Print this article  |  E-mail this article  |  Comment on this article

Apple Software Adds Windows to Mac

By Ed Oswald and Nate Mook, BetaNews

April 5, 2006, 10:52 AM

In a stunning move, Apple on Wednesday officially sanctioned the running of the Windows XP operating system on Intel-based Macs through the release of a software package. Called Boot Camp, the 86MB beta product provides a dual-boot sequence and the drivers necessary to run Windows.

"Apple has no desire or plan to sell or support Windows, but many customers have expressed their interest to run Windows on Apple's superior hardware now that we use Intel processors," said Philip Schiller, Apple's senior vice president of Worldwide Product Marketing.

"We think Boot Camp makes the Mac even more appealing to Windows users considering making the switch."

Rumors that Apple may have been considering native support of Windows began to circulate after the company joined Windows benchmarking group BAPco last week. Several insiders speculated that the move foreshadowed the release of Windows drivers and confirmation that virtualization would appear in the next version of Mac OS X, code-named "Leopard."

The technologies within Boot Camp would be included in that release, Apple confirmed in a statement.

Boot Camp provides an official solution for what hackers managed to accomplish in March, with one major difference: it does not destroy the existing Mac OS X data to install Windows. Users must provide their own Windows XP SP2 Home or Professional CD, and have at least 10GB of free disk space. Apple has included drivers, most importantly for the ATI video chipsets used within the Intel Macs.

Some features, such as Bluetooth Wireless keyboards and mice from Apple and the built-in remote control, will not work in Windows. The MacBook Pro's iSight camera and ambient light sensor will also not function.

"This is a win-win for Apple and Microsoft," Creative Strategies analysts Tim Bajarin said. "Apple should clearly be able to attract more "switchers" and on-the fence buyers to the Mac platform while Microsoft gets to sell full versions of Windows XP to Mac users."

"The obvious benefactor would be MacBook Pro, which could appeal to people interested in the sleek laptop but needing to run Windows," added Jupiter Research senior analyst Joe Wilcox.

"For example, JupiterResearch surveys show pretty good uptake of Mac OS X on the desktop, mainly as a Unix replacement. Those same businesses, many of which already have rights to Windows licenses through their enterprise agreements, could install Windows XP on Intel-based Macs. For that exec long lusting for an Apple laptop, Windows XP could make the difference."

Add a Comment (206 Comments)

BetaNews reserves the right to remove any comment at any time for any reason. Please keep your responses appropriate and on topic. Foul language and personal attacks will not be tolerated.

Name (required):

E-mail (required):

Enter Your Comment:

By mac_an_apple

edited Jul 5, 2007 - 2:37 AM

I love that apple runs windows now but window runs on intel to and intel supports DirectX 10.
My Question is "Will DirectX 10 work on my
Mac Book Pro". If any on has an answer ether regular citizen or even an Apple rep. or expert please email me at sonic_heroes@mac.com ...AND>>>AND>>>AND spencerlunsford@yahoo.com Thank You

Spencer Lunsford
Maryland

Score: 0

By Couscous

posted Apr 10, 2006 - 10:18 PM

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).

Score: 0

By Galway

posted Apr 10, 2006 - 3:51 AM

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.

Score: 0

By seier

posted Apr 9, 2006 - 3:29 PM

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

Score: 0

By schristie11

posted Apr 8, 2006 - 1:26 PM

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

Score: 0

By DigitalSin

posted Apr 10, 2006 - 9:25 AM

Outside? OUTSIDE!??? NOOOOOOO!

Score: 0

By Couscous

posted Apr 10, 2006 - 10:22 PM

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

Score: 0

By xprizex

posted Apr 8, 2006 - 10:55 AM

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

Score: 0

By rauckr

posted Apr 9, 2006 - 8:52 AM

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.

Score: 0

By spiffyjeff

posted Apr 10, 2006 - 1:08 AM

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? ;)

Score: 0

By RootWebGod

posted Apr 12, 2006 - 3:09 AM

Have you been under a rock?

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

Score: 0

By Elixus

posted Apr 8, 2006 - 2:14 AM

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.

Score: 0

By DigitalSin

posted Apr 7, 2006 - 9:12 AM

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.

Score: 0

By nate

edited Apr 7, 2006 - 3:16 PM

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.

Score: 0

By DigitalSin

posted Apr 7, 2006 - 3:32 PM

Wow, a dream come true.

Time to save up! =)

Score: 0

By M.Sweazey

edited May 12, 2006 - 4:17 AM

Score: 0

By Spock51

edited Apr 6, 2006 - 4:24 PM

Why not have Mac OS X run on Windows Xp

Score: 0

By The Man

posted Apr 6, 2006 - 2:36 PM

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! :)

Score: 0

By xoineg

posted Apr 6, 2006 - 11:50 AM

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.

Score: 0

By PC Rat

edited Apr 6, 2006 - 12:24 PM

...

"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

...

Score: 0

By xoineg

posted Apr 6, 2006 - 2:08 PM

”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)

Score: 0

By Galway

posted Apr 7, 2006 - 7:07 AM

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

Score: 0

By billweh

posted Apr 6, 2006 - 9:43 AM

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....

Score: 0

By yannco01

edited Apr 6, 2006 - 9:06 AM

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

Score: 0

By bourgeoisdude

posted Apr 6, 2006 - 1:45 PM

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

Score: 0

By GoodThings2Life

posted Apr 6, 2006 - 9:27 AM

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

Score: 0

By PC_Tool

posted Apr 6, 2006 - 12:17 PM

"After installing the Apple drivers"

Score: 0

By JacenSolo

posted Apr 6, 2006 - 8:32 AM

I hope Microsoft sues Apple.

Score: 0

By dhjdhj

posted Apr 7, 2006 - 6:21 AM

On what grounds?

Score: 0

By John_Bedin

posted Apr 6, 2006 - 2:52 PM

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

Score: 0

By Galway

posted Apr 7, 2006 - 7:09 AM

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

Score: 0

By xoineg

edited Apr 6, 2006 - 2:12 PM

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?

Score: 0

By M.Sweazey

edited May 12, 2006 - 4:17 AM

Score: 0

By JacenSolo

posted Apr 6, 2006 - 10:18 AM

Copyright infringment, breaking the EULA, etc.

Score: 0

By GoodThings2Life

posted Apr 6, 2006 - 11:26 AM

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.

Score: 0

By JacenSolo

posted Apr 6, 2006 - 11:53 AM

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

Score: 0

By GoodThings2Life

posted Apr 6, 2006 - 2:38 PM

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

Score: 0

By The Man

posted Apr 6, 2006 - 2:19 PM

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.

Score: 0

By GoodThings2Life

edited Apr 6, 2006 - 8:38 AM

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

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

Score: 0

By xoineg

posted Apr 6, 2006 - 2:13 PM

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

Score: 0

By JacenSolo

posted Apr 6, 2006 - 10:14 AM

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?

Score: 0

By Fidelio

posted Apr 7, 2006 - 11:27 AM

...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.

Score: 0

By GoodThings2Life

posted Apr 6, 2006 - 11:27 AM

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.

Score: 0

By JacenSolo

posted Apr 6, 2006 - 11:54 AM

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.

Score: 0

By Fidelio

posted Apr 7, 2006 - 11:30 AM

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.

Score: 0

By The Man

posted Apr 6, 2006 - 2:26 PM

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

Score: 0

By Frostek

posted Apr 6, 2006 - 8:39 AM

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.

Score: 0

By M.Sweazey

edited May 12, 2006 - 4:16 AM

Score: 0

By GoodThings2Life

posted Apr 6, 2006 - 8:36 AM

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

Score: 0

By M.Sweazey

edited May 12, 2006 - 4:16 AM

Score: 0

By GoodThings2Life

posted Apr 6, 2006 - 9:29 AM

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.

Score: 0

By M.Sweazey

edited May 12, 2006 - 4:15 AM

Score: 0

By GoodThings2Life

posted Apr 6, 2006 - 11:31 AM

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.

Score: 0

By Reap_r

edited Apr 6, 2006 - 11:39 AM

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.

Score: 0

By M.Sweazey

edited May 12, 2006 - 4:15 AM

Score: 0

By Reap_r

posted Apr 7, 2006 - 4:52 PM

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.

Score: 0

By MtDewCodeRedFreak

posted Apr 7, 2006 - 11:01 PM

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.

Score: 0

By anmol.2k4

posted Apr 6, 2006 - 2:47 AM

they should release mac osx for pc user.

Score: 0

By GoodThings2Life

posted Apr 6, 2006 - 8:35 AM

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.

Score: 0

By bourgeoisdude

posted Apr 5, 2006 - 9:50 PM

Interesting...Windows faster than MacOS???

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

Score: 0

By anmol.2k4

posted Apr 6, 2006 - 2:48 AM

stupid , that was emulated in macosx.

Score: 0

By Paridine

posted Apr 5, 2006 - 9:42 PM

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?

Score: 0

By GoodThings2Life

posted Apr 6, 2006 - 8:34 AM

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. :)

Score: 0

By M.Sweazey

edited May 12, 2006 - 4:15 AM

Score: 0

By GoodThings2Life

posted Apr 6, 2006 - 8:33 AM

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.

Score: 0

By M.Sweazey

edited May 12, 2006 - 4:14 AM

Score: 0

By Mark Gillespie

posted Apr 6, 2006 - 4:27 AM

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...

Score: 0

By #include

posted Apr 6, 2006 - 12:08 PM

(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)

Score: 0

By Mark Gillespie

posted Apr 6, 2006 - 12:46 PM

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

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

Score: 0

By M.Sweazey

edited May 12, 2006 - 4:14 AM

Score: 0

By GoodThings2Life

edited Apr 6, 2006 - 8:40 AM

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.

Score: 0

By Frostek

posted Apr 6, 2006 - 8:49 AM

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?

Score: 0

By GoodThings2Life

posted Apr 6, 2006 - 9:33 AM

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.

Score: 0

By M.Sweazey

edited May 12, 2006 - 4:13 AM

Score: 0

By GoodThings2Life

posted Apr 6, 2006 - 11:33 AM

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.

Score: 0

By M.Sweazey

edited Apr 7, 2006 - 4:20 AM

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.

Score: 0

By GoodThings2Life

posted Apr 5, 2006 - 9:28 PM

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.

Score: 0

By greatgooglymoogly

posted Apr 6, 2006 - 1:49 PM

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

The irony is breathtaking.

Score: 0

By Tenoq

posted Apr 6, 2006 - 12:46 AM

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.

Score: 0

By GoodThings2Life

posted Apr 6, 2006 - 8:25 AM

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.

Score: 0

By M.Sweazey

edited Apr 7, 2006 - 4:28 AM

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!

Score: 0

By GoodThings2Life

posted Apr 6, 2006 - 7:56 AM

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.

Score: 0

By M.Sweazey

edited May 12, 2006 - 4:10 AM

Score: 0

By GoodThings2Life

posted Apr 6, 2006 - 11:35 AM

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.

Score: 0

By PC Rat

posted Apr 5, 2006 - 9:20 PM

...

"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

...

Score: 0

By xprizex

edited Apr 5, 2006 - 9:09 PM

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

Score: 0

By xprizex

posted Apr 8, 2006 - 10:54 AM

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

Score: 0

By M.Sweazey

edited Apr 6, 2006 - 8:22 AM

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 !)

Score: 0

By compm375

edited Apr 5, 2006 - 9:51 PM

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.

Score: 0

By M.Sweazey

edited Apr 6, 2006 - 7:22 AM

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!

Score: 0

By zridling

posted Apr 5, 2006 - 8:26 PM

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.

Score: 0

By cmkaiser@yahoo.com

posted Apr 5, 2006 - 5:41 PM

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.

Score: 0

By Eis

edited Apr 5, 2006 - 5:00 PM

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.

Score: 0

By GBH

posted Apr 5, 2006 - 5:38 PM

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

Score: 0

By drummerboy627

posted Apr 5, 2006 - 5:06 PM

umm don't they already have linux for macs?

Score: 0

By Frostek

posted Apr 6, 2006 - 8:53 AM

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.

Score: 0

By GBH

posted Apr 6, 2006 - 8:26 PM

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.

Score: 0

By Daimon

edited Apr 5, 2006 - 4:32 PM

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

Score: 0

By Skyfrog

posted Apr 5, 2006 - 6:04 PM

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

Score: 0

By PC Rat

posted Apr 5, 2006 - 9:18 PM

...

"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

...

Score: 0

By Frostek

posted Apr 6, 2006 - 8:55 AM

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

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

Score: 0

By PC Rat

posted Apr 5, 2006 - 2:59 PM

...

"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

...

Score: 0

By PC Rat

posted Apr 5, 2006 - 3:10 PM

...

"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

...

Score: 0

By Frostek

posted Apr 6, 2006 - 8:58 AM

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.

Score: 0

By DJOmegaRush

posted Apr 5, 2006 - 1:55 PM

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?