Isn’t that called a PC emulator.
Emulators usually use a lot of proccesing power just to trick the machine into believing that it is something that it is not and that is before the load the application also puts on your computer.
Doesn’t sound to efficient.
I could probably get a Mac emulator for my PC, It’s all the same hardware now anyways right.
I mean a Mac is really nothing more than an overpriced Intel quad-core pc anyways now right?
Except the Mac PC will only allow you to use and do what Steve Jobs tells you that you can use.
That is unless you want to use it as a PC.
But as a Mac user isn’t that kind of foolish?
Why would somebody spend $2500 bucks for a Mac only to emulate a PC?
Isnt that called a PC emulator.
One is and the other is direct... so it depends on which you use. You can do a full and complete boot into Windows and I've read a certain number of geeks that say Windows runs better on Mactintosh hardware. You'll have to take their word for it, because I don't do it, but like I said, there are those Windows people who do say that.
Why would somebody spend $2500 bucks for a Mac only to emulate a PC?
There are computer geeks right on this board who run three different systems on their machines ... LOL ... and they love it.
I was just reading someone who say they ran Mac OS X, Windows and Ubuntu all on their Mac hardware.
The direct boot into Windows works fine and is not a problem. The running of Windows insdie of Mac OS X is great because it's seamless and you can't tell you're running another system. A Windows program just runs as if it's right inside of the Mac OS X system and you can't tell the difference. So for those who want to run just one particular piece of software at a particular time, becuase they feel they have to, but they want their Macintosh -- this works great for them.
It's like I tell people -- Macintosh is the only one that can run all the software, Windows, Mac OS X, UNIX, Linux and/or Ubuntu ... (and who knows what else...).
It's no wonder that computer geeks love Macintosh.