talkmagic.co.uk

Hi all -

Just discovered this extremely cool software:

http://osx.portraitofakite.com/

Free, and my computer now looks like a Mac!

Kati

Woah my computer already IS a Mac and now I've got another...that's just ODD! What the hell is it!?!?!?!7

But you can get XP for OSX...and not some phony thing, thanks to Boot Camp if you have a Mac you can run XP on it too, and switch between the two as necessary! Sweet!

It's not really OSX!

It's just a collection of patches, icons, and other miscellany that make the computer look quite like OSX. I'll see if I can do a screenie...

Kati

katrielalex wrote:It's not really OSX!

Lol yeah I know...that kind of "Mac Magic" I experience every day

Both operating systems have their advantages and disadvantages, but I'm a Mac user for life...I can just use Windows now too!

Linux/Windows for me . I like Mac but they're not cheap!

Here are some screenies!

Kati

Thats not a bad imitation, there are loads of 'skins' for windows which make it look like a mac, i used to have one that made it look like the control pannel from the Star Ship Enterprise ... but after all this phaphing around you just realize that microsoft spent alot of time and money getting Xp right, so there's no need to fiddle with it!!!

Rob

If you want OSX, get a Mac.



I've using them since '89, and they really are a leap ahead

seige wrote:They really are a leap ahead

The biggest thing thats happened to the MAC since 89 is the recent development of running Intel boards, now all their users can start running windows!

I'll agree with you though Siege, when i used to do a large amount of graphics work, along with sound and video production the MAC is the best platform without a doubt... large scale corperate network infrastructure is a completely different ball game though.

Rob

... however...

I've been a part of designing a 42 workstation Mac installation at a friends business, and since taking Macs into the workplace, he's never looked back.

Instant-on networking, no fiddling around. No downtime due to viri or other attacks. Self-repairing and maintaining filesystem during idle time, easy integration with ALL PC external intranets, VPNs etc.

The whole thing is connected to the internet via a Mac server (which also runs an Apache Webserver—delivering their website!), and since scrapping their PC network, their productivity has increased, mainly because of the zero config, stable networking, and more so the fact that the staff can't buy cheap PC mags and install crud off cover discs.

I won't even GO into the computer argument thing, I've been using computers since 1981. And your 'stab in the dark' guess that the best thing that's happened to the Mac since '89, and your psuedo-intelligent stereotyping of the Mac as a music/graphics/video platform literally echoes the ignorance of the masses.

Sorry to sound blunt, but it really gets to me.

The 42 workstation network I mentioned is running applications such as Quickbooks, Microsoft Office, and the likes. Nothing to do with graphics or video. Yes, it cost the company a lot more to purchase... but the actual saving to a large business is that the staff do not need to constantly call in technicians to repair crashed hard drives, dead network cards, burned out motherboards, viruses, application errors, etc.

From my 26 years experience in computing (yes, I had my first computer at the age of 7) I have had just about every computer platform going—Sinclair, Commodore, Atari, IBM, Generic PC, BBC, etc. and I have concluded that because I use computers for my work predominantly, I will always trust a Mac.

Personal choice, I know. But I just WISH some people would actually LIVE with a Mac for a year and try to deny that it has improved their quality of working life.

My most recent Mac purchase is a dual core processor G5 machine, cost me £3000. (Yes, that's just the CPU, mouse and keyboard).

Whereas, you can buy a 3Ghz PC for around the £300 mark.

Why did I choose the Mac? Why is Apple doing so well?

It's just a shame that some of you will never, ever know.

By the way,

APOLOGIES Sir Rawlins if the above sounded harsh and attacking.

You seem like an intelligent lad, and I don't want you to get the wrong idea, as I know your post was made half in jest.

But I just get riled when I hear about these Mac-like products. Why are users so interested in running OSX anyway?

Again, apologies. But I just HAD to get that off my chest (that, and the fact I've just had a customs/duty bill at NUMS for nearly £200 !!!)

Please forgive, grovel?

seige wrote:Why are users so interested in running OSX anyway?

If we don't want to spend £1000 on a computer when we can get a better spec Windows one for £500 then we can't get a Mac. * Not saying anything about reliability, viruses, just price.

But I still much prefer OSX Tiger, so this is the best of both worlds!

Kati

P.S. Yes, it's true! Cheapest Mac = iMac which is £1000 is 17" monitor, 1.83 GHz Core Duo, 512 MB RAM. Dell Dimension 5150 = about £500, 19" monitor, 2.8 GHz Core Duo, 1 GB RAM. And we've never had a virus or dead motherboard.

Actually, the cheapest Mac is the Mac Mini...running an Intel 1.5Ghz processor (equates to about 3Ghz in PC terms), with built in wifi, bluetooth, and optical digital & analogue audio. Oh, plus Firewire etc.

You have no viri problems, but are you overloaded with antivirus software?

It's an overhead that a Mac just doesn't need. No virus, no antivirus, no spyware et.c

Anyway, I digress. I've calmed down a lot since my above rant.

For the record, I have 3 Macs now, and 3 PCs (I use the PCs to test websites, and also to sync my iPaq and mobile phone with).

So you see, although I am a stern Mac fan, I also have uses for PCs too, so I am in fact a hypocrite.

Tell me, is it now time for me to trade in my ZX Spectrum 48k?

Tell me, is it now time for me to trade in my ZX Spectrum 48k?

lol

Yep, I still have, packed away for all eternity:

1. My original ZX80
2. Original ZX81
3. Sinclair Spectrum, 48k
4. Spectrum, 128k
5. Sinclair QL
6. BBC Micro
7. Various Commodores, Amigas, 64 etc.
8. Various Atari etc.

Now, all of those above machines are the FORERUNNERS for most modern TV games systems, in my opinion. Bear in mind that the ZX80 had 1k of memory. This was for the OS AND the applications.

For the uninitiated, in those days, games started off being provided as pages of code, which you could key in from a magazine, line by line. At the end of your coding, you had a game!

Then came tape cassette drives, allowing you to load/save data to standard auto tapes.

Sinclair then produced a Microdrive, allowing you to save bigger files, faster.

Floppies arrived a bit later, and then with my Atari's I got into the VERY expensive world of hard drives (I think my 2MB HD cost around £180).

Now, a lot of these systems would run a playable, addictive game in less than 48k of memory. Trouble was, loading times were slow.

Modern games consoles are such a leap ahead, and desktop computers even further in terms of graphics and scale.

In terms of addictiveness, nothing even comes close to Manic Miner on the Spectrum... possibly the forerunner of all Platformer games.

Call me a magpie, but I just cannot part with my old computers