No more arguments, but I'm genuinely interested now.
Actually, we haven't been arguing. You've been telling us that Macs suck for several days, and we've been telling you, in return, that not only do they not suck, but EVERYTHING that Windows has ever claimed as an innovation was actually developed and implemented by Apple years before.
And we will continue to do this, in a calm, factual, sharing way until either you see the errors of your ways, or you experience so much internal cognitive dissonance that you just give up and go away.
So are you saying that I can copy a Windows *.exe file to a Mac, double click it and have it run on the Mac exactly as it would run on the PC? I'm acutally interested in how this works. If that's the case, why does anybody bother with a Mac version of anything?
If you have Windows installed on a partition of your Mac's HD, and are running Windows native (not using an interpreter or "OS simulator", which you can do now on a Mac!) then YES. In fact, using a variety of solutions, this has been possible on Macs for about 10 years, IF that ".exe" file was written to proper specs, and didn't directly address oddball ports, or make any sort of weird calls to hidden bits of processor-direct code.
So why have a Mac version of anything, you ask? Well, frankly, it's because many Mac-native "versions" of software are just plain better, faster, and more stable. Any application that relies heavily on graphical display, from image manilpulation to video processing, to plotting mathematical graphs in real-time, will run faster and with more stability on a Mac, due to the integral nature of a GUI with th eMac OS and chipset. You've got to remember that displaying ANYTHING in a GUI on a Windows machine entails a LOT of coding backflips and contortions to trick the OS in thinking it is capable of doing something it is inherently not designed to do. On a Mac, the graphical interface is actually part of the chipset, and has been since 1983...
The funny thing about running Windows on a Mac is that for the last 2 years, PC World Magazine has named a Mac as teh fastest laptop for running Windows--Windows XP in 2006, and Windows Vista in 2007. The truth is that not only does Windows run on a Mac, but it runs faster and with more stability on a Mac...
http://www.pcworld.com/article/136649-3/in_pictures_the_most_notable_notebooks_of_2007.html
http://gizmodo.com/gadgets/irony/macbook-pro-is-the-fastest-windows-vista-notebook-317060.php
Well, this isn't ENTIRELY true. PC World found one non-Mac laptop that beet the MacBookPro--a Eurocom D900C Phantom-x:
http://www.pcworld.com/reviews/product/30538/review/d900c_phantomx.html
The only catch is that the Eurocom is 1) twice as expensive as even a Mac, 2) weighs almost twice as much, is 2.5 times as thick (2.5" vs the Mac's 1" thickness), has pretty much a non-existant battery life, and has a weak, washed-out, glarey screen. So yeah, there IS a windows-only laptop that beats the Mac, but it's twice as expensive, twice as thick, and doesn't work as well...
Can Macs be locked down on the corporate desktop with Group Policy now?
And this, dear friend is where you and I (and Mac users and Window Users) find our fundamental bone of contention. Such a requirement--locking down an individual's desktop in a corporate environment--is a specification that fundamentally ASSUMES that the individual user is untrustworthy, hostile, and incapable of functioning effectively without the imposition of harsh limitations on the usability of their own workstation.
As a professional with over 20 years experience in both the graphic design and computer systems fields, I resent the implication that my every interaction with a corporate computer over a "trusted" connection is inherently, and by it's very nature, considered a hostile intrusion. I resent the implication that the software on my computer--the tools of my trade--are considered as a clear and present threat by a company that employs me. This attitude of hostility toward employees fosters an attitude of mutual disrespect, and in fact CAUSES employees to "break bad". When you treat people with trust, respect, and care, they return the courtesy. When you treat people with scorn, suspicion, and paranoia, your worst nightmares will most likely come true...
Besides, the idea of locking down a remote desktop in a corporate environment for "safety" or "security" reasons is a fundamentally flawed methodology for implementing network security. It is a lazy way of securing a fundamentally un-securable server architecture (Windows) by preventing the remotely accessing units from doing anything "bad" by crippling their functionality. If Windows servers were actually capable of being securely configured, you wouldn't need to worry about what applications your remote users were running on their PCs.
The whole concept of remote user lockdown is fundamentally lazy on a technical level, essentially offensive on a socio-psychological level, and primarily a memetic smokescreen as far as true system security is concerned.
A quick search looks like there are still issues getting Macs to connect to Juniper VPNs.
This is not because of the way Macs work. It is because Juniper is slow to release Mac compatible updated to their VPN client in a timely manner concurrent with Mac OS updates. They usually wait for Apple to develop the patches, then tell users it's an "Apple problem". When Windows updates their OS however, Juniper (and most other big corporate networking companies) will actually work directly with Micro$oft and have Micro$oft bundle their updates with new released of the Windows updates...
Also, how do you find banking websites - there were issues with Macs accessing these, however surely that is long ago resolved?
This is because most banking websites use Windows servers, and their interface is "optimized" to work with with the IE browser, both of which use a version of 128-bit encryption that is proprietary to Windows and is, in fact, not completely compliant with IETF specs.
The funny thing about this is that Apple's Safari was shipping an AITF-compliant 128-bit secure version about 2 years before 128-bit security became "standard" on IE. And now, years after that, the Micro$oft version of 128-bit encryption is STILL not really "standard" although it has become so ubiquitous that the true standard is probably going to be modified to meet the limitations, problems, and deficiencies of the M$ implementation...
Don't argue the technical "superiority" of Windows with an old-school hacker. This is a battle I've been fighting for 2 decades. We Mac geeks are like the colonial "Minutemen" of the computer world--we've got more practical experience in dealing with these issues than the rest of you people combined, because we see issues such as the above-mentioned situations as challenges to be overcome, not excuses to point a finger at someone else.
When a Windows-centric IT manager looks at a Mac-related problem, his first answer is to blame Apple, say there is nothing he can do to help them, and then berate the Mac users for a month because they can't do their work effectively.
When a Mac geek runs into such a problem, his first reaction is to find an effective solution, and then just go about his business quietly.
There is a reason why Mac users often come off as smug and elitist. We're smug because we know we can do anything we want with our computers, REGARDLESS of what the "powers that be" say. We're elitist because we are battle-hardened. Your average Windows IT guy is like a well-trained paratrooper in peacetime--skilled and knowledgeable, but lacking battle-hardness. Your average Mac IT geek is more like a SEAL during the Cold War--quiet, effective, stealthy, and willing to wait for the perfect moment...
Macs place in the computer world has come a LONG way in the last 5 years--they are more powerful, reliable, versatile, stable, and universally usable than any platform out there. The Windows world is starting to realize this, and support for Macs from major 3rd party vendors is becoming the standard rather than the exception.
Windows is dying, dear friend.
Stop braiding your buggywhips "amey01"--the automobile is here, and it has an apple on it's grill...
