I don't really know what to choose as Vista is very slow on my PC so I was wondering to put MAC on it but did not know what MAC and where to get it...

Currently the only legit place to get OS X is from apple with their hardware. There is an illegial copy that has been hacked to run on non-apple hardware but this will pretty much be rendered useless if you try to do a major update, and anyway its illegial.
Cheers
Allan

This may be your only 1GB of memory issue. I always suggest "downgrading" to XP. But as this always results in an argument, I won't this time. I will say that PCWorld tested Vista SP1 versus XP and they said XP was much faster.

Yes XP is much faster thats true but when i'm thinking that Microsoft will stop making updates for XP mainstream as from April 2009 so i'm wondering to go to another one to adapt myself. Vista i'm already adapt but the only problem is that it take too much RAM for me now as I have on 1GB but it run pretty ok but just the problem of the RAM that is annoying me.

Its Mac, as in short for Macintosh. Not MAC as in Media Access Control (for ethernet cards).

You can't run a Mac OS on a regular PC without violating the OS X TOS. There are ways to do it, certain hardware produces better results than others. Even a company with a plug in workaround.

But to run all 3 on 1 set of hardware legally you'd need to buy an Apple branded computer with an Intel processor, then use Bootcamp to install/run Windows XP/Vista or some variety of Linux.

At one time recently I ran OS X 10.3.9, 10.4.10, 10.5.x, Windows 2000, Windows XP, Windows Vista, and Ubuntu 8. I've slimmed that down to 10.5.5, Windows Vista, and Windows 2000.

As far as speed of the OS, I think that is made a much bigger deal than it really is. Unless you are gaming or doing some serious video/photo editing a slower computer doesn't hurt you much. I'm running Leopard (10.5.5) on a G4 450 (had to modify some files to get it to install on that slow of hardware) and yes its a bit slow, but I could do word processing, spreadsheets, IM, and browsing on it just fine if I had to.

Ok...

But Now I find that Vista is a good OS and i'm actually searching for a RAM and I think I will remain to Vista as I don't want to make something illegal on my PC and one OS is largely enough for me, maybe two in a major case but one is good for a gamer and everyday PC user.

I run Debian Etch and Windows XP (dual boot).

cool caravel , u never tried to upgrade to vista , and havent u tried linux ubuntu ?

ok SNGX , just to answer amagnien problem , does ubuntu use somewhat low memory ? in compare to vista i mean ?

if so , amagnien could just use a free copy of ubuntu , a linux OS - it perfect i guess , and just get used to it ...

i heared someone can run the .exe applications on linux , using some sort of programs , is that true ? what is the name of such program then ?

Yeah that could be right if I got Linux and that I can use .exe files on it too that will make me throw windows Vista out. But yeah can someone give the name of the program that enable us to use .exe files on linux?

This is the version of Debian I run http://www.debian.org/releases/stable/

Basically Ubuntu is based on Debian anyway but has much more bloat and is less stable. I used to run Ubuntu since 6.06 Dapper Drake to the current version but since moving to Debian I don't think I'll be going back.

Vista doesn't appeal. I'll be interested to see the next "great" MS OS. I only use XP for running a few games anyway.

Last time I checked Ubuntu was asking for 384MB minimum for install. With that in mind 1GB seems like it would be plenty. Linux is not as resource intensive as XP, and nowhere near as big a hog as Vista.

One thing that this thread hasn't addressed is that Linux really is productivity based.
It's fine to be up in arms about M$ and their monopoly, quite another to be able to use Linux to be able to combat it. So, for the people running Linux servers and using Open Office, the OS is a godsend, for young people hell bent on achieving gaming godhood, it's a disaster. Actually the thread has addressed this, but it almost seems to have been ignored.

So, the security is better, and maybe you should be doing all your web browsing with the OS but, you're still going to need Windows for getting your game on. Dual boot means having a system that can run Windows well, there's no much way around that. But, if you're looking to do term papers, you sure can get away with Linux.

cool amagien ,, i guess u can safely use linux as ur main OS now , as SNGX has mentioned , http://www.winehq.org/ is used for .exe files on linux OSes ..

Yeah I think now i'm ready for it... but did WINE work also on Mac? AS I use a lot of graphic program and I heard that Mac was best for that...

WINE is supposed to work on a Mac, but assuming you are thinking of putting OS X on a regular PC, you might as well just obtain Parallels and run real Windows at the same time.

As far as a Mac being better for graphic programs, that is only marginally true, there are some color calibration matching stuff that is built into OS X that I don't think is in Windows. But overall you can make Windows do whatever OS X does for graphic programs. Now the apps for OS X may be a little nicer to look at an use, but that is probably more of a personal preference type thing than a fact.

Ok...

So you recommend me to put OS X and a Windows with at the same time in case I need thing that there is not or that can't work on a Mac?

Also what is the requirements for the Mac OS X Leopard?

I believe at a former time, Apple's "Color Sync" was considered a far superior system of color management than was possible with Windows. Adobe's "RGB "1998 is very, very, good, and since Adobe has a respectable market share of Software in the photographic and graphics arts arena, there should be very little difference in the results obtainable with either system. Here is where, I believe that habit may be causing the reverse of Windows dominance. I seems to me, many in the graphics trade are used to Mac, thus continuing to use them. This makes sense in the fact that it seems no one wants to have a new OS summarily inflicted on them. Resistance to XP and now resistance to Vista seems to make my point. But, all imaging hardware such as printers, tablets, and scanners seem to be available for the Windows platform, if not especially for the Windows platform. Many FX houses have written custom software in the course of their business, and so leaving Apple for the PC would be a major shock to their "system", if you'll pardon the pun

Once a particular system is in place, I think it's much easier to call the same supplier when it's time to upgrade, than to think about "changing horses in midstream". So Apple installations stay Apple and so forth.

There isn't much doubt that either platform has the computing power to accomplish the task at hand.

As far as WINE goes, I haven't check recently but it was never on the same software "page" with respect to current versions.

Since Adobe software is mostly available in both platforms, that doesn't provide much incentive to move away from the MAC either.

Yeah I agree with you about the thing Adobe. Adobe is a great image software but Apple haven't made any image and color management software for the Mac?

Yes, they have, and always have, hence their initial superiority, the ColorSync as CC pointed out.

What is it you are actually trying to accomplish here? I'm sure you are better off picking 1 system and just going for it than trying to emulate 2 of the 3 on the 3rd system.