I can run two systems on my iMac. How is that bad? I think it's great.

I have Windows 7 on my Mac Mini and I run it fairly often (actually my wife does). She has a fancy embroidery machine whose proprietary software runs under Windows only. You use the tools you need for the job.

Meanwhile, we should be ROTFL at the poor Windows people who still have Windows 8, or had to erase their hard drives to re-install an usuable OS. But we won't. I too don't understand why this is so funny. I thought this shit was dead years ago.

For quite a while now Macs have been able to boot in Windows. I really don't understand your point.

It's as if they just heard about this. It's been like this for years.

I have an iMac and run both systems for a few years now. It's great.

they have been doing this for years since they switched to the intel chip set.

I run both systems at home.

To me it's excellent marketing. I have two computers in one.

I honestly don't understand the laughing.

Acolytes like to go on about.....Why would they need Windows at all? It quite plainly says "involves the used of Windows". Why should windows be "involved" IF you are the better operating system?

I have an iMac that runs windows. I am able to run AutoCAD and 3DS Max on the windows side and Photoshop, Final Cut Pro and my music editing software on the mac side.

that allows me the ability to do a whole lot more and be more productive.

Why is it such a bad thing that allows both systems to run on one platform?

Thinking that's bad or a "slam against apple" is just plain weird and bizarre.

I know I can run both systems and use the both to maximum benefit, why is that bad?

on top of that, when apple first introduced the intel chip set, it all but came out and said you can run both systems, ESPECIALLY since they included bootcamp to allow just that.

so again, I honestly don't understand the laughing.

OSs, and they have integrated bootcamp in their OS and hardware to utilize windows should any of their users desire it.

It is part of their marketing to provide flexibility.

Users can also use virtualization with VMware and Parallels.

This has nothing to do with a better or worse OS, it is a feature of the OS mac uses

There is no way around this....they are using the competitors product. Its hilarious and embarrassing for Apple who CLAIMS it is better than Windows!

Newsflash....its not!

Apple, but might be for you since you are obviously unaware of bootcamp, and other things built into the version of UNIX MACs run.

Incidently, Apple is primarily a hardware company, though that may be changing with the new CEO

With many years of experience....so....Yeah I do have some idea.....you are not the only programmer around here.

I will leave it at that and assume you don't know what boot camp is

Reason I brought up man was to demonstrate my bias is with Microsoft not apple

not because I feel it's superior in any way but because of what I do for my job, I need to look at web sites in Internet Explorer to make sure they appear the same as in all other browsers (which, often they do not, which is a pain in the ass but job security too--because I know IE is going to screw up an otherwise finely coded website).

Also, at my last job, we had to run Windoze on the Mac because our timekeeping software was PC only and could only be run in IE. There are tons of software that companies employee that are PC only.

My favorite thing about running a Mac though? I don't ever worry about virus'. EVER! Never ever... I also don't have to worry about being forced to upgrade my OS but if I do have to, it's free from here on out.

or more commonly today malware, should look at their behavior rather than the computer OS. I have somehow successfully never gotten a virus on my computer. Now maybe that's luck, or maybe I just understand basic internet safety.

As for updating the OS, just like Microsoft, Apple stops supporting older operating systems, and after a much shorter time. So while you don't have to pay for the new OS, you do need to buy a new computer if you want to keep getting updates.

In a sense that is true... they stopped supporting non-Intel chipsets but any Mac that has an Intel chipset is fine.

did you mean to reply to me?

They run Intel chips. It is an Intel thing, why you can run windows on a Mac.

I no longer have any need to run winsux. I have found replacements for everything I need to do html coding, graphics, video and sound. I've built 6 business websites, update stock, maintain and modify them just fine without all the upgrades and security flaws of a MS system.

There is always at least one "But I run Ubuntu!" guy in every Apple thread. If Apple is using some propriety spftware that can be run on the machines they already use, why shouldn't they use it? And how on earth would your groovy Ubuntu html, video and sound applications -- running in Virtualbox, while Windows on a Mac runs natively, not in a virtual mode -- possibly help a company the size of Apple run it's assembly lines?

Just curious.

Have a nice day.

other than not knowing what you are laughing at.

it's an Intel chip set, which allows both systems to run on a mac. I run both on my iMac.

apple has been doing this for years.

I really don't understand why people are laughing at this?

to me it's excellent marketing. It allows the user the ability to run software for both systems.

I run AutoCAD and 3DSMax on my windows side and all my music and video editing software on the mac side.

So weird.

Orrex summed it up perfectly.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10025067292#post17

again, I honestly don't get the bizarre nature of "glee" pc users get at this.

computers are tools. And having a computer that and use both platforms is excellent. I have an iMac and use both mavericks and windows at home.

and orrex comment still doesn't answer why pc users are laughing at a computer that can run both systems.

so weird.

being admonished to "get a mac" when soliciting assistance for a computer issue. I don't have a problem with mac. I prefer PC and Android, but I do have a gen4 ipad. my problem is with the most ardent of apples fanbois and their rigid ideology that mac is the greatest product on the face of the earth. my snark is directed toward them.

they both are tools.

it's like someone arguing that a standard screw driver being "better" than a Philips head.

it's completely nuts.

Linux is, without a doubt, the most secure OS, partially because you are forced to use a password all the time, unless you deliberately hack your Linux. It's also security through obscurity. Security bugs get patched pretty rapidly by the Linux community. I know there's other reasons, but that's enough to illustrate the point.

Apple is, AFAIK, the superior OS for graphics design. Creative types seem to use Apple in overwhelming numbers. The tech press regards MacOS as the holy grail second only to Linux.

Windows is superb at hand-holding. I've used Linux, and you get minimal to no hand-holding with Linux. Yes, I've used Ubuntu and even then you don't get much hand-holding. If you're a programmer or a hard-core geek, Linux is the best OS, hands down. If you just want to get shit done, Windows gets it done. Windows has its faults without a doubt, Gates wasn't a super-nice guy before he stepped down, etc.

My point is, each OS has its strengths. Live and let live.

Either they could spend a lot of money just to get the manufacturer to write a Mac version of the software, or spend even more designing all their own custom machines. Neither of those is a sensible option. Apple isn't in the business of production machinery so why would they care?

If they were using Windows software to create their ads or something, then this would have a point.

They don't make a linux version, so I have one cheap computer running windows 8 so I can run autocad. Its a real pain compared to Ubuntu, but for one purpose its what I'm stuck with. My kid's computers run Ubuntu, and my main computer runs Ubuntu; never a problem and really nice to use.

it's cupcakes and strippers all the way down!

I have an iMac and the chip set allows for the running of both systems, which I do at home.

And the new macs have been doing this now for years.



and also, I like the fact that apple allows me to basically have two computers in one. I don't see any makers of PC's doing that.

My company does not support MAC so I have to use a partition setup if I want to use my MAC. No biggie.

BUT---if I'm using it for anything that doesn't need windows... it's pure MAC all the way.

It's amusing to see them running Microsoft not simply on some random peripheral device but on the very heart of the production facility that manufactures the latest trendy gadget that's purportedly so superior.

if you think that just because apple runs windows is somehow breaking a taboo, you really need to take a step back.

I have several friends at apple and they all run various window programs on their macs.

this is nothing new and quite stretch for the vaulted users of pc's to use this as a reason to laugh.

when the iMac was first introduced with the Intel chip, apple all but came out and said you can run both systems on it.

to me, that's excellent marketing.

The funny thing I see here is that pc users laughing at a computer that runs BOTH systems, while pc's only run one.

I am still very baffled at the laughing at a computer that allows that kind of ability.

In essence, Mac's position is boiled down to "we're superior in all ways, except when we're not, but even then we're still superior because we use our inferior competitor's software."

The other funny thing is that this simply proves that Apple addicts are paying a lot more for the identical architecture.

considering that apple included bootcamp on the macs that came out with the intel chip set.

they basically said, you can run both systems on it.

so I still don't understand the laughing.

If you don't understand why it's funny, then I can't help you.

laughing at computers is as funny as laughing at the light sockets. Those things just crack me up.

Which would be hilarious! Haha, Ford, if you think you're so much better why don't you create your own car carrier trailer?!

The problem is that a Mac production facility is about as Apple-centric as you can get. If ever there was a place where Apple has 100% control of an environment and can shape it to best fit their needs, this is it. And yet, in this 100% controlled environment, Apple chose to run a MS OS instead of MacOS. They decided, in this environment, that Microsoft had the superior OS solution.

This is Apple, one of the biggest companies on the planet, and a dominant corporate force in the computer market. They have the funds, the skill, and the know-how to design any tool they want to perform any task they want within their facilities, running on their own software. In spite of all that capability, they chose to run MS Windows.

Your hangup on the fact that the Mac can dual boot is also quite funny, because you keep repeating something that is totally irrelevant to the point of the article. We all know that Mac's can dual-boot, but that isn't the issue here. The fact that they chose to boot to Windows, which they would have ONLY done if it better suited their needs, is why this is so funny. When they had to find a solution to a development and engineering problem, Apple chose Windows! If you can't see the humor in that, you need to get your funny bone adjusted

apple has stated in the past that it can run both systems.

so they have someone using windows, big deal, to me that's a good thing.

it shows just how versatile the computer is.

somehow pc users find a versatile machine bad.

The fact that it CAN run both systems isn't the point, as I said in my last post.

The fact that Apple CHOOSES to run Windows, when they can run their own software instead, is quite hilarious.

It's like catching WalMart's CEO shopping at Target. You can argue all you want that "nobody is confined to a single store", or that "Target had a better price and deal on what he wanted", but at the end of the day it would still be funny because he chose his competitors product over his own.

I have a Mac sitting right here, booted into Win7 right now. The fact that Mac's can run other OS's is of no interest to anyone. The fact that Apple themselves found Windows to be a superior solution for this job IS hilarious. Rather than resolving whatever Mac issue prevented them from doing this work in OSX, Apple chose to just use Windows. They chose their competitions product over their own.

Can you really not see why that's funny?

I find it odd that people would laugh at it.

it's like me laughing at a ratchet because it uses non-standard hex sockets.

It would be like Ole Kirk Christiansen buying Mega Bloks because he likes them better than LEGO.

It would be like Jodi Foster watching Hannibal because she prefers Julianne Moore's portrayal.

It would be like any brand/product/service using its primary competitor's brand/product/service in preference to its own, especially after pitching itself as better and/or more flexible and/or more hip or whatever.

It's like saying "Our product is the best, but when push comes to shove, we trust our competitor's product more."

using Ronald McDonald or any of your other examples still don't apply.

people are trying really hard to create irony here, but there is none.

The mac chip set allows for this and apple as pretty much said as much and promoted bootcamp to run both systems.

so there is no irony here.

Your examples are more like that song, "isn't it ironic" by Alanis morissette, which actually isn't ironic.

You're missing the forest for the trees, or more precisely you're missing the company-scale humor for the micro-scale chipset. Regardless of which chipset can run which software, the funny part is that that company is embracing its competitor's product in preference to its own.



And if you liken my posts to Alanis Morissete's awful music again, I'll have to ask Skittles to kick your ass.

again, apple promotes/promoted the use of bootcamp which allowed it to use windows.

this was evident in their apple announcements, their commercials, on their website, etc...

how is it funny?

kick my ass? now that is funny.

I'll give it one more try, after which I'll have to conclude that you're simply messing with me:

How can Apple claim to be superior to its competitor if it uses that competitor's products to bolster its own shortcomings?

It's funny in the same way that a representative of Microsoft getting caught using an Apple product is funny.

It's the juxtaposition of the products/brands in the face of such otherwise fierce competition.

which in the larger meaning of things is completely innocuous.

I'm assuming that skittles is equally obsessed over this issue and will somehow metaphorically "kick my ass" because I don't find the humor in this.

THAT is really weird.

What I find amusing is when someone posts a series of replies in a thread and diagnoses obsession in the person to whom they're obsessively replying.


I don't know if Skittles cares about this one way or the other, but her online ass-kicking skills are legendary.

I'm having the time of my life.

I answer the posts and you pc types just can't resist answering.

You're turn. Because I know you want to.

Why can't I be just as amused as you? How does your amusement differ from my so-called obsession?

And what the hell are a "pc times?"

well, good, I'm glad you're enjoying yourself!

less than an obsession to me than a hobby.

some are just easy marks.

Cheers!

The reason they are running Windows (I'm assuming) is because whatever software they need to operate their manufacturing equipment is written for Windows. This is pretty common.

It has nothing to do with which OS they trust more, it has to do with the fact that the software they need isn't written for Mac OS.

Sure, it's bad marketing, and it's a funny visual, but it doesn't mean anything.

YMMV. Some would say that it means everything.

Even if the situation is exactly as you describe, it immediately inspires this line of thinking:

Of course, Windows runs on Macs, so you can get both if you want by buying a Mac. It's not much of a surprise to find software that only runs on Windows, particularly specialized software like you find in a manufacturing plant.

I agree it's a marketing goof-up. But beyond that, all it means is that a lot of specialized manufacturing software is only written for Windows. I guess they could insist on only working with vendors that write software for Mac OS.

What I do think is kinda funny is that if they're going to be running Windows anyway, it would be cheaper just to go with PCs instead of iMacs. Being Apple, they get their iMacs at cost, so I guess it makes sense for them, but I wouldn't think there are too many manufacturing plants with Macs in them -- that's probably part of the reason that machine vendors don't write their software for MacOS.

As TFA points out, it's probably some kind of ICS/SCADA system whose software only runs on Windows. I suppose Apple does theoretically have the resources to "choose" to develop their own software (if they could convince the hardware manufacturer to give them the interface specs), or even go so far as to build their own system (if they couldn't), but that would be toweringly, mindbogglingly ineffective and inefficient in every way compared to just dropping XP onto an iMac instead. So much so that I would argue they didn't have a choice in any meaningful sense. Of course, that doesn't make using Windows automatically the best "solution to a development and engineering problem", just in this particular case.

FWIW I do see the humor in it myself, but I'm sure there are a few people on here, (one in particular springs to mind) who are absolutely apoplectic.

kind of a non-sequitor considering the current thread of the conversation, but okay. to each his own.

A friend of mine switched totally over to Apple a few years ago allowing him to run both Apple and Windows operating systems on the same computer. For all his personal data, email, internet surfing, etc. he preferred the Apple OSX system. For work in his home office, his employer was using a certain Microsoft Windows only program for some of the work he did so he needed a second computer, Windows PC, just for that. Now one single computer does everything he needs.

Also, Apple opens a new factory in the US creating jobs. Rather than getting a little positive press, the haters spin it into a stupid joke because Apple is using some Microsoft software for one of the manufacturing processes.

which means the whole concept that the wars of which is better a pc and a mac, is moot. They both can run multiple systems.

which again still mystifies me why people are laughing at this pict.



at the end of the day, they are both tools to be used. if you want to use a pc use a pc, if you want to use a mac, use a mac. if you want to run both systems, run both systems.

bottom line is: who cares.

can boot os X, windows 7, kubuntu, or mint. I usually default to Mint/xfce because it just works and I like it and it is more secure and I like not worrying about all that junk. But I like KDE also. But if I have to run a program I can - my kids have a thing that works on windows and it works fine. I haven't really found a reason to use os X, I put it on there to move files to my kid's ipads but ended up just doing it from linux. But its there on a partition if I wanted it. People use what they like because they are used to it. I wish people would be more willing to try different OS but most people just want what they are used to and that is fine really, isn't it.

I'm in a recliner at home.

that would be a dream come true.

but they didn't work so well. I've tried some that are good though. Really check it out before you get it.

I'm sure you won't bother to figure out what Samba is for. I will say that because the clueless still use winsux there has to be a way to connect to a winsux box from linux or unix based servers and their GUI desktops and apps. Now you tell me how are you going to come up with and test network connectivity between them? Yeah that's right!

Is that it doesn't instill the sense of geeky sanctimoniousness that's apparently included by default with Linux and Unix installations.

"I am forced to upgrade my winsux os version to another round of security fixes and bugs and now my software won't work so I have to buy new replacement software"

I'm sure that some people do encounter this. Does Linux still run everything that it ran a decade ago? That would be pretty cool.

I've only been working on Windows platforms since about '94 though, so I'm still sort of new at this.

You say that Windows users are clueless because they don't bother with Samba?

Samba was developed for Linux and UNIX (including the BSD UNIX stack that Mac OS 10 was derived from) to connect to Windows file shares. It was ported to the Mac OS. Samba is a protocol that only operates across the TCP/IP network stack to connect to SMB/SMB2 and CIFS file shares. Windows NT was always has been able to connect to UNIX/Linux NFS - even NT 3.5. That was back in the day when Apple still thought AppleTalk was a viable solution for the masses.

Please enlighten us on what the hell Samba has to do with "having a clue" for Windows users? It's simply not needed when running any flavor of Windows, the interoperability is already there.

You will find its full of Macs... It's horses for courses.

they are just tools.

Cheers!

most apple users will need Windows at some point to run certain programs. Windows users will never need a mac, unless they just want one. I'm very practical and tend to stick with the most all-inclusive solutions.

and your point is?

it doesn't matter because what is humorous is just how much energy those on this thread have put into this really ridiculous argument that really means nothing in the larger sense.

THAT is funny.

If it means nothing, why are you concerned? Not trying to be rude... just curious. lol

no not at all. I find this weird pc vs mac wars amusing in the highest.

I don't see the humor in the ad because macs are built to run both systems.

not defending per say, but pointing out the obvious which pc users seem to think it's a way to bash mac.

it's all very amusing really.

and as a result I get a kick out of poking either camp in the side once in a while to get their dander up.

pc users tend to be easier. LOL

Sorry but Apple pretty much has cornered the market for video production with Final Cut. Yeah feel free to edit your home movies in Windows but if you work in the video industry you are probably working on a mac.

This just proves that those over-priced Apple laptops are just the same as other laptops, except for the price tag.

When Apple decided to drop the Motorola processor for the Intel architecture... yep, Windows can run on that hardware. Funny how the Mac OS will not run on other Intel based laptops.. not because it can't, because Apple won't allow it. The OS checks that it is actual Apple hardware. To Microsoft, a MacBook is just another Intel laptop - nothing special.

In 2006, Microsoft did not manufacture laptops of their own.. they were a software company. And they already rescued Apple out of bankruptcy, and wrote MS Office and a Web Browser for the Mac... The only thing Apple wrote for Windows is iTunes and Safari. Not exactly best sellers.

But I have to admit... Microsoft CEO having a glowing Apple on stage on stage is a bit humorous from this side of the podium, I guess it's not that odd from the other side.

windows.

Even the article indicates that it is unclear, and anyone who knows bootcamp knows it is integrated with the hardware

Not that you'd really want to, unless some software that you needed only came in a Windows version. But still, it's a nice capability.

Using McDonald's ground beef to make its sandwiches!

and I have to say the Windows side is slow as molasses and just annoying to use in every possible way. Especially, the way Windows forces you to do stuff when you're in the middle of something that Apple's operating system would give you the opportunity to do later if you wanted.

The worker is obviously at a manual assembly point, not where a QA step would involve a check for BootCamp functionality.

It's a funny pic at first glance, but assuming that manufacturers should or would completely reinvent an established industry standard in manufacturing tools just to make a point is funnier.