Mac vs PC: What won't the Mac run?
Can't run your favourite applications under OS X? You're really not trying at all, argues Alex Kidman.
I recently had to do something unusual with my Macbook; reinstall the core operating system. It's not that unusual a step per se -- I've spent most of my IT life reinstalling operating systems every once in a while, generally because the life of someone who reviews, tests and writes about a whole bunch of software generally leaves you with systems with little kludgy bits all over the place, and more than just intermittent program errors.
The big system cleanup
There are people I've worked with who would swear that I use the Windows Blue Screen Of Death as my desktop, simply due to constantly crashing systems. I don't think I've ever had a Windows system run that I've used for testing last more than about six months before wiping the lot -- sometimes restoring from a restore image, other times just starting from scratch -- became a desireable step.
In the case of my Macbook, though, it took me no less than two years to reach that point, which is impressive enough in itself. I could have fiddled around with applications like the rather spiffy Spring Cleaning, or used Time Machine to restore back to an earlier point, but I was also keen to actually get this particular Macbook back to first principles, simply because it's an ex-review model; before I had it, it had been through who knows how many other reviewers, and had lots of sludge hidden in the corners of its hard drive.
There's something undeniably nice and snappy about a new install of just about any pre-Vista operating system, as everything tends to spring about with all the newfound space, clean registries/libraries and the like. I say pre-Vista, because Vista really broke with that tradition; even my clean installs of Vista have been painful, awkward affairs compared to XP and its predecessors. Well, maybe not Windows ME, but you get my point.
Updating your fresh install, the Mac does it better
There's precious little between the install routines for pretty much any operating system these days; they've all got pretty interfaces, and once you're done, you're still looking at a pretty hefty download in terms of software updates -- I've commented on how Apple generally manages its downloads better than Microsoft previously, but nothing changes the fact that you're still up for a multi-megabyte download. If you're on a slower connection, or Apple's download servers have a headache that day, it's coffee time.
No apps for the Mac - it's not true
While I stirred my coffee, I made up my list of applications to install on the freshly formatted Macbook -- I'd already prepared my install CDs, but had a few download-only apps, like Firefox 3, that awaited my attention -- and this got me to thinking about the state of applications on OS X generally. For the longest time, I'd hear people complaining that they liked Apple stuff, but couldn't either wear the cost (I've argued that one previously), or that their applications of choice simply wouldn't run.
Well, I reckon that second argument is largely -- not entirely, I grant you, but largely -- kaput. At one end of the fence, you've got Boot Camp, which will run any Windows application exactly as well as it would on comparable hardware.
Virtualisation solves the Mac/PC compatiblity issue
In the middle ground you've got the virtualisation crowd -- VMWare, Parallels and CrossOver Games, for example. And that's leaving the most obvious source of Mac applications, that being the natively Mac crowd, which covers everything from image manipulation to web browsing to word processing to film editing... and the list goes on.
What about games?
Now, I just know somebody's going to pipe up and comment that the Mac is lacking in games. Well, I've got a few choice thoughts on that.
World of Warcraft on Mac? Not a problem
For a start, like it or not, World Of Warcraft runs just fine on a Mac -- even a graphically lower end system like my Macbook. And to be honest, that's probably 75% of the people who would both buy a Mac AND want to play games covered right there.
There's a bunch of games companies coming on board the Mac bandwagon at a surprising rate -- Sega's got stuff for the iPhone 3G right now, EA's got a pretty strong commitment to Mac games, and Spore, for example, will hit the Mac at exactly the same time as the PC, and even Ubisoft has recently announced they'll be porting titles over to the Mac as well.
Yes, it's tougher to match up that bleeding edge graphics card to a Mac and have it run, but given the price of bleeding edge graphics cards, and how quickly they lose traction these days, you're probably spending more than the asking price of a Mac Pro every year if you truly want to be bleeding edge.
No more excuses
I can't say that everything will run, or will run in an entirely smooth way. It'd be great if Boot Camp worked in a virtual, shared simultaneously with OS X way, for example, as one of my last holdout Windows applications, Quickbooks Pro QBi, has no Australian Mac version. Still, if you're not buying a Mac on the grounds of applications, I reckon you're just making excuses.
Other Blog Entries written by Alex Kidman:
Thoughts on this article? Add a comment below.
Comments: 2
|
ozofriendly
Aug 5, 2008 3:36 PM
|
Frankly, I wouldn't have minded Alex's fanboy musings had it not been for the clumsy implication at the outset that OSX is [4 times] more stable than Windows. What has this got to do with what the Mac can or can't run (never mind that it isn't remotely fair). Half the article is dedicated to the irrelevance of stability and ease of re-installation simply because Alex doesn't actually have much to say on the subject of the diversity of apps and games for OSX.
Oh, and if you're talking about OSX then talk about OSX. Boot camp still requires a retail copy of Windows, as would Parallels or VMWare. Apple won't thank you for reminding users that if they want to run all the apps and games they *really* want to, then they would be better off with a copy of Windows running on their hardware. Don't get me wrong, OSX is great but imho, it suits a type of PC user that typically doesn't want much choice - who is happy for Apple to make all their style decisions for them. I always thought of Macs running MacOS as the PC equivalent of a show home: perfect as long as you don't actually use it for anything Apple haven't already given you. |
|
Alex Kidman
Aug 6, 2008 8:15 PM
|
Stability's irrelevant, you say? That must make for interesting times for you.
But OK, I'll take each point head on. The comparison is entirely fair -- it's based on what I do to systems (having to install a lot of applications) and what that does to overall stability. Took me two years to take down OSX; on average six months per Windows refresh. There's a whole market of Windows Registry cleaners, fixers, and imaging utilities that address this exact problem, so I'm hardly alone here.
And the main point I was trying to get across was one of applications, almost irrespective of the way you needed to run them. There's precious few applications that don't have a Mac equivalent (for the general purpose crowd) that runs fine under OS X. I get a lot of people commenting "but App X doesn't", and that's true too -- and there are ways to address that. Conversely, though, there's not even a legal way to run any of Apple's Apps on a Windows Box...
And for the record, for about the fiftieth time, while I like Apple's hardware, it runs side by side with Windows and Linux boxes. End of the day, I like things that work (which is why I don't like Vista much). |