|
Post by Deleted on Nov 17, 2014 10:58:34 GMT
There is a version for freecad specifically for a Mac, but it shuts down unexpectedly (not a good thing). It is possible that because Apple just upgraded to a new OS that freecad hasn't caught up yet.
Yes, I totally agree that many pieces of software don't have an Apple equivalent. It's only when your interests change that you find out.
I only switched to the Mac a couple of years ago after many, many troubles with the other guys. My attitude toward PC type machines is exactly the same as your collective attitudes towards apple.
Cad is/was to be a sideline for me ... I won't ever use it for anything useful. I have Linux on an old laptop and I will look around for something that will run on there.
Yes, theoretically you can run Windows on a Mac using some special software ... But, love it hate it, I didn't buy a Mac to run PC stuff.
I'll find something I can run if I really want to.
Cheers
Tom
|
|
|
Post by Rob on Nov 17, 2014 11:01:55 GMT
Ideally several of the major players would adopt Linux as the worlds operating system. It will never happen though. What may happen is Android becoming a full blown desktop operating system. If Android were to also become a desktop operating system (We do already have Chrome!), they're both Linux based. On the server side of things, Linux/Unix and the various flavours are already the worlds operating system. You don't see too many Windows Server instances
|
|
|
Post by Roger on Nov 17, 2014 11:45:55 GMT
We can only hope, but Windows looks set to be here as the dominant operating system for some time to come for serious desktop applications
|
|
|
Post by Rob on Nov 17, 2014 12:19:00 GMT
There's a very good reason for that - Windows works. It has it's problems, just like every piece of software, but it does the job it's supposed to do very well, when you consider all of the requirements such as ease of use, availability of software, ability to run on a plethora of different hardware, support etc. Other OS' may do certain jobs (much!) better, but they don't tick all the boxes like Windows does, so until they do, I think Windows is here to stay. And I'm not complaining
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 17, 2014 12:45:17 GMT
I have to say that I don't disagree with the Mac vs PC thing. I have found in the two years that I have owned a Mac that it is not quite all it is advertised to be. Perhaps at one time, but not now.
I originally bought two of them, one for Her Nibbs, which has now been sold (she didn't like it at all) and the one I use. If it wasn't for the fact it is an expensive piece of kit and I want some value out of it, mine would be gone as well.
My computer needs have changed greatly and since I am no longer doing any online business, I more or less just play compared to some. Email and forum chat plus a bunch of general research is about what I do these days and the Mac works for that.
At one time, Macs were preferred by graphic artists and photographers because of the graphics and PC's were preferred by the business world and writers.
Cheers
Tom
|
|
|
Post by Roger on Nov 17, 2014 14:22:35 GMT
Windows 7 finally nailed most of the gripes I had with it, and now DOS is but a distant memory with Windows based on NT not that old nail, it seems much more robust. It's still in need of a serious bit of weight loss, but that's never going to happen. Hopefully they've learned from the great cockup known as Windows 8 and they will continue to steadily improve it.
|
|
|
Post by Rob on Nov 17, 2014 14:46:59 GMT
Hey, I like DOS, it does exactly what you tell it to do To be fair, the last release of Windows to be based on DOS was probably 98SE, and that was far more robust than Windows Vista, which was NT
|
|
|
Post by Roger on Nov 17, 2014 14:52:03 GMT
I'm sure there's a clinic you can go to for DOS afflictions. I had to write a load of graphics and mouse drivers for DOS in the bad old days before any of that stuff was standardised for Windows. It was a monstrosity made all the worse for being based on the Intel chips where they kept layering on more and more extensions to cope with 16 then 32 bit while still being able to run 8 bit. What a nightmare compared to the Motorola microprocessors. Sadly, Motorola won the technical war but lost the business one.
|
|
|
Post by joanlluch on Nov 18, 2014 15:36:23 GMT
I can't believe this turned somehow to a Mac versus PC thread. I've been a Mac fan (and user) for my entire life, and only used Windows when strictly necessary. No need to say that I require Windows to run Solid Edge CAD software, but I am running in on Apple computer hardware to avoid some of the Windows nightmares. My take is that Macs provide a much better integrated environment that will work just out of the box. On the other hand Windows often require reinstalls, driver configurations, virus scanning and so on. So my choice of Macs is based on what is easier for me to get focus on having the job done.
Joan
|
|
|
Post by Roger on Nov 18, 2014 19:21:51 GMT
That 'integrated working straight out of the box' is both the Macs strength and its weakness. The lack of flexibility and openness of architecture means that you can't stray outside its rigid boundaries. That makes it very robust but excludes the rest of the world from adding functionality. If Apple hasn't thought of it, you can't have it. That's fine for Mac owners else they wouldn't be Mac owners. For the rest of us, love it or hate it, Windows offers pretty much an open platform that encourages the rest of the world to compete and innovate. This is why Macs have always remained a niche product regardless of how good they are. Apple finally caved in and allow users to run Windows because they simply don't have their own answers. I bet it still sticks in their throat.
|
|
|
Post by sncf141r on Nov 18, 2014 20:23:20 GMT
CAD is going to be a really interesting issue in the future:
Having 5 operating systems (plus various versions) at my desk, I'm not going to say one's better than the other.
But - if you look at the trends and extrapolate:
- 96.4% of the smartphone OS sales are Apple's IOS and Android (I'm sure that number is right - I have the details at work)
- desktop sales continue to be stagnant or slip;
- the hardware makers are designing chips for mobile; that statement came from the horses' mouth (an NVIDIA vice prez)
- the money goes where the market is. Desktop is stagnant; in the mobile field, Microsoft is not there. They know this. They are trying to "Own the Cloud" but that one will go to the lowest cost supplier; I don't know where Microsoft's market is in the Cloud field.
Where does that leave things in say, 5 years from now? We are in the midst of the second IT revolution. No, I don't know the answers; I don't think anyone does.
I've got my deckchair set up, watching the giants throw their weight around, and am waiting to see who/what the victor is!
|
|
|
Post by Rob on Nov 18, 2014 20:51:47 GMT
I'd say 96.4% total sounds about right - about 85% being Android, 10% being iOS.
|
|
|
Post by Roger on Nov 18, 2014 22:09:04 GMT
The problem we all have is the vast investment in Windows hosted applications that have to live on in this new world. Microsoft have made life extraordinarily difficult in writing hugely bloated software the only runs on hugely bloated Windows. OpenOffice have made a valliant effort to break Microsoft's stranglehold on their ludicrously expensive Office Suite but it's not as robust yet. Maybe that kind of product will port to Android and we'll be free of Microsoft at last for that one. But what do you do with your CAD and other Professional packages? It's easy for Joe Public to turn his back on desktop machines and that's why the sales have dropped off. Who wants these dated monsters any more? Sadly we're stuck with them because they are the only thing that you can customise and run those programs on. Something has got to give and maybe the future lies with bit screens and big keyboards but miniature hardware driving them. At the moment, nothing portable and small comes close to the power of a brute Desktop PC. Most of the add on devices we used to put inside our PCs are now hooked up with USB so the need for customisation is less pressing. The winner of this next stage to win the Desktop battle stands to make a fortune. Maybe that will be Microsoft. It ought to be, seeing as they already have the market, but Windows is such a mess inside, it probably can't be made to be what it needs to be to keep that position. It's more likely to be a Google product in my opinion. Sometimes starting with a clean slate is the only answer.
|
|
|
Post by joanlluch on Nov 18, 2014 23:02:30 GMT
That 'integrated working straight out of the box' is both the Macs strength and its weakness. The lack of flexibility and openness of architecture means that you can't stray outside its rigid boundaries. That makes it very robust but excludes the rest of the world from adding functionality. If Apple hasn't thought of it, you can't have it. That's fine for Mac owners else they wouldn't be Mac owners. For the rest of us, love it or hate it, Windows offers pretty much an open platform that encourages the rest of the world to compete and innovate. This is why Macs have always remained a niche product regardless of how good they are. Apple finally caved in and allow users to run Windows because they simply don't have their own answers. I bet it still sticks in their throat. Roger, I do not want to extend on this because this is not the subject of this forums but your statement is outdated. I can tell you that the Mac is far more open than Windows. The Mac OS is based on an open source operating system named Unix, this means that the vast amount of open source software existing today will run on a mac. This is simply not the fact with windows. I have been a Software developer and I know what I am talking about. As a software developer a Mac is a dream because you essentially find everything you need from the open source community. Most of this readily available (and free) software is simply not available for windows. Joan
|
|
|
Post by Rob on Nov 18, 2014 23:23:38 GMT
As a software developer, I disagree that most of this readily available and free software isn't available for Windows .
|
|
|
Post by joanlluch on Nov 19, 2014 18:37:14 GMT
Ok, so let's say that *some* of the open source code is not available or ready for Windows.
Joan
|
|
|
Post by Roger on Nov 19, 2014 19:06:17 GMT
I think this misses the point really. The Open Source applications tend to be things that do much the same as any Mac or Windows computer can do anyway. Office type applications appearing on Android platforms are helping the drift away from Windows even in offices. As soon as you want a CAD program or niche software tools for Circuit Design, simulation or other Engineering and Scientific applications, the only choice tends to be Windows because not enough people use Macs to make it worthwhile. Microsoft became lazy and complacent and that's why they lost the tablet and phone war with barely a shot fired. Their dominance is probably coming to an end, but until the dust settles and we end up with a large enough takeup of another operating system in the workplace, it's hard to see developers switching away from Windows for those serious applications. In the very long term, companies like Google are far more likely to be that provider because they aren't hindered by all the backward compatibility issues that are a chain round Microsoft's neck.
|
|
|
Post by joanlluch on Nov 19, 2014 21:35:46 GMT
Hi Roger. I am referring to code that is open sourced not applications. Software developers can use this code in their own applications for free. Look for example at what you find for windows in GitHub and compare that to Mac OS and iOS. I really do not want to further discuss this because I think we are talking different subjects. Your points are completely valid as well.
Joan
|
|