tuaw.com— A walkthrough of setting up, installing and running Microsoft Windows Vista on your Intel Mac via Parallels Desktop, including some catches to watch out for and just how far you can actually push this software.
Sep 9, 2006View in Crawl 4
> .. its is clearly same as XP with a little nicer GUI.So sick of you ignorant, MS hating lemmings. The new GUI along is a worthwhile upgrade (By GUI I'm including the new driver model in Vista).<a class="user" href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Features_new_to_Windows_Vista">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Features_new_to_Windows_Vista</a>^ Yeah, nothing new except a new GUI, good job lemming, you'vade made the other Mac zealots proud.I don't know how you can say 'clearly there is nothing new besides the GUI' when it's obvious even to the most dense MS-hater that there is a lot that is new.Also, the * reply * button was created for a reason.
> Apple products have a significantly lower rate of failureI should have been more specific. Last time I posted this, people claimed that there were fewer hardware failures because Apple sells fewer boxes. This is a percentage however, which cannot be explained away by differences in the number of sales.
You can blame the windows registry for the difficulty in doing something like that. And because the registry is deeply tied into Windows itself, and because Windows checks your hardware and forces you to re-register if there is a significant hardware deviation (as might be the case if you copy all the files from an actual PC to a Parallels drive image or Mac partition), you are asking for trouble.On a Mac, a program stores its settings in a simple prefs file, easily copied over to another machine. Also, a well-designed OS X program's datafiles are completely contained inside the executable "package" (browsable if you right-click on it, but otherwise acting as a single unit), meaning it's easy as cake to move stuff between machines. Something I take for granted as a Mac user that I curse Windows about when I have to use it for work.
How do you explain that? Manufacturing process and testing after system build. They can do a lot to weed out system defects before shipping products to customers, but that was not your claim. (Apple also has a less combinations of parts across model lines to support). Very few, if any, of their major component suppliers have the means to "Cherry-pick" parts for Apple exclusively. The manufacturers do their "best" to make sure the components meet a certain quality standard, but if they can mass produce themwell enough to meet Apple standards, there is really no reason to have a seperateprocess making cheaper parts for everybody else. Apple also used to be exclusively SCSI for years, they did not move to IDE because it suddenly became as reliable as SCSI, but because it was cheaper to build with and had come up in quality enough to be more cost effective than SCSI over the long term.
On a Mac, a program stores its settings in a simple prefs file, easily copied over to another machine. Also, a well-designed OS X program's datafiles are completely contained inside the executable "package" (browsable if you right-click on it, but otherwise acting as a single unit), meaning it's easy as cake to move stuff between machines. Something I take for granted as a Mac user that I curse Windows about when I have to use it for work.<a class="user" href="http://www.dell-computer.in/dell-laptop-computer/">http://www.dell-computer.in/dell-laptop-computer/</a>
estvirSep 10, 2006
> .. its is clearly same as XP with a little nicer GUI.So sick of you ignorant, MS hating lemmings. The new GUI along is a worthwhile upgrade (By GUI I'm including the new driver model in Vista).<a class="user" href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Features_new_to_Windows_Vista">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Features_new_to_Windows_Vista</a>^ Yeah, nothing new except a new GUI, good job lemming, you'vade made the other Mac zealots proud.I don't know how you can say 'clearly there is nothing new besides the GUI' when it's obvious even to the most dense MS-hater that there is a lot that is new.Also, the * reply * button was created for a reason.
inkswampSep 10, 2006
> Apple products have a significantly lower rate of failureI should have been more specific. Last time I posted this, people claimed that there were fewer hardware failures because Apple sells fewer boxes. This is a percentage however, which cannot be explained away by differences in the number of sales.
lumberghSep 10, 2006
You can blame the windows registry for the difficulty in doing something like that. And because the registry is deeply tied into Windows itself, and because Windows checks your hardware and forces you to re-register if there is a significant hardware deviation (as might be the case if you copy all the files from an actual PC to a Parallels drive image or Mac partition), you are asking for trouble.On a Mac, a program stores its settings in a simple prefs file, easily copied over to another machine. Also, a well-designed OS X program's datafiles are completely contained inside the executable "package" (browsable if you right-click on it, but otherwise acting as a single unit), meaning it's easy as cake to move stuff between machines. Something I take for granted as a Mac user that I curse Windows about when I have to use it for work.
madi_allenSep 10, 2006
<a class="user" href="http://incorporateyouridentity.blogspot.com/2006/09/forget-vista-try-leopard.html">http://incorporateyouridentity.blogspot.com/2006/09/forget-vista-try-leopard.html</a>
madi_allenSep 10, 2006
Sorry! windows problems wouldn't you know...
cquinndSep 10, 2006
How do you explain that? Manufacturing process and testing after system build. They can do a lot to weed out system defects before shipping products to customers, but that was not your claim. (Apple also has a less combinations of parts across model lines to support). Very few, if any, of their major component suppliers have the means to "Cherry-pick" parts for Apple exclusively. The manufacturers do their "best" to make sure the components meet a certain quality standard, but if they can mass produce themwell enough to meet Apple standards, there is really no reason to have a seperateprocess making cheaper parts for everybody else. Apple also used to be exclusively SCSI for years, they did not move to IDE because it suddenly became as reliable as SCSI, but because it was cheaper to build with and had come up in quality enough to be more cost effective than SCSI over the long term.
koorlle44erNov 6, 2006
On a Mac, a program stores its settings in a simple prefs file, easily copied over to another machine. Also, a well-designed OS X program's datafiles are completely contained inside the executable "package" (browsable if you right-click on it, but otherwise acting as a single unit), meaning it's easy as cake to move stuff between machines. Something I take for granted as a Mac user that I curse Windows about when I have to use it for work.<a class="user" href="http://www.dell-computer.in/dell-laptop-computer/">http://www.dell-computer.in/dell-laptop-computer/</a>