Kinda surprised nobody posted this year:

http://www.macworld.com/news/2006/04/05/bootcamp/index.php

The next version of OS X will have "Boot Camp" integrated in the software; the beta is available for download now. I'm interested to see if the Windows hardware works as it should, but that'll really require Intel PowerMacs first (i.e. a TV Tuner card installed in a tower Intel-PowerMac).

Nevertheless, this is cool news. Also annouced today via "Forbes" was a company won a bid to produce "1.2 million iBooks", so it looks like Intel-iBooks are setup for a June/May release, hopefully in a 13.3" widescreen format with a higher resolution than the terrible 1024 used on the current iBooks.

Anybody tried this on their Intel Mac yet?

4/5/2006 5:54:59 PM

http://thewolfweb.com/message_topic.aspx?topic=394624

4/5/2006 5:56:45 PM

My intel iMac is arriving via FedEx tomorrow, I might have to give this a try...

4/5/2006 5:56:59 PM

I wonder how long before MSoft decides they don't need to do Office for MAC anymore and you have to reboot to work with a .doc or .ppt.

4/5/2006 5:57:13 PM

with all the macs in the publishing industry that would probably be a bad move

4/5/2006 6:01:30 PM

depends on which side of the market you're on.

4/5/2006 6:04:37 PM

say what

4/5/2006 6:05:12 PM

Quote :

"with all the macs in the publishing industry that would probably be a bad move "

Yea, if it were true

4/5/2006 6:16:14 PM

are you saying that there arent a lot of macs in publishing or that it wouldnt be a bad move

im assuming not the former

4/5/2006 6:17:34 PM

but see Word probably isn't the #1 application for REAL publishing

Quark and the like get used more

4/5/2006 6:36:59 PM

Makes this even more interesting:

http://hardware.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=06/03/23/1717259

4/5/2006 6:56:50 PM

Quote :

"but see Word probably isn't the #1 application for REAL publishing Quark and the like get used more"

yeah im not talking about publishing, i was talking about writing the stories that got published

4/5/2006 7:00:20 PM

Quote :

"I wonder how long before MSoft decides they don't need to do Office for MAC anymore and you have to reboot to work with a .doc or .ppt."

At least 5 years

4/5/2006 7:03:35 PM

I personally wouldn't want to pay $100 for Windows AND have to reboot to use Word.

Maybe when virtualization makes it in to Macs (supposedly later this year) that will be an issue.

I don't see M$ ditching Office for mac though, because supposedly, it's profitable.

4/5/2006 7:26:02 PM

^ true.

That way they make money EVEN IF someone doesn't buy a PC.

4/5/2006 7:37:55 PM

Quote :

"are you saying that there arent a lot of macs in publishing or that it wouldnt be a bad move im assuming not the former"

Yes the former. The Greensboro News & Record had 4 to 5 PC's per Mac in the editing room back in 1999, and by 2001 it was more like 15 to 1. From what I've seen in smaller papers and the N&O, it's almost entirely PC based now, especially for the writers.

The holdouts still on Mac's are usually the DV guys, and a few Graphic Designers. Even most of the copy editors and layout tech's are on PC's if they aren't using an in-house system.

Indesign has basically begin widespread destruction of Quark, which is really ashame.

4/5/2006 9:14:49 PM

Quote :

"Indesign has basically begin widespread destruction of Quark, which is really ashame."

Its not a shame. I used Quark for 3 years, back when it was still 4.1. It was 4.1 for like 6 years because they got complacent. Quark was, and still is a shitty program. I've used InDesign since 2.0, and am currently using InDesign CS2, and its so much better. I am currently having to (shrug) use Quark for some freelance work and it just reiterates my disgust for the program. For years Quark had ONE level of undo. They finally got smart after someone started lighting a fire under their ass. They dont even have a fucking "Align" window. Its kind of a fast program because its so barebones but damn its unintuitive. Fuck Quark.

I worked for Technician and they were using Quark on PC's. They switched to an almost full Apple network with InDesign. I worked for Houghton Mifflin and they switched over to InDesign from Quark. I work for a well respected design studio and they switched as well. It seems the hangers-on havent switched because they dont feel like learning another program (which is not hard to do since the keycommands are so similar to the CS2 suite), or they dont feel like plunking down the money, or both.

Check out http://www.quarkvsindesign.com, its pretty funny.

4/6/2006 1:05:06 AM

Oh, I agree completely. It's a shame because Quark had SO FUCKING LONG to make their shit at least reliable, if not usable, and didn't do a damn thing about it.

Indesign runs a hella lot better on PC's btw Although now that we have Intel based Mac's I guess thats no longer an issue.

4/6/2006 1:48:56 AM

i've had xp running on my imac for a while now

4/6/2006 1:49:13 AM

dual booting is good.
native speed virtualization is better - http://www.parallels.com/

4/6/2006 11:39:02 AM

I'd dual-boot into Windows to run Matlab. The OS X build for Matlab is awful. It's slow, and very unstable especially when you start integrating Simulink models

4/6/2006 11:57:21 AM

apple products are generally more unstable than microsoft products in my experience

4/6/2006 11:59:51 AM

You've got to be kidding. Maybe crappy ports of native PC stuff by bad or apathetic coders. Apple products run quite well on Apple computers.

4/6/2006 1:23:31 PM

You've got to be kidding. Maybe crappy ports of native PC stuff by bad or apathetic coders. Apple products run quite well on Apple computers.

4/6/2006 1:27:01 PM

i'm sorry to say, but i have to agree with Short.
iTunes, iPhoto and (especially) Safari have proven to be far from stable for me on my Mini. I have very very few problems in Win XP - the occasional Excel crash when running a nasty macro or something, and FireFox too, but that's probably b/c of crappy extensions.

But on my Mac, from the beginning, Safari was very bad - like 1-2 a week crash. Just up and close - no warning, no nothing. I tried FireFox but it was too sluggish, so now I use Camino almost exclusively and haven't had any problems with it (apart from the lack of advanced features)
iTunes has crashed a couple times, and iPhoto has just quit with no warning much more than it's fair share of times. I was managing a library with about 4500 photos, but it should be able to handle that much with no problem. After I split all my photos into 4 libraries, it seems to run better.
Transmit, the best FTP client i've ever used, also crashes on me maybe every 2 weeks.

4/6/2006 2:34:57 PM

you may have issues somewhere else, b/c Transmit is usually rock-solid. have you tried repairing permissions in Disk Utility?

the only thing that's ever crashed on my Mac mini under 10.4 has been Eclipse, no problems with the iSuite or anything else. but i guess ymmv

[Edited on April 6, 2006 at 2:41 PM. Reason : ---]

4/6/2006 2:40:22 PM

^^Yep. Safari is just not a very good browser. It's slow, many times unresponsive and boy does it love to just exit out of itself.

4/6/2006 3:34:24 PM

I ♥ Transmit. I've never really had a problem with Apple programs being unstable. Sure I don't use iPhoto, or other 'high intensity' products, but have had very good luck with most other programs being stable. I use Apple Mail to manage three different IMAP accounts, each with literally hundreds of MBs of messages, and it has only crashed on me once or twice since I've had my computer (~1.8 yrs maybe?)

Safari has been pretty good to me, also. It only crashed on me when I view pages with lots of multimedia content. Myspace and Safari just don't mix, although I've found that Firefox and Opera for the Mac don't like Myspace much either.

Office for the Mac has been pretty good to me, although I don't really use it that much for writing documents. I'm usually working in TextMate/TextWrangler with . Excel works fine, but I think I prefer the Windows version better. It's more responsive and I think the interface is easier to use (even though they're practically the same).

4/6/2006 3:51:09 PM

i agree with how shitty quark is. i took some graphics classes and when we were forced to use both quark and indesign, it was no contest.

some people still buy quark though, i don't understand.

4/6/2006 5:26:01 PM

and some people still buy corel office suites and insist on using dot matrix printers. there's nuts everywhere

4/6/2006 6:47:25 PM