This works into a theory that I've had for quite a while.

Apple is going to do the hardware thing that they've had so much success with and leave the software part to Microsoft. I wouldn't be surprised if they've been having discussions together about things such as this for a while.

Apple vs. Dell is a lot better than Mac vs. Windows if you ask me.

Now we can choose between a big clunky box running Windows (Dell) or a a pretty smooth work of art running Windows (Apple).

Makes me wonder why a software developer will bother to develop mac os apps in the future. Fact is with more people buying PC software the mac software sales will go down, and who wants to develop for 2 OS's when they can just do 1.

Personaly I have never used a MAC, so i dont know or really care. But anything that effects the PC in general then i show an interest. And I see this as more of a threat for macs than PC's. Mac users are allways bangin about how good the OS is, and now we will see. Because there is a real danger that once PC software on a mac takes off, it will reduce the investment for mac os software. Maybe Apple will become another player in the PC clone hardware manufacturing game.

A few thoughts:

#1. Did anybody hear you can run windows on a regular PC and not buy a Mac. Yep that's right, it'll save you a ton of money!

#2. Your wireless mice, keyboards, and remote controls will even work with operating system (course I have to assume that's planned).

#3. Not only that but the creator of the drivers will have vested interest in things working properly. Rather than intentionally writing shotty drivers to give windows a bad name.

Cheers,
Christian Blackburn

it sounds to me like everyone needs to spend more time away from the computer, and more time outside in real life.

Outside? OUTSIDE!??? NOOOOOOO!

http://www.hdbeat.com/images/2005/09/vaderno.jpg

Hey morons!!! I didn't mean $4000 literally my point was that Apple hardware is overpriced for no reason, that's all. You can get a laptop with more power for half the prise. (at least before Intel that is)
But hey, that's totally my fault, I forgot that you Mac jihadist loyalist are really precise when it comes to does sort of things. So if I in any way offended my crazy Apple follower friends and your Apple religion from the bottom of my SuSE Linux heart, I'm sowwy...

Hey guys, if don't take it easy you'll end up getting a pulmonary embolism. I think those too are available for under $4000 heheh

The next question is will Linux run on this machine? I could get into a machine that supports all three operating systems. I use Windows because there is a vast array of applications (the real reason people pick an operating system). Linux has great open source programming tools. OS X would be my preferred OS if the apps were there. This would allow me to get the best of all three worlds.

linux will run on anything... it's just a matter of time. as you can see here: http://en.opensuse.org/Released_Version, they've ported to PPC, it's only a matter of time for (what would you call it).
Also, do mac/windows have a public 64 bit OS out yet? ;)

Have you been under a rock?

Windows XP Professional x64 Edition (64-bit)
Windows Server 2003 x64 Edition (64-bit)

Even though I think it's a great idea, I have a feeling if they do this it will lead them away from the style of Mac OS X, and continue to stay with a windows version.

...

"So good the moderaters decided to give you a negative score"

...

They used to do ~that~ anytime your fav rodent criticized Apple or the Mac. But they've been lazy lately.

Anyway, as Nietzsche used to say: A man is known by the enemies he collects.

Your Pal,

The Computer Rodent

...

Does anyone know if games \ directx would work on the XP install? Also, how is performance overall?

If all good, I might have to break down and get me one of them apple things.

Both work great. It uses real ATI video drivers for the x1600 chipset. It's just like running Windows on a high-end laptop from any other manufacturer.

Games work excellently and the 3DMark score is quite high (although I don't know it off hand). Just make sure you get the model with 256MB of video RAM.

Wow, a dream come true.

Time to save up! =)

Why not have Mac OS X run on Windows Xp

maybe i'll pick up a mac mini (hmmm, sorta reminds me of a big mac:), just to run windows on it and turn it into some sorta media server.
fun stuff! :)

...

As the debate wanes, allow the PC Rat to summarize:

1.) The Mac OS is in it's death throes, and we'll soon [and gladly] be rid of it.

2.) Apple shall soon enough be a music-only seller which once also sold computers.

3.) "Everything Mac" will shortly become 'Nothing Mac' ...and good riddance !

4.) Steve Jobs as an elderly hippie becomes irrelevant. His face becomes more wrinkled than Mick Jagger's, and he looks more like your grandma than Paul McCartney does.

5.) All the Mac fanatics will join their Amiga counterparts in Computer Hell.

6.) We'll mourn the loss of the Mac ...but not much, and not for long !
...

The Computer Rodent

...

'The truth hurts, but it hurts so good !'

...

'The truth hurts, but it hurts so good !'

So good the moderaters decided to give you a negative score ;)

Installed XP on my iMac and it feels really fast, I was able to play gunbound and install zone alarm and norton without any problems. The clock is wrong, but apple mentioned that it have problems getting the time in windows right (go figure)... Everything took about an ahour and 10 minutes.

...

"Installed XP on my iMac and it feels really fast"

...

Another inmate-of-Apple liberated !

Welcome to the Free World.

Now you know how Poland felt when it kicked out the Communists !
...

The Computer Rodent

...

”Another inmate-of-Apple liberated !

Welcome to the Free World.

Now you know how Poland felt when it kicked out the Communists !”

Liberated? Funny that you mentioned that I was liberated because I just check my Mac and I found a Trojan. Now, it probably got in before I installed the firewall and antivirus. So I guess I’m still “trapped”, but all it takes is restarting my Mac to be liberated. And yes, I don’t download crap from the web or open files from my email. The Trojan seems to be one of those files that get installed when you visit a website. (I guess looking for funny videos is not safe anymore…unless you use linux or mac os x)

You did of cource BUY your software and not leech it from some warez site or P2P ?

My first comment was going to be "Resistance is futile", but then I thought about it and realized that this is a good thing. First, you can run OSX and use the photo/video/audio editing tools that are still some of the best out there (especially since they come with the box) and then boot over to WindowsXP to do some real work , like word processing, spreadsheets, games, etc. Now, if they could just get Windows XP to run in a window like they got Windows to run in a window under OS/2, then it'd be the cats meow.

Who knows, maybe that's why the next version is called "Leopard"....? Hmmmm....

Well, I did it.

The install of XP went smooth.
After installing the Apple drivers, everything in my mac mini was detected and detected fine.
wifi, bluetooth and so on. It's kind of cool to have the option to boot OSX or XP.

yannco

Way to go Windows XP Hardware Detection.... *grin*

"After installing the Apple drivers"

Really? It detected the bluetooth, eh? That's funny because even APPLE says that it cannot work with the bluetooth devices. Are you sure?

I hope Microsoft sues Apple.

Are you crazy? This means more Windows sales. :)

Ballmer and Gates probably went out partying last night yelling, "Awwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww yeeeeeeeeeeeaaaaaaaaaaaahhhhhhhhhhhh! CHA-CHING!"

There's also the question of *what* they actually could sue Apple for exactly...

Can they sue people who dual-boot Linux and WinXP? No. And this is pretty much the same thing.

That wasn't the point of my post.

My point was that Apple sued "hackers" over trying to make MacOSX work on normal intel hardware, so why shouldn't Microsoft sue Apple for making Windows work on Mac hardware?

Copyright infringment, breaking the EULA, etc.

They are doing no such thing. They are not selling copies... they are just making THEIR OWN software capable of allowing YOU to MAKE A CHOICE of installing and running Windows, which of course, is up to you to provide a legal license for.

Yes, Jacen, I understood your post and point. I'm just pointing out the flaw that there is nothing being infringed here. It can potentially mean an increase in Windows licensing for Microsoft.

Windows doesn't support that EFI or whatever it is thing... which means they have to modify Windows.

I know what it means, but I'm a little annoyed. MacOSX is a good system and manywould like to use it. So why doesn't apple increase their sales by letting MacOSX run on a normal system? Who knows, maybe MacOSX will out sell Windows.

suing apple? microsoft will get more business from this, so they would have to be really dumb to just sue. They will probably add more support.

You don't see microsoft suing people that build their own computers and install a dual boot system?

they celebrated by buying imacs....and now they have a reason to do so without getting any bad press... :)

doesn't every program you install modify windows, but that's besides the point, how are they modifying it if you can put your own copy of windows on their computer, the way i see it, they're modifying their computers, not the OS.

lol
did you see the headline about the pigs flying too?
guess we're both dreaming

No, they don't... if you bothered to research, they're providing the necessary drivers and compatibility on their end.

And I hope Apple sues Microsoft for pilfering everything that was ever included in every version of Windows including the GUI in XP

On what grounds?

yea ... cus Apple invented it all and didnt steal it from anyone else ... honest !!

...Just because Windows XP EULA doesn't tie you to any specific hardware, while Apple licensing does :)

You can install Windows legally in any Intel-based computer you want, as long as you have a legal license for it.

Apple has not changed Windows to make this happen, just provided the compatibility needed for Windows to run on a Mac on their side.

The only way Apple can provide the same level of experience Apple-likers have had all these years, is by controlling both the hardware and software. Also, Apple's main focus is to sell you hardware.

With MacOS X, Apple only needs to test it on a limited set of hardware under their control. With Windows, Microsoft has to test on thousands of different combinations as it can be installed in basically any configuration. Apple would need to test in the same way to be able to open to non-Apple hardware.

So essentially, you're saying this announcement will benefit a really geeky systems administrator, but no one else is going to give a damn?

So again I state... you're telling us that the only people who are going to care about this are Unix admins who like the GUI convenience of MacOSX, and Mac Users who are less gullible because of a realization that Windows does give them more flexibility and compatibility with the rest of the world.

Keep digging your hole Sweazey... it's quite amusing.

Funny that you mention myopic in an earlier post and yet you fail to address one of the largest drivers of technology in existence...
Cost!
Linux is thriving because it offers value for low cost (not as low as it could be, you have to factor in increased support costs due to the open source nature of these things). Windows is also thriving but due to some different reasons. It is firmly entrenched, has extremely wide combatibility (yes you must sometimes run third party apps to interface with UNIX systems), and if managed properly can result in some fairly low support costs.

Apple has always been on the opposite side of that equation, offering high value for high cost. I am surprised that someone who clearly has experience in the Enterprise side of technology would leave out such an important consideration. Enterprise organizations are not deploying apple technology en mass for 3 reasons IMHO:
1. High capitol cost of proprietary apple hardware and software (historically, this is changing however).
2. Limited software selection for common business applications and smaller talent pool for developers in the environment (this is partly a perception issue, but the reality is there, if not as obvious as it used to be).
3. Less than secure technology roadmap(example: Adobe's reluctance to optimize some of their product for the new Apple hardware platform).

You do a good job of explaining why OSX (and this recent development ) is so superior to Windows and Linux but yet fail to grasp (or at least mention) the reasons that Apple has such a miniscule market share in the Enterprise space (smaller than their overall share). There are third party methods of gaining access to UNIX based systems or even Windows based systems that will run on Windows, open source OS's, and even embedded OS thin clients. Most of these have a much lower TCO than any apple system. They also have Enterprise class deployment and support tools that contribute to saving even more.

If you submitted a business case for moving to apple to any CTO of a large company worth his padded chair he would laugh you out of his office. There are few exceptions to this. I have seen some cases where (for example, content creation, artistic, some education environments) there is a real business reason to consider this, but it still must be weighed against the cost.

Does not matter how cool or elegant a solution is if it does not make business sense. Of course you may have us believe that all of the CTO's out there making these decisions are imbeciles, but I think not really. You sound like you have a deep technical understanding of these things and that is good, but that does not translate into the ability to grasp the big picture.

All this said, I agree that it does elegantly solve some problems out there with a good solution, but I don't expect that we will see mass adoption on this. For example, even if Apple were to license OSX for x86 and enable bios based pc's to easily install it there would still be the cost issue. Would it be more or less expensive than that $100 Windows xp home upgrade (or twice that for Pro) you can buy and easily install (you can always find an old copy of 95 or 98 to enable you to use the upgrade license instead of the full version)?

Another technology driver is the enthusiast market. They don't really care about compatibility with UNIX, or with elegant solutions. They want horsepower, overclocking, framerates, pretty blinking lights, and other less concrete things. You don't find these guys modding and building apple computers. A great deal of the technology that ends up driving businesses starts out in this market. Enhancements meant to drive games faster end up on servers eventually. I don't see mass adoption of apple in this market even with limited Windows support. I don't see mass adoption with OSX licensed for bios based x86 either...just not enough reason to bother really.

Oh, and stop trolling, you demean yourself with the simplistic gibes. Let your ideas speak for themselves without the sarcasm.

Do not pretend like you understand me or my intelligence or use of a computer by what you've read on this single discussion.

I've been using PC's and Macs for a very long time in every role from newbie to senior admin, and I do not need you to tell me I am asleep because I ignore your diatribes praising the almighty Apple.

I have yet to say you're wrong... I have only pointed out that you're proving my point-- there's a limited group that cares about this from a realistic standpoint.

Wow, where did you find the time to type out that novel? I had trouble keeping up because you seem to hop around a bit, but for the most part you are talking sense..you are just talking a lot.

You have clearly thought about this a great deal. Please promise not to do that again (Gargantuan post).

Obviously, you are intelligent, but you should keep in mind that smart people are ok, it is those that are not as smart as they think they are that are a problem. No accusations here, I just like to propose caution after reading a post that I had to take a break and come back to later because it was so long.

Oh and the caps...is that emphasis or shouting?
As for me, I think the horse has died so i will stop beating it.

Damn - I copied that "novel" and pasted it in Microsoft Office Word 2007 Beta 1 Tech Refresh (I'm a legit MS Office tester) ..... Arial font, 10-pt size ..... no effects (bold, italic, etc) ...... 5 pages long, single-spaced, and 3719 words! That Sweazey guy looked like he have both English and IT degrees.

they should release mac osx for pc user.

They can't... they'd have to actually make sure their version of Plug and Play hardware support is as good as they claim it is.

Interesting...Windows faster than MacOS???

http://news.com.com/2061...g=6058301&subj=news

stupid , that was emulated in macosx.

Is it me or is everyone not reading into this the right way.

Apple is doing this to make thier machines DO MORE. If I user has a MAC that can run MAC OS and Windows XP.. he has the best of both worlds.

This isn't apples way of phasing out MAC OSX.

This is a Way to make the MAC to EVERYTHING a PC can do .. and MORE.

What so hard to understand?

Please tell us what a Mac can do, that a PC cannot.. I can't think of a single thing.

I can think of loads of things a PC can do, that a Mac cannot...

Hi, I'm Joe Blow sitting here with John and Jane Doe... we use our computers for e-mail and web surfing for news and pictures. Tell us again, what a Mac can do that a PC cannot? What is this UNIX you speak of?

No seriously, you're telling me the ONLY thing a Mac can do that a PC cannot is offer a full blown terminal session that only a power administrator is going to give a rats rump roast about?

And besides that, you were asked what a PC can't do that a Mac can... not what Windows* can't do that a Mac can. A PC with the right OS can certainly still do that... but only a serious PC tech or admin is going to care.

Sounds to me that you're really a UNIX user that likes the conveniences of a "pretty" GUI to ease use but still recognizes a need for down-and-dirty command line scripting once in a while.

I wish I had a penny for every time I've heard someone complain about "Are you sure you want to do this?" prompts... I'd be rich. And if I had a nickel for every time that prompt has saved their whiney butt from doing something stupid, I'd have more money than Bill Gates.

As for the 3 clicks vs. 14 clicks... I have no idea what you're talking about... but then you guys still only have ONE mouse button to work with, so I can see why things can feel easier. Having two doesn't add complexity, it just means more functionality. I love my context menus.

I haven't read ALL the replies here, but I have yet to see one that has suggested that idea, so I think it's just you.

At least you're acknowledging that Mac's can't do as much, and this is Apple's way of solving that. :)

If that's all they use their PCs for then Windows is far more than they need by your definition. A chopped-down version of Linux (free) could do all that - or even older Operating Systems.

From the sounds of it, Joe Blow would do fine on an old, second-hand PII 450 with basic email and web access.

He wants to play games? Fine - he can buy a console. Well done - you've effectively argued why Windows is not needed for domestic usuage.

Congratulations.

...or could it be that there's simply more to things than meet the eye?

Stop being so intolerant. Not everyone wants to use Linux, Windows, OS X or what have you. There's enough room for everyone.

It all comes down to the right tools for the job, and no single OS covers everything, not even your obvious holy cow Windows.

The Mac has improved its range of OS support... could it be that you're just getting overly defensive?

No, actually, you've just proven the point I was making.

There's no point to the whole issue beyond a geeky admin who wants to say "look what I can do!", PC users who want a pretty case, and Mac users who actually realize there's more to "computing" than what Apple gives them.

So basically now what you're saying is that Apple excludes anyone that isn't "serious" about computing? Wow.

Thanks for proving that you're just here to troll for Apple fanatics.

(Shake, Final Cut Pro, DVD Studio Pro, Motion, Live Type, Logic, Compressor, Qmaster) + (OSX, OSX Server) + (iLife, Iphoto, iDVD, iMovie HD, Garage band, KeyNote, Pages) + (stability, security) + (X-san(simply,powerful SAN/NAS, multi-user distributed rendering hardware and software solution)) + (windows xp) > (windows xp)

Don't simply reel off some packages that are OSX only.

What TASKS can a mac do on OSX that a PC cannot?

No...but it is fascinating how you make your leap to such a non sequitur conclusion.

The ability to run BOTH Windows and OSX expands the total capabilities that are afforded by both environments, as well as the ability to work among the other UNIX environments if the need so exists.

YOU HAVE MORE OPPORTUNITIES AND CAPABILITIES THEN YOU DO WITH EITHER ENVIRONMENT ALONE!

Unfortunately You seem stuck on debating which OS is better! (Except for some Windows only folks here) This is NOT a debate over which OS is better! You have completely missed the point!

I am NOT positioning OSX as the only worthy OS! I am making the case that there are advantages to having access to the abilties and resources of BOTH environments on one machine, thus saving someone the expense of buying a second machine!

The irony is that this is being typed on a Thinkpad running VMWare with a variety of WindowsXP, WinServer2003, RHLinux, Suse, and FreeBSD environments! And quite frankly I relish the thought of consolidating the Linux environents into one to be used simply as a respository for files, and instead using OSX both for its own application capabilities as well as for an interface into other UNIX systems!

And while the idea of having ONE platform that can run BOTH the Windows and the UNIX environments on one box is attractive, the future potential ability to have VMWare support OSX provides an even more attractive option!

And "a troll for Apple fanatics"!? Huh? You are the one stuck still arguing which OS is best! Many of us outgrew that debate 15 years ago! It was called puberty.

Let me get this straight...

The significant majority of Mac users are beyond fanatic loyalists to the MacOS.... so what would their interest in running an "inferior" OS from Microsoft be?

Techy PC users might want to be geeks and say that "yeah, I've done that!" Gullible users might want to say, "Oh look at the pretty Mac cases! I'll spend more money to have a lesser machine for the pretty case!"

Aside from that, what would the real interest of this be? Nevermind the real benefit...

I'd be more impressed to see Apple figure out how to really demonstrate their superior Plug N Play capabilities by opening up to non-Mac hardware.

The only down-side to using MacOS for myself is games support. If I can now dual-boot to XP to play my games, it puts Apple back on my shopping list for my next PC.

Simple, really.

The same applies for those who insist on using programs that don't work on a Mac - now they can have the far more functional MacOS for work and pleasure, and switch back to XP for their specialist software.

Compatibility with the rest of the world? OSX has native compatibility with the UNIX world(as it is UNIX), which Windows does NOT! And this difficulty in interfacing Windows and traditional UNIX creates quite a problem in enterprise environments. The additional advantage is that OSX also has Windows file compatibility.

And full blown UNIX is "simplistic" compared to Windows? OK, whatever you say! That's the first time I have EVER heard BSD UNIX to be called "simplistic" compared to Windows! I'll have to write this one down!

The real upside is running OSX in an enterprise environment, where most here seem ignorant of OSX's penetration into the enterprise server niche!

Not only do you save over MS and RedHat's absurd licensing, you have a server admin environment that easily rivals and in many way exceeds WinServer2003! And you have a platform that not only serves both the high end UNIX applications, 64 bit databases such as DB2 and Oracle, and backends such as the various CRM and SAP environments, but it also serves the Windows environment and Linux environments!

It has been a long time coming to finally have one machine that I can natively administer a mixed environment without giving up any of the power of UNIX while dealing with the Windows desktops. All with the benefit of the Mac applications! And if anyone doubts that, you haven't had extensive use of the Macs in the scientific or entertainment fields. The Mac loayal are loyal because they enjoy limited functionality! But for many unaware of the environment, ignorance is indeed bliss!

And yes! Release OSX for PC! Just turn it loose and watch it become a Linux killer for many as a more powerful UNIX thats not only user friendly but it actually has mature applications!

And last June at the VMWare developers forum a month after the announcement was made to transition to the Intel CPU, the single most asked question in the Q&A was whether VMWare planned to support OSX! There reply was yes - all they were waiting for was a Bios - as Intel uses it and Power does not! As they said, they already support FreeBSD on Intel - which is 98% of what OSX is!

Apple has opted to strike out ahead of Microsoft and embraced EFI - the Extensible Firmware Interface - a next generation BIOS - if you will - developed by Intel for the 64-bit Itanium! MS has the legacy systems (mess) to support! Apple does not have the baggage to lug around!

And MS even cut the EFI - along with just about everything substantial - except for the graphics 'look' of Vista, including support for the newer EFI!

So I would anticipate a VMWare component for OSX which will further drive it into the enterprise as it lacks the licensing fees of Windows and RedHat or Suse Linux. (And anyone who thinks Linux is 'free' at that level has never worked with RedHat!)

And in reference to the comment above...what exactly is "non-Mac" hardware? Or better yet, what is "Mac" hardware! Apple doesn't use Apple proprietary hardware! For 20 years they licensed ALL of their hardware from IBM, from CPU to SCSI! And since they have transitioned from SCSI to SATA and to Intel!

They have always used 'non-Mac' hardware as that term is meaningless! The irony is that as the Mac's plug and play capabilities were so easy and so reliable, few cared to mess with adding internal devices (although you certainly could!), preferring instead to simply daisy chain a SCSI or Firewire device! I love to read the ignorant 'limitations' in the PC mag reviews that say the Mac has limited expansion capabilities! That is true ignorance expressed from a PC centric point of view! Sort of how the elimination of the floppy from the Mac in lieu of recordable CDs and DVDs and flash memory was derided as a negative as the PC users religiously trudged along dragging their massive 1.44MB floppies!

Of course, now 6 years later it is a plus that the PC has finally started to employ the same realization! While some reviews still chide the Mac for not having the floppy! Go figure!

And why would an erudite Mac user want to be able to use or communicate with lowly Windows? Not much I am afraid! But the reason is that while the Mac can read Windows files and media, Windows cannot read the Mac files! And occassionally the Mac users need to interact with the Windows folks who in their ignorance are unaware of the Macs capabilities! After all, how many here can tell me the additional capabilities of MS Office on the Mac that the PC lacks!? And lets not stop there, MSOffice for the Mac has an extra program component that Windows lacks! Oh!

Listen, I appreciate your attempt to enlighten me about the MacOS, but you're preaching to the wrong guy. I actually work with and support Macs fairly often, so I know all the marketing hype.

None of what you discuss offer any significant merit to dual boot on expensive, inferior hardware configurations for the sake of a pretty, but heavy (like a boat anchor) case.

Not to mention I've used MacOS for a long time now... since 6.x. I find it to be a ridiculously cumbersome experience unless I'm doing simple tasks. When it comes to doing real work, I'll take Windows and Linux any day.

If I want a boat anchor or a paperweight that looks pretty stylish, I'll buy a Mac.

So essentially, you're saying that "compatibility with the rest of the world" is a benefit to Mac OS users. I can buy that... despite the fact that I still find MacOS to to be over simplistic to a point that it's cumbersome.

Like I said troll, this is great for VMWare users and admins.... but aside from that who cares?

Thanks for proving my point and copy/pasting your argument over and over. blah blah POSIX blah blah UNIX blah blah VMWARE blah blah rinse and repeat. There's nothing really here except a tech geek or UNIX admin's toy.

Heh, well, at least now they can run their beloved Photoshop.

The irony is breathtaking.

...

"I can't believe that Steve Jobs caved to Microsoft. I guess this means that Bill Gates is now the undesputed OS Champion of the world."

...

Quite so !

Apple as a computer company is dying the slow death.

Microsoft Office ported to the Mac OS has kept Apple on life support these many years.

But the patient is terminal.

Steve Jobs seems to be seeking 'assisted suicide'.
...

The Computer Rodent

...

Now that Mac has an Intel chip and able to run Windows. What so special about the Mac??? Isn't it just a regular PC now! Mac users always claimed that Mac was more that just a computer. Now shouldn't the prices reflect regular PC's! That $4000 Power Book should now be a $2000 laptop.

I can't believe that Steve Jobs caved to Microsoft. I guess this means that Bill Gates is now the undesputed OS Champion of the world.

HOW DO YOU LIKE THEM APPLES!!! (ok... brace for Mac fanatics to attack) heheh

First of all, Macs have always been regular pcs. The powerpc architecture is not that obscure and Linux et al have been able to run on that hardware for a while.

Second, a "MacBook" costs $2000 or $2500 depending on which model you get. That is expensive, but not $4000. Apple generally uses higher quality, better tested hardware than other manufacturers, so some consumers believe the price difference is justified.

Third, Steve Jobs did not "cave." Think about it. Some consumer buys a Mac. Hmm, now that consumer just paid Apple its money for the hardware and software. Apple loses nothing and has much to gain from people who didn't buy Macs in the past because they didn't run XP.

Lastly, I am not in the least a Mac fanatic. I personally do not believe their prices are reasonable and usually build my own computers. I still wish OSX was available for generic PCs (legally and with hardware properly working), because it is a nice OS.

A $4000 Powerbook?
Heck, the dual 2.5MHz dual core Mac is ~$3295!

Is that like the $6000 Alienware PC with one Intel Pentium Extreme?

Oh, but the Alienware actually exists and the $4000 Powerbook doesnt!

I can buy almost 2 quad core Macs for the price of the Alienware!
And the Mac runs circles around the Alienware! Literally almost twice as fast!

(re: p.33 March 7.2006 PC Mag :
Cinebench 2003 test:
Mac 2.5GHz G5 Quad = 1104,
fastest PC desktop to date, Dell XPS600 = 667 !)

The Macs were actually the REAL IBM clones!
From the beginning they utilized ALL IBM licensed technology, ranging from SCSI on up!
But the fact was that, the Quadra for instance, was actually a clone of the RS/6000 series - not the PC! (e.g.: the 7143 ('43P') and the 7248s)) which sold starting at $9000 while the 'over-priced' Mac cost $2700! And anyone remember the Quadra servers!? They confounded the heck out of the Mac folks as they came loaded with AIX! A full blown AIX server for $2700!

As far as Linux on Power! With the release of AIX 5L in 1998, the L stood for Linux, as if you did not need the extreme capabilities of AIX, you could run 64 bit linux (Suse at the time) on the RS/6000! Oh, but that was when IBM was 32/64 bit hardware and software almost 10 years ago!

Hey morons!!! I didn't mean $4000 literally my point was that Apple hardware is overpriced for no reason, that's all. You can get a laptop with more power for half the prise. (at least before Intel that is)
But hey, that's totally my fault, I forgot that you Mac jihadist loyalist are really precise when it comes to does sort of things. So if I in any way offended my crazy Apple follower friends and your Apple religion from the bottom of my SuSE Linux heart, I'm sowwy...

Hey guys, if don't take it easy you'll end up getting a pulmonary embolism. I think those too are available for under $4000 heheh

So it is true that OS X is so bad that even Apple can't get it to work? Oy. If you're going to run Windows, why bother paying premium price for a toy? Buy a computer instead and gain some real power.

Sweeetness! Manufacturer support AND the video driver!
All the benefits of Apple: (great hardware, advanced OS interface, a secure OS, a protable thin laptop) now with support for Windows: (PC games, Windows only software).

As a consultant, a multi-OS machine will be very useful.

This will certainly help "wein" PC users from Windows.

Im justing waiting for linux on mac's, which will become ever more closer to reality with the switch of mac over to intel, especially considering the fact that they have made it windows bootable. hmmmm i can see many possibilities for the way mac could turn but i also believe that mac will stay true and continue the way they have been with a few slight changes to incorporate a larger market share, and now that i have put my two sence worth in i bed you all adieu.

umm don't they already have linux for macs?

I think you will find that linux runs rather well on mac hardware already and has done so well before the release of the intel based macs.

So much so that Linus himself was running a dual 2ghz G5 Mac about a year ago.

http://www.zdnet.com.au/...9023165,39183867,00.htm

Yeah, there's a PowerPC Linux called YellowDog. I haven't kept up with this recently, so I don't know what the deal is with Intel Macs running Linux yet.

If someone wants to post about this, then I'd be sort of interested to hear what's new.

I was never happy with YellowDog. it was pretty much a dog back in the day.

I much prefer to use debian, as I use debian on my x86 machines it makes sense to use the same distrib on my PPC machine.

Aparently it also works on the m68k mac's but I couldnt tell you dont have one myself.

Soon Apple will be like Dell, I give them another 5 years and will sell only MS OS

Apple is never going to sell Windows, that's dumb.

...

"Apple is never going to sell Windows, that's dumb"

...

The more likely scenario:

Microsoft will sell the Mac OS as a nostalgia applet running inside Windows.
...

The Computer Rodent

...

That seems pointless, given the future inclusion of virtualisation in OS X.

No more need for dual-booting to run XP stuff then.

...

"you sir are an absolute idiot"

...

Another Mac Jihadist heard from !

Apple is a RELIGION for these guys ...not a computer.

All kneel before Ayatollah Steve Jobs or be called an "absolute idiot" !
...

The Computer Rodent

...

...

"I can definately see them phase the Mac out and go 100% Music/Media devices"

...

At least one person here can read the handwriting on the wall.

The PC Rat has been hearing Apple fanatics claim the Mac is going to "any day now" overtake Windows for the past dozen years.

Meanwhile, their marketshare has continued to shrink down to 2.7% !

Now they're on the Intel platform, and offer software to boot into Windows. Tomorrow the Mac will be a mere program Vista can run.
...

The Computer Rodent

...

Given the no doubt hefty hardware specs needed to run Vista, which is still an unfinished beta I suspect we're all going to have to upgrade our boxes to run it with all those bells and whistles.

Not many cycles left to run OS X too, after that...

And isn't MS's virtualisation software currently inferior to everyone else's? VMware are thrashing them at present.

I remember hearing about Mac trying to go Intel a long time ago (at least 5 years ago). It's been a "underground wish" if you will. It seems logical though.

Question...can the MAC OS read the NTFS drive? Will windows read the Mac partition? Need a common ground there?

I wonder if this has anything to do with that "contest" a few weeks ago where haxor were paid to hack win onto a mac. "Let's pay this haxor this much, instead of our R&D team an ungodly amount to convert the code. It's easy, just feed the haxor's ego!" I'm sure Apple was already in development, but it would be a smart move. Look at Mac OSX. It's been loaded onto generic PCs by the haxor community. Apple's doing nothing but "complaining" about it. They aren't REALLY trying to stop it. I think it's possible MAC OSX will be on generic machines soon (legally). I think that it's POSSIBLE that Apple might be waiting for the haxors ;)

Yes, OS X can read NTFS. Windows cannot read HFS however, at least not XP. I don't know about Vista.

Um.. no. OSX CAN *NOT* read NTFS. It may be able to recognize the partition, but it will not be able to make changes to it.

NTFS is an NT (hence the NT - File System) readable and usable ONLY by Windows OS (NT 4.0/Windows 2000/2003/XP/Vista)

So you can recognize there is an NTFS partition, maybe even "see" data, but it will ONLY be read, you cannot make changes to it. This is part of the things that will fail with OSX/Win Dual-boot. They will have to "share" a FAT32 partition to read/save data.

This has nothing to do with the contest, Apple is suing over that little venture.

That was to enable OSx to run on a ANY intel machine, but Apple (for whatever reason) wants to ONLY run on a MAC machine, not any Intel machine. However, they expect Windows to run on a MAC machine. I find that quite odd.

And yes, they are REALLY trying to stop it, they are actively suing, and thretening, hackers who make OSX utililties to run OSX on a plain Intel box, that is not qualified by Apple.

Linux has limited write support for NTFS. I'm surprised Mac OS X has none.

read, not write.

There.

Treats NTFS Partitions like CDRs. Read-only.

Limited? Either it can or it can't...

Limited:

Eg: It can read and create files, but it cannot delete them without very hazardous results.

"Either it can or it can't..."

Black or White doesn't exist, man. Everything is shades of grey.

Check out the Linux kernel source documentation if you want more information.

Have you guys ever used OS X? OS X can READ and WRITE to NTFS. Furthermore, unlike useless Linux installations, OS X reads and writes with UNICODE support on NTFS partitions as well as it's own.

Yes, I have, but haven't had much time to play with NTFS support.

I was simply trying to clarify an argument made by someone else.

They appeared to be confusing read/write.

Yes it CAN.

Taken from the apple boot guide: http://images.apple.com/...mp_Beta_Setup_Guide.pdf

"Note: If you format the partition using the NTFS file system, you will not be able to writeor save files to the Windows volume from Mac OS X." - page 10.

Just so everyone knows. "If apple can make out a 1% market share gain, it could boost earnings 15%" So this is a money move that is good for apple and microsoft.

This totally rules.

I see no reason now for me to make my next computer a Windows box.

Now I can just buy a Mac and use it 95% of the time and just boot into Windows when I need it.

Apple kicks booty. :)

You got it.

Now, if only we can get the hardware devs to come out with XP support for Apple Hardware faster than they've gone x64...

Um... Hardware in a MAC is the same as any other Intel board...

ATI video, same chipset, etc..

This is the *point* of moving to Intel, to get away from proprietary hardware...

Different chipset, different drivers...

Well...according to every single Xp on Mac article I've ever read.

They could all be wrong though...

Even this one.

"Apple has included drivers, most importantly for the ATI video chipsets used within the Intel Macs."

The move to x86 makes allot of economic sense!

First, you take advantage of x86 technology which has been commoditized! Witness the vast numbers of computer makers who have dropped out of the market due to there being too small a margin in hardware sales!

And there was little incentive for IBM to allocate a disproportionate share of resources for such asmall percentage market return! After all, IBM is nearing the end of the product life cycle for the Power5 technology! And the G5 is a DOWNSIZED version of the smallest POWER4 generation technology! By the way, that 'smallest/oldest" IBM technology has 8 cores and a 15GHz FSB! Yep! And the G5 is a substantially downsized version! What incentive is there for IBM to pour more money into making a 1 or 2 core version of the G5 with a 1.5 MHz FSB??

Having worked with AIX and the RS/6000 for so many years, I love the POWER architecture! But it makes sense to ride the technology of those who are addressing the market you want to serve! And IBM does not care about the desktop PC market! And for the miniscule percentage of sales, it makes no sense for IBM to keep downsizing an old technology!

What is ironic is that IBM has been there and done that long before the PC market has arrived there! And IBM has been the source of the competing technology ranging from the first use of SOI to the smaller size processes licensed from IBM that has allowed AMD to excel!

So Apple will benefit from the reduced cost of all of the commoditized PC market hardware! Its a simple matter of economics!

I am also wondering what deal Intel made with Apple!
After all, Craig Barrett is out as CEO of Intel due to the failure of Intel to recoup and market the Itanium technology as they tried to dictate to the market how the market would transition to 64 bit. Intel has some prime technology that is sitting on the shelf!

I am wondering if Intel didn't make a sweetheart offer to Apple to make some of the advanced technology available to Apple exclusively in return for them switching to Intel, and thus providing Apple with a way to truly differentiate their forthcoming high-end workstations!

We'll have to wait and see, but I suspect that we will see some 'hell-on-wheels' high end workstations featuring the latest and greatest from Intel- as both Intel and Apple will have a win-win scenario in the works!

"Great masses" are your words not mine. They don't need great masses. Apple has plenty of cash.

Besides, if Windows was the only OS left and there was no other OS or computer hardware manufacturers, it would be a pretty sad state of affairs for us techies who are genuinely interested in *computers* - not idiots who think that Windows = computers.

...

"This will appeal to all the people who've been teetering on the brink of buying a Mac for years"

...

Mac mythology.

There ARE no great masses "teetering on the brink of buying a Mac".

You guys live in a fantasy world !

The PC Rat has watched Mac's marketshare fall below 10%. Then below 5%. And finally below 3%.

And all the while Apple fanatics predicting 'any day now' the Mac will overtake Windows. Sheesh !
...

What we're watching is the slow death of Apple as a computer company.

If you were on the same planet as the rest of us, you'd be able to see this.
...

The Computer Rodent

...

you sir are an absolute idiot.

when will you get it through your thick head that you don't need to have the leading market share to be profitable? when os whatever and mac hardware stop being profitable is when they will meet their demise.

well, Apple doesn't have leading market share, and they have been close to bankruptcy what.. like 4 or 5 times? I know they have at least 1 chapter 11, maybe even a chapter 13, so ok they don't need to lead, but they must need a larger share, or at least, find a more feasible way to run the company.

steve jobs comes in, founds the company, and company does well. He hires some "hardware" folks to come up with ideas, they do, their ideas suck, company goes south, Jobs is fired. Apple (board of directors) decides they can do better, Jobs is gone, starts Next Soft, and Apple does even worse. They bring Jobs back as a "consultant". All of a sudden, Apple does well, introduces Ipod, they are doing better, still not good, obviously their finance group thinks they need a better profit margin, and they open up their hardware (hence this new venture).

They are making some radical, and rediculous attempts and making this feeble company (yes, feeble) stay afloat.

They got "lucky" with the iTunes/iPod venture.

This will be a wait and see attitude. Personally, I think they need to cease and desist with the lawsuits, and just let the hackers make OSX on ANY hardware, that can ONLY be a good thing for Apple.

I know what they are thinking, MAC hardware is still their investment, and they want to make money from hardware AND software, but its a losing proposition.

They need to do what works best, Software. Jobs even admitted as much, when he formed Next.

"Jobs even admitted as much, when he formed Next."

- And we all know how splendidly that went.

(though I do miss the interface... WinSTEP just isn't cutting it.)

Oh cool! Now I can have a bloated registry and thousands of orphaned .dlls on my Mac.

I understand the great business move that this is - I think more people will buy Mac knowing that they can use Windows on the same machine. But I hope it is not the death-knell for OSX. Windows benefits from the competition, such as it is.

In any case, Boot Camp is only a temporary mesure - the way Apple will go in the long term is virtualisation.

This is just to get people used to the idea first.

Well I think Apple would be WAY more profitable if they would allow OSX on existing Intel hardware... I am not going to buy a mac machine, just to run Windows. I have a Windows machine. But I would pay 100 bucks to run OSX on my current hardware...

That's certainly true - I'd love to be able to run Mac OS X on my PC, but I suspect all the millions of configurations and crappy cheap hardware that Windows has to support would probably have a detrimental effect on it, plus require a heck of a lot more programmers.

It's a really nice thought though.

And that $100 would indeed cover the additional cost of supporting a billion other devices, a million+ new users with stupid questions, and the marketing required to even begin to compete with MS on the clone market.

Riiiiight...

Dream on, sweet dreamer.

First, its 100 INITIAL investment.. it would pave the way for other Apple titles, true iTunes Support, iPod all on a generic Intel Desktop.

Second, the OS doesn't need to support the other billion devices, that's the developers job, to make THEIR devices support the OS... If you build it, they will come.

Third, the learning curve for a MAC is extremely low. Years ago they did a study. People that have never seen a computer before, turned one on. Within 10 minutes, they were productive, and self sufficient on a MAC. Windows, after 2 hours over half of the people had problems.

MAC is very intuitive. So there goes your stupid questions. Also, this lends itself to an earlier comment from another thread, where you inplied that people are learning, they aren't learning because you aren't TEACHING. ITs a recurring theme with you. You have ZERO patience, and it comes thru time and time again, yet you insist is the users that are stupid.

To quote a film "stupid is as stupid does".

Maybe the people around *YOU* aren't learning, because you aren't *helping*. *I* don't suffer from this apparent lack of communication, the people around *ME* are quite functional.

Clone market? What clone market? Are you living in the '80's? Everything is a different device, there are no "clones".

I am not living in a dream world, but you are living in a dark room. Open a window.. DUDE. Look around you.

This is a reality, maybe you can't see it, but it doesn't mean the rest of us are blind.

Why is everyone under the false belief that Windows has to adopt MAC hardware?

Did you not read the article? Its INTEL!

We are already running the hardware. Its the same as a MAC. There are VERY little changes to run OSX on an Intel machine and vice versa.

Why do you think the hackers can make it boot on a Intel machine, do you think they rewrote the OS? Of course not, only the boot strap program.

Drop Windows XP on a Intel MAC. I bet every driver installs, sans 1.. like Firewire/i1394.

This is the the *POINT* to move Apple to Intel, so they don't have to get proprietary device support.

"it would pave the way for other Apple titles"

You assume there are many others like you. Consider the market share of Windows. Consider who makes up the majority of those folks. Where's the rest of your money going to come from? Where's the pressure to learn a new OS when their current one works just fine.

"If you build it, they will come."

1 abreviation: x64. 'Nuff Said.

"MAC is very intuitive."

Try getting a windows user who's never seen a Mac to burn a CD in MacOSX without your help.

Just try it. It's fun to watch. (take this as an example of what it's like outside your circle...where not everyone has the benefit of your teachings)

"Maybe the people around *YOU* aren't learning, because you aren't *helping*. *I* don't suffer from this apparent lack of communication, the people around *ME* are quite functional."

Again with this. When I make a claim based on the majority of Windows users, I am *not*, I repeat, *NOT* referring to those in direct contact with you or I, got it?

"Clone market? What clone market? Are you living in the '80's? Everything is a different device, there are no "clones". "

Clone...refers to the Windows market, since x86 doesn't cut it anymore. Got a better term? Let's hear it. Got nuthin, so we're gonna nit-pick now, is that it?

"I am not living in a dream world, but you are living in a dark room. Open a window.. DUDE. Look around you."

look outside your circle, man. Yeah, you work with technical folks, or at least get them to that point. That dynamic does not apply outside your circle.

If it would make sense for them to do what you suggest, they'd be doing it. They tried already (remember the Mac clones? NeXt?), They stopped. Why, because they were making such a huge amount of money off of it? Because it was nothing but daisies and daffodils ahead?

Yeeeeah, sure.

...

You did read the article right? Have you read any of them regarding XP on Mac?

FTFA:

"Apple has included drivers, most importantly for the ATI video chipsets used within the Intel Macs."

Let the games begin!

Don't think I need to go to "Boot Camp", but nice idea..I guess.

...

"I don't think Mac will ever die"

...

Yeah, ~that's~ what they said about Amiga.

Face it: In a few years Apple will be a music company which used to sell computers.

...

...

"I also do not think they'll ever achieve anywhere near 50% of the market"

...

Considering that Mac had a 2.7% desktop marketshare last year, it's a brillant deduction
Sherlock that they'll never achieve 50% of the market !
...

The Computer Rodent

...

...

As long as the PC Rat is being prescient, allow him to predict the next stage in The Death of the Mac...

Apple will cease manufacturing computers, but continue making the Mac OS. People will buy Windows PC's, and a few will dual boot the Mac OS.

Afterall, it runs on Intel. Right ?

Sometime after that: Apple will give up on even putting out an OS, and completely convert to being a music business.

Sound unbelievable ? Who would've believed Bro. Rat had he told you -a year ago- Apple would make Intel Mac's ? And they could boot to Windows ?

Believe and repent, oh ye Apple knaves !
...

The Computer Rodent

...

Of course, you're missing a few things.

This will appeal to all the people who've been teetering on the brink of buying a Mac for years, but didn't want to do without their Windows "security blanket".

Also, when their XP install collapses under all the spyware and viruses, they can just reboot into Mac OS and carry on going...

you know honestly i don't know which i have greater disdain for:

1. you routinely can't find the "reply" button so your comment ends up orphaned from the original topic
2. the fact you sign every one of your posts
or
3. every argument you make is more ludicrous than the previous.

apple hardware is only going to get more popular with the addition of the intel core and the ability to run xp.

where did Dell start? did they magically appear at the top of the food chain or did they start with 0% market share? refresh my memory.

Yeah, cuz it would make such business sense to go head-to-head with Microsoft.

They need the hardware tie-in.

If they drop the Mac, they drop the OS as well, and quit the whole PC thing cold turkey.

I can definately see them phase the Mac out and go 100% Music/Media devices, though.

I don't think they can be a music business unless they want to join the apple record company that they are being sued by right now

*Yeah, cuz it would make such business sense to go head-to-head with Microsoft.*

Apple will not even attempt a confrontation with Microsoft. Its like browsers, you can use both, or all of them, they compliment each other.. not replace.

*They need the hardware tie-in.*

This is where you are WRONG. Bill Gates, Steve Jobs, AOL, gee how much hardware do you see them creating? how about bare minimum? They only use hardware as a launch to use the software they create.

Software, not hardware, is the key. OSX, is the bread and butter of Apple, not the MAC. The MAC is a necessary evil (no animosity) to get people to use the Software. The software, again, is the primary directive, not hardware.

The iPod is only encased in a hard shell, but you aren't using the white surface are you? You are after the music, and code that allows you to PLAY those songs... again software.

*If they drop the Mac, they drop the OS as well, and quit the whole PC thing cold turkey.*

Wow, its a good thing, like your other financial advice, you are not in marketing either evidently, because this is in STARK contrast to Steve Jobs vision.. the MAC is ONLY a machine. OSX is where you want people to be.

I dont' see a "Windows" machine, why is that? Maybe Bill Gates was wrong.. no wait, you are. Software, software, software. Not hardware.

*I can definately see them phase the Mac out and go 100% Music/Media devices, though.*

Contradicting yourself?

What is entering the x86 OS commodity market anything other than competing with MS?

Contradiction? No. I should have been more specific.

I could see them going 100% music/media before I could see them going OS-only without the hardware tie-in.

"This is where you are WRONG. Bill Gates, Steve Jobs, AOL, gee how much hardware do you see them creating? how about bare minimum? They only use hardware as a launch to use the software they create."

Where's most of Apple's cashflow coming from right now?

The iPod.

What is it? Is it software? Is it hardware?

Could this discussion get any more off-topic?

"This is where you are WRONG. Bill Gates, Steve Jobs, AOL, gee how much hardware do you see them creating? how about bare minimum? They only use hardware as a launch to use the software they create."

XBOX 360 and Apple iPod come to mind--

Is April Fools Day almost a week late?

Did hell just freeze over?

Depends on who you've had relations with.

http://www.elorasoap.com...karensloop/hellhot.html

*grin*

...

Ha ! Did the PC Rat call it, or what ?

Just last week -here in BetaNews- Bro. Rat predicted the Mac OS becoming a subset of Windows.

It started with Mac-on-Intel. And now the next step: Apple creating software to run Windows !

It's all downhill from here for the Mac OS.

A few more steps in this direction, and Mac will be like a 'theme' on the Microsoft Plus CD !
...

The Computer Rodent

...

Er...

Sorry, we already have Mac themes in Windows. Wasn't that the whole point of XP?

*grin*

That's gonna hurt.

I don't think Mac will ever die. I also do not think they'll ever achieve anywhere near 50% of the market, not that that has ever been their goal.

I do think that this will not affect the sales of the Mac one bit. It's just a bonus thrown to current and future owners, if they want it.

how exactly does this announcement make "Mac OS a subset of Windows?"

you're getting a dictionary for holiday.

I do think that this will not affect the sales of the Mac one bit. It's just a bonus thrown to current and future owners, if they want it.

I think this will definitely affect Mac sales. I think they'll see a huge increase. As the article said, switchers and on-the fence buyers will find this very appealing. Apple is going to bank on this one.

You assume that there are "on-the fence buyers"

I don't.

Therein lies the problem.

What makes you think they don't exist?

I see plenty of boards and comments like "If I can load OSX on my laptop, I would..."

Even MAC users are commenting, that they can "dual boot".

You don't see them? Are your eyes open? Read any user groups? Apparently not.

Sorry, I mean't those considering the purchase of a Mac, not those practicing the denial of reality.

True. I don't know how many on-the-fence buyers there are.

But one thing's for certain: If there are any, Apple will make a heck of a lot more money off of them than MS is going to.

Hang on, if MAC OSX is so great, as Apple fans say it is, how come they need to run XP?

Surely an admitance if ever I saw one, that MacOSX is not upto the task.

Oh, it is.

Up to the task.

Unfortunately, since 90% of the market develops for Windows only, a Mac user can't help but run into one or two things where having XP as a *side-kick* might prove useful.

Interesting that you would take it to mean otherwise....bias, perhaps?

3 reasons

Games, Business Apps, Development tools.

Apple has no software. Yes, its great. For document, flash, graphics, and website design..

But other than that, Apple has no support.

Simple answer:

Enterprise users need ActiveX support, SharePoint support, Outlook support, and other Windows-only applications. Businesses have standardized on Windows, and thus it is required. Now, a Mac user can simply boot Windows at work and use Mac OS X every other moment.

The argument below that there is no software for Macs is complete rubbish (as anyone who has used a Mac knows). The real problem is that software used by businesses is primarily Windows. And Windows has proprietary technology such as ActiveX.

So, perhaps Apple's marketting campaign should be:

"Buy the new MacOS, install XP, so you can run all your Windows applications, and the other 10% of your time, you can reboot and enjoy OSX".

Seems pretty pointless. Why not just by a PC with XP, at 50% of the cost??

Honestly once this is working I'll probably buy a laptop from them just because the hardware is better designed than any other laptop manufacturer out there (I still think their desktops are a load of rubbish however). Soon as I get it home, Windows will go on the machine...

Because this is not aimed at the average Mac user?

Did you *read* the article, Mr. Knee-Jerk?

"...many customers have expressed their interest to run Windows on Apple's superior hardware now that we use Intel processors..."

This is for them, not grandma and grandpa. It's for those who have the need. Developers, Gamers, etc, who want to do some things in XP, but have the stability of the hardware and OSX for general computing.

Maybe it'sa pointless to you simply because you aren't who they are targeting with this, eh?

This is for them, not grandma and grandpa. It's for those who have the need. Developers, Gamers, etc, who want to do some things in XP, but have the stability of the hardware and OSX for general computing.*

The stability of the hardware isn't in question. How many times has your machine hung during boot? How about crashed or rebooted in a DOS window (no other OS). I don't think that's EVER happened.

Once you load the OS, that's when users can mess things up. OSX is a better environment, but Windows (at least where I come in contact) works perfect for me. I have very little problems, because I know how to properly maintain the OS and install things correctly, so I don't have issues. I have Windows Servers under my control, that haven't had a reboot in 2 years..

The hardware in a MAC and Off the shelf Intel machines, are the SAME.

PCI Express, SATA, USB, etc..

I fail to see where you are getting information on a MAC that makes you believe its going to be a miracle cure hardware.

Windows XP will recognize and run on a MAC just fine. Otherwise, they wouldn't simply configure a boot program for it to instal.

Do you see a Windows OSX/XP version? No? Well gee you think maybe that might be because there is virtually no hardware difference?

So isn't it better (and easier) to buy Windows PCs instead of buying Macs and having to reboot back-and-forth between OSs?

And you say Windows does things Macs can't do. What can Macs do that Windows can't?

Sorry, I just can't argue with false asuumptions.

Hardware stability and driver stability are two completely separate things. MS Windows XP should run more stable on Apple computers because the hardware is configured and tested to work together. In the PC environment, Windows must support devices from every parts manufacturer imaginable, even the ones who went out of business 4 years ago, while MacOS only has to worry about Apple hardware--and Mac OS 6 isn't supported on the newer Macs either, while MS had to support Windows 98 on NEW PCs through July of 2002--arguably through January 2005.

'Sides, most drivers are written by the original hardware mfrs. for Windows, and all MS does is certify the ones that work. whql certified does not mean MS actually makes them. Apple makes all their drivers though. Hence it is safe to say that in this way--Windows will never be as stable as Macintosh. However, without PC-based Macs, MacOS will never be as universal as Windows.

The point is that people like using Macs more than Windows. The operating system works better according to some, and has no spyware/viruses, etc. Thus, this solution gives people the option to use a Mac most of the time and boot to Windows when they need it for work or some other reason.

Hmm, now let me see here...where is Microsoft Boot Camp? The software that lets Windows-based Intel machines run OSX..

Can't honestly see why MS would want to do this.

I was joking...such software will never see the light of day.

Because MS would have nothing to do with. It is not their decission. Any BOOT CAMP for a windows machine would have to come from Apple. Apple does not allow OS X on machines that are not Apple hardware. MS doesn't give a crap where you install windows. Do it on any hardware as long as you pay.

Moot, as it's not ever going to happen, but...

MS could definately write one. Call it an EFI/Hardware patch.

What, as a side effect, OSX now works on standard hardware?

Shucks....

you obviously don't have a mac. If you had a mac, you would see why its so great. Then you need Virtual PC on the mac to run software.

Its the best of both worlds, what is so hard to figure out?

??

1. ) I have a Mac. (no, it's not x86)

2. ) Did I say anything at all about wanting or needing this feature?

Allrighty then. :)

You said you can't honestly see why MS would want to do this.. (Its Apple, no MS anyway)

Those were my answers.

Ace Ventura.

So...

MS would want to create thier own Boot Camp so people would stop buying MS Vritual Machine?

Wow.

Good answer.

And in reference to "(it's Appple, no MS anyway)", if you look at the parent of this thread, he was asking why MS didn't do the same thing, but to get MACx86 working on regular hardware....so, in that context, it's MS, not Apple, anyway.

:P

So there.

And it's Bruce Almighty to you.

MS are currently right at the back of the queue for virtualisation right now.

I'll bet there will be more leveraging of their monopoly trying to get at VMWare and the others because of it as well.

Anyone looking to deploy virtualization at the enterprise level is, and will be using VMWare for the forseeable future.

MS Virtual PC doesn't even come close to VMWare's ESX offering.

hmm.. so MS product Virtual PC, that doesn't exist?

Terminal Service (which has been out since Windows 2000 was introduced) isn't a big selling point of MS software?

And you *THINK* its in the back of the queue?

My dear boy, comics and an etch a sketch, should be your next laptop.

VMWare.. umm.. how about no.

*MS Virtual PC doesn't even come close to VMWare's ESX offering.*

Whew, that's good, because they want it to go up, not down.

Virtual PC is light years ahead of VMWare..

We just switched an entire development team to Virutal PC, because VMware wasn't working for them..

Really?

What wasn't it doing?

I'm seriously curious here. We've been using VMware in-house here for ages. Between ESX for our servers, and vmplayer/workstation for developing, we've had nothing but praise for it.

I can see how MS VPC would be fine for just dev, but for running side-by-side servers on the same hardware, we've always found ESX far superior.

WOW - will so get a mac now... after in 2 years when my new laptop becomes outdated...

seriously...(to both halves of your comment)

I would like a MAC with this news, but our household has gotten two windows-intel based laptops in a period of 2 years...yeah...

wow, saw the news this morning. I can't wait till i get home to try to do this. I just hope it runs fast. This makes microsft happy and Mac users happy. I wonder if it runs better.....

now how about developing the same type of software
for windows to allow users to "legaly" and "officially" run OSX on X86-X64 based systems

The option to legally run Mac OS X on bog standard generic PC boxes?

Without a huge amount of public demand, and especially while Steve Jobs is CEO . . .

It's never gonna happen!

I would like to see that but think of it this way. windows on macs no problem because you are dealing with the same hardware in every computer. with macs on the other you have the deal with millions of different hardware configurations you have to get the companies to make drivers for. sure theres a version of mac OSx that they ofund that acn run on the others but that will not be 100% functional. I know I tried this and I couldn't even install it on my spare machene with an old celeron but wouldn't go

smart. Now i am definitely going to buy a mac.

Umm.. Steve Jobs hasn't been the CEO for about a couple of years now..

I don't even think is on the board of Directors. They fired him once.. (or maybe he quit).

Steve Jobs is a close personal friend of Bill Gates, and why WOULDN'T they want to run OSX on a generic Intel Box? Its an easy 50 million dollar pay day. I know tons of people that would go out right now and buy OSX, for 100 bucks.

That is an easy sale.. I want to try it myself.. But to purposely deny it?

This decision did NOT come from Steve, I assure you.

Becasue it would make their hardware un-sellable. They'd be undercut on 100% of their systems, and the cost to support the infinite new configs would be absurd.

Yeah, I'd like to try it to. But would I want to pay the cost of getting to a state where it would actually be useable on such a platform? No way.

For the record: Steve Jobs resigned in 1985 after being stripped of all his power due to an internal struggle with management. Steve Jobs IS the CEO of Apple (and Pixar) and it's been like that since NeXT was purchased by Apple on February 4, 1997. He is also on the board of directors.

http://www.apple.com/pr/bios/bod.html
http://www.apple.com/pr/bios/jobs.html

Which your lack of knowledge regarding the current Apple leaves your credibility very much in doubt.

*Which your lack of knowledge regarding the current Apple leaves your credibility very much in doubt.*

You were a Kerry supporter weren't you? You sound just like a democrat..

Anyway, I am not a Financial times expert, I just know technology, so this "crediblity" only applies to Apple management. I am sorry, I made a mistake, ****ing crucify me!

So what, he is the CEO, the rest of it is still true.. nimrod.

Depends on your definition of true...considering this is *all* conjecture.

".. nimrod"

Just so ya know...

nimrod: By Biblical Accounts, Nimrod was "a mighty hunter before the Lord."

Guess you were complimenting him?

Isn't being stripped of all your power basically the same as being fired?

I believe that the Mac OS is the only OS that can truly compete with Windows. Look at how successful Microsoft is because of Windows, Apple could do that same. It would be more work for Apple, but it would pay.

As soon as you write and test device drivers for the millions of hardware devices and billions of possible hardware configurations, they'll go right ahead...

The only thing which is stopping me from getting an Apple notebook to replace my recently fried laptop is the lack of read/write support for NTFS.

While I have been weaned on windows from 3.11, I have also used Macs occasionally. However, from what I've read so far here, Apple does use superior hardware as opposed to other manufacturers. If I were to get an Apple notebook, I'd get it only to have XP run on superior hardware while just ignoring OSX. Similar to how I'd install Rockbox if I were to ever buy an iPod. This is mainly because I'm just not comfortable with the Mac OS, not because I feel that XP is superior to OSX. (like you mentioned, this isn't an arguement about which the best OS is) I don't care about all those UNIX/terminal services that Sweazey has mentioned, so OSX does not really provide any additional benefit to me, other than probably that movie editing program on OSX.

So, what this article (and the news about Apple going with Intel) has done for me is to provide hope that eventually, I'll be able to install and run XP on hardware (built for a Mac) that is completely compatible, stable and reliable. If this can be achieved without having OSX to start with, it'd be even better.

Remember, to each his own.