@worldman what are you talking about..dual booting does not boot the other OS, therefore there will be no drop in performance because OSX will not be taking Vista's resources and vice versa
It depends on the type. Check out the different type of boot programs you have. One allows you to run the complete OS the other lets you run it but it is in a Window.
exactly, but if you dual boot the correct way then OSX will never boot..Windows will load as the default OS..that being said I have never owned a Mac, so I am not intimately familiar with this procedure.
Exactly, that's what i've been trying to say. No, that is called virtualising. Dual booting only boots one OS.
That's exactly why i converted to mac about 4 years ago. who cares how sly jobs is. my computer does what i need it to do with stability, and its pretty!
Your talking about totally different things here. One is dual booting and the one that let's you run it in a window is called: How Does Virtualization Work? In essence, virtualization lets you transform hardware into software. Use software such as VMware ESX Server to transform or “virtualize†the hardware resources of an x86-based computer—including the CPU, RAM, hard disk and network controller—to create a fully functional virtual machine that can run its own operating system and applications just like a “real†computer. Multiple virtual machines share hardware resources without interfering with each other so that you can safely run several operating systems and applications at the same time on a single computer.
OK I get it now. Thanks for the correction. Dual Boot is not something I am familiar with. But it just goes to show that if Vista or XP was not better Apple would not have dual boot on it.
The only reason Apple users dual boot is because some program are only made to run on Windows, and they want that functionality. All Apple users I know only boot to Windows as a last resort.
See below. No it doesn't, it means that some programs only run on Windows because their developers haven't ported them to mac. It has nothing to do with the quality of the OS.
Well if Mac was the better OS you would think developers would do Mac only programs. The big companies do not have time for that. Yet they do Winodws only applications (check Avid). The mere fact that Apple is now switching to Intel, using Nvidia, offering dual and virtual boot not to mention advertising for gamers means that they are doing catch up game.
Microsoft was there first. Since when did quality have anything to do with popularity? Internet explorer and the ipod are a prime example.
@The General Mac has been around since they days of DOS, and was (i think) the first operating system have a working GUI. Mac cannot continue to make the excuse that Windows was there first. @Worldman Companies do Windows only apps because Windows has a far larger market share; therefore a Windows only version will sell far more copies than an OS X only version.
Exactly, and because they managed to grab market share, they've managed to maintain it because nobody, myself included, wants to switch. But, Microsoft grabbed that market share by using tactics that should have caused to American government to regulate or break-up the company.
Exactly. Take the tactics they used to win the browser war, for example. Those were anti-competitive at it's very definition. Unfortunately, bureaucracy means that nothing is ever done about it.
Microsoft does not provide the better product. It's just that Apple got to greedy and decide to over price there product. That is where Microsoft comes in. Low prices for low quality products.
Microsoft was the first to come out with a system that could run more then one program at a time called multi processing. Altough Mac started a year or two before Microsoft their systems were too expensive and could not be affored by most people. The reason the Government has not been able to break up Microsoft is because they are a Software only company. If you notice Microsoft does not manufacture hardware. Even their Zune and 360 is made by Toshiba and not them. Thus the company could not split because it comes under one devision and not like Apple who does hardware plus software. Had Microsoft been Apple the govenrment would have been able to break them up already. Same thing goes for IBM. The only way to go around this is to manufacture firmware.....and then again flash ROM would be an exception.