My ONLY point is that Apple being overpriced is a myth left over from the 90s, when it was a fact. You may not like Apple, may have no desire to buy a Mac, but they are priced similarly to high-end, premium PCs. Sometimes a bit more, sometimes a bit less.

Its easy to claim that Mercedes-Benz cars are over-priced when you look at a Chevy of the same size, but Mercedes-Benz competes with BMW and Audi, not with Chevrolet, and in its class, it is price-competitive. So too with Apple, which competes with Sony, but not so much with Acer.

In this regard I totally agree with you. Apple is not more expensive as high end ThinkPads (X301 obviously comes to my mind). This is a myth and as all myths it is terribly resistant to the facts.

Indeed. They are usually priced similarly to the machines that they compete with. My point was that although the pricing is often quite similar, the features are often inferior and the upgrade capacity limited in comparison to similarly-priced non-Apple machines. The MacBook Air is a good example of this IMHO: it's priced similarly to, say, the X200s -- but it's heavier, lacks a removable battery, has a lower-resolution screen, isn't user-upgradeable, etc.

The features are not inferior, they are different. There are common PC features that Apple simply doesn't offer, like docking. There are Apple features that very few PCs offer, like slot-loading drives and ambient light sensors.

The MacBook Air is actually a lousy example as ultraportables are by their nature more restrictive than other machines. Just as Apple only offers 2 drive options (there are plenty of after-market SSDs that will work, just not sold by Apple), just as the X301 cannot be specified with powerful graphics. The Air is and always was a niche product. I love mine, but would never consider it as a mainstream product.

The MacBook Pro range are Apple's high end mainstream, while the white MacBook is their mid-grade (Apple simply doesn't play at the low end). None of those machines are feature-deficient given when they were introduced. The MacBook Pro, for example, is nearing the end of its cycle and should be refreshed (if Apple follows its usual pattern) in the next month. At that time, it will have the current range of Intel processors and most likely a graphics update. Back in October 08 when these models were first introduced, their had cutting-edge laptop specs unless you count large desktop-replacement models that use desktop processors, which like cheap netbooks is a market that Apple doesn't compete in. Even a year and a quarter later the October 08 MacBook Pro remains solidly mid-pack in terms of performance precisely because it was so highly spec'd by October 08 standards (DDR3 was almost unheard of then).

Of course, people buy Macs because they want a Mac, not because its processor is 200 MHz faster than a PC's processor and not because it costs less. They buy it for the design, for OS X, or because they want a computer and operating system sold by the same company with live human support at a real store instead of a phone call to India.

Its not for everybody.

I know that when I went out to buy my T400 last year, I compared it to other PCs, but didn't compare it to a Mac. When I bought my MacBook Air last year I didn't compare it to an X301 or any other PC, because for a constant on-off-on-off courtroom computer I wanted OS X with its super-fast and dead-reliable sleep mode. When I bought my 15" MacBook Pro last week I didn't look at any PCs because the whole purpose was to move my primary computer to OS X to be consistent with my courtroom computer and the rest of my office. I could have standardized on Windows just as easily, but I prefer OS X and, well, I'm the boss so tough noogies, everyone gets a Mac. Actually everyone already had one, I just had two of them running Windows as their primary OS, and moved them both to Snow Leopard.

The Windows server remains for Exchange, but the file and print servers have also been Mac for some time (a 7-year-old Power Mac G5).

Slot loading drives and ambient sensors are indeed two features that are rare on non-Apple PCs.

As for not inferior... well... the inability to replace a failed battery without paying Apple, the inability to (easily) upgrade your memory without voiding your warranty, and the inability to upgrade your hard drive (again, without voiding the warranty) are all relatively unique to Apple. There are very, very few modern laptops for which swapping out the drive will result in forfeiture of one's warranty, yet Apple's actually made their newer machines *less*-accessible in this regard.

It's not that Apple makes bad machines. Their machines are quite good -- provided they fit your needs exactly and you have no problem paying more to replace/upgrade parts (or risk voiding your warranty). This may be fine for someone who'd never consider getting a larger hard drive or a second battery for plane flights, but when you're a budget-conscious user who demands more of their machine than the college-age market that Apple's currently targeting, the Mac platform gets prohibitively expensive, and fast.



That's a key point though. Whereas almost every other manufacturer will give their customers incremental upgrades, resulting in a better price/performance ratio as newer components are available, Apple is completely content to sell machines with year-old specs at the very same price as when they were first introduced.

So no, Apple's machines aren't that much more expensive than the competition -- except when they are. Sure, they're rather competitive when they're first released, but after a couple months you'll end up paying quite a hefty price premium due to their lack of incremental upgrades.



Indeed. Most people I know buy it for OS X. And I guess that makes sense; if you want to use that OS it is indeed the easiest way to do so.

As for support... well... it sure seems like a major selling point until you've had to use it. In-store support isn't exactly hassle-free: you have to make an appointment, wait around (because they're *always* running late), etc. Easier than shipping it off? Perhaps. But when you consider that 3 years of AppleCare cost more than 3 years of on-site service with priority support from Lenovo, the prospect of having to schedule a trek out to your local mall doesn't seem quite so appealing.

But what about the depot service? Well it's a mixed bag. I've had some great experiences with them: they replaced the CD drive, logic board, and screen on an iBook G4 despite the machine being out of warranty, as well as covered the repairs to an iBook G3 with the infamous GPU BGA issues. I've also had a rather infuriating experience with them: they shattered my MacBook's LCD while it was in their care, then demanded that I pay $800 to replace it, as they had determined that I was the one who caused the damage. It took a number of escalations and testimonies to convince them that I did not, in fact, smash my LCD prior to sending it in for an unrelated issue. All in all, they ended up hanging on to that machine for close to three weeks. That didn't exactly make me feel good about paying more than I did for on-site service with Lenovo.

So in summary, my view of Apple is this: they make fairly standard PCs (for which they charge a slight to substantial price premium, depending on when you buy), offer fairly standard support, and offer fairly standard depot-based service (for which you pay more than you would for on-site service). The only real reason they're as popular as they are is, AFAICT, due to their OS. The actual hardware isn't really all that special, and I suspect that if OS X weren't tied to the hardware that lots of folks would stop buying Apple machines altogether.

(And that's not even touching on how they treat their customers re: OS upgrades, hardware life-cycle, use of proprietary tech., etc...)

asiafish has brought up many good points which I agree with. As one who has used both ThinkPads & Apples, its simply fun to have some variety. I find the newest unibody MBP with its matte display a fine machine. So much so, I just bought one myself. As a _very_ long time track point advocate, and one who dislikes track pads, I must say the new all glass version on this model is stellar. In a word, I was shocked to experience how nice it is. At the end of the day I remain a ThinkPad Supporter as my main machine, with the MBP for variety.

You said
"As for not inferior... well... the inability to replace a failed battery without paying Apple, the inability to (easily) upgrade your memory without voiding your warranty, and the inability to upgrade your hard drive (again, without voiding the warranty) are all relatively unique to Apple. There are very, very few modern laptops for which swapping out the drive will result in forfeiture of one's warranty, yet Apple's actually made their newer machines *less*-accessible in this regard."

More myth. Upgrading memory and hard drive do NOT void warranty. Nor does replacing the battery yourself, it just can't be done in the field.

You said
"It's not that Apple makes bad machines. Their machines are quite good -- provided they fit your needs exactly and you have no problem paying more to replace/upgrade parts (or risk voiding your warranty). This may be fine for someone who'd never consider getting a larger hard drive or a second battery for plane flights, but when you're a budget-conscious user who demands more of their machine than the college-age market that Apple's currently targeting, the Mac platform gets prohibitively expensive, and fast."

Again the myth. Upgrades cost exactly the same as they do for any other PC, because they use the exact same memory modules and hard drives. Even the battery replacement at $129 is cheaper than many PC batteries.

As for "second" battery, well when the sealed battery runs for a real-world 7 hours and the old swappable ones ran for real-world 3.5, its like having your second battery for free, built-in, with twice as many charge/discharge cycles available to it. I see the new Apple battery as an advantage, though not everybody will agree.

To my point that the machines were not feature deficient when released, you said
"That's a key point though. Whereas almost every other manufacturer will give their customers incremental upgrades, resulting in a better price/performance ratio as newer components are available, Apple is completely content to sell machines with year-old specs at the very same price as when they were first introduced.

So no, Apple's machines aren't that much more expensive than the competition -- except when they are. Sure, they're rather competitive when they're first released, but after a couple months you'll end up paying quite a hefty price premium due to their lack of incremental upgrades."

Apple does do incremental upgrades. When the unibody MacBooks first came out, 2.66 GHz was the fastest you could get, now they are 3.06 GHz. The model I have used to be 2.53 GHz, came with 2 GB of RAM and a 320 GB hard drive, mine has a 2.8 GHz processor, 4 GB of RAM and a 500 GB hard drive for the same price. They don't upgrade them every month, rather every six.

You responded about OS X and support..
"Indeed. Most people I know buy it for OS X. And I guess that makes sense; if you want to use that OS it is indeed the easiest way to do so."

It is the easiest, and THE BEST. Using OS X on a regular PC (a Hackintosh) is fun for geeks whoa re into such things, but not ideal for production use. Some features don't work, many internal devices (Intel wifi cards, for example) are not supported and the reliability that comes from Apple controlling drivers on a limited range of devices is gone. Worse yet, the whole OS may be broken by the next point upgrade (service pack).

For support you said
"As for support... well... it sure seems like a major selling point until you've had to use it. In-store support isn't exactly hassle-free: you have to make an appointment, wait around (because they're *always* running late), etc. Easier than shipping it off? Perhaps. But when you consider that 3 years of AppleCare cost more than 3 years of on-site service with priority support from Lenovo, the prospect of having to schedule a trek out to your local mall doesn't seem quite so appealing."

Funny, my Black MacBook required a new keyboard, I scheduled an appointment, was accommodated perhaps two minutes late (much nicer to spend two minutes browsing the Apple Store than two minutes on hold) and then they replaced the keyboard and palmrest while I waited. They did come out and tell me 15 minutes in that it would take an extra 20 minutes because they noticed the FFCL backlight was pinkish and they wanted to replace the display. I was happy to wait and after a total of 40 minutes from walking into the store, the computer was fixed.

"But what about the depot service? Well it's a mixed bag. I've had some great experiences with them: they replaced the CD drive, logic board, and screen on an iBook G4 despite the machine being out of warranty, as well as covered the repairs to an iBook G3 with the infamous GPU BGA issues. I've also had a rather infuriating experience with them: they shattered my MacBook's LCD while it was in their care, then demanded that I pay $800 to replace it, as they had determined that I was the one who caused the damage. It took a number of escalations and testimonies to convince them that I did not, in fact, smash my LCD prior to sending it in for an unrelated issue. All in all, they ended up hanging on to that machine for close to three weeks. That didn't exactly make me feel good about paying more than I did for on-site service with Lenovo."

I've had good and bad depot service from Lenovo as well, and good and bad depot service from Toshiba, from Apple and from the old IBM. Never had on-site service, can't comment on it.

You summarize
"So in summary, my view of Apple is this: they make fairly standard PCs (for which they charge a slight to substantial price premium, depending on when you buy), offer fairly standard support, and offer fairly standard depot-based service (for which you pay more than you would for on-site service). The only real reason they're as popular as they are is, AFAICT, due to their OS. The actual hardware isn't really all that special, and I suspect that if OS X weren't tied to the hardware that lots of folks would stop buying Apple machines altogether."

They also have terrific design. Their products all resemble each other with a unified design theme that is now iconic (think iPod, glowing white Apple on the metal lid, etc). Good design sells products often better than features or specs do. I spent a lot more on my Mercedes-Benz than on a Chevrolet of the same size and it doesn't get me to point B any faster or more reliably, but that good design is a pleasure every time I drive.

So it is with Apple. The unibody enclosure, the ambient light sensor, the slick OS, magnetic power adapter and backlit keyboard are all things that just make using the machine a pleasure. ThinkPads have many such "surprise and delight" features as well, with the TrackPoint and the ThinkPad keyboard among them, and the ThinkLight a past example that sadly is past its prime.

You closed with
"(And that's not even touching on how they treat their customers re: OS upgrades, hardware life-cycle, use of proprietary tech., etc...)"

I think they treat their customers quite well with OS upgrades, far better than Microsoft does. Lets see, Windows 7 costs how much? Snow Leopard is $29 for Leopard users.

Don't give me the balony about Apple's point upgrades are just service packs, they are definitely not (more of a myth). 10.6 is to 10.5 as Windows 7 (NT 6.1) is to Windows Vista (NT 6.0). Was Windows 7 a free service pack to Vista? No, it was a retail OS. Apple service packs are just as free as Microsofts, and we've had two for Snow Leopard by the way (10.6.2).

The company also usually does the right thing. My MacBook Air had a problem (common) with the hinges. Their depot (I didn't want to drive two hours to the store) repaired it, but damaged the screen. I sent it back and they fixed it properly, gave me rush service, and then a customer relations manager called and asked how they could make it right. They ended up giving me a 32 GB iPod Touch for my trouble.

About three years ago I had a similar botched repair with a MacBook, and after the third (successful) repair, I was contacted and that time given a copy of Apple Remote Desktop, which I was getting ready to buy at the time.

Lenovo is very good at making things right too, though like Apple sometimes you have to push.

Thats what its all about, variety. I've use a ThinkPad as my primary machine since the T20 in 1999, but have always had a PowerBook or MacBook as well. Until this purchase, the T400 was my primary machine, but so far all that I really miss is the TrackPoint, and even then, the glass touchpad is certainly good enough to not annoy me.

Is your matte MBP the 15" or 17"

I don't see many unibody PCs out there, so apparently it IS that special. As for not tying the OS to the hardware, that will only happen when a United States District court (federal) orders it and the appeal to that order is denied. Of course, that has as-much chance of happening as RIM's BlackBerry OS being ordered open so that it can be run on Palm and Motorola phones or Nintendo's WII OS ordered open to run on XBox and PS3 hardware.

Apple tried licensing in the 90s (back when their hardware really was expensive) and one thing Apple is good at is learning from its mistakes.

To me the difference between Mac and PC and the difference between OSX and Windows is a difference of philosophy before everything else. I don't see myself ever buying a Mac because I don't agree with Apple's philosophy that if you buy their product, you should be limited to the subset of usage patterns that Apple envisions for you, be it hardware, drivers, or available software. I prefer the freedom.

Yes, the Macbooks are very well-designed machines. But I don't like the typically limited selection of ports, some of which are proprietary Apple designs, that only work with Apple dongles (mini-DVI/mini-DP).

Yes, OSX will typically be more stable than Windows. But if you are a power user, it's not that hard to achieve a good level of stability with Windows, there a whole lot of things you can do with Windows and can never do with OSX.

I chose the 15" for its portability, although it was a tough decision. If I didn't travel so much I would have chosen the 17" for its gorgeous display and centered keyboard. It's the only 17" laptop I can think of that doesn't have an offset keyboard and trackpad due to the inclusion of a number pad I would never use. Thus I find the design of the MBP 17" ideal and quite attractive.

At present, the cheapest 15.4" Dell business laptop is the Vostro 1520, which is 1.0" to 1.5" in thickness and weighs 5.38 lbs.



That Dell only makes thick, bulky, heavy laptops is also a myth, one that many people still cling to. Dell's making mostly such laptops was true in the 90s and early 2000s, but now it's just a myth, e.g. the Latitude E4200 weighs only 2.2 lb, lighter than anything Apple or IBM/Lenovo has ever made.




The Adamo was a failed experiment. It's heavy (for a 13.4" unit), ugly, and uses unnecessarily expensive material. But I think that "experiment" helped Dell come up with the new Vostro V13, which has impressive specs and an impressive price. I wonder how you would compare the MacBook Air with the Vostro V13, taking the HUGE price difference into consideration. Don't get me wrong, I admire the latest Mac laptops very much (as I've already mentioned twice in this thread alone) and in general think they are high quality enough to justify their costs. But when the Vostro V13 came out and when I saw its shockingly low price tag, I started to wonder whether all those "premium" laptops (the MacBook Air, the Thinkpad X301, the Dell Latitude E4200, etc.) are overpriced.

That Vostro V13 sounds like a very nice machine for the price. I haven't seen one in person, but I would bet that at that price it must be of cheaper construction than the Air or X301.

MacBook Air only has 1 USB port, no DVD or CD drive, you can't upgrade the RAM yourself or remove the batter yourself, therefore it isn't very good and you have to pay £60 extra for the USB DVD drive which uses up that one port and unless you want to carry around a USB hub with you all day, as fair as I'm concerned, it isn't very portable. Having said that, yes, it is fairly powerful - but it isn't very portable which means it isn't very good at doind it's job.

This is why I think that the Dell and the ThinkPad are better. If you want an Apple laptop, I'd go for MacBook or MacBook Pro, but I wouldn't go for an Apple laptop anyway, too expensive really.

Isn't very portable? It isn't very portable if you need an optical drive with you, but if you need an optical drive with you then the MacBook Air is the wrong choice.

I've used a MacBook Air as my court computer for over a year and find it to be exceptionally portable. Yes, it has only one USB port, and that one USB port almost never has anything plugged into it (very rarely I'll pull documents from opposing counsel's flash drive).

It has 2 GB of RAM, which is tons for the type of work I do, and more than enough for the tasks typically given to ultraportables. Remember, OS X doesn't need as much RAM as Vista, though Vista ran extremely well on the MacBook Air, as Windows 7 does now (Boot Camp, for occasional gaming on the road).

For its intended use, the MacBook Air is brilliantly designed, and I haven't once wished to trade it for an X200 or X301. Of course, I use it the way it was designed to be used, as a travel computer, not as a primary. My 15" MacBook Pro, like my T400 before, is my primary computer, and again, there is nothing from the T400 or any other laptop that I wish was on the MacBook Pro except for the TrackPoint, but nothing is perfect.

I'll say it's slim, and sorry I forgot to say "not portable when you need a CD/DVD drive on you". Still don't think that Air is the best laptop ever...

The very fact that this topic has turned into a discussion about Apple products testifies that they are indeed a force to be reckoned with...

Personally, I have yet to see an Apple laptop that I'd even remotely consider buying, but that's OK, since people like myself were never their target market. Having said that, there are other Apple products I would consider spending money on.

My observations only...

I've owned a huge number of "other brands" while always using my ThinkPads as my main computers for mission critical work. In my personal experience Dell has been nothing but a disappointment. I'm not saying they are a bad choice, just not a very good one. I truly believe that they are where they're at, simply because they have great marketing and a business model that works for them. Yet that said, I also believe their desktops are far better than their laptops. At the end of the day there is no perfect laptop, the overall experience I've had with ThinkPads is simply stellar. In second place for me, is the MacBook Pro. Pricing aside, I find them very reliable and an interesting and enjoyable alternative to Windows. If the work I did was different, I could see myself using a MBP as my main laptop. Just like the Linux Laptops I have, they are something different to learn and enjoy.

Cheers...

Fully agree... I experience this in every discussion on other forums or talking with friends, collegues or whomever. There is another thread here about the iPad that is going in the same direction

I also don't think the MacBook Air is the best laptop ever, but it is a very good one within its class of ultraportable, ultralight laptops. If always having an optical drive with you is important, obviously the Air, just like the ThinkPad X200, is a lousy choice. If, like me, you don't need or want an optical drive on your ultraportable, then the Air and its ilk are far more attractive.

If I had to have only one laptop, it would probably be the 13" MacBook Pro. At 4.5 lbs it is far heavier than I want an ultraportable to be, but otherwise its dimensions are right on (less than an inch thick). Fortunately, I have no such limitation and can buy the best for a given use. One of my uses are frequent courtroom-to-courtroom, on/off/on/off with brief spurts of editing, research and communication. For this use I chose the MacBook Air. It has a full-size keyboard and a beautiful display, is extremely thin and weighs only 3lbs with 5 hours of battery life. I bought the USB DVDRW drive for it, but regret the purchase as I've only used it twice in over a year.

The best laptop for my other use, the so-called "primary computer" had long been a high-end 14" T-series ThinkPad, and now it is a 15" MacBook Pro due to my standardizing my entire business on OS X. The ThinkPads, in my opinion, are slightly better from a hardware standpoint, while the Apple machines are better from a software standpoint. For me, the software differences outweigh the hardware differences. For me, the primary computer houses my audio and video collection, is used for large writing projects and research both at home and in the office. For work, I use OS X 95% of the time, and use Windows 2000 through Parallels Desktop for 5% of my work, specifically military forms using PureEdge Viewer and the very rare legal pleading I get in WordPerfect.

I also use the Primary computer to play games (80% Windows, 20% Mac). When a game I want is available for both platforms, I read the reviews and if one is better I buy that one (usually Windows), and where there is no significant difference I buy the Mac version (Spore). For WIndows games I use Boot Camp, as virtual machines just aren't up to gaming standards yet.

I've never claimed any machine, Apple, Lenovo or anything else to be "the best laptop" because the best laptop does not exist. The best laptop would have a 50" display that is entirely a holographic projection so that the machine could be the size of a cell phone with a folding, full-size keyboard with nice clicky keys. It would weigh 5 oz and run for 100 years on a battery charge. In short, science fiction.

The best is a very subjective thing. Personally, any laptop that weighs 6 lbs or more is a deal-breaker for me. Anything over 1.5" thick is a deal breaker. Anything with glowing LED "eyes" in the lid, pulsating blue LEDs or other gimmicks is also right out.

What version of Parallels are you running, and how do you like it? What was the influencing factor in migrating to OS X and your Mac laptops? How long did it take to convert your business to the Mac platform?
.
Cheers...

I tend to stay very current on main productivity applications, but let other stuff fall out of date until I actually need to upgrade. I still use WordPerfect 11, for example, because the attorneys and courts I share WordPerfect documents with (very few) are using version 10 and older. I'll buy a new version the first time I have formatting issues from imported documents.

For Parallels I use the latest version 5, running on the latest OS X 10.6.2. Parallels, for the way I use it, is terrific. Even on the Air with only 2 GB of RAM it loads quickly and Windows 2000 is responsive. I could move to Windows 7 in Parallels on the MacBook Pro, but just haven't had the time or the reason.

As far as influence, it wasn't any one specific thing. I've been using Windows since 1988 and Mac since 1993, and at least since 1993 have always had at least one of each (I count an Intel Mac as both if it runs Windows). Prior to 2003 I considered Windows a superior platform, though I largely skipped the move to XP as I preferred 2000. 2003 was when the malware wave really hit, and I was twice infected by things before my AV software could detect them. I probably could have cleaned the infection, but I'm a paranoid perfectionist when it comes to computing, so I would always wipe the drive and reinstall a good image. As the number of attacks against Windows increased, I switched to a PowerBook as my primary system and used my ThinkPad mainly for games.

When I went into business I needed shared calendars, which led me to Exchange (Small Business Server 2003) and that pretty-much forced me to use Windows clients, as Mac support for Exchange was non-existent and Microsoft support (Entourage for Mac v.X and 2004) was quite poor. Office for Mac 2008 and Exchange 2007 brought Macintosh Exchange support to not parity, but at least competence, and Snow Leopard added Exchange support to the built-in PIM apps, making for excellent redundancy on Exchange access not really possible in Windows, where if Outlook crashes, you have to fix it before continuing to work. If Entourage crashes, I can use Apple Mail and Apple iCal to access and work with my email and calendars.

I started replacing PCs with Macs as they aged and needed upgrade, and used to give users the choice of which OS to run. Now I just set them all to OS X and control them with Apple Remote Desktop. Yes, Windows can be remote controlled too, but I just worry less with all Macs. If someone downloads some silly Elf-Bowling game from an infected site, rather than infecting a PC, it will just not do anything at all on a Mac.

The total move was about 18 months from the first Mac on the network to the last. Today, the only PC on the network is the server, which is a very new Dell PowerEdge T410 running Small Business Server 2008. The WIndows server chugs along sharing files, printers and controlling VPN and Exchange access for Mac clients. THe Mac clients are all bound to the active directory (would require pro versions of Windows) and everything just works. 3 years from now I may even move away from the Windows server, depending on what the next OS X server version looks like. 10.6 server is already tempting, but my Windows server is nowhere near obsolete yet.

My business is small, with a total of 4 employees and 8 computers (1 server, 3 desktop Mac, 4 laptop Mac). I used to spend about 4 or 5 hours per month keeping everything updated and fixing the inevitable "I can't print" type user complaints. Since switching, I spend 1/2 hour per month (now from my living room) and almost never get user complaints at all.

Overall, it was a very good move.

Just a quick heads-up:

You don't need to put down the money for a Parallels or VMWare license just to run a VM on your Mac.

VirtualBox does the same thing, and it's both free and (almost entirely) open-source.

Enjoy!

Yup, Virtualbox is free and runs WIndows on a Mac. It isn't as well integrated into the Mac OS as the commercial apps are, isn't as fast and can't (yet) make your Windows apps behave as though they were just another Mac app.

Free has its place, but I'll pay to get a better product and happily paid for Parallels.

Performance-wise it's actually about the same.

As far as integration, it supports the same "seamless mode" that Parallels does.

The only features it lacks compared to Parallels are the ability to create "launchers" on the Mac side of things for Windows apps (i.e. stub Mac apps that launch a VM and a certain binary within that VM) and the ability to put the start menu in your dock. Other than that, it's equal -- at least as far as I can tell from using it.

For me those two features weren't worth the $80, but YMMV.

Great feedback. Just what I was looking for. I was aware of Virtual Box as well as Parallels & Fusion, but I'm not interested in trying out all three or even two for that matter, unless the one I end up choosing doesn't meet my needs. After researching both paid apps it seems the general consensus is that Fusion is more stable but less feature laden than Parallels. I prefer the overall look of Parallels and thus the query.
.
@asiafish... How do you find the stability of version 5?
.
Thanks to both of you.

Version 4 was a bit buggy, but the current version 5 so far has been rock-solid. That said, I don't use it enough to really push things. I run WordPerfect and a digital forms application with a smart card reader for signing military forms, and those functions in Windows 2000 have been flawless. What I like is the integration with the Mac menubar, which displays all of the Windows taskbar items and in the Crystal view, places the Windows start menu there as well. There is also a dock folder for Windows applications, which I got rid of, and just placed my two primary Windows apps in the dock directly.

What I also like is that you can assign document types to automatically open your choice of Mac or Windows application, so really it is almost like using all Mac applications. If I had a newer version of Windows I would even be able to redraw the application windows themselves to use the OS X windowing buttons (red-yellow-green) on the left, instead of the Windows versions on the right.

I tried Virtual Box right before I paid for my upgrade from Parallels 4 to and that it launched slower, suspended slower, and just felt like I was running Windows applications from a virtual machine instead of like running Windows applications installed directly on a Mac, as Parallels feels.

For business use, I want things to be as smooth and seamless as possible, so it is well worth $80.

I just noticed this post even though you made it the better part of a year ago.

Do you still have this DS? I love Citroens of all stripes (except the 2CV). The DS and the SM are two of my favorite cars. If you bought the DS while living in Pennsylvania, then you, sir, are a braver man than I.

The W111 is also a marker of an esteemed gentleman. You are a paragon of good automotive taste.

j-dawg wrote:



I went through about two dozen of them starting in the late 80s through 90s. I do still own two ('65 DS 21 Pallas and a '74 D Special) sitting in a heated garage some 6,000 miles away, along with '70 Peugeot 304S Convertible and '56 Benz 220A.



Actually, one of the best Citroen repair facilities (along with Dave Burnham in Upstate New York and a couple of places in CA) is in Mechanicsville, PA which is not that far away from me...



I've tried to be cool in my own time, but you make me blush...

Especially that my Classic Car days are long gone, at least for the most part, and that these days my transportation is a '00 Honda Odyssey...

I like my dad's chevy truck - keeps going, and does everything my friend's sports cars can do (lots of fun in the snow) .