for extra things when you can just get the primary platform that it's natively designed to work with and your off to the races.
I don't care what platform it is that you use.
That to me would be the best way to go about it if you just had to have two different OS systems running. Which is fine, nothing wrong with that. I run Linux for office/internet work when I'm in the shop and that's on a free Dell computer I got and the production computer runs Windows.
Bill Modzel
New Member
No one buys a Mac "TO" run windows. We run Macs because we like them. Their stable, powerful and IF we have to run windows we can with no problem.
I'm running Parallels/Windows XP on my Mac Pro. The only app I run there is my RIP for my HP9000s. I admit, Windows is like a foreign land to me, even after 4 years. However, it pretty much runs without a hitch, (except if I loose my USB connection, but that's a whole different issue).
I am running Illy CS3 and CS5, Photoshop CS5, Adobe Acrobat Pro, and all of the normal mail and internet stuff. All booted up, running for weeks on end. I can print with Posterjet and cut with CuttingMaster out of Illy CS3 and do my layout work at the same time with no stalls or hiccups. To me windows seems archaic and clumsy. Maybe that's just XP though. As soon as I can swing it, I'm purchasing Caldera and shutting down Parallels altogether.
I'm running Parallels/Windows XP on my Mac Pro. The only app I run there is my RIP for my HP9000s. I admit, Windows is like a foreign land to me, even after 4 years. However, it pretty much runs without a hitch, (except if I loose my USB connection, but that's a whole different issue).
I am running Illy CS3 and CS5, Photoshop CS5, Adobe Acrobat Pro, and all of the normal mail and internet stuff. All booted up, running for weeks on end. I can print with Posterjet and cut with CuttingMaster out of Illy CS3 and do my layout work at the same time with no stalls or hiccups. To me windows seems archaic and clumsy. Maybe that's just XP though. As soon as I can swing it, I'm purchasing Caldera and shutting down Parallels altogether.
WildWestDesigns
Active Member
I didn't say you did, otherwise I would really question the logic there.
I'm not saying that running windows within Mac won't work. It did work when I was doing it, it was a resource hog though and plus I didn't like having to run 2 OSs just to run one or two programs. If you must run (whatever the reason for you is, like it or need it for some other program whatever) 2 OS, just have a cheap sufficient for the needs computer to run the OS that gets the job done if you have a program that needs an OS that you don't otherwise like.
I hate XP with a passion, even when it was new. I liked Vista, although it did have it's issues, but by the time the last SP was out, it was at what it should have been when it was released.
You might actually like Win 7 though. I really think that's probably their best OS so far. I don't know if I'm going to go with Win 8 when it comes out, unless I just have to buy a laptop with it on there. It's seems like it's optimized for the mobile market too much.
omgsideburns
New Member
Hey Mac haters,
I just bought a new macbook pro.
I just bought a new macbook pro.
WildWestDesigns
Active Member
Just make sure you aren't confusing people that don't like obnoxious Mac owners with hating Macs.
Use whatever strokes you the best, but spare me the "Once you go Mac, you won't go back", "If you want to do any design work must have a Mac", and "If you want to give the appearances of knowing what you are doing must have a Mac".
I'm not saying you or anyone else in this thread has said that, but for me, that's were my frustration is coming from. Along the lines of some Adobe fan boys as well. Once people find out that my embroidery program is interfaced with Corel, my software is ghetto, even though it's one of the main programs for the industry.
It's things like that that is more frustrating. Not the device itself.
omgsideburns
New Member
I just love how worked up some people can get about it.. I can just imagine rabid anti-apple guys getting all red in the face.
oldgoatroper
Roper of Goats. Old ones.
Locals Find!
New Member
Windows 8 for desktops is going to suck. I was just talking to a client of mine who does networking for a living he got hold of some reports on windows 8 and to play with a BETA version he says its taking huge leaps backwards for Microsoft. He says its shaping up to be a failure like ME & turned out to be.
I don't know why everyone hates on XP so much. Its the only version of windows I have ever owned that was stable. I had vista and I was crashing constantly and couldn't find drivers for things. It was horrible.
I tried windows 7 and I can't stand it. Its way too clunky. Nothing in it is streamlined at all. Feels more like the Mac OS to me. If I wanted the feel of a Mac I would have bought a Mac.
oldgoatroper
Roper of Goats. Old ones.
Windows 8 apparently can switch back and forth from the Metro interface to the standard Win7-like desktop -- which supposedly is almost identical to Win7.
WildWestDesigns
Active Member
By the time the last SP was out for Vista, it was good. Your right though, crashes happened quite a bit with that OS. The OS itself was a resource hog and that seemed to aid in the crashes. Those that had more resources didn't seem to have the issue of the crashing.
XP is the clunky one for me. That and it just seemed dated when it was first released (in my mind anyway). I hated even the aesthetics of it.
That couldn't be further from the truth in my experience. Now there have been others that didn't like Win 7 and they also appeared to be diehard XP fans, but I also noticed that they had a predilection for the cheaper computers as well. I'm not saying that it is the case in this instance, but that can severely damper one's experience with an OS.
In all honesty, my favorite version of Windows was Windows 2000 (aka NT 5.0). It was simple, stable, and just worked.
Windows XP tacked on to the Windows 2000 core a bunch of crap inherited from Windows Me, and then to add insult to injury they made the default theme look like something from Playskool! If you turned most of that off, what you wound up with was essentially Windows NT 5.1. It still wasn't as stable as Windows 2000 however.
Windows Vista changed so many APIs from XP that initially it was a disaster, particularly when it came to 64-bit drivers (since nobody had those at first). It went better as time went on, but they had added so many ways for the interface to get in your way that it annoyed the crap out of me.
Windows 7 is really what Vista should have been. The interface is still cumbersome, but at least it's a little less irritating than Vista. If you want 64-bit Windows, it's really the only option. In fact, I try not to even run 32-bit Windows 7 anymore unless a program absolutely will not work on the 64-bit system (and there are a few of those).
Really, Microsoft's major problem today is design-by-committee. When faced with choices, they either include everything (see the Start Menu shutdown insanity, with 14 different ways to shut down) or choose something completely insane that a narrow test group liked (see Metro interface).
Windows XP tacked on to the Windows 2000 core a bunch of crap inherited from Windows Me, and then to add insult to injury they made the default theme look like something from Playskool! If you turned most of that off, what you wound up with was essentially Windows NT 5.1. It still wasn't as stable as Windows 2000 however.
Windows Vista changed so many APIs from XP that initially it was a disaster, particularly when it came to 64-bit drivers (since nobody had those at first). It went better as time went on, but they had added so many ways for the interface to get in your way that it annoyed the crap out of me.
Windows 7 is really what Vista should have been. The interface is still cumbersome, but at least it's a little less irritating than Vista. If you want 64-bit Windows, it's really the only option. In fact, I try not to even run 32-bit Windows 7 anymore unless a program absolutely will not work on the 64-bit system (and there are a few of those).
Really, Microsoft's major problem today is design-by-committee. When faced with choices, they either include everything (see the Start Menu shutdown insanity, with 14 different ways to shut down) or choose something completely insane that a narrow test group liked (see Metro interface).
Locals Find!
New Member
Wasn't the computers. I have tried it on multiple machines from low end & high end desktops to mid-grade laptops. I just don't like the feel of it.
I liked XP because if felt comfortable. I did turn off a lot of stuff though to make my experience fit my needs. I don't have to think about what I am doing when I navigate it. I mean somethings could be better but, I just like its simplicity. I don't need fancy features to do my job. I leave that to my software. I would love to run Ubuntu or whatever it is but, I can't run my illustrator and photoshop on it. If I could find a way to do that I would leave windows behind tomorrow.